Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Big Horsepower on Our Lakes

Discussion in 'Central Ohio Fishing Reports' started by Patriot, Aug 11, 2004.

  1. This ain't Kentucky, or Tennessee, with those big, sprawling, beautiful reservoirs. Our little 3,000-Acre lakes that support big motors are beat to death by pleasure boats that don't belong there. Big-motor bass boats share the problem, but only a small part of the blame. A fast bass boat on-plane makes very little wake, by it's design.

    I think the question here in particular, is Hoover. Other lakes, like Pymatuning (12,000 acres) would be affected, as well. My last 2 boats were purchased to suit the restrictions at Hoover. I've loved the tranquility offered by being on a lake that had a 10-hp limit, we all have. I hate to think that it might go away. But I have to admit, nobody has the right to determine that Alum Creek Reservoir (Same Size As Hoover), should be unlimited, & Hoover should be limited. We Hoover lovers have to look at it from both sides.

    I've known Steve Kirby for many years, he's a good man, I'm proud to be a friend of his. Yes, he runs tournaments, with a tremendous number of participants, and he's done a great job at it over the years. The participants win money, trophies, etc., etc. Not a thing wrong with that. And the comradery & friendship that comes with those tournaments is priceless. So don't make him out to be a bad guy!

    There are fewer of us with small boats, than the big boats. They outnumber us by a margin we could never win in a vote, so forget it. That's the bottom-line, the majority wins. I wish we could keep Hoover a 10-HP lake, I've enjoyed it for 30 years. But we have to face the majority, & they'll win.

    I'd bet Lake of The Woods & the North End will be no-wake, we'll adapt.
  2. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    are you on the sauce again,ed? :eek: :rolleyes: ;)

    here's where you're wrong.
    the state has the "right" to set limits on alum creek and the state also gave columbus the "right" to set limits on hoover,griggs and o'shay.

    so,where do you stand?with the "majority" or the "minority"? :confused:

    i've looked at both sides,and the way i see it,is there are more multi-use waters for bigger boats/motors,etc,than there are for smaller ones,dedicated to fishing and other activities.
    there is much more to this issue than you mentioned.
    i wouldn't know steve kirby if i tripped over him,so i have no personal feelings about him,one way or the other.but this is not about him,or me,or you,or any one group of people,but about what's best,overall,for the general public,and the waters in the state that we all use.

  3. You know how much I love Hoover, & the fact that it's limited horsepower, as I said, I spent over $14,000 on my last two boats, both purchased as limited horsepower boats, purchased primarily so I could fish Hoover.

    Didn't care much for the "sauce" comment, much, Rick. (xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
    I'm just saying, the guys with the big boats have a voice too, and their voice may be bigger than ours. I wish that weren't the case. I wish Hoover would stay limited horsepower forever, & I'll fight to keep it that way. But, as I said, if put to a vote of licencsed fishermen & boaters, we'd lose. Face that.

    There aren't enough of us that love the peace & tranquility of Hoover to keep it the way it is, compared to the power-boaters. They outnumber us, big time.

    Maybe the Land-Owners on Hoover can stop it. The erosion factor should be a major issue, I don't know.

    Don't think I'm for it, I'm totally against it!
  4. DaleM

    DaleM Original OGF Staff Member

    I deleated a few words, keep it clean and nice guys.
  5. jeffmo

    jeffmo officially unofficial!!!!

    i've been watching this entire subject without having too much input because i don't fish hoover but if i did i'd either do it with a trolling motor or buy a 9.9hp to's a limited h.p. lake so folks should either accept that or fish elsewhere.
    if different tournament associations would like to hold events on hoover what would be so very difficult about putting an extra battery in the boat and understand that you won't be making any quick trips across the lake?
    it sure would make someone put more thought into choosing their spots they plan on fishing wouldn't it? sort of like golfing when the course is kind of tough!
    i've fished tourneys on electric only lakes before and it wasn't a problem.
    i personally think we NEED places like hoover and the other restricted lakes.
    i also think it's long over-due for the state to seriously start thinking about creating a LARGE man made lake somewhere in south central ohio.
  6. Alwsfishin

    Alwsfishin '73 24' Stamas

    Great thread guys........We camp at Charles Mill at least once a year. Its a 9.9 limit, and it does get busy at prime weather weekends. We take a ride over to Pleasant Hill occasionally, theres an area where you are elevated and are looking down at the lake from a distance. The place is a real joke, it looks like an animated scene from a Disney movie. Boats going every which way, all they are doing is jumping wakes. If this is what some of the 9.9 lakes in Ohio are headed for, fisherman who probably support these fisheries more with their license fees, more than pleasure boaters are in for a bureaucratic suppository. Why not start a e mail campaign to the proper division of the ODNR......
  7. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    ed,i know you enjoy hoover,and bought your boats with that in mind,and i'm glad we're on the same side :)
    though we won round 1,this could be just the beginning of things to come,and eventually could become a statewide issue,so it will take people from throughout the state to help.
    don't get riled about the "sauce" comment,as it was in need to come down the street after work some evening,and tip a few with me,and swap fishin' lies :) :cool:
    i can tell you the story about the hawgeye i caught at hoover the other day :D

    Alwsfishin,there have already been thousands of emails,letters and phone calls made to the odnr and watercraft division,and other agencys.i have some info on who to contact and how to go about it,if you never got it when jim horan sent it out.if you'd like to help,i can email it to you,for future use,as the fight i said,this could likely affect many other lakes in time,so it needs to be dealt with before the state gets out of hand.
  8. I too have watched these "Limited Horsepower" threads as well over the last few weeks.

