50hp versus 35hp Kenai debate...

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Alternatives. . .

    As a KRSMA board member noted, Phase II of the wake study is 18 months behind in delivery, and who's flying the black helicopters is anyone's guess. In the meantime, why the big push all of a sudden when Phase II is supposed to be released later this year? Surely such haste has the appearance of political manipulation of the process.

    Boating season is essentially over, so what's the rush? Let's all sit back as we have been for the last year-and-a-half and patiently wait just a bit longer to see whether Phase II of the wake study, when finally delivered, might offer some alternatives such a smaller, flat-bottomed boats, lighter loads, more drift-only days, etc.

    Personally, I could care less about boat size, horsepower, and the like, but I care very much that environmental science and public process has the last word, trumping economic opportunity and self-serving, special interests. As it stands now, that ain't happening — it totally baffles me why anyone wants to go to 50 hsp. before the wake study is completed except to escape public process and the findings of environmental science.

    Again, please join me in advocating that any changes in policy occur only after Phase II of the wake study is made public.

    Comment


    • #32
      Lets see if I got what I just read right. I read that all motors will have to be 06' emission compliant, wouldn't that mean guides would have to buy new motors if the HP wasn't increased to 50 HP. Wouldn't that also mean that they would have to buy new boats as a 35 HP motor wouldn't get those big boats on step?
      I also read that flat bottom boats create a 2" smaller wake. With the number of guides on the river running the Willie boats don't you think that would make a significant difference to the river?
      Thought I also read that part of the HP restriction was aimed at safety, doesn't seem like we are talking about that anymore.
      For some reason I am starting to see that this is not in the publics interest!

      Comment


      • #33
        You don't have it right, the new emission requirement would be for new motors only, the old ones would be grandfathered in, so no need for anyone to buy a new motor. Guides are already running 35 hp so there is no need for them to buy new motors or new boats. No, imo 2" doesn't make a difference. The restriction was origninally aimed at safety and erosion, from how I understand it.
        Also, there are a huge number of non-guide willie boats on the river. If one wants to "outlaw" willie's then all v-bottom boats would have to be outlawed. Talk about restriction access, if the guides proposed outlawing v-bottoms they would get hung as well. It seems to me the only way a guide can do anything right is if they quit guiding.
        The writers of this proposal see the benefit of, less emissions, smaller wakes, and less erosion. I have not heard one drafter of this talk about how it will screw the non-guide. Nobody has to buy a new motor because of this.
        Remember, we are really talking about a 15 hp increase, a couple weeks of crowding in July down in the tide water area which is below the spawning beds. No one seems to care that this whole discussion is basically over 15 miles of an 80 mile river.
        Bighorn, if willie's are the problem and were outlawed then the boat you have in your avatar would also not be allowed on the Kenai. I don't think anyone wants to go there.
        Agian, from those that are critical, lets hear some reasonable solutions instead of jumping on those that go through the process to give us solutions.
        We should be asking why hasn't Phase II been put out yet, 18 months overdue. It has already cause a delay in this process, is it possible that is the plan?? Black helocopters anyone?

        Comment


        • #34
          Unreasonable haste. . .

          Originally posted by yukon View Post
          ... lets hear some reasonable solutions...
          yukon: According to an email today from a person at DNR, Phase II of the wake study should be out next month — what's unreasonable about waiting a few more weeks before making policy changes? Minimizing the debate by trying to reduce it to 15 hsp. and 15 miles of river in no way excuses a cavalier disregard for environmental science and public process, which appears is what's happening in this sudden, headlong rush to bigger motors.

          1) Why are you in such a hurry to implement 50 hsp.?
          2) Is it reasonable that we wait for Phase II?
          3) If not, why not?

          Comment


          • #35
            deal or no deal

            Yukon, the above post, yours included, point out the need for an independent review of the study results. You and others are voicing opinion and assumptions not in fact. You state that most of the boats are in tide water. That is not correct - it is only during certain tide stages they are down there. One of the most heavily impacted erosion areas on the river is at Skikok Creek. This is from ADF&G erosion studies and it is not the result of bank traffic but boat wakes. This is at river mile 18 or so.

            Second, you and others have different views of how the river should be managed. the problem is that you are trying along with others to pass regulations that fit your vision of how the river should be managed. That is unfair to the public and those who do not share your vision. When the power base was against guides a few years back the guide industry was yelling loud and clear about needing the study results before any action.

            Third, the data for the 35 hp was the number of accidents and encounters with unrestricted motors. These data was used by DNR to pass the regulation.

            Fourth, DNR can limit the number of guides at any time with existing regulations. The present regulations allow a reduction in guide numbers for a variety of reasons - the only issue is that it must be by lottery. This has caused long term guides some problems but the fact is that it can be done.

            Fifth, the change to allowing existing 35 hp motors to operate on the river that are not in 2006 compliance was just recommended this past week. Prior to that the regulation proposal was to eliminate all 2006 non-compliance motors. I just talked with a private boat owner today who thought going to 50 hp would allow him to use his existing boat with an old 50hp on it on the river. From my understanding that is not correct. If you use a 50 hp it must be 2006 compliant.

