I hope they don't change anything. Hoover is one of the few places you can go and not have to worry about too many idiots being around. I guess we will have to wait around and see what happens.


fishintiger

 

City, state hit rough water over boat rules
Agency wants limits on size, horsepower lifted at 3 reservoirs

Friday, July 30, 2004
Jill Riepenhoff
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH



State watercraft officials want to open the relatively tranquil waters of Griggs, O’Shaughnessy and Hoover reservoirs to bigger and faster boats.
Columbus, which draws its drinking water from the three reservoirs, vehemently objects.
The issue has led to a standoff: City leaders say they are siding with safety, and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources says it wants consistent statewide rules.
Because the city has not complied, Watercraft Division officials have cut off Columbus from grant money raised through the sale of boat registrations.
Each side points to Ohio’s watercraft laws to support its position. State lawmakers could end up settling the debate.
In a pending bill, watercraft officials have proposed stripping local governments and conservancy districts of the authority to limit the size and type of boats allowed on their waterways.
"This is a mess," said Sgt. Charles Gordon, who oversees the Columbus Division of Police Marine Patrol. "They blindsided us with this."
Everything from powerboats to personal watercraft, better known by the trade names Jet Ski and Wave Runner, could be used at the three reservoirs under the proposal.
The city bars personal watercraft at the three reservoirs. It limits boats to 22 feet long on Griggs and O’Shaughnessy and restricts boats on Hoover to 10-horsepower engines.
In its boating plan, the state wrote that it wanted to broaden access to Hoover.
Columbus officials think the Watercraft Division is trying to ease congestion on accidentprone Alum Creek Reservoir by offering central Ohio boaters other nearby options. The Delaware County lake ranks second only to Lake Erie for boating accidents and injuries in Ohio.
Watercraft officials said that their position is unrelated to Alum Creek and that they are trying only to make boating laws uniform across the state.
"We’re looking at the greater good for all people," Division of Watercraft chief Ken Alvey said. "That (water) surface belongs to everyone who can use it."
Because the state has cut off Columbus from grant money, it has reduced its ability to maintain its marine patrol, replace aging buoys marking dams and other hazards, and conduct boating classes.
Until now, the state had given the marine patrol money each year for 27 years.
The state told the city in an letter last August that Columbus wouldn’t receive grant money if it continued to enforce boating rules that conflicted with the "spirit" of state and federal laws.
"Grants are grants," said Deborah Green, legislative liaison for the Division of Watercraft. "They aren’t entitlements."
The city’s boating rules are in line with state law on everything but the length and types of boats.
Columbus’ rules, especially those banning Jet Skis, Alvey said, "specifically discriminate against a class of vessel."
But the state has not protested similar rules elsewhere.
Two other Ohio lakes restrict the size of boats — Lake LaComte Reservoir in Hancock County and Salisbury Park Lake in Hardin County.
In 2000, watercraft officials approved rules banning personal watercraft and tubing at Springfield Lake in Summit County. They also OK’d limits on boat sizes there.
Watercraft officials said they were unaware of those restrictions and plan to rescind them next year.
This year, the state gave the Springfield Township trustees $1,750 to buy two buoys to mark a no-wake zone and a shallow area.
Yet, the state denied the Columbus Recreation and Parks Department’s requests for 13 new buoys — five that would have alerted boaters to the dangerous dams at Griggs and O’Shaughnessy on the Scioto River.
"If it was such a life-and-death matter, why are they depending on the state?" state spokeswoman Jane Beathard said.
Alvey, unaware of the need for markers to warn boaters on the Scioto River, said the decision to blacklist Columbus was made in a vacuum.
"If there’s a serious navigational hazard, we’ll make it right," he said.
Columbus officials point to the state’s database of boating accidents as proof that bigger and faster boats don’t belong on their waterways.
Since 1998, nine accidents have been reported at Griggs, Hoover and O’Shaughnessy. No one has been injured since 1999 when one man drowned and another was injured at Griggs.
But at Alum Creek, which allows all sizes and types of boats, two people have died and 41 have been injured in that time.
"If people at Alum Creek are complaining about boats up there, imagine what it would be like in 550-foot-wide Griggs," Gordon said. "They’re just trying to alleviate some of the mess at Alum Creek."
Columbus officials are especially concerned about personal watercraft. They account for 10 percent of all registered boats in Ohio but were involved in nearly 26 percent of accidents between 1998 and 2002, state boating-accident reports show.
"There may be safety issues," said Green, the Watercraft Division legislative liaison, "but they’re not documented."
Gordon said the city’s goal is to protect boaters and safeguard its drinkingwater supply from contamination.
Nine-mile-long Griggs Reservoir has earned an international reputation as an excellent place to row because of its gentle current, north-south alignment and deep water, said Miles C. Durfey, a long-time rower and member of the Greater Columbus Rowing Association.
He and others who flock to Griggs worry that they’ll be run off by powerboats.
But watercraft officials say it’s their job to make sure every type of boater has easy access to water near home.
Across Ohio, "70 percent of boaters say they can only boat on 30 percent of the waterways because of all the restrictions," Alvey said. "A lot of people feel they’re being pushed . . . to buy several different boats."
And more people own boats in Franklin County than anywhere else in the state. "We’re trying to make a better boating experience for everyone," he said.
jriepenhoff@dispatch.com

