Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Lake associations |
| Message Subject: Lake associations | |||
esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8856 | Wondering if anyone has been or currently is a member of their local lake association, and if you could shed some light on the subject. What sorts of issues do they typically deal with? Did you find the experience to be positive? Is it worth the effort, or is it a waste of time? | ||
| tuffy1 |
| ||
Posts: 3242 Location: Racine, Wi | I'm not on one, but my parents are and I help them out as far as stocking and fish issues go from time to time. It's well worth the effort from a fishing standpoint as the majority of them are very undereducated from a fish perspective. Take the time to help deal with issues of all sorts and you'll find that in the end it helps everyones experience. If you don't you'll end up getting upset at some of the ideas, projects, and regulations that they want to push. From my standpoint, I can't really get them to do anything since I don't own property there, but I try to help out. They know I fish and guide for muskies so at first they thought I had an agenda to push, but after they heard what my ideas were and why I thought a certain way, they tended to open up. I also show them that I have a genuine concern for their lake by putting on a kids fishing clinic every spring. It's something I can do to help get kids into fishing, as well as help those that don't fish much figure out the basics. | ||
| MUSKYBOY |
| ||
| We have worked with some local associations regarding stocking, and generally one home owner that doesn't like muskies is enough to turn the vote against stocking | |||
| MJ |
| ||
| But one member in favor on an otherwise neutral board can have the same effect! Take someone fishing!! | |||
| reelman |
| ||
Posts: 1270 | Why should these associations have anything to say about stocking? Last I checked they didn't own the lakes, we do! | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| It depends on the lake reelman. Some lakes have no public access and are "owned" by the land owners. Those lake associations should be able to control what goes on in their lake. Other lake associations should have just as much to say about what goes on in the lake as anyone else. They don't "control" the lake and I do not see where anyone has made that statement. As a group, their voice is heard loud and clear because they are a large group that speaks as one. Many individuals have their own private agendas and they do not get heard as much. | |||
| floydss |
| ||
 Posts: 282 Location: north west wisconsin | i thought dnr passed a law stating that any lake of x amount of acres has to have public access thus eleminating "private Lakes" or did i hear wrong? | ||
| Ranger |
| ||
Posts: 3918 | Our lake association does a very good job of sharing information and collecting input for decision-making. Weed control, invasive species, stocking, fourth of July boat parades, etc., are the things discussed. They are not into making more rules about how people should behave or how they should manage their property, which is unlike some other local lake associations. Thumbs up for our lake association. ps - they stocked our lake with walleye this year to burn up some of the growing fund balance. I wanted muskies, of course, but no way. | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20269 Location: oswego, il | Some lake associations can be about themselves and not outsiders. I like What Tuffy1 said about getting some outsiders in there and showing genuin concern. I know one lake association that wants it's millfoil to stay and does not care if it spreads to other lakes. It's one of the most heavily fished lakes in the area. | ||
| kdawg |
| ||
Posts: 784 | Reelman, I don't live on the Chetek Chain, but my parents do. When u say Why should Lake associations have anything to say about stocking? It's very simple. TAXES! Resort owners and waterfront property owners pay an unbelievable amount in property taxes. It would only make sense for them to be concerned whay kind of stocking is being conducted on the lakes that ther businesses rely. You may agree with this or not. I happen to agree.As far as the Chetek Chain goes, for some odd reason, they continue to stock walleyes even though there are no good areas for walleyes to spawn, therefore no natural reproduction. I would much rather have them take a different course and stock MUSKIES! Plenty of good spawning areas and trophy potential for sure. Kdawg | ||
| reelman |
| ||
Posts: 1270 | We all pay taxes and remember that while they live on the lake they still don't own it. Just because a resort owner would like to see all the muskies killed so that he can have more walleye's (I know this isn't the case but a lot of people and resort owners still think this way) shouldn't give him anymore of a vote on what gets stocked than I do. And I do realize that lakefront property owners do pay a ton of taxes but that is there choice to live there. | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