    Hoover is one of the closest lakes to where I live and I love to fish it for many of the same reasons that have been stated- it's quiet, peaceful, no jet skis, very few wakes to battle... I don't fish there as much now, as my current boat's gas kicker is a 15hp (as are many of the "9.9s" out there ;) ) I can't say that I wouldn't like to see a hp increase to 18 or 20 as has been proposed at Pymytuning, but if it meant going to unlimited HP and speed, I would be against it. I think it would be very destructive to Hoover as a fishery (it would be good for the prop/repair shops and ERs though :D )

    I fish P-Hill quite a bit, and it can be a madhouse. I'm really suprised there aren't more accidents with jet skis and skiers there! It's just a matter of time.

    One more comment I will make is to the statement that "we" are "outnumbered". It has been proven time and time again, that sportsmen can and will organize for a commen cause unlike almost any other group. I doubt you will see that from the "big boat" owners. We may be small-but we're mighty! :D

    Good work Jim H, Rick S and others. We appreciate it.

  9. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    ah!say it ain't so :D ;)
    you know the solution to your problem though,don't you ;)

    if a little hp bump was all they were interested,i'd have no problem with that either tim.but we know that's not what they're after :rolleyes:

    you got it tim :)
    and we have "outside" help also
  10. Ed, afraid the law of large numbers will be way beyond boaters. You have Crews (OSU, Denison U., Otterbein, Westerville Schools), Canoers, Kayakers, Sail Boaters, Home Owners Assns., Realtors, Environmental Groups, Audobon Society, etc. etc. etc. We won't be taking a knife to a gun fight, we promise you. Besides large numbers, there is also the "juice" component. There ARE enough of us that love the peace & tranqulity of Hoover. This just ain't about big boats vs. little boats. Proud to have you with us you ol' Patriot!

  11. Anyone know why 10 was picked for the hp limit anyways?
  12. Patriot wrote:

    Its about time somebody wrote something that makes sense.
  13. I usually don't post because I know my words will usually be missinterupted, but one thing I saw in other states that I always thought would be useful here in the big OH is to not limit the HP but the speed... I.E. some lakes in other states with some of the best bassfishing have limits that allow any boat, anys size, but limit those over 10 HP to idle speed only.... this allows more people to enjoy the lake but still maintian the peacefullness and tranquillity that those of us on hoover love so well. I know what you all are thinking (nobody knows what no wake means and it is hard to enforce) but those are other issues that already need addressed no matter what lake you are on... just food for thought :)
  14. That is a good point Bucketmouth. Clearfork has an unlimited horsepower but a 10 mph limit.
  15. Still waters
    Cities should be allowed to restrict ski boats to preserve safety, tranquility

    Monday, August 16, 2004

    The view of some state officials that cities shouldn’t be allowed to ban boats viewed as inappropriate for their lakes and reservoirs should alarm anyone who values a quiet place to fish, paddle or walk.

    A proposed change in state law backed by the Ohio Division of Watercraft would strip cities, villages and conservancy districts of the authority to limit the size and types of boats allowed on their waters.

    The local jurisdictions still would be able to set speed and horsepower limits, but removing size and type rules from their purview leave them powerless to prohibit boats that could utterly destroy the character of lakes such as Columbus’ Hoover, Griggs and O’Shaughnessy reservoirs.

    Of particular concern is state officials’ insistence that Columbus officials rethink the ban in the three reservoirs on so-called personal watercraft, those one- to three-person water-ski machines known by brand names such as JetSki and WaveRunner.

    Whatever the city’s motivation for banning the machines, the policy is sound.

    Personal watercraft are popular thrill machines, and Ohioans are free to use them at Alum Creek Reservoir, Buckeye Lake and many other sites around the state. But the speedy, highly maneuverable craft have a significant downside: They’re loud, dirty, destructive and dangerous.

    These watercraft seem deceptively simple to use, and they’re often driven by novices. Few people are aware of a 1981 law that requires an eight-hour safety course before operating a motorboat.

    The National Transportation Safety Board said in 1998 that half of all boating accidents with injuries involved personal watercraft and that most of those accidents were caused by operators with less than an hour of experience on the machines.

    Tellingly, Alum Creek lake, which on summer weekends teems with firsttimers hopping on machines that belong to friends, has had more boating accidents in the past six years than any state waterway except Lake Erie.

