# Lifting restrictions on Griggs Hoover Oshay



## jpackr (Apr 15, 2004)

Just read an article in todays DISPATCH that said the state watercraft officials want to lift the restrictions on Griggs, Oshay, and Hoover. Because the city refuses, the Watercraft Division has cut off grant money to help support these waterways.
Allowing jet skis and boats over 22 ft. on Griggs which is only 550 ft wide is insane. This water is crazy enough without that. An accident waiting to happen. Removing the the 10 hp restriction on Hoover would be disappointing for me since I enjoy quietness of Hoover and not dealing with rec boaters, jet ski and tournaments.
Their reasoning for this is they want consistent statewide rules. How stupid is that! One rule for every body of water whether it fits or not. Just plain idiotic! Done venting for now.


----------



## fishintiger (Apr 26, 2004)

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


fishintiger


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

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

Friday, July 30, 2004
Jill Riepenhoff 
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH 



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


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

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


----------



## Boomer (Apr 22, 2004)

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

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

Rusty


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

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


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


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


----------



## Muskeye (Apr 12, 2004)

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

Rick


----------



## bosshog (Jul 7, 2004)

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


----------



## captnroger (Apr 5, 2004)

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


----------



## Stelgofish (Jul 8, 2004)

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


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

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


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

> Now, who do we complain to?


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


----------



## Phil Carver (Apr 5, 2004)

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


----------



## harry1 (Apr 17, 2004)

this is a terrible idea.


----------



## bassin mickey (Apr 22, 2004)

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


----------



## Warpath (May 23, 2004)

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

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

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

Eric


----------



## dan8402 (Apr 10, 2004)

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


----------



## fishintiger (Apr 26, 2004)

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


fishintiger


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

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


----------



## flathunter (Apr 5, 2004)

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


----------



## ShakeDown (Apr 5, 2004)

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

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


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

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

respectfully,
Rick Seevers
Columbus,Ohio

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

Respectfully,
Rick seevers
Columbus,Ohio


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

misfit said:


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


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

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


----------



## nomore3putts (Apr 15, 2004)

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

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

Some more ideas...

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

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

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

We need to help the City to win this one!


----------



## captnroger (Apr 5, 2004)

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

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


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

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


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






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


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


----------



## buckeye79 (May 8, 2004)

the city of westerville will fight this..hoover is bordered by residential communities...there is no way the city of westerville or the communities in delaware county that surround hoover will let this happen,the noise and traffic and all the other problems that occur with a dramatic increase in boat traffic etc, and i dont think columbus will give in...hoover would be a nightmare 3 times worse than alum being closer to most in franklin county.this is an obvious attempt by the boating industry lobbyists


----------



## Ðe§perado™ (Apr 15, 2004)

I'm in. Let's get this letter made up and I want a copy to sign and send and give out to people around that area.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

When all people buy watercraft licenses equally, support the resource equally, own the public waters equally why should only some groups have exclusive use of the resource while banning other groups.

Other than safety, which is a very valid reason, I have trouble with the justification of it.

I know will all have personal experiences and reasons why we would like to keep it they way it is, but from a legal, non emotional view, no one group has greater rights to a public resource than any other group.

Kim


----------



## captnroger (Apr 5, 2004)

Kim, it's safety in Griggs (heck their ramps alone couldn't handle larger craft, not to mention too narrow with all the sking that goes on all over the place there.) and it would be an environmental problem at Hoover with bank errosion. O'Shays is about the only one of the three that I could see makes sense. It's big, it's wider, it's deeper, and has the ramps to handle larger craft.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

kim,you may have a somewhat valid point............................BUT.
it's my belief that the current restrictions on many lakes..i.e.,piedmont,pymy,and several others were and are intended just for that purpose.to give fishermen a place to avoid all the hassles,along with other reasons such as safety and preserving the integrity of the particular lakes.
if they persist in this stupid campaign,they'd better be ready to open every restricted lake in the state,in my opinion.afterall,the reason behind this move is exactly what you said.to give EVERYONE equal access.i don't believe that,and i also don't believe they can force it on city owned impoundments.yes,they can threaten to cut off money,but that is,as i said,blackmail,which is BS.
i personally will do whatever i can to help fight it and there are many people(especially around hoover) already getting involved in the fight.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

along with big boat companies,jetski companies and owners of such,i'd also like to thank the Central Ohio Tournament Anglers Assn. for their endosement of this proposed policy change.  

before any tourney guys get hot under the collar about this statement,i'd like to say it is not intended as a slam to those of you who don't endorse this action.but to the ones who are on the side of the division of watercraft on this,it seems you're only interested in your personal agendas,one of which is to draw more tourneys to hoover,because some of you have the need for speed,and don't like the idea of going with a small motor.
i know there's a lot of money and special interest groups behind this,but on the other hand,there are forces at work right now,building an army to fight it.
all the complaining heard about alum is exactly what what will result if the state gets their way.aside from the harm to the lake and surrounding area.it will be a another freaking circus,and the little guy with the little boat will be sitting in the cheap seats


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Rick,

I agree with you and all of the others. I want it to stay the same.

I was only raising a question that is a little hard to argue, I mentioned that safety is a valid reason and I agree with you that environmental issues would also be a justification. 

Go getem Rick


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

i know,kim.and i understand what you're saying about rights of everyone.i'm all for equal rights,but i honestly think this comes down to "special" rights for special interest groups,which is wrong.as i stated earlier,the restrictions on all the lakes were put there for a purpose,and i don't believe in fixin' it if it ain't broke.if they accomplish this,they will break it  
anyone who doesn't think that there aren't a few special interest groups behind it is fooling themselves.

i hope you have bail money if things get hot 
cause this is one fight i'm in for the long haul.i may not be around too many more years to enjoy hoover,but i'd like to know that those who are,will be able to enjoy it as i have.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

panfish,if some of the idiots i've seen at alum would act more safely,a lot of problems could be eliminated.



