# Flood Control?



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

Is anybody else getting frustrated with this states off season boating opportunities? I have no problem with the lakes being lowered for flood control (as though we get no heavy rains in the summer). But honestly 80% of the lakes become unusable by late November. It seems that with all these boats being registered and outboards needing to be titled (Ohio being one of the few that require it, for extra tax revenue from private sales ) the state watercraft office would start improving our ramps to allow for the draw-downs. Luckily we have Alum in central Ohio. But by the end of next week the state will pretty much have closed off most lakes in eastern Ohio (Salt Fork and Clendening being the exceptions). They keep officers on duty year 'round. We need to organize and get our winter boating rights re-instated. Any thoughts?


----------



## T-180 (Oct 18, 2005)

The reservoirs in Ohio's primary purpose is stated as flood control first, with recreation & water supply secondary. Think of Buckeye closing parts of Rt 70, or both Delaware & Alum being so high they were worried about the dams giving way ; the winter draw down seems pretty vital in my opinion. Without the draw down, the choice would be to flood above the reservoirs or below & neither one is an option if it can be avoided. 
Personally, I've always been able to get a boat onto the water, but it has been tricky a few times.
T


----------



## SpecialNick (Dec 8, 2008)

Yeah, the lakes were built for floods by the army corp. not for boaters. Lake Erie never closes haha.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

T-180 said:


> The reservoirs in Ohio's primary purpose is stated as flood control first, with recreation & water supply secondary. Think of Buckeye closing parts of Rt 70, or both Delaware & Alum being so high they were worried about the dams giving way ; the winter draw down seems pretty vital in my opinion. Without the draw down, the choice would be to flood above the reservoirs or below & neither one is an option if it can be avoided.
> Personally, I've always been able to get a boat onto the water, but it has been tricky a few times.
> T


Mushijobah likes this.


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

Yeah that sucks. Low water, slimy ramps, ice buildup, no docks, etc etc. It's just not worth the effort. Time to tuck away those go fast boats till spring. 
:bananapartyhat:


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

T-180 said:


> The reservoirs in Ohio's primary purpose is stated as flood control first, with recreation & water supply secondary. Think of Buckeye closing parts of Rt 70, or both Delaware & Alum being so high they were worried about the dams giving way ; the winter draw down seems pretty vital in my opinion. Without the draw down, the choice would be to flood above the reservoirs or below & neither one is an option if it can be avoided.
> Personally, I've always been able to get a boat onto the water, but it has been tricky a few times.
> T


Read my post. I'm not against the lakes being drawn down. Even though most lakes pool of record has come during the summer months (check the Corps' web site). Thus they should be drawn down all year if they are for flood control. I'm just suggesting that the ramps should have been designed with this in mind. It's really not that hard to get your brain around if you try.


----------



## fishintechnician (Jul 20, 2007)

I agree longer ramps/improved ramps and even permanent docks would be nice. The ice and and slim though I'm no tsure there is much they can do about that though


----------



## F1504X4 (Mar 23, 2008)

I see your point in some of what you say, but one thing you have to remember. When it floods in the summer time, it goes up and drops down fairly quickly, in the winter time you run the risk of it rising then freezing and who knows how long it would take to thaw. When it comes to the ramps, most inland ramps are either State Parks or Watershed property. In order for these to get fixed the agency applies for grant money from Watercraft to repair these facilities and as with anything, there is a limited amount of money to go around so there is a waiting list for projects to be completed. Your best bet is if you have a problem with a specific ramp contact that park or facility and voice your opinions to them and get other people to do so also. I agree, most of the ramps are very hazardous during low water levels, but water levels during the winter will ALWAYS be lowered and marinas are only so deep so longer ramps may not be an option.


----------



## T-180 (Oct 18, 2005)

Muskarp, 
I've got my brain around it as you stated , but as F150 put it, summer floods receed very quickly & the soil is very solid & dry. Also, do you know how far the ramps extend in most of the central Ohio reservoirs ?? I've seen them at their lowest, talked to the Army corp, rangers at the parks , & frankly your rant is unfounded. Of course it makes boating more dangerous but that's just the way it is. I'd love to see some form of dock left in somewhere, but that is not going to happen due to damage from ice.

