# Hoover RSVR. Let's work to change the ordnance



## geoani (Oct 5, 2014)

Hoover Reservoir has an unnecessary and redundant restriction regarding the 10HP motor limit. Let's work to change it! Other language in the ordnance adequately restricts speed limits to 10MPH and to idle speed within 100 ft of shore. These restrictions alone are enough to accomplish the intent of reducing wakes and eliminating high speed boating. The 10HP limit is unnecessary and disenfranchises many Ohio fishermen from enjoying Hoover Reservoir.

Send an e-mail to the mayors office urging him to change the ordnance to allow fishing boats with larger motors to use their motors, while still adhering to the 10 MPH limit.


----------



## Basshunter122 (May 6, 2013)

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you and I'm sure others on here will share the same opinion as well (and some who don't)! For myself, hoover is a blessing having a smaller aluminum boat. It allows people like myself to enjoy the lake rather than be run off it by people who don't obey the law. Let's take alum for example in the north end. People don't obey the no wake zone so what makes you think they're gonna obey a 10 mph limit. If you don't like it then go the 5 miles up the road to alum!!

P.S. Probably not the smartest thing to post as your first post. Contribute before you try to change laws


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

Really??

Again?? Read this please...then post about it if you like.

http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/showthread.php?t=86819&highlight=horsepower+restrictions


----------



## JDJUSTICE (Aug 12, 2013)

Hello all ! First poster here and I'd like say that I enjoy Hoover the way it is . I can actually take my kayak there and fish , rather than Alum that is a big wave pool.


----------



## fishintechnician (Jul 20, 2007)

I do t fish Hoover, but why not just a no wake policy for the whole lake? I know some of the upgrounds have been changed from hp limits to just a no wake policy.


----------



## homepiece (May 11, 2007)

I fish from a Kayak. I love the fact that there is a limit in place at hoover. I have had too many close calls with people to ever go back to alum between Memorial and Labor Day.


----------



## Bucks4life (Jul 30, 2014)

No offense to anyone who thinks different, but... I fish Hoover almost exclusively, and like it just the way it is.


----------



## geoani (Oct 5, 2014)

Well, not the reaction I expected but that is OK. What's not OK is telling me that I should "contribute" before trying to change the law?? What kind of tyrannical ideology is that? Maybe you should make a rule that says no law changing ideas until you have posted 9.9 times!

Enforcement is the only way to uphold any of these rules, be it the no wake zone in the north end of Alum or a 10 MPH or no wake zone at Hoover. I guess in your mind, all fisherman with boats over 9.9 HP are degenerate law breakers that can't be trusted any further than you can throw their heavy fiberglass bass boats? If only I were as virtuous as you aluminum boat owner!

I can put my boat in the water at Hoover and run my 150HP motor now. It's enforcement of the ordnance that stops me. It would be enforcement of a speed limit that stops me from going faster if the law was changed. You can buy a 700 HP corvette, but you still have to follow the 25 MPH speed limit where posted.

Big government can find a way to make criminals out of everyone.


----------



## geoani (Oct 5, 2014)

I'm not suggesting unlimited speed, just use of the motor at low speed. My boat doesn't go any faster than a 10 HP boat at idle.


----------



## kayakmac (Aug 4, 2013)

I enjoy Hoover just the way it is. Take the big boats to Erie not our public drinking water lakes. 

Hoover is so much more peaceful than Alum, I can see someone now firing up a gigantic inboard or outboard with no muffler and ruining the serenity of Hoover. I about choke just trying to launch at Alum. 

Also you would have the swimming and drinking in the coves and other craziness that would bring. The city would have to increase the enforcement budget at least threefold to keep up with violators. 

Also More boat traffic would also increase the risk of algae getting into the reservoir. 

My two cents you don't have to agree.


----------



## Bucks4life (Jul 30, 2014)

geoani said:


> Big government can find a way to make criminals out of everyone.


Let's not go this far please. Can we keep it to fishing?

As a part of "everyone" I would appreciate it.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

geoani said:


> Well, not the reaction I expected but that is OK. What's not OK is telling me that I should "contribute" before trying to change the law?? What kind of tyrannical ideology is that? Maybe you should make a rule that says no law changing ideas until you have posted 9.9 times!
> 
> Enforcement is the only way to uphold any of these rules, be it the no wake zone in the north end of Alum or a 10 MPH or no wake zone at Hoover. I guess in your mind, all fisherman with boats over 9.9 HP are degenerate law breakers that can't be trusted any further than you can throw their heavy fiberglass bass boats? If only I were as virtuous as you aluminum boat owner!
> 
> ...


Before we go any farther did you read the first post by Swollen Goat in the thread that I posted the link to? Pretty much sums it up as far as protection of water quality. And remember that the city owns Hoover (all of it) and can shut down any and all access at their discretion.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

geoani said:


> Well, not the reaction I expected but that is OK. What's not OK is telling me that I should "contribute" before trying to change the law?? What kind of tyrannical ideology is that? Maybe you should make a rule that says no law changing ideas until you have posted 9.9 times!


Maybe just say, "Hi," shake a few hands, you know, exercise some social grace before you start pissing people off.


----------



## geoani (Oct 5, 2014)

I did read that entire thread and my position still stands. The city government is not the boss that we must all bow to. They work for us, and logical, common sense ideas can be put forth to change the laws. The water quality response you speak about is the closest thing to a logical, reasoned response that I've seen, but it still has plenty of holes in it and may prove to be inaccurate under in-depth scrutiny. The responses I've seen to my post today are simply emotional, selfish and void of critical thinking.


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

streamstalker said:


> Maybe just say, "Hi," shake a few hands, you know, exercise some social grace before you start pissing people off.













Welcome to the site geoani - we try and have fun here


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

geoani said:


> I did read that entire thread and my position still stands. The city government is not the boss that we must all bow to. They work for us, and logical, common sense ideas can be put forth to change the laws. The water quality response you speak about is the closest thing to a logical, reasoned response that I've seen, but it still has plenty of holes in it and may prove to be inaccurate under in-depth scrutiny. The responses I've seen to my post today are simply emotional, selfish and void of critical thinking.


And you aren't making your argument out of self-interest? C'mon, smooth your hair back down, make friends, and enjoy the ride. Insults aren't going to win many people over to your side.

Come up with some solid points on how this has worked out on other lakes (such as Knox) and get back to us.


----------



## zack pahl (Mar 8, 2009)

Hoover is an excellent fishery BECAUSE of the HP restrictions. Not to mention the only lake within the Central Ohio area that guys with 9.9 and under can go to fish peacefully and not have to worry about massive boats clogging up the water. Is there not enough options out there already for you? C'mon man. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## geoani (Oct 5, 2014)

I had no idea I was going to receive such a negative response on Ohio Game Fishing dot com that I would have to "win" people over. It's not like I suggested this on sailboats r us dot com or paddle boats r for luvrs dot com. Unbelievable! You would think I was suggesting that we prohibit all kayaks and small aluminum boats! I'm the one suggesting a more more inclusive policy.

