Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SweetCraft
two crucial elements are missing from your arquement.... one reason the usage is dropping on the lake is 1) it is too rough now for the average boat/smaller boat. These far out number the larger boats . They spend more since they out number larger boats 5 to 1 or more 2) Winni is not seen as "clean" or pristine anymore. Too many boats and pollution. A negative perception of the lake will continue to erode our tourism/customer base. How do we overcome these negative issues? Limit the number of boats/size of boats. This will make the lake calmer and cleaner since shore erosion will be reduced. Notice how cloudy the water gets on weekends these days from all the HUGE wakes??? Further recent proposed DES legislation regarding the shoreline is already underway to address the water quality issue. This is step one to improve the tourists perception . The second step will be limiting boats or size thus reducing waves and erosion. Calmer/cleaner lake is the result. I am speaking from first hand knowledge. The plan is being worked/discussed RIGHT NOW and these solutions are being seriously considered. Unfortunately losing the quality of our lake whether real or perceived will cost us FAR more tourists/money than any laws/limits on boats. Limiting boats will make people want to come here again. That is why it will happen. So we are both right. Tourist dollars will drive this issue. We just don't agree on how this will be addressed. 2-1? I will give even higher odds...... Lets make the bet!
|
So the plan is to limit the number of boats and this will draw people to the lake? What will they do when they get to the lake, stand on the shore and wish they could boat? Sounds like a really fun vacation.
"Mommy, can we go to Disney next year instead?"
This sounds like a thinly veiled, green party plan to "fix" the lake, disguised as a plan to help the local economy, to me. I don't doubt that people are working on/discussing these ideas right now, I just doubt that it would help the economy if it ever happens and and seriously doubt the economy is driving the plan.
What does the DES plan for the shoreline to improve the water quality? Just curious. I am all for letting the immediate shoreline go back to it's natural state as it's been proven time and again that this really works to help water quality and makes waves/wakes rather moot. I know this will wreck some really nice lawns and private beaches, but said lawns and beaches are just terrible for the water. Perhaps the DES should lighten up on its convluted process to get permission to alter the shoreline to prevent erosion as well.
Is this being discussed by the same folks who claim the area will lose $51 million in tourist revenue due to crowding (among other things), by chance?