Anchoring illegal?

  • Charlie “Turk” Gierke
    Hudson Wisconsin
    Posts: 1020
    #1227355

    At the last meeting of the Lower St. croix Partnership Team, this “partnership” presented a proposal to stop anchoring withing 50′ of shoreline! and no anchoring in the no wake zones!!!

    Read the above again – no anchoring within 50′ of the shoreline?? You like to anchor at the Kinni and catch fish? Well you may soon be a law breaker!!! No kidding.

    The next meeting is Wednesday October 15 at 7:00 pm in the Community Room at St. Croix County Governement Center
    1101 Carmichael Rd.
    Hudson , WI

    The “partnership” is also creating a new no wake zone from near sunnyside Marina that may take from 10 -20 minutes to cross through.

    bfehlers
    Stillwater, MN USA
    Posts: 11
    #278540

    Turk is right!!

    Did you know that, if the Lower St. Croix Partnership Team has it’s way, there will be a whole host of new regulations regarding anchorage in nav channels, new no wake zones, and speed restrictions?

    If these regs get thru the process your access to the St. Croix River’s best fishing will either take longer or be limited to outside of the navigational channels.

    Get involved it the process and help protect the access to the river; http://www.mnpba.com is a not for profit organization that is fighting the establishment to prevent any NEW regulations regarding these topics and we need your help.

    Bruce Ehlers
    [email protected]

    suzuki
    Woodbury, Mn
    Posts: 18715
    #278607

    I have no problem with “no anchoring” in kinnie channel or any other narrow spot in the river. However no anchoring anywhere 50′ from shore is ridiculous.

    DaveB
    Inver Grove Heights MN
    Posts: 4497
    #278610

    Does no anchoring mean no vertical jigging by holding ground w/ the trolling motor or just no dropping anchor????

    RipnLips1
    Roberts,Wi
    Posts: 121
    #278648

    I believe fisherman always have the right away on the water,period.Turk do you have a contact # for this org. I will pass this info over to Wi Dnr and see what they have to say.NO wake no problem,it will pass but telling fisherm where and how to position there boat,Way to Far.

    steveo
    W Central Sconnie
    Posts: 4102
    #278869

    How did things turn out?

    bait_caster
    Spring Valley, Wis.
    Posts: 142
    #279065

    Who is this partnership team, and do they have any authority to change the existing regs? This is the first time I have ever heard about this. My guess is they are some sort of spin off from the defuncted boundary commission. If this is a legitimate organization, please watch them very closely. I’ll bet there isn’t one fisherman on their board, or one that even owns a boat. How do I get in touch with these people? Please let me know. THanks BC

    rivereyes
    Osceola, Wisconsin
    Posts: 2782
    #279082

    guess my ‘eyes aint focusing… but it says “we now really need to organize for the REAL fight!!!!”….. and just what IS the real fight? stamping out fishing on the croix or something like that?

    suzuki
    Woodbury, Mn
    Posts: 18715
    #279100

    Controversy over river use is just going to get worse every year as the number of boaters increases. I thought they were trying to help by keeping a handle on limiting slip expansion on the river but I see new ones popping up every year. I don’t believe fishing will ever be threatened on the Croix but it will be interesting to see how the increased traffic load is handled in the future.
    Too many rats in one cage is a problem everytime.

    bfehlers
    Stillwater, MN USA
    Posts: 11
    #279157

    The “real fight” is to prevent the “tree huggers” from controlling everything in site including the St. Croix River. This “fight” isn’t about one group, it’s about the unrestriced use of the river by all parties. I believe that we can all have enjoyable access utilizing a little common sense and education, not new restictions. The Lower St. Croix River Partnership Team has made their recommendations and is in favor of new restrictions including the anchoring restrictions listed on my website. The “fight” is geared at preventing ANY new restrictions on the river without substantial evidence that they are necessary for the good of the river and the good of the public in general.

    Bruce Ehlers
    [email protected]
    http://www.mnpba.com

    mike t
    St Paul, MN
    Posts: 127
    #279179

    Bruce,

    In the pursuit of your goals here, I’d be careful about using any language or terminology that may perhaps alienate the very folks in which you hope to ralleye to your cause. I’m speaking specifically about the “tree huggers” comment. When you start to stereotype the opposition as it were, you potentially earmark yourself and your cause as being just as zealous, overbearing and disrespectful as the other party.

