Stop the AIS Central Inspection plan now!

The CMCW (Coalition of Minnehaha Creek Waters), a group of Lake Shore Associations and other individuals and organizations pushing to stop AIS and require every boater jump through numbers of hoops to prove their watercraft is not carrying AIS, which in all reality CANNOT be done, since just a few drops of water could contain numerous Veliger’s (Zebra Mussel Larvae).

They are presenting a proposed Pilot Project to place a Central Inspection and Decontamination Station centrally located someplace near the center of the group of lakes that stretches from Piersons Lake to Christmas Lake. This would likely place the site near downtown Victoria (However, No site has been selected or presented yet). Lakes included in proposal would be Christmas, Wasserman, Piersons, Bavaria, Zumbra & Virginia, all smaller lakes, but popular with locals and others.

The proposal calls for the site to only be open 6am-7pm and launching without and inspection would subject you to a Fine up to $1,000. It further states for those that wish to launch their watercraft early, they would have to have their watercraft inspected between 6-7pm the evening prior as Inspection certificates would only be good for 4-hours in other cases.

Many details are still missing as the Parks office did not receive this information until on Friday, thus none of this was posted on the County Parks webpage yet, hopefully early on Monday.

If these groups get this project thru, then you can look for them to be pushing it upon many other Lakes areas in the near future.

Now, personally they can inspect my boat all they want, but the restrictions being proposed would limit Tournaments, Early Morning and even Late Evening Fishing or boating, not to mention the extra driving. If this were to happen on any lake we do Bass Tournaments on, we could not start before 6:30 at the earliest if we could all get thru the inspections in a timely manner.

I’ll add more if I can get more information. (Wish I could post PDF files on IDO).

The meeting is 6:30pm on Wed. February 12th at the Carver County Parks office,

This is approx. 22 miles West on Hwy 212 from I-494.

Carver County Parks
11360 Highway 212 West
Cologne, MN 55322
952-466-5250

Carver Co. Parks office

This is a followup of the post http://www.idofishing.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ftlgeneral&Number=1306611&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=

Thanks for the heads up. My personal opinion is the lake shore owners got to organized with the clean water legacy amendment. They got the taxes payers to believe that everyone should pay for what they ruin. ( runoff from mowed grass and pesticides.). This is just the start and I feel will open up the flood gates.

Quote:

---

This is just the start and I feel will open up the flood gates.

---

And this folks is how our kids and grandkids will come to know our 10,000 lakes. Much much differently then what we have come to take for granted.

Such nonsense. The DNR really has no control over this, do they? I think we should all petition a state rep with an open ear to get something passed that blocks this nonsense. How did the district get the management rights to these waters. I think instead of being reactive, we should try and be proactive.

And when I say we, I mean you guys. I have to say that I feel a little guilty that I haven’t done more.

Here is the info., websites and contact info. for the various Lake Associations making up the group pushing this proposal.

CMCW (Coalition of Minnehaha Creek Waters) & supporting organizations etc.

The purpose of this Coalition of area waters associations is to support and conduct non-partisan research, education, and informational activities to increase public awareness and support for the health and usage of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and surrounding area waters.

Founding Associations:

Area Partnership for Pierson Lake Enhancement

No contact info. Or webpage, etc.

Lake Minnetonka Association

http://lmassociation.moonfruit.com/#

Christmas Lake Homeowner’s Association

http://www.christmaslake.org/about/about.htm

Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association

http://lakeminnewashta.org/

Citizens for the Minnehaha Creek Corridor

http://www.minnehahacreekcorridor.org/

Mooney Lake Association

http://www.mooneylake.org/

Gleason Lake Improvement Association

http://gleasonlake.org/

Wassermann Lake Association

No contact info found.

Zumbra Lake Association

No contact info found.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Coalition-of-Minnehaha-Creek-Waters/194648030668804

This was all found by googling the CMCW and reviewing the info. found. Many of these groups list officers with phone numbers and email addresses and websites.

Link to Agenda Item on Carver Co Parks webpage

Here is the info. from the County on the proposed plan

Quote:

---

Such nonsense. The DNR really has no control over this, do they? I think we should all petition a state rep with an open ear to get something passed that blocks this nonsense. How did the district get the management rights to these waters. I think instead of being reactive, we should try and be proactive.

And when I say we, I mean you guys. I have to say that I feel a little guilty that I haven’t done more.

