# "horse power" survey



## goose commander (May 11, 2010)

Now rememeber this is a survey of opion not a fighting match!The state has many lakes throughout Ohio that have some sort of HP limit. With the understanding that many of these limits are set to keep recreational boaters(skiers) and some speed demos from ripping up these sometimes smaller lakes. While many have invested large amounts of money and time into their rigs that dont qualify due to larger motor sizes. Weather it be a 20' ranger sporting that 250HP for that die hard basser or the guy that tries to split the difference for the family and purchased a fish n ski with the 75HP mercey. Now i know we (they) could go buy another rig or set a kicker on the rear of the boat but is that fair or asking to much? So with my rant over here is the question...

Would the majority of fisherman/women be in favor of lifting the HP limits on these lake and instead placing a speed limt (say10hP) or a No plan limit for these waters?


----------



## Crazyheaven (Apr 24, 2008)

I wouldn't be in favor of a speed limit. Too many boaters break the rules as it is. Replacing the HP limit with a speed limit would make it much harder to catch them.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

I would be in favor of it. The current HP restrictions are silly. The current restrictions are the same as if we would restrict automobile horsepower to 100 horsepower. I would bet you have more boaters modifying their motors to higher h.p. or changing their h.p. stickers than you do speeding boats on 10 m.ph. lakes


----------



## ron92 (Jan 29, 2009)

might work, it"s still up to the boater to do what is right! Some will, but those are not the ones we need to regulate in the first place.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Just thought i'd add that not all HP limits are for safety...some are for erosion prevention/water quality reasons.


----------



## fished-out (Dec 20, 2005)

I'd be in favor.


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

Be forewarned,this has to be the upteenth thread started about horsepower limits on our lakes.All have went south in a hurry over bickering back & forth.Both sides are very passionate about their views.Let's all please remember that with this one,state your view,keep it civil and be respectful to those opposing your view.


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

There are many lakes of both....I have several motors, for my fishing boat, and have chosen to keep the 9.9 on for which ever I choose to go to....central Ohio for me, and really can't seem to get away from Alum(no hp limit) and the occasional muskie bite.....when Hoover might be the better choice for fishing pressure and conditions....although the grandkids and my Dog love the beach too at Alum

for the survey ?.....I say keep them as they are!!....there is a good mix for both the speed demons and the small boats

.


----------



## COmmodore 64 (Jun 24, 2006)

This should have been a poll.


----------



## sauguy (Apr 8, 2004)

i like them as is.


----------



## Socom (Nov 3, 2005)

I say keep the hp limit. All you have to do is compare mosquito to pymatuning to see why. I realize that some people have bigger boats and different recreational uses for them, but there are lakes for that purpose just like there are lakes pretty much just for fishing.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

horsepower limits are just plain lame. its just as hard to patrol a lake without horsepower limts and speed laws then it is to patrol a horsepower lake. if erosion is really what some lakes are worried about, then why is it ok for a 9.9 to run full bore down the lake in a small v-bottom? i fish burr oak often, they changed the laws a few years ago, no horsepower limit, idle only if over 10hp, no jet propelled watercraft and guess what? i havent seen anyone breaking any laws, i havent seen a jump in the number of boats there and i havent seen rangers there every day because someone has to patrol the waters to enforce the new laws.

there are no "you cant go down these streets" laws for corvette zr1s so why should there be those laws for boats.


----------



## Hetfieldinn (May 17, 2004)

Mosquito has both. Unlimited horsepower, with a 15 mph speed limit north of the causeway. Every time I'm on the north end, it seems that every boat capable of traveling at warp speed does so.


----------



## FredT (Mar 27, 2011)

I like them as they are. Some lakes I can't/will not fish on weekends because of the big boat and motor activity. The 10 horse lakes are always sane on weekends.


----------



## GO FISH (Aug 13, 2004)

I have a struggle with this, I have a big boat that I would like to be able to use a different lakes. My parents have a house at Atwood,it would be nice to be able to use my 115hp and have a speed limit there.I use a kicker and it takes a long time with a 4hp to go the length of the lake,but I get passed by or beat to death by the little boats,wave runners and pontoons going wide open with their 25hp. I also think that there are lakes that shouldn't allow "big" motors. Maybe it should be electric only and gas powered lakes,then have a speed or no wake designation on the smaller lakes. Just my opinion


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

> if erosion is really what some lakes are worried about, then why is it ok for a 9.9 to run full bore down the lake in a small v-bottom?


Because it doesn't create nearly the amount of wakes as a ski boat doing loops or a group of bass boats racing to their spots. It's not rocket-boat science. Trust me, if ODNR had its way on water supply reservoirs, there would be no horsepower limits.



> there are no "you cant go down these streets" laws for corvette zr1s so why should there be those laws for boats.


There are plenty of street legal laws out there. Ask anyone who customizes their vehicles. Under a proper vehicle inspection, many will fail and receive a ticket.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

Mushijobah said:


> Because it doesn't create nearly the amount of wakes as a ski boat doing loops or a group of bass boats racing to their spots. It's not rocket-boat science. Trust me, if ODNR had its way on water supply reservoirs, there would be no horsepower limits.
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of street legal laws out there. Ask anyone who customizes their vehicles. Under a proper vehicle inspection, many will fail and receive a ticket.


a group of bass boats going to their spots at idle speed does not create a wake, last i checked. i also have never seen someone skiing off a boat idling. its not rocket science...

there are certainly plenty of street legal laws out there, i dont have to ask anyone to know that the amount of horsepower your car has is not one of them.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

Mushijobah said:


> There are plenty of street legal laws out there. Ask anyone who customizes their vehicles. Under a proper vehicle inspection, many will fail and receive a ticket.


many will fail? many what? cars? there are thousands and thousands of bone stock cars on the road that will do 150+mph and obviously if they are being 
sold at dealerships, have warranties, etc. im sure they will pass inspections.

the issue is regulating speed instead of power. it has nothing to do with passing inspections.


----------



## Star1pup (Aug 3, 2004)

No matter how big or how little the motor, you are responsible for damage caused by your wake. According to what I learned studying Chapman's and other books pertaining to maritime law, it is not the speed, but the wake. Of course, every state or private lake is different. Also I am not an attornery.

I have had wakes really rock my boat and the skppier claimed he was not going fast. Some boats just throw a big wake.

Many wake problems can be cured by common curtesy.


----------



## Star1pup (Aug 3, 2004)

Lake Tomahawk is a 150 acre private lake so we set our own rules. There is no HP limit of speed limit, but we do have some large no wake areas that I use for fishing on days the bigger portion of the lake is busy. Early morning before the sun warms things up and at dusk I can usualy use any part of the lake. There is a no wake on the entire lake at sundown.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

lordofthepunks said:


> many will fail? many what? cars? there are thousands and thousands of bone stock cars on the road that will do 150+mph and obviously if they are being
> sold at dealerships, have warranties, etc. im sure they will pass inspections.
> 
> the issue is regulating speed instead of power. it has nothing to do with passing inspections.


All I meant is the idea of regulation is not uncommon, even with cars. I guess I should have used a better example.

Regarding bass/fast boats on sensitive bodies of water...the law would then be based off of the honor system. We all know how far that gets us. For every 10 guys out there obeying the law, there will be one who makes them all look bad.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

Mushijobah said:


> .
> 
> Regarding bass/fast boats on sensitive bodies of water...the law would then be based off of the honor system. We all know how far that gets us. For every 10 guys out there obeying the law, there will be one who makes them all look bad.


i understand that but those same guys that knowingly or even un-knowingly speed, are the same people that will ignore the horsepower laws anyway. 

it all comes down to bad apples, and there are bad apples everywhere no matter what the laws are. I HATE BAD APPLES! gots to ruing everything.


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

Ok guys knock off the tennis match with the volley back forth.


----------



## goose commander (May 11, 2010)

hey guys i didnt want discord between outdoors men just an over all opion. my intent is to increase evryones enjoyment of these lakes an propose a compermise with the DOW and watercrafe division but only if there is backing to do so. if the majoity dont like it then ill leave it alone without further persuit.


----------



## n8als (Oct 17, 2006)

Leave the HP as is...


----------



## Jigging Jim (Apr 3, 2010)

HP Limits are easier than Speed Limits. Not all boaters use devices that read the speed of their boat.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

lordofthepunks said:


> a group of bass boats going to their spots at idle speed does not create a wake, last i checked. i also have never seen someone skiing off a boat idling. its not rocket science...


Come watch the "idle speed" at Alum. Most boats think idle is quarter throttle. 
This arguement is the only thing that is lame. These horsepower restrictions have been in place longer than many of us, myself included, have been alive. Grow up and deal with them. We all purchased our boats knowing these restrictions. You can't change the rules mid-game, well, I guess if you cry enough.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

goose commander said:


> hey guys i didnt want discord between outdoors men just an over all opion. my intent is to increase evryones enjoyment of these lakes an propose a compermise with the DOW and watercrafe division but only if there is backing to do so. if the majoity dont like it then ill leave it alone without further persuit.


Yes you did. If people wanted to fish the restricted lakes they would have purchased a rig that is allowed. Now you want people with excluded rigs to rise up and be accomidated. How does increasing usage by lifting the restrictions "increase evryones enjoyment"? Seems there is still a loser in the fight, just no longer you. Some of you guys will not be satified until you forget everything about why you started fishing in the first place. Is it too much to ask to have a few places that are relatively calm in a hustle and bustle world.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Muskarp said:


> Come watch the "idle speed" at Alum. Most boats think idle is quarter throttle.
> This arguement is the only thing that is lame. These horsepower restrictions have been in place longer than many of us, myself included, have been alive. Grow up and deal with them. We all purchased our boats knowing these restrictions. You can't change the rules mid-game, well, I guess if you cry enough.


Rules have been and always will be changed...Hoover used to have a 6 h.p. limit..that was changed .Numerous lakes have been changed to 10 m.p.h limits from h.p. limits.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

I voted to leave the laws as are...I have had numerous close calls on Mosquito and West Branch..Enough to vow to not go to them again..Milton and Berlin are just to far to drive to for now..So my 14'er and an 8hp motor enjoy trips to Pymatuning..It is a pleasurabel place to fish..Everyone knew the regs on various lakes before buying their rig..I got what I needed for gas and electric lakes..Many people decided to get boats with more creature comforts and all that good stuff..They excluded themselves..There is always gonna be a debate on who is more selfish..There are the guys who want to keep their home lakes pleasurable and low hp rated..Then there are the guys who want unlimited and could turn how the lake is, not to mention bringing in the pleasure boaters...


