|
|
| I am wondering how everyone feels about the ban on night fishing for muskies in Minnesota since it has already begun on a handful of lakes this year?
Maybe we can do a poll on which lakes we think will be next . . . My guess is Lake Minnetonka.
For those of you unaware, the boat landings at Lake Harriet, Calhoun, and Nokomis are now closed to night fishing and locked with chain and padlock from 10 PM-6 AM.
If you are concerned about these lakes or maybe that your favorite lake will be next. I encourage you to contact the following people at the MN DNR and City of Minneapolis.
Deb Pilger [email protected]. 612-313-7728
Natalie Brown 612-313-7763 [email protected]
If you are resident of Minneapolis I would also encourage you to contact the Park Board Commissioner.
Here are the contacts at the DNR regarding this matter.
Info (DNR) ([email protected]); Ellison, Daryl G (DNR) ([email protected]); Parsons, Brad G (DNR) ([email protected]) ([email protected]) ([email protected])[email protected]
I have respectfully communicated my concerns about this matter with all of these people but I am just one person. They need to hear from us all. I can provide more information on this thread at a later time. But, I think it might be best to aim your questions at these people instead of me. I think simply expressing some concern and asking questions might be a good route to go at this point because it requires them to respond and and have a dialogue versus ignore you if you are just going to complain (not that there isn't plenty to complain about.)
By the way, I have been night fishing these lakes for the last 15 years and they have not been closed after 10 PM despite what some people might say/think.
You may also find both the MN DNR and MPls Park Board's Mission Statement's useful as they both talk about recreational opportunities which this action clearly takes away.
I would also like to challenge you all not respond to this thread unless you have contacted one of the above people. If you have time to type a few characters here. . . please take the time to cut and paste them and send them off to the proper officials.
Thank you.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1638
Location: Minnesota | is this ban on musky fishing or all fishing ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| All |
|
| |
|
| Correct me if I am wrong, but they shut these accesses at night to try and control the spread of AIS, right? It wasn't specifically directed at musky fisherman as the original post implies as I understand it. Probably important to frame it properly to the DNR and lake associations if you're going to contact them. Again, correct me if I am wrong but I thought the night ban on fishing was a natural consequence of these attempts.
You're not at all wrong in the ridiculousness of this crap. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| The city lakes are closed at nights as a means to prevent invasive spread. That these lakes have musky in them is purely coincidental. Whether this approach to preventing the spread of invasives will accomplish anything is certainly debatable, IMO. Also, I think the loss of the abilty to night fish those lakes is a steep price to pay for whatever marginal good might be achieved from this policy. However, I think saying they are banning night fishing for Muskies is extremely misleading. The ramp closures have nothing to do with musky fishing.
Edited by Brad P 6/16/2013 9:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 558
| You can walk around the lake and fish it all night for muskys if you wanted to. Its to stop invasives from intering the lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | This post is extremely misleading, especially by its title. And the OP seems to contradict his post with the following:
"By the way, I have been night fishing these lakes for the last 15 years and they have not been closed after 10 PM despite what some people might say/think." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Night fishing is still open. If you launch prior to the gates being locked, one could stay out and fish till their heart's content, they just couldn't remove their boat until after the gate is unlocked.
If you'd like to make any headway on your argument about locking of gates, I strongly suggest rephrasing your argument to at least be semi-truthful. Flat out lying will get you nowhere. |
|
| |
|
| Apologies if the title is misleading. It was meant to get your attention and it appears to be fairly effective.
What I meant is you can't fish at night out of a boat due to the locked gates. Since most of the people on this site fish out of boats for muskies I thought framing it that way would be most effective in getting your attention and it is pretty accurate. You can't fish for muskies out of a boat so essentially it is banned. Yes walleye anglers and other boat users are effected too but since everyone here pretty much cares about the muskies,I thought it made sense to frame it that way.
What is troubling to me is that nobody seems to care.
Yes, I suppose you could fish for muskie from shore or keep your boat in all night until 6:00 AM but are you going to be OK with that if that if this is the way all the lakes in MN are including your favorite muskie lake?
I know there is a wide array of experience levels regarding the muskie anglers on this site. In case you are fairly to new to the sport, you should know that typically you can catch more muskies in four hours of night fishing than the combined 16 hours of daylight on most muskie waters with rivers maybe being the exception.
Catching them is going to get a lot harder if we can't fish at night. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| The simple truth is this is a tactic that lake associations are using to keep people off "their " lakes. Gate them so noone can have access to public property except people who own the land around the lake. Heck the invasive excuse is even been used to stop muskie introductions in Mn. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | This has been discussed in great detail here.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=85... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Maybe is people don't fish so much at night they will be hungrier during the day... |
|
| |
|
| Reagarding And the OP seems to contradict his post with the following:
"By the way, I have been night fishing these lakes for the last 15 years and they have not been closed after 10 PM despite what some people might say/think."
