riding in wetlands

[russ]

It amazes me that so much is made of riding through wetlands. Every time I have to go to the cities or any other growing suburbia all I see is wetlands and lowlands being filled and developed. Fill in part of a swamp, put up a couple condos and call it waterfront property? Probably where some of the Anti's call home. Now that is what I call wetland destruction. But I guess if enough money flows in the right direction it's o.k. to fill it in, level it off and pave it over.

[PerchJerker]

I think you're a little off-base here. If a builder can even get a permit to fill in a wetland, they have to replace it with a wetland of at least equal size and quality. I know someone who does this type of surveying and classifying of wetlands, and they're very particular about what can and can't get filled in. They're also particular about soil types, vegetation, depth of water, etc. in the old and new wetlands.

[vexilarkid]

Perchjerker,

I agree with you but Russ does have a point. Do you think people in Minnesota, as a whole, have replaced all the wetlands they have filled in. I would venture to say NO. Also, maybe things are different in a metropolitan type setting, but outstate this happens more often than you think.

[This message has been edited by vexilarkid (edited 02-11-2004).]

[TNT4ME]

I will agree with all of you on this issue,
alot is made on riding in wetlands. I think the rule on replacing any wetland altered is two for one now, on approved projects, if you take one acre out, you need to develope a new two acre wetland. The sod buster and swamp buster law got tougher in 1985, since then there haven't been as many wetlands changed as compared to prior to that date, prior to then you could break up or fill in the wetlands without much hassle. I wonder how many greenies are living in converted area's.
Now on the other side it is dificult to go out and make or create wetlands also, we have some large sloughs and coulees running through our land and it would be perfect to set up step dams every couple hundred yards in them and create water holes, but the DNR says no to this, these sloughs and coulees are protected water ways and in doing what we would like, they say we would stop the migration of fish. go figure, these water ways are dry most summers so small dams in our opinion would make great wetlands. In past years the beaver have occasionally made dams in these areas and it is a wildlife mecca,but they soon eat themselves out of house and home and move on, and the dams give out shortly after,but this is nature in action so it is alright, but if I make an earthen dam to do the same for wildlife it is a no-no. Once agian, go figure.

[This message has been edited by TNT4ME (edited 02-11-2004).]

[russ]

Perchjerker, You're probably right. My bad.

[PerchJerker]

Hey Russ, no problem.

TNT4ME, I don't know the specifics, but in some cases you can dig out wetlands to make them deeper. It's changing the wetland, but it's still a wetland. But they have very particular rules about what you do with the material you dig out - in some cases dams, islands for nesting habitat, or filling it a different part of the wetland are against the rules. I think this tends to be site specific. For example, in northern MN wetlands with white cedar are protected because white cedar won't regenerate.