Posted 3/7/2009 11:49 PM (#364862) Subject: Milfoil-Free Minnetonka-Vision and Plan January 2009
Posts: 193
Location: Mayer, MN
To piggy back the thread about who is going to pay for milfoil eradication in Lake Minnetonka I thought I would do a little investigation into what spawned the debate.
While looking for the above info I also came across the following in regards to The LMA’s Position on Dock Platforms, although unrelated to the above topic there is a comment made concerning MUSKIES, now do I have your ear?
"How can the MN DNR be concerned about impacts to fish habitat and fish populations as a result of dock platforms shading small lake areas, when the MN DNR simultaneously stocks muskies in the lake? The muskie is a top predator and not native to the lake. Is the MN DNR concerned about the cumulative impacts of stocking top predators and their potential to re-structure the fish populations of lakes?"
Posted 3/8/2009 11:11 AM (#364890 - in reply to #364862) Subject: Re: Milfoil-Free Minnetonka-Vision and Plan January 2009
Posts: 193
Location: Mayer, MN
BenR - 3/8/2009 12:13 AM
I would assume and hope the DNR has a good answer to the question. It is a valid question...
BenR it is a valid question, but let's remember LMA positions themselves on issues that they are going to benefit from. The LMA wants to "enhance" Lake Minnetonka correct? Well they do, until it might effect property values.
City of Minnetonka Proposed Shoreland Ordinance
Lakeshore owners have been contacting us with concerns about a proposed shoreland ordinance in the City of Minnetonka. Part of the proposed ordinance would require a 25-foot wide buffer of natural vegetation along the lakeshore with development, redevelopment or with some variances. [[There are concerns regarding the need for this measure, as well as property value decreases]] and that other communities around the lake will consider similar ordinances. The Lake Minnetonka Association will be looking into this issue in greater depth within the next month or so. For now, [[we are unaware of any compelling reason why this might be needed.]] A similar optional model ordinance has been developed by the MN DNR in the five-county area around Brainerd. However, this ordinance, referred to as alternative shoreland standards, has not been adopted by the DNR and would not seem to apply to a highly urban, recreational lake like Lake Minnetonka. Lakeshore owners with questions or concerns should contact
the Lake Minnetonka Association.
I like how all of a sudden they play dumb. Runoff? What's runoff? When they are heavily involved with the local watershed districts and storm water management and treatment is all the rage today.
Taken directly from the DNR's 2007 assessment of Lake Minnetonka:
The shoreline and watershed of Lake Minnetonka is highly developed and puts stress on the lakes aquatic habitat and ecosystem integrity. Large docks, boating platforms, and man-made beaches have the potential to destroy vital habitat for fish and wildlife. Environmentally friendly development practices, such as shoreline buffer strips of natural vegetation, are necessary to maintain the current water quality of Lake Minnetonka.
Back to the muskie question and stocking a non native species. Does this go back to the fact that Minnetonka has historically been an average, at times below average lake for walleye growth and sustaining populations despite stocking efforts, I would classify the walleye as non-native to Lake Minnetonka. Minnetonka has a healthy bass population that are known to be voracious predators of stocked muskies and walleyes. Of course those walleyes put a hurt on native perch populations also. Maybe it is time to stop stocking walleye.
My point, just be aware the LMA is very organized and proactive.
Posted 3/8/2009 12:04 PM (#364900 - in reply to #364890) Subject: Re: Milfoil-Free Minnetonka-Vision and Plan January 2009
Posts: 32916
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
The question is valid, but the base assumption (if I'm reading this right) isn't according to the preponderance of the data available. Obviously, the statement is meant to insinuate that Muskies introduced into Tonka will somehow disrupt/cause declines in the populations of other fish there. Broad assumption with little or no support from the fisheries community, and not supported by reality. Some of the best panfish, bass, walleye, and pike waters in the world are also Muskie waters, and produce trophy fish of all species present. Secondarily, the argument that concern over too many/too large/ too long docks and rafts because of the impact on habitat should be linked in any logical manner to stocking Muskies or any other fish in the lake is a disconnect, IMO.
I'm going fishing here again today; it's a muskie lake, is tiny in comparison to Tonka, and yes, the muskies were introduced. The other fish seem to be doing pretty well. There are almost NO docks on this water at all, and shoreline development is minimal.
