Quote:
Originally posted by Carver:

Does anyone actually think that use of the Kenai is likely to decline in the years ahead? Not a chance. Now there's no question the inefficient 2-strokes need to go, and to the degree they're eliminated over time, their contribution to hydrocarbon pollution will disappear.

Add to that increased use of the Kenai by out-of-area Alaskans with now-legal 50-horsepower motors, increased area population, and increased commercial use, and we're not back where we started — we're much worse off.
Quote:
Originally posted by Carver:
I think we're seeing the beginning of serious curtailment of the Kenai's sportfishery for a number of reasons. First, while the Feds may not be holding cards quite yet, they're in the room, looking to getting in the game. The EPA and the Clean Water Act are and will be powerful players. Society in general has less and less tolerance for desecration of the environment in the pursuit of special interests.

Second, the commercial sportfishery, already held in derision by many area residents, will have to increasingly compete with the interests of a burgeoning resident population. Outfits like Lowe's and WalMart aren't coming to town because they think the population is decreasing.
So which is it? Will use of the river be curtailed? Will it decline or not?

I'll be the first to acknowledge that building a growth industry on a finite resource means that at some point the growth has to stop. In the continuum of zero use to full capacity use, I can't say exactly where we are, but it's a hell of a lot closer to the latter than the former. Maybe we're already there. From my own perspective as a recreational user, I thought the river reached that saturation point for sportfishing back in the late 80's and early '90s. Things are certainly no better in 2006, but I can't say they're any worse either. I will say this, though. I think we dumped a hell of a lot more fuel in the river back then when virtually the entire fleet ran 2-strokes. Assuming there were just as many boats then as now (actually I believe there were more) total unburned fuel spilled into the river would have been nearly 7 times greater than what we have today. And today we still have the opportunity and means to eliminate 3/4 of the spillage that remains.

Quote:
Originally posted by Carver:
As for 2-strokes or other non-compliant-by-whatever-standard motors, that should happen over time. An immediate ban would only exacerbate social problems.
Any proposal you put on the table that will cap/curtail/diminish use of the river (dumping pollutants included) is going to "exacerbate" problems for a growing society. Using that reasoning, shouldn't they all happen over time?

The river has reached or is rapidly approaching carrying capacity for human activity as we know it today. Either we impact the user, or we continue to impact the resource.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!