Access restrictions coming to a lake near you

Mar 19, 2019 Wright County AIS public meeting recap:

The Wright County passed the AIS ordinance with a 3 to 2 vote. Now it is entirely up to the DNR commissioner to approve it. The Wright County commissioners said that if the DNR does not approve it by April 15th, the whole proposal is dead for good.

Here are some more details from the meeting. There were about 50 people attending, 99% lake shore owners. They all applauded the proposed ordinance (except for the self-certification part of course). One after another they spoke about how much trouble their lake is in and how much it has cost them to keep AIS at bay. They did a great job of presenting “the sky is falling” to the county commissioners (I always find it interesting that there is no mention of restrictions on lake shore owners using lawn fertilizer that turns the lakes into a green slimy mess. Seems to me that would be a no brainer if you really cared about the lake). Most made a point that they are not trying to privatize their lake and are offended when they hear that. On the other hand, not once did anyone mention that we need to come up with a better way that does not restrict access. Only one lone fisherman addressed the council and said that he bypassed the three test lakes last year and will bypass the additional lakes if this passes, too much hassle. Hmm, funny how that works. Imagine if this catches on and all the lakes are restricted, sell the boat I guess. There was also mention of a need for an exit inspection process. Not sure what that means, but didn’t sound like it would be in lieu of the proposed inspections and you may end up having to get inspected before and after you go to the lake.

Also of interest, the commissioners said they have received many inquiries from lake associations around the state and there were several other lake association representatives at the meeting to observe and see how they could implement this same strategy. So Wright County will be the test case for every county in the state to run with this. What a disastrous precedent. Not to mention the regulations and tags would be different for every county, making it cumbersome and impractical. The self-certification will have a cost of $10 to $40, so multiply that by how many counties you fish.

What you can do if you want to stop this from happening:

The entire fate of this proposal now rest on the DNR. The Wright County commissioners met with the DNR commissioner on Mar 21. I have not heard any new from that meeting. If the DNR does not approve the plan by April 15, it will be dead. Send your concerns to these DNR contacts right away so that they receive it before they meet with the Wright County people.

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

PS, you can read the emails send to Wright County on this link. Notice how organized the lake associations are with their form letter that you just sign and send. In particular, notice the one from the Clearwater association #34 on the page (see where this is heading?).

http://www.co.wright.mn.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/6489?fileID=13556

In wisconsin, the township, county, or state can not sell or hand over any landings to a private entity. the only public landings by law that can charge a fee are ones inside a park, all others are by “donation only”
that being said, lake associations can monitor boats for invasive species ( i’m good with that)
I’m thinking just about all our landing are owned by the public, most were developed by sportsman clubs, and rod gun clubs with a little help with some state funding years ago.
the lakefront own what’s stated on their deeds, the water and land under it belongs to the state, if the lake were to dry up, they don’t gain land.
any docks on the lake are a man made obstruction on navigable water so by rights you could fish off them as long as you never set foot on the lakefront owners property.
If Mn. law is anything like Wis. law, I can’t see how legally it could fly.

Oh, it will fly. If everybody sits on their hands and can’t even take a minute to do a email blast they will win.

Swede wrote:

There were about 50 people attending, 99% lake shore owners.

So there were 49 1/2 lakeshore owners and 1/2 fisherman?

BoatsHateMe wrote:

So there were 49 1/2 lakeshore owners and 1/2 fisherman?

Yes, it was half a fisherman, but it was his better half.

At least you’ll be able to use 2 lines on those lakes

I sent my emails last week and also a couple months ago.

This is a big deal folks!

I made a facebook comment on an MPR article last week and this young lady responded to me. Since it appears that my comment were removed, I’ll have to paraphrase.

How would you like to pay for property taxes on a lake home and then have to pay for clean up of other people mess?

My abbreviated response was “you made the decision to buy lakeshore property”.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I sent my emails last week and also a couple months ago.

This is a big deal folks!

I made a facebook comment on an MPR article last week and this young lady responded to me. Since it appears that my comment were removed, I’ll have to paraphrase.

