New Trailer Decal Requirement

[Igor Drackenwolf]

Igor, I understand your reasoning, but you are wrong. A regulation adopted under the provisions of a LAW are enforceable as law. For all practical purposes they ARE law, even though you fellas can sit around and debate hell out of it if you wish!!! Ha Ha Ha

Only because people have stood aside and allowed it. And I never said regulations weren't enforceable as law. I said regulations are not laws, except for the fact that we have allowed bureaucracies to define them as such. There is a legislative process for establishing laws that govern citizens. Regulatory fiat under the auspices that a legislature established the regulatory agency places the regulatory agency in the position of creating law by fiat with no direct recource for the citizenry.

The DNR could literally issue an edict tomorrow stating that all fishing is hereby limited to lakes beginning with the letters A, G, and W, and no fishing allowed between the hours of 5 AM and 10 PM, and as things stand now, it would be "law" under your definition.

That's hyperbole to prove this point: If the DNR has the power to arbitrarily enact its will without recourse, we are 100% reliant on the benevolence of the DNR, and have 0% recourse when they do stupid stuff.

That's not how the American system of government was ever meant to work.

[herm]

We get what the majority of voters elect. Until a majority elects lawmakers who will support your views/desires, you won't see the change(s) you desire.

Now the big questions: Do you know your legislators in St. Paul? Do you know their votes on this issue? The committees they serve on? Have you contacted them at any point ever to express your concerns on these issues? If they see it differently than you, have you actively supported their opponents?

My guess is 90 percent of us posting here do not know the answers to those questions. And 99.9 percent have never cast their votes based on this specific issue. (Or even "outdoor issues" as a whole.)

That's why we get what we get.

[Igor Drackenwolf]

We get what the majority of voters elect. Until a majority elects lawmakers who will support your views/desires, you won't see the change(s) you desire.

Now the big questions: Do you know your legislators in St. Paul? Do you know their votes on this issue? The committees they serve on? Have you contacted them at any point ever to express your concerns on these issues? If they see it differently than you, have you actively supported their opponents?

My guess is 90 percent of us posting here do not know the answers to those questions. And 99.9 percent have never cast their votes based on this specific issue. (Or even "outdoor issues" as a whole.)

That's why we get what we get.

Nobody elects the DNR, and nobody who votes has any input into those things the DNR deems to be under its regulatory purview. The DNR is an established bureaucratic body. The input of the legislature into its operations is largely limited to thumbs-up or thumbs-down funding of its budget and limited legislative oversight. Any legislator ballsy enough to vote against the DNR's budget on the basis of reining in their regulatory overreach would be demonized in the media as "anti-environmental" and characterized as someone who wants to rape and pillage the state's natural resources.

Entrenched bureaucracies are a net evil. They set out in the name of accomplishing good, and ultimately make life hell for the people they are supposed to serve.

[Ufatz]

Okay, let me take one more shot at this. I understand your rage against bureaucrats, but you are twisting things a bit and that dilutes your anger. Do not tell a legislator they have "little oversight" into ANYTHING!! Ha. The members of the Legislature have TOTAL oversight into the actions of the DNR' the DNR does not enact anything the Legislature cannot change, reverse or amend. The only regulations DNR can adopt are those specifically within the parameters of LAWS adopted by the ELECTED members of the Legislature. Such regulations have the force of law (get it, because there is a LAW behind them) and thus are enforceable.

You gentlemen may now carry on the varying rants....but lets make clear how the system works. Okay?

[harvey lee]

Totally agree Ufatz.

That's why I have said, if you want a change in the AIS laws, you have to contact your legislator's, about the only way to do it.

[herm]

Igor, How do your know that? Please explain. You see, I've spent almost 30 years of my professional career following state government and everything I have seen supports what Ufatz said after your post. Indeed, your approach does only one thing - serves as an excuse to uphold the status quo, which , if you haven't noticed yet, is screwing over the outdoors.

In addition, your claim about "the media" bashing legislators is laughable. The vast majority of legislators have no major media entity following them, which is the main reason they can be bobble heads for the deepest pockets, red or blue.

Seriously, if you really want this or any law changed, do more than vote on Election Day and gripe every other day of the year. Take a major role in special-interest groups, back candidates who have the same order of priorities as you do, or even run for office yourself.

