# 9.9 No More !!!



## Sunfish

Well it is official, ODNR is changing the rules for 9.9 horsepower limits on 5 lakes here in Ohio. ODNR is proposing a pilot program for 4 lakes located in state wildlife areas and one state park. They are as follows: State Wildlife Areas - Knox Lake, Oxbow Lake, Lake Rupert and Lake La Su Ann. The state Park Lake will be Burr Oak. ODNR has been lobbied by B.A.S.S. to remove horspower limits to allow boats with unlimited horsepower engines to use these lakes. The boats with unlimited horsepower will be restircted to traveling at "no wake" speeds. This pilot program is for a two year period. The enforcement aspects of the "no wake" are still being looked into. The rules for this program have already been submitted to Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) for approval. Shortly there will be an official news release and that will be followed by the first public hearing on March 6 to accept comments on this proposal. It is understood that ODNR supports this proposal. At the end of the two year period, there will be a review to see how well it worked.


----------



## MadMac

I wish it was being done on some better lakes. IMO they should go with a speed limit instead of no wake. You can't even troll @ 4 to 5 mph without leaving a wake.


----------



## reel

I think this is a good idea.

There are times when 9.9+ is essential to use. It is good to have it available.
And with so many people fooling with carburetors, their 9.9 is really a lot more anyway.

Also the gray area of having 2 motors and only using one is a problem.
...


----------



## Nightprowler

How about the wake these 200 H.P. make loading and unloading a boat?


----------



## reel

> How about the wake these 200 H.P. make loading and unloading a boat?


That is unnecessary.
...


----------



## Wolfhook120

Guess there will be alot of bugs to work out on the whole issue. I've seen the so-called 9.9's on Hoover leave bigger wakes than my 19ft Champion at idle. I call them 29.9's It would be nice if I could splash my boat in some of the restricted lakes and I would not mind following the rules at all, I'd just like to see the final fine print on the issues before John Law comes at me with his ticket book. :B


----------



## Champion188 Elite

I hope it works out.I would like to see this statewide.
I can load/unload my 200hp boat with very little if any wake!You don't need to get crazy loading or unloading,if someone is doing this they don't have any idea what they are doing.
My 200hp boat also leaves less of a wake while running on plane than any 9.9 boat that is plowing all kind of water.


----------



## dKilla

Champion188 Elite said:


> My 200hp boat also leaves less of a wake while running on plane than any 9.9 boat that is plowing all kind of water.



True...a properly trimmed 19 foot bass boat running at 60 mph leaves about as much wake as a nice sized largemouth charging a top-water plug. WRITE THAT BASS A TICKET!!!


----------



## Bigun

As has been pointed out by most I wish our state would enforce speed limits as opposed to these no wake limits, Wake is to subjective, anything that is moving the water will make a wake, and the size of the wake is determined by the amount of water moved, For me personally "no wake" is not well enough defined to be enforced fairly. Much easier to go with a speed limit. But most boat speedos are horribly inaccurate anyway so Who knows.


----------



## SwollenGoat

I think the biggest downfall of this plan will be the manpower necessary to enforce this new law and as was mentioned infractions will be on a case-by-case basis and dependent on the officers point of view that day.

IMHO the 9.9 limitation on most lakes is to deter traffic and noise, not wake. Hoover was tested to have the cleanest water in Ohio, and Alum was one of the worst. On a busy day at Hoover you might see 3-4 dozen motorized boats out on the lake. At Alum you might see 300-400. 

Probably not a coincidence.


----------



## jpackr

This is a big mistake! You know there will be idiots out there going way too fast. Enforcement will be a joke since they are already strapped for cash. If you want to fish these lakes so bad with your big boat BUY A 9.9! You guys already have $25 to $45,000 invested in your boat so spend another $2000 for a kicker if you want to fish these lakes so bad.
Sorry to vent but this is a disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## Champion188 Elite

That is one downfall of removing the 9.9 restriction,it will bring in a few pleasure boats which will in turn make the lakes more crowded and as said more noise.
I think fisherman (hopefully) will abide by the rules. With all the modifications that can be done to 9.9's anymore there are some guys getting really quick speeds out of them.


----------



## SwollenGoat

I would also like to add that I personally would not be as opposed to lifting 9.9 restrictions and allowing 10mph limits on certain lakes *IF* it was limited to fishing boats only. (Anyone who has spent an afternoon at Alum dodging the PWC's and fighting wake from 30' racing boats would understand.)

Again, it comes down to enforcement. There are thousands of cops on the road statewide, but people still break the speed limit. Don't see how a handful of water officers is going to manage thousands of acres of water spread all over the state.


----------



## MadMac

I don't think you'll see pleasure boaters with a no wake or speed limit law in place. Why would they come to a lake like that? But it would open it up (no pun intended) to a lot of us that have bigger boats. And I WISH my boat was worth 20 grand.


----------



## TBO

This is just the first step for B.A.S.S. and ODNR, they have long coveted unlimited horsepower for Hoover and other lakes. There are more than enough lakes with unlimited horsepower, please let those of us with small boats fish in peace. I have seen 2oo hp boats on Clear Fork, which has a speed limit, going full throttle. I have also been on Alum and the "bass boats" will go by you while you are trying to fish at full speed with no regard to you or your boat.
If you realy want to fish these 9.9 lakes then buy a 9.9!


----------



## cheezemm2

If you need an example of what's going to happen, look no further...

No wake DOES NOT COMPUTE, DOES NOT COMPUTE! 

Here's what's going to happen...

1) It will pass because of extra revenue that is so desperately needed
2) Homeowners and others will complain about shore erosion, noise, poor enforcement, and pollution
3) You'll have more posts about people breaking the rules

I know there are many responsible boat operators with large HP motors, but I'm sorry to say that speed is too tempting to get from one place to the other when you have the means available (I know most of you on here do not think that way, but unfortunately it's the few bad apples that everyone will remember)...I just don't think it will be enforced properly.

Speed limits would be nice if everyone had GPS...not going to happen...
No wake is the best we have and is already subjective. I just hope they don't consider doing this with the 9.9 MWCD lakes! Piedmont is my slice of heaven


----------



## Rockfish41

You will see the pleasure boaters on the no wake lakes .Go to summit lake in indiana. they are every where. I know that most fisherman will obey the law but theres always going to be that few that dont care.Of course its my opinion but every has the option to buy what size motor they want knowing that there are 9.9 lakes in ohio. i personally started with an8 h.p. on a 14 ft. semi v .i then bought an 18 ft. with a 90hp., knowing i couldnt fish 9.9 lakes anymore.now im full circle ,a fishing pontoon with a 9.9 on it so i can fish the 9.9 lakes.its everyones choice.i wish they would leave the 9.9 lakes alone


----------



## junkyardbass

Any boat moving through the water is going to make some sort of wake. So what do they really mean by "NO Wake". A budy of mine asked the Sheriff at Partage Lakes how they define no wake. They sheriff told him that if your wake has white water then you are in violation. It really blows my mind how many boats violate the No Wake at PL. It is NOT just pleasure boaters either. I don't own a gas motor at all nor do I fish any restricted HP lakes so this really wont affect me at all. But my .02 worth is this: 
#1) What ever the rules are, people are going to break them. Look at all the posts here on OGF for people wanting to know how to modify thier 9.9s to get extra HP. 
#2) a No Wake rule will slow everyone down including the boats with 9.9s
#3) 30&#37; of boats wont even know how to define NO Wake
#4) another 20% just wont care and push it then try to play dumb later.
#5) It doesnt really matter what I think it will pass because the lobying group has more money to throw at the politicians.

All in all the only differance this will make is more boats and more noise
More boats will lead to more polution and litter.
More noise will lead to less peace and quiet.

If you really want to make a differance make a boat limit not a HP limit or Speed limit or wake limit. ie. Only so many boats allowed on the lake at a time. Of course this will never happen.


----------



## Miso_Ohio

Good luck with those larger motors at Knox, hope you don't ruin too many props on the stump end. 

When I purchased my in land lake boat I decided on the type of lakes I wanted to fish and bought a boat accordingly. It happened to be a nice 14 foot semi-v with a new 9.9 HP motor on it. Granted it was not always easy on the larger lakes so for the most part I stay off of them unless it is the middle of the night or really off season. I was well aware if I bought a bigger boat I would not be able to fish Knox, Hoover and places like that. I made a decision and have not regretted it since, nothing beats going out to a lake like that and enjoying a little peace without a ton of boat traffic. 

As for the modifying engines, I am sure that happens I will let you know though I do indeed have a true 9.9 HP engine, and I do not see too many boats out there faster then mine and mine is loaded down with boards to dampen sound. I think a lot of the 9.9 to 15 mods are done on older engines that do not run as well as a newer 9.9 anyway so they do not make that big of a difference. Not to say that does not happen but it is rarer then what you may think on here.

Anyway I will keep a wary eye on Knox hopefully it does not effect that body of water too badly. Some of the best eating channel cats in the state come out of there which I attribute to a relatively clean body of water. I guess big money B.A.S.S will keep winning so no matter what I think or want it is still going to happen, so much for the little man and I am glad I never knowingly gave the organization a dime out of my pocket.


----------



## chopper

It comes full circle every year. But this time the big lobby groups win. If this is an open minded test of a few lakes for a couple years, so be it. I guess that we can not stop that. Little guys can't fight the lobbiest. I promised myself that I would never get into this question again, but I can't help myself. I own a small boat. I could buy a big boat. I could sign my kids money away for a 30 year boat payment and pay $50.00 a day for gas but I don't choose to. That don't mean that others are wrong. We are not all the same. That is what makes life great. I choose a small boat on restricted lakes for the quite fishing and lesser boats. I have fished Alum as well as Salt Fork. Those boats can roll mine over without even trying. B.A.S.S. needs to remember just that. We have two very different style fishermen going after bass. They should help to protect both sides. Keep some small lakes for small boats and big lakes for big boats. The odd difference is that if all boats can go on all lakes, little boats loose. Any lake could be overwelmed with both big and little boats. If there are too many boats, the big ones can go to an unrestricted lake where little boats don't go for safty reasons. Big boats have more choices. Little boats will have to stay on the what ever they will call it, "no wake lakes" and hope to find some shore line. What is no wake? A ripple is a wake. An over active lake patrol can call anything a wake. What about speed limit. Lets say they put a 10mph limit on everyone. I know my boat plows at 10mph. So what will a big bass boat do with a 250hp do at 10mph. One last thing and I will shut up. Has anyone considered the acreage of unrestricted lakes vs 9.9 lakes in Ohio. We are not KY or Minnisota with huge lakes and lots of them. We only have a limited amount of lakes in Ohio. If you add up the unrestricted lakes and include Erie, they have lots of acres. I myself, have fewer choices. No way would I take my boat on Erie. Think of us little guys for now, its just not the right idea for Ohio. Lets don't race on the lake, but when you get to the nursing home, I bet my jazzy 111 will out run yours.


