Shoreline Structures Survey: MN Boat Users Input Needed

[BobT]

Do you think he would have given you the same response if you told him your dock was 1000' wide x 32' long?

If the lake has 500 property owners with docks the same size, that's pretty much what you would have, which gets me wondering if dock/structure size limits could or should be considered based on the size and structure of the lake.

Bob

[BoxMN]

Do you think he would have given you the same response if you told him your dock was 1000' wide x 32' long?

If the lake has 500 property owners with docks the same size, that's pretty much what you would have, which gets me wondering if dock/structure size limits could or should be considered based on the size and structure of the lake.

Bob

Technically, then I would have had to ask him about a 2000' x 32' long dock

Seriously, I agree (and see my previous posts, I always have) that sensible regulations are good. That definition of "sensible" is what metro fisherman brought up. It is hard if not impossible to define, unless like you say, it depends on the lake size and structure, and even then it is hard, as a lake is not homogeneous throughout.

[wayne123]

Reading through this post again I had a funny thought.

Since some fishhouses are bigger than my dock I guess they must be outlawed, taxed, regulated, or something. Now that I think about it some boats are bigger than my dock - hmm what should we do about them?

This was just a funny thought not to be taken seriously.

[croixflats]

luxury tax, wayne. A ice house bigger than 8x8, I have a 8x8 so it should start after that, gets it same with boat any boat over 12 ft lund gets it.

[Jackpine Rob]

That definition of "sensible" is what metro fisherman brought up. It is hard if not impossible to define, unless like you say, it depends on the lake size and structure, and even then it is hard, as a lake is not homogeneous throughout.

I think you hit the nail right on the head Box. What seems sensible on a carp-infested mudhole surrounded by cattails in southern Minnesota may not make much sense on Birch Lake. The water levels on Fall Lake at the Jackpine family compound can vary by several feet during a normal summer. Docks are a challenge!

Shading out vegetation is a non-issue on many of our lakes in NE Minnesota, where there is no vegetation to speak of. Rocky shorelines and steep slopes can really test a guy's ingenuity when it comes to docking.

I took the survey, but spent a good chunk of time in the Comments section, carefully laying out my concerns with ANY attempt to come up with a "one-size-fits-all" approach to docks, rafts, etc. As ST noted earlier, the NE part of the state where I spend most of my fishing time doesn't appear to have any sort of dock problem. Its a total non-issue, at least in my experience.

One of the dynamics that has me shaking my head is what seems to be an attitude of (for lack of a better word) jealousy towards owners of lakeshore property. Some people work hard and make many sacrifices to own and maintain a lake place. They pay the taxes that help maintain the roads to the boat landings. Just a little something to consider....

As for the legal rights of the landowner, Minnesota law has long recognized a number of "riparian" rights that go along with the ownership of property abutting a lake or river. Among these rights is the ability to wharf out to a navigable depth. In other words, the landowner does have a right to put out a dock in most instances. The tricky part is going to be how to determine where the landowner's rights and the rights of the public intersect.

[Scott M]

Hey Rob, good comments. No two bodies of water are alike, that is for sure.

Not sure what you were driving at with the jealousy towards lakeshore property owners. Maybe you had more to say? Isn't it 6 of one, half dozen of the other? I mean, John Q. Public is also paying his taxes, buying his boat registration, fueling up his truck and boat, paying Dingell Johnson taxes on his new lure. It's a shared public good with no more entitlement to the water for one than than the other. They both paid for the boat access and they both paid for the road, right?

I guess if you took a random survey of 10 people out of the blue and asked them what should be allowed for docks and shoreline structures, you might get 10 different answers.

For every scenic NE MN lake that has maintained natural beauty through conscientious property owners, serendipity, or what have you, there is a Nisswa Gull Lake, a Mankato Washington Lake, and a Lake Minnetonka where things are just getting out of control. They're all a little bit different, and we're so late to the game now where a bunch of the most egregious offenders are going to be grandfathered in.

