# increased hp limit at Piedmont and Clendening Reservoirs



## Lewzer

*Public Meetings Scheduled for Clendening and Piedmont Lakes Horsepower Increase Proposal*

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Watercraft will conduct public meetings at Clendening and Piedmont Lakes regarding a petition that was received from the public that proposes to increase the horsepower limit from 9.9 horsepower to 25 horsepower.
*Piedmont Public Meeting*
Saturday May 16, 24pm
Camp Piedmont Lodge
344221 4-H Club Road
Piedmont, OH 43983
*Clendening Public Meeting*
Saturday May 16, 79pm
Camp Tippecanoe Lodge
81300 YMCA Road
Tippecanoe, OH 44699


----------



## mpd5094

I sure hope this goes through. I would love to hit those lakes again. My personal best largemouth came from Clendening.


----------



## timcat69

I hope they leave it at 10hp. Those are my two favorite lakes. They're busy enough already IMO.


----------



## sauguy

I like it.


----------



## Patriot1

i hope they leave it too.


----------



## Bulldawg

I hope they leave . Those are some very good lakes to fish. If they do it to these two then eventually they will want to do it to more of the 9.9 lakes.


----------



## TClark

They are 9.9 to help prevent erosion. A complaining public doesn't mean they're going to change anything and I personally hope they just leave it alone. It keeps the jet skiers and water skiers out of action with the 9.9 limit.
Stinking thinking me thinks.


----------



## ZEBRACON1

I don't know why everytime something is just fine people have to screw it up . Clendening and Piedmont are just fine the way they are . I know I'll never sign a petition to raise hp limits . Maybe we should start a petition to have the hp at Salt Fork LOWERED to 9.9 ! Fair is fair .


----------



## Big Daddy

Though I don't have a boat with a 9.9, I would hope they would keep it the same as it is now. It's too beautiful a resource.


----------



## Fishin4Busch

There's already a bunch of people that either have have a 15 or 18 horse carb on their 9.9 so I wouldn't mind seeing them just make it a 15 h.p. limit, that's not changing it a whole lot


----------



## husky hooker

i hope they leave them alone,bad enough atwoods 25!!!


----------



## Muskarp

Where are all these extra vehicles going to park? Both marina parking lots are full of pontoons and houseboats. Reynolds Road (Piedmont) is always full. The new ramp on 799 and the dam ramp (Clendening) can only accomadate about 10 rigs. If they are going to open these lakes up to more people, they are going to need to improve the access. In these times of overcrowding, these few sactuaries are where we go to get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. Do we really want these lakes to become a rat race also? If anything they need to make them electric only. Could you imagine how sweet of a fishery they would be then?


----------



## mpd5094

I completely agree with what everyone is saying. I have recently upgraded to get around faster on large lakes. If this is approved, I will definitely fish Clendening and Piedmont. I haven't fished them in years and would love that opportunity again. I would also not act like an idiot, by having respect for what those lakes represent. I realize a lot of people would do the opposite, which is why nobody wants this to happen. I think eventually every lake is going to have higher horsepower. Sounds like this is just the start.


----------



## cheezemm2

Just as long as they keep all the PWC's off the lake I'll be fine. My only issue is the amount of blind turns that are on that lake. A flat bottom or semi-v w/a 25hp on it and a pontoon coming in the opposite direction are going to have to react fairly quickly to avoid one another.

I kind of understand the need for more access, but Tappan is right there too.

This sounds an awfully lot like bass clubs trying to get more members fishing their tournaments (go ahead and yell at me). Try to launch out of edgewater (state route 800 ramp) during some of the tournaments and it's a nightmare. 

I'm also having a hard time understanding why 25hp is necessary on that lake. Most of the boats on there equipped with 9.9's (or 15's get around from point A to point B just fine.

I'd like to know where this pressure is coming from!?!?


----------



## j-fox.4

cheezemm2 said:


> I'd like to know where this pressure is coming from!?!?


I've heard that the marinas are putting the pressure on MWCD. According to them, they aren't making any money and not getting enough business coming through their doors. I had heard rumors earlier in the year that they were considering lifting the HP limit altogether and implementing a 6-10 mph speed limit on all boats.


