ACTION NEEDED Wright Co. Invasive Species Ordinance Has Passed

[drscholl14]

Here is a quote from a the guy I was talking to who went to the last meeting.

"What I learned is that Stearns, Ottertail,Crow wing, Hennepin co. and others lake associations are very well supported. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. All are standing behind the Wright co ordinance.When they asked me about the self inspection(they are NOT supporting it) I pointed out that law enforcement would have to self inspect, or return to the inspection site before continuing patrol on other ordinance covered lakes. They brushed that off as not an issue. Also when I pointed out that this by (DNR directives include-be more cost effective and NOT limit public access) several board members loudly protested my remarks. The Mn COLA board see this as a test case for all other Co. All most all the general remarks revolve around “how busy our lake is”."

There are many associations out there and if this gets signed off on, you can bet the others will follow the leader. Please Email the DNR staff listed above in the thread. They need to be aware that we are not OK with this.

[C_W]

Here is a quote from a the guy I was talking to who went to the last meeting.

"What I learned is that Stearns, Ottertail,Crow wing, Hennepin co. and others lake associations are very well supported. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. All are standing behind the Wright co ordinance.When they asked me about the self inspection(they are NOT supporting it) I pointed out that law enforcement would have to self inspect, or return to the inspection site before continuing patrol on other ordinance covered lakes. They brushed that off as not an issue. Also when I pointed out that this by (DNR directives include-be more cost effective and NOT limit public access) several board members loudly protested my remarks. The Mn COLA board see this as a test case for all other Co. All most all the general remarks revolve around “how busy our lake is”."

There are many associations out there and if this gets signed off on, you can bet the others will follow the leader. Please Email the DNR staff listed above in the thread. They need to be aware that we are not OK with this.

This whole program has so much misinformation being spread.

I’m going to pick on this as the perfect example. Your “source “ should have expected these results using easily deflated arguments but when using non facts to argue a case you will always lose. If they had researched rather than read a blog, Facebook or forum somewhere they might have avoided this. However in using it as his argument he further fueled the fire behind the pilot.

Where was the first failure you ask? LEO’s, DNR and county services are exempt from this program. Have been from day one, it’s right in the original ordinance. So the argument was dead from the start. They knew it. BUT, if he was engaging them, they played him like a fiddle. Why make a scenario up that doesn’t exist and can’t exist?

Then to go into the cost effectiveness of this? SMH, did this person follow along with any of the presentations before this day? Cost per inspection, cost per coverage hr, percentage of coverage. I don’t fully agree with their math on these but they at least have data. I do wonder what he used as an argument. Did he just throw that out as a Hail Mary or was it planed? Remember the state has set a guideline of 15 miles, so the inconvenience part is void by default so he was arguing the cost. Maybe not though?

The LA are very well organized, well funded and put the right people up front. The opposition had zero time to pre organize, they are operating on lots of social media with miscues and half facts, have a adopted easily defeated talking points as their rally cry’s and maybe someone should tell their supporters not to email in saying that they hope someone dumps AIS into these lakes.

Its been a strugle from the beginning. Truthfully speaking, all we can hope is that the DNR finds something in the plan that doesn’t meet the guidelines set forth by the legislation that governs this program and then maybe they can deny them approval. I don’t see that happening but you never know. This is where another misconception is often overlooked, the commissioner is not approving this by her thoughts on this program but rather on the merit of if it meets the legislation passed on the state level.

I wasn’t happy when this first was announced and I am not happy to see any lakes being added before a full vetting of this pilot was complete. Especially considering how some of the LA have gone about gaining approval to join the pilot. Some tweaks were made to the former plan that can be seen as a benifit and the addition of the self inspection certification is definitely a positive aspect of an otherwise flawed program.

[Treeguyus]

The voice that is not being heard comes from the biologists. In the bigger scheme, legislators are calling the shots for our resources. A comment that may be off base from this conversation. A practice that needs to change.

[bass-o-maticjm]

CW, perhaps you can provide us with the "facts" that we can use when contacting the DNR rather than the "misinformation" you state we are sending to our detriment?

[drscholl14]

I have heard a lot of people say that the opposition has so much misinformation but I have yet to have anyone give me the "correct information". All I can go off of is what I have heard from a person who was at the meetings and my take on what I read from the PDF of the plan. Also, I don't understand why everyone who is against this plan is sitting around bitching at everyone else who is against the plan because of "what they don't know" instead of getting together and actually trying to do something about it.

[C_W]

Because the reality is doc not everyone is sitting around.

[RFeyoMN]

I'm sitting around!

In all reality though...there is no unity in Mn among outdoorsmen. Fishing...musky guys hate walleye guys, walleye guys hate musky guys, everybody hates bass guys...even catfisherman! With that...the sportsmen and women will almost certainly always lose...ESPECIALLY...with our legislature making the call on most outdoors related issues. Until that changes, things will never improve. We will always lose.

In reality, I really don't care anymore. I just go hunt and fish, and enjoy the Mn outdoors as much as I can. My time here is limited, so the future of the state is of no concern to me.

