Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

H.P. limits

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by gofish, May 2, 2005.

  1. gofish

    gofish claude

    Can't remember where I read it but I saw where ODNR is reevaluating horsepower limits on several 10 horse lakes. IE: Piedmont, Leesville, and some others. The talk was about making it like Lake snowden which is unlimited HP but idle speed only, please say its so............ I don't want to have to buy a kicker...........Anyone else heard of this?
  2. I'd prefer to keep the clean quiet lakes the way they are, but I could live with idle speed if the guys really did it.

  3. rockbass

    rockbass Banned


    I am with you on long as the rangers keep their eyes open, it may not be long as the boaters don't do like the jet skis and some boaters do at Tappan in the no wake zones!
  4. johnboy111711

    johnboy111711 SOLID MEAT

    idle speeds would never work, portages lakes is a prime example, there are always a few people that go a little faster than they should, besides, what is considered idle speed?
  5. Darwin

    Darwin If your gonna be a bear..

    I would think they would make it "No Wake" instead of idle speed. That in fact is what Lake Snowden is. I used to live down in Albany and spent a lot of time on Snowden. It worked out really well for that lake.....
  6. Lundy

    Lundy Staff Member

    Of course idle speed regulations would work, they already do.

    Just because a few violate the laws doesn't mean that the masses should be punished . Should we reduce the horsepower on all cars or put restricter plates on them to ensure that no car can exceed 65 MPH just because a few speed? Should we remove handguns from every citizen just because a few commit crimes with them?

    They may be some valid reasons not to change the HP restrictions on these lakes, but the potential for law violations isn't one of them.

  7. What are the valid reasons ?
  8. Lundy

    Lundy Staff Member

    I'm not sure that there are any, but I don't want to just arbitrarily say that there are none.

    Potential issues could be pollution. The older Larger HP motors do not run as efficiently at low rpm as they do at higher RPM's. Small motors are not clean by default either by any means, but with the potential for increased boat traffic with the HP restrictions being lifted it could lead to more boater hrs on some of these lakes

    I am and have always been in favor of removing the HP restrictions in favor of a speed limit or no wake. It seems only fair to me that ALL boaters pay for the resource and should be able to enjoy them. The only other equatable solution would be to not allow any boats with 9.9 and lower motors on lakes with no HP restrictions. They would not be permitted on Alum, Buckeye, Indian, Delaware, Tappan, etc, etc, etc.

    I know that there are many on here that support the reduced HP lakes and I appreciate their opinions, however I still have trouble understanding why they feel entitled to exclusive use of some of Ohio's lakes.

    If reduced HP lakes were regulated by speed limit or no wake it would be very difficult to explain the difference in access based upon HP alone.

    Just my opinion,
  9. That is a very good point Kim about the no wake theory. I think perhaps many of the supporters of the 10 HP restriction may be supportive because that keeps the lakes they are familiar with under control and so their perception is that is the only way or best way. But as you say the no wake concept has been used successfully in places and could work. Like you said, why punish everyone because a few may not obey the no wake rule. After all, are we punishing everyone for those who are running 15HP motors under a 9.9 cover?
  10. crappiebub

    crappiebub Justcrazy's Guide!

    Gofish, To answer your original question. Yes, last year there was a try, by the State, to start with the city owned lakes in the Columbus area to remove the limits from some lakes. It was strongly fought and defeated, for now. Many groups and some "individuals" from the OGF site, spent a lot of time and effort to stop it. Will have to keep watching to see if it is tried again.
  11. crankus_maximus

    crankus_maximus Crankus Baitus Maximus

    You all make good points. However, I like th HP restricted lakes the way they are. I don't see them removing the restrictions, as the enforcement costs would not be feasible at this point in time for the watercraft division of the ODNR. If you want to fish those lakes, then go buy a kicker motor or some more trolling motor batteries.

    Anybody who can fish at O'Shaughnessy Reservoir in the Columbus area knows that the idle speed doesn't work. EVERY time I go there, there is some moron who either doesn't care to go idle speed or his variation of idle speed is throwing a 3 foot wake (from small to large boats). I can see a little variation, but these people are obviously not following the rules.

