Would You Support This Legislation?

[Chief Grey Bear]

Well then, kudos to you Chief also.

Ah shucks...thanks buddy.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Table rock lake should already have enforcement from the corps. Game wardens should never have to worry about it.

Nope. MDC does the game laws and the Water Patrol does the all others. It is not the Corps responsibility.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Chief, MSA has always in the past concentrated on MDC and smallmouth regulations changes. Yep, they are a Stream Team, and do cleanups of their adopted stretch of river. Yep, they are concerned about pollution and habitat issues, and have worked in the past with landowners doing tree planting and other stuff. Yep, they are aware of other things that could be done. But...they are a volunteer organization, and the problem with volunteer organizations is always inconsistent funding and manpower to do things themselves. And while MSA has a couple guys that are ready and willing to lobby the legislature and MDC to try to get things done on all the issues you are worried about, but an organization of 200-300 members will largely be ignored by legislators. MSA is a member of the Conservation Federation, and will continue to work within that organization as well, and they have a lot more clout. But heck, we probably have enough people that belong to Ozarkanglers to make as much difference as MSA does by themselves. Problem is, we can't get anybody to agree on much of anything:)

I just recvieved this email. These people seem to be getting things done.

Dear Britt,

I am writing to thank you for two wonderful years in what will be my last email as Environment Missouri’s Advocate.

I am ending my time with the organization to pursue further graduate studies. But I am very pleased to be leaving Environment Missouri in such good hands. We have hired a new Advocate, Stuart Keating – a passionate organizer, lawyer, and outdoorsman – who will work with our staff, members and activists to win more victories for Missouri’s environment.

But Environment Missouri has always been about you – we get our fire and our strength from the thousands of Missourians who stand with us against powerful polluters and recalcitrant politicians on behalf of Missouri's air, water, and open spaces.

With your support and the help of our allies over the last two years, we:

• Won protections for the State Parks Earnings Fund, a cornerstone fund for our great state parks like the Katy Trail and Ha Ha Tonka.
  
  • Pushed the EPA to release a new clean water plan that, when finalized, will close polluter-backed loopholes in the Clean Water Act and restore protections to 66% of Missouri’s streams that feed the Meramec, Missouri, and our other great rivers.
    
    • Defeated an attempt to close Lone Elk Park and 22 other beloved St. Louis County Parks – where elk, bison, and other wildlife roam.
      

    [*]Won the first ever limits on mercury and air toxics pollution from power plants, which will reduce harmful mercury pollution by 90% and save an estimated 11,000 lives each year.

    [*]Defeated a reckless attack on the Current River by legislators in Jefferson City that would have stopped the National Park Service from cleaning up our river gem; and mobilized over 8,000 Missourians to press the Park Service to draw up a bold new restoration plan for the Current.

    Again, thank you for your passion and your support. It is the lifeblood of what we do.

    Sincerely,

    Ted Mathys

    Environment Missouri Advocate

[Al Agnew]

I just recvieved this email. These people seem to be getting things done.

Dear Britt,

I am writing to thank you for two wonderful years in what will be my last email as Environment Missouri’s Advocate.

I am ending my time with the organization to pursue further graduate studies. But I am very pleased to be leaving Environment Missouri in such good hands. We have hired a new Advocate, Stuart Keating – a passionate organizer, lawyer, and outdoorsman – who will work with our staff, members and activists to win more victories for Missouri’s environment.

But Environment Missouri has always been about you – we get our fire and our strength from the thousands of Missourians who stand with us against powerful polluters and recalcitrant politicians on behalf of Missouri's air, water, and open spaces.

With your support and the help of our allies over the last two years, we:

• Won protections for the State Parks Earnings Fund, a cornerstone fund for our great state parks like the Katy Trail and Ha Ha Tonka.
  
  • Pushed the EPA to release a new clean water plan that, when finalized, will close polluter-backed loopholes in the Clean Water Act and restore protections to 66% of Missouri’s streams that feed the Meramec, Missouri, and our other great rivers.
    
    • Defeated an attempt to close Lone Elk Park and 22 other beloved St. Louis County Parks – where elk, bison, and other wildlife roam.
      

    [*]Won the first ever limits on mercury and air toxics pollution from power plants, which will reduce harmful mercury pollution by 90% and save an estimated 11,000 lives each year.

    [*]Defeated a reckless attack on the Current River by legislators in Jefferson City that would have stopped the National Park Service from cleaning up our river gem; and mobilized over 8,000 Missourians to press the Park Service to draw up a bold new restoration plan for the Current.

    Again, thank you for your passion and your support. It is the lifeblood of what we do.

    Sincerely,

    Ted Mathys

    Environment Missouri Advocate

    It's a good organization, but they were far from the only organization working on those things. The Sierra Club chapters and Audubon chapters were also working on them...which brings up a point, though. MSA or Ozarkanglers may not be able to influence the agencies enough by themselves, but if we can get those other environmental organizations working on parts of the river problems, and the Conservation Federation working on them as well, it's a lot more likely that we'll get something done.