We all pay taxes and remember that while they live on the lake they still don't own it. true enough. at the same time, the property owners on the lake are usually the biggest users of that lake. non-property owners tend to spread their use of public waters around among various lakes moreso than on-water property owners do. therefore it makes perfect sense for them to have significant input into the process for managing the lake they live on and use the most. | |||
| momuskies |
| ||
Posts: 431 | In Missouri, there are many lakes that are owned by different associations. My parents live in Lake Saint Louis which has 2 lakes totaling approx. 625 acres. No public access is allowed on the lakes, and you have to register your boat and pay an exorbitant fee every year to use the lake. Sounds different than your situation up north. | ||
| john skarie |
| ||
| Lakeshore owners are taxed on the value of thier property. Because thier property is valuable, that does not give them any more say in what should or shouldn't happen on public waters. The last thing that should be of concern as far as opinion on what happens to our lakes, is if the persons opinion is based on making money because of the lake. Time and again people put money in front of responsible resource management. The concept is simple, lakes are public. Lakeshore owners should not have elevated rights as far as lake issues. JS | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | My experience with Wisconsin Lake Association (LA) an individual LA member has no more or less power than you or I. In many cases what gives them power is their group. They form groups because in many cases they have a larger stake in what happens to an individual lake than the average person. Because there property value and personnel enjoyment value are directly related to the quality of that specific lake. This is no differetn than Musky fishermen forming groups to lobbie for their views. In most cases LA’s cant levee taxes or impose fees, except on there own members. What they can do is lobby town boards to levee taxes and impose fees. Most of the boat launch fees you see come from the local town boards, because it’s the townships that have to pay to maintain these landing. Unless it is a State Owned landing. LA’s also raise money for stocking, hazard buoys, fish cribs, habitat protection, lake studies, and recently most important the War against Invasives. Pelican LA members have spent TONS of hours monitoring the boat landings the last couple of years in an effort to slow the spread of Invasives. And you know what it’s working, I think twice last year they stopped trailers from backing into Pelican with Milfoil on the bunks. One individual refused to listen and launched anyway, the WDNR tip line was called and the belligerent boater was ticketed. If members of the LA didn’t volunteer to do this stuff who would. They are not all powerful either. For example on Pelican Lake the LA has a bunch of money in it’s stocking fund and they want to stock Walleye in the worst way. But the WDNR is refusing the permit, because studies show that the Walleye are naturally producing quite well on there own, and it’s not needed. Also regarding rule changes, the only votes that really matter are the Spring Hearing votes. If a LA want’s something changed they need to show up there to really affect the change. Yes the rule can say the LA supported it, but that doesn’t garentee it’s success. Lake Associations are no different than local chapters of Muskies Inc. What’s funny is in the last couple of years I have seen the role of LA’s change at the spring hearings. It used to be that LA’s were constantly against higher size limits and lower bag limits on musky, bass and walleye. Now it appears many are really pushing for these more conservation minded regulations. Some of the people in the crowds at the meetings are becoming more and more anti LA, because of the same. The Good thing is it apprears that the majority of the voters are feeling the same way the LAs are. To the orginal question I would suggest that anyone who owns property on a Lake should join the Association it will really help you know what's going on with the lake. And if need be your voice can be heard. Also, when a Lake is studied by the WDNR the biologist usually gives a report in person to the LA about the study. One other thing may Lake Associations have the option for none residents to join as Friends of the Lake. Peple who spend lots of time on a body of water or live near the water but not on it can join these Associatioins in this way. Nail A Pig! Mike Edited by MRoberts 4/16/2008 10:40 AM | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8856 | Thanks everyone. I was concerned that I may be one of those whose interests run counter to many of the other lakefront property owners, being concerned with fishing and conservation first and money second, but it sounds like from your experiences that it might be a wise step to take for me either way. | ||
| brmusky |
| ||
