tanvat

Hays is spot on correct. Any doubt should be resolved by the simple fact that this is an effort to amend the constitution. The constitution establishes the powers for each branch of govt. If this were not big deal, and did not represent a shift in the present powers of the executive branch vs. legislative branch, then there would be no need to amend our state's foundational legal document. Look at point 5. It states that one of the purposes of the amendment is to allow the legislature to invalidate "A rule that is excessive because it exceeds the purpose, or is more restrictive than is necessary to carry out the purpose, of the statute granting rulemaking authority." By allowing the legislature to reverse a rule because it "is more restrictive than necessary to carry out the purpose" of a statute, the legislature is granted an unprecedented breadth of authority to simply override an executive branch determination of how to well, execute a statute in the real world. The determination of whether a rule is "more restrictive than necessary" is, in practice, nothing but a discretionary judgment call that allows the legislatuare to override any rule it wants. This is a fairly radical change in the separation of powers. And, as Hays noted, this determination is subject only "rational basis" judicial review. Rational basis review is "highly deferential," and courts do not question "the wisdom, social desirability or economic policy underlying a statute." See, eg., Comm. for Ed. Equal. v. State, 294 S.W.3d 477, 491 (Mo. banc 2009). Consequently, if the legislature wants to invalidate bait fishing restrictions in trout waters or regs. against spotlighting and baiting deer, then they could do so and the courts would almost certainly have no basis for reversal because, as noted above, the courts could not question the "wisdom" or "social desirability" of the legislature's decision. So long as there is some conceivable basis for the legislative override, it would stand. You have to look long and hard to find any case anywhere that is reversed on grounds that it is irrational. The legislature can conceive of some reason to support just about anything.

Thank for sharing; interesting stuff. There is a parallel in Yellowstone that is, unfortunately, sort of the opposite of re-introducing a native predator. When I first started fishing Yellowstone Lake and the river below the lake around 1995, the fishing in both was still really good - big native cutts and LOTS of them. When some idiot introdued non-native lake trout and the lakers became established, the cutthroat population crashed. Wilderness tributaries that once hosted tens of thousands of spawning fish in June and which provided literally tons of grizzly food were reduced to just a few hundred or fewer spawners. As a result, it appears that bears in southern Yellowstone have compensated for the loss of the cutthroats with elk calves. The upper Yellowstone (Thorofare) where a lot of the spawners went is also a key calving area for the Jackson Hole elk and some recent studies indicated the grizzlies are hitting them pretty hard; the likely reason being to compensate for the loss of trout. If only we could resist the urge to tinker around with what took eons to evolve. Greasy, re the Lamar, it is still pretty open - doesn't seem to me that it has changed much in the last 20 years. Bison are abundant there and wolves seem to key more on elk rather than bison. The buffs keep the Lamar pretty open. That said, I only get up to the Lamar about one day every other year so I don't spend enough time up there to be a real reliable source. I think I'll be going through the Lamar this summer so I'll make a point to do some much needed fishing reasearch to get to the bottom of it.

This has trouble written all over it. The bottom line is that the Missouri Legislature - particularly the House - is dominated by morons. Just look at the time they spend proposing silly legislation to fight non-existent problems so they can pander to primary voters. The code of wildlife regs put out by the Conservation Dept. is a collection of administrative rules. Want to dunk salmon eggs at Baptist? Want to ATV as you please on Dept. lands? Want to kill off the rebounding black bear population? Well, there is not only a politician for that, there are scads of them. Imagine the state equivalent of congressman Smith getting involved in micromanaging fishing and hunting seasons/bag limits and rules affecting Dept. lands. Under the guise of "small goverment" the legislature - with no apparent sense of irony - wants its say in matters that have, for decades, been the province of executive administrative agencies. The potential for abuse here is huge. This is a wide-open backdoor for money special interests to control the executive branch via this new legislative check and imbalance. No good at all.

Al, excellent points. At the Powder Valley, meeting I heard a few folks lamenting how the Park Service does not "take care of" the river by not dredging it out. Those are the same folks that adamantly denied that there were any more roads along the river now than 25 years ago. Same who said that jets don't do anything to the bottom of the river and that all the serpentine "stripes" in on the bottom in sections are from canoes dragging and that jets don't cause erosion - b/c, after all, "you said yourself the water was clear." Or that roads don't cause erosion and that all the gravel that needs to be dredged is b/c "Leo Drey clearcut all that Pioneer Forest." It is a modern day flat Earth society. Hopefully, NPS won't buckle to that and some sensible, fact based solutions will come out of it. But, I doubt it. Wouldn't want to trample on anyone's "rights" after all.