[sparcebag]

When new rules are set,there won't be any grandfather entitlement,All new rules will require compliment.The heavly housed lakes you mention are spreading! the 3-4 slip mentality to this area! Heck I live on a backwater slew, not even full lake owner taxed, a slew cattails 80-100 ft to water.One recent new owner from around the minntonka area has a 80ft long dock with 3- 12ft wide slips covering about 48 ft wide.He's on the shallow end furthest from the lake which is about 3/4 mile out to the actual lake.

The bay dries up so only small boats can get out?? Its this kinda stuff that should'nt be allowed.This guy keeps braggin bout how big his house is how much he makes and his 26ft pontoon is the biggest on the lake.

I asked why with all he keeps braggin about did he buy shoreline on a slew,He dont talk to me anymore

[Water Dog]

I took the survey. What a joke! It was clearly written by an an anti-dock DNR nut. Why can't they put out a non-biased survey?

Metro lakes and big chains like Gull and Whitefish are hugely recreational and there is no going back to nature. Smaller lakes and the northern lakes don't have the high density or size and won't support huge boats and all the related equipment.

There's something for everyone. If you want nature, go to the smaller lakes and rivers. If you want skiing and boating to restaurants, go to the bigger lakes. You can't make Minnesota into 100% Boundary Waters.

Are docks really a problem at all? The boats and other activity around them are what makes the impact, not the dock itself. It's like getting rid of the doghouse because your lawn has brown patches. The doghouse isn't the problem.

[Water Dog]

The docks don't cause milfoil or Zebra Mussels. That's caused by boats going from lake to lake, which lake property owners don't often do.

Our lake association spends thousand of dollars each year to fight invasive Curly Leaf Pondweed in PUBLIC waters. We pay for water quality testing, monitoring and work with the local and state governments to solve problems from highway pollutant runoff and other problems. Last year we had the PUBLIC boat access dredged. Every year we put markers on rocks and we mark the channel. This is not with DNR funds, but lake association funds. Please think about it. Lakeshore property owners do a LOT to keep the lake nice for EVERYBODY.

I don't even live on the lake, but have relatives who do, so I joined the lake association and am now on the board. I pay annual dues, go to meetings, and attend events. Do you?

[minnducker]

I believe all boaters and fisherman in Minnesota should strongly resist any effort by the DNR to impose dock size restrictions on the people of this state. This is just one more seemingly small effort to take away more rights from law abiding private citizens, without justification based on scientific studies or empirical data/information that can show a particular dock size causes any harm. The real agenda is to impose the will of a few while taking away individual rights and privileges. If this sounds paranoid/black-helicopter to you, fine, but think about the following facts before final judgement.

A couple years back, the DNR established a committee of "stakeholders", and sanctioned a "pilot program" which targeted 5 north-central Minnesota counties. This was done under the umbrella of the governor’s clean water initiative. (I think Cass, Crow Wing, Itasca and Hubbard plus 1 more county were involved). Unfortunately, the "committee of stakeholders" was heavily populated by DNR staff and environmental activists. The idea was that the committee's recommendations were to be presented to the county commissioners in each of the 5 targeted counties in the "pilot program", and hopefully be accepted by them. Some of the committee’s recommendations increased structure setbacks, reduced the amount (%) of allowable impervious coverage, and would have reclassified virtually all remaining undeveloped shoreline as “environmental”.

One major effect of adopting these new regulations would have been that almost ALL LAKESHORE PROPERTY IN THESE 5 COUNTIES WOULD HAVE BECOME NON-CONFORMING INSTANTLY. Owners of NON-CONFORMING lakeshore property are subject to various additional constraints and scrutiny. As a result, it significantly reduces the value of property. In other cases, (vacant land), it would make the property worthless. This is why individual property right protection is important.

