All boats will face MN DNR roadside checks

[Minnesoat Angler]

Surprised to see this has not been posted. Maybe it has and got dusted? Pretty important topic if you plan to tow a boat anywhere in Minnesota.


Link to Star Trib story: http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/136859558.html


For the first time, Minnesota's 800,000 boaters will encounter mandatory roadside check stations this spring at which their vessels will be inspected for aquatic invasive species -- part of a statewide crackdown to slow the spread of exotic critters and plants.

Motorists towing boats will be told to pull into check stations staffed by Department of Natural Resources conservation officers and boat inspectors, the agency announced Friday. Boats that fail inspections will be sent to a nearby decontamination area to be high-pressure-washed with hot water.

But their owners won't get off clean. Those caught violating state laws against transporting zebra mussels, Eurasian water milfoil and other invaders can expect citations and fines instead of warnings, as in previous years. "We're done educating,'' said Jim Konrad, DNR enforcement chief. "If you get caught violating invasive species laws, you should expect a citation.'' Fines are $50 and up.

Also in 2012, boaters will be required to apply free decals to their boats reminding them to comply with the law, including draining all water from boats and bait containers and removing vegetation or invasive species from boats and trailers.

Boaters also must transport their crafts with the drain plugs removed.

The DNR will begin distributing the stickers this month at the Minneapolis Boat Show.

Warnings 'come to an end'

After several years of publicity, signs at boat launches and warnings from conservation officers, state boaters and anglers should be aware of laws prohibiting the transportation and spread of invasive species, Konrad said. But too many either haven't learned or haven't bothered to comply, he said.

Last season, 18 percent of boaters checked by conservation officers were in violation. And officers issued 840 citations or warnings -- triple the number issued in 2010.

"That's unacceptable,'' Konrad said. "The warnings are going to come to an end.''

Roadside inspections are a concept the DNR employed years ago to check for game and fish violations.

The agency discontinued those random stops because of legal concerns, but the Legislature last year gave the agency authority to operate invasive species check stations. Konrad said he's not sure how many will be run this year, but he said they won't occur on busy highways, where the stops could cause traffic safety issues.

Signs will direct vehicles with boats to pull in, but other vehicles won't be stopped, Konrad said.

The DNR also is buying 20 decontamination units, in addition to three it got last year, that will be operated near zebra mussel-infested waters, high-use destination lakes and at the enforcement checkpoints.

The units cost about $15,000 each and use 160-degree high-pressure water to remove and kill invasive species attached to boats or marine equipment. The sprayed water is captured in a reclamation mat so it doesn't wash into lakes and streams, then is filtered and re-used.

The DNR also will hire 150 watercraft inspectors who will be deployed statewide.

Three invasive-species specialists also will be hired to work with lake associations, local governments and individuals.

Additionally, the DNR plans to demonstrate inspections and decontamination of boats at major fishing tournaments on zebra mussel-infested waters. The agency also is producing a video documentary on aquatic invasive species that will be distributed to news media, lakeshore organizations and others.

About 30 state lakes and five major rivers are infested with zebra mussels, which can alter ecosystems, affect fish and fishing, kill native mussels and clog pipes. Their sharp shells can cut swimmers.

Invasive species "will be the No. 1 issue for us, probably for the next several decades,'' DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr told about 300 people gathered Friday at the agency's annual "roundtable'' meetings in St. Paul.

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

I know it's been discussed on other sites. Yeah the Invasive Species Gestapo will be out in full force this summer.

[v-bay gord]

Can't disagree. Wish the Canadian governments were more serious about this. A decontamination unit at the border would not be too extreme in my opinion.

[REW]

Look at it as a job opportunity.

Actually a good idea.

What will the agency give up to fund this effort?

REW

[AllenW]

Meanwhile the big boats just keeping dumping their crap into the great lakes and where ever they dump their bilges.

More feel good useless money spending hair brained idea's for those in power.
Cure and education is the answer, it's to late for prevention.

Ya, more jobs...and who do you think is gonna pay for them jobs?



Al...who just can't pay enough taxes...:horsepoop:

[Suzuki]

I dont take kindly to being forcibly pulled off a public road when I am doing nothing wrong. Wreaks of illegal search and seizure to me.

[tyeeguy]

I was listening to Walleye Central's NPAA broadcast last Saturday and the rep from one of the clean waters group said that there hasn't been a new invasive species introduced into the Great Lakes since 2006. He said the "swich and spit" that the tankers have to do while out in the ocean pretty much kills all the freah water invasive species in the tanks. Also all ships arriving now get inspected. We now have to stop spreading them to inland lakes.

He also said they are going to try a new soil bacteria that is suppose to kill only the Zebra Mussels. It will be a limited study as it is very expensive stuff. The study will be done in Mn.

[Mpower]

Look at it as a job opportunity.

Actually a good idea.

What will the agency give up to fund this effort?

REW

Of all your posts...this might be the most rediculous one yet :) This is a crazy dumb idea and the question isn't what will the agency give up, it's what will we give up????

[REW]

Curious,
Except for the obvious issues of plugging up water intakes, do the zebra mussels really hurt any lakes?

From all of the reading that I do, it seems that the mussels do an excellent job of filtering water, and cleaning up the water quality of the lakes.

Take care
REW

[perchjerker]

Curious,
Except for the obvious issues of plugging up water intakes, do the zebra mussels really hurt any lakes?

From all of the reading that I do, it seems that the mussels do an excellent job of filtering water, and cleaning up the water quality of the lakes.

Take care
REW

yes but that presents other issues. Like excessive weed growth from the sunlight penetrating areas where it did not before.

I live near Lk Erie, so I have seen first hand what zeebs can do. Some of its good, some not so. Would rather not have them here in the first place

[tyeeguy]

The speakers said that the Zebra Mussels filter out nutrients that other native fish eat - like the alwifes.
They also said that the lakes adapt to the new species. He said the smallmouth bass now are eating the gobies
out in lake Michigan.

[AllenW]

I was listening to Walleye Central's NPAA broadcast last Saturday and the rep from one of the clean waters group said that there hasn't been a new invasive species introduced into the Great Lakes since 2006. He said the "swich and spit" that the tankers have to do while out in the ocean pretty much kills all the freah water invasive species in the tanks. Also all ships arriving now get inspected. We now have to stop spreading them to inland lakes.

He also said they are going to try a new soil bacteria that is suppose to kill only the Zebra Mussels. It will be a limited study as it is very expensive stuff. The study will be done in Mn.


Thanks, I didn't know that, better late than never I guess.

I'd hear the bacteria was used at/near some power plant to try and keep the intakes clear of them and it seems to be working..maybe???

Al

[The Big Papa]

I dont take kindly to being forcibly pulled off a public road when I am doing nothing wrong. Wreaks of illegal search and seizure to me.

Ya, and I don't take kindly to tourists coming to my lake and infesting it with milfoil and zebra muscles.

[Shellback]

If they really want to prevent invasive species, I think the money spent on the wages of the 150 people to be hired, would be better invested in more of the washing plants. Figuring only $10,000 each for a part time position, that would buy 100 more wash plants the first year alone. If you have people collecting ramp fees, just have them direct boaters to the free, but mandatory wash plant on location.

[Mpower]

Ya, and I don't take kindly to tourists coming to my lake and infesting it with milfoil and zebra muscles.

Your lake?!?!?....hmmm. Pretentious much?

Being against a manditory roadside stop does not equate to being for the spread of invasive species. It equates to being against dumb ideas.

[yarcraft91]

I hope all that effort and expense prevents the spread of the invasive species, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[B.Chunks]

I hope all that effort and expense prevents the spread of the invasive species, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Not a chance. No fix for lazy or stupid. With 18% of boats checked being in violation, I'm sure there are plenty that will slip through the cracks or learn to avoid the check stations. Every little bit helps though. Lake front property owners spend thousands out of their own pockets every year on some lakes in my area to battle invasives, especially milfoil. I'd rather spend a minute or two at a station than spend half my day clearing milfoil from my prop and lures.