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."George Bernard Shaw


----------



## zack pahl (Mar 8, 2009)

You're right. You indeed had no idea that this thread would generate a negative response, because you didn't bother to search the threads and see that this was already a dead horse. My suggestion: drag your 150hp motor to a nice calm spot on the bank, have a seat on it, and enjoy the fishing.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

streamstalker said:


> And you aren't making your argument out of self-interest?


Self interest and the interest of others like me that may find it impractical or unaffordable to own a different boat to comply with each different nonsensical restriction at different public owned inland bodies of water when a simple "No Wake" rule would suffice at all of these locations. Like MANY fishermen in this state I own a couple of boats, one larger for Lake Erie and a bass boat for inland lake fishing. Because my bass boat has a 200 HP motor I'm excluded from lakes with a 10 HP limit which is moronic IMO. Now I need to buy another boat if I want to fish these lakes? I have fished no wake and low speed limit lakes here and in several other states with my bass boat and never violated the rules or saw any other bass boats violate the rules, although I'm certain it occasionally happens. In these lakes I generally spend the entire day standing on my trolling motor and seldom even fire my big motor up. But that is not good enough here because my motor sticker has too many zeros in it. Do you know what I see all the time on these lakes? I see 14' aluminum boats with small outboards running wide open throwing a classic fat wake from an unbalanced rig, but that is OK, it's just a '10' you know. The worst I ever see a big motored boat do is power load, and that is an entirely different argument. The argument against the wake restriction vs. the HP restriction is waged by those that either don't want or cant afford a higher HP boat and don't want anyone else to run one on "their lake". Simple as that, I believe. Change the stupid law.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

geoani said:


> I did read that entire thread and my position still stands. The city government is not the boss that we must all bow to. They work for us, and logical, common sense ideas can be put forth to change the laws. The water quality response you speak about is the closest thing to a logical, reasoned response that I've seen, but it still has plenty of holes in it and may prove to be inaccurate under in-depth scrutiny.


What holes do you refer to? What is inaccurate? What common sense ideas do you propose to protect that water quality with the increase? As we all know, an increase in boat traffic will affect water quality. If you look at Hoover right now the water level drops below most of the erosion protection measures around the entire reservoir and is usually that way from July through the rest of the season exposing more fine sediment to erode. Enforcement is an issue also. Columbus barely has enough manpower to go around as it is, it just won't get enforced like it should. I see a few boats each time I'm out that don't stay withing the 10 mph speed with 15 errr...I mean 10 hp motors, so what will happen with higher HP? You may very well stay at 10 mph but for those of us that will observe the speed limit I bet 20 percent won't. 

Last years algae issue in Hoover affected 2/3 of Columbus, how do we know that that algae issue could not be be made worse by increased boat traffic?. The city spent almost 1 million dollars in extra treatment costs just in that few month time frame. The argument about increasing the chances for an algal bloom that is toxic like Toledo's this past summer is a real potential.


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

geoani said:


> I had no idea I was going to receive such a negative response on Ohio Game Fishing dot com that I would have to "win" people over.


This topic has been discussed many, many times, and can certainly be classified as a "Controversial Topic"

A review of OGF's "New Member Handbook" should help acclimate you to the site 

http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/showthread.php?t=244327


----------



## Hoover 4 Me (Jul 30, 2013)

Hoover's HP and speed limit have nothing to do with the government trying to hold you down. 

It's been covered before, others have tried to get it changed in the past. It ain't happening. You'd probably have better luck pushing for electric only rather than a change to unlimited HP. Plenty of guys with big motors go out there and get around just fine with their trolling motors. Hoover is not very big and has boat launch access on every section of the lake.


----------



## canoe carp killer (Apr 2, 2014)

Lol this thread was a good read. I agree with the horsepower restriction as well. It's perfect the way it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Hoover 4 Me (Jul 30, 2013)

PapawSmith said:


> Self interest and the interest of others like me that may find it impractical or unaffordable to own a different boat to comply with each different nonsensical restriction at different public owned inland bodies of water when a simple "No Wake" rule would suffice at all of these locations. Like MANY fishermen in this state I own a couple of boats, one larger for Lake Erie and a bass boat for inland lake fishing. Because my bass boat has a 200 HP motor I'm excluded from lakes with a 10 HP limit which is moronic IMO. Now I need to buy another boat if I want to fish these lakes? I have fished no wake and low speed limit lakes here and in several other states with my bass boat and never violated the rules or saw any other bass boats violate the rules, although I'm certain it occasionally happens. In these lakes I generally spend the entire day standing on my trolling motor and seldom even fire my big motor up. But that is not good enough here because my motor sticker has too many zeros in it. Do you know what I see all the time on these lakes? I see 14' aluminum boats with small outboards running wide open throwing a classic fat wake from an unbalanced rig, but that is OK, it's just a '10' you know. The worst I ever see a big motored boat do is power load, and that is an entirely different argument. The argument against the wake restriction vs. the HP restriction is waged by those that either don't want or *cant afford a higher HP boat* and don't want anyone else to run one on "their lake". Simple as that, I believe. Change the stupid law.



Surprised it took this long for the "it's the guys that can't afford a big motor boat that don't want it changed" crowd to come out lol.


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

because the lake is city owned, and not a state lake, finding comparisons will be tough but a good example which has worked out very well down here in Dayton is Eastwood Lake, its a 5 Rivers Metropark Lake but its also tied directly to the citys water source. 
the rules for this lake is as follows, on Even numbered days, its unlimited HP and lake speed of 35 MPH, Jet skies may be used in a small section of the lake bouyed off
On Odd days the lake is "Idle" only ( yes unlimited HP but you must idle) so this allows all paddle craft, sailboats and fishing to be done in relative peace. The Jet Skies are still allowed to run in the small section. 

This has worked out really well since either day on the weekend you can run, or fish. just have to plan accordingly, I often fish on the EVEN days since the fishing pressure is less, I just hav eto deal with idiots..LO

Anyways it works pretty well but it is enforced in ways that most would consider, waaaay overboard, often multiple rangers nitpicking everyone on the shore, ramp and in the water at the same time. Ive been safety checked there multiple times in the same day by different officers, 


Might also look at Clear Fork with their 8 MPH speed limit to appease the musky guys with there high speed trolling, or even the new Rule at Acton lake where if you have a 9.9 HP you can run full tilt but a bigger motoer is limited to Idle Only, the state is already looking at making the whole lake Idle only since the 9.9 guys are really obnoxious and waking everyone in there big boats, and that was the point was to eliminate shore erosion by eliminating the large waves from wake. 