> It just doesn't seem right for the masses to support a small special interest group.


it also doesn't seem right that BIG special interest groups try to take a small part of the water away from that small group,that was intended for a specific purpose.....i.e. fishing.
i suggest to you and anyone else who wishes to fish hoover,get a smaller boat and/or motor.anyone who wants to ski,race water cycles and just generally run around in circles churning up the lake in their speedboats partying,stick with alum,buckeye and other lakes that were built with those things in mind.


----------



## dan8402 (Apr 10, 2004)

Another point that comes up is people buying the size of boat that they can afford. People may not have the money to buy a 20' boat or cabin cruiser. If they buy smaller boats, they should not have to be thrown around at Alum. They should be able to go to a place like Hoover where they can actually fish without being in fear of their lives. If you want to buy a 30' cabin cruiser, then go to Alum and use it. It just isn't practical to put it into Hoover. It wouls cause erosion, it is a residential area, and it is one of the only places people can go around here and fish in a small boat. I can see somebody putting a houseboat on Hoover like I saw on Alum last week. I can't believe anyone would even attempt to put a 40' house boat on Hoover, but if these laws changed, I can guarantee it would happen. We would also have idiots on jetskis running over lines, hitting sailboats, etc... Taking away a horsepower limit on these lakes does nothing but punish those with small boats, fismerman, sailboats, and the like.


----------



## Erie Addict (Apr 12, 2004)

What about rules similar to that on Clearfork. Put any motor you want in the water, just don't go over 7 MPH. It would open the lake to anyone who wanted to go there. but eliminate the loud, fast boats and jetskis. The ticket money for going over the speed limit would offset the officers time and exspense. Just an idea.


----------



## bassin mickey (Apr 22, 2004)

Erie: I truly respect your opinion. But the city cannot police Hoover the way it is now. There is a 18/20 ft. Ranger with a 150hp. that always seems to find its' way around the lake with just a small wake." Ooops" that must be his electric trolling motor.


----------



## chopper (May 15, 2004)

This is not the first time that this came up and puts fisherman against fisherman. We all have rights. The right to be different if we want. I choose a smaller boat on smaller water. This is just me. Some like the big rigs with 200 plus HP fishing boats. Thats their right. I can't compete with the big boats and don't want too. If they take away my small waters, I have nowhere. They will gain it all and I will have to hold on to the sides of my boat or not fish. Please lets only argue about who got the biggest bass and not who paid for what lake. Tom


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

Excellent post Chopper! I couldn't agree more.

ErieAddict, when I read that article I got a strong feeling the Div of Watercraft is not looking to negotiate alternatives to unlimited HP. They appear hell bent to solve the Alum problem despite what they say about enforcing uniform laws. I'm just hoping its a big misunderstanding and I'll wake up tomorrow to see a retraction on the front page.


----------



## Buzzman (May 1, 2004)

I always thought that Clear Fork was just as good as Hoover from a traffic standpoint because of the 10 MPH limit on that lake. Just wondering, why would a MPH restriction be problematic on these lakes? It definitely deters the PWC's. Hoover would get more bass boats from Alum (but that crowd, for the most part, is very respectful to regs). I can't see the ski boats and PWC's launching at a lake with a MPH restriction.


----------



## Miso_Ohio (Apr 6, 2004)

Buzzman said:


> I always thought that Clear Fork was just as good as Hoover from a traffic standpoint because of the 10 MPH limit on that lake. Just wondering, why would a MPH restriction be problematic on these lakes? It definitely deters the PWC's. Hoover would get more bass boats from Alum (but that crowd, for the most part, is very respectful to regs). I can't see the ski boats and PWC's launching at a lake with a MPH restriction.


My 2 cents here for all that it is worth

The problem with a mph restriction is just pure boater ignorance. I couldn't begin to count the number of time I have seen PWC and big motorboat starting to be put in the water at Hoover only to be stopped by a ranger or another boater. The normal reply is "Oops sorry, I didn't know". If we are under a mph restriction, you will not be able to say anything to anybody putting their boats in the water, then when they take off like a bat out of *** nobody will stop them much and when they do the reply will be "Oops sorry, I didn't know". By that time the damage is done.

What a lot of high horsepower boaters fail to realize is by them being on the water they are taking a lot of boaters fishing privileges away. Granted law to fish that water does not disallow us, but who in their right mind can fish it with jet ski's trying to see how close they can get to your boat. 

As of present I will only take my jon boat out on Alum in early spring and late fall, Buckeye's the same but some times during the week it doesn't get too bad. If all lakes are unlimited hp then I will have nowhere to take my boat on the weekends when I am off. I paid my fees just the same as them shouldn't I be allowed a place to fish without fearing for my life? 

On another note I agree with everybody about Hoover not being able to handle it. Alum and Hoover may look similar on fishing maps but trust me they are not. Alum has tons of rocks (and zebra mussels), which help it with the constant bashing of a boats wake. Alum is more like a soot bottom, anybody who landed on a bank there and tried to step out of the boat can relate to that. Set your foot down in that stuff and it will weight about 40 pounds when you try to lift it again. Bank erosion will be a big problem here.


----------



## FINMAN (Apr 14, 2004)

For once I agree with the actions (or inactions) of Columbus officials. If the Watercraft Division wants to hold back grant money, then so be it. The cost of marker buoys and annual classes would be cheap compared to the new costs of patrolling and maintaining these fragile smaller waterways, if current restrictions are lifted. Show some cahones and tell them what to do with their grant money. Do that and I may even vote for you next time.


----------



## Warpath (May 23, 2004)

I heard the grant money is only $10,000 a year anyway. Yeah that hurts but could it hurt that much?

I know Dale (from the S/T series) recommended that I write down Ohio boat #'s on boats that cruise too close to me when I fish Griggs. That's not always possible. But it is a start.

