Access restrictions coming to a lake near you

Swede wrote:

My feeling is that they are a new coalition and we need to let them know how we feel about this. Maybe they didn’t even know anything about it?? I understand if you want to hold off sending them money until you see how they respond, but I think you should try to persuade them to join the fight. I sent them $35 to show I am serious. Money talks sometimes.

I find it hard to believe that guys like Schara and Lindner are not aware of this issue. To me it seems like they currently will take money from anyone willing to give it and haven’t yet given us any real-world examples of how that money will actually be spent.

I did email them and told them they would get money from me — and probably from a lot of other skeptics — once they prove themselves by taking a public stance on a controversial such as this one. Prove to me that you are truly an angler’s organization and that you are willing to stand up for us and be our voice. Then the wallet opens up.

tangler wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Swede wrote:</div>
My feeling is that they are a new coalition and we need to let them know how we feel about this. Maybe they didn’t even know anything about it?? I understand if you want to hold off sending them money until you see how they respond, but I think you should try to persuade them to join the fight. I sent them $35 to show I am serious. Money talks sometimes.

I find it hard to believe that guys like Schara and Lindner are not aware of this issue. To me it seems like they currently will take money from anyone willing to give it and haven’t yet given us any real-world examples of how that money will actually be spent.

I did email them and told them they would get money from me — and probably from a lot of other skeptics — once they prove themselves by taking a public stance on a controversial such as this one. Prove to me that you are truly an angler’s organization and that you are willing to stand up for us and be our voice. Then the wallet opens up.

I agree. If and when you sending money can go either way.

Swede wrote:

Here you go:
http://www.wrightswcd.org/Water_Management/WRIP2019_Plan_proposal.pdf

Thank you, I couldn’t find this final version and it’s mandatory for me to read this before emailing anyone with any opposition. I think it would be irresponsible to respond solely based on what my fishing buddies or an Outdoor Forum said was going to happen because that’s there side of it.

And I’m not saying I disagree with what other’s have posted here, but I’ll read through, consider the implications and respond based on my own findings.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Swede wrote:</div>
Here you go:
http://www.wrightswcd.org/Water_Management/WRIP2019_Plan_proposal.pdf

Thank you, I couldn’t find this final version and it’s mandatory for me to read this before emailing anyone with any opposition. I think it would be irresponsible to respond solely based on what my fishing buddies or an Outdoor Forum said was going to happen because that’s there side of it.

And I’m not saying I disagree with what other’s have posted here, but I’ll read through, consider the implications and respond based on my own findings.

the scariest thing to consider is all the other lake associations that were at the hearing last Tues with mouth watering.

Swede wrote:

the scariest thing to consider is all the other lake associations that were at the hearing last Tues with mouth watering.

That’s exactly why I cross-posted your mention of it from IFM, Swede. I knew it would get more views over here.

It’s a terrible precedent to set. I was out on Sylvia boating last season on a Saturday out of a private access, and it was a ghost town aside from a few landowner’s kids on jetskis and a few pontoons. Only about two trailers in the lot.

These restrictions get rave reviews from lakeshore homeowners who enjoy the quiet and privacy. Can you blame them? I know a few who are chomping at the bit to get their lakes privatized.

Send emails, guys. Send it to one and CC the rest. Spread the word to local sportsman.

Thank you and plase post anywhere else you can think of.

Not being a boat owner or open water fisherman I admit a certain level of ignorance in this issue. So is the evil everyone is seeing is that this will lead to complete privatization of all the lakes by the lake property owners?

Even though I wholeheartedly agree with the points being made about access and lake associations wanting to “privatize” lakes, I took a different angle when voicing my opinion to the county and DNR. I really question the effectiveness of any of these inspections, be it at the landings or at this facility. How can they possibly catch everything by walking around the boat once? Like was pointed out above, Pleasant Lake (one of the three lakes in this program for the last year and half) was found to have Starry Stonewart one year after this started. At the landing nonetheless. And, how about the cost? Imagine what the cost will be if this expands statewide. And I wonder who would end up paying for it?

email sent

email sent.

Also to MN-Fish (which their site is down) to get their stance. $10 we don’t hear back from them…

biggill wrote:

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.

From the proposal document…
Intend to Launch Trailered Water-Related Equipment at a Private Access

If you launch at a private access you are required to visit the regional inspection station prior to launch. Your receipt should be placed on the dash of your tow-vehicle. If a drop-box is available your zip-tie seal should be placed inside. If no drop-box is available, you are encouraged to visit a public access at your convenience to drop the seal for data tracking purposes.
Owners of private launches can request to have a drop-box at their launch and allow inspectors to come to check for compliance. Otherwise the owner of the launch is encouraged to monitor the tow-vehicles. Owners of private accesses can notify law enforcement of violators via the non-emergency dispatch line (763) 682-1162.

Not sure how this would affect lakefront owners backing a trailer over their yard into the water?

Every year, every dock and boat lift should have to go thru the inspection…cause we can’t “assume” it was used only in that lake.

Am I missing something? I looked through the article and it sounds like they are just requiring a decontamination of boats and proof it was done? I can see where this could open the floodgates which could lead to more locked down public access which I would not be a fan of. Just making sure that is what they are proposing or if it is something else that I missed?

I love the ability to run around lake to lake at my leisure and do not want that to stop (obviously taking note of AIS and using appropriate precautions). So do not think I am for this, just from reading through the comments I got the impression they are trying to shut down access to the public, while from reading the article they just want one more hoop for us to jump through.

Swede wrote:

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.

No, the exit inspection would be optional as you leave. The opportunity (if you want to call it that) is that while you were there or still in the area, you could be inspected and then ready for you return whenever day or time that may be and go directly to the lake and launch as long as the inspection seal is still intact.

