Mille Lacs politics YOU need to know

  • steve-fellegy
    Resides on the North Shores of Mille Lacs--guiding on Farm Island these days
    Posts: 1294
    #1287542

    http://www.millelacsmessenger.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=33&ArticleID=15938&TM=29934.68

    Many of you get Outdoor News and will or have read a story about the Mille Lacs public access issue ongoing. The link above will help give you a better idea of the situation.

    I rarely challenge the DNR as I think they do a great job on most fronts but this issue is leading to a HUGE waste of YOUR fishing license and boat license money. Over 1.5 million dollars for this!! Contrary to the figures referenced in the Outdoor News story this week.

    I suggest you contact Lowell Jaeger at Trails and Waterways and challnege his Division to re-think their plans. The Brainerd Trails and Waterways office contact # is 218-833-8715 Also email:

    [email protected]

    I like the idea of the “safe harbor” public access concept at Mille Lacs and also adding more parking. But THIS sites proposal is destined to fail in EVERY form and fashion—NO DOUBT!

    If you have any questions feel free to call me also.

    Steve Fellegy

    218-678-3103

    Mike W
    MN/Anoka/Ham lake
    Posts: 13294
    #511991

    Interesting. I take it as the DNR’s goal is to try and provide a safe free landing for the public. If that is the case just give the money to the local resort owners so we can use there landings for free and it should be taken care of.

    chris johnson
    Appleton, WI
    Posts: 76
    #511999

    While it looks like one may be able to question the funding it is a stark difference from the tactics the Wisconsin DNR utilizes. Here in Wisconsin the WDNR would rather cite user conflicts and do everything in their power to limit or restrict access to the public waterways. All while pitting the lake associations against conservation minded organizations. In Wisconsin some lake associations also buy up land adjacent to public access and than turn to city or county government to enact punitive parking regulation that severely limits access thereby more less privatizing the lakes. So maybe it may serve everyone much better if a concerned sportsman group or even a individual could find a way to help the MDNR get it done while maximizing the functionality and encouraging the MDNR to improve or add access to other lakes.

    IMHO

    MN Musky
    Ham Lake/Mille Lacs, Mn
    Posts: 120
    #512002

    Amen.

    My cabin is half way between the proposed site and the Wealthwood Access and upon hearing of this I thought it ill-conceived.

    Functionally, I dont know how they will maintain a working ramp on that section of the lake. It will end up just like the other harbors–a nice deep harbor with no main lake access for any mid/large size boats.

    Furthermore, if the low water cycle we’ve been in for the past few seasons continues it will make this ramp unusable immediately.

    Some say it is deep(er) at the site?

    I am all for another access that is usable low water and high. I dont think it is possible North Sand.

    steve-fellegy
    Resides on the North Shores of Mille Lacs--guiding on Farm Island these days
    Posts: 1294
    #512385

    At the proposed site(Ray’s Boat Dock), the water is about 6 inches deeper than at the Wealthwood access out from the harbor in the main lake. It would be similar to Red Door depths as well.

    Obviously, depth is a key issue that needs to be considered. Equally with this site is the issue of the location. HALF the harbor is owned(shoreline) by a private owner who will NOT sell. Then there is the hiway….and the neighborhood.

    Put this whole thing on a balance beam and the negatives far out weigh the positives(there are NONE).

    Whatta mess!

    Steve Fellegy
    218-678-3103

    chris-tuckner
    Hastings/Isle MN
    Posts: 12318
    #512390

    Steve, I echo your sentiments. I spend a lot of time on that north end as well, and cringe everytime I pass the Wealthwood access. That thing is only an access to kayaks and canoes. Ray’s would be a disaster as well IMHO. The Wealthwood public access is only a short distance from Rays anyways. What would/could they do at Rays that would be any different? Is it is the protected harbor? Rip Rap Wealthwood! Make a harbor if you feel it would help! It wont. Too much moving sugar sand up there. The harbor would be nice, but the entrance to it would in fact be like the Door or Barneveld’s. Very shallow. Take the time and money and finish what they started at Liberty beach before the move toward any boondoggle on the north end. Just my $.02.

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #512479

    Steve,

    I moved this over from General Discussion so it didn’t get buried three to four pages back before everyone who visits Mille had a chance to read your post.

    I also copied your editorial here before it got archived on the Mille Lacs Messenger website.

