Fair way to reduce the crowds on the Kenai.

[Akbrownsfan]

I agree with the two above posts on this one. Don't we have bigger issues to go over? Is it really THAT crowded? (I bank fish only on the Kenai, so am limited to where I go............but I fish college hole A LOT and there are almost never boats fishing there. I have heard it's good for king?) I mean beyond going at odd times like Yukon said (which I can attest to I fish the russian at night only and sometimes have 200 yards of bank to myself) Or I go fish somewhere like moose river at Isaac Walton as no one fishes there either.

I am just glad to see how many people fish!!! 2 months away till kings!! (ok a little more!)

 

[T.R. Bauer]

1) Guides can't legally put limits on themselves.

2) See my post above, lots of time to fish.

3) Guides tne major polluters, nope, per user they are probably the cleanest.

4) Residents catch their limits and move on.......thats a good one

5) You don't seem to like guides in general. My guess is that nothing they could do would make you happy.

I just have to ask; how many hydrocarbons do you think that guys like me that burn less than 5 gallons of 2 cycle gas per year put into the river, especially when compared with guides that go with four strokes for 10 hours a day for like 90 days straight? You're kidding right? I mean really....infrequent guys like me have been totally kicked off this river so the guides can fish it, and so the guys and gals that can go out with a pretty serious amount of recreational income to afford a guide, or can afford an expensive new four stroke. It this really about cleaning up the river, or is it about constricting access to just those that have a thick wallet. Oh and yes, after I did catch a few fish and had an annual fishing Kenai trip with friends and family, we did leave with good times, good pictures, and intent to come back again next year. That now, is gone. Congratulations, you win.

 

[T.R. Bauer]

I agree with the two above posts on this one. Don't we have bigger issues to go over? Is it really THAT crowded? (I bank fish only on the Kenai, so am limited to where I go............but I fish college hole A LOT and there are almost never boats fishing there. I have heard it's good for king?) I mean beyond going at odd times like Yukon said (which I can attest to I fish the russian at night only and sometimes have 200 yards of bank to myself) Or I go fish somewhere like moose river at Isaac Walton as no one fishes there either.

I am just glad to see how many people fish!!! 2 months away till kings!! (ok a little more!)

No, you're right. The Homer Derby is just a hop, skip, and a jump away! I can't wait

 

[yukon]

I just have to ask; how many hydrocarbons do you think that guys like me that burn less than 5 gallons of 2 cycle gas per year put into the river, especially when compared with guides that go with four strokes for 10 hours a day for like 90 days straight? You're kidding right? I mean really....infrequent guys like me have been totally kicked off this river so the guides can fish it, and so the guys and gals that can go out with a pretty serious amount of recreational income to afford a guide, or can afford an expensive new four stroke. It this really about cleaning up the river, or is it about constricting access to just those that have a thick wallet. Oh and yes, after I did catch a few fish and had an annual fishing Kenai trip with friends and family, we did leave with good times, good pictures, and intent to come back again next year. That now, is gone. Congratulations, you win.

Well, according to the EPA, you probably put in about a gallon. With my four-stroke, it was testified to by the Kenai Watershed forum, I put in about 1 cup out of 10 gallons. I basically fish 4 different people every day or two, so per user guides are cleaner. By the way, guides don't fish 90 days straight, only 5 days a week and not every one works every day, especially in June and August. We know how many guides there are, how many of you are there, you are just one, how many 2-stroke motors are out there the put in 2-3 gallons per 10 gallons burned. EPA's figures, not mine. It is not about getting mom and pop of the river, it is about getting the river de-classified as "impaired". You will still be able to fish in June and August with your 2-stroke. Is there a reason you can only fish in July?
Again, older two strokes put in 10 to 20 times (not percent) more hydrocarbons than 4-strokes. And with the new fuel injected four strokes they are even cleaner than the older carburated 4-stokes. So you would have to take off approximately 15 4-strokes off the river for every one of your 2-strokes. Yep, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Marcus]

Users and polluters. .

Users and polluters. .

. . I put in about 1 cup out of 10 gallons. I basically fish 4 different people every day or two, so per user guides are cleaner. .

About how many gallons of gas will you burn over a season?

As for "cleaner-per-user," one must first determine who the real "user" is—the guide or the client. .

Consider the drift-netters anchored in the mouth of the river. There's been a lot of recriminations thrown at them for "polluting" the river. Are they the "users," or are the "users" the public the gill-net industry sells to?

If "commercial" gill-netters are polluters, then so are "commercial" guides. Both are a means to an end—supplying fish to end-users. .