----------



## Net

I'd probably be singing a different tune if it was hoover, but for now I'm content with the fact it's only a 2 yr pilot program. Now it's up to the high HP guys to demonstrate how badly they want this reg to become permanent. If I was a tournament director I'd be laying down the law to my membership in no uncertain terms .


----------



## Sr.Jigger

I have a 14' with a 15Hp. It's not the expensive and fast bass boats that rock the hell out of me when i'm fishing, it's the big high horse power pleasure boats. Heck a bass boat can go past me 60mph and leave only a small ripple of wake. They have got those boats made so they skim the water now a days.


----------



## DarbyMan

I don't support this proposal at all.

This is ODNR caving to money. They will have to increase enforcement with more manpower. And where do they pay for that manpower...Licenses. So now you can putter with a 60hp or bigger motor. Yee Haw! Hope all you big boat guys like paying more for that license to boat and fish cause that's what you'll get.

If you want to fish the restricted lakes get a smaller boat. I fish those QUIET waters for a reason. If I wanted to fish the big waters I'd get a bigger boat. I love how everyone complains there is no quiet place to fish. Well there is but everyone wants to jam those places with big noisy boats. Then everyone will complain about the crowds at these places. Ridiculous!


----------



## lesteratv

I disagree with this decision. I have a Champion 203 with a 225 hp Evinrude for Ohio's larger bodies of water. However, I enoy the peacefulness of the 9.9hp lakes. I have a 16' Lowe Roughneck with a 9.9 to use on the restricted areas. ODNR doesn't have the staff to police this. I don't think I will be taking my Champion to Knox Lake anytime soon to find out.


----------



## V-MAX200

do away with the terms "no wake" and "speed limits" and go with an idle only restriction. any boat with an outboard larger than 10 HP can only idle. Put the boat in gear and apply NO throttle. this would eliminate anyone arguing over what "no wake" is or what "speed" they were running. Just my .02


----------



## junkyardbass

V-MAX200 said:


> do away with the terms "no wake" and "speed limits" and go with an idle only restriction. any boat with an outboard larger than 10 HP can only idle. Put the boat in gear and apply NO throttle. this would eliminate anyone arguing over what "no wake" is or what "speed" they were running. Just my .02


People will just set their engines to "idle" at a higher speed  Trust me no matter what the rules are the bad apples will find a way around it.


----------



## Big Daddy

lots of good info here for you guys in Central. Back in the Central section.


----------



## firelands

Maybe it's just my perception because I have a small boat. It seems like the large boats have plenty of lakes where they can "let it out". 

It also seems to me that a lot of the big boat operators don't care at all what they do to the little boats or bank fishermen.


----------



## big_b16

If you think it will cost more money to enforce this new proposal, why is that? Are these lakes not being enforced for every other fishing/boating law on the books, minus the local rule for the number on the side of the motor? I don't see the logic that it will cost more money if the lakes are already being policed as they should...which includes whether or not someone has alcohol in their boat at a state park.


----------



## fishinnut

I know alot of guys think this is going to change things, but I dont believe it will. I fish Knox from my bass boat before this restriction was lifted. I will go to any electric only lake with it except the likes of ladue that wont let you on it with a gas motor. I will fish any lake I can that has good fishing, I just think that this lets me fish more effiecently. Will the lakes get any more crowded? Time will tell. I love the 10 hp lakes. You know its mostly fishermen and for the most part they respect each other. I have had guys in their 14 ft 10 hp boats buzz right close to me though, so its on the individual on how they act. I hope to see leesville, piedmont, and clendeing have this same rule in the future. I just dont think its worth having to have two boats with registration, trailer plates to pay for, So I get a 18.6 ft boat and go to the bigger lakes in early spring and late fall, then the 10 hp lakes through the warmer months to stay away from the joy riders. I have the bigger boat so I can fish comfortably all day, If they dont keep this law in effect, I will still be on Knox, Charles Mills, etc., I will just have to use my electric motor. Lets just hope it works out for everyone and dont be so pessimistic about it.


----------



## ramlund man

i dunno about the rest of you folks, but i think this is a great idea on a trial basis--higher horsepower does NOT translate to bigger wakes even at slower speeds-- i hit clearfork several times a year for muskie and think that their 8mph. speed limit works just fine w/o horsepower restrictions--i run an 18ft. deep V lund with a 150hp. motor and have no problems even "speed trolling" for those toothy critters and still abide by the law--lets keep an open mind while the DNR tries this on a "trial" basis


----------



## Bassnpro1

This trial period does not affect me at all. I have a bass boat with a 90 hp and still fished the 9.9 lakes with my trolling motor. My boat at idle speed is about what my trolling motor can produce, so this only relieves the stress on my batteries.

Discrimating based on what type of property one owns seems alittle funny to me in the first place. These lakes should be equal opportunity for everyone who purchases a fishing license.


----------



## GarryS

I think this is a great idea.... Set a fine on the ones that break the law so they won't do it again. I was at Clear fork once and there was a pleasure boater out just plowing around making all kinds of wakes.... I think it would be those kind of boats breaking the law more then fisherman...

On another note... For these guys crying about this change. What about you guys running 9.9's that come over at Griggs and O'Shaughnessy.... They never slow down for the no wake zones. They will see how close they can run to someone fishing a bank an just give a wave when they go by. I guess its ok for them... 

Its just not the guys running bigger boats and motors.

Just my 2 cents again!!
GarryS


----------



## DROP-SHOT

something smells fishy to me about this whole thing. i haven't seen anything "official" on the o.d.n.r. website. does anyone have a link to something "official"?? this could just be an elaborate hoax to get people fired up over a controversial subject. i'm not swallowing it hook, line, and sinker just yet.


----------



## DarbyMan

On the last page of "Sports" in this morning's Dispatch-

"to allow access to boats with motors of more than 10 horsepower on Knox Lake in Knox County and on Greenfield and Rockmill lakes in Fairfield County"
This was submitted to the Wildlife Council.

Same article also suggested that ODNR may allow use of anterless tags ($15) during gun season in zone "C". Now that would be nice.


----------



## multi species angler

No gas motors will be able to run WOT without throwing a wake. The boaters with 9.9hp and suped up 9.9's on down to the smallest gas motors will have to almost idle along like the bigger motors to avoid throwing a wake.


----------



## luredaddy

I have searched to verify this, I have not been able to do so. About three years ago, Pymy was to have a change, even Haines Marine was told this by watercraft people. Well, that is what I was told by Haines Marine. That did not come to be, hopefully this will not. How about a petition to make all inland lakes in Ohio, 9.9 HP Max!!?? That should rub some people the wrong way! 
John


----------



## Sunfish

There have been several of you that have questioned if proposal this is accurate or not. Since I made the initial post, I will let you know where I got the information. I initially saw some discussion on an earlier thread about Knox Lake and decided to verify this information by contacting ODNR. I called and spoke to the Divison of Watercraft. I talked the Legislation Program Coordinator. This individual was very helpful and provided a detailed response which I paraphrased in the inital reply. In my posting, I was careful to state the facts as they stand now. I do not know why ODNR has not announced this yet. It is less than 30 days for a public meeting to occur. Typically, state agencies will try to get the word out to effected parties in plenty of time to get interested parties to comment. I feel that this issue needs to be discussed in detail since it does have the potential to impact many of us who use these lakes.


----------



## DROP-SHOT

the lakes mention by sunfish and the dispatch(also different by the way) are so small that it doesn't make much sense to change the current restrictions on them. most all of them can be fished from a boat with a larger motor by using only the trolling motor, you just might not be able to fish the whole lake in one trip. but, the entire lake is at least accessible in mutltiple trips to those lakes. it makes much more sense to want to change from 10hp limits to idle (8mph)speed limits on larger lakes that have a limited number of boat ramps. larger lakes like hoover, charles mill and some of the muskingum watershed lakes come to mind. parts of these lakes are inaccessible to guys like me with larger motors, trying to get around with just trolling motor. guys like me hate it(because we're limited) and the 10hp guys love it(because there's less fishing pressure). there is gridlock and i don't see anything changing. it gets rehashed every year about this time of year and nothing ever seems to come of it.


----------



## toboso

I like having 9.9 lakes for the crowd control if nothing else. However, many of these lakes get just as busy as unrestriced HP lakes since the "small" boats are all trying to stay away from the "big" boats. Just because a boat has a 9.9 HP outboard doesn't mean there won't be right-of-way and courtesy issues--I've seen it on every body of water no matter the HP rating.

Since there is no restriction on using a boat of any size/HP on any body of water if using an electric motor or oars (in some cases), some anglers are only limited, not restricted. A bass boat's inability to cover Knox Lake in one day with a trolling motor is no different than a 14 boat with a 5 HP outboard not being able to cover all of Alum Creek or Salt Fork in one day.


----------



## DROP-SHOT

i also like the 9.9 lakes (and electric only lakes) for "crowd control" if they're small or have several boat ramps. an idle speed limit will do the same thing for "crowd control", but to a lesser extent. knox is my favorite and i wouldn't change a thing, i'm fine with fishing 1/2 the lake at a time. i don't necessarily want to try fish the whole lake in one day. what i don't like on the larger lakes with few or poorly distributed boat ramps like hoover for example is parts of this lake are virtually inaccessible to a guy in a bass boat using only his trolling motor to get around. i can never fish these areas from a boat without kicker motor or a different boat with a 9.9 or less. namely the far north end and the far south end of hoover. parts of a lake like alumcreek or saltfork are not inaccessible to to someone in a 14 ft. boat with a 5 hp. they can go anywhere they want, there is no inaccessible water, as long as they had enough gas and time. granted they would have a limited range, but could fish the entire lake over several trips and by putting in at the various boat ramps. the range of a gas motor is much greater than the range of a electric trolling motor and you can carry extra gas or extra batteries to extend that range. i guess i would just like to be able to fish a majority of our public ohio lakes(the whole lake-not just parts) with just one boat. this is why my next boat will be multispecies boat with a kicker motor.


----------



## Net

Here's the news release 
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/18276/EntryID/348/Default.aspx



> "A statewide hearing on all the proposed wildlife rules will be held at 9 a.m. on Thursday, March 6 at the division's District One Office, located at 1500 Dublin Road in Columbus. After considering public input, the Ohio Wildlife Council will vote on the proposed rules during its April 2 meeting."