Fortunately, the county commissioners in all 5 counties understood this, and rightfully felt an obligation to protect the rights of their constituents, and they rejected the stringent, unrealistic restrictions in total. To be accurate, a few individual changes were considered and I believe, adopted by 1 or 2 counties.

Later, as evidenced by editorials distributed to out-state newspapers in the 5 counties after the rejection, the membership of the “committee” were irate, and vowed to keep fighting and to use the whatever means and authority possible, within the DNR to further their agenda. This despite the FACT that the county commissioners rejected their proposals.

Remember, the county commissioners are elected by the people of the county to represent them (democracy), while the "committee" was made up of DNR staff and environmental activists.

As this committee was working on the rules, they provided web access to their work-in-progress document. For quite a while, DOCK RESTRICTIONS were included in the recommendations. This issue was the most volatile of the items in their WIP documents at the time. At public hearings in the 5 county courthouses targeted, attendance was standing room only because of the dock restrictions being recommended. GENE MERRIAM, then DNR commissioner, was asked to attend these sessions to “quell the outcry” (my words). I heard him say, at the Crow Wing County Public hearing, “..the DNR has no business restricting dock sizes. This matter should be left to local and county governments to regulate.”

This of course, satisfied the attendees, so the rest of the agenda could go forward for a time.

You can decide for yourself, but it looks like the “committee” is moving forward on dock restrictions despite the commissioner’s word, and the county commissioner’s rejection. They are following through on their promise to use whatever power and authority they can OUTSIDE OF ANY REPRESENTATIVE/DEMOCRATIC process to further their agenda.

Later on, at the DNR hearing on proposed dock restrictions in Nisswa, I had chat with a DNR staffer in attendance. I asked him to be candid, and I think he was. I pointed out that he certainly could agree that large boats with large motors (150-300 hp), disturbed vegetation, caused significant lakeshore erosion etc./ etc, and in overall are much more damaging than large docks. So I asked him why the DNR wasn’t focusing efforts in that direction. His answer was that they think they can “get away with restricting docks”, but that there “would be too much resistance to restricting boat size or boat horsepower TODAY”. He indicated however, that in the “not too distant future”, he anticipated an “effort to restrict boat size and horsepower, probably only on specified lakes to start with”.

If you’ve taken the DNR survey, it’s obvious that the target is not just dock size. Several of the questions are about boatlifts and canopies. Restricting those would effectively be a good start at boat/motor size restrictions.

The bottom line is, the DNR is staffed today with many people who want the lakes in the state reverted back to conditions in the 1700’s. It’s a FACT that DNR people involved in the dock issue have stated to a representative for the Minnesota Lakeshore Property Owners Association that they would like ALL LAKES IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA to be under the SAME RESTRICTIONS AS THE BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE AREA. Again, the remaining members of the lakeshore regulations “Pilot Project” are at work, fulfilling their promise to further their agenda however they can. The only way they can accomplish this is 1) if no one speaks out and fights against them – and – 2) using the bureaucracy and power of the DNR, with no public scrutiny by elected representatives or the voting public.

If you are OK with that, fine. But remember, no power boats, no access, no roads.

Finally, in these economic times of supposed tight budgets, are dock size restriction and enforcement what we should be spending money on? Remember, there is no evidence of any potential environmental benefit to reducing dock sizes according to DNR representatives at the various public hearings. That’s because it isn’t clear that the absence of a dock or its presence is better for fish. As they also stated, dock size restrictions are for only aesthetic reasons, and is an issue being raised by an increasing number of very vocal activists. Do we need to spend DNR $’s (your $’s) to regulate docks??? Think it through. Speak out against this and don’t let it continue.

[sparcebag]

Waterdog,Minnducker Dont get so paranoid!

Whats wrong with a dock built to tie up 2 watercraft? Why have docks 80-100 foot long so the kids can swim? Why anchor a platform for the kids to swim? There's beaches! Its not your private lake!