The absolute worst thing you can do is misleadingly claim government can't be changed. It changed to screw you over on this issue. Why can't it be changed back?

[Schubie]

Harvey I like the way you think on this, but I don't think anything we say at this point will change the direction this train is on. What do they say when you contact them?

[Down Deep]

I think we should all be concerned about invasive aquatics and plants, it's how to go about it that seems to be the toughest question. Any solution that is mandatory would be unacceptable to several of the participants on this thread, but sometimes regulations are necessary to preserve resources. Limits on the take of fish and game are examples of these type of rules and are rarely complained about.

One thing I wish the DNR would do is stop importing and/or raising for planting non-native species like salmon, kamloops turkeys, and others. All of which take management, regulations and enforcement which draws lots of money from the support of native species.

[leechlake]

regarding contacting your legislator. If I contact my legislator and he agrees with my position on an issue like this one and in this case he's a Republican. The next step is for him to attempt to battle the 2/3 majority of Democrats that other districts have elected? Seems like a waste of my time. (this example can work both ways by the way)

[Igor Drackenwolf]

Herm, I haven't said nothing can be done to affect change. I said that the legislature doesn't create regulations and rules. They approve the DNR budget, and provide "oversight" (laughable when you look at who is overseeing and how little input they have into creating policy.)

Google is your friend. Try "MN DNR legislature oversight" and read. Ufatz is wrong.

My claim about media demonizing legislators is not wrong, it is spot-on. In this state, if a legislator dares to step-up against any government entity - especially the bureaucracies that have been anointed by the DFL (education, human services, DNR, etc) you are treated as if you are a wailing and tooth-gnashing demon who wants to kill children and cause mass extinction.

They don't need the media to "follow them around" as you say. All they need is to dare to stick their head above the reeds and make a peep against government entities, and they are excoriated - the Star & Sickle, the Pioneer Press, MPR, WCCO, KARE, and KSTP leading the way.

I didn't say we can't change DNR policy. But it will not come from the legislature, unless this state somehow miraculously learns from the successful model being implemented right now directly on our Eastern border. Under the existing and seemingly perpetual polical climate in MN, you will never convince the legislature to strip regulatory power from the DNR. Until that miracle, change will come from sportsmen banding recources and pushing back directly against the DNR.

[harvey lee]

Harvey I like the way you think on this, but I don't think anything we say at this point will change the direction this train is on. What do they say when you contact them?

The first thing I would say is, if we do nothing that's exactly what you will receive back.

I agree the train is running fast all for the AIS. I have asked my rep how he believes this will work when the facts show otherwise. Looking at what the DNR has done to this point has not stopped anything, the proofs in the pudding as the AIS contaminated lake list continues to grow.

Christmas lake is a great example on how this will never stop the AIS from getting into any lake no matter what the DNR does. Once again, the proof is in the pudding.

I asked him why he believes the new decal program will stop anything, I explain to him the last time a few years ago we tried the decal program for awareness and about as fast as we got the decals installed on the boats, the program was then ended, I said you and I both know what that cost the tax payers.

If any rep honestly looks at all the avenues the species can travel from one waterway to another, trying to slow it down with the rules now in place may slow it at best a minute amount and maybe not even that much.

I was all for trying this program when others here said it would not work, but I was willing to try. I now realize that the state and the DNR will now do whatever to continue this as they are not going to admit they were wrong. I explained to my Rep I was all for trying but I also said it is not doing anything other than wasting money and putting additional burdens on the boaters.

I asked him to please look at this program and the facts and then move forward. I said there is nothing wrong in trying to save our lakes and rivers from this but if we cannot do it by stopping it, then slowing it will show it was a waste of tax payers money and the DNR's time invested.

I may have wasted my time as he may choose to do nothing to try and reverse the decisions they have made but at a minimum, I know I tried to do my part to stop this foolishness.

I know one thing, any time I have send my rep an e-mail, he has always replied very fast except for this issue, nothing for a reply.

I do know after this last legislative session and the way my rep voted on the issues at hand, my vote will go to another as he had his chance. They are elected to represent the voters and if they do not do what is in the best interest of the state and tax payers, then it is time for them to be voted out.

