Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Hookey

Washington Weed Kill

21 posts in this topic

I don't want to start a ruckus here and hope we can keep this thread civil

Comments have been made on a previous thread that the lack of weeds has resulted in a decline in the fishery and that rich property owners may have influenced the DNR.

I would think a organized group would have more pull with the DNR than a couple of rich people so if anyone had any influence on the DNR it would probably be the Lake Washington Property Owners Association.

If it was not the Association then I would assume they would know why the weeds were killed.

To avoid making false accusations it would be a good idea to contact the association or the DNR and investigate before we all start placing blame.

As stewards of Lake Washington I am sure the Association and DNR would not intentionally harm the lake or the fish to keep beaches clean. I would assume any meetings between the DNR and the Association would be public record.

In fact I know a resident of the lake who is a avid fisherman and also on the Association I will ask him what he knows about it.

If anyone has a contact in the DNR I would suggest calling them and asking why the weeds were killed and who was involved in the decision.

If the weeds were killed to simply keep the beaches clean and if the lack of weeds is the cause for the decline of the fishery there is a problem. But until some facts are gathered it is simply a rumor.

If anyone has any input on the subject please be discreet and do not name Association Members, Property Owners or DNR contacts on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also like to know who is involved in the decision-making process of when to spray for weeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the lake association meets every 3rd. tuesday of the month at westwood 7;00 pm. it is open to every one who is concerned about the lake . it was not just the rich land owners on the lake who started this process, something had to be done years ago with the weeds on this lake if anybody remembers what it was like 10 years ago it was horrible we are trying to clean up the lake, with city sewer we have now, picking up everybodys garbage after ice fishing, buying land around the lake to help with run off,i fish this lake more then alot of people and yes the fishing has gotten worse ,now this year i have gotten more crappies through the ice then i did the last couple of years allthough on the small side. i am encuraged about that.this is the most ice houses i have seen on this lake in a few years, i am all for helping the fishing in this lake so to all concerned about the lake go to the meeting and make your voice herd. or call dnr about your concerns they are the ones who approve the spraying.they have a web site, lakewashingtonmn.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DLK,

Thanks so much for the information.

Is the next meeting on Tuesday, January 15 at 7:00 pm at Westwood's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DLK, Thanks for the information. I did visit their Website and they have a map that shows the areas treated. There are a few of them so I will not be giving anything away when I say that my favorite weedbed for sunnies is gone.

It does appear that they target certain areas for the removal of weeds and I guess I do not know if chemicals are available that will only affect certain weeds types. From what I have seen on the lake this fall it appears all plant life is removed when the work is done.

At any rate I would like to attend a meeting with the Association to listen and learn their reasoning and understand their future plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would almost be certain that the DNR would not let an association kill native plants. The lake I live on is also "sprayed" if thats what you want to call it, twice a year. The targets are curly pondweed and milfoil. I used to help pay for this to be done but no more. I have come to the conclusion that most don't care about the transfer of exotic species. It won't be long before most bodies of water are infested with an exotic non-native of some sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as DLK confirms the January meeting date and time, I'm going to do my best to mark it on the calendar and be there. You're welcome to tag along, as others have already inquired about doing the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as i know it is on the 15th. they have invited hugh valiant of the dnr to come and dicuss the fish population on washington, i am not sure if it is this meeting or not.I do know from my past experience on the board 8 or 9 years ago he gives a very detailed meeting , that wood be the meeting to attend for fisherman to voice ther concern. the lakes web site is lakewashingtonmn.com go under meeting minutes to find out a little bit about last meeting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I have the 15th marked on my calendar. If it changes, please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killing the "weeds" usually does no good but the DNR has to issue permits as long as they meet the requirement that is put together in the aquatic plant management program. Go to the DNR web site and type in APM. These rules are put together by the DNR but is influenced or told by the law makers that so much has to be allowed. This is bad that you got politicians making up the rules in which they know nothing about. I would say most of the spraying done is because people do not like the looks of the "weeds" which they are not, they are vegetation in which the fish live. I know that the DNR fisheries in Waterville has tried in the past to stop or limit the amount done on some lakes but has failed. I think the DNR fisheries should have more control on what goes on but it is up to the fishermen to take back control from the lake associations and individuals lake home owners because it is these people that got the rules changed to what they wanted them to be. I think the average fisherman does not understand the importance of aquatic vegetation for instance in the last 5 years or so in Tetonka there has been more and more vegetation in the lake and the Bluegill and Bass fishing has been unbelievable but now there is a lake associations that is paying for the spraying of the vegetation and the sportsman club gave money to help with that. The money would of been better off being burned than to to help destroy vegetation. The sportsman club should of know better. Anyways these are some of my thoughts on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Column taken from Lake Washington Property Owners news letter :

If you’ve taken a drive around the area lakes this spring, you may have noticed a large amount of curly-leaf pondweed. In sharp contrast, a boat ride around Lake Washington reveals a different story. This year was probably the best we’ve seen since our lake was infested with that weed decades ago. The weed control effort over the last ten years has had a remarkable impact on the numbers of this non-native invasive weed. All of us who live on the lake, as well as those who visit and use the lake have benefited from this effort.