----------



## fontinalis (Mar 29, 2011)

Jigging Jim said:


> HP Limits are easier than Speed Limits. Not all boaters use devices that read the speed of their boat.


same argument here, if you have a big boat, with a big motor, go somewhere that you are allowed to use it, if you dont like it, tough, the guy in the little jon boat with a 6 horse doesnt like bouncing in your wake all day. Its all about balance, some lakes are restricted for the lil guys, some arent, for the big guys. If it bothers you that bad, buy a smaller boat, or move to lake erie.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

fontinalis said:


> same argument here, if you have a big boat, with a big motor, go somewhere that you are allowed to use it, if you dont like it, tough, the guy in the little jon boat with a 6 horse doesnt like bouncing in your wake all day. Its all about balance, some lakes are restricted for the lil guys, some arent, for the big guys. If it bothers you that bad, buy a smaller boat, or move to lake erie.


I don't believe anyone is asking for unlimited speed on these lake. A perfect case in point is Knox lake. 10 h.p. limit or idle speed only for larger motors. I see nothing wrong with that rule. You don't see any rules about boats with 10 h.p. or less being restricted from certain lakes because they get in the way of water skiers and large boats LOL


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

It is all about paying for a resource that you are restricted from using.

The restricted lakes funding derived from boat registrations is in a largest part from people that own boats with motors that are restricted from use there based upon HP alone.

Is there a way to separate the funding so that only those with qualifying motors pay the bills for their exclusive access?

Also, just to be equitable, no boats with motors less than 10HP should be permitted to operate on Alum, Buckeye, Deleware, Indian, Griggs, etc, etc, etc, etc


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

Lundy said:


> Also, just to be equitable, no boats with motors less than 10HP should be permitted to operate on Alum, Buckeye, Deleware, Indian, Griggs, etc, etc, etc, etc


So by this theory. No boats with gas motors should be allowed on electric only lakes. 
You are not being banned from using these. Just in how you use them. Just like speed limits. It's not 65mph on every road. My taxes go to fix roads I don't drive down. Does that mean my taxes should be filtered only to fit the streets I use? Nonsense!


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Muskarp said:


> Yes you did. If people wanted to fish the restricted lakes they would have purchased a rig that is allowed. Now you want people with excluded rigs to rise up and be accomidated. How does increasing usage by lifting the restrictions "increase evryones enjoyment"? Seems there is still a loser in the fight, just no longer you. Some of you guys will not be satified until you forget everything about why you started fishing in the first place. Is it too much to ask to have a few places that are relatively calm in a hustle and bustle world.


And what would change that relative calm having boats that could idle only on these lakes?


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

robertj298 said:


> And what would change that relative calm having boats that could idle only on these lakes?


I would have to think the large increase in usage at facilities that are already pretty much at full capacity (i.e. parking ) and also the people that we know would "stretch" the idle only rule. (see: Alum idle zone) Also Buckeye idle and every other Ohio lake with an idle zone. I will note however that the idle zone speeders are not limited to large engines. I see just as many <10hp boats speeding through these areas.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Muskarp said:


> Just in how you use them. Just like speed limits. It's not 65mph on every road.!


I hope you realize that your example is perfect for support of what you oppose


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Muskarp said:


> I would have to think the large increase in usage at facilities that are already pretty much at full capacity (i.e. parking ) and also the people that we know would "stretch" the idle only rule. (see: Alum idle zone) Also Buckeye idle and every other Ohio lake with an idle zone. I will note however that the idle zone speeders are not limited to large engines. I see just as many <10hp boats speeding through these areas.


Ohhhhh so under your scenario what would be even better is if only you were allowed to fish these lakes LOL. Maybe we should make hoover an electric lake only to decrease usage even more? These are public lakes paid for with tax dollars coming from a lot of people so why restrict those that pay just as much towards these lakes?


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Muskarp said:


> My taxes go to fix roads I don't drive down. Does that mean my taxes should be filtered only to fit the streets I use?


Do you not drive on these roads that you support through taxes because you choose not to or because you are not permitted to?

There may actually be some valid reasons to keep restricted HP on some lakes but you haven't offered any yet


----------



## SwollenGoat (Apr 13, 2005)

Gawd this argument gets old...

After years of seeing this topic come up again and again, I have found
the ONLY people that b#tch about HP limits are the people that have 
a motor bigger than what is allowed on a restricted lake. 

Go sit at the ramps or shoreline at Alum Creek on a Saturday in July. 
What you will witness is the result of unlimited horsepower and the 
many downfalls of a percentage of people owning high performance 
watercraft without the wisdom or courtesy to use them properly. 

BOTTOM LINE:
No law is ever perfect for everyone, in every situation, but as a law 
they must be followed. Wonderful thing about this country is that 
laws can be changed. However, that process can take years and lots
of time, money and resources by those wanting to change it. I say all of
you who want this law changed be my guest. In the meantime I will trim
up the big motor, drop my kicker and continue to fish.


----------



## Star1pup (Aug 3, 2004)

It's an interesting thread, but I don't see the problem. I fish and don't water ski so I'm happy with my slow boat. I always loved to fish Highlandtown and had no problem using my electric. I just stay off lakes like Berlin.

The one problem I see with changing to speed limits is that we would need someone to enforce it. Would there be a lake traffic cop with a radar gun? Would we need to add more officers to the Division of Watercraft and what would that cost? They would, of course, be eligible for PERF and other public employee benefits. The state is about broke so do we raise the price of boat or fishing licenses? I just put this out there for thought as I now spend most of my time on a private lake. We have unlimited horsepower and no wake zones. We also have security, but most of the policing of the no wake is some of us can yell really loud.  Most of it is just common courtesy.

The plus side of HP limits is that an officer can see the motor at the ramp.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

Star1pup said:


> The plus side of HP limits is that an officer can see the motor at the ramp.



ive heard of people putting 9.9 stickers on 15/20 horse motors.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

SwollenGoat said:


> :
> 
> After years of seeing this topic come up again and again, I have found
> the ONLY people that b#tch about HP limits are the people that have
> ...


and the only people that dont want a "no wake" law instead of a speed limit are people with small motors.

go sit at the ramps at alum and see what it would be like if they had "no wake" on the whole lake with unlimmited horsepower. 


for the life of me i dont understand how people dont get this. people with cigerette boats and ski boats are not going to go to a lake that will not permit them to get on plane just like they wont go to a lake that restricts horsepower. 

like i said before, burr oak changed the horsepower restrictions to "no wake" and traffic is absolutely no different. it still feels like i have my own personal lake.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

Muskarp said:


> Come watch the "idle speed" at Alum. Most boats think idle is quarter throttle.
> This arguement is the only thing that is lame. These horsepower restrictions have been in place longer than many of us, myself included, have been alive. Grow up and deal with them. We all purchased our boats knowing these restrictions. You can't change the rules mid-game, well, I guess if you cry enough.


i would say to you to grow up as well, how childish is it to whine and cry about the idle speeds at alum? is that not a problem caused by people in 9.9 boats just the same as people in 250 horse boats? would people in 500 horse pleasure boats really go to a lake that permitted idle only, everywhere? seriously? you have obviously never owned one of these boats if you think that people would take pleasure boats capable of 70mph speeds to a lake that permitted idle only.

a gasoline motor should be permitted to go anywhere other gasoline motors are permitted. electric lakes only should stay the same and if lakes are worried about erosion, i.e., hoover then hoover should be changed to electric motor only. a bass boat on plane creates less wake then a 9.9 v-bottom running at 4k rpm and any boat at idle speed creates less wake then a 9.9 running all out.

it really honestly is no sweat off my back, i dont really care but the theories and arguments for keeping this antiquated law in place is usually rubbish.

and for the question, how do we enforce it?, how do we enforce any laws, nobody is at half the lakes anyway, whats keeping people from breaking the law then? it changes nothing.


----------



## SwollenGoat (Apr 13, 2005)

lordofthepunks said:


> and the only people that dont want a "no wake" law instead of a speed limit are people with small motors.


No, I have both a big motor and a kicker. I understood the laws when making my decision for boat and motor(s) and thus can fish virtually any body of water in Ohio.



lordofthepunks said:


> for the life of me i dont understand how people dont get this. people with cigerette boats and ski boats are not going to go to a lake that will not permit them to get on plane just like they wont go to a lake that restricts horsepower.
> 
> like i said before, burr oak changed the horsepower restrictions to "no wake" and traffic is absolutely no different. it still feels like i have my own personal lake.


For the life of me, I don't understand people who continue to b#tch about laws that have been in place for years and do nothing about it.

Go put forth your time to rally the troops, spend your weekends collecting signatures, burn your gas to run to rallies, meetings, whatever. I think in the end it would be easier/cheaper to just either;

A. Buy a kicker to put on your boat.
B. Trim up your big motor and use your electric at these lakes.
C. Buy a dedicated small boat for fishing these lakes.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

the ole "stop bitching" fallback. nice. thought i was just stating my opinion like everyone else. i would think "bitching" would be me actually starting a thread entitled "why wont they change the hp laws".


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

SwollenGoat said:


> I think in the end it would be easier/cheaper to just either;
> 
> A. Buy a kicker to put on your boat.
> B. Trim up your big motor and use your electric at these lakes.
> C. Buy a dedicated small boat for fishing these lakes.


i think in the end it would be MUCH easier to just say, hey, i want to go fishing, yes i will obey the speed limit imposed by the state on every lake.

seriously? how much easier can it get.


----------



## puterdude (Jan 27, 2006)

I am beginning to think some of you are intentionally trying to get this thread closed.How much plainer do I have to make it,stop the bickering back & forth.NO MORE WARNINGS!!!! And clean up the language.


----------



## Star1pup (Aug 3, 2004)

ezbite said:


> ive heard of people putting 9.9 stickers on 15/20 horse motors.


