Fly Rod & Reel Article On The Riverways

[Justin Spencer]

But the current restrictions just are not enough to keep these rivers from taking more abuse than they can handle.

Once again I will bring in the outfitter/tree hugger hybrid point of view. I think any arguement that a weekend drunk floater hurts the ecosystem is unfounded. If anything it concentrates them in certain areas leaving all the other areas free from their debotchery.

The economic impact of canoe rentals in Missouri goes way beyond the borders of our campgrounds and riverbanks. Boat manufacturers, paddling equipment, life jackets, t-shirts, trailer builders, can coolies, camping equipment, ice companies, the list goes on and on, it is this industry as a whole that holds the power, we just do as we are allowed by the feds. The Missouri Canoe and Floaters association meeting and trade show in Springfield every March from what I have heard is a better trade show than the American Paddlesports Association which is nation wide. We are job creators that support both local and national companies that serve a relatively small demographic.

I think it would be great if someone would bring their concerns to our annual meeting this spring so that those on the "party rivers" could explain themselves and perhaps take some ideas back home which might allow for a better experience for everyone. The water patrol also comes to the meeting so that would be a good time to quiz them on why they can't do a better job of policing the rivers.

Once we get the dates for the meeting I'll let everyone know and hope to see you there.

[ozark trout fisher]

Once again I will bring in the outfitter/tree hugger hybrid point of view. I think any arguement that a weekend drunk floater hurts the ecosystem is unfounded. If anything it concentrates them in certain areas leaving all the other areas free from their debotchery.

The economic impact of canoe rentals in Missouri goes way beyond the borders of our campgrounds and riverbanks. Boat manufacturers, paddling equipment, life jackets, t-shirts, trailer builders, can coolies, camping equipment, ice companies, the list goes on and on, it is this industry as a whole that holds the power, we just do as we are allowed by the feds. The Missouri Canoe and Floaters association meeting and trade show in Springfield every March from what I have heard is a better trade show than the American Paddlesports Association which is nation wide. We are job creators that support both local and national companies that serve a relatively small demographic.

I think it would be great if someone would bring their concerns to our annual meeting this spring so that those on the "party rivers" could explain themselves and perhaps take some ideas back home which might allow for a better experience for everyone. The water patrol also comes to the meeting so that would be a good time to quiz them on why they can't do a better job of policing the rivers.

Once we get the dates for the meeting I'll let everyone know and hope to see you there.

Justin, I'm not so much saying that these rivers are suffering any great, long term ecological effect. The sheer number of people can raise the bacteria levels in these rivers, we've seen that. But I'm more talking about how these people ruin the experience for those who want a wholesome experience on the river, relatively free of nudity, drunken stupidity, boom boxes, and rebel yells.

I know the economic impact canoe rentals have. But economic concerns need to be balanced with the good of these rivers, and the good of those who want to enjoy these rivers for the wonderful natural environments that they are.

[mic]

Once again I will bring in the outfitter/tree hugger hybrid point of view. I think any arguement that a weekend drunk floater hurts the ecosystem is unfounded. If anything it concentrates them in certain areas leaving all the other areas free from their debotchery.

Let me clarify my point...it is not that drunk floater hurts the ecosystem. My point is he doesn't care if other things do. His/her money is not going anywhere else if the fish are smaller, if the water is a little off color, if spawning grounds are covered in silt, or if the hell-bender dies out. He will back on every year to get away from life and party a little. You support this crowd for a living. If you were losing 20% of your business because your floaters were concerned that water wasn't as clear as it used to be, would you be more vocal about development. If they were scared off by an ecoli breakout, would you complain about horses in the river. Of course you would. If 80% of your profit came from people fishing, would you be concerned about complaints of the aluminum hatch.

I've read your posts, I know you care about the environment. Why would it be a bad idea to figure out how many rental canoes are already on any given river and cap it now....versus...waiting 10 years from now when there really is a problem.

