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  
dfv87

I found this rather difficult logic/reasoning to follow...Lake shore development

Recommended Posts

dfv87

I have been looking for a cabin/lot and I hear several people offer opinions on the "over development" of lakes. Last summer I looked at a cabin from a defunct resort that was being formed into a PUD (Planned Unit Development). As a prospective buyer I stopped to talk with a neighbor of the resort who was out in his yard watching our walk through to find out any juicy info I could get and what I got kinda shocked me. The cold shoulder bordering on RUDE. I couldn't figure out the hostility, but he was upset they were "developing" the resort. I wrote it off as sour grapes or a bad relationship between the seller and him.

Over the winter we looked at another resort that was closing and the possibility of forming it into a PUD for sale as individual units. We met with a lake association that voiced strong opinions against it. They felt the PUD would put additional strain on the lake as another "development". Now here is what confuses me, people it seems would rather have a resort operating with weekly more people coming and going every week rather than people that own their own cabin and most likely want to join the association. The tax base would be greater as each place would pay a combined higher tax than the resort did. I also found it almost funny that people would insist on stopping development/"destruction" of lakeshore when they have a lakehome with the fertilzed lawn and 25 year old septic system. Now I know I may be making a generalization here but it seems that some of the most vigorous objections to lakeshore development come from people that own developed lake shore. Now if it is that much of a concern why wouldn't you offer to remove you cabin and septic and let the land become wild again also. IMO it seems rather unrealistic to say anything about lake shore being over developed when you own lake shore. ie Now that I have my place we need to make sure noone else can have one.

Now I realize some may think I am trying to start a fight/debate, but I was just wondering how this logic worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nofishfisherman

In my opinion the logic doesn't work.

If the resort is already there and you are just looking at buying one of the already built cabins then how is there a debate about not wanting the land to be developed? Seems to me the land is already developed.

Problem is everyone wants a lake property but they don't want anyone else to have it. Some how they think they are the only ones with the right to own lake property. Lots of self entitlement out there these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Canada

It's the density thing. By making it a PUD they can have more units on the property. If they sold it outright there would be 1 or 2 new houses because of current setbacks and lot sizes and septic requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McGurk

NIMBYism at its finest. If they (the association) wanted to pick their neighbors, they should have to buy the land themselves and sell it accordingly. Amateurs tooling around on "their" lake by renting one weekend at a time must seem more appealing than respectful owners to them.

Just the opinion of another bitter non-lakeshore owner who is way out-priced into getting some myself. You'd think a Dual-Income-No-Kids (DINK) couple could get it done, but alas, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
solbes

I don't really see a problem replacing a resort with a PUD. I guess if the allowable density would greatly change, that might be a downer for the lake. But still I think you have to give people some respect if they are looking to buy. The owners already there do not own the lake, they just own a piece of the shore.

We bought into a lot on a smaller Park Rapids lake a few years ago. It was subdivided from a very large lot and I'm sure some of the neighbors were not real pleased to see 4 new docks/lifts on the lake. I enjoy talking to the resort owner a 1/4 mile down the road, and understandably he is not ecstatic about new developments. But he is at least respectable.

I don't have a problem with new developments (provided it was an older resort, or if subdivided that it's 150'+). But I'm not really pleased with people clearing out 75'+ all the way to the water and then fertilizing the lawn. IMO, it looks like crap and it really adds fertility to the lake. The best places I usually see are woodsy with a few paths cut through the trees for lake viewing. I'm trying to add trees back to our lot.

And McGurk, keep looking! I thought the same thing, but talked to a few realtors and told them what we were looking for and at what price. We eventually got a call and were the first people to view the lot. We bought before the owner realized he was too low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McGurk

Thanks for the encouragement, solbes, and we have decided against the lakeshore idea anyway. I wholeheartedly agree about the "wild" looking lakeshore which is becoming all too scarce, and we value as high on the list of desirable land. Now we have shifted our gaze to 40/80 acres of "hunting" land. It's nice to get to the lake, but we both agreed that we want a little more seclusion, and anymore that does not mean getting lakeshore. Hunting land is not going cheaply anymore, either, but we are keeping our eyes open. Just the hermit in me, I guess.

I hope that I'm not drawing any parallels to the lake association and my opinion of land, but if you want to minimize your neighbors, get land on an environmentally classified lake. Otherwise, be prepared to have as many people buying lakeshore as there is money being made. It sounds like this is an established recreational lake, and there will be people on it. Frankly, if there are 2 people on a lake it will be too many for someone else who lives on the lake. Let 'em Buy, let 'em build. If anything, it will mean a lot of money for local dock/lift builders, boat builders, cabin/house builders, local restaurants and bars, and so on. And how many of us really have really bad neighbors at the lake, anyway? Less than at home, I'm sure. $0.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FlyingV

Do you know the difference between a "developer" and a "conservationist"?