I have yet to encounter a fishermen in central Ohio that wasn't polite to me while I fished. We, as fishermen, seem to follow the rules and etiquette very well. It's pleasure boaters and PWC's that race around and come perilously close to other boaters and break the rules. Lack of safety is not fun, and therefore not an appropriate use of state waters. 

If the state patrolled the waters more stringently, I could see the use of a MPH limit. But just like the highways, that will never happen. 

Can't you see the first pleasure boater on Hoover asking an officer, "Don't you give me 5 MPH over?"

Eric


----------



## Buzzman (May 1, 2004)

I agree that there will never be 100% enforcement on any restrictions imposed. There always seems to be a few that don't think that the rules apply to them. I love fishing Clear Fork, the MPH restriction works well there. In 6 years, I have not seen 1 PWC on that lake. The thing that Clear Fork has going for it though, is the Rangers. They're presence is always noted out there.


----------



## Fishzilla (May 8, 2004)

> What a lot of high horsepower boaters fail to realize is by them being on the water they are taking a lot of boaters fishing privileges away. Granted law to fish that water does not disallow us, but who in their right mind can fish it with jet ski's trying to see how close they can get to your boat.


That is the crux right there. Legally I suppose Lundy's point is valid but common sense and legality do not always go hand in hand. They can say that everyone has equal rights to all the waterways and they would. The guy with a jonboat would have every right to go and get himself capsized by a drunk with twin 454's. A sailboater would every right to T-bone a wave-runner at Griggs. Just imagine the possibilities! What about the electric only lakes like Hargus and Madison? Can you imagine a 30' cabin cruiser at Madison Lake? The whole thing is ridiculous. As much whining as state legislators do about states rights you would think that state officials would have more respect for a local municipalities right to govern.


----------



## Trucked (Apr 6, 2004)

O.K. Someone find out the names and numbers of who to contact for letters. Senators, Congressmen, Local lawmakers? Anyone got names and/or numbers? Better still, how about a petition to stop this garbage. I don't fish Alum or Delaware on the weekends just because of the idots there. Now I gotta worry about them down here where I do fish?
You guys watch, they'll pass this at a meeting around midnight when nobody is there to say Neigh.......(NO) They'll secretly sneak it in. Watch, you'll see.

We NEED to STOP this from happening. I will help in any way to stop this. Someone come up with a plan. I'm IN.

P.S. fellas, just make sure in your letter writing that you check your spelling and no cuss words. We don't want to look stupid and illeterate. Let's show them our strength.

Strength in numbers and solidarity.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

zilla,you nailed this one,which is one of my main arguments


> As much whining as state legislators do about states rights you would think that state officials would have more respect for a local municipalities right to govern.


 as far as i'm concerned,the state has no right to set rules on property owned by the city.


trucked,check out my thread titled "preserve our lakes".just shoot an email to the link i posted,with the instructions i gave.it is a petition that is part of the movement that has been launched to fight this thing.

and NO,this will not get "secretly" passed.the city is against it,and with eneough backing,they won't bow to the state.


----------



## CHOPIQ (Apr 6, 2004)

They have to be crazy!!! My daughter wanted to do a little boating Sunday so we went down to Griggs. It was a mad house down there. People speeding under the bridge, sking in the no wake zones, boats coming within feet of stopped boats. I had to stop twice so I wouldn't hit a boat while it was turning after losing a skier. They didn't even look behind them before starting to turn. Now they want to let bigger boats and jet skies on here. Someone has their head up somewhere they need to unbutton their shirts to see where they are going.


----------



## Warpath (May 23, 2004)

Don't they usually publish the local representatives in the area in the Dispatch. I thought I saw them in the paper in the editiorials. If you all want to write them, try there for adresses and such. I only get the Sunday Dispatch, and I couldn't find them there. Will look in the paper at work during the week. I'll post them if I find them. 

Eric


----------



## crappiebub (Apr 5, 2004)

Here is a link to all Elected Ohio Officials. Just pick the branch and put in your Zip Code to get your information.
http://www.lwvohio.org/educinfo/ohioelectedofficials.html


----------



## crappiebub (Apr 5, 2004)

After rereading the Dispatch report several times this hit me.


> In a pending bill, watercraft officials have proposed stripping local governments and conservancy districts of the authority to limit the size and type of boats allowed on their waterways.


This could effect the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District Lakes. Since they are a "Conservancy" I sent a letter to them asking about it. I received a quick response from their Public Information Officer, that they had not heard of this Bill and were going to check on it immediately. He said anything proposed would be posted on their Website http://www.mwcdlakes.com/ along with news releases. Would sure hate to see Lakes like Piedmont, Clendenning and Attwood overcome with PWCs and cruisers. Looks like any local government lake also. That would probably include all the Portage lakes if I am reading it right. 
Bob


----------



## justme (Apr 17, 2004)

voter here...leave those lakes alone. griggs and oshay are not wide enough for all that mess..mph is just another step in the wrong direction for horsepower limit lakes. Leave hoover alone...ya wanna run bass tourneys there ..put a kicker on and go for it. It is the best lake to take young ones out and not be in constant fear of getting run over. We just fought this issue a while back.


----------



## duckhound (Apr 10, 2004)

A little ammo that may help. These figures are straight from the Division of Watercraft website.

Expenditures 
Shared Revenue/Subsidies/Navigational Aids $110,742 
Education Grants $366,643 
Marine Patrol Grants $554,731 
Waterway Improvements (Division of Parks & Recreation) $3,180,849 
Capital Improvements $3,819,306 
Operating Expenses $13,751,772 
Total $21,784,043 
Revenues 
State Motor Fuel Tax $12,741,298 
Federal Grants $3,102,596 
Registration/Titling Fees $5,538,320 
Fund Earnings $685,967 
Fines $79,004 
Miscellaneous $141,732 
Total $22,288,917 

Threatening to pull grant money, if they did it for every grant in the state amouts to a mere 4.22% of their expenditures ($921,374). The money provided for the Columbus waterways is a mere $11,820 to the Columbus Police Dept. for patrolling. The state will gain virtually nothing financially by following through with their threat. But if the city caves in, the state will gain a majority control.