You may own a tiny piece but thats land,the lake is public,and with a dock or any structure in the water its using public waters which you DONT have exclusive rights to just because you own a small piece of land.

The public is giving you a privelege of installing a dock! Dont take advantage of a good thing,

Soon I hope the DNR Also sets non mow backsets of atleast 25 ft. with dock approaches of not wider than 15-20 ft.

To start filtering all the runoff from ALL the man made impervious surfaces.

Think clean water for everyone not Me Me Me!

Ducker the DNR took away lots of good info in that trial in those counties you cant recall.It will be put to good use along with this survey.Then the DNR (which is one of the best in the US)can act accordingly to the PEOPLES will.

[Water Dog]

Spacebag, we are paranoid because they are coming after us!

Have you ever seen Zebra Mussels? You can't tie a boat to a dock in a Zebra Mussel infested lake. You MUST put it on a boat lift, or your boat will be completely encrusted with those terrible critters. Many lakes are so shallow that you need 200 or 300 feet of dock to get to deep enough water to float a boat onto a lift. 80-100 feet is nothing.

What do you mean by "It's not your private lake!"? That's pretty antagonistic. Nobody is claiming the lake as their own.

Many lakes do not have a public access. They are closed to protect the lake. Homeowners on the lake can still have docks and boats, but the lake is closed to people who trailer their boats from lake to lake, dragging invasive species with them. Maybe the DNR should close all the public landings?

Too extreme? Of course it is. But look at the DNR list of infested waters!

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/invasives/infestedwaters.pdf

Our lakes are being choked to death, yet the big DNR issue is docks and lifts.

What we're asking for here is reasonableness. The DNR is giving too much attention to statements made and opinions expressed by people who:

1. Are uninformed, and/or

2. Feel that all lakeshore owners are rich snobs, as evidenced in the "haves vs. have nots" comments, and/or

3. Are extremists.

Have you joined a lake association or donated to them?

[Hammer Handle]

Our lakes are being choked to death by people transporting exotic species, but also by "too developed" lakeshore.

People mow the law to the water, clean out brush, cut or trim trees by the water, etc etc and this is killing our lakes.

And, I am not jealous of lakeshore owners. My family owns 2,000 feet of lakeshore.... The key is, ours is undeveloped. And people wonder why all the fish are on our side of the lake....

[sparcebag]

Lake Assn.s are bias as far as water conditions! Show me one Assn. that does more than preach no mow zones? None take action but thay say we should!

Lead by example our lake assn.keeps sending fliers to go to natural shorelines.But no Assn leaders or members Do? They all fertilize and mow to waters edge.

None are biologists,ichthyologists,Not even environmentalists!

But they know whats best for our waters??

[BoxMN]

They all fertilize and mow to waters edge.

None are biologists,ichthyologists,Not even environmentalists!

But they know whats best for our waters??

Come on Sparse, you know that is not true. BTW, technically I was a biologist (and bio and enviro degrees, for what that is worth), and I don't mow or cut anywhere nearer than 60 feet of my shoreline... nor do I use any fertilizer, at lake or home, and I am a member of our Assoc.

I understand what you are saying, but to make broad sweeping generalizations is, well, not so good, IMHO. There are good and bad apples in every crate...

edit: adding in: BTW, if you saw my posts in Lawn forum you will see that I am trying to add trees and other plants/vegetation that will help the shoreline, as I have a hill that previous owners tried to clear, and I am building/supporting it back up. So not all of us are horrible lake killers, or we try not to be...

[Water Dog]

Lake Assn.s are bias as far as water conditions! Show me one Assn. that does more than preach no mow zones? None take action but thay say we should!