My follow up point is there has to be a balance where the partier isn't affecting the fishing and fishing isn't affecting the partier. We won't find that balance because the money will never be balanced.

[Justin Spencer]

But economic concerns need to be balanced with the good of these rivers,

Same should have held true for wetlands, grasslands, forests, the everglades etc. but our lack of space and economics won out. Many of these areas have been cleared and built on which does ruin the ecosystem, unlike drunk floaters. If your main concern was the well being of the river and not personal experience you would be bitching about the phosphates that enter our springs from municipal waste water treatment systems. This is why our river has an overabundance of algae in the summertime. You would bitch at the outfitters for mowing near the river which can lead to erosion. You would bitch about out of date septic systems polluting watersheds, cattle being allowed free access to rivers and streams. The list goes on and on.

I'm not going to pretend all the canoers and partiers aren't annoying to those not looking for the experience, just don't bring the well being of the river into the arguement because I think the impact of floaters on the rivers would be way down on that list, I'm worse on the river than a bunch of drunks just by living on it.

[ozark trout fisher]

Same should have held true for wetlands, grasslands, forests, the everglades etc. but our lack of space and economics won out. Many of these areas have been cleared and built on which does ruin the ecosystem, unlike drunk floaters. If your main concern was the well being of the river and not personal experience you would be bitching about the phosphates that enter our springs from municipal waste water treatment systems. This is why our river has an overabundance of algae in the summertime. You would bitch at the outfitters for mowing near the river which can lead to erosion. You would bitch about out of date septic systems polluting watersheds, cattle being allowed free access to rivers and streams. The list goes on and on.

Justin, if you read my posts on here, you would know that I am bitching about those things and other issues of that nature, and since that in itself doesn't matter in the least, I'm also writing letters to congressmen, the MDC, Trout Unlimited, whoever might listen and might be able to do something. But that doesn't mean I don't also have the right to bitch about drunk, stupid floaters. And I do not intend to just sit back and complain on OAF either. I will be doing everything I can to advance the cause that I am speaking of, to make these riverways a better place than they are now.

[Justin Spencer]

I'm glad you are taking your causes to those that can change things and believe it or not I think we probably have the same views on about all the issues. I probably bitch about stupid drunk floaters more than you do, but then I take their money and if they are too drunk or too stupid they don't get to come back.

It seems like by reacting to the bad things that happen we are seldom able to get things accomplished, our society needs to be more proactive and as my favorite deputy says "nip it in the bud".

At this point this river crowding issue rests mainly on the shoulders of the outfitter to do what he thinks is right, and for most people that means whatever can make them the most money. As bad as that might be, I can't blame anyone for taking advantage of the capatilistic system our country has.

Some of the people that get drunk and act stupid are probably appalled that someone would catch a fish and put it through the stress and pain of being caught just to be put back in the river to be caught again. I would even argue that it IS cruel to do that just so we can challenge ourselves and have some sort of adrenelin rush. I'm still going to do it even though it is cruel, but doesn't mean it is right.

I choose to try and get along with everyone, respect everyone's point of view (even if I don't agree with it, because I know I can't always be right) and save my energy for causes that have more of an environmental impact, or can help educate youngsters who will be the ones that will determine if better practices will be followed in the future.

[ozark trout fisher]

I'm glad you are taking your causes to those that can change things and believe it or not I think we probably have the same views on about all the issues. I probably bitch about stupid drunk floaters more than you do, but then I take their money and if they are too drunk or too stupid they don't get to come back.

It seems like by reacting to the bad things that happen we are seldom able to get things accomplished, our society needs to be more proactive and as my favorite deputy says "nip it in the bud".

At this point this river crowding issue rests mainly on the shoulders of the outfitter to do what he thinks is right, and for most people that means whatever can make them the most money. As bad as that might be, I can't blame anyone for taking advantage of the capatilistic system our country has.

