Wright Co Boat Inspections

https://www.kare11.com/mobile/article/news/wright-county-requiring-boat-inspections-to-access-lakes/89-562799479

I know most people here get it. These boat inspections are certainly taking away our public waters. This story angers me.

For those who don’t, here’s the deal. Us sportsmen and recreational boaters suffer at the hands of incompetent government. Maybe it’s not incompetence, maybe it’s beibery. The shipping industry has been by far the biggest reason for the initial spread of AIS. The lax laws put in place for the shipping industry has resulted in the restrictive and ineffective laws that affect us all. Now we pay for these laws and cleanup within our state in taxes and suffer from the restrictions and loss of public waters.

I find it quite amusing that Kare 11 did both of these stories this weekend. I like Kare 11 but they clearly don’t get it either.

Study: Ships move non-native species in the Great Lakes
https://www.kare11.com/mobile/article/news/study-ships-move-non-native-species-in-the-great-lakes/89-562997170

We do have a Governers race starting up and this could be chance to have this topic discussed on the campaign trail for those running, rather having them tell us what should be campaigned on.
We now have a DNR THAT SUPPORTS POLICY likes this.
Get a governer that will replace the commissioner with one that does not believe stickers on a boat will prevent AIS.

I’m not scared of stickers or anything close to that. I’m scared of inspections. I’m scared that I need to drive 40 miles to fish a lake 3 miles from my house.

The simple theory of addressing the root cause is being ignored against all logic. We spend millions if not billions as a country on AIS and for what? A few politicians to make a few million in campaign dollars.

I don’t know who they are but I consider them criminals. Channeling my inner Trump, these people should be locked up.

I asked this sherif at the Pleasant lake access in Annandale today that didn’t have his inspection tag on his trailer very politely if they need to be inspected as he was preparing to launch. He said quote:”they haven’t told us much about all this”. Not wanting a confrontation with a sherif I left it at that. But what a joke. Then when I was coming off I talked to a group that all received warnings for not getting inspected by the sherif that didn’t get inspected. Biggest joke of the county for sure. Almost as bad as the big fancy recycling center they built on co. rd 37 east of maple lake that wasn’t even open a year about 15 years ago. Now it’s just falling apart. Got a few Copper nose bulls today on another lake. The youngest boy and I had a blast. Should have brought more worms he said.

Attachments:

1. 

   FE4D71DB-51F8-4338-B100-DD8FE45FCDA2.jpeg
   

2. 

   1B968BBD-90C5-4409-B35C-09E8D5B15802.jpeg
   

MyBoatToo.com

It’s idiotic!

The problem is that a lot of these lake associations and other local governing bodies are trying to take control of them. Eventually the goal is to privatize them and govern them. Its really no different than that stupid muskie bill that moronic politician from Alexandria tried to introduce.

If your on Fart Book, there is a group out there on this subject. It’s a good place to keep up to date what is going on with it. Search on ‘wright county: annandale boat’ and you should find it. I dont have access to the link at the moment.

If you think this idea isn’t going to spread to your lakes, don’t be surprised when it it does. I was at the meeting, a guy from Ottertail county asked the DNR when they can do this. He said they want to do it ASAP!! Others areas are going to want to do this. They keep saying it is either this or lakes will be devastated and they will be unusable. Scare tactics.

The meeting was about why this idea of offsite versus on site. The presentation brought up nothing about concerns us boaters/non lake shore owners would have. That didn’t happen til the question period.

I forgot to add this.

Right now the numbers are showing people are avoiding these lakes compared to past years. Other lakes in the area are getting busier. I noticed it on opener, the lake we were on was very busy compared to last year. Others said those 3 lakes were dead on opener.
One person that lives on Sylvia spoke up and voiced his concerns that the landings are empty compared to past years and that businesses in the area are noticing an impact also. I’m sure his fellow lake assoc friends didn’t like his comments.

gim wrote:

The problem is that a lot of these lake associations and other local governing bodies are trying to take control of them. Eventually the goal is to privatize them and govern them. Its really no different than that stupid muskie bill that moronic politician from Alexandria tried to introduce.