    Anyhow, I'm sure I'm in the minority here. I currently have a smaller boat with a 9.9. I can go wherever I want. If I get a bigger boat I am going to get a 9.9 kicker. That's just all there is to it. If I want to fish them I know I have to use the kicker. If the rule changes...then great. If it stays the way it is...even better.
  12. steelmagoo

    steelmagoo Enjigneer

    I also like the restricted lakes. Smaller boats, fewer boats, very few "joyriders", less noise. I know this: the speed limit on the north end of Mosquito is useless even into Pikey Bay. I'm with Crankus:
    I won't get my nose outta joint either way.
  13. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    i haven't heard about the other lakes,but if memory serves me right,i think they raised the limit to 20 on pymatuning.i believe safety issues due to the size of the lake,was one concern(people being able to get off the water quicker when things turn rough),though i'm not sure.
    the waters in columbus are owned by the city and the div. of wc tried to circumvent the of their primary reasons was to relieve prssure on alum creek.which meant they would just be adding problems to hoover and the my opinion,they were backed more by certain people in the tourney fishing community,than anyone else.the city cited several good reasons(besides their ownership and control)to keep things as they are.i also have a small boat,but i tried to be objective about the situation.i don't believe for a minute that hoover would be overrun by pleasure boaters if it were a no wake,or idle lake.most of those people didn't buy those boats just to crawl around on the water :rolleyes:
    if they did swarm the lake,there would be problems.the same ones the div. of wc is complaining about on alum.
    as crankus stated,if i wanted badly eneough to fish a restricted lake,and was overpowered,i'd have no problem finding a way to do it.from buying a kicker to electric or buying a smaller rig.
    the arguement of "i can't afford it",or "i have aright there" doesn't hold water with me.someone with more knowledge,wisdom,etc. than me,decided what they thought was best for those waters,and i'd accept that even if i owned a bigger boat/motor,and find a way to fish them if i really wanted to.

    geeze,now you got me started again :rolleyes: ;)
  14. steelmagoo

    steelmagoo Enjigneer

    Pymie is not 20 hp, not yet anyway. PA has it targeted to be 20 hp, Ohio is against it. Since it is jointly owned, the change must go through both states legislatures.

    Edit: from the PA state Fish and Boat website
  15. rockbass

    rockbass Banned

    Keeping the 10 horse limit would be best in my opinion.......It does not limit who can go there or what kind of boat you have, it just limits if you can go down the lake at 50+ miles per hour. Use a trolling motor only if you only have a large motor. If that is too much of a pain, get a smaller motor. Just my opinion........I think if you would change the restrictions, it will in a way ruin what these kind of lakes are. If all you can afford is a small boat, it is nice to go to a lake without having to worry about inconsiderate boaters with 200 hp blowing by you and throwingyou around.......If they woiuld increase the limits to maybe 15 or 25, it may not be bad, but I don't think there would be reason to lift it to say 100 or more. The don't know about other lakes, but the MWCD lakes are not that big that you need to be able to go from one end to another in 2 minutes. Just what I think. I love to go to Piedmont and Clendening simply because they are nice an quiet. Even when there are a lot of boats out
  16. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    thanks for clearing that up.i knew pa. ok'd it.just thought i'd heard somewhere that both agreed :confused:
    used to fish it every year when i was a youngun,and loved it.but it sure was a long ride back home to the dock with a 5 1/2 hp motor,when mother nature suddenly showed her bad side:eek: ;)
    sometimes we just headed for the closest land,lol.
  17. crankus_maximus

    crankus_maximus Crankus Baitus Maximus

    I fish a lake in Canada that is larger than Dale Hollow in size and we do it in a 14fter with a 15hp. Takes a while to get where you wanna go, but man is it beautiful. That is why I am on on the water in the first place. If weather threatens, then that is something to deal with. Either get off the water or know what the heck you're doing in 3 footers.
  18. ncraft150

    ncraft150 Buckeye-Basser

    For those of you who feel they should stay horsepower restricted instead of no wake where everyone can use them how about this. We'll keep them at 10 hp and under, but the other lakes around the state will now become 15 hp and up and you will have to be made to get rid of any upgrades for hp improvement of course since technically that is illegal on a 10 hp lake. Sounds pretty silly huh. I'll agree to keep some electric only lakes, but everything else should be wake or speed restricted. I think the 10 hp guys just dont want to go no wake so they can go as fast as their boats will let them causing pretty good wakes, but seeing a boat with more than 10hp using its trolling motor while a 10hp flys buy(9 times out of 10 illegaly because of modifications to make them 15hp)is silly. The only other reason is maybe they dont want more people on what they beleive to be their water when we are all tax payers and should have the right to use these lakes.
  19. I like the way it is now. I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over lifting the restrictions as long as they went to no wake and it was enforced to a reasonable degree. I just wouldn't be in favor of any change that would allow
    recreation speed on the limited lakes.
  20. Hooch

    Hooch Fare Thee Well!

    The restricted HP does keep the majority of people with big motors off of the lake, that's a fact. The fewer boats and fisherman there are on a lake, the better the lake is going to be to fish...Duh. Of coarse I'm going to say keep it the way it is...That's why I fish at Hoover.