----------



## chopper

I too heard that it is the marinas. I heard they want PWC. I fish both of those lakes and the marinas suck. Piedmont used to be great. Good meals, good service. Now they are never open and offer nothing. If they have to raise the HP, keep it for fishing boats only. Keep these little lakes for us poor people. Those $30,000.00 bass boats have there own lakes. I wish they would just leave things alone. If you want to sign a petition, ask at the camp grounds at Piedmont. They all want to leave things alone.


----------



## Patriot1

they are already crowded enough, a 1000 acre lake should be restricted always. 
Is there a place we can vote or petition against it?


----------



## Buick Riviera

TClark said:


> They are 9.9 to help prevent erosion. A complaining public doesn't mean they're going to change anything and I personally hope they just leave it alone. It keeps the jet skiers and water skiers out of action with the 9.9 limit.
> Stinking thinking me thinks.


Well said, I agree.


----------



## norseangler

I don't know who's after the change, but it's not "bass anglers with $30,000 rigs," because it wouldn't help them. Think about it - it would only help small boat owners, who go go with a 25 instead of a 9.9 (kicked up to 15) or pontoon boat owners who want to push around bigger barges. I think the latter most likely, but we'll see. Bass boats on waters with no wake regulations, like knox, don't create waves (if they're obeying the law), but V-hulls with 9.9s sure do.


----------



## MadMac

j-fox.4 said:


> I had heard rumors earlier in the year that they were considering lifting the HP limit altogether and implementing a 6-10 mph speed limit on all boats.


Now there is a solution. No one is going to want to bring a jet ski to a lake and puts around at 5 - 10 mph and neither are the pleasure boaters.


----------



## Skarfer

It's funny - all of the guys saying they shouldn't raise the HP limits are guys currently with 9.9's........and everyone that agrees with the raise are guys with 25's. HAHA!!!

I think all lakes should be unlimited.......haha.


----------



## BIG BEAR

I hope they don't change the limit. I fish piedmont a lot and i think the 9.9 limit is what makes the fishing so good there. I bought a boat last year with a 9.9 just so i could fish lakes like piedmont.


----------



## Ohiobowhunter

I grew up fishing Piedmont and to this day continue to do so, not because it is the best fishing around, but because it is one of a few lakes where the experience is worth the trip. It's such a peaceful place to fish, to relax, to not have your boat tossed and turned every minute by other boaters. I enjoy being there in the fall when the leaves start changing, the water is like glass, and the sky a deep blue. It is truly a place to regenerate your soul, to experience quiet relaxation, to just be. 

It would be a terrible shame if they increased the horsepower ratings. If you give them 25hp, then they will put 50hp carbs on their boats. There are already many who ignore the 9.9 with bigger carbs and fake HP ratings on the cover. Please don't let them destroy one of the last "real outdoor experiences" left in S.E. Ohio.


----------



## Trautman

I go with Steve on this one. 9.9 of 65 hp as long as you have a speed limit why would it matter? Some of those 9.9s go man!

Brian


----------



## freakofnature13

raise it i got a 25 and a 9.8..takes a long time from where i ramp to fish


----------



## Muskyman

West Branch has a no wake zone, doesn't matter they still fly through it ( fisherman too!)
They also have a 300' from shore no wake zone..same results. My tax $ goes to build launches, rest rooms etc on lakes that I could never go on safely. Not because of my boat, 14' Deep V, because of people who think they have to get to the best spot on the lake, despite other people's safety. The shoreline WILL erode. Plenty of lakes to fish w/ unlimited H.P. I can understand bumping up the Horse Power a little, but a speed zone won't work any better on the water than it does on land.


----------



## kingfisher42

I was fishing last Sunday at piedmont and talked to a local. He said basically its a done deal. This meeting will be the 3rd reading of the change. He also said it will probably be 20hp limit like they did with pymatuning (sp)? Did they make that lake a 20 hp limit?