The conservationist already has his lake cabin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfv87

Quote:

Do you know the difference between a "developer" and a "conservationist"?

The conservationist already has his lake cabin.


OUCH!

A little harsher than I would be but accurate in concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McGurk

FlyingV, that is classic. Sharp, to the point, and pretty true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ely Lake Expert

Alright here is what I think, around here most of the people that own lakeshore are in there late 40's, 50's or 60's and most or the people looking to buy land have good paying jobs in the big cities and are in their 20's 30's and early 40's. I have noticed most of the people who have posted on this topic so far are either in the cities or at least southern MN. IMO if you where not raised around here you don't fully understand how most of the older generations think. People with the lakeshore already either inherited it or bought it when you could buy lakeshore with a 60K a year job. Back to how people think, older people that have had the property for a long time are comfortable there and for the most part don't like change. Everyone has heard the phrase "if it aint broken don't fix it" Alot of older (and some younger) people feel the same way about a change in surroundings. If they are comfortable how it is, they are not open to new things. I don't support overdevelopment by any means and I really like the woods, but for some people saying that "their" lake is getting overdeveloped is just their way of saying "I like it how it is, leave me alone"

Something was also said about why the neighbors of resorts would rather have new people every week than have someone just buy the cabin. I think it is still all about keeping things as is. If someone rents a cabin for the week and the neighbor doesn't like them, they are gone in a week. No big deal. If some young hotshot businessman buys the preexisting cabin and the retired neighbor doesn't like him, the retired neighbor level of living comfortable just went way down and I just think some people are already negative minded and they think everyone that looks at it is the young hotshot who they won't like. Another thing is alot of the young people looking to buy have young kids and some of the retired generation looks at having young kids around as a negative thing and sees teenagers as a even more negative thing. I think, especially for those from the big city, when looking at property up north right away you just need to politely introduce themselves to the neighbors right away in efforts to strike up a friendship and that way things would run much more smoothly and you would possibly even have their support. All in all, I don't think that anyone is completely right in their point of view on this subject. All I know is change is going to happen people as a whole have to learn to deal with it.

Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deepportage01

Very well put Lake Ely ex, Every lake shore owner should read this!Thank you for the insite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfv87

Quote:

It's the density thing. By making it a PUD they can have more units on the property. If they sold it outright there would be 1 or 2 new houses because of current setbacks and lot sizes and septic requirements.


I guess my point is that the existing resort has the same number of cabins as the PUD would have so no difference would happen in existing density. With the rezone to PUD the septic would have to be compliant and joint so it would probably be better than older individual ones operating on most lakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nofishfisherman

I understand the idea of not wanting things to change but how is a new neighbor moving in up north and different then a new neighbor moving in in the ciites.

If someone buys the house next door to me in St. Paul I don't have any right to say anything about his choice to move in. The only thing I can do is accept it.

If there are groups of people that are trying to block people from buying land around a lake or from buying a part of an old resort I don't think they have any right to do so. They shouldn't be able obstruct people who are wanting to buy the land any more then I have the right to choose who buys the house next door.

I totally agree that if you buy a lake cabin you need to be polite to your new neighbors but the same holds true no matter where you buy a house.

Your neighbors may not like that you moved in but they have nothing that they can say about it becuase its apart of life in every single city or town in the country. This concept is not some sort of special northwoods exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfv87

Quote:

I understand the idea of not wanting things to change but how is a new neighbor moving in up north and different then a new neighbor moving in in the ciites.

If someone buys the house next door to me in St. Paul I don't have any right to say anything about his choice to move in. The only thing I can do is accept it.

If there are groups of people that are trying to block people from buying land around a lake or from buying a part of an old resort I don't think they have any right to do so. They shouldn't be able obstruct people who are wanting to buy the land any more then I have the right to choose who buys the house next door.

I totally agree that if you buy a lake cabin you need to be polite to your new neighbors but the same holds true no matter where you buy a house.

Your neighbors may not like that you moved in but they have nothing that they can say about it becuase its apart of life in every single city or town in the country. This concept is not some sort of special northwoods exception.


+1

Just because I have a metro address may not mean I am a complete jerk. Probably 50-75% jerk but not 100%!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nofishfisherman

On my last check up I was down to 37% jerk. So, the meds are working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fishin4Life

Quote:

+1

Just because I have a metro address may not mean I am a complete jerk. Probably 50-75% jerk but not 100%!