Here is something from the Alum Creek website , you can go to others & get the same:
"Alum Creek Dam is part of the flood control plan for the Ohio River Basin &#8226; The lake was authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1962 &#8226; Construction began in August of 1970 and was completed in 1974."


----------



## PromiseKeeper (Apr 14, 2004)

It might be helpful to talk to the marina folks too. I can remember a conversation I had with the guy who runs Atwood several years ago. He tipped me off to the fact that the marina ramp is much longer to accommodate the sail boats and can be safely used all winter. I'm not sure a ranger would know that, it came from his years of being there.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

T-180 said:


> Muskarp,
> I've got my brain around it as you stated , but as F150 put it, summer floods receed very quickly & the soil is very solid & dry. Also, do you know how far the ramps extend in most of the central Ohio reservoirs ?? I've seen them at their lowest, talked to the Army corp, rangers at the parks , & frankly your rant is unfounded. Of course it makes boating more dangerous but that's just the way it is. I'd love to see some form of dock left in somewhere, but that is not going to happen due to damage from ice.
> 
> Here is something from the Alum Creek website , you can go to others & get the same:
> "Alum Creek Dam is part of the flood control plan for the Ohio River Basin  The lake was authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1962  Construction began in August of 1970 and was completed in 1974."


Once again we know Alum has long ramps. You keep reading what you want and not what is written. And I'm not questioning flood control. You seem very concerned with that, and quite frankly unable to get off it. If you are soo concerned with flood control than it would seem that dams that are on much larger drainages would be lowered respectively. Thus dams like O'shaunessy and Griggs should be pretty much empty in the winter to accommodate the quantity that flows through them during high flow events. Right? Well there not, so that theory can be thrown out! And you referred to Buckeye. Well that is not even a flood control reservoir.

Now back to the original post. If our Watercarft office has the money to keep Watercraft Officers driving around in SUV's all winter long enforcing laws on lakes most can't use (for the third time, with the EXCEPTION of Alums long ramps). Why can't money be spent more wisely on ramp improvements. 
One perfect example of this is the new ramp that was put in on Clendening a few years back. What a waste. It's barely deep enough in the summer and completely unusable midway through draw-down. Giving Clendening one unusable ramp and two ramps that were already usable after draw down, while Piedmont is left with two unusable ramps after draw-down. Our Watercraft dollars hard at work. Exactly!!!


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

I can see your point with the longer ramps. It would certainly make sense on lakes that draw down early. I don't know what the cost factors are in doing this but it sounds good. And as Muskarp said he is not suggesting that they change any of their drawdown strategy, just the ramps so that they are usable for more of the season.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Muskarp said:


> Once again we know Alum has long ramps. You keep reading what you want and not what is written. And I'm not questioning flood control. You seem very concerned with that, and quite frankly unable to get off it. If you are soo concerned with flood control than it would seem that dams that are on much larger drainages would be lowered respectively. Thus dams like O'shaunessy and Griggs should be pretty much empty in the winter to accommodate the quantity that flows through them during high flow events. Right? Well there not, so that theory can be thrown out! And you referred to Buckeye. Well that is not even a flood control reservoir.


1. Griggs and O'Shaughnessy are not, and never will be flood control reservoirs.
2. It's capacity, stupid. Ok, I'm not calling you stupid, just a saying...anyways. If in theory there were large scale gates to control flood waters on Griggs/Oshay, you would see little benefit in having an empty lake in case of a flood. Their total capacities are dwarfed by those of Alum and Delaware, although the streams are smaller. When the rivers are raging here in Central Ohio, the additional water that would be coming down Alum and the Olentangy would = Disaster once they hit the torrent of the Scioto. You would be surprised how much water these streams are capable of delivering. I know it's off topic, but I thought I might share that tidbit of information with ya .
3. Not all ramps can be designed as long as you would like them. The state can afford what they can afford. Watercraft Officers are a requirement for your safety, and the safety of others. As you probably already know, it is probably impossible to find a government agency out there that can get things done as quickly as you would like them to. What do you suggest? A comprehensive study of ramp usage in the winter time to justify the cost of a few fishermen putzing around the lake in December? It would be nice, but I don't see it happening.
4. Winter boating is not a 'right'


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

Mushijobah said:


