Would You Support This Legislation?

[Wayne SW/MO]

As far as I know they don't charge entrance fees to visit national parks

Unfortunately they do. There is upkeep there though, bathrooms vegetation, fire departments, etc. It's not for enforcement.

What all do you have to charge sales tax on Justin.

All security is not from public funds already payed by you.

I think you missed the point if you think much of the traffic control isn't. LEO doesn't go on private land to enforce law at events, that is up to the concessionaire. High schools don't hire patrols, most are from sheriff patrols courtesy of the county. Rivers are public, but not used continuously. Hiring someone to enforce laws on a river that could well be vacant on some days, maybe a lot of days, doesn't make much sense.

Would you put someone on Beaver creek everyday? How about the Lil Niangua?

[stlfisher]

Wayne, I am not sure why law enforcement keeps coming up. And yes, it would be silly to have LEO's at a river in February...I am not advocating that.

[Jerry Rapp]

it seems like the consensus is to just tax on user fees? But yet Arkansas is spening %90K to upgrade an office in Jonesboro? And MDC is stocking Elk and then kills them when they get outside their boundaries. The problem is, and always has been, govt agencies don't spend money wisely. I worked for the Corps for 32.5 years and you would not believe the waste that occurs, mainly because CONGRESS has said if you don't spend your allocated money by 9/30(end of fiscal year), you will lose it in the next budget cycle. Lots of dollars could be spent more wisely if agencies were allowed to carry over the balance, but they can't without hurting themselves. The government is really sad when it comes to fiscal dollars and responsibility.

[Justin Spencer]

Unfortunately they do. There is upkeep there though, bathrooms vegetation, fire departments, etc. It's not for enforcement.

What all do you have to charge sales tax on Justin.

I didn't pay to get into Smokey Mountain National Park last year, but did buy a fishing license and some souveniers.

We pay sales tax on all our boat rentals. Seems like there are ways around it, but we do it.

[ozark trout fisher]

The good news in all this is that I'm increasingly becoming convinced that the rivers will dry up here in a bit with this drought, and then the drunk floaters should be a thing of the past. So will the fish, but you can't win 'em all.

[gotmuddy]

The good news in all this is that I'm increasingly becoming convinced that the rivers will dry up here in a bit with this drought, and then the drunk floaters should be a thing of the past. So will the fish, but you can't win 'em all.

right now the drunk floaters are keeping the rivers flowing.

wheres my beer??

[Al Agnew]

Making the rivers National Wildlife Refuges is obviously not going to happen...most of the land is privately owned and there would be a revolution if the landowners were all forced to sell, even if somehow somewhere the money was available. So forget that.

Putting the rivers in a state scenic rivers program is a great idea, but it's been tried before in Missouri, and was voted down pretty overwhelmingly. Again, I hate to say it but the typical Ozark attitude of not wanting the gov'mint to tell 'em what to do will preclude anything like that for the foreseeable future.

The stamp idea is slightly more doable. A number of states have somewhat similar stamps or permits. Montana did have a warm water fishing stamp that was necessary to fish certain warm water lakes. Texas has a saltwater conservation stamp that goes toward managing inshore saltwater fishing like for redfish and speckled trout. I'm sure there are others.

But it's not quite the same as what I would envision for the rivers. For one thing, managing the fish and wildlife along the rivers is only a small part of what needs to be done, and is already being done by MDC. That is their primary job, and even their enforcement is geared toward fish and game management, not river improvement or criminal activity. I think you have to first decide what NEEDS to be done to protect the river resource (all of it) and control recreational activity along the rivers. Then and only then, figure out how to do it and how to pay for doing it.

In a perfect world with GOOD government, I would envision this to be a cooperative effort between MDC, DNR, and the State Water Patrol at the state level, with cooperation also from county law enforcement and volunteers like the existing Stream Teams. Have a "Rivers Commission" something like the MDC commissioners that sets policy, a "Riverkeeper" for each river that does the work on the ground, and "coordinators" within MDC, DNR, and Water Patrol that all work together to furnish expertise and extra manpower when necessary. Basically, each agency would keep their primary areas of responsibility; MDC for game law enforcement and wildlife management, along with habitat improvement, DNR for pollution and gravel mining inspection and enforcement, Water Patrol for watercraft inspection and criminal law enforcement. County law enforcement would do much as they do now, furnishing manpower for saturation law enforcement along selected sections of rivers and routine patrol of river accesses (but do more of it). Stream teams would still do annual or twice annual river cleanups but could also be asked to do more frequent cleanups, with support from the Rivers Commission and the state agencies.