Salmonid
PS welcome aboard.. not everyone here has an early case of the shack nasties....


----------



## FlashGordon (Mar 19, 2014)

geoani said:


> "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul."George Bernard Shaw


Geoani, although I completely agree with your political beliefs, OGF is not the place to discuss them. That quote has no bearing on the discussion at hand about horsepower limits on Hoover. 

Let's stick to talking about fishing and keep politics out of it, please.


----------



## SneakinCreekin (Aug 22, 2014)

I feel pity for the guy with the 200hp bass boat. It's a shame that a man with such resources would have to spend more money to buy a boat that complies with the hp limit at Hoover. &#128514;&#128514; I'm sorry but if you have a boat that cost that much money I'm sure you could afford to sell three of your over priced rods for a simple fishing boat with a smaller motor. Please read my post with sarcasm in mind!! Haha at least I don't feel like I'm the most hated guy on the forum anymore. Again, pardon my sarcasm. 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

Because a 20' pontoon boat with a 10hp wide open makes more sense&#128552;


----------



## geoani (Oct 5, 2014)

Thank God! Finally someone with sense! After dedicating 20 years of my life to this country in the Marine Corps, I retired and bought a boat to go fishing. Since buying that boat this past fall, I've encountered regulation after nonsensical regulation all just to go fishing for petes sake! 

PapawSmith, I guess I'm in a better position than you. At least I have a 90 HP motor, so I'll just stick a "dot" in the middle and make it a 9.0!

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.


----------



## Hoover 4 Me (Jul 30, 2013)

You seem to be taking these regulations kind of personal. I had no idea it was such a serious issue but I guess there's nothing else going on in the world today to get worked up about so why not take it to the man over HP limits on water supply lakes?? I like fishing Alum...maybe I'll write my local congressman and suggest they limit the HP there since I'm apparently not able to afford a bigger boat/motor and it's not fair for me to be subjected to boats going by me at 60mph while I'm trying to catch a fish in my lowly 16' boat with a 9.9.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

PapawSmith said:


> Self interest and the interest of others like me that may find it impractical or unaffordable to own a different boat to comply with each different nonsensical restriction at different public owned inland bodies of water when a simple "No Wake" rule would suffice at all of these locations. Like MANY fishermen in this state I own a couple of boats, one larger for Lake Erie and a bass boat for inland lake fishing. Because my bass boat has a 200 HP motor I'm excluded from lakes with a 10 HP limit which is moronic IMO. Now I need to buy another boat if I want to fish these lakes? I have fished no wake and low speed limit lakes here and in several other states with my bass boat and never violated the rules or saw any other bass boats violate the rules, although I'm certain it occasionally happens. In these lakes I generally spend the entire day standing on my trolling motor and seldom even fire my big motor up. But that is not good enough here because my motor sticker has too many zeros in it. Do you know what I see all the time on these lakes? I see 14' aluminum boats with small outboards running wide open throwing a classic fat wake from an unbalanced rig, but that is OK, it's just a '10' you know. The worst I ever see a big motored boat do is power load, and that is an entirely different argument. The argument against the wake restriction vs. the HP restriction is waged by those that either don't want or cant afford a higher HP boat and don't want anyone else to run one on "their lake". Simple as that, I believe. Change the stupid law.


I didn't say the law was stupid or not. I just said the OP was conflicting himself by claiming that others were simply arguing out of self interest (as you are). I have no dog in this fight, and I am only trying to help him adjust.


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

geoani said:


> A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.


Not saying you're right or wrong, but Political posts are against the TOS and often get a thread locked.

Carry on


----------



## Bucks4life (Jul 30, 2014)

Geographically, you can walk from Hoover to Alum Creek. Why do people want to take down the restrictions from Hoover? Just go to Alum...They're nearly identical bodies of water. 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## SConner (Mar 3, 2007)

Enforcement would be a major issue. It is simple now, I am taking a boat out of the water with 150hp I get a ticket. Change the law and I have to catch you breaking the speed limit. Much easier to enforce nothing over 10hp. Maybe I should not be so cynical of human behavior but I am almost positive some would break the speed limit.


----------



## Dovans (Nov 15, 2011)

let the people decide... put it on the Ballot


----------



## kayakmac (Aug 4, 2013)

Excellent point Hoover 4 me. Let's see I want to change the rules so I can take my 90 hp motor on a 9.9 lake. I'll ignore the link provided about drinking water quality. I'll ignore environmental impact, I'll ignore algae problems, who is being selfish and self centered. 


I always have problems with disenfranchised and entitled arguments for a cause. I served 20 years in the marine corp ... Ty for your service by the way. I served 4 years in the USMC myself.

You have come on this forum asking for support and want everyone to agree with your position or you attack them. 

How much wake does a 32 foot cabin cruiser make @ 10 mph??? I have almost been swamped by big boats at low speeds. You want to bring Alum chaos to Hoover.

Here is your answer Tohatsu 9.8 google it, ordered mine out of Tennessee.  I'll help you hook it up.  if you buy a mercury it will come with a Tohatsu owners manual so don't go USA on me. . I have a 16 foot Lowe with a 50 on it I get about 6 mph out of my kicker. Very humbling to watch the small boats fly by you to your spot. That's Hoover and I love it.


----------



## kwizzle (Apr 7, 2012)

Welcome to the site geoani, thank you for providing some good reading material. I have to agree with Hoover for me, you have a better chance at making Hoover a electric only lake. Reservoirs designed to supply drinking water rarely allow any gas motors. Many upland reservoirs in California are electric only to protect the quality of water, we should feel fortunate to have the 9.9 hp limit. Saw a good deal on a 2014 9.9 merc 4 stroke in the market place couple weeks ago you should check it out


----------



## Saugeyefisher (Jul 19, 2010)

I dont know,the big boats make it easy early summer to find saugeye,can any one say MUDLINES!


----------



## Flathead76 (May 2, 2010)

If you are going to change something make it so you can bowfish the entire lake.


----------



## 1basshunter (Mar 27, 2011)

geoani,welcome to ogf do you fish? if so what type of fish do you fish for ? seems like you sure know how 2 stir up a debate!!!! Do you know by any chance Scioto Derby? well good luck and I hope you make lots of friends on here there really is a bunch of good guys on the site


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

The drinking water argument is about stupid really. Just about every impoundment is used for drinking water and a gas motor is a gas motor. 

What I propose is a state issue and not a local one. Make it a statewide regulation to remove hp limits and convert to idle only on lakes over a certain minimum size. So its either electric only or idle speed. You would easily gather the amount of votes needed and wont have to attack each lake on an individual basis. Just start a petition and your on your way. Now with hoover being owned by the city/county it might not make a difference but it would for a bunch of other lakes.


