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.

  • Announcements

    • Rick

      Members Only Fluid Forum View   08/08/2017

      Fluid forum view allows members only to get right to the meat of this community; the topics. You can toggle between your preferred forum view just below to the left on the main forum entrance. You will see three icons. Try them out and see what you prefer.   Fluid view allows you, if you are a signed up member, to see the newest topic posts in either all forums (select none or all) or in just your favorite forums (select the ones you want to see when you come to Fishing Minnesota). It keeps and in real time with respect to Topic posts and lets YOU SELECT YOUR FAVORITE FORUMS. It can make things fun and easy. This is especially true for less experienced visitors raised on social media. If you, as a members want more specific topics, you can even select a single forum to view. Let us take a look at fluid view in action. We will then break it down and explain how it works in more detail.   The video shows the topic list and the forum filter box. As you can see, it is easy to change the topic list by changing the selected forums. This view replaces the traditional list of categories and forums.   Of course, members only can change the view to better suit your way of browsing.   You will notice a “grid” option. We have moved the grid forum theme setting into the main forum settings. This makes it an option for members only to choose. This screenshot also shows the removal of the forum breadcrumb in fluid view mode. Fluid view remembers your last forum selection so you don’t lose your place when you go back to the listing. The benefit of this feature is easy to see. It removes a potential barrier of entry for members only. It puts the spotlight on topics themselves, and not the hierarchical forum structure. You as a member will enjoy viewing many forums at once and switching between them without leaving the page. We hope that fluid view, the new functionality is an asset that you enjoy .
Sign in to follow this  
Parker

Longfellow Development - Wakemup

Recommended Posts

Parker

Can someone help shed some light on the proposed Longfellow development in Wakemup Bay? Per the Timberjay, they want to put in 26 residential lots on 133 acres in Wakemup. Can someone tell me where in Wakemup this is proposed? It looks like there is some debate as to whether an Environmental Impact Study is going to be conducted. Can someone help me understand why an EIS would not be required prior to this type of development?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DougSpringBay

Sick'em Terry.

Let me know what I can do also. You have my e-mail.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guideman

There is a public meeting on that very subject in Biwabik on Thusday April 14, at 9:30am on the 3rd floor of the city hall. This proposal is on the south shore of Wakemup bay, between Boys camp reef and Camp Vermilion. There are some people in the area trying to make sure that the EIS is part of the process. As with the Three bays project we want to make sure that the developers follow the "New Vermilion Plan". That would limit them to a

minimum of 300ft for each lot, thereby reducing the total number of lots they can develope.

There is also some sensitive walleye spawning and juvinile habitat for young fish in ths area. They are coming after the Big V from both ends so you need to write down your concerns and send them to the members of the St.Louis county planning Dept.

You can find all the addresses at the county web site, St.Louiscounty dot com.

"Ace" cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parker

I know exactly where you are talking about now. If they are actually forced to follow the rules and give each lot 300 ft of lakeshore they may be able to get 13 lots in there instead of the 26 they are proposing. The area in question does not have a long stretch of shoreline and it is by a commonly known spawning area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DTro

Please don't take this post the wrong way, but I've wondered this as I read all these discussions about development.

It seems that all development is viewed as bad. Look, I grew up on the lake, have several family members who own cabins and have worked for a resort on the lake. I wonder to myself, how in the world will I ever be able to afford a place on the lake if development is stymied at every attempt.

I do believe that being proactive is essential and I applaud your efforts Terry, but isn't limiting lakeshore to 300ft just driving up the property value? I mean, my grandparents have 150ft and that is more than sufficient. I understand the concern, nobody wants to see a minnetonka north (some might say it already is). I sure would like a place on the lake someday and at this rate the new development might be the only option.

"He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery."

Harold Wilson

"Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts."

Arnold Bennett

Just some thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HansB

Quote:

It seems that all development is viewed as bad.


I don't have a dog in this fight, being way too old and way too poor to afford a place on Vermilion, but I get the same impression that you state. The prevailing attitude seems to be "I've got mine; everyone else can go someplace else for theirs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MT Net

I think the real fight is to keep the property owners and developers abiding by the local laws and governances. Property rights belong to the owners of said properties. BUT, they must conform to local ordenances.

Why are we so willing to allow the breaking of these rules, regulations, and ordanences, and laws for the sake of develpoment?

confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HansB

Quote:

Why are we so willing to allow the breaking of these rules, regulations, and ordanences, and laws for the sake of develpoment?


I don't think anyone is supporting violations of the law (at least I didn't read that, but sometimes I'm kinda dense).