    12/13/2006 3:42:00 PM Email this article • Print this article
    Steve Fellegy – Will the DNR get it right?
    by Steve Fellegy
    Outdoors Writer

    Sometimes the pot needs to be stirred to ensure the ingredients the recipe calls for are not burned and the whole meal becomes garbage. Well, there’s a pot been simmering for longer than all of us have known about along the shores of Mille Lacs that surely needs stirring. Hopefully, the original recipe that had way too many spices in it can be saved to a point where at least no one gets ill in the end. Or worse!

    Here’s my take on the story that made Messenger headlines in last week’s paper.

    1. There has not been a “public outcry” from any direction pointed at the immediate need for more public access parking or “safe harbor” accesses at Mille Lacs, according to the DNR. So what’s the rush? Slow down!

    2. The proposal on the table, which involves developing Ray’s Boat Dock on the north end of the lake into a public access has zero positive aspects, in every regard.

    A. The projected cost to the public is way out of line. Projected costs by DNR reps in last week’s report were way low. How can $70,000 clear all the buildings off the property, landscape the property which includes dealing with a drain field, filling in basements and removing dozens of trees, as well as prepping the ground for a paved parking lot and laying down the asphalt itself? Add the rip-rap around the harbor, tearing old docks out, adding a new one, tearing the old ramp out and adding a new one, and the annual dredging – $70,000? Of course, let’s not forget the initial $500,000 plus for half the harbor and several hundred more thousand dollars for future land additions. Oops – almost forgot the east and west turn lanes needed to accommodate this on narrow Hwy. 18. My sources tell me that highway stuff could exceed $70,000 alone! So, at well over a million dollars, 20 parking spots cost how much per space?

    B. As mentioned above, the harbor on this site is partially owned by Ray’s Boat Dock. The entire west shoreline of the harbor is owned by another private party who, in no uncertain terms, does not plan on selling it to the DNR. But knowing that, the DNR, until questioned lately, had no concern over that situation. What situation? The lake home on the west shore of the harbor is less than 50 feet from the harbor waters edge. Envision a nice, warm, windows-open type of night when 25 boats “power loading” at 10 p.m. is the norm! All that as this poor soul has to stand on his dock and tell innocent boaters that the dock is private and they are not allowed to drop off the driver to go get the trailer. This scenario plays out all summer these days as the fall night trolling has grown to springtime size crowds around full moon periods. Who will pay for the new paint job on the west side of the harbor owner’s boat when a rookie boater drifts into it? Each day – my oh my!

    C. The overall negative effects of putting this type and amount of traffic into a quiet neighborhood is plain stupid. Having the noise and traffic forced into this predominantly retired population is anything but good, let alone fair.

    D. One of the key objectives of this proposal is to offer a “safe harbor” to the Mille Lacs public. My take, contrary to the report in last week’s paper, is that the water out from the harbor will be too shallow for safe navigation more years than not, especially late in the summer and fall with any kind of on-shore wind in place. Contrary to last week’s report, even in the last “10 years,” there has been plenty of problems with shallow water issues, let alone what we have now and could have in the near future or what we lived through several eras past. Sure – unloading and loading in that harbor will be fine in a heavy south wind. But as the bow goes up a wave and the outboard digs deeper in the rear, what will a 20 foot, $50,000 Ranger or Lund do in 18 inches of water? Stop! That’s what. Then go sideways as the next wave hits it. Now we have a panicking owner out of the boat in knee deep water fighting to keep his rig and his kids off the rocks – pinned under the boat. That’s the scene, which only needs to happen once to be too many times, if you consider this site for a “safe harbor.” Bottom line? It’s too shallow in the main lake to maintain good navigation, no matter the lake levels, at this site. So why add this mess to the many sites that we have now with these same issues?

    3. What’s the solution?

    A. First, sit back and plan this concept beyond the knee jerk thought process that has been in place to this point. Listen to Mille Lacs veterans and other out-of-state big water public access engineers that have historically developed and used logical ideas with solid, positive results. Ideas that don’t include more negatives than positives.

    B. Consider other options that might need general policy change to reach optimum value for the use of public money, not only now but for years to come, no matter the climate effects. Position this concept to succeed, not to fail any part of the time, in any sense. Work with options that do not involve neighbors within a stone’s throw! Work with options where highway safety is already addressed and in place.

    C. Consider what the Aitkin County Sheriff suggested at the meeting when he said, “Do not create more potential problems. What I see and hear tonight worries me.”