----------



## seang22 (Mar 3, 2014)

I love Hoover how it is. It's the most peaceful lake we have


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## bassteaser1 (Apr 13, 2004)

It sucks that Hoover is the best bass lake around Columbus and I cant Idle my 150 down the lake but half the 9.9's on the lake are modded to 15+ HP.Law is a law but the guys that bend that rule have no problem with that law being broken.Idle only wont turn it into Alum it would just allow more fisherman to enjoy the lake there tax dollars help pay for.


----------



## geoffoquinn (Oct 2, 2011)

I love Hoover the way it is.


----------



## geoffoquinn (Oct 2, 2011)

I love that every boat in Ohio isn't allowed on it. There is enough traffic already.


----------



## large6er (Sep 1, 2013)

So let me get this straight. Hoover is not a 10mph only lake, there is a HP limit also? I guess I was breaking the the law while trolling with my 60 HP at idle in my 20 ft jon this summer. I wonder why the park ranger didn't say something to me when we were standing at the ramp talking about fishing. Sorry about that I'll make sure I use my trolling motor next spring. That minn kota will almost get me to 2.5mph like my big 60 did.

Does that mean there was an exemption for the crappie tournements held up there this past summer? I'm sure the guys in the central Ohio crappie tour didn't all carry 2 motors.


----------



## hethothims (Nov 17, 2012)

I like hoover just the way it is. would never be in favor of allowing larger hp boats period. they have plenty of other lakes in central ohio area for them. Hoover is a blessing for us with smaller low hp boats and crafts with no motors.


----------



## hethothims (Nov 17, 2012)

for those saying its such a nice lake, wish I could take my huge boat there.....I feel the same about alumn indian and buckeye. would love to take my little 9.9 there for some peaceful fishing.... we cant all have our cake and eat it. there are lakes for unlimited hp, lakes for restricted hp, electric only and no motor whatsoever lakes, and I think the ODNR has done a nice job of designating these


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

SConner said:


> Enforcement would be a major issue. It is simple now, I am taking a boat out of the water with 150hp I get a ticket. Change the law and I have to catch you breaking the speed limit. Much easier to enforce nothing over 10hp. Maybe I should not be so cynical of human behavior but I am almost positive some would break the speed limit.


Not true. A boat with a higher horsepower motor can launch on a HP restricted lake. You just can't fire it up. Nor would enforcement be any different than regulating a "no wake zone"...


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

hethothims said:


> for those saying its such a nice lake, wish I could take my huge boat there.....I feel the same about alumn indian and buckeye. would love to take my little 9.9 there for some peaceful fishing.... we cant all have our cake and eat it. there are lakes for unlimited hp, lakes for restricted hp, electric only and no motor whatsoever lakes, and I think the ODNR has done a nice job of designating these


I've taken my 9.9 boat on every lake I've taken my 18' bass boat.... and we're just about the only state left in the country with any sizeable amount of horsepower restrictions. Speed limits have been adopted in almost every other state and they seem to be working just fine...


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

bassteaser1 said:


> It sucks that Hoover is the best bass lake around Columbus and I cant Idle my 150 down the lake but half the 9.9's on the lake are modded to 15+ HP.Law is a law but the guys that bend that rule have no problem with that law being broken.Idle only wont turn it into Alum it would just allow more fisherman to enjoy the lake there tax dollars help pay for.


This is my biggest pet peeve! The guys screaming against a change, are the same ones trying to squeeze another 1/10 of a horsepower out of their modded out "9.9's"... I fish a lot of 10hp tournaments, no legit 9.9 should be able to pull away from everyone like they do.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Hoover 4 Me said:


> Surprised it took this long for the "it's the guys that can't afford a big motor boat that don't want it changed" crowd to come out lol.


"Lol" is right. You take five words out of my entire post, restructure the wording and intent, claim it is somehow a quote and present it as the base of my disagreement. Very nice. When someone does that it generally means they have no viable counterpoint and need to change the readers focus from the intended discussion. You should be a political reporter.

Several have mentioned drinking water quality as a factor in this restriction but if that was truly the case then the lake should be electric only, which I would understand. But you can't logically say that it is wrong to idle a brand new 250 HP four stroke but OK to run a 1962 10 HP wide open. The 10 HP will spill more raw fuel running for 20 minutes then the new 250 would burn all day idling.


----------



## canoe carp killer (Apr 2, 2014)

Flathead76 said:


> If you are going to change something make it so you can bowfish the entire lake.



Can u not already?


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Bimmer (Aug 12, 2011)

You have three big groups there that would not let the restriction change. The BBC, sail club, and the rowing club.

I have two boats because Hoover is 9.9 and I fish there as much as anywhere. I like it the way it is, it does keep traffic down.


----------



## Flathead76 (May 2, 2010)

canoe carp killer said:


> Can u not already?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


Since the lake is owned by the city of columbus you can only bowfish the bridge north of sunbury road northward due to the firearms ordinance.


----------



## kayakmac (Aug 4, 2013)

Water Quality, lets ignore this URL which has some real factual information http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/showthread.php?t=86819&highlight=horsepower+restrictions

Almost all states have lifted horsepower limits NOT NOT NOT!! A quick google will give you tons of examples of HP limits. Here are the Illinois HP limits, talk about confusing. I didn't investigate other states or pick this one intentionally it popped up near the top of a google search.

http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/programs/boating.htm

Proponents naively believe only fishing boats will start visiting Hoover if a 10 mph speed limit only law is adopted. That might be true on a lake like Piedmont but Hoover sits in the middle of one of the most heavily populated areas of the state. I love Piedmont and truck my bass boat down there and use my 9.8  don't get me wrong I wouldn't change it either. My dad lives 2 miles from Salt Fork where do we go bass fishing?

Could there be a correlation between good bass lakes and hp limits? Maybe there should be more restrictions not less.

Everyone on Hoover has a super charged 9.9, I fish there a lot and I don't see it. A 12-14 foot fishing boat is going to go faster with a small motor. Are there some people out there breaking the rules, of course. Your lack of faith in people obeying the rules works against your argument that people will abide by a speed limit rule.  

As Hoover 4 me stated this is a mute point, not going to happen. I'm going fishing I'm done with this thread.


----------



## kparrott154 (Mar 26, 2007)

There is a 9.9hp motor just posted in the classifieds...


----------



## WeekendWarrior (Jan 20, 2008)

Flathead76 said:


> Since the lake is owned by the city of columbus you can only bowfish the bridge north of sunbury road northward due to the firearms ordinance.




Your allowed to bow hunt deer in Columbus. What's the difference?