When i was around 15 (31 now) my dad sold our tricked out bass boat and bought a 14ft boat with a 9.9 so we could fish these lakes along with leesville. there is already to much pressure on these lakes. Saturday there was a bass tourney w/ over 50 boats and there was one Sunday w/ 55 boats. I want too see these lakes stay the same.


----------



## Muskarp

chopper said:


> I too heard that it is the marinas. I heard they want PWC. I fish both of those lakes and the marinas suck. Piedmont used to be great. Good meals, good service. Now they are never open and offer nothing.


Isn't that the truth! I'm sure they deal with alot of idiots, so I feel for them. But it sure seems like they could have a little more drive to succeed. Piedmont only has the grill open on weekends. Usually has half the parking lot tied up with boats, as does Clendening. Neither one opens until well after sun-up and closes well before dark. Now if these were pleasure boating lakes, those hours would probably be successful. But these are fishing lakes. Prime time is low light time.


----------



## esox62

never fished either lake..want to and will someday..i say keep them at 9.9.. a speed limit will never be enforced because odnr is so understaffed as it is. yes, pyma is now 20 h.p. i fish it fairly frequently and havent noticed any real change. but with pyma, you are talking about an absolutely huge lake compared to most any other lake in ohio that has worthwhile fishing...i fish west branch alot and the laws are abused each time i go there. they dont enforce much of anything..and it would help if they would get the buoys out to remind idiots of the no wake zones because you sure cant accuse anyone of speeding when there are no buoys anywhere..anyway i agree leave things be..!


----------



## MadMac

You have to wonder why they let all that crap go at WB. All they would have to do is write a few tickets to let the idiots and law breakers know they mean business and it would stop. My brother and I were there yesterday and watched some yahoo come all the way up the west end at about 10 mph. I guess he thought if he was in the middle of the NO WAKE ZONE it didn't matter. Now if people would see that [email protected]$$ getting a ticket I bet it would stop real soon.


----------



## kingfisher42

i guess people at piedmont thinks it changed. guy running with 40 hp on sat. not full speed but not idle either.


----------



## esox62

steve, every time ive been there this y ear, ive seen boats running full throttle on the west end. i dont even think the ranger boat is in the water til mem. day. it s not so much the wake the boats make to disturb the fisherman. it is the mud created and the destruction of the shoreline which is why there are no wake zones to begin with. the shoreline is different somewhere every other trip out there with a new tree in the water..ch. 19 actually made a nice sign{yrs ago} to put up on the bridge instructing "no wake" and they never or wouldnt put it up.


----------



## Muskarp

kingfisher42 said:


> i guess people at piedmont thinks it changed. guy running with 40 hp on sat. not full speed but not idle either.


It seems that when they changed the idle restrictions on Knox and Burr Oak, some people assumed it was legal on all 10hp lakes. I saw quite a few large bass rigs doing it at Clendening last year. 

As far as enforcement at WB, or any lake for that matter. It really sucks. Boats do the same thing at every "no wake" zone across the state. With all the budget shortfalls, these guys need to get out and get some revenue, there's plenty to go around.

When is the decision going to be made? I need to get dibs on a 25 before the price skyrockets!


----------



## mpd5094

I agree, they could make a ton of revenue enforcing no wake zones. I think the problem is that the Ohio Watercraft Officers and ODNR guys are way understaffed, due to budget restraints. It's funny though, some lakes you'll see 2 or 3 officers on the water (Portage) and others you see none. On the other hand, having too many can cause "over enforcement". I was stopped on Leesville a couple years ago, with my 9.9. I was going through a no wake zone near Clows and had the throttle up just enough to move. The officer said I was speeding and he said he could tell because there were bubbles coming off the back of my boat. I don't know about you guys, but it's impossible to avoid bubbles coming off your boat. However, I didn't get a ticket, just a warning. I know this all has it's good and bad. I would definitely obey all laws on the water, no matter where I'm at. If everyone would do this, it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, that would never happen!


----------



## eye-finder

Anyone heard if the limit for piedmont and clendening went up to 25hp or will it stay 9.9 thanks for any info.


----------



## sauguy

meeting at 7pm at clendening tonight. will post if i hear anything.