Other Grants awarded to area groups (Franklin County) include:
Nautical Knowledge $8,300 
The Adaptive Adventure Sports Coalition $24,030 
Big Brothers, Big Sisters of Central Ohio $10,832 
Direct Instructional Support Systems, Inc. $12,800 

More money is given to 2 of these groups than to the city, and the other 2 are not far off. 

Here's the real question...

If the city's grant money is going to be taken away by the state, would you all as anglers and "easy going" pleasure boaters be willing to pay the city a fee to replace the lost revenue. This could be in the way of a usage fee (i.e. Annual or Daily Ramp Permit). It would not take a whole lot of participation by those that frequent these locations to make it up. An annual fee of $22.00 would only require 500 boaters participation to correct the imbalance. A single use fee of $2.00 would only require just under 6000 visits throughout the season. Or a combination of these could be proposed. Also, if persons don't want to pay the fee, well they can just go up to Alum Creek Res. and watch the problem get even bigger. Then the State will eventually have to address the problem properly.

Unfortunately we must come to the realization that some entities and individuals no longer consider a problem to be theirs only (i.e. the State, and the accident rate on Alum). They deny responsibility to come up with a solution themselves (i.e. the Bart Simpson Syndrome: "No Way Man" or "I didn't Do It") and will come up with a stunt like this to try to make the problem everyones. The threat is intended to get the city to go along (if you don't do what I say then I'll...uh...uh...make you give me your pennies.). This problem is not going to go away (just look at the casino/gambling discussions at the statehouse), and someone will continually keep trying to push for what they want, even if we don't. The solution is to take any power and/or leverage away.
I've always been in favor of usage fees (I'm both a Fisherman, and a Hunter), and if you look at the DNR and their budgets, because we the users fund the vast majority of the revenues (and laws are written to support just that), the DNR is almost forced to do what the persons participating in the hunting and fishing sports want. Otherwise their money might start to dry up. And by the way, I personally think they are doing a terrific job, even if they recently raised the licence rates (but that's another subject for debate). Unfortunately the DNR doesn't controll the waterways.

Don't just complain (as many politicians do)...Come up with a solution. Sometimes just saying "NO!" isn't enough.

Thank You for your time.


----------



## DaleM (Apr 5, 2004)

Very nice post duck. Nice to have the real figures. I know the cops at Griggs pretty well, and they say the State has been trying to get in there for years.
Also talk of the Coast Guard reserve trying to get in also. I wish the State would just tend to the really important things and leave us alone.
By the way I sent e-mails to every state rep. I could find today. It would be nice if everyone on here would do the same. The more they get the more they will pay attention.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

duckhound,

That is a great post !

I especially like the user fees part. I have always been in favor of a pay to play fee structure for fishing and hunting. Way too many people think their hard earned tax dollars support the DNR and as such are entitled to something, anything. The users of the resource must fund thier hobbies.

I would be willing to pay a user fee to maintain the current restrictions on Hoover. I haven't fished Hoover in 15+ years and I probably will never even go there, my motor is too large.

Kim


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

great post,duckhound.
for the state to try to blackmail the city with a measley few thousand dollrs is absurd.i think most of know what their agenda is,along who's supporting it,and with why.
i would have no problem whatsoever with a reasonable usage fee,if gauranteed the present regs. would remain in force.ask the other special interest groups(who are all for the changes)if they would be willing to do the same,in order to help fund enforcement and improve safety on lakes like alum and others,while leaving hoover,griggs and o'shay as they are.i thonk you and i both know the answer to that.
i do have to disagree with this statement though.


> Unfortunately the DNR doesn't controll the waterways.


that's exactly who controls it,by way of the division of watercraft.
i think the DNR does an overall good job,but the wc division is making a major blunder by trying to introduce more problems to more waters,when they already lack the ability ,for one reason or another,to effectively police the waterways under their present jurisdiction.
i still smell a rat.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

guys,there are forces at work,that most of you don't know about as yet.believe me when i say there are a lot of people/organizations,etc. on the wagon with us,and no doubt,more to come.i am not at liberty to say much at the present time,but i'm sure that it won't be too long till you see the kind of support we have.this has really gotten people's attention,and the wheels are really turning.


----------



## DaleM (Apr 5, 2004)

I may catch lots of greef for this but I will say it anyway. 
Being a local Bass tournament guy I have heard and read where (Cotaa) central Ohio tournament anglers asso. has endorsed this proposal. Let me tell you this I and most of the people I know that Bass fish are not and will not be or have any part of this. Steve Kirby who runs Cotaa was quoted in the Cols. Dispatch that he supports this. Why? I have no idea. Maybe it's because he wants to hold tournaments on Hoover. I was really shocked when I read this. Let me say this I was pissed to say the least. I will be the first to protest any of his tournaments if this passes. I hope serious tournament guys will back me. Please *do not think all of us support this* this is about as far from the truth as you can get. Steve. I hope you read this and go down in flames along with the rest of the nuts that are for this.Why in the world would you think of backing such a thing? Are your tournaments that important that you have to screw up what little peaceful places we have left? Wake up!Sorry guys had to do that.
Rick thanks buddy for that bit of news!! Great to hear.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

more to come,in time  
i remember one of my posts refering to a lot of tourney guys on this site,not supporting the state's move,but being old and drifty,i don't know where or when    
it was you and others i had in mind.you are the ones who don't put your own selfish agendas ahead of the general fishing community and the waterways we share.i don't know kirby,but i do know from his statement,what his intentions are.i think he's in for a surprise,after making this statement


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


there are a lot more people getting involved in fighting this,than he could have imagined.he may just find that his "vast majority" is up against a much bigger "minority" than he anticipated.

thanks for your support,dale


----------



## DaleM (Apr 5, 2004)

Thanks Rick. Here's the entire article.