Some of the people that get drunk and act stupid are probably appalled that someone would catch a fish and put it through the stress and pain of being caught just to be put back in the river to be caught again. I would even argue that it IS cruel to do that just so we can challenge ourselves and have some sort of adrenelin rush. I'm still going to do it even though it is cruel, but doesn't mean it is right.

I choose to try and get along with everyone, respect everyone's point of view (even if I don't agree with it, because I know I can't always be right) and save my energy for causes that have more of an environmental impact, or can help educate youngsters who will be the ones that will determine if better practices will be followed in the future.

Well fair enough. I do respect your opinion, even if maybe we disagree a little on this.

[Al Agnew]

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.

I think the link you gave in the other post says that the Current and Jacks Fork are much more than just recreation areas. The Park Service has a mandate to protect the scenic, natural, and cultural resources in the riverways, pretty much the same mandate as any national park. If it was solely a recreation area, there would be no need to protect those other qualities, just put as many watercraft and people on it as possible, keep it free-flowing and clear enough that it doesn't run the people off, and let 'er bump.

And I will argue with you on the semantics, as well as the veracity, of your statement that there were over 400 access points when it was formed. There were most definitely NOT 400 PUBLIC access points. There may or may not have been 400 places where somebody could drive to the river if they had 4WD AND PERMISSION FROM WHOEVER OWNED IT. To advocate for "no more" than the 400 supposed access points is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It goes back to the Park Service mandate on protecting the resources of the park, and yes, I'm gonna call it a park. Back before the Riverways, you had various landowners who had reason to protect their piece of land along the river. Some did, some didn't care. Some might have let anybody who happened to know about the "access" use it if they asked, some might have not even payed attention.

But I guarantee you that if the rivers were still in mostly private ownership, there would NOT be 400 access points that the public could use today. Had the number of people grown half as much under private ownership as it has in the Riverways, most of the landowners would have long ago stopped allowing anybody they didn't know very well on their land and would have policed it pretty closely to insure people didn't get on it. What you would have on the Current and Jacks Fork today if they weren't in public ownership is what you have on the Niangua, the Meramec, etc. Clusters of campgrounds and canoe rentals, a few public accesses, and a lot of militant landowners in between that wouldn't dream of letting a stranger cross their land to get to the river. Basically, the Park Service, in order to protect those qualities they were mandated to protect, have to in some ways take the place of the private landowners, and control the access.

I floated the upper Jacks Fork a while back. I didn't stop on every gravel bar, but on nearly every bar that I did stop on, far from any of the developed public accesses, there was evidence of 4WD vehicles and ATVs. The gravel bar across from Jam-up Cave has a rough, undeveloped road coming down to it, ATV tracks on the gravel, trash up in a small clearing in the woods. The road was eroded and you could tell it was sending gravel into the river with every hard rain. This is the kind of crap the Park Service is supposed to be trying to get a handle on by shutting off those undeveloped accesses. Spare me the refrain that "my daddy used to drive to the river there and I should be able to." Or, "We need places where local families can get away from all the crazy people at the developed campgrounds." Those seem to be the "reasons" for keeping these "wildcat" accesses open. But instead, they are used by people who need to get rid of their old appliances and make some meth.

[Outside Bend]

OTF (and probably others, I just sorta glanced through this thread) really made an excellent point.

The point of the Riverways isn't to provide one demographic with an ideal recreational experience. It exists to protect an outstanding natural resource. Even if all the floaters, horse people, ATV/ORV folks, hikers, campers, RV'ers et al behaved themselves 100% of the time, it's still still too many people using one resource. You can single out one group if you'd like, but the truth is everyone using the resource is contributing to the problem. The solution isn't reducing the number of drunken canoers and replacing them with family canoers, the solution isn't replacing the arsehold jetboaters with responsible jetboaters. The solution, as I see it, is to either spread crowds across other watersheds, or limit access through fewer campgrounds/access points, permitting systems, etc.