I mentioned this because some people from the park board or DNR may claim the landing has always been closed at 10 PM. That is false but depending on who you talk to they may try to tell you that as one person tried to with me before I set them straight. |
|
| |
|
| Just reviewed the old thread you included Steve. There is some false information there from mojo 1269 which may have led people to fall on one side or the other of the issue. And mojo this is not an attack on you or any hard feelings. I think your intentions were good and you were sharing your insights based on your experiences. But you have always been able to fish late out there. You just have to know where to park. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | guest - 6/17/2013 6:13 AM
joshb,
Trust me people care. I am the one who started the original thread. I have been in contact with Brad Parsons at the DNR and voiced my extreme displeasure with the situation. The approach I took was to tell Brad that if the DNR is going to allow this type of restricted access I would rather they cut stocking all together. Why are my license dollars being spent on stocking if the access has closed hours?
I personally cant wait to see the inspectors huddled in their cars trying to keep warm at 6am and 10pm in November. Adjust the hours in the summer and cut the hours in the Fall if the city wants to continue with this foolishness. I have also not told them once that the last lake I was in was Tonka or any other ZM infested lake. It is none of their GD business what the last lake I was in was or how long ago it was.
And you wonder why it gets closed....
You have only yourself to thank. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | joshb - 6/16/2013 10:00 PM
Apologies if the title is misleading. It was meant to get your attention and it appears to be fairly effective.
What I meant is you can't fish at night out of a boat due to the locked gates. Since most of the people on this site fish out of boats for muskies I thought framing it that way would be most effective in getting your attention and it is pretty accurate. You can't fish for muskies out of a boat so essentially it is banned. Yes walleye anglers and other boat users are effected too but since everyone here pretty much cares about the muskies,I thought it made sense to frame it that way.
What is troubling to me is that nobody seems to care.
Yes, I suppose you could fish for muskie from shore or keep your boat in all night until 6:00 AM but are you going to be OK with that if that if this is the way all the lakes in MN are including your favorite muskie lake?
I know there is a wide array of experience levels regarding the muskie anglers on this site. In case you are fairly to new to the sport, you should know that typically you can catch more muskies in four hours of night fishing than the combined 16 hours of daylight on most muskie waters with rivers maybe being the exception.
Catching them is going to get a lot harder if we can't fish at night.
So framing your argument deceptively is your best method of getting people's attention? And then you find it shocking that "no one cares"? I think a lot of people do care, but they'd rather not associate with deception. You frame it as a state wide ban when in reality this affects few lakes. And later in your rant you go on to contradict. It seems rather obvious why very few would want to have you leading the fight against this.
You also can't seem to grasp the distinction between the MNDNR and the Mpls. Park system. It is my understanding that the park system has made this decision. Please correct me if I'm wrong, however you'll certainly understand why I'll have trouble believing you. You haven't really established much credibility thus far.
Could you please provide a credible link to the idea that this will be the norm at all lakes in Minnesota? I won't wait up for it, however, as it isn't out there.
Furthermore, whoever is concerned about this in November needs to do a bit more fact checking to understand why this wont be an issue. I know educating oneself on the issues can be a tough task for some and it's easier to get outraged, but a little reading might go a long way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 110
Location: Albertville, Minnesota | Joshb, thanks for posting the contact info. First off, I see that you directed your initial post as muskie fishing because most people that view this forum are muskie fisherman. I also took your initial post as more of a question, do you believe other lakes may be affected by this ban? I would yes. And guest, it is non of there GD business were I was fishing last, especially if I have done everything properly to make sure my boat meets the laws "to help" not transfer "potential" invasives to other lakes.
I haven't responded on this message board in sometime, but I do check out reports or messages like this time to time.
Chris |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Serpant - 6/17/2013 9:37 AM
But PP 102, some of your post drive me up a wall. You have not provided nothing to this thread with the exception of being combative to a current/and potentially a more crazy issue here in MN. Key word, potential.
Chris
PP102 is giving you an honest answer with a background in the subject. the fact you don't like the answer may trouble you, but it's also from a viewpoint in the know on the subject. i believe he is soon to be paid by your state to control AIS.
that was a solid double-negative, for a moment i thought the subject was Kentucky AIS. :0) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | If I haven't provided nothing, I'm doing well.
If people would take a little time to read the other threads they would come to find out that I'm on the side of the boaters here. As I understand it, so is the MN DNR. This policy set forth by the Mpls. Park system goes above and beyond state law. I'm merely pointing out that there are good ways and bad ways to go about tackling this issue. Starting off with a blatant misrepresentation of the facts is going to get you nowhere. Being upset about restricted access is not wrong. But lying in an attempt to bolster your point is foolish.
I'm not being combative, I'm simply presenting the facts. You may not like them, but they are what they are.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert |
So a proposal from August 9, 2012? Do you have the results from the meeting. Did you attend the meeting? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Some people don't want to discuss the facts regarding this subject, they want to complain and inflame, yet offer no reasonable alternatives or options one might support.
The first post in this thread was titled improperly and that has been pointed out; I thought the rest was pretty well said. Unfortunately, the misleading title and beginning paragraph somewhat diminished the argument.
The subject was debated at length already and the exact same direction was taken, so the author apparently did not see that thread before posting or thought the input from the same guy who disrupted the conversation last time might be different...it wasn't..
