Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Pewaukee Lake Fisherman Alert! |
| Message Subject: Pewaukee Lake Fisherman Alert! | |||
tuffy1 |
| ||
Posts: 3240 Location: Racine, Wi | Great info Nancy!! I am studying as we speak. | ||
| Nancy H |
| ||
| I don't mean to be confrontational, but I don't undersdtand why the "Local Boys" have not expressed an opinion on this topic. At this point I am interested to hear what everybody thinks is best for Pewaukee Lake. This is so near and dear to my heart that I can't believe that there are no other opinions out there. Is everyone just OK with letting this happen before we know that this is the right thing to do? Again, I don't mean for this to be pointing fingers at anyone, but PLEASE, voice your opinions. If you don't want to post here please send a message to me at [email protected]. Thank you! | |||
| Jason Smith |
| ||
Posts: 4520 Location: Chippewa Falls Wisconsin | One thought on the issue. If they take away the weeds, whats going to happen to the east end. You have a large shallow flat of MUD. That mud with a strong west wind will pile up at the far east end. That will make there boating even worse. The lake will also like the fox chain or the mississippi for example. Why isnt the whole Milw chapter of MI jumping on this issue. Bob from the lake assocation says the fishery is not good...I keep seeing the guides doing as well if not better then the past....this whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. Also...what reasearch did they do...and WHO are the authors? I think Sailer Joe and Boater Bob thought long and hard one evening on a bar stool on this issue.....thats who I think authored thier research. My 2 cents!!! | ||
| H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | I remember when they sprayed a herbicide on another area lake, Upper Namahbin. Im not sure if it was 2,4-D but these are simple names given for a long list of complex chemicals. The list on the buckets was at least two paragraphs long and you can bet no one knows the long term effects of all these chemicals. The south end of the lake was a dead sea for the whole summer, not even minnows..it seemed as though all fish avoided that end of the lake. It hardly seemed worth it since all the weeds grew back and two years later it was back to the same weed density. The question I have is who is going to be responsible when they find out pouring poison in a lake was a bad idea? Howie. | ||
| buddysolberg |
| ||
| This is the problem that I have with Lake Associations. My experience is that a Lake Association is formed under the guise of "helping the lake" but is mainly there to change the lake to fit SOME OF THE INFLUENTIAL property owners wants. In actuality the Association can only do a few small things to help the lake but can do many outrageous things to harm a lake. I'm sorry to see you having to fight this on Pewaukee. Luck has it that on my lake up here in Phillips the new Association President has been against the push by some property owners to use chemicals to control aquatic plants. The Association had an aquatic plant management plan done by Blue Water Engineering from Minnesota. The plan identified plant types and location and also recommended if any plants needed to be controlled and specified where and what type of control should be done. A few vocal members really were pushing to have larger areas than recommend be chemically treated so they could have their swimming pool-like frontage. We voted in a new President who, even though he lives in a shallow weedy bay has fought chemical treatment and also any rental or purchase of a weed cutter. If you can believe it, one RESORT OWNER here stated at our Association meeting that we should trap rusty crayfish from another lake and stock them in our lake. This is the kind of bar-stool logic you are fighting against! The DNR in our case was against chemical use in any of the areas pinpointed in the Blue Water study but would allow weed cutting if a permit was requested. Good luck in this fight against greed and ignorance, you will find it will be a never ending war. Buddy | |||
| Mikes Extreme |
| ||
Posts: 2691 Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | I am watching this very close but don't have the info I need to make a stink yet. The Cave Run tournament and Turkey hunting has kept me very buisy up to this point. Now it time to do some investigating. Who is going to pay for this? I know my parents own a house on the lake and 150 ft of frontage on some land on the north shore, they are going to NOT PAY for this. Two of my brothers are NOT going to pay either. How many other people are going to PAY for them to screw up the lake. When the weeds are gone are they going to grow back? How long will this last? Where is the $$$ going to come from to do all this? Where is the infomation on the study and who did it? This sounds like $$$ is the major contributor to this decision. Home owners and recrational boaters. The mayor lives on the northeast shore where the water level is only 3 to 4ft, does he think this will make his frontage better? A better view of the mud flat maybe. I am worried sick about this !!! | ||