----------



## sauguy

went to the clendening meeting last night. nothing decided, the lady in charge said there might be more meetings. she said they are open to a 20hp,25hp unlimited with speed or stay at 9.9. they also recieved another petition to leave it at 9.9. there were more people responding on this website than were at the meeting. we were almost out numbered by state, mwcd and odnr people. they are still asking for comments about this from the public. Deborah Green is coordinating this. she says any one can e-mail her directly. her e-mail is [email protected]. alot of comments here about this. if you feel strongly either way, send her an e-mail.


----------



## Lewis

I think your email link is bad?
I typed up a nice letter and it came back as undeliverable.


----------



## sauguy

fixed link, my bad sorry.


----------



## kingfisher42

you know the funny thing. by the bathrooms at piedmont lake marina there is a collection box. it says donate to help stop shore erosion. LMAO. what do they think the high hp will do????


----------



## baby bass

well i have a bass boat with a 175 hp and don't think they should increase the hp on piedmont or clendening.i think they will sure mess those lakes up like they serewed tappan up . just my feelings. ps sure i would like to fish those lakes with my boat but i knew the hp when i bought my boat.


----------



## n8als

I remember back when all Muskingum lakes were 6 hp and those little motors would plow more wake and make waves that really washed down the shorelines. When the 10 hp's came along they helped to get some of the fishing boats up on plane. But the real reason it was changed was for the pontoon crowd. Now that those garbage scows have gotten bigger they want to increase the HP. But that's OK, the fishing boats will get up on plane and make less waves...:bulgy-eyes:


----------



## kingfisher42

im just worried about more traffic. there is no way the two ramps at piedmont can hold more traffic. there is no where to park now. the marina parking lots gets filled in the middle of the week. Let alone when there is a tourney down at piedmont every weekend with 50 boats in it.


----------



## JLeephoto

It's a tough question, no doubt, especially for those of us with over 9.9hp hanging off the back. I'm an OH transplant from the southeast and remember when all the no wake zones went up on our local salt marsh. We had all these guys dropping off plane and plowing by docks creating more wake and more damage than they would have on plane. I always thought they should have a "no damage (read: "No Idiot") law that would allow them to ticket anyone being irresponsible with heavy fines. That way, it would be so arbitrary, everyone would think twice about their actions. Still, I'm a newbie to this state, so will refrain from weighing in, and defer to the collective. I'm for everyone enjoying and protecting the resources.


----------



## -mike-

Man this is a really loaded topic. Really we all have a right to be on the water, and from there its up to us to disqualify ourselves. I personally love the unlimited hp/idle only law. It however burns my hind end to see someone abuse it.

What also peeves me is the variance of care and concern that our officers have. Ive been told that I could Idle my 90 horse merc on lake logan by an officer, only to have one stop me at the dock 2 days later to tell me he'd be watching to make sure I wasnt running my engine. What Gives? One guy doesnt care, one guy is over bearing.

Anothe issue is the wake- most boats dont wake at idle speeds, but its up to the officer to define what he thinks is a wake. 

IF its truly an erosion problem, then deal with what is causing it. Lake hope is electric only and it works. How many people who tout themselves as stewards would be willing to go that route?


----------



## Brooklyn

Saw somewhere on this thread that the increase in hp limit at Piedmont and Clendening was a done deal. I can tell you for a fact that it is not. If you want up to date info, call the MWCD office in New Philadelphia.


----------



## DaleM

Understand that increasing the HP limit isn't raising the speed limit! The speed for boats with a motor larger than a 9.9 must idle only. No where does it say they will be allowed to be on plane. I have talked to the Water craft officer here in this area and they seem fine with it, as long as the rules are followed. Trust me guys they are watching. 
I was at Knox a few weeks ago and the only ones making a wake were the ones with the 9.9 ( yell right!) motors. The bass boats and larger boats never made a wake that I saw. These so called 9.9 motors I saw sure do move a 16' boat with 2 guys on board faster than I ever saw a 9.9 move one. Changing stickers to say 9.9 must be OK to some. I talked to a guy there and he admitted he has a 20 HP with 9.9 decals on the cover. Is it OK for him to be on plane and not have anyone question him? But give a guy that has a bass boat that is idle speed only be given a hard time? Not at all. I see no problem allowing the larger motors IF they follow the law and use idle speed. If they exceed that speed I hope they get a ticket and are escorted off the lake.