'Guest', perhaps offer actual alternatives or solutions we all can support as a 'community', drop the alarmist attack verbiage, and maybe you won't have folks point out the weaknesses in your arguments and approach. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 6/17/2013 11:27 AM
pointerpride hasn't caught very many muskies and doesn't live in MN. He only graduated from college a few years ago. What makes him an authority on MN AIS issues, again? As usual, he's just looking for a petty argument. Useless.
Also, I would guess that joshb is Josh Borovsky: http://www.promuskieguide.com/
What does catching muskies have to do with AIS?
Minnesota must have thought fairly highly of my AIS knowledge to hire me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13
Location: Dawson, MN | What would be the point of closing Minnetonka at night... it already has every invasive species in it... pointless... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| The MMPA had an AIS specialist speak to us and I find it funny boaters are catching the most heat for the spread of the zebras when the last few lakes that got them were lakeshore owners bringing them in on docks and lifts from infected waters. If they want real results it's time for these item's to be registered so we know too where they are and are going.
Edited by DLC 6/17/2013 12:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | DLC - 6/17/2013 11:51 AM
The MMPA had an AIS specialist speak to us and I find it funny boaters are catching the most heat for the spread of the zebras when the last few lakes that got them were lakeshore owners bringing them in on docks and lifts from infected waters. If they want real results it's time for these item's to be registered so we know too where they are and are going.
You are very correct in your statement. Docks and boat lifts are a serious concern. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | guest - 6/17/2013 11:56 AM
The alarmist attack verbiage comes only from those who want to restrict and deny access. The idea that I should come up with an alternative that we can "ALL" agree on is comical. Here is one: 24 hour access with no restrictions!
Let's see if we all agree.
Feel free to add your own suggestions. I am sure the fireside reading has made you an expert as it does on nearly all topics outdoor related.
I would agree with 24 hour access. Restricting access only alienates the largest group of people we want on our side to help prevent/slow the spread.
Bragging about lying to inspectors, however increases the likelihood of more restrictions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| See I think this issue needs to be brought up at a national level, most of this stuff is either brought to us by ballist water on ships or aquaculture. Seems once it's here then its our problem while these industry's go unchecked and guilt free. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | DLC - 6/17/2013 12:05 PM
See I think this issue needs to be brought up at a national level, most of this stuff is either brought to us by ballist water on ships or aquaculture. Seems once it's here then its our problem while these industry's go unchecked and guilt free.
The issue of ballast water is pretty heavily regulated, you just don't see much of it on a state level. Unfortunately the regulations came too late as mussel introduction came in the mid 80s.
The aquaculture/aquarium trades are a very valid concern especially with illegal fish introduction and various exotic plant species. While there is some regulation you are correct that there isn't enough. The Internet makes obtaining many types of plants and fish pretty easy. At a state level, the funding simply isn't there to put a whole lot of effort into it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 120
| Ya know, reading along with these threads and living in Minneapolis (SOUTH! SIDE!) 15yrs now I cant help but notice that the levels of Brew-ha-ha ramp closings inspire and the numbers of boats I've watched on the chain lakes seems a little out of whack. It's not that people don't launch boats here, they do, but the electric only restriction, pulling a rig through the metro, and parking keeps most out.
Now, I believe the new restrictions are dumb. Mainly on account of the chain lakes already being full of invaders and the low trailer traffic, but I'm still surprised at the uproar. It's a troubling precedent but what do you expect? Boat and trailer inspections were left to the owners, ran on the honor system, and failed. Stand on the other side of the fence for a second. It's your job to stop the spread of AIS, self policing doesn't work, why wouldn't mandatory inspections and ramp restrictions be the next step?
One other note: you can still fish the chain lakes at night from a boat. You just have to launch it from shore.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 770
Location: Ames, Iowa | I don't want to be the negative one here, but until the states' DNRs can stop people from being selfish, we'll soon see the proliferation of zebra mussels across all of our waters. They can't do that now, and it's too late to blame everyone for something already out of the bag. In Minnesota, all it takes is a fisherman to decide he's going to drop in at Mille Lacs then Leech the next day without a thorough cleaning. In Iowa it's a stop at Clear Lake followed by West Okoboji or Brushy Creek. And it just takes one idiot, and they are out there and they don't care that the state demands they go to the trouble of a good boat cleaning. These critters are already in Winnie and Mille Lacs, doesn't that mean then that they are in the Mississippi and the Rum? The fact that elitist lakeshore owners can petition the state to close ramps on public lakes to keep public boaters out of "their lake" is an irritation but will hardly slow the advance. With native fishermen, commercial harvesters, canoers, pleasure boaters and sport fishermen all moving craft from one water body to another, it's hard to envision stopping the spread across all of the rivers and lakes in both states. Prevention continues to be a worthy effort but it seems we have to move toward control and managing/lessening the problem already upon us through a bunch of new research. I'm hopeful there's a control out there yet undiscovered. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 120
| Triploid Sunfish. They're our only hope. :| |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Thunderpumper - 6/17/2013 2:58 PM
One other note: you can still fish the chain lakes at night from a boat. You just have to launch it from shore.