"I am sure , tv, if we met we would find more common ground than not." No doubt about it. "I find it humorous that somehow some new rules will fix every thing when they dont follow the current plan." There's some common ground. awhuber, should I meet you down on the river sometime, I'll toss you a beer even if you are in a jetboat launched off an illegal access.

Smalliebigs, is it really so bad that the feds run the River? If they did not, it'd be like the Meramec or worse - unlimited everything and summer homes all up and down the river. One of the ultimate ironies is that the locals decry being "locked out" b/c they may not be able to drive to the river at over 100 points while overlooking the fact that if the land around the river was privately owned, they'd truly be locked out. No way private landowners would allow unfettered ATV use to and from the river; some body would get shot.

awhuber, I take your word on the 1946 county road map. County roads were mentioned over and over last night. But the point about county roads misses the point. The issue is not whether the river is accessed from a county road, the issue is how the river is accessed from a county road. If a real, legal county road runs right to the river, that is one thing. I assume one could then legally access the river from that road. It is entirely another thing to that I can legally access the river from a county road that runs, say, 100 yards from the river, by simply driving my ATV, then my jeep and then a schoolbus down there right through the woods and riparian areas. Of course, in one sense I accessed the river from a county road, but that does not mean the access is legal or should continue. You can't validate the demonstrated proliferation of informal "roads" or spurs or whatever you want to call them that emanate from otherwise legal roads. Re the spot above Pulltite, my observation over the last 15 years is that the size of the road back there has increased dramatically - what was once a tight spot is now a spot where people launch boats; there is an actual circle drive cut through the woods just out the back of the gravel bar. Even if there is a legal road to near that spot, it does not follow that people should be permitted to drive all around and lauch boats there.

I got into a discussion w/ a fairly good sized group and a guy with a Mo. Trappers Assn. shirt was going on and on about roads and stating there except "maintenance." I asked him point blank if it was his position that there is not one more yard of roads along the river now than there was years ago and he said....drumroll...."No." You could show this guy and the others in the room satellite photos, a timeline of photos, all the definitive, irrefutable proof you want and then they'll just say "no" and then talk about the goverment wanting to move everybody to the "big cities so they can control us." Or, my favorite, they guy talking about how jet boats are actually great for the rivers because "they ride up high" and how in Florida they want jet boats so the "mantees don't get run over" and on and on. I went through specific examples and, not surprisingly, most every one of the local "experts" had little idea what I was talking about. I mentioned the dramatic expansion in the size of the road to the "Pothole" or "jumping rock" a couple miles above Pulltite and one guy said "there's always been a road to Pulltite." When I explained the spot, I got a blank stare and a denial of what I could go down and show him this afternoon. I think there are a few folks down there who really do know the river and the surrouding landscape but I think there are LOT who think they do but really don't for the simple reason that almost all of their experience is flying up and down in a boat or ATV.

Alex, just to be clear, I've got nothing against anyone who lives down there and who might totally disagree with me re the rivers. I grew up in south central Mo. in the Osage River hills and half my family has the same thought process as a lot of the ONSR area locals - those guys are the same folks has half my family. All the federal goverment takeover UN one-world government conspiracy theory nonsense is a way to easily conceptualize and explain the feeling that you don't control your own life. Of course, its not a nefarious UN or some other such conspiracy that is the issue or the real problem, but it is an easy way to make sense of things. That does not make people bad, just oftentimes wrong - a modern day flat earth society. But we are all wrong from time to time; does not make us bad people, just wrong on a particular issue. I talked to a number of folks last night who disagreed with me completely but we had a civil conversation even though a lot of the "facts" are often local legend instead of on the ground reality. And, in the end, the fallback position is usually some pretty crazy conspiracy theories; Ocahms' Razor has not made it to Shannon County. But, if you seek out common ground and don't go into it looking for a fruitless, counterproductive fight, you can have a constructive dialogue. For instance, I had a pretty long discussion with one guy in particular who lives down there and he disagreed with me wholeheartedly re managment options. But, you know what, he had a really great idea - require motorboats to have a park permit; Park Service make money off canoes, so why not make some money of jets and use some of that to fund enforcement. And it might keep some of the yahoos off the river in favor of people who are more respectful of the rivers and other users. That is a reasonable idea. I had not thought of that. We both love the river but disagree on some details. Thats it; no conspiracy theory needed. Probably time to let this rest; nothing more to say that hasn't already been said. Time to find time to go fishing.

