little su poll

[sheep man]

How many of you anglers would vote for a HP restriction and or non motorized use area,wouldn't it be nice to have non motorized from the bridge down to the landing,then have a HP restriction from the landing down to the inlet.Pros and Cons start with Pros. Bank anglers wouldn't have to worry about the river turned upside down from all the boat traffic durring rush hour,floaters wouldn't have to worry about being hit by a power boat....etc....We would probly save a life or 2,Family's could get out and really enjoy a world class trip,there's just a few of many that are out there,now for the cons, Guides would loose some revenue,gas sales would be down,alot of folks wouldn't want to change because they don't like change,or it cost to much to switch boats etc....the bottom line is this river can not handle the pressure it's getting year end and year out,so if you got any good idea's out there let us hear about them....now for the guys and gals that are wondering if i have anything to loose with the non-motorized restrictions,the answer is yes,I have 1 power boat for the little su and 1 for the kenai,i've lived in this state for a long time and i've seen the changes over time from the good days on the kenai to where it is now,the little su is a shadow of the Kenai,and i'd give my boats away and buy a drift boat to have the pease and the fishery back that once was there not to long ago....thanks for your time.

 

[Marcus]

You've got my vote for horsepower restriction and increased non-motorized fishing. Wish it were that easy. Folks have been trying to calm the Kenai down for years now, and it just gets worse. Commercial sport-fishing interests are, as we speak, pushing relentlessly for increasing the Kenai limit from 35 to 50 horsepower and pushing for more reds in the Kenai because more reds mean more kings—the money fish.

It's all about money: commercial sport-fishing dollars and dollars generated by license sales (mostly nonresident) in pursuit of angling "opportunities" made possible by Sport Fish Division of ADF&G.

What happens when, as most think it will, the population of the Kenai Peninsula doubles over the next couple decades?

 

[Akres]

NO to all of the above.

 

[Adventures]

No

No

Most people can only afford 1 boat with one motor and they need it to be multi-purpose. I would'nt want to have to use a 35 HP to push me up the Talkeetna river every year for kings. That's one of many things that turns me off about the Kenai.
If we could just have a no wake restriction within say 3 miles one way or the other of the landings that would take most of the family danger out of it. the rafts are on thier own I guess. You take a kayak out into the ocean knowing full well that a huge cruise ship is most likley going to come by while you are there and create some huge waves. Same thing for the floaters (which I love to do by the way)
It all comes down to people being more cautious and respectful on the waterways. Exspecially the ones that are going to be more crowded.

 

[Doug in Alaska]

I'm not interested in HP restrictions and non-motorized use. I'm getting kind of tired of special interest groups dictating what I'm allowed to do. Just my opinion.

 

[FISHGIRL]

Hp...

Hp...

Read the story in todays ADN online about the crash on the Deshka.

 

[fishslayer]

No more restrictions. Sad to see a boating accident with fatalities, but risk is part of life and shouldn't be an excuse for more restrictions. If people used a little more common sense and caution when on the rivers, it would make it a nicer experience for everyone. But I don't want the government to step in and regulate things more than they already do.

 

[Charholio]

Restrict it

Restrict it

This is a touchy subject for sure. "The times they are a-changin'." Here's my nickel. Maybe a dime.

It's not about my boat or my convenience or someone dictating what I can or can't do. It's about protecting the habitat. The river is being destroyed by too boats making too many wakes. The bank erosion results not only poor water conditions for fishing, but silted-in spawning beds which reduce the overall productivity of those fish that do live to spawn. I realize that the section of river above the highway isn't being damaged. But miles of (potential or former) spawning area below is.

I'm trying to imagine what the river will look like in ten years' time with the current lack of restriction. Eventually, all the stream side vegetation will cave in, and no doubt the river will change course many times until the stream bed is wider and wider, and perhaps shallower and shallower, with less vegetation to provide shade and less habitat for juvenile salmon. If this happens it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that fewer surviving smolt equals smaller runs in the future.

Restrictions will be a positive step towards sustaining (even improving) habitat for the river, and the fishing will likely improve per man hour, in my humble opinion, with clearer, yet still "semi-glacial" color the river has when it hasn't been turned into chocolate milk by boat wakes.

As an added benefit, the river will become a safer place for you and your wife and kids, no question about that. It may be just a matter of time before the state gets sued due to a fatality on this river. And then people will hop up and say "I told you so!" Who will pay the damages? ADF&G? Where would that money come from? ADF&Gs budget that might be used for something that would be benefitting you and me if it wasn't being paid out in damages? I don't know if it would go down that way, but it's not beyond possibility, especially now that this issue is getting so much attention.

