Silver Creek Reservoir

Loks like an article in the post bulletin is going to bring more debate.

web page

Looks like there will be hard feelings no matter how this is settled. Just hope and pray people keep their cool about it.

Thanks for sharing the article Brian.

Thanks, Bill

That was interesting as well as the companion piece a few pages later in the paper.

I think it will come to a head soon. In my opinion, the township is hurting themselves by not allowing access from a parking area on state owned land. The property owners would be no worse off than they already are, and would probably be better off because people would stay away from their property.

This beyond just fishing. I think many are missing the point here. The people of this township were told one thing and here they are today being forced to look at it being taken away from them. The article is almost farcical because the sheriffs department is now there saying that the Attorney Generals Office rendered a decision on this, but that the sheriffs department cannot find a wriitten copy of it? Come on, nothing comes as word of mouth out of the attorney generals office and that was known before the paper was printed yesterday. And to add to the egg on the face of the issue, the Attorney general’s Office has stated that they have not had ANY activity regarding this.

If the city thinks it needs another lake to babysit [something they fail to do miserably I might add], they can flood one of the many golf courses, land which they legitimately can claim as their own.

All of this brings to light yet another issue. The paper indicated that the city and law enforcement have agreed to place this as a low order priority. Maybe the tax payers of the township and the county residents who are effected by this arrangement [but are guaranteed other-wise by law]should be able to adjust their tax payments to reflect the wonderful service they get.

If the people who are looking at losing something that was assured them are lying, why would the governing bodies and their agencies feel the need to step forward with this lame political joke of a responce that they can’t find any documentation and why would the AG office tell an investigative reporter than no such action was ever called for? This is what the issue is and the law enforcement community should be acting on the premise that the people on the water are tresspassing and should be ticketed until such time that the AG’s office says something other than what was reflected in the paper yesterday. The idea or inference that the cops can go into an agreement with the city on a whim over doing what they are supposed to do is wrong. Who knows, maybe this admitted behavior should illicit some kind of investigation.

What I am concerned with here is certainly larger that just fishing, as are those poor people out there who are being violated and titled the evil-doer here. I am concerned with what the city or other govermnmental “power” feels that they can explain away to take from the landowner to make themselves look better in the eyes of the few. All this while our law enforcement community has acknowledged that they are not going to do what they are REQUIRED to do. This is what the issue is. And if all you think is being interfered with is some short term fishing, you’d better be taking the blinders off. There are serious issues here that haven’t got any hint of scales on them.

I’m 100% with CT on this. There is altogether too much he said, she said, going on here. I am firm believer in Karma and this one has bad vibes written all over it. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot and the city creeps up on my property and start’s deciding which laws they want the police to enforce in the park across the street from me? I have seen no definitive answer from ANYONE(as in, both sides)on this issue. Shame on the city for playing games, and I would be embarrased to be the township, or landowner, that can’t produce a document that guaranteed your rights. An agreement, like the one they claim exists, would be framed above my mantel.

Sincerely,
Mr. Both Sides of the Fence

I received that email from a friend of mine who asked what the tresspassing laws are, and if this is enforceable. Knowing they are not tresspassing to access the water, and that the water is public property, I don’t see how the residents can keep people off the water.

I fully understand the want and need to have some peace and quiet, but I hate to say, I don’t think they have a leg to stand on. If they took something from the city (any city, Rochester is no better or worse then anywhere) without getting it in writing, I think they just nailed their own coffin

Now if they do have something, and the county attourny is saying it doesn’t exist, now they can say something, but until that happens they are out.

Now if the land is private, they cannot walk over private land to access the water, and in reading the article, people were scaleing a fence, and crossing a damn. Here there might be some recourse.

But to claim the water as the townships is not going to happen in my mind.

And again….I’ll say that there is more to see than the eye does.