---

I agree, there is a MAJOR issue of jurisdiction here. Who has the legal authority to pass laws that impact the use of a lake?

At issue here is really central to life here in Minnesota. Who owns the lakes? Is it the state? Is it the county? Is it the city? Property owners around the lake?

I think this is an issues that needs to be settled once and for all. I think the State has allowed local authorities a way too much latitude here and they need to be reigned in. We need to get the State back in the driver’s seat and in a position to shoot down these over-reaching local bodies who are cow-towing to rich lakeshore owners who want to privatize all Minnesota lakes.

Grouse

Read here.

This seems to give the commissioner rights to take control of this crap.

Thinking about other methods for STOPPING the Arbitrary Inspection of everybody and this came to mind:

If you remember back in the 90’s there was a big push against drinking and driving and they (State Patrol with local authorities) started using road blocks on some Interstate Highways around the metro to seek and find potential people driving under the influence.

This was taken to Court and the Courts rule this to be “Unconstitutional”.

In my mind, the same could be claimed of forcing everyone seeking to access some lakes to go out of your way and possibly wait to go thru an Inspection, as such, they are basically saying you are guilty before there is any reason for you to be suspect other than you want to launch your watercraft on one of the State’s Public Water’s.

Any Lawyer’s out there want to chime in?

From Ohio<

Long read Carroll, but it’s complicated.

Quote:

---

Any Lawyer’s out there want to chime in?

---

Especially lawyers who really love fishing and would be willing to work pro bono to protect our freedoms?

Quote:

---

From Ohio<

Long read Carroll, but it’s complicated.

---

Thanks Brian,

I’ll have to finish reading later.

“Long” No Doubt, like 19 pages long

Thanks for sharing.

I have read the same legal analysis given on the link.

I don’t have an issue necessarily with at access boat inspections provided they are relatively quick – but I do have an issue with gated access and “closed hours” and centralized inspection that are only open during certain hours.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=84D.105

Does having to go to centralizdd inspection station the day before you launch if you want to go out on the lake early the next day constitute “reasonable” travel time? \

What is the definition of “reasonable” travel time?

There are people that come from out of town to fish. I know, hard to believe. They get to town late and they’re screwed for fishing when they want the following day.

There are people that work the day prior or travel just an hour to fish. That would cause them 2 extra hours of travel time.

I dunno, if I’m sitting in St Paul with a pen in hand, that might be “reasonable”.

Well, Thanks for all the comments here.

Meeting went well and we had 3 fishermen in the audience, Thanks Don, Cy & Vern

After a number of comments,

I made the Motion to table this until May, Inviting this group to come back with a complete Proposal and Agreements showing position of other Government Agencies so we would have a basis to recommend to Deny this go to the County Board.

As it stand there are so many holes and unknowns in their plan. Kind of like asking someone to build you a car, you’re thinking a Indy Racer and the Builder is thinking a Model T. No other Government Agency has signed off on this proposal, No site has been chosen, which then would by City Rules require a change in the Businesses Conditional Use Permit, likely a Traffic Management plan, Control over hours of operation, etc.

My motion PASSED 5-1.

It was brought up, but I have not yet Verified State/DNR Rules says you cannot change hours of operation or Limit hours of Access (Currently each of these Lake Accesses in the proposed Pilot Program are open 24/7, with exception of Christmas Lake which has Gates and open hours of 6am-10pm, 16 hours per day per DNR Agreement).

I suggested extending the Hours to accommodate more people, this met with a resounding NO, that is not in our plan. To which I replied then you are RESTRICTING ACCESS.

I suggested a Frequent User Pass, which would be obtained by taking the FREE MnDNR Voluntary AIS Inspector Course to allow the person to go direct to the lake and self inspect their boat, with a sticker placed on your windshield. This idea is in the “MCWD AIS PLAN”, but this too was met with a Resounding NO.

I stated

“I CANNOT SUPPORT this Plan with the ACCESS RESTRICTIONS!”

We’ll see if in 90 days, they can come to our May Meeting if they can complete their plan and make a few changes and show support of others.

If anyone has other ideas, Advice, etc., please post here or PM me.

Thanks

Quote:

---

{clipped}
It was brought up, but I have not yet Verified State/DNR Rules says you cannot change hours of operation or Limit hours of Access (Currently each of these Lake Accesses in the proposed Pilot Program are open 24/7, with exception of Christmas Lake which has Gates and open hours of 6am-10pm, 16 hours per day per DNR Agreement).