----------



## canoe carp killer (Apr 2, 2014)

WeekendWarrior said:


> Your allowed to bow hunt deer in Columbus. What's the difference?



Good point lol. 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Flathead76 (May 2, 2010)

WeekendWarrior said:


> Your allowed to bow hunt deer in Columbus. What's the difference?


Beats the heck outta me. All that I know is that the south pool is off limits. To stay on topic i personally like the 9.9 restriction. Even though my little rig has a 15 horse motor and I can not use it there except for the trolling motor. Too many lakes like Alum Creek that I would not even consider using that rig on because of everyone hauling ass around the lake. On another note lakes like LaSuAnn or Harrison there is no horsepower limit but no wake. This is a win win for the fisherman. Lake Nettle has no wake after 6PM so its a win win for everyone.


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

Great entertainment here, and the ice isn't even on the lakes yet


----------



## James F (Jul 2, 2005)

I have made the mistake of taking my under powered electric only boat to lakes with both unlimited hp and speed limits! My impression was 1.Iwas buzzed by non fisherman skiing in a no wake zone and almost swamped more than often than I expected,again My fault! 2. There was a very real lack of law enforcement to ensure the safety of those out enjoying the lake. I intend to purchase a 9.9 soon and even then I will steer clear of lakes with unlimited hp or speed limits, especially on weekends. Almost every where you go there will be those that feel the rules don't apply to them! I do understand the frustration of owning a boat that limits were you can go to fish. For me it's Lake Erie, a 9.9 might be ok on some rare day's. I live by A/C airport not a far drive however the weather can turn while I am on my up lakes like Hoover are just up my alley, I can fish and feel safe knowing I am not too far out of my element.


----------



## bman (Apr 20, 2009)

To be clear, "clean water" is NOT the reason why Hoover has a horsepower restriction, or at least it shouldn't be a reason for them. Any outboard older than 1998 pollutes a ton-9.9 hp or otherwise. Outboard emissions have been greatly reduced (over 90%) since the U.S. EPA outboard emission regs came into play in 1998.

Ref, see chart on page 3:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~pauldawson/IAME-57_Emissions-a-sml.pdf 

If clean water was part of the equation, they would outlaw any outboard motor manufactured before 1998...heck, even require later model years since they perform even better when it comes to emissions. Another option if clean water was the goal, no outboards period.

Personally, I do wish Hoover was open to idle only. It would take some pressure off of other area lakes. The reservoir right now is heavily under utilized, which is what gets me. It's one thing explore a 500 acre lake with your trolling motor; it's quite another to do the same on a 2800 acre lake.


----------



## bman (Apr 20, 2009)

Fwiw, I lived in Illinois and boated extensively in WI, OH, IL, KY, TN and MI and to me, Ohio has some of the goofiest boating laws I've ever seen. I'll give you guys a few examples from both sides of the equation:

*Water skiing allowed on Griggs*. Just from a common sense standpoint....how can you allow skiing on this busy, skinny reservoir? I don't fault any skiers from making my boat take a pounding each time they pass by...they aren't doing anything wrong or illegal. They HAVE to pass nearby my boat, LOL. There's no room! I just think it makes no sense to allow water skiing on such a skinny impoundment.

*The "water skiing zone" up north on OShay*. Seriously....has the DNR or other people who are responsible for marking this ski zone ever actually run a depth finder up there? It's a basically a super shallow rock shoal in 3-5 FOW and I for one would never take anyone water skiing in that marked designated "ski zone"!

*Pleasant Hill.* unlimited horsepower and no restrictions. Very, very strange this one. A huge part of the lake is idle only, and then the one pool is the "open zone". As a result, the open zone-which isn't terribly large and fairly narrow becomes a ski and power boat whirlpool most days of the summer boating season. Doesn't really impact me as an angler on that lake but man it can be busy in the open zone on that lake. Scary busy. It's just super odd that they make the skinniest, smallest part of the lake open for high speed boating, skiing and tubing. The lake does shallow up in the no wake zone but my point is more that it seems dangerous to have a no holds barred open zone in the smaller, skinniest part of the lake. Again, won't take my family tubing/water skiing on that lake

*Charles Mill*. Another huge 10 hp lake. Loads of pontoon boats with old small outboards on them. Another lake with too much water (1350 acres) and too many nooks and crannies to effectively explore for fishing with a trolling motor only. Should be an idle only lake. Lots of shallow hazards too so yet another reason to make it idle- for all boaters.
*
Buckeye "swim zones"*. I mention this one just for fun. When my son and I anchored in one of these "swim zones" and jumped in the water, our feet immediately met a two foot layer of mud, lol. Awesome swim area! I know, I know...most of the lake is 3' but man...


----------



## geoani (Oct 5, 2014)

Hey Folks. After reading these posts, I've come to realize two things, the second of which will be the most relevant to me. 

First, the vast majority of those on this site that disagree with a rule change that focuses on the actual desired outcome, low wakes and slow speeds, are kayak and small boat owners that fish Hoover regularly and simply don't want more people on "their" lake catching "their" fish. For those folks, my so called political quote absolutely applies: A government (city of Columbus) that robs Peter (fisherman with bigger motors)to pay Paul (fisherman with small motors) can always count on the support of Paul. If you want a private lake, build your own on your own property. Hoover is a PUBLIC reservoir and I pay taxes just the same as you (probably more) and deserve reasonable, rational access to it. The government doesn't restrict the horsepower of my car, but they do establish speed limits for public safety. The safe speed is the actual desired outcome. My car's horsepower is irrelevant and if the government ever does try to put limits on my car's HP I won't follow that either!

Second, If I'm to go by the posts here, Law breaking is apparently rampant, especially by those degenerates with the big fast boats, and enforcement is apparently woefully lacking and unable to uphold the rules, so... problem solved! I'll just fish hoover with my bass boat and big motor as is! 

Oh, and one final quote: "This IS the government the Founders warned us of."


----------



## Saugeyefisher (Jul 19, 2010)

shroomhunter said:


> Great entertainment here, and the ice isn't even on the lakes yet[/QUOTe
> It has been a fun one to read. I also wish you could idle big motors on hoover and other lakes,buttt, oh well i can fish else where. Oh wait i have a kicker hehe.
> Anyways imo it is,what it is. And am happy theres always a lake around me thats not heavily pressured,and some what peacefull. Regardless of why that is.
> Now what i would be 100% in favor of is a darn sailboat restriction.it never fails those guys always invade the area during a hot bite. And have t s ken a few good cranks by passing to close behind the boat! Any one in?