Those of you who differ in opinion may not be thinking of the future and whether or not your children and their children will be able to enjoy the fishing this river is capable of producing. Perhaps you're unaware of what's happening to the river, and that the current rate of damage will increase annually until the river becomes much less productive or too many people die or get hurt. Maybe you don't care.

I'd like to see horsepower restrictions, but that's just part of the story. Hull design and weight affects wake too. The guys arguing for 50hp on the kenai have a point--their 20' guideboats might actually produce less wake at higher speeds (when fully loaded with 4 clients and guide) than what they produce when they're plowing through the water, barely on step with a 35. However, that's a much larger river with much more room to maneuver and better visibility regarding other traffic. That argument is invalid here.

This is a small river. It has outstanding bank fishing potential, however access is very limited. I think it would be a great idea to limit hp on the lower river to 35, no power boats above the launch, drift only on the upper, but also create five or six public access points on the river to spread out the crowd and to provide more opportunity for us all. While I'm dreaming, I'd like some of the access points to be on the north side of the river.

I'd sure as heck rather try these restrictions (especially if additional access points are created) than face having to draw a permit for my day on the river. With the increase in population, especially in the fastest-growing area of the state (the valley), that might become reality some day. Imagine, a Tier II salmon permit. . .

 

[JEFFSTER]

Little su poll

Little su poll

I am thinking that this is going to happen regardless. If that bridge and ferry to massive housing developement gets put in, look out folks. The little su will look far worse than Ship Creek on any given Sunday. I've already put some thought into trading the river boat for something more suited to Salt water. The ocean is still wide open. We live in a massive state that has very little access to the Majority. So those few spots that most can afford to reach get pounded. My vote goes to limit the Ponies on the boats.

 

[bkmail]

No Vote for restriction on HP

No Vote for restriction on HP

We have seen from the Kenai H.P. restrictions, the law is in place but not strictly enforced. Most folks run a so called "detuned" 50 horse motor. Reality is they are removing the restriction plate. Or in the case of a 50 HP Honda they are actually changing out the chip to make it a 65 HP and getting away with it. You can't tell me that a boat w/6 or 7 people will fly up and down that river, yet you see it all the time with a "35" sticker on the cowling.
My vote goes to enforce the rules that are already on the books before we try and implement them elsewhere.
As others have mentioned, when a boat is driven properly and up on step, it creates very little wake versus an underpowered, overloaded boat that creates a large pressure wave.
Granted, there may be a few boats that are a bit big for the little su, but how do you stop those? I think it has more to do with weight and displacement rather than the horsepower on the back. Maybe Fish and Game could take a look at the weight in the boats and check the rating on the plate attached to the hull. Afterall, a small boat overloaded and not on step is not only dangerous to it's occupants, but does more damage than a larger jetboat operated properly.
As for canoeists and floaters, they must understand that we jetboaters NEED to remain on step and actually create a smaller wake then if we throttle back when passing them. When the river is only few inches deep, we can't throttle back or it WILL do damage to the river bottom.
However, if we are willing to limit the river boats according to size, then maybe we should limit the ocean boaters too! Afterall, I see many tiny boats in the ocean that shouldn't be there.
So, NO do not restrict the HP on the little su.

 

[DocEsox]

Restrict it...way overdue

Restrict it...way overdue

The ADN article by Medred was right on the money. It is a crime the way the Little Su is being destroyed. I moved back here from Montana where there are always restrictions on smaller river systems in order to protect the waterway as a whole. I have been anchored fishing a school of silvers on the Little Su, when no less then three large jet boats whipped by and on each occasion the wake left silvers high and dry on the bank. That's just not right. Plus, due to the size of their large boats on the Little Su, boats go right through your fishing hole instead of around you, even though plenty of room was left behind, because they are sucking so much water. There should be restrictions, at a minimum of hp (35 has always worked great for me) and boat size.

There is no doubt as we blast up and down the Little Su we are destroying the stream banks, causing much more than natural erosion and severly damaging the streambank ecosystem so necessary for salmon fry to prosper. It seems the battlecry of those who have been here in Alaska is, "By Diety, we have the divine right to rape and pillage the Greatland as we feel so inclined". It's sad that I do so much of my serious trout fishing while visiting my parents in Montana. There is a far greater respect given their for our natural resources and giving them their proper due. If this keeps escalating, in another ten years the viability of the Little Su ecosystem is really going to be hurting. Preventions the best cure.