    I know for a fact, there are a lot of guys and gals on this site who use the river regularly, have boats capable of 40+mph and also consider themselves good stewards of the land and water, myself included. Am I a tree hugger, my buddies might say ya a bit, does that make me the enemy? I think not. Believe me, I can come up with several recent instances of power boaters behaving like idiots around fisherman. Great example was sunday night where a guy in a 30′ scarab ripped through the hudson channel to the railroad bridge, at dark and through a group of fishing boats, going at least 50. That behaviour really pisses the tree huggers off. What prevailed there, common sense & respect or booze and ego?

    Common sense, courtesy and respect for other users are what’s needed on the river. I think this should include the fight your group is involved with, and the language your group uses in public forums such as this.

    my 2 cents

    Mike Thomas

    Dave Koonce
    Moderator
    Prairie du Chien Wi.
    Posts: 6946
    #279185

    Well said Mike T

    that was 2 cents very well spent

    Chitwood46
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Posts: 145
    #279192

    That was well said Mike T. I would like a definition of a “Tree Hugger” from both of you, before I decide if it was in bad taste or an appropriate label? I am betting we have two different interpretations.

    mike t
    St Paul, MN
    Posts: 127
    #279195

    I think just re-reading the post and looking at the context of the statement spells it out pretty clearly. One can be a good steward of the resource and also an avid user as well.

    My point is not to start any bickering, everyone has a gripe it seems. My aim was to simply point out it’s dangerous and potentially damaging to associate terms and language that singles out a group or groups of users. Although I think I know where Bruce is coming from, I cannot agree with loosely used comments. I am curious however after seeing the power boaters site, what the underlying interest in this cause is. Perhaps financial gain or loss??

    MikeT

    kraigklund
    Hudson, WI
    Posts: 37
    #279197

    Both Mike T. and Bruce have good points. Being the self centered egotistical anarchist that I am, I really don’t like unneccessary or excessive regulations. But the tree hugging earth loving peace freak in me understands that in the face of a rapidly increasing population in the St. Croix Valley and boats that increase in size and speed with each model year, it’s a good bet that conflicts among users are going to increase as well. The real point to my post is that Mike is right about labeling and grouping people – it tends to alienate and makes the possibility of finding common ground more remote.

    The fisherman formerly known as Musky Earl

    bfehlers
    Stillwater, MN USA
    Posts: 11
    #279222

    My intent is NOT to upset anyone here but try to promote discussion. It appears as if that’s happening.

    As for the suggestion that there may be any financial gain here, I can only speak for myself… I have nothing invested except a $120 website and a bunch of time. I collect no money from anyone just ideas. I simply do not want a vocal minority (labeled any way you like) to make policy for the apethetic (silent) majority.

    My “tree hugger” comment was inappropriate and for that I apologize. However, I do feel quite strongly about the individuals and groups that are trying to create new restrictions on the St. Croix without any facts supporting their desires except either personal or financial interests. I have neither… I live on the St. Croix River and own a 41′ cruiser, so I have a vested interest in my own cause from multiple prospectives.

    We are all grown ups here… this is not personal, it’s about the proposed new restrictions that are simply not called for based on the facts. Please get past my inadvertant remark and get to the larger picture which is… We ALL need to be heard and when that happens the outcome is appropriate no matter what side of the issue you are on.

    Bruce Ehlers
    MNPBA
    [email protected]
    http://www.mnpba.com

    P.S. I am in Houston this week on business and have not had an opportunity to do a professional job with the website. I’ll try to update it this weekend or maybe during the evenings if I can find time.

    bait_caster
    Spring Valley, Wis.
    Posts: 142
    #279262

    Let me start by saying this issue has really touched a nerve with me. And I can honestly say I have a hard time acting in a civil manner as it pertains to this partnership team. My greatest frustration is the fact that we the boaters and fisherman were not represented on that team. The partnership team took the time to have organizations like the Sierra Club as a member, but never even thought of a sportsman group or a boating organization for representation on that team. Everyone who enjoys this message board should take a serious look at this issue, because if it passes here you can look for the same regs all the way down the Mississippi. We as fisherman and boaters can not let them do this!!! I would urge everyone to get involved, and send these jokers packing. They have no right what so ever to make any recomendations without input from all of the user groups. And besides there are already plenty of laws on the books that are not being enforced anyway. So please do not let them take your rights away!! Check out Bruce’s web site and start the fight today.

    bfehlers
    Stillwater, MN USA
    Posts: 11
    #279276

    I have to make one correction to Baitcaster’s remarks, The St. Croix Waterways Association is a group that has been involved on the Patnership Team since it began back in 1995. Mark Smith is their President and my neighbor. We are working together with both associations to help stop these unfounded restrictions. Keep in mind a group only has 1 vote out of 49 so 1 group on the Team really has no effect on the outcome. Especially when the group has been “stacked” from the start with “like-minded” members. I hope that label doesn’t offend anyone…

