Lake Whatcom Continued Absurdity

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by AaronW on April 2, 2013 at 11:35am

Like you said, the issue is complex and changing just one thing won't solve the water quality problems.

Permalink Reply by AaronW on April 2, 2013 at 7:53pm

Hey Dana,

I feel like we got off on the wrong foot — I'm just a fellow fisherman who also does not want to pay $50 to fish on his home waters. I'm not really sure how to respond since it sounds like we are talking about the same thing.

Take care and see you out on the lake,

Aaron

Permalink Reply by Shane Hoelzle on April 3, 2013 at 8:39am

Your points are valid and well spoken Dana. I agree completely. Next it will be free if you are on any form of government assistance..... Then they will jack it up to $100 for the rest of us in a year or 2 to pay for the free ones.... Typical Lib-tard agenda in my opinion. I will also be outspoken against Mayor Linville and her cronies.

Just my 2 pennies

Permalink Reply by P.J. Koshi on April 3, 2013 at 9:08am

I think it's ironic that their two primary concerns are aquatic invasive species and the quality of the water.  I have a feeling this could be some sort of a conspiracy!  Look at what happened to the quality of the water in the great lakes and Havasu since the mussels got going... they are filter feeders after all! Wouldn't be surprised if they set up all this stuff to screen boats for mussels and in a few years some joker from Bellingham throws in a few buckets full and in a year the water looks like Gin and they have to close the lake to prevent the spread of AIS!  Call me crazy, but put together the pieces and that's what the picture looks like to me.  In my mind Bellingham's end goal has always been to prevent any recreational use of the lake... SAD

Permalink Reply by Joe Boyd on April 3, 2013 at 9:34am

The primary purpose of this program is to phase out boats on the lake.  There seems to be a consensus among both the conservative and liberal members of both councils.  Lush green lawns along the shoreline, pressure washing docks, concrete ramps that channel runoff directly into the lake, creosoted pilings, railroad ties, 50 gal drums, numerous landfill sites, electric transformers--those can all be tolerated, but the boats visible on the surface of the lake are all culprits.  I have attended meetings where boat owners are depicted with about the same disdain as child molesters.  I doubt if voting in conservatives will make any difference, but I sure wish there were some boat owners on the city and county councils.

 

Permalink Reply by Erik Faiola on April 9, 2013 at 10:28am

I got my boat inspected on Saturday.  A quick and painless experience, except for paying to fish a public waterway.  I chatted my/our concerns that boaters were being target while non motorized crafts got a free pass.  The gentleman I spoke with as well as the inspectors seem to truly be concerned about everyone suggestions and concerns about the situation.  While they and I agreed that the program was in its infancy and definitely needed to be worked on to make it fair for everyone. 

I did get a response about non motorized boats after I said the canoes/kayaks/rowboats, etc can go into waterways that I would never be able to get my boat into, pick up animal and plant species and transfer them just as easily as my boat and trailer.  The response was that they would more than likely be included next year after a reasonable study has been done (Not sure exactly what that means) and fees were determined.

A few suggestions that I and other made were to 1) label each lane to make put in and pull out easier by designating lanes and time for doing so.  2) Create a waiting limit on the docks to alleviate the cluster #$%@ that is there on a regular basis 3) Allow the inspectors the right to possibly write tickets to illegally parked vehicles (Non trailed vehicles parking in the trailer section) or at least patrol the area and make sure people are abiding by the ordinance in place 4) Put in a few extra parking spots on the bottom row because people park their already.  When you go into get your boat inspected I would suggest suggesting or voicing your concerns or possible changes to these people in a polite way.  They do want this to be a successful and relatively painless experience (well not the $ part).  The gentleman I was speaking with was taking notes and said that he will bring up all of these items when he speaks to the committee.

While I am not excited about this change, I am not 100% against it.  Yes, the $50 does sting but so does boat maintenance, insurance, gas, etc.  Boats are not inexpensive and this is just one more thing to add to the expense tally.

While I understand that there are many other contributing factors that contribute to the quality of the lake, which go far beyond invasive species. I would rather pay the $50 and be able to fish than not be able to fish this great lake at all. 

Permalink Reply by David Parnicky on April 9, 2013 at 12:14pm

I like what you said!
 
Erik Faiola said:

I got my boat inspected on Saturday.  A quick and painless experience, except for paying to fish a public waterway.  I chatted my/our concerns that boaters were being target while non motorized crafts got a free pass.  The gentleman I spoke with as well as the inspectors seem to truly be concerned about everyone suggestions and concerns about the situation.  While they and I agreed that the program was in its infancy and definitely needed to be worked on to make it fair for everyone. 

I did get a response about non motorized boats after I said the canoes/kayaks/rowboats, etc can go into waterways that I would never be able to get my boat into, pick up animal and plant species and transfer them just as easily as my boat and trailer.  The response was that they would more than likely be included next year after a reasonable study has been done (Not sure exactly what that means) and fees were determined.

