Well, I was going to hold off on comments until I read the info…which is rather long, I might add.
You are correct in the anchoring piece, the sky is not going to be blue if this goes through.
It might help to have contact info in a shorter post.
Turk,
You have some very good points. My comments regarding “no wake” anchoring are not only for “drift” fishing. Maneuvering of pleasure boats is also an issue. Maybe there is a way to make this issue more acceptable to all boaters. An anchoring ban on weekends may be one solution. No matter what the outcome is, not everyone will be completely satisfied.
Sandbar
Sandbar,
I just don’t like new regulations especially when what we have as a resource is working just fine…
Because new rules really can change things in ways that might not be expected. Why chance it?
This steering commitee really is against rafting of big boats, rafting as 6 to 12 of these big honking boats strapped together and to stay in place anchor…Well they are lumping all anchoring in together…
What can be done? I guess I need to find out….
Bruce when is the next meeting?
Turk
Quote:
Next LSCPT Management Meeting January 21, 2004 – 7pm Stillwater City Council Chambers
From the MPBA web site.
Turk,
I have been loosely following this topic and may not fully understand the proposal. Nothing I have read jumps off the page as shocking, including your original post. Probably due to the fact that as I sit here thinking about it, I can’t remember if I have EVER dropped an anchor into the Croix. This proposal would have zero affect on the way I fish that river. On the plus side it would be a good thing for me as to NOT have an Ocean Liner parked over one of my fishing areas from Friday at noon till Sunday at sundown (And yes that is happening with greater frequency) I could live with the 50 foot rule as a fisherman. I can hit anything I want with a 50 foot cast. I also don’t think it’s fair to have an Ocean Liner zig-zagging his way through a bunch of anchored fishing boats in the Kinny.
I’m not really against a 40mph speed limit either. Fourty is fast for a boat and faster than “most” fishing boats. As far as the cruisers planning out. Never seen it. Not at 20-40-60 mph. You guys toss out huge wakes – period! I’d feel a lot safer not having those dam Cigarette boats going 60+ anytime I’m on the water.
Just my 2 cents worth on the topic.
I’ll end this by repeating this prediction: Someday the only thing floating on the St Croix will be inner tubes and canoes.
Thanks,
Jon J.
After reading through this…I think the letter from Washington Co does sum up the speed/wake issue.
Personally, I don’t see a need for more funds for more enforcement. Just common sense…although it’s free…it’s in short supply.
Here is the contact list from the MPBA.
Organization Rep/Alt Name E-Mail Address
Afton, City of Rep Nolz, Peg [email protected]
Bayport, City of Rep E Johnson, Daniel [email protected]
Bayport, City of Alt Hayner, Chris [email protected]
Baytown Township Rep
Chisago County Rep E Runkel, Julie [email protected]
Chisago County Alt E Schmitz, Mary Darragh [email protected]
Citizens for Resp. Zoning & LR Rep Ogden, Francis H. [email protected]
Clifton, Town of Rep M Mosby, Paul (No e-mail)
Clifton, Town of Alt M Braunreiter, Carl (No e-mail)
Concerned River Valley Cit. Rep
Denmark Township Rep Fitzpatrick, Jim [email protected]
Farmington, Town of Rep Willis, Susan [email protected]
Farmington, Town of Alt Hobbs, Larry [email protected]
Franconia Township Rep Neuman, Bill [email protected]
Franconia Township Alt M Jackson, John (Clerk)*
Hudson, City of Rep E Darnold, Dennis [email protected]
Hudson, Town of Rep Watters, Chris [email protected]
Lake St. Croix Beach, City of Rep M Jansen, John [email protected]
Lake St. Croix Beach, City of Alt Johnson, Roger [email protected]
Lakeland Shores, City of Rep E Jarvis, Dave [email protected]
Lakeland Shores, City of Alt M Harvey, Bob [email protected]
Lakeland, City of Rep M Lee, Sharon [email protected]
Marine on St. Croix, City of Rep E Brooksbank, Robin [email protected]
Marine on St. Croix, City of Alt E Warren, Jack [email protected]
May Township Rep M Kennedy, Larry [email protected]
May Township Alt Arnason, John [email protected]
Midwest Marina Association Rep Riley, Joe [email protected]
Midwest Marina Association Alt Norgren, Jon [email protected]
Minnesota Land Trust Rep E Clapp, Bill [email protected]