You are so right. Whether the law is HP, speed or wake some guys (and gals) will try to beat the system. I guess it's human nature. When I was on Atwood I was told that some of the so-called 25hp motors just had 25hp shrouds and decals. I still feel that courtesy would help. Don't zip by a guy and his kids in a 10' Jon Boat and rock them in your wake. I slow down for anglers and anyone else who my wake might cause harm or discomfort. I wish others would do the same for me.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

lordofthepunks said:


> i think in the end it would be MUCH easier to just say, hey, i want to go fishing, yes i will obey the speed limit imposed by the state on every lake.
> 
> seriously? how much easier can it get.


You are not gonna win this argument by making sense. Those opposed to changing the law really just want less competition on the lakes they fish.If they could exclude every one but themselves they would


----------



## SwollenGoat (Apr 13, 2005)

lordofthepunks said:


> i think in the end it would be MUCH easier to just say, hey, i want to go fishing, yes i will obey the speed limit imposed by the state on every lake.
> 
> seriously? how much easier can it get.


I would love to agree with you, and would probably trust that you would do the right thing, but I am not that naive with others.

However, using your reasoning (and trust) we also "shouldn't" have any speeders, thieves, murderers or rapists....just sayin.

This my friend, is why we have laws.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Guys,I think first and foremost we should count our "fishing blessing" before we continue to argue..


----------



## fished-out (Dec 20, 2005)

A few thoughts, as there are valid points on both sides:

There WILL be people on idle-only lakes who break the law, just as there are folks who go 75 in 65 MPH zones--the same people who went 65 when the limit was 55. It's in their genes. That said, enforcement is a separate issue. First, we should decide on impact and equity grounds, then determine if new rules can be enforced. Anything else is putting the cart in front of the horse.

From an impact standpoint, I don't believe an idling large boat has more impact than a speeding 9.9. Many of the boats I've seen with 9.9's are underpowered and simply won't plane--throwing a much larger wake than most idling larger boats. There are, of course, exceptions. Bottom line--whether it's disturbing other fishermen or shoreline erosion, there would be little or no impact in allowing larger motors with an idle restriction. But I guarantee that if I put a 9.9 kicker on my 20' Lund and run it wide open, the wake I throw would disturb a few folks....

Increased traffic on smaller lakes--bound to be some, but I doubt it will be major. We're talking fishermen--most pleasure boaters simply won't want to deal with the restrictions.

Increased fishing pressure--probably. But I also believe many of the folks with these boats tend to catch and release. It also means less pressure on larger lakes. Overall, a wash.

I support it on these grounds. Life is about change--imposing bag and size limits wouldn't have been particularly popular 30 years ago, but makes sense now. I think this makes sense as well.

I'd need to understand the enforcement side and how it might work--but saying folks MAY break the law isn't a great reason not to test an idea. Otherwise, I suppose we should legalize drugs.....


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

Lundy said:


> I hope you realize that your example is perfect for support of what you oppose


Please enlighten us!


----------



## Dave_E (Apr 6, 2004)

Erosion is bad in Ohio.
Only HP limits make sense, with a good amount of no wake zones mixed in.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

Dave_E said:


> Erosion is bad in Ohio.
> Only HP limits make sense, with a good amount of no wake zones mixed in.


so 10hp cant cause erosion? any amount of hp can cause erosion.


----------



## moose (Apr 14, 2004)

left the hp limits post no skiers.


moose


----------



## timmyv (Apr 26, 2006)

I like the limits the way they are now. I have a boat that is way under powered with only a 9.9 on it. I go to Hoover 95% of the time. I do see guys flying down Hoover with a "9.9", the only reason I may get bothered by that is out of pure jelousy because I'm putting along at 7 or 8 miles an hour. Keep them as they are is my vote!


----------



## SouthernPro (Oct 8, 2009)

Knox Lake is a perfect example that this will work on all lakes!!!! Change it so everyone can fish, especially those of us with bigger boats and fine the heck out of the rule breakers!!! Knox Lake worked, so will everywhere else.


----------



## Socom (Nov 3, 2005)

lordofthepunks said:


> i understand that but those same guys that knowingly or even un-knowingly speed, are the same people that will ignore the horsepower laws anyway.


I have never seen a bass boat on pymatuning. If you put a hp limit on a lake (or keep it) a boat with a big motor will stand out easily.

Also, by having the hp limit, you take away most of the human element or (honor code) regarding speed. They couldn't speed if they wanted to. But put a speed limit on a lake, well just look at our highways, there is a speed limit, but how many people obey it? 

By putting a hp limit on a lake, I would argue it would make a lake safer more fish-able from the lack of recreational boaters. Not fair for the recreational boaters? Well if they have the gas money for those monster engines, then I am sure they can handle little longer drive to a lake like mosquito or similar lakes. 

We have plenty of lakes and it is perfectly reasonably to have some with an hp limit and some with speed limit. They don't all have to be one or the other.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

SouthernPro said:


> Knox Lake is a perfect example that this will work on all lakes!!!! Change it so everyone can fish, especially those of us with bigger boats and fine the heck out of the rule breakers!!! Knox Lake worked, so will everywhere else.


I think it would be very hard to make that work at Pymatuning...You would probably need to hire another 10-15+ people just to enforce any new laws...The money isn't there for their salaries...No one is telling people they can't fish..They are just saying they can't use the boat they *wanted* ,to fish on certain lakes..


----------



## Dave_E (Apr 6, 2004)

lordofthepunks said:


> so 10hp cant cause erosion? any amount of hp can cause erosion.


HP is easier to control than speed; therefore, erosion will be easier to control.

By your logic, someone could get a citation for a tiny remote control boat exceeding the speed limit. That makes zero sense.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Dave_E said:


> HP is easier to control than speed; therefore, erosion will be easier to control.
> 
> By your logic, someone could get a citation for a tiny remote control boat exceeding the speed limit. That makes zero sense.


LOL That is the silliest thing I've ever heard.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Ok we can go back and forth over this all day. This is my last post on the subject. I just wish those opposed to a speed limit as opposed to a h.p. limit would just tell the truth. You just don't want any competition on those lakes you fish . If you could limit the lake so yours would be the only boat allowed to fish there you would.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Just look at the numbers...they tell the story


----------



## JamesT (Jul 22, 2005)

They need to hire more officers solely to enforce the laws. Run it like Columbus (better yet, OSU)parking enforcement and make bank. Set up a video camera at the spillway and fine all the litterers too.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

robertj298 said:


> Ok we can go back and forth over this all day. This is my last post on the subject. I just wish those opposed to a speed limit as opposed to a h.p. limit would just tell the truth. You just don't want any competition on those lakes you fish . If you could limit the lake so yours would be the only boat allowed to fish there you would.


You keep bringing up jealousy and competition...That has nothing to do with it..You can catch fish in any boat...I am sure the majority of the people who want an hp increase are bass boaters..I dont know many that eat the bass they catch...Everyone is entitled to fish anywhere,its the boat that you buy that may not be...


----------



## jeepguyjames (Sep 24, 2008)

HP limits stink.....if it were truely a fear of erosion or saftey or what ever they would just make the whole lake a no wake and be done with it.....just an opinion....i dont see how a guy w/a 250hp going at a no wake speed is harming anything, esp compared to the fella in the under powered jon boat throwing a 3ft wake with his 9.9......make them 10hp limit to run them wide open & no wake for every one else....wouldnt hurt any one it dont seem.....


----------



## catcrazed (Jan 15, 2008)

jeepguyjames said:


> HP limits stink.....if it were truely a fear of erosion or saftey or what ever they would just make the whole lake a no wake and be done with it.....just an opinion....i dont see how a guy w/a 250hp going at a no wake speed is harming anything, esp compared to the fella in the under powered jon boat throwing a 3ft wake with his 9.9......make them 10hp limit to run them wide open & no wake for every one else....wouldnt hurt any one it dont seem.....


Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have an officer handin out tickets like candy to the larger hp boats that are above idle. Hey it happened to me at one of my local lakes. Went through a no wake zone just a touch above idle with just a touch of wake and I got nailed. I have NEVER done it again. 

I cant express how much I feel exactly like the fella I quoted above. A 9.9 on a john boat at say 8mph is throwing more of a wake than a bass boat at 65mph so I don't want to hear that garbage. There are plenty of lakes that I don't fish because I have a 90hp on my boat with no kicker and Ill be darned if Im gonna use my trolling motor to fish them. Thats the decision I made a long time ago but I would love to fish these places with a NO WAKE on larger boat engines.


----------



## ZEBRACON1 (Feb 15, 2008)

When I used to have a jon boat with a 5hp and a trolling boat with a 9.9, I always said no to any hp increases. Now I have a bigger boat with a bigger motor and I'm not allowed to launch at most of the lakes in my area that I used to fish. That being said, I still say leave it the way it is now. All hp increases are is a ticket for guys to break more rules. These 10 hp lakes.... how many of the boats on them are running a true 9.9 motor ? Probably none of them. Mine was a true 9.9 and everyone used to blow me out of the water on a consistent basis. The first thing guys do is try to bend the rules and go beyond what is allowed. I'll bet if the rangers were out checking motors on these limited lakes and it was posted on here, you sure wouldn't see many boats at the ramp that day. Most of these 10 hp lakes are already 15-25 hp on an illegal basis and we all know it. Speed limits are hardly ever followed. Its another thing that is pushed beyond what is allowed and there's just not enough manpower to handle all the violaters. The only way to eliminate all this rule breaking is to make all the lakes unlimited hp, and thats not going to happen. You're always going to have someone thats unhappy with the way things are. My thinking is, if you can own a high dollar rig and maintain the cost for up-keep and operation, than you shouldn't have much of a problem picking up a cheap low hp outfit for the limited hp lakes. At least that is my plan. Am I disappointed that I can't take my boat out on my favorite lake ? Yes. Am I prepared to change the rules so I can ? Nope. I like those lakes just the way they are and I'll adapt if I have to. I knew the deal before I picked up the higher hp rig so it's on me. That's just the way it is until something changes.


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

I been following this rant all the way through and thought Id throw in a few comments that havent been made yet, and For the record, I voted that Id like to see more speed limit vs HP lakes since I fish from a deep v with a 115 on it. 

Just a few random thoughts: 
Clear Fork is a 8MPH lake and the majority of the musky guys all fish with big boats there, I have never heard of any probs there and the lake patrol there uses radar guns all the time to enforce it. 