Becker is in the Metro? , hehe LOL, that be up nort from my neck of de woods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McGurk

I moved down here with less than a 25% Jerk Factor (JF), but it has steadily risen the closer I get to taller buildings. Funny, it seems to drop the further I get from those same buildings. Maybe that's why it's so desirable up north; Lake Iwanttobethere seems pretty calm (on and off the lake)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakjack23

I'll just say that it CAN suck when you have some yahoo screw up the lake you are on (Not that original poster was going to screw up the lake). There was a resort on the lake I am on out of Pine River that was bought a year or two ago. I guess it was a whole family of brothers or something that bought it. Anyway, it use to be a nice quiet resort that people would come to and relax. Now there is no less then 25 people there every weekend with jetskies, ski boats, loud kids and dogs..etc. This is only a 85 acre lake. They just turned this once peaceful lake into a "mini Lake Minnetonka". Now instead of going up and relaxing in the pontoon we curse the jetski's as they constantly fly by us. It might be time to do a little handyman work on that jetski in the middle of the night smile.gif Also, we use to be able to look out the window across the bay and see forest and wildlife. But a couple years ago a realtor bought the one cabin that was over there, split up the lots and then sold them. Now there are old trailers and campers parked in the lots where the tree's were cleared out of. I guess its developement and there is nothing you can do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ely Lake Expert

Thanks Deepportage.

Nofish,

I hope you didn't misunderstand my post. I agree with what you have to say. If lakehome owners want to defend their specific rights within the law that is fine with me, but for them to stop it just to avoid change/new people is wrong.

dfv87,

That 50-75% jerk you claim to be must be from rush hour traffic jams.:P (It would drive me crazy/angry too) Thats a different subject for a different time. grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waskawood

As a lake home owner I know exactly where you are coming from. I was fortunate to have grandparents who had the wisdon to buy a lake lot in the mid 40's. Luckily I ended up with the property after my parents died. The lake I am on is fairly large and can handle all the boat traffic that it sees. There has been much interest in second tier development around the lake and many owners try to stop it without taking into consideration weather or not the lake can handle more boat traffic. It is a case of "my lake"itis!! I do not have a problem with planned well thought out development of any property. Wheather it be metro, rural, or recreational property. What we do need to do is make sure that it is done with our enviorment in mind. We need to treat our sewage properly. We need to preserve our aquatic plants. We do need limit the neutriants that find its way into our waters. I see no problem with the puc's mentioned. Contrary to what most think, many lake home owners and lake associations do care about the body of water that they live on and don't use needless chemicals and fertilizers. Many of us do not rip out the weeds so we have a clean swimming beach. I think we are like fisherman and hunters. We have the good as well as the bad among us. Good luck in your quest for a nice lake place.

Waska

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
solbes

Good post. I agree that it's not necessarily the number of people that matters, but how the people manage their land. The demand for lakeshore will always be strong, so there will always be new lots created as prices go up.

But things like minimizing fertilizer usage, shoreline modification, having an adequate buffer zone all seem like good ideas to me. Anyone on top of the DNR's Clean Water Initiative? I guess they are talking about changes to how 5 of the Lakes counties manage their shoreline policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfv87

Quote:

As a lake home owner I know exactly where you are coming from. I was fortunate to have grandparents who had the wisdon to buy a lake lot in the mid 40's. Luckily I ended up with the property after my parents died. The lake I am on is fairly large and can handle all the boat traffic that it sees. There has been much interest in second tier development around the lake and many owners try to stop it without taking into consideration weather or not the lake can handle more boat traffic. It is a case of "my lake"itis!! I do not have a problem with planned well thought out development of any property. Wheather it be metro, rural, or recreational property. What we do need to do is make sure that it is done with our enviorment in mind. We need to treat our sewage properly. We need to preserve our aquatic plants. We do need limit the neutriants that find its way into our waters. I see no problem with the puc's mentioned. Contrary to what most think, many lake home owners and lake associations do care about the body of water that they live on and don't use needless chemicals and fertilizers. Many of us do not rip out the weeds so we have a clean swimming beach. I think we are like fisherman and hunters. We have the good as well as the bad among us. Good luck in your quest for a nice lake place.

Waska


Point taken, it was not my intention to generalize about all lakeshore owners negatively, just to state that the same generalizations shouldn't be made about people that want to get lakeshore property and may have to "develop" property to get it.