----------



## SneakinCreekin (Aug 22, 2014)

Zzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

geoani said:


> Hey Folks. After reading these posts, I've come to realize two things, the second of which will be the most relevant to me.
> 
> First, the vast majority of those on this site that disagree with a rule change that focuses on the actual desired outcome, low wakes and slow speeds, are kayak and small boat owners that fish Hoover regularly and simply don't want more people on "their" lake catching "their" fish. For those folks, my so called political quote absolutely applies: A government (city of Columbus) that robs Peter (fisherman with bigger motors)to pay Paul (fisherman with small motors) can always count on the support of Paul. If you want a private lake, build your own on your own property. Hoover is a PUBLIC reservoir and I pay taxes just the same as you (probably more) and deserve reasonable, rational access to it. The government doesn't restrict the horsepower of my car, but they do establish speed limits for public safety. The safe speed is the actual desired outcome. My car's horsepower is irrelevant and if the government ever does try to put limits on my car's HP I won't follow that either!
> 
> ...


Have you heard of Meander Creek in the Youngstown area? Great body of water but has a chain link fence around it with razor wire. No access at all. I don't want to see Hoover become like Meander Reservoir and please, do not think for one second that it cannot happen. That thought about Hoover has actually been brought up within the city.

What about public safety when it applies to water quality? We are talking about somewhere around 600,000 thousand people (maybe more) that Hoover serves, and they pay taxes too. Tens of millions of dollars for Columbus water plant upgrades are occurring as we discuss this because the feds have tightened restrictions on said water quality recently, paid for by "us" taxpayers (specifically Columbus water and sewer customers). Keep in mind that Hoover's management and upkeep is almost expressly paid for by water and sewer rates from customers. If you live outside Columbus' utilities service area you do not pay to support Hoover. ODNR does perform enforcement of wildlife laws and sometimes boating if asked by Columbus but their involvement is minimal.

I am just fed up with all these very small special interest groups that cry for their piece of the pie at the expense of the majority.

I have a Jeep Wrangler. Does that mean I can go off-roading anywhere? No, and I'm good with that.


----------



## 1basshunter (Mar 27, 2011)

geoani said:


> Hey Folks. After reading these posts, I've come to realize two things, the second of which will be the most relevant to me.
> 
> First, the vast majority of those on this site that disagree with a rule change that focuses on the actual desired outcome, low wakes and slow speeds, are kayak and small boat owners that fish Hoover regularly and simply don't want more people on "their" lake catching "their" fish. For those folks, my so called political quote absolutely applies: A government (city of Columbus) that robs Peter (fisherman with bigger motors)to pay Paul (fisherman with small motors) can always count on the support of Paul. If you want a private lake, build your own on your own property. Hoover is a PUBLIC reservoir and I pay taxes just the same as you (probably more) and deserve reasonable, rational access to it. The government doesn't restrict the horsepower of my car, but they do establish speed limits for public safety. The safe speed is the actual desired outcome. My car's horsepower is irrelevant and if the government ever does try to put limits on my car's HP I won't follow that either!
> 
> ...


men you are the spitting image of Scioto Darbygood luck dude


----------



## Hoover 4 Me (Jul 30, 2013)

PapawSmith said:


> "Lol" is right. You take five words out of my entire post, restructure the wording and intent, claim it is somehow a quote and present it as the base of my disagreement. Very nice. When someone does that it generally means they have no viable counterpoint and need to change the readers focus from the intended discussion. You should be a political reporter


I didn't restructure anything, it was quoted from your post and I didn't imply that was your point. I simply pointed out something that always seems to come up in this argument and the fact that I find it funny. Sorry if it offended you. All viable counterpoints have been made. There's just no viable point being made to switch to unlimited HP...it all basically boils down to guys with big motors being mad they have to use their trolling motors to get around the lake and one guy apparently thinking it's some government conspiracy. If it's that big of a bother do what someone else has suggested...drive the 5 miles from Hoover to Alum and run your big motor all day long. 

Thanks for the career advice too...do reporters make good money?? Maybe if I was a reporter I could afford a bigger motor for my boat and be mad about the Hoover regulations.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

geoani said:


> Hey Folks. After reading these posts, I've come to realize two things, the second of which will be the most relevant to me.
> 
> First, the vast majority of those on this site that disagree with a rule change that focuses on the actual desired outcome, low wakes and slow speeds, are kayak and small boat owners that fish Hoover regularly and simply don't want more people on "their" lake catching "their" fish. For those folks, my so called political quote absolutely applies: A government (city of Columbus) that robs Peter (fisherman with bigger motors)to pay Paul (fisherman with small motors) can always count on the support of Paul. If you want a private lake, build your own on your own property. Hoover is a PUBLIC reservoir and I pay taxes just the same as you (probably more) and deserve reasonable, rational access to it. The government doesn't restrict the horsepower of my car, but they do establish speed limits for public safety. The safe speed is the actual desired outcome. My car's horsepower is irrelevant and if the government ever does try to put limits on my car's HP I won't follow that either!
> 
> ...


So, the vast majority exercised their free speech and disagreed with you...I'd say that is democracy in action and what the founders intended.


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

I dont think its a vast majority at all. I think its a majority of local people who even in this argument. Open it up to a statewide vote and make all public access lakes either all electric or idle only and i think youll see the majority.


----------



## toad (Apr 6, 2004)

I didn't look at the calendar, I'm sorry. It's time for the annual lets change Hoover HP limit.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Sorry bud. It's a water supply lake owned by the City (not the state), and is operated by Dept. of Public Utilities. Water supply is mission #1. It's not a personal playground. Your wants and needs as a nautical American are superseded by people's need for affordable water. Just remember, removing pollutants is super costly. Think increased erosion from heavy wake action since the lake is drawn down every year. This is done because of heavy water usage and little rain during the summer. Be happy it's not completely off limits like another water supply lake, Lake Rockwell in Akron.

I still am sort of doubting this guy even fishes. Hoover is great as it is in my opinion. Changing it to unlimited horsepower in any form is going to be a nearly impossible feat. Lots of politics at play here along with conservation and water quality implications.


----------



## bman (Apr 20, 2009)

Mushijobah said:


> Sorry bud. It's a water supply lake owned by the City (not the state), and is operated by Dept. of Public Utilities. Water supply is mission #1. It's not a personal playground. Your wants and needs as a nautical American are superseded by people's need for affordable water. Just remember, removing pollutants is super costly. Think increased erosion from heavy wake action since the lake is drawn down every year. This is done because of heavy water usage and little rain during the summer. Be happy it's not completely off limits like another water supply lake, Lake Rockwell in Akron.
> 
> I still am sort of doubting this guy even fishes. Hoover is great as it is in my opinion. Changing it to unlimited horsepower in any form is going to be a nearly impossible feat. Lots of politics at play here along with conservation and water quality implications.


With all due respect, I'm not understanding your "it's a water supply lake" argument. So are many other area lakes-some of which see heavy boating use. 