My comments refer to the rules which are imposed by the "haves" (minimum 100 yeards or shoreline, long enough for a football field) to raise barriers to entry by "have nots".

Protection of spawning areas has precious little to do with the distance between lot lines ashore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delcecchi

Contact Steve and Susie (musich) Fry at

2304 Lake Place

Minneapolis, MN 55404

She is John Musich (country store) daughter. The piece of property is in question is south shore, not too far east of the channel to head-o-lakes.

He has a list of issues.

My problem is the govenment makes regulations and writes plans to "protect the lake" but they really only apply to the individual or little guy. When Waters of Vermilion or US Steel or some developers with an an out of town landowner come in, there all sorts of special cases.

"Oh, this is a planned development. Make your own rules"

"Oh, we don't need an Environmental Impact Statement to develop all these acres, a worksheet is enough."

Sorry, I've been sick and not watching or I could have provided this info a long time ago.

del

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
garytheguide

the protection of the overall fishery...is why I go to the meetings ...and have been heard.....but I have been told that the development is from down buy the burial grounds area towards lindbergs place ....all now open...soon to be gone....not going to be muich left at this rate....great walleye area ...now will be pretty much gone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HansB

Are they proposing to build cabins on the lake bottom or up on the shore? How do cabins up on the shore affect the spawn. Do the walleyes crawl ashore and spawn up in the woods?

If I'm following this conversation correctly, it logically follows that if we tear all the cabins down and let the shoreline revert to forest, then walleye fishing will improve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MT Net

Cabins with glass roofs to see all the latest fashions in swim attire. I just hope you don't build a sauna in the area! tongue.gif

A 300 foot lot isn't a whole lot of distance for lake frontage, but, if you compare it with a typical lot within Minneapolis, it is huge! It's perfect to get away from the urban setting. Isn't that why people buy cabins, to get away from the city lifestyle?

It's not about the haves or have nots. It may have more to do with keeping the lake from becoming like South Minneapolis and the urbanization of our northland lakes.

Someday, in the near future, Lake Vermilion Will become a carbon copy of Lake Minnetonka; with minimal undeveloped areas, a barage of congestion, and manicured cityscape lawns to lake's edge.

This overdevelopment might not be a bad idea afterall. I like the sound of Lord MT Net's; serving the finest coffee and or spirits and grilled beef on the lake. A larger customer base to cater too for maximum profits! Off to buy a Donzi for the opener! grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
upnorth

Quote:

Someday, in the near future, Lake Vermilion Will become a carbon copy of Lake Minnetonka; with minimal undeveloped areas, a barage of congestion, and manicured cityscape lawns to lake's edge.


That is where the real problem exists. That manicure lawn letting all runoff with it's fertilizer and pesticides and what not just flow unimpeded into the lake. Nothing will change the ecosystem faster than that. And anyone who has a piece of lake property seems to want the beautifully manicured yard instead of the rustic natural beauty. Not to mention all the docks and boat traffice if it a prime spawning area and all of sudden it ain't a beautiful and special place any longer it is Lake Minnetonka North frown.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoxguy

Hans your logic has completely missed me. If you want some credibility try to stay focused on some logicial points of the issue. While I am not a fisheries biologist it seems reasonable to me that with increased land development and cabin density there will be increased boating pressure, increased fishing pressure from more people that are in close proximity to an existing fishing, fish spawing area and fish nursery. This will have an adverse impact on the fish that are in the immediate area. I realize that we have property on Vermilion because someone was willing to sell their property and some existing local residents would have seen our place as detrimental to the lake, their views, and possibly fisheries because a small cabin now stand where they once saw only trees. But if the existing rules for land development are relaxed and smaller lots are deemed acceptable there would be further degradation of the quality of the water, degradation of the sights and sounds on the lake, unless you like a lot of people and boats, and likely the fishery. I am not opposed to development but all development must follow the rules that exist at the time of the land development.

Esoxguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slick814

I agree with MT and (Contact US Regarding This Word). The problem is the overdevelopment of the lake. I don't want to see it become Minnetonka North, but also wouldn't mind being able to buy a place up there some day myself.

I think that the biggest problems here are that US Steel and other big companies are merely trying to sell off the land that the've owned for years, as profits have been down a bit, and it's a cash cow for them. The more lots they can sell as developed or developable, the more $$ they make.

As far as it affecting the spawning areas, more boat traffic in these areas will affect the spawn. As it is now, there are prime spawing grounds, but what will happen with increased traffic, lawn runoff, etc.?

