Would You Support This Legislation?

[Al Agnew]

Geez, Chief, I usually don't accuse people of having reading comprehension problems, but where in the heck do you think I said that only the most popular streams would be covered? First you throw a hissy that I'm advocating a Riverkeeper for every creek in the state, and then you throw another one because I suggested one Riverkeeper for the Spring and Elk river systems. If you think that the Elk River system deserves another Riverkeeper, fine, I bow to your superior wisdom.

Look, this is just pie in the sky at this point. I didn't start thinking about this until the original post in this thread, and I'm just throwing out ideas as they come to me. And I'm not qualified to come up with a plan for the whole thing. I also said that I didn't KNOW whether this is doable...whether there would be enough money gleaned from user fees to pay for it. I'd leave it to smarter people than me to figure that out. I also understand that a certain amount of administration would be necessary. But that's another way in which, if done right, it would be an example of GOOD government, where administration is kept to a minimum and the money goes to the actual program.

But maybe it's possible for all of us who care about the rivers to put more pressure on the various agencies that have those little bits of responsibility for them now, and force them to allocate more of their funds and resources to taking care of their river responsibilities. Yep, that's worked real well in the past...not. But it would be good government if it worked in this instance.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Geez, Chief, I usually don't accuse people of having reading comprehension problems, but where in the heck do you think I said that only the most popular streams would be covered? First you throw a hissy that I'm advocating a Riverkeeper for every creek in the state, and then you throw another one because I suggested one Riverkeeper for the Spring and Elk river systems. If you think that the Elk River system deserves another Riverkeeper, fine, I bow to your superior wisdom.

Ummmm, no Al, I am reading this just fine. When you said it would not cover ALL rivers and streams, then one would correctly assume that it would only cover the most popular ones correct??? It is the most popular one that are having the problem correct???

I am not advocating for any Riverkeeps on the Elk or Spring. Which by the way, the local outfitters donate extra funds to the sheriffs department for increased river patrols on the Elk during the summer months.

I wish you had this passion and tenacity helping the health of our streams and rivers from what is really harming them. You would be a great voice for that crusade.

[Quillback]

Wait a minute. I just told you why I don't think "asking government to properly allocate the money it has" will work. What got us into the mess we're in is not simply people throwing money at problems, but way too many constituency groups sucking off money that we willy nilly toss into the whole government pot through our income, sales, and property taxes. I would suggest that it's a far different thing to have what amounts to a user fee that is paid by the people who use the resource and which goes specifically and entirely to protecting that resource. You want to make AFGC spend money more wisely? Get in line, because there are a whole bunch of other people who have totally different priorities than you do who want them to spend it on what THEY think is wiser. So you're battling against a whole lot of other people for money that basically AGFC can spend however the heck they want. But in this case, you would be paying a small amount of money for a specific set of purposes, and if it was set up right, it would also mean that those other agencies are going to be spending a little more money and manpower on that same set of purposes as well. Because if they don't spend enough time and effort on it now to even properly identify the problems, having somebody independent of their agency pointing out the problems and asking (demanding) help in taking care of them should mean that they have a better justification for spending more of their resources on it.

And here's the kicker, as was pointed out a couple of times above. This is not throwing money the government doesn't have at a problem. This program would have to pay for itself as well as be funded entirely by the people who use the resource. If you want to fight the battle that our government is wasting money and could be getting a lot more bang for the buck, I"ll be right behind you, so please don't characterize me as being for more taxes, more programs, and more debt. I'm for people paying their own way, people paying for the things they use, and government being responsible for what needs to be done. I think this idea could accomplish those things, without adding to state fiscal problems, and it's imminently fair because the people benefiting from it would be the only people paying for it.

Finally, if you are going to accuse "people like me" of being the cause of the massive debt and fiscal problems our federal government and our states have, you oughta have a better example of evidence for that than this idea. How about I don't characterize you as a knee jerk anti-tax anti-government far right winger, and you don't characterize me as a typical tax and spend big brother nanny state far left winger?

OK, I won't call you names, if you behave likewise. Sorry, but I still don't agree with you about the viability of this riverkeeper idea. I don't see the logic of saying that existing government agencies can't address this because they aren't flexible, don't have any money or whatever reason you can think of. So let's create a new government agency? Yeah that will work.

[Wayne SW/MO]

A big part of the problem is Missouri's Lax liquor laws which promotes much of the acts talked about in this thread.

You'll have to splain that one to me?

[ness]

But maybe it's possible for all of us who care about the rivers to put more pressure on the various agencies that have those little bits of responsibility for them now, and force them to allocate more of their funds and resources to taking care of their river responsibilities. Yep, that's worked real well in the past...not. But it would be good government if it worked in this instance.

That has always felt like the most doable solution. Work with what you've got rather than build a new, specialized system. But as far as I know, it's never gotten past the 10-page forum-rehash stage. Same as the stream access issue. Maybe this time will be different

[Feathers and Fins]

You'll have to splain that one to me?

http://en.wikipedia....aws_of_Missouri <--- easiest to read but you can go to the missouri home page and look it up as well but its much longer in the reading, I checked several sites but wiki covered it fastest and easiest for reading. The sunmmary is best. Legalized public intoxication, which localities cannot override;

[Gavin]

Good luck with Missouri liquor law reform...The folks down on Pestalozzi Street wont like that (AB Inbev).