> 1. Griggs and O'Shaughnessy are not, and never will be flood control reservoirs. Then why when it was stated by T-180 that the primary purpose of reservoirs in Ohio is for flood control you agreed?
> 2. It's capacity, stupid. Where do you see any suggestion of "capacity" Ok, I'm not calling you stupid, just a saying...anyways. If in theory there were large scale gates to control flood waters on Griggs/Oshay, you would see little benefit in having an empty lake in case of a flood. So in your mind helping control the main source of flow is not as imprtant as controlling secondary sources? Any additional control would be beneficial. So you should certainly apply your first line comment here back towrd yourself!Their total capacities are dwarfed by those of Alum and Delaware, although the streams are smaller. When the rivers are raging here in Central Ohio, the additional water that would be coming down Alum and the Olentangy would = Disaster once they hit the torrent of the Scioto. You would be surprised how much water these streams are capable of delivering. I know it's off topic, but I thought I might share that tidbit of information with ya .
> 3. Not all ramps can be designed as long as you would like them. That's why they should be placed in appropriate sites. Everything that gets built in this state has an impact study, lets use them to benefit the project not waste money!The state can afford what they can afford. And thus should use the money wisely!Watercraft Officers are a requirement for your safety, and the safety of others. As you probably already know, it is probably impossible to find a government agency out there that can get things done as quickly as you would like them to. What do you suggest? A comprehensive study of ramp usage in the winter time to justify the cost of a few fishermen putzing around the lake in December? Now your just being a smart a$$. I already explained an obvious example of waste (see #11) There is no study needed, just more accountability for current projects. It would be nice, but I don't see it happening.
> 4. Winter boating is not a 'right'No, but we do pay for it, as do waterfowl hunters


From your posts I can tell you are a 'wantabe state employee', Right? You have that same circular logic that runs all governmant.


----------



## symba (May 23, 2008)

I knew this thread would be very productive.... 


Perhaps you should bring this matter to the attention of state employees at their next meeting. Might be a little more "pro-active" than complaining on a fishing website. Just a thought...


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

symba said:


> I knew this thread would be very productive....
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should bring this matter to the attention of state employees at their next meeting. Might be a little more "pro-active" than complaining on a fishing website. Just a thought...


But you thought you'd add some input anyway!

How is inquiring how other users of a product feel about it's performance not "pro-active". Is it not wise to see if others feel there could be improvement before rushing off to face an immovable object by one's self?


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

I'm actually the mayor of New Rome . Yes, I'm a smartass. I enjoy it. Hopefully you do too...after all, this _is_ The OGF. Alls I'm saying is...when looking at the issue from the other side, there are a lot of technical and insider information that prevents the state from building your new ramps. IMO, we should be doing more research on the Muskie x Carp hybrid that you seem to have insider information about.


----------



## T-180 (Oct 18, 2005)

CLendening & all those other lakes "over there"are MWCD lakes , not state, so the argument with the state needs diverted to them. I willl stay out of the argument on those as I don't fish them often in the fall/winter & have not researched the launch facilities. I just used Alum to demonstrate the flood control concept because I have that shortcut on my 'puter & I'm lazy !!
What size boat are you launching if 80% of the lakes are unusable ?? My 19' glass walleye boat has been on many of the lakes well into December, but like I said, it can get interesting.
I agree with you Muskarp though on what watercraft officers do in the off season to earn their feed and I do think that there is room for improvement. Unfortunately, as someone else mentioned, funding gets in the way.
T


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

Mushijobah said:


> I'm actually the mayor of New Rome . Yes, I'm a smartass. I enjoy it. Hopefully you do too...after all, this _is_ The OGF. Alls I'm saying is...when looking at the issue from the other side, there are a lot of technical and insider information that prevents the state from building your new ramps. IMO, we should be doing more research on the Muskie x Carp hybrid that you seem to have insider information about.


I always wondered what happened to him. Glad to see your OK. How's your Chief of Police Brother-in-law? 
I'm not ready to let the cat out of the bag on my hybrid yet. But trust me it'll be sweet!


