Strib: Days of unfettered boat access may be gone

  • carroll58
    Twin Cities, USA
    Posts: 2094
    #1278555

    Hey, please don’t kill the messenger, just reporting the NEWS!

    Star Tribune article {Copyright}
    Anderson: Days of unfettered boat access may be gone
    Article link in Star Tribune – “Anderson: Day of unfettered access may be gone”

    Anderson: Days of unfettered boat access may be gone

    Article by: DENNIS ANDERSON,
    Star Tribune Updated: August 16, 2012 – 11:11 PM

    DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr discusses a plan by a coalition of west-metro lake associations to significantly expand boat-inspection rules.

    Q The proposal to require boat inspections across a swath of the west metro is controversial among anglers and other boaters, who believe their access to lakes would be too restricted.

    A There are approximately 3,000 lake accesses in the state, only about half of which the DNR has authority over. On accesses we control, inspections, gates and other, similar requirements by local authorities can only be done with our permission. Conversely, on the other accesses, we have no authority.

    Q The coalition plan presented to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is far reaching, requesting that certain private accesses be shut down and gates be placed on certain public accesses, through which entry could be gained only after inspection.

    A We have said, and the law allows, that local watershed districts and other governments can develop these types of plans. But we will only review them after they’ve been approved by the watershed district or other government body. We would have to agree to any restrictions that affect the public accesses we control.

    Q Explain how the gate on the Christmas Lake access is allowed.

    A That access dates to the 1980s and has been controversial among lakeshore owners from the start, many of whom opposed it. It is owned by the city of Shorewood. But because it was built in part with federal dollars, there are restrictions the DNR placed on the access requiring it to be open 14 hours a day. No one decades ago imagined the AIS [aquatic invasive species] issues we’re facing today that brought about that gate and the private inspectors stationed there, which the lakeshore owners and city support.

    Q If broader, more stringent boat inspection protocols were cast across the west metro, what would stop other groups from forming coalitions elsewhere in the state or requiring perhaps even more stringent inspections, creating a checkerboard of launching rules?

    A Our concern is that the more complex this effort becomes by local units of government, the more restricted public access will be to public waters. We want to develop standards that local units can use to provide consistency and reduce confusion.

    Q Should Minnesota boaters continue to have free and unfettered access to state lakes?

    A It’s clear by our efforts at the DNR in years leading up to this, and particularly this summer, that laws requiring transport of invasive species are in place and must be followed. So free and unfettered might already be gone. I would say, however, that any new inspections or other restrictions must be reasonable and not unduly burdensome.

    Q The DNR commissioned a study by an independent firm to develop a broad range of boat inspection protocols for possible implementation statewide. The plan was presented by your staff to legislators earlier this year. But most of the plans were dismissed outright as too expensive. In fact, legislators gave the DNR considerably less than it asked for to fight AIS.

    A The study you reference showed the type of plan being proposed in the west metro would be prohibitively expensive to implement statewide, in the $50 million to $100 million or more range. The DNR has to rely on public funding, and our response to AIS and similar problems is measured by funds available. The Legislature has provided $8 million a year. I don’t anticipate anytime soon there will be $50 million for us to work with.

    Q It’s interesting that “100 percent inbound watercraft inspection” is proposed by the west-metro group, when the biggest threat of spreading zebra mussels might be from lakeshore owners on infested lakes transporting their boats elsewhere.

    A There are several possible vectors for spreading zebra mussels. And it only takes one to slip through to continue the spread.

    Q Do you think zebra mussels can be contained?

    A Our DNR program addressing the spread of AIS is based on public education and personal responsibility. It’s a good plan and it’s what we can afford. Will it stop the spread of zebra mussels? Absolutely not, especially if people don’t take it seriously. It should slow the spread, however, while we look at control methodologies. We support the work in this area just beginning by Dr. Peter Sorensen at the U and will work closely with him.

    Q Sorensen has said he doesn’t yet know much about the long-term effects of zebra mussels on a lake’s biomass, whether fish populations are widely affected, or whether there’s a plateauing of infestation and the effects are perhaps less dramatic thn feared.

    A Very often invasives have their own limiters. These things behave differently in different types of water. We look to the east for clues, to Lake Erie, for instance. But we can’t say for certain how our lakes and fish will react. An approach that attempts to slow their spread and ultimately, hopefully, stops them is best because we don’t know whether zebra mussels will, in the end, become just another clam in Minnesota waters — or the demise of the food chain altogether.

    Dennis Anderson • [email protected]

    carroll58
    Twin Cities, USA
    Posts: 2094
    #1092869

    ALL in ALL if you want to Stop the Gates and Restrictions we ALL need to do our part and get involved in the Process.