[tomhowellsfishing]

They are going to also require a permit for anyone that puts in, or takes out boats, docks, etc. for pay. I believe it requires some training also.

[Shortline]

THe problem is that this new practice will, AT BEST, MAYBE delay the spread. It will no stop it - period. The invasives are here - and they are spreading - and that can not be avoided.

It is nothing more than a feel-good money grabbing bunch of BS. Why not spend the money on eradication and the stoppage of NEW arrivals........

I for one will not be pulling into a check station unless forced. This WILL get tested in the courts and it WILL be eliminated.

SL

[Nemo]

I'm curious what is required when pulling out of ramps. Obviously, all vegetative matter is supposed to be removed, water drained and plug removed. But is it really possible to get everything off the boat before driving home without a wash station at lakeside? Can they give you a ticket if your boat is found to have some type of invasive matter on it on the way home from the lake, before you've had a chance to wash it? Or can they only ticket you on the way to the lake with a dirty boat?

I'm just curious because I plan to come fish in Minnesota this summer. I won't be towing a boat; I'll be with a local. But I'm still curious. Last time I was in Minnesota there were so many weeds at one boat ramp that we drug out about 40 pounds of the crap. We cleaned it the best week could, and the boat was washed the next day at my friend's house, but how do I know if what we removed at lakeside made us legal???

[tlars]

I wonder if I'm one of the 18%. Last August on my way home from Ontario, south of Owatonna, I had a very pleasant conversation with a Minnesota MNR officer. He and a partner were checking on compliance with the "no drain plug in on the road" law on I-35. I had mine in. He took my info, ran the check from his vehicle and returned with one of the yellow stickers and told me I could put in on my boat as a reminder if I wanted to. Of course, the sticker went on while he was still standing with me. Then he wrote up a warning. While I might not like the additional time my trip will take due to the boat check, I'm certainly in favor of restricting the movement of invasive species.

[tyeeguy]

I am a member of a sportsman association that is on a lake in Western Wi. The lake is well used and is know as a "super spreader" because of the many people who come to the lake to fish and boat, then go to other smaller lakes. The lake has 8 access points and the association runs one of them.

I did a research paper for a class last year on the feasibility of a boat wash station at the boat landing. It was interesting to see the responses of the questionnaire where most people people would be willing to wash their boats when entering of exiting the boat ramp area but they would not spend more than 5 minutes waiting to do so.

Also I was looking at adding a cold water wash system that would return the water back to the lake. The Wi DNR would not approve such a system because it would introduce heavy metals into the lake. It seems that a closed system would be the only option ($$).

The Wi DNR did not have any guidelines available and are in the process of studding the boat wash issue. At the time they thought it would take a couple of years to come up with guidelines that we could follow.

So knowing that the most effective boat wash is a hot water wash, trained people will need to do the wash, it must be a closed system where the wash water is recycled, it should be manned 24/7 to insure all boats are clean, and engineering drawings and permits must be obtained, I don't see where a small club or lake association could possibly afford to set up a boat wash system on their own. The $15k that the MN DNR spends on a single portable boat wash staion is just the first drop in the bucket of money that we would have to spend to have a boat wash station at the landing.

Did I mention that this lake has 7 other access points on it?

The only way I can see this working (if the spread of invasive species is to be taken serious) is to have two color stickers. You get one color for a clean boat and another color once it get dropped into a lake. This way volunteers can work the boat landings and central boat wash stations can be installed. If you never drop a boat into a different lake, you do not need to wash it - your sticker would say where you last launched.

[unlogged 3m ta3]

Not a chance. No fix for lazy or stupid. With 18% of boats checked being in violation, I'm sure there are plenty that will slip through the cracks or learn to avoid the check stations. Every little bit helps though. Lake front property owners spend thousands out of their own pockets every year on some lakes in my area to battle invasives, especially milfoil. I'd rather spend a minute or two at a station than spend half my day clearing milfoil from my prop and lures.

18% of boats in violation does not mean that they were carrying contaminated water or plants on their vessel. More than likely they didn't remove their drain plug. Although that is my opinion I would really like to see what those violations consisted of, a run down of what was found.

[Suzuki]

Your lake?!?!?....hmmm. Pretentious much?

Being against a manditory roadside stop does not equate to being for the spread of invasive species. It equates to being against dumb ideas.

And sticking to American ideals. I'm not against fighting invasives however I'm not willing to give up my freedom to travel unimpeded on public roads over it. Especially when the cat is already out of the bag.

[Burr]

I was in attendance at the Press release held at the DNR Roundtable meeting last Friday when the legislative authority to conduct complaince checks was announced. I've attended countless AIS topic meetings over the last few years.

A few points I'll mention. In general, it's good information for us to be aware of Minnesota's agressive approach to controlling the spread of AIS. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, Minnesota will be conducting compliance checks, and 2012 marks a transition from an educational approach to AIS to recognizing the education efforts are complete, and citations will now be issued to those that refuse to assure the equipment they are responsible for is compliant with slowing down the spread of AIS. Perhaps getting the word distributed will allow some of us that are well meaning an opportunity to do a few simple acts when we fish to avoid the embarassment of a citation?

Your "right" to drive on the roadway is actually a "priveledge".

Fishing in Minnesota is an $8 billion industry. The livelihood of many are affected, and they would like to continue with their professions.

The citizens that participate with the DNR have clearly voiced the desire for enforcement at an even higher level than what is being announced on the article and press release referenced. If you have differing points of view - your welcome to become involved and offer your viewpoints the same as the citizens that speakup have done. Simply stated, Minnesota is serious about addressing the issue, it's going to happen. If you don't want to pay a fine, the effort to be in compliance is not unreasonable.

The Great Lakes ships are not under the jurisdiction of the MN DNR - it's a federal issue - and I agree one that is not being addressed nearly as aggressively. However MN does have jurisdiction over many items, and that is what is being managed.

The change to a lake eco-system due to AIS infestation is a dramatic. Zebra mussels feed on phytoplankton, the primary food source for zooplankton. Zooplankton is the primary food source for Walleye fry - simply stated if a walleye fry does not find zooplankton within the first 2-3 days after hatching - they die. 80-90% of the biomass of a non-infested body of water is in the upper water column in the form of these "base" food sources. After Infestation by Zebra Mussels - 80-90% of the biomass of a body of water is on the bottom of the lake in the form of Zebra Mussels. The water is cleaner, becuase there is no food source left to sustain life of the next generation. It would be similar to removing 95% of the food for human infants. Certainly if we did that - the mortality on newborn infants would increase. At the same time, alternatives would be pursued, some successfully, the infants would endure more stress trying to sustain their lives, and in the event they die, there would become an interuption in normal life cycles as we know them. 85% of Minnesota Walleye Lakes are naturally reproducing - the others are stocked. If we shut down natural reproduction on our lakes - you be the judge.

For the poster that asked what was required, in the context your question was asked - it is illegal to transport Aquatic Invasive Species. So yes, you are responsible to remove them prior to transportation.

You don't have to subject yourself to compliance checks in Minnesota, you can leave your aquatic recreational equipment at home. It's your choice. However, if you do elect to put your aquatic recreational equipment on public roads and waters, there are laws to abide by.

The comment made regarding "my" lakes - in the event "my" was a plural reference to the citizens of Minnesota - that reference would be correct. The citizens of Minnesota have a responsibility to protect the resources of our state - and Minnesota residents have expressed the value they put on our Natural resources clearly in many ways not only recently, but historically as well.

Another interesting tidbit - I made contact with the DNR last weekend to attempt to make arrangements to have a decontamination unit scheduled for a tournament I organize - like we did last year. The response - no special arrangments needed, the DNR will be sending a decontamination unit to every permitted tournament in Minnesota during 2012.

From the discussions I've been in, there is much more to follow. One thing is certain - Minnesota is serious about addressing AIS issues.:cool:

The AIS Legislative Summit is being held at M-State in Detroit Lakes this Saturday morning from 0900-1300. Many legislators will be in attendance, the meeting is open to the public.