Regardless of where I fish I launch from shore. Launching from the middle of the lake is a little bit beyond my area of expertise.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| I fish a certain lake not far away from me in SE Wisconsin. The launch is a public park where you pay a fee to use the ramp. You can't put in prior to 6:00 AM and you can't stay past 9:00 PM (you also can't exceed slow no wake until 10:00 AM.) It's pretty clear the folks on the lake want the water to themselves in the evening and their peace and quiet while they sip their morning coffee. There are no resorts, bait shops, eateries or bars on the water who would be the normal proponents of access. There are only the residents who are the "normal" limiting force. They paid the big bucks for their homes, pay taxes that would make a rich guy choke, and want to have THEIR lake THEIR way. Anyone who has ever trudged down this trail knows that lake owners create lake associations and the closer these asoociatons are to "metro" waters where the lake owners have the financial power and the will to be more activist in preserving the "quality" of life...well you will see limits and attempts at limits that often have little to do with what is being discussed. It's why Lee Trevino and Chi Chi Rodriguez continued to put on their golf spikes in the parking lot at Augusta long after Hispanics were allowed into the clubhouse. They had a clear memory of where they were wanted and where they were not. If you wnat access, you should never minimize the power of those who would keep it from you, or think you will get what you deserve without having your own organization to gain your rights. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 553
Location: deephaven mn | if you fish these lakes you will be interviewed by the boat inspector, make sure you make it known that you are aware of the problems and are capable of cleaning and inspecting your own boat maybe better than the inspector. then make the point that you are unhappy with the hours of restriction. this info gets logged and reported daily |
|
| |
|
| Pointer, you comming to Mn? very cool. What do you see as the biggest challenge; weeds, critters, or carp? When the carp get past the Coon Rapids Dam things could get ugly. Sorry to hijack thread, Pointer. care to start another? |
|
| |
|
| Wow these are not the responses I expected to see. I guess personally, I feel like I am now banned from night fishing these lakes and I am also concerned that there are more lakes to come in MN.
Rather than argue on semantics and the definitions of the words such as "banned" etc. . . I guess it's not that people don't care, they just don't seem to see it the same way I do and I thought maybe they would. I guess maybe I am the one out in left field.
I was just trying to encourage everyone to make calls and send emails and ask questions not necessarily complaining but asking some questions and seeking information so that the city and the DNR hears from you and become aware that many people "care".
Pointer Pride . .. regarding your comment "You also can't seem to grasp the distinction between the MNDNR and the Mpls. Park system. It is my understanding that the park system has made this decision. Please correct me if I'm wrong, however you'll certainly understand why I'll have trouble believing you. You haven't really established much credibility thus far."
The Park Board made the decision. However, the DNR is "currently doing some research to determine what the DNR’s stance is on this site." and yes that is a real live factual quote from a DNR official regarding this matter quoted from an email.
My thinking is the DNR will be making decisions about other lakes in the future and it is important to let them know we are concerned.
Regarding your comment "Could you please provide a credible link to the idea that this will be the norm at all lakes in Minnesota? I won't wait up for it, however, as it isn't out there."
I don't have a link but I do have some comments from a MN DNR official that concern me . . . "Governmental units throughout the state are trying to strike the right balance of limiting introduction of invasive aquatic organisms while simultaneously maintaining access. Determining a good course is unlikely to be easy or pleasing to everyone, especially those desiring unimpeded 24-hour boat access. It is in MN DNR Fisheries’ interest to provide or support fishing opportunities AND healthy aquatic communities. Allowing spread of invasive species into lakes jeopardizes both."
I guess to me the comment about unimpeded 24-hour boat access is kind of the writing on the wall.
But hey I guess we can still fish from shore so it won't really be a "ban". I guess I was wrong.
I also have some potential solutions to offer as well. I was just hoping this conversation would have evolved in a different way . . .
Until I have more time . . . sorry to sign off without offering them up. (please no attacks for that) I will be back when I have time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | randy t - 6/17/2013 4:59 PM
Pointer, you comming to Mn? very cool. What do you see as the biggest challenge; weeds, critters, or carp? When the carp get past the Coon Rapids Dam things could get ugly. Sorry to hijack thread, Pointer. care to start another?
Feel free to PM me. I'm always happy to talk AIS with folks willing to talk about it, even if we have differing view points.
The problem with AIS is all have their unique challenges associated with them. Fortunately the clean, drain, dry method is an effective preventative measure and is really quite simple for boaters to do. I'm no expert on Minnesota's program yet, but I've done a fair amount of research on it. Even if you are of the viewpoint that AIS are here and will be everywhere in matter of time, it still is the better option to try and slow the spread. The cost of prevention is much lower than the cost of removal/management.
I'm looking forward to working in Minnesota and hope I can be a resource for some. I believe in very limited restrictions to boaters. I'd much rather see boaters and the agency work together in a way that inconveniences boaters the least. After all it's the boaters and anglers that fund our programs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | joshb - 6/17/2013 5:02 PM
Wow these are not the responses I expected to see. I guess personally, I feel like I am now banned from night fishing these lakes and I am also concerned that there are more lakes to come in MN.
Rather than argue on semantics and the definitions of the words such as "banned" etc. . . I guess it's not that people don't care, they just don't seem to see it the same way I do and I thought maybe they would. I guess maybe I am the one out in left field.
