# Unlimited Outboards



## SAUGEYECRAPPIEMAN (Dec 19, 2004)

Ok, I finally got checked on the lake at CC this past Saturday by the ODNR. They stopped me to do a spot check and ask me a few survey questions. My one crappie at the time was 10" (No problem, always legal). But his survey question was what I was interested in the most. 

He asked if I would favor the state allowing larger motors (Like mines) to be allowed on lakes with 10 hp limits as long as the larger motors use idle only? My answer was "Absolutely"!!!!! IMO going idle with a larger engine creates less wakes than a 10hp motor wide open. So I say bring it on, I hope it pass!

I know this won't make everyone happy because it may bring out more fisherman to your lakes like Cowan and Acton Lake. But for guys like me it will make it easier than using my trolling motor. 


What do you guys think? Is this a good idea?

By the way my day ended with (3) 15~16" saugeyes and (5) 10" + crappies fishing from 8am ~10am. all in between the rain and storms. We also threw back many shorties.


----------



## Bostonwhaler10 (Apr 30, 2012)

Ah , I bought a kayak and have it rigged with trolling motor and everything for those lakes. So it would irritate me that I didn't have to buy it.


----------



## imalt (Apr 17, 2008)

I think as long as there is no power loading at the docks I don't see what the problem would be. Of course that is if everyone is good with idle that is a slow idle across the lake. Temptation to amp it up a little bit might be there for some.


----------



## hunterm (Apr 22, 2004)

I got the same survey at CC a couple of weeks ago. Since my boat has a larger motor I was in favor of allowing wake speed and unlimited HP. would also make loading/unloading easier since trying to get my boat on the trailer with a trolling motor is a pain.


----------



## hogtrman (May 13, 2012)

I'm against raising horsepower limits on the small lakes. You always got some character abusing the privilege, and ruining the day for others. Also the bigger boats make bigger wakes, plain and simple.


----------



## kevinburgmeier (Apr 1, 2007)

Just because a boat is bigger doesn't necessarily mean a bigger wake.IMO it's how fast you're going.


----------



## Legend killer (Apr 20, 2011)

I say no, you will have yay hoos abusing it. Slap on a kicker motor if you want to use an outboard.


----------



## deadbetty01 (May 17, 2004)

I'm all for it....I think its silly that you can't just buy one boat that you like and take it everywhere, as long as the rules are followed/enforced what does it matter how big of engine or boat you have??? And to say a bigger boat makes bigger wake is kind of silly?? If your going idle speed your not going to be putting out any wake no matter how big your boat is! Just my .02

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## misterbreeze (Dec 19, 2011)

I said yes to the survey,but they do need to make the penalty so high you wouldn't even think about breaking the rules. I agree "No Power Loading" wrench it up if you have to.


----------



## socdad (Jul 25, 2005)

hogtrman said:


> I'm against raising horsepower limits on the small lakes. You always got some character abusing the privilege, and ruining the day for others. Also the bigger boats make bigger wakes, plain and simple.


Those characters are already using their big motors at Acton + bigger boats make no wake at idle speed.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Legend killer said:


> I say no, you will have yay hoos abusing it. Slap on a kicker motor if you want to use an outboard.


It's not always that easy to just slap on a kicker, besides the extra expense, some transoms are just not made to have a kicker. I've been on a couple lakes that started allowing my "big" motor. I've yet to see anybody abusing it.

It seems silly to me that I can put on a 9.9 kicker, run wide open, all 6.2mph (GPS speed) of it, making a huge wake, but that's OK. Or, that a flat bottom jon boat can go by me at 15 to 20 mph, but, even though I'd not make any more wake at that speed than they do, I have to idle with the big motor. I'd rather see a speed limit, and no skiing/tubing or jetskis.


----------



## CincyFisher (Nov 12, 2010)

For selfish reasons I support the idle speed with unlimited horsepower. I'd support it even more if they limited it to 150HP and Triton bassboats. LOL. Yeah there'd be more boat traffic and more yahoos. I'd be one of them although I follow the rules. Mostly. Agree with idea of stiff fines to keep smart people honest.