In reference to "what will we give up in order to do this" that's a pretty spot on comment. The MN DNR is operating with deficit spending this year, and has been for several years. A proposal to increase license fees was not adopted by the legislature in 2011. A year ago, the MN Game and Fish Fund was projected to be in the red in 2014. After the government shutdown experienced in MN during 2011 - that period shortened. The MN Game and Fish Fund will be at $0.00 in July 2013. However, that can not happen - so cuts would have to be made to match the revenue available. Currently, the MN DNR Fisheries has a $43 million revenue stream, and $50 million expenditures, while holding 50 empty staff positions - increasing by 10 positions per year. If the revenue stream is not addressed soon, the reduction in services we've been seeing will be increased dramatically. So yes, MN DNR will be giving up in other areas to distribute resources to the AIS issues our state is facing.

[MikeF]

Resistance is futile.

Just a matter of "when it happens" not "if it happens".

The zebras are nothing compared to the qaugga.



Watch the invasion time lapse.
Watch it a few times.
Notice the river systems.

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/mollusks/zebramussel/maps/zebraquaggamapanimation.gif


Browse around, not pretty.

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/mollusks/zebramussel/


As to the post reply about the invasives and nothing since 2006.

Take the time to find out how many non native organisms are allowed in the current test water sample and still pass.

You would think zero, but that would be incorrect. You may be surprised at the answer.

[Shellback]

I was in attendance at the Press release held at the DNR Roundtable meeting last Friday when the legislative authority to conduct complaince checks was announced. I've attended countless AIS topic meetings over the last few years.

A few points I'll mention. In general, it's good information for us to be aware of Minnesota's agressive approach to controlling the spread of AIS. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, Minnesota will be conducting compliance checks, and 2012 marks a transition from an educational approach to AIS to recognizing the education efforts are complete, and citations will now be issued to those that refuse to assure the equipment they are responsible for is compliant with slowing down the spread of AIS. Perhaps getting the word distributed will allow some of us that are well meaning an opportunity to do a few simple acts when we fish to avoid the embarassment of a citation?

Your "right" to drive on the roadway is actually a "priveledge".

Fishing in Minnesota is an $8 billion industry. The livelihood of many are affected, and they would like to continue with their professions.

The citizens that participate with the DNR have clearly voiced the desire for enforcement at an even higher level than what is being announced on the article and press release referenced. If you have differing points of view - your welcome to become involved and offer your viewpoints the same as the citizens that speakup have done. Simply stated, Minnesota is serious about addressing the issue, it's going to happen. If you don't want to pay a fine, the effort to be in compliance is not unreasonable.

The Great Lakes ships are not under the jurisdiction of the MN DNR - it's a federal issue - and I agree one that is not being addressed nearly as aggressively. However MN does have jurisdiction over many items, and that is what is being managed.

The change to a lake eco-system due to AIS infestation is a dramatic. Zebra mussels feed on phytoplankton, the primary food source for zooplankton. Zooplankton is the primary food source for Walleye fry - simply stated if a walleye fry does not find zooplankton within the first 2-3 days after hatching - they die. 80-90% of the biomass of a non-infested body of water is in the upper water column in the form of these "base" food sources. After Infestation by Zebra Mussels - 80-90% of the biomass of a body of water is on the bottom of the lake in the form of Zebra Mussels. The water is cleaner, becuase there is no food source left to sustain life of the next generation. It would be similar to removing 95% of the food for human infants. Certainly if we did that - the mortality on newborn infants would increase. At the same time, alternatives would be pursued, some successfully, the infants would endure more stress trying to sustain their lives, and in the event they die, there would become an interuption in normal life cycles as we know them. 85% of Minnesota Walleye Lakes are naturally reproducing - the others are stocked. If we shut down natural reproduction on our lakes - you be the judge.

For the poster that asked what was required, in the context your question was asked - it is illegal to transport Aquatic Invasive Species. So yes, you are responsible to remove them prior to transportation.

You don't have to subject yourself to compliance checks in Minnesota, you can leave your aquatic recreational equipment at home. It's your choice. However, if you do elect to put your aquatic recreational equipment on public roads and waters, there are laws to abide by.

The comment made regarding "my" lakes - in the event "my" was a plural reference to the citizens of Minnesota - that reference would be correct. The citizens of Minnesota have a responsibility to protect the resources of our state - and Minnesota residents have expressed the value they put on our Natural resources clearly in many ways not only recently, but historically as well.

Another interesting tidbit - I made contact with the DNR last weekend to attempt to make arrangements to have a decontamination unit scheduled for a tournament I organize - like we did last year. The response - no special arrangments needed, the DNR will be sending a decontamination unit to every permitted tournament in Minnesota during 2012.

From the discussions I've been in, there is much more to follow. One thing is certain - Minnesota is serious about addressing AIS issues.:cool:

The AIS Legislative Summit is being held at M-State in Detroit Lakes this Saturday morning from 0900-1300. Many legislators will be in attendance, the meeting is open to the public.

As another poster brought up this question, do they fine you coming or going to a lake? If you are leaving a MN lake and pick up an invasive species there, how do you deal with it until you get home? Somehow this legislation is going to be tested in court.
If MN is serious, then the only way to stop the spread is to wash every boat and certify it before it's launched, and once it's pulled from the water, it can't be launched again until it is recertified period! Expecting the general boating public to be able to inspect, recognize an invasive species, and properly treat to kill it, all before they trailer their boat home, is only something one in govt could think of.

[Mpower]

Burr - thanks. Good, informative post.

I personally have doubt the DNR can execute this effeciently or in a manner that would make any significant impact whatsoever. For those people that believe this will be a 1-2 minute quick pit stop...try 1-2 hours on most weekends. I don't see how it would be less (i pray I'm wrong). If I'm coming back from Ely, exactly how many times am I going to get stopped? Every 10 miles? Great, something to look forward to!

Seems like a very drastic move with the cons far, far out weighing the pros.

[Burr]

Burr - thanks. Good, informative post.

I personally have doubt the DNR can execute this effeciently or in a manner that would make any significant impact whatsoever. For those people that believe this will be a 1-2 minute quick pit stop...try 1-2 hours on most weekends. I don't see how it would be less (i pray I'm wrong). If I'm coming back from Ely, exactly how many times am I going to get stopped? Every 10 miles? Great, something to look forward to!

Seems like a very drastic move with the cons far, far out weighing the pros.

I think of it like this.

The DOT runs a similar program for Semi Trucks - every state does. I used to drive through those DOT compliance checks for a decade.

During that time - I made sure I was in compliance the laws - it I was not, I knew I would most likely have to cash a check to cover it.

There are many more semi trucks on the road than there are vehicles pulling aquatic recreational equipment.

There are many more DOT laws governing commercial transportation than there are MN DNR AIS laws.

To run efficiently, not everyone would have to experience a 100% compliance check. However, if everyone anticipated exposure to a 100% compliance check - the goals of the program may very well be realized.

My suggestion for the other poster's question - C.D.D. - Clean, Drain, Dry.

Clean the weeds off your boat, motor, trailer, tow vehicle. Drain your bilge, livewells, baitwells. Assure your equipment is dry as it relates to any other exposure items (such as - drain your outboard motor prior to installing a transom saver).

Following Clean, Drain, Dry will go a long way in your efforts to avoid a citation.

The direction a boat is traveling - to or from a body of water, has never been identified as relevant.

The opportunity to decontaminate your aquatic recreational equipment has been discussed. Earlier where I stated "more to follow" from MN DNR - that's something I would expect to see more of as time goes on. The existence of private business', with equipment certified to meet identified requirements, and operators trained and certified to not only 'inspect' but also 'decontaminate' is in the works.

Additionally, discussions with Aquatic Recreational equipment manufacturers is a current topic. Things like "Is box channel material currently used in a boat lift the best material for construction in light of the threat of AIS?" Perhaps I-beam material would be better suited? What are the challenges to move forward with an equipment design change that would be conducive to slowing down the spread of AIS? Pro-staffers from last weekends NPAA meeting are carrying that message back to the companies they represent now.