I see that most of you guys are up in the NE corner of Ohio where you have many lake choices vs where I live where we have Ceasers Creek and East Fork ( unlimited HP ) and then we have the 2 much better fishing lakes of Acton and Cowan, both 9.9 lakes. Its no secret that EF and CC are 2 of the busiest lakes in the state and chock full of pleasure boaters/skiers, wakeboarder and lake lice. and starting in about 2 weeks through the whole summer, fishing becomes not a pleasant task at either of these lakes. This is why we ( the fishing crowd ) are always pushing for it down here and yes, the 9.9 crowd has been very vocal about keeping the best fishing lakes for themselves, they are open about it and for those who are not willing to share "your" fishing lake with the rest of us, shame on you as we ALL pay for the states facilities, Just my opinion here folks. 

With that said, Id like to say that in our end of the state, the majority of bigger motor boat owners are definately pushing for a speed limit over HP change on both Acton and Cowan, rumor has it Cowan has been looked at many times in the past to be the "test" lake in our part of the state. 

Last point that I havent seen mentioned yet is that if they change the HP to speed limit on some lakes, one thing that will have to be done is to upgrade the ramps to allow for power loading if they go that far as to allow power loading, i know in WI or MInn,( not sure which state it is) most lakes it is "STRICTLY" enforced, no power loading EVER is permitted and fines are VERY steep but since most weekend warriors at the state lakes here in Ohio obviously can not read, Im not sure how this would be handled.  

Just a few points to add fuel to the fire...
Salmonid


----------



## homebrew (Apr 13, 2009)

Salmonid said:


> ... but since most weekend warriors at the state lakes here in Ohio obviously can not read, Im not sure how this would be handled.
> 
> Just a few points to add fuel to the fire...
> Salmonid


I've only been to Acton once and I was struck by how the State of Ohio can't spell. My memory is foggy, but I think they use "accept" instead of "except" on their HP limit signage. 

I'm fine with 9.9


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

*I see that most of you guys are up in the NE corner of Ohio where you have many lake choices vs where I live where we have Ceasers Creek and East Fork ( unlimited HP ) and then we have the 2 much better fishing lakes of Acton and Cowan, both 9.9 lakes. Its no secret that EF and CC are 2 of the busiest lakes in the state and chock full of pleasure boaters/skiers, wakeboarder and lake lice. and starting in about 2 weeks through the whole summer, fishing becomes not a pleasant task at either of these lakes. This is why we ( the fishing crowd ) are always pushing for it down here and yes, the 9.9 crowd has been very vocal about keeping the best fishing lakes for themselves, they are open about it and for those who are not willing to share "your" fishing lake with the rest of us, shame on you as we ALL pay for the states facilities, Just my opinion here folks. *

Salmonid,what you're saying is big boats wreck the two lakes every summer?..So why bring that somewhere else??..You're making a case for the guys who want to keep a lake restricted...Your name is not on a list of people who are not allowed to fish at these lakes...Your rig however,is the thing tha keeps you from fishing there..They don't want the lake just for them..They want it to remain a relaxing place to fish...


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

Iraqvet said:


> *I see that most of you guys are up in the NE corner of Ohio where you have many lake choices vs where I live where we have Ceasers Creek and East Fork ( unlimited HP ) and then we have the 2 much better fishing lakes of Acton and Cowan, both 9.9 lakes. Its no secret that EF and CC are 2 of the busiest lakes in the state and chock full of pleasure boaters/skiers, wakeboarder and lake lice. and starting in about 2 weeks through the whole summer, fishing becomes not a pleasant task at either of these lakes. This is why we ( the fishing crowd ) are always pushing for it down here and yes, the 9.9 crowd has been very vocal about keeping the best fishing lakes for themselves, they are open about it and for those who are not willing to share "your" fishing lake with the rest of us, shame on you as we ALL pay for the states facilities, Just my opinion here folks. *
> 
> Salmonid,what you're saying is big boats wreck the two lakes every summer?..So why bring that somewhere else??..You're making a case for the guys who want to keep a lake restricted...Your name is not on a list of people who are not allowed to fish at these lakes...Your rig however,is the thing tha keeps you from fishing there..They don't want the lake just for them..They want it to remain a relaxing place to fish...


i dont think thats what he is saying at all, he is simply pointing out that there are only 2 places to go, which causes major congestion at those two lakes. if a few more lakes opened up, it would take alot of the pressure created by fisherman and dispurse it more evenly throughout the area.

again, the pleasure boaters, the jet skis, the skiers are not going to go to a lake that is entirely no wake. the only thing that will happen is more fisherman will have more options rather then congesting the same two lakes. alum would benefit greatly from having hoover changed to no wake, unlimited horsepower. but hey, i guess everyone loves to go boating at alum on fathers day huh? in no way would people rather just be able to go fishing and not have to deal with pleasure boaters.

lake rupert and burr oak have changed their laws and absolutely nothing has changed, parking is not congested, idiots are not all over the lake breaking the new laws and the fishing is still good, for everyone, not just people with a kicker motor.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

i dont want this to get all personal again, iraqvet and i have battled over this before in the past and it accomplishes nothing. 

the bottom line is all the reasons for people wanting hp limits can all easily be disputed. the whole erosion thing is nonsense for multiple reasone including 9.9 creating tsunami wakes, ersion likely taking so long to actually occur that the generations and generations would actually be dead before it effected anyone and thats if no developments are never made to counter erosion over the next 500 years. and lets not forget wind, we cant stop the wind from blowing now can we. and i forgot, yeah, bass boats dont create a wake at idle speeds. if lakes like hoover are truely worried about erosion, then they should change it to an electric motor only lake.

enfocement, we already dont enforce the laws in place, people are already breaking the hp laws by changing stickers and what not. its alot harder to figure out the true hp number on a motor then it is to see if he is creating a wake. 

traffic, again, two lakes in my area have changed the laws and traffic has not changed at all. never had a problem getting a parking place, never had a problem loading and unloading.


i vote we change all lakes to only be allowed to accomodate those with zx200 skeeters with lowrance electronics and motorguide trolling motors with a slight crack in the windshield.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Yep fighting gets nothing but closed threads...Its just two groups of people with a different view point...


----------



## LouS (May 17, 2011)

Iraqvet said:


> *I see that most of you guys are up in the NE corner of Ohio where you have many lake choices vs where I live where we have Ceasers Creek and East Fork ( unlimited HP ) and then we have the 2 much better fishing lakes of Acton and Cowan, both 9.9 lakes. Its no secret that EF and CC are 2 of the busiest lakes in the state and chock full of pleasure boaters/skiers, wakeboarder and lake lice. and starting in about 2 weeks through the whole summer, fishing becomes not a pleasant task at either of these lakes. This is why we ( the fishing crowd ) are always pushing for it down here and yes, the 9.9 crowd has been very vocal about keeping the best fishing lakes for themselves, they are open about it and for those who are not willing to share "your" fishing lake with the rest of us, shame on you as we ALL pay for the states facilities, Just my opinion here folks. *
> 
> Salmonid,what you're saying is big boats wreck the two lakes every summer?..So why bring that somewhere else??..You're making a case for the guys who want to keep a lake restricted...Your name is not on a list of people who are not allowed to fish at these lakes...Your rig however,is the thing tha keeps you from fishing there..They don't want the lake just for them..They want it to remain a relaxing place to fish...


Strawman argument. His point CLEARLY was that lakes that allow ski boats are an issue, not the size of a boat or a motor. Like jeepguyjames said, the smaller boats actually often do more physical damage to the smaller lakes than boats with larger motors would. That really kills any argument against larger motors, but it does not end there! 

There is the issue of oil! Most small boats I see have OLD motors, larger motors tend to be destroyed earlier/younger, or just did not exist in years gone by IME. So when you see boats with larger motors, they are often newer motors, thus more environmentally friendly as they often have oil injection. 

Bottom line is that trying to punish people for potential IMO is lunacy. People need to be punished not for what they have, but how they use or abuse it. So disallowing large motors is, IMO, legal idiocy. He or she MAY do something, so they MUST be punished, really? Do THINKING people REALLY support such things? 

I have a BIG electric motor and BIG batteries, so I go where I wish, BUT it's idiocy to restrict me from using my new Yamaha 70HP but allow a 1950's 9.9HP Evenrude when the user has to push it to the limit to get any speed, and is polluting more in an afternoon than I would using my motor all summer! I think that if we want to push crazy agendas, we ought to restrict anyone with a pre 2000 2 stroke motor. Forget size, let's talk pollution!


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

WOW this thread is still going....I am very surprised..... it is what it is, just deal with it....maybe one day everyone can be happy with the laws


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

*Bottom line is that trying to punish people for potential IMO is lunacy. People need to be punished not for what they have, but how they use or abuse it. So disallowing large motors is, IMO, legal idiocy. He or she MAY do something, so they MUST be punished, really? Do THINKING people REALLY support such things?* 

I would say yes,we THINK and support these things...Look at the survey numbers so far...I was also THINKING about the regs at my local lakes when I purchased my boat..


----------



## Hillbilly910 (Jan 6, 2009)

ironman172 said:


> WOWmaybe one day everyone can be happy with the laws


the same day i sprout wings and fly away


----------



## fished-out (Dec 20, 2005)

Iraqvet said:


> *Bottom line is that trying to punish people for potential IMO is lunacy. People need to be punished not for what they have, but how they use or abuse it. So disallowing large motors is, IMO, legal idiocy. He or she MAY do something, so they MUST be punished, really? Do THINKING people REALLY support such things?*
> 
> I would say yes,we THINK and support these things...Look at the survey numbers so far...I was also THINKING about the regs at my local lakes when I purchased my boat..


Actually, I think most are just voting their boat set-ups right now. I wouldn't put much stock in the poll; if it ever really came down to a statewide all-inclusive survey, most of the pleasure boaters would vote for a speed limit rather than horsepower limits, even if they wouldn't use the related lakes, just because they'd want the option to use them. I personally believe that there would be an overwhelming majority of registered boat owners in favor.

Maybe that's the direction to take to get the laws changed.