Posts: 335 Location: Minnesota | esoxaddict - I don't belong to a lake association and I don't live on a lake, but I agree that you should at a minimum become familiar with what your lake association is doing and what their priorities are. I work with a lot of lake associations in Northern Minnesota and they are all a little different beased mostly on the make up of the association and more importantly, the Board. Some lake associations are mostly interested in social things such as parades, parties, morning coffee, buoys, water skiing courses, swimming beaches, etc... Other lake associations are more concerned about environmental issues such as water quality monitoring, stream monitoring, fish habitat, shoreline vegetation, septic systems, etc... Each lake association is different and you can usually tell what the association is interested in by talking to the President over coffee and asking them some questions. Either way, I would encourage you to get involved and become a member. If you decide later that you don't want to be a part of their association, let them know and make a big deal about why you are leaving and they may try to please you somewhat to get you to be in their group. | ||
| Oneida Esox |
| ||
| There are good Lake Associations and bad ones! From what I have seen in the last 3 years up here with the "weed police" I am really starting to dis-like lake associations. Simply put, just because you own propery on a lake does NOT give you the right to call it "my lake" and treat other users of the lake with disrespect. I have been seeing more and more of this lately. I am to the point that there are about 8-10 lakes in Oneida Co. that I won't fish on a weekend due to the interrogations that are taking place at boat landings. I am all for protecting the lakes from invasives, but I don't need to be treated with disrespect because I don't own property on a lake. | |||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | John you are correct, some of the boat landing monitors (which is all they are) are a little zealous. And some absolutely act like we are not welcome on THEIR lake. The Spring Hearings just gave them a little more help though. Because an advisory question to give the WDNR the ability to write a ticket for weeds hanging from a boat trailer, anywhere. It used to be you had to launch with weeds hanging from the trailer, if this becomes law all they have to do is see the weeds. My guess is many more people will ensure there are no weeds on the trailer if this becomes law. Question was: Do you support giving the DNR the authority to issue citations to anyone transporting Eurasian Water Milfoil and other aquatic vegetation visible on boat trailers traveling roadways in Wisconsin? YES 3538 NO 1497 The landing monitors can’t stop a boat from launch, even if it does have weeds, but they can call the tip line. Also they can’t prevent you from launching based on the body of water you where last in. Which is what I know the one guy tried to do to Oneida. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| Manta18 |
| ||
Posts: 375 Location: Browerville, Minnesota | As others, I don't live on a lake or belong to an association, but my sister and brother in law do, and their lake assoc is a prime example of a really bad one. The lake isnt very big (150 acres) and is mostly a recreational lake. Ever since my sister bought the house, they have been trying to clean up their lot on the waters edge, so they can make a place to sit and relax. The previous owners never did anything to keep the overgrown weeds, shrubs and other misc junk weeds/grass. When my brother in law started clearing the stuff out, the lake assoc said if he cut anymore down, they would fine them and turn them in to the DNR. The want the lakeshore kept in it's "natural" state. However, doing some research, I found out the assoc only put this "rule" into effect, after they all had their lots landscaped and manicured lawns to the waters edge put in. Tell me their lots are in a natural state. They do nothing for the lake itself, purely cosmetic for social status. The other one that I don't understand is this. In talking with the MN DNR, I was asking if they would ever consider stocking a certain lake in central Mn. They said it was discussed, but because the lake assoc was very against it, they dropped the lake from consideration. This lake would be PERFECT for muskies, but because the lake assoc is against them, then its a done deal? The lake belongs to the state of MN, not the lake assoc. My personal feelings are that if the DNR wants to stock a certain fish, they should be nice and talk to the lake assoc about it, but that's where it would end. They put a new road in front of my house a couple years back, and I was taxed big time, but I didn't get to tell them how to do the road. Everyone pays taxes, so that is such a moot point. The demographics also show that Muskie's are one of the fastest growing fish sought out by new anglers. Why wouldn't resorts want to bring in some more money? Great walleye lakes are also great muskie lakes, and vice versa. Take a list of the to 10 walleye lakes in Minnesota and see how many of them have muskies in them? Winni, Leech, LOTW, Mille Lacs, Little Boy/Wabedo just to name a few. Bottom line is the DNR should control the waters and accept only input from the lake assoc, just as they do from groups such as Muskies Inc. That is my .02 Edited by Manta18 4/18/2008 9:41 AM | ||
| buddysolberg |
| ||