The human mind is capable of amazing gymnastics when it comes to rationalizing self-interests. .

 

[Marcus]

Considering one's neighbor. .

Considering one's neighbor. .

. . So you would have to take off approximately 15 4-strokes off the river for every one of your 2-strokes. Yep, that makes a lot of sense.

Is that really the case? Considering who are the greatest net polluters of the Kenai, wouldn't it have to be individual guides, each of whom uses the river for uncountably more hours and days than does an average two-stroke owner? . .

As it may shake out, it is people who will be kicked off the river so that other people—the greatest net polluters—can continue to use the river. Did any guide even consider cutting back his or her use of the river so that their neighbors might continue to get an occasional trip? . .

Would that make sense? Probably, but . . .

 

[T.R. Bauer]

I can see why people are anti guides in here, as this logic is getting to a point that I wouldn't even go as far as to call it logic. Guides are not users? Really? How do you take clients up and down the river and not use it? I do see what you are saying, I am not easily confused. However, do not hide behind your green badge of honor and tell me that I am creating more pollution than you are. If it is just you vs me, YOU are the biggest polluter by far. I put in a gallon per five gallons - and that is it for the YEAR. You put in how much again? How much? How much? Please tell me as I am curious.

Or, better yet, I will tell you. If you are using your engine 200 hours per year - and you probably are even using it more than that, this is a lot of gas, and a lot of pollution that goes into the river with it. I know for a fact that most honda 40s and now 50s are going to burn about 3-5 gallons per hour. Feel free to look at boattest.com. I am being very nice to use those numbers too as my neighbor has one and will verify that most of the time his burns around 6-7 with a full boat at full throttle - a condition a fully loaded boat is always in like yours. Therefore, you burned somewhere between 600 and 1200 gallons of gas while you and YOUR clients were on the river. Using your own figures of 1 cup per gallon, which is a questionable figure that depends on a ton of variables, you put in anywhere from 600-1200 cups of gross nasty pollution (just like mine is) into the river. There are about 16 cups in a gallon, therfore on your best scenario, you put in nearly 40 gallons of pollution into the river. Do remember that I put in 1/40th of that amount.

I can here your counter arguement already. I know you are going to say that all of it is not yours. You are right. However about 20 percent of it IS yours, and 20 percent of 40 is 8 gallons. Therefore, truth be told, YOU are polluting the river 800 percent more than I am. And, the thing that makes this gross pollution really gross, is that is in your best case scenario and the fact that you don't think that you are a gross polluter. How can you say that? I am dying to here some rhetoric here.....

You pollute more because you use it more. And you do use it; A LOT!

 

[yukon]

3 to 5 gallons per hour, what is in your water down there! You would have to be running full throttle all day long then you might get that number. On a typical day with my 50/35 Yamaha I burn about 1 gallon and hour. The majority of time is set at idle, not full throttle.
It is not a me vs. you situation that you want to see it. Collectively as a group oler 2-strokes are a majority of the problem. It has been studied by the EPA, Kenai Watershed Forum, and the DNR. That is their conclusions. I guess you know more than they do, maybe you should apply to work for them.

 

[Marcus]

Shameful . . .

Shameful . . .

. . Collectively as a group oler 2-strokes are a majority of the problem. . .

. . And, the thing that makes this gross pollution really gross, is that is in your best case scenario and the fact that you don't think that you are a gross polluter. How can you say that? I am dying to here some rhetoric here.....

You pollute more because you use it more. And you do use it; A LOT!

How can anyone say that? Save your breath, T.R., such nonsense must be said in order to justify and live with kicking folks like you off the water.

While it's true that old 2-strokes emit more pollution per gallon of gas burned, they are not the "majority of the problem" because owners of such motors use the river very little. The majority of the problem is the sheer number of gallons of gas burned by all motorized users but particularly by those users who use the river the most.

The Moral Law of God forbids that we abuse or take advantage of our neighbor and fellow man. Nobody wants to be seen doing something like that. Hence, the discussion cannot be couched in personal, human terms, the conversation must become impersonal. Though you use the river very little, you aren't the problem. The problem is your motor. See—you aren't being booted off the water, it's your motor that's being kicked off the water. Even though you're an insignificant factor in the overall picture, you will be deprived while other, greater polluters are allowed to pollute even more.

Save your breath. The human mind can justify anything when economic self-interest is at stake. The whole 50-horsepower thing is a shabby, sordid business and shameful treatment of Alaska citizens.

 

[yukon]

Who has two strokes, guides or non-guides?

Who spends more hours on the river in July, Guides nor non-guides?

What do you think?