Meeting was interesting. Spent most of the time milling about pretending to look at stuff but really listening to conversations/debates. Bottom line, most of the local opposition boils down to pretty extreme anti-govt sentiment. Agenda 21, etc. several conversations were not about atvs or jets but instead were rants about hiw "the government" wants to kick out the locals and move everyone to big cities so the government can "control everything.". I interjected once when some Mo. Trapper Assn. guy was denying that anything had changed so as to warrant a new plan. This led to a fairly long discussion with a group of locals re ATVs along the river, jet boats etc. it was very civil- except for the young hothead who insisted he had right to drive anywhere he pleased and laughed off the idea that atv use along riverbanks causes erosion, infringes on the majority and facilitates establishment of invasive species - he was after all an "arborist." and knew all about such things. When I pointed out varios specific examples of new or expanded roads or any other fact, the response was usually factually wrong (eg. No more road access now than years ago) and came back to slippery slope argument about how the government is out to control everything. And here I thought the issue about motorized use, etc. Try as I might, I guess I'll never be privy to what is "really" going on. I would love to sit down and have a beer with the Park Service folks after a mmeting like this and get their unvarnished take on some of the local conspiracy theorists. They were professional and patient, but you could tell they were mostly thinking if ther really is something odd in the water down there.

Just trying to be a little diplomatic re the "wingnut" description; there are plenty of other appropriate descriptors that just wouldn't likely make it on this board. I'll be at the meeting tonight to see if the wingnuts show up. It sure is irritating to think that I can't really take my kids down to our backyard national park for an overnight float in the summer w/out being blasted by jets or sharing a seemingly remote gravel bar with ATVs. True story. My eldest son's first camping trip ever was nearly 6 years ago. He was 8 months old. It was early May, second weekend I believe. I had looked forward to this trip for decades before I was blessed with a child. We left Akers on a Thursday and took out at Two Rivers on Saturday. Thursday was great - basically no one else on the river. Ditto Friday. Friday night we camped at Bee Bluff. A wonderful, warm spring evening...until a group of three jets went up and down for an hour that seemed like forever. They'd go up and then down, passing by every 10 minutes or so - just joy riding with fat chicks on the bow - you know, just like the old-time tradition dictates. I couldn't fish. I couldn't take my son out in the water. None of us could just enjoy the river in relative peace; really experience what makes it so special. The whole river clouded up due to the waves lashing the bank. Saturday morning was great; got an early start to try and beat the crowds. At Twin Rocks, there were 3 RVs along the bank and then the jet boats - one after another. In the fairly narrow run right above Two Rivers two younger, obviously local guys flew past at full speed, on plane off the right side of our canoe not much more than a paddle length away. Just about swamped. My 8 month old was in the front, plainly visible standing in the bow w/ Mom's help - but those aholes didn't care. One false move or one beer too many and they could have nailed us and the results would have been tragic. There were, as I recall, fourteen, jet boats and trailers getting ready to head out from Two Rivers when we pulled out. 14. In early May. Ridiculous. And that, along with many other similar experiences, is why I believe the NPS has to do more. Sorry for the repeated long posts - just a bit passionate about this I guess.

Good grief, the wingnuts are at it. They get really exercised about the dreaded "Delphi technique," which, of course, as everyone knows, is an effort to extend federal control to all aspects of life with the ultimate aim of establishing a one world government. Sound crazy? Well, it is, if you don't routinely subscribe to wacky conspiracy theories cobbled together by made-up "facts" and logic with holes the size of Jupiter. Sadly, this kind of crazy conspiracy theory nonsense and the willingness to believe in the absurd while vehemently denying verifiable reality animates a LOT of the most vocal opponents of doing something so simple as limiting high speed powerboats on a small stretch of river in a National Park. Like the White River "blueway" designation was a step toward a U.N. takeover or some such crap. It will be an absolute joke if the Park Service caves in to the lunatic fringe at the expense of the rivers.