As you know, from previous articles I’ve written in this newsletter, your lake association has funded the weed spraying to the tune of $23,000/yr. on average. This cost has been paid for by your lake association dues (PLEASE JOIN IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY) and the funds we receive from our pull tab operations at Westwood

and other bars in the area.

This year the DNR required a survey be done of the lake before spraying could begin. The survey consisted of a DNR representative dragging a weighted rake across the bottom of the lake at locations we historically sprayed. Of those locations we found curly-leaf pondweed

in approximately 80% of those sites. This resulted in a 20% reduction in the cost of spraying this year. Our hope is that we are finally beginning to see an overall reduction

in the seed bed numbers for this noxious weed. It is too early to claim victory over these weeds yet (look what it did for President Bush) but we certainly have made substantial headway.

With your financial support we will continue to spray this weed in the future to control its spread. Our hope is that supression of this weed will allow the growth of the native aquatic plants. These plants help improve the water quality by absorbing the organic substances with come into our lake from the surrounding lands. Without

these plants we will see and increase in the algae problem. The Lake Association will be funding a lake wide weed survey of all plant species. This survey will document the lacations, thoughout the entire lake, of all native and non-native aquatic plants. This information will be used by the DNR and us to help in the developement

of a plan to improve water quality in the future.

The Lake Washington Improvement Association is at the heart of this ongoing effort to improve the quality of the lake. If you are not already a member please consider joining. And the next time you see a board member, thank them for their hard work. We all benefit from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They forget to mention that less weeds equals less fish. Maybe the property owner dont mind less fish for a better beach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to do some research on Curley Pond Weed. They mention it has been in the lake for decades. So then whats the problem?

250XB used the term "aquatic vegetation" rather than Weed.

That is probably a better choice of words.

You don't spray the flower garden with round-up because it is overrun with weeds. If the only way to treat Curley Pond weed is to destroy all other "aquatic vegetation" and upset the Eco-System of the lake then the DNR needs to make the judgement call.

Decisions must be made based on what is best for the lake and not the "Lake Shore".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have fished lake Washington for over 30 years and this summer was the muddiest the water has ever been. It seemed that aquatic vegataion was nonexistant and that allowed the nonstop powerboat and wind action to constantly keep the silt stired up. Maybe the lake association should work at some shoreline restoration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really looking forward to attending the January meeting.

Also, please remember that Lake Washington is not the "Lone Ranger" in this deal. The same thing is happening on my favorite, Tetonka, and a handful of other lakes in the area. There are arguments to both sides but the voice of the sportsmen needs to be heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard through the grapevine that a "group" is trying to get the DNR to designate the lake a recreational lake. I don't like the sound of it. Make the meeting a priority!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excerpt From MN DNR on deterring aquatic plant removal:

Aquatic plant removal will likely:

- Harm the ecosystem of the lake;

- Remove fish and wildlife habitat from the lake;

- Cause erosion in the lake;

- Decrease the lake’s water quality;

- Remove native plants from the lake; and

- Decrease the natural appearance of the lake.

These outcomes are negative. Two other important beliefs to target are that removing aquatic plants improves swimming and the appearance of the shoreline. Beliefs about improving swimming will likely be quite resistant to change and improving swimming conditions is a highly valued outcome for those that remove aquatic plants. However, information and education efforts might be able to influence aesthetic and economic appreciation for “natural” shorelines.

Respondents who remove aquatic plants, indicated they are most motivated to comply with the desires of family and friends, the DNR, and lake associations and least motivated to comply with environmentalists. For this reason, messages that emphasize the DNR and lake association do not support removing aquatic plants would likely have the most influence on decreasing aquatic plant removal behaviors.

In summary, data from the TRA provide clear strategies for designing communication and education efforts that could help to decrease aquatic plant removal among those who are removing plants on a yearly basis.

end excerpt

My goal of this Post would be to have DNR assess the results of the Kill and document if it was worth the

casualties and possible damage to the ecosystem.