----------



## WoodenShips

I hope 9.9 limit stays BUT it would be nice to have a 25 HP on the back of my 98 SEA NYMPH.The boat is heavy and my 260lb butt PLUS a passenger doesn't help on speed either! 
Piedmont and now Clendenning is really packed these days.I could believe on the pontoon boats on Clendenning today!


----------



## norseangler

The decision has not been made on horsepower at Piedmont and Clendening. The division of Watercraft wil be collecting public comment for another moth or so before sitting down with MWCD to make a decision. The have the request to go to 25 and another petition to leave it at 9.9. They could also choose to go to 15 or 20 or to go with the unlimited/idle speed. The 15 or 20 limit may be the most likely, but we'll se. You can send comments or suggestions by e-mail to [email protected] or by mail to Chief, ODNR Division of Watercraft, 2045 Morse Road, Building A, Columbus, Ohio 43229


----------



## Desode

Thanks for the info on this, and for the email address. I will be writing a letter today. I personally don't want to see this happen at all. Its just to risky and neither of these lakes need the extra traffic on them. Clendening and Piedmont are two of the best sportsman lakes around. I really hope this doesn't happen and I'm going to do everything in my power to fight it. Thanks again, Desode


----------



## PromiseKeeper

I for one would like to see speed limits imposed as long as they are enforced. Although I have a kicker that would enable me to get on these lakes, it is very cumbersome to handle the boat safely with it at times. At the same speeds, the larger motor is much more responsive when making turns and handling in windy conditions. 

I get a feeling that some feel that this is "their" lake and don't want anyone else to be able to use the resource. Larger boat owners pay the same taxes and license fees as anyone else, so why should they be denied the use of the lake? 

As far as skiing, lakes that allow it have designated zones for it. If it is not deemed to be safe to ski, then simply don't allow it. Lower speed limits would take care of that anyway. If someone had a jet ski, the same speed regualtions would apply. I dont see jet skis flocking to a lake that has, say, a 15 mph speed limit. I know many of the boats out there now run that fast and faster. 

In today's economy, what would be wrong with increasing business traffic at marinas, bait shops, restaurants, gas stations, and campgrounds? I see it as a win/win situation if the state would be diligent about enforcing the speed limits. 

There is nothing wrong with having enforcement on the lakes. I can remember well a few years back at Tappan when a storm came up quickly. We had been swimming at the boaters beach. When the weather began to change, we got back in the boat and had a dead battery. It was sure nice to be able to get on channel 16 and get some help. 

Just my 2 cents!

Scott


----------



## Flippin 416

I see it like this...and take my situation for example. You bought a boat KNOWING what motor was on it and KNOWING what lakes you could and could not get on? So what's to complain about? I bought a boat going on 4 years ago....it had a 25hp motor on it when I bought it...so I could fish Atwood and the upper HP lakes (which I did for one season)...but could NOT get on Leesville, Clendening or Piedmont....so what did I do...I re-powered my boat to a 9.9 and now I can legally get on those lakes that I mentioned. I think the hard part of enforcing the rules diligently is the fact that I rarely see MWCD rangers on the water....unless it's a weekend or a big holiday weekend. They way I see it is if the MWCD wants to enforce the rules more diligently then they may have to up the ante and pay more to keep the rangers on the water more often?? I think they need to leave it the way it has been for YEARS...and if you want on those lakes..make the changes you need to to your boat to allow you to access those lakes.

Just my .02 as well.


----------



## PromiseKeeper

416,
I think you missed my comment where I said I, too, have a 9.9 and can get on those lakes if I wish. I can't complain because I can and do fish there when I desire to. Part of my post was aimed at those who pay the same as the rest of us and cannot use the resource. You make some good points and there are obviously different opinions that all have valid points. I see it kind of like being denied access to the interstate because I don't choose to own a certain vehicle. We all fund the resource but can't all use it.