[MikeF]

As another poster brought up this question, do they fine you coming or going to a lake? If you are leaving a MN lake and pick up an invasive species there, how do you deal with it until you get home? Somehow this legislation is going to be tested in court.
If MN is serious, then the only way to stop the spread is to wash every boat and certify it before it's launched, and once it's pulled from the water, it can't be launched again until it is recertified period! Expecting the general boating public to be able to inspect, recognize an invasive species, and properly treat to kill it, all before they trailer their boat home, is only something one in govt could think of.





I personally have doubt the DNR can execute this effeciently or in a manner that would make any significant impact whatsoever. For those people that believe this will be a 1-2 minute quick pit stop...try 1-2 hours on most weekends. I don't see how it would be less (i pray I'm wrong). If I'm coming back from Ely, exactly how many times am I going to get stopped? Every 10 miles? Great, something to look forward to!

Seems like a very drastic move with the cons far, far out weighing the pros.




Brother in law in Cal quite fishing and just took the kids for water sports. Sold the boat after the wait to launch exceeded 2 hours.
Some lakes deny entry if any spot in/on the boat/trailer is wet where eggs could survive. Crazy

Not the lake he used and some lakes are more restrictive than others, but just a quick example when guberment knows best.






Santa Clara County Parks


RESTRICTION: All watercraft entering Anderson Lake, Coyote Lake, Calero Reservoir and Stevens Creek Reservoir will be subject to inspection until December 31, 2008. All other county reservoirs will be closed to boating.
Watercraft coming from San Benito County and all counties south of the Tehachapi Mountains will be denied entry as will vessels from out of state.
A $7.00 inspection fee will be collected per inspection. An annual vessel inspection pass of $35 will also be offered.
Current vessel registration documents are required at the time of inspection.
Vessel owners will be required to have their vessels decontaminated using hot water treatment or they will not be permitted to launch.
A “banding” program will be offered for convenience to the vessel owner. Once a vessel has left the reservoir for the day, a plastic band may be attached to the vessel between the winch hook of the trailer and the eyeball of the boa of the vessel. If this band is broken upon reentry into the reservoir, that vessel will be re-inspected before entering the water and an inspection fee will be collected. If any vessels are found to have water in the bilge or live well, or are not clean, they will not be allowed to launch.
For more information, visit www.parkhere.org (http://www.parkhere.org/) or call (408) 355-2201.

[REW]

Nemo,
The way that the MN law reads, is that ALL plant and animal matter must be removed from the boat.
So, if there is a single weed seed, or leaf found on the boat, you may be cited for breaking the law.

You just need to be really diligent in cleaning out everything. First clean out everything from your livewell while on the lake to be able to use the livewell to completely flush out the system.

Then, after pulling the trailer from the water - go to the parking ramp and go over it with a fine tooth and brush if necessary to insure that there is not a spec of matter on the trailer.

----------
The obvious solution is to do what some other states do.
i.e. they have inspection folks at every boat ramp around the clock.
Every single boat is inspected - before being allowed into the water.

Tough to do in a state with huge numbers of lakes and even larger numbers of ramps.

Of course, some of these ramps will never see a single boat for weeks on end.

(or whatever the number is).

Take care
REW

[LOW1]

And sticking to American ideals. I'm not against fighting invasives however I'm not willing to give up my freedom to travel unimpeded on public roads over it. Especially when the cat is already out of the bag.

Good luck with that "travel unimpeded" argument. Boat inspections are similar to a trucker's obligation to pull into open weigh stations.

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

Good luck with that "travel unimpeded" argument. Boat inspections are similar to a trucker's obligation to pull into open weigh stations.

I have no "obligation" to be inconvenienced. This should be done at landings immediately after the boat comes out of the water.

[LOW1]

I have no "obligation" to be inconvenienced. This should be done at landings immediately after the boat comes out of the water.

That's a bit like saying that for the convenience of the drinker an OWI test should be made available and administered immediately upon leaving the bar, isn't it?

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

That's a bit like saying that for the convenience of the drinker an OWI test should be made available and administered immediately upon leaving the bar, isn't it?

OWI's get pulled over for something illegal (probable cause). They don't have to stop at a check point ever. In fact, aren't check points illegal in MN? I seem to remember hearing that when I was young.

If someone has a piece of lettuce hanging off the trailer or the plug still in, I see it as perfectly acceptable for them to be pulled over and checked. However stopping all of us cause someone can't follow the rules is absurd.

[Mpower]

That's a bit like saying that for the convenience of the drinker an OWI test should be made available and administered immediately upon leaving the bar, isn't it?

I like that idea if the alternative is simply stop every single car on the highway.

I agree with Wade B, but with the inspection conducted on boats going in, not coming out.

[Tweak]

OWI's get pulled over for something illegal (probable cause). They don't have to stop at a check point ever. In fact, aren't check points illegal in MN? I seem to remember hearing that when I was young.

If someone has a piece of lettuce hanging off the trailer or the plug still in, I see it as perfectly acceptable for them to be pulled over and checked. However stopping all of us cause some dip sh*t can't follow the rules is absurd.

Well now that dip sh*t as you call him is more likely to get caught. Some solace in that, maybe?

I don't care if I have to pull into a check point and get inconvenienced. I'm tired of pulling up snags encrusted with zebra mussels. I am tired of that sudden tick/cut of my line that I know is one of their shells. I enjoy watching them bake in the sun in my boat as I fish. I throw them in the trash when I leave the launch and follow the procedures for removing lettuce and draining water. I've been checked before and it took so little time I was hardly incovenienced at all.

Now opener weekend on the way to Mille Lacs. That would be a log jam of epic proportions.

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

Now opener weekend on the way to Mille Lacs. That would be a log jam of epic proportions.
That's the scenario I imagine. All those boats bottle necking south of Garrison getting stopped on Labor Day. That traffic is bad enough without the road block.

[B.Chunks]

18% of boats in violation does not mean that they were carrying contaminated water or plants on their vessel. More than likely they didn't remove their drain plug. Although that is my opinion I would really like to see what those violations consisted of, a run down of what was found.


As far as the drain plug, some of the invasive species methods of reproduction can only be seen under a microscope. Do you really want to wait for someone to take a bilge sample and examine it under a microscope, or do you want to take preventative measures in a time and cost efficient manner?

[JAK]

OWI's get pulled over for something illegal (probable cause). They don't have to stop at a check point ever. In fact, aren't check points illegal in MN? I seem to remember hearing that when I was young.

If someone has a piece of lettuce hanging off the trailer or the plug still in, I see it as perfectly acceptable for them to be pulled over and checked. However stopping all of us cause someone can't follow the rules is absurd.




A few years back they had a check point stop along I-90 just east of Rochester. This was the beginning of August (Right before Sturgis). I remember them finding and confiscating lots of Marijuana and several bottles of Nitrous oxide (laughing gas).

Several months later after the roadside check point was challenged, all charges were thrown out because it was ruled an illegal search. I don’t know if that is relative or not.

I am all for stopping the spread of invasive species. I have removed my drain plug and drained the livewells for 20 years. I am also very cognizant about making sure there is no “cabbage” hanging on the boat , trailer, or engine.

I wouldn’t mind stopping for a check as it would help to educate the uninformed people, but I sure don’t want to stop for more than 15 mins. I have my doubts that they will have enough help at any given point to run the boats thru that fast?

Another thing worth mentioning is that just about every boat out there with a livewell or baitwell will not completely drain ALL OF THE WATER out of the hoses. Therefore while the intent is good, this will not PREVENT ( it may help to slow) the spread of invasive species!

[jigngrub]

Who wouldn't want to comply with this? Do the ones that don't want to comply have something to hide? Maybe they're afraid they'll be busted for something else?

For those that don't want to be inconvenienced with stopping at one of these check points... just drive on by and see what happens.

It's just like all the other laws, if you comply you'll have nothing to worry about... if you don't comply you will pay the price.