    Bruce Ehlers

    mossydan
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Posts: 7727
    #279343

    Sounds to me like these people want thier own little atmosphere at any cost to anybody. Thier own stretch of serinity the way they like it. Picture perfect to thier liking. This sounds like this group is organizing and trying to pass certain ideas to test the water for thier own self desired look out thier house window utopia. I’d be careful and watch these people.

    bfehlers
    Stillwater, MN USA
    Posts: 11
    #279381

    Please explain who “these people” are… I may agree depending your explanation.

    We have tried to organize folks to prevent “those people” from making law to rule the majority of “the people” based on flawed presumptions..

    Bruce Ehlers
    [email protected]

    bfehlers
    Stillwater, MN USA
    Posts: 11
    #288501

    There is a guest editorial in the current January Issue of the Scuttlebutt Magazine on page 6 about the pending issues on the St. Croix River. There will also be a flyer inserted into each Scuttlebutt passed out at the boat show next week. Be sure to look at them and read about the issues.

    Some of you have signed up on our website at http://www.mnpba.com, and for that I thank you. It’s free and we are all in this together. The only means of communication is via e-mail.

    The current Scuttlebutt article is on the site also if you want to read it.

    Bruce Ehlers
    Minnesota Power Boaters Association
    [email protected]

    kraigklund
    Hudson, WI
    Posts: 37
    #288599

    One of my new year’s resolutions was to become more involved in and speak out more publicly about issues that affect me. This one would certainly fall into that category.

    I posted early on in this thread. My position was and still is that some regulations are either necessary now or will be in the future in order to maintain a somewhat safe and sane place for an increasing number of people to enjoy. The fact that the St. Croix is such a beautiful resource is reflected in its popularity and the passion that people show for it regarding issues such as this.

    I would guess that Mr. Ehlers is a pretty decent guy and I commend him in the efforts he is making in getting his position heard. The article that appeared in the Pioneer Press stated the position of the Power Boaters Association quite clearly. That is the how the system should work.

    I do believe strongly however that Bruce’s presumption that these proposed rules are not in the interest of fishermen is a flawed one. My intentions are not to start a fight and I don’t think that all the proposed regulations are warranted – banning anchoring in any part of the river is one. I also believe it is a mistake to think that the interests of fishermen are necessarily aligned with those of the group that Bruce heads up. Here is my reasoning. Fishermen are already effectively shut out of the river during the times when they would like to use it the most – weekends between Memorial day and Labor day. Think about it. This is not because there are too many fishermen out there in huge boats going really fast. It’s because there are so many large cruising boats making fishing a much more difficult endeavor. I can’t tell you how many people respond along these lines when I tell them that I fish the St. Croix – “Is there good fishing out there? I couldn’t imagine trying to fish out in that zoo – way too many boats flying around.” Then I proceed to tell them that the fishing can be quite good and that if you get out there early in the morning or on week days or after work it isn’t so bad. I actually believe the St. Croix may even be underfished. This is unfortunate. I include myself as one of those people who actually have to work Monday through Friday, making weekends the time when I have available to fish

    Is this wrong or should it be changed? I don’t pretend to think that we should limit the number of any type of boat on the river. But certain regulations do make sense including a reasonable speed limit. Here is a quote from the Pioneer Press article:

    Jack Swanson, a boater who lives along the river in Prescott, Wis., compares the St. Croix to an “interstate highway” with room for multiple lanes in each direction. “Why would non-boaters want to subject boaters with speed rules akin to that of busy city streets?” he asked.
    “If ever a waterway held the potential to be a natural and safe waterway where faster boats could utilize the speed designed into their boats, the St. Croix is it.”

    I disagree. I don’t want to see the St. Croix be compared to or managed as an “interstate highway” and I certainly don’t want my favorite fishing spot to become one.

    As I said in the beginning of this post I do hope to find the time to become more involved in the process of deciding issues such as this so that my interests as a fisherman are presented by me – a fisherman rather than Bruce who thinks he knows what is important to me and what my interests are.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I am just a working stiff who can’t even afford a boat that can go over 40 mph (got young kids). But I hope to some day. If you saw my boat you would laugh – until I showed you all the slob walleye and muskie that have been outwitted by the Warrior and the Fisherman soon to be known again as Muskie Earl.