            Sixth, a drift fishery as you protray it is not what I suggested. A number of proposals before the Board of Fish has start and stopping areas where the net movement while fishing must be downstream. This would eliminate the cycling that the old drift fishery had. If a proposal like that was implemented then more guides and public could probably use the river.

            Finally, it is impossible for those of us interested in the river to accept piecemeal management. Your vision may prevail in an open and honest debate. However, the guide industry leadership has been anything but open and honest in this debate or other debates before the Board of Fish.

            I want to restate that I can agree to proposals that go through a full and open public process - if it is to have guides only and 100hp engines so be it. However, having one segment drive the policy bus is not what I will accept.

            Comment


            • #36
              Well, I knew someone would notice my avatar but Yukon I thought you would also see that my boat is an inboard. I know you wouldn't know this but it has 175HP. It happens to be the only boat that I currently own and I have no plans on purchasing a smaller boat for the Kenia. Until 03' I fished the Kenia, that was when I had a smaller boat. Now on the other hand I really have no personal interest in the Kenia as a boater other than as I see it the rules that apply there will eventually apply in other places and I am concerned about the rivers in our great state.
              I guess I have a few questions.
              1. What is the point of the HP increase?
              2. If we grandfather in all old motors, how would that help the fuel discharge problems?
              3.Why don't we wait for the study so we can all be satisfied with whatever decisions are made?
              4.Guides are not running 35hp motors, they are running 50hp motors that are detuned. If this is legit, then why can't anyone run a 50hp motor with a jet? That equals 35hp.
              5.I don't see how this proposal will help erosion, pollution or wake size. Care to enlighten me?


              I first read the proposal when it was posted here. I read nothing that stated that any motor would be grandfathered in. Maybe that has changed.

              I wasn't implying that we need to outlaw Willie boats. I was simply commenting on what I read in a previous post. I am not saying we need guides to quit guiding. I have nothing against any of them. It was simply a thought about wake/erosion damage.

              Almost forgot, if we are only talking about a 15hp increase, why not a 140hp increase? Sorry, I couldn't help myself with that question.

              Comment


              • #37
                35 HP motors

                Bighorn,

                You ask some good questions and make some good points.

                Regarding the 35 HP motors, unless a person is running a VERY old 2-stroke, nobody is running a manufactured 35 HP motor, because nobody manufactures a 35 HP motor. All of the 4-stroke motors, run by guides and non-guides alike are detuned. The problem with the jet is that the regulations mandate that the motors be detuned at the powerhead. In actuality, the original rules called for 35 shaft horsepower, however this would be impossible to enforce because Parks do not own a dynometer. They can, however check for a cam simply by pulling the cowling. That is the best that I can do... simply put, they do not allow 50 HP jets because they make the rules. There are a couple of boats on the river running detuned jets, however, and they seem to do OK. I have not seen them with a full load though.

                Comment


                • #38
                  throwing rocks at a bee hive....

                  I realize that this is a major line in the sand for most of us, changing laws or regs of any kind usually envoke strong emotions. I have read the posts, and you all have valid points. I have enjoyed reading the debate.
                  To be clear I support the move to 50hp and you may have guessed by my questions about jets, that is what I use. If the powers that be allow 50hp motors in my opinion, jets should have there hp rated at the pump NOT the powerhead. There is no simple way without major (and obvious) modifications to the motor that would allow for more hp. A jet deprives the motor of about 33% of power so a 60hp motor puts out only 40hp. Jet motors are easy to spot and any ranger worth his salt will be able to tell how much hp the motor has by looking under the cowling. A boat running a jet with a 60/40 motor will get out performed by a boat with a 40hp prop any day (until the river gets shallow), why do you think most guys who have jets run the biggest one the boat will allow?

                  In addition:
                  Many of you have talked about expense, remeber the guys in the 80's that had to buy new boat and motor just to stay on the water, talk about pissed!

                  We have also seen this back and forth about wake and bank erosion, saftey and the evil guide industry (that is joke). Personally my only knowledge is what I observe fishing the middle river in my little jon boat. I guess I'm going to have to go with Nerka on this one, wait for the report to come out, I just wish the **** thing would.

                  Why do I want to change the Kenai, to be honest it is personal. Being able to put a bigger motor on the back of my boat (but not much bigger) would make my boat safer, easier to handle. I can carry more gear or maybe an extra passenger without any trouble. A 4 stroke motor would be better on gas and the enviorment, not to mention a lot quieter.

                  Keep your thoughs coming...good thread!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Good thoughts Sockeye Orange,
                    One thing I have been thinking about and no one has really addressed, not only in this forum but in research (that I know of).

                    What is an acceptable level of erosion?

                    What is the measuring stick we are using, how arbitrary is it?

                    There must be models. Erosion is not necessarily a bad thing, obviously it is a natrual thing on a dynamic river system such as the Kenai.