And YES the traffic probably is the major cause of the 50-75% jerk level I normally run under.

Becker is more Metro than you think! (and I work in the Metro... Well kinda work.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VMS

I guess with the ideas of the PUD's, I would think it could benefit the lake rather than a resort... I have not seen it mentioned here yet, but if the people who buy those PUD's become part of the lakes association, and want to preserve the environment, they can let the buffer zone grow. My biggest positive about the buy-out of a resort and sold as individual cabins is the LACK of fish being taken from the waters.

Think about it for a moment... you get resort guests day in and day out, week after week for the entire summer, many fishing and keeping what they catch. Doesn't take long to rape a lake of good fish if this type of fishing takes place. I know on our lakes we have 2 resorts and the resort boats always have that stringer hanging over the side. It's not that keeping a few fish for dinner is bad, I do it too once in a while, but when it happens each day of the summer season, it becomes a concern.... It's not just 1 or 2 limits per household...it can potentially be hundreds of limits taken by resort guests. Major difference in lake impact.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dfv87

Quote:

I guess with the ideas of the PUD's, I would think it could benefit the lake rather than a resort... I have not seen it mentioned here yet, but if the people who buy those PUD's become part of the lakes association, and want to preserve the environment, they can let the buffer zone grow. My biggest positive about the buy-out of a resort and sold as individual cabins is the LACK of fish being taken from the waters.

Think about it for a moment... you get resort guests day in and day out, week after week for the entire summer, many fishing and keeping what they catch. Doesn't take long to rape a lake of good fish if this type of fishing takes place. I know on our lakes we have 2 resorts and the resort boats always have that stringer hanging over the side. It's not that keeping a few fish for dinner is bad, I do it too once in a while, but when it happens each day of the summer season, it becomes a concern.... It's not just 1 or 2 limits per household...it can potentially be hundreds of limits taken by resort guests. Major difference in lake impact.

Steve


Steve not to create an issue and I whole heartedly agree that resorts take many more fish than a PUD group would. But the lake association could also ask all its current members to allow their buffer zone to grow back also. While not trying to be the complete jerk and maintain the 50-75% jerk level asking anything beyond what is asked of any other members of the lake association I would find offensive. Now I assume you meant it as a suggestion to use as a possible enticement offering by the PUD to the association, and depending on the situation could very well be a point to look at in this situation. Now if they were to "require" (as an association they only could not allow us to join the them) us to do something other members were not I think they would be using more logic I couldn't follow. Again Steve I am not trying to disect your post as you seemed to agree with me so if you feel like that, it was not intended that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VMS

I would say we are in agreement. I could also see how some home owners (even those that are a part of the lakes association) would not want more development (I am one of them...I like the seclusion aspect, but the more homes/cottages, the less seclusion you have) but the resort is already there, so if it sold, and one or two more little cottages go up, I see that as no big deal.

Why won't the lakes association let you join (if I understood that correctly)? Just because it was a resort sold as a PUD?