I was just trying to encourage everyone to make calls and send emails and ask questions not necessarily complaining but asking some questions and seeking information so that the city and the DNR hears from you and become aware that many people "care".
Pointer Pride . .. regarding your comment "You also can't seem to grasp the distinction between the MNDNR and the Mpls. Park system. It is my understanding that the park system has made this decision. Please correct me if I'm wrong, however you'll certainly understand why I'll have trouble believing you. You haven't really established much credibility thus far."
The Park Board made the decision. However, the DNR is "currently doing some research to determine what the DNR’s stance is on this site." and yes that is a real live factual quote from a DNR official regarding this matter quoted from an email.
My thinking is the DNR will be making decisions about other lakes in the future and it is important to let them know we are concerned.
Regarding your comment "Could you please provide a credible link to the idea that this will be the norm at all lakes in Minnesota? I won't wait up for it, however, as it isn't out there."
I don't have a link but I do have some comments from a MN DNR official that concern me . . . "Governmental units throughout the state are trying to strike the right balance of limiting introduction of invasive aquatic organisms while simultaneously maintaining access. Determining a good course is unlikely to be easy or pleasing to everyone, especially those desiring unimpeded 24-hour boat access. It is in MN DNR Fisheries’ interest to provide or support fishing opportunities AND healthy aquatic communities. Allowing spread of invasive species into lakes jeopardizes both."
I guess to me the comment about unimpeded 24-hour boat access is kind of the writing on the wall.
But hey I guess we can still fish from shore so it won't really be a "ban". I guess I was wrong.
I also have some potential solutions to offer as well. I was just hoping this conversation would have evolved in a different way . . .
Until I have more time . . . sorry to sign off without offering them up. (please no attacks for that) I will be back when I have time.
Why didn't you just phrase it this way the first time?
I believe you do mean well, I just feel being intentionally deceptive is not the right way to go about things. I would also encourage all concerned anglers and boaters to make phone calls and send emails.
I think we likely have more in common than is visible within this thread. I just don't support misrepresentation of facts. I believe this last post is a much better way to gain support. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Junkman - 6/17/2013 6:06 PM
I fish a certain lake not far away from me in SE Wisconsin. The launch is a public park where you pay a fee to use the ramp. You can't put in prior to 6:00 AM and you can't stay past 9:00 PM (you also can't exceed slow no wake until 10:00 AM.) It's pretty clear the folks on the lake want the water to themselves in the evening and their peace and quiet while they sip their morning coffee. There are no resorts, bait shops, eateries or bars on the water who would be the normal proponents of access. There are only the residents who are the "normal" limiting force. They paid the big bucks for their homes, pay taxes that would make a rich guy choke, and want to have THEIR lake THEIR way. Anyone who has ever trudged down this trail knows that lake owners create lake associations and the closer these asoociatons are to "metro" waters where the lake owners have the financial power and the will to be more activist in preserving the "quality" of life...well you will see limits and attempts at limits that often have little to do with what is being discussed. It's why Lee Trevino and Chi Chi Rodriguez continued to put on their golf spikes in the parking lot at Augusta long after Hispanics were allowed into the clubhouse. They had a clear memory of where they were wanted and where they were not. If you wnat access, you should never minimize the power of those who would keep it from you, or think you will get what you deserve without having your own organization to gain your rights.
The gist of it being a crappy thing to completely limit access I can jive with. Tossing no wake restrictions into the same argument becomes problematic to me.
Quite honestly, I wish more bodies of water had no wake/speed restrictions after certain hours. There's no reason to be barreling across a lake at 2am doing about 60 or 70 mph....yet enough people do it. A couple of my local bodies of water are connected with a pretty long channel and weekend after weekend at 6am you've got tournaments going on and guys will rip through there wide open. If I lived on that channel I'd be annoyed by it too.
I can't fault a lake association or property owners for wanting to restrict the hours when you can run at top speed. The issue of slowing boats down and completely closing off access can be negotiated without them getting lumped together. In fact I'd be on their side on the no wake/speed issue but definitely not on the access issue.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 122
| I have had this discussion several times off this site... it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to make everyone wash their boat after every use in a different lake... point blank fat chance. I just met the guys at the boat landing.... they were helpful and educational.... this is great everyone needs the education. We need to protect our waters... do your part... I don't see how night restrictions would help at all though... someone educate me on why night restrictions help stop the spread of invasive species...!?!?! Clean boat put in water at night.... drive home.... check boat.... wash.... drive to new lake again at night?!?!?! As far as fixing the problem.... well now put in a boat wash at each lake that auto reads and washes different boats as you drive into boat landing.... you have to go through first.... *joking* then again it may happen never know. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Nell - 6/18/2013 2:24 AM
someone educate me
yes, please! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 548
Location: MN | Just a thought.... How about installing a system to rinse your trailer and hull as you leave the water. Yes it would cost money but I bet a lot of us wouldn't mind a dollar or two added to our license to cover cost if it would keep the ramps open.
My $.02 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | what water source do you suggest for the rinsing system? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Nick59 - 6/18/2013 7:08 AM
Just a thought.... How about installing a system to rinse your trailer and hull as you leave the water. Yes it would cost money but I bet a lot of us wouldn't mind a dollar or two added to our license to cover cost if it would keep the ramps open.
