Mississippi River — feedback requested on watercraft inspections

Hey everyone. Next week I am attending the first of several meetings for a watercraft focus group on the Hidden Falls access in relation to the 2018 Crosby Farm / Hidden Falls master plan. One of the people in the group is affiliated with the DNR’s watercraft inspection program. I don’t want to jump the gun or make any assumptions. I understand why this person would have a seat at the table. That said…

I wanted to give anglers an opportunity to speak up about their experiences at watercraft inspection stations here in Minnesota. What do you feel has worked in other locations? What do you feel has failed? Why? Do you think it makes sense to have entrance or exit inspections on Pool 2 of the Miss? Why or why not?

I know there is a lot of anger and exasperation around this issue, but please try to keep your feedback as level-headed and objective as possible. I’ll continue to report back on this focus group and will be seeking additional feedback as things progress. Feel free to PM with questions.

Thank you!

Date night meeting?

I think Pool 2 is one of the last places that they have to worry about this and would be a waste of money and effort…

Their focus is AIS.. To prevent the spread of invasive species.

I load and unload my boat all the time on Pool 2. If I was to compare my boat/trailer when unloading on pool 2 against any other body of water I can tell you this..

Pool 2 has a very little weed growth. I don’t know if I have ever had a weed or zebra mussel attached to my boat or trailer. I pull up wood all the time out of pool 2 and do not see zebras anywhere near other bodies of water. If you pull a branch out of the Croix while fishing you will see many covered zebras!!! Fishing Mille Lacs you have to re tie lines all the time because of damage done from the zebras. But here on pool 2??? Come on. I believe I can count on one hand how many zebras I have seen in pool 2 and picked a lot of rocks and wood out of that river.

Also, pool 2 does not get the traveling boater traffic near what other rivers or pools see. Meaning many of us that boat or fish pool 2 fish it a lot and do not travel to other bodies of water after unloading the boat. Not nearly as much as other bodies of water anyway. Pool 4 is a good example and gets boats from all over the Midwest that come and go.

I guess I just don’t see the point when there are so many other places that could use the attention. If you only have a specific amount a people and funding in place to make this work why not spend the time where it is needed. Hidden falls??? What a waste of money and time. We have bigger issues to address on the Mississippi and stuff like this is just a distraction in my opinion. Not even worth talking about if you ask me but here I am typing. haha.

Thanks, buschman. I’m with you all the way, I’m just looking to others with more experience on the river than myself and who might be able to articulate the reasons better. Which you did — so thanks.

FWIW, the water access focus group was last night. I’ll post a full report, but the representative from the DNR’s inspection program did not show up. The topic of cleaning boats did come up and I made a strong case for limiting this to signage and education with no supervised inspection.

pool2fool wrote:

but the representative from the DNR’s inspection program did not show up.

Hmm…now there’s a statement.

When Minnetonka was still frozen last spring all the inspectors headed to the river (I was told by an inspector). It does no good to inspect on the way into the Mississippi, only on the way out and that’s only for weeds (because we can see them). Villagers and other small AIS that can’t be seen with the naked eye will still travel in the drained outboard, trailer or hull of the boat.

I’ve always had a good time when inspected, but it does seem like a waste of taxpayer money more so when the DNR is struggling with old buildings and funding for other more important activities.