Da Man. New Restrictions In The Onsr Being Mulled Over.

[jdmidwest]

In light of the recent shutdown of the ONSR system because of the Federal Government, along comes more possible restrictions.

Shutting down accesses. Limiting camping to organized campgrounds and eliminating gravel bar camping. Roads removed and replaced with hiking trails.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/missouri/plan-calls-for-new-mo-riverways-restrictions/article_defdfb7a-cafa-55c8-a1f8-19844c83da46.html

I have a proposal, let the State of Missouri take back the land and kick the Feds out of it. I honestly believe that the MDC could do a better job. I am glad to see their major purchases of land parcels along the 2 rivers over the past years.

Could be be lucky enough to get a "No Action" vote and keep things the same?

[moguy1973]

What harm does gravel bar camping have anyways? And how do they expect to enforce that?

[jdmidwest]

What harm does gravel bar camping have anyways? And how do they expect to enforce that?

They managed to keep people off the river for a few days last month. Maybe nightly runs up the river to write tickets on the bars.

Group camping usually leads to trash and unsightly riverbanks. The nature groups are seeking to make it more natural, like it was before man invaded it.

[Al Agnew]

Umm...as usual, the news reports are not quite right when it comes to gravel bar camping. In all three alternatives, it says that gravel bar camping will be restricted to designated sites--EXCEPT FOR PRIMITIVE CAMPING. That's exactly what it says in the actual management plan. In other words, the kind of gravel bar camping that we all love, camping out of your canoe or other watercraft, would still be allowed. The gravel bar camping that would not be allowed would be where there are roads leading to the gravel bar and some nimrod pulls a camper out onto the gravel bar.

But of course, the yahoos that are agin everything the Riverways stands for will ignore that little fact and stir up crap to make sure nothing changes on the Riverways. I love what our illustrious idiot of a representative said...he'd work tirelessly to keep the park service from further encroaching on "our public lands". What???? Um, those public lands ARE park service lands already, and by the way, they wouldn't have ever become public lands if the park service hadn't bought them all up to begin with. When the heck will these doofuses realize that they ARE public lands and not the private playground and cash cow of the people that live around there? All those undesignated roads NEED to be closed. They are the main reason that those gravel bars get trashed. The park service is already bending over backwards to appease the horseback riders, do they need to appease the off road vehicle lobby too?

Sorry, jd, if the park service was allowed to manage the riverways the way they should be managed, instead of being fought tooth and nail to allow them to become more and more of a speedboat alley, motocross track, county landfill, and septic tank, the rivers would be a whole lot better off.

[Feathers and Fins]

Usually AL, and I could debate a topic pretty good back n forth but this time I am 100% behind what he is saying.

[Gavin]

I haven't read the whole report...its over 500 pages long...but I skimmed it...The restrictions on gravel bar camping are in designated areas...probably like the small campground down at Sinking Creek (just up from Round Spring. Doofusses used to park campers on that gravel bar all the time...but its tent only walk in now. As for roads...they NEED to close some of those rutted two tracks....I hate floating Cedar to Akers in the summer...rutted two track parallels the river in most spots....really bad around Flying W and Medlock...tire tracks all over those gravel bars.

[Al Agnew]

Yeah, check out the upper Jacks Fork in the summer. There are two track roads leading to half the gravel bars, and PLENTY of tire tracks and trash on many of them...and since the river is too low for the liveries to rent canoes on the upper river, I guarantee you that trash is coming mostly from the pinheads bringing ORVs down to those gravel bars.

[hank franklin]

It's a national park, treat it like one.

I've skimmed the regs too and it seems to strike the right balance.

I've been floating Cedar to Akers for years and yes, the streamside vehicle use is just ridiculous. Like anything, a little is OK, too much ruins it for everybody. It's definitely gone too far.

Thanks to River Hills Traveler for having great info on this. http://rhtrav.com/wordpress/draft-gmp-issued-nps-prefers-alternative-b/?utm_source=TravTalkNewsletterlist&utm_campaign=01e14d52f3-TravTalk_No_32_11_8_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_31a644a2ae-01e14d52f3-346264441

[Al Agnew]

I found this summary on the paddling.net message board, from poster pblanc:-- Last Updated: Nov-10-13 2:06 PM EST --

I have tried, at considerable peril, to digest a bit more of the NPS draft management plan for the Ozark National Scenic Riverways.