This is about protecting the fishery for years to come, not keeping the "little guy" from buying a cabin with decent shoreline and privacy to get awway from the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parker

Hans and DTRO,

I can see where you two are coming from. All I am asking for are two simple things that have been pointed out by others:

1. That the company that has proposed this development follow the rules established for the lake. The rules set up for the lake are there for a reason. Everyone, including the Vermilion Sportsman’s Club, had a chance to voice their input prior to the rules taking effect. The rules were not established over night. A lot of thought and effort went into establishing the current rules. In the name of development should we allow those rules to be trampled over? Does the Naterra Land Company have more rights than you or I? I don’t think they do or should.

2. That we know what impact the development will have on the lake. This may be minimal or it may be catastrophic. Right now, who knows? Let’s find out. My concern deals with phosphates entering the lake. Currently, land owners are supposed to leave a buffer between their landscaped lawn and the lake. The fine for removing the buffer is so small that some landowners mow it down shortly after the last inspector is gone. This buffer keeps phosphates contained in fertilizer from entering the lake. Once phosphates enter the lake they generate tremendous weed growth in the run off area, which basically leads to a host of other issues. If you don’t believe me I can show you numerous examples of this close to the area in question. I am not saying that this will happen to the area in question, but don’t we want to know the impact to the lake if it did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TomWehler

Can't stop development.

Make them do it right is about all one can hope for.

Be some time before it is like Tonka.

But I do see that happening someday if their were places of employment for large numbers of people.

The cold is yer friend, only the strong and willing servive. laugh.gif

300 foot lots hold big places and the taxes will be a bunch.

The little blue collar familys are already being forced out.

You don't own, your in a tight spot or deep fix.

Having a mortaguge and taxes on something you enjoy during open water but don't live in year round can be very taxing on ones pocket book and way of living.

Unless yer Joe Moneybags and wife. blush.gif

Best pay off yer stuff now and plan on the taxes being as much as the old payments.

crazy.gif

Can't really say don't come up, don't build, stay away.

But you can make them do it right.

laugh.gif

Hope for the best, kick'em in the guts and pee on their cat if they don't listen.

wink.gif

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guideman

Hans,

Roof tops, driveways and patios will all increase runoff of harmful chemicals into the ecosystem.

Shoreline that is now in a natural state will be modified to fit the needs of land owners. Boat props will damage shoreline and habitat. In-shore areas where juvinile fish live will experience a

marked increase in boat traffic.

I can't help bring down the high cost of a lot on Vermilion. I can however, as a tax paying citizen

of this county, ask that everyone be accountable to the laws of this county and it's townships.

According to the devopment group from USX, there isn't a great deal of difference between what the price of a 150ft lot vs a 300ft lot. I also want to point out to those of you that think this will make it easier for you to find a cabin. These are not being planed with you in mind. If you can't afford the prices now, these developments will be way out of your range. You're looking at paying in $500,000.00 range, add asscociation fees and I would emagine some very higth taxes. shocked.gif

I doubt this is your ticket to the good life....

"Ace" cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HansB

Quote:

I can't help bring down the high cost of a lot on Vermilion. I can however, as a tax paying citizen

of this county, ask that everyone be accountable to the laws of this county and it's townships.


Ace,

You can go back and read my posts a thousand times, squint your eyes, get new glasses, or convert them to braille, and you'll NEVER find me supporting and violation of any law, EVER! Don't patronize me waving the flag about "law abiding taxpayer", because I'm one of those to.

However, like many others, it gets up my nose bigtime when 'influentials' like the principals at a "leading local real estate firm" manipulate public opinion and the political process and drive Joe Six Pack out of the market with outrageous rules like 300-foot minimum lot size (that's the length of a FOOTBALL FIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

Used to be (not that long ago) that a family guy with an average decent job down at the mines could save up a few bucks, but a little lot on Vermilion, he and his dad and brother could build a nice cabin over a couple of summers, and enjoy the lake.

But realtors don't make much money on that deal. So a few years ago the realtors quietly went to work and convinced the planners and politicians that small lots were bad for the ecology --- now Joe Six Pack can't buy a small lot anymore, and taxes are going up so the kids can't afford to keep Uncle Al's old cabin on Moccasin Point.

But hey, the realtors are now walking in tall cotton, selling half-million-dollar bare lots and the developers are building 2-million dollar "cabins" on those lots, limiting availability to keep the price up. It's a classic tactic. Give this trend another 10-years, and you have Minnetonka of the North --- everything owned by doctors/lawyers/dope dealers, because Joe Average has been priced and taxed off the lake. (Hint: that will include you! confused.gif)

Sunuvagun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
upnorth

Hans, I used to work in the Real Estate field and I can tell you one thing Realtors have little to do with the cost of Real Estate. Truth be told the buyers have more control over the cost of real estate than anything. If they are unwilling to pay the price, either cost comes down or it won't sell, period. Sellers can only ask a price and stick their price and hang on to their property if it doesn't sell.

