Access restrictions coming to a lake near you

Dutchboy wrote:

I’m out.

You can carry the water for the anti’s. But don’t come crying here when they lock down your lakes.

Not sure where this comment came from? I think everyone whose posted on this thread has been opposing the proposal. I suppose we don’t know for sure on the one’s who just posted “emails sent”, maybe they secretly communicated to the DNR that they’re supportive of the initiative.

Regardless, I would expect that the “adults” won’t come crying here or anywhere when something doesn’t go their way.

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

From the proposal document…
Intend to Launch Trailered Water-Related Equipment at a Private Access

If you launch at a private access you are required to visit the regional inspection station prior to launch. Your receipt should be placed on the dash of your tow-vehicle. If a drop-box is available your zip-tie seal should be placed inside. If no drop-box is available, you are encouraged to visit a public access at your convenience to drop the seal for data tracking purposes.
Owners of private launches can request to have a drop-box at their launch and allow inspectors to come to check for compliance. Otherwise the owner of the launch is encouraged to monitor the tow-vehicles. Owners of private accesses can notify law enforcement of violators via the non-emergency dispatch line (763) 682-1162.

Not sure how this would affect lakefront owners backing a trailer over their yard into the water?

FYI, I did read the proposal last night after I posted the question and found the same answer. It still leaves a big enforcement hole in this whole project. A lakefront property owner could simply drive by the access to see if anyone is spot checking the access. If they are quick they could put their boat in the water in less than 5 minutes and drive back home to park. There is little or no risk of being caught.

The way I see it, this part of the proposal is based solely on the honor system. Who is going to go 30 miles out of their way to have their boat checked when no one is going to give them grief for dropping their boat in anyway? Heck, wait til 11pm and drop it in when no one will ever be there.

blank wrote:

Does anyone know why these specific people were chosen to have emails sent to them? I know that Stromen is the commissioner, but what about the others? I’m curious if these people are actually involved in this decision or not, and if they really are the correct people to send our opinions to.

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Has this been addressed yet? I couldn’t find anything that suggests they are part of any committee.

biggill wrote:

It still leaves a big enforcement hole in this whole project. A lakefront property owner could simply drive by the access to see if anyone is spot checking the access. If they are quick they could put their boat in the water in less than 5 minutes and drive back home to park. There is little or no risk of being caught.

The way I see it, this part of the proposal is based solely on the honor system. Who is going to go 30 miles out of their way to have their boat checked when no one is going to give them grief for dropping their boat in anyway? Heck, wait til 11pm and drop it in when no one will ever be there.

Ah yeah, do you think? Ding-ding!

That’s why this whole effort is doomed unless there is an another motive for it?

So many ways to circumvent the “hassles” plus there’s this where they say it will be exclusively the honor system…

The days of operation in 2019 will be from April 1st or ice out until October 31st. At least 7 days prior to opening in the spring, Wright SWCD will post the opening day on its website and a public service announcement will be sent out to local media. Additionally, the signs at the access will indicate whether or not the regional inspection station is open. Outside these days of operation, the ordinance will not be enforced. Signage and published materials will remind boats to clean, drain and dry and that they are still responsible for following all state laws and are encouraged to follow best practices to prevent the spread of AIS.

So all this effort and money being spent and one day someone sneaks in, deposits some zeeb larvae and this is all for naught.

But ultimately “their” effort may not be in vain. If this prevents, restricts, and or eliminates the (non-lakeshore owning) public from using these public waters…then they have found their success.

Long time forumer
Mid time IDO follower
First time poster here

I have been trying to follow this Write Co stuff though and like most of you, am quite disappointed in all of it.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>blank wrote:</div>
Does anyone know why these specific people were chosen to have emails sent to them? I know that Stromen is the commissioner, but what about the others? I’m curious if these people are actually involved in this decision or not, and if they really are the correct people to send our opinions to.

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Has this been addressed yet? I couldn’t find anything that suggests they are part of any committee.

I am curious of this as well. I did send them emails, but I couldn’t find these individuals titles with the DNR to know if they’re really the ones to send the emails to. At the least, Sarah Strommen is the commissioner.

From my detective work, Ann Pierce is Eco Waters Deputy Director

Steve Colvin is the Eco Waters Director. Eco Waters has the invasive species staff.

Jess Richards is the Lands and Minerals Director. I assume that means boat accesses.

Patti Blom I believe is Sarah Strommen’s Administrative Assistant.

Sarah Strommen is the DNR Commissioner.

Well things got real for people in Colorado.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/westminster-bans-trailered-boats-on-standley-lake/73-e60fbde2-cd3b-4493-bd5c-3a89eaefee91

The city water comes directly from the lake so not exactly what we’re talking about here.

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.

Oh boy. Sticker is a 4 letter word around here.

BEAV1 We had something like your talking about back around 2015 and we shot that down. Why do we have to compromise with any lake associations? Follow the law as it is now should be good enough.