The three alternative proposals of course involve much more than the river management plan changes that were summarized in the links I provided above.

I realize that few people are going to be inclined to wade through this 500+ page document so I have tried to summarize key differences between the three alternative proposals. Most of this info is taken from Table 13 of the draft management plan, pp. 145-150, which can be accessed through this site: http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=158&projectID=15793&documentID=56208

Alternative "A" key points:

The percentage of land in the ONSR that would be zoned as either "natural" or "primitive" would total 95.4%.

60/40 horsepower engines would be prohibited throughout the ONSR on the Current and Jack's Fork (note that 60/40 hp engines are currently being tolerated on some stretches of the ONSR but they are against the letter of the law. It is unclear to me if and when the NPS would enforce the law if the "No Action" alternative is adopted).

The 6 existing designated campgrounds would be preserved, but as far as I can tell, no new campgrounds would be developed.

Some river access points open for concession floating would be closed and reconditioned and new ones might be opened, but the total number of access points for concession floating would decrease.

As many as 25 miles of new horseback riding trails would be developed, but there would be no new stream crossings for horseback trails.

Illegally developed roads would be closed. Vehicular access to all gravel bars would be eliminated. Gravel bar access would be walk-in or by boat only. Roads to primitive campsites would be removed. There would be no horse camping.

Alternative "B" ("favored" by the NPS) key points:

Percentage of ONSR lands zoned "natural" or "primitive" would totl 88.4%.

60/40 horsepower outboard motors would be allowed on some stretches of river (they are currently tolerated on some stretches of river but technically speaking, they are against the law).

There would be up to 20 new concession access points for float trips (while some existing concession access points might be closed) but the total number of concession access points would remain the same, or decrease.

There would be up to 35 miles of new horseback riding trails including new stream crossings.

A 25 campsite horse campground may be established (it is not clear to me where this would be).

Two new designated campgrounds may be provided, at Akers on the upper Current, and at Blue Spring on the upper Jack's Fork.

A "learning center" may be constructed at Powder Mill.

Roads to primitive campsites would be removed. The number of gravel bars accessible to vehicles would be "designated" and reduced from the existing number.

Alternative "C" key points:

The percentage of ONSR lands zoned as "natural" or "primitive" would total 34.7% (that's right, thirty four point seven percent). 59,6% if lands would be zoned for "resource-based recreation" and the remaining 5.2% zoned "developed".

60/40 horsepower outboard motors would be allowed on some sections of the rivers.

Up to 45 miles of new horseback riding trails may be developed including new stream crossings.

A 25 campsite horse campground may be established on the Jack's Fork River.

Two new designated campgrounds may be established at Akers (Current River) and Blue Spring (Jack's Fork River).

Existing vehicular access to gravel bar sites and overnight camping would continue to be allowed. Roads to primitive campsites would be removed and replaced with hiking trails.

"Additional facilities would be necessary to accommodate

higher levels and different types of visitor use. There would

be more types of designated camping opportunities,

including primitive, semiprimitive, semideveloped, and

developed sites. There would also be more boat ramps and

trails for hiking and horseback riding"

(the last paragraph is taken verbatim from the draft management plan document).

Sorry for the length of this post, but believe me, it is better than trying to read the parent document.

It's a good summary of the three alternatives. I'd definitely prefer alternative 1. The Park Service, of course, bowing to pressure from local interests, prefers alternative 2. Those local interests, who don't give a darn about the river except as their cash cow, don't even like alternative 3, they want things to remain as they are with no plan to do much of anything to protect the resource.

The horsepower limits are a bit confusing. It seems that Mercury is now designating the true horsepower at the pump on all their factory jets. So a 40 HP Mercury 4 stroke jet is truly a 40 HP engine, and would therefore be legal, apparently. Other manufacturers and after market jet installations would then only be legal if they were rated no more than 40 HP at the power plant, not the jet pump. So if you wanted a more powerful engine than most legal ones, you'd buy a Mercury. Everybody else would probably scream and moan that they were being discriminated against.

[Mitch f]

Motor stickers are cheap!