|
|
Location: MN | http://www.startribune.com/local/west/38259139.html?elr=KArks:DCiUH...
Curious what your thoughts are regarding a proposed plan to charge launching fees at Lake Minnetonka ramps? A local group consisting of lake home owners and local businesses proposed all plan to charge launching fees to pay for programs to fight invasive species. This group proposed a ball park estimate of $5 - $10 fee per launch. I completely agree that increased action towards battling invasive species is great and I would be willing to chip in some money. The issue I have is who should pay for what?
Why should "outsiders" using the ramps be given the majority of the burden for this project. It is reasonable to assume that the primary users of a given body of water are those who live on the lake. Why not have a joint cost in which every home on the lake is charged an assessment and people launching boats are also charged a fee? Why put the burden solely on those using the ramps who do not live on the lake?
This seems to be a case where this association has the mentality of "lets make Lake Minnetonka exclusive" to those who can afford to use it, i.e. live on the lake. Or, lets have someone else pay for the lake we live on. For anyone who has fished or spent time on Lake Minnetonka, it is obvious that the paychecks and bonuses of lakeshore residents are not small. The highest priced Lake Minnetonka home is on the market for roughly $50,000,000.
In summary, it only seems fair that costs to keep the lake healthy be split between all users, not primarily on one group.
What are your thoughts?  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I might be off base here, but...
Assuming the lakefront property owners mainly only recreate on that lake, the risk of them spreading aquatic nuisance species is relatively low. You're outsiders are the high risk users of the resource, thus they should bear the burden of the cost to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species. At least that's how I see it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 431
| Depends on what the purpose is for the fee and who is in charge of managing it. I don't like the idea of giving private groups control over public ramps-sets a bad precedent. If the DNR wants to collect the fee and do the checking go ahead. There are ways to publicly voice opposition to the DNR and "manage" DNR decisions since the DNR is a public body. Private associations are not so easily managed. The article also referenced collecting all sorts of data about the boat being launched. I'm not a serious conspiracy theory kind of guy, but big brother has enough info on me without somebody else collecting it. If I want to give information about what I do through surveys and such, I will--but I want that choice. Just a couple of different angles to think about. |
|
| |
|
![](<a href="http://flmnetwork.com/content/generators/skinny-sig-generator/">")
Posts: 485
Location: On my favorite lake! | I pay 10 bucks locally to launch. I don't see a problem unless you are paying 10 bucks each day then they should have a 30 buck fee for a weekly rate. The ramps should be in good shape and some money going to restocking |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It would also be a fair thing to do to sell a yearly launch ticket for a flat, reasonable fee to those who use the water alot. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Lightning, they wanted a $5-$10/each launch fee.
It's not going to happen. The ramps on Minnetonka are DNR controlled not association controlled so unless they legislate it don't worry about it. If they try to legislate it I won't let it happen so don't worry about it. This "plan" brought out so many negative comments that a Rep or Sen would be committing political suicide by introducing it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: On your favorite spot | Sure, let's pay $10 everytime we launch, then all summer we can watch them spray the $%IT out of the foil, which is everywhere, in a vain attempt to "control" it, which dirtys up the water and messes up the fishing. Happened last year on another lake I fish all the time. Anyone who lives on Tonka has the resources to chip in and change "their" lake, shouldn't be on us.
I'll pay $10 to launch when property owners start paying rent to the DNR for having hundreds of square feet of dock out there, 5 boats, and those stupid water trampolines.
Want to make a more enjoyable experience on the lake? Stop mowing your lawn like a putting green and fertilizing it all year. Restore the lakeshore habitat and show everyone you actually care about your lake. Then we can talk.
Hopefully at least a few people that respond to this thread actually fish in Tonka. I'll make sure I buy any bait that I need on the way down instead of waiting until I get there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1169
Location: New Hope MN | I see nothing wrong with this association purchasing all public landings and issuing a fee to those who wish to use their lake. Yup. I said it... their lake. It is nice to hear people trying to enforce property rights.
I think its vile to use government to stick a gun in someone’s face. Telling them, “I’m entitled to use your lake whenever I feel like it.”
|
|
| |
|
| Want to make a more enjoyable experience on the lake? Stop mowing your lawn like a putting green and fertilizing it all year.
as an interesting aside, Minnesota is the only state with a state-wide ban on phosphorous fertilizer (Maine has a sorta-kinda one that doesn't work). Dane County (Madison) has one, and Wisconsin is currently considering a similar state-wide ban based on the one in Minnesota.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 697
Location: Minnetonka | Thanks for the facts, Shawn. Do you know what the DNR currently spends on upkeep out there, i.e. chemicals, milfoil mowers, dump truck extraction teams? 