    The meetings for most of these are all open to the public and yet the ones I’ve attended have pretty much non-existent attendence by Sportsmen, Boaters, Marina Owners, Boat Dealers, etc. Yes, those of us and that should represent us are non-existent.

    Wednesday evening I attended the MCWD AIS Task Force meeting and except for 2-members of Anglers for Habitat Link to AFH webpage there was no other fisherman in attendence besides one-guy that is also a Lakeshore Owner/Lake Shore Association Representative. When you have a meeting room of 35-40 people and less than 10% are looking after your interests it becomes disheartening, but those of us there will continue on attending and looking to protect our interests but we need support at the meetings.

    Bitching and complaining here will get you sympathy from others here but will do nothing to help protect our common interests.

    Check the MCWD website Link to MCWD Website for upcoming meeting and other information there. The Mn/DNR has a whole host of meetings and task force groups, then there are City Council, Township Board and County Board meetings along with the Minnesota Legislature committee meetings all that affect us.

    The next MCWD AIS Task Force meeting is Sept. 5th when they will reccommend a Budget to be forwarded to the MCWD Board meeting on Sept. 15th when they will set the 2013 budget.

    Carroll

    carroll58
    Twin Cities, USA
    Posts: 2094
    #1092882

    Quote:


    Anderson to Landwehr:
    Q Should Minnesota boaters continue to have free and unfettered access to state lakes?

    A It’s clear by our efforts at the DNR in years leading up to this, and particularly this summer, that laws requiring transport of invasive species are in place and must be followed. So free and unfettered might already be gone . I would say, however, that any new inspections or other restrictions must be reasonable and not unduly burdensome.


    Almost sounds to “IMO” me as if the CMCW (Coalition of Minnehaha Creek Waters) has the DNR in their pockets been bought and paid off the Mn/DNR

    I really hope I’m wrong, I really do, but when this message comes from the Mn/DNR Commissioner, it really makes me and .

    We as Boaters/Sportsmen & Women need to rally the Troops, get the Boat Dealers, Bait Shops, Sporting Goods Dealers, Resorts and Hotels and Motel operators along with other Tourism promoters together. We ALL have a huge stake in this.

    If this Gating Accesses becomes a reality all over Minnesota, eveyone I mentioned above will SUFFER FINANCIALLY! If they ALL Suffer, there goes the State Revenue (Tax Collections) right down the [censored] hole!

    Nobody will want to come here and deal with all these Gates and Inspections, Tourism revenue (TAX DOLLARS) could easily drop by over 50% and likely more. This means many of the places we as sportsmen stay will be closing.

    It’s bad enough we have the “Native American Tribes” insisting on using todays technology and equipment to take large quantities of Fish from some of our States most valuable waters and Destroy (By many and Varied Restrictions on Sprtsmen) the Tourism Dollars that could and should be flowing into that area.

    It is time to get involved, attend these Governement and Sportman Group meetings, Call, Write or visit with your State Representative, Senator and Governor Dayton. It is an ELECTION YEAR (Except for Gov. Dayton) for these people supposedly representing us. Let them know your concerns and that you will be Voting in November!

    YOu can get the idea now that I am , I’d rather be fishing.

    stevew
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts: 412
    #1092901

    I wish we could all vote with our wallets on this. Buy WI fishing and hunting licenses next year and stave the MN DNR for a year. I know that would never work but I am really getting tired of losing my freedom bit by bit – in bigger bits each and every year.

    stevew
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts: 412
    #1092904

    Starve, not “stave”…

    Pig-hunter
    Southern Minnesota
    Posts: 600
    #1092923

    I agree with you that you need support for this. However, other than the metro, this stuff will never fly. I know if gates were put up in my area of the state, they wouldn’t make it a week before someone knocked them down. I have no doubt it would be like this in northern MN either.

    This is all political and those with the most money make the rules, just like about everything else in the US these days.
    Best to fight and not let it happen, but if it does, those cattle guards on the front end of pickups will do wonders on those gates.

    lhprop1
    Eagan
    Posts: 1899
    #1092927

    Quote:


    I wish we could all vote with our wallets on this. Buy WI fishing and hunting licenses next year and stave the MN DNR for a year. I know that would never work but I am really getting tired of losing my freedom bit by bit – in bigger bits each and every year.


    Going somewhere else is easy for us to do, but that is exactly what the lake associations want you to do. By going somewhere else, they win.