| Jason Smith |
| ||
Posts: 4520 Location: Chippewa Falls Wisconsin | And Brother MIKE you SHOULD be worried!!!!!! You said you hated the fox chain...well my friend if they do this...you will have the fox chain in your back yard....a MUD PIT. I have been emailing president Bob of the lake assocation with CC to the DNR. He never answers my questions..just sends me form letters. He has one issue...his property value. Every fishery is unique!!! in its own way. If the state says Pewaukee lake has growth rates in muskies 3 to 4 times higher then the state average....well something must be right. When its right..dont break it. He has not talked to Dr. Anderson...because he is afraid he might be told his is wrong. The best thing they could do for the lake is make it NO WAKE! and preserve the habitat! EVERYONE PLEASE EMAIL... Jason Smith/CTOTPA Concerned tourist of the Pewaukee Area!!! | ||
| Jason Smith |
| ||
Posts: 4520 Location: Chippewa Falls Wisconsin | I want to be the first to coin the phrase......THE BOB GIBLIN DISASTER!!! Email Bob at [email protected] and express your views as concerned fisherman. | ||
| esox-dan |
| ||
| I hate to keep posting some of my responses that I recieve, but I believe some of them are educational in dealing with the situation. This way there is more people who can read between the lines. We still need a lot of help... any seasoned protesters out there? Mr White: I spent another evening of additional research on the 2,4-D Factsheet you provided to us. The "factsheet" appears to be a comprehensive review of much research information on the fate of 2.4-D in the environment. However, it is largely irrelevent to the issue at hand; that is, the impact of application of Aqua-Kleen or Navigate in Pewaukee Lake. Please consider the following when reviewing this factsheet: The "Journal of Pesticide Reform" does not impress me as an unbiased scientific publication. There are various forms of 2,4-D. Aqua-Kleen and Navigate are a 2,4-D butoxyethyl ester (BEE). Dimethylamine salt (DMA) is another form of 2,4-D. All of the factsheet references to the amine form are not applicable to our situation and many references to 2,4-D in the factsheet do not specify the form that was tested when they talk about adverse affects.. In order to have a positive or adverse affect, the 2,4-D must come into contact with the plant or animal of concern. Since the 2,4-D is applied as granules directly over the water surface, there is no opportunity for it to come into contact with plants and animals (such as birds) living above the water surface. The method of contact with a chemical is also important. For example, the toxicity of water to humans when inhaled in excessive quantities is much different than when swallowed. The same is true for chemical exposures. Injection into chicken eggs will have a profoundly different impact than surface contact with the shell. The "Factsheet" also points out the differences in response to 2,4-D by different species. Salmon may be highly sensitive to 2,4-D but keep in mind that there are no salmon in Pewaukee Lake. To asume all other fish species may be equally sensitive would be misapplication of these findings. Concentration is also critically important. Many of the effects reported in the "Factsheet" occur at concentrations far higher than the concentration that is expected in the water column during the application of Aqua-Kleen or Navigate in Pewaukee Lake. In my opinion, a more independant scientific evaluation can be found at the State of Washington Department of Ecology. They conducted a very thorough look at this issue and published "Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement" in February 2001. It can be reviewed at the following link: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0010043.html It is quite detailed and you should not begin reading it around bedtime. However, the publication has substantial merit in that it discusses 2,4-D in Aqua-Kleen and Navigate specifically in the context of surface water applications for aquatic plant management. The WA Department of Ecology recommends the continued use of 2,4-D as a tool in managing the Eaurasian water milfoil problem in that state. The Pewaukee Lake Improvement Association believes the milfoil problem will not be solved by herbicides alone. We have been strong proponents of reducing the food supply for these weeds with the zero-phosphorus ordinance for lawn fertilizers. Charlie Shong from the Sanitary District supported us on this. Unfortunately, more lawn care companies than PLIA members showed up at the City, Village and Town meetings to express their opinions. Lawns are not the only source of phosphorus entering the lake and the zero-phosphorus ordinance was intended to be only a start. The Sanitary District has funded the Lutheran College to conduct a more comprehensive study on other phosphorus sources entering the lake. The proposed changes to the strategy for harvesting more weeds beyond the 150 foot shoreline areas are intended to help control milfoil that is now spreading by fragments created by booat props. Everything the association proposes to do is