Questions bring more questions.
Could broadening the tax burden to help share the of cost dredging, as PLMLK suggested, be a state wide venture?
Or, say they include residents that live within 500 ft (random number) to help share the cost with riparian owners, are those who are not riparian owners able to vote when the time comes?
I understand the biological fish mortality concerns with the draw down, but what impact will we see from ice fisherman? Concentrated fish may lead to over harvesting.
Enough said, time to go fishing instead of trying to solve the worlds problems.
Thanks guys for for the perspective, I aprreciate it. I repect the fact that we can have a civilized discussion and I am really just trying to figure out if there is any middle ground. The reason I asked about fishermen specifically is simply because this is a fishing website. I agree with the list of facts from PLMLK, was at the meeting also (in the picture posted too), and noticed that regardless if people are for or against it, there has been little done for impact studies either way.
The extended draw down I was referring to was in the early 1990, which I compared to the water clarity records, not the 2011 dam repair. The lake was not atheistically pleasing when it was drawn down, but it needed to be done. We took four wheelers out drove around the lake bed learning a lot, took metal detectors out and found some old things, one guy found an old gun, and the residents took the opportunity to clean their shorelines and even install rip rap.
I understand that almost everyone would be effected negitively, the Water skiing season may be shortened, our Fishing season would be shortened, Duck huinting would be impacted, Some Business may see a slight drop (nothing near as bad as they are making it out to be, I know one business in favor of it), but are these worth it if it makes the system better?????
The best thing that has happened to the lake was when we had to put in sewers, the lake was never clean before that ( I won't go into graphic detail). Also the weeds we see now were already here, but then the milfiol took over, once the WWMD killed the milfoil, we got back the natural weeds again. Unfortunately, from the documentation I have, the lake had the best clarity, deepest weed lines, and best bass fishing when the milfoil was present, and this was right before the WWMD was formed.
I will continue to fish the lake regularly as I have for 40+ years regardless of what they do, or they could just leave it the way it is. I see dredging a channel as a temporary solution to one issue (Waubeesee Channel is a example of local dredging that did'nt work), and will continue to question the draw down until I see more studies. I have seen numerous changes to this body of water and was hoping there would be some way to make things better for everybody.
Thanks for Listening,
I think a local guys fishing day might be in order with lunch at Docs afterward....Anybody interested???
Can't tell you how much I empathize and appreciate your perspective. If I paid waterfront taxes, there is no question I would want usable frontage.
I am unsure of exactly where you live on the waterway - my comments are general in nature.
If anyone desires to live on the Tichigan waterway they can expect to pay 200K - 350K on the river and back bays. If they desire to live on the East side of Tichigan proper they will easily pay 500K. The east side of Tichigan proper has not experienced any weed or water front issues in the 16 years that I've used the waterway and thus they command a higher value. In the river and shallow back bays frontage quality varies year over year, and home prices are considerably cheaper. The exact same home on the river is worth less than the exact same home on the east side of Tichigan proper. It is all cyclical.
We both want whats best for the waterway so we have common ground. We don't have to agree on this point, and I wish you all the best.
Sorry Plmlk, although I know what you mean, I gotta take issue with your statement about "you get the shoreline you pay for". I did not pay for this. I got this as a result of 2 - 100 year floods in 3 years time. I have an over half a million dollar investment. Usually that does not come with what's out in front.
A lot of good points for sure.
I hope a good solution can be found… one good for the resource, and having lasting value for all the property owners that face the cost of it all. Value of enjoying their properties, and higher values in the property in the long run because a good fix is applied. There really should be a common good plan available. The will of fairly educated property owners should be very much respected.
I fear the draw down is the beginning of a poor bandaid, and could set a trend to negatively effect everyone, property owners even more than us others that appreciate access to this system.
Agreed - no easy answer.
I believe the WWMD should present options such as dredging, spraying, drawdown, other methods etc. List the pros and cons of each in an unbiased manner along with pricing, and let the public decide.
Also, given that Tichigan is a public waterway and an asset to the community, I would not have any issue with broadening the tax burden to the entire community - not just riparian owners.
Lastly, Tichigan is full of back bays (Elm Island, Conservancy Bay, West Tichigan etc) The weed growth may vary year over year, but these areas are 2 feet deep and will ALWAYS be weedy no matter what is done. They were overgrown with weeds 50 years ago and will be 50 years from now. IMO it is similar to buying a house next to an airport and complaining about all the planes.
When I moved to Waterford 16 years ago I looked at homes in Elm Island and I could afford them as they were half the price of the homes on Tichigan proper - although I could afford them, I didn't want to live in a back bay swamp - you get the shore front you pay for...
Thanks guys. I hope there is a good answer. I have no idea which way to lean on any of it. I have seen great points on both sides, and agree with PLMLK, a lot has been glossed over by the powers that be.
I was at the DNR meeting on the Dredging project and had to laugh. They wanted to know if you were "For" or "Against" it but wouldn't give out any info on the costs associated with it. Kind of like walking in to a car dealership and agreeing to buy a new car without being told how much it will cost.
I hope these guys can get their act together, and I hope they do it soon.
The one thing they did tell us that as of now 100% of the cost will be on the shoulders of Riparian owners.
Agreed that the hunter's and trappers lose the resource 100%. I have a season pass at the Marina and access the lake via the river - there is no public launch on the lake, so anyone living anywhere but Tichigan proper lose the resource for 7 months.
There is a wealth of info that is available on the negative impacts of drawing down a water way. The WWMD did a nice job not communicating all of them and selling the potential benefits. Groupthink posted a non-biased link on this a few weeks back.
There should truly be a vote on this as well as the dredging project given that tax money will be utilized. If the majority feels it should be done, I wouldn't agree, but would accept that it was handled with voter input. I didn't elect the WWMD or the town board and the decision rests with them. I'll certainly voice my concern with the Village.