I assume this wildlife rules hearing will include the "idle speed" proposal since they describe Knox and the other 3 lakes as being "owned" by the Div of Wildlife.


----------



## Harbor Hunter

Saying that a lake should have a motor/hp restriction because that body of water happens to be the drinking water supply for some city is silly.Clear Fork has always been the city of Mansfield's drinking water supply,and they don't have any hp restrictions-so far,I haven't heard of the water supply being toxic.Also saying that the ODNR will never be able to pass any laws regarding hp limits on Hoover solely because it's owned by the city of Columbus is silly too.Clear Fork is owned by the city of Mansfield,looking back,Mansfield didn't want any motorized craft on the lake-guess what? One thing to remember,a city may own said body of water,but the ODNR normally maintains them.In other words,law enforcement,fish management and land management is usually taken care of by the state.NW Ohio has a large number of upground reservoirs that are owned by the cities where they are located,but the state manages them.I personally applaud BASS and our DNR for coming together and reversing what was always an unfair law.How can any person in this state that buys a fishing license not be able to utilize ANY fishery within Ohio because his motor is too large.That's the same kind of bogus crap that goes on in the upper midwestern states that have fly-fishing only streams(normally the best ones),how can you restrict someone from fishing a stream because he fishes a different way? Of course,TU and other high-dollar lobbyists will disagree with that.Long-winded I know,but I've been tired of this law for years,I now have as much right on Knox with my 40 as you do with your 9.9.I don't think the serenity of Knox will change at all,and it will still be a fine bass lake for years to come.If I wanted serenity and seclusion that bad,I would buy my own pond,Erie isn't very serene,or calm and it's the greatest fishery in the country!


----------



## misfit

a few points.i'll stay away from the argument for or against(for now,lol)and just correct a few things that were stated by others.
first,hoover is NOT maintained by the dnr.the city maintains the ramps,all surrounding land,boating regulations/enforcement and other aspects.the state provides a very small amount of money for certain things(a drop in the bucket)through a grant.they do stock it,but that is the extent of their involvement.i don't know how other cities operate,but this is regarding hoover.
as for ramps at hoover,the present ramps provide access with electric motors to almost all of hoover except maybe the very far north reaches.as mentioned,you can't cover the whole lake in a day,but that isn't possible with a gas motor unless you're just sightseeing instead of actually fishing.only occasionally do i travel more than a few hundred yards from any ramp,and have no problem catching any type fish i want to target.i also used to fish it with only an electric motor,and still had no trouble finding and catching fish.

btw,the state already tried to change hoover a few years ago,and the city stopped them.


----------



## bentminnow

when is this Supposed to happen ?


----------



## DROP-SHOT

well, the news release clarifys some stuff. it says there will be open houses at the 5 district offices on march 2 and a state wide public hearing at 9am on march 6th at the division one district office(1500 dublin rd., columbus). then, after considering public input they(ohio wildlife council) will vote on the proposals on april 2. so, nothing is "official" until then. it's not a done deal, they could vote it down.


----------



## Scrabbley

Has this new rule change happened yet?


----------



## Mushijobah

Just to clear some misconceptions up. Most low HP limits on water supply lakes (such a Hoover) are not intended to prevent 'toxic' water from boat engines, but are to prevent erosion during variable water levels. As you can see at hoover, throughout the summer a lot of bare bank is exposed. The city would like to keep it as sediment free as possible to lengthen its existence.


----------



## StuckAtHome

What he said.


----------



## SwollenGoat

Harbor Hunter said:


> ...I've been tired of this law for years,I now have as much right on Knox with my 40 as you do with your 9.9.I don't think the serenity of Knox will change at all,and it will still be a fine bass lake for years to come.


I understand the point you're trying to make, but the little guys with their 9.9's, 8's 5's etc. also have a right to fish lakes like Alum Creek and Buckeye Lake. Before you say "But they can!", go ask somebody with a 12 or 14' boat just how much fishing they can get done in the middle of Alum Creek on a Saturday afternoon in July. 

You'd think guys with a tin can boat and a 9.9 would be jealous of all the big bass boats and Lunds out there. Turns out the big guys are jealous because a tiny handful of lakes won't let them on with their big motors. Nobody is saying you can't fish these lakes with your boat. Use your electric trolling motor, or buy a 9.9...it's just that simple.


----------



## DarbyMan

Well said SwollenGoat!


----------



## Bassnpro1

I think they should lift the 9.9 hp restriction. Discrimating based on one's property seems unamerican to me.


----------



## Harbor Hunter

My boat is only 16',and I've never been worried about fishing in the middle of Alum.I regularly run my little "tin can" out to the islands up at Erie,and have to contend with the larger boats,and especially their wakes.I guess either I haven't been able to get my point across,or some just don't want to hear it.Just saying,9.9's are permitted to fish any lake they want,I think it's about time(finally),that the rest of us can too.Granted Knox and Kokosing are smaller lakes,but when I hear the Pymatuning crowd whining about larger motors on "their lake",I just gotta laugh.I mean it's only about 14,000 acres or so,I can really see how a larger motor would ruin that mecca.BTW,I never said that Hoover was the drinking supply for C-Bus,someone else did,I just commented on it.You say erosion is a question? A 9.9 leaves a greater wake going full-throttle than a bass boat would going 8 mph.


----------



## Rockfish41

this isnt about a wake,its about the laws that the odr has made. the law is based on 9.9 hp.i know some people have tinkered with there 9.9 hp to make them a higher hp.I personally dont believe this is right either but 9.9 is the law.everyone knows the law when u purchase your boat and motor.They say 9.9 boat people are crying about this.Well we didnt make these laws,the ohio dnr did.whose doing all the whining,everyone that has the bigger motors.they say pleasure boats wouldnt come on the lakes,well go to summit lake in indiana,its a no wake lake.the pleasure boats are everywhere.i absolutely believe that 99% OF All fisherman will follow the rules but theres that 1% that wont.my 9.9 on my pontoon is a true 9.9 its never been tampered with and im just following the laws that the ohio d&r has past


----------



## Rockfish41

lol On a good day i can spell (passed)


----------



## Wolfhook120

Whining? not hardly, at least not from this boater's helm. As far as Hoover is concerned, I agree that the big motors should stay off that lake. I fish it with a good friend of mine who has a nice 9.9 set up, and I enjoy the lake as is with whats in place, lots of good fishing there too! Now for the other lakes, I've only fished Knox and had a great time, but would I splash my 19 ft Champion in it just for the sake of fishing, sure I would, thats what trolling motors are for, and tilt/trim motors to. It was mentioned a few threads ago, 99% of the big boats will follow the rules and even surpass them by being considerate to conservation efforts for the smaller lakes that were once 9.9 restricted and run trolling motor for most of their fishing time on those waters. I'm hoping that all boaters will follow that effort, just as we've embraced "Catch and Release". Besides, running big motors in those small lakes would spook the fish into next christmas


----------



## marinescco

Not to throw gas in the fire, but those of you who want this restriction lifted, have you to been to Knox Lake? Did you like how there wasn't any boat traffic? Did you like how clean and well maintained the area was? Did you enjoy staying out all day and all night long with peace and quiet? Did you like going out and seeing all of the wildlife along the banks? I know I did. I think that if this was lifted it would not only cause way too much boat traffic, but everything great about that lake would be changed. It would cause erosion, the fish wouldn't bite as much as they do now, and there wouldn't be anymore peace and quiet. There are plenty of other lakes to go run your 125hp around. I love going there and not fighting for a position on the lake. It is already small enough, I mean you really can't fish half of it unless you want to risk hitting a stump every 5 feet. I don't know, I just think this would ruin a lot of good things for our small lakes. I hope to see some of you at the ODNR meeting. By the way, is there anyone who lives on the banks of Knox on this site? Just curious.


----------



## wargoth

They should just make them all Paddle Power....


----------



## Buckeye1955

Does anyone really believe you are going to see this mad rush of big HP boats to the lakes they open up for idle boats? Most of the guys will continue to fish the unrestricted waters they always have. It isn't exactly pleasant nor good for the motor to run around all day at idle. You'll get a few, but not a lot. This is about opening up fishing areas equally to all the people that pay the taxes to support that waterway, not restricting them to just a few. It is a compromise that serves the most equally. How about everyone just taking it down a notch or two and seeing how it works out? If it becomes a problem the DNR can change the rules back just as easily. It has worked well in other states. There is no reason to think it won't in Ohio.


----------



## Sunfish

Additional information about this topic. In the Feruary 1, 2008 issue of the Ohio Outdoor News, Mr. Mike Moore has an article about current regulatory changes under consideration by ODNR. In his article, Mr. Ray Petering (the state Fisheries Program Administrator) discusses the proposal. Here are several quotes from the article:

Mr. Petering is quoted - "What we're trying to do is allow (bass anglers) to get on some of our better and smaller (bass) systems...."

" The federations representing Ohio bass tournments have been the big proponent for the change, Petering said. The aformentioned lakes are among the better bass fisheries in the state."

See the article for details.


----------



## cheezemm2

I see both sides to the argument, but if we go to an idle only (e.g. see Portage Lakes) type restriction, I will be surprised if the rules are NOT broken. I still stand by my original statement (if you have a 3hp-300hp, you have the means to go faster and people will)

If bass tournaments are the focus, give them some type of waiver for the length of the tournament for having the big motors on the lake at idle only. I am not worried about members and responsible people, I am worried about Billy Bob running wide open.

*The real problem here isn't really the size of the motor, but the stupidity of people!!!* Personal responsibility has gone up in smoke and enforcement is already overstretched...


----------



## misfit

> The federations representing Ohio bass tournaments have been the big proponent for the change


this has been the case for years.the bigger tourney promoters ,as said,are and have been the major players in the effort.i really have no animosity toward tourney guys,but i do think the promoters just want more opportunities to make a buck as much as having more waters to fish.so it's not so much about your average joe fisherman.and i honestly believe the next step after getting access will be pushing for higher speed limits,as some won't be happy with still putting around the lake at barely higher speeds than electric.most have plenty of battery power,so i don't think speed/battery life is the major driving factor.tourney(most) fishing is about speed(and money) when it comes down to it.the faster water can be covered,the more time can be spent fishing from spot to spot.you're not going to have that advantage by moving around at trolling speed.
human nature is such that,the more one has,the more one wants,and i think over time,this action will prove that.