By Dave Golowenski
FOR THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Word about the powerboating future the state has in mind for Hoover, Griggs and O'Shaughnessy reservoirs has stirred up more than a few ripples.

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


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

An official from a group representing many Columbus-area tournament anglers, however, sent a news release to members supporting the state's efforts.

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

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

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

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

Boy I'd like to know where he got his information. Kirby is totally wrong!


----------



## Phil Carver (Apr 5, 2004)

Part of being a tournament angler of any kind is supporting the eviornment . If they pass the law allowing bigger boats with no hp limit on Hoover , what do you think will happen to the lake ? Most of this lake has sand and pea gravel banks . These banks will wash away very quikly and will cost the state more money in dredging costs . Also , this is our drinking water . Will it cost more to purify the water if it has alot more contaminents ?

As far as bass tournaments go , I will not support them if the hp limit changes ! There is a pot type tourny there every Thurday evening . It draws 40+ boats sometimes . That is very big for a pot tournament and it is successfull because it is the only place for the guy with out a big expensive bass boat to really enjoy the sport . 

Does the state think that these laws are a joke ? In my eyes the laws were put in place after extensive research for the good of all people .


----------



## crankus_maximus (Apr 14, 2004)

Way to go Dale! I knew you were alright after all!  

Justin


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

another ogf'er speaks out.


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


get 'em "GRUMPY"


----------



## DaleM (Apr 5, 2004)

Phil:
I'll do all I can to protest his tournaments now after reading his quote. Can't believe you guys would continue to fish with him after that. And I don't care what he think of my answer !!!!!


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

I must weigh in on this since I live within earshot and fish Hoover on a regular basis. I support the city on this one and would be more than willing to pay a $20 permit fee if it keeps the screamer boats and pwc's out. I fish in a local bass club and would love to fish tourneys on hoover, but I also would much rather keep it as is. Imagine trying to sleep in on a nice cool morning with the windows open and 7:00 am blast off comes.

The costs associated with increased treatment demands on the drinking water sky rocket when it comes to removing higher quantities of oils and unburned fuels. There go the water rates for everyone including non-boaters.


----------



## Raker (May 9, 2004)

I think its time that they open up Hoover to the larger horsepower boats. It should not be a sanctuary for sailboaters and people who fish from smaller craft. All I am hearing is a bunch of North Columbus guys complaining because they might need to share Hoover with the rest of the registered boat owners here in Ohio. I have fished Garry and Dale's tournaments as well as the one ran by Kirby. You guys need to find a happy medium on this subject or we will all lose.


----------



## duckhound (Apr 10, 2004)

This isn't just about opening up a lake to a larger variety of boaters. This is about the State of Ohio trying to leverage the smaller entity of Columbus to do what it wants.
If you by some means had a 100+ acre lake on your own property, and the state came in and said that you had to allow anybody on it, you would surely fight it. 
The City of Columbus OWNS these waterways. The state has no right to force it's wishes on Columbus and the state knows it. That's where the threat of pulling the grant money comes into play. If the City had come up with this idea, that would be a completely different story.
Fight the Real Fight, not the diversion.

Oh and by the way. I do not live on the north side of Columbus, and I fish Alum Creek almost exclusively. I have a 13ft semi-v hull aluminum boat with a 9.9 HP motor. I can go to Hoover anytime I want to, but just don't choose to. I do have some gripes about the craziness up on Alum during the weekends, but I put up with it because the fishing there is some of the best in the state.

Another note regarding the "Safety" talk:
Next time you are up there, just watch what the speed boaters do. Many times I have been trolling with a shoreline a mere 75feet away, and a speed boater or waverunner just had to go between my boat and the shore. I turn around and look, and the main body of water out in the lake is empty of boats. Why? If the boaters themselves do not try to operate safely, there not a single regulation the state or city can do to reduce accidents. Accidents are caused by careless boaters who don't play by the rules, not by the regulations in place on any waterway.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

raker.i'm against any changes to any of the three,but especially hoover.as for it being a sanctuary for certain types of craft...........you're damned straight.cause it's the only one we have in the area.
furthermore,i don't live in north columbus.if i lived in cleveland,i'd still fight against the changes.and you'd be surprised at where a lot of our support is coming from,and how much we have.
as far as us all losing,that's exactly what will happen if the changes are allowed.
i've been trying to be civil with this debate,but i have to SAY what a lot of others think.wanna fish hoover..........buy a kicker if you have a big boat/motor,or a smaller boat/motor.that is directed at any and all people who say they can't afford or don't want to spend the money.most people who are complaining,have thousands of dollars invested in big boats and tow vehicles,so what's a few hundred,to be able to fish more waters.ruining a good lake just because of the "need for speed" just doesn't cut it with me,and that seems to be the "real" gripe of some of the tourney guys and other pleasure craft owners  


ps................i'm not asking the state to put restrictions on alum,buckeye or other lakes.if i was,how would you feel about that?you and i both know you would fight it,because it's as wrong as what's going on now.


----------



## toad (Apr 6, 2004)

> It should not be a sanctuary for sailboaters and people who fish from smaller craft.


And it is a beautiful sanctuary at that. I use the same boat on hoover as I do on Erie and I bought a kicker so I can enjoy Hoover. *ANYONE* can boat on hoover if they choose to do so. I think the problem is more that people are upset that they can't use hoover under their own terms & conditions. I don't believe any group is excluded. I have also fished alum during a weekend and I believe Erie with 4 and 5 footers is eaiser and safer. 

I'm not beating anyone up on this subject just stateing my thoughts. 

Leave hoover the way it is.


----------



## Orlando (Apr 12, 2004)

Can't beleive Steve Kirby would support such a thing. I used to be in the BASS Federation and Steve used to be the director for my division. As I recall ( this goes back a few years) Steve was one that had alot to do with banning Personal watercraft on O'Shay and Griggs. This really has me scratcing my head. I'm out of the tourny fishing now and I for one am against these changes. Wouldn't mind seeing a idle speed only on Hoover. It does work, try going over the speed limit at Clear Fork and see how far you get without a ticket. They are strick about it and it works well. It allows all sizes of boats to fish on the same body of water without any conflict.