ClownColor wrote:

Every year, every dock and boat lift should have to go thru the inspection…cause we can’t “assume” it was used only in that lake.

From the proposal document…
Low-Risk Vectors
Some water-related equipment are low risk vectors for the transport of AIS. Non-motorized carry-in watercraft (e.g. canoes, kayaks, paddle boards) have few places for AIS to hide and they are easy to self-inspect. Therefore, mandatory inspections on non-motorized carry-in watercraft will not be enforced. As always users are required to follow all state laws regarding the transport of AIS as laid out in statute 84D.
Riparian landowners often store their water-related equipment on or near the shoreline. This type equipment is of no risk to AIS because they are simply re-entering the same waterbody. Therefore water-related equipment moved directly from the water to shore will not be enforced. If the equipment travels over a public roadway it will be subject to a mandatory inspection. Note that water-related equipment that is removed from the lake, trailered over a public roadway and stored for the winter must be inspected prior to re-launch.

I guess I would encourage everyone commenting or asking to read the proposal document. A lot of these questions are answered in the document whether we agree with them or not.

Aaron Kalberer wrote:

Am I missing something? I looked through the article and it sounds like they are just requiring a decontamination of boats and proof it was done? I can see where this could open the floodgates which could lead to more locked down public access which I would not be a fan of. Just making sure that is what they are proposing or if it is something else that I missed?

My understanding is that you have to have the zip tie decontamination proof, and also that the accesses are only open when there is someone there to verify all boats being launched went through the proper protocol (meaning you wouldn’t be able to go out early, or come in late).

just thinking, may not hurt for you guys to post this on Bass Boat Central under the Min. section, that site gets alot of web traffic.

Just send the emails Andy, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

BigWerm wrote:

My understanding is that you have to have the zip tie decontamination proof, and also that the accesses are only open when there is someone there to verify all boats being launched went through the proper protocol (meaning you wouldn’t be able to go out early, or come in late).

Not exactly true, again…from the document….

Intend to Launch Outside the Days of Operation
The days of operation in 2019 will be from April 1st or ice out until October 31st. At least 7 days prior to opening in the spring, Wright SWCD will post the opening day on its website and a public service announcement will be sent out to local media. Additionally, the signs at the access will indicate whether or not the regional inspection station is open. Outside these days of operation, the ordinance will not be enforced. Signage and published materials will remind boats to clean, drain and dry and that they are still responsible for following all state laws and are encouraged to follow best practices to prevent the spread of AIS.
Intend to Launch Outside Hours of Operation
If a user intends to launch during the days of operation but outside operating hours (e.g. 2 a.m.) they must visit the site during operating hours prior to launch for an inspection. The website will have a detailed list of operating hours. The website will be listed on all signage along with a QR code. Hours of operations will be posted at the regional inspection station.

Rather odd that it states that the ordinance will not be enforced outside days of operation.

I do repeat, we should all read the document to prevent misinformation or rumors to be posted on this thread.

Aaron Kalberer wrote:

Am I missing something? I looked through the article and it sounds like they are just requiring a decontamination of boats and proof it was done? I can see where this could open the floodgates which could lead to more locked down public access which I would not be a fan of. Just making sure that is what they are proposing or if it is something else that I missed?

Maybe.
The station is in Annandale, not at the individual landings. They want it to cover a 15 mile radius or so. Example, So if you lived in St.Michael and wanted to Launch at the NE access of Maple lake, you would have to go to Annandale first, get inspection/tag, then drive back to Maple and Fish.

If you wanted to fish at 4:30am on Maple, you would have to drive to Annandale the night before, get your inspection/tag. Then drive back to lake at 4:30am next morning and Fish.

They do have the self inspection option thrown in as a bone, but like others have said, that would mysteriously disappear after a year or two. The Leaders of the Assoc’s groups do not like that part from what I read in articles.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

Not exactly true, again…from the document….

Thanks for clarifying Andy!

Yeah guys. Please read the proposal. I was surprised with how thorough it was. Restrictive, yes, but not as bad as it’s being portrayed.

ANY RESTRICTIONS is a restriction on your right to access the waterways of Minnesota.

Good Lord, if this was about guns you guys would be peeing all over yourselves to stop it.

Dutchboy wrote:

Just send the emails Andy, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I’m getting there, I just want to take the time to educate myself first. Had I sent emails stating my opposition right off the bat relying solely on some of the information given on this thread, I’d have embarrassed myself.

Hopefully I can articulate a meaningful argument against this proposal rather than to just say “I don’t like it”.

I went thru the DNR list of infested waters in Wright County (yellow) and highlighted the ones in red that they want to manage/restrict this year. I might have missed or accidentally deleted one but it does paint an interesting picture.

Others might find it helpful.

Attachments:

1. 

   Wright-County-infested_waters-03262019.pdf
   

Dutchboy wrote:

ANY RESTRICTIONS is a restriction on your right to access the waterways of Minnesota.

Good Lord, if this was about guns you guys would be peeing all over yourselves to stop it.

Going around spreading false rumors makes us look bad and therefore uninformed and untrustworthy.

Good lord. Please educate yourself on the matter before making the rest of us look like idiots.

CBMN wrote:

I went thru the DNR list of infested waters in Wright County (yellow) and highlighted the ones in red that they want to manage/restrict this year. I might have missed or accidentally deleted one but it does paint an interesting picture.

Others might find it helpful.

Really helpful. It can be used build our case for opposition in the email to the DNR.

Or for anyone misinformed on the other side for that matter.

Email sent

Just posted it on the MN Bassheads FB page with the proposal link. They take things a little more seriously than the Fishing MN group.

Also posted on BBC

I’m out.

You can carry the water for the anti’s. But don’t come crying here when they lock down your lakes.