Yeah we are a bunch of druken speeders! I am not going to even go there! My intent wasn't to have an "us" VS "them" think BK it was to try and figure out how to lessen traffic and this thread was to debate a bill.

Lee- That is a good post. I too have been pulled over randomly the same night and usually they are younger, irrogant people. I know CLA isnt't the answer and I know the bill isn't meant to lessen traffic,but to fund them. My only stipulaton in agreeing at all with the bill is that IF it discouraged boaters to come here then I did see some positives. Why wouldn't I want less boats here? I am sure any other person living here would obviously feel the same.

Below is my formal submission, via email, to the Ct. House Environmental Committee which is holding a hearing today in Hartford on the Candlewood Bill. It is how I feel and represents only my thoughts. No one else will like all of it, many will like some of it and some will like none of it. So I would encourage those so inclined to formulate their own personal opinions and submit their own position paper. There is another meeting tomorrow in New Milford.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: George Buck
To: Rep. Carson, MaryAnn
Cc: Larry ; George buck
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 7:42 PM
Subject: Raised Bill # 5828 -- An Act Concerning Candlewood Lake Boat Use Permits


MaryAnn, thanks again for having this public hearing yesterday and giving all of us the opportunity to speak about our concerns. I would appreciate it if you could print out this position document and submit it to the Environmental Committee that is holding their hearing in Hartford on Monday. Could you also forward it to Rep. Chapin since I do not have his email.

Raised Bill # 5828 -- An Act Concerning Candlewood Lake Boat Use Permits

I am in support of the CLA and their programs and recognize that increased funding is beneficial and that it needs to be more equitable across the lake user communtiy. But I am against this specific sticker program as proposed as an unwise proposal for the following reasons:

---Over the next couple of years it will backfire and lake usage will actually increase.
I am very active in lake issues as a member of the Ball Pond Advisory Committee to the Town of New Fairfield, a volunteer with the DEP Inland Fisheries Unit and an active member of Ctfisherman.com which represents over 2,000 state fishermen. The overwhelming reaction and input from sportsmen around the state, many of whom are affiliated with other lake authorities, is that every lake with public access that has an active lake authority will also implement a boating use sticker program. Fencing the Bill to Candlewood Lake is a legal impossibility due to the concept of similarly situated organizations, that is all lake authorities representing public access lakes.
Now when fishermen and other boating participants have to decide which sticker to buy, since they can't afford to buy multiple lake stickers, the choice will be Candlewoood since it is the largest and has the best bass fishing. Currently, many clubs run multiple bass tournaments on multiple lakes during the year. For example , they will have six yearly bass tournaments on six different lakes around the state. Faced with a multiple sticker purchase dilemma their members will buy only the Candlewood Lake sticker and run all six yearly tournaments on Candlewood raising their Candlewood usage up 600%. This is not a theory, this is what they are planning to do based upon the stated intent of many other lake authorites to implement a boat usage sticker program after the Candlewood Bill is approved. This Bill ultimately exacerbates an already bad problem of over-crowding.

---Liability.
Liability should be a big concern to the CLA and the five towns that fund and basically run the CLA. The reason is state statutes protect landowners and town organizations that have assets from lawsuits due to accidents and other liabilities when their assets and land is allowed to be used for no charge. For example, the concept is in state law with the "landowner liability release" protection afforded to landowners who allow use of their private lands for hunting, fishing and other outdoor activites. Both the landowner and the user sign a "consent form" which is an official state document and this signed document protects the landowner from liability.
The concept is also used by the DEP Parks Division which charges users of parks and boat launches to enter and park their car with nothing else implied. So when someone drowns at Squantz Pond State Park the victim only was afforded the opportunity to park their car with no implied use of the water resource and therefore, the DEP feels it protects itself from litigation.
The CLA and the five towns have no such protection because they are charging a sticker fee to use the lake with a boat. The implied use is boating on water.
Under any circumstance these laws need to be rewritten. For the Parks Division to forego the enormous revenue opportunity because they think they can legally protect themselves by charging a few dollars for a van which may be carrying a dozen passengers, to enter and park, using all the facilities but not paying a per-person charge is a sub-optimizing position and implementation plan.
In any case, any local or state-wide boat sticker program must come with terms and conditions that establish no liability on the part of the lake authority, the surrounding town, the DEP or the owner(s) of the lake facilities. This is executed through a "blister pack" contract such that the permit is issued in a "pack" that includes terms and conditions disclaimers, similar to the way PC computer software is sold, and these terms and conditions are further backed by new state liability laws. Under "blister pack" contracting when an end user, in this case a boat owner, opens the sealed blister pack to retrieve their purchased permit, they are also effectively accepting and acknowledging the attached contract that contains the terms and conditions of the boating sticker's use. For years this has been standard PC industry licensing and how contractual activity can be done remote of personal contact.

