Would You Support This Legislation?

[Quillback]

At least here in Arkansas I still don't see the need to charge a river fee to hire "Riverkeepers" or whatever. Not that it's a bad idea. The AGFC rakes in $75 million a year, and if herding drunken canoers should be deemed a priority enforcement issue (and the only way it will become a priority is through public outcry directed to the AGFC commission), then the AGFC has plenty of money to throw at this issue.

Maybe in Missouri the MDC is underfunded, so a fee might make sense there.

I also have to admit that every time there's a problem, the perceived fix is to create a tax or fee to have government solve it. I'm fed up with the "Nanny state" mindset. What next? Webcams mounted on every tree in the wilderness so law enforcement can bust us if we break one of the many rules we've created? Sounds like we need a fee!

[Wayne SW/MO]

The Missouri Highway Patrol has the job of patrolling the water, but they rarely visit the rivers. I'm sure they have budget problems like all the agencies do, but the rivers don't need much attention in terms of time. They find officers for holidays and the like and I don't believe it would cost them that much to hit a few rivers in need during the peaks.

[Quillback]

The Missouri Highway Patrol has the job of patrolling the water, but they rarely visit the rivers. I'm sure they have budget problems like all the agencies do, but the rivers don't need much attention in terms of time. They find officers for holidays and the like and I don't believe it would cost them that much to hit a few rivers in need during the peaks.

I have yet to see a government agency that will admit to being overfunded. They all have "budget problems". The money is there, it's a matter of priority.

[Al Agnew]

Come on, guys, please understand that this isn't a matter of MDC or AGFC not doing THEIR jobs. Their jobs are to manage the fish and wildlife resources, not to police the rivers. Doesn't matter whether or not they have the funds to do their jobs. Indeed, if you read what I said before, they would still be responsible for doing their jobs as they pertain to the rivers, using their existing money. Ditto with DNR and Highway Patrol. The problem is, quite simply, that I believe the rivers aren't getting enough attention in ALL these areas. If you don't agree with that, then of course you won't see the need to pay any money to remedy that situation. But a lot of us do believe that there needs to be more visible and consistent enforcement in ALL areas pertaining to the rivers. "Visible and consistent" is the key, here. Water Patrol NEVER gets onto streams too small to take their big jet boats, except right at the accesses. DNR is most certainly underfunded, given the tremendous range of their responsibilities--with five "inspectors" for the whole state of Missouri, they simply cannot police the rivers for pollution and illegal gravel mining activity, and they depend solely on good citizens reporting problems to them...and even if you report a problem, which I have, it seldom gets any attention. MDC, as we've hashed out before, is spread thin as far as agents are concerned, and seem to be more interested in hiding in the bushes to catch lawbreakers instead of being a visible presence much of the time. We've all had the same experience, or lack of experience, with MDC agents on the rivers...almost never see one. County law enforcement seems unwilling to allocate manpower to consistent policing even of accesses, even though all they have to do is drive to the access and write a couple of tickets for underage drinking or whatever now and then to settle things down. Instead, in many counties they would rather post all the informal accesses against trespass (like all the bridges on the James River for you Springfield guys) and even try to get MDC to gate and close public accesses that are "problem areas", like they did in Jefferson County. Yep, stream teams do river clean-ups, but it's usually a once a year thing mainly because a clean-up requires not only manpower but support from trash haulers and coordinators.

Point is, NOBODY has blanket responsibility for the rivers. Every agency has little bits of responsibility, and for each agency their river responsibilities are a tiny part of what they do. You can bitch and moan all you want that all those agencies are getting enough money that they could do their own jobs better, but do you seriously expect them to suddenly decide to allocate a whole bunch more of their funds and resources to this one small area of their jobs? And even if you think that waste is rampant in every agency, griping about that is not exactly the most productive way of getting more resources dedicated to the rivers.

No. What is necessary is a system where SOMEBODY has responsibility ONLY for the rivers, and can patrol them for any and all problems, and coordinate with ALL the other agencies to get things done. This is being done to various degrees in several other states, it's not a completely new idea. But it takes funding. I suppose you could pass a law requiring each of the agencies to allocate funds for a Riverkeeper system out of their existing money, but good luck with that, given that any agency will fight tooth and nail to protect their turf and will not be willing to turn over money that will not then be completely in their control. Or you could pass a law forcing the legislature to allocate money toward a Riverkeeper system...and how well do you think THAT will fly, given the current fiscal situation?

If every user has skin in the game, nobody is getting a free ride. Sure, a tiny, tiny part of all our taxes is going to fund river activities in the various agencies, and those of us who fish the rivers are paying a little bit more to fund MDC's part of those river activities. You can make an argument that the non-fishing, non-permit buying river users are paying less than we are, so they should pay a little bit more. But I don't even think that's a good argument. ALL of us who use and enjoy these rivers should be willing to pay a little for their protection and care. Saying that the government is wasting the money they get so I ain't giving 'em another cent is guaranteed to NOT get anything whatsoever done to protect the resource. On the other hand, a willingness to pay a little for what you enjoy shows some real appreciation for it, and the willingness for the citizenry to pass a law and set up a program expressly to protect the rivers shows that this is a resource deemed important and worth protecting. If every receipt given to the renters says on it, "fee for Riverkeepers protection", it might even make a few of the river dorks start to realize we all think the rivers are worth protecting.