My $.02
I like where you are going with this idea. It definitely has its benefits and could be a useful tool to get some of the small bits of weed that may be stuck to a hull in a hard to reach place.
Here are some potential issues I see with this idea: the best method to minimize risk of spreading invasive, aside from professional decon, is clean, drain, dry. Bringing more water into the equation doesn't help the drain or dry aspect. But this extra water could very easily be drained off and wiped down to minimize the amount if raw water being carried. Another potential problem could be use by an arriving boat. If a contaminated boat arrives and then rinses his boat down near the ramp, there is the potential to wash contaminants right into the water. Some boaters may also mistake the rinse off as all they need to do to be considered "clean".
I still like this idea and think the problems could be fairly easily addressed. I think you are correct that the biggest obstacle would be funding. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jonnysled - 6/18/2013 7:11 AM
what water source do you suggest for the rinsing system?
Water source wouldn't necessarily matter if it was used only on exiting boats and proper draining was completed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| But realistically how much of the spread is coming from a day users boat? My thought is most of the zebra spread risk from these types would be anchors and their ropes and minnow water. Also jet -skies hold some water unless they dry fire to get it out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | "I don't see how night restrictions would help at all though... someone educate me on why night restrictions help stop the spread of invasive species...!?!?!"
I don't believe it's a matter of closing the ramps at night to restrict the spread, I think it's more simple than that. They probably don't want to fund for or insist on having someone spend all night at the ramp to insure everyone is checked, probably believing it is minimal usage then. But since they don't want to go to all the trouble and expense of checking during the day, only to have it possibly get in because of no inspection at night, it seems they are choosing the easier/cheaper way out. I could be way off though. Unless they have 100% inspection during open day hours they've already made the choice to try to prevent as much as possible but not 100%. What's a few more un-inspected rigs if indeed that is the case? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1220
| One more thing, I was fishing a tournament in Three Lakes this week and used the new launch at Town Line Lake that they built last year. New ramp, new paved and striped lot, new s-house, just a beautiful job (even though they now want five bucks.) So, they had this high-school senior there every day for four days I used the ramp. Nice kid, talked to me every day asked how I was doing, blah, blah and naturally, I asked what he was doing there. The city of Three Lakes hired him to assist people at the launch and check their boats when leaving for aquatic hitchhikers. That's all, no hard time, nothing that made me feel like I was being excluded, just a nice kid to check to see if I was cleaning my boat and pulling my plug. It was clear the town of Three Lakes wanted me to use their ramp, even gave out free ice bags Saturday and Sunday. You really just have to sort of be awake and you will be able to tell the difference between stuff that is all about weeds on your boat and stuff that is not! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | DLC - 6/18/2013 7:41 AM
But realistically how much of the spread is coming from a day users boat? My thought is most of the zebra spread risk from these types would be anchors and their ropes and minnow water. Also jet -skies hold some water unless they dry fire to get it out.
Ski/wakeboard boats can carry hundreds of gallons of ballast water.
The average fishing boat isn't as high of a risk, though still a very viable threat. Weeds attached to trailers can also easily harbor mussels.
There is also a large risk involved with commercially hauled boats. I've developed a program for commercial haulers to help them inspect a boat prior to hauling. When I've quarantined boats all of the haulers claim had they known about the issues they wouldn't have hooked on and hauled. I've just started the program and hope it goes nationally. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| This isn't an indictment of pleasure boaters as a whole because there are many who are meticulous at cleaning off their boats and trailers....nor is it an indictment of anglers who simply don't. However, there is a greater interest and concern among the general angling group than there is within the pleasure boat crowd. If an invasive is in a lake it doesn't affect the enjoyment that pleasure boaters get as much as it could significantly alter what we as anglers do.
Pointer....you need to post that picture of the boat loaded full of mussels you sent me last year or the year before. That was insane.
A lot of this comes down to our own awareness and ability to tactfully point out to someone else at a launch that they have weeds on their trailer. No need to preach but just a "hey, there's some stuff hanging over there...." along with a reminder that in some states (Wisconsin being one of them) you can be pulled over by police and be issued a citation for this sort of thing. One of the better moments of karma happened last year when I was loading up and some other guys were strapping their boat down and it was loaded up with all sorts of stuff hanging off of it. I said; "You know, the cops are stepping up enforcement of weeds hanging off of trailers...it's better to be safe than sorry." These guys gave me a case of stink eye and said that it's outside of their jurisdication. Ok, whatever. They leave and when I drive past them a mile down the road they were pulled over by a County cop and were underneath the trailer cleaning it off as the cop was writing a ticket. Good stuff. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 548
Location: MN | jonnysled - 6/18/2013 8:11 AM
what water source do you suggest for the rinsing system?
The city lakes could use city water.
Lakes where city water is unavailable would need a filtering system and pump for lake water.
I don't have all the answers just brain storming a bit.
Nick |
|
| |
|
Posts: 120
| Propster - 6/18/2013 8:43 AM
They probably don't want to fund for or insist on having someone spend all night at the ramp to insure everyone is checked, probably believing it is minimal usage then. But since they don't want to go to all the trouble and expense of checking during the day, only to have it possibly get in because of no inspection at night, it seems they are choosing the easier/cheaper way out.