A few suggestions that I and other made were to 1) label each lane to make put in and pull out easier by designating lanes and time for doing so.  2) Create a waiting limit on the docks to alleviate the cluster #$%@ that is there on a regular basis 3) Allow the inspectors the right to possibly write tickets to illegally parked vehicles (Non trailed vehicles parking in the trailer section) or at least patrol the area and make sure people are abiding by the ordinance in place 4) Put in a few extra parking spots on the bottom row because people park their already.  When you go into get your boat inspected I would suggest suggesting or voicing your concerns or possible changes to these people in a polite way.  They do want this to be a successful and relatively painless experience (well not the $ part).  The gentleman I was speaking with was taking notes and said that he will bring up all of these items when he speaks to the committee.

While I am not excited about this change, I am not 100% against it.  Yes, the $50 does sting but so does boat maintenance, insurance, gas, etc.  Boats are not inexpensive and this is just one more thing to add to the expense tally.

While I understand that there are many other contributing factors that contribute to the quality of the lake, which go far beyond invasive species. I would rather pay the $50 and be able to fish than not be able to fish this great lake at all. 

Permalink Reply by Joe Boyd on April 9, 2013 at 1:30pm

Erik, my chief concern is: if invasive species are such a major concern,and, if an inspection will guarantee your boat is clean, why don't they examine thoroughly the bilge and livewells, including the pumps and connections?  That's what the County Councilman told me they would be doing.  Also, public works said that, if a non-motorized boater was found to be the culprit in infesting the lake, he/she would be fined.  Determining who introduced the species aside, if  they can be subject to a fine, they should be subject to an inspection and a fee.  The city sunk nearly $150,000 into this study, and their main goal is to recapture those funds, make no mistake.  The only way to conduct a thorough invasive species inspection is to take a bass boat (and probably the trailer) apart.  I am convinced this is NOT about protecting the lake, but is about the city getting its money back and reducing the number of boats on the lake.  I saw the results of the survey online; out of all the boats inspected, only three had any trace of invasive species, and all of them were Canadian boats from Lake Osoyoos who were using water for ballast (wakeboarders).  Remember, there are no zebra or quagga mussels in any of the lakes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, or Northern California.  There's a risk, I'm sure, but there's also a risk of nuclear war, but let's keep things in perspective.   I'm sure lots of notes were taken, they always do, and look very interested and concerned, then they do what they want.  Sorry to be so cynical, but I've spent the better part of two days communicating with the County via e-mail; I assure you they have no clue as to what's going on at the lake.  They're throwing rules and regulations out to appease some special interest groups, plus the DOE.  I went down to the ramp on Monday and saw trailers from Oregon, California, BC, and Washington in the lot.  I reported this to the County as well; they were surprised the ramps were being used.  I described some of the violations I have observed on the lake regarding runoff, lawns up to the water's edge, paved ramps, and docks being pressure washed with detergent.  I was met with some surprise.  Believe me, if they were concerned about contamination, they would be out there in force now; they're waiting for opening day to put a major dent in the 150 grand they wasted on the survey.

     

Erik Faiola said:

I got my boat inspected on Saturday.  A quick and painless experience, except for paying to fish a public waterway.  I chatted my/our concerns that boaters were being target while non motorized crafts got a free pass.  The gentleman I spoke with as well as the inspectors seem to truly be concerned about everyone suggestions and concerns about the situation.  While they and I agreed that the program was in its infancy and definitely needed to be worked on to make it fair for everyone. 

I did get a response about non motorized boats after I said the canoes/kayaks/rowboats, etc can go into waterways that I would never be able to get my boat into, pick up animal and plant species and transfer them just as easily as my boat and trailer.  The response was that they would more than likely be included next year after a reasonable study has been done (Not sure exactly what that means) and fees were determined.

A few suggestions that I and other made were to 1) label each lane to make put in and pull out easier by designating lanes and time for doing so.  2) Create a waiting limit on the docks to alleviate the cluster #$%@ that is there on a regular basis 3) Allow the inspectors the right to possibly write tickets to illegally parked vehicles (Non trailed vehicles parking in the trailer section) or at least patrol the area and make sure people are abiding by the ordinance in place 4) Put in a few extra parking spots on the bottom row because people park their already.  When you go into get your boat inspected I would suggest suggesting or voicing your concerns or possible changes to these people in a polite way.  They do want this to be a successful and relatively painless experience (well not the $ part).  The gentleman I was speaking with was taking notes and said that he will bring up all of these items when he speaks to the committee.

While I am not excited about this change, I am not 100% against it.  Yes, the $50 does sting but so does boat maintenance, insurance, gas, etc.  Boats are not inexpensive and this is just one more thing to add to the expense tally.

While I understand that there are many other contributing factors that contribute to the quality of the lake, which go far beyond invasive species. I would rather pay the $50 and be able to fish than not be able to fish this great lake at all. 

Permalink Reply by Jon Sessler on April 10, 2013 at 11:51am

Mr. Boyd is SPOT ON!

It's about appeasing special interests!!

Permalink Reply by Chris Hollick. on April 10, 2013 at 5:12pm

How about running a pipe line from the Nooksack  river to the water treatment plant thus by-passing the lake, well um! lets re-think this,nope that wont work then they would want the jet boats off the river.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page