----------



## Raker (May 9, 2004)

You guys have all read the Columbus Dispatch and stated your opinion. Now read the *FACTS*!!

ODNR Division of Watercraft BOW Plan: RecommendationsBoating Management on Inland Lakes: Horsepower Limitations
Limiting access to selected lakes through horsepower and motor limits to preserve a desired atmosphere or address a specific environmental concern has been used as lake management tools for decades. Ohio has a no motor lake, electric only lakes, as well as lakes with 6 horsepower, 10 horsepower, 25 horsepower, 250 horsepower, 299 horsepower, and 400 horsepower restrictions. 

As Ohios population grows and boat designs evolve, overcrowding on unlimited horsepower lakes has increased dramatically. Input from BOW Plan focus groups -- lake managers familiar with overcrowding on unlimited horsepower lakes, boaters complaints, public input from boaters with higher horsepower motors who fish, as well as projected population growth -- necessitates a comprehensive look at current horsepower policies on Ohio lakes.

Strategies for Improving Lake Management
STRATEGY: Address horsepower limitations based on regional need and boating activity at particular lakes.
Inland reservoirs, such as Hoover Reservoir, are well suited for a wider range of recreational access. The quiet nature of these lakes can be maintained through the use of a no-wake speed limit, while granting additional access to inland lake boaters through an upgrade in horsepower limit. This would allow greater access to the lake for pontoon boaters and boaters who fish. 
A lake management change allowing more range of horsepower with a no-wake speed limit should be considered at other lakes such as Acton Lake. Allowing additional boat access to the lake would maximize use of an existing high quality facility (an eight lane launch ramp). Increasing need for additional boating access to existing waterways can be accommodated at these Lakes without a significant change to the lakes quiet atmosphere. 
Additional portions and eventually all of Dillon Lake should be zoned no-wake. Some types of boating become more difficult due to increasingly shallow depths. Additionally, a reduction in speed and subsequent wave action on this lake may help slow shoreline erosion. 
Provide additional lake access to Burr Oak in the form of an unlimited horsepower /no wake policy. Existing facilities (lodge, marina, and launch ramp) will get additional use, thus increasing the benefit of these existing facilities. The lake atmosphere will not change appreciably. 
Considerations for re-establishing boating zones at Salt Fork Lake are needed. Currently, large areas of the lake are zoned no wake. However, current rules limit certain recreational activities only to ski zones. Families with small children who wish to recreate in the no wake zones at idle speed cant due to current rules. 
STRATEGY: Maintain good quality access to the Maumee River as a priority.
The Maumee River is a regionally important non-Lake Erie boating opportunity for those with higher horsepower engines. 

Watercraft > About the Division > BOW Plan


----------



## Raker (May 9, 2004)

Hey Ray IL this is an interesting quote from your post.



> Note: Horsepower limits and other boating regulations are subject to change. Boaters should contact the ODNR Division of Wildlife for current information.


----------



## Big Daddy (Apr 6, 2004)

I don't fish down at any of the lakes mentioned in this discussion, but if the argument is that since unlimited HP lakes are overcrowded, we should change restrictions and open restricted lakes to unlimited or at least high HP motors and pleasure craft, well that's a poor reason. There's already a HUGE enforcement problem that isn't being looked at. How would all those new lakes be monitored and policed? 

I DEFINITELY wouldn't allow open access to ANY city's water supply lakes, just asking for trouble there. 

It's part of the deal that if you buy a boat with a large motor, you better be able to trailer it to big waters, or dock it where you can use it. Or, buy a kicker and have a happy. 

If the State changes the HP restrictions there, where will it end? I'd hate to see a 27 ft Sportcraft tooling across Nimisila or Ladue, just because the State says it's OK. Not safe and not needed. Bad idea.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

as far as "ownership",i think the real issue is not ownership,though that could be a factor in the final decision,if the battle goes that far.i think public opinion may have a lot to do with the outcome,no matter who owns the lakes.
the real issue is,should the state(if it's in their power)lift the present restrictions,and the answer is NO,for several reasons.
the watercraft owners who would like to see the change,are looking at the present system as discriminatory against them,when in fact those people have more available waters for their recreation,than the average fishermen,and other groups,who just want to enjoy a peaceful day on a quiet lake. someone else mentioned,that is not the case.it's certain vessels,along with other limitations,that are restricted.ANYONE can use those lakes.they just have to abide by the rules of those lakes,the same as they do on any other lake in ohio.
could it be that people with the big pleasure craft,fishing boats and pwc's are just as frustrated with the crowds at alum,as the rest of us,and that they support the change,in hopes of escaping to a more serene place?  
maybe they don't realize that by doing so,they'll just be creating another lake just like the one they're trying to escape from  
then(to quote another member that i agree with)we'll all lose


----------



## bassin mickey (Apr 22, 2004)

*Misfit: Don't let up!!!!!*


----------



## DaleM (Apr 5, 2004)

Raker, nice information. Just not complete. You forgot the State also wants to allow wave runners, bigger boats on Griggs and O'Shaugnessy. As for me finding a happy medium with Steve, that will never happen. I can't believe he really supports this issue. Like other said on here, he sure has changed the last few years since he's running his own tournaments full time now. Don't say the State never mentioned wave runners and bigger boats because they did just that. The article you posted was nice, just that the State sorta left out a few little things they don't want the public to see. Where did I get my information? You and everyone else will see where in due time  Oh, by the way the State is already backstroking on this. Oh, my what a surprise!!