consistent with the recommendations made by the SE Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's (SEWRPC) "A Lake Management Plan for Pewaukee Lake" (May 2003). You can read the lake management plan on the SEWRPC website at: http://www.sewrpc.org/publications/ CAPR No. 58 (2nd Edition), A Lake Management Plan for Pewaukee Lake (PDF file) "This report describes the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of Pewaukee Lake. It also contains information about the feasibility of various watershed and in-lake management measures which may be applied to enhance water quality conditions, biological communities, and recreational opportunities of the Lake." The association is trying to hold our elected oficials accountable for implementing the recommendations contained in the Lake Management Plan. I ask that you join us in becoming further informed on the wide range of complex issues affecting Pewaukee Lake. Please join the association so we can send you our emails on what we are trying to accomplish and so you can provide us feedback. I hope you find the above information of value and would appreciate your forwarding this email to other concerned residents. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Bob Karnauskas His Email is: [email protected] Edited by esox-dan 4/26/2004 11:41 PM | |||
| esoxb8r |
| ||
Location: Pewaukee, WI | Just got this!!!!!!!!! Dear Concerned Members of the Public: Thank you for expressing your concerns with the proposed "Pilot Study" submitted to the Department on April 14, 2004 by the City of Pewaukee. Due to the large volume of phone, hand written and email contacts, the Department will not be able to respond to each email individually. The contacts Shelley, Jim and I have received will all receive a "mass mailing", which I am hoping will respond to each of the questions asked. We will be reviewing each email and compiling a list of questions/comments/concerns for response. If you feel this "mass response" does not respond to your questions/comments/concerns, then please feel free to contact me. I intend on responding by email by the end of the week, your patience in this matter is greatly appreciated. Gabriel J Powers Water Resources Specialist Fisheries and Habitat Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (() phone: (262)574-2171 (() fax: (262)574-2117 (+) e-mail: [email protected] | ||
| tuffy1 |
| ||
Posts: 3240 Location: Racine, Wi | I just got that as well. Take a look on the Daily News Trawler for an article on this subject. there is a place to put a reply on the site as well, and they are posted for anyone who reads it to see. | ||
| Mikes Extreme |
| ||
Posts: 2691 Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | Great stuff Dan !!! Feel free to post anything and everything you find. I will talk to you sometime this week or on Saturday. | ||
| Bob Giblin |
| ||
| Dan, I can see that there is a large amount of concern out there and I am extremely grateful that regardless of your initial concerns and opinions you are objective enough to forward our e-mails. For those of your associates who have some time there are a few websites that should be visited. Doing the homework on these issues has taken hundreds of hours of my personal time because when we started,I didn't know a lot about these processes. The lake association, for the first six-months, did not take any position on the use of aquatic herbicides until we did our investigation and determined that 2,4-D, a plant growth hormone, would be the best option. Additional info is that 64% of the membership who responded to the survey conducted at the informational meeting we held in October last year said that they wanted the entire lake treated. That simply is not a practical, reasonable, or a feasible approach to this eco-system. By the way, Dan, that was the first time I spoke with Dr. Anderson. He was with Ron the president of Muskies Inc. I also attended the presentation of Dr. Anderson's 2003 study at the Lake Pewaukee Sanitary District. I spent about 8 hours with Jeff Thornton from SEWRPC discussing the most recently produced plan for the lake. For those of your members who are interested in more info they can e-mail me at [email protected]. I will be very happy to attach the website addresses mentioned earlier in this message. The bottom line is that an informed, educated lake community is the best for the lake association and the lake. It is very difficult to get the truth out there when some people don't let the facts get in the way of their emotional response. Once again, Dan, thank you for your objectivity and, While I don't want to sound flippant, "the truth will set us free". | |||
| Nancy H |
| ||
| Maybe tonights meeting of the Milwaukee Chapter of Muskies Inc. can provide us with some of Dr. Anderson's insights on this matter. The guest speaker at next months meeting is Dr. Thorton of SEWRPC who will be discussing the management of Pewaukee Lake's drainage basin. | |||
| Mikes Extreme |
| ||
Posts: 2691 Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | Bob Giblin, We thank you for your time to read and discuss this post and its replys, feel free to post any info you might have for all to see. This is a information site and lots of eyes are on this post. Please update us when you can. | ||