                    A 0% erosion factory is imposible and some erosion is good, sweepers are good for the river.

                    Who determines an acceptable amount and what science is out there showing a correlation between levels of erosion and salmon returns?

                    Phase I and I am sure Phase II will show varying amounts of erosion caused by boat wakes, but to what extent will it harm our returns, if at all? Is there science out there to determine that or will it take another Phase?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Pushing the envelope. . .

                      Originally posted by yukon View Post
                      What is an acceptable level of erosion?

                      What is the measuring stick we are using, how arbitrary is it?

                      There must be models. Erosion is not necessarily a bad thing, obviously it is a natrual thing on a dynamic river system such as the Kenai.

                      A 0% erosion factory is imposible and some erosion is good, sweepers are good for the river.

                      Who determines an acceptable amount and what science is out there showing a correlation between levels of erosion and salmon returns?

                      Phase I and I am sure Phase II will show varying amounts of erosion caused by boat wakes, but to what extent will it harm our returns, if at all? Is there science out there to determine that or will it take another Phase?
                      Surely it's this kind of equivocation that caused University of Washington geologist David Montgomery to bleakly note:
                      "Though the fate of salmon rests in human hands, it is not clear that we will be able to save them even if our society wants to. Part of the problem lies in the conflict between the inherent uncertainty of the natural sciences and the certainty demanded by policy makers when balancing natural resource protection against economic opportunities." (King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon, Montgomery, Westview Press, 2003)

                      Why must we constantly push the ecological envelope in an effort to find out how much damage we can do before it's too much? What if it did take another study—or two or three—to determine an acceptable level of erosion in pursuit of special interests and economic opportunity? Is that too much to ask?

                      This is how the camel gets into the tent: First his nose, "Oh, it's just a little bit of erosion, which is a natural thing after all." Then the head and neck, "Look at all the dollars generated." Then the body, "Traffic, what traffic?" And so on. . . Let's err on the side of caution for once, and wait for Phase II and more if needed.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I am still not sure where economics is tied into this, I won't make anymore money because of it. IMO, and that of Phase I it will cause less wake to be at 50 hp.
                        What causes more erosion, sockeye fishermen or boat wakes? And between those groups, who causes the most damage in the critical salmon fry use areas? In the latter question I would say Sockeye fishermen, in the first I am not so sure but after seeing some grass banks before and after sockeye season in many areas I would say sockeye fishermen.

                        I sounds like Phase II will come out just after the public testimony, but then again those involved have been hearing the same song for the last 18 months.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Boating issue

                          Good thread, interesting comments about a complicated issue. Having lived through lots of eras of Kenai fishing/boating, I think (since we have to share the river with a lot more people) we are better off with lighter boats at slower speeds. Horse power restrictions result in both. Raising the H.P. limit at a time when the number of people using the river is rising may not be going in the right direction.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Broadly speaking. . .

                            Only in a narrow sense, yukon, does "economic opportunity" mean "making money." Broadly speaking, all that humans do for gain is "economic opportunity." Thus, dip-netting and sockeye flossing are instances of economic opportunity as surely as is a so-called "guide" selling in-river charters.

                            My point is that "economic opportunity" should not trump habitat/resource protection or environmental responsibility. Let's wait for Phase II and more if needed.

                            But what's your point above about sockeye fishermen? That one evil—sockeye anglers destroying habitat—excuses another evil—bank erosion and habitat destruction by boat wakes? You have consistently tried to minimize the 50 hsp. debate by saying it's only 15 hsp., it's only so much river, it's only erosion, and so on. Nor have you answered my repeated question as to why it's a bad thing to wait for the results of Phase II. What's your point here?

                            Finally, I ran into a past Board of Fisheries member, an avid Kenai River angler who presently runs a 4-stroke 50/35, at the Post Office less than an hour ago. When I asked him what he thought of the 50 hsp. thing, he said, "I don't like it, it's a guide thing." His words, not mine.

                            1) Why are you in such a hurry to implement 50 hsp.?
                            2) Is it reasonable that we wait for Phase II?
                            3) If not, why not?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I am not in a hurry
                              How much longer do we have to wait? 18 more months
                              The process started with the timely promise of Phase II, the process continues even though some involved haven't held their end of the bargin.
                              This is not a BoF issue.
                              It has been said to let science rule the issue, wait for the study. Where is the science on an acceptable or not acceptable amount of erosion?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Answers, please. . .

                                Originally posted by yukon View Post
                                1) I am not in a hurry
                                2) How much longer do we have to wait? 18 more months
                                The process started with the timely promise of Phase II, the process continues even though some involved haven't held their end of the bargin.
                                This is not a BoF issue.
                                3) It has been said to let science rule the issue, wait for the study. Where is the science on an acceptable or not acceptable amount of erosion?
                                1) Are you willing to wait for Phase II? As asked before, is it reasonable to wait for Phase II, and if not, why not?
                                2) Is another 18 months—or even longer—too long to wait to do the right thing by the environment?
                                3) Maybe it's in Phase II? Can you wait?

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X