I was under the understanding that someone had something in writing. After doing a little more research today it seems like it was only a verbal agreement. Is that right? I deal with permits and easements every day and nothing gets done without plans in triplicate(literally) and lawyers or government officials signatures.I am having an ever harder time believing that a plan like this went through verbally, especially considering all the legal entities involved:City,County,Township,Advisory Boards. There was federal money involved in this too.It is too bad for the landowners if this really was the case.As farmboy stated, they don’t have a (legal)leg to stand on. whether the agreement was made or not.It would be disappointing to think that out of all the officials on the opposite side of the fence from the township and landowners, not one person has the kahunas and honesty to step forward and say this agreement was made.

The way I see it there are some that may be looking at this a little critically and making assumptions that hold no water. I do need to add that I do not fish Silver Creek even though it sounds fantastic and I will not fish it until there is a clear decision on the matter if it ever comes to that.

Also, by saying that enforcement out there is not a priority they mean just that. There are plenty of things that are more important in the community/county than policing a reservoir all of the time. They do monitor the area but they are more concerned with other issues.

Cheers
Chris

I do need to add that I do not fish Silver Creek even though it sounds fantastic and I will not fish it until there is a clear decision on the matter if it ever comes to that.

Ditto C&R, There are plenty of other areas to fish around roch. Good fishin DOUG

Can a city or township guarantee that a public waterway will be “reserved ” or kept private? I dont fish there nor know how the fishing is but I was doing a job in the area and went out to see the lake and there were seven portables and nine open ice fisherpersons on the ice. Must be somthing in there.

Quote:

---

Can a city or township guarantee that a public waterway will be “reserved ” or kept private?

---

My understanding is that any waterway is public. If it is completely surrounded by private land, without a creek or river flowing into it, you can still parachute onto it and fish, as long as you do not tresspass getting on or off.

As much as I like having another fishery in the area, the negative press this is getting is bad for fisherpeople in general. I commend the guys who can fish it, but don’t.

Another question this brings up. What would happen if a resident from around the lake decided to fish it? Would the township allow that, or is it only the “non-residents” they are trying to keep away? Is this an “It’s all mine” type of deal?

Lets look at this from two entirely seperate dirctions. {So you are aware, I do not fish this nor do I have any affiliation with anyone fishing, any property owner or anything]

Fishing without regulation will blow this lakes potential in the kiester. For every well meaning angler who goes there and practices some diligent angling ethic, there are two who are there to fill a fry pan or a freezer. I know of at least three people who are hitting that lake every day and are bring home fish. I know of one bait shop that can’t wait to shove people in that direction [no, not hof].
I don’t think that the lake can sustantain the pressure and yield a quality catch. I also think that before this is settled, the fishing will be no better than it is now at Willow Creek or KR7. And a lake of this nature will NOT respond to stocking unless the stocked fish have an adequate chance to get some size to them. But of course, we will be looking at all of these off-colored anglers again, so the fishing is actually a moot issue.

The real travisty here is land use. When the Willow Creek reservoir was made and some fish were stocked, there wasn’t a house visible except for a farm-stead on the far southwest side and another well to the west. I was a dirt road to the lake. One year after a maintained surface was laid out there, the houses started showing up, not a couple , but lots of them.

Now consider that Haverhill Township is basically the “last frontier” for developement around Rochester. And all we here anymore from the city council is tax revenues. Haverhill has a growth plan and in large part it does not sit well with what the council and city planners want to happen. The township and its residents were wise enough to foresee this unbridled growth we have as a potential problem and used their vision for the future as a roadmap for what and how THEY wanted expansion to happen.

These people are not stupid people. They have seen what takes place once the city gets its foot in the door. It is no secret though, that this township wanted nothing to do with this puddle. The engineers said it should go here so the city and the joint powers had to do some sucking up to get this done. This sucking process likely included issues and concessions that were not high on the join powers’ list. So when statements alluding to lost agreements begin to float around, the first thing that comes to my mind is BUNK! Property does not change hands without paperwork. My contention is that the paperwork is there, just conveniently mis-placed….by none other than the parties who stand to gain the most.

