Watercraft Inspectors at Christmas Lake starting 4/22

[MN-FishGuy]

We may have these invasives in the state, but for zebra mussels and asian carp for example, they are in limited waterbodies. We do have a chance to prevent the spread to a large number of lakes, so why not try to be proactive. The alternative to prevention is far worse than what we are spending right now. Just wait till hydrilla gets here, are you still going to want us to do nothing? Do you know how much they spend in the south on hydrilla management, its millions in itself, so why not try to increase our chances of preventing these things. Nobody is taking away any personal freedoms here, nobody is closing public accesses, get the facts people. I honestly thought we were a more educated state when it comes to these things, i guess i was wrong. We probably will fail with prevention of ais because there are people who just dont care i guess. I feel like im getting reallt defensive now, but i cant believe what im hearing from some of you.

[DTro]

Well here's the deal. I'm strictly a night fisherman and I've never fished xmas lake but if this becomes the norm on public accesses it will most definitely intrude on my "personal freedoms". Sometimes I don't even launch until close to 10pm.

I'm tired of govt entities thinking that I cannot make a rational decision on my own...nope we need trained spotters and they can't stay past 10.

[Grum]

Isn't Christmas Lake connected to Minnetonka via canal? That lake is toast anyway.

+1 I thought I had read or seen that on a map somewhere. I wonder if that has been filled in?

Christmas Lake isn't that big or as busy as Lake Minnetonka so why not put the inspectors on one of those Minnetonka ramps to keep people taking unwanted hitchhikers out of a known infested lake?

If the city and lake assn. wants to spend the money so be it.

As far as the gate goes, well it is owned by the city and many city parks have a 10pm curfew. It sucks but nothing new.

[griff321]

Well here's the deal. I'm strictly a night fisherman and I've never fished xmas lake but if this becomes the norm on public accesses it will most definitely intrude on my "personal freedoms". Sometimes I don't even launch until close to 10pm.

I'm tired of govt entities thinking that I cannot make a rational decision on my own...nope we need trained spotters and they can't stay past 10.

I'm the same way. I do a lot of night fishing on my days off, because I work grave.. and really I just love everything about night fishing. Article 8 sec. 12 of the constitution doesn't say, "Hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good...until 9pm."

Just because the city owns the access and not the DNR doesn't make a single difference to me. Tons of public access' are attached to parks and have hours, but as long as you're out fishing and not loitering in the park I've never seen them enforce it and for good reason. I'm sure they used public money to purchase the land and upkeep. I can pay for a gate and slap it on someones property too, but that doesn't make it mine. People that live on the lake don't have to abide by the same rules that I do and I don't like it one bit. They can launch their boats and fish whenever they want without inspections, so to me their argument doesn't hold water. This isn't about AIS control at all, it feels like a rabid homeowners association doing everything possible to keep outsiders off their lake under the guise of good intentions. This needs to stop NOW!

[half-dutch]

Cmon guys. The state constitution says that our hunting and fishing "shall be managed by law and regulation" That is 24 hours a day and includes the possibility of limiting takes and restricting specific accesses. That doesn't mean that we have the right to do whatever we please whenever we please.

It wasn't all that many years ago that the Minneapolis Parks were a playground for some really rough characters in the wee hours. Now close at ten not only keeps the parks in general a whole lot better "managed for the people" it has eliminated a whole lot of trash problem as well. This is one case where the DNR and the City cooperate in the constitutionally mandated management of our sport.

There certainly is a problem of access to public waters where the entire shoreline is privately held. While that isn't IMO right and proper, those property owners don't get help from those of us who want to fish those waters in their mortgages, property taxes, insurance and home repairs and their privacy should not include free public movement across their property.

There really needs to guaranteed easements to access the public waters, which should be including in all zoning for such areas. Those will cost in both upfront money, decreased local tax revenues and in upkeep expenses. Managing the public trust does not come free. Be sure you are willing to pay for the expenses of what you demand in service.

[harvey lee]

Maybe we should have the sportsmen run everything. No wait, that could be worse than our elected officials doing it.

[half-dutch]

Harvey,

We are in a situation where there must be a balance between what are conflicting views of the rights on all sides. Nobody ever said running a democracy was easy or clean cut.

[harvey lee]

I understand half dutch.