| MiserMike |
| ||
Posts: 57 Location: Racine WI | I have to express my delight (and, admit it) surprise at how civil and sensible this thread has remained. It makes me hopeful about the human race to see such a hot-button issue calmly debated -- heartwarming! All sides are to be congratulated -- most of all for not *taking* sides in the sense of close-minded din that controversial issues usually degenerate into on almost every website. Thank you, one and all! | ||
| Steve Van Lieshout |
| ||
Posts: 1916 Location: Greenfield, WI | I will be providing an update of the situation to tonight's Muskies Inc. Meeting. I will update my post entitled, "Pewaukee Lake Weed Poisoning Update", afterwards. Edited by Steve Van Lieshout 4/27/2004 5:30 PM | ||
| H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | I would also like to thank Bob Giblin for responding on this sight. Besides the obvious concern for the fishery, I am concerned about long term effects of water fowl ingesting this plant growth hormone(and they will) and is there any proof it is not harmful?. I am a state certified wildlife tech and I have only seen studys on pesticides and the effects they have on wildife, but have never seen anything stating that it is safe for water fowl to ingest 2,4-D. This proposed application has far more ramifications than is being looked at. Howie Knapp | ||
| Bob Giblin, PLIA |
| ||
| Last night I had an opportunity to speak at your monthly meeting. Someone had canceled and your group asked if I was available to fill in. What a great group you have. There must have been 50+. Your waterfowl question came up during the question and answer period. The 2,4-D we are proposing to use is actually in pellet form attached to clay particles. Once spread onto the water it falls to the sediment and decomposes over a few days. It's not available over time to the birds and because it's on the bottom and they don't have access to it. You can eat the fish you catch that day and you can feel free to swim in it. You just don't want to water your geraniums with it until the DNR removes the posted signs. It is actually a plant growth hormone and it has been described as forcing the plants to eat themselves to death. At 100 pounds per acre it is also specific to Eurasian watermilfoil and will not harm the native vegetation. My e-mail is [email protected]. We have a large amount of info on this weed that is plaguing north america. It can be beaten so the native vegetation can regain their foothold. It is just a matter of someone deciding that it needs to be done. Our program is designed to encourage the growth of the natives because they are better for the water column. They give off more oxygen, grow slower and are just plain better habitat for the lake. Everything I have read says it is bad for the fishery to have this invasive species in Pewaukee Lake. Thanks again to your organization for the opportunity to share the facts. Our program, contrary to what you may have heard, will affect 69 acre of shoreline and with one harvester, probably 150 acres in the center of the eastern basin. A lot of the productivity depends upon wind, weather, etc. So that's a total of 219 acres. This year we'll have to leave the rest to the milfoil. This is a program designed to make some small attempts this year, monitor what effect it has had, and then, based upon our observations, put a plan an approach to be incorporated into the lake plan through amendment. | |||
| Slamr |
| ||
Posts: 7038 Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Thank you for the full explanation of the situation. | ||
| esox-dan |
| ||
| Dear Bob and Bob and Concerned others, These are the 3 MSDS's (Material Safety Data Sheets) In which I understand from a previous mailing which will be used. The Aqua-Kleen and the Dimethylamine along with BEE. I found them ALL to be disturbing especially the BEE which states it is Harmful in the environment and may cause long term adverse effects along with all the other numerous effects! Bob G. as you have claimed numerous times that it is safe for swimming in etc. "but should wait until they remove the application signs". Maybe you should look a little closer at whats in these chemicals before you go claiming to the public as to how safe these really are! Please don't reply with a Web site address as we are dealing with site specifics. Thank You, Dan White Also, Bob, Please verify that these are the chemicals that you intend to use. So we can encourage everyone to go to these MSDS's and read more about the dangers and concerns. http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/DI/2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid.ht... http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/DI/dimethyl_acetamide.html http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/DI/diethylenetriaminepentaacetic_aci... XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (BEE): http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/DI/diethylenetriaminepentaacetic_aci... Safety (MSDS) data for diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Synonyms: 1,1,4,7,7-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid, 3,6,9-tris(carboxymethyl)3,6,9-triazaundecanedioic acid, DTPA, pentetic acid, detapac, detarex, dabeersen 503 Use: Molecular formula: C14H23N3O10 CAS No: 67-43-6 EINECS No: 200-652-8 Physical data Appearance: solid Melting point: 220 C Boiling point: Vapour density: Vapour pressure: Density (g cm-3): Flash point: Explosion limits: Autoignition temperature: Water solubility: slight Stability Stable. Incompatible with strong oxidizing agents. Toxicology Harmful if swallowed. Respiratory and eye irritant. Possible evidence that this material may act as a carcinogen. Toxicology not fully investigated. Toxicity data (The meaning of any toxicological abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.) ORL-RAT LD50 > 2000 mg kg-1 IPR-RAT LD50 587 mg kg-1 Risk phrases (The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.) R22 R36 R40. R22 Harmful if swallowed. R36 Irritating to eyes. R40 Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect. Environmental information Harmful in the environment - may cause long term adverse effects. Transport information (The meaning of any UN hazard codes which appear in this section is given here.) UN No 3077. Hazard class 9. Packing group III. Personal protection Safety glasses, gloves, adequate ventilation. Safety phrases (The meaning of any safety phrases which appear in this section is given here.) S26 S36 S61. [Return to Physical & Theoretical Chemistry Lab. Safety home page.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This information was last updated on February 17, 2004. We have tried to make it as accurate and useful as possible, but can take no responsibility for its use, misuse, or accuracy. We have not verified this information, and cannot guarantee that it is up-to-date. Safety (MSDS) data for 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aqua-Kleen: http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/DI/2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid.ht... General Synonyms: 2,4-D, 2,4-D acid, dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyethanoic acid, dichlorophenoxyethanoic acid, Agrotect, Amidox, Asgrow Aqua KD, Amoxone, Aqua-kleen, Chloroxone, Crop rider, formula 40, Decamine, Ed-weed, Dicopur, Dicotox, DMA-4, Dormone, Emulsamine BK, Envert DT, Ferminine, Lawn-keep, Miracle, Monosan, Netagrone, pannamine, Weedtox, Weedtrol, Verton, numerous further trade names Use: herbicide, defoliant, weed killer, fruit drop controller. Component of Agent Orange. Molecular formula: Cl2C6H3OCH2COOH CAS No: 94-75-7 EINECS No: 202-361-1 Physical data Appearance: light yellow crystalline powder Melting point: 136 - 140 C Boiling point: decomposes Vapour density: Vapour pressure: Density (g cm-3): 1.56 Flash point: Explosion limits: Autoignition temperature: Water solubility: decomposes Stability Stable, but moisture-sensitive and may be light-sensitive. Incompatible with strong oxidizing agents, corrodes many metals. Decomposes in water. Toxicology Toxic if swallowed or inhaled. Experimental carcinogen and teratogen. May be harmful by skin contact. May cause CNS damage. Eye, skin and respiratory irritant. NTP lethal dose 700 mg kg-1; acceptable daily intake 0-0.3 mg kg-1. Toxicity data (The meaning of any toxicological abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.) ORL-HMN LDLO 80 mg kg-1 ORL-RAT LD50 370 mg kg-1 SKN-RAT LD50 1500 mg kg-1 ORL-RBT LDLO 800 mg kg-1 SKN-RBT LD50 1400 mg kg-1 Risk phrases (The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.) R23 R24 R25 R36 R37 R38. R23 Toxic by inhalation. R24 Toxic in contact with skin. R25 Toxic if swallowed. R36 Irritating to eyes. R37 Irritating to respiratory system. R38 Irritating to skin. Transport information (The meaning of any UN hazard codes which appear in this section is given here.) UN No 2765. Hazard class 6.1. Packing group II. Personal protection Safety glasses, rubber gloves. Ensure adequate ventilation. Safety phrases (The meaning of any safety phrases which appear in this section is given here.) S26 S37 S39. [Return to Physical & Theoretical Chemistry Lab. Safety home page.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This information was last updated on January 20, 2004. We have tried to make it as accurate and useful as possible, but can take no responsibility for its use, misuse, or accuracy. We have not verified this information, and cannot guarantee that it is up-to-date. