Where they are allowed on the Skeena, they are allowed for transportation ONLY. Fishing from boats is prohibited. Something I would personally love to see in Washington.

Sol? You OK? I can't believe you said that?

I differ only slightly on the boat issue. I think they should outlaw anchors and motors. Either row or get out.

Slab Happy I agree, DB mondays on the Kenai are already crowded with non rowing "off duty guides", and lazy sporties.If you can't anchor in the channel in a power boat in the peak then you should not be anchoring in a drift boat, Row or get out. Right now the Kenai below Skilak looks like the lower river in July, so the pollution problem is expanding beyond July. Drift boat only would be great, but will never happen.

Banning power boats on the Kenai has about as much of a chance of happening as removal of the Snake River dams.

Raising the horsepower level on the river in my mind is more then a conservation issue it is a safety issue. Too many boats for higher speeds, in my opinion.

Why? Do you know how much more raw the river experience would be if you could not fish from boats? The ambiance and quality of steelheading stateside would increase 10 fold overnight if you could only fish from shore. People would be required to adhear to genuine first-water ethics, the 30 boat senario down a 5 mile drift would come to an end, and anadromous fish populations would benifit greatly.

I might add that it would raise the bar on angler ability, too. Slob fishing techniques like pulling plugs or side-drifting would be a thing of the past. [Just because I side-drift doesn't mean I think it's abolishment would not benifit the sport as a whole].

Apparently you've forgotten August 13th already. I guess I'll have to refresh you're memory this weekend....LITTLE BUDDY.

I agree with Sol pretty much. But, if the Kenai had the same rules as the B.C. rivers damn few kings would be landed.

I have seen guys spooled/broken off by a foul hooked sockeye that got out into the heavy current.

I have seen a couple of Kenai kings landed by bankies, but they were old tired fish. Many more times I have seen kings hooked and immediately broken off. I will say it would be a challenge. . .

I do like the no boat fishing rule on the Thompson. It cuts down on boat traffic considerably and rewards those who are willing to hike, float to out of the way spots.

They could make it legal to use boats to "chase" runaway kings, even if fishing from boats was made illegal. Which brings up something that was brought to my attention in BC this year. I was told by another non-resident that using a boat to "chase down" runaway steelhead was illegal due to the fact fishing from boats is illegal on one of the streams we were fishing. I haven't seen anywhere in the regs where this is specifically designated as illegal activity.

Ian Forbes, one of BC's most prolific writers on the subject of steelhead wrote this piece about the very river we were fishing:

Logging roads follow most of the ******* and its tributaries. Much of the river can be drifted in a raft with little danger other than a few sweepers. Boats are not used to fish out of, but are helpful to access more water, and to follow runaway steelhead. There is more than 60 kilometers of river, but don't attempt to drift more that 10 kilometers per day and still expect to have time to fish.

I would think someone of his stature would have credibility on this subject or the piece above that that is widely available on the internet would have been edited by now.

Lots of interesting discussion but nobody has proposed a solution to the problem that Carver identified. That is, the Kenai Rv has been designated as impaired under the Clean Water Act due to 600 gallons of fuel being leaked into the river each day during the month of July. What should the State of Alaska do to resolve the problem?

For those of you who don't believe motors would, or should, be banned on the Kenai, what solution do you propose? You've already heard mine. Remember, it's primarily recreational anglers, like me and many others on this BB, who are creating this problem.

I would like to see the study. I fish the Kenai a lot and doubt there are 600 boats on it in a given day. Are they saying each boat puts one gallon of fuel in the river? Even if there were 1200 boats on the river they would all have to pump an average of two quarts a day. That seem awfully high to me.

There are a ton of recreational anglers, but if you fly over the lower river you will see hundreds of commercial fishing boats. I suspect they may be significant contributors, as they are large and many are old.

My solution: Inspection of all motors prior to issuing a permit, then if necessary a lottery system to limit the number boats.

Dave,

Go to this site: http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3 and read two current threads, one on the 50 hsp. debate and the other on the Kenai's impaired status, for more information on the river's pollution, Web sites, data, and much, much more.

The only "commercial" fishing boats on the Kenai River are the in-river charter boats ( read "guides"). Commercial gill-netters are at times anchored in the lower two miles or so of the river, but they use diesel, which leaves an entirely different signature in water-pollution readings.

Would really like to hear the KeenImd weigh in on this one, since he fishes the river avidly.

Thanks Carver: The site is very informative. I found this to be a telling remark -

The facts are fairly well established in this case. The fuel data have been peer reviewed and published. DEC people have done an internal review and of course lots of people are looking closely at the data set.


So it does seem to me that the problem is real. The solution will, in my opinion be some method of decreasing river traffic. That will no doubt cause howls of anguish from every user group.

A good first step would be to ban outboard motors that don’t meet the CARB two star standards. That would be all 2-stroke motors that are not fuel injected. Every non-fuel injected 2-stroke motor discharges a minimum of 25% of its fuel/oil mixture into the environment and considerable more as it becomes older. The boating industry claims that water quality is not harmed because the discharged fuel evaporates out of the water quickly. This is true to some degree but not all of it does evaporate, what does impacts air quality. I suspect the rate of evaporation is subject to air and water temperatures and would be different on the Kenai than in southern California for instance.