---

State Statute link
(h) Plans required under paragraph (g) must address:
(1) no reduction in capacity or hours of operation of public accesses and fees that do not discourage or limit use;

Thus, with this, their Plan Violates the letter of Law!

Thank you for posting and your updates!

Quote:

---

Thank you for posting and your updates!

---

You’re Welcome

Thanks for going down there and making the motion which passed.

I made many similar arguments to MN COLAs LSOHC proposal last fall. They think they can set up a decon/inspection any old place. Not so. Land acquisition, traffic studies and subsequent necessary road improvments for public safety and user conveinence (a truck and boat trailer takes up alot of space), permitting, change to local ordinance/code, environmental assessments, etc. These thing are way more complicated and expensive than they look.

……….and who will pay for all this?

Quote:

---

and who will pay for all this?

---

Same people that are paying for the stadium(s) that they didn’t want.

I would also push the “frequent user pass” – although not in favor of the centralized inspections and “hours of operation” it might be the necessary bargaining chip – such a model might be good a pilot program. Those with a frequent user pass would still be subject to law enforcement inspections and inspections would be voluntary unless an inspector was present at the access. You have to admit there enough idiots out there that still don’t get it and I’m fine with them getting the shake down. Many of us do care and have been doing our own boat inspections for years and follow the law. To not support boaters and anglers who follow the law and do the right thing can only mean one thing – we don’t trust you and we don’t want you fishing on “our” private lake. Lake associations do quite a bit for the lakes and they are good well meaning people – when do something good like ‘restore the shore’ or advocate for clean water, etc – that’s great and I like to recognize that where I can. Restricting public water access is where I draw the line. Unless the access is in a park or something that has closed hours I expect to go to any public water accesss any time I want. If they have an inspector there 6AM-7PM – great – but if I want to put in a 5AM it’s my right to do so. I should not have to travel to a centralized inspection station. Somebody define “reasonable” travel time as per statute.

………. ask the definition of “reasonalbe travel times” per MN statute 84D.105 (I think I have most of that statute memorized by now)

Quote:

---

I would also push the “frequent user pass” – although not in favor of the centralized inspections and “hours of operation” it might be the necessary bargaining chip – such a model might be good a pilot program. Those with a frequent user pass would still be subject to law enforcement inspections and inspections would be voluntary unless an inspector was present at the access. You have to admit there enough idiots out there that still don’t get it and I’m fine with them getting the shake down. Many of us do care and have been doing our own boat inspections for years and follow the law. To not support boaters and anglers who follow the law and do the right thing can only mean one thing – we don’t trust you and we don’t want you fishing on “our” private lake. Lake associations do quite a bit for the lakes and they are good well meaning people – when do something good like ‘restore the shore’ or advocate for clean water, etc – that’s great and I like to recognize that where I can. Restricting public water access is where I draw the line. Unless the access is in a park or something that has closed hours I expect to go to any public water accesss any time I want. If they have an inspector there 6AM-7PM – great – but if I want to put in a 5AM it’s my right to do so. I should not have to travel to a centralized inspection station. Somebody define “reasonable” travel time as per statute.

………. ask the definition of “reasonalbe travel times” per MN statute 84D.105 (I think I have most of that statute memorized by now)

---

Ok, who may agree with this thought?

Do you think that these groups, or at least a group of the Leaders want this plan to FAIL?
Reasoning that if they FAIL, then they can say we Watercraft Owners DO NOT CARE and then they can go back and ask/beg for STRICTER ACCESS LAWS!

All I know is a banned lake is an infected lake…

While I have my doubts that this type of plan would ever overcome all the legal hurdles need to do this; I do think the folks supporting it are sincerely interested in keeping AIS out of them. And yes their plan would likely drive folks to other lakes, I’m thinking this isn’t what is driving it. I don’t think it will work and on some of the lakes it has been tried; Quggga’s (?)they still made it in.

Buzz – I think the adults in the room understand that lake groups are well meaning and have the best intentions. I don’t disagree. Where I draw the line is when ideas like a frequent user pass is put out there and it’s not even given consideration. Lake groups need to realize that many anglers and boaters are on their side – we want to help but they need to give up something in order to get broader support from boaters and anglers who do care.