Posts: 157 Location: Wausau/Phillips WI | I am a board member for the Solberg Lake association just NE of Phillips in Price County. Our association has been active in all facits of improving our lake such as applying for grant money, aquatic plant surveys, dam water level control, installing cribs, marker buoys, establishing times to water/jet ski, fish stocking, education on shoreland rehab projects, etc. We have 3 business meetings in the summer and also a summer picnic. We work closely with some great people in the WDNR and had a lake vision meeting conducted by Dave Nuswanger that was very informative. As with any group we don't all see eye to eye on some things, especially non-invasive aquatic plant control and the kind of fish populations we want but we try to work as a group to solve our problems. Coming from Vilas County I was shocked at the anti musky sentiment here. This year Price County voted down all the musky proposals for The Chip, Enterprise, and Bone Lake. A lake associations duties are to help protect the lake for future generations and to enhance the use of the lake for the betterment of all. Is Solberg Lake better for having a lake association, I hope so but I always say those of us having a place on the lake already negatively affect the lake just by clearing the shoreline, planting grass, removing in water habitat like fallen trees and stumps. This lake belongs to everyone in the State of Wisconsin and we must always remember that. | ||
| Gander Mt Guide |
| ||
Posts: 2515 Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | " From what I have seen in the last 3 years up here with the "weed police" I am really starting to dis-like lake associations. " Without the "weed police", people would treat Wisconsin landings like they do our highways. You want piles of garbage, invasive species or disease? It's sad that people won't use common sense or obide by the regs. Its even sadder that there's a need for "weed police". Just because you hauled your boat 300 miles to fish Vilas county, don't get pissy because somebody pointed out that your rig has weeds and crap hanging off it. On the other hand, Lake Associations have no right to be rude or treat people like they own the lake. We have an unofficial LA up by me, no weed police, just lake home owners who clean shore shorelines, mark hazzards and clean the garbage up at the landing left by the lazy. | ||
| MRoberts |
| ||
Posts: 714 Location: Rhinelander, WI | John, I will chime in with Oneida’s story to hopefully prevent him from having an aneurism based on the tone of your post. I believe the story goes like this, he was tubing on the Wisconsin river in Rhineland with his family. That evening he decided to go fishing. When he got to the lake 20 minutes from his house the “Jack Booted Weed Police” inspected his boat and asked him the usual questions. There were no weeds or anything attached to the boat or trailer. However when the “JBWP” heard he was in Boom Lake last he started asking questions, consulting his lake list. First he didn’t know where Boom Lake was, John told him Rhinelander, they talked a little more and John told him it’s part of the Rhinelander Flowage which is part of the Wisconsin River. Once he heard it was the Wisconsin River he got excited and asked below or above the Rainbow Dam, John told him it’s way below that dam. The “JBWP” then said “WELL YOU CAN’T LAUNCH THAT BOAT HERE” and it all went down hill form there. So based on that information and the knowledge of the area, you tell me who drove the 300 miles? Additionally the invasive species lake list still does not list the Rhinelander Flowage or Boom Lake as having any invasive other than Rusty Crayfish. The guy at the landing was FLAT out wrong and should not have treated anyone that way. That’s the way I remember the story, I may have messed up some of the parts but I believe it’s pretty accurate. All I know is that when Oneida called me that night he was not in a very good mood. I took his story to the Pelican Lake people I know that monitor the Pelican Lake landings, including my dad, just to show them how the monitors can also get out of hand. They all agreed that this guy was out of line. It DID NOT happen on Pelican Lake. Just like anything we do it only takes one bad attitude to spoil it for everyone. Nail A Pig! Mike | ||
| tfootstalker |
| ||
Posts: 299 Location: Nowheresville, MN | Manta18 - 4/18/2008 9:40 AM As others, I don't live on a lake or belong to an association, but my sister and brother in law do, and their lake assoc is a prime example of a really bad one. The lake isnt very big (150 acres) and is mostly a recreational lake. Ever since my sister bought the house, they have been trying to clean up their lot on the waters edge, so they can make a place to sit and relax. The previous owners never did anything to keep the overgrown weeds, shrubs and other misc junk weeds/grass. When my brother in law started clearing the stuff out, the lake assoc said if he cut anymore down, they would fine them and turn them in to the DNR. The want the lakeshore kept in it's "natural" state. However, doing some research, I found out the assoc only put this "rule" into effect, after they all had their lots landscaped and manicured lawns to the waters edge put in. Tell me their lots are in a natural state. They do nothing for the lake itself, purely cosmetic for social status.