Don't you know that Alternative A is a federal goverment lockout that will destroy the time-honored tradition of gigging from $20,000, high speed jet boats and parking $50,000 RVs on gravel bars - I mean, the little guy doesn't stand a chance. Not to mention it'll kill the local economy by keeping a few dozen locals from blasting up and down the river and turn the ONSR into an enviromentalist park where you might have to, in a few places, walk or use a paddle. It is just outrageous. In all seriousness, the resistance to any moderate limits on the means of access is just confounding. It is like an affront to the present guilded age of redneckery, when you can blast up and down the river as you please, when you please, others be darn. When people with a privilege to screw others and basically outsource the costs of there anti-social behavior lose that privilege, the debate gets silly; its always the end of the world if things change. Its like trying to take down the redneck aristrocracy. Nice folks, just wrong on this issue.

Lack of enforcement is, as Alex noted, a big problem. Those illegal roads and horse trails would not be there with any enforcement. You would never see such things in the vast majority of national parks. As for jetboating, the problem there is no lack of enforcment. The problem is the lack of reasonable rules to enforce. As it stands, I could fly up and down between Round Spring and Two Rivers all day long w/ a 40 hp jet and a ranger could only wave. The problem is that my legal behavior would be entirely incompatible with the purpose of the ONSR. Need to go w/ very low horsepower limits or, as I've seen suggested I think by fishinwrench, a no wake rule.

Sometimes at BSC and similar streams the best cast is no cast at all. I've had success at particularly tough lies - typically scour holes around rootwads - by fishing the lie from uptream and feeding the fly down into the mess at an angle where it'll swing through. Often its a one and done deal, but if you can let the line swing down and over to the bank and then pull it back slowly, you can sometimes catch fish on a second try. Used to go down there so much, but two small children puts a crimp on all that - throwing rocks and catching craws does not mix with still-fishing; but I wouldn't trade it.

Great point spoon. I heard the same thing as coldwaterfshr. If those folks actually drove all the way to Kirkwood to make a scene, odds are they would be on the shrill side of the spectrum; the "Voice of the Ozarks" crowd. They'd be there own best bad publicity. The Voice of the Ozarks website is great; it illustrates the nonsense that seems guide the discussion. According to the Voice folks, the NPS preferred alternative is a terrible thing that: 1. ELIMINATES 65 MILES OF HORSE TRAILS ADJACENT TO THE RIVERS (neglects to mention that it is 65 miles of unauthorized trails and that they will add 30+ miles and improve 20+ miles) 2. ELIMINATES UNAUTHORIZED RIVER CROSSINGS (the outrage!!!! closing unauthorized; i.e., illegal, river crossings!!!!) 3. REQUIRES PERMITS FOR HORSEBACK RIDING (better to just have 3,000 horses/trailriders peeing in the river as they please, e. coli does not really exist and the big city folks think the piles of steaming horse sh%# are from a sasquatch) 4. ELIMINATES MOTOR VEHICLE ACCESS TO GRAVEL BARS (you mean you I can't drive my RV down to any old gravel bar down an illegal road anymore?!?!) 5. ELIMINATES ALL ATV, UTV, AND FOUR WHEELER USE (blantant lie) 6. ELIMINATES OUTBOARD MOTORS IN SOME AREAS (for a few miles for part of the year, while allowing 5 guys on jet-boats to dominate an entire 20 mile stretch of river) 7. PASSES REGULATIONS THAT WILL REDUCE BOAT MOTOR HORSEPOWER (you mean I might not be able to fly up a narrow, windy river in a National Park at 50 mph anymore! And, of course, its not really a national park anyway, you know?)

awhuber, where has it been said, in the park service's own words, that the Big Spring Wilderness proposal is dead? If that is so, I'm sure you can provide a link to a factual source that would confirm that assertion. Re the wilderness proposal, what are the fact and resource based objections to designating a pint-sized wilderness area in a state that has so little? Or, for that matter, what the objections to limiting the use of high powered motorboats above Two Rivers? These are honest questions b/c I really don't know. The only objections I've heard are either factually incorrect and/or boil down to the bare personal desire to fly up and down the river via boat or ATV irrespective of the consequences to the resource or other users.