How would you like to pay for property taxes on a lake home and then have to pay for clean up of other people mess?

My abbreviated response was “you made the decision to buy lakeshore property”.

I’ll be sending emails as well!

Maybe lakeshore properties shouldn’t be so damn expensive so then lakeshore owners wouldn’t feel entitled to the lake…

I don’t agree with what this Lake Association is doing but I do agree that Lakeshore owners do have vested interest in their property…on the lake.

Hate to be negative, but I’m disappointed this thread isn’t on fire. We will throw five pages together if someone’s offended by another posters political leanings, or if someone mentions a Chevy being better than a Ford. It’s easy to complain, but do nothing about it. I just sent my email to the contacts listed above. If every user on here sends an email it will show the true colors of the lake shore owners in Wright County. We know they don’t care about AIS and want to privatize OUR LAKES. Make sure the people involved with making the decision know.

Here’s what I sent them below. How about everyone who sends a email to them posts “EMAIL SENT” on this thread. Lets see how many emails we can send their way.
Remember there is no reason to be negative towards the people receiving the email. We want them on our side. Feel free to express your opinion regarding those pushing for the AIS access restrictions.

Good Morning

I am writing to thank you for your service to the state of Minnesota, and also to express my opinion regarding the Wright County AIS initiative. I personally am a lake shore owner in Minnesota and hope this never spreads to my area. From an outside perspective the only motive of the lake shore owners in Wright County is to limit lake access. Their lakes involved already have AIS. I wish there was an initiative for an exit inspection to keep the AIS in their lakes and out of others. I find it very fishy (pardon the pun) that the meetings are always during the middle of a week day. Easy to attend for retirees and local lake shore owners, but not very easy to attend if you work during the week and don’t live very close.

As much as I would like to have an open mind about the policy they are pushing for the only motive is to limit non-lake shore owners on the lake. I’ve noticed a very common theme from those pushing for the initiative. They always refer to the lake as MY LAKE. When they start saying OUR LAKE I will give them more of a benefit of the doubt.

Very often I see fisherman often a father and son making a quick run to fish on a weeknight. I’d hate to see them not being able to go, because of having to add a trip to a decontamination site more than likely not on their way to the lake.

Thank you for being involved with the process for this manner. Hopefully this sheds some light on opinions outside of the local lake shore owners pretending they’re worried about AIS (it’s reported they already have them in the lakes involved.)

Thanks,
Nick Houle

slipbob_nick wrote:

Hate to be negative, but I’m disappointed this thread isn’t on fire.

I believe there were at least 2 if not 3 threads about this in the last week. Would combining the posts from all help curb your negativity?

slipbob_nick wrote:

Here’s what I sent them below. How about everyone who sends a email to them posts “EMAIL SENT” on this thread. Lets see how many emails we can send their way.

No offense but this isn’t a facebook chain letter and the point is not for us to feel super proud of ourselves for being activists. Consider the possibility that some people may have written to every person on that DNR list, but chose not to make a post about it.

Email’s sent.

Tangler if you had sent an email no offense. If you haven’t sent an email no offense. No I DO N0T WANT THIS TO BE A CHAIN LETTER. It is ineffective if everyone sends the same letter. The reasoning behind my post was when Dutchboy commented that yes it will happen if people sit on their hands and do nothing. I myself had pissed and moaned, but done nothing other than commenting on the threads you mentioned. I was glad he made his comment it caused me to get off my a$$ and actually email the people. Also no that doesn’t make me proud of myself I am selfishly looking for as many emails to be sent as possible to try stop this terrible initiative from spreading.

I sent my emails……

folke2000 wrote:

I sent my emails……

x2

My response has always been to those who say “I pay taxes” is “And do you think I live here for free?” we all pay taxes and it’s the majority of the state and not the majority of the lake that has the say on PUBLIC WATERS.

We are always talking about angler not being organized like the lake associations. Well I just joined this new coalition formed by Ron Shara and Al Lindner. We need all the help we can get and I urge all of you to not only send them a request to represent us on this issue, but to join as well. There is a free 2 year membership available.