    4. Remember, DNR, how you looked everyone in the eye at the public meeting on the 28th and said, “we promise to get it right.”

    Guest columnist Steve Fellegy is a Pro Walleye Trail angler.

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #512483

    Being an East Side guy, I don’t get up to the north end too much. I have never used Ray’s to launch, so I can’t really comment there.

    I do agree with Tuck 100%. Let’s finish what we started over at the Liberty Beach project. That ramp on the public side of the harbor is a wreck and basically unusable. You still need to pay Liberty to access on their side. Furthermore, that parking area is just going to turn into a rut filled mud hole if they don’t start maintaining it. How about some class 5 or pavement here?

    Let’s not forget about the Cedar Creek access either. It has become unusable with the low water. It needs to be dredged out and a nice break wall in there would be money well spent!

    Both the Isle and Cove public access lots could use some TCL too. Paving with parking lines painted in would be a huge improvement to both of those mud lots.

    Bottom line here is there are plenty of opportunities to fix what we got out there before dropping a million on a new access point!

    -J.

    derek_johnston
    On the water- Minnesota
    Posts: 5022
    #512514

    Does Ray plan on moving all that junk somewhere?

    Why doesnt the DNR look at buying the Garrison Creek Marina? They could run the slips like the state park system.

    steve-fellegy
    Resides on the North Shores of Mille Lacs--guiding on Farm Island these days
    Posts: 1294
    #512525

    That’s funny Derek!

    As I hear it from the DNR, the DNR will ALSO PAY Ray to move!! (over and above the purchase price) Unbelievable! Managing YOUR $$ in this fashion.

    Believe it or not…when I offerd several more logical ideas for them, which included the “Creek”, to reach their objectives, they answered
    “Where is Garrison Creek?” So–after I clued them in, they said it would take about 5 years to change a policy they have in place now which prevents them from buying more than 7 acres for this type of project. 5 Years??!! lol(The “Creek” would have about 20-30 acres of parking across the road). I think the “Creek’ would be great!!! For the SAME money the Ray’s site would cost in the end–with MUCH better bang for the buck and less potential problems ALL around.

    They don’t need to get into the “marina” business–they can’t manage the accesses they have now let alone a complex of sorts.

    Let’em know how stupid this is and offer them solutions!

    Steve Fellegy
    218-678-3103

    derek_johnston
    On the water- Minnesota
    Posts: 5022
    #512543

    Sounds like bureaucracy in its finest. They certainly didnt need 5 years to get the season extended. I think Ray will be laughing all the way to the bank on this one.

    bucky12pt
    Isle Mn
    Posts: 953
    #512624

    For that kind of money there are plenty of upgrades that need to be done all around the lake, the casino access is a pothole nightmare, pikes point could use some tlc, Isle and cove aswell, as far as the north end goes I am with everyone else on this one, with ice out and wave action from the south there is nothing one can do with the sand but hope for high water or pay to launch somewhere

    puddlepounder
    Cove Bay Mille Lacs lake MN
    Posts: 1814
    #512777

    i hope that all you guys are sending a email to lowell jeager’s of the dnr. steve has a link posted. this project at ray’s boat dock will happen if nobody speaks up and let them know how we feel about the dnr spending OUR money foolishly. i too think that the liberty beach launch needs to be fixed up before any other land should be bought for the same purpose.

    ted-merdan
    Posts: 1036
    #513408

    I would have to agree that if there’s money burning holes in the DNR’s pocket to spend at Mille Lacs let’s use it to uppgrade the facilities at each public launch… Seems like a breakwall in front of each launch so it’s useable would be appreciated, additional docks for parking boats before/after launching – not all of us appreciate beaching our boats or always have a partner. It takes me longer when I am fishing with my dog’s to make sure they have burned enough energy so we can go for 5 hours.

    Funds could also be allocated annually to re-dredge launch channels and put markers out denoting this…

    I feel like adding addtional access to the lake at this time is unnecessary. There is quite a few public’s and if they are full part with some money and use a resort and give back to the local economy that provides you this opportunity to recreate with friends and family.

    Don’t even get me started on adding more boats to an already crowded at times situation…

    my $.02

    ted merdan

    gary_wellman
    South Metro
    Posts: 6057
    #513429

    Ted and others are right, why can’t they just fix what they have?

    Why not just dredge everything out and improve the parking?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.