Check out my previous post. If the city of Columbus or our state government was concerned about boaters polluting the water they would not allow any motors on it, let alone pre-1998 9.9 Hp motors.


----------



## bman (Apr 20, 2009)

But I think we can all agree on one thing. Hoover's boating regulations aren't changing anytime soon.


----------



## papaperch (Apr 12, 2004)

For anyone that proposes that most boaters follow regulations. I invite them to spend a summer day on lake milton here in northeast Ohio. Anchor your boat in the NO WAKE ZONE between I-76 bridge and the Route 18 Bridge. As this entire area is no wake.

Not only will the vast majority of boats will be throwing a wake. They must think half throttle is no wake. Even smack under the bridges while most do slow down there a lot that do not. I have seen the patrol writing tickets but they catch very few. Milton is an unlimited HP lake and most do not heed the many signs. Fishing on week ends is almost impossible in that area. Week days are a little safer. Course late fall and real early spring are safer too.

One can theorize about how laws are obeyed. But I rely on what I have seen for my 67 years.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

bman said:


> With all due respect, I'm not understanding your "it's a water supply lake" argument. So are many other area lakes-some of which see heavy boating use.
> 
> Check out my previous post. If the city of Columbus or our state government was concerned about boaters polluting the water they would not allow any motors on it, let alone pre-1998 9.9 Hp motors.


Sorry you don't understand. This isn't about the state government, it's not a state lake. It's also not all oil and gas from motors that damages water quality. Oil and gas actually evaporates from the water's surface very quickly and is seldom an issue unless it's excessive. Look into the effects erosion and think about how that may be detrimental to a reservoir that is purposed with holding water for use. As turbidity increases, the cost to clean water increases substantially. Hoover doesn't have the luxury of a river valley, highly protected rocky shoreline like Griggs/Oshay has. Erosion is a big issue at Hoover.

Maybe you could call Public Utilities and hear it from the horse's mouth.

And I think you're right, nothing will change anytime soon if ever.


----------



## bman (Apr 20, 2009)

Mushijobah said:


> Look into the effects erosion and think about how that may be detrimental to a reservoir that is purposed with holding water for use. As turbidity increases, the cost to clean water increases substantially. Hoover doesn't have the luxury of a river valley, highly protected rocky shoreline like Griggs/Oshay has. Erosion is a big issue at Hoover.


Ok, erosion is the concern. Makes sense. But then why allow any gas powered boats? Surely you'd agree that a small aluminum v hull, Jon boat or pontoon running full bore with a 9.9 HP puts off a large wake? Again, idle speed for everyone would work.


----------



## geoffoquinn (Oct 2, 2011)

Overcrowding will add to every concern especially too many boats.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

> Last years algae issue in Hoover affected 2/3 of Columbus, how do we know that that algae issue could not be be made worse by increased boat traffic?. The city spent almost 1 million dollars in extra treatment costs just in that few month time frame.


Boating won't raise the risk of algae in Hoover. That problem is fed by phosphorous washing in from farming higher up in the watershed, and those farmers aren't going to change their ways because they don't want to suffer at the bottom line for a water supply they don't use.

Tomorrow I'll be in a meeting with DPU Director Greg Davies. I'll offer to write up an article about the algae problem and the risk of it happening again (high) and the measures the city has taken to improve treatment. I just need some specific details from DPU; I already have some of them. Public outreach on the algae issue is one of the 2015 goals for COWC. Who?

http://www.sciotoriverfriends.org/cowc/cowc.html

The drinking water supply reservoirs are Oshay, Griggs, and Hoover. The city will protect them like a mother bear. Delaware and Alum have nothing to do with drinking water except the city can pump water from Alum to Hoover.

Side note - the city is trying to reach equitable agreements to landowners around Hoover; they're subject to the land stewardship program and they're angry (like mob with torches and pitchforks angry) that they can't clear a view of the lake.

As for the Griggs rules, I have opinions about being allowed to legally operate a weighted boat of unlimited horsepower at 40 mph on an urban mixed-use reservoir that's a drinking water supply ... but I keep those to myself, sort of.


----------



## The Outdoor Connection (Jan 21, 2012)

We've had Rich Carter from ODNR on our radio show many times, most recently on 11/16. One thing I can tell you about Corps lakes (understanding Hoover is not one) is that the Army engineers could care less what fisherman think, as the body of water is not there for their amusement, it is in place for one reason only and that is to control flooding. Just as Hoover is to serve the purpose of providing water for a municipality and public drinking.


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

geoani said:


> Thank God! Finally someone with sense! After dedicating 20 years of my life to this country in the Marine Corps, I retired and bought a boat to go fishing. Since buying that boat this past fall, I've encountered regulation after nonsensical regulation all just to go fishing for petes sake!


You know, I'm getting ready to buy a four wheeler. Do you know what I'm doing before I buy it? Using this same computer to research where I can and can't ride it, and the restrictions that come along with that.
I learned that from hunting and fishing....as all outdoorsmen know you can't just buy a fishing rod or a gun and go out anywhere and start fishing/hunting....there are restrictions and places where you can and can't.

It never dawned on me that the laws should change to suit my personal style of fishing/hunting. That's quite a ptolemaic approach to the world.

You've bragged about how much taxes you pay. Possibly you should just buy a 9.9 kicker and move forward. Or maybe a kayak...mix in some exercise.


----------



## geoani (Oct 5, 2014)

I'm not a Subject under a Monarch (at least not yet). I started this thread by identifying a nonsensical and redundant restriction in the city ordnance and suggested that outdoorsman work to change it to be more INCLUSIVE while still protecting the sail boaters, kayakers, water quality, small boats etc.. That is hardly a ptolemaic approach. (Great word by the way). We are suppose to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If it never dawned on you that you could be a force to change a law for the better, maybe you should move to England. They are much closer to the oligarchy that you seem to want.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

Thank you for your service. I did 5 years USN, but nothing like your service. There is obviously nothing productive coming of this thread on this course. 

First, I doubt that a bunch of yahoos on an outdoor website would have much impact by randomly emailing the mayor. My guess is that your best bet is to follow the democratic process, do the heavy lifting and attend City Council meetings, get your voice heard, and see if you can figure out how to get an ordinance proposal before the council...follow the chain of command, so to speak. 


Perhaps these would be good places to start: https://columbus.gov/Templates/Detail.aspx?ekfrm=72614

https://columbus.gov/council/Contact-City-Council/
Hearcel F. Craig
Chair: Recreation & Parks; Veterans' Affairs
Legislative Assistant: Sherry Martin
Contact: [email protected] (614) 645-8538

Department of Public Utilities
910 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH, 43215
Phone: (614) 645-8276
E-Mail: [email protected]


Do some legwork, make some proposals, and I imagine that showing people you are serious might win a few more members over to your side if a petition or an email campaign is in order. The wheels of government turn slowly, always have, and there is some virtue in that.