----------



## rockbass (Apr 16, 2004)

I am not from this part of the state, so I am not familiar with these bodies of water. I also did not read the whole article or all the replies, but I know that if they did something like this on Clendening or piedmont, I would hate it. The reason I am satisfied with my little 12 foot boat and my 10 horse is because I like to fish these waters where I don't have to worry about some idiot throwing a wake over my boat or a jet skier screwing with me while I fish. I cherish these low horse limit lakes. As I am sure I would those lakes you guys are talking about if I lived there. Also, I am not sure about the size of these lakes, but I know Clendening would be a bit of a hazard to have a boat that can go 50 + mph I mean I know there are places there and I am sure everywhere else that if someone cuts around a corner too close to shore, bang you can get hit. I could not imagine going fast where you have no time to react....

I hope for the best for the sake of the fishing in these waters and for the sake of you fisherman that love the, as I call them, smaller, quieter waters. Hopefully someone that is heading this stuff uses their heads.


----------



## flathunter (Apr 5, 2004)

I am sure you guys will get this stopped, Rick seems on top of things.......But consider this..Lake White in Pike County is only 350 acres, and it is unlimited horsepower..Talk about nuts!


----------



## Raker (May 9, 2004)

I did'nt say this Dale:



> Don't say the State never mentioned wave runners and bigger boats because they did just that.


I am sorry guys I still support what the state is trying to do at Hoover. Hoover is within a couple hundred acres of the size of Alum Creek and should be made more accessible. Dale mentioned PWC's and larger boats on Griggs and Oshy. I will agree with Dale on this one. Those bodies of water are to narrow and congested as it is. Several of you have mentioned that you enjoy fishing at Alum Creek but not on the weekends. If Hoover was opened up to a more diverse type of boating it might remove some of the pressure off of Alum and others. Here is some more info on what the ODNR is trying to do. Just click the link below.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/watercraft/plan/default.htm


----------



## Raker (May 9, 2004)

Misfit wrote:



> as far as "ownership",i think the real issue is not ownership,though that could be a factor in the final decision,if the battle goes that far.i think public opinion may have a lot to do with the outcome,no matter who owns the lakes.


The City of Columbus may own the land at Hoover but we all as residents of the State of Ohio own the fish and wildlife that resides there. That is where the ODNR has a stake in this. just remember that when you say public opinion you are talking about the whole State not just Columbus.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

> just remember that when you say public opinion you are talking about the whole State not just Columbus.


 i recogonize that,but at the same time,i think the opinion of those most affected will bear more weight.furthermore,there are a lot of people statewide,that share the opinion of those of us who are against the changes.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

How would increased HP watercraft affect the wildlife sanctuary in the north pool of Hoover? I heard reports of eagles through Jim Horan but have not seen it myself. ODNR is extremely protective of the Eagle nesting sites throughout the state.

Also the lake pools can and have dropped 10 to 12 feet over the season thereby cutting the useable water for bigger boats about half or more.


----------



## Big Daddy (Apr 6, 2004)

Opening up Hoover could have the opposite effect and turn it into ANOTHER Alum as far as overcrowding. 

Sets a poor precedent for other HP limited lakes in Ohio as well. Seems the priority is to benefit the pleasure boater/wave runner riders, rather than the majority of people using the lakes, the fishermen.


----------



## beatsworkin (Apr 12, 2004)

I cannot imagine that opening up Hoover would ever take the pressure off of Alum. I love to fish Alum, I would love to get on Hoover but I do not have a kicker for the boat. Opening more lakes to UL HP does nothing to solve the real issue: lack of enforcement of laws on the books regarding no wake zones, speed limits, etc...

As recently as a couple of years ago Franklin county led the state in #'s of boat registrations. Throw in the surrounding areas and there are just to many users and not enough space. Hoover would just become another Alum Creek and quick! I am surprised that more people are not hurt or worse at Alum, why add more chances for something bad to happen and ruin a quite peaceful setting at the same time?

I can respect the rights of others to enjoy public waters, I cannot tolerate those idiots who, through lack of training, experience or just plain idiocy, put others in danger by the manner they run their watercraft. I hope that the city tells the state to you-know-what.

In looking at the state's plan it really seems they are more concerned with pleasure boaters.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

based on the dnr's supposed plan,do you do you actually think the majority of big boat/motor people would be happy with those rules?i know some fishermen would accept them,but i have serious doubts that most of them,along with pleasure boaters are not interested in putting around at no wake speed all day long,just enjoying the scenery.it's my belief that they just want more water to use the their craft in the same manner they do on other less restricted waters.
i also believe the "supposed" plan will only serve as a stepping stone to even further lifting of restrictions in the future.it wouldn't be the first time that sort of thing has happened.

i agree with you on this.


> The City of Columbus may own the land at Hoover but we all as residents of the State of Ohio own the fish and wildlife that resides there


but i'll say again,NOBODY is is being DENIED the use of hoover,or the other lakes.the state allows anyone with a drivers license to use our roads,also,but you can't cruise down the freeway in your basic AA fuel dragster,quadrunner,or electric wheelchair,for that matter.


----------



## DANDI (Apr 20, 2004)

Just my 2 cents.

1) The report of boating accidents on Alum compaired to Lake Erie is bogus. If you take the number of boating hours on lake erie compaired to Alum you will see that Alum will be 10 times worse than Erie. Why does the State not put more officers on Alum and start writing tickets? The income from the tickets will more than pay for there expensis. Buy doing this other idiots that have not been caught will be more observant thus making it saver place.

2) Hoover is a water supply to the city of Cols. The increase of sediments in the water will increase our cost for water treatment.

3) Hoover does drop quickly at times during the summer. A big boater who flies around today and not have a problem with the bottom in a area may find out two weeks later that he just ran into a rock hump due to the water level is now 3 feet lower. He will try and sue the city because it was not marked.

4) Will Griggs be safe being so narrow? No It is getting to the point now on weekends of not being safe.