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx DMA: "The Dimethylamine Salt" http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/DI/dimethyl_acetamide.html Safety (MSDS) data for dimethyl acetamide -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Synonyms: N,N-dimethylacetamide, DMAC, dimethylamide acetate, acetyldimethylamine, DMA, U-5954 Molecular formula: C4H9NO CAS No: 127-19-5 EINECS: 204-826-4 Physical data Appearance: colourless liquid with a faint ammonia odour (recognition threshold value 47 ppm) Melting point: -20 C Boiling point: 166 C Vapour density: 3 Vapour pressure: 9 mm Hg at 60 C Specific gravity: 0.937 Flash point: 70 C Explosion limits: Autoignition temperature: Water solubility: moderate Stability Stable. Combustible. Incompatible with strong oxidising agents. Toxicology Harmful by inhalation, ingestion and through skin contact. Experimental teratogen. Eye irritant. Typical TLV 10 ppm. Toxicity data (The meaning of any abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.) ORL-RAT LD50 5090 mg kg-1 IPR-RAT LD50 2750 mg kg-1 ORL-MUS LD50 4260 mg kg-1 IVN-RBT LDLO 8340 mg kg-1 IVN-MUS LD50 3020 mg kg-1 Risk phrases (The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.) R20 R21 R36. R20 Harmful by inhalation. R21 Harmful in contact with skin. R36 Irritating to eyes. Transport information Personal protection Safety glasses, adequate ventilation. Safety phrases (The meaning of any safety phrases which appear in this section is given here.) S2 S26 S28 S36. [Return to Physical & Theoretical Chemistry Lab. Safety home page.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This information was last updated on September 5, 2003. We have tried to make it as accurate and useful as possible, but can take no responsibility for its use, misuse, or accuracy. We have not verified this information, and cannot guarantee that it is up-to-date. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Edited by esox-dan 4/29/2004 7:51 AM | |||
| esox-dan |
| ||
| I see that there is another thread in discussion concerning some of these issues. I will continue using this thread. | |||
| esox-dan |
| ||
| Bob and Bob, I have been re-reading some of my mailings. The exact chemicals being used I am a little unsure of for the fact that the comments I have recieved are unclearly worded. The MSDS's above are from what I gather is to be used. Please state the exact chemicals involved with the Pewaukee Lake application. So, We can then post the proper MSDS's IF in need of correction. I apologize for the haste in this matter. Thank You, Dan White | |||
| H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | Thanks Bob, after reading all the impact statements I could find on 2,4-D BEE (granular form) it seems that the hormone does not bioaccumulate in water fowl. It is recommended to not use 2,4-D BEE during nesting or migration periods. There are alot of facts that you did not mention and do not serve your interest. #1. 2,4-D BEE is the most toxic form of plant hormone here in the US and it is recomended to use a less toxic form if possible. #2. Sediment Statement, due to the extremely high toxicity of 2.4-D BEE there is potential for adverse impact to the Biota based on the results of laboratory studys. (this toxicity is lessened to some degree in nature. #4.Evidence that Algae numbers increase due to the release of nitrogen and phosphate from decaying plants.(Pewaukee lake already has a Algae problem). This also destroys the food chain in the treated area. As mentioned in another post 2.4-D BEE is a cousin to 2,4,4-T (AGENT ORANGE) without the Dioxin molecule. 30 years later and the side effects of growth hormones are just being uncovered. Yes 2.4-D BEE will kill Eurasion Watermilfoil, but this application is purely cosmetic and does not warrent the future risk to Man and enviroment. The truth will set you free, but sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Howie Knapp. | ||
| Nancy H |
| ||
| Here is what the DNR has replied with: April 29, 2004 Dear Concerned Member of the Public: The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Department) appreciates your concern for the natural resources of this great State. This letter will respond to a number of contacts received about the City of Pewaukee’s proposed Aquatic Plant Management permit applications. Before issuance of a permit for chemical control of aquatic plants, the Department considers the following: Is the proposed chemical labeled and registered for us? Does it have a current chemical fact sheet? Are the applicants proposing to use the herbicide in a way that in consistent with its registered label? Will the treatment result in a hazard to humans, animals or other nontarget organisms? Will the treatment result in a significant adverse effect on the body of water? Is the proposed chemical treatment beyond 150 feet of shore? Will the treatment significantly injure fish, fish eggs, fish larvae, essential fish food organisms or wildlife, either directly or through habitat destruction? Is the treatment proposed in an area known to have threatened or endangered species, Is the treatment in designated sensitive areas? (per Wis. Adm. Code NR 107) Before issuance of a permit for mechanical harvesting of aquatic plants, the Department considers the following: Are aquatic plants causing significant impairment of beneficial water use activities? Will the proposed plan for control remedy the water use impairments? Will the control result in a hazard to humans? Will the control cause significant adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species? Will the control result in significant adverse effect on water quality, aquatic habitat or the aquatic community, including the native plant community? Is the control in