I myself have been goaded into acting like a jerk on this river. One buy with a 200 hp motor came whipping by me a few years ago while I was entertaining some out of state friends to some really excellent silver fishing. When I signaled, politely, if he could go shoreward of our boat and not distrub out fish he just ploughed through, screaming, "Hey, buddy, it ain't your f........ river." I thought this a well considered and articulated argument by obviously vacationing English professor. So I got my boys in the boat and we followed him as best we could. Everytime he stopped to fish we pulled up right behind him and anchored. After doing this twice he became even more enraged (I suggested starting with a stout dose of Xanax or Prozac to handle the anger) and asked us "what the he.. we were doing?" My reply, "Well, as you so aptly put, the river doesn't belong to me, or you either. It would be nice it you just gave the river the respect it deserved.....and the people you encounter too." From which point we drifted back down to the landing catching many silvers as we went. This shouldn't have to happen. To easy to ruin for everyone.

My two cents,
DocEsox

 

[Sketch]

Yes, something needs to be done. This won't self-regulate, and I don't see why all these small streams must have the biggest boats powering up them at full throttle.

The Deshka accident this past weekend will likely become something that happens more and more often as the streams continue to get crowded with users. It would be a shame to see the resource destroyed or seriously diminished by those who insist on taking these boats into places that will wreck the habitat.

 

[Dirtofak]

My sympathies to the families with the loss of lives in the accident. I also hope those injured have a speedy and full recovery. I do not believe that we can legislate common sense or keep people from cheating the system. The Kenai is a perfect example of an ecosystem that is being damaged MORE by legislation than it would be with higher HP engines on step. Alaska has some very tough years ahead. Airplanes, ATV's, boats, jet skiis, will receive alot of attention in the future. How we handle these challenges will dictate our quality of life in the future.

 

[sh]

it's just a matter of time

it's just a matter of time

the upper river will be drift only.

 

[AKUNITED]

Restrict it.

Restrict it.

There are two common themes I have noticed throughout these posts: a concern for the habitat and safety concerns. The impact on the habitat is obvious and will only continue to get worse. Unfortunately, the safety issue has hit full force this past weekend resulting in two deaths. No one likes regulation, however, its purpose is well served when guarding against the concerns listed above. I believe one's angling ethics should dictate one's opinion on this matter. There is no reason we should destroy a habitat so as to enjoy it. It is irresponsible to write off what happened this weekend as just an occurance that comes with the territory.

 

[Marcus]

Originally, the mandated decrease to 35 on the Kenai was for safety reasons, not because of habitat destruction. A couple years ago, several Kenai River guides were ticketed for not having their 50 hsp. motors de-tuned to 35. As it stands now and has been observed here, most 50 hsp. motors on the Kenai are just that—50 hsp. What happens if the river goes to a legal 50 hsp.? Will everyone then run de-tuned 70s?

There are options, other than bigger motors and more speed, to the problem of boats not getting up on step. Flat-bottomed boats and lighter loads are easy solutions. But then, three clients per boat are not as profitable as four clients per boat.

Do we really care about the rivers? Or do we care more about convenience, fun, and money?

 

[G Scherrer]

Little Su

Little Su

I'm in favor of making it a little more rational. I'm also in favor of permit drawings for the Russian , to reduce congestion. Fact is, we have too many people around trying to use the resource. We need to come to some sort of understanding.

I really hate standing in the Little Su and getting swamped by the mega-boats running full bore down that little stream!

 

[Brownsfan]

I'd vote no moters.

 

[Water_Gremlin]

Its a shame such an accident took place on the Deshka and it looks like this will be the building blocks for more rules and regulations to come. More regulations are not always good regulations. Basically, I am not a fan of more rules unless completely nescessary.

A lot of this has to do with common sense. If someone wants to run their 18' monsterous inboard jet boat chances are the Lil Su and Willow Creek are not the best places to unload. The Big Su would handle these boats quite nicely. But there needs to be a cost effective launch on the Big Su besides way up near Montana Creek. If the Lil Su had a hp restriction in effect, I would like to see more launch sites on the Big Su first and foremost.

Its been YEARS since I have power boated the Lil Su. During my runs you wouldnt see very many other power boats on the river. It looks like things have changed. If the river is overcapacitated then something needs to be done. If it may be hp restrictions or hull type/weight/load restrictions. The hull restriction sounds like a good idea but you do not want to over complicate things.

All this talk about turning watersheds into a "draw" only area absolutely sickens me! Do we really want to turn fishing into what hunting has become? Fishing is quite simple to do. Most people can pick up some gear, check the regs and head out. Do we really want to over complicate fishing? Imagine how it would effect the tourist industry and the camp sites in that area. Dated seasons are plenty, and if I recall the past years on the Russian the limit has been doubled a few times. There are plenty of fish going upstream. If someone doesnt like combat fishing, well, there are hundreds if not thousands of other rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, channels, and sloughs to fish.

 

[vinni]

hp limits

hp limits

it's not just hp that causes the erosion problem. a 18' boat with a 35 horse causes a much bigger wake than a 18' boat with a 115 horse motor. So, if it's erosion problem youre concerned about, boat size must be considered as well.