Outfitters Told Of Inforcement Of Old Law Keeping Them Out Of Park

[lovetofish]

If I were a park dweller, I would be happy to hear this news. And anything that decreases the number of party floaters or makes their access to the river more difficult, no matter how insignificant, is A-OK in my book. And why should a private livery get to financially benefit from taxpayer dollars? If they want a convenient access point, may I suggest they buy some property along the river or share access with another private livery? The parks are for the public's use, not for private enterprise and profit.

Jim Rodgers is a private livery making a lot of money. Should he have to pay for the use as well? All should be able to launch and pickup people at the park it is owned by everyone who pays taxes. NRO pays taxes so they should be able to use it.

[lovetofish]

Ha! That first clip is from July '10 and that's MY DOG! and my girlfriends nephew at Riverfront. How cool ! Riverdog made the future news !

Now, back to the point of the post ..... Are they talking about not letting them put in at the MDC 64access, nor take out at Barclay? Or are they just not allowing them to enter the State Park (Spring branch) area?

Technically they never should have been inside the park boundaries in the first place unless NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES were onboard any of the canoes or shuttle busses. It's illegal to have a beer, or a flask of whiskey, or so much as a wine cooler at Bennett Spring.

Not true. You can have alcholic beverages as long as you are not in the parking lots drinking it. The picnic areas, campgrounds and other areas as long as there is no keg. So bring as much glass and cans to leave rather than one big container. Stupid laws brought to you by stupid people that run and enforce the park laws (ie rangers)

[eric1978]

Jim Rodgers is a private livery making a lot of money. Should he have to pay for the use as well? All should be able to launch and pickup people at the park it is owned by everyone who pays taxes. NRO pays taxes so they should be able to use it.

I'm a farmer and I pay taxes, so I should be able to use public land to plant and harvest my crops.

[lovetofish]

It's my undetstanding that the rule stands in all Mo. State Parks and has recently been enforced. I know alot of guys will slam a beer with lunch over the tailgate, and will likely continue to, but I bet the penalty would be pretty stiff.

A boater anchored in HaHaTonka cove was arrested for it, tried to fight it and lost..... So I sure wouldn't chance it at Bennett.

I'm actually not too sure that MDC accesses don't have the same ruling.

Yes in the parking lots is a bad thing and against the rules. Not sure if it is againt the "Law", have to look in RSMo for that one. Laws and rules are two different things and the law is crimanal the other is just being told to leave or change behavior. Drink all you want at the picnic area and campground, not the parking lot.

[lovetofish]

Yes in the parking lots is a bad thing and against the rules. Not sure if it is againt the "Law", have to look in RSMo for that one. Laws and rules are two different things and the law is crimanal the other is just being told to leave or change behavior. Drink all you want at the picnic area and campground, not the parking lot.

Again a stupid law or rule when a picnic table is five feet from your vehicle.

[lovetofish]

I'm a farmer and I pay taxes, so I should be able to use public land to plant and harvest my crops.

Yes certain land is dedicated for that. The federal department is called BLM they have land for multi use, catle grazzing, farming, oil experation, etc. State might have some too depends on where you live. These groups who are picking and dropping people off are not advertising or hanging signs in the park for business and driving on a public highway that is used by multi uses. They are using all public access and not physical buildings that are for a purpose. I can see if they cannot go into the campgrounds or in the buildings to get people but the roads and parking lots? Come on lets be smart and keep drunk people off the road and use a bus driver that is able to get them to the park safely.

Again if their is a pay issue then that is why I am for a user fee rather then a general tax that all have to pay.

[jdmidwest]

The concessionaires are up for bid every so many years. It is not an exclusive deal, anyone can apply when it comes up for bid. But final approval would be DNR. But it is an inclusive deal, camping fees are DNR, Daily Tags are MDC. Motel lodging, store income, food service, firewood, canoe rentals, and any other retail would all be paid to the concessionaire and DNR would receive a cut of the income. Part of the contract would allow them to be the only provider of services.

Other parks run a canoe rental service located within them also and the shuttle is provided by the concessionaire owner. Some of the parks, the smaller ones, the concessionaire is responsible for collection of camping fees, campground cleanup, toilet cleanup, etc. There is a website that lists the concessions available and requirements, probably on the DNR web somewhere.

Scenic Riverways float concessionaires pay up front in March or April for the estimated number of canoes they plan to float during the season and keep tabs with a form for the DNR. At the end of the season, they pay for the overages or get refunded for shortages. Other streams, there is no fee that I know of. If it is an MDC owned property, it should be open to all for no charge. If it is DNR property and part of the State Park, then the concessionaire has a right to charge a fee.

[Justin Spencer]

For anyone thinking this concessionaire thing is easy work, North Fork Recreation Area (Hammond) on the NFoW has been looking for one for years. If you are interested in someday owning a campground this would be a good way to see if this is something you want to do. I wish we could get someone up there so we wouldn't have to constantly battle the Forest Service (for the record I like them all in this area but one).

[Wayne SW/MO]

Lovetofish don't forget Sam Welch who was tight with Rogers back when they started converting the park to a destination resort.

DNR pays for maintenance, trash service, latrine service, law enforcement...the private liveries profit from the access, without paying any of the associated costs.

don't forget OB, the DNR manages the park for the public.

The outfitters don't come into the park looking for floaters, they come to pickup who ever has made arangements.

As far as reducing the floaters it won't, the DNR should have had the forsight to do that about 3 decades ago, but they chose to add to the numbers.

The Niangua is a shadow of what it once was due to overuse and a lack of riparian protection.

[Outside Bend]

You're right- it's a public park. And if the liveries wanted the same level of access afforded all other taxpayers, I'd be fine with it.

Paying taxes means you get to access in a public park, not that you're entitled to conduct business in the park. I pay taxes, I don't get paid $15 a head shuttling floaters. Al pays taxes, doesn't mean he gets to set up a studio in the hatchery. Cricket pays taxes, doesn't mean he gets to hawk cars in the parking lot. The park is for recreation, not business- and I don't see why the liveries should receive preferential treatment.