----------



## Flippin 416

No...I got your point and I clearly read what you stated...my comment was not to you specifically...but more in general to those who are issuing these petitions to change the HP rating. My point is that we all make conscious choices about what we buy, when we buy it and what limitations it has or does not have. Nobody is denying anyone access to any lake or resource out there that is public.....BUT there are guidelines and rules that we all must obey. I mean what's next when the bigger bass rigs start coming with 300's and Tappan is limited to 299????? It's been 9.9 on those bodies of water for as long as I can recall...why fix it if it isn't broke? Again it's just my opinion and I am by no means dishing on anyone in anyway.


----------



## Lewzer

My opinion is to leave it alone. The bass boat guys say put a speed limit on the lake or idle only and problem solved. 
Wrong. Speed limits do not work. Here are pics of two boats in the idle only zone at West Branch.
I have pictures of about 50 different boats flying down the "idle only" zone at this lake in April and May of this year.
If you care about the lakes and the erosion and water quality more than you do about yourself, you will support the 9.9hp limit.

The looks I get when photographing these lawbreakers....


----------



## Lewzer

This is an pic of an excellent crappie spot that used to be at West Branch.
I say used to be as about 10' of the bank behind the tree is now gone. It eroded away and this and the tree next to it are now in 25 fow.
The bank eroded to behind the stumpball in this photo.

This too is in an "idle only" area.


----------



## PromiseKeeper

This is really an interesting post. I'm learning alot! Thanks to all for your input, keep it coming. Some viewpoints I had not considered. Depending on who you listen to.... arguments arise about erosion. Some say it's a speed issue and there are boaters organizations who have data showing it is related more to hull configuration. How much is actually attributed to natural wave action? We like to pick on the jet skiers (for the record, I don't own one) but instead of limiting them in any way, the MWCD's solution (when I still camped) is to charge the campers an extra fee for additional watercraft in the campground with the money going into the erosion fund. In the end, I'm afraid it will all come down to money. Our 2 cents will be....exactly 2 cents.


----------



## eye-finder

I feel they should leave it as is there are plenty of lakes all over ohio with higher hp limits to fish for people who likes to run hard but these lakes should be set aside for the relaxed fisherman with a family like mine I have A 2 and 6 year old that like too fish and these are perfect lakes for them .I do not take them to the higher HP lakes cause if I did I would have to tie them in to my 16ft boat because of the wakes and it would make them afriad to be in a boat please leave HP limit as is we just ask for a few family lakes to stay as is its those kids out there that we as adults need to look out for and raise them the way we were raised .And not make them afraid of A wonderful sport like fishing at ther young age THANK YOU


----------



## Muskarp

I personally do not have a problem with the unlimited idle option. It seems to work OK at Knox. However, on Knox you are never more than 1.5-2miles from where you launch. At Piedmont and Clendening the figure grows to more like a possible 5-7 miles from your launching site. This would make boating alot more risky when storms blow in. Thus there would probably be far more rule breakers at these lakes than the small lakes that currently have this type rule. And I can't say I would blame them in certain situations. But that just makes this option seem contrary to one of the reasons Pymatunings HP was just increased (the ability to get off the water faster ahead of an approaching storm). It's a tough debate. I'm sure there is no perfect answer.


----------



## Floatin Saloon

Listen to the weather reports..... DOH....If there is a chance of storms don't go 5 or 7 miles from where you launch. Stick a little closer. Use common sense. Don't blame the HP rule for stupidity


----------



## Floatin Saloon

n8als said:


> I remember back when all Muskingum lakes were 6 hp and those little motors would plow more wake and make waves that really washed down the shorelines. When the 10 hp's came along they helped to get some of the fishing boats up on plane. But the real reason it was changed was for the pontoon crowd. Now that those garbage scows have gotten bigger they want to increase the HP. But that's OK, the fishing boats will get up on plane and make less waves...:bulgy-eyes:


What a bunch of bull sh?t. I've been docked at the marina for 18 yrs. The only time I've seen the shore line change from erosion is from major flooding. Now as far as the "pontoon crowd" and the so called "garbage scows" the house boats that are 34 ft and over are allowed 25 hp for an additional fee per year. It was 75.00 per year but it might have gone up. Thats still a big boat with a small motor. The average pontoon boat owner could care less for a bigger motor.