One can only do and say what they believe in and watch how your rep votes, if it is not what you would like to see, then replace them.

IN defense of the state reps, if no one tells their reps how they feel and the ones who are for this program say they want it, then I guess they vote according to the response from their constituents. If I was in his place and 200 people said vote the AIS program in and 50 said stop it, well I guess I would vote the way of what appears to be the majority.

The trouble today is, most have lost faith in our system and believe they can do nothing so, they do nothing and when the law appears, they say, why did they vote that way, well, that's what they heard from those who placed him in office. I understand why many have lost faith, I have also but if I say I cannot do anything about it, then I have no chance of changing anything, at least if we all say something, we may have a chance.

So, even thought I feel I may be wasting my time trying to change the thinking of my rep and how he votes, I will continue to try and voice my opinion. Otherwise to just sit back and say I cannot make a difference, well you will not for sure. One will not win every issue but every so often, one can make a difference.

The squeaky wheels get the grease and the anti AIS faction has not been squeaking enough to their reps, saying it in this forum will get one nowhere.

I listened to many meetings in our Legislature where they debated this AIS issue and passed the laws in place today.

A little chance will beat no chance any day.

I am as concerned as anyone about the spread of AIS but until the DNR can come up with a workable solution, then they should continue to research ideas and come up with a program that at least has a chance, not a feel good law so they can say, we tried when they have to know this will simply not work.

[delcecchi]

After talking to the guy at the fair in DNR building, I would say that this program is not aimed at folks like us who are knowledgeable about AIS, but at all the boaters who are clueless. Jump in a bayliner with cooler full of beer and some skis... The kind that people complain about nearly running them over, that cut between the shore and your boat as you are casting...

You all know the type. We are collateral damage.

[Basseyes]

The first thing I would say is, if we do nothing that's exactly what you will receive back.

I agree the train is running fast all for the AIS. I have asked my rep how he believes this will work when the facts show otherwise. Looking at what the DNR has done to this point has not stopped anything, the proofs in the pudding as the AIS contaminated lake list continues to grow.

Christmas lake is a great example on how this will never stop the AIS from getting into any lake no matter what the DNR does. Once again, the proof is in the pudding.

I asked him why he believes the new decal program will stop anything, I explain to him the last time a few years ago we tried the decal program for awareness and about as fast as we got the decals installed on the boats, the program was then ended, I said you and I both know what that cost the tax payers.

If any rep honestly looks at all the avenues the species can travel from one waterway to another, trying to slow it down with the rules now in place may slow it at best a minute amount and maybe not even that much.

I was all for trying this program when others here said it would not work, but I was willing to try. I now realize that the state and the DNR will now do whatever to continue this as they are not going to admit they were wrong. I explained to my Rep I was all for trying but I also said it is not doing anything other than wasting money and putting additional burdens on the boaters.

I asked him to please look at this program and the facts and then move forward. I said there is nothing wrong in trying to save our lakes and rivers from this but if we cannot do it by stopping it, then slowing it will show it was a waste of tax payers money and the DNR's time invested.

I may have wasted my time as he may choose to do nothing to try and reverse the decisions they have made but at a minimum, I know I tried to do my part to stop this foolishness.

I know one thing, any time I have send my rep an e-mail, he has always replied very fast except for this issue, nothing for a reply.

I do know after this last legislative session and the way my rep voted on the issues at hand, my vote will go to another as he had his chance. They are elected to represent the voters and if they do not do what is in the best interest of the state and tax payers, then it is time for them to be voted out.

One can only do and say what they believe in and watch how your rep votes, if it is not what you would like to see, then replace them.

Very well said.

I'm all for something if it has a snowballs chance, but none of this does. The general public is being asked to do something that in no way, shape or form is going to help anything. We are led by paper shufflers, with no real dirt under their finger nails experience and it is all feel good krap, that is beyond ignorant. It is all theoretical and none of it holds any real world applicable usefulness. Our DNR is trying to pound nails in, with a fluffy pillow. It is all fluff and no substance. We all know it, but they don't. That is the real biz-r-ohh part?

[harvey lee]

We get what the majority of voters elect. Until a majority elects lawmakers who will support your views/desires, you won't see the change(s) you desire.

