[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by loonguy

Originally Posted by loonguy:
My property retains trees and other vegetation, but erosion still occurs. Although the erosion is so gradual that it might not be noticed from one year to the next, a telling indicator is that a surveyor's post from before my time on the property, presumably 30 years ago or so, is now two feet on the water side of the shore line.

MAXUM: "And you know this for a fact? You readily admit that is marker was placed “before your time” and “presumably” 30 years ago and even though at the time you didn’t witness where it was placed, or when exactly but for the purposes of making your claim you simply throw out arbitrary observation. It’s not in the least bit possible this was placed there instead we are to believe that two feet of shore has eroded? "

You may not like the conclusion because it is inconsistent with your agenda, MAXUM, but it is a fair conclusion based on the facts. Why would a surveyor who is marking the end of a property line place a marker two feet into the lake, which is otherwise public space? The marker is also consistent with the otherwise available plots of the property.

Apparently you haven't read my prior posts in this thread where I suggested that the shore erosion problem needs to be looked at especially with the increased popularity of wake surfing - furthermore I stated the following and I quote myself here:

Just as a casual observer it's hard to imagine the wakes thrown by wakeboard boats aren't having some effect. I mean common let's be honest here. To what extent is really the question that needs to be answered. I think it completely ludicrous to turn a blind eye to at least the possibility. That said, the overall effects may very well be way overstated and hey not for nothing, could be found to have little impact.


So with all due respect I have no "agenda" but clearly you do. You cannot possible come up with a conclusion when you have no factual basis in which to formulate such a conclusion other than assumption. You loose credibility when the evidence your bringing is so easily discredited. I'd prefer to leave it to somebody who knows this stuff to look at the problem holistically, study the affects and produce a non-biased set of observations, then suggest means of mitigation if necessary.