----------



## StumpHawg (May 17, 2011)

Voted for no HP limit. They are testing some lakes with HP limits to allow larger motors run at idle speed and the results came out great. I fish three of these lakes and can tell you its nice to run a motor even at idle speed then to worry about TM batteries getting from one side of the lake. My sources tell me this will become more statewide in the near future so both will be happy on this topic. They also mentioned idle speed over speed limit will prevail. Happy fishing to all boats regardless of engine size.


----------



## fshnjon (Feb 25, 2008)

Changing it might be a good way to raise money for the state .You know as soon as they change it you would have people pushing the limits (some allready do ) because you cant regulate common sense .Just go to the boat ramp at cowan on a busy weekend and see for yourself .


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

I live within 5 minutes of Clear Fork Lake,and about 20 minutes from Knox Lake.If any of you were to ask the ranger at Clear Fork if anybody has EVER got a speeding ticket at Clear Fork,the answer will be no.I'm sure many of you have fished there before,go ahead and ask and see what the answer is yourself.Same at Knox Lake.That kind of shoots down the theory of if the HP restrictions are changed,guys(or at least some)will push the envelope and break the speed laws.I fish both regularly,and I have yet seen any boat on Clear Fork speeding down the lake,not even the dreaded bass boats.The arguement about soil erosion is so stupid I won't even make a comment about that.At Pleasant Hill Lake,I've only seen two boats get busted(or at least lectured)about speeding through the "No Wake Zones",and both boats were small aluminums with 9.9's.Not saying that others haven't been,but those were the only two I ever witnessed.I just fished a tournament at Pleasant Hill this past weekend,and during the directors pre-blast off list of the rules,he brought up the idle speed law in the no wake zones,as well as other rules pertaining to that particular lake.Guys fishing in TX's are always informed of the rules of any given lake,I would have to assume that most comply with the law,why would you want to get disqualified over something as silly as speeding through a idle zone.On a lot of different topics concerning bass guys-v-non-bass guys,I do believe there's a very strong sense of jealousy,and down right hatred towards bass guys,especially TX guys.However,I don't feel this is the case here.To me personally I do not understand why if I buy a fishing license,pay taxes,and so on,and so on,I can't fish any lake I choose,with whatever HP I choose.Does a guy with a 9.9,or just an electric motor get to fish whatever body of water he chooses? HP laws are just plain dumb,and they will be changed eventually,I know for a fact.For the ones that say lakes that are city water supplies will never be changed,several non-restricted lakes are also city water supplies,including Clear Fork.What,gasoline from a 9.9 is less polluting than fuel from a larger motor-lol.To the guy that said he has never seen a bass boat on Pymatuning-WHAT? How often do you fish there? Once a year in December or something? I've had my boat on there several times,and seen dozens of others each time,we do have bow mounts you know.Everybody that's pro restrictions keep saying that if the law was changed the lake would need more enforcement officers to patrol it,are you kidding? Clear Fork is a 1000 acre lake that requires a total of one ranger to patrol it-7 days a week.If your assumptions were accurate,why aren't bass boats blazing down Knox Lake? The only ones that do that with any regularity are the 9.9 boats,they pass by me non-stop while I'm idling from one location to another.Another great example to see what's ahead,Charles Mill Lake this year allowed a TX where contestants were allowed to use their big motors at idle speed,who would of thunk! BTW,no speeding tickets were issued.None of this stuff applies to me directly,I don't,nor do I have plans to fish any lakes that are restricted,I wouldn't even if they changed the law.To me,what would make a great difference if they dropped the restrictions would be ALL lakes in Ohio would receive less pressure,and that would suit me just fine.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Hey HH...You bring up what was said about enforcement...While Clear fork is only 1000 acres,Pymatuning is about 15,000-17,000 according to various sites..It also dog legs...Its impossible to see from one end to the other...I would bet my bottom dollar they would need more officers there to actually enforce the law..It would be impossible to be unlimited/idle, it would take hours to get from one end to the other...So a speed limit would have to be established,which would require even more enforcement..I am just astonished that the big boat guys fail to see where we are coming from and not acknowledge the troubles many have had with bigger boats..


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

There's a speed limit at Clear Fork Lake,it doesn't need to be enforced,everybody that fishes there knows what the speed limit is.Actually Pymy is 14,500 acres,would an unlimited HP law with a lakewide 10mph speed limit be a bad thing? I can see where you're coming from in regards to certain larger boats,such as ski boats and cruisers of various sizes.I can't stand being around them when I'm fishing either.Bass boats though(believe it or not)don't create much of a wake at all.If you own say a 16'-18' aluminum boat with a 9.9 motor,and you and I run side by side up any lake at 10mph,I will guarantee you 100% that your boat will create way more than twice the wake my bass boat will.I did try to understand your point,now try to understand mine.All I'm saying is that we all pay pretty much equally as boaters to utilize our waterways,why should one group get priority over another? To put it simply for all the folks that own 9.9's,would you like it if the state said that only motors with at least 100HP could only use Alum,Buckeye,Indian,or heck even Lake Erie? I don't think so,when you purchase a boat,you pretty much feel that you should have the right to use that boat on any public water in the state.I feel I should have the right to use my boat on any lake I choose,the same way you feel you should have the right to use yours wherever you choose.Every lake in Michigan(they have way more than we do)you can use whatever size motor you want,I'm from there,I haven't heard of any issues regarding soil erosion,or rampant speeding,the difference there is they do enforce speed limits to the max,plus many lakes have tons of stumps just below the surface,so only an idiot would be flying around on most of the northern lakes anyway.Again it makes no difference to me either way,I don't fish many inland lakes so if the laws remain the same as they are now,so be it.My only complaint with this topic is that some people believe they should have rights to fish public waters that others can't enjoy too.Their rallying point seems to be,if you want to fish a restricted lake,then buy a smaller boat.That would be fine with me if you do the same,buy a larger boat if you want to fish non-restricted lakes-dumb isn't it?


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

i disagree with the notion that a pymatuning would need more then one officer due to its size. that lake is not that big, its huge for ohio but its not so big that it needs multiple patrolman constantly. the dog leg thing, not being able to see the whole lake at one time? can the cops see what you are doing all the time, do they have eyes on every road constantly?

governement takeover, maybe they should put gps on all of our boats so they can monitor our speed wherever we are, 7 days a week.


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

At 14,500 acres,Pymy would just be a small farm pond compared to some of the lakes I fish down south on the tournament trail.The notion that a guy in a bass boat would be flying up and down Pymy,or any other lake is ridiculous.On any given day when I'm tournament fishing,or just out for fun I would say I'm on my trolling motor at least 95% of the time.I may hurry out to a spot to start my day,but for the most part I won't be gunning up the main motor again until I'm about ready to quit for the day.If you watched the top guys at the recent Bassmaster Classic,they only went a very short distance from the ramp to their spot,and then they stayed there the remainder of the day.Bass fishermen tend to have 3 or 4 spots all in close proximity of each other,so we don't have to run the big motor all day.Like I said,I agree that some of the boats out there on our lakes are too big for inland lakes.At a size of 900-1000 acres,Pleasant Hill Lake shouldn't really have 30'+ cabin cruisers barreling down the lake back and forth,but it is what it is.Even if the state were to lift HP restrictions on all lakes statewide,there would still be plenty of lakes the small boat guys would have to themselves,just because of the hassle involved in launching a bigger boat at some of the smaller lakes,Kokosing Lake comes to mind for one.It's a great little bass lake,but it would be a major headache to try to launch a bass boat in there,especially trying to get it back out.In NE Ohio there's a bunch of lakes like that,so even if the law did change,there would still be places better suited for smaller boats,but lakes the size of Pymy or Hoover having HP restrictions is just laughable.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

LTFPunks, I know we both would agree on your sarcasim about the gps monitering lol...You're right,people brake laws everywhere because of lack in law enforcement..People blatantly do it all the time..And I feel many would blatantly do it at Pyamatuning because of the lack in enforcement..Then who would be to blame if an accident happend between a big boat breaking the law and small boat after the change?..The state of Ohio??..HH, my boat my max at 10 mph lol..Lets say they start at 10mph for...You're still gonna be takin hours to get from one end to the other...So now what??..Many will say thats to slow of a speed to get back to the dock incase of an emergency...So then they bump it to 15mph, or possiblly 20mph...Now the 25'ers are making 3' wakes and are going to fast to pay attention to your gear..Then they will enduce the "I'm bigger than you right of way"...And yes,there will be people who would be bringing there pleasure boats there after the law was changed...The marinas would skyrocket their prices..Fuel would probably rise in cost as well..While you may not see the changes,many people would...I strongly encourage you to both to take a trip to Mosquito,and then drive up the road to Pymatuning and rent an aluminum boat for a few hours...I guarantee you will see a difference of night and day between their atmospheres..


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

yeah, im being sarcastic with the gps. 

over and over and over again i bring this up and nobody acknowledges this, they have tested this out on other lakes and none of these hypothetical worst case scenarios have occured. the gas pumps arent overpriced, the traffic hasnt gotten zoo like, there havent been fatalities and accidents, the banks havent eroded away, the water quality isnt any different. the only difference is that i and other people with bass boats get more choices about where to fish. in the end, thats what people really dont want to change so they make up all these excuses to not change it.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

iraqvet, you are really jumping to some major conclusions. first off, its about 12 miles from one end of pymatuning to the other. you do the math at 10mph.

secondly, ive never seen a 25' boat on any lake that was idle only or even a lake that is 10mph speed limit. 

so lets say all these factors that you are expecting to happen, happen. a 25' boat goes to a lake that he/she knows its illegal to run at more then speed limit, launches at one end, goes clear to the other end, has an emergency, wants to speed on the way back and goes 20 miles per hour. then assume the guy, during his emergency, will evoke the "im bigger then you" law that you have made up in your head, a rule that ive never seen anyone else use. do you honestly believe that someone wants to crash into another boat while he is having an emergency? do you beleive that 20mph is such a speed that cannot be controlled in a responsible manner, that 20mph is OUT OF CONTROL, WATCH OUT.do you think that 20mph is such a speed that people could not get out of the way even if the guy was intentionally coming straight towards you (99.999999999% unlikely). and again, the chances of it even getting to that point is mind numbingly unlikely. 

i dont get it. 

like i said earlier, its been done on a few test lakes and none of the scenarios that you are worried about are happening but i already know that thats not enough evidence for you.