locations identified by the Department as Sensitive Areas? Will the control result in significant adverse long-term or permanent changes to a plant community or a high value species in a specific aquatic ecosystem? Will the control interfere with the rights of riparians? (per Wis. Adm. Code NR 109) The chemical 2,4-D does have a chemical fact sheet, which can be provided by the Department upon request. This document explains the manufacturers, formulations, effectiveness and selectivity, use considerations, water use restrictions, registration status, impacts on fish and other aquatic organisms, herbicide degradation, persistence and trace contaminants, and human health impacts from the chemical. The Department relies on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to register chemical products for aquatic use. The EPA has determined that “no unreasonable adverse effects” will occur as a result of using 2,4-D according to label instructions. “Unreasonable” in the EPA definition means the risk of using a herbicide does not exceed the benefits. The selectivity of 2,4-D to control Eurasian Water Milfoil and not harm native aquatic pondweeds is considered to be important to the Department. Diverse native plant habitats are preferred to monotypical stands of Eurasian Water Milfoil. Native stands of aquatic plants tend not to grow to nuisance levels and provide better, more diverse habitats for a number of aquatic species. Fisherman and others concerned about impacts to fish: 2,4-D, depending on application rates, will only impact watermilfoil, coontail, waterlilly, watersheild and bladderwort species. However, if permitted, the Department will be supervising the treatment and will be limiting the use of 2,4-D in areas where it may adversely affect native plant species. The Department will also be ensuring the application takes place in a manner, which will limit the potential for the dissolved oxygen “crashes”. The chemical 2,4-D is not known to affect pondweeds, commonly referred to as “musky cabbage”. The City of Pewaukee had originally applied for up to 69 acres of selective herbicide treatment and up to 650 acres of harvesting of the invasive aquatic plant Eurasian Water Milfoil. The Department met with the City on Thursday April 29, 2004 to discuss the pending permits. During the meeting, the City presented a reduced proposal for chemical and harvesting treatments. The current herbicide proposal is the treatment of up to 43.6 acres with the selective herbicide 2,4-D in the granular form, brand name-Navigate. The current mechanical proposal is for the harvesting of up to 100 acres beyond 150 feet from shore, for the purpose of maintaining a navigational channel in the eastern bay. The City has altered their harvesting procedure from a deep cut to a shallow top cut to a depth of 3 feet or less. The City will be issuing a public notice for the amended proposal within the next week as required by Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 107. If five or more people request in writing, to the applicant, that they would like to have a public informational meeting, then the applicant (City) will be required to hold an informational meeting. The purpose of an informational meeting is for the applicant to present the proposed project to the public. This meeting is not a public hearing, but a presentation from the applicant followed by a public question and answer period. The Department has received multiple phone messages, emails and letters of “objection” and “opposition” to the proposed Aquatic Plant Management practices by the City of Pewaukee. These “objections” cannot be given weight unless they are filed in accordance to Wisconsin State Statute 227. The public has the right to request a contested case hearing pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 227.42. A request for contested case hearing may be filed prior to a permit decision by the Department and may also be filed up to 30 days after the Department makes a decision. Additionally, the public has the right to request a judicial review pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 227.52 and 227.53, within 30 days of a Department decision. If a hearing is granted after the Department has issued a permit, the discretion for allowing chemical treatment to proceed before the hearing relies upon the Department. If the Department issues a permit for chemical application, then two important permit conditions the public should be aware of are: 1) Treatment in permitted areas will not be performed in front of riparian property owners if the property owners indicate they do not want treatment in writing to the applicant (City of Pewaukee). 2) A copy of this decision and the enclosed permit shall be provided to riparian property owners in and adjacent to the treatment area before the treatment may occur. The Department also requires the City of Pewaukee to have several copies of the decision and enclosed permit available for public inspection. This response was authored to answer a compilation of questions posed to the Department from a variety of individuals. If you feel your question was not properly answered or you would like to obtain further information from the Department, then feel free to contact me at 262.574.2171. Sincerely, Gabriel J Powers Water Resources Specialist Fisheries and Habitat Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (() phone: (262)574-2171 (() fax: (262)574-2117 (+) e-mail: [email protected] | |||