1hl&sinker wrote:

BEAV1 We had something like your talking about back around 2015 and we shot that down. Why do we have to compromise with any lake associations? Follow the law as it is now should be good enough.

In the Wright county case the associations want to write the laws. My point is the DNR and the DNR alone needs to control what happens on our waterways.

I don’t think Washington county can pass laws that override laws from the Feds on what happens on the Federal Waterway. (St. Croix River)

I attended the March 19th hearing, I also went to the Mn COLA meeting held at the courthouse,public building they could not keep me out. Surprising that Mn COLA would have a meeting(10am start- adjourn for the hearing). What I learned is that Stearns, Ottertail,Crow wing, Hennepin co. and others lake associations are very well supported. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. All are standing behind the Wright co ordinance. When they asked me about the self inspection(they are NOT supporting it) I pointed out that law enforcement would have to self inspect, or return to the inspection site before continuing patrol on other ordinance covered lakes. They brushed that off as not an issue. Also when I pointed out that this by (DNR directives include-be more cost effective and NOT limit public access) several board members loudly protested my remarks. The Mn COLA board see this as a test case for all other Co. All most all the general remarks revolve around “how busy our lake is”.

5 million in taxpayer funds were allocated based on a computer model that predicted lower operating costs{inspections done regionally}. The lake property owners assocations picked up on this as a means of furthering a restricted access agenda. A business provides inspectors and bills the county 19.15/hour, which is more then state or surrounding counties pay inspectors. 92% + watercraft pass inspection, I could not get the information on how the courtesy decontams are counted(pass or fail), as these should count as a pass as the operator understood the watercraft needed cleaning(or just wanted a “free” boat wash). The real issue I have with this is the pelagic form of these invertebrates and plants being “visually and tactile” inspected for are not large enough to be seen or felt,under 20 microns. So it comes down to is there mud or visible plant matter on the boat or trailer? Do you want to spend millions of our tax payments and user fees to have regional hotwater boat washers? No models have been ran that take in the additional miles of travel(gas/diesel fuel vehicle use) that most regional stations would require.

MJM hit the nail on the head. Also if one goes back to the beginning of the invasive species and how they got here very little has been done that has a big impact on the problem. The government agencies inspect boats/trailers at the landings. In the mean time hundreds of thousands of balast water is exchanged daily through the Great Lakes daily. I witness this first hand loading commercial vessels for a mining company. The DNR and the Feds have been watching this happen 60 years.

MJM hit the nail on the head. Also if one goes back to the beginning of the invasive species and how they got here very little has been done that has a big impact on the problem. The government agencies inspect boats/trailers at the landings. In the mean time hundreds of thousands of balast water is exchanged daily through the Great Lakes daily. I witness this first hand loading commercial vessels for a mining company. The DNR and the Feds have been watching this happen 60 years.

One week until the April 15th deadline for the DNR to make a call on this. Has anyone received a response to any of their messages to the DNR?

I have not received any reply

Mwal

My position until proven otherwise is staffers read the mail. I don’t ever expect a response.

i have not received a reply.

No reply sent a couple emails to the commish

Unreal. Can’t wait for this to hit Wisconsin…

As people have stated, there have been people sitting at the ramps for years now and for what? Some sleep, some talk to fishermen, or their friends while boats are launched/trailered and not inspected, or they just are not there when they are supposed to be.

Money grab to privatize the lake. Period. All the points about the lake shore property owners bypassing the restrictions is a giant red flag.

DNR needs to make a statement that they are in control, and that ALL MN waters are open for business.

Sounds like the proposed expansion was shot down by the DNR??

Angler II wrote:

Sounds like the proposed expansion was shot down by the DNR??

First I’ve heard of a ruling. Is there an official statement? Trying to restrain my enthusiasm.

it was shot down. See attached letter from DNR

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_3157.jpg
   

2. 

   IMG_3156.jpg
   

As a lake home owner on a lake with a strong lake association, I was troubled to see this. Our lake association has not supported this (as far as I’m aware). However our lake association has manned the one lake landing heavily with trained AIS inspectors. That I do like

I found items #6 and #7 to be very refreshing.

Wade Boardman wrote:

As a lake home owner on a lake with a strong lake association, I was troubled to see this. Our lake association has not supported this (as far as I’m aware). However our lake association has manned the one lake landing heavily with trained AIS inspectors. That I do like

Wade do you have any idea where your inspectors trained at? What was all involved in the training?

tomr wrote:

No reply sent a couple emails to the commish

Anybody get any response except a canned generic e-mail? ( I didn’t even get that)

Thank you everyone that stood up to this. And THANK YOU DNR! I know I will enjoy my fishing a lot more this year. I hope this ends it permanently. There is some language in the letter that might leave the door open for another run at this, but at the county meeting, they said if the DNR does not approve the ordinance, it is done for good.

“DNR cannot justify”
“DNR will not approve”

Music to my ears.

I was thinking the DNR was going to rollover. Our emails worked.