I think it is incorrect to say that "all comments will be online." Comments can be submitted online, but don't have to be. According to the NPS website: The public comment period for the Draft Plan will be open until February 7, 2014; comments received by then will be most helpful in developing the final plan. The public is encouraged to provide comments online at www.parkplanning.nps.gov/ozar. Comments will also be accepted at the public meetings, or through the mail to: Superintendent Ozark National Scenic Riverways P. O. Box 490 Van Buren, Missouri 63965

awhuber; c'mon, you're not serious are you? The Arch grounds are less than 100 acres in downtown St. Louis. The Riverways encompass 134 miles of the best Ozark rivers and over 80,000 acres of relatively unscathed landscape. While lots of people visit the Arch, no one does so under the illusion that the Arch is some world-class outdoor experience. Its cool to visit for a couple of hours before a baseball game or as a novel stop while on your way somewhere else, but the Arch is not the ONSR. Total false equivalency. And my guess is that you don't have so keen of an interest in the Arch grounds that you wish that there were hearings in Salem. If you do, then I stand corrected and admire your passion for the Arch grounds. This is not directed at any poster on this board and please don't take it that way, at least until you start advocating for more powerboating on the ONSR. Looking at the public comments and the idiotic ramblings of local politicians, it is flat out sad that the management and future of our last best places is so heavily influenced by demontrably false assertions, illogic and hyperbole. The tradition of jon-boating is equated with jetboats or "motorized vessels" flying around with efficient, modern, high powered motors. Huh? There is a hopeless irony in listening to "locals" get riled up about traditions that never even existed while overlooking the real tradition of floating and fishing the rivers in relative tranquilty. Or the dreaded "lockout" or denial of acess that will turn the ONSR into an "environmentalists park." I am not sure what an "environmentalist park" is, and I'm sure the cacklers don't know either, but it surely does not include a place like ONSR where even under Alterative A you could drive to the river every 8 miles or less, take an easy class I, flatwater paddle, or walk in from innumerable legal roads that are never far from the river. NO ONE is "locked out," period; unless you count those too lazy to rise from their butts, pull up their real and proverbial bootstraps, and go. Or, it'll somehow ruin the local economy if the predominately local jetboaters can't continue to have the run of the river while out-of-towners take less frequent trips to drop money in the local economy; or just stay away. It is sad and flat out wrong that this decision and many other like it are made by people who may yet think the world is flat because it is repeated loudly and often and, by golly, that is just the way it is and that is that.

Fishinwrench, "motorized vessel" is a better term that fits what I'm trying to say. I suppose I said "jetboats" b/c that is what I see down there. Terminology aside, I think the point is clear but saying "motorized vessel" is the best, most complete term - thanks. Re law enforcement, I've never seen park rangers using a jetboat or other motorized vessell to bust kids smoking weed; though I'm sure it happens. I might be wrong, but again, I've seen LEO on motorboats down there maybe twice in at least a 1,000 miles of floating on those rivers through the years. Granted, I stick more to upper Jacks and Current above Round Spring precisely to avoid the jetboats. But I've floated all the way to Logyard once and down to Two Rivers at least 8 times, if not more, and I just don't see much evidence of LEO using highpowered boats that much; a tiny fraction compared to the yahoos. I get your point, but if you support some additional limits on motorized vessels, surely you wouldn't favor torpedoeing such restrictions b/c a park ranger can use a jetboat; I assume you don't oppose police officers having the right to exceed the speed limit if necessary?

Fishinwrench, great point. I admit I am not knowledgable about the technical aspects of various boat motors b/c I'm a paddler. Jet-boats - those that can fly over a 6 inch riffle at breakneck speeds - are the main problem. I'd have little issue with little 10 hp outboards like I've seen on the Buffalo. I'd imagine during a lot of low water periods, those would ride too low to motor up and down anyway. As far as whether the "authorities" would be able to use 40 hp jets, well yeah - just like police officers or firemean can go down the highway at high speeds to respond to an emergency, so too should the Park Service be allowed to respond to an emergency. FWIW, I've seen Park Service jetboats about twice in the 24 years I've spent plying the rivers; twice in probably close to a 1,000 miles of floats - lack enforcement is part of the problem and likely won't be remedied regardless of outcome of the planning process. FlySmallie/Siusaluki - if you haven't already, submit your comment - what you said is something I've heard time and again. Lots of people stay away due to the actions of a few, and those few don't usually travel from out of the area to interject new money into the local economy. The idea that limiting or even eliminating high speed jet boats/outboards/whatever on the stretch above Two Rivers would somehow be a net loss to the local economy is dubious at best.