----------



## SwollenGoat

Harbor Hunter said:


> My boat is only 16',and I've never been worried about fishing in the middle of Alum.I regularly run my little "tin can" out to the islands up at Erie,and have to contend with the larger boats,and especially their wakes...


My "tin can" comment is not meant as an insult. More to paint the picture of a stripped out John or V with just a motor. These types of boats are very light and are greatly affected by chop and wake. I'm not saying you're going to die in a 12-14 boat on Alum, but I will say that if you're fishing a fixed position (like structure or schools of fish) you'll likely spend most of your time fighting to hold position rather than fishing. To me, that takes much of the "enjoyment" out of fishing a lake like Alum in a smaller boat. Such that it "limits" my usage of that lake. 

_Did I complain that this was unfair because I only had a 9.9? *No.* 
Did I rally the troops to limit Alum to a 9.9 lake only? *No.* 
I knew that if I wanted to comfortably fish bigger lakes I needed a bigger boat and a bigger motor, which is just what I got._





Harbor Hunter said:


> I guess either I haven't been able to get my point across,or some just don't want to hear it.Just saying,9.9's are permitted to fish any lake they want,I think it's about time(finally),that the rest of us can too...


Likewise my point of view seems to be falling on deaf ears.  
I regularly see $50,000+ Tritons, Rangers etc... with a 250+hp off the back fishing Hoover with just their electric trolling motor.

*Do they have a 9.9??? NO!! 
Are they fishing hoover??? YES!! *



I'm not arguing because I have a 12' boat with a 9.9 and I'm trying to keep the rest of the bigger boats off. As I pointed out simply having a bigger motor won't keep you off of lakes like Hoover. For 3 years I enjoyed fishing lakes like Hoover with my 9.9, but after a while I got tired of not being able to comfortably fish bigger lakes like Alum and Delaware. So now I have a 17' deep V with a 90hp AND a 9.9. This allows me the best of both worlds.

Again, I just don't see the problem the way you do. You say because you have a big motor you can't fish restricted lakes. 
Fact is, you *can* fish restricted lakes with your boat:
Here are your options...
*A.) Use only your electric trolling motor.
B.) Buy a kicker.
C.) Buy a smaller boat with less than 10hp to fish restricted lakes.*


----------



## SwollenGoat

misfit said:


> this has been the case for years.the bigger tourney promoters ,as said,are and have been the major players in the effort.i really have no anymosity toward tourney guys,but i do think the promoters just want more opportunities to make a buck as much as having more waters to fish.so it's not so much about your average joe fisherman.and i honestly believe the next step after getting access will be pushing for higher speed limits,as some won't be happy with still putting around the lake at barely higher speeds than electric.most have plenty of battery power,so i don't think speed/battery life is the major driving factor.tourney(most) fishing is about speed(and money) when it comes down to it.the faster water can be covered,the more time can be spent fishing from spot to spot.you're not going to have that advantage by moving around at trolling speed.
> human nature is such that,the more one has,the more one wants,and i think over time,this action will prove that.


-Amen Misfit.


----------



## Net

Very well stated Misfit. I have nothing more to add.


----------



## DrChip

I'm no longer one of them, but I think this discussion has left out a large middle ground of boaters. Opponents to the proposed regulation continually reference people with 150-250hp motors and $50,000 bass boats. OK, but what about someone with a 25hp, or a 40 or 50 on a smaller aluminum boat? Until last year I ran a 17' Tracker with a 45hp Merc that I bought used for $3000. I didn't want to go out on Alum on a windy day -- it beat the you-know-what out of me -- or a weekend day in summer, just like those of you who cite this as a restriction for boats with 9.9 motors. I spent a lot of time those years on Knox lake -- over an hour drive from my home.

But, I also couldn't use my gas motor on Hoover or Knox -- even at idle speed. And, when wind blows from west to east on Knox, a trolling motor runs out of juice real quick just trying to hold yourself or advance slowly down the shoreline...

Why isn't anyone considering others in the same situation -- those who have (for whatever reason) a boat that's not suitable for the big lakes but also doesn't have a 9.9? What makes 9.9 the magic number, rather than 15, or 25, or 50? Until you get into a no-wake or speed limit regulation, any horsepower limits are entirely arbitrary and have nothing to do with size of wake, noise, erosion, or any other practical implication except for excluding people who didn't buy the right product. It's a purchase limit, not a behavior limit, and that seems wrong to me. Why not set the limit at 4hp instead of 9.9? If 9.9 is good for the peace, quiet, and restrictions on the waterways, wouldn't 4hp be even better?

I fished Knox in my Tracker for 2-3 years, and I now fish it with my Skeeter -- in both cases using just the trolling motor. But, when I watch the 14' v-bottom with decking (or the pontoon boat) with the 9.9 going full blast (but not on plane) down that narrow lake, I think it does just as much (more, in fact) to scare the fish and other wildlife, erode shorelines, and generally disturb the peace compared to a big motor on a bass boat (or any other boat) at idle. Am I wrong? Why should that boat be able to do that, but I can't idle with my gas motor?

I also don't recall hearing anyone with a 9.9 saying they'd be happy to revert to an electric only status for these lakes and give up using their motors. All I've heard is that "people" will break the law if the law is changed -- but we all know that people do that already by hopping up 9.9s or using 9.9 stickers on 15s (which I should point out is a 50% increase in hp over the law). So, the "breaking the law" thing is a red herring -- it happens already.

I think, in fairness and for the good of the resource, *a uniform no-wake rule for motors of all hp levels would improve on the current condition by reducing wake and erosion and noise levels. It would also open up fisheries and increase (positive) interaction between those who have larger motored boats and those who have smaller motored boats by making us all play by the same rules on the same body of water. Then, breaking the rules is breaking the rules, regardless of what motor or size or type boat you have.*

Are we really that different anyhow -- aren't we all fisherman (and women)? Are we really all incapable of fishing the same lakes together, or do we have to divide ourselves into two extreme camps?

chip


----------



## Buckeye1955

Very well said Dr. Chip! You mention the HP limit - Why is it where it is? I just today read a Pennslyvania DNR article on that very subject. They report wide spread cheating by the 9.9 guys - changing the carberators so that it becomes a 15HP. (I personally work with 3 of those guys that brag about it.)
The PA DNR is proposing an 18HP limit. That would make the cheating on the 9.9's a waste of time, but they also say they have to stay below the the 25HP market, because you can do the same thing to them and raise them way above the stated 25HP. I agree with you. Make it idle for everyone!


----------



## DarbyMan

Sorry but I don't buy the "its not fair" talk. 

Keeping big motors off these waters ensures that idiots don't run there with huge engines. Now I know that there are a few who don't follow the rules but you'll have that anywhere. The point is that this cheating is kept in check. 

Everyone has to purchase the appropriate item to fish/hunt the area they want to go to. I had to buy a shotgun to gun hunt deer in Ohio. Thats the law, if I don't like it I can go elsewhere and hunt with my 30/30. Simple as that. If I want to boat in Darby creek, I need a canoe, so I bought one. Thats the way it is. 

There is plenty of water for big motored boats. The small waters are limited on space, opening them up to more boaters only increases the crowd. Then we will all complain about the crowds on those waters. If you chose to buy a big motored boat then you voluntarily limited yourself to those waters. If you want to fish the restricted waters then you voluntarily need to buy a different rig.


----------



## Buckeye1955

If anyone was up to the Columbus Boat Show last weekend, they handed you a copy of the Ohio Outdoors News going in. On page 28 the article discusses the proposal to lift the 10HP limit on Lake la Su An, Oxbow Lake, Knox lake and Lake Rupert. I talked via e-mail to Todd Doncyson of the Ohio DNR and he also said they were considering Burr Oak. One of the ideas being considered is you would have to apply for an additional idle speed permit (with an additional charge) and that they could conceivably limit the number of permits for a given lake. The permits would be possibly be given out by a lottery system. Again, as has been mentioned several times in this discussion, if what we are trying to do is prevent bank erosion, promote safety and cause as little habitat damage as possible, let's just make it idle speed for everyone. If we are just trying to limit the numbers of boats on the lake, go to a permit system with a set number issued. We all pay fishing fees and state taxes to support these fisheries, there should be a way found that we can all fish them with whatever equipment we have purchased to fish with.


----------



## misfit

> Are we really that different anyhow -- aren't we all fisherman


yes,we are all fishermen.but as i mentioned in my previous post,fishermen in general are not what concerns me.i understand the frustration of those with larger motors,but again,there are options.whether that is considered "fair" is up for discussion.as for the present limitations,they were set in place by those charged with overseeing the waters for reasons of their own,taking in many factors.actually the limits have been changed over the years,as most presently 9.9 lakes were 6 hp at one time.those changes were most likely implemented for various reasons also,including consideration for fishermen.
again,my concern is those who are really the driving force behind the changes,and not the majority of fishermen.though tourney fishermen are in the minority(compared to recreational fishermen),their organizations do have some power,and it is being used to achieve and end.
for that reason,i have,do and always will oppose certain changes.whether or not people want to admit to or believe it, tourney promoters will not stop with no wake/low speed limits.once that door is opened,it will be very hard if not impossible to close it,and that will only be the beginning of the push for more,more,more.
anyone who doesn't believe that is only fooling themselves.


----------



## k_redball

i strongly disagree with taking the HP restrictions off these lakes. ive fished pymatuning my whole life (16 years) and even though its 9.9, sometimes you have to wait in line to dock your boat and as far as polution goes, its not the cleanest lake around. And if a BIG lake like pymatuning can be polluted with 9.9s just think what large engines would do to these smaller lakes. B.A.S.S. has thousands of lakes to take there 200 HP engines across the nation and if they destroy what little acreage lakes we have left how will our children be able to see the beauty these lakes can provide. Just in my short life, i can already see the problems that will arise in the future and i feel saddened by the fact that the ODNR isnt trying to preserve what little areas we have left. its not that i am against big HP engines its just that i want the so-called "simple life" to stay the way it is are for generations to come. until our "brilliant" engineers can make a completely clean engine using no fossil fuels and can emit nothing but h2o vapors, these restrictions should stay the same. thats just my .02


----------



## Empty Stringer

I have read these posts and can say one thing for sure and that, yes it will increase the fishing pressure on these lakes and yes you will have more pleasure boaters on these lake and yes you will have people that will violate the speed and no-wake laws, it's human nature. I really can't see how these laws will be enforced to the maximum. The ODNR won't hire the manpower to effectively enforce these laws and if they do a lot of boaters will be "pulled over and ticketed to pay for these salaries. Personally, I have seen two boats with larger than allowed motors on Muskingum Watershed lakes with no 9.9 kickers and both broke the law and there was no one around to get them. Just my 2 Cents.