[Feathers and Fins]

Good luck with Missouri liquor law reform...The folks down on Pestalozzi Street wont like that (AB Inbev).

No illusions of that at all. but it is a major contributing factor and why so many states have stronger laws.

[Al Agnew]

Ummmm, no Al, I am reading this just fine. When you said it would not cover ALL rivers and streams, then one would correctly assume that it would only cover the most popular ones correct??? It is the most popular one that are having the problem correct???

I am not advocating for any Riverkeeps on the Elk or Spring. Which by the way, the local outfitters donate extra funds to the sheriffs department for increased river patrols on the Elk during the summer months.

I wish you had this passion and tenacity helping the health of our streams and rivers from what is really harming them. You would be a great voice for that crusade.

Ah, but Chief, what I'm advocating is Riverkeepers that are responsible for the entire watershed, including the smaller streams running into the "popular" rivers. I just listed all the Ozark streams I could think of. I don't know enough about streams in other parts of the state to say how many riverkeepers I think they should have. And you don't know how passionate I am or am not about the "real" issues facing the streams...

But, everybody keeps assuming I'm talking only about some "policeman" to patrol the rivers for drunks and rowdies. That's part of it, but a riverkeeper would also patrol for just those other problems you're talking about as well, and bring them to the attention of the appropriate agencies. And patrol the watershed, not just the river corridor. That would be the part of the job that goes on at times other than weekends in warm weather. It's not a panacea for all the problems facing the rivers. A lot of them actually require some legislation to make them illegal to do, and that's a whole 'nother thing. What a riverkeeper could do would be to at least document them and call attention to them.

Maybe there are other ways of doing it. But in order to truly protect the rivers, you've got to consider the whole watershed and work on ALL the problems in an integrated manner. That's the beauty of riverkeepers in other parts of the country, like in the streams running into Chesapeake Bay. The riverkeepers work on all the problems they see in the watershed, bringing them to the attention of authorities who can do something about them. Each riverkeeper has responsibility for his own stream and its watershed, and then the riverkeepers are organized so that they can work together to protect the Bay as well as the streams running into it.

That's what a lot of you don't seem to understand or agree with...in order to truly protect these gems, you gotta have that integrated approach. Right now what we have is at least three different state agencies, several county agencies per river, and volunteer stream teams that may or may not do anything but the occasional litter cleanup. Each entity has its own little area of responsibility, and even if they are doing a good job of it, they are not communicating all that well, if at all, with the other entities that have other responsibilities. So it's a piecemeal approach. All I'm saying, in the end, is that we need SOMEBODY to look at the big picture, somebody who can work on all the problems and coordinate all the other agencies to working toward common goals.

I had hopes for a long time that the whole Stream Team program would end up being something like this. But when you have strictly volunteers who all have different goals themselves and don't have the expertise to even recognize problems, it's more of a sop to those who want to look like they're doing something. Heck, a riverkeeper would even be able to actually coordinate the various Stream Teams in his watershed and get them to working toward the same goals, rather than as they are now.

Maybe that's still the way to go...maybe the whole Stream Team program needs to be taken to the next level. Get the Stream Teams better organized, and have the Stream Team program actually do some fund raising and hire the riverkeepers for each watershed. The whole Stream Team program is based upon volunteerism, but I still think you need somebody whose JOB is to patrol the river and the watershed. But I don't know how feasible it would be to get somebody that's more or less "private" to have police and conservation agent powers, so that idea probably wouldn't do much for the actual illegal activities going on.

Again, just throwing out ideas here. But Chief, if you wanna play, then come up with your own ideas and we can all shoot THEM down

[Feathers and Fins]

That's part of it, but a riverkeeper would also patrol for just those other problems you're talking about as well, and bring them to the attention of the appropriate agencies. And patrol the watershed, not just the river corridor. That would be the part of the job that goes on at times other than weekends in warm weather. It's not a panacea for all the problems facing the rivers. A lot of them actually require some legislation to make them illegal to do, and that's a whole 'nother thing. What a riverkeeper could do would be to at least document them and call attention to them.

Please tell us why we should pay for another person on the reiver who from your statement seems to have not authority. We have people already who have authority and already are paid by us. This IMO would be a waiste of money ( just another do nothing goverment employee ) That is something I thought everyone was sick of.

Again we have EPA, MDC, LOCAL, STATE AND COUNTY Officers and protection agents that we pay for in one way or another. Maybe a body that reviews each of their findings plus call ins from the public and directs the officers/agents where to go would be far more practical. If each county had 2 sherriffs 1 local city 1 game warden dedicated on weekends to patrols of those areas it would make a larger impact. The big problem though again is the contributing factor that obviously wont go away because of the power of BUD.

Most of what I have seen and read about is directly related to 1 can at a time.