Search the net for some lake associations and see what they are doing. I searched for North Long Lake in Brainerd, and her's a quote from their newsletter:

"Our volunteers surveyed and informed 117

boaters at the Merrifield Bay Boat Landing:64 were from

North Long Lake 53 were from various lakes around the

state Of the 53 lakes surveyed, 11 boats had last been in

lakes that were infested with either Eurasian Milfoil, Spiny

Water fleas or Zebra Mussels"

And here's a quote from Round Lake:

"The white pine seedling distribution was discussed and input from the membership in attendance was sought. Our initial order fell far short of the demand. Motion was made from the floor, seconded and approved by vote of the membership to conduct another distribution next year. Discussion then followed about the quantity to order next year, as we had ordered 500 this year."

That's the first two I looked at. Want more?

[Water Dog]

My family owns 2,000 feet of lakeshore.... The key is, ours is undeveloped. And people wonder why all the fish are on our side of the lake....

Hammer- I'm glad you have so much shoreline that is undeveloped. I wish there were more like you. My relatives have been on the same spot on the lake for about 70 years. They had to sell the one undeveloped lot they had in order to keep living on the lake, because the taxes got so high. We try to keep things pretty natural, though.

[Hammer Handle]

Yea, we need to enjoy it why we can.

Soon, the taxes will be too much....

Right now it is taxed as agricultural land and woodland, not lakeshore...for it is undeveloped. But, it looks like that will change someday.

My father bought the land in the 1960s for $8,000. Can you believe that? He always shakes his head for he could have bought so much more at the time, but couldn't afford it.

It is a shame when you get something so cheap...but can't afford to keep it.

Lake Associations can do a lot of good things. But, I had a bad experience with them when my grandparents passed away. A rumor started that their large lot was going to sell and the Lake Association did not want it developed for they "didn't want to look at houses on the other side of the lake". Well, we need to look at their houses. Thankfully, we had very little plans with the land (our family) and it has changed very little.

I see many small lakes that are in trouble due to over-development and whatnot. I think if a lake is under 300 acres, no boat over 75 horses should be allowed on the lake. Also, no mow zones should be established. And, dock and "swimming area" restrictions should be in place.

[sparcebag]

Box the bias is Assn.s doing more so what the members want.

The lead by example was refering to Diamond lake where I live.

Not pickin you out,There are so few who try to get their lots or shore back to more of a natural state,If I were to guesstimate I'd say just from driving arournd 99.9% of shore owners are and have been destroying lakes. Of course years back they didnt know the difference,Just that dream of grass to the lake no obstructions,Now its out from the DNR lake assn.s put out fliers about how bad it is and how to repair it,They have seminars,public meetings,Assn open meetings!! All which get NO WHERE,In my area I've attended 5-6 up grade shorelines to prevent water degradation just for this lake,took the class to test waters same story but No one takes the steps to start!

Thats where the lead by example comes in! Its the lake Assn. pushin this-----For everyone but them it seems!

Its also abit ironic that they use Assn funds to mow curlyleaf pondweed,But its confined to a area where the most Assn. board members live?? Smells kinda fishy around here!! The squeeky wheel gets the grease.

[Nick Kuhn]

Well I think our lake association has started to make progress. Either that or the water quality degraded to the point their property value started to take a nose dive. Either way the past 2 years the summer algae bloom has not been nearly as bad as it was the 5 prior to them. While still green and very poor clarity, it wasn't the stinky pea soup it normally had been. I've also noticed more pronounced bullrush growth along the shoreline. The real push was for a less fertilizer use, and I think the owners got it in their heads it's not entirely necessary. We do very little to take care of our grass, and it still looks like a lawn (when it's cut that is).

You can see we allow whatever type of weed it is to grow right up to the edge of our dock. On the other side are some widely scattered bullrushes. Those lilly-pads didn't get there on there own either Same bass used them as cover all year last year.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v354/vahntitrio/IMG_0334.jpg

[Jackpine Rob]

If I were to guesstimate I'd say just from driving arournd 99.9% of shore owners are and have been destroying lakes.

You have a pretty dim view of your fellow man Sparce. Seems like the glass isn't just half empty, but what's left is leaking out rapidly.