----------



## gabassman (Feb 2, 2006)

I've been fishing Cowan for many, many years. I'm very much in favor of the idle speed law. I've seen boats with 150hp on plane before there, so there's always going to be those idiots out there who will break the law. With the money cuts in Ohio state parks, you hardly see any enforcement officers on the water. 
I know of a lot of times I would try to cut across the lake on a real windy day and get cut off by sailboats and have to let off of the trolling motor and lose momentum and watch as they laugh their asses off (they would do it on purpose).


----------



## Mason52 (Aug 21, 2009)

Clear Fork Lake up by Mansfield has a 8 MPH speed limit and it's very user friendly for fishing, and it has plenty of boats with big motors on it. It's a smaller lake (less then 1000 acres) and I've never had a problem there. The thing that will keep people from abusing the speed limit/law is enforcement of it. Nothing like a $200.00 plus ticket to slow them down.


----------



## SAUGEYECRAPPIEMAN (Dec 19, 2004)

I have been at Cowan lake many times in spring and its difficult to control your boat with a trolling motor because of the wind. 

I think they should make sure their is a "LARGE" visible sign at every dock stating the idle speed with possible fines if caught going over the speed limit.


----------



## deskunkify (Mar 30, 2012)

This is an interesting topic, the issue here is enforcing the speed limits, I don't think the ODNR has the man power to enforce the limits. I am sure that most boaters would abide by the limits, but there are always a few that will overdue it. There are certainly areas for concern especially in upground reservoirs, many of which are found in northwest Ohio, where large wakes could possibly erode an earthen dam enough to the point of breaching. Another issue would be the cost of implementing such a limit, new odnr signs would have to be placed at launch ramps with the new regulations. Not to say that this isn't a good idea, but there are many variables that must be considered before a decision by the dnr and the division of watercraft should be made.


----------



## hogtrman (May 13, 2012)

I think you are right and have the best explaination for motor limits. Erosion of banks and earthen dams will settle the issue.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

hogtrman said:


> I think you are right and have the best explaination for motor limits. Erosion of banks and earthen dams will settle the issue.


I think that's a flawed theory. As stated before, a 9.9 pushing a 16' deep v is putting a lot of wake out. Idle/no wake is exactly what it states. No different than a no wake zone on any of the big lakes. Sure people will push it. Just like the 10hp guys running 15-18 hp motors. I do feel electric only lakes should be left only to electric motors. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## dobester111 (Jul 17, 2005)

I on the fence on this idea. I know guys that would love the idea and also follow the law. If they allow idle only with larger motors, there will always be the ones who ignore the laws, pleasure boaters and fishermen, alike. I used to think it was mostly pleasure boaters. But, I see fishermen ignoring no wake zones also. I probably wouldn't visit the 10hp lakes any more than I do now. Mainly because I'm not that close to them. When I do go to those lakes, I can get by with my trolling motor. It's a toss up.


----------



## mudkings (May 11, 2010)

I wish they would do it. Theres a few lakes that i once fished with my old boat that i cant now because i upgraded to a bigger boat to fit my family. I think it would be nice to be strictly enforced to keep idiots from speeding. But im all for it. I drive my boat on trailer and i dont make a big wake doing that. You just have to have your trailer set right and it drives right up. But if one of the rules is not power loading i would go for that too and just crank it on.
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## kevinburgmeier (Apr 1, 2007)

Does everyone also know that if you own a bigger engine(say, a 150)you are paying more taxes than smaller ones.You also can't use those bigger engines in over half of Ohio lakes but smaller engines can be used everywhere.


----------



## BITE-ME (Sep 5, 2005)

I say NO. I could care less about the whole bigger boat bigger wake argument. Going from 9.9hp limit to unlimited - idle only, means more people on the lake and more pressure on a fishery.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

BITE-ME said:


> I say NO. I could care less about the whole bigger boat bigger wake argument. Going from 9.9hp limit to unlimited - idle only, means more people on the lake and more pressure on a fishery.


Is this a "more people fishing MY water" argument? 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## BITE-ME (Sep 5, 2005)

Bad Bub said:


> Is this a "more people fishing MY water" argument?
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


I only fish on 9.9 lakes maybe once or twice a year.... so I wouldn't really call it "my water". It's nice to have a refuge where you can get away from the crowds and not have to stand in line to fish a spot. It's why most fisherman will travel to Canada and other remote waters outside Ohio (where you probably end up renting a boat with a 9.9  ). Not saying the fishing is that outstanding in our 9.9 lakes, but it's nice to have an option close to the house.