Email: [email protected]
Website: https://mn-fish.com/

Here is the email I sent to MN-Fish.com

Dear MN-Fish,

Thank you for creating this coalition for MN fishermen. I just joined at the founding member level as I have an urgent matter that I think you can help with. The links below will provide insight and a recap of the Wright county commissioner meeting on Mar 19, 2019. Based on all the online posts, anglers are absolutely opposed to this and feel we have no voice. I am asking you to be our voice. Thank you for your support.

I have a stupid question I’d like answered before I write.

Does the current plan do anything to monitor or police private access? This includes docks and other non watercraft items.

The way I see it, the plan is intended to monitor watercraft using the public access and does nothing for those using private access.

I think you answer your own question BG.

BTW our new governor is asking to raise your boat registration tax to support ais funding. “the registration hasn’t been raised in a long time” it was claimed.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I think you answer your own question BG.

BTW our new governor is asking to raise your boat registration tax to support ais funding. “the registration hasn’t been raised in a long time” it was claimed.

So the answer is nothing? I feel this is a major loophole sobivwantvto he somewhat informed when I make the claim that nothing is being done to monitor private access.

Regarding the registration tax, has anything ever been done to tax the people bringing this crap here in the first place? I mean my god, who do these people think they are when they can go and blame and burden us for these AIS problems?

I understand one way or another the cost roll it’s way downhill but put this increase on the front end and maybe they’ll think twice about how they operate.

biggill wrote:

put this increase on the front end and maybe they’ll think twice about how they operate.

If they are caught.

They want to make it a total of 9 lakes this year. This is the budget the associations gave to the commissioners.

Attachments:

1. 

   25988.jpeg
   

Swede wrote:

We are always talking about angler not being organized like the lake associations. Well I just joined this new coalition formed by Ron Shara and Al Lindner. We need all the help we can get and I urge all of you to not only send them a request to represent us on this issue, but to join as well. There is a free 2 year membership available.

Email: [email protected]
Website: https://mn-fish.com/

Thanks for posting the links. I submitted my membership.

Had not heard of trying to increase it to 9 lakes. Not a good sign. As it’s been stated many times already I’m much more concerned with water clarity/quality getting worse due to runoff then desiring to have boats inspected at a site before they go to the lake.

slipbob_nick wrote:

Had not heard of trying to increase it to 9 lakes. Not a good sign. As it’s been stated many times already I’m much more concerned with water clarity/quality getting worse due to runoff then desiring to have boats inspected at a site before they go to the lake.

Yep, Wright County already passed th 9 lakes and now it is entirely up to the DNR to approve it. If they don’t approve it by April 15, the ordinance is dead.

I absolutely agree with you on the runoff. At the Wright county meeting last week, some lake shore owners were saying that their water looks like vomit and didn’t even realize that the green slime comes from runoff, not AIS. I’d be willing to bet that if there was an ammendment in the proposal that banned all lawn chemicals for lake shore owners, this thing would have been dead before it got started. I put that in my email to the DNR.

So the DNR needs to make a decision by 4/15.

AIS is bad. The DNR wants to slow it of course.
The LSO come up with cash to run it with grants and such.

What could be the reasons to give LSO that this is not approved?

A simple no is all thats required. The lake shore association is the one stepping on the DNR’s toes. The DNR doesn’t & shouldn’t explain it’s self.

A simple no is all that is required. To give any reasons only encourages that it’s possible down the line. Which it shouldn’t be.

If you wanted to legalize using snakes as bait, does the DNR owe you a explanation if they say no?

I made a few phone calls today and surprisingly talked to two people on the list. Emails will be going out tomorrow also.

CBMN wrote:

I made a few phone calls today and surprisingly talked to two people on the list. Emails will be going out tomorrow also.

Did they have any updates on the DNR position?

Honestly I didn’t ask I just wanted to make sure they know my position and logic/reasoning. I was also encouraged to email the same people as I think they are looking to document public opinion. I also made sure to thank them for their time in talking to me.

Emails sent. Now that I’ve publicly posted such I will follow it up with a post of my dinner plate and a video of me throwing a piece of cheese on my cat…