Minnesota Land Trust Alt E DeLapp, Steve [email protected]
New Scandia Township Rep Weinberg, John [email protected]
North Hudson, Village of Rep Nordstrand, Dennis
North Hudson, Village of Alt Whalen, Sandra [email protected]
Oak Park Heights, City of Rep Beaudet, David [email protected]
Osceola, Town of Rep E Kytola, Pat [email protected]
Osceola, Village of Rep E Armstrong, Chris [email protected]
Parks & Trails Council of MN Rep Prichard, Michael [email protected]
Pierce County Rep E Boles, Joe [email protected]
Pierce County Alt Dinesen, Don [email protected]
Polk County Rep M Johnston, Jim
Prescott, City of Rep M Zastrow, Ron [email protected]
River Alliance of Wisconsin Rep E Lauing, Fred [email protected]
River Alliance of Wisconsin Alt E Goodman, Lisa [email protected]
Sierra Club Rep M Clarke, Tom [email protected]
Sierra Club Alt M Bellairs, Judy [email protected]
Somerset, Town of Rep E Wolf, Larry [email protected]
Somerset, Town of Alt M Gunther, John [email protected]
St. Croix Band of Ojibway Rep
St. Croix Band of Ojibway Alt M Colson, Aaron*
St. Croix County Rep M Marzolf, Richard [email protected]
St. Croix Falls, City of Rep M Points, Debra [email protected]
St. Croix Falls, City of Alt M Luhrs, Meg (No e-mail)
St. Croix River Association Rep Wald, Dave [email protected]
St. Croix River Association Alt E Meierotto, Rick [email protected]
St. Croix Scenic Coalition Rep M Malick, Clarence W. [email protected]
St. Croix Scenic Coalition Alt Patrick, Bonnie [email protected]
St. Croix Valley Tourism Alnc. Rep
St. Croix Waterway Assn. Rep Smith, Mark [email protected]
St. Croix Waterway Assn. Alt Hayner, Chris [email protected]
St. Joseph, Town of Rep M Dunn, Bill [email protected]
St. Joseph, Town of Alt Gavin, Dan [email protected]
St. Mary’s Point, City of Rep E Jones, Don [email protected]
St. Mary’s Point, City of Alt E Jacobson, Nancy [email protected]
Stillwater Township Rep Sexton, Eileen [email protected]
Stillwater Township Alt M Hannon, Paul
Stillwater, City of Rep M Nelson, Ron [email protected]
Taylors Falls, City of Rep Nelson, Clarence [email protected]
Troy, Town of Rep Rolle, Bob [email protected]
Troy, Town of Alt Rowen, Doug [email protected]
Upper Miss. Waterway Assn. Rep E Eichman, Russ [email protected]
Voyagers Region NPA Rep E Sieben, Jim [email protected]
Voyagers Region NPA Alt M Clarke, Tom (No e-mail)
Washington County Rep O’Donnell, Dennis [email protected]
West Lakeland Township Rep M McPherson, John (No e-mail)
West Lakeland Township Alt M Peterson, Gerald (No e-mail)
Western WI Realtor Assoc. Rep E Berndt, Bill [email protected]
Additional groups?
St. Croix Landowners Assn. Rep Hiltgen, Scott [email protected]
Nat’l. Parks & Conserv. Assn. E Raisbeck, Liz [email protected]
Izaak Walton League E Michels, Jon [email protected]
Send meeting notices:
Arcola Mills Greenhaigh, Jill [email protected]
Wisconsin DNR E Paddock, John [email protected]
Wisconsin DNR E Post, Eunice [email protected]
Wisconsin DNR E Baczynski, Bob [email protected]
Wisconsin DNR E Harrington, Dan [email protected]
National Park Service E Bradley, Tom [email protected]
National Park Service E Adams, Brian [email protected]
Minnesota DNR E Shodeen, Molly [email protected]
Minnesota DNR E Johnson, Steve [email protected]
E Carlson, Ron [email protected]
National Park Service E Berns, Kim [email protected]
Wisconsin DNR E Hausman, Dave [email protected]
M Johnson, Shellene
M Richey, Paula
Updated 1/9/04
I’d also like to know when the next meeting is? I would like to argue against the no anchoring proposal. 
Jon,
I supported the “stop the gated harbor” situation, and yet that would be the last place I’d ever want to fish on the St. Croix…
It is the principle.
And yet this isn’t about principle. OK take the big three of the Croix. The channel, the Kinnni, and Afton, and heck throw in the Precott Narrow which is likely better than the three… There are tons of places to fish from anchor for cats and walleyes…
When I’m 70 I’ll be smarter and just want to put my feet up and anchor and …wet a line. But I’ll look back 35 years I see where I dropped the ball and curse that my inaction stole my fishing possibilities.
And you are right there are people who would like the WHOLE river to be a canoe zone or slow no wake.
Turk
The main reasons I went off on the Gate deal was that was closing off public water to public access. Thats dead wrong! And a different issue all together in my mind.
