BILL H-40

[fishingmachine]

Bill H-40 would ban all internal combustion engines on all public waters in VT. except Lake Champlain.that includes outboards and ice augers.Call 802-828-2228 and say NO! to this rediculous anti- fishing law

[BottomDollar]

I could see banning carbed 2 strokes, as they do release unburned oil and fuel into the water in small quantity, but a universal ban on gas engines makes no sense. What about snowmobiles on the ice? Crazy.

[C-Hawk]

How about a law requiring fishing license's to use fishing accesses?

[Bearcat]

We see the same types of people trying to de-motorize lakes and trails in NY. It sucks because these groups seem to have tons of free time on their hands to badger law makers regarding these issues. The bottom line is that they just want as few people as possible utilizing public lands and waters, and if and when they are utilized, they believe that the resources should only be enjoyed the way they see fit to enjoy it. I would bet that not one of these complainers could find a lake in NY or Vt that has suffered significant, or even noticeable adverse affects that could be solely attributed to motor vehicles in the last 10 years.

Two years ago the snowmobile trails in an entire county near my home were lost forever because of one absentee land owner who wrote dozens of letters and turned all the right screws - so for those who fish waters affected by this proposed law, I wouldn't take it lightly. Chiseling away, one restriction at a time is their strategy.

[BottomDollar]

I would bet that not one of these complainers could find a lake in NY or Vt that has suffered significant, or even noticeable adverse affects that could be solely attributed to motor vehicles in the last 10 years.

That's a great talking point, Paul. Without demonstrable evidence all they're arguing against is offense to their personal aesthetic, which is totally subjective. Public lands and water belong to all of us.

It's essentially a ban on fishing on small and medium sized lakes in all of Vermont. We should all be calling.

C-Hawk, good point on the fishing license requirement at F&W accesses as well. Especially in light of a strong likelihood of losing federal dollars to maintain those sites. You don't have to fish but you should support the effort that goes into keeping them open. Without federal money, licenses are the primary funding instrument for VT F&W.

[lingcod]

In addition to individuals voicing opposition, I'm hoping that marina owners, boat dealers, and others in the industry will initiate a lobbying effort.

[keithm87]

Has anyone read the bill? I hate to call people out, but really people we need to do our homework and not follow the heard mentality. The bills name states its intention and its reach "An act relating to the use of internal combustion engines on public water sources". This bill will only impact public drinking supplies of which there are none to my knowledge that at present allow for internal combustion engines.

[pieman9155]

he can't do it becuase it border ny and ny would haveame laws i would think

[Bearcat]

Has anyone read the bill? I hate to call people out, but really people we need to do our homework and not follow the heard mentality. The bills name states its intention and its reach "An act relating to the use of internal combustion engines on public water sources". This bill will only impact public drinking supplies of which there are none to my knowledge that at present allow for internal combustion engines.

I haven't read the bill but the "foot in the door" would be their definition of "public water sources". As an example, the New York City DEP owns and operates several huge reservoirs in the catskill mountains for the NYC water supply system. Most of these reservoirs are located several hours drive from NYC. Thankfully, they do allow fishing with a permit (and the fishing is often excellent, by the way), though motors are prohibited and always have been.

The possible relevance to the proposed Vermont law is that this NYC public water supply body (the reservoir system) includes expansive tracts of land which are determined to be within their watershed - this being any property which could even potentially allow runoff into the system, any river, lake, pond, stream, ditch, mountainside, hayfield - anything that could even possibly influence the water supply as a whole, this includes properties that are located dozens of miles away from the actual reservoirs.

Decades after the eminent domain acquisitions and the construction of the reservoirs, the DEP is aggressively purchasing any available parcels within the watershed. Access is then controlled and usage is limited. If you own property that they consider to be within the "watershed", you'll soon find out that the mandated engineering, site development and permitting fees that are implemented prior to building a simple house or pasturing a cow would bankrupt the common man - and their regulations supersede state and local regulations on property that they don't even own!

I worked for years as a consulting environmental geologist and I'm all in favor of protecting the land and waters that we on this forum love so much, so this is just a little food for thought regarding the sometimes unintended and far reaching nature of some of these regulations and bureaucracies.

[BottomDollar]

The part of the bill in question:

(g) A person shall not use an internal combustion motor on a public water
2 source that is a lake, pond, or reservoir other than Lake Champlain or Lake
3 Memphremagog. The prohibition on the use of internal combustion motors
4 shall include the use of an internal combustion motor to power a vessel and the
5 use of tools powered by internal combustion.

[C-Hawk]

In my area, Western Mass., the municipalities that own thousands of acres surrounding a half dozen or more resevoirs, took advantage of Homeland Security statutes after 9/11 and shut down their watersheds to everyone, including hikers, hunters and fisherman. No trespassing period. Miles of beautiful brook trout streams, isolated beaver ponds and prime deer habitat locked away from public use. I think there is plenty of government grant money available for land acquisition, fences and gating of roads. These tactics will be coming to a watershed near you, so pay attention. Not only have we lost the use of large sections of forestlands but these huge tracts have been taken off the local tax roles with no compensation.

[keithm87]

This proposed legislation is a result of a court ruling in 2012 that opened some drinking water sources (the decision was for berlin pond, but impacted others) to recreation. The ruling stated that towns had no enforcement rights on a water body for trespass as state law says that a waterbody is public use, and as public roads bordered the pond the town lost the right to deny public access as the pond is public and the access point is also public. Since that ruling there has been back and forth in several other places (stiles pond in St J, Thurman Dix in Orange, etc) on recreational use of these public water supplies. As of right now I am unaware of any that allow for power augers, or any other motors, but there have been challenges to those rules. As there is no current state statute restricting it, and DEC has been siding with towns based on safety, there is now this legislation that would formalize the restrictions already in place on these water bodies to avoid a court case. like Barnett V Montpelier from overturning these DEC restrictions and costing towns millions in water system upgrades. After talking to a person who works in a town impacted by these rulings who is also an avid fisherman and trout troller (arguing from my side that expanded access was in everyones interest) and hearing the costs to the water systems for them to continue to comply with safe water standards if recreation were expanded (the number was over 2.5million for the town up front and over 100k annual in added maintenance etc), I would say these restrictions are common sense and will save towns MILLIONS which in turn saves property tax payers money.

[C-Hawk]

In Mass., treatment is required for any public water supply unless it is covered.I would dare say that treatment is necessary whether there is human activity or not,;girardia?In the Berlin Pond case, didn't some politician own the only house on the pond and he didn't want people fishing in his front yard so he created this mess to begin with?

[keithm87]

They do treat the water in montpeleir, but I guess there are different treatment systems for different stuff. IE a system is built to deal with the contaminants it may encounter. So the system they have kills certain common biologicals, but would not handle petroleum products, and from the sounds of it there are different processes to attack different things (think lampricide not killing other fish) so from a cost standpoint towns build a system that meets safety requirements and kills things that would normally be found in the water, it would not make sense though to pay for a system that removed contaminates that wouldnt be found, we wouldnt desalinate water in vt it would not be a cost effective use of money as salt content of the water is so low. However if other things are introduced that are not supposed to be there and would not naturally occur they can cause problems in a system built to remove naturally occurring contaminates.

[C-Hawk]

I can see where a small municiple water supply may need to ban outboards, but to lump all public water systems together , such as Chittenden with a tiny 5 acre holding basin is way too broad a law. Should be done on a case by case basis. Once these things get started, you will lose all access. It is far easier to gate and fence than it is to patrol and regulate.