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

Who wouldn't want to comply with this? Do the ones that don't want to comply have something to hide? Maybe they're afraid they'll be busted for something else?

For those that don't want to be inconvenienced with stopping at one of these check points... just drive on by and see what happens.

It's just like all the other laws, if you comply you'll have nothing to worry about... if you don't comply you will pay the price.

Like most of us, I'm thinking it's an inconvenience issue. Especially since we do our best to comply with the rules.

In my case there will be no dope to find, I don't drink and fish and I follow all boating/fishing regs. So I will be inconvenienced for many minutes if not an hour for nothing.

Are we taking an over/under on the time it takes when we think of Mille Lacs, Leech or Winnie on opening weekend, labor day weekend, memorial day weekend, or a tourney weekend. Think on Mille Lacs when NTC and MTT are there the same weekend. That's about 300 boats just out of 2 landings that are pretty much coming and going at the same time. PLUS the pleasure fisherman on those days.

[JAK]

[quote=Wade B AKA: Ruger2506;1381294]Like most of us, I'm thinking it's an inconvenience issue. Especially since we do our best to comply with the rules.

In my case there will be no dope to find, I don't drink and fish and I follow all boating/fishing regs. So I will be inconvenienced for many minutes if not an hour for nothing.

quote]

Me TOO!

Nothing to hide!!! No drugs, No drinking and driving or boating!!!

[MK cant log]

Since, according to some, using the public roads is a privlige and according to the DNR, any boat owner is guilty until they prove themselves innocent, I think any car with more than two people should have to pull into an inspection station to check for illegal aliens. Every driver with a passenger should be assumed to be guilty of smuggling illegal aliens until they prove themselves otherwise.

Face it, this is not going to stop anything. The invasive species are more diligent, adaptable, and in many cases, smarter than the morons that came up with this idea. This little feel-good experiment will accomplish little more than inflating the state budget and ultimately raising fees on boaters.

If this plan gives anyone a nice warm feeling, you can pee your pants and get that...and it would be just about effective as this idea. YOU CAN'T STOP MOTHER NATURE. Maybe, just maybe, you can slow it down by a tiny amount, but it won't be stopped. They should spend the money and effort on how to control it when it happens.

I wonder how they plan to force migratory and aquatic birds to stop for their baths before moving from one lake to another?

The whole idea is laughable.

[JAK]

Who wouldn't want to comply with this? Do the ones that don't want to comply have something to hide? Maybe they're afraid they'll be busted for something else?

If you read my previous posts , you will see I have nothing to hide and I never said I didn't comply. In fact, I have probably been complying for at least 20 years. If you also read my post, you will see that I believe that this will NOT stop the spread because of the trapped water in the livewell hoses!

Like others have said, depending when/where they did this, it could easily delay your trip for 3 hours or more.

I'll say it again ... If they can keep it to 15 min or less - count me in.

[B.Chunks]

Since, according to some, using the public roads is a privlige and according to the DNR, any boat owner is guilty until they prove themselves innocent, I think any car with more than two people should have to pull into an inspection station to check for illegal aliens. Every driver with a passenger should be assumed to be guilty of smuggling illegal aliens until they prove themselves otherwise.

Face it, this is not going to stop anything. The invasive species are more diligent, adaptable, and in many cases, smarter than the morons that came up with this idea. This little feel-good experiment will accomplish little more than inflating the state budget and ultimately raising fees on boaters.

If this plan gives anyone a nice warm feeling, you can pee your pants and get that...and it would be just about effective as this idea. YOU CAN'T STOP MOTHER NATURE. Maybe, just maybe, you can slow it down by a tiny amount, but it won't be stopped. They should spend the money and effort on how to control it when it happens.

I wonder how they plan to force migratory and aquatic birds to stop for their baths before moving from one lake to another?

The whole idea is laughable.


Correct, but the point of the regulation is not to stop mother nature, it's to slow the effects of the ignorance, irresponsibility, laziness, and stubbornness of man. Your throw in the towel, can't stop it anyways attitude is exactly why it is being enacted.

[Jimmy Jig]

In Iowa at the IA Great Lakes the DNR is bringing in two dogs that can sniff out the little devils! Its expensive but not near as much as Minn. will spend hiring 150 new emplyees.

[MikeV]

How are you guys with bunk trailers going to get the weeds out from between the boat and bunks? I'm not talking about the ones you can see from looking under the boat but the one were sandwiched between the boat and bunk that can only be seen or removed with the boat off the trailer?

[JAK]

How are you guys with bunk trailers going to get the weeds out from between the boat and bunks? I'm not talking about the ones you can see from looking under the boat but the one were sandwiched between the boat and bunk that can only be seen or removed with the boat off the trailer?

The same thing can happen with a roller trailer! Weeds can/do get caught in between on both types of trailers!

[MK cant log]

Correct, but the point of the regulation is not to stop mother nature, it's to slow the effects of the ignorance, irresponsibility, laziness, and stubbornness of man. Your throw in the towel, can't stop it anyways attitude is exactly why it is being enacted.

I disagree. The reason its being enacted is to create jobs. 150 more inspectors is just the start. The bureaucrats will jump on any bandwagon, however misdirected, to fatten their budgets and staff.

This will be as effective at stopping the spread of invasive species and the US was at stopping the spread of communism in Viet Nam.

[keek]

Here in NY this past summer the state had college interns operating ramp side education/inspection/survey stations. Took about 45 seconds. They mostly were coming from the education side of things as they had no power to enforce anything.

[B.Chunks]

I disagree. The reason its being enacted is to create jobs. 150 more inspectors is just the start. The bureaucrats will jump on any bandwagon, however misdirected, to fatten their budgets and staff.

This will be as effective at stopping the spread of invasive species and the US was at stopping the spread of communism in Viet Nam.

Mixing politics with the environment is generally a lose-lose situation and never a good idea no matter which side of the paranoia and issue you are on. ;)

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

How are you guys with bunk trailers going to get the weeds out from between the boat and bunks? I'm not talking about the ones you can see from looking under the boat but the one were sandwiched between the boat and bunk that can only be seen or removed with the boat off the trailer?

DING DING DING, we have a winner.

What about the eggs and seeds imbedded in the carpet?

[3M TA3]

No inconvenience while traveling to your favorite fishing/boating recreation spot. Some extra money for the state from those that use its resources. No extra DNR for enforcement, same guys that do it now can do that. Here's how.

Have inspection/decontamination centers all over run by entrepreneur's. You must have your craft inspected for a nominal fee to insure that it contains no AIS. When it conforms you receive a certificate that states you've been inspected and that you will be recreating in 'ABC' body of water. As long as you don't change bodies of water, you don't need another inspection. Don't matter if you go back and forth 10 or100 times. Get caught in a different body of water by the DNR without a new certificate stating that body of water, WHAMMO, you just got fined. They can check it out while they're checking your fishing license.

Like I said, a nominal fee. Decontamination will cost more, but if you did your job at home there won't be a decontamination fee. That fee will be reserved for idiots. And you should be able to schedule an appointment for this service when it's most convenient for you.

Is this too simple or what?

Oh, I meant to ask. If I am required to pull into a roadside DNR boat inspection place and I'm traveling across the state, do I need to stop to each and every one of them as I travel that day and had never been to the water? Just another inconvenience thing to think about.

[JAK]

No inconvenience while traveling to your favorite fishing/boating recreation spot. Some extra money for the state from those that use its resources. No extra DNR for enforcement, same guys that do it now can do that. Here's how.

Have inspection/decontamination centers all over run by entrepreneur's. You must have your craft inspected for a nominal fee to insure that it contains no AIS. When it conforms you receive a certificate that states you've been inspected and that you will be recreating in 'ABC' body of water. As long as you don't change bodies of water, you don't need another inspection. Don't matter if you go back and forth 10 or100 times. Get caught in a different body of water by the DNR without a new certificate stating that body of water, WHAMMO, you just got fined. They can check it out while they're checking your fishing license.