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

T-180 said:


> CLendening & all those other lakes "over there"are MWCD lakes , not state, so the argument with the state needs diverted to them. Actually I think Watercraft does take care of the boating aspect and funds most of the ramp work. I willl stay out of the argument on those as I don't fish them often in the fall/winter & have not researched the launch facilities. I just used Alum to demonstrate the flood control concept because I have that shortcut on my 'puter & I'm lazy !!
> What size boat are you launching if 80% of the lakes are unusable ?? My 19' glass walleye boat has been on many of the lakes well into December, but like I said, it can get interesting. It's an aluminum deep-V. The boats not the problem though. Most of the ramps will have no water in front of them. That last ramp they added at Clendening really irks me. They already had two deep ramps that are usable and they waste money adding one that isn't. While Piedmont suffers with none.
> I agree with you Muskarp though on what watercraft officers do in the off season to earn their feed and I do think that there is room for improvement. Unfortunately, as someone else mentioned, funding gets in the way.
> T


Oh well, just wanted to see how others felt. Should have titled the thread a little different. Something like "Anybody have any extra concrete they can spare?.


----------



## F1504X4 (Mar 23, 2008)

I have an idea of what they can do in the winter:

Lay them off and pay them all unemployment to sit at home and go hunting everyday instead of :

1: Maintaining vehicles and boats to ensure safety
2: Working boat/sport shows to answer all these questions
3: Teaching mandatory boating classes so everybody knows the laws
4: Meeting with S.O's, P.D.'s, courts or other constituents
5: Getting mandatory training done in the winter instead of summer

Not to mention when the diehard fisherman goes out in December-March un prepared and the boat stops running and needs towed in, or worse yet capsizes and who gets called? 95% of sheriffs depts don't have boats to come get you! AAA won't come get you! I guess you'll have to wait until march when those laid off WC officers all get back to work to come get you!

Let me digress, I would like to see our WC officers out in the fields during the hunting seasons, after all, most boaters are also hunters and this way they would get the benefit year round. Thats my opinion!


----------



## andesangler (Feb 21, 2009)

If you do have some extra concrete, send it up this way! 

The "ramp" at Mt. Gilead State Park (ok, not exactly a destination spot, but still, come on ODNR!):


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

F1504X4 said:


> I have an idea of what they can do in the winter:
> 
> Lay them off and pay them all unemployment to sit at home and go hunting everyday instead of :
> 
> ...


Easy now. This thread isn't about bashing the watercraft officers. We all appreciate their work. However your post makes me wonder about something. 
With the poorly designed unusable ramps we have on most reservoirs. The inability to launch a trailered boat forces hunters and anglers to use smaller crafts that would be more prone to capsize from overloading. And with the ramps unusable, how is watercraft going to launch their boat to rescue anybody? By the way most watercraft officers I see aren't pulling boats behind their trucks. So their either going to have to call the sheriffs dept. or drive back to the office and get one. Just a thought.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

andesangler said:


> If you do have some extra concrete, send it up this way!
> 
> The "ramp" at Mt. Gilead State Park (ok, not exactly a destination spot, but still, come on ODNR!):


WOW! Is that really a launch ramp? Or maybe just an old roadbed?


----------



## andesangler (Feb 21, 2009)

Yep, it's what's left of a ramp. I even double-checked the map posted at the campground office to be sure, because I didn't recognize it as such the first time I went down to the lake. All the official stuff calls it a boat ramp (check the web site!). It is, after all, an inclined plane leading from the parking lot (or close to it) down to the water (or close to it). There's even the remnants of another slab several inches below the water line. I asked a local guy I know, and he laughed and said it's been like that for a long time. I got the impression that this place is kind of like a rejected step child--the state even tried to sell it to the village several years ago. It's run by folks from Alum, in their spare time.

All that to say this: yeah, a lot of places need ramp work. But--sigh--a lot of places need a lot of things, and they all take money and planning (which takes more money and planning (which takes more money...))))))) 

Fortunately, I don't have a big boat.

andesangler


----------



## F1504X4 (Mar 23, 2008)

I am in NO way wanting to bash WC Officers. I guess this whole subject is like beating a dead horse. Lets get back to the main topic! Like what was said before, it all takes money and time. The state can't just call the concrete company and say, "Hey, We need 12 yrds of concrete dumped here for a ramp" and 2 days later done. When they want to put in a ramp or replace one:

1-It has to be brought to their attention, 
2-Then it gets put on a list of proposed projects, 
3-Then all the environmental studies have to be done-we know how long 
that can take
4-Then engineers have to draft up the project-we know how long that takes 
5-Then the project goes out to bids- probably minimum of 3 = more time
6-Then they have to wait until the "off" season to begin work which we know in Ohio there is a short window of decent construction weather in the winter.