I don't know anything about your particular situation so this is not directed at you, rather this point of view which is common in this era of aquatic exploitation. I applaud the LA for making a "rule" about leaving the shoreline natural. Maybe they realized the drastic consequences of destroying shoreline buffers after they had done so. Joe Bucher is strict C&R, but acknowledges he used to kill muskies he caught when he first started guiding. The push to protect these areas has really started only in the last decade. I'd also be willing to guess the perceived junk weeds might be native prairie and wetland communities. Especially if they have been left alone for many years as you suggest. These communities are impossible to decipher from "junk" by most people. Everyone knows what a cattail and bulrush is. It is also illegal to remove emergent vegetation. This is often unknown by new property owners. This hole deal comes down to personal choice. An analogy: Lakeshore owners have the right to mow right to the waters edge (most of the time). I have every right to thump every muskie over 40". However, common sense tells me it is best for the fishery to let these fish go or leave my natural shoreline buffer. I have known some great LA's that are advocates of the environment. As with anything there are also some duds. Edited by tfootstalker 4/18/2008 5:41 PM | ||
| C_Nelson |
| ||
Posts: 578 Location: Sheboygan Falls, WI | . Edited by C_Nelson 6/7/2008 8:40 AM | ||
| Manta18 |
| ||
Posts: 375 Location: Browerville, Minnesota | tfoot: Understand completely what you are saying. While my sister and brother in law arent big fisherfolks, I have gotten them to understand how important the lake vegetation is. In fact, they have one of the best spots on the lake for catching walleyes right off the end of their dock. What I was mainly talking about was them trying to clean up the weeds and underbrush up on their lot, not in the lake. Guess I didn't do a good enough job of perhaps clarifying that in my post. But yeah, they just want to clean up their land lot so they can have a nice place by the lake to relax. | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8856 | Manta, I suggest they check the local shoreland zoning ordinance. You might be surprised to find that these LA folks are actually just trying to enforce the laws already on the books. In addition to the county zoning laws, many towns have additional restrictions as to what you can and can't do with your property. Some of the restrictions in my particular area include: Clearing vegetation may very well be prohibited by your county and local zoning ordinance. That includes thinning out underbrush, cutting down trees, etc. In my area for example, short of a 30' x 30' area for a shoreland recreation area I am not allowed to cut down any trees, remove any vegetation, or disrupt the land in any way withinn 75 feet of the water. So even though I technically own that entire 220 foot stretch of land bordering the water, legally I can't even pull a weed within 75 feet of the water. | ||
| brmusky |
| ||
Posts: 335 Location: Minnesota | Manta18, I am pretty sure you weren't trying to do something bad or illegal, but as esoxaddict stated, there are regulations for removing vegetation on shore as well as aquatic vegetation. They differ greatly depending on where you are but they do exist. The Public Waters are just that and there are rules and regulations in place to try and protect these publicly owned places. I am not trying to pick on anyone here so please don't feel offended. Everyone knows that aquatic vegetation is important right? Everyone knows that shoreline buffers and native vegetation on shore is important right? So if everyone knows that vegetation in the water and near the water are important then why are those some of the most common violations? The bottom line (IMO) is that people all agree that these are important things for everyone else to maintain and protect but on or adjacent to my property I will do as I please because I paid dearly for it. It is an uphill battle and as more people get involved and learn the regulations and why they exist, more people will start to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because of some law or regulation. | ||
| Manta18 |
| ||
Posts: 375 Location: Browerville, Minnesota | Thanks guys. Didn't know that there could perhaps be other laws besides what the LA is doing. Good heads up and I will definately check it out. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2026 OutdoorsFIRST Media |