Minnetonka is a lot "higher maintenance" than other large bodies of water due to heavy use, but I don't know if I could justify an extra $1,000/yr to launch... that's like 40 Cowgirls! Rogue landings may start to show up around the lake. 
IMO, "doing our part" doesn't involve ramp fees. It is more about respecting the emergent vegetation buoys by not driving inside them even with PWCs, checking your rig for aquatic hitchhikers, securing your trash so it doesn't blow out on or near the lake... and it's about encouraging others to do the same.
Andy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Andy, I'm not sure about the costs for the milfoil mowers. I think that may be association money, but I'm not sure. I can ask around.
dtaijo174, I'm guessing that you said that tongue-in-cheek. The waters of the USA belong to EVERYONE unlike those in Europe. NEVER try to get that changed. In England for instance you have to apply for a permit to fish a lake and there's usually a waiting list. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | "I think its vile to use government to stick a gun in someone’s face. Telling them, “I’m entitled to use your lake whenever I feel like it.”
I feel it's even more vile for property owners to attempt to "stick a gun" in the public's face and tell them they cant use a PUBLIC resource without paying them some $$! Lakeshore owners property ends at the WATER LINE. I own Lake Minnetonka just as much as the guy with a $10,000,000 home sitting on it.
Whats next, can me and my neighbors put a gate across he ned of our PUBLIC roadway and charge a toll to help pay for road repairs? I mean the through traffic are the ones mostly responsible for degrading the condition of the road so they should bear most of the cost right??
Where does it end??? |
|
| |
|
| It's a complete joke to want to charge a launch fee for boat inspections. I'll gladly pay a yearly fee AFTER every last exotic species is identified and removed and all native species are reintroduced. The lake association has no desire to protect "their" lake from exotic species they want less boat traffic, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
Fun Fact: There is mifoil in the pond outside the REI off of 494. How did that get in their? Not by someone launching a boat!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | I live right next to a 5-acre playground/park. I charge people all the time to park next to it and cook hot dogs or let their kids play next to my home. I figure its my right as an adjacent park property owner
Personally I think they just need to raise everyone’s boat permit by a small amount if they really need money but I do not like this idea much.... Use of your boat on public waterways is alredy being paid by many factors (permits, fishign license, etc.). I just love how many times we are taxed and dinged for anything and everything in life!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| yup,,,,lets spray weeds while the bluegills are spawning just like they do on Independence |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3157
| by the way,,wasnt Grays bay landing built with using some money from the state lottery how can you turn around and now think you can charge at it????
Edited by happy hooker 1/28/2009 10:11 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Shawn I caution your confidence in this going nowhere. Many states including MN have DNR ramps that require you to pay a fee just for the ramp, like Indy. What if the DNR was convinced the the homeowners have good intentions for the money or if the homeowners talked the DNR into taking on an abatement plan with the money? All they would have to do then is install a pay before you launch box just like at Indy. I wouldn't discount it as a possibility, look at the statistical imposibility of Franken now with a 250 vote lead. Face it Minnesota loves to pile on programs funded by redundant taxation. Its a scary culture that Minnesotans embrace with a smile. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | The difference with Indy is that is a Three Rivers Park, not a DNR landing. I'm not sure, but I don't think you are required to launch your boat there, but you are required to park. I may be wrong but I think that's the deal there.
The legislators that I've spoken to about this are about as worked up as we are, that's why I'm confident it won't go anywhere. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 227
Location: Maple Grove | At Indy you park your car for free but you must pay a fee to launch. It's $5 a time or a $35 season pass last time I bought one. Treats is correct though...the fee is not DNR but three rivers park.
Joe Olstadt |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Otsego, MN | $10 per visit is insane. If they do something, they better make a season pass like the Park District at a reasonable price. What's going to happen if this goes through. Do we have to pay at every launch then?? This is just stupid!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | We pay at WI launches. I know, because I always gave the $50 to the guys that took me fishing over the last couple years so they could pay the fee. $50 and a cooler full of beverages and sandwiches. That's the going rate in WI.
Well, most of the time I bring sandwiches. But I always pay the $50 launch fee to whomever takes me.
Kevin
Just the cost of doing business. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 719
| Distressing thought but it won't happen......a can of worms the DNR would never get near.
