Current And Jacks Fork Need Help

[Mark]

I am just trying to see both sides of the issue. IF I owned land along the Current or Jacks Fork and was told I could not make a primitive road/trail down to the river or build a little campground/pavilion ON MY LAND so I could conveniently enjoy the river, I would be up in arms and screaming about BIG GOVERNMENT. But on the other hand, I would have a responsibility to not cause harm to the river and should be fined if I cause any damage to the river. I do agree, we all own the rivers and not just the locals. I agree there should be a total ban on ATVs, 4 wheel drive vehicles, and horses in the river or creek beds. But I also think the ban should extend to livestock, regardless of if the landowner owns the property adjacent to the river OR owns land on both sides that the river runs through. I have been on the upper Eleven Point River where cattle are allowed to cross the CREEK at that point, and watched the cattle crap in the stream. I've seen pigs in the St .Francois below Fredericktown. It makes me sick. I understand that the farmers need a water source for livestock but we are beyond that as a civilization. There are alternatives and they SHOULD NOT own the river, but in their case, they DO own the river.

[jdmidwest]

Just a few points.

Current River and Jacks Fork are Federally Protected lands controlled by the National Park System, MDC does not have jurisdiction regarding the decisions. For that matter, neither should the Missouri Congress for the most part, it should be a Federal matter. MDC does own lands adjoining the NPS Scenic Riverways.

There has been no PRIVATE ownership of the land in the Scenic Riverway System except for a few rare cases. All of the lands were bought out from the owners by the Federal Government to protect the riparian areas and preserve them in the natural state, or in some cases, to return them to their natural state after years of abuse. Most of the land was privately owned previously before the Scenic Riverway System was put in place. It is better now than it was in the past when large timber companies clear cut all of the lands and used it to transport the timber to the mills.

Commercializing the river system has hurt it more than the private ownership of it did. Years ago, a float camp along any of the rivers were full of families that were interested in the outdoors, floating for fishing and hunting purposes. Now days, it is a cheap vacation to kill a weekend. How many do you see fishing seriously? And the NPS makes a cut on ever floater. Meanwhile, MDC complains about the numbers of the present generation that does not buy licenses to hunt and fish, they work hard to promote license sales.

Most of the lands that some have described are leased by concessionaires from the NPS, and are controlled by the NPS for law enforcement reasons. Laws are in place to restrict any motor vehicle in the stream other than an agricultural crossing, they are not being enforced.

RE the upper 11pt River, that is out of the NPS Scenic Riverway System and is private lands. I have already beat that dead horse to deaf ears with the MDC. IF there was an evident Fish Kill, maybe something could be done. Otherwise, Federal Dept. of Natural Resourses is in charge of water quality issues. Same dead horse on the Big River below HWY 8. And your pig farm.

Too many chiefs that don't care what the rest have to say.

[Gavin]

The management at ONSR cant take credit for anything at this point.Too many cruising. loser..couple years till I retire..jack wagon superintendants in a row...Last one was a total douche by all accounts...Hope the new super...has some vision and a pair of brass balls.

[Outside Bend]

Commercializing the river system has hurt it more than the private ownership of it did.

RE the upper 11pt River, that is out of the NPS Scenic Riverway System and is private lands.

Don't mean to derail the thread, but this sentiment has come up more than once, and I guess I still don't get it. If the upper river's in private hands, and the upper river's getting trashed by ATVs, it seems hard to say that commercializing the river has hurt more than private ownership.

There's a lot of issues on ONSR property, and I too feel enforcement of issues like ATVs and illegal horse crossings must be addressed. But same issues also exist on private lands. Some of the worst land stewards are government agencies like the BLM and the Corps of Engineers. Some of the best land stewards are private groups like the LAD Foundation and the Nature Conservancy. They're not monolithic groups, and I don't see how a pissing contest over who treats their land better accomplishes anything for stream conservation.

Landowners (public or private) will work to protect streams if they see value in stewardship. They may find that value through a myriad of ways- protecting stream ecosystems, enhancing sportfish populations, reducing flooding, soil loss, and gravel deposition, providing riparian habitat for birds and other animals, growing quality, sustainable timber, maintaining or improving their livestock production, improving water quality, preserving recreational areas for posterity- whatever. If they're not seeing some benefit to protecting a resource, they're going to drag their feet.

I don't think government intervention is always the best way to affect change, I don't necessarily think it's wise for the gov't to tell landowners how to manage their property, and I believe it'd be foolish to assume all private landowners are inept when it comes to stream conservation. But I also believe their are many landowners out there who don't realize the impact they're having, that it's also affecting their property and business, and that doing things the way they've always been done has a downside, too. Fencing cows out of streams and drilling wells for livestock costs money- so does losing acreage to watering livestock downstream of leaky septic systems. Private landowners are perfectly capable of managing their own property, they just need to be educated on the issues and what's at stake for them personally, not just the recreation or angling crowds.