Now the big questions: Do you know your legislators in St. Paul? Do you know their votes on this issue? The committees they serve on? Have you contacted them at any point ever to express your concerns on these issues? If they see it differently than you, have you actively supported their opponents?

My guess is 90 percent of us posting here do not know the answers to those questions. And 99.9 percent have never cast their votes based on this specific issue. (Or even "outdoor issues" as a whole.)

That's why we get what we get.

You hit the nail on the head Herm. I hear so many saw, I cannot make a difference, I will say sitting back and saying or doing nothing, no, you have zero chance of making any change.

I would feel safe in saying maybe up to 30% of the voters would not be able to say who their legislator was if asked.

I know I contacted my rep up to 30 times on a few issues this last session, I lost a few but a few went my ways also. What does bother me is when they vote party line and not how their constituents feel but that can be taken care of at election time.

TO sit back and say it wont work to try, well that tells me there is even less chance. One should not gripe about any issue if you r not willing to call, send e-mails or do something else to try to change what appears to be a bad law or idea.

I am very confident in saying, if every voter against AIS were to contact their elected officials about this, it would get turn back. They would have no chance of getting reelected and that's what they really care about. But with that said, many or the majority will still sit back and do or say nothing and then when it is voted for, they will gripe and complain, well what did you expect to happen? Why would so many sit back and not try, cause they feel it will not help, that is about as wrong as it could be.

[herm]

Igor, I'm not familiar with what Wisconsin is doing regarding its approach to this issue. Please provide more details.

As for DNR vs Legislature, we will have to agree to disagree.

Re: Your media claims. Please provide specific links to back up your claim. It should not be hard given your list of examples. (I'm assuming you read all those sources regularly. I do.)

By the way, are you aware of MPR's reports on Mn Groundwater this year? It's enlightening stuff about how state government is not doing its job in protecting natural resources. (And it directly contradicts your claim about media supporting more govt.)

Look forward to your details - both about Wisconsin and Mn media.

[aanderud]

I am very confident in saying, if every voter against AIS were to contact their elected officials about this, it would get turn back. They would have no chance of getting reelected and that's what they really care about.

Tom, you live in a small world if you think that 'every voter against (meaningless) AIS (regulations)' is a significant fraction of the population, enough that the legislators will 'have no chance of getting reelected' unless they listen to us. We're obviously in the small minority here when you consider us as a fraction of the general populous.

There are so many low information voters out there that have no idea. There are millions of voters in the state who don't even own a boat, obviously. To these folks, every idea the DNR puts forth is probably a good idea. Think of all the soccer moms who want clean beaches to take their kids to -- they're constantly bombarded with propaganda that says these kinds of things work. Can't blame them for believing what they hear -- it's not like they have a reason to suspect the DNR is just trying to collect/spend more money (like every other government agency).

[Slabasaurus]

The DNR could literally issue an edict tomorrow stating that all fishing is hereby limited to lakes beginning with the letters A, G, and W, and no fishing allowed between the hours of 5 AM and 10 PM, and as things stand now, it would be "law" under your definition.

I understand the hyperbole, but the DNR cannot simply issue an edict for anything tomorrow. There's a process for this, and their changes are required to go through some formal process that I'm not going to bother explaining right now, since it's all out there on the google/interweb/dnr HSOforum (not HSO forum, web-site. goodness that's a strange auto correct...).

If you would like to see a recent example of changes they have made to laws... look into the trout regulations that were recently enacted as law. This change happened this year, from I think Feb was when I heard about the first OFFICIAL notice, to July/August when the laws were effective.

[Ufatz]

Okay, one last time in an attempt to provide some factual information. First, Igor ol' pal, I suspect you know more than you understand. Apparently you have stumbled upon some information regarding Legislative Oversight Committees. My guess is every State Legislature forms such committees. When you have time go back and read (slowly) to learn what such committees do. And DON'T do. A Legislative Oversight Committee-and there is one for the F&G issues, is not involved in creating regulations and would have only cursory involvement. I would guess the state's Department of Law (or whatever it is called from state to state) would review regulations proposed by a department and, if it found no legal flaws or red flags they would sign off on it and it (the regulation) would go into effect and the date stipulated in the regulation.

You might suspect I have a more-than-passing familiarity with this process. You would be correct. I have signed a few stacks of them!