    We can’t give in. We must fight this nonsense with all of the firepower we can muster, even if it means playing their stupid games until we can get a governor in office who will step in and make things right.

    1hl&sinker
    On the St.Croix
    Posts: 2501
    #1092928

    That will do nothing except force the DNR to make cuts in other areas. Will do nothing on the lines of the impending war between business’s, boaters, sportsman and the average Joe and Joellen who just want to take the family or guest out on the water against the water shed districts and the lake home associations.

    Again I so wanted to be at this last meeting as well. Working till 6:30 and living on the east side makes it tough to make a 5pm meeting

    Carrol58 is correct we have to get involved. If anything ask your representative and the ones running against them this election on the opinions and stance.

    Lets make it into worthy political subject fore these candidates to be concerned over instead of a small subject covered on sports forums and an occasional wright up in the paper or a blurb on the TV.

    We are going to get steam rollered here if we do not unite and take a stand and push back.

    Heck, I would be up to a Christmas Lake picket and demonstration/imformational in the park. Put a face on it make Christmas Lake a poster child of over reaction.
    Anybody up to taking a few hours of for a day to support the objection to closing accesses and gating the remaining few. Like I said I am.

    kperttula
    Posts: 7
    #1092933

    First off let me say that I’m not trying to start a flaming war in this topic. But I’m not sure I get your “call to action”. So we attend the meeting, what are you going to say? ‘I don’t want gates or inspections and want complete unfettered access to any lake in the state?’ Anderson is right in his article, those days are long gone. Other than inspections and gates, I haven’t heard of any other proposals to prevent the spread of invasives. If there are any other options, then those should be brought up at these meetings and investigated. With all due respect, what do you propose to keep the invasives out of the non-infected lakes that doesn’t include what’s already being done?

    There a lot of recreational boaters (i.e. not fishermen) out there who could care less about this issue and without inspections would be spreading this stuff around from lake to lake. The DNR says it would cost $50 – $100 million per year to implement state-wide. What if the DNR raised the fishing license fee by $50 per license (2 million licenses which may be high x $50 additional fee = $100 million) to cover inspections? That would get rid of the gate problem by having a full time staff at each boat landing. That won’t fly with the sportsmen of this state. The DNR tied to raise the license fee a couple bucks to cover inflation and there was a big stink about that.

    What other options are out there? Without options, it’s just complaining isn’t it?

    suzuki
    Woodbury, Mn
    Posts: 18621
    #1092937

    What happens when those gated lakes develop AIS? Will the gates come down? I doubt it. The elitists win.

    lhprop1
    Eagan
    Posts: 1899
    #1092938

    The gates being proposed are nothing more than reactionary hype. We know that we can’t stop them, only slow them. We also don’t know the long term effects of zeebs and other invasives.

    Like Pug says, “Never waste a good crisis”. This is simply reactionary nonsense on the part of the lakeshore owners. It’s also a convenient reason for them to keep people off “their” lakes.

    After all, like someone else said here before (I think it might have been Buzz) If it truly was about AIS and preserving the quality of the the lakes, the lakeshore owners would happily cease all lake weed control in the water adjacent to their property. They’d also happily get rid of their pristine sand beaches and replace them with a 30′ buffer of natural shoreline vegatation. They’d also happily cease using all fertilizers and chemicals on their perfectly manicured lawns that run off to the lakes.

    But they won’t. Because it isn’t about preserving the quality of the lakes.

    If we, as anglers and boaters wanted to stop this in it’s tracks, we’d petition the state legislature and DNR to instate an immediate mandate to remove all docks, swimming floats, etc from public waters. Seeing as how the property ends at the high water mark, anything left in the water like a dock or swimming float is clearly impeding a public waterway. Lakeshore owners should also have to go through the exact same launch inspection process as everyone else, since they will no longer have a dock or lift to moor their boat to.

    It’s for the good of the lake, right?

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #1092942

    Quote:


    The DNR tied to raise the license fee a couple bucks to cover inflation and there was a big stink about that.


    The only stink I heard about was the fact there was $65,000. spent to figure out how much they should be raised…that and the legislature.

    The majority were for the increase although I was not because of all the rumblings of ramping up the AIS policies.
    Otherwise I would have been for increases as well.

    No matter how much money is spend or how much the fine is for not pulling your boat plug, they (ais) are coming.

    Later…I have to check in with a DNR biologist that’s wasting our money electroshocking for Asian carp.

    Buzz
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts: 1814
    #1092986

    kperttula, just because one small group says we need other options shouldn’t wave the whole dog.

    We have plenty of processes currently in place. Here is an example of how far we have come.