This.
The fisherman on the chain lakes just don't have the numbers to turn heads in the parks department. Night fisherman even less.
@OP It's not that I don't care, I do. It's that I believe in picking your fights. Budget cuts are far more likely to end inspections in Minneapolis than the concerns from fishing community. You're banging your head against the wall. Although you have better chances of changing the minds of the MNPLS Parks Board than battling NIMBYism in the West Metro.
Edited by Thunderpumper 6/18/2013 10:12 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 120
| Nick59 - 6/18/2013 8:08 AM
Just a thought.... How about installing a system to rinse your trailer and hull as you leave the water. Yes it would cost money but I bet a lot of us wouldn't mind a dollar or two added to our license to cover cost if it would keep the ramps open.
My $.02
This is a fine idea, but it pales in comparison to the majority of boats (fishing/rec/or other wise) making very visible inspections on their own. If boaters can point to their actions as well as they're fellow boaters and show a directed effort, then we would have a firm case against the need for inspections.
I'm having trouble reigning in my pessimism on this topic though and I cant see this happening. This, of course means, getting used to inspectors and more restricted access.
Edited by Thunderpumper 6/18/2013 11:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 548
Location: MN | Lake near Park Rapids had the algae bloom going last season. The wind was also pushing it into the ramp. Of course that day their was an inspector checking everyone on the way out. (how about on the way in?) When I pulled my boat out had little green dots everywhere. Using lake water to try and bucket wash these off was useless. A hose would have been great there.
Nick |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| To comment on the weeds and zeeb thing. There are places on Tonka where any strand of weeds that you pull up on your bait will be linked with zeebs on the stalk. It isn't hard to see how one could spread them just by forgetting to take a weed strand out of your boat and then not thinking about it and tossing the weed in a new body of water a few days later. Not saying anyone here does that, just saying it isn't hard to see how it could happen.
Regardless, I think restricting access isn't going to stop this. It doesn't take very much to spread milfoil or zeebs. Even the restrictied access and inspectors are fallable. Only educating all the boaters is going to really slow it down. In that sense, I think the inspectors can do a good service, the problem is lately it seems they just do the task for the boater vs. teaching them what to do.
|
|
| |
|
| Hi Guys,
I am back. Here are a few ideas/solutions. Please note I am not sure all of these a good and/or will solve the issue or be a good choice. Please feel free to attack the ideas and point out potential problems with each. No need to attack the poster though.
For the city lakes: What about a gate system similar to lake independence. It would not allow access to the lake after 10 PM but you could stay as late as you wanted and when you want to leave there is a sensor that lets you out but not in. This still restricts access in a way (which I am not a fan of) but it would be the lesser of the evils and allow people to fish at night as long as they put in before 10 which I think almost everyone does anyway. I think there might also be potential to close it 9:00 PM instead this way and maybe open hour earlier at 5:00 for the morning anglers.
Since Minneapolis Parks really just cares about boats going in versus going out. I think this might work and everyone is happy. Since on Lake Minnetonka the concern is more about boats leaving the lake, you can see why I am concerned about a night ban there, not to mention lots of powerful people with lots of money on the lake.
Some other ideas good or bad . . .
1. In addition to sprayers at ramps - how about some extension gripper tools for removing weeds in hard to reach places at the ramps. They could be on retractable cables like the air hoses at gas stations so people don't take them.
2. A motion activated camera system with audible cues. The cues need to be followed step by step (for draining and cleaning) before you can leave and gate will open
(This would be expensive, but I am guessing might be less expensive than a few years of paying inspectors to be there all hours of the day) One inspector might be able to monitor several sights at the same time so there is not all the wasted time of sitting there doing nothing. Speaking of which . . . does anyone else think that when they are not inspecting boats they should at least attempt to clear out all the floating weeds that collect in front of the ramp?
3. Create some kind of an application/permit system that allows you to fish after dark. In order to get the application you need to complete an online invasive species training. If your boat gets ticketed for not removing weeds then fines/penalties are steeper because you should know better.
All I have time for right now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | joshb - 6/18/2013 11:17 AM
3. Create some kind of an application/permit system that allows you to fish after dark. In order to get the application you need to complete an online invasive species training. If your boat gets ticketed for not removing weeds then fines/penalties are steeper because you should know better.
All I have time for right now.
I like this one ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | Here is another hijack of the thread...
Pointer, why is the St. Croix River and Lake Huron now devoid of zebra mussels? As an AIS professional, that has to be big news.
5 years ago, you couldn't pull a stick out of the water anywhere between Stillwater and Prescott that didn't have 10,000 zebras attached to it. And now they're basically gone.
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/146207365.html |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jonnysled - 6/18/2013 10:20 AM
joshb - 6/18/2013 11:17 AM
3. Create some kind of an application/permit system that allows you to fish after dark. In order to get the application you need to complete an online invasive species training. If your boat gets ticketed for not removing weeds then fines/penalties are steeper because you should know better.
All I have time for right now.
I like this one ...