Like I said, a nominal fee. Decontamination will cost more, but if you did your job at home there won't be a decontamination fee. That fee will be reserved for idiots. And you should be able to schedule an appointment for this service when it's most convenient for you.

Is this too simple or what?

I like your thinking outside the box! However I see a few problems;

· Now I need to pull my boat 5-30 miles (one way) to get it inspected and approved for use. I am sure that it may be more than 30 miles as it would not be cost effective for individuals to have too much competition and therefore distances could be much farther than 30 miles especially in the northern parts of the state.
· In Minnesota there are a lot of lakes! Many people fish 5 – 15 different bodies of water in any given year. That means your “nominal fee” (how much is nominal? $5, $10, $15, $20) can add up real fast. If it is $15 per body of water and you fish 10 different lakes/rivers in a year that means you just spent $150.00 on inspection fees, and that does not include your extra costs for fuel traveling to and from the inspection site.

Again I like your thinking outside the box, but this process will not stop the spread of the invasive species. I am all for the slowing and attempted stop of the invasive species, but at what costs?

How many dollars?

How much time is required?

There obviously is no easy answer.

[Mpower]

No inconvenience while traveling to your favorite fishing/boating recreation spot. Some extra money for the state from those that use its resources. No extra DNR for enforcement, same guys that do it now can do that. Here's how.

Have inspection/decontamination centers all over run by entrepreneur's. You must have your craft inspected for a nominal fee to insure that it contains no AIS. When it conforms you receive a certificate that states you've been inspected and that you will be recreating in 'ABC' body of water. As long as you don't change bodies of water, you don't need another inspection. Don't matter if you go back and forth 10 or100 times. Get caught in a different body of water by the DNR without a new certificate stating that body of water, WHAMMO, you just got fined. They can check it out while they're checking your fishing license.

Like I said, a nominal fee. Decontamination will cost more, but if you did your job at home there won't be a decontamination fee. That fee will be reserved for idiots. And you should be able to schedule an appointment for this service when it's most convenient for you.

Is this too simple or what?

Oh, I meant to ask. If I am required to pull into a roadside DNR boat inspection place and I'm traveling across the state, do I need to stop to each and every one of them as I travel that day and had never been to the water? Just another inconvenience thing to think about.

I like your suggested solution! And yes, you would have to stop at every road check.

The more i think about it, there is no way for them to execute this. Its a scare tactic, and i think it will have some effectiveness at that. I anticipate one or two road checks being setup early in the season, but then it will stop.

On a side note, i dont think for a second the recent discovery of zebra mussels in lake minnetonka and this policy is just a coincidence! Bs politics at its best.

[yarcraft91]

Also I was looking at adding a cold water wash system that would return the water back to the lake. The Wi DNR would not approve such a system because it would introduce heavy metals into the lake. It seems that a closed system would be the only option ($$).

Not doubting you, but I'm curious how a cold water wash system returning water to the lake would introduce any more heavy metals than a good rain? The boat and trailer just came out of the lake, so any heavy metals on them were already in the lake or were exposed to the lake while boating. Where would the excess heavy metals come from?

[KTurner]

there might be less boats coming to the popular lakes they are so dearly trying to "save." thin the herd so to speak...

many of the anglers that rarely fish might say enough and start hiring a guide. just one last hassle that makes boating no longer worth it. especially that elder group where their time is getting less opportune due to health. much cheaper in the end

is it really good to chase or deter someone from enjoying a great public resource?

I don't have the answers but am glad to learn about the changes to ships changing their ballasts at sea. just hope someone is researching this for effectiveness and compliance....

last random thought after a rough day (good friends lost a 22 mo battle with melanoma and old friends son took his life so new MN laws really aren't that significant at this moment. getting on line is good to divert my sadness, thanks)

why do some people give the impression that state or federal laws are written with common sense or logic in mind? I always have worn my seatbelt and it's now a law but yet my good friends can get on their road bikes and take the easy route and not put on a brain bucket and that's legal? I don't really care anyway but just trying to point out one obvious double standard for safety.... I've read way to many donor surigcal cases that support the safety with wearing a helmet. It's not even close...

good thread and it'll be fun to see how this plays out.... might make my summer fishing decisions even easier. pool 4, here we come.....

[Buck Snort]

Look at it as a job opportunity.

Actually a good idea.

What will the agency give up to fund this effort?

REW

Nothing. It will be funded by the extra fines they dish out.

Isn't Communism great?

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

It'll be interesting to see what happens. I wipe my boat down with Bass Boat Saver every time I land it anyhow. I hate scum lines on the black hull. Heck, I paid for shiny.

[Buck Snort]

IHe also said they are going to try a new soil bacteria that is suppose to kill only the Zebra Mussels. It will be a limited study as it is very expensive stuff. The study will be done in Mn.

Sooooo, we will get fined if the our boats aren't squeaky clean and your drail plug ain't pulled, but the freaking DNR is going to introduce NEW bacteria into the waterways? Yeah, that sounds about right. Bend over and get ready boys.

[Buck Snort]

. In fact, aren't check points illegal in MN?

Ding, Ding, Ding.

[Buck Snort]

Who wouldn't want to comply with this?

I think we all want to comply with removing vegitation from our boats and that in itself isn't the issue. I'm sure everyone here does that every time we pull our boats out.

Wasting our tax dollars on illegal roadside searches isn't part of the plan though. That is what I and from the way it sounds, many of the rest of us have a problem with.

I will not be stopping at them and I WILL be challanging them in the court system if I need to. Simple as that.

[Buck Snort]

It'll be interesting to see what happens. I wipe my boat down with Bass Boat Saver every time I land it anyhow. I hate scum lines on the black hull. Heck, I paid for shiny.

I carry heavy duty shop towels or dish rags with me for wiping down my boat every time I pull it out. Heck, I have no problem if there was a hose at the landing to spray the boat off. Put in two and make the line go faster. But I will NOT pull over to a check station off the side of the highway. That is complete Bull SSSS.

[LLewellin]

Ya, and I don't take kindly to tourists coming to my lake and infesting it with milfoil and zebra muscles.

You have a private lake with tourists? You mean its not public waters?

[fireboat]

The larvae suspend during part of their life cycle. That means waterfowl can pick them up in their feathers and transport them from lake to lake. There really is no stopping them. Who is checking the ducks & geese?

[Planocat]

Wondering how this will affect those of us who are just passing through on our annual trip from Texas (or any other state) to Canada. Perhaps they will issue a "I don't use your Minnesota lakes" permit - yet another revenue enhancing permit.

I've never put my boat in a Minnesota lake, but have travelled the length of the state every year for the last 27 years. Boat is covered and it is a real pain to pull the cover for an inspection of the live wells.

The case for staying home and fishing local lakes seems to be growing...........just need to figure out how to cool the summer air!:yea-right:

[jigngrub]

I will not be stopping at them and I WILL be challanging them in the court system if I need to. Simple as that.

Let us know how this works out for you, I'm curious as to what the fine will be for driving by a check point, how long they impound your boat for, and what your legal fees will be for fighting it in court... not to mention the time you'll have to take off of work for court appearences.

... oh! and a video of the drive by and ensuing chase would be nice too!

[Shortline]

The part that really gets under my skin is that of ALL boating were banned in MN indefinately.......the invasive species would still spread. Maybe not as fast, but they would still spread just as thoroughly.

Assinine behavior from our "leaders" once again. After the horses are running free all over the place is not the time to waste money enforcing a law to lock the barn doors.....

DNR - Do Nothing Right

SL

[Steven Pederson]

Let us know how this works out for you, I'm curious as to what the fine will be for driving by a check point, how long they impound your boat for, and what your legal fees will be for fighting it in court... not to mention the time you'll have to take off of work for court appearences.

... oh! and a video of the drive by and ensuing chase would be nice too!

LOL X2!!!!

:cheers:

[dirtman44]

Nature will take its course. It has for millions of years. We may be able to slow it down a little, but it will do what it wants. People need to quit trying to play God. I will stop at these road side checks to try and do my part to slow the spread, but I personally disagree with adding chemicals to lakes to try and kill these species. Just remember, for every action there is a reaction.