    P.S. Don’t let anyone tell you what color the sky is – decide for yourself.

    bfehlers
    Stillwater, MN USA
    Posts: 11
    #288622

    I will try to respond to Earl’s remarks. I will do it in Red embedded into his original text.

    One of my new year’s resolutions was to become more involved in and speak out more publicly about issues that affect me. This one would certainly fall into that category.

    I posted early on in this thread. My position was and still is that some regulations are either necessary now or will be in the future in order to maintain a somewhat safe and sane place for an increasing number of people to enjoy. I agree that there are regulations that need to be in place to assure the safety of all, but my contention is that they are already in place and just need to be enforced. The fact that the St. Croix is such a beautiful resource is reflected in its popularity and the passion that people show for it regarding issues such as this.

    I would guess that Mr. Ehlers is a pretty decent guy and I commend him in the efforts he is making in getting his position heard. The article that appeared in the Pioneer Press stated the position of the Power Boaters Association quite clearly. That is the how the system should work. The “Guest Editorial” written in January’s Scuttlebutt Magazine on page 6 much better reflects the position of the Minnesota Power Boaters Association.

    I do believe strongly however that Bruce’s presumption that these proposed rules are not in the interest of fishermen is a flawed one. I don’t recall presuming anything about the rules being in the best interests of the fishermen. I have said, and will continue to say, that the proposed NEW rules affect us all. My intentions are not to start a fight and I don’t think that all the proposed regulations are warranted – banning anchoring in any part of the river is one. I also believe it is a mistake to think that the interests of fishermen are necessarily aligned with those of the group that Bruce heads up. Here is my reasoning. Fishermen are already effectively shut out of the river during the times when they would like to use it the most – weekends between Memorial day and Labor day. Think about it. This is not because there are too many fishermen out there in huge boats going really fast. It’s because there are so many large cruising boats making fishing a much more difficult endeavor. I can’t tell you how many people respond along these lines when I tell them that I fish the St. Croix – “Is there good fishing out there? I couldn’t imagine trying to fish out in that zoo – way too many boats flying around.” Then I proceed to tell them that the fishing can be quite good and that if you get out there early in the morning or on week days or after work it isn’t so bad. I actually believe the St. Croix may even be underfished. This is unfortunate. I include myself as one of those people who actually have to work Monday through Friday, making weekends the time when I have available to fish. Here is whre your thinking is “flawed”, the real problem that you describe above isn’t speed, it’s WAKES. Placing a speed limit of 40 mph on the River between Stillwater and Prescott will increase the wakes not lower them. Most of the “large cruising boats” between th size of 28 feet and 38 feet (which is most of them) will not fully plane at 40 mph and therefore create a much larger wake than if they were at plane. Secondly, I believe that most of the “good fishing” places are not in the middle of the river but in the places that are already controlled by No Wake Zones (Hudson, Kinney, Catfish, etc.) I live on the river and have seen many “fishermen” fly down the river early in the morning enroute to their favorite fishing spot at speeds far greater than 40 mph. The new laws will limit that also, it will take longer to get between spots and limit the amount of fishing time.

    Is this wrong or should it be changed? I don’t pretend to think that we should limit the number of any type of boat on the river. But certain regulations do make sense including a reasonable speed limit. Here is a quote from the Pioneer Press article:

    Jack Swanson, a boater who lives along the river in Prescott, Wis., compares the St. Croix to an “interstate highway” with room for multiple lanes in each direction. “Why would non-boaters want to subject boaters with speed rules akin to that of busy city streets?” he asked. “If ever a waterway held the potential to be a natural and safe waterway where faster boats could utilize the speed designed into their boats, the St. Croix is it.”

    I disagree. I don’t want to see the St. Croix be compared to or managed as an “interstate highway” and I certainly don’t want my favorite fishing spot to become one. I really do not think that Jack was referring to the St. Croix as a freeway in it’s truest sense. I do believe that he was using the metaphor for the way the boats flow down the unrestricted river versus the way they tend to flow on an enclosed lake.