----------



## Bassnpro1

The only way to make everyone equal is to make them Idle Only for everyone. Other than that it is discrimating against someone. I thought the USA gave that up awhile ago


----------



## misfit

i can't see the discrimination issue 
there are rules for almost everything in life.these are no different.the rules have been there for years.it is personal choice as to what type boat/motor people wish to own and knowing the rules of the different waters should be taken into account when buying a boat/motor.if you choose not to fish a restricted lake because you don't wish to use the acceptable propulsion,you can't call that discrimination.you have choices.
since lager boats/motors make me feel unsafe or uncomfortable on some lakes,then should the laws change to accomodate me?i don't think so.i have the option of not fishing them or obtaining another more suitable boat.the same works the other way.


----------



## littleking

so you can't use rifles to hunt deer in ohio.... i have a rifle and i want to hunt deer with it.

to do so, i have to go somewhere else to use it.

otherwise, if i want to deer hunt with a gun in ohio; i have to: 
1. use a shotgun
2. follow the rules pertaining to using a shotgun to hunt deer
3. not gun hunt and go do something else.

i do not see the difference.

i see bass boats on hoover following the rules (kickers or trolling motors)
i see jet boats on idle speed only lakes following the rules

one thing i dont see: people standing at the dock whining about it.


----------



## DrChip

misfit said:


> i can't see the discrimination issue
> there are rules for almost everything in life.these are no different.the rules have been there for years.


Let me add just one thing -- and with the caveat that it's coming from a professor at OSU whose job it is to study political communication and public opinion...

We live in a country in which the laws are meant to serve the people, and the people (and organizations that large groups of people support) have the right to lobby to change the laws that we find unjust. This is why many laws that were once considered appropriate are no longer appropriate and have been abandoned. I'm not sure just saying "this is the way the law is and we should accept it" is a logical argument. I think what you need to say is "the law, as it is now, is the best law and if we had a completely clean slate this is exactly the law we would have." Shouldn't we rethink our laws once in a while and make sure that they still make sense -- if they ever did in the first place?

Based on this logic -- we have a real chance to change the law -- I think it makes sense for us to discuss what would be best. I think making all these lakes no wake (rather than 9.9) makes sense from that perspective, and I'm not hearing why 9.9 is a better option than no wake (even if motors bigger than 9.9 were banned).

I think we can disagree on these issues, but to be closed to any change just because the law has been there and was made by someone for some reason doesn't seem to be the best approach.


----------



## misfit

i'm in no way saying that laws should not be questioned or changed if needed.and i don't intend to convey the opinion that just because it's the law,it's ok.
my whole argument against these changes(at least for some waters)is the reasons for the changes,as i've stated.i truely believe that it is only opening the door for other things that will not be good.i'm sure you'll agree that when some person or group has an agenda,they will push as long and hard as possible to achieve their ultimate goal.it is a known fact that tourney promoters have been trying for years to expand into other waters.i think you will also see my point that they will not be satisfied with no wake or idle restrictions.but they will take what they can get for now.remember,you have to crawl before you walk.
if i thought for a minute,that wouldn't happen,i'd gladly entertain the idea of some changes to benefit fishermen in general.
i'll say it again.i have no doubt what the ultimate goal is and who is behind it.


----------



## Buckeye1955

Again, well said Dr. Chip. The DNR is trying to work out a compromise that will work for all the fishermen that would like to use the facilities. They have a plan in place. Let's give it a chance to work and see how it goes. I keep seeing posts about how the BASS tournament guys are going to take over these lakes and how there will be rooster tailed monsters running all over these lakes at supersonic speeds. Are there not 9.9HP tournaments on these lakes? Just recently I looked at purchasing a 9.9 boat and I swear the guy said he fished on the 9.9 circuit here in Ohio........


----------



## misfit

there are several lakes with 9.9 and electric tourneys around the state.
in fact,hoover has 3 tournies a week,plus a few others scattered through the year.


----------



## StuckAtHome

I think the BIGGEST reason they want a 9.9 over a no wake is pretty simple, HUMAN NATURE.

As the rule stands at 9.9, the rangers or whoever is watching knows only people with small motors are allowed to do so, and these small motors can only go so fast and create acceptable wakes.
Now if it changes to no wake only, enforcement will be next to impossible, any size craft with any sized motor will be allowed, and everyone knows and agrees, a bunch of boats will try to get "away" with going just a bit too fast, or see someone beating them to the secret spot and speeds up to get there, you know it will happen, we see it everyday when we drive our cars. To make speeding work, the only way would be to make them to go only as fast as the speed limit, same with the boats. 9.9(or 15) I believe is an "acceptable" tolerance of wave action, they know you can go only so fast, that will change if the law changes.
Mike


----------



## Lundy

It continues 

The gun hunting analogies some of you offer in support of the 9.9 rules are really humorous. ALL hunters pay for the resource equally and have the EXACT same equipment and access laws throughout the ENTIRE state. Your comparisons offered actually support equal laws on all lakes.  

There was post about if the restrictions were lifted the pleasure boaters would flood these lakes. Guess what, they pay for these lakes just as equally as any fisherman.

The wake erosion argument doesn't work very well. We have all seen the wakes thrown by these boats with the 9.9's. No wake restrictions would serve to reduce erosion not increase it. Just a fact.

Guys will break the laws and no one will enforce it. Exactly as is going on today on all of these lakes. Nothing changes, there will always be a certain element that will violate the law. You normally don't punish the lawful for the minority of the lawbreakers, that is not the intent of laws.

Many of these lakes used to be 6HP max. If the concern is erosion(which I don't buy for a second ) and pollution should they revert back to 6HP again, or electric only? If NO gas motors were permitted the complaints would go away.

Misfit, how about a lake that allowed larger motors, no wake of course, but did not permit tourneys. Everyone pays for these lake equally and thus should have equal access provided the environmental impact(easy to accomplish) on the lake is the same. However there is no right or expectation of tournament fishing, that is a totally different topic. One should not have anything to do with the other.


Should there be a minimum HP restriction,for safety reasons of course, lets say 10 HP on all lakes that are now not 9.9 restricted.?


----------



## SwollenGoat

DrChip said:


> We live in a country in which the laws are meant to serve the people, and the people (and organizations that large groups of people support) have the right to lobby to change the laws that we find unjust. This is why many laws that were once considered appropriate are no longer appropriate and have been abandoned. I'm not sure just saying "this is the way the law is and we should accept it" is a logical argument. I think what you need to say is "the law, as it is now, is the best law and if we had a completely clean slate this is exactly the law we would have." Shouldn't we rethink our laws once in a while and make sure that they still make sense -- if they ever did in the first place?


Chip, the 9.9 restriction may be an *inconvenience* to some, but in no way unjust or discriminatory. There are several alternatives that would allow your boat on the water. Nobody is trying to keep you off, just limitiing the method of propulsion to 10hp or less, or using your electric trolling motor. Why is it 9.9 and not 15...25...35...etc? I don't know, why is the school zone speed limit set at 20mph and not 10 or 15 or 25???? Somebody had to set SOMETHING in place based on information at hand.

You stated the difficulty in fishing waters like Alum Creek with your current boat. Don't you feel it is unjust that you can't comfortably use your boat to fish that lake? Why aren't we lobbying to lower hp or speed limits on lakes like Alum to level the playing field for smaller boats? There are also electric only lakes in Ohio. Are these unjust to everyone as well? 

I think you have to agree that you can't make everybody happy all the time and this issue is no different. I would guess at least 90% of the available public water in Ohio is open to big boats with motors larger than 10hp. We are talking about a VERY small percentage of lakes with a 9.9 restriction. Is this so much to ask? It's not just for fishing either. Lakes like Hoover are one of the few lakes you could kayak or canoe across without the fear of getting run over by a 30' Baja going 70mph. Let's also not forget the large number of sailboats that use lakes like hoover, or the rowers in the longboats that have rowing competitions for school etc. Don't they have a right to have a body of water to enjoy and feel safe???


----------



## SwollenGoat

Lundy said:


> It continues
> 
> The gun hunting analogies some of you offer in support of the 9.9 rules are really humorous. ALL hunters pay for the resource equally and have the EXACT same equipment and access laws throughout the ENTIRE state. Your comparisons offered actually support equal laws on all lakes.


REALLY???

I don't see it that way, in fact I could argue that I can't use my shotgun during bow or muzzle-loader season. Why??? I bought a deer tag...right? I paid the same as every other deer hunter...right? So, to hunt in bow season I would need to buy a bow. And to hunt muzzle-loader I would need to buy a muzzle-loader. Why are these laws in place?? Seems if I couldn't afford to all of these I should probably choose to buy a bow even though it is not as accurate, nor does it shoot as far as a gun. Bit of an inconvenience, but is it unfair or discriminatory????   

I'll use a different scenario. Why in state parks like Wayne national forest, are ATV riders restricted to less trail acreage to use than those on horseback? Don't those ATV riders pay a park permit to use it?? Why do they have less than those using a horse??? Isn't this unfair or discriminatory??  




Lundy said:


> There was post about if the restrictions were lifted the pleasure boaters would flood these lakes. Guess what, they pay for these lakes just as equally as any fisherman.


Yup, so do those with kayaks, canoes, inflatable pontoons, belly boats, small sailboats and the rowers for longboats. Yet, all of these folks would find it nearly impossible to boat in the middle of a lake like Alum Creek in the summer. Are they getting the same return on their fees as someone with a bigger boat?




Lundy said:


> Guys will break the laws and no one will enforce it. Exactly as is going on today on all of these lakes. Nothing changes, there will always be a certain element that will violate the law. You normally don't punish the lawful for the minority of the lawbreakers, that is not the intent of laws.


I totally agree that people will break the law. Now combine that truth with the fact that city and state budgets are stretched pretty thin. As was stated it is far easier and less expensive to regulate boaters at the ramp than it is to have more officers, boats and man-hours to patrol a lake like Hoover trying to catch a few bad apples.

You say punished, I say inconvenienced.



Lundy said:


> Many of these lakes used to be 6HP max. If the concern is erosion(which I don't buy for a second ) and pollution should they revert back to 6HP again, or electric only? If NO gas motors were permitted the complaints would go away.
> 
> Misfit, how about a lake that allowed larger motors, no wake of course, but did not permit tourneys. Everyone pays for these lake equally and thus should have equal access provided the environmental impact(easy to accomplish) on the lake is the same. However there is no right or expectation of tournament fishing, that is a totally different topic. One should not have anything to do with the other.
> 
> 
> Should there be a minimum HP restriction,for safety reasons of course, lets say 10 HP on all lakes that are now not 9.9 restricted.?