Proposing specific boating / water use regulations on specific waterways is different. And not uncommon on other Minnesota waterways. Look at speed rules on Minnetonka and Water skiing rules on Hugo, no gas motors on lake Phalen for example. All make sense. Don’t mean I really like them, but as the number of users increases, so do the regs.
As I said, these proposed rules have little effect on me. Saw them coming years ago. But, if anyone reading this feels strongly otherwise, take the time to oppose the regs.
Jon J.
I spoke with John Janson yesterday about this. He’s on our city council in charge of the St Croix.
If I can paraphrase him here, he felt that a speed limit is coming to the Croix AND the Mississippi at some point. As far as enforcement goes…well “every speeder on the freeway isn’t caught either”. He felt the latest push on the speed limits were impart a result of Minnitonka placing a speed limit on their lake. Many boats are coming from that end of town.
The anchoring law will not happen (he felt). Again this was a result of last July 4th’s water rage on tonka. MANY boats anchored and tied together not wanting to move for law enforcement. He felt as I do, if a group of people decide to tie up, drink or what have you…that’s up to them. What are they hurting?
Although the anchoring piece is new, John went on to say that this has been going on for years (about the speed limit).
It might help to look at the list in the above post and email or call your representitive, share your views on the issues with them. They (should be) your voice.
I agree with MikeT[not to pick on BruceE]We don’t who our allies are until we draw a line in the sand.This is a war.Us,the people who know the water belongs to the people of the state MN,them people who own shoreline.We know the water is ours but they always challenge this.This was a hot post at the beggining of the year. NOW is the time to heat things up.On the M.P.B.A web sight[links all over post]Senator Sharon Marks wants feedback on this issue at meetings Sat feb21 St. Paul Park city hall 10am,,Cat fish saloon Afton house1pm,,Sat. feb 28 10am South St.paul city hall.People must voice this anchor law is wrong.If this goes through all rivers ,lakes will be affected in the future.does this topic need a new post so it will be on front board to stir up the emotion it did at the begining of the year.DO NOT RELAX IT WILL NOT BE ALRIGHT,STAND UP AND FIHGT FOR YOUR WATER RIGHTS.Shore line owners are the stewards of the water they live on not the law makers.
I apologized a long time ago for my inappropriate remark characterizing a group of people as bad. This issue is not about characterizations but about a group of individuals that have been working for a long time in an effort to make the lower St. Croix a place that can only be used by birchbark canoes.
I spent the whole boat show in a booth speaking on the subject including interviews on both WCCO and KSTP news programs (video on the MNPBA site). I still have not taken any money from anyone but have donated my time and money to this effort. I am not associated with any organized group except the MNPBA so I’m not beholdin’ to anyone. I live on the St. Croix and own a 41 foot cruiser (Linda Lu) so I have a personal interest in the issue both as a home owner and as a boater.
Dave is right; we have to become more heavily involved, as users of the river, in the politics of the river. I hate the politics, but if we are going to save the recreational aspect of the river, as it currently exists, we have to play on the designated game field that requires the political aspect.
One of the best ways to voice your opinion with the least hassle is to write to your legislative representatives. I have placed all of their e-mail addresses on our site at http://www.mnpba.com so it can be very easy to contact them. I suggest that you create an e-mail that accurately reflects your feelings on this topic and send it to all of them individually (just cut and paste into a new e-mail).
This is an election year and an issue like this could be brought to the forefront if enough of us voice our opinions. The legislature could weigh in on the issue with a bill that could dictate to the DNR what their position is on the issue. Since it takes all 3 entities (MN & WI DNR’s and National Park Service) to agree in order for anything to become law, the legislature could effectively create legislation that more accurately reflects the voice of the people. What is currently happening is where a few individuals are creating new rules and law for us all based on their personal agendas. That Needs to STOP!
Stay involved, either join the MNPBA or some other organization that accurately reflects your opinion. You can even stay out of any organized effort but you do need to voice your opinion to the individuals responsible for any new laws and restrictions on the river. Don’t let any officials lull you into a sense of well-being with comments like, “”every speeder on the freeway isn’t caught either” or “The anchoring law will not happen (he felt)”. STAY INVOLVED!! Do not let the opinions of a few, create new laws for an apathetic silent majority.
Nothing is set in stone at this time so it’s imperative that you participate in the issue for all involved. Remember that any new laws affect all of the folks that recreate on the St. Croix. Also remember that once you begin the process by allowing new restrictions that are unwarranted, it becomes easier to follow up with more new laws and restrictions next year and the next and so on.
Bruce Ehlers
Founder, MNPBA
[email protected]
http://www.mnpba.com
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