[Macsimus]

I just finished an email to each of the addressees in post #6 strongly urging them to reject this ordinance. I believe it does make a difference. Several years ago, I attended a DNR public hearing on proposed regulations for a lake I enjoy fishing. I was the only attendee that wasn't a local. The DNR fellow leading the meeting told me afterwards that they appreciated my presence and input, and that it had quite a bit of weight with them to hear from someone that wasn't local to the lake community.

[drscholl14]

Because the reality is doc not everyone is sitting around.

Thanks for proving my point. Tell us what is being done? Tell us why we should think this is a good thing? Tell us where we've been misled? I haven't seen anything from anyone that has led me to believe otherwise. You don't seem to be in favor of this just like the rest of us, and you also don't seem to think the LA are doing this for the right reasons, yet you're ragging on us even though we want the same end result. If you're worried about social media deterring this fight, maybe spend the time to explain the correct information and steps we need to take instead of a one sentence reply.

[Fishysam]

I just finished an email to each of the addressees in post #6 strongly urging them to reject this ordinance. I believe it does make a difference. Several years ago, I attended a DNR public hearing on proposed regulations for a lake I enjoy fishing. I was the only attendee that wasn't a local. The DNR fellow leading the meeting told me afterwards that they appreciated my presence and input, and that it had quite a bit of weight with them to hear from someone that wasn't local to the lake community.

Had a similar encounter being from ND at a pelican lake musky thing a few years ago.

Agree with fishermen need to unite and quite the speicies fighting.

[C_W]

Doc I’m sorry but I’m worn out boss. If you have time please read the info over at the Wright Soil and Water Conservation website. You can even read the minutes for the Wright AIS advisory committee.

http://www.wrightswcd.org/Water_Management/wrip.html

[drscholl14]

Doc I’m sorry but I’m worn out boss. If you have time please read the info over at the Wright Soil and Water Conservation website. You can even read the minutes for the Wright AIS advisory committee.

http://www.wrightswcd.org/Water_Management/wrip.html

CW thanks for the link. I have already read through that numerous times. I still think it's a seriously flawed action whether it be the LA's true reasoning for doing this, OR, the fact that this is in no way going to stop the spread of AIS or keep it out of these included lakes. I think we can all agree on that. Not trying to start battles here but when people start throwing out there's all this misinformation I would like to see it. And so far, I'm still not sure that I've seen any.

[Treeguyus]

Further expansion of the Wright County program has been officially denied by Minnesota DNR

[M1RT]

Further expansion of the Wright County program has been officially denied by Minnesota DNR

Great news!

[drscholl14]

Further expansion of the Wright County program has been officially denied by Minnesota DNR

So happy about this. It was going about it for all the wrong reasons from the beginning.

[Treeguyus]

Here something for you to think about.....

Yes, what is happening in Wright County – has been carefully vetted by Lawyers, it’s legal – and it absolutely will spread rampantly throughout MN waters in the next 5 years. If that barrier to accessing MN waters is our future, for all the same reasons cited that create barriers for non-lakeshore owners to utilize our public waters, we should also build hire wire razor fence at the high water mark in every lake and require lakeshore owners to access those same waters through the public waters because why? Because we want to protect our waters, that’s why. It is well documented the non-managed access to public waters by lakeshore owners has contributed to the spread of AIS by parties that have placed dock and boat lift equipment that has transferred from one infested body of water, to an un-infested body of water, and caused the infestation. Yet the restrictions are being placed unevenly on the portion of our population that does not own lakeshore property.

[Treeguyus]

what about the future of fishing...Count me as one of MN citizens that absolutely questions the validity of spending millions on certain areas of AIS when there is “no” evidence existing nationwide that the lofty goals can be successful, or have been successful in other states, regardless of how many millions of dollars are spent on the effort. When that happens, there is for me a concern that if we build barriers to access that make it easy for our industry participants to simply not participate in fishing because it has become too much of a pain to keep up with all these weird requirements – that it’s just easier to go golfing instead. Then we have lost people, and families, that could have been active participants and enjoy our public waters.

Why is that a concern? Without license sales to support DNR activities – fishing, wildlife, etc – then we’ll have to participate in decisions on which DNR departments we want to start shutting down. Without a revenue stream – the DNR does not operate. So which arm of the DNR would we like to shut down, in the light of building barriers that discourage participation.

Certainly there is a responsibility that needs to become part of utilizing and participating in MN public waters, just as there is for MN public lands for hunting, and other outdoor opportunities that MN has to offer.

[RFeyoMN]

They've largely ignored the significant drop in hunting license sales over the years...their operation hasn't changed. It's like it doesn't matter to their budget. I do believe they have a constant flow of cash from the legacy amendment that every Minnesotan was swindled into. With the legislature at their side, I doubt the DNR will deal with budget issues.

[Treeguyus]

https://www.sctimes.com/story/opinio...h5BxiYht99FD-U

This is a must read.....

[M1RT]

https://www.sctimes.com/story/opinio...h5BxiYht99FD-U

This is a must read.....

That highlights the lunacy that we face.