First off let me say that I’m not trying to start a flaming war in this topic. But I’m not sure I get your “call to action”. So we attend the meeting, what are you going to say? ‘I don’t want gates or inspections and want complete unfettered access to any lake in the state?’ Anderson is right in his article, those days are long gone. Other than inspections and gates, I haven’t heard of any other proposals to prevent the spread of invasives. If there are any other options, then those should be brought up at these meetings and investigated. With all due respect, what do you propose to keep the invasives out of the non-infected lakes that doesn’t include what’s already being done?
There a lot of recreational boaters (i.e. not fishermen) out there who could care less about this issue and without inspections would be spreading this stuff around from lake to lake. The DNR says it would cost $50 – $100 million per year to implement state-wide. What if the DNR raised the fishing license fee by $50 per license (2 million licenses which may be high x $50 additional fee = $100 million) to cover inspections? That would get rid of the gate problem by having a full time staff at each boat landing. That won’t fly with the sportsmen of this state. The DNR tied to raise the license fee a couple bucks to cover inflation and there was a big stink about that.
What other options are out there? Without options, it’s just complaining isn’t it?