Simply put - Lifting the restrictions will = more boats = more fishing pressure = poor fishing.

No one is denied access. You just have to be willing to fish out of a smaller boat or walk the shore. Most fisherman aren't willing to do that all the time... which equates to less fishing pressure and better fishing success on these lakes.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

BITE-ME said:


> I only fish on 9.9 lakes maybe once or twice a year.... so I wouldn't really call it "my water". It's nice to have a refuge where you can get away from the crowds and not have to stand in line to fish a spot. It's why most fisherman will travel to Canada and other remote waters outside Ohio (where you probably end up renting a boat with a 9.9  ). Not saying the fishing is that outstanding in our 9.9 lakes, but it's nice to have an option close to the house.
> 
> Simply put - Lifting the restrictions will = more boats = more fishing pressure = poor fishing.
> 
> No one is denied access. You just have to be willing to fish out of a smaller boat or walk the shore. Most fisherman aren't willing to do that all the time... which equates to less fishing pressure and better fishing success on these lakes.


I probably shouldn't be commenting on this thread because i'm from eastern Ohio and haven't fished any of the limited lakes in your area, however, I do fish piedmont, clendening, leesville, attwood and guilford. All of which are 10hp lakes. (except attwood which is 25hp). The local crowd around these lakes do not want any changes because they don't want more people on their lakes. And they make it very clear that they believe it is "their" water. I'm fortunate enough to have 2 boats. One with a 9.9, and my 18ft. Lowe with a 115hp. So I still fish any lake regardless. But a day spent in the little boat for me is getting harder and harder every year. Everything is smaller in a small boat. From decks, storage, trolling motor and the amount of wind and waves it can handle safely. I don't need to go fast. But I want to be comfortable. My argument would be that anyone can fish the unlimited lakes no matter what size boat they have, it should be the same for the smaller lakes as well. HP restrictions are out dated and discriminatory, and serve no better purpose than a speed limit. We all pay our taxes for these lakes, we all should be able to use them.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## BITE-ME (Sep 5, 2005)

Bad Bub said:


> HP restrictions are out dated and discriminatory, and serve no better purpose than a speed limit.


Quick, we need to notify the ACLU 

If you don't like the little boat, sell it and use the money to put a kicker on the big boat.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

BITE-ME said:


> Quick, we need to notify the ACLU
> 
> If you don't like the little boat, sell it and use the money to put a kicker on the big boat.


Big boat won't accept a kicker. Not the point either. They don't have hp limits on highways, they use speed limits. Really, what's the difference? I'm sure it would really ruffle some feathers if they put minimum hp restrictions on the bigger lakes. Like salt fork being only for 25hp and higher.... you really think all the small boat owners would accept the fact they'd have to buy a bigger boat?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> Big boat won't accept a kicker. Not the point either. They don't have hp limits on highways, they use speed limits. Really, what's the difference? I'm sure it would really ruffle some feathers if they put minimum hp restrictions on the bigger lakes. Like salt fork being only for 25hp and higher.... you really think all the small boat owners would accept the fact they'd have to buy a bigger boat?
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


The difference is the method of policing. I'm for unlimited/idle, but I understand why it is the way it is.


----------



## SConner (Mar 3, 2007)

I am curious if ODNR is asking this question of people on a 10hp restricted lake. I would think the results of this survey are fairly predictable if they are only surveying at unlimited lakes.

Has anyone been asked this question at one of our 10hp lakes?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 22, 2006)

I had two boats for several years. A 5hp gas/electric 15' jon and a 17'6" bass boat. I sold my small boat as it's just not as comfortable and pain moving equipment back an forth. As far as wake, my 15' jon wide open/loaded with two guys put off a bigger wake than my bass boat at 55 MPH. A 9.9HP wide open makes a lot more noise than a 200 at idle. 

No wake is a little subjective. Speed limits make more sense and are most fair. Speed limit restrictions work on the road so there's no reason they can't work on the water...some lakes already have speed limit restrictions that are well enforced.