As far as my opinion of Steve Kirby. Well I can not express how disapointed in him I am. All he is doing is trying to open up more water for him to make more money off of his tourneys. I am glad he is no longer the tournament director for Ohio BASS. My opinion is he screwed up the State Qualifying tournaments while he was in office. It now costs us more money to fish in these than ever before. I don't care about money being paid back to me. I just want the opertunity to try and make it to the BASSMASTER CLASSIC.
Steve(deleted portion) I will never fish in any of your tournaments and I hope that there are many more people who do fish in them STOP.

As far as the State making changes to these bodies of water. Go fly a kite as I have stated in my letters I have sent to you. Keep up the Fight City of Cols. we are with you on this one.


----------



## Capt.Muskey (Apr 14, 2004)

Hey Pop's,
Sorry it took me so long to get here. Don't blow artery over this. I'll get you any help you need from my neck of the woods (Cleveland).


----------



## Big Daddy (Apr 6, 2004)

Watch the language guys. This is a heated topic. Let's keep it on topic and forego the personal attacks.


----------



## ShakeDown (Apr 5, 2004)

Wonder what Boat Boys feels about this...after all, they are the main sponsor of Kirby's TNT series. I wonder how boat dealers around town are supporting it, let alone knowing how they will look in the avg. fisherman's eyes based on which side they are supporting  Hit em where it counts...their wallets.

Here's the thing that I can't get out of my head. We have a member base of almost 2000 people, which can be a REALLY strong voice if organized properly. Combine that with our buddies at OHfishing.com, that voice gets even stronger. You get 2000+ fisherman to speak out, those supporting companies who rely on our spending will take notice.


----------



## Raker (May 9, 2004)

Make that 1999 supporters because I will side with the ODNR on this one. Never thought I would ever say that.


----------



## catking (Apr 5, 2004)

I cannot see any good reason as to why the limit should be raised. The bigger boats already have enough playgrounds throughout the state. I say enough is enough. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. The ODNR cannot control what goes on now in some lakes, this will add three more headaches in my opinion.I constantly see jet skis doing things that they are not allowed to do , as in full throttle in a no wake zone. When the day comes that the state can control what already happends on our waterways, then MAYBE, it can be considered. CATKING


----------



## joel_fishes (Apr 26, 2004)

I say leave Hoover as is. I don't use Griggs or O'Shay, so I won't comment on those. Changing would create two lakes (Alum and Hoover) that are zoos instead of just one.

In addition to showing your supporting by choosing where to spend your money, also, show your support when it come time to vote in November by considering this issue when choosing among the candidates that will be involved.

Joel


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

those of you who received the email from jim horan,yesterday,listing some of the people involved,along with the plan that has already been implemented,know that there is much more support for our side,than most people can comprehend   
jim deserves much credit,and a BIG THANK YOU from all of us,for his devotion.
he has done a great job at the forefront,contacting people and coodinating all the forces.he called me yestterday to get me up to speed and we communicate on a daily basis,concerning progress.and great progress is being made.the number of phone calls,letters,emails he's made and/or received in the past several days,is unreal.


----------



## fishintiger (Apr 26, 2004)

Changing Hoover to make Alum "safer" is like opening a new line in a grocery store. What happens? Everyone goes there and the same back up is in the new line. All we will be doing is moving all the boats from Alum to Hoover. Then Alum will be the peaceful quiet place. It's a bad idea. I sure hope this doesn't happen. I am almost done with my boat and I was so excited about launching it at Hoover and having peaceful days but if this goes thru I will have to find my peace somewhere else. I am going to get ahold of the people on the list that Jim sent out yesterday plus I am going to get ahold of Rep. Larry Flowers (my rep. for district 19) and let him know that I oppose the idea. I might even let a couple others know just so all the Reps. are getting input about this "idea".


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

don't worry about pops.i'll just double up up on the meds and crank up th O2  
thanks,son  
check your email.


----------



## CPTN.CROWN (Apr 11, 2004)

If it does happen it could be fun to sit on the boat and watch the idiots run wide open ove the old foundation north of baldridge. Ripping there lower unit off when Hoover's low.


----------



## DANDI (Apr 20, 2004)

WE WON WE WON below is what I just received from Jim Horan. A letter from ODNR sent to the Cols. Dispatch.


To the Editor
Columbus Dispatch
34 S. Third Street
Columbus, OH 43215

To the Editor:
A recent Dispatch article ("City, state hit rough water over boat rules" - July 30, 2004) has raised unnecessary concern about the Ohio Division of Watercraft's relationship with the City of Columbus and our intentions regarding boating opportunities at Griggs, O'Shaughnessy and Hoover reservoirs.
I would like to put those concerns to rest: 

- The Division of Watercraft is not seeking to alter horsepower limits at Griggs, O'Shaughnessy or Hoover reservoirs. Under current state law, the city has authority to limit the horsepower of boats, and to set speed zones and no-wake zones on those reservoirs. Our statewide boating plan, mentioned in the article, refers specifically to the desirability of maintaining the quiet nature of Hoover Reservoir and similar lakes. We believe the city's determination of horsepower limits is reasonable and we are not seeking to change that. 
- We do not advocate immediate introduction of personal watercraft at Griggs or O'Shaughnessy and we accept that the city's existing horsepower limits already exclude such watercraft at Hoover. However, we continue to encourage the City to study this issue and provide opportunities for public discussion over the next five years.
- The city's eligibility for grant funding remains an open subject of discussion between state and city officials. Current state law is very clear in requiring that local boating ordinances must be in compliance with state statutes and regulations. Over the past two years the City of Columbus and the Division of Watercraft have successfully cooperated to ensure the city's rules would be consistent with requirements established by the U.S. Coast Guard and State of Ohio. Agreement in most areas has been achieved and further discussions are ongoing.
I am optimistic that the city and state can find common ground on the few remaining issues that separate us, based on our shared commitment to safe, enjoyable and environmentally responsible boating on Ohio's waterways.
Kenneth J. Alvey, Chief
Division of Watercraft,
Ohio Department of Natural Resources




Thanks to everybody especially Jim Horan and Misfit.


----------

