Friday After Hours

A topic that made a big splash at the 2023 MN DNR Roundtable today was Wake Surfing Boats

From what I picked up in listening, the only people that like these boats are the people that own then. I expect there will be new laws coming.

There will be a new DNR Workgroup for “Native Fish”- formally know as rough fish.

Mussels are being raised in Austin MN (Cedar River)and having great success.

As far as I could tell, Mille Lacs was not mentioned.

Gov Waltz committed surplus money to the DNR to upgrade their 80 year old fish hatcheries.

SafeWakes Mission:
Prevent environmental damage and injury to people and property caused by artificially-enhanced wakes.

SafeWakes Goal:
Restrict the creation of enhanced wakes to areas of lakes that allow at least:

1000 feet distance from the boat to shore
a minimum water depth of 16 feet

Seems totally enforceable. /s

Don’t get me wrong, all the issues they listed are a problem but adding more laws that won’t be enforced seems to be a waste of time and money.

Oh and by the way they admit it’s already illegal anyway.

1. This activity is breaking current laws! In Minnesota, the following is against the law:
To operate a watercraft in a careless or reckless manner
To operate a watercraft so its wash or wake endangers, harasses, or interferes with any person or property.
Wakes that erode shorelines and harass others are illegal in Minnesota.

Seems like our lakes are managed more as summer water playgrounds than a natural resource. I don’t know what the answer is but I’m sure something needs to be done that satisfies both sides of the argument.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

A topic that made a big splash at the 2023 MN DNR Roundtable today was Wake Surfing Boats

From what I picked up in listening, the only people that like these boats are the people that own then. I expect there will be new laws coming.

There will be a new DNR Workgroup for “Native Fish”- formally know as rough fish.

Mussels are being raised in Austin MN (Cedar River)and having great success.

As far as I could tell, Mille Lacs was not mentioned.

Gov Waltz committed surplus money to the DNR to upgrade their 80 year old fish hatcheries.

on another site a member there went to this. he said it is 8 hours of his life he wont get back. his take was all the VIP’s and Walz patted themselves on the back for the good jobs there doing.

they went to a breakout concerning deer moose & wolves, an individual stood up and asked why he is seen wolf tracks on his property and not deer tracks……they wanted nothing to do with it and moved along!!!!!! That made his group decide it was time to head home!!

What did they expect Glenn?

Everything they wanted to hear in a two hour breakout session?

I’m amazed at the people that come to an 8 hour meeting and expect all of there concerns are going to be fixed.

If that was the only reason they came to the Roundtable, I would of told them to stay home and try to figure out why wolves are on their property without anything to eat.

Hopefully the won’t be back next year so another group can take there empty places.

BK, the guy that posted this is from the Alexandria area and is big time involved in the MDHA up there.

as i understand it wasnt his group that asked the question. my point would be i’d be pretty PO’ed that they, the DNR, didnt even remotely entertain answering that question!!!

i do understand your point though!!!!!!!

The 2023 DNR Roundtable had a new format this year.

There were in my opinion, considerably less people invited directly. Once the RSVP’s came in, there were seats opened to the public on a first come first serve basis.

I’ve been noticing that the group that’s at the RT have been getting older and there were few of the younger crowd invited. Each year I’ve been trying to take someone along or have a person go in my place if I couldn’t make it, like last year. It was moved to June and I had a trip planned to float down the river.

This year I couldn’t take a second person and my invitation was non transferable.

I was very happy to see more “new” people at this RT then in the past.

And that has been on my survey every year since I started going. Same people. I felt that the “old guard” should be mixed up with younger folks that have an interest in everything the DNR does.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

This year I couldn’t take a second person and my invitation was non transferable.

Sorry about that! But seriously I hope I wasn’t the reason, and I would like to attend in the future. I would have tried to get one of the open seats available on first come first served basis, had I known that was an option.

biggill wrote:

1000 feet distance from the boat to shore
a minimum water depth of 16 feet

I don’t think most people realize how far 1000 feet is. Its over 300 yards. That would put a lot of smaller/narrow lakes completely off limits to wake surfing. Half the people on some of these lakes have one sitting on a lift at the end of their docks. So they’re gonna have to trailer them and go to another lake, because they can’t do it on the lake they live on?

Yeah, I don’t see that being enforced.

BigWerm wrote:

Sorry about that! But seriously I hope I wasn’t the reason, and I would like to attend in the future. I would have tried to get one of the open seats available on first come first served basis, had I known that was an option.

Werm, that’s the way it was for everyone, so you had nothing to do with it.

Assuming this is the route it’s going to go in the future, I’ll be posting here next year.

gimruis wrote:

I don’t think most people realize how far 1000 feet is. Its over 300 yards. That would put a lot of smaller/narrow lakes completely off limits to wake surfing. Half the people on some of these lakes have one sitting on a lift at the end of their docks. So they’re gonna have to trailer them and go to another lake, because they can’t do it on the lake they live on?

Yeah, I don’t see that being enforced.

I believe that was/is the intent of the group working against wake boats.

Looking at the other side of the coin, they went on to talk about folks that saved their life savings to buy a house on a smaller lake, and take their grandkids out fishing in their pontoon, but couldn’t because of (all) the wakes (from multiple wake surfers).

Personally, I see it both ways. Everyone has a right to use our waters. How does a person regulate one group so another group can use the water or visa versa. Who’s right are more important? What about the shoreline on these smaller lakes?

This is going to be a tough one.

Maybe they could have specific “wake board lakes.” I nominate Lake Minnatonka. And they all have to be within 10 miles of the metro.

Red Eye wrote:

Maybe they could have specific “wake board lakes.” I

Well if this passes, then it should theoretically weed itself out on its own in such a manner. Small lakes will be completely off limits.

Do they differentiate between “native (rough) fish” and invasive fish?
If they start championing carp, homeboy aint gonna be happy.
As far as wake boats they can be hugely disruptive to those around them and wildlife. I dont openly hate them but if pushed to take a side I hope they manage them out of existence.

gimruis wrote:

Well if this passes

Clarifying: There is not a bill or even a hint that the DNR supports any wake
boat laws.

suzuki wrote:

Do they differentiate between “native (rough) fish” and invasive fish?

Mike, I’m not apart of this new work group but anything “invasive” would be off topic…I would think. I’m actually not sure if the common carp is still listed as invasive (like the pheasant). I’ll have to look that one up.

Some discussion in Wisconsin about wake boat issues also. The DNR is asking for input if what I remember from reading some articles last fall. There were a few reports of swamping some smaller boats and kayaks last summer and damage to moored/docked boats.
No good answers on how to compromise or enforce the issues.