Maybe its the area you frequent, maybe its the neighbors, maybe its your upbringing, but I've got to tell you my experience is so radically different from yours that you and I wouldn't recognize each other with big nametags in the middle of an empty room.

I look around at the neighbors on "our" lake, and see a couple who have gone gonzo on landscaping, and I watch as their grandkids plant trees, work on erosion control and put in barriers. I look at surrounding lakes and see much the same taking place. Funny thing, none of the corrections taking place are fixing anything really bad - just working on making stuff look better. These folks are light-years ahead of the DNR and the kooks pushing for statewide regulations. They are taking care of their property, and doing a pretty good job of it.

A little education goes a lot further than heavy-handed regulations.

I have a bit of faith in the intrinsic goodness of folks. It is my unswerving belief that people want to do the right thing - and many disagreements come about when those who "know better" attempt to impose their superior knowledge on the poor huddled masses.

Lakeshore owners are folks. Just like the guy who lives in a cul-de-sac in Golden Valley or a 10 acre plot in Lake Elmo, they want to keep things nice and looking good. Those same lakeshore owners have RIGHTS.

Those rights come with owning lakeshore and paying the taxes. Anyone who thinks they can drop a boat in at the public landing and somehow have superior rights is sadly mistaken. The lakeshore owner is in a superior position, and that's how it should be.

I see a lot of hoohaw here about public waters, but the simple fact remains that the lakeshore OWNERS are entitled under our laws to something called riparian rights. Those rights recognize that the lakeshore owner has some specific rights that THE PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE.

It comes with the lakeshore owners paying the bills in the form of property taxes. Those same property taxes are used to fund the roads and such that allow access to all.

If I own a chunk of vacation land on Mille Lacs, I have the right to put a dock out. My neighbor across the street in Forest Lake does not have the same right to put a dock out in Mille Lacs, unless he owns some land there. Its a pretty simple thing.

The shoreline owners do have rights. Those rights are long-recognized in the law. Among them is the ability to put a dock out.

The State of Minnesota holds the bed of the lakes (actually, all Swamps and Overflowed Lands) in trust for the citizens of the state, under the Act of Congress admitting Minnesota to the Union. Like many other states, this was standard when states were admitted to the Union. That trust ownership does not take away the rights of the shoreline owners.

Any who thinks it does are mistaken.

[sparcebag]

Jackpine you have the right of that dock! But limitations are set and violations are rampant! Thats only one reason new regulations are comming! very few have complied with the set standards.

[Jackpine Rob]

Jackpine you have the right of that dock! But limitations are set and violations are rampant! Thats only one reason new regulations are comming! very few have complied with the set standards.

If there are violations of existing limitations, why not enforce what's on the books already? Why do we want new rules if we can't even handle the ones we've got?

I'm not understanding your point.

[sparcebag]

One MAIN reason is lake Minnatonka,last year they tried to start regulation,The Money on the lake won out! Now other measures are going to be administered

http://www.freshwater.org/PDFs/WaterAppropriationSystemsandStatePrograms.pdf

[Jackpine Rob]

Hmm.

An interesting and insightful link you provided there Sparce.

This is the same group that is seeking to tax or put a price tag on private wells, eh?

http://www.freshwater.org/PDFs/ValueofWater.pdf

Its interesting how far down an article a guy can get, reading carefully and nodding his head in agreement, before he realizes what the upshot of the whole thing is. As one who relies on private wells for most of my domestic useage (both at home and up at the lake), I sit up and take note when the activists start talking about "scarcity" and "cost".

Funny thing, the City took over the Township several years ago, and the City has been frantically looking at ways to tax the water use of those of us with private wells, not connected to the City system. What they have done is adopted an altogether punitive system, taxing us for commercial sewer rates - since they can't meter the water we take out of the ground, they tax us at the highest possible amount for sewer.

Its all about imposing regulations and taxes. Not my idea of a free society.....