---The issues and agendas don't necessarly match the intent of the Bill.
From the public hearing we heard that the Bill is to fund the CLA so that it can increase lake patrols and fund other safety projects. Secondarily, it is recognized by most that the CLA has effective educational and environmental programs which could be expanded.
Most of the controversy and discussion centers around the issue of over-crowding and who can use the lake. Fishermen fear being shut out over time by limiting access to Candlewood Lake either through high sticker prices or a set number of stickers sold per year.
This scenario already exists so it is not hypothetical. When I want to fish Squantz Pond on a summer weekend I have to be there before dawn or I can't get in because they close the gates very early and there is a long line of cars to process. Once the parking lot has its alloted vehicles (600 or so I believe) the park is shut down to everyone for the remainder of the day until dusk when all of the upper lot is cleared out and the lower lot for fishermen is reopened. So the Candlewood/Squantz facilities already experience the disappointment of exclusion.
If you review the testimony, many called for even higher sticker fees to create economic barriers to reasonable use. This is not fair and equitable and economic barriers are illegal under Federal Law. Talk to an anti-trust attorney for an explanation. Or review the Grenwich Decision which forced the opening of the town public beaches on Candlewood to non-resident users, at reasonable costs.
The concept of exclusion is morally and legally corrupt. If we want to limit use on Candlewood Lake then lets think in terms of how many boats an owner can have. We know from DEP records and testimony that the two public launches only allow about 100 bass boats from tournaments to use both launches in total. Each bass boat carries a team of two, something like a HOV lane on a turnpike. What would be fair would be allowing only one boat per owner of any lakefront property or lakeside property using a community dock. Only one boat per owner at a commercial marina or only one boat per town resident who launches. You simply limit how many boating stickers a "family unit" can buy for their boats to only ONE for use on Candlewood Lake.
Lake crowding is due to the flotillas of boats that individuals keep at their properties not bass tournaments or users of the state launches. In the wealthier areas it is not uncommon for a property owner to have a ski boat, a pontoon boat for parties, two jet skis, a kayak to two and a sailboat and if they are entertaining that weekend all of these boats may be out on the lake being used. So how about they get only one boat and it does not go out unless there are two people in it just like HOV lane laws and what bass fishermen do. That would strip the lake of 75% of the current boats using it and make lake area residents "similarly situated" with bass tournament fishermen who only use one boat with two fishermen per boat.

---The solution (or one of them anyway).

Handle this funding issue at the state level. Develop a Bill that establishes the "Ct. State Lake Authority Fund for Public Access Lakes" within the DEP managed by the Boating/Lakes Management units. All funds from the following program are by law earmarked to this fund like monies from the state duck stamp go to waterfowl habitat projects.
Establish an "Inland Waters Usage Stamp" for boating on lnland waters which are defined in DEP statutes already and a boat can be defined as it is in the current proposal. Boat registration fees continue to go wherever they go and the Inland Waters Usage Stamp fees go to the Ct. State Lake Authority Fund for Public Access Lakes program. The DEP has a full licensing infrastruture in existence since they issue fishing and hunting licenses and it is even on-line now. Now all state resident boating users of inland waters are paying their fair share equally.
Out of state boaters would also have to purchase the usage stamp similar to having to purchase a non-resident fishing license. Further , to advance safety, each non-resident stamp purchaser would have to present either a Ct. Safe Boating Certificate or an equivalent document from another state, prior to the issuance of the stamp. This is similar to a non-resident hunting license where the out of state applicant must show either an out of state hunting license issued within the past five years or a valid hunter safety certificate. The out of state fee would be more than the in-state fee, somewhat equal in percentage change as a resident fishing license is to a non-resident fishing license.
each lake authority representing a Public Access Lake can apply for state funding from the Ct. State Lake Authority Fund for Public Access Lakes for a wide range of programs spanning patrols, weed control, education, safety programs, etc. Dollar allocations will be made based upon the size of the boating communtiy using the lake. Candlewood would get the largest distribution since it has the largest resident and non-resident usage. The DEP Boating/Lakes Management Units would determine these usage statistics. This fund is for Public Access Lakes only, which may incent many lakes that are currently private or have very poor public access facilities to improve publlic access to gain some share of these funds. Public access improvement at other lakes would take usage pressure off of Candlewood Lake and will continue to distribute activies like bass tournaments over even more waters lessening their effect on Candlewood.
A new program must be instituted for the state launches at Lattins Cove and Squantz Pond. Currently no parking fees are collected at these two sites primarily because the collection booths are not operated or the park personnel don't arrive until after most boaters have already launched. This is a huge lost revenue issue. The DEP says it is not cost effective to man the booths but this is becuause they have poor execution and implementation. East Twin Lake, a primary Ct. trout fishery, has one private launch that the public can use and no state launch for motor boats. If you launch before the marina opens for buiness you pay on the way out. If the DEP has no interest in doing this then turn the operation of these two Candlewoood launches over the the CLA and let them implement a more thorough program of collecting fees and have these monies go directly to the CLA. The CLA becomes a "vendor" operation with already established state precedent.