I'm not going to speak for Misfit, but if all bodies of water in Ohio (except Erie and the Ohio River) were limited to 9.9 hp I would have no problem with it. Is that fair to the go-fast crowd, skiers and PWC users? No. Just like it isn't fair to those with smaller craft that they can't have the same enjoyment out of larger bodies of water that those with bigger boats do.

So again, we're back to the argument of "I have a big motor, and I want to fish restricted lakes." Fine...here is what you do.

1. Use your electric trolling motor
2. Buy a kicker
3. Buy a smaller boat with less than 10hp to use on restricted lakes.


----------



## littleking

SwollenGoat said:


> So again, we're back to the argument of "I have a big motor, and I want to fish restricted lakes." Fine...here is what you do.
> 
> 1. Use your electric trolling motor
> 2. Buy a kicker
> 3. Buy a smaller boat with less than 10hp to use on restricted lakes.


everyone needs a 300hp hole shot monster swollengoat, i would much rather buy another tournament shirt then buy a kicker.


----------



## Lundy

SwollenGoat said:


> REALLY???
> 
> I don't see it that way, in fact I could argue that I can't use my shotgun during bow or muzzle-loader season. Why??? I bought a deer tag...right? I paid the same as every other deer hunter...right? So, to hunt in bow season I would need to buy a bow. And to hunt muzzle-loader I would need to buy a muzzle-loader. Why are these laws in place?? Seems if I couldn't afford to all of these I should probably choose to buy a bow even though it is not as accurate, nor does it shoot as far as a gun. Bit of an inconvenience, but is it unfair or discriminatory????


You are missing the main point. ALL users are restricted the same way. I'm not talking about seasons, apples and oranges All hunters during bowseason statewide have the right to use crossbows and bows. ALL hunters during the gun season have the right to use every legal weapon. Now if only hunters using a 20 ga. and under were allowed to hunt Wayne National Forest, no 12 gauges , you would have a viable analogy.  



SwollenGoat said:


> I'll use a different scenario. Why in state parks like Wayne national forest, are ATV riders restricted to less trail acreage to use than those on horseback? Don't those ATV riders pay a park permit to use it?? Why do they have less than those using a horse??? Isn't this unfair or discriminatory??


Remember environmental concerns, Horses crapping on trails is not the same as ATV use 






SwollenGoat said:


> Yup, so do those with kayaks, canoes, inflatable pontoons, belly boats, small sailboats and the rowers for longboats. Yet, all of these folks would find it nearly impossible to boat in the middle of a lake like Alum Creek in the summer. Are they getting the same return on their fees as someone with a bigger boat?


They have a choice, there are not restricted from doing so if they choose to.






SwollenGoat said:


> I totally agree that people will break the law. Now combine that truth with the fact that city and state budgets are stretched pretty thin. As was stated it is far easier and less expensive to regulate boaters at the ramp than it is to have more officers, boats and man-hours to patrol a lake like Hoover trying to catch a few bad apples.
> 
> You say punished, I say inconvenienced.


Should we restrict the HP of all cars or install governors so no one can exceed the 65 MPH speed limit on our roads?







SwollenGoat said:


> I'm not going to speak for Misfit, but if all bodies of water in Ohio (except Erie and the Ohio River) were limited to 9.9 hp I would have no problem with it. Is that fair to the go-fast crowd, skiers and PWC users? No. Just like it isn't fair to those with smaller craft that they can't have the same enjoyment out of larger bodies of water that those with bigger boats do.


Why not a 6 hp limit like it used to be? Or maybe electric only. WHY 9.9. what is the logic, lets change it back to 6HP, I would support going back to 6HP in a second. 



SwollenGoat said:


> So again, we're back to the argument of "I have a big motor, and I want to fish restricted lakes." Fine...here is what you do.
> 
> 1. Use your electric trolling motor
> 2. Buy a kicker
> 3. Buy a smaller boat with less than 10hp to use on restricted lakes.


1. Already do
2. Already have one
3. I agree and I strongly support changing the restriction back to 6 HP for all of reasons stated in this thread. Less noise, erosion, pollution, traffic, more safety, better fishing, etc, etc


----------



## Net

I'm seeing valid arguments on both sides of this issue but I'll always err on the side of "less is more". If it was left up to me, all lakes in ohio would be rowboat only with a strict dress code . Straw hats for men, short shorts for the gals !#.

NOW I have nothing more to add...


----------



## Lewzer

At least all those last they are experimenting on are not in NE Ohio or the MWCD lakes.
I'm sure we will revist this topic next winter or the winter thereafter. 
If the state doesn't see an increase in revenue from this, and they most likely will not, we will see whether this rule will become permanent.



> Misfit, how about a lake that allowed larger motors, no wake of course, but did not permit tourneys.


That would be excellent. Ban all tournys!!!


----------



## DROP-SHOT

on the enforcement issue. we all could do a great deal to help with enforcement. with today's technology there's a thing called a cell phone. it seems like everyone has one these days and they'll work almost anywhere.
you could report violators to the proper authorities(whoever that would be)
with a simple phone call(keep their number programed in your phone) . every boat has it's registration numbers on the sides. now, how well the response would be might be another story. violators might also need to be caught in the act or you'd have to have several witnesses to the violation for them to get a ticket. i don't know. it would similar to reporting a drunk driver who almost runs you off the road.


----------



## SwollenGoat

Well, I have to agree we certainly all have different opinions and interpret information just as differently. 

Some say this law is unfair...unjust...discriminatory...whatever. I and many others see it as perhaps an inconvenience to some, but a necessary and fair way to offer a VERY small amount of resources to a group of people who otherwise would be left out.

Why is it 9.9 and not 6, or 15 or 25...????? Dunno'. I didn't make the law, but I am abiding by it as it is currently written. Go ahead and drop Hoover down to 6hp and I'll gladly sell my 9.9 and buy a 6...or make it electric only...or paddle only...whatever. If I want to use it I will make the adjustment to do so...not complain about how unfair it is to me and my situation.


----------



## Net

SwollenGoat said:


> Why is it 9.9 and not 6, or 15 or 25...?????


Technically, the limit is 10 HP -- not 9.9
My uncle ran an evinrude 10.0 HP on pymatuning for years.
Outboard manufacturers started making 9.9's when some US lakes went to a "UNDER 10 HP" restriction.


----------



## Lewzer

> we all could do a great deal to help with enforcement. with today's technology there's a thing called a cell phone. it seems like everyone has one these days and they'll work almost anywhere.
> you could report violators to the proper authorities(whoever that would be)
> with a simple phone call(keep their number programed in your phone) . every boat has it's registration numbers on the sides. now, how well the response would be might be another story.


I did do that many times on WB with OH numbers and pictures. As I mentioned on an earlier post where I pasted the pic, they didn't care. 
And the thing is, their office is right next to the campground. They could have drove less than 1/2 mile to Rock Springs Rd, stopped on the bridge and caught them in action.

Oh well. My last post on the issue till next winter....


----------



## DrChip

SwollenGoat said:


> REALLY???
> 
> I totally agree that people will break the law. Now combine that truth with the fact that city and state budgets are stretched pretty thin. As was stated it is far easier and less expensive to regulate boaters at the ramp than it is to have more officers, boats and man-hours to patrol a lake like Hoover trying to catch a few bad apples.


But, as I've already pointed out, the current law doesn't say you can't be on the lake with a motor bigger than 9.9 -- it just says you can't use it. So, you CAN'T enforce the current law from the ramp any better than the proposed new law. In both cases, the same boats are allowed on the water. This argument just doesn't work for me. And, Drop-shot has it right -- if we are all concerned about the law breakers, then let's be part of the enforcement...



SwollenGoat said:


> REALLY???
> 
> Fine...here is what you do.
> 
> 1. Use your electric trolling motor
> 2. Buy a kicker
> 3. Buy a smaller boat with less than 10hp to use on restricted lakes.


Since you've said this a couple times and I've thought of it each time, this time I'll add a fourth.

4. Take advantage of the fact that we live in a country in which people can influence the laws, and work to change the law to something that makes more sense to you. 

That's the option I'm going to take...


----------



## SwollenGoat

DrChip said:


> Since you've said this a couple times and I've thought of it each time, this time I'll add a fourth.
> 
> 4. Take advantage of the fact that we live in a country in which people can influence the laws, and work to change the law to something that makes more sense to you.
> 
> That's the option I'm going to take...


Agreed, you work to change the law.

Meanwhile, I'll be on the water fishing. 

(*Oh, and BTW I know for certain Hoover is well enforced not only by the officers, but by the majority of it's users. 
I have the ranger's number stored on speed dial.)


----------



## misfit

kim,i'm proud of you for holding off so long.80 posts before you replied? 


> All hunters during bowseason statewide have the right to use crossbows and bows.


i'll add that all boaters have that same right when it comes to using the lakes.as with hunters,they just need the equipment to do so  
seriously,i've explained mt position several times and if it hasn't registered with some people,you need to reread those posts till you get it 
i will say one more time though,if you think people will stop pushing with the current proposal,you'd better wake up.


----------



## binkfox77

I live close to lake rupert and believe me I see big motors all the time idling across the lake.so actually it's been going on for years,it shouldn't be an issue i am an owner of a jon boat and a bigger boat. the facts are that a 9.9 puts off a bigger wake than a idling bass boat.


----------



## alumking

It is so funny to sit back and listen to all the bickering about this new law. I grew up fishing Hoover and Knox in my bass boat in the early 90's.First off I see laws broken by 9.9 boats such as blowing no wakes, drinking on the water and ignorance. These people are law breakers regaurdless of the size of their motors! Idiots come in all sizes. We just have way to many boaters and too few places to put them on.We can all do our part to insure that these law breakers are caught and I think it is all of our resonsibility to do so.I am so glad that I will be able to take my bass boat to a lake that doesnt have all the high speed boats buzzing up and down the lake. This doesnt mean that I am going to break the law just because I have a 250hp motor it just means I have had it with places like Alum Creek! The new law will not take anything away from the 9.9 guys at all other than some of them dont want us to come to lake they think they own. Its all public guys and and in the words of the great philosopher aristotle (Why cant we all just get along!)