| Bob Giblin |
| ||
| Dan, You only have to wait for the signs to be removed for watering you plants. | |||
| H.K. |
| ||
Posts: 66 Location: Wales Wi. | Mr. Giblin I have heard that the DNR has denied the application permit and that it has been changed and resubmitted. Would you please confirm or deny this and let us know what changes are proposed. Thanks Howie Knapp. | ||
| Park Ave. Resident |
| ||
| Cmon you guys...how is this such a bad thing. I live on the east side of the lake and I do my fair share of fishing and leisure boating. The fishing on the lake has been less than impressive the last few years but the weeds on the east end have been absolutley atroshus (sp). I cant even take my boat for a spin (on the eastside) without having to stop and throw it in reverse to blow the weeds outta my prop. Your concerns are that the poisoning is going to kill off 64.5% of the fish on the east end but ive emailed the dnr about this and recieved quite a lenghty reply regarding the issue. If you go about 10 posts up from this one you will see a reply which another person in this forum got from the dnr regarding the issue and it pretty much says the same thing and the reply i got, the poisoning will not affect the fishing as much as the speculation is. If you want details read that post above, im not gonna copy and paste the same thing twice. Whats my point ? If the dnr says that poisoning the east end to kill the weeds isnt going to kill off all the fish like all of you think then where are you getting this info that its going to kill off 64.5% ? Alot of you are thinking that im just a water skiier and not a fisherman but im not. I fish the lake religously (being that i live on it) and have had some impressive fish pulled outta the lake but compared to any other lake, especially northbound, the fishing on pewaukee lake is terrible. Ice fishing is my favorite and i have an 10 x 10 shante out from waterfront by the island. I think for all the time i spent in that shack (that i can remember) i had 10 flags all last year. You guys are that serious about the fishing being so good that we cant let this poisoning happen ? GIVE ME A BREAK !!! | |||
| tuffy1 |
| ||
Posts: 3240 Location: Racine, Wi | I won't get into the details as to why this is a bad idea, as there is enough info to read above. I will let you know that Pewaukee is definitely a first rate fishery right now. For being an urban lake, it puts out plenty of fish, and is one of the top musky fisheries in Wi. If the fish aren't biting for you, maybe you could hang out on the site, and learn some tips. The fishing up north could be considered better, as on any given weekend, there aren't 2000+ people using the lake. As for Ice fishing, I don't do much, but the one day I was on the lake this winter, we caught 3 walleye, a couple of bass, and 6 or 7 northern. Not too bad for a days fishing. The east end is going to be weedy, as it is a flooded marsh!!!! The average depth is maybe 5 feet, and that is not with the river channel included. It doesn't take much for the weeds to grow that high. The west end doesn't have that problem as it is deeper. If we were to turn Pewaukee into what it was 10000 years ago like Bob would like to do, they would dry up the east end, and you would have a 1000 acre lake, as it started. Just the west end would exist. That would be the natural form of the lake. We are trying to listen to all sides, and are not attacking anyone, we are looking into the proposal, and want what is best for the lake. | ||
| Bob Giblin |
| ||
| Howie, The permits were not denied. We met with the DNR on Thursday and were asked to fill in some of the gaps in the permit applications. We were also encouraged to reduce the plan of operation for 2004. In the interest of getting this done, the city representatative and I decided to ammend the plan. We brought the 2,4-D area down by almost half to 43 acres instead of 69. Also the harvest permit application (formally 600 acres) was reduced to 100. We only have the possibility of one harvester so with 2 to 6 inches growth per day of this invasive species, we wouldn't be able to handle much more than that anyway. Unfortunately for your organization, that won't be helping your fishery much. If you read the posting from the DNR, the eurasion water milfoil does not allow natives like "musky cabbage" to get much of a foothold. I was talking with a biologist about the form letter that was going around the Muskies Inc. meeting and he asked me if you guys knew that this effort was going to be great for the fishing. I had explained that there was an anonymous e-mail going around that was full of misinformation and had generated a lot of concern on the part of the fisherman. Thanks for asking Howie. It is always better to get it from the source. | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |