close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

preserve our lakes must read

Discussion in 'Central Ohio Fishing Reports' started by misfit, Aug 1, 2004.

  1. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    as some of you are aware,the division of watercraft has plans in the works(with backing from some special interest groups),to lift hp and other restrictions from hoover,griggs and o'shaughnessy reservoirs.these lakes are owned by the city of columbus,which does not want this,and is fighting the move.i am involved in the movement to help columbus stop this mistake from happening,and your help is needed.
    the state claims that the move is needed to improve safety at alum creek,and give ALL users(jetskis,lager boats/motors)equal access to all waters.
    this will only serve to create more safety and environmental issues for three more lakes,along with added expenses for other things.
    we,as fishermen,are not being considered in this matter,and will lose the only 10 hp lake in central ohio(hoover)which is our only escape from the crowds of pleasure craft that frequent alum creek,creek,buckeye and other lakes that were built and are maintained for their use.
    this will be a tough fight against some big interests,so we need all the help we can muster,if we're to protect our own interests.
    the same kind of thing is being attempted in other parts of the state,so this really concerns all of us,so please take a minute to help preserve our waters for their intended purpose,and click on the below link,and type the word ADD in the subject field of the email.
    thanks in advance for your support.
    jhoran@fishandtales.net

    ps...........no need to enter a message,just the "ADD" in subject field and send.



    NOTE TO MODS.............i have also posted this in the lounge.could you please make it a sticky post in order to keep it in the forefront of both forums?this issue will most likely be coming up for vote,shortly after the elections.
    thank you
     
  2. BIGDAWG

    BIGDAWG Team Bass Xtreme

    271
    0
    721
    Thanks Misfit....I'm in.....BD
     

  3. Reel Lady

    Reel Lady Dreams DO come true!

    Do you know of other lakes in Ohio that will be affected by this? If not, could you point me in the direction where I could find this information?

    Thanks,
    Reel Lady (Marcia)
     
  4. Reel Man

    Reel Man Member

    806
    0
    721
    Misfit- I see what you are saying and can agree with most of it. It sounds like the DOV is trying to turn these lakes into recreational lakes as well as fishing. Personally I am in favor of lifting HP limitations but at the same time enforcing speed limits. Clearfork Res. in Richland County is an example of a lake that does this. Unlimited horse power with a strictly enforced 10mph speed limit. This allows everyone on the lake with their boats regardless of HP but of course its fishing only.
     
  5. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    reel man,i don't think the odnr has any intention of placing mph limits on these lakes.they want to open them to all types of recration.hoover is the only one that is basically a fishing(and sailboating) lake,with a 10 hp limit(the only one in the central ohio area),which will make it the most affected.therefore,if the state gets their way,it will go the same route as the other multi-purpose lakes,and the fishermen will be the bbig losers.the others are not 10 hp lakes,and are more open to other activities,but have other restrictions set (to my knowledge)by the city,because they are city property.
    mph rules,in my opinion,will not work due to lack of available enforcement,which is also funded by the city.to change things would in the end,result in not only creating more safety and environmental problems,but also the costs involved in policing the waters involved.
    i might be more receptive to a mph limit as an alterative if i thought it feasible,but again,the problem lies in lack of enforcement resources.
     
  6. Reelman,

    Though I would love to fish Hoover, and see the horsepower rating changes at O'Shay, I doubt the ODNR has the ability to enforce MPH limits at these new waters. Moreover, it is not in their plan to post MPH limits on these lakes in the first place. I will just take the loss and leave Hoover to the 10 hp boats, and then follow the regulations at O'Shay and Griggs. I live a mile from Griggs and will not, under any circumstance fish it on a sunny weekend day because of the pleasure craft which do not follow the rules or have an ounce of consideration for those around them.

    And though I respect your opinion, the ODNR does not enforce the MPH limit at Clear Fork (the city patrols the water), more less do they enforce any laws on the water strictly. We've all been to Alum Creek. It's only getting worse. They should clean up the mess they started there before dumping their problem elsewhere. It's like building a third garage to put more boxes in. Another example that the ODNR cannot or will not be the lead in these policies, except implementing them. More state hot air!

    And I'll say it again. We, the fishermen of this state, pay more fees to fish than pleasure boaters pay to ski or wake board, or plain out just harass us fishermen.

    Eric
     
  7. Rick is right. When OH & PA announced the end of the 10hp limit on Pymatuning Lake (Ashtabula County) each state at least had the decency to hold town hall meetings to gather input from the public. This resulted in a modest increase to 20hp. I don't see any indication of that happening here (yet). Hopefully a big push from people like us will at least force them to meet with us in person to address the subject. Keep up the good fight Rick!
     
  8. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    this issue will most likely come up for vote(by the city) within the next few months.i believe(or at least hope)they will hold open meeting,as tery mention was done on pymatuning.
    jim horan,whose email is posted for replies,even though he has a busy schedule,has made it his #1 priority,and is working very hard with lots of people(city,local groups,lobbyists,etc.)every day,and i'm keeping in contact with him on a regular basis.he does a lot of good volunteer work,especially in the fishing community.he's working for US,and
    i know he appreciates any and all support/help in his efforts.it's guys like him,who can make a difference,and i tip my hat to him.
    so just a remider to those who may not have done so,yet.click on that link and show your support.
     
  9. I personally do not fish Hoover but I am with you on leaving HP at 10 Dave
     
  10. gonefishin'

    gonefishin' Lifestyle Farmer

    579
    0
    721
    One tack might be to write the politicians and complain to them. The Gov., mayor, state reps and senators. They want your vote.

    What would happen if NO ONE bought a fishing or hunting or boat license? What if we stopped buying boats, fishing and hunting gear? Think about it. It would be pandelirium.

    I stopped going to Alum years ago cause I fear for my life there. Not to mention the hassle at the ramps.

    Maybe it's time we all got more involved.
     
  11. Reaction varies on plan to lift reservoir horsepower limits

    Sunday, August 01, 2004
    Dave Golowenski
    FOR THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH


    Word about the powerboating future the state has in mind for Hoover, Griggs and O’Shaughnessy reservoirs has stirred up more than a few ripples.

    A report in Friday’s Dispatch that the Ohio Department of Natural Resources wants the city of Columbus to lift the 10-horsepower restrictions at the three reservoirs that supply the municipality’s drinking water was welcomed by some fishermen but not by others.

    "I am totally opposed to the idea," said Wayne Gray, 65, a Westerville resident and a regular angler at Hoover. "There are few enough peaceful places to enjoy some water time without reducing them even further."

    An official from a group representing many Columbusarea tournament anglers, however, sent a news release to members supporting the state’s efforts.

    The issue is access, said Steve Kirby, a Columbus resident and a retired city police officer who is director of the Central Ohio Tournament Anglers Association.

    "While not all anglers will support this change," he wrote, "those who don’t will find themselves in the minority as the vast majority of anglers and boating enthusiasts, especially the organizational groups, will undoubtedly applaud the actions of the division."

    Jim Horan, who operates a Web site known as the Hoover Fishing Report, said he had received scores of e-mails by late Friday morning. Many of the e-mails, he said, came from pontoon boat owners expressing opposition to the prospect of being forced to share the reservoir with large, powerful craft and with personal watercraft.

    Members of the boat club based at Hoover to which he belongs also were talking about organizing in opposition to the state’s plan, Horan said.
     
  12. crankus_maximus

    crankus_maximus Crankus Baitus Maximus

    While Hoover would have the greates impact, Griggs and O'Shay would have thier fare share of changes. All for the worse. As much as I hate to admit it the skiers on Griggs will be affected by the proposed change, as well. We might as well get them involved. Can you imagine what Griggs and O'Shay would be like with cabin cruisers and cigarette boats or jet skis on them? I would never be able to fish any of those lakes. Right now I can at least feel comfortable on any of the 3 in my 14 ft 9.9hp boat (which is all I can afford). I don't dream of going to Alum from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

    The problem starts at the top fellas (and ladies). Taft. He took more money away from the ODNR and increased the fees for vehicle registration and hunting and fishing licenses and then did not increase the financial output to improve the facilities or increase staffing for the ODNR. He took money out of our pockets to help pay a budget deficit, cut funding to the ODNR and then pulled that stunt. GET HIM OUT.

    That being said, I strongly support any movement to keep Hoover HP restricted and Griggs and O'SHay the way they are. Who do I have to write to to be heard?
     
  13. crankus_maximus

    crankus_maximus Crankus Baitus Maximus

    Well said Net. I believe Mr. Kirby is wrong about his minority statement.
     
  14. misfit

    misfit MOD SQUAD

    crakus.just go to the first post in this thread and it'll tell you how to get your voice heard.thanks for the support.


    and terry,you're right.though i (and others)rarely fish alum or some other lakes,there are many of us who would jump on the wagon to help protect the interests of those who do fish them.
    and i'm in agreement with this
    although not all "individuals" in those groups feel that way,and are on our side,which is much appreciated.i'm sure there are several on this site alone.those are the ones who realize the negative impact such changes will have
     
  15. Kirby's response is why I do not fish any of his tournaments. All he wants to do is open up Hoover so he can sold some of his tourneys there. Just my 2 cents
     
  16. irishfisherman

    irishfisherman Da' Irish Guy

    170
    0
    671
    Not quite sure exactly what the discussion is all about, but i think it involves hp limits on Central OH lakes? Anyway I dont think the pleasure boaters/skiers have any vested interest in the condition of the lake shores they are using never mind the other users on the lake, its not just about fisherman rights, (regardless that we do pay the majority of money through licences etc.) but its ultimatley going to affect the wildlife in and around the lake too, if the shores become so erodded from wake, i think everyone who uses a boat needs to be aware of the damage the wake is doing, and be considerate of people who are using the water for other reasons than zooming by at 30-40knots