I also feel it would be fair to keep the HP restricted lakes as they are as long as those same boats would be prohibited from unlimited HP lakes. I use extra caution when operating my large boat around those in their canoes/kayaks/little john boats putting/paddling through the open zones which is a bit of an inconvenience...much as it was an inconvenience getting bounced around by larger boats when I had a small boat. If this is the case, funds should be segregated proportionally to revenue generated from small vs. large boats to their respective lakes as well.


----------



## downtime8763 (Jun 22, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> I had two boats for several years. A 5hp gas/electric 15' jon and a 17'6" bass boat. I sold my small boat as it's just not as comfortable and pain moving equipment back an forth. As far as wake, my 15' jon wide open/loaded with two guys put off a bigger wake than my bass boat at 55 MPH. A 9.9HP wide open makes a lot more noise than a 200 at idle.
> 
> No wake is a little subjective. Speed limits make more sense and are most fair. Speed limit restrictions work on the road so there's no reason they can't work on the water...some lakes already have speed limit restrictions that are well enforced.
> 
> I also feel it would be fair to keep the HP restricted lakes as they are as long as those same boats would be prohibited from unlimited HP lakes. I use extra caution when operating my large boat around those in their canoes/kayaks/little john boats putting/paddling through the open zones which is a bit of an inconvenience...much as it was an inconvenience getting bounced around by larger boats when I had a small boat. If this is the case, funds should be segregated proportionally to revenue generated from small vs. large boats to their respective lakes as well.



You stated that the lower hp boats should be prohibited from unlimited hp lakes? Would that mean anything under 10 hp not be allowed on lakes like CJ Brown,Indian,Alum Creek,Cesers Creek ect ? Would that also include sail boats as well? A can has been opened I'm afraid!


----------



## Mason52 (Aug 21, 2009)

SConner said:


> I am curious if ODNR is asking this question of people on a 10hp restricted lake. I would think the results of this survey are fairly predictable if they are only surveying at unlimited lakes.
> 
> Has anyone been asked this question at one of our 10hp lakes?


I filled out a survey a while back with this very question on it Scott. Can't remember where I got the survey at but do recall the question being on it.
Like I said earlier in this thread about Clear Fork Lake in Mansfield, speed limits work well on Clear Fork and small and large motored boat all seem to be fine with it. You don't see people flying around that lake, but maybe it's those $200.00 plus speeding tickets that do the trick.


----------



## Roscoe (Jul 22, 2007)

I believe it should be kept at the current way it is now.And I believe Sailboats should not be allowed on lakes under 3000 acres with an unlimited H.P right away..It's way too risky.I've seen enough close calls with Sailboats on Cowan even with the 10 H.P limit,not counting C.C.Lake.


Roscoe.


----------



## SAUGEYECRAPPIEMAN (Dec 19, 2004)

Mason52 said:


> I filled out a survey a while back with this very question on it Scott. Can't remember where I got the survey at but do recall the question being on it.
> Like I said earlier in this thread about Clear Fork Lake in Mansfield, speed limits work well on Clear Fork and small and large motored boat all seem to be fine with it. You don't see people flying around that lake, but maybe it's those $200.00 plus speeding tickets that do the trick.


So, it works, I believe like anything you will have someone going over the speed limit, especially in the first year, but after a few tickets they will strengthen up.


----------



## crappiedude (Mar 12, 2006)

Roscoe said:


> I've seen enough *close calls with Sailboats *on Cowan even with the 10 H.P limit,not counting C.C.Lake.
> Roscoe.


In my opinion most of those problems are caused by those idiots in the sailboats. I've been anchored and had sailboats all but run over me. Then as they pass they tell me they have the right of way because I have a motor on my boat. 
It doesn't matter if you have a 2hp, a 200hp a TM or a sailboat, which ever boat is overtaking the other boat has to yeild the right away.
That has to be the rudest, most uninformed group of people I've run into.


----------



## Mason52 (Aug 21, 2009)

One way to look at it is at least there won't be any jet ski's or ski boats on them.


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

Crappiedude, you are absolutely right, many times Ive been anchored and had them about plow into me and give me the dirty look, and as far as the OP goes Im for a speed limit on those smaller lakes. it does work well at Clear Fork and in todays world, 90% of the folks have a speedometer or a GPS for speed.

Salmonid


----------

