You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
More local governments are wading into the murky debate.
The lake was there before the house was built. You cant have it both ways. Do you want a view of a public lake and deal with the fact its a public lake or do you want to move to a private pond.
The efforts they are making are laughable. After all it only takes a thimble of water in your boat to transport zebra mussels, so all these inspections are just theater, washing the boat and pulling the drain plug is not going to solve the problem. The fact is that the basic aluminum fishing boat is the easiest to drain, and less likely to cause the problems than the inboard ski boat whose cooling system contains a couple of gallons of lake water that can't be drained by pulling the plug.
Somebody better tell the mossy old snapping turtles not to walk from one lake to another. Lord only knows what sort of biology some of them may have growing on their shells.
Electronic gates at boat landings? How is that supposed to work? Some people can take quite a while getting the boat off or on the trailer. Is the gate going to stay open long enough? And the people with bad backing skills will likely hit one of the posts. I bet a gate will be damaged the first weekend it operates. Bad idea written all over it.
What is more important, inconvenience for boaters or implementing a plan to protect Minnesota lakes and rivers? Aren't we all in this as conservationists to do what we can? This is not about privatizing but rather protecting our state's natural resources! We can't isn't Minnesota style!
mn1native, I don't think it is about the view of the public lake, it is about the quality of the lake that they see everyday. If a lake hundreds of miles away is having an issue a lake lover is going to see it as a concern, but if it is one in their front yard they are going to mourn the loss of its health every day. Minnetonka is an incredible asset for people who love the water but can't afford or desire the full package of lake home.
I don't have lake property, but I can walk to water within 300 yards in three directions from my home, I depend on the same access as someone from the rest of the metro. I can appreciate what both sides are saying.
The goal of the lake residents is the same as those that need access, a healthy lake that supplies us with endless enjoyment.
The way the DNR has successfully pitted lakeshore owners against anglers has been brilliant! The DNR gets all the money it wants to spend and the two warring sides still do not understand that NOTHING will stop the spread of AIS. This is exactly the same as when the Mpls City Council was able to pit the idiot stadium supporters (free taxpayer money people) against those who knew the financial deal was horrible. Gotta give props to the politicians as they are easily leading the people around by the nose. And, kudos to a Wisconsin company for being the lead company in the construction of our own billion dollar Metrodome Version 2.0! (psst...the plan is to encase Favre jerseys in every cement pillar of our stadium!)
I've never heard birds mentioned as contributors to invasive plant and animal species showing up in lakes. They must be the number one carrier, has no one looked into this? The boat inspections are just expensive theater, just like the TSA.
This is not about the homeowners preventing Zebra Muscles. This is rich 1% homeowners screaming NIMBY to blue collar folks (see the picture) AKA "the help" that they don't want on "their" lake. They do this to my dad, also a tradesman at Marine on St Croix. Except there the excuse is to stock the fish (and then when no one is looking to fish with a net or spear). That's the "problem" with public lakes, they are public. Part of the public is stupid. You can't regulate stupid. If you don't want to listen to highway noise, don't live on a highway. If you don't want to see your plumber fish, don't live on a PUBLIC lake.
Lakes are PUBLIC, and if the lakeshore homeowners want to regulate access, it should be with three requirements: ONE: Access can be controlled, but not limited. That means long hours and sufficient staff to inspect and clean all the boats. TWO: Inspections and cleaning should be done on both ends - entering the water and leaving the water. This limits the transfer both ways. THREE: the lakeshore homeowners should bear the majority of the cost. I'd say 80%.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
Looking for unscripted, informal worship? Come to Parables or EvenSong!
$57 AC Tune Up! Up To $2500 Rebate on High Efficiency AC and Furnace!
Click here for more info
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks