Fly Rod & Reel Article On The Riverways

[ozark trout fisher]

I don't think private canoes or non motorized boats are a drop in the bucket. Just leave that out of it.

Private canoes I can agree with. But non-motorized (rented) boats are pretty much the entire problem on much of the Riverways, pretty much all of the Jacks and the upper Current as well. Getting rid of the jet boats would help but it wouldn't really scratch the surface of the problem, which is the vast quantities of rented canoes that these rivers see.

[mic]

My two cents... I don't think the problem is the numbers of rentals. I think it is why the people are renting them. When someone goes to Yellowstone or any of the great national parks, they normally go to be awed by the experience and beauty. I would bet most of the people who go this national park (let's not forget that is what it is), go to drink and party. When that is primary goal, why do you care if there are extra horse trails, new houses, the temp of the water, etc.

The fact of the matter is money talks, and we as fisherman, naturalists, and such, will never out man or out spend the river party rats. If your local and make a living off of that, why would you want it to change. Unfortunately, I think it is a lost cause. I hope not, but I think so.

[awhuber]

I would bet most of the people who go this national park (let's not forget that is what it is),

That's not true. I have met with the Supt and the CLEO many times and thats Exactly what they say. There are many groups that would like to see the ONSR turned to a Natioal Park but saying it is doesnt make it so.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sec_16_00000460---m000-.html

National scenic riverways

We have the Supt at our Various Chamber and Rotary meetings. The talk starts with "In the Park" Several members of the crowd (like me )stop them, point out that the ONSR is not a park. They point out that we are correct and continue on using riverways instead.

I wonder why these articles never include comments from "stakeholders" from Voice of the Ozarks or Salem Common Sense Conservation?

Be careful what you wish for, a permit system will include all uses of the rivers.

Option "a" in the new draft management plan will not even allow parking at the upper rivers all traffic would have to use an approved out fitter.

[Al Agnew]

That's not true. I have met with the Supt and the CLEO many times and thats Exactly what they say. There are many groups that would like to see the ONSR turned to a Natioal Park but saying it is doesnt make it so.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sec_16_00000460---m000-.html

National scenic riverways

We have the Supt at our Various Chamber and Rotary meetings. The talk starts with "In the Park" Several members of the crowd (like me )stop them, point out that the ONSR is not a park. They point out that we are correct and continue on using riverways instead.

I wonder why these articles never include comments from "stakeholders" from Voice of the Ozarks or Salem Common Sense Conservation?

Be careful what you wish for, a permit system will include all uses of the rivers.

Option "a" in the new draft management plan will not even allow parking at the upper rivers all traffic would have to use an approved out fitter.

So I'm curious...what exactly do you see as the difference between a "park" and the Riverways? Both the national parks and the Riverways are run by the Park Service. Is there a reason for the semantics?

Also, do you have a link to the part of option "a" that says that? Because I've never read anything like that...haven't read the latest version of the options, though. However, I wouldn't be too surprised if that provision was in the "most restrictive" option. The Park Service is required to come up with every option from "most restrictive" to "least restrictive". It doesn't mean that the ones on the far ends will really be seriously considered...except that the last time I saw the options and heard comments from some of the local people, it sounded like they'd be perfectly happy with the "least restrictive", which was even less restrictive than what is in place now.

And...how do you know a permit system "will" include all uses of the rivers? On the rivers that have permit systems run by various state and federal entities that I know, permits are for specific uses. For instance, the Smith River in Montana has a strict permit system for floating, but you can get on the river anywhere you can and wade-fish to your heart's content...or swim...or hunt along it.

And since you seem to be kinda on the opposite side of this issue...I'm curious what you think about the attempts to limit the number of access roads, etc.

[mic]

That's not true. I have met with the Supt and the CLEO many times and thats Exactly what they say. There are many groups that would like to see the ONSR turned to a Natioal Park but saying it is doesnt make it so.

http://www.law.corne...60---m000-.html

From the National Park Service:

"Two of America's clearest and most beautiful spring-fed rivers make up the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, the first national park area to protect a wild river system".

"Is this a state or national park? Many people are surprised to learn that the Ozark National Scenic Riverways is a national park, just like Yellowstone or Gettysburg. The three largest campground areas, Alley Spring, Big Spring and Round Spring all used to be Missouri State Parks and some people still refer to “Alley Spring State Park,” which adds to the confusion. These three places stopped being “State Parks” in 1969 when the people of Missouri generously donated them to the federal government as the anchors for the new Ozark National Scenic Riverways. They were essentially the gift of Missouri to the nation."

[awhuber]

So I'm curious...what exactly do you see as the difference between a "park" and the Riverways? Both the national parks and the Riverways are run by the Park Service. Is there a reason for the semantics?