[Bigstorm]

I am also another that passes thru MN pulling the boat from WI to Canada. Seems like BS to force someone to stop that is just passing thru with no intention of launching in MN

[thump55]

I am also another that passes thru MN pulling the boat from WI to Canada. Seems like BS to force someone to stop that is just passing thru with no intention of launching in MN

They said they will not be doing the stops on major roads. If you are driving through on main roads you won't be stopped.

The solution to this problem is very simple and it doesn't require 150 new employees:

Hire one guy to go around and inspect boats as they are being launched, but make the fine so friggin' huge for violators that people will not risk violating the law.

This is the only solution to handle the growing problem of not enough enforcement people. This works for overbagging and other violations as well. Once you make the punishment far outweigh the reward, the unlawful behavior will be drastically reduced.

[Vikings Fan]

They said they will not be doing the stops on major roads. If you are driving through on main roads you won't be stopped.

The solution to this problem is very simple and it doesn't require 150 new employees:

Hire one guy to go around and inspect boats as they are being launched, but make the fine so friggin' huge for violators that people will not risk violating the law.

This is the only solution to handle the growing problem of not enough enforcement people. This works for overbagging and other violations as well. Once you make the punishment far outweigh the reward, the unlawful behavior will be drastically reduced.

A terrible reply in my opinion. Invasive's won't be stopped, truth be known. They can hardly be slowed down. Criminalizing people who inadvertently are found in non compliance of these useless laws will serve no positive purpose. Other than maybe as a revenue builder. Excessively fining individuals who have no intent will only damage and restrict the recreational users of our nations waterways. Not to mention hurting our states declining tourism industry.

Get real....

[Mpower]

They said they will not be doing the stops on major roads. If you are driving through on main roads you won't be stopped.

.

I interpreted that differently...meaning they would setup shop off the major highways and boaters would be directed to the checkout point. This was to alleviate concerns from non-boaters. In other words, they won't have a check point setup on the shoulder of HWY 35, but rather direct traffic to a particular exit to conduct the inspections.

[thump55]

A terrible reply in my opinion. Invasive's won't be stopped, truth be known. They can hardly be slowed down. Criminalizing people who inadvertently are found in non compliance of these useless laws will serve no positive purpose. Other than maybe as a revenue builder. Excessively fining individuals who have no intent will only damage and restrict the recreational users of our nations waterways. Not to mention hurting our states declining tourism industry.

Get real....

You say "inadvertently" break the law. This law is known, just like any other law. As the DNR said, education is over, now it is time for enforcement. My reply was only discussing the best way to enforce the law.

[blown away]

You say "inadvertently" break the law. This law is known, just like any other law. As the DNR said, education is over, now it is time for enforcement. My reply was only discussing the best way to enforce the law.

I'm blown away by some of the responses here. Follow the law and comply, or be fined. I took this as more of an FYI, than a cry fest.

Probably the same bubba's who think they can have 8-9 beers and drive home, because of that stupid law impeding on their right to have a good time.

[jet man]

Earlier poster brought up a good point that I do not thing has been addressed here (maybe it can't yet).

I get checked going to a lake and I am in compliance; assume for now that means no vegatation, livewells dry etc.

Now I go fishing for the day and am on my way home and get checked again. My live wells have been drained, no bait buckets no vegatation and there is a small amount of water left in the bottom of my live well that won't drain what will the ramifications be?

[Suzuki]

I'm blown away by some of the responses here. Follow the law and comply, or be fined. I took this as more of an FYI, than a cry fest.

Probably the same bubba's who think they can have 8-9 beers and drive home, because of that stupid law impeding on their right to have a good time.

Many of us dont agree with this law and hope it changes before it starts for reasons other than drinking and driving as you imply.

[jigngrub]

Many of us dont agree with this law and hope it changes before it starts.

Got some bad news for you, it isn't going to get any easier or better. The penalties are going to get stiffer and inspections will become more frequent.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, there are places now that inspect your boat every time you put it in the water... and there are other places that already require that you have your boat cleaned on site for a fee before putting it in the water.

Grumbling about this isn't going to help or change anything, might as well put on your happy face and comply and conform.:grin:

[government]

Many of us dont agree with this law and hope it changes before it starts for reasons other than drinking and driving as you imply.

I doubt anything will be settled here, better get in your representatives face, and start going to meetings, get a petition going. Not sure legislation looks at walleye central.

FYI, the Tree Huggers are strong, you better be stronger, if they had it their way you wouldn't have a motor on your boat, and the daily limit would be 0.

I fear this is another step to heading that way.

[Suzuki]

Got some bad news for you, it isn't going to get any easier or better. The penalties are going to get stiffer and inspections will become more frequent.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, there are places now that inspect your boat every time you put it in the water... and there are other places that already require that you have your boat cleaned on site for a fee before putting it in the water.

Grumbling about this isn't going to help or change anything, might as well put on your happy face and comply and conform.:grin:

Comply and conform!? No thanks comrade.

btw-the grumbling majority usually rules.

[jigstop]

I will not be pulled over for doing nothing wrong, I STRONGLY believe in my 4th Amendment rights. If this doesn't get solved in a way that they are not violating my 4th Amendment rights if I tow a boat into Minnesota they will not be seeing my boat, or me, anymore. Sorry Minnesota but my rights are worth more to me than a couple fish.

[Burr]

Comply and conform!? No thanks comrade.

btw-the grumbling majority usually rules.

Unfortunately the resistance to comply and conform is what has brought the legislation into existence.

From my experience working with others over the years, it's the people that have been fishing and already have established routines and habits that are the most resistant to making a few changes that make a difference. Once they make the changes, they seem to all reach the same conclusion - it's not that hard, they just had to develop new habits. Teaching kids is easy - they don't have any habits to break, and they want to learn. It's people my age that are the challenge.

Pulling the plug out of the boat at the ramp is a really easy thing to do, and takes no advance planning, and minimal diligence. Having a bait management plan takes some advance planning, a bit of time, and likely some investment in equipment.

How many people that are claiming to comply actually leave water in their livewells with their minnows or leeches until after they have left the access? I'll bet a bunch - your just bringing them home to put in your tank or refriderator, right? Then you pull the plug on the livewell, it runs down the street into the storm sewer system, which flows into a river, and contaminates it...

I purchased one of those Ice Fishing Minnow pails with the aerator in an effort to preserve some expensive bait purchases. I'll bet most of the well intentioned, self-described compliant people actually have a couple areas they could be more diligent?

I anticipate the compliance checks will go something like this (modeling after the DOT checks...).

You pull off the main highway, an officer observes you have no weeds hanging from your trailer, and the boat plug is removed from your boat. The officer waves you on to return to the highway - proceed on to your destination. Big deal.

Or:

You pull off the main highway, an officer observes you have weeds hanging from your trailer, and/or you have not removed your boat plug. The officer motions for you to pull around back into a parking area - where now you will receive additional inspection for compliance with existing laws. The back parking lot compliance inspections may even be one of serveral different levels. A quick visual, walk around inspection and bilge check to assure no water is being transported, to a complete top to bottom inspection that may include registration, bag limits etc.

You could even add, if traffic is heavy, you may be waved around into a bypass lane, as the officers are already busy with others, and they have no more personnel to deal with additional inspections at that moment.

It's good the word is getting out, so people are aware of what will be different this year. It concerns me that sportsman from another state may come to Minnesota on their vacation, and be 'surprised' with a citation - I'll bet that experience could lead to them not vacationing in Minnesota on future vacations. At the same time, the infestation levels in states that are East of Minnesota have much higher infestation levels, and it would be good to slow down the spread AIS into additional bodies of water where we can.

There is no claim being made by the DNR the AIS spread can be stopped. Rather the motivation to slow the spread is desired and maybe, just maybe, science can find a solution that does not currently exist.

It's my feeling if a solution is going to be discovered, it's going to be found in some University Research Lab somewhere - and there have been a few discoveries in the last 12 months. University of Utah had a significant one. If we can slow things down for a while to allow Research Labs the opportunity to identify a solution, we might be able to preserve our natural resources and habitat as we know and enjoy them today.