[Al Agnew]

Let me re-emphasize one more time...we're not talking about private lands along the Scenic Riverways...these lands are all now owned by the federal government...us. Problem is that the feds have been fighting a losing battle (and as Gavin says, not necessarily fighting it very hard) to keep the local yahoos from using every little formerly private dirt track that ever led down to the river. All those dirt tracks, back when they were in private ownership, WERE kept closed to the public. There is far, far more informal access to the Current and Jacks Fork now than there was before the Riverways. And far too many people who use those accesses for things detrimental to the health of the rivers.

It really really hurts to see how the vast majority of river users treat the rivers. It's a problem not confined to the "national" rivers like the Current, Jacks Fork, Eleven Point, and Buffalo...it's as bad on any river served by one or more large canoe rental businesses. And I don't see any palatable solution to it as long as there are hordes of people who only care about the rivers as a place to party in an atmosphere devoid of serious law enforcement. In a way, the Ozark streams are too "user friendly". Not cold enough, not dangerous enough, not remote enough to discourage the doofuses.

[buffresources]

The problem is always the same. Congress is the one who directs the NPS to study an area for inclusion into the National Park Service. If the study recommends in favor Congress provides the funding for the establishment of the unit.

Now here is the rub...usually that funding is minimal except for big showy things like visitors centers that the local congressmen supports. Funding is not provided adequately for staff to cover these large areas. Just ask the ONSR staff how many people they have to cover the riverways.

Then you have the NPS mandate to "provide for public use but protect for future generations" which is usually found in most NPS units enabling legislation...

See the quandary?

The problem is also compounded by the fact the while the land is owned by the federal govt the wildlife is the property of the resident state.

Anyway, just my two cents from 25 years with the NPS natural resource management.

[Al Agnew]

Good points. And one really big problem concerning the Riverways is that the district has had the same congressperson like forever, and she's never been a fan of the Riverways.

[buffresources]

Exactly my point. If you look at the parks that have plenty of money and the resources necessary to provide that public use and protect the resource they are usually in districts where the congressman really supports the park mission.

[Midwest troutbum]

The problem is more Atvs on this planet and in the hands of the untrained or irresponsible.

[tanvat]

We have such a jewel in the Current and Jacks Fork yet it seems that we are bound and determined to degrade it. Every time I go there (for 25 years now and hundreds of days on those waters) I'm awed by how wonderful our rivers are. But basically every trip I've taken the last decade or show is just further demonstration of why it is simply time to crack down on the b.s.

Our trip this weekend is a great illustration. My wife and I did a short overnighter on the upper river with my with our 2 year old and 5 year old. It was the 2 year old's third Current River overnighter and the 5 year old's, well, I've lost count, but he has been on the river a lot and apparently enough to recognize what too many adults either will not or cannot; i.e., the ONSR is beautiful, but good god, can people not bury, burn, or haul out their freaking toilet paper; can they not see that after 4 passes of a jet boat they single handedly made the entire river murky for a half mile and left a 10 fit strip of Mississippi mud along both shorelines - but of course, there is no way that there could be any bad impact on the river from doing so - it is after all, apparently an inalienable right to blast repeatedly up and down the river at low water right below Cave Spring so that the whole river - save a strip in the middle - goes from crystal clear to a murky green. There is no other National Park in the entire country - at least that I'm aware of - that permits such extensive and obviously damaging motorized use to the very resource that motivated the creation of the park in the first place.

It seems entirely reasonable to allow a few primitive drive up locations every few miles. It also seems reasonable to allow motor boats - but there is absolutely no need whatsoever to allow a 40 horse jet anywhere above Two Rivers or any jets at all above Pulltite. The argument that such restrictions would "lock" people out are facially silly - one can walk, float a canoe, or in some stretches, motor up the river, albeit at a slower speed - and, gasp, sometimes when the water is low it means you might not be able to use your motor boat - well, wait 'till it rains. The present state of things means that 4 jets running up and down a 5 mile stretch of river basically means that 8 people dictate the experience for dozens of other users while simultaneously causing disproportionately bad effects on the river via eroding the banks and river bottom disturbance. I've for a while to keep an open mind on these issues, but the last few years just make the case tha something needs to change - I've yet to hear a factual, logical, practical or plausible argument to the contrary, so if anyone has one, I'd like to hear it. Ultimately, it seems to be just a value issues - some people appreciate the remaining natural attributes of the rivers and others want a playground on which they can pretty much do as they please irrespective of demonstrable negative impacts on the resource.