The whole key to my scheme is the Riverkeepers, who, like I suggested in another thread, would be full time employees, one per river or perhaps a couple for each major river system. These would be the real "boots on the ground", patrolling the rivers several days a week by jetboat where possible and by canoe or kayak where necessary, looking for ANYTHING that needs attention by the various agencies. They would have law enforcement training and powers, a working knowledge of wildlife, habitat, and pollution issues, and a uniformed, visible presence on the rivers (and they would be required to work on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, with their days off during the week). That would be where the major portion of any money raised by the means we've been talking about would go, to paying the Riverkeepers and providing them with equipment. Otherwise, since the other agencies would be keeping their own areas of responsibility, they would be responsible for paying for those areas out of their own funds, not taking more money out of the Riverkeepers' budget.

And I would suggest the best way to go about funding it is through a yearly "rivers sticker" that is required on all private watercraft used on the rivers except for inner tube type craft, and a daily "river use fee" collected by all liveries on anybody they rent watercraft to. In other words, if you're on the river in a watercraft, that watercraft has to be labeled as a rental craft or you have to have an up to date sticker on your watercraft. Then, the only question is how much the sticker and the use fee would have to be in order to fund the Riverkeepers.

It would be interesting to know how many people use the canoe liveries per weekend when figuring out how much a use fee would need to be. I think you'd be very surprised. Let's look at the Meramec River system alone...

There is one small canoe rental on the Bourbeuse, two on Big River, two very big ones on Huzzah and Courtois. As for the Meramec itself, there are somewhere around 15-16 as near as I can figure. I'm going to guess, based upon how many various watercraft a few of these liveries have and how many I've seen them rent on various days of the week in warm weather, that all these liveries rent to an average of several hundred people per week in the summer each. Some of the smaller ones won't rent all that many watercraft, but some of the big ones rent far more than that. So let's just guess, for the sake of argument, that there are 20 liveries renting to an average of 500 people per livery per week for 15 weeks. Like I said, knowing the numbers of watercraft that some of the big liveries rent out, and considering that I'm talking per person and not per watercraft, I think that's a very conservative estimate. But it comes out to 150,000 renters per year in the Meramec River system alone. So a $3 use fee per renter would bring in $450,000 per year. Add to that the numbers of private jetboats, canoes, and kayaks that use the Meramec primarily, given its proximity to St. Louis. Who knows how many, but even if you guessed that each town of any size in the area would have a several hundred people owning jetboats alone, which, if you drive around you'll just about see that many parked in yards, I'm guessing at the very least there could be 5000 jetboats in the Meramec area, not including the outlying suburbs of St. Louis. Add in maybe that many more canoes and kayaks. A $10 river sticker would then bring in another $100,000 for the Meramec river system alone. Think 550 grand is enough to hire and equip about four Riverkeepers? I don't know. But that's what would have to be figured out.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Wayne, I am not sure why law enforcement keeps coming up. And yes, it would be silly to have LEO's at a river in February...I am not advocating that.

I was under the impression that law enforcement was the goal, at last that was part of the original post. " I think a $3 tax on every rental (which go for $30-50 per day), directed towards the enforcement of the law and litter cleanup on the waterways, would go a long way towards bringing some sanity back to the rivers between Memorial Day and Labor Day." We have volunteer stream teams that do a great job on clean up and I can just imagine what would happen iif people thought they were paying to have someone clean up after them.

Justin we paid $20 to get into Yellowstone about 12 years ago and while I don't remember the figure, we would have to put in for and pay for tickets to Yosemite we were told? I suppose it depends on some formula?

[Midwest troutbum]

Any argument that people cant afford a small and reasonable additional fee for conservation is just silly. There are many things in life that I cannot afford yet I manage to live or wait till i have the funds. Life is not always fair. Needs vs wants. We all need clean resources to live. Most people would love to live tax free and have all the rights in the world. Clean healthy and trash free water wins my vote if it can be had for only a few extra dollars and reform.

[Chief Grey Bear]

The whole key to my scheme is the Riverkeepers, who, like I suggested in another thread, would be full time employees, one per river or perhaps a couple for each major river system. These would be the real "boots on the ground", patrolling the rivers several days a week by jetboat where possible and by canoe or kayak where necessary, looking for ANYTHING that needs attention by the various agencies. They would have law enforcement training and powers, a working knowledge of wildlife, habitat, and pollution issues, and a uniformed, visible presence on the rivers (and they would be required to work on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, with their days off during the week). That would be where the major portion of any money raised by the means we've been talking about would go, to paying the Riverkeepers and providing them with equipment. Otherwise, since the other agencies would be keeping their own areas of responsibility, they would be responsible for paying for those areas out of their own funds, not taking more money out of the Riverkeepers' budget.

Holy freaking cow! For every river in the state????