I read the proposal –

The part I agree with is the self inspection certification. The vast majority of serious anglers, guides, etc are familiar with AIS rules and follow them. The largest problem I see are the casual boaters.

Model the program after the Lake Service Provider program. Pay a reasonable fee, take the class, get a sticker for your rig and you’re good to go.

As long as you have a program that makes the self inspection certification valid statewide.

I can see where lake shore property owners would not like it (would not fulfil their ‘agenda’). As with anything there has to be room for comprimise. You can have your mandatory inspection however there has to be self certification program option.

The statute reference is 84D.105

So if Wright County is going to have said plan approved by the DNR it should address specifically all points (1) – (6) of the state statute.

This approved plan should be available to the public to view. Yes?

Copied from 84D.105 –

(6) submit a plan approved by the commissioner according to paragraph (h).

(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;

(2) reasonable travel times between public accesses and inspection stations;

(3) adequate staffing to minimize wait times and provide adequate hours of operation at inspection stations and public accesses;

(4) adequate enforcement capacity;

(5) measures to address inspections of water-related equipment at public water accesses for commercial entities and private riparian landowners; and

(6) other elements as required by the commissioner to ensure statewide consistency, appropriate inspection and decontamination protocols, and protection of the state’s resources, public safety, and access to public waters.

MN AIS law:

Note the section –

“no reduction in capacity or hours of operation of public accesses and fees that do not discourage or limit use”

(g) The commissioner may authorize tribal and local governments that enter into a delegation agreement with the commissioner to conduct mandatory inspections of water-related equipment at specified locations within a defined area before a person places or removes water-related equipment into or out of a water body. Tribal and local governments that are authorized to conduct inspections under this paragraph must:

(1) to the extent called for in the delegation agreement, assume legal, financial, and administrative responsibilities for implementing the mandatory inspections, alone or in agreement with other tribal or local governments;

(2) employ inspectors that have been trained and authorized by the commissioner;

(3) conduct inspections and decontamination measures in accordance with guidelines approved by the commissioner;

(4) have decontamination equipment available at inspection stations or identify alternative decontamination equipment locations within a reasonable distance of the inspection station that can bring water-related equipment into compliance;

(5) provide for inspection station locations that do not create traffic delays or public safety issues; and

(6) submit a plan approved by the commissioner according to paragraph (h).

(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;

(2) reasonable travel times between public accesses and inspection stations;

(3) adequate staffing to minimize wait times and provide adequate hours of operation at inspection stations and public accesses;

(4) adequate enforcement capacity;

(5) measures to address inspections of water-related equipment at public water accesses for commercial entities and private riparian landowners; and

(6) other elements as required by the commissioner to ensure statewide consistency, appropriate inspection and decontamination protocols, and protection of the state’s resources, public safety, and access to public waters.

Quote:

---

BK, what I find interesting is that folks think the DNR down a 500 Lafayette sit around playing cards, eating cheese and dreaming up these AIS rules. I suspect most folks working down there are as skeptical about us stopping the spread of AIS as we are. It just hasn’t been done anywhere in the US and likely never will be. But the public, legislators, lake associations, Governor – all demand the DNR to do something. In my opinion they’d rather be doing something else that might actually lead to more protection of habitat, wetlands, fish and wildlife. But when the legislature gives special interest groups the keys to the car and the Hook and Bullet community doesn’t stand up; this is what we get.

---

You said it well.

Joe S and Jeff F have the ears of the legislature. The first domino to fall was the delegation agreement – give the power to the LGUs who, no surprise, are infiltrated by lake groups etc. Okay fine if you folks want to put up you own money to run your program fine. A few years later in this past session domino number two fell. The legislature is now giving LGUs in the form of county aid 10 million dollars of yours and my money to fund their delegation agreement. Domino number three? Centralized inspections, gated access, ‘open’ and ‘closed’ hours…………you wait and see.

What I find interesting is study out of WI shows property values of zm infested waters actually rise.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/property-values-rise-on-zebra-mussel-infested-lakes-study-shows-b99224285z1-250495531.html

All the more reason we need a ‘frequent user pass’

Pay a fee, take a class, get a pass

Show up at a launch – show your pass, sticker, or whatever and the inspector can take a seat. The only time you would need an inspection is if a CO or sheriff is conducting it or leaving certain high risk lakes (MilleLacs, etc).

I bring this idea to lake groups and they get mighty nervous – a guess we know what the agenda is.

The MN legislature gave 10 million dollars to counties to fund inspection programs……..the silliness is not going stop anytime soon.

I submitted this to KARE11. We’ll see if they follow up.

Interesting. Don’t want zm in the lake but this does kind of shoot the argument zm will “decreae our property values”

Quote:

---

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

---

Buzz:
Per the Hennepin Cty study you sighted – good info by the way – here is the data the ‘frequent user pass’ would be an idea that would work or at the very least discussed.

Tournament anglers performed excellently in taking the necessary AIS preven��on steps. All 23 of the anglers observed by Hennepin County took the necessary AIS preven��on behavior steps, even trimming the engine downto get the last bit of water out. The recommended traffic patterns were observed by 20 of the boaters (87%), and two stopped early and off to the side to prepare for launch.

Now I am not a tournement angler but I would consider myself equally as conscience of AIS prevention stategy/boat inspection and taking personal responsibility. So folks like you and I, guides, and tourney anglers would be the ones who would benefit from having the option of the frequent user pass.

Quote:

---

A couple of answers to your question

1. New grant money has been made available for pilot projects.

2. This group of 5 lakes have actively presented this model for about 5-6 years now because of there proximity to Minnetonka and Prior. Leading the charge has been the Christmas Lake association which has a long history of wanting to keep folks out. But it would be inaccurate to see just keeping folks out as their motivation.

3. Other Lake Associations are proposing similar models so it is not just these Five. Just last week the Bay Lake Assn, asked the LSOHC for 24/7 access guards. Pelican Lake and Hubbard County are looking in this direction.

Now after 15 years of sounding the alarm about cleaning boats, docks, water toys – the Lake Associations have been mobilized by a lobbying group that is (in my opinion) is using the threat of ZM as a tool for marketing its services.

---

Exactly!

The lake groups are also advocating for a trailer decal surcharge and fishing license surcharge for AIS. What will they use this money for……hmmmm……resticting access, gates, central inspections, closed hours, etc.

Groups like Lakes and Rivers Advocates, etc are organized and have the ears and pocket books of legistrators. Troll these lake groups websites and FB pages. See for yourself.

Go the DNR website and look who’s on the DNR AIS Advisory Committee. Read the bios. The deck is stacked. There’s a pretty good ‘voting block’ of lakeshore property owners/advocates on there.

………..not against the concept of doing something meaningful to protect lakes against AIS – but will not support anything that impedes my right as a responsible boater and angler to use public waters.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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?

Sorry for any misunderstanding……with this AIS FastPass idea you could bypass any centralized inspection stations – just go right to the lake