 

Sounds like the state thinks it can pull an "end run" on Columbus without first having all their ducks in a row, i.e. Springfield Lake in Summit County.

 

My concern with this is the personal watercraft. I can't imagine jetskiers on Griggs or Oshay.

I have to admit however that I would like to fish Hoover. As it stands now I can not use my boat there. It would have to help cut down on traffic at Alum, and maby spread some tournments out. It seems like Alum has 5 or 6 tourneys a month and maby even more than that. From just a fishing standpoint would it help or hurt?? From an accident and safety standpoint would it help or hurt?? I don't know what do you guys think.

Rusty

 

what a load of crap
what about all the other restricted lakes in the state?
the few we have,are the only places where fishermen,kayakers and such,can get a break from all the commotion of the party people,with their jetskies and city slicker yaughts.
if this bull gets approved,it's going to ruin some good water bodies.
they speak of discriminating against the others,haha.sounds like reverse discrimination to me.
since some other lakes have problems,lets open some more,so we can create more problems,and everyone can share in the "fun" makes sense to me
seems to me if the state would put more effort into patroling and enforcement,they could alleviate some of the problems that exist,rather than create more.
now this really makes sense.

"We’re trying to make a better boating experience for everyone,"

what they're really going to accomplish is to make a worse boating experience for more people.
threatening to cut grants seems a little like dangling a carrot in front of the city,in order to get them to buckle under to what i believe will prove to be a serious blunder.
if they force it on them,the next thing will be wanting more money to fund things that will be needed to accomodate the changes.
i'd rather give that extra money to the city in order to keep things as they are.screw the state and there hairbrained,half baked ideas.

 

A lot of times I feel that getting involved in politics is futile. Let's face it, usually the power brokers with deep pockets have a firm grasp on shaping policy in almost all aspects of government control. But us common fisherman who want to keep Griggs, Oshaughnessy, and Hoover the way it is might have these people as allies. Think of it, the majority of homeowners who own property directly adjacent to these waterways surely didn't purchase their homes to have their backyards turned into another summer time circus like the one that takes place up to Alum. We as a group have to find a way to keep this issue in the forefront so these homeowners are made aware of the States plan so they can help fight the battle. Let's have input from all our members especially our central Ohio ones.

Rick

 

what a shocker! I lived by hoover for 20 years and never even thought I'd see the day that jet ski's or big power boats would drive all the fishermen away.I hate and wont even fish at alum during the weekends.no respect for people fishing.hoover can even have a bad day,but with what there about to do will kill that place for me.the sad part is its really all about the money.this totally SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Great, just freaking great.
I'm sure the homeowners along Griggs will love this.

 

Can you imagine unlimited horse power and personal watercrafts mixed in with the already existing population of sail boats on Hoover? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me (how many sail boats do you see on Alum?) This thing needs to fought. There should be enough special interests to fight it....fishermen, sail boaters, land owners etc. Now, who do we complain to?

 

i thought about the sailboat thing too.you're right.what a whacky weekend that would be.100+ sailboats trying to dodge a bunch of jetjerks and fighting the wakes of all the big boats flying around

 

Now, who do we complain to?