----------



## Muskarp

Floatin Saloon said:


> Listen to the weather reports..... DOH....If there is a chance of storms don't go 5 or 7 miles from where you launch. Stick a little closer. Use common sense. Don't blame the HP rule for stupidity


Very well thought out. Thanks for the input!
So 2 miles from the ramp "idleing" will outrun a fast moving T-storm. 
Good theory.
I'm sure you don't speak for all the pontoon owners when you say they don't want more HP. Every one I see is always cutting in front of people or getting closer to the shore than the boat they are passing. They just always seem to be in a bigger hurry than other boats. Or they just have just no "common sense".


----------



## ShawnN

Get out and support the 9.9 hp only. No one needs to be in that big of rush on piedmont. I love to fish there because it is quiet.


----------



## Floatin Saloon

Muskarp said:


> Very well thought out. Thanks for the input!
> So 2 miles from the ramp "idleing" will outrun a fast moving T-storm.
> Good theory.
> I'm sure you don't speak for all the pontoon owners when you say they don't want more HP. Every one I see is always cutting in front of people or getting closer to the shore than the boat they are passing. They just always seem to be in a bigger hurry than other boats. Or they just have just no "common sense".


What's your point?.....A fast moving T-Storm and your screwed where ever you are. One mile ---three miles what ever......Take a look a those pontoon boats and look and see if they have a Piedmont sticker on the side. Nine times out of ten they are rental boats. These same idiots wouldn't know a wake zone if you hit them in the a$$. And you never saw a 16 ft boat cut in front of you to get to that shore line? What are you blind? Idiots come in all sizes and all boats. I own a house boat and a 17 ft fishin boat. I see it from all sizes. The week-end warriors are the worst


----------



## Boogieman

I would love for these lakes to have a bigger hp but! Everone is right it is to crowded now it would ony get worse.


----------



## gle

fished piedmont sat night from 9:30 to 4:30am caught 16 bass 3 keeper's 13 dinks mostly smallmouths any more news on horsepower limit hope it stays 9.9


----------



## Flippin 416

Just got this in an e-mail...anyone who wants her contact info....shoot me a PM

Dear Mike;



I apologize for the delay in my response and sincerely express my thanks to you for taking the time to contact the Division of Watercraft with your concerns. At this time, the Division has not initiated any formal action to change the operating regulations on either Piedmont lake or Clendening lake. As you may know, two open forum meetings and a horsepower demonstration were conducted earlier this spring to gather public sentiment regarding an increase to 25 hp proposed by petition, to discuss boater concerns, and deliberate other lake management options. 



Since then, we have been continuing to collect public input and encouraging anyone with an interest to submit comments via e-mail or mail a letter to the Chief. At this time, we are planning to meet with Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District later in July or early August to discuss our options and review public input. If there is a joint decision to pursue regulatory changes, there will be additional public meetings which will be advertised in the local papers, published in the Register of Ohio, mailed to MWCD cottage lessees & dock holders, and e-mailed to everyone on the Division of Watercraft's Piedmont-Clendening distribution list.



Although the Division has not yet taken a position on the horsepower proposal, please be assured that there is certainly no intention to alter the character of the lakes or the boating experiences that they provide.



Your comments will be kept on file and incorporated with the official record if any regulatory actions are taken. I have added your e-mail address to my distribution list so that I can inform you directly of any additional meetings or other notifications in regard to Piedmont and Clendening lakes.



Once again, thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Public participation in the regulatory process is essential to serving Ohios boating communities and effectively fulfilling the Divisions mission.



Wishing you a happy boating season,



Deb Green, Regulatory Coordinator

ODNR, Division of Watercraft

2045 Morse Road, A-3

Columbus, Ohio 43229

(614) 265-6500



*please feel free to pass my contact information on to anyone else who may have questions or concerns.