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

Why would somebody want to bring their 25' pleasure boat to Pymy and do 10mph,or idle speed? Nobody has said to raise the speed limit above 10mph,or idle speed.I've fished Pymy many times using just my bow-mount,and I've still accessed the areas I wanted to fish,and then made it back to the ramp.I can only give the two examples that I already have-Clear Fork Lake and Knox Lake.On Clear Fork,sure on a weekend,especially when there's a big muskie or bass TX going on,the ramp and parking lot is crowded.Knox Lake doesn't have that problem though,because basically there's two ramps on the lake,instead of just one at Clear Fork.Another reason is the size limit at Knox,that alone discourages many TX's from happening there.I know for a fact I could drive to either of them right now and wouldn't have to wait at all to launch my boat.In Ohio we do not have enough water to go around for everybody,TX anglers,and recreational anglers alike have to do whatever they have to do to find less crowded lakes.Doing away with the restriction laws would create far less pressure on many lakes,maybe that don't sound logical,but that's a fact.The TX game is already encroaching on your smaller,restricted lakes anyway.There's electric motors only bass tournaments,and now the NBAA has a circuit going near Dayton that's a wading only tournament for bass,there's also a wading circuit on the Tuscarawas River for bass.The demand for TX fishing is getting bigger and bigger,and like it or not they're everywhere.If more lakes were open to larger motors,you wouldn't have a TX every night of the week,and two on Saturday and two on Sunday at lakes like Alum,they could spread them out more.I think we're just going to continue to agree to disagree on this topic.I understand your feeling on wanting a few lakes to remain calm and serene without the pressure bigger lakes have,but more and more that's going to be a thing of the past.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

Harbor Hunter said:


> I understand your feeling on wanting a few lakes to remain calm and serene without the pressure bigger lakes have,but more and more that's going to be a thing of the past.


burr oak, lake ruppert. still calm and serene after the horsepower restriction was lifted. i still feel like burr oak is my own personal lake. rarely see more then 3 or 4 boats during the week except for the tuesday night pot tourny that gets a grand total of about 10 to 15 boats.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

While the economy is down these places may still seem quite..Once things pick back up that could be a whole different story...


----------



## LouS (May 17, 2011)

catcrazed said:


> Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Have an officer handin out tickets like candy to the larger hp boats that are above idle.


Actually they need to hand them out to EVERYONE above idle! With GPS they ought to, IMO have an idle and or a speed limit. That is idle if you do not have GPS, and a max speed limit if you do. Keep 1 or 2 mph under max, and you have no worries.


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

I agree that a speed limit leaves no question as to if you were guilty or not, I know for my deep v. 5.6 MPH is about all I can do in a No wake. I know several Ohio lakes have speed limits, Clear Fork is 8 mph, what are the posted speed limits in the other lakes??

Salmonid


----------



## SwollenGoat (Apr 13, 2005)

lordofthepunks said:


> yeah, im being sarcastic with the gps.
> 
> over and over and over again i bring this up and nobody acknowledges this, they have tested this out on other lakes and none of these hypothetical worst case scenarios have occured. the gas pumps arent overpriced, the traffic hasnt gotten zoo like, there havent been fatalities and accidents, the banks havent eroded away, the water quality isnt any different. the only difference is that i and other people with bass boats get more choices about where to fish. in the end, thats what people really dont want to change so they make up all these excuses to not change it.


OK, I'm jumping back in the pool one more time... 

Not sure where you are getting your info, nor can I be sure about other restricted lakes (I don't really fish any other than Hoover) so I am not qualified to speak about them. However, if you're going to throw Hoover in the mix and you think the restriction is some kind of made up conspiracy against you, let me state some facts;

*FACT:* Hoover is a city water supply reservoir OWNED by the city of Columbus - NOT the state of Ohio. Thus, you will not see ODNR officers patrolling the water like you would at Alum or Buckeye Lake, etc.

*FACT:* As a water supply, the main purpose of the lake is to supply water to the local residents. Any other activities on Hoover (Fishing, boating, etc.) are secondary and should be considered a privilege.

*FACT:* I have it from a reliable source who works for the Dept of Watershed, that treating the water from Hoover to make it safe to drink takes approx 1/2 the chemicals per gallon as it does to treat the same gallon of water from Griggs or O'Shay. (Both of those coincidentally have unlimited HP.)

*FACT*: Other than the residents of the greater Columbus area, there are two very large companies here that use a great deal of water, pay a great deal of taxes, employee many people and in fact have a contract/agreement with the city that it MUST supply them a certain amount of water for them to use. Otherwise, they may take their businesses elsewhere. (Hint, one makes beer the other makes pop.)

*FACT:* If pollution levels were to rise to unacceptable levels, the city can and will eliminate all boating activities on these lakes in order to appease the greater masses who need the water for drinking, etc.

*FACT:* There have been many attempts over the years by both the state and special interest groups to raise the HP limits on Hoover reservoir. In all instances the local residents and the powers that be have basically told them to "get bent".



**Oh, and since you like to generalize about those people you mention put 9.9 stickers on bigger motors??? From all my years of experience fishing Hoover, the biggest culprits I've witnessed are those who run the little green stripped out jon boats, throwing 15 foot roostertails, racing from spot to spot, all competing to catch a certain species fish in a certain amount of time. The rest of us out there aren't really in any big hurry.* 
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

Goat's right on about Hoover and I think we beat this to death at least once a year if not more. 

Just remember folks the lakes that are open to fishing now that are drinking water supply lakes, we are privileged to even have access to them. Any of these drinking water supply lakes could turn into a case like Meander Reservoir that is closed to everthing. How does that help any of us?

That said, HP limits should stay in place. I want to run WOT at 8.5 mph with my 8 hp motor. Most of the larger bass boat electric trolling motors will run close to that. I don't want to do idle speed of around 2 mph.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

SwollenGoat said:


> OK, I'm jumping back in the pool one more time...
> 
> Not sure where you are getting your info, nor can I be sure about other restricted lakes (I don't really fish any other than Hoover) so I am not qualified to speak about them. However, if you're going to throw Hoover in the mix and you think the restriction is some kind of made up conspiracy against you, let me state some facts;
> 
> ...


 so what you are essentially saying is that all the "valid" reasons given earlier for reasons why it shouldnt be changed are admittedly bologna and this is the true reason that things wont change? because budweiser and people that live on sunburry road and surrounding areas voted against it being changed. not erosion, not patroling, not lack of parking areas, not gasoline being too expensive (lol) not out of control fatal accidents at the warp speed of 20mph, not dislike for tournament fisherman, not extra people fishing in your hole. at least at hoover, all the other lakes could still have all these major major concerns.

i vote for all 9.9 lakes to be changed to electric only, after all, we cant afford to turn one of these lakes into a, hmmmm hmmm, pollution infested, death trapped speed lake, eroded to the size of the grand canyon, overfished, loud, non serene, no where to park, gas costing $8 a gallon (fill up on your way), hell hole lake that, lol, nobody will go too but its not like that yet because the economy is weak so we have to wait for the chaos to begin. did i miss anything?

this debate is always the highlight of the year on ogf, I LOVE IT. swollen goat, if the things you say are absolutely true then i wouldnt want the law changed on hoover but every other lake isnt supplying water for beer and pop. we cant have our beer and pop tainted!


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

> i vote for all 9.9 lakes to be changed to electric only,


I would agree with that. After all, that's all I use on 9.9 lakes as my gas motor is too large to run on those lakes. But I'm not a whiner.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

One other thought for the dark side  (speed limit) is imposing boat length limits in conjunction with speed limits. Hoover has one and it is currently 22' for motorized and 25' for sailboats. Hoover also has a 10 mph speed limit that is not enforced heavily if at all.


921.01-4 - Vessel and operations in Hoover Reservoir.

(A)
Unless otherwise authorized by this chapter, no person shall operate in Hoover Reservoir any vessel of:

(1)
Less than eight (8) feet or more than twenty-two (22) feet except sailboats which may be up to twenty-five (25) feet in length.

(2)
Less than thirty-six (36) inches in beam or;

(3)
Less than fifty (50) pounds in weight or;

(4)
More than ten (10) horsepower or restricted thereto.

(B)
Exceptions:

(1)
Canoes, kayaks, rowing shells, pedal boats and inflatable watercraft bearing a Hull Identification Number (HIN) and recognized by the United States Coast Guard as vessels and watercraft are permitted and specifically exempted from the length, beam and weight requirements. 

(2)
Board type sailboats without rigidly affixed masts; commonly referred to as "sailboards" are specifically exempted from the length, beam and weight requirements and their hours of use shall be restricted to those hours from sunrise to sunset. 

(C)
The waterway north of the no boat buoys at the dam shall be open to boating at all times except for areas specifically exempted. Boating will not be permitted within one hundred (100) feet of the down-river side of the dam. 

(D)
No person shall operate a motorized vessel at a speed greater than ten (10) miles per hour.

(E)
Before launching a vessel with a motor in excess of ten (10) horsepower, the motor will be tilted and must remain tilted while on the waterway. 

(1)
Motors in excess of ten (10) horsepower may remain in a non-tilt position provided their prop is removed prior to launch and remain so while on the waterway. 

(F)
No water skiing will be permitted.

(G)
No person shall operate any motorized vessel at a speed exceeding idle speed within a distance of one hundred (100) feet of the shorelines.


----------



## SwollenGoat (Apr 13, 2005)

lordofthepunks said:


> so what you are essentially saying is that all the "valid" reasons given earlier for reasons why it shouldnt be changed are admittedly bologna and this is the true reason that things wont change? because budweiser and people that live on sunburry road and surrounding areas voted against it being changed. not erosion, not patroling, not lack of parking areas, not gasoline being too expensive (lol) not out of control fatal accidents at the warp speed of 20mph, not dislike for tournament fisherman, not extra people fishing in your hole. at least at hoover, all the other lakes could still have all these major major concerns.
> 
> i vote for all 9.9 lakes to be changed to electric only, after all, we cant afford to turn one of these lakes into a, hmmmm hmmm, pollution infested, death trapped speed lake, eroded to the size of the grand canyon, overfished, loud, non serene, no where to park, gas costing $8 a gallon (fill up on your way), hell hole lake that, lol, nobody will go too but its not like that yet because the economy is weak so we have to wait for the chaos to begin. did i miss anything?
> 
> this debate is always the highlight of the year on ogf, I LOVE IT. swollen goat, if the things you say are absolutely true then i wouldnt want the law changed on hoover but every other lake isnt supplying water for beer and pop. we cant have our beer and pop tainted!