This is the issue at hand, not fishing. BUT, the city is using implied fishman’s rights, to get past something the see as a blockage in their march forward with expansion. Why is it implied, you ask? Because they will tell you that public water cannot be restricted to access for legal fishing of a any species during the open seasoin for said species. Now again, I say….take a can of worms to Whitewater river, try the state park right off Hiway 74, on December 5th of any year, and fish for suckers. They have no open season and thus have not closed waters for their taking, right? Explain it to the judge. Now if the dnr can make one water[in this case a lot of waters] fall under special regulation, they could also most certainly create special conditions to protect this place as well. For those who do not know it, there is a huge huron rookery south of this lake. Use the protection of migratory waterfowl. Can’t they [dnr] say? Then drop the Rochester refuge for the geese and allow hunting them right up to the city limits and have the season open as long as Louisianna does. If people think the dnr cannot make excepts, guess again. Its about time for the tongue- in-cheek double statndards the government employs to cease. Especially in this case.

Again I will say that for every reason to open this up, I can counter with even more to keep it off limits. I commend everyone who has taken the stance that this is a place best left alone until something concrete comes about. You guys are the “true anglers” and speak well thru your actions [or in-action]of what real Minnesota sportsman ethic is about.

I’ll bat for the township here since the fishing will be shot anyway. That isn’t worth the fight. When these persons say there was an agreement, any kind of an agreement, I’ll belive them. The opposition to this suggests that no agreement exists on one hand, that it can’t be found on another, has a deputy say the the Attorney General made a ruling on this but that the ruling can’t be found in one sentence of a local newspaper and then have it all capped off in the next sentence by the Attorney General’s Office saying that no such ruling was ever approached. Nobody….nobody, makes this much crapola over fishing. So you can forget about that being the issue.

Quote:

---

Fishing without regulation will blow this lakes potential in the kiester. For every well meaning angler who goes there and practices some diligent angling ethic, there are two who are there to fill a fry pan or a freezer. I know of at least three people who are hitting that lake every day and are bring home fish. I know of one bait shop that can’t wait to shove people in that direction [no, not hof].

---

I agree with you about the regulations. I have always said there should be seperate regulations for small lakes/reservoirs that have a high chance of fish being removed by fisherman. I would go so far as to say make it catch and release only.

Now I work with the City of Rochester everyday on numerous issues in my job. They will do what they want, when they want. It is not so much as being arrogant, or not caring, as it is doing what they think is in the cities best interest. This may be good in the long run, but it will certainly ruffle some feathers in the short term.

Quote:

---

Because they will tell you that public water cannot be restricted to access for legal fishing of a any species during the open seasoin for said species. Now again, I say….take a can of worms to Whitewater river, try the state park right off Hiway 74, on December 5th of any year, and fish for suckers. They have no open season and thus have not closed waters for their taking, right? Explain it to the judge.

---

I would disagree with this statement. My experience (a close friend of mine who is a DNR agent) would always say that he cannot stop someone from fishing anywhere at anytime. As long as they do not have fish in possesion, a rapala can catch as carp as well as a walleye. I think any judge would see the writting on the wall regarding that one. It would be a lawyers dream.

I will say it again, and then shut up on the whole issue until more information comes out, the residents of that neighborhood are going to lose this battle, unless they have some paperwork to back up their claims. The township council can say whatever they want, but it does not amount to a hill of beans versus paperwork/drawings/lawyers backup.

If anyone has more information in the newspaper or elsewhere, please post it in case I don’t see it.

Thanks.
Brent

Special regulations in all of our local resevoirs and fisheries would be too good to be true!!! The thought of being able to take my son(in a year or two) fishing to these places to CATCH and RELEASE seem like an impossibility. I see alot of people keeping everything they catch. Are there any special regs at chester woods. I thought there were and if so why there and not on these other fisheries around town?? Are they managed by different agencies or something? Or does it have to do with priority?

Chester woods has a 7″ minimum on bluegills and 15″ minimum on bass.