----------



## misfit

jamie,if it worked,it would be fine.i'm sure you and some other tourney guys would be satisfied just for the reasons you mentioned.and i've also seen my share of the problems you pointed out on 9.9 lakes.from the little boats to bass guys to walleye guys.there's some in all those groups who think and act like they're on their own private lake.
but do you think the the mindset of the majority of tourney fishermen and promoters is the same as yours?i honestly don't think so.i'd like to hear your thoughts on that.the current proposal is not an issue for me,but the possibilities stemming from it down the road are.
also when this issue came up a few years ago in columbus,it wasn't only 9.9 lakes.they were pushing for changes on griggs anmd o'shay also,even though the hp limits are much higher already.


----------



## cheezemm2

I almost fish exclusively from a kayak.

I fish the Ohio and deal with barge wakes and huge cruisers. I fish Portage Lakes and deal with the rule breakers. I should know exactly what I'm getting myself into based on the lake/river I fish and the hp restrictions (in a perfect world). I have the choice of wearing a PFD, outfitting my kayak with stabilizers etc. 

Let me put one thing into perspective for everyone and something I feel is very logical and scary.

If I'm paddling across the Ohio River I definitely look both ways before I cross. Why? Have you seen the profile of a kayak against the water from a distance? It's miniscule. I don't care what kind of boat is going fast, but it won't be able to stop if the owner/operator isn't paying attention. I can probably hit 3mph tops so you can see how getting out of the way might be an issue.

Once again, I think of Billy Bob and his motor with a beer in hand. I don't care what size the motor is, but with more HP comes higher speeds, more chances for accidents etc. 

So, there's my safety concern (I know kayak only is an extreme example, but I'm just sayin')...

As far as all the human nature comments....it's true. Money rules and if it's made from the change, the stepping stones will continue in the favor of higher speeds. _The problem here is that I think we're all so caught up in arguing with each other, we're not seeing the big picture. I want everyone to take a step back and think in some extreme terms. What if a small % of people with larger motors who brought in huge amounts of money wanted to get speed restrictions lifted...no we're not talking about just fisherman anymore. You have brought in the pleasure boat crowd and we all feel the same about them when we're trying to do our thing. You might think it's an extreme example, but overall we're all in the minority. It doesn't really do us any good to split our voice._ I'm fine with idle only, it means less people trying to run me over but you will have to pry my cold dead fingers away from trying to cheat the DieBold machine if it's ever to lift speed restrictions on these lakes! 

My only wish is that I'm long gone before Piedmont ever sees higher speeds than it does now...


----------



## alumking

Laws are laws period. Keeping big boats off a lake does not change anything.
How many of you people out there have 9.9 hp engines? No I mean 9.9 hp not 15, not 15 carbs, not bored out, shaved heads, boysen reeds etc. Almost every boat thet fishes tournaments on hoover is a law breaker? I know that for a fact! So that just goes to show if someone wants to break the law they are going to do it. Just because we have a big boat does not mean we are going to break the law this excuse does not have any validity. We as anglers have the power to stop someone from breaking the law or look the other way. If I see someone breaking the law any law I will be the first one to call the proper athorities on them and I urge all of you anglers out there to do the same. I enjoy the serinity of a 9.9 hp lake and idle only for the big boats wont take away from that experiance. Maybe things like noise levels need to be inforced as well. I do not think speedboats with no noise reduction systems on their motors should be allowed on any body of water either. We cant run a car without mufflers why should be be allowed to do the same with a boat? I know we have laws on the books but they need to be enforced especially on these 9.9 lakes.
I would never want the relaxing experiance of fishing a lake (9.9hp) to ever be detracted from. The new changes will not do that.


----------



## chaunc

alumking said:


> Laws are laws period. Keeping big boats off a lake does not change anything.
> How many of you people out there have 9.9 hp engines? No I mean 9.9 hp not 15, not 15 carbs, not bored, out shaved heads, boysen reeds etc. Almost every boat thet fishes tournaments on hoover is a law breaker? I know that for a fact! So that just goes to show if someone wants to break the law they are going to do it. Just because we have a big boat does not mean we are going to break the law this excuse does not have any validity. We as anglers have the power to stop someone from breaking the law or look the other way. If I see someone breaking the law any law I will be the first one to call the proper athorities on them and I urge all of you anglers out there to do the same.


So, how many of those guys with the hopped up motors that fish those tourneys you know about, have you turned in? Throwing stones in a glass house maybe?
I bit the bullet and bought a 10hp last season. I wasn't complaining because i couldnt fish those lakes with my 50. I had the choice to either get a more powerful trolling motor or get the kicker. I'll upgrade the troller next.


----------



## Net

alumking said:


> How many of you people out there have 9.9 hp engines? No I mean 9.9 hp not 15, not 15 carbs, not bored, out shaved heads, boysen reeds etc.


 I've been running a 40 HP main w/ various unmodified kicker motors for the last 15 yrs just so I could fish Hoover, Knox and Pymatuning. No issues to report.



alumking said:


> Almost every boat thet fishes tournaments on hoover is a law breaker? I know that for a fact!


  What argument are you supporting with that statement?


----------



## misfit

i agree totally with what you said,jamie.i've seen it all,especially on hoover.hell,seems like every year they bust at least a couple pwc's there also.
i think maybe there's some confusion as to the real issue as i see it.i'm not concerned with the "law breakers" or bigger motors in general.which is to say,there are going to be problems anywhere you go,and i'm not naive enough to think restrictions will change that.what im concened with is once the dnr allows for the use of bigger motors,that it can lead to more lobbying for loosening laws,eventually having the possible result of higher speeds like other lakes.i know you love hoover for what it is,and yes it would be nice to use your big motor,even at a reduced speed.but i think even you will agree that everyone doesn't share your views and many will not be happy stopping there.they'll eventually want more,more,more.


----------



## SwollenGoat

alumking said:


> How many of you people out there have 9.9 hp engines? No I mean 9.9 hp not 15, not 15 carbs, not bored, out shaved heads, boysen reeds etc.


Uhm, stock 2005 Mercury 9.9 4-stroke kicker here. 
Anybody that wants to inspect it themselves is free to do so.



alumking said:


> Almost every boat thet fishes tournaments on hoover is a law breaker? I know that for a fact!


Hmmm, and yet these "tournament" folks and organizations like B.A.S.S. who make their money off of tournaments are exactly the ones trying to change the law...!&#37;  



alumking said:


> Just because we have a big boat does not mean we are going to break the law this excuse does not have any validity. We as anglers have the power to stop someone from breaking the law or look the other way. If I see someone breaking the law any law I will be the first one to call the proper athorities on them and I urge all of you anglers out there to do the same.


I agree, and just because someone advocates the continuation of restricted lakes doesn't make them a cheater either. The 10hp restriction isn't perfect, but it does give a certain amount of control and limitations to those managing the waters that they wouldn't have over those with unlimited horsepower. Show me that we can enforce the rules we have right now on lakes like Alum Creek and then maybe I'll start to believe it wouldn't be a problem to open up restricted lakes.


----------



## misfit

> Throwing stones in a glass house maybe?


i'll speak to that myself.NO!!
i know alumking and his reputation as a pro angler,and you're dead wrong on that one.


----------



## chaunc

Rick, how can i be DEAD WRONG, if he says to turn them in, yet he knows for sure they're running illegal motors, and he doesn't turn them in. Vouch all you want. Dont wiz on my leg and tell me its raining.


----------



## misfit

i don't recall him saying if he did or did not turn them in.he merely stated he knows it goes on.so do i.the guy fishes the pro circuit and to my knowledge doesn't own a small boat/motor,nor does he fish those small tourneys.your "glass house" analogy presumes that he does,and is wrong.


----------



## SwollenGoat

chaunc said:


> I bit the bullet and bought a 10hp last season. I wasn't complaining because i couldnt fish those lakes with my 50. I had the choice to either get a more powerful trolling motor or get the kicker. I'll upgrade the troller next.


Well said Chaunc and I couldn't agree more. 

Instead of bitchin' and whinin'...Chaunc and I will be on the lake fishin'.


----------



## chaunc

You're on the wrong page here. Never said anything about him tourney fishing. Just stating he knew wrong was going on and didn't report it. Hey SG, see you at Delaware this spring.


----------



## misfit

ok.it's your story,so you can tell it how you want 
see you at delaware,so stock up on your hot baits


----------



## lakeslouie

misfit said:


> but i think even you will agree that everyone doesn't share your views and many will not be happy stopping there.they'll eventually want more,more,more.


I've enjoyed this thread up until this point. Your unfounded paranoia disappoints me.


----------



## misfit

i'm sorry if you're disappointed,but what i reffered to there is what i've said throughout this thread.call it paranoia if you like,but it's more concern.this issue has been argued/pursued for several years,and again,it's not paranoia,but my honest belief that based on human nature and what i've seen.as i also mentioned earlier,the o'shay,griggs debate wasn't based on hp restrictions because larger motors are already allowed.
don't mistake my beliefs/thoughts as being anti-tourney fisherman in general,because that is not so.i am however,not convinced that certain special interest groups do not have agendas,and will not pursue them.will they accomplish them?maybe,maybe not.but i do know they have tried and will try.
can you honestly say you wouldn't want to be able to run at higher speeds and wouldn't do so if allowed?most of us(including me)would.all i'm saying is some people will work towards that end.


----------



## Harbor Hunter

Just to respond to a couple of points that have been made.
1.The bigger motors will pollute the waters.
Pleasant Hill Lake has some of the cleanest water of any lake in Ohio,the stream directly below the dam supports an awesome trout fishery.The stream above P.Hill Lake also supports an outstanding population of trout,and this stream flows out of Clear Fork Lake.Point,both of these lakes allow large motors.
2.Allowing the bigger motors will attract to many people and the fishing will decline.
You can't be serious on this one can you? Have you ever been to Kentucky Lake or Guntersville? I would venture to say more than a few boats are on these lakes,blazing up and down them,and yet the fishing is spectacular.I know,I know they're much bigger waters and can support the extra pressure-lol!
3.Allowing the bigger motors will surely cause bank erosion.
Correct me if I'm wrong,but wouldn't a 9.9 going full blast along the bank cause more wave erosion than a 250 going along the same bank at idle speed?
4.Tournaments
Do you really believe that allowing larger motors on Knox Lake is going to open the door for more tournaments there? I don't,simply because Knox has a size limit in effect for bass.Any event there would either be a paper tournament(which suck),or the only fish they could put in their livewells would be 18"ers.That would leave many dry wells!
5.Opening the door for further infringements on the little guys.
What could that possibly be? Maybe including Hoover or Pymatuning to the list? Or that the PWC crowd is going to get a foot in the door? I hardly believe that one Saturday morning I'm going to flip on the telly and see KVD flipping the logs at Knox or Hoover.
Finally,enforcement.
Maybe the law figures a lot of us can be depended on to report the idiots(yes,even the 9.9 guys)that abuse the rules.You'll never convince me that if some jerk with a 250 was screaming across Knox Lake that everybody on the lake that day wouldn't get his numbers and turn him in.
I wonder if the tackle shops or marinas on these lakes wouldn't also like the extra revenue brought in by lifting this ridiculous law.I know of 2 marina owners in the Mansfield area that have been fighting to get this law changed just for that reason.