Kinda like PETA proposing (key word) a ban on fishing |
|
| |
|
Posts: 299
Location: Nowheresville, MN | Marc J, couldn't have written that better myself. The fee at Three Rivers landings is for parking. You can launch for free, but better have a pass to park a vehicle and trailer. I'm still not sure I agree with this. As for Tonka, three accesses are owned by the state. Any fees would have to be approved by the legislature, which as already stated is never going to happen. The DNR has a division which overssees water accesses and is funded by the state general fund and boat registrations and sales(?). If there are no public accesses (free) to a waterbody, the MNDNR no longer assumes control of fish management, i.e. no stocking or surveys. This is where the Three Rivers accesses get sketchy in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| MuskyHopeful - 1/28/2009 6:43 PM
We pay at WI launches. I know, because I always gave the $50 to the guys that took me fishing over the last couple years so they could pay the fee. $50 and a cooler full of beverages and sandwiches. That's the going rate in WI.
Well, most of the time I bring sandwiches. But I always pay the $50 launch fee to whomever takes me.
Kevin
Just the cost of doing business.
This is great. When I come to pick you up to fish next year, bring at least THREE launch fees a day, because I like to take my friends to different lakes as the day goes on. THREE launch fees a day ought to about cover it, and roast beef and chicken(breast meat)sandwhiches. I'll let you hold the boat, while I go, ahem, and pay the launch fee. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Pointerpride102 - 1/27/2009 10:18 PM
I might be off base here, but...
Assuming the lakefront property owners mainly only recreate on that lake, the risk of them spreading aquatic nuisance species is relatively low. You're outsiders are the high risk users of the resource, thus they should bear the burden of the cost to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species. At least that's how I see it.
I think some of the other posters pretty well covered it, but how would you like to be told you were an "outsider" on the WI River, since you weren't a landowner, and were now relegated to a second class user responsible to some primary user group, not including you?
Edited by firstsixfeet 1/28/2009 8:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | "If there are no public accesses (free) to a waterbody, the MNDNR no longer assumes control of fish management, i.e. no stocking or surveys. "
Are you sure about that? On Square Lake in Washington County MN the only access is at the Washington County Park where you must have a pass. The DNR stocks the lake with Rainbow Trout and at one time Atlantic Salmon. I've been questioned for a creel survey there in the past as well. So there must be some exceptions to that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Even though most of the people that screen for invasive species at boat landing volunteer their time, there are still costs associated with the program. Especially if you want them to be informed.
Everyone who drives on a Wisconsin public road pays a fee for the maintenance, in the form of gas tax. In MN I believe you pay extra when you registered a vehicle.
With the increase usage of public waters, it’s not out of the questions that the State any State will try and recoup costs associated with maintaining the landing itself and the waters, not mater the State.
A boat launching fee makes much more sense than a parking fee. At least if you are charged to launch everyone pays including the lake property owners when they launch and retrieve their boats every spring and fall. A parking fee only hits none property owners.
I agree a yearly permit should be obtainable for people that use the launches on a regular basis. If you are going to form a group to fight this, I would keep that option in mind in case you lose and only have that to fall back on. 5$ to 10$ a day without that option is ridicules, and in my opinion exclusionary.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | firstsixfeet - 1/28/2009 8:16 PM
Pointerpride102 - 1/27/2009 10:18 PM
I might be off base here, but...
Assuming the lakefront property owners mainly only recreate on that lake, the risk of them spreading aquatic nuisance species is relatively low. You're outsiders are the high risk users of the resource, thus they should bear the burden of the cost to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species. At least that's how I see it.
I think some of the other posters pretty well covered it, but how would you like to be told you were an "outsider" on the WI River, since you weren't a landowner, and were now relegated to a second class user responsible to some primary user group, not including you?
I'd be fine with it, my feelings wouldnt be hurt, if that is what you are getting at. The most common way AIS are transfered is through boats coming from water that contains an AIS and moving to a water that doesnt contain an AIS. I'm always happy to see people trying to prevent the spread of AIS. My assumption was that people living on tonka seldomly take their boats out and go elsewhere, that assumption may be incorrect, I've never been on the lake, was just offering up an opinion.
Just a thought from a second class citizen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 335
Location: Minnesota | Hopefully we aren't moving in the direction of pay to play in MN. What could be next, paying a fee to hunt public lands?
I agree that we need to do whatever is necessary to prevent the spread of exitocs, but this seems like a silly idea from a group of property owners who seem to be a little stuck on themselves. Last year there was a city on Minnetonka that proposed requiring all lakeshore owners to restore native vegetation along the shoreline on their lots. I think that the same people who made sure that didn't get approved belong to this group that wants to place a fee on everyone else to use the lake. It has been my experience that these types of people just don't seem to lead by example when it comes to doing what is right for "their" lake.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I think its a fair idea IF all the monies are accounted for. Why not share the burden of researching and ridding IAS with everybody who uses the lake? What if the monies went to stocking, would you guys be for or against that? |
|
| |