Chris

The DNR is managing Chesterwoods to be a World Class Bluegill fishery. The restrictions above that Chris posted are in force. This fishery is a very nice one and can provide alot of action for anglers provided we all treat it with respect and abide by the restrictions. Its ALOT of fun to fish.
Thanks, Bill

Quote:

---

Also, by saying that enforcement out there is not a priority they mean just that. There are plenty of things that are more important in the community/county than policing a reservoir all of the time. They do monitor the area but they are more concerned with other issues.

---

Happy Birthday Chris! Hope you got out fishing today. I got my Marcum today so I feel like it’s my birthday. I also believe that there are way more important issues than this for law enforcement.But this digs at the true nature of the whole problem out there. If the city is being truthful than there is some very minor parking issues going on way out on a county road(assuming that everyone uses there heads and gets off the road). If the township is being truthful, then you are looking at straight-forward trespassing. Not only trespassing ,but city-sponsored trespassing. MY feelings here are that the city has a responsibility to get to the heart of this issue(ie. produce all documents that have to do with the original easement changes). Until this can be done, they need to protect the rights of the people who gave up there land in order to prevent catastrophic flooding for the people and buisnesses of Rochester( 1978,5 dead and 58.8 million in damage ring a bell?). If done right there would be very little policing to be done. An official announcement in the paper and a change in signage at the reservoir. Let people know in no uncertain terms that they are not allowed out there until this issue is officially cleared up. A few major tickets would get around fast.If it takes five years, so be it, too bad. No one is disputing that these people can be dropped off at the creek and walk or canoe in.There are way too many great places to fish around the Rochester area for anyone to be fishing out there. By the time I get to 11, I can already feel the backwaters calling me for some world-class fishing. It would just be nice to have someone step-forward here and be truthful and that would take someone from the opposing sides to cross the line and say” Heres the deal” Anywho, I don’t and won’t fish out there, and it may be wrong, but I am enjoying the debating. It is nice to be able to have an intelligent forum with people that are able to present their views without being a meathead (Archie Bunker- circa 1970’s).Remember, the opinions stated here are that of a stubborn Irishman. Heres to good fishing and be safe.

I agree that there should be a black and white decision made which will need to be concluded by the county administration (I think) and if there is tresspassing going on it needs to be stopped.

Thanks for the birthday wish and congrats on the new Marcum! Fun fun I hope you get to put it to some great use this winter

Chris

News Today

Interesting and occasionally amusing read

Thanks Tyler for posting the link. I’m still going to wait until its truely legal to fish out there. In my mind its the sportsmans way to do it and I don’t want to break any laws. Just feel its the right thing to do. These comments I just made may upset some but like I said its ”my” feelings and maybe not others. It will be very intersting to see how it all turns out. Another thing I saw in the article is the township said they were promised there wouldn’t be a ”park” there. We anglers, at least the way I hear everything, are NOT asking for a city/county park. All we want is a place to fish with and parking lot and to not be bothered by anyone concerning laws and hassles. And I’m sure almost most of us would be willing to teach the townships members and their kids and grandkids how to fish. A child hooked on fishing is less likely to get into trouble with other things. Fishing is a favorite pastime for people no matter how old they are. And its so peacefull being by the water and its very exciting catching fish. I just hope that the township board will see the ”good” that can come from this being opened up for fishing.
Thanks, Bill

The Permit issued by the state of MN for the dam to be constucted on Silver Creek specifically states that the waters impounded by the dam be “left open and unobstructed for use by the public”. Note the words “unobstructed for use by the public”.

Yes, I have heard that before. The local newspaper (PB) had an editorial on this last night that pretty much said somebody needs to make a decision on this whole issue soon. I couldn’t agree more!

Here is the editorial from last nights Post Bulletin.

http://news.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/?a=282601&z=0

Thanks guys.
Thanks, Bill

I have never been involved in fishing this reservoir, but I was told that one of the land owners who has land that butts up to this lake put up a small fishing dock for himself. Is this true? Thanks Troy Pike

The lake is entirely surrounded by City property. A couple of the property corners are close to the lake but the entire shoreline is owned by the city.