Despite inspections and decon, etc the risk of AIS transfer will never be zero. If there are zm veligers hinding in the water in the frame of my trailer I doubt an inspection will be of any value or wash down will kill it. You have to dip the whole rig in a 140 deg bath. There are many lakes that have no or minimal inspections and zm or other AIS have not ‘overrun’ these lakes (yet anyways). I could write paragraphs on the subject of the real value of inspections, decon, and true risk of AIS/zm spread. The bottom line is I think some lake groups are alienating the very people they need on their side. It’s a big sandbox.

Quote:

---

I think the adults in the room understand that lake groups are well meaning and have the best intentions.

---

B as in B, S as in S. Well at least count me out of the “adults in the room”.

I find it ironic that the Christmas Lake [censored]., people who have a long documented history of trying to keep “outsiders” off THIER lake is THE FIRST lake group to come up with off site inspection/gates in MN. The claim it’s for the good of the lake is simply a by product of their selfishness.

Quote:

---

The bottom line is I think some lake groups are alienating the very people they need on their side.

---

The statement above just supports this more.

This is nothing less then lakeshore owners against John Q. Public.

Beav, except for Brian and Carroll; I wonder who is reading our posts? It is not a hot topic issue to many, which is to bad. I agree with the dislike of Checkpoint Charlie stations, and I speak against them in meetings and with legislators. The model presented on Wednesday still called for access monitoring,(using lakeshore volunteers to look for unauthorized boats) but it would likely be after they had launched)so whats the point? To me the frequent user user pass raises more concerns:

On these small lakes the low number of users and the high level of repeat launching it might not be a problem, but how easily could this be transferred to a larger recreational lake that has large numbers of weekenders’?

Even with a pass what are the chances of the pass holders getting complaisant? I think something at the landing triggers a higher likelihood of compliance.

How is the training done, classes, on-line, is the pass on the boat(anyone then could use it). Multiple passes for multiple boats (I can see where this might be going).

I have a drivers license, an insurance company monitoring my record,I take safe driver class’s for old farts and know the rules. Do I still speed, have accidents?

It isn’t that I’m just wary of centralized stations and Frequent Flyer Pass’s, it is that these pilots are suppose to be breaking new ground and not repeating existing models that have been proven not to be fool proof (Lake Powell, Lake Mead).

The pilot Stop? Semi-fore at North Arms seems to be producing some good outcomes.
North Arm Link

I’m with BK, but I can compromise on launch inspections as long as the lake is accessible 24 hours a day and you can launch if no inspectors are around.

Quote:

---

Beav, except for Brian and Carroll; I wonder who is reading our posts? It is not a hot topic issue to many, which is to bad. I agree with the dislike of Checkpoint Charlie stations, and I speak against them in meetings and with legislators. The model presented on Wednesday still called for access monitoring,(using lakeshore volunteers to look for unauthorized boats) but it would likely be after they had launched)so whats the point? To me the frequent user user pass raises more concerns:

On these small lakes the low number of users and the high level of repeat launching it might not be a problem, but how easily could this be transferred to a larger recreational lake that has large numbers of weekenders’?

Even with a pass what are the chances of the pass holders getting complaisant? I think something at the landing triggers a higher likelihood of compliance.

How is the training done, classes, on-line, is the pass on the boat(anyone then could use it). Multiple passes for multiple boats (I can see where this might be going)

---

You model the program after the LSP training.

Take an in-person class and pay a fee – just like the LSP training. If you’re serious you’ll pay the fee and take the class….any my guess anyone who takes the class and pays the fee are going to be low risk. The frequent user pass would not exempt you from inspection by a CO or other law enforcement. Zero tolerance for AIS law vilolation. AIS law violation is auto revocation. The frequent user pass would be good for three years and would be renewed by taking an online class. The sticker would go on your boat(s). I get there are pros and cons to this but at some point something has to give. I would love to get on board with some lake groups and work together to fight the spread of AIS rather than constantly write letters to politicians trying to fight some of these nonsense ideas that are out there. TRUST me and give a little something.

Again what irks me is when thinks like a frequent user pass are put out there it’s not even a discussion point.

Quote:

---

Take an in-person class and pay a fee

---

There’s that “F” word again.

Quote:

---

Zero tolerance for AIS law vilolation. AIS law violation is auto revocation.

---

Fail.

No matter how good you or I inspect our own boat, most boats that are used fairly frequently will have some sort of ais in them, on them, in the trailer or on the trailer.

Give me an electron microscope and I’ll prove it.

And Vern, I like talking to you and Carroll. Beav too!