Okay, now you go back to it but I am officially DONE. I've tried.

[harvey lee]

All I am trying to say Brian is that if everyone who would like to see these AIS rules go would call their reps, it would help much more than a small percentage call. If many called their reps they would be a significant amount as so very few bother.

When I have talked to my rep, he said only a few people have contacted him in regards to these AIS laws. If only a few are concerned about this and no one contacts him, you will get nothing. if many of his voters contact him, that will make a difference.

But I guess if we all sit here and complain, nothing will ever happen as the reps do not read HSO complaints.

One has to remember very few people ever talk to their reps, so if all of a sudden many more do, he may just be a bit more concerned about this.

I realize we are a small percentage but when no one ever contacts them with their concerns, we are a even smaller percentage.

I truly believe if we were to all contact our reps, it would make a difference at least much more than simply sitting back and doing nothing.

I agree there are many low information voters out there and maybe it is our job to help them become a bit more aware. Again, if we sit back and do nothing, that is what we will get back.

It's too bad the fishing and or boating industry does not get a bit more involved with these AIS laws, that would help a lot but with no one doing nothing, well, lets have more laws like this.

One can also talk to the people running against the current rep and express ones concerns and see how they stand on this or any issue, Sure helps come voting time when election year rolls around and I agree, very few will also do that, they just punch a name when they vote and hope for the best. This way, one will know that the one they voted for, if elected will stand up for your beliefs. Don't contact them, who knows what you will get in laws and sometimes it does not matter but one can at least do what you can do to try and make a difference.

All one can do is put all the pressure on them they can and try to inform them of your concerns and then hope they listen. if they don't vote another in.

I am sure it would not take a lot of e-mails or calls to sway a rep when so few even bother to call or e-mail. Most just give up and figure it is for someone else or give in.

[NEANGLER]

Don't know if this is been asked but do you have to take the test for every trailer w a boat you own? I have my fishing boat, hunting boat and a jet ski. I would assume I would have to take the test for each sticker unless they have a work around..............

[amateurfishing]

Just start transferring boat in back of pickup like jet ski and such, if u dont have trailer then u cannot use a trailer sticker, problem solved

I believe govt is here to help us (a whole difft topic) , this has gone too far. Just because the dnr could not find solutions that worked, we should not be automatically blamed and the requisit bank account to pay for it.

[brmuskie]

Be careful what you wish for Igor! I would rather have the fisheries biologists making rules (laws) regarding our fisheries than our legislature. I have ZERO faith in our legislature to do anything right. Even if a good idea is placed in their lap they will find a way to mess it up. Could you imagine all of the laws being created by legislators who are worried about pleasing their donors?

The way I see it, this rule is here to stay. There has been too much coordinated lobbying from the lakes and river associations and nothing from the angling community. What are we supposed to do? If we stand up and say enough is enough, they will call us out for not caring about ther resource.

Commissioner of the DNR and the Governor's Office are the 2 places I lay the most blame for this one but there is plenty to go around.

From what I'm told by those who should know, this commissioner only cares about forestry and pheasants. Good Luck everyone!

[amateurfishing]

I talked to a couple of co's at the state fair today. here is the lowdown. yes it has gone through and is already a done deal. if you have multiple trailers you will need one for each one BUT are supposed to be able to get second, third, etc at cost (aprox $5) to cover materials.

this is what happened (according to them). they claim the legislature became very concerned regarding invasive species and approached the dnr asking what could be done about it. the dnr's response is 98% of invasive free lakes become infested due to boat and trailer travel. I asked how they could prove this, what about birds, wind, fire transfer planes, etc. and their answer is 98% of the time once a clean lake becomes infested with invasives they are usually first found at the boat access/ramp. they claim they have done numerous studies on this and this is their overwhelming response of factual study. so they are claiming either fisherman don't care, are not getting the message, or don't know card. so if you do not have the tag on your trailer you will be automatically subject to a possible traffic stop/violation. no different than driving without lights in dark, no insurance, whatever. it is just coming from the dnr instead of dmv.

[RumRiverRat]

Abolish the DNR.

They clearly do not have a clue on what do about anything.

[Finns]

Abolish the DNR.

They clearly do not have a clue on what do about anything.

You work for them?