Just trying to say that the DNR is trying to slow the spread. I have seen many posts slamming what the DNR is doing and to date, have asked what better solution there may be from those so opposed to this yet not one awnser.

[half-dutch]

Harvey,

I certainly don't have an answer. I guess I would prefer to slow the spread as much as possible in hopes that will allow enolugh space for something to get developed to do the job. I seldom fish out of a boat, though, so the dog I got in this fight is a bit smaller than some others. I do fish after dark though quite a bit.

[chasineyes]

Quote:

Managing the public trust does not come free. Be sure you are willing to pay for the expenses of what you demand in service

All I "Demand" is a landing. Other than that I don't give a carp. Trophy walleyes, pike, muskies are all talk to me and 1/2 the common fisherman.

The problem is when you start telling me I'm demanding more and more (which isn't true) and raise the cost (license, tab, plates) whether monetary or physcological (fear of being checked for weeds) I/we will seek other avenues to spend our time and MONEY. This leaves a hole in the bucket which has to be made up somehow.

Heck how many of you have been "bothered" by MILLFOIL? Wasn't that suppose to kill the lakes.

[Riverratpete]

What is the success rate of stopping invasive species??? Right now we're batting .000- we have milfoil, zebra mussles, pondweed, asian carp, etc.. in this state.. Dropping millions and millions and millions of dollars for something that will inevitably fail is just plain stupid. Especially when it involves taking away individual freedoms, like that of being on a PUBLIC lake. It doesn't mean we have to give up, but...

I'd be curious what invasive species we HAVE stopped.

+1

[mallardnwalleye]

Christmas Lake has a long and rocky history with public access. DNR comish Joe Alexander fought like a dog to get it. It is public as in DNR public. The lake is stocked and managed by the state.

He also wrestled with cities and villages that were preventing the DNR from having access at Lake Minnetonka and the St. Croix back before most of you were around.

DNR commish Joe Alexander was an "old school" legend. If you want to dig into the details of his battles with the Christmas Lake homeowners it is pretty interesting how he stood his ground and how hard they fought him on public access.

I think at Christmas Lake and others it is a question of how equitable access and invasive restricions are compared to other lakes.

Are we fighting a losing battle or is it just a matter of time when most lakes will be exposed to some aquatic invasives?

Look at Pleasant Lake in North Oaks- 100% private, no public access, with no fishing (look it up in the regs) or motors I believe allowed.

They have Zebra Mussels on that lake.

Realistic to believe we can stop all the invasives or just altruistic? Or are we fighting a battle of just prolonging the inevitable exposure?

How long are we prolonging the spread and at what cost, time, access and price?

Are people using invasives as a means of limiting public access on "their" lake?

How effective is it to have 10% monitoring versus 0%?

food for thought...

Sorry for all the questions but some times the answer lies in the questions you ask.

[mallardnwalleye]

Millfoil was one of my favorite patterns for Walleyes on White Bear until the Conservation District and Lakeshore property owners decided to treat 160 acres annually when only a few acres actually posed a problem by growing too close to the surface.

They treat some of the best fishing areas all so in my educated guess the lake shore property owners, the Yacht club and sailboat racers can have a clean lake to boat and stick their 5 ft. keels down without any weeds encumbering them.

Millfoil isn't the devil people make it out to be. Zebra Mussels I don't know. I do know they are coming and my worry lies not in what they will do but what we will do to "manage" them.

[BEEFEATER]

Xmas lake is already Over fished. chocked with milfoil and surrounded by cake eaters who couldent afford a house on tonka. They can hAVE IT.

[vikingmeatwad]

I'm going to go out of my way to fish Christmas a lot this year.

[BEEFEATER]

Im going ta go out of my way ta stay as far away from that cess pool as possilble. Then u may think the homeowners have won, Ohhh but what a prize they get

[tolle141]

It can be frustrating being checked for weeds at the launch and we're undoubtedly capable of checking our boats to prevent the spread of exotics. That said, at the end of a long day on the water how many actually check everything? I think this is more about presence than targeting specific waters. If you get searched at one lake, you'll certainly make sure to check your boat somewhere else. If they weren't doing it, we'd be complaining about that.

Also, note that Christmas is also a trout lake. That special management might have something to do with it as well.

Be responsible. Check your boat. Doing so will not only slow the spread of exotics, but give you a sense of relaxation next time you see them checking.

