1st of that is far from what we consider non-residents. I love it how alot of people get so defensive. My point was, yes we see the lake all year but I far from live in a mantion. We pay alot higher taxes by my own choice, agreed. As Chris Med said I think they should just man the ramps better and charge a yearly fee or per usage fee. As far as supporting local buisnesses, yes the deli will sell a few more sandwiches and ice so that is great for them, it's just that does nothing to help conserve the lake or generate money to help patrol it. My point is that the towns carry all that expense and if they would just charge a normal fee, like in Norwalk at the launch by fisherman's world, that would help. I never turned this into a us versus them deal so stop trying too and getting so defensive. This is a debate that comes up at least 2-3 times a year on here and it always has some good and valid points. Everyone has there own opinion but again there is no need to get so defensive. It's great that this lake does have so much access to out of towners it's just that they should regulate it better.

Are there some residents that would wnat to make it more private? Sure there is but my whole point is to generate some money to help preserve the lake and make it safer with more officers out there.

can you spell south carolina. all the more reason i now have a five year plan to get out of dodge. all this sticker stuff for a short season. my boat already has a sticker. so does my trailer. so does my truck. so does my drivers liscense. so does my safe boating permit. so does my fishing liscense. so does my tournament application. so does the fee i payed to park. if its truly a safety concern lower the speed limit. obviously no one on the lake is going to have to sell their house to come up with the 100 dollar a year levy. so the issue isnt money. i agree with buck the beaurocracy needs food. only a fool would think you can increase the usage on the lake every year at the current pace for nothing. this sounds like an end run to keep the guys out who dont use the lake on a regular basis. the cla isnt interested in generating more usage. they want to curtail the level to appease the lakes residents. i dont blame them. if i lived on candy id be annoyed if i had to worry about when was the safest time to take my kids for a boat ride. if they need to hire more patrols i think there should be a town sticker for residents.(common sense says they are likely to use the water the most) a usage fee collected at the gate. a higher fee for out of state users.(rhode island beaches already do this)a fee collected with a tournament application. each fee would be equitable to the ammount of use. if john q wants to use the lake it should be at a reasonable fee. one days use for one days fee. definitly keep the collected fees away from the general fund. my 2 cents worth

other than cwood, I fish lilli and squants.
3 trips on lilli and maybe 10 on squants this year.
I DONT travel to far to fish.
I love "my" lake, and see no reason to go anywhere else.
the only reason i go to squants or lilli, is to target pike, or walleye.

Ok, so you are looking out "for your interests". I guess that is fair and why we all have opinions. I fish a lot of different lakes so "my interests" are geared more towards reasonable access for everyone.
Maybe you recall my efforts regarding Lake Waramaug access at the state park and the launch issue. I spent a lot of time on that issue including interlocking with Governor Rell and Attorney General Blumenthal and I don't normally fish there. My opinion is we need to protect each other's interests.
Speaking of "interests", I find it interesting that no one involved in the issue such as the towns, the DEP, the Ad Hoc stakeholders groups etc, give anything more than lip service to the owners of the lake. When CL&P/NE Utilities owned the lake and their management was a bunch of politically correct beaurocratic functionaries who genuflected left and right to every vocal special interest group there were always these proposals on how to control the lake. Only with the FERQ relicensing did the shore line management plan require formalizing. But the owners now are a private equity company. They are strictly bottom line and don't care who they piss off. If they get sued directly that is the same as suing your neighbor, there is no transparency since in private equity there is direct ownership not some public company veil of protection. They get sued over stickers and there will either be no stickers or no one boating on that lake. Remember the 440 line. This is not some obscure concept rivaling the Black Hole Theory in understanding. The new private equity owners own to the 440 line. It is the Golden Rule; they hold the gold and they make the rules. So if they get pushed they simply say get the #### off my land. And they could get sued by anyone, maybe a bass club in NJ where they are headquartered.
People don't think through these issues. It is always what is in my best interest, screw anything else.

If the fee paid was for conservation and safety stuff I would have to agree. A fee of like $3 for a day would be reasonable if it went directly to the lake and not the states general fund. Sending money to the state is a joke and they already get a nice cut through licenses, registrations, and every other place they could bleed it from you