[Al Agnew]

Also, Chief, I'm not saying we need a riverkeeper for each and every little creek. The sensible way to do it would be to figure out how many miles of streams a single riverkeeper can do a good job of patrolling and policing, based partly upon the number of users and the extent of existing problems. For instance, in your part of the state, I think one riverkeeper could pretty much cover the whole Elk River system and include the Spring River system, given the relative lack of use on some of those streams and the total number of miles. Maybe one riverkeeper for the James and Finley combined, and include Flat Creek. Maybe one for everything between the James and the North Fork. One for the North Fork and Bryant. One for the Eleven Point AND Current River systems, since they are theoretically already covered by federal agencies. One for Black River. One for St. Francis and tribs. One for Castor and tribs which would also have responsibility for direct Mississippi tribs. One for Big River and Mineral Fork. One for upper Meramec, maybe including Courtois and Huzzah, and one for the Meramec below the Huzzah. One for the Bourbeuse. One for upper Gasconade down to the Osage Fork, and including the Osage Fork. One for Gasconade below there. One for the Big and LIttle Piney. One for the Niangua. One for all the smaller tributaries running into the Osage and maybe including the Sac and Pomme de Terre. That's 17 riverkeepers for the entire Missouri Ozark area, and I think that would really cover the rivers well. Or if you wanted to limit the number further, just say one for each major river system...Spring/Elk, upper White, North Fork, Current/Eleven Point/Black, St. Francis/Castor/Mississippi, Meramec, Gasconade, Osage. That would be 8 for the whole Ozark area, but I think you really need a few more than that.

[Al Agnew]

At least here in Arkansas I still don't see the need to charge a river fee to hire "Riverkeepers" or whatever. Not that it's a bad idea. The AGFC rakes in $75 million a year, and if herding drunken canoers should be deemed a priority enforcement issue (and the only way it will become a priority is through public outcry directed to the AGFC commission), then the AGFC has plenty of money to throw at this issue.

Maybe in Missouri the MDC is underfunded, so a fee might make sense there.

I also have to admit that every time there's a problem, the perceived fix is to create a tax or fee to have government solve it. I'm fed up with the "Nanny state" mindset. What next? Webcams mounted on every tree in the wilderness so law enforcement can bust us if we break one of the many rules we've created? Sounds like we need a fee!

And while I'm on a roll, here...I don't like nanny state government any more than the next guy, but there are things that only the government can do. If there is a problem that only government can fix, then just keep in mind, the government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the people should not only be willing to insist the government fix it, but also be willing to give the government the resources to do so. We've been pretty good at turning over our tax dollars to fund the government, but we've been very bad at insisting the government do a good job with those funds. So now, we seem to think that cutting huge slices off the government's funding is going to make things better. It won't. The only thing that will is making them do their jobs. I think that an idea like this, with a small, streamlined group with their own dedicated funding that can hold the other agencies' feet to the fire, is a pretty good way of starting to make government work. It might not work, but just saying over and over that the government has enough money already and all they have to do is use it the way YOU want it used isn't getting us anywhere.

[Quillback]

Well I could say arguing that the government needs to spend more money will solve this and every other problem isn't getting us anywhere either. Sorry, but I can't see what is wrong with asking government to properly allocate the money it has to address issues such as drunken river canoers. Just because YOU think it's a good idea doesn't mean it is. Our nation and many of the states are burdened with huge debt because thoughtless people like YOU think the answer to every problem is to throw money at it. That attitude isn't getting us anywhere except deeper in debt.

[tjulianc]

As long as we are throwing out ideas, what about trying to keep things simple, and add on to preexisting programs, like boater education classes. What if these courses had a section on rivers, canoe/kayak maneuvering, and maybe some camping regulations/laws/etiquette. I think a lot of the trash we see on the rivers are the result of people just not knowing how to paddle and swamping their canoes. And the idea that camp fires some how, some day, will completely burn their aluminum beer cans. Throw in a couple questions on the exam and at least you are making people think about it some.

[Feathers and Fins]

Our goverment is broke and so are many states, They do not know how to allocate money to where it needs to be. I know i wouldnt be buying fancy office furniture when my clients are not getting the work done. We are not only the employers ( suppose to be anyway ) but the clients of those whom we put at task of protecting out resources. The DNR's must and should address the protection of them long before buying furniture. I can go to a yard sale and for a fraction of the cost of new buy a desk and chair. Why cant they?

[Quillback]

Our goverment is broke and so are many states, They do not know how to allocate money to where it needs to be. I know i wouldnt be buying fancy office furniture when my clients are not getting the work done. We are not only the employers ( suppose to be anyway ) but the clients of those whom we put at task of protecting out resources. The DNR's must and should address the protection of them long before buying furniture. I can go to a yard sale and for a fraction of the cost of new buy a desk and chair. Why cant they?

Because they're spending your money.