Hello all, hope some of you have gotten out from some real winter fishing - 0 with a foot of snow is pretty real.... As a lot of you know, the National Park Service has released its draft managment plan for the Current and Jacks Fork. The NPS is now soliciting public comments. Now is the time to have your voice heard. Submit you comments. For what little its worth, here is my take on it. The Current and Jacks Fork are national treasures. Yet, we allow this treasure to be diminished. Quiet enjoyment is displaced by the almost constant drone of jet-boats. The woods, the fields, the gravel bars, and the river itself are all scarred with ATV tracks. There are no jet-boats screaming up and down the Snake River at the base of the Tetons and no fleet of ATVs tearing up any beach at Acadia. Float the Current or Jacks Fork and you’ll see this in spades. Any of you who have spent any time along the rivers has seen the abuses. Just this past spring, my wife, my two young sons, and I rounded a bend near Lewis Hollow below Akers only to be greeted by a schoolbus, two RVs, and five other vehicles on a gravel bar. Years ago, there was no road to this spot. Now there is a 10 foot wide, eroded gash through the woods, all the way to the river. There are frequently RVs parked along the river bank at Twin Rocks. An old forest track at the “jumping rock” above Pulltite now serves as a full blown jet-boat launch site. And the list goes on. The river is commandeered by the few to the detriment not only of the many who come to experience the rivers as they were meant to be, but to the obvious detriment of the rivers themselves. We permit abuses in the Riverways that would not be countenanced in any vaguely comparable location. There is no excuse for this. The Park Service’s preferred alternative forges a workable compromise among the competing demands on the rivers. If the rivers are to remain relatively pristine in perpetuity, you simply cannot permit the continued proliferation of unauthorized roads along the rivers. The Park Service’s preferred alternative addresses this issue. The preferred alternative falls short, however, of adequately addressing the use of jet-boats, particularly on the Current River between Round Spring and Two Rivers. This stretch, along with the upper Jacks Fork, represents perhaps the finest stretch of float stream in the state. If motorized boats are to be permitted for the sake of motorized access, such access can be achieved, as it is on the Buffalo River, by boats equipped with low horsepower motors. The argument that further limits will end a long-standing tradition of jon-boating the rivers is wholly inaccurate. No jon-boat in the in the 30’s, 40’s or 50’s ever flew up the river in front of a any motor remotely similar to modern outboard jets. The only discernible reason for allowing jet-boats on this stretch of the river is to satisfy the demands of a miniscule minority of river users who desire not only access, but access via a high speed joyride. Limiting the use of jet-boats above Two Rivers is no more a limitation on access than requiring people to walk down the sidewalk rather than drive. The Riverways were not set aside to ensure some imaginary “right” to an aquatic superhighway; but on most days from May through September, that is precisely what it has become. Besides the loads of facts and data demonstrating the wisdom of reasonable limits, there is a more fundamental reason to impose additional limits on motorized access; and it is this: in the long run, it is our shared experience of the rivers that will dictate how we choose to treat the rivers. The wisest decision must account for not only the numbers, but the reason why so much time and toil has been expended on gathering those numbers. The reason is the rivers themselves and the unique, increasingly scarce opportunity they provide for potentially world class outdoor experience. The legislation establishing the Riverways recognized these values and must be re-affirmed. When the rivers become, as they have in many places on many days, nothing but an outdoor amusement park, people come to see them and treat them as such. One need not spend much time on the rivers to see this. If this continues, the time is not far off when most people have no recollection of a peaceful day on the river; no deep, personal conviction that the rivers are a treasure at all. If that happens, degradation will continue and the Riverways will become a national park in name only. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of reservoirs in the Ozarks that are open to power-boating. There are hundreds of miles of Ozark rivers to run jet-boats as one sees fit. Conversely, there are precious few miles set aside for the overwhelming majority who seek a quieter experience. We should take this opportunity to do what is right both for the rivers and the vast majority of river users. We should limit the use of jet-boats above Two Rivers. I know that was a little long, but we've got this chance to get it right.