I'd take thus one a step further and make a the class be in person, similar to that of what an inspector goes through. I believe you could debate charging a fee for this permit, let's face it boaters are taxed enough and this is essentially another tax if a fee is implemented. Wyoming has implemented something of this nature, though slightly different.
The issue with higher fines is this would require a change in statuettes or laws or some such thing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 548
Location: MN | jonnysled - 6/18/2013 11:20 AM
joshb - 6/18/2013 11:17 AM
3. Create some kind of an application/permit system that allows you to fish after dark. In order to get the application you need to complete an online invasive species training. If your boat gets ticketed for not removing weeds then fines/penalties are steeper because you should know better.
All I have time for right now.
I like this one ...
Me too.
Similar to the little talk and and sticker you would get for your trailer at the boat ramps. But the bar would be set much higher.
Nick
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 182
| Looks like you stirred up a hornets nest. Complain all you want here but this isn't where the powers that be are listening/reading to keep up with voters veiws. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 120
| Moltisanti - 6/18/2013 11:30 AM
Here is another hijack of the thread...
Pointer, why is the St. Croix River and Lake Huron now devoid of zebra mussels? As an AIS professional, that has to be big news.
5 years ago, you couldn't pull a stick out of the water anywhere between Stillwater and Prescott that didn't have 10,000 zebras attached to it. And now they're basically gone.
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/146207365.html
I had the same thought! So I started an AIS thread to yack about it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 120
| joshb - 6/18/2013 11:17 AM
3. Create some kind of an application/permit system that allows you to fish after dark. In order to get the application you need to complete an online invasive species training. If your boat gets ticketed for not removing weeds then fines/penalties are steeper because you should know better.
I like this too. All the ideas you've listed are good, but this one seems the most feasible to me. I don't know how you'd prevent non-permitted boats from leaving without some sort of automated gate, but I think it's an idea in the right direction. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Does anyone know how they are keeping all the birds and other critters out between 10 and 6? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| How many people in here have actually been to a Minneapolis city lake and saw how things unfold in the summer????
Thinking that keeping people off the lake at night that this will control most exotics from entering or leaving the city lakes is a joke,,,,at least 50 percent of the watercraft that enter the lake never goes through the ramp,,,Canoes,Kayaks and clubs that navigate rivers with exotics, carry in sailboats with keels that are so crusty you could extract the goo and use it for a biological weapon,folding boats,all go in and out all summer long and never get checked they just launch on shore, Minneapolis history with their lakes is full of bad decisions regulations,,,how many remember having to get two different permits for their trolling motors and boats and they wernt even the same years when they would be due,,,how did that make any sense or "what did that prevent",,, Preserve water quality???how bout removing the building material that got dumped into the bottom of some of these lakes when the new bandstand was built And Im still waiting for somebody to tell me WHY the sailboaters use outboard motors when outboard motors are banned on city lakes????,,,Has anybody followed the dump truck that harvests milfoil from the lake Im betting that would be a fun youtube when you see that some IS bouncing out all the way down the road.
also dont be under the impression that you CAN stay out on these lakes all night if your willing to be launched by 10pm and out after 6am,,Minneapolis current position regarding that is "That the city of MPL,s does not encourage and will prevent that behavior" and that was has of yesterday 6-17
its is only a matter of time before tonka jumps on the bandwagon
Edited by happy hooker 6/18/2013 3:46 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Nershi - 6/18/2013 1:33 PM
Does anyone know how they are keeping all the birds and other critters out between 10 and 6?
The risk associated with these is so low it's hardly worth worrying about. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 553
Location: deephaven mn | jonnysled - 6/18/2013 11:20 AM
joshb - 6/18/2013 11:17 AM
3. Create some kind of an application/permit system that allows you to fish after dark. In order to get the application you need to complete an online invasive species training. If your boat gets ticketed for not removing weeds then fines/penalties are steeper because you should know better.
All I have time for right now.
I like this one ...
i think this is a good idea as well
Edited by kap 6/18/2013 5:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Just pulled my boat out a couple of hours ago from Calhoun and inspector looked under the right wheelwell and said "looks good". Had she looked at the left side she would have found some fresh, green milfoil hanging.
There was milfoil hanging and quite a bit of green algae/goop junk on my trailer I hadn't seen before. Anyone know what that is? Seemed to be a lot on the surface of Calhoun tonight.
Sorry if this has been asked already but how much would a wash station cost?
And no fish for my boat tonight. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 265
Location: Hudson,WI | jonnysled - 6/18/2013 11:20 AM
joshb - 6/18/2013 11:17 AM
3. Create some kind of an application/permit system that allows you to fish after dark. In order to get the application you need to complete an online invasive species training. If your boat gets ticketed for not removing weeds then fines/penalties are steeper because you should know better.
All I have time for right now.
I like this one ...
I do too, I could also be cool with the gate system you mentioned too. As long as we can have access to the lake, rather than an outright ban.
As far as zeebs dissapeasing from the croix, I was gonna call the BS card until I read the article, so thanks for citing some sources cause that's the first time I've heard that. One thing I heard a long time ago is that the only natural predator that zeebs have was the lowly sheeps head  |
|
| |
MN Ban on Night Fishing for Muskies