    Here is the next installment of watercraft inspection records for Lake Ann, Lake Susan and Lotus Lake. These inspections occurred between the dates of June 8nd and July 20th, 2012. A total of 660 inspections are tallied in this group – 11 of the 660 watercraft had their bilge plugs in place upon arrival (1.7% failure rate). Fourteen boats/trailers had aquatic plants attached upon arrival at a landing (2.1% failure rate) and 15 boats/trailers were cleaned of aquatic plants upon exit. Three watercraft had water present in the motor or hull upon arrival (0.5% failure rate) and one had water present in the motor upon exit. These passing rates (97.9% to 99.5 %) and failure rates (0.5% to 2.1 %) for 660 inspections, are consistent with the previous 941 inspections.

    Lets not call what we are doing a failure.

    kooty
    Keymaster
    1 hour 15 mins to the Pond
    Posts: 18101
    #1092990

    Quote:


    Lets not call what we are doing a failure.


    I think a more accurate statement would be a ridiculous attempt at slowing the inevitable.

    lhprop1
    Eagan
    Posts: 1899
    #1092994

    If everyone had put stickers on their boat like they wanted us to do, we wouldn’t be in this mess right now.

    Buzz
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts: 1814
    #1093000

    Kooties, whats wrong with slowing the spread of ZM? I mean this is a big part of the goal. We are already seeing small in-poundment ZM treatment that may have broader application?

    We are at 110 water-bodies now and if we didn’t do anything in 60 years we would likely see 100%. What if we slow it to the point that when a better solution comes along we would only need to try and treat 200-300 lakes? I’m not hearing anyone except a few zealots saying we can do anything 100%

    kooty
    Keymaster
    1 hour 15 mins to the Pond
    Posts: 18101
    #1093004

    Sorry I’m skeptical, but can you blame me? Look at what is pumped out of St. Paul on a daily basis. We have a CC bill that passes both house and senate by a 2/3s majority, but the governor vetoes it. Yet he and these same fools freely give our money to one of the richest groups in the US by funding a stinkin stadium in a terrible location. Lastly, this same group refuses to address the raping of one of Minnesota’s most recognizable bodies of water. I think that’s enough examples.

    Sorry, but I don’t trust ANYONE in St. Paul!! Very few over there are looking out for what is best for the average Joe in Minnesota. Instead they are looking for ways to line their pockets with special interest $$$.

    Do I support clean water and education, you bet!!

    Have a great weekend Buzz, sorry for ranting on you!

    1hl&sinker
    On the St.Croix
    Posts: 2501
    #1093027

    Quote:


    Sorry I’m skeptical, but can you blame me? Look at what is pumped out of St. Paul on a daily basis. We have a CC bill that passes both house and senate by a 2/3s majority, but the governor vetoes it. Yet he and these same fools freely give our money to one of the richest groups in the US by funding a stinkin stadium in a terrible location. Lastly, this same group refuses to address the raping of one of Minnesota’s most recognizable bodies of water. I think that’s enough examples.

    Sorry, but I don’t trust ANYONE in St. Paul!! Very few over there are looking out for what is best for the average Joe in Minnesota. Instead they are looking for ways to line their pockets with special interest $$$.

    Do I support clean water and education, you bet!!

    Have a great weekend Buzz, sorry for ranting on you!


    Thank you for diverting the subject at hand. I take it your support is no.

    carroll58
    Twin Cities, USA
    Posts: 2094
    #1093088

    Quote:


    kperttula, just because one small group says we need other options shouldn’t wave the whole dog.

    We have plenty of processes currently in place. Here is an example of how far we have come.

    Here is the next installment of watercraft inspection records for Lake Ann, Lake Susan and Lotus Lake. These inspections occurred between the dates of June 8nd and July 20th, 2012. A total of 660 inspections are tallied in this group – 11 of the 660 watercraft had their bilge plugs in place upon arrival (1.7% failure rate). Fourteen boats/trailers had aquatic plants attached upon arrival at a landing (2.1% failure rate) and 15 boats/trailers were cleaned of aquatic plants upon exit. Three watercraft had water present in the motor or hull upon arrival (0.5% failure rate) and one had water present in the motor upon exit. These Ipassing rates (97.9% to 99.5 %) and failure rates (0.5% to 2.1 %) for 660 inspections, are consistent with the previous 941 inspections.

    Lets not call what we are doing a failure.



    Great information, now can we get the same information for all West Metro lakes and areas in other parts of the state to compare.

    Is the system working where people know inspectors are and not so much in other areas of the state?

    Are people just violating it more outstate by a wider margin than in the metro?

Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.