Posted 3/8/2009 12:45 PM (#364904 - in reply to #364862) Subject: RE: Milfoil-Free Minnetonka-Vision and Plan January 2009
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes
I fish a lake similar to Minnetonka only smaller. 3700 acres, 3000+ homes, condos and business's. Top muskie waters in the state, also listed as one of the top smallmouth waters. Gill fishing is out of this world ( Trap Attacks were started here) Walleye fishings good as well as pike. Muskies were stocked here in the late 60's and from what I see has done nothing but helped the lake.
We don't have the opposition of the Assosiations like MN does, most of what the lake is marketed to is vacationers and water sports.
I think we have a fair fishery here. All fish in the following pics caught within 100 yards of each other 48" muskie from August, 11 pound walleye from Dec, few gills caught New Years Day.
Edited by shaley 3/8/2009 12:49 PM
Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
(My 48 2.jpg)
Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
(Picture 414.jpg)
Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Posted 3/9/2009 10:36 AM (#365080 - in reply to #364862) Subject: Re: Milfoil-Free Minnetonka-Vision and Plan January 2009
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI
BenR, here is a response that could be changed slightly and used to answer that question. The MN DNR also has a bunch of great info on this topic, in fact right now there is a post on Musky Hunter addressing this exact issue:
Muskies are a low-density species, even in the absence of angler harvest. High minimum length limits are not appropriate for all waters. They are best suited to large waters with low-density muskie populations where a few fish will have the opportunity to live long and grow large. Most class A-1 muskie populations have fewer than 0.5 adult muskies per acre of water. In contrast, an average adult bass or walleye population is about 8 times this value and northern pike populations are even higher. Even with their larger size, muskies have less of on impact than other species simply because of the number of mouths to feed.
As the largest predator in a lake, muskies can pretty much eat what they like. Studies have shown that what they prefer to eat are smooth, fatty forage species like suckers and cisco. For example, a recent study examined the food habitats of Wisconsin Muskellunge (Bozek et al. 1999). Thirty-four musky lakes where sampled over a 4-year period, with 1,092 muskellunge (8 to 46 inches in length) examined. Only 6 walleye (0.9% of the diet items) were found in all the samples.
A recent multi-lake study, Fayram et al. (2005) found that largemouth bass was the only game fish that had a detrimental impact on the survival of stocked walleyes. In contrast, northern pike, muskellunge and small mouth bass did not have strong predatory or competitive interactions with walleye populations. For example, in the past, musky have been introduced to lake systems in an attempt to quell stunted panfish populations. It has never worked, it is just too difficult to reach the required density of musky. Bass and Walleye have much more of an effect on panfish and can be used to control stunted populations.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 3/9/2009 10:37 AM
Oneida Esox
Posted 3/9/2009 10:50 AM (#365082 - in reply to #364862) Subject: RE: Milfoil-Free Minnetonka-Vision and Plan January 2009
It absolutely baffles me that lake associations have this much power and influence! Just cause they have a place on a lake they fee they can demand certain things from the DNR and worse yet, demand things from people that use "their" lake.
They own the shore, not the water or what swims and grows in the water.
Posted 3/9/2009 2:55 PM (#365119 - in reply to #364862) Subject: Re: Milfoil-Free Minnetonka-Vision and Plan January 2009
Posts: 32916
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
John,
It was basically the Lake Associations who drove the DNR hearings a couple winters back to determine whether tournaments needed to be more tightly regulated. The WI Legislature created an unfunded mandate the DNR had to follow that cost them $90K they didn't have. Lake Associations frequently have political punch; the higher the property value on that lake or river, the larger the influence , and can be formidable adversaries as a result.
Posted 3/9/2009 3:02 PM (#365120 - in reply to #365082) Subject: RE: Milfoil-Free Minnetonka-Vision and Plan January 2009
Posts: 258
Location: Mayville, WI
Oneida Esox - 3/9/2009 10:50 AM
It absolutely baffles me that lake associations have this much power and influence!
They are the ones having to "foot the bill". I do not agree with the amount of power they get, but who else is paying for it (well, the users indirectly)? The associations have to pay for the sutdies, plans, treatments, & so forth. In WI, this is alleviated by state Grants (75% paid by the state).
Where I see a problem with this is in their want for "control" over milfoil. Only the hand of God will bring any real control to EWM on a lake with 3000-5000 acres of it on the lake (according to the link in the first post). It will always be there & the cost associated with any sizeable treatment will be extradordinary. For example, at price of $300 an acre (VERY conservative estimate) to treat 1/4 of the milfoil present (roughly 1000 acres) it would be $300,000! Say you have 100% kill in the 1000 acres, you'll still have around 3000 acres of remaining milfoil to re-generate & spread to the previously "cleaned" location. It's just not going to happen.