Anyways, you get my point........If there is a local ramp or project that needs to be looked at, contact the local MWCD, State Park, or WC office and talk to them about getting it repaired. Don't expect it to be top priority but I am sure if it is a reasonable issue it will be looked into. 

For example: Look at Delaware State Park- That Marina has been is disrepair for at least 15 -20years, junk docks, HORRIBLE ramp and so on. It is in the construction process as we speak. It will have all new docks, walkways, ramp, restroom, and just a better facility over all. It better have a courtesy dock also! Anyways, my point is just bring it to their attention and see what happens. It doesn't do any good to get on here a gripe if your not going to follow through to the people who count.

Remember: All these projects get done with money that comes from boat registrations and so on, so to keep those costs down they have to spread the projects out over time! OK, I'm off my soap box! LOL


----------



## FISHERBALL (Apr 7, 2004)

Couple of points

The short ramp at Clendening may not help in drawn down winter but on a busy summer day that extra ramp can't hurt. There may actually be a plan to some day make it a longer ramp that couldn't be afforded now. It's much cheaper to lengthen an existing ramp than make a new one. ODNR & Army Corps of Eng. have to look at long term planning, spanning years & years, to get things done.

If the ramps were twice as nice there would be 1/2 as many of them.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

FISHERBALL said:


> Couple of points
> 
> The short ramp at Clendening may not help in drawn down winter but on a busy summer day that extra ramp can't hurt. There may actually be a plan to some day make it a longer ramp that couldn't be afforded now. The lakes too shallow there its already at the bottom of the lake. It was a pore site. Bottom line!It's much cheaper to lengthen an existing ramp than make a new one. ODNR & Army Corps of Eng. have to look at long term planning, spanning years & years, to get things done. Excuses, excuses, excuses. The point of this thead is that we pay year round taxes, year round registration, year round titling, year round enforcement. Shouldn't we have year round ability to use.
> On a side note. I was at Alum this week. Seems now in the states endless quest to drive outdoorsman away, they've decided to turn all the lights at the ramps out. While they keep the lights at the sailing club, campground and marina (and the festivus lights) running. My income tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, sin tax, vehicle licensing/registration and titling, hunting and finshing license dollars hard at work. Paying for a park officer to be on duty all day every day, but no lights for my safe unloading, loading and tie-down.
> ...


----------



## F1504X4 (Mar 23, 2008)

As far as State Parks go, they are broke! Your very lucky they don't just shut the gates and lock them all down until April. If they are shutting off lights then they are saving money. When it comes to the light show at the Marina I have my own opinion about that but I don't think they are drawing power from the park. They usually have a couple of VERY LARGE generators running most if not all the lights. 

It sounds to me that you just don't have anything good to say about the State or DNR at all. Everything you have said has been negative. If you have noticed your costs, camping fees, hunting lics., boat regs., have not increased very much if at all in the last few years. As you know the cost of energy(electric, gas) has increased 3 fold of what it was 5 years ago. The state is still operating by those numbers to avoid raising all the other fees. Ohio has some of the cheapest DNR fees around, we are one of few states that don't have pay-to-use fees for State Parks. I as well as most people would be more than willing to pay a fee to use them as long as the money stayed within parks but until there are changes within DNR you will never see it! 

When it comes to boating or fishing in the winter you'll just have to adapt, There are other lakes that have plenty of water if you want to launch a boat.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

I agree with this guy.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

If they're broke then why are they paying a ranger to ride around in a car all day? Two days of pay for him would equal the lights running at night for the month. (AEP, the supplier of electric has barely raised rates over the last ten years). So if thats the case it would be safer to run the lights and allow the Delaware County Sheriff to patrol, rather than one ranger running back and forth from Alum, Delaware and Mt. Gilead.

Mushi? Still tied up in government waste!