300 foot lots are there to keep the amount of development and overall population density down and aestetics up. Those laws are usually started and implemented by locals and local government. Truth be told from a Realtors stand point three 100 foot lots selling for $200,000 would give them more commission than one 300 foot lot selling at $500,000.

If you want to put the blame on Joe Six Pack not being able to purchase a lot and build a little piece of heaven, blame all the people who were willing to pay escalating prices for the present properties. Sellers and Realtors are only there to take advantage of what some is willing to spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guideman

Hey Hans,

Before you get all exited about my post, the only part of it addressd to you was the first part on the runoff. You wanted to know what the effect of over development had on a fishery.

Nobody was questioning your character, so chill!

For a guy that dosen't live here you sure seem to know everything about whats going on. If you are mad about the taxes go complain to the government not me, I don't set the tax rates. The only taxes that are high are the seasonal rates. If a local wants to live on Lake Vermilion, homestead taxes are very affordable. I won't be pushed off of my

place by high taxes because I "LIVE" here. I pay less taxes here than I did in MPLS, so get you're facts straight.

I would think that someone that loves this lake as much as you proclaim, would have an interest in making sure the land is developed wisely. That is all these people are trying to do. We aren't foolish enough to think it can be stopped however we can make sure the developers follow the rules when they do. These rules were set forth by local people, not out of town realitors. The New Lake Vermilion plan is the result of 3 years of public meetings involving local government, property and business owners on Lake Vermilion and the general public. This wasn't the result of a horrible land grabing conspiracy buy a group of realitors.

"Ace" cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delcecchi

I received another letter from Steve Fry. A number of folks wrote or testified at the planning commission meeting on 4/14 in favor of requiring a full EIS.

The DNR and MPCA are requesting more information on a number of issues. It was noted that no soil testing was done. The request for a full EIS is also supported by Beatty Township.

The issues included

Stormwater Ponds

Cumulative impacts

Wetland impacts from buildings and driveways

Wetland impacts from roads

Soils testing for Septic Systems

Fishery impacts.

As currently proposed, this plan is not in compliance with the Vermilion Plan.

The decision will be made on May 12.

Interested parties may write to

Scott Smith

St Louis Co. Planning Department

100 Missabe Bldg

Duluth, MN 55802

smiths@co.st-louis.mn.us

Share this post


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



  • Posts

    • eyeguy 54
      looks like 3 so far.  anybody else up for this? 
    • Chill62
      Sorry dude I tried but this page isn't most active with facebook groups being the biggest way most people share ice thickness in a realtime way.  There's only one way to really know and that's grab a spud bar and start hitting as you walk and drilling holes to see.
    • sartellangler05
      Be looking at these two general areas. Thanks for heads up on south end.
    • NELS-BELLS
      My son and I fished from 8 - 4 yesterday out of Beacon Harbor.  It was super windy so we couldn't be as mobile.  We caught 6 eyes, all under 17", in about 8' of water and another 10 after we moved out to 11'. Also a few big Perch.  Only 2 fish on dead stick and the rest jigging.  Gold or pink seemed to work the best.  Fun day! Nels
    • Wanderer
      OK thanks.  I haven’t had an issue yet.  I just got low on powder and needed primers so I decided to try the Blackhorn 209 now.  I remembered reading this post. At the C store there were plenty of Triple 7 and Remington 209 primers in the ML supplies @ 9-10 bucks/100.  The shotgun primers were running running low though and I grabbed the last 100 pack.  They’re only 4 bucks/100.  I figured it would be a cheap experiment if nothing else.
    • icepike 1
      Not a hundred percent on the age but it's a Frabill Excursion and both are in brand new condition. Not to worried about the weight of it it won't be more than a handful of times of pulling it out before driving my truck out with it. The price difference between the two is what I was looking at.
    • FirstIce
      Does anyone have any input on the kdrill on a gas auger? I have seen a few people use this setup. Do you need a special adapter to use it?
    • Wanderer
      Are they both the same age?  Equal condition?  Do you hand drag or machine pull?  Weight will matter a lot. You really have to consider how you plan to use the house.  Happiness with the houses performance is the biggest key.   Otherwise it appears to be a trade from a $480 house to a $700 house based on new house prices if I looked at the right Frabil.
    • icepike 1
      It's not thermal. How's frabill's customer service in case you break a poll or something?
    • going4it
      The only problem I had with my frabill was its weight. It was a tank to pull and tough to put in the bed of the truck.