Jeff Forester and the Minnesota Lakes and Rivers Advocates (formerly Minnesota Seasonal Recreational Property Owners Coalition) is a group that needs to be watched and kept in check. This is the group that will be leading the charge for privatizing lakes in MN. They were the biggest pusher of “the muskie bill” and now they are the biggest pusher of this inspection program.

tswoboda wrote:

Jeff Forester and the Minnesota Lakes and Rivers Advocates (formerly Minnesota Seasonal Recreational Property Owners Coalition) is a group that needs to be watched and kept in check. This is the group that will be leading the charge for privatizing lakes in MN. They were the biggest pusher of “the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>muskie bill” and now they are the biggest pusher of this inspection program.

After being at the meeting and hearing other things, I would agree. That group is all about Property values and he is the front man. To quote the late great Gorilla Monsoon, ‘What a snake in the Grass!’.

I would assume most of the lake associations and others who own property on these lakes probably like less people using these lakes. Any local businesses that depend on the lakes probably are not as thrilled.

I guess part of the reason for bringing this up is to inform the people where the focus needs to be.

The Kare 11 video showed only 1 guy that is not a particularly good public speaker that appeared to be whining about restricting access. I’d really like to see some discussion at these meetings about true prevention by not bringing these things into our waterways to begin with. The next invasive is sitting right there in our Great Lakes ports waiting to be distributed.

Anglers and boaters whine about restricting access but never present alternative solutions. Without doing so, it truly is whining will never gain any support.

These groups have been working for years on ways to keep people off their lakes. I am wondering if they have any cards up their sleeves for hard water. This stuff bothers me but I am not sure what I can do to help stop it.

Not really sure what the best solution is but the decon site definitely isn’t it. Between private landings and resorts there is so many ways that the decon site won’t completely stop the spread. we’re in a spot where you can’t go fishing for notherns without a tape measure or ruler.

Only happy medium I could see is the inspectors at landings and them having the power to turn away boats coming in with weeds dangling and drain plugs in.

nu98walleye wrote:

I would assume most of the lake associations and others who own property on these lakes probably like less people using these lakes

The DNR might also like it since there is less pressure on those lakes there is less stocking required for them???
I think if a lake shore home owners want an inspection before someone comes on “their lake” they should have to be the ones who pay for it with a location on the access to “their lake”.

Alternate solution would be privately owned boat launches. Essentially this program is a government user fee to use a public owned launch paid for by the people. I have never seen DNR enforcment/inspection at a marina. Maybe I am way off base on this, wouldn’t be the first time.

As for the media coverage, I feel subject matter like this is hand fed to the media by the entity in charge to support said public/DNR policy. Hence why channel 5 only interviews an older gentlemen at a boat launch in support of program a month ago and now channel 11 interviewing a whiner.

Tuma wrote:

The DNR might also like it since there is less pressure on those lakes there is less stocking required for them???

We all know there are legitimate reasons to be suspicious of some aspects of MN DNR operations, but it seems like a stretch to suggest the DNR is sabotaging a central part of their mission — “to provide outdoor recreation opportunities” — to save money/time stocking fish?

1hl&sinker wrote:

I have never seen DNR enforcment/inspection at a marina.

That brings up a good point. What about private accesses? Do I need an inspection tag to use the ramp on my uncles land? How could you possibly enforce that?

They need to answer these questions before imposing any inspections.

pool2fool wrote:

The DNR might also like it since there is less pressure on those lakes there is less stocking required for them???

We all know there are legitimate reasons to be suspicious of some aspects of MN DNR operations, but it seems like a stretch to suggest the DNR is sabotaging a central part of their mission — “to provide outdoor recreation opportunities” — to save money/time stocking fish?