I already email'd a letter to the editor of the Dispatch (letters@dispatch.com) voicing my anger and concern. I intend to follow up with a letter to our state lawmakers before they have a chance to sneak something through the legislature.

 

This would be a sad day for every-one around here if they make the change . Griggs is already an accident waiting to happen with all the skiers and wake boarders . I dont understand how more people dont get hurt on both Griggs and OSR due to the debree that gets floating alot of times . Adding bigger boats and jet ski's will only help out the doctors and lawyers . As far as Hoover goes , ya I would love to fish there more offten but can you imagine the bank erosion that will take place due to larger boat wakes . The state will end up spending more $$$ on dredging after 10 years than its worth . i had thought that maybe lifting the HP limit but putting a low speed limit in place would be ok myself , but after realy thinking it through I found that it would still make things bad there . I realy hope the state looks into why the laws are in place at all three bodies of water and realizes that the rules should stay in effect .

 

this is a terrible idea.

 

Can't wait to be on Hoover with a repeat of an incedent that happened to me at Alum. Was protesting with a hand gesture to the jet boat that had just blew by me some 25yds. away (you know what that wake was like). They noticed my distress by comming back and promptly launched a beer can in my direction. The states enforcement of water regulations is a joke anyway, so let's add a few more lakes to add to their incompetency. How about add a couple more parking spaces to their offices at Alum so all their officers and cars can remain hunkered down and out of sight. I am contacting my state rep today.

 

I mentioned the problems I faced several weeks ago at Griggs. Was buzzed by wakeboarders within 15 foot of my boat. I complained that the city was not patrolling it enough, but now I see the real problem...not enough officers. Apparently, there are only three out there right now.

They say they want the same rules and opportunities for everyine statewide. Well, why do we as fishermen pay for a trailer fee, a boat license, and a fishing license? Why shouldn't pleasure boats also pay for a license to recreate? They should have to pay a fee for a ski license, in addition to their trailer plate fees and baot license. We're helping fund there recreation while their ruining ours.

Call your state rep, and complain to the ODNR. Tell your state rep you don't want to fund the ODNR until it sides equally with fisherman instead of turning every lake and reservior into a NASCAR site.

Eric

 

I can't wait until that happens, then I will not be able to fish anywhere in central Ohio on the weekends. How could such a bad decision be made against the interests of so many people. Alum is a nightmare now, and I never see enforcement of any boating laws there. I can only imagine what would happen if they open Hoover up and have nobody patrolling the waters. The fishing would be destroyed and the lake would become an instant circus, but other than that its a great idea.

 

Asking this may make me sound like a complete idiot but what are the names of the people that we should contact? I live in the Canal Winchester/Groveport/Pickerington area. Thanks guys.


fishintiger

 

i just shot a letter to the editor,and before the day is done,the odnr and possibly a couple others will hear from me.
as much as some of the sailboaters bug me on occasion,they are far and away,much more fisherman frienly than most fun boaters and jetjerks.
hell,i even helped rescue a couple whose sailboat capsized at hoover a few weeks ago,and helped them get their sailboat back to the dock.don't know that i'd be so helpful to an idiot that just buzzed me on a jetski

 

I feel bad for you guys who fish these lakes, fishermen must make there voices heard.

 

Would someone mind drafting a letter, we could all sign it, and send to ODNR/Dispatch with a TON of signatures? If someone gets me a letter, I can make an online form for all of us to sign.

Just the thought of those new reg lifts has my stomach churning.

 

i've already emailed the dispatch and odnr.
i'm no letter writer,but i'll be first in line to put my john henry on anything someone comes up with.i have a couple other ideas i'm gonna look into also.
below is what i sent the dnr,with the email to the dispatch attached.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
To whom it may concern,
Below is an email i sent to the editor of the Columbus Dispatch,concerning the division's proposal to remove restrictions from Hoover,O'Shaughnessy,and Griggs reservoirs.
I find this very upsetting,as I am sure many,many others who frequent these lakes are.
I truely hope you give your plans serious consideration,as I don't know how you could make a decision like that,in good concience.
Having fished these lakes for over forty years,I believe you would be doing a great disservice not only to the people who enjoy them,but to the lakes themselves.
My concerns and thoughts are expressed in the below email,and I would very much appreciate it if someone from your division could further explain the reasons for such a drastic move.I believe fishermen and other groups should have at least a few places to escape from the overcrowded waters of lakes like Alum and Buckeye.
Please try to look at it from that perspective,and consider how much funding comes from fishermen in the way of license fees,and other areas.

