North Fork River Property For Sale

[Justin Spencer]

I am totally guessing here, but I would say our water quality is "ok" at the very least.

I think water quality is pretty darn good as well, I think what probably hurts the hellbenders is something that is not tested for coming in through the springs via Mtn Grove, and other runoff. Be it estrogen or other hormones, antibiotics etc. that get flushed through our bodies or down the toilet something is making them have growth abnormalities that we see in the way of malformed appendages. I would guess it effects reproduction as well. I think the logging that happens throughout the watershed probably hurts the river more than the direct development right on the river, just because it happens on such a wide scale and leads to more siltation, flooding, and gravel in the river, this gravel fills in the areas with the big rocks that hellbenders use for cover. Whatever the case is we have a good setup for trout reproduction, and if we didn't have that most of you wouldn't care about this particular river anyway.

[Outside Bend]

I think we all agree on a lot of the issues involved here (part I).

I definitely agree that the rainbow fishery on the NFOW is phenomenal. I'm not sure what that means, though, in terms of water quality. Rainbows are pretty durable critters, effected more by dissolved oxygen than anything- they thrive on six continents, in streams from sea level to over ten thousand feet, and over a broad spectrum of water quality variables (temperature, pH, salinity, etc). It could be that rainbows do well in NFOW because of the water quality. It could also be because rainbows are resilient, adaptable organisms.

I couldn't say for certain, but using a non-native organism to assess the health of a stream seems like pretty shaky science. IMO it'd be like saying "kudzu and feral hog densities indicate healthy southern forests," or "asian carp densities show Missouri River is on the rebound!" There's a handful of pollution sensitive native fish, mussels, and amphibians whose populations in the NFOW are in pretty serious decline. There's one non-native species (trout), which appears to be doing pretty well. There's no arguing that NFOW water quality as-is supports a lot of trout. But something about the NFOW water quality as-is isn't supporting the rest of the NFOW ecosystem.

[Justin Spencer]

There's a handful of pollution sensitive native fish, mussels, and amphibians whose populations in the NFOW are in pretty serious decline. There's one non-native species (trout), which appears to be doing pretty well. There's no arguing that NFOW water quality as-is supports a lot of trout. But something about the NFOW water quality as-is isn't supporting the rest of the NFOW ecosystem.

Everyone's aware of the hellbender's decline in all streams including the 11 point which has no development. Not sure about which mussels are declining, but I don't dispute that, really not sure about fish declines. Aquatic insects are a pretty good indicator of water quality and we have a huge population and diversity of bugs in this river.

I think the real problem is that we don't want to see cabins when we float. The problems with the rivers stem from the activities that happen throughout the watershed.

[Gavin]

My main gripe was a guy selling real estate with his first two posts.I bet we never hear from this guy again.

As for development, Its not a good thing IMO. It seems I see a new cabin or two under construction every year. One cabin wont effect much, but over time it all adds up. More land cleared for cabins & cows, more septic runoff, more people in Mountain Grove using a bad sewer system. Decline is a cumulative process.

[Greasy B]

I agree with Gavin, I don't drive 5 hours to spend my leasure time in someone's back yard. NFOW is well down my list of destinations for just this reason. We are fortunate to have many stream miles still undeveloped but this won't last. As our stream corridors become more urban/suburban our children won't have the same opportunity to enjoy them as we have. That's a hell of a legacy to leave them.

[Justin Spencer]

I agree that development is bad for a stream as well, but I am the last one that can cast stones based on my profession. Luckily several of our streams (including nearly 30 miles of the NFoW) are somewhat protected by being located in the Mark Twain National Forest, and NSRW for the Current and Eleven Point.

I can't blame people for wanting to purchase a place on a river or stream, many of the fishermen who come here (including some of you) have expressed the desire to purchase your own little piece of heaven if an opportunity presents itself. I have lived in the concrete jungle and will not look down upon anyone who wants to have a getaway in the serene environment of one of our waterways.

We're way past leaving our children and grandchildren a good world to live in, but luckily we still have protection on some of our streams that should keep a select few from changing.

If you are passionate about protecting streams from further development the time to act is now, before it all gets built upon. Somehow the land needs to be either state or federally owned, or placed in some sort of land trust through private organizations.

[2sheds]

Glad to see this property advertised on this forum. Other than a conservatorship of some type, I can't think of a better scenario than purchase by one of those who cares deeplly about these issues.

[Justin Spencer]

Glad to see this property advertised on this forum. Other than a conservatorship of some type, I can't think of a better scenario than purchase by one of those who cares deeplly about these issues.

The nice thing about many of the cabin owners along rivers is that they do care. Most are not the obnoxious drunks, but those like you and me, or some rich dude that won't use it anyway.

[Brian Wise]

The nice thing about many of the cabin owners along rivers is that they do care. Most are not the obnoxious drunks, but those like you and me, or some rich dude that won't use it anyway.

Exactly.

When I start playing the lottery....and win billions, I gaurantee there will be no development on the NFOW besides my HUGE PAD that overlooks the river.

We run into discussions like this quite often and it exactly boils down to what Justin said about not wanting to see cabins when we float. Water quality will never be the same again, unless we get rid of every farm, house, lawn, city, person, etc in the world. Call me a redneck that doesn't look at the whole picture if you will but there comes a point where you can over-protect a resource and it isn't usable. "Sure, the river 'looks' pretty but we can't stick our big toe in it because there is a lichen that can grow on human toes that can spread to the one-cell organism, the Heliocytroptylus." I am all for water quality and a watchful eye of our resources but it would literally take a time machine to get the water quality of the 1950's back in our rivers (every river in the world) and then we wouldn't be able to set foot in the river once the quality was back.....and last time I checked this was Ozark ANGLERS forum, anglers.....anglers.....anglers. The name of this forum would be Ozark River Looker Atters Forum (ORLAF....that is kind of ironic )

[bigredbirdfan]

Its up to the buyer whether or not they build on it or not but that will buy that right with the purchase of the land. Maybe in an effort to protect the river a few of you should get together and buy it to prevent any building and what's to stop you or Ted Turner from buying all the property along it and doze it down and return it to it's original appearance 200 years ago?

My only problem is it is better suited under the sell/buy section since it is for sale.

It's getting really old to have every topic turn into an eco crusade. LAME