[Chief Grey Bear]

It's a good organization, but they were far from the only organization working on those things. The Sierra Club chapters and Audubon chapters were also working on them.

With your support and the help of our allies over the last two years, we:

Maybe you missed this part???

..which brings up a point, though. MSA or Ozarkanglers may not be able to influence the agencies enough by themselves, but if we can get those other environmental organizations working on parts of the river problems, and the Conservation Federation working on them as well, it's a lot more likely that we'll get something done.

Do you guy's even read what I post???

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. ???????

[Al Agnew]

Gotcha, Chief...sorry, I sometimes have a habit of reiterating a point.

Speaking of reiterating...this was touched on before, but after conversations with a couple of canoe livery people, one thing I hadn't given as much thought as I should have in the user fee scheme was the extra costs of bookkeeping that the liveries would have to do to collect the fees. As a small business owner myself, I know what it's like to be saddled with bookkeeping costs that the average wage earner never has to worry about. Unless there's some way of making the bookkeeping easy, the use fee idea would probably cut into livery profits, even if the fee itself didn't discourage people from coming.

And my wife pointed out that a $3 fee per person would be pretty steep when it came to a family with small kids who rented. Both points are well taken, and I appreciate the feedback. I think we can all agree that figuring out all the ramifications like this is necessary before jumping into anything, even if it's possible to "jump into anything".

A few words about the liveries...based a little bit on those conversations and also based upon being friends with several livery owners:

I think I said somewhere way back in this thread that most livery owners care deeply about the rivers. In fact, I think I said that you're as likely to see them fighting conservation battles as you will battles to protect their profits. But the liveries I know have long ago realized that problems with the party behavior will cut into their business as non-party customers go somewhere else (like Justin's place). Other than halting their raft business, the liveries I know have done as much as they can to discourage or control the party crowd. Years ago you could go into some liveries down on Current River and buy mardi gras beads and beer bongs in their stores. No longer. It's also been pointed out more than once in this thread that these guys are small businesses trying to survive, and that goes even for the bigger ones. There's a demand for rafts and the raft rentals are profitable, and as Muddy can certainly tell you, there's a lot of competition out there and one livery refusing to rent rafts only means that another down the road or on the next river will rent more of them. There was maybe a time when we could have limited rental watercraft numbers on the popular streams, but I suspect that time has passed.

I'm still liking the idea of people using the rivers paying a little extra to protect them. But I'm hearing the possible problems, and I'm listening to other ideas.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Gotcha, Chief...sorry, I sometimes have a habit of reiterating a point.

Speaking of reiterating...this was touched on before, but after conversations with a couple of canoe livery people, one thing I hadn't given as much thought as I should have in the user fee scheme was the extra costs of bookkeeping that the liveries would have to do to collect the fees. As a small business owner myself, I know what it's like to be saddled with bookkeeping costs that the average wage earner never has to worry about. Unless there's some way of making the bookkeeping easy, the use fee idea would probably cut into livery profits, even if the fee itself didn't discourage people from coming.

That is a good point I hadn't thought of either.

And my wife pointed out that a $3 fee per person would be pretty steep when it came to a family with small kids who rented. Both points are well taken, and I appreciate the feedback. I think we can all agree that figuring out all the ramifications like this is necessary before jumping into anything, even if it's possible to "jump into anything".

Now here is the point where I wasn't paying attention. I read all of that but had it in my head that it was $3 per canoe/yak/raft.

A few words about the liveries...based a little bit on those conversations and also based upon being friends with several livery owners:

I think I said somewhere way back in this thread that most livery owners care deeply about the rivers. In fact, I think I said that you're as likely to see them fighting conservation battles as you will battles to protect their profits. But the liveries I know have long ago realized that problems with the party behavior will cut into their business as non-party customers go somewhere else (like Justin's place). Other than halting their raft business, the liveries I know have done as much as they can to discourage or control the party crowd. Years ago you could go into some liveries down on Current River and buy mardi gras beads and beer bongs in their stores. No longer. It's also been pointed out more than once in this thread that these guys are small businesses trying to survive, and that goes even for the bigger ones. There's a demand for rafts and the raft rentals are profitable, and as Muddy can certainly tell you, there's a lot of competition out there and one livery refusing to rent rafts only means that another down the road or on the next river will rent more of them. There was maybe a time when we could have limited rental watercraft numbers on the popular streams, but I suspect that time has passed.

I'm still liking the idea of people using the rivers paying a little extra to protect them. But I'm hearing the possible problems, and I'm listening to other ideas.

Keeping the wheels turning.

Question for you Al.

While at work yesterday, I kept thinking of this thread all day. I just couldn't get it out of my head. And then I wondered, do threads like this affect your time painting? Do you have to stop because you can't concentrate and just walk away for a bit?

[Guest]

Do you guy's even read what I post???

Nope

[Chief Grey Bear]

Nope

Glad you opened your pie hole. I am still waiting on you to show me which post I lied in. You have had plenty of time.

[stlfisher]

So no one likes the floating license idea? You pay once at the beggining of the year and that is it. The outfitters don't have to do anything besided check the license If you rent from them.