Once again, thank you for your service and welcome back to the real world...


----------



## geoani (Oct 5, 2014)

Streamstalker, Thank you for your service as well! My Father and Brother in law were both in the Navy.

I have started down the path you suggest. You are correct in the virtue of slow turning wheels of government. Great, productive post. Thanks much.


----------



## fishintechnician (Jul 20, 2007)

Ok seems to me like we have the "locals" that live close and don't want others in "their" lake. The main arguments seem to be erosion, water quality and crowding with big speed boats and pleasure boaters. In my first post I suggested , just as others have, make it an idle no wake only lake. That would cut erosion in my opinion as you wouldnb have any boats even the "9.9" throwing wake. It would allow more fishermen to access the lake and would not allow for pleasure boaters or jet skiers to run wide open. To me this seems like a compromise for everyone and I honestly don't think it would add that much pressure on the lake other than a few extra fishermen. They have tried this on other lakes and it seems to to be working just fine. Just my .02 cents


----------



## Duck391 (Oct 2, 2011)

Leave Hoover alone. I love taking my small boat there. Trying to go on alum in the summer is a nightmare for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

And if Hoover was Idle only why would it be a nightmare?


----------



## Basshunter122 (May 6, 2013)

ostbucks98 said:


> And if Hoover was Idle only why would it be a nightmare?



Because you will have a**holes who don't obey the law. They will think that no one will see them with their big motors running above idle speed to get to places faster. That's just how it is. I said it before. The no wake zone in alum isnt always obeyed because people get away with it. Leave it as a 9.9 lake. You guys have other lakes where you can run wide open and fish and run the little boats off the water. The same argument can be made about fairness in a little boat. Why should we have to deal with idiots who won't obey law and then get waked by some one with a 90hp. Let's face it, some people are complete morons when it comes to boating and they don't respect it so they will take advantage of that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## GarryS (Apr 5, 2004)

I can already see this is going to be a long winter!! Go easy on these Hoover guys!!


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

So what causes more wake? A twin turbo'd 800hp 21' skeeter idling(hell just for argument lets say slightly faster than idle) or a 16' aluminum deep v with a 9.9 wide open or better yet a pontoon wide open....hmmmm.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

The agenda for the meeting with DPU looks light, I might be able to ask the Director about this question, and get their reason for the rules being the way they are.


----------



## bman (Apr 20, 2009)

FOSR said:


> The agenda for the meeting with DPU looks light, I might be able to ask the Director about this question, and get their reason for the rules being the way they are.


That would be great. People on both sides are only speculating so perhaps this would at least provide clarity on the matter as to te reasoning for the boating restrictions. Make sure you ask why they feel it's ok to allow some boats to run full bore with a 9.9. 

The more I thought about this odd rule, the more I think someone very long ago mistakenly assumed "little boat; little wake). I'm thinking they were not boaters!


----------



## ostbucks98 (Apr 14, 2004)

Because those opinions of others are baseless and nonfactual. The argument that allowing idle only will cause more wake then whats already created by 9.9hp motors is rediculous.


----------



## Draggin along (Nov 8, 2012)

I have never fished Hoover all that much, but I don't see a problem where bigger HP boats could have access on the lake on designated days of the week. I fish Alum a lot, and I know when I don't want to be on that lake, and I stay away. I still get my share of fishing in.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

> Conduct: No obscenities, personal attacks, character assassination, etc. will be tolerated. Bad-Mouthing, slander, or obscene words of other Internet websites will not be permitted. Any posts of this nature will be removed immediately. Posts with the sole intention of causing problems on the forums, will not be tolerated.


........................


----------



## GarryS (Apr 5, 2004)

I've said this before..... Why can't we all get along?? 

The man just made a suggestion!! Looks like he is NEW to the site which I would take he wasn't aware of the other times that this subject has come up. I have to say the other times the HOOVER guys got all fired up about it also. I see their point also. I don't really understand tho cause they are free to go on other reservoirs. I have seen many 9.9s break the no wake laws at Griggs, O'Shaughnessy, Alum... Its a no win battle cause everyone has their own thoughts to what no wake means until they are stopped. I myself think it would be a great idea for allowing unlimited HP with IDLE only laws. 

Lets all get along and talk fishing stories. This is going to be a long winter!!


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

> Not true. A boat with a higher horsepower motor can launch on a HP restricted lake. You just can't fire it up. Nor would enforcement be any different than regulating a "no wake zone"...


 
True. I've posted pic after pic of all the DA up here in NEO that constantly break the no wake rule on West Branch. 
Here's a few for you.....


----------



## polebender (Oct 29, 2011)

It was obvious from the start that the OP's agenda was political! He could of just asked to poll those in favor or against a no wake or idle only on Hoover. He would have gotten his answer without having to argue or get into name calling! When he mentioned writing to the mayor of Columbus, he was looking for a political debate and not a real census.


----------



## canoe carp killer (Apr 2, 2014)

Pure craziness. I like how the posts go from 86 straight to 101!! Guess he got some more bashing than I did lol


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Joyo (Dec 30, 2007)

Basshunter122 said:


> Because you will have a**holes who don't obey the law. They will think that no one will see them with their big motors running above idle speed to get to places faster. That's just how it is. I said it before. The no wake zone in alum isnt always obeyed because people get away with it. Leave it as a 9.9 lake. You guys have other lakes where you can run wide open and fish and run the little boats off the water. The same argument can be made about fairness in a little boat. Why should we have to deal with idiots who won't obey law and then get waked by some one with a 90hp. Let's face it, some people are complete morons when it comes to boating and they don't respect it so they will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


I'm willing to bet more "a**holes" will break the law by increasing hp on their 9.9's than the "idiots" that will run the little boats off the water


----------



## SConner (Mar 3, 2007)

Many valid arguments for and against have been presented. I am sure after over 100 posts the OP has the information requested.


----------



## SConner (Mar 3, 2007)

FOSR sent additional info from a meeting regarding Hoover he promised earlier in thread to share and asked to post it on here. Below is what he sent.

Here are the answers I got for this issue in today's meeting: 

Why are the rules the way they are? DPU had a series of meetings in the 1990s with various stakeholder groups regarding the desired uses for the reservoirs (was anyone here in those?) There was a comment along the lines that it was a lot of work and no one wants to do it again.

Hoover has both horsepower and speed limits, so the full-bore 9.9 guys are not compliant. Another factor against bigger motors is, much of the lake is shallow, and prop wash churns up sediment from the bottom. They said Hoover isn't as "flashy" as the other reservoirs, meaning the water doesn't change through as quickly. So the water picks up a lot of silt which the treatment plant has to filter out.


----------

