Upper Miss. Meeting, Wabasha

Well, I made it to the meeting last night in Wabasha. I went down with many friends and looked at their maps for each plan, picked up alot of their info, and then settled in for the meeting. It looked like a fair turnout, but didn’t get a head count. Their presentation was fair but very sugar coated. They only touched on some issues they felt were more important and that is probably because of the time limitations.
I went to the meeting with pretty good knowledge of what they want to do in each plan. I was hoping to learn why they propose all this. I almost left there more confused on why they are doing this. They say congress needs to enact a plan by 2006, then they are trying to make it so ducks sit here longer/even out the placement of ducks, control silting, and make it more enjoyable for all users, etc. BS.
I can’t figure out who it will benefit. Will it benefit the wildlife? Who knows? They don’t know. It won’t benefit any users of the refuge. It will create many more jobs for their agency though, I believe.
My thanks to the man(wish I knew his name), who stood up for us, and read them about a 10 minute proposal/summary of his/our feelings about this planning. Nice job guy
Make sure you go to the local workshops now. Get there and represent us as anglers, boaters, hunters, campers, etc. Push for plan A.

This whole deal, being partly based on ducks and keeping them here longer is complete rubbish as far as I am concerned. The Miss. Flyway cannot compete and will never compete with the reservoir system in the Dakotas. There is more feed and water out that way and the birds know it.

It was explained at the meeting in La Crescent that the FWS wants to expand the refuges to include the proposed ‘sanctuarys’ they have drawn up. Much of it includes the areas we already hunt and fish. What they don’t tell you, is they have (for years) moved these refuge boundaries every year at their will. Every year the hunters get the shaft and are left with less and less spaces to hunt. Then they have the nerve to wonder why fewer and fewer licenses are being purchased. For that reason alone I quit duck hunting. Now they are wanting…or should I say ‘proposing’ a plan to take away almost all of the land I hunt now for deer to create a sanctuary. That would be one more license I don’t have to worry about buying. Once again, it’s us sportsmen who are forced to grab our ankles and bear the burden of someone spending our tax dollars…

Words can’t describe the utter contempt I have for this whole proposal.

I agree, however, doesn’t plan A do absolutely nothing to help the system??? It needs help in a bad way! I am for plan A as the plans are written right now, but if a few things were changed I could go for plan D. Why can’t river use remain the same as plan A under plan D? It seems that if they are going to enhance a certain area they close it to public use and give us the scraps that they are going to let go to hell.

Quote:

---

I agree, however, doesn’t plan A do absolutely nothing to help the system??? It needs help in a bad way! I am for plan A as the plans are written right now, but if a few things were changed I could go for plan D. Why can’t river use remain the same as plan A under plan D? It seems that if they are going to enhance a certain area they close it to public use and give us the scraps that they are going to let go to hell.

---

What needs help in a bad way? For the most part, this plan just deals with usage, not any kind of environmental help such as sedimentation reduction, etc.

Blackduck,

The river may or may not need help. Depends who you ask. I see a major silting problem. OK, now what is plan D doing to fix that? Not a thing.

You tell me what it needs help with and then also tell me how plan D will remedy this. They may be pulling the wool over your eyes here a little. I think the river system and refuge system is awesome just the way it is.

Okay guys take it easy on me, I am with plan A unless plan D is revised. Here is why I would support plan D if fishing/hunting/outdoors activities stay as they are now. You guys asked what it would do for the refuge, and this is how I read it:

Land aquisition up to 1,00 acres per year.

Increase effort in water quality (including decreasing sedimentation) Control invasives both plant and animal.

Wildlife inventory/monitoring increase.

Recovery based for Endangered species, not just Protection based. (I take this to mean taking an active role in supporting and nursing endangered species back to health so to speak)

More active in fishery and mussel management.

Forest inventory and Plan to follow.

The 5,700 acres of grassland habitat will be maintained and enhanced using fire and other tools.

Increase in facilities and programing for wildlife observation.

Modest increase in refuge access through new facilities and improvements to existing boat ramps, pull offs, and overlooks.

Guys, my point is this: Why can’t/shouldn’t this all be done while still giving the public the same access they have now. Of course this does not list all the good from plan D, and it sure doesn’t list any of the bad. Like I said, I am for certain parts of plan D and would support it only if it does NOT put more limitations on us than we have right now.

I was also at the meeting last night with ERonningen…nice summary Eric. I think you guys hit on a pretty significant point here indirectly. One of the consistent inputs last night had to do with sedimentation and how it negatively affects the system. They frame plan A as a “do nothing” plan, but as ERonningen points out, they don’t have anything in any of the plans to address sedimentation…they’re all do nothing from that standpoint.

Another issue I believe is significant for all of us is the trolling motor only zones. The first problem has to do with the need for these areas. Their own data last night indicated that 99%+ of the users were in gas powered boats(hunters, fisherman, commercial fisherman, etc..), so why do we need to create more areas for the exclusive use of less than 1% of the users? Secondly, they are proposing to go from 1 current TM area to 16!! Not one or two more, or even several more…16! I don’t see how this fits into any category of public use given their own data about who uses the system, yet they frame it as a combined public use/wildlife plan.

A third issue has to do with the economic impact of their proposal. They claim that plan D will have a positive economic impact on the communities around the refuge. I’m not an econ major, but I don’t see how that can be. There’s not one element of the proposal that promotes more public use, only restrictions. Can anyone see how that would help a local economy? Seriously…I’m probably missing something here but I don’t know what??

I believe they are playing a few games with words on some of this stuff and everything they said last night wasn’t exactly what was written in their summary. The key will be to get refuge users to the workshops. Across all of the issues there are likely some improvements that can be made and a whole lot of other things that should be left alone, but we’re going to have to go and tell them. They’ve already indicated what they want to go forward with (Plan D). After these meetings, they know most of us users aren’t happy with their proposal. Now we have to go to the workshops and tell them what we want (and don’t want).

I hear ya Blackduck. I would be all for sedimentation control/reduction. That would be a great issue to tackle but it is not in plan D.

Blackduck, have you been to a meeting?

ok, now all the items that you listed, that they will do for us sound fine. Now seriously sit back and look at those items you wrote. What exactly do each of those items mean? Really? Everything is worded so sneaky. The words, increase, more, monitor, etc. are used often. Very open ended words and promises as far as I’m concerned. But how open ended are these closed zones and TM only areas? They are not at all, they’re set in stone. While all that is stoned in they will spend more, monitor more and increase more.
Plan A is the only plan where we don’t have more of it taken away. But thats what the workshops are for. I will be there.

Some good points Blackduck…you were obviously writing the same time I was. As you point out, the plans don’t have to be all or nothing, we should be able to tailor them. Good input for a workshop if you can make it!

Ratltrap, I remember that question very well, and they turned that around too. Stating that hunters and fishers were also expressing concern about being able to have piece and quiet while hunting/fishing. I don’t remember the exact wording, but that was definately his point.

I was at the meeting last night, and I just pulled a couple examples from the plan D that we were given, and is available on the webpage. Am I reading something wrong, as far as I can tell plan D states this and much more.

The trouble is that the FWS doesn’t have alot of control over sedimentation, water control, dredgin, etc. That’s Corps of Engineers territory.

I don’t get the eletric only areas either. Look at Pool 7. It’s in the Black River bottoms. A nice canoe area, for sure, but about a 4 mile ride TO GET THERE from almost any launch.