Like I said, I don't feel qualified to comment on any other restricted lake. However, I was born and raised within 2 miles of Hoover and to this day still live within a 10 minute drive. The biggest point I was trying to make is that Hoover is owned and operated by the city and the purpose of Hoover's existence is for water - not flood control like many other dams. That said, the majority of monies to run Hoover come from the city, not the state. The city will protect it's investment.

Aside from the water quality issues, you are also dealing with a lot of affluent people living in mega $$$ properties all around the lake. (No, I am not one of them. ) They would rather not have the noise or congestion that would ensue if the lake was opened up to bigger motors. I'm sure many of them would rather have nothing at all except the skull boats, kayaks and sail boats. There may come a day when it gets closed altogether. However, for now I will enjoy the opportunity to fish it with what I have, while I can.

Peace.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

LouS, Thanks for taking the time to copy and paste your response about the laws of logic..No offense,but I already had a bologna sandwich for lunch...I don't know how you can say my logic is invalid...Buying what you need to get out on the water at any lake you want to makes more sense then buying 35k bass boat and then complain about where you can't go...Logic is having the right tool for the job..I wanted to fish where ever I wanted..My boat meets that goal..Thats like someone buying a semi truck as their daily driver,then complaining to the bank because they can't fit in the ATM lanes,then telling them to make their roofs higher...One other thing you forgot to mention about logic...Just because something works at one place,doesn't mean it will work at another...


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

buying a semi truck for everyday use would be like buying a cruise ship to fish out of. buying a bass boat is more like buying a ferrari instead of a chevette. but even if i had a chevette, i would still think that ferraris should be allowed on all roads.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Iraqvet said:


> Thats like someone buying a semi truck as their daily driver,then complaining to the bank because they can't fit in the ATM lanes,then telling them to make their roofs higher..


No sir,

The bank is privately owned, not supported by taxes, boat and trailer registrations of all boat owners.

The bank has zero obligation to the semi-driver to ensure access to the ATM lanes.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

Lundy said:


> No sir,
> 
> The bank is privately owned, not supported by taxes, boat and trailer registrations of all boat owners.
> 
> The bank has zero obligation to the semi-driver to ensure access to the ATM lanes.


So how does the government have to ensure people no matter their boat/engine size can fish wherever they want??..You pay taxes,and register your boat..After that its on you to decide where to go..Choosing the boat is on you...No one says you can't fish here or there, they are just saying your boat is not aloud on the lake...


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Iraqvet said:


> So how does the government have to ensure people no matter their boat/engine size can fish wherever they want??..You pay taxes,and register your boat..After that its on you to decide where to go..Choosing the boat is on you...No one says you can't fish here or there, they are just saying your boat is not aloud on the lake...


I don't disagree with what you just wrote at all.

Based upon the current laws that is 100% correct. The laws will change in time.

I was just pointing out that much of your offered reasoning in support has been flawed and you analogy with the semi truck was worse.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

I will also add that since I pay for those things,why should they not be obligated to provide me with a safe and quiet place to fish??...The state ensures everyone has a place to go...You guys are acting like every lake is 9.9 only...Why are your "rights" so much more important than other's who feel te laws should stay in place??..If people are satisfied with their fishing hole,why incroach on that??..I know opening up Pymatuning would ruin it..You may not fish there or care,but alot of people would and it would never be the same for us...How is that fair??..Especially with an unlimted lake right down the road...


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Iraqvet said:


> I will also add that since I pay for those things,why should they not be obligated to provide me with a safe and quiet place to fish??...The state ensures everyone has a place to go...You guys are acting like every lake is 9.9 only...Why are your "rights" so much more important than other's who feel te laws should stay in place??..If people are satisfied with their fishing hole,why incroach on that??..I know opening up Pymatuning would ruin it..You may not fish there or care,but alot of people would and it would never be the same for us...How is that fair??..Especially with an unlimted lake right down the road...


"obligated", "The state ensures"

No one's "rights" are more important than anyone else's. The very point you offer in support is the point you have never seen through all of this


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

Please enlighten me,how would having a non-restricted,idle/10mph speed limit on Pymatuning ruin it? With a statement like that you really are showing your true colors-you simply don't like bass fishermen.On a lake that is 14,500 acres in size,you're saying that allowing a bass boat doing 10mph,or less will ruin this lake.Please somebody out there can't you see the intention here? Knox Lake is just a tiny little lake,with just two tiny little parking lots at each single lane ramp.There has been absolutely no problems with over crowding the lake,or either parking lot,even on weekends,and Knox Lake is widely considered to be one of(if not the best)the best bass lakes in the state.So if a lake the size of Knox can accomodate large motors at an idle speed,you're saying that a huge lake like Pymy cannot.This truly makes sense to you? One more time,please explain how Pymy will be ruined if the state drops the restricted law.For the guy that mentioned Meander Res.,this lake is not owned by any city,it's federally owned.


----------



## Shut up_N_Fish (Feb 12, 2005)

Wow... I've never read a thread with such well researched and well stated points..
It's all still just sour grapes and whining though.
My rig can't fish Hoover conveniently (I can accept this). When the opportunity comes to fish I generally choose Alum creek resevoir instead even though I know I'll be dealing with the Miss Budweiser making balls out strafing runs and with a plethora of expensive over the top horsepowered tournament anglers who NEED to go 70 mph.. It's just the way it is.

At the same time I am very very glad that there are still places that don't cave to the pressure from those who would spoil all serene places for their own entertainment...

Perhaps my opinion will change if I EVER see Ohio boaters who have even a slight understanding of what a no wake zone is...

Ed


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

I have the perfect solution to all these various problems. The city should only allow 1994 ranger r72 bass boats with hull# OH-9192-BG to run on Hoover . We wouldn't have any problems with wake because I would be the only boat out there so no complaints or erosion problem . No pollution problems from 1 outboard so the water would stay pure.No traffic or parking lot problems and just think how serene the lake would become with only 1 boat on it


----------



## Shut up_N_Fish (Feb 12, 2005)

robertj298 said:


> I have the perfect solution to all these various problems. The city should only allow 1994 ranger r72 bass boats with hull# OH-9192-BG to run on Hoover . We wouldn't have any problems with wake because I would be the only boat out there so no complaints or erosion problem . No pollution problems from 1 outboard so the water would stay pure.No traffic or parking lot problems and just think how serene the lake would become with only 1 boat on it


Lmao... Now THAT was creative and funny...
Perhaps we all suffer from a "Close the door behind me" mentality

Divided we fall...
Ed


----------



## LouS (May 17, 2011)

SwollenGoat said:


> OK, I'm jumping back in the pool one more time...
> 
> Not sure where you are getting your info, nor can I be sure about other restricted lakes (I don't really fish any other than Hoover) so I am not qualified to speak about them. However, if you're going to throw Hoover in the mix and you think the restriction is some kind of made up conspiracy against you, let me state some facts;.


My comments were about state run reservoirs intended for flood control purposes only. I do however question the wisdom of allowing ANYTHING but 4 cycle motors in a lake that is to become drinking water, and I think size still matters not if you are only using 4 cycle motors... Just my opinion here as I have not looked into something like this sufficiently to really argue seriously about it.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

HH,its not just about bass boaters...I think there would be many people who live close to Pymatuning that would rather drop their boat in there then haul it up to Erie...I have talked to more than one person who said they would trade up in size/hp if Pymatuning ever went unlimited..LouS,I am glad you made these following statements I high lighted in bold..*It's not the government's responsibility to ensure anyone can fish, and that is not at all the point. The point is that if I have ANYTHING which is as safe as anyone else has, and is as or more capable, then the government has no business disallowing me because I have MORE than the next guy.*..I see you emphasized the word "more"..Is that a dig on us who don't have a 30k boat?..I see you only have 5 posts,but I should warn you that people dont exactly take to guys on their "high horse" around here..You mentioned potential alot..You're right,bigger boats have the potential to break the laws...You can't speak for every single boater now can you??.*Same argument, different vehicle! If it's true for boats, it's just as valid an argument for cars .Same argument, different vehicle! If it's true for boats, it's just as valid an argument for cars. This is just BS! It's government pushing around the people it's supposed to be serving. It's statism, and it's ugly.*. Why do you and others try comparing this to cars??..You left that long post about logic,yet your comparison doesn't offer any..Not all states have a 65mph speed limit..So should we make that national and limit cars to 65mph?..Oh the you would go through engines like a fat kid going through a cake because you ran the car at its max...


----------



## bass (Apr 14, 2004)

A lot of you keep saying unlimited hp it will be idle only. So a guy with a big cruiser is not going to a idle only lake!
It will be people that want to fish not race around a lake.


----------



## Pigsticker (Oct 18, 2006)

I voted keep the limits and I dont even have a dog in the fight since the only public places I fish anymore are Erie and on rare occasions wade a local stream or two. 

Imho it all boils down to Ohio not having enough inland waters. For example, if I owned 2 boats, a bass boat and a 9.9 and wanted to fish local id NEVER go to Alum because I fish to relax. Thats place is so crazy on weekends that its dangerous. Its not the 9.9 Guys making it that way imo. Id go to Hoover for the tranquillity. 

The theory of spreading out the pressure is bunk imo. It would just allow the crazy and dangerous boaters access to all the lakes thats get changed imo. There's would be and increase in boat ownership if Hoover went no limits because locals would buy boats to fish it now thats its wide open when before they wouldnt because it was too crowded at the local unlimited lakes. Again, theres just not enough water in central Ohio for over 1.3 million citizens in the Columbus metro area imo.

LOTP u made some good points that made me, a casual observer with no interest either way think about it more than I thought I would. But, im gonna have to call u on the theres nobody on the SE Ohio lakes even though changes were made talk. First of all theres and abundance of water there with lakes, tons of farms with ponds and all the rivers and streams. Secondly theres no population. Meigs county is lowest in state at only about 20k and the others in that quadrant of the state are only slightly higher. Then the fact that the economy on a whole but especially down there is horrible. A lots of folks live in ramshackle housing not worth as much as a used Ranger and are living hand to mouth on SSI so not a lot of pricey boats locally anyways. Lastly u and I both know those good ol' boys down in the foothills of Appalachia are fishing from the bank for some cats or running trotlines for them and arent nearly as interested in bassin'.