respectfully,
Rick Seevers
Columbus,Ohio

To the editor,
After reading the article in today's Dispatch,about the desire of the State Watercraft Division,to eliminate restrictions on three Columbus reservoirs,I am almost at a loss for words.
It is the opinion of myself,and I am sure,many others who use these waters,that this is not a well thought out plan.
Safety 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 presently,various restrictions on many Ohio lakes.
It seems to me that they are in effect,catering to the owners of pleasure boats and pwc's,under the guise of equal access to all waters.That in effect,is discriminatory towards those who wish to have somewhere to enjoy fishing,canoeing,kayaking or sailing,without having to contend with the harrassment and hazards that could possibly be created by hundreds of high speed watercraft,which I feel are some of the reasons for the restrictions the state already has in effect.
I feel they are opening a big can of worms,with their plan,which will only create more problems than it solves.
They are no less than blackmailing the city,with their threat to withhold funds if they don't bow to their wishes.
I have frequented all of those lakes(including Alum) over the past forty plus years,and have seen some of the problems cited by the division.all of them have their own particular problems,along with good qualities.why then,compound the few problems of those lakes,in a vain effort to reduce the problems of another?
This move will only create more problems than it solves,along with more cost to the ODNR,which is operating on an already strained budget.
I am willing to do whatever I can,to prevent this terrible mistake.And I am sure there are hundreds,even thousands of others who feel the same.

Respectfully,
Rick seevers
Columbus,Ohio

 

i just shot a letter to the editor,and before the day is done,the odnr and possibly a couple others will hear from me. as much as some of the sailboaters bug me on occasion,they are far and away,much more fisherman frienly than most fun boaters and jetjerks. hell,i even helped rescue a couple whose sailboat capsized at hoover a few weeks ago,and helped them get their sailboat back to the dock.don't know that i'd be so helpful to an idiot that just buzzed me on a jetski

As I was reading that Dispatch article over my morning cup of java, the first image that shot through my head was that of a 30ft cabin cruiser attempting to launch at the Baldridge ramp.

My second thought was being stuck in the same room as Misfit when he first heard the news.

 

We all appear to agree that this proposal is garbage, I about choked on my coffee this morning as I read the article!

The real question is how do we best leverage the fishing community - an on-line collection of signatures is good. Although, the validity of the numbers may be questioned, since there's not really anything auditable.

Some more ideas...

1. How about a form letter that people can cut/paste/printed along with the appropriate contacts of where it can be sent.
a. (In OPPOSITION) to the ODNR - anybody know director's name?
b. (In SUPPORT) of City of Cols position - again to whom? The MAYOR??
c. List of State reps by Central Oh area
FLOOD THEIR MAILBOXES BOYS!!! it only costs 37 CENTS

2. Protest petition with fisherman's/landowners signatures
a. Posted/promoted in bait shops?
b. Griggs/Hoover community groups?
Most of housing along West side of Griggs is big buck$! Not as familiar w/ Hoover, is there a neighborhood organization?

No doubt there may be an organized effort to support the proposal as well. From the "personal pleasure craft" vendors as an example... Jetski clubs or whatever!

We need to help the City to win this one!

 

You just put a thought in my head there...I live basically on Griggs. I'll put together a copy of the dogpatch article along with a statement to the homeowners with an address to right in to, and will post to every mailbox that is directly on the river that I can get to between Hayden run and Fishinger over the weekend.

Most of the homes along the river are in the 7-figure range, I'm sure their voices will carry a bit of weight.

 

lol terry,wouldn't that be a sight to see

a 30ft cabin cruiser attempting to launch at the Baldridge ramp

My second thought was being stuck in the same room as Misfit when he first heard the news.

yeah,there was a whole lot of#$%&^**&^^$%%^&&$##%&*%^%#$%&*(^
if i was catholic,i'd be spending a week in confessional trying to make up for that