Steve

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

    • kelly-p
      Unfortunately they have not found them yet. Freeze up  with the thin ice has really hampered the search. Too much ice for boats and not enough to travel on. As the ice thickens the searchers are working their way deeper. Such a sad situation.
    • KidMoe
      I’m hoping I can get some advice from you fine folks. I’m looking to install a small electric winch on my snowmobile trailer to load my skid house. I’m wondering if I can power it off the 7 pin connector?  From what I can find, my truck is fused at 10 amp and most of the winches I’m finding pull somewhere around 50 to 60 amps at 1500 lbs or so. I’m wondering what I could do to still run it off the 7 pin. Do I need to add a battery? Maybe a capacitor? i appreciate any thoughts you might have!
    • Cliff Wagenbach
      I spotted them also this evening out from McKinley. A few more days yet before I will give it a try! Cliff
    • Spearing Machine
      First fisherman seen trying their luck today out from McKinley park access and Stuntz Bay access. 
    • Wanderer
      Definitely not surprised with this change. One might as well license the wheel house anyway.  Keeping it legally “occupied” is a pain just to avoid buying the license.
    • Rick
      A public meeting to discuss a draft transition plan for Hill Annex Mine State Park will take place Thursday, Nov. 30, from 4 to 6 p.m. at the Calumet City Hall, 932 Gary St., Calumet. Legislation in 2017 guided five local partners (DNR, Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board, Itasca County, City of Calumet and the Western Mesabi Mine Planning Board) to work on an alternate operating model for local management and operation of the Hill Annex Mine. The work group has concluded that operation of the site as a park under any jurisdiction is extremely unlikely and is proposing a feasibility study to explore other local economic development opportunities that preserve the history of Hill Annex Mine, promote existing amenities along the Mesabi Trail, and better connect the cities of Calumet and Marble. At the public meeting, the work group will hold a facilitated discussion to review feedback on the draft project report. The report will be submitted to the 2018 Legislature. Interested members of the public are welcome to attend and participate in the discussion. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • JerkinLips
      I am a lazy angler, so winter fishing suits me fine.  I typically fish with pike suckers or chubs on a plain #6 hook 6" off the bottom, and do just fine on ice.  As they said, the best bite times are sunrise-10:30am and 3:00pm-sunset; although I do occasionally catch some in the middle of the day.  I have caught very few walleyes after dark.
    • bbfenatic
      Ice is 4-5" on smaller lakes in DL area...got some nice crappies and one large Gill 10.75" on a quick trip out yesterday morning before the Vikes game...best bite was 7-9am
    • Rick
      The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources today released a new plan guiding management of the Sand Dunes State Forest near Zimmerman for the next five years. The revised operational plan arose from a series of meetings with local landowners, conservationists and others.  “After hearing stakeholder concerns about the original 2013 plan, we led an extensive public engagement process that informed this revised approach,” said Forrest Boe, director of the DNR Forestry Division. “The new plan does a good job of balancing a variety of values and interests.” The revised plan addresses stakeholder concerns about timber management, recreational opportunities, forestry roads, and School Trust land management, as well as addressing rare species management. The plan also addresses several specific concerns that arose during the public engagement process, such as aesthetic considerations related to timber harvests next to private lands, and tree management within the Ann Lake Campground. The operational plan is based in sound natural resource science and reflects the DNR’s goal of sustainable forest management for economic, environmental, and recreational benefits. The plan shortens the management timeframe from 50 years in the 2013 plan to 10 years. It also provides more direction related to recreation, School Trust lands, and forest roads. Science-based adaptive management tools will be used to inform decisions on restoring, protecting, and managing rare plants and wildlife. “The DNR will continue to engage with people interested in the Sand Dunes State Forest through regular updates and meetings,” Boe said. “We want to build on the relationships we’ve developed over the past year and a half.” Sand Dunes State Forest, established by the Minnesota Legislature in 1945, consists of about 6,000 acres that are owned and managed by the state. It features a variety of plant communities and landscapes—including pine plantations, rare sand dunes, wetlands, woodlands, oak savanna, and prairie. It is home to more than two dozen rare plants and animals. Located in Sherburne County about an hour northwest of the Twin Cities, it is the closest state forest to the Twin Cities metro area. The forest is a popular recreation destination for hikers, horseback riders, hunters, campers, and others. The revised plan, along with further information about the public engagement process, can be found on the project website at mndnr.gov/forestry/sand-dunes/index.html. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • Rick
      The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has issued its annual ice safety warning for lakes with winter aeration systems.  Aeration creates areas of thin ice and open water that are extremely hazardous to people and pets. Open water areas can shift or change shapes depending on weather conditions, and leaks may develop in airlines, creating other areas of weak ice or open water. The updated list of aerated lakes and more information is available at mndnr.gov/eco/lakeaeration. “We’re urging people to use caution anytime they venture onto lake ice, especially at night,” said Amanda Yourd, DNR hydrologist and aeration coordinator. “Extreme care should be taken on aerated lakes. Watch for the large orange and black warning signs at high use public accesses and the required thin ice signs around open water areas.” Aeration systems help prevent winterkill of fish populations by adding oxygen to the lake, and in certain situations to protect shorelines from ice damage. They are generally operated from the time the lakes freeze until the ice breaks up in the spring. About 280 lakes will have aeration systems operating on them this winter. Private hatchery operators also use aeration systems, usually on small lakes without public accesses. A permit from the DNR is required to install and operate an aeration system. Permit holders must publish public notices, post warning signs, and inspect the systems at least once every seven days. Liability insurance is generally required of private groups or citizens operating aeration systems in protected waters. Watch for notices in your local media identifying aerated lakes in your area. DNR staff ensure permittees comply with all requirements and regularly inspect systems for safety. Some municipalities may have ordinances that prohibit entering into the thin ice marked area and/or prohibit the night use of motorized vehicles on lakes with aeration systems in operation.  These local regulations are often posted at accesses where they apply. Questions concerning aeration or thin ice can be answered by calling a regional or area fisheries office or the Department of Natural Resources toll-free at 888-MINNDNR (888-646-6367). Discuss below - to view set the hook here.