|
Post by Andy on Aug 26, 2009 17:33:00 GMT -6
Yes lets all go for it. For people who were at the meeting here are some corrections. The dam was built 1923 not the 1930's. It was blown up to stop farmers fields from flooding in the 1950's. The map that was given out at the meeting throw it out. The DNR gave a old map out the new one was posted last Friday.
On another note, does any one actually know when this program will start. We were not told that last night.
I also found out that The Director of the DNR is a member of the DU.
Thank you, Andy
|
|
|
Post by wschac1 on Aug 27, 2009 8:19:45 GMT -6
Well Big Dreams, you said that we would know who you are at the meeting, so are you DNR, or Ducks Unlimited? You said that we would know, and nobody seems to have been told, so just getting some details you said that you would mention.
|
|
jak
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by jak on Aug 27, 2009 15:10:51 GMT -6
I attended the DNR meeting on August 25th and listened to both sides of the debate closely. In the end, I find myself favoring the DNR shallow lake management project under certain conditions. Those conditions involve including plans for preserving the usability of the lake and accessibility to the lake. Director Leopold indicated his desire to improve on the multi-use capacity of the lake as well as maintaining current water levels and by implication the current shoreline which are encouraging positions. To me, it doesn't matter if lizard lake is managed as a marsh, a shallow lake, or a lake. The name is merely a semantic detail. What is important is that the ecology of the lake is improved and then maintained and this is what I think everyone can agree upon.
What I don't agree with is that doing nothing is an option. Certainly the lake has an existing ecology. In other words, it isn't a "dead" lake and I don't believe anyone will argue that it is a "dead" lake. Yet it is clear that the lake is not reaching its full potential and I don't understand why this is not as big a concern for those opposing the DNR and DU as is their concern in stopping shallow lake management. Maybe someone can explain to me why that is. On the other side, the accusations of "money grubbing" landowners seeking development opportunities is preposterous. Richard Buske, who owns or has controlling interest in almost half of the land next to the shoreline was quoted in the Fort Dodge Messenger as saying, "They say it's filled with silt and needs cleaned, but we say leave it as it is because at least now we have a lake." Clearly, he is not interested in land development and I don't believe any of the landowners (all multigenerational owners) have expressed such an interest. The interest that has been historically expressed is in returning the lake to 1920's and 1930's functionality including dredging to depths of that period of time. A realistic lake supporter understands the economics do not support dredging. Even if depth restoration were economically viable, it would not serve the interests of anyone to have a lake developed in the mold of North Twin with bumper-to-bumper cabins and speed boat traffic. This is definitely not my desire. The great attributes of the lake are the tranquil, quaint, and wildlife features which would all be eliminated with introduction of constant speed boat traffic. One of the best features of shallow lake management is the enhancement of the lake's park-like features. I don't mean to ignore the drawbacks involved with shallow lake management Here is what I see are the key drawbacks:
1. Shoreline accessibility and lake visibility. This is my biggest concerns but perhaps not insurmountable. Allowing for rock jetties in parts of the lake would be efficient and cost-effective solutions for entry points into open water. It may be possible to negotiate cattail removal in various spots to provide views and access yet maintain general shoreline buffer and protection.
2. Aquatic vegetation interference with boat travel. While a small concern, this may be a positive in the sense that the turbidity of the lake is minimized with slow and diminished motor boat activity.
3. Water depth not supporting over-wintering of fish population. Dredge options are desirable but not economically viable for the near future. The good part about shallow lake management is that such changes would not interfere with a second phase dredge plan should the economic environment change in the future.
In conclusion, the shallow lake management results are not all bad with the water quality improvement being a tremendous benefit to the ecology of the lake. I think the potential is for the lake to blossom with wildlife abundance that Lizard Lake has not seen for over a 100 years. We should all be excited by the potential of that happening even though we may disagree on some of the details.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Pike on Aug 28, 2009 6:54:49 GMT -6
Oh nooo! How did he get the job he has by being a member of one of the oldest coservation organizaions in the USA! C'mon give it a break. The lake has algae that he has only seen in sewage treatment lagoons. Enough said!
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Aug 28, 2009 10:13:07 GMT -6
Reposted by Andy Jak's posted
I attended the DNR meeting on August 25th and listened to both sides of the debate closely. In the end, I find myself favoring the DNR shallow lake management project under certain conditions. Those conditions involve including plans for preserving the usability of the lake and accessibility to the lake. Director Leopold indicated his desire to improve on the multi-use capacity of the lake as well as maintaining current water levels and by implication the current shoreline which are encouraging positions. To me, it doesn't matter if lizard lake is managed as a marsh, a shallow lake, or a lake. The name is merely a semantic detail. What is important is that the ecology of the lake is improved and then maintained and this is what I think everyone can agree upon.
What I don't agree with is that doing nothing is an option. Certainly the lake has an existing ecology. In other words, it isn't a "dead" lake and I don't believe anyone will argue that it is a "dead" lake. Yet it is clear that the lake is not reaching its full potential and I don't understand why this is not as big a concern for those opposing the DNR and DU as is their concern in stopping shallow lake management. Maybe someone can explain to me why that is. On the other side, the accusations of "money grubbing" landowners seeking development opportunities is preposterous. Richard Buske, who owns or has controlling interest in almost half of the land next to the shoreline was quoted in the Fort Dodge Messenger as saying, "They say it's filled with silt and needs cleaned, but we say leave it as it is because at least now we have a lake." Clearly, he is not interested in land development and I don't believe any of the landowners (all multigenerational owners) have expressed such an interest. The interest that has been historically expressed is in returning the lake to 1920's and 1930's functionality including dredging to depths of that period of time. A realistic lake supporter understands the economics do not support dredging. Even if depth restoration were economically viable, it would not serve the interests of anyone to have a lake developed in the mold of North Twin with bumper-to-bumper cabins and speed boat traffic. This is definitely not my desire. The great attributes of the lake are the tranquil, quaint, and wildlife features which would all be eliminated with introduction of constant speed boat traffic. One of the best features of shallow lake management is the enhancement of the lake's park-like features. I don't mean to ignore the drawbacks involved with shallow lake management Here is what I see are the key drawbacks:
1. Shoreline accessibility and lake visibility. This is my biggest concerns but perhaps not insurmountable. Allowing for rock jetties in parts of the lake would be efficient and cost-effective solutions for entry points into open water. It may be possible to negotiate cattail removal in various spots to provide views and access yet maintain general shoreline buffer and protection.
2. Aquatic vegetation interference with boat travel. While a small concern, this may be a positive in the sense that the turbidity of the lake is minimized with slow and diminished motor boat activity.
3. Water depth not supporting over-wintering of fish population. Dredge options are desirable but not economically viable for the near future. The good part about shallow lake management is that such changes would not interfere with a second phase dredge plan should the economic environment change in the future.
In conclusion, the shallow lake management results are not all bad with the water quality improvement being a tremendous benefit to the ecology of the lake. I think the potential is for the lake to blossom with wildlife abundance that Lizard Lake has not seen for over a 100 years. We should all be excited by the potential of that happening even though we may disagree on some of the details
|
|
|
Post by Big Dreams on Sept 2, 2009 8:32:52 GMT -6
It seemed to me the message was pretty clear at the meeting on Now What will happen.
|
|