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

You pull off the main highway, an officer observes you have no weeds hanging from your trailer, and the boat plug is removed from your boat. The officer waves you on to return to the highway - proceed on to your destination. Big deal.



OR....they should have been sitting at the landing checking my boat when I'm loading up. Not bothering me when I'm fighting traffic on a Sunday afternoon.

Or the one I like better. They should be at the landing checking boats that are putting in.

[B.Chunks]

Unfortunately the resistance to comply and conform is what has brought the legislation into existence.

From my experience working with others over the years, it's the people that have been fishing and already have established routines and habits that are the most resistant to making a few changes that make a difference. Once they make the changes, they seem to all reach the same conclusion - it's not that hard, they just had to develop new habits. Teaching kids is easy - they don't have any habits to break, and they want to learn. It's people my age that are the challenge.

Pulling the plug out of the boat at the ramp is a really easy thing to do, and takes no advance planning, and minimal diligence. Having a bait management plan takes some advance planning, a bit of time, and likely some investment in equipment.

How many people that are claiming to comply actually leave water in their livewells with their minnows or leeches until after they have left the access? I'll bet a bunch - your just bringing them home to put in your tank or refriderator, right? Then you pull the plug on the livewell, it runs down the street into the storm sewer system, which flows into a river, and contaminates it...

I purchased one of those Ice Fishing Minnow pails with the aerator in an effort to preserve some expensive bait purchases. I'll bet most of the well intentioned, self-described compliant people actually have a couple areas they could be more diligent?

I anticipate the compliance checks will go something like this (modeling after the DOT checks...).

You pull off the main highway, an officer observes you have no weeds hanging from your trailer, and the boat plug is removed from your boat. The officer waves you on to return to the highway - proceed on to your destination. Big deal.

Or:

You pull off the main highway, an officer observes you have weeds hanging from your trailer, and/or you have not removed your boat plug. The officer motions for you to pull around back into a parking area - where now you will receive additional inspection for compliance with existing laws. The back parking lot compliance inspections may even be one of serveral different levels. A quick visual, walk around inspection and bilge check to assure no water is being transported, to a complete top to bottom inspection that may include registration, bag limits etc.
That's all going to depend on attitude! I can see many here getting the top to bottom inspection! :smokin:

You could even add, if traffic is heavy, you may be waved around into a bypass lane, as the officers are already busy with others, and they have no more personnel to deal with additional inspections at that moment.

It's good the word is getting out, so people are aware of what will be different this year. It concerns me that sportsman from another state may come to Minnesota on their vacation, and be 'surprised' with a citation - I'll bet that experience could lead to them not vacationing in Minnesota on future vacations. At the same time, the infestation levels in states that are East of Minnesota have much higher infestation levels, and it would be good to slow down the spread AIS into additional bodies of water where we can.

There is no claim being made by the DNR the AIS spread can be stopped. Rather the motivation to slow the spread is desired and maybe, just maybe, science can find a solution that does not currently exist.

It's my feeling if a solution is going to be discovered, it's going to be found in some University Research Lab somewhere - and there have been a few discoveries in the last 12 months. University of Utah had a significant one. If we can slow things down for a while to allow Research Labs the opportunity to identify a solution, we might be able to preserve our natural resources and habitat as we know and enjoy them today.

EXCELLENT post!!

[Burr]

I will not be pulled over for doing nothing wrong, I STRONGLY believe in my 4th Amendment rights. If this doesn't get solved in a way that they are not violating my 4th Amendment rights if I tow a boat into Minnesota they will not be seeing my boat, or me, anymore. Sorry Minnesota but my rights are worth more to me than a couple fish.

Operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway is a priveledge, not a right. Not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.

[B.Chunks]

OR....they should have been sitting at the landing checking my boat when I'm loading up. Not bothering me when I'm fighting traffic on a Sunday afternoon.

Or the one I like better. They should be at the landing checking boats that are putting in.

Either way, it's going to suck and people are going to be p-o'd. They do vessel inspections here in the spring and it really slows down ramp traffic and people are complaining all over the place. And those are the people who really slow it down, because they p-o the officer, then everyone behind has to wait for them to get the thorough check. No easy answer, going to be lots of complaining whether on the side of the road or at the ramp.

[Wade B AKA: Ruger2506]

Either way, it's going to suck and people are going to be p-o'd. They do vessel inspections here in the spring and it really slows down ramp traffic and people are complaining all over the place. And those are the people who really slow it down, because they p-o the officer, then everyone behind has to wait for them to get the thorough check. No easy answer, going to be lots of complaining whether on the side of the road or at the ramp.

No question. No question. At least at the ramp maybe the typical people who screw up the flow could use that time to load gear and prep the boat......I wish.

[jigngrub]

I will not be pulled over for doing nothing wrong,

Ha! Wanna bet?

So I guess you don't stop when out on the lake when the game warden wants to check your fish?... and you don't stop on the highway when the police are doing a license and insurance check?

Yeah, you'll stop... and the grouchier and less respectful you are, the longer your stop will take.

I suggest you give them a good piece of your mind when they stop you and tell them you "will not be stopped again!".

[Buck Snort]

Let us know how this works out for you, I'm curious as to what the fine will be for driving by a check point, how long they impound your boat for, and what your legal fees will be for fighting it in court... not to mention the time you'll have to take off of work for court appearences.

... oh! and a video of the drive by and ensuing chase would be nice too!

I didn't say I'd engage in a high speed chase. But I will fight the ticket/fine.

[Buck Snort]

Ha! Wanna bet?

So I guess you don't stop when out on the lake when the game warden wants to check your fish?... and you don't stop on the highway when the police are doing a license and insurance check.

You don't get pulled over for a license and insurance check unless you've done something illegal to get stopped in the first place.

This law is flat out Bull Sh*& and you know it.

You can fall in line with the rest of your Communist buddies, but I won't.

[Blackmacs]

Ha! Wanna bet?

So I guess you don't stop when out on the lake when the game warden wants to check your fish?

The C.O. has cause to stop you. You are in the act of fishing.

... and you don't stop on the highway when the police are doing a license and insurance check?

In Minnesota these types of stops or checks have been deemed unconstitutional.

Yeah, you'll stop... and the grouchier and less respectful you are, the longer your stop will take.

Oh I agree. PO a cop and you'll be in for the extra special treatment.

[B.Chunks]

Not to change the subject, but have any of the people here who like to throw the "communist" word around, associated with this, ever look up the meaning of the word? :confused:

Sorry, but it drives me nuts when my 14 year old son calls anything he doesn't like "communist". :stick:

[jigstop]

Ha! Wanna bet?

So I guess you don't stop when out on the lake when the game warden wants to check your fish?... and you don't stop on the highway when the police are doing a license and insurance check?

Yeah, you'll stop... and the grouchier and less respectful you are, the longer your stop will take.

I suggest you give them a good piece of your mind when they stop you and tell them you "will not be stopped again!".

No I will show them my liscence, even though I don't like it because I didn't do anything wrong, but I will not show them my fish or allow them to search my boat. I have checked into this and in Wisconsin I do not have to show them anything more than my liscence. Where do they do liscence and insurance checks? Not in my state they don't.

The DNR has no right to just randomly stop and check people. Can a cop just stop you and ask for your driver's liscence? Can a cop search your car or house without just cause? Why allow someone to do it just because they work for the DNR.

A right not exercised is a right lost!

[Buck Snort]

Not to change the subject, but have any of the people here who like to throw the "communist" word around, associated with this, ever look up the meaning of the word? :confused:

Sorry, but it drives me nuts when my 14 year old son calls anything he doesn't like "communist". :stick:

Yep,

Here it is for ya...right out of Wikipedia:


Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and revolutionary socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. This movement, in its Marxist-Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by Communist parties) and the "western world" (countries with market economies and Liberal democratic government), culminating in the Cold War between the Eastern bloc and the "Free World".