I think this is a problem in Puget Sound. Any of us who launch early at the local boat ramps have seen the oil slicks in the water around the ramps. A solution for Alaska and here would be a ban on 2-strokes or a pollution permit with a steep fee based on horsepower. This could be combined with a motor buy back program. It is done for commercial fishers when their seasons are cut so it seems reasonable to do something similar to protect the marine environment. The links below are papers related to 2-stroke pollution.

http://www.fishingnj.org/njnet12.htm

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay00/article1_e.html

I looked at the thread mentioned by Carver in his last post. It seems that 2-strokes are only about 10% of the motors used on the Kenai. I have seen some statements that 4-cycle outboard motors pollute about forty times less than 2-strokes and don’t discharge oil into the water. If true this implies that more than 80% of the oil in the water is coming from the 2-strokes.

Two quick points in reply:
1) Coming down on the older 2-strokes, which will disappear on their own over time in compliance with the second law of thermodynamics and which are owned mostly if not exclusively by private anglers, will enrage an already hostile public as pandering to and accommodating the commercial sportfishery (read "guides"), and 2) Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation folks say that a 4-stroke emits about 75% of what a comparable 2-stroke does. Not a lot of difference. . .

I have missed something here....I thought the problem was HC (hydrocarbons), which equates to unburned fuel, last I checked. I used to be a mechanic and know a little something about HC/CO/NO emissions

I'm a little stumped by this aspect; Is the report saying that 600 gals of fuel are essentially "dumped" into the river as in "unburned fuel" (which would be extremely difficult to calculate), or that 600 gallons of fuel are burned in outboard motors daily (which would be relatively easy to estimate)? Because even if the engines only burned 50% of the fuel they process (I would suspect the percentage is higher) then is the report talking about the 300 gallons of unburned fuel, or are the motors using 1200 (600x2) gallons of fuel daily of which 50% (600 gals) is released as unburned fuel?

Now THAT'S about as clear as mud. Anybody understand what I'm saying here?

WN1A....that first link I find to be a highly likely local problem and quite possibly devastating in it's consequences. In brief, what I got out of it (I'm a simple guy) is that shallow water running (especially at high speed)is a bad deal. Something I've never really thought about. Thanks.

It is time for sport, commercial, and personal use fisherman to pull together and support the listing of the Kenai River as impaired. DEC has listed the river and the document is out for public comment. They need comments supporting this lisitng and I urge everyone to write a short email supporting them in this action. While it is hard to believe there are those who use the river who do not want it listed as impaired, even with 6 years of data on fuel levels.

DEADLINE for submissions is 5 PM Alaska Time, December 1, 2006.
Send written comments to:
Drew Grant
PO Box 11180
410 Willoughby Ave Ste. 303
Juneau , AK 99801
drew_grant@dec.state.ak.us
Phone: 907-465-5304
Fax: 907-465-5274

Gleaned from an Alaska Internet fishing forum:
The cavalry to the rescue. . .
Gosh, Nerka, don't be too alarmed. True, things look bleak, but I'll bet the in-river commercial fishermen and their advocates will get things back on the right track. I kind of look for KRSA, KRPGA, and the unaligned guides to now advocate for smaller motors, lighter loads, more drift boat days, and fewer trips. Want to bet?

Heck, KRSA's motto used to be, maybe still is, "Think habitat before it's too late." It's not too late, is it?


The beginning of the end?
In all seriousness, I think what we're seeing is the beginning of the end of the unbridled expansion of the Kenai River's sportfishery, especially of the river's commercial sportfishery.

The satire in my post above was intended to illustrate the total inability of the Kenai's commercial sportfishery and its advocates to restrict themselves. Nor should anyone expect them to. Nerka should not find it hard to believe there are some who don't want the Kenai listed as impaired because, in the majority of cases, economics determine ethics. Consider the antebellum South, which committed economic and social suicide trying to preserve the economics of chattel slavery.

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.

Third, as world fisheries face collapse (see the lead story in today's ADN), Alaska's wild fisheries will assume greater and greater importance in the world's efforts to feed itself.

Much more could be said, but that's how I see it. Were I a young man who depended on the Kenai's sportfishery for my income, I'd be thinking ahead, thinking of guiding bird watchers, hikers, wildlife viewers, and more.
__________________

I miss the KenaiMD in this matter. . . would have thought he'd have some opinions or advice on cleaning up the KeenEye River?

Just soaking it all in, John. Still formulating a position for a long term solution.

Short term recommendations while a long term fix is developed:

Immediate ban on 2 strokes. Declare one additional drift-only day... Super Tuesday drift only, but open to guides.

Those two measures alone would do much to allow periodic cleansing of the river... kind of like 48 hour windows.

The additional drift day sounds okay, doc—maybe ban pulling them back upstream too?

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.

Environment Canada's Environmental Technology Centre (ETC) has conducted tests on two-stroke outboard engines for a variety of compounds formed through the combustion process. The tests showed that two-stroke outboards produce 12 times as many of certain types of hydrocarbons as four-stroke engines, and five times as much oil and grease.
The ETC also compared exhaust emissions from a light-duty van, a 9.9-hp two-stroke outboard and a 9.9-hp four-stroke outboard.

The two-stroke also emitted 15 times more unburned hydrocarbons than the four-stroke and nearly 125 times more than the van.

.........

That means that even if 2 strokes only account for 15% of the craft on the water, they will contribute nearly 3/4 of the unburned fuel spilled into the river. For those who doubt the math, here it is (x = amount of fuel spilled by one 4 stroke motor).


85(x) + 15(15x) = total fuel spilled.
85x + 225x = total fuel spilled.

310x = total fuel spilled.


225x/310x = fuel spilled by 2 strokes = 73% of total fuel spilled

85x/310x = fuel spilled by 4 strokes = 27% of total fuel spilled


Get rid of the 2 strokes and you will eliminate the problem.