I was more implying if we are going to be cutoff of a lake in this manor, the stocking should also be. The whole thing is a joke to me. Who is putting an inspection tag on the birds and animals that are coming onto these lakes from other bodies of water? It’s all just a way to try to privatize a lake.

pool2fool wrote:

We all know there are legitimate reasons to be suspicious of some aspects of MN DNR operations, but it seems like a stretch to suggest the DNR is sabotaging a central part of their mission — “to provide outdoor recreation opportunities” — to save money/time stocking fish?

I don’t want to speak for Tuma but I believe this is what he was alluding to with his stocking comment. If you start controlling when people can use the lake and make things very difficult to use the access the law below may come into play. It will certainly muddy up the water with this law.

97C.201 STATE FISH STOCKING PROHIBITED WITHOUT PUBLIC ACCESS.

The commissioner and state agencies may only stock fish in waters where there is public access. The commissioner may stock fish in any stream within privately owned lands where the public is granted free access to and use of the stream for fishing purposes.

@Tuma and @Outdoors86 — I totally agree that such privatization should mean the end of stocking in those waters. I just didn’t agree with the notion that the DNR would “like” to see this happen. They may not be super helpful one some important issues but I’m just hesitant to accept that they have an agenda to privatize lakes.

Lake Associations on the other hand. . .

biggill wrote:

That brings up a good point. What about private accesses? Do I need an inspection tag to use the ramp on my uncles land?

Sounds like a business opportunity, unload at Uncle’s for $5-10 no inspection tag required, park and load at the public access

and…

97C.201 STATE FISH STOCKING PROHIBITED WITHOUT PUBLIC ACCESS.

Lake associations can use their money to stock the lakes w/DNR approval, without DNR funds.

pool2fool wrote:

I just didn’t agree with the notion that the DNR would “like” to see this happen.

Do we know this is 100% true. It was my understanding that the DNR was only monitoring this program and not necessarily endorsing it.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pool2fool wrote:</div>
I just didn’t agree with the notion that the DNR would “like” to see this happen.

Do we know this is 100% true. It was my understanding that the DNR was only monitoring this program and not necessarily endorsing it.

The DNR is definitely less than pleased with this program. There’s a decent STrib article on it – a lot better than the Kare 11 pieces anyway.

http://www.startribune.com/new-wright-county-boat-inspection-program-facing-criticism/475744703/

We DESPERATELY need a law in this state that clearly establishes that the primacy of State law. We need to cut off ALL levels of local yoko governments from making laws in areas that are already regulated by the state.

All lakes in the state of MN are owned by the citizens of the state. End of story. There should be NO legal right for counties, cities, townships, boards, associations or any other body to pass laws or rules that impacts their use.

To me, this is not just about lakes. Minnesota is becoming a legal nightmare of conflicting and overlapping laws that are becoming a total mess. Just look at what Minneapolis is doing, suddenly that city wants to become a state of their own and completely bypass the Minnesota state laws on a host of issues. Of course Minneapolis still wants massive state funding for everything in that city, they just don’t want the state laws to apply.

This trend needs to be cut off and cut off hard.

Grouse

Grouse the only problem is the state has passed the statues to make this possible. Without that the local special interest group would have never got it through the county.

Do we know this is 100% true. It was my understanding that the DNR was only monitoring this program and not necessarily endorsing it.
[/quote]

The DNR Commissoner has the final decision over this plan. They approved it for 2018 only. They would have to approve it for 2019. They don’t have any direct involvement in the inspections, monitoring the lots or washing and such. This is from Heidi Wolf, I talked to her Friday. They are very concerned of no out going inspections on these already infected lakes. But they are also interested to see how this works and that is why they approved it for a year.

If you have concerns about these type of inspections, it is best to contact the DNR/Heidi Wolf. Voicing concerns to the county is like peeing in the wind.

[email protected] or 651-259-5152