Also, do you have a link to the part of option "a" that says that? Because I've never read anything like that...haven't read the latest version of the options, though. However, I wouldn't be too surprised if that provision was in the "most restrictive" option. The Park Service is required to come up with every option from "most restrictive" to "least restrictive". It doesn't mean that the ones on the far ends will really be seriously considered...except that the last time I saw the options and heard comments from some of the local people, it sounded like they'd be perfectly happy with the "least restrictive", which was even less restrictive than what is in place now.

And...how do you know a permit system "will" include all uses of the rivers? On the rivers that have permit systems run by various state and federal entities that I know, permits are for specific uses. For instance, the Smith River in Montana has a strict permit system for floating, but you can get on the river anywhere you can and wade-fish to your heart's content...or swim...or hunt along it.

And since you seem to be kinda on the opposite side of this issue...I'm curious what you think about the attempts to limit the number of access roads, etc.

the reason for the semantics is .. natl parks are different than recreation areas the ONSR is a recreation area

Is the Eleven point river a Natl park or a Natl forest since it is managed by the forest service?

Option a as i recall called for wilderness area on upper current.. I will have to dig up my copies of the draft plans.

hey I would be glad to be wrong on the permit system.

when the onsr was formed there were over 400 access points I dont advocate any more than those.

[3wt]

Private canoes I can agree with. But non-motorized (rented) boats are pretty much the entire problem on much of the Riverways, pretty much all of the Jacks and the upper Current as well. Getting rid of the jet boats would help but it wouldn't really scratch the surface of the problem, which is the vast quantities of rented canoes that these rivers see.

Right, I meand private canoes and private not motorized boats.

Also there are national forests, national monuments etc. that are run by the park service but are not parks. I think it's a matter of sematnics mainly on how they are formed rather than how they are run. I think non-parks can be created without an act of congress (if I recall the PBS series correctly.) So it's much easier for a president to designate a scenic riverway or forest etc. than to try to make it a park....but then again maybe national forests are the forestry dept. and not the parks dept...if you think too hard about this you can see why people don't like fed involvement - even when trying to do a good thing they can complicate things too much.

I do think we need to be careful what we ask for. If we paint ourselves into a corner we could end up signing up for our "hour" on the river. I like to go out and fish as I like and not have to pay more and make a reservation. I think banning motor boats, atvs and severly limiting if not banning horses would go a long way, and then limiting the canoe count any consessioner can put in would be a good start. I'm not sure we can effectively ban drinking or could enforce that if we tried. I'm not even sure I'm for it if we did.

[awhuber]

Right, I meand private canoes and private not motorized boats.

Also there are national forests, national monuments etc. that are run by the park service but are not parks. I think it's a matter of sematnics mainly on how they are formed rather than how they are run. I think non-parks can be created without an act of congress (if I recall the PBS series correctly.) So it's much easier for a president to designate a scenic riverway or forest etc. than to try to make it a park....but then again maybe national forests are the forestry dept. and not the parks dept...if you think too hard about this you can see why people don't like fed involvement - even when trying to do a good thing they can complicate things too much.

I do think we need to be careful what we ask for. If we paint ourselves into a corner we could end up signing up for our "hour" on the river. I like to go out and fish as I like and not have to pay more and make a reservation. I think banning motor boats, atvs and severly limiting if not banning horses would go a long way, and then limiting the canoe count any consessioner can put in would be a good start. I'm not sure we can effectively ban drinking or could enforce that if we tried. I'm not even sure I'm for it if we did.

Tgood comments.

The canoe counts are regulated on the ONSR now. I know that the oufitters talk to each other so they will not put out too many on a stretch of river. Thats why you may see a Jadwin canoe between Pultite and Round because Baptist to Cedar is at the Max allowed.

[ozark trout fisher]

I do think we need to be careful what we ask for. If we paint ourselves into a corner we could end up signing up for our "hour" on the river. I like to go out and fish as I like and not have to pay more and make a reservation. I think banning motor boats, atvs and severly limiting if not banning horses would go a long way, and then limiting the canoe count any consessioner can put in would be a good start. I'm not sure we can effectively ban drinking or could enforce that if we tried. I'm not even sure I'm for it if we did.

Yes, this seems that it would be the ideal solution. As I stated earlier, I'm only worried that such steps would simply seem to be too repulsive to the canoe rentals, which do wield so much power in the area. And it is worth noting that any permit system would almost certainly not restrict wade fishing or other non-boating uses of the river. At least that is how it works on just about every other river where a permit system is in place.

Awhuber, I know that the canoe counts on these rivers are restricted. But the current restrictions just are not enough to keep these rivers from taking more abuse than they can handle.

[Gavin]

Might want to check this link out....

National Park Designations

Apparently all units in the Park System have equal legal standing....call it a recreation area if you want....it still holds the same standing as a National Park.