[Carp-fisher]

We're about T-5 years from when the first Asian carp shows up in Mille Lacs nets. Guess we better get used to this "AIS" talk...

[arrow]

This reminds me of the old story of the leaky dam and the kid who plugs one hole only to have another hole open up. We can't stop the spread of these invasives through harrasing the public the money is better spent trying to come up with a scientific way to control them. I have a couple problems with license fees going up if its going to be used for this useless harrassment, excuse me enforcement, as well as allowing officers to retire at an age when most of us still have another 15-20 years to work.

[Jameson]

There is an article in the latest Weekly News about the city of Shorewood about to pass a new law stating that 'anyone launching after refusing inspection will be subject to a fine.' Xmas lake is the only access in the city. Evidently state law doesn't doesn't cover this, or there is no fine attached to the state law.

[Doonbuggy]

I have launched at both Minnewashta and Xmas this year and there have been no issues. If you do what you should already be doing: pulling plugs, draining water, showing up with a clean trailer there will be no problems. All inspectors have been friendly and courteous.

What we do need to monitor however are the lake associations that may pretend to care about AIS when in fact they are using this issue in an attempt to curtail usage and essentially privatize "their" lake. That's where potential for a firestorm exists.

DB

[Bobby_Hill]

I've also been inspected at Bavaria and Ann. As DB mentioned, inspectors have been very friendly and the inspection itself added maybe 2 minutes onto my routine. Hopefully they're not receiving too much attitude from people, both inspectors I've ran into were just college kids working temp for the summer.

[mallardnwalleye]

I don't think anyone is being rude to the inspectors. The law is the law and people 99% of the people follow it even if they have questions about it.

The questions are:

1. Are .001%,1% or 10% launch usage enforced inspections really making a difference or is it just a waste of time and money?

2.Are public service reminders-public education more effective?

3. Would large fines help and be a revenue source instead of the expense that inspections are?

4. Are AIS's actually causing all that much harm? Asian Carp aside

4. Again, are some lake associations and local governments using AIS as a way of limiting publiuc access to their lakes (example: Lotus Lake lawsuit, Christmas Lake gate).

5. Is Shorewood's $1000 fine for refusing boat inspection at Christmas Lake a scare tactic meant to keep people away or legitimate as people are actually refusing inspections?

Let me know what your answers are.

[MN-FishGuy]

1.) I think time will ultimately tell if this makes a difference or if it was a waste of time, if lakes that do not have inspectors start getting new AIS and the ones with inspectors don't, then I would say it is worth it. If a lake with an inspector gets some new AIS, I think that would end the program in a hurry or at least create a lot of questions of if it is worth it.

2.) I honestly think a combination of education and inspectors are a good thing and more effective, its one thing to hear about AIS on a commercial or see it on a billboard, but its another thing to have your boat actually inspected at an access and provide some reality to the situation.

3.) I think there needs to be substantial fines behind some of these laws, otherwise if its just a warning I don't think that's much of a deterrent. Money always talks.

4.) I wouldn't be surprised if some lake association had alterior motives, but I really hope thats not the case. I don't believe any local governments are trying to limit access, more just trying to make sure anyone going in is inspected to avoid spread of AIS which would ultimately cost that government unit money by either management or loss of tourism potentially.

5.) I don't think its a scare tactic and I don't think people are refusing inspections currently, I think they are just stepping up and putting some teeth behind some of the DNR's laws. I think the state ultimately should be the ones to put some substantial fines behind their laws.

[Bobby_Hill]

Mallard, I really don't believe that it will be all that effective for reasons that you have previously mentioned, I was just mentioning that I've seen the inspectors at various lakes and their impact on my day was minimal. Whether the cost of having only a small fraction of boat launches staffed pays off, like FishGuy said, only time will tell. Unless the DNR were to staff all of the launches all the time, I have a hard time believing that there will be a noticeable difference.

[mrklean]

4. Again, are some lake associations and local governments using AIS as a way of limiting publiuc access to their lakes (example: Lotus Lake lawsuit, Christmas Lake gate).

I bet some lake owners want them there to protect "their" lakes from getting zebra muscles milfoil etc because they live there they don't want a ruined lake while others want them there to deter people from using "their" lake because they have to be inspected.

[BEEFEATER]

Oh ye faithfull xmas lake oh how ye half won