----------



## misfit

> I wonder if the tackle shops or marinas on these lakes wouldn't also like the extra revenue brought in by lifting this ridiculous law.I know of 2 marina owners in the Mansfield area that have been fighting to get this law changed just for that reason.


thank you for agreeing on one of my points on what is driving this issue.................................MONEY


----------



## Buckeye1955

I just don't forsee this huge group of 250HP monsters descending on the smaller lakes. I run a TR-21 Triton with a 250HP on it. Will I take advantage of the opportunity to fish Burr Oak as it is in my area? Sure, like once or twice a season! I'll continue to fish Salt Fork, Seneca and the Ohio.(Which in my area is all there is within reasonable driving distance - contrary to what I've read in here about all the places I have to fish. Which is why I drive two hours to Stonewall Jackson in WV alot of days.) It'll just be for a change of pace and a chance to enjoy exactly what the 9.9HP guys have been talking about this entire discussion - a little peace and tranquility. Am I going to spoil that for everyone else? I hardly think my idling down the lake a couple hundred yards and dropping the trolling motor for a few hours and idling back in the evening is going to be very disrupting. It won't be any different then the trips I make now other then I won't be fighting the wind with dying trolling motor batteries to get home. You listen to the arguements on here from the 9.9HP guys and it just begins to sound like a kid trying to keep the other kids out of his sandbox. None of them really hold water. Again, as I"ve said previously - the DNR is here to serve all the fishermen in the state. They are attempting to make a compromise that serves all the fishermen in the state that want to use those waters. They also aren't stupid. If the 9.9HP guys go into the public hearings using the arguements they are using on this forum, it's going to be a very short meeting.


----------



## Harbor Hunter

I will agree with you on that one,big money does allow new laws to pop up,and old laws vanish.I think common sense would dictate that the vast majority of the restricted lakes will remain that way.Lakes such as Kokosing or Shreve are just too small,to name a couple.Even if Knox does lift the hp restriction,I wouldn't fish it anymore than I do now,and I wouldn't fish it differently than I do now.Like many others have already stated,the new law would just allow me to stay out longer without the fear of running all the juice out of my batteries.Personally,I could care less if they ever changed the law on Hoover,I don't fish it now,or would I if it allowed bigger motors.The only two lakes I would like to see this change occur on would be Knox and Charles Mill,Pymy would be nice too,but Skeeter has good fishing too,and it's closer.


----------



## misfit

while standing by my opinion,i'll add a little more to it by getting back to the original post.though the issue at hand is only about 5 lakes,in the long run,i believe hopes are to expand on those as has been attempted long before now,and this is a starting point.
now to the 5 lakes.i may or may not be right in my thinking,and i'm just trying to get into the heads of the dnr people here.but it's worth some thought.
in researching those 6 lakes,you'll notice they are all small.from about 30+ to 600 acres.is it possible in giving into B.A.S.S. that they chose these lakes not only for they're quality fishing,but also because they are small enough to allow for accessing most or all of the water fairly easily at no wake speed?it's kinda like a win,win solution.due to their size,there isn't as near as much "need for speed" as larger restricted lakes might present.the small size would make for a nightmare with more lenient speed regs.it's one thinng to idle around a few hundred acres,but a whole different story when dealing with thousands of acres.again,i'm guessing,but these factors as well as much easier enforcement could be why the dnr chose these smaller waters instead of bigger lakes.
for those reasons,i have far fewer reservations about this program than if it were being implemented on the bigger lakes.


----------



## Buckeye1955

I just saw an article on Pymatuning on the PA DNR. They have to come to an agreement with the OH DNR on any rules as it falls in both states. PA was going to raise the HP to 18 a few years ago and thought they had an agreement with OH, but it wasn't approved by the OH legislature. Maybe they can come to a common agreement on the idle rule. That would be a lake I would fish more often or at least on my way to Lake Champlain each summer.


----------



## DROP-SHOT

hey guys(&gals),

i started i new thread on this subject in form of a poll question. i was just curious as to the numbers on this forum as to who's for and against. check it out and vote if you want.


----------



## FISHGUY

MAN !!!! I shure hope the weather breaks soon before everyone comes to punches.Just to much cabin fever going on here ,come on weather help us mother nature please. As some one already said this subject gets beat to death every year about this time. Just to clear things up i have done the big boat and engine thing and ended up down sizeing i run a b 40 hp. and a 9.9 and electric best of both worlds,so i pretty much go where i want come on weather warm up,we all just have to much idle time right now.. have a good one guys & gals. Tight Lines Fishguy


----------



## duckman

The demand for increased access should win out.

Delaware county for several years running was in the TOP TEN FASTEST GROWING COUNTIES IN THE *COUNTRY*! 

Thats just one county in central Ohio which has seen a lot of growth which includes boaters. As folks have discussed Alum creek is absurd on a weekend just trying to ramp the boat. Some relaxation!

Sure it is about money. I took my money and boat and put it up on Erie because I got tired of the congestion in central Ohio. I didn't want to put my family at risk by trying to operate a boat like I was on the New Jersey turnpike at rush hour. Open up access and I will spend my money here in central Ohio again.

For those who are resisting because "It's always been this way" Death, Taxes and change are inevitable. Therefore resistance is futile.


----------



## tnant1

Does that mean my 9.9 is under the same restrictions as the 150's etc..


----------



## snapperr26

could someone please name the 5 lakes they are going to try this on


----------



## misfit

if you just read this thread from the beginning,you'll see it i the first post.


----------



## noodle8177

Ok i might be missing something but i am wanting to know did it pass or not? I went to the odnrs page and it said Lake Rupert is a 10 hp lake.
If it is posted i might of over looked it thanks


----------



## DROP-SHOT

noodle, see post #42 of this thread, click on link. they(the wildlife council) doesn't vote on this until april 2, 2008. so, no it hasn't passed yet.


----------



## noodle8177

ok thanks drop-shot i must have looked over it thanks


----------



## DrChip

Just FYI, I went to the meeting a few weeks ago. There were three fishing organizations that expressed support for the proposal, but not a single person or organization who expressed opposition. I don't know if that implies anything about the ultimate vote, but with no public opposition -- at least at that meeting -- I'm betting it will pass.


----------



## NewbreedFishing

The division still needs to participate in a legislative hearing at the Joint Committee on Agency Review (JCARR) which is scheduled for March 31, and the change is not expected to go into effect until July 1.

If you would like to see the proposed rule change, you can find it at http://www.registerofohio.state.oh.us/jsps/PublicDisplayRules/searchagency.jsp - the filing agency is 1501 - Department of Natural Resources, and check the Proposed Rules radio button. On the next page, scroll down to Division of Wildlife - the rule number is 1501:31-5-02 Use of outboard motors and power boats on wildlife areas.


----------



## tnant1

This is the addendum from the legislation...

"A new section was added to increase accessibility for owners of boat motors greater
than ten horsepower as long as they operate at idle speed. Knox lake, Rupert lake,
Oxbow lake and Lake La Su An were added to this section."

Does that then mean anything under 10 can run at full throttle?


----------



## SwollenGoat

tnant1 said:


> This is the addendum from the legislation...
> 
> "A new section was added to increase accessibility for owners of boat motors greater
> than ten horsepower as long as they operate at idle speed. Knox lake, Rupert lake,
> Oxbow lake and Lake La Su An were added to this section."
> 
> Does that then mean anything under 10 can run at full throttle?



That is how I am understanding this; 10hp or less can run full throttle, anything bigger must be idle only. 

On a side note...
I replaced my 9.9 2 stroke with a 9.9 4 stroke because I used it as a kicker and most of the time it was idling while trolling at lakes like Hoover. Idling most 2 strokes for lengthy periods of time starts to load up the engine with excess oil. Which is hard on the engine and usually ended up with me buzzing around the lake with the motor at WOT for a while till it blew all that out and ran smooth again.

I'm wondering though how all the guys with the bigger 2 strokes are going to do with this new law. Might cause a lot of mechanical headaches since they really can't buzz around the lake at WOT to clean them out and free revving your engine isn't really good for your motor either.


----------



## brandon0891

Any updates to this legislation. Did the vote go through last night?


----------



## luredaddy

The RUMOR I heard was that all inland lakes will now be 9.9 HP. The issue at Pymatuning has resurfaced, of course for the last ten years, it has been stated that the 9.9 restriction would be removed, main arguement, pontoons. Well that has been resolved, the lake now has a 5.5 HP restriction, and pontoons are banned. It is good to see that SPRING is here, snow is gone, Peepers are peeping, and HOPEFULLY we will all enjoy safe and good times on the water!!!  :B Be Safe, at whatever HP!:C 
John


----------



## Phil Carver

Heres the latest news. http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/home_page/newsreleasefeed/tabid/18276/EntryID/437/Default.aspx


----------



## luredaddy

Phil,
Thanks for the update.
John


----------



## brandon0891

Thanks Phil!


----------



## justflippin

So, it looks like it passed. Does anyone know what date it goes into effect?


----------



## brandon0891

It looks like it is in effect now.


----------



## DROP-SHOT

it doesn't go in effect until july 1, 2008. i called the division of wildlife because i went to knox tuesday and wanted to make sure before i went.


----------



## Buzzman

Does anyone know if Burr Oak was, in fact, a part of the group that they are making unlimited / idle speed only?


----------



## DROP-SHOT

it was not on the press release i saw(odnr news release- grouped under the title about the new perch reduction on lake erie). the lakes listed were knox, la su an, oxbow, and rupert. that was the list for the idle speed limit for motors over 10hp. then, greenfield, rockmill, and zepernick were listed to allow 10hp motors on these lake all starting july 1, 2008.


----------



## fishnwithjoe

Does anyone know when the next meeting will be concerning the horsepower limits and how long the limits will be in effect before becoming law?


----------



## SwollenGoat

fishnwithjoe said:


> Does anyone know when the next meeting will be concerning the horsepower limits and how long the limits will be in effect before becoming law?


As I understand it, this is a trial period only. Not sure how long they have to evaluate - but nothing is permanent yet.


----------

