Jump to content

Recommended Posts

From the army corps of engineers web site. Or how about the fact that water went from the docks to 200 feet out this week at Wilson hill and Ogdensburg hasnt changed at all. You think these pictures are fake? Lake Ontario is at 246 and holding and lake st. Lawrence should hit set minimum by the weekend.FB_IMG_1578285115594.thumb.jpg.e740ab22eef52ba3d61e439dcc304671.jpg

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
What is the "set minimum" for Lake St. Lawrence?


Sent from my SM-G950U using Lake Ontario United mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites
Iroquois dam isnt the bottleneck.  Iroquois dam was put in place after they eliminated the worst part of the bottleneck and created the locks.  That whole area used to be Rapids before they created the seaway and the lakes.  Have you ever looked at water levels prior to the seaway?  Yes lake Ontario could have been much higher at times without the flood control and ability to even out flows using the lakes reservoirs .
As I stated previously the Lake Ontario levels where both low and high before the seaway was built.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Lake Ontario United mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites
You have finally hit the nail on the head, this is the attitude of NYS Lake Ontario shoreline property owners, and especially boating fishermen and "professional" aquatic  Uber drivers, also known as charter captains!

Your arrogance just oozes through my screen. You should feel proud, your very special....


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be possible to construct an additional bypass canal around Montreal to supplement the needed flow to control Lake Ontario’s high levels.

 

Well they could deepen or widen the river to allow greater flow rates.

 

Charleston, SC shipping channel is now being deepened to 54 foot depth to allow Panamax ships entry to that port.

Edited by jimski2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your talking something the size of the west river of the Niagara through one of the most heavily populated places in canada to prevent something that's happened twice in 60 years.  The river is miles wide in parts down there.  It would make the seaway project itself seem small.  Personally I think we've messed with nature enough.  We arent always going to be able to keep the river within its banks no matter what we do.  Look at the Mississippi and the devastating floods they experience even with limitless levys and flood gates along its entire stretch.  Ma nature is just cunty at times and when we live here for the good, we have to deal with the bad.  Hopefully it's a dry spring and all can return to normal soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok I just looked it up and where did you find that number?  I hasnt been updated since the 5th like I said and it was 2 feet lower then??  Ur telling me it went up 2 feet in 2 days?  Did they shut the dam off?  
 
 
Screenshot_20200107-062544_Chrome.thumb.jpg.eec0054f3a444b2e41fd0c2a508708e0.jpg
Data from a gauge you probably dont have access to.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Lake Ontario United mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 9:51 AM, lost a lure said:

Data from a gauge you probably dont have access to.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Lake Ontario United mobile app
 

Your gauge that I dont have access to is 2 feet different than the one that's used to measure Lake St Lawrence.  Looks like they are managing flows to keep it at 235.

Screenshot_20200108-124140_Chrome.jpg

Edited by iiwhistlerii
Link to post
Share on other sites
Increased fuel costs alone from operating in that current are astronomical.  You really think these ships want that river flowing at 10,000+?   Those flows not only increase fuel costs, they cause delays, and the high water imposes lower speed limits.  Please tell me again how much they are loving this...  Its amazing the opinions you are able to form when you chose to ignore the facts that dont fit your agenda.  Use all the data and then form your opinions without prejudice.  
 
 
Screenshot_20200103-220321_Chrome.thumb.jpg.78036f56d31eb9d8f11904eb2ffd0b2e.jpg

They cost more to go up river with a high flow rate but aren’t they seeing a savings on there way out? ( going down river)


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fishnut said:


They cost more to go up river with a high flow rate but aren’t they seeing a savings on there way out? ( going down river)


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

They claim costs are actually increased going down as well.  Thrust and speed have to be increased for steering and they have to use tugs to assist in areas they normally wouldnt.  I believe Chinook explained it all better than I can a few pages back. 

 

I know personally when I launch at the dam many times I run 18-20 miles down to St. Francis proper to start fishing.  With the high current this past year I gain a couple mph going down but I have to use considerably higher rpms to stay on plane coming up.  Even in my 19ft glass skeeter fuel costs go up probably 20% or more making that long run at 4500-5000 rpms over the normal 3-4000.  You know how that goes as a boat owner.  Gallons per hour goes up exponentially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...