Would You Support This Legislation?

[ollie]

A lot of good ideas and some not so good. In an earlier post I read that we need to take the cause to our local officials first to see what can be done. Just want to relate a story about the Elk and how even worse it was several years back. I know, you thought it wasn't any worse! The nudity and drunkeness use to be a LOT worse until one thing happened one day that change how things were done on the Elk. At one time it was like Madri Gras down there. Guys buying and taking beads for the girls to lift up their tops for a little peek. That all changed one day when a girl lifted her top off for a guy right in front of the Sheriffs wife and kids! Needless to say laws where inacted very quikly after that to curb that kind of activity. See, all it takes is an official to really see what is going on to get things changed. Not saying it still isn't bad, but it is better than it use to be down there. Also on the weekends when the water flow is good you can watch the sheriffs office come up and down the river in a jet boat handing out tickets. Ask Russ, he has seen them as well. It is all about local enforcement ramping up efforts to stop the insanity on the rivers. Do they catch them all, no, but at least I do know they are checking down here in my corner of the world.

[stlfisher]

Sometimes I think people would just rather nitcpick an idea than actually attempt to come up with one on ther own. I want something to be done before it is too late and I don't care which entity get it done.

Increased inforcement would be nice, but it won't matter if we keep polluting and ruining the rivers. No one is going to float or fish down a stagnant stream. Overuse, habitat issues, fishing/floating pressure and many other factors all contribute to the downfall of a stream. I see no reason why floaters can't pay a share (license) when certainly they are a large enough demographic that they leave a foot print. Why whould they get free ride? I am tired of paying for things I don't use, while other don't pay for things they use.

We have to change the mindset of all people who use the rivers. I honestly don't think the average person floating with some friends has any idea about mine tailings, habitat issues,poor land practices, growth rates of smallmouth etc. At least if you require them to buy a small license you have an opportunity to not only address floating safety, but also the conservation side. If people realize all the pressures facing a stream or river they might get involved. That is how you change the culture...from the ground up. If you can use some of those funds to repair what damage has been done and help enforce the rules in place is that not a good thing? If enough people get involved the powers that be have to listen. We are just too darn lazy to do it IMO.

Whatever idea you back something certainly needs to be done and we have enough in common i would think this is a good as place as any to start.

[Wayne SW/MO]

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;

That's weak F & F and the public intoxication link concerns the downunder, not Missouri.

Personally I think this discussion is about to few law enforcers, so checking people for a .080 doesn't sound like a positive idea.

Here's some real information, a paragraph from a defense layers organization.

Missouri prevents local governments from making public intoxication illegal, but it is a misdemeanor to be intoxicated and disorderly. Alcoholic beverages cannot be consumed in schools, churches or courthouses. Drinking in public is illegal, other than in public parks.

I think you can buy beer in Arkansas, as in Missouri, so I don't see Missouri's problem being a result liquor laws.

[Justin Spencer]

I personally like the riverkeepers idea and think outfitters might even agree to a dollar a boat charge to go toward this. The problem will be finding competent people to be riverkeepers. It would almost have to be a retired MDC employee or someone that has worked with our natural resources in some manner. The inablility of them to have law enforcement capabilities is also a concern, although maybe they could be sworn in like Floyd and Gomer sometimes were for special events. Most likely they would end up being a county employee funded by the outfitters, or a floating license (which I really don't like). If they were a county employee then maybe they could have law enforcement capabilities, or could at least work hand in hand with MDC, water patrol, and the sheriffs office. The main way this would work would be to get the outfitters on each river behind it, and with the fee being even for everyone, no one would be at a disadvantage from this (although I'm sure you have at least one anus hole on each river that would never agree to the charge). If the health of the river is the real concern then the riverkeepers idea is much better than just having more LEO's on the rivers.

[ness]

A The nudity and drunkeness use to be a LOT worse until one thing happened one day that change how things were done on the Elk. At one time it was like Madri Gras down there. Guys buying and taking beads for the girls to lift up their tops for a little peek. That all changed one day when a girl lifted her top off for a guy right in front of the Sheriffs wife and kids! Needless to say laws where inacted very quikly after that to curb that kind of activity. See, all it takes is an official to really see what is going on to get things changed.

I would bet money there wasn't a change to ANY law, just a pist-off wife leaning on her ol' man to make sure it didn't happen again, and enforcement of laws already in place. She probably got all her girlfriends gabbing about it at church, the grocery store, whatever, and the sheriff had to act.

That's the thing you guys miss with all your long-winded proposals. Good old fashioned sweet talking and arm twisting will get a lot more done than any of this other nonsense. But, keep on hashing and rehashing until this thread dies out like all the others.

[ollie]

You might be right Ness, but I thought I read they actually did make some law about it. I could be wrong though. He wasn't present when it happened so yea, she probably did lean on him!! Point is, nothing was going to happen until it affected someone who could make a difference.

[KCRIVERRAT]

Let's make ol' Prater the Riverkeeper of all Ozark streams. Maybe we'll get him to have a nervous breakdown and send him to the nuthouse where he belongs!

[ness]

You might be right Ness, but I thought I read they actually did make some law about it. I could be wrong though. He wasn't present when it happened so yea, she probably did lean on him!! Point is, nothing was going to happen until it affected someone who could make a difference.

Yeah, wasn't calling you out on the new law thing. Like you said -- get the complaint to the right people and things will happen.

[gotmuddy]

One thing not brought up in the thread that I have noticed is game wardens. Doesn't every county have at least one game warden? They would be perfect for the job of enforcing laws on rivers, since they have more jurisdiction than anyone in the state. And what do they do when its not hunting season??

[Chief Grey Bear]

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...

I am not necessarily against your idea. But if they have no powers and are just an observer, then I don't see them being able to access land for a visual inspection of the whole watershed. Heck we can do that. And as far as your passion, I can only go on observation. I have made recomendations for the last few years for the MSA, of which you are a very important part of, on ways to work with land owners and such to help promote the health of streams and still all there is, is guest speakers and fishing trips. If you want to create world class smallmouth fishing, you need to be a world class organization.

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.

I think I know where you are going with this but can you explain further??

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.

And the Riverkeeper will get all of these Federal and state agencies together??

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.

The MSA has a Stream Team, and I assume you are a part of that team. Could your Stream Team take a leadership role and guide others in this direction???

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

Again, I don't necessarily think these are "bad" ideas. I am just a little unsure of their implementation and am pretty sure on how they will be recieved by the public.

I do think we have the necessary agencies already in place to police what concerns we have. I think we do need to make some noise and start holding some feet to the fire. The question is how best to go about that. We certainly have a prominent voice in the MSA and other outdoor entities in the state of Missouri. Can we organize them in a common theme to send a barage of letters to the powers to be of the agencies and to local politicians to raise awareness? And send these messages once a month or so, they understand we are not going away. I think we also contact newspapers and even Missouri based magazines and also spead the word that way? I know you are very good at writing. The more people hear about it and the more that people hear about it, the more heat can be put on the agencies and politicians. We are but a few. We need the voice of many. ???????