----------



## riverKing (Jan 26, 2007)

I love it when the lakes are down
I can carry a canoe out, and actually fish without someone wizzing by me in some redicualous compensator boat that is made for places alot bigger than 2,000 acres....
I am curious, what was the point of this, as I am not a boater, convince me why I should be concerned with this. Maybe if you can do this that same argument my pursuade people with the power to make nicer ramps. Perhaps then the thread itself would be more productive.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

If your not a boater why are you adding to the thread.
BTW 2000 acre lakes are a bit large to fish with a canoe. Maybe you should buy a trailered boat if you wish to fish lakes that large. 
Sounds like you've got ulterior motives because your jealous of boaters and can have the lake to yourself and your canoe.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

LE cannot just decide to stop covering. Sheriff is County, and they do not have enough resources to patrol such a huge swath of STATE or FEDERALLY owned property. They will help when they can, but that's not all the time. Unfortunately for you, the protection people's safety and protecting other assets of the parks are just more important than your attempts to get out of the house in December. Sorry brah.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

seems like some people understand the purposes(s)of flood control lakes,and some don't.i also know there are some ramps around the state that are in disrepair.but to expect ramps to be designed to be used year round is a bit silly.very few people are going to drag their boats out in the dead of winter,or even be able to due to ice.i don't see a reason to spend all that money to pacify a few people,given the main objective of those(flood control) reservoirs.i also see some misconceptions of who actually controls or owns what.those reservoirs/dams are not owned by the feds at all.they are state owned,and the dams were merely built and are operated by the feds as part of a much bigger program.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

riverKing said:


> I love it when the lakes are down
> I can carry a canoe out, and actually fish without someone wizzing by me in some redicualous compensator boat that is made for places alot bigger than 2,000 acres....
> I am curious, what was the point of this, as I am not a boater, convince me why I should be concerned with this. Maybe if you can do this that same argument my pursuade people with the power to make nicer ramps. Perhaps then the thread itself would be more productive.


prob should just stick to small lakes because my "ridicualous compensator boat" will still be on the water after drawdown blowing your "ridicualous minimalist boat" on its side. by the way its ridiculous


----------



## F1504X4 (Mar 23, 2008)

Thanks Misfit and Mushi, maybe this thread is done!


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

misfit said:


> seems like some people understand the purposes(s)of flood control lakes,and some don't.i also know there are some ramps around the state that are in disrepair.but to expect ramps to be designed to be used year round is a bit silly.very few people are going to drag their boats out in the dead of winter,or even be able to due to ice.i don't see a reason to spend all that money to pacify a few people,given the main objective of those(flood control) reservoirs.i also see some misconceptions of who actually controls or owns what.those reservoirs/dams are not owned by the feds at all.they are state owned,and the dams were merely built and are operated by the feds as part of a much bigger program.


Easy chief! PACIFY Waterfowl hunters do not count? Nearly all ramps I've seen around the country allow for drawdown. Maybe you should travel to a state that hasn't grown anti-sportsman. Try any state along the Mississippi or Central Flyway.


Why is it silly to think ramps should be designed with drawdown in account. They get drawn down every year. Is that really thinking that far outside the box. You guys are unreal!


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

F1504X4 said:


> Thanks Misfit and Mushi, maybe this thread is done!


Three small minds that think it's time to hybernate in November! This is exactly the reason Ohio sucks for winter activity compared to other states. We have a bunch of possums that hide from the cold and continually make excuses for everything.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> Easy chief! PACIFY Waterfowl hunters do not count?


didn't intend to ruffle any feathers(pun intended).
nothing against duck hunters,but what percentage are they of the total number of boaters and fishermen who use the ramps?very small.
i'm not saying there's no room for improvement of ramps,cause i've seen my share of lousy ones throughout the state.but launching is still possible at many lakes.as the saying go.........ya can't please everyone all the time.
and though i may be a possum now,it's not by choice,and i used to spend plenty of time outdoors all year round.


----------



## riverKing (Jan 26, 2007)

lack of ramps isnt going to slow any of the serious duck hunters I know..in fact it probably makes the lake more attractive to them, no weekend warriors

but I guess we all just hybernate, its the winter [email protected]


----------



## Randy C (Sep 7, 2005)

I've read most of this post and I'm still lost...no one has made any suggestions. Per ODNR you can raise money for a specific project like ramps. The horse folks do this all the time to get nice restrooms on their horse trails that are well off the beaten path so most folks don't use them.
All that have complained about the ramps not being useable should visit Huntingtons web page (http://www.lrh-wc.usace.army.mil/) and you will see that even with Alum Creek being down 7' below winter pool the ramps are still open. Yes they are difficult to use but they are not unusable.
Maybe you all can get with ODNR and come up with a plan and budget then hold tournaments to raise money for the repairs you wish for!

Just my thoughts.


----------