----------



## jcustunner24 (Aug 20, 2007)

Pigsticker said:


> The theory of spreading out the pressure is bunk imo. It would just allow the crazy and dangerous boaters access to all the lakes thats get changed imo. There's would be and increase in boat ownership if Hoover went no limits because locals would buy boats to fish it now thats its wide open when before they wouldnt because it was too crowded at the local unlimited lakes. Again, theres just not enough water in central Ohio for over 1.3 million citizens in the Columbus metro area imo.


I hesitated to even dip my toes in the water on this one, but I'm going to.No offense intended here, but I disagree with you. The guys arguing for no horse power limits also support a speed limit. 

Watch the news in the summer and you'll undoubtedly hear about a guy or group of guys who drown because they were being dangerous. Typically speaking, those accidents happen because someone didn't use common sense and proper precautions to ensure their safety. Speed isn't typically the issue. Often times, those accidents happen in small, limited h.p. boats. In my opinion there are just as many, if not more, dangerous (and possibly crazy) people in smaller boats as there are in the bigger ones. A no h.p. lake with a speed limit does not impact ones ability or inability to be dangerous. 

While I can see both sides of the argument and chuckle a bit at the futility of it, I'm of the opinion that a lake with a speed limit is safer than a lake with a horsepower limit. In the majority of Ohio's lakes, a 9.9 can kick up plenty of wake (we've all seen it) and certainly enough to swamp a stationary jon boat, canoe, etc.

It seems to me that some people (and I mean that as generally as possible) figure that if you allow big motors on the water then the people with them will suddenly turn their boats into barges and plow through the water willy nilly. It just doesn't happen that way and HH's example of Clear Fork is a perfect testament to that. That lake's traffic is about as orderly as I've seen, and I've been there on a crowded holiday weekend. One of the primary reasons for that is because it's an accepted rule and if you're seen being "dangerous and crazy" you can bet the others on the lake will report you. C

It's easier for many to avoid change than to realistically consider it. I don't see a way where a speed limit lake will develop substantial erosion problems or invite the type of riff raff that large and small motored fishermen all try to avoid.

I can understand that there are some bodies of water that would be susceptible to overcrowding, erosion, etc. Those lakes, few in number, could be limited to electric only with the others being speed limit lakes. I don't see how anyone would lose out on that.

Both sides of the argument have some self serving elements to them, but I'm not interested in that part of it. To me, a speed limit is simply a better way to manage a lake than a horsepower restriction.

For frame of reference. I own a 12 foot jon boat and primarily wade rivers, but logic dictates to me that the danger on lakes that comes from fishermen is typically self-inflicted. As has been stated previously, pleasure boaters and jet skis wouldn't be involved in a change like this. After all, skiing behind a boat at idle speed isn't called skiing, it's called sinking.

And Pigsticker, do you really think that people would rush out to buy boats if the rule changed and then immediately put themselves at risk in those boats? Most of the guys with $30,000 boats seem to take awfully good care of them - on and off the water. (Before anyone gets fired up over that last point, I'm not saying the guys with expensive boats are more careful, but they have plenty of incentive to BE careful).


----------



## Pigsticker (Oct 18, 2006)

Point taken stunner. I was refering to the people whole wanted to make it all unlimited everything everywhere like in Michigan. But imo theres no way to enforce speed limits. A lots of boats like tillers dont have speedometer or gps. I truly think anglers in whatever craft arent the problem its pleasure boaters. But u cant say no pleasure boats allowed yet anglers with same hp in their boat are allowed. So fairest way is to put the hp limit instead to keep them off a few lakes.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

one last thing before i bow out. anybody who thinks a guy in a cigerette boat/yaucht/ski boat/cabin cruiser/jet boat/etc. etc. wants to take there boat to a idle only lake has never owned one. 

by adding the no wake policy to the entire lake, you are eliminating pleasure boaters, so what we are left with is 9.9 guys not wanting bass boat guys fishing there water. a bass boat running at idle speed is far more quiet, serene, then any 9.9. a bass boat running at idle creates no wake, far more serene then a 9.9 stroking down the lake and everyone knows this. so that only leaves the added fishing pressure from guys that 99%of the time dont keep or kill fish. 

maybe its like golf, i prob wouldnt want a tour pro, a range pro, a church league all star, or the local tour wannabe watching me swing a golf club either so im starting to see your points.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

lordofthepunks said:


> one last thing before i bow out. anybody who thinks a guy in a cigerette boat/yaucht/ski boat/cabin cruiser/jet boat/etc. etc. wants to take there boat to a idle only lake has never owned one.
> 
> by adding the no wake policy to the entire lake, you are eliminating pleasure boaters, so what we are left with is 9.9 guys not wanting bass boat guys fishing there water. a bass boat running at idle speed is far more quiet, serene, then any 9.9. a bass boat running at idle creates no wake, far more serene then a 9.9 stroking down the lake and everyone knows this. so that only leaves the added fishing pressure from guys that 99%of the time dont keep or kill fish.
> 
> maybe its like golf, i prob wouldnt want a tour pro, a range pro, a church league all star, or the local tour wannabe watching me swing a golf club either so im starting to see your points.


No offense,but the attitude of "being better than you" is not gonna win anyone over...I know you will say thats not what you mean, but I dont think anyone on here was born yesterday...Not everyone who doesn't own a bass boat should be considered a second rate fishermen..Not all of us need ten grand in GPS equipment to catch fish...Instead of seeing my point,you just helped prove part of it...Maybe people would like to go to a lake and not get scoffed at,or wonder if they will ecounter boats bearing down on them at whatever speed.You bring up idle only..How is that fair to the guys who may use their 9.9s and wanna go faster?..While you fish through the week,many of us may not..And lets face it,it looks like any lake that allows bass boats now seems to have tournanments...I am starting to get the feeling this is all about people who feel they should be catered to because they have bigger,more expensive boats..


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

lordofthepunks said:


> maybe its like golf, i prob wouldnt want a tour pro, a range pro, a church league all star, or the local tour wannabe watching me swing a golf club either so im starting to see your points.


And somehow you still find time to type on this site between patting yourself on the back for something only your aware of. Great job!


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

Iraqvet said:


> Maybe people would like to go to a lake and not get scoffed at,or wonder if they will ecounter boats bearing down on them at whatever speed.You bring up idle only..How is that fair to the guys who may use their 9.9s and wanna go faster?..While you fish through the week,many of us may not..And lets face it,it looks like any lake that allows bass boats now seems to have tournanments...I am starting to get the feeling this is all about people who feel they should be catered to because they have bigger,more expensive boats..


thats the root of all of it, see we dont scoff at anybody, at least i dont but you think we do so that makes you not want us to fish around you. its an iferiority complex. i fish out of friends boats all the time (who do not own bass boats) and thats the last thing i think about when i see a bass boat coming towards us.

and, lol, "how fair is that for guys that want to run their 9.9s faster?" whaaaaaattttt?????? doesnt that create a unsuitable, unserene, menicing fishing experience? i myself, have no problem idling from place to place if thats the law. i also have no problem with 9.9s running full throttle on a lake that has unlimited horsepower but idle only if over 9.9

nothing scarier then a bass boat bearing down at you at the uncontrollable speed of.... idle.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

Muskarp said:


> And somehow you still find time to type on this site between patting yourself on the back for something only your aware of. Great job!


i dont have to pat myself on the back because i am not worried about what someone is thinking when they drive by me while im fishing.


----------



## Iraqvet (Aug 27, 2009)

So you claim I have in inferiority complex lol...I believe you saying this -*by adding the no wake policy to the entire lake, you are eliminating pleasure boaters, so what we are left with is 9.9 guys not wanting bass boat guys fishing there water. a bass boat running at idle speed is far more quiet, serene, then any 9.9. a bass boat running at idle creates no wake, far more serene then a 9.9 stroking down the lake and everyone knows this. so that only leaves the added fishing pressure from guys that 99%of the time dont keep or kill fish.maybe its like golf, i prob wouldnt want a tour pro, a range pro, a church league all star, or the local tour wannabe watching me swing a golf club either so im starting to see your points. * ,that you have a superiority complex...If you live by lakes thay have a low population,of course things are not gonna change much..However Pymie has a good amount of population around it..I dont see how people can justify a 40k boat,then say they pay $48 every three years for boat registration and feel they are being cheated because they can't use their boat on every lake...As with most of society,those who believe they have more feel like they have the right to entitlement above others..


----------



## fallen513 (Jan 5, 2010)

Just thought I'd chime in and say you are using the terms _inferiority complex_ & _superiority complex_ wrong. 

The person with the big bad boat has the inferiority complex. 


That is all.  :T


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

ive fished out of all sorts of boats and ive never thought "oh my god, that guy thinks he is so much better then me" without having ever met, talked or associated with. just jump to that conclusion because they have a nice boat? crazy

and i dont think we should get more then the rest of society, just think things should be equal! pretty simple.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

fallen513 said:


> Just thought I'd chime in and say you are using the terms _inferiority complex_ & _superiority complex_ wrong.
> 
> The person with the big bad boat has the inferiority complex.
> 
> ...


i dont have a big bad boat because it makes me feel good, i have a big bad boat because its par for the course when you tournament fish. sorry for having the proper tool for the job.


----------



## lordofthepunks (Feb 24, 2009)

herenby declare iraqvet the winner of the "horsepower" debate as i cannot rationalize with someone who passes judgements upon people without ever having met them. 

i am an average bass fisherman, the only thing on my mind while im fishing is catching the next bass. i am not thinking, im better then you, your better then me, i have a nice boat, yours is nicer then mine, your prob an a-hole, you prob think im an a-hole. i just want to catch the next fish. so if that is what your worried about when you are on the water, then thats your problem not mine. 

passing judgement based on what you see on the outside is prob the worst way to apporach anyone.

have a nice day!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## chaunc (Apr 11, 2004)

And this circle is complete.


----------