    The two-stroke engines most commonly used in personal watercraft are egregious polluters of air and water, discharging up to 30 percent of their oil and fuel into the water. All three of Columbus’ reservoirs are sources of drinking water. The city should be allowed to regulate activities that threaten water quality.

    Even if personal watercraft always were handled safely and didn’t pollute, they would be inappropriate for tranquil settings, such as Griggs and Hoover. The erratic zip-zipping that makes them look like so much fun can wreak erosion havoc on sensitive shorelines. The especially loud, high-pitched whine associated with them not only annoys many people but also drives off wildlife in the area.

    Why would anyone propose allowing these on a narrow reservoir, such as Griggs, that is a haven for kayakers and canoeists and has a regional reputation as a spot for crew racing?

    State officials respond that banning personal watercraft is discriminatory, and that all kinds of boaters need more places to enjoy their sport.

    Perhaps Ohio can make more room for personal watercraft and big boats, but eliminating local discretion is unfair to the residents around these waters and an unwisely heavyhanded approach.

    After a Dispatch story touched on the Division of Watercraft’s proposed change in law, officials protested that they have no immediate plans to force personal watercraft onto Griggs and O’Shaughnessy waters and noted that horsepower restrictions exclude them from Hoover. The division has proposed allowing Columbus’ ban to stand for five years, after which the city couldn’t continue it without the state’s approval. And officials’ comments that creating no-wake zones could allow "quiet boaters" and others to coexist on a body of water give little confidence that the ban would live beyond the five years.

    The Division of Watercraft is seeking more control over boating statewide, and much of its agenda makes sense. Some local requirements for safety features contradict state regulations, and boaters should conform to uniform standards.

    But a desire for consistency shouldn’t extend to turning all navigable waterways into roaring speed parks. The popularity of personal watercraft shouldn’t entitle their owners to use them to the detriment of the environment and the enjoyment of other types of boating, any more than allterrain-vehicle riders should be allowed to plow through wooded hillsides in public forests, just because they want access.
  16. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    thanks terry.i've noticed the dispatch as published several letters opposing the changes.all giving a different perspective,which seems to show a broad range of support for keeping things as they are :cool:
    here's one that was in saturday's paper ;)

    Letters To The Editor
    Published: Saturday, August 14, 2004
    After reading the July 30 Dispatch article about the desire of the Ohio Division of Watercraft to eliminate boat type and size restrictions on three Columbus reservoirs, I am almost at a loss for words.

    It is my opinion and, I am sure, that of many others who use these waters that this is not a well-thought-out plan.

    Consistency is being used as an excuse to degrade some of central Ohio's premier waters. The division claims that it wants consistent statewide rules, yet the truth is, there are various restrictions on many Ohio lakes.

    The division is, in effect, catering to the owners of pleasure boats and personal watercraft, under the guise of equal access to all waters. That discriminates against those who wish to have somewhere to fish, canoe, kayak or sail without contending with the harassment and hazards that are created by hundreds of high-speed watercraft.

    The division is opening a big can of worms with its plan. It is no less than blackmailing the city, with its threat to withhold funds for the city's marine patrol, if city officials don't bow to the division's wishes.

    I have frequented all of the city's lakes, along with Alum Creek Reservoir, during the past 40-plus years and have seen some of the problems cited in the story. All of the lakes have their own particular problems and their own good qualities. Why compound the few problems of the city's three reservoirs in a vain effort to reduce the problems in other lakes in the state?

    This move to allow larger watercraft on Hoover, Griggs and O'Shaughnessy reservoirs only would create more problems than it solves, along with more cost to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which is already operating on a strained budget.

    I am willing to do whatever I can to prevent this terrible mistake. And I am sure hundreds or even thousands of others feel the same.


  17. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    from last week.

    Published: Tuesday, August 10, 2004
    I respond to "City, state hit rough water over boat rules,'' Dispatch article, July 30.

    There are eight state and city parks near my home, and you can find me in one of them five or six times each week. Therefore, I was excited when I read about the city and state conflict over boating rules. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources wants to change boating rules that would allow bigger, faster boats and personal watercraft on the "relatively tranquil waters'' at Griggs, O'Shaughnessy and Hoover reservoirs.

    The effect would be the pollution of these lovely, well-used areas with increased noise, congestion, spilled fuel and danger.

    How I look forward to my three, 30-minute walks per week along the Scioto, no longer in peace after a demanding workday, but with much noise, commotion and traffic, both on water and land.

    How I long to take my camp chair by the O'Shaughnessy and read quietly, while jet skis roar by. I can't wait to hold my sabbath mornings at Hoover, in deep healing prayer, while motors roar loudly all around.

    Moreover, I applaud the agency's reason: the desire for "consistent statewide rules.'' It makes perfect sense to apply the same rules to different settings, no matter what the cost. After all, the only thing at stake is some people's need for serenity.

    God forbid that one of our goals should be to seek refreshment in quiet, natural settings in which to enjoy the peace and beauty of creation in our local parks.