What really gets me is some the Associations in WI that think they have a problem, like Lake Tomahawk for example. The DNR has done a tremendous job in getting out the mantra that EWM is bad. However, they've done almost too good of a job. Milfoil will not ruin every lake it touches & in some will simply fade into the plant community once native plants have become adjusted. Again, the associations are the ones on the lake and can manipulate the plans/activities to their wants, which may not necessarily be what is good for the lake.
sc
lambeau
Posted 3/9/2009 4:08 PM (#365132 - in reply to #365119) Subject: Re: Milfoil-Free Minnetonka-Vision and Plan January 2009
Lake Associations frequently have political punch (the higher the property value on that lake or river, the larger the influence) and can be formidable adversaries as a result.
of course, they can also be powerful ALLIES. as i recall, the lake association was instrumental to getting the size limit raised on Pelican, correct? a committed group of people sat down with lake association members and leaders and convinced them that this was a good course of action for everyone who has a stake in the lake, owners and users alike.
it's worth the time and effort to try to identify shared goals and build alliances with lake association members, especially the key leaders. power and influence aren't inherently bad, and can often be quite useful...
ask yourself: why are people believing negative propaganda about muskies? ignorance? what can be done about it? how best to educate them without alienating them?
Posted 3/10/2009 9:10 AM (#365306 - in reply to #365132) Subject: Re: Milfoil-Free Minnetonka-Vision and Plan January 2009
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI
Very good point Mike, and you are absolutely correct. There are still people complaining about the influence the Pelican Lake Association had regarding the 50" limit. In fact every year since someone has brought it up at the annual summer meeting. To the point where the board will no longer even allow it discussed.
My philosophy on Lake Associations is similar to the Wisconsin Spring Hearings, I don't like the way they operate in some cases, but it's the system we have and if you can't beat them join them. Imagine if a bunch of musky guys would get involved in the Minnetonka Association, maybe some pro musky stuff could get done. Right now on Pelican, it’s association members that are building and sinking 3 to 4 cribs every year. Its association members that are organizing an effort to identify musky spawning grounds in conjunction with musky clubs and the University of Michigan. And it’s the association that has a fund specifically set up for stocking if the need ever comes to stock fish.
On a different note and maybe a little off topic, but I think worth bringing up. I don’t think once during the grass roots effort organizing people around Pelican Lake did I mention Muskies Inc. for as much as many fishermen dislike Lake Associations, the reverse is also felt by Lake Associations towards Muskies Inc. and other like groups. Again it’s politics, nothing against those groups and to their credit, those groups came out in spades to vote during the spring hearings. But when lobbying the Lake Association you have to know your audience and address them accordingly. In my opinion bringing a proposal from a group of concerned LOCAL anglers with support of local businesses and property owners held much more weight than if it came from a musky club. In Wisconsin though the clubs are a must to bring votes to the table in the spring where everything is ultimately decided. So it’s important to have people positioned both inside and outside of these organizations.
Posted 3/10/2009 10:33 AM (#365323 - in reply to #364862) Subject: Re: Milfoil-Free Minnetonka-Vision and Plan January 2009
Posts: 32916
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
Obviously, working with opposing groups cooperatively is the best strategy no matter the conservation issue, but one had better be prepared to field angry and even rude questions and comments, hold one's temper, and offer data and facts supported by material one can reference supported by local, well known DNR or other agency experts during any meeting between Muskie folks and Association (or other groups) members. What's suggested is laudable and necessary to at least do one's best to accomplish, but folks need to understand, not always easy. Some associations were contacted exactly as you suggested during the winter Tournament hearings...even by the local Chambers of Commerce...and were basically unapproachable. Even the most accessible Associations will have detractors present at any meeting (regardless of the subject matter of the debate), and those folks will be very vocal. One needs to look at the negotiations as if the Association members in large part or small ( do the due diligence there as Mike Roberts did) are either for or against what is being discussed and ally oneself with those supporting to make sure they show up at any meeting where their vote is important. Then, patient education is key. I strongly suggest finding someone to do any 'presentation' to ANY Association or group where potential conflict will arise who has experience in negotiations and can take anticipated or unanticipated challenges in stride.
Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page]
My 48 2.jpg (54KB - 110 downloads)