In summary, the above strategy provides a funding vehicle for all Public Access Lakes in Ct. administered in one location by the DEP who has the infrastructure and expertise to handle the mission. It also spreads the revenue contribution across all geographic boundries and classes of users and is a more fair and equitable way of providing access to our public waters, at a reasonable and non-discriminatory charge, mitigating elitism and exclsionary practices, and better spreads the using population over more bodies of water.

George R. Buck
New Fairfield

After reading through this lenghty post, first off Hats off to Buck, well written and thought out letter. Secondly to C-Wood Man, tournament fishing is a seperate issue here and has NOTHING to do with the sticker issue, yes your points on it have merit not denied. But the overcrowding and problems lie in the 25-30' cabin, sports craft on the lake. First off these boats create more wake no matter what speed then any bass boat out there, secondly as it was pointed out with the amount of smaller craft on the water it is harder for them to stop or manuver quickly which put the smaller craft at risk from careless boaters. And thirdly with the amount the owners spend on these boats not to mention the hundreds or thousands they spend in gas for the weekend a $50 sticker to them is nothing more then us leaving a $1 tip when we go out to dinner. Yes the lake is crowded/overcrowded but bass boats and fisherman are like a mosquito on a elephant compared to these pleasure boaters. The other issue is the CLA patrol isn't the same as DEP and they don't have to anwser to anyone and aren't "Public Servants" so if I have a complaint about them what do I do, it's like telling the person you have a complaint with that you have a complaint, just don't work. I agree there should be more patrols out there but they should be DEP patrols, not "Rent a cops" and moneys should also go to improving the facilities, I.E. ramps, porta potties, etc. I shell out $50 for a sticker to them and then bust an axle or bend a rim at a ramp due to it falling apart are they going to cover my cost? I think not. The sticker is a bad idea and I've already sent out my E-mails, and left voice mails for people stating as such. If a sticker of sorts should need to come into play I agree with Buckcall it should be state wide to cover ALL lakes, and the money from it go DIRECTLY to the DEP not the general fund. Sad to say but even with the voice that us sportman have if they want it to go through it will, politicians always find a way to wash one hand with the other if it means something for them, Hopefully this won't. Do I think they have a good idea? Yes Do I think they have it well thought out, and plan to implement it correctly? No. Granted something needs to be done, and far from me to come up with an idea to make it work, but what they are planning is nothing more then a faulted plan meant to do nothing but fail from the concept and take even more money out of the pockets that are already struggling to juggle recreation with living expenses.
Just my 2 cents like the others, and you know what they say opionions are like......

This is a plan to limit boats on the lake. If they are going to reduce the towns payment to $40,000 each that reduces the CLA funds by $100,000. They say the stickers should raise $180,000 that's only an $80,000 increase in funding. Read the bill, why are sailboats under 19.5 feet exempt. It can't be because of the yacht club races of boats under that lenght is it? Why no mention of jet ski's. Does this mean that they don't contribute to the lake traffic? The bill also allows the CLA to raise the fee. If $50 doesn't work, look for the fee to raise until they get enough boats off the lake.

I've contacted Fox 61, they are going to look into the bill and ask questions like this. By the way, nobody signed on as a sponsor of this bill.