 

[Marcus]

It's about people. . .

It's about people. . .

Who spends more hours on the river in July, Guides nor non-guides?

What do you think?

That's a stunning example of exactly what I'm talking about—an attempt to deflect the conversation into impersonal categories. Groups like "guides" and "non-guides" are impersonal abstractions. I've never met "guides," only individual people who happen to be guides. I've never met "non-guides," only individual people who aren't guides.

Doesn't work that way, yukon.

Make it personal, yukon. Make it about an individual person. A human being. You name for me which particular guide and which particular non-guide and then I'll tell you which of them spends more hours on the river in July.

It's hard to abuse one, particular person; easy to abuse an impersonal abstraction. .

 

[yukon]

Don't want to answer the question?

 

[Marcus]

Don't want to answer the question?

Take one, particular guide—you—and one particular non-guide—T.R. Bauer:

1) Which of you owns a 2-stroke?
2) Which of you spends more on the Kenai in July?

Answers:

1) Mr. Bauer
2) You

Nevertheless, it is Mr. Bauer, a fellow Alaskan, who gets kicked off the river in July while you, the greater, net polluter get a bigger motor with which to pollute even more.

 

[yukon]

It is about the collective use, unfortunatly people are going to have to change their fishing habits. I will congratulate you on deflecting the answers to fit your needs. I see you don't want to deal with reality, have a good day.

 

[Marcus]

Hurting people. . .

Hurting people. . .

It is about the collective use, unfortunatly people are going to have to change their fishing habits. I will congratulate you on deflecting the answers to fit your needs. I see you don't want to deal with reality, have a good day.

I don't know any "collecitives," yukon, I only know people. But only some people will have to change their fishing habits because they can't fish the Kenai in July.

Not "deflecting the answers," yukon, just restating them in human categories. "Collectives" don't get hurt, collectives aren't human, nor do collectives have feelings. People get hurt. Some people are hurt, that is, not all. Some people will end up getting it better.

Shameful business. .

(PS: Yes, it's about "collective" use, but collectives are made up of individual people. As it is, some people—those who use 2-strokes—have been singled out to bear the entire burden of a problem created by more than them. A much fairer solution would have been to decrease use across the board so that all individual people would bear part of the cost of a problem created by collective use. But we both know that that would not have been in the economic interests of commercial users, would it? Still a shameful, sordid business.)

 

[T.R. Bauer]

I have a great idea that is fair, but rediculous to enforce. I think that the state should issue emissions cards for hydrocarbons. You get 15 hours of engine use for a 2 stroke and 100 for a four stroke. When you show up at the ramp they punch your card, and when you return they punch it again. It's not like this would really cost much, since there is just about always a trooper, park employee, private employee, or other. If you have a 2 stroke you still get to fish, if you have a 4 stroke you get to fish about 7 times more. Once your "quota" for polluting is used up, you're done, or you're drifting in raft. Also, only one emission card is issued per household to put a kink in the potential hedgers of the rules. I think that would really clean up the river; since that is truly the point, right?

 

[Marcus]

Management tools. . .

Management tools. . .

. . I think that would really clean up the river; since that is truly the point, right?

"[Banning 2-strokes in July] is a tool which enables managers to continue maximizing the opportunity to participate in recreational fisheries while reducing [hydrocarbon pollution] to what can be termed ['4-stroke hydrocarbon pollution']. In this way, the economic value of recreational fishing is not jeopardized as the opportunity to participate is not [significantly] reduced."

—with apologies to a comment on catch-and-release as a management tool. .

 

[Charholio]

2 stroke selfishness

2 stroke selfishness

I think it's irresponsible and selfish to continue to use an old two stroke. Everyone harps on the selfishness of those who want more allocation and whatnot, but if you really care for the resource you'd sell the old polluter and save some dough to buy a new motor.

I suppose I'll get some backlash on this, but I did that very thing several years ago. I did this primarily because of the reduced noice and increased MPG, but also because of the guilt I felt every time I looked down and saw the oil slick from my exhaust heading downriver.

Okay, Marcus. You can hammer away on behalf of Mom and Pop (wait a minute--I'm one of the Pops!)

 

[fishook]

Man if that’s all it took was some guilt, you will be rowing a drift boat by next year. Sorry Marcus couldn’t resist.

 

[Marcus]

Pawning off the problem. . .

Pawning off the problem. . .

Man if that’s all it took was some guilt, you will be rowing a drift boat by next year. Sorry Marcus couldn’t resist.

Couldn't have said it better, but we know it won't come to that as long as the other guy can be made to take the heat for us. . . . . . .