----------



## PromiseKeeper

Mike,
I was just about to post the same letter that I recieved. Thanks for the post. 

Scott


----------



## mpd5094

I'm hearing that they raised it to 20 hp. Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## Floatin Saloon

Somebody told me there was a sign on the shower house wall outside in the camp ground that said 25 hp in 2010 done deal. Along with a sign that said drinking water was contaminated. DO NOT DRINK (water)


----------



## Flippin 416

Not happening yet.....

Mike  we will be meeting with MWCD later this month to discuss the public response and consider our options. No decision has been made at this time. I do have your e-mail address in my distribution list, so when there is some news Ill send something out to you and everyone else that has contacted me by e-mail.



Thanks again for your interest and participation.



-Deb Green


----------



## WoodenShips

They must have passed the new rule to ok 25 HP because we saw 3 BOATS with 25 HP flying down the lake the other day.I don't like it BUT IT WOULD BE VERY NICE TO HAVE A 25 HP!


----------



## mpd5094

I was told there are signs posted at one of the lakes, can't remember which one, that says the 25 hp is starting in 2010. Keep getting all kinds of answers. Was also told that they only raised it to 20 and it's in effect now. Don't know what to believe!


----------



## bassin101

OK fellas, I've read so many comments about the hp limit. Some positive points, some 
negative points. I recently came across an article about the hp limits on these 2 lakes 
and I just had to share it with you. The part in the article that really got to me was the 
poor guy that HAD to quit tournament fishing because he couldn't keep up with the pack. I decided to place the article online for you all to read. Nothing in the article was 
changed. It has an email address in it for all to express their views. You can read it 
at the following link:
http://home.comcast.net/~rkrz/infoarch/fyihplimit.htm


----------



## Flippin 416

Done deal...no increase!!!

No Horsepower Limit Changes for Piedmont, Clendening Lakes





No changes will be made to the current horsepower limits for boat motors operating on Clendening and Piedmont lakes.



The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) announced today that the horsepower limit of 10 hp on each lake will remain in effect. 



A petition presented last year to ODNR's Division of Watercraft and the MWCD requested that the horsepower limits on both lakes be increased to 25 hp. Clendening and Piedmont lakes are MWCD lakes managed in partnership with the Division of Watercraft.



Public meetings were held at each lake in May to accept comments about the petition request, and a powerboat demonstration using several different boat motors was conducted at Clendening Lake by the Division of Watercraft. Written comments were accepted through mid-July.



Clendening Lake is located in Harrison County and Piedmont Lake is located in portions of Belmont, Guernsey and Harrison counties.



Details about each lake can be found at www.mwcdlakes.com.







Contact: Deb Green, Regulatory Coordinator

ODNR Division of Watercraft

(614) 265-6500

[email protected]



Scott Barnhart, Chief Ranger

Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District

(330) 343-6647 ext. 2227

[email protected]


----------



## eatwhatyoukeep

Fishermen are blessed to have two lakes of that quality with 10hp limits, wish I lived a lot closer


----------



## Bass n' Fool

Was happy to get that email from Deb today. Fishing Clen really is a thing of rare beauty around here. I only fish it once a year or so, but I always go after that bad weekend with too many boaters out at "name any lake here" and you just want to be alone for a while.


----------



## greenpumpkin

Woooo hoooooo !!!


----------



## husky hooker

Thats great,why ruin two more lakes!!!!!!


----------



## mpd5094

That sucks. Some of these guys with their so called 9.9's go faster than my 25. Actually, I heard from a reliable source at the State Watercraft office, that the whole state of OH may become 25.


----------



## kingfisher42

My 9.9 is a 9.9. I am glad its not changing. These lakes get tons of pressure now anyways.

mpd5094 if you ever wanna go to piedmont I am usually by myself. We live close by.


----------



## mpd5094

kingfisher42 said:


> My 9.9 is a 9.9. I am glad its not changing. These lakes get tons of pressure now anyways.
> 
> mpd5094 if you ever wanna go to piedmont I am usually by myself. We live close by.



OK, thanks!


----------