    As I said in the beginning of this post I do hope to find the time to become more involved in the process of deciding issues such as this so that my interests as a fisherman are presented by me – a fisherman rather than Bruce who thinks he knows what is important to me and what my interests are. I do not pretend to know how anyone feels or thinks on this subject. I also do not believe that my opinion is the only opinion. I also do not have a boat that will go over 30 mph so the speed limits won’t affect me except in creating more wakes. I have spent a bunch of time and my own money trying to educate the public on this issue because it really does affect us all. The more people that know of the issue the better it will ultimately turn out. I have loosely formed a group of informed individuals to bring this issue out of the smokey back rooms into the light of day for all to comment on. It was being ram-roded through by a few individuals with special interests. Today there is discussion and information flowing. The Minnesota Power Boaters Association feels that there is already enough rules on the St. Croix River between Stillwater & Prescott to effectively manage the river so it is safe for all to use. What’s necessary is for the government agencies to actively enforce all of the rules currently on the books. For example, there is already law regarding the excessive wake problem. Everyone is responsible for their wake and any damage or injury it causes. There are already laws reagrding careless and unsafe boating, or noise, or alcohol usage, they just need to be enforced. You should have also quoted from Mary Divine’s article where the Washington County Sheriff ststes, “Once you have speed limits, you have some expectation of enforcement,” said Washington County Sheriff Jim Frank. “They would be virtually impossible to enforce, but yet the expectation is that we are going to do it.” What the Sheriff doesn’t tell you is that there is really no good way to detect speed on a river due to the “doppler effect” on radar and the fact that radar needs to be used at 180 degree angles to be effective. The long and the short of it is that there is no way to enforce a speed limit.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I am just a working stiff who can’t even afford a boat that can go over 40 mph (got young kids). But I hope to some day. If you saw my boat you would laugh – until I showed you all the slob walleye and muskie that have been outwitted by the Warrior and the Fisherman soon to be known again as Muskie Earl.

    P.S. Don’t let anyone tell you what color the sky is – decide for yourself.
    My intention is to make sure that you have all of the facts before you need to decide what color the sky is.

    Bruce Ehlers
    [email protected]
    <a href="http://www.mnpba.com
    ” target=”_blank”>http://www.mnpba.com

    sandbar
    Woodbury, MN
    Posts: 1029
    #288623

    Good post Earl. I have a few thoughts regarding this subject. First, I agree with Suzuki’s earlier post, no anchoring in “No Wake Zones”. Many times anchoring in no wake zones disrupts recreational boaters and people that are trying to drift fish these areas. Many times in the past 5-6 years we would drift an area near the Kinni only to have someone pull up and drop anchor right in the drift line.

    Second: I don’t believe fisherman are shut out of the river on weekends. Sure, you get alot more “rollers” from the big cruisers, but that is just part of sharing the resource. I personally have caught some of my best Walleye on the weekend days with the sun shining and pleasure boats everywhere. I actually like seeing all the people out enjoying the beautiful St. Croix. There are plenty of morons in pleasure boats AND fishing boats.

    Finally, I don’t agree with the speed limits. I finally have a boat that can break 40 mph, and I like going WOT when possible.

    Sandbar

    Charlie “Turk” Gierke
    Hudson Wisconsin
    Posts: 1020
    #289124

    I feel that as anglers we should stick up for fellow anglers even though they use a presentation that we don’t, for the right given up may haunt you down the road.

    And I do not think hardly any people realize all the excellent catfish and sturgeon fishing locations that will be made illegal thanks to the anchor ban.

    The St. Croix is complete recreational use, too bad if someone has to drive around an anchored boat!

    I don’t anchor in these channels but know folks who do, and I am going to stick up for them, people should not be forced to fish in any certain way or have a presentation or tactic taken away!

    Keep catchin’
    Turk

    stillakid2
    Roberts, WI
    Posts: 4603
    #289137

    Quote:


    I feel that as anglers we should stick up for fellow anglers even though they use a presentation that we don’t, for the right given up may haunt you down the road.

    And I do not think hardly any people realize all the excellent catfish and sturgeon fishing locations that will be made illegal thanks to the anchor ban.

    The St. Croix is complete recreational use, too bad if someone has to drive around an anchored boat!

    I don’t anchor in these channels but know folks who do, and I am going to stick up for them, people should not be forced to fish in any certain way or have a presentation or tactic taken away!

    Keep catchin’
    Turk


    Amen Turk…………..Amen………….

    Charlie “Turk” Gierke
    Hudson Wisconsin
    Posts: 1020
    #289165

    Remember when the forces that ‘be” wanted to gate off the harbor that small little harbor? And this site went ballistic on the fact that fishing areas would be taken away. That was right on way to go In-depthers!

    I do!

    But for some reason nobody really seems to care that anchoring is being proposed to be made illegal!

    I don’t get it?

    If passed this will limit future fishing locations! I hope that anglers are not seeing this as a benefit for their walleye drift when an anchored boat will be taken out of the picture?

    We are all in the same boat as anglers and we should stand together and not let the anglers who choose to anchor be hung out to dry… a lot of these folks are old timers, come on!

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 42 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.