Joe D, You assert that the Meramec below the spring was never a "quality" trout fishery. I am wondering what you mean by that. If by a "quality" fishery you mean that the Meramec never supported a viable wild trout population, then I agree with you. I'm not going to quibble with one's defintion of a "quality" fishery; I prefer wild trout too - even better native wild trout, but that is just not an option in Missouri. If, however, you mean that that the Meramec never supported a "quality" stocked brown trout fishery, then your assertion is just factually incorrect. The MDC population estimates referred to earlier indicate a strong population in the 90's. My recollection, photo album and fishing journal recount numerous days of magnificent sight fishing with dries and nymphs. When I got my driver's license in 1989, my younger brother and I flat wore out the Meramec and I continued to do so until fishing tapered off in the late 90's - the fishing was, in fact, quite good. Not for wild trout, but the stocked and holdover browns were not pushovers. The long pool below the spring used to be stacked with browns and it was the case all the way down to the long pool below the so-called Suicide Hill. You also assert that "[t]he idea that the reason trout can't thrive below the spring is because of man-made obstacles and environmental issues due to our "negligence" is just plain incorrect." Do you have any studies, observations or data to back that up? It may well be the case that watershed development, poaching, and any number of other "man-made obstacles and enviromental issues" may be responsible for the decline in the fishery; it was, after all, quite good in the 90's, and saying it was not does not make it so. The question then, is what changed? Its either the river environment or the managment, right? It seems unlikely that the sustained period of good fishing which included the 1988 drought and heat wave and the flooding of the 90's was a unique conflucence of events especially conducive to good trout fishing on the Meramec.

In countless floats and hikes in Missouri and Arkansas and about three weeks worth of backcountry trips in Colorado and Northwest Wyoming I have never, not once, had any experience in which carrying a gun would have made me safer. Sure, it could happen, but it is so, so very unlikely that the focus - obsession? - with carrying a gun for protection while outdoors seems to blunt consideration of reasonable precautions to avoid trouble in the first instance in favor of thinking over and over about how the shootout will go down. There have been two times when I"ve had an uncomfortable encounter with another person outdoors, courtesy of the same person - perhaps a poster on this board. The first time, my wife and I were backpacking on Bell Mountain in the winter; there are steps and crashing about and then the cedars part and this guy named "Jeff" - who said he was from the St. Louis area - stumbled into our camp in the dead of night, made some small talk, and made a special point to note that he was carrying just in case ... uh, OK dude, didn't ask, so what was the point of that; after all you were the one who barged into the side of our tent.... Then, the following summer, I run into the same guy on the Current above Parker's Ford a ways - perfectly nice guy and I recall pleasant chit chat about the fishing, nice day, etc., then, just like on Bell Mtn., he pulls his fishing vest open to reveal his chest holster w/ some gargantuan handgun and, once again, went out of his way to tell me how he liked to carry it just in case. Again, I didn't ask and topic of guns never arose and conversation, to that point, was perfectly pleasant. The need to display the weapon was just odd and I can think of no other reason than that he wanted to make sure he was the Big Man on the River. Very odd IMO. Of course, that is one person, but it seems that if half the mental effort re CCW went into situational awareness when outdoors, appropriate precautions, and simply avoiding/defusing confrontation, then all involved would be a lot safer.

Smallie, I'm sure there are responsible giggers just like there are responsible jet boaters and ATVers....just may be few and far b/t. Aside from the likely "bycatch," it seems that most of these folks have no sense of basic outdoor etiquette. For instance, on a trip I did last September, a buddy and I camped near Twin Rocks above Two Rivers - from about 9 p.m. until it started storming at 10:00 - a FULL *#$%# HOUR - two gigging boats went back and forth up and down the pool we were camped on pretty much blinding us with halogen bulbs the whole time. Same thing at Bee Bluff in Sept. 2010, thought that was only for 20 minutes or so - then they ran up and down the river a few times - that is nice to hear at 10:30 at night.. I just don't understand how one thinks it is OK to spotlight someone's campsite at close range for nearly an hour and run a 40 horse motor 30' away from a camp - it was Monday night - there were basically no other gravel bar campers out and they still did not have the basic manners to just go to the next spot. That attitude - a lack of respect - applies to other people and to the resource. Unfortunately, Greasy B is right.... In the meantime, I'll be back on the river to enjoy the nice things it has to offer - way better than the Meramec, a poster-child for pretty much all that can go wrong with a formerly great Ozark river.