Before the spraying continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good information. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weather it be fishing pressure or the lack of habit due to the eradication of aquatic weed growth, something should at least be attempted in order to sutain the qaulity of the fishery. Fishing pressure is not managable by other means than stocking fish , slot limits or reduced limits , you cannot control how many people fish any given lake.or should I say as easy as controling how Much vegatation is removed. However we can teach ourselfs not to abuse the resource in such ways as overharvest, killing of weeds , excessive amounts of fishing contests ect. By Informing others of the of the consiqeunces of such practices we can only hope they wan't to do what is in the lakes best intrest... like forestery, if you take a tree for paper and wood products it only make sense to put one or two back for future use why should removing weed growth be any different for a fishery? how about some cribs or man made structure? just a thought. (sorry abouth the caps lock)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of cribs. Depending on the flow and subject matter of the January meeting, I may ask about an option like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • airnuts
      Managed a 17 and 22 incher while slip bobbering with leeches on a 21 foot reef. Hope the success continues.
    • slammer
      Looks like weather has finally calmed down.  Are they getting fish on the riggers also?
    • JBMasterAngler
      I don't. However, in the rare instance that I'm not catching trout near the surface, I'll use small flicker shads or shad raps. 
    • monstermoose78
      Been working on the double and triple retrieves. Finn is starting to get the bumper I send him to get, but he likes to get the closest one.
    • Rick
      A portion of one of the last and largest wooded areas in Dakota County has been permanently protected as a state wildlife management area through the collaborative efforts of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Dakota County and the nonprofit conservation group Friends of the Mississippi River.  Photo courtesy of Tom Reiter for Friends of the Mississippi River The new Hampton Woods Wildlife Management Area consists of 191 acres of oak forest that will be managed by the DNR for wildlife habitat and public hunting. Located about four miles east of Farmington off state Hwy. 50, it’s the only forest for miles around in a largely agricultural landscape. The area is home to a number of rare species such as the red-shouldered hawk, as well as more common game species including deer, turkeys and squirrels. Each spring, the forest floor blossoms with wildflowers. First identified by the DNR as an ecologically significant area worthy of protection in the mid-1990s, Hampton Woods also was ranked highly in Dakota County’s 2002 Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Plan. A few years ago, Friends of the Mississippi River helped several landowners contact the county to discuss the potential sale of their land. After purchasing 24 acres from Joan Uselmann and Mary and Glen Bakalars, and 167 acres from the estate of Rose Kuntz, Dakota County recently transferred ownership to the DNR. “This is a beautiful area of Dakota County that will now be preserved and publicly accessible for future generations,” said Dakota County Board of Commissioners Chairman Mike Slavik, who represents the district where the new WMA is located. “Many people and organizations made this possible, and we are very thankful for their many contributions and collaboration.” DNR regional wildlife manager Cynthia Osmundson praised the partnership that protected the area. “This new WMA is especially important because it not only protects an important and relatively rare forest area, it also provides close-to-home public hunting opportunities in the metro region,” she said. “Transactions like this can be complex and drawn out, and we’re very fortunate to have good partners like Dakota County and Friends of the Mississippi River.” The acquisition was paid for with $540,800 from the Outdoor Heritage Fund, as appropriated by the Minnesota State Legislature, and $197,700 in Dakota County funds. The Outdoor Heritage Fund was created in 2008 when Minnesota voters passed a constitutional amendment dedicating a portion of sales taxes to restore, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Friends of the Mississippi River also has received a $133,000 grant from the Environment and Natural Resource Trust Fund, as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources, to conduct management activities in the WMA, such as removal of non-native invasive species like buckthorn. Friends of the Mississippi River previously developed a natural resource management plan for the site with financial assistance from the Minnesota Ornithologists’ Union, Southern Dakota County Sportsmen’s Club, Wild Turkey Federation, Hastings Environmental Protectors, Winter Wheat Foundation, and Pheasants Forever – Dakota Ringnecks Chapter. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • PSU
      Was up Tuesday until this morning (Frazer / Smart Bay) and wow was the walleye fishing slow for me. Was out Wednesday / Thursday mornings from 7:30-10:00 ish and nary a walleye bite in all my usual spots. Tried a bit in the afternoons as well, but not too serious.    Hope everyone else is having better luck!!    
    • curt quesnell
      Getting these big fish back in the water as soon as possible is important in summer heat.    
    • MinDak Hunter
      Thanks guys! JB-how do you get the Mepps down deep?
    • rundrave
      I know its not attached to you. But the issue is with it being attached to the dog and if its running full speed and it gets caught on something. The injuries can occur when its a sudden stop and the collar around the neck is pulled hard from the weight of the dog.   Sounds like to you need to get back to the basics with the check cord and get back to sit, stay and come. You can work her with the check cord in a hallway at home with the doors closed, then move to a larger  grassy area etc. Keep the sessions short and praise, praise and praise some more when she comes back when called.   You never want to give a command you cant enforce and that's where the check cord comes in handy. We have all been there before. But if your not confident with her in the water next to a road you need to go back and revisit those commands and how to enforce them until she is ready. its just not worth risking injury.   You have to make the retrieving fun and if she doesn't bring it back your done for that session, and then she doesn't get to retrieve. Let her see you put the dummy away and then start another session at a later time. Praise, praise and praise when she does it correctly.   Dogs will pick up on your body language frustrations etc.  Just takes lots of reps and keep them short and be positive and she will get there.
    • TNtoMN_HuntFish
      I actually don't have that long leash attatched to me. Its 100' I believe and the only reason I leave it on her is because Round Lake is right by a busy road so if she wants to bolt after a rabbit or something I can quickly grab that leash. Also sometimes she'll grab the dummy and want to swim around with it so I give a few tugs to let her know her job is to bring it to me, not swim in circles. It's just a safety measure because she isn't quite ready for fully off leash training just yet. I almost never actually need to grab it.    Thanks for the advice though, the last thing I'd ever want to do is hurt a dog, especially mine. I never throw the dummy past where it's safe to walk so if she did get it wrapped in cattails or something and got stuck I'd quickly get her.