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

[Coldspring]

There are volunteers, like Stream Teamers that tend to enjoy removing the litter. I spent a few nights canoeing on the Jacks this summer, picking up litter. Planning to unload it in some trash barrels along the way that I later found had been removed. I was overweighted, so had to leave the trash hoping someone would take it from the access area. Of course, the park rangers showed up at that moment to check for camping fee money! If you forgot to pay for a campsite you can be assured the rangers would show up with ticket book in hand, but no time for trash service. I asked them if they could take it, they didn't seem to like the idea.

I really don't have a major problem with ORVs finding thier way down to the river to camp, swim, or fish. They are not the only ones that leave litter. Everyone wants to enjoy the river and their day. Leaving a few cans and hot dog wrappers is one thing, Stream Teamers can pick it up in seconds, taking out a smallmouth that took years to grow to legal size is another. There is no more reason to take the fish than their is for the picnickers to enjoy a beer and swim. Anglers litter too.

Plan B, the one preferred by the park service will end motorized boat usage above Bay Creek on Jacks and Pullite on Current, year round. No motorized boats will be allowed from March 15-Labor Day from Bay Creek to below Alley Spring and Pulltite to Round Spring.

Be careful what restrictions you wish for. Your preferred activity may be next to go.

[jdmidwest]

Personally, I could do with out the jet boats on the river anywhere above 2 Rivers. Jacks Fork is usually too low to run them on there anyway and have not really seen any on there during the summer. Current River would be better without them and safer for the floaters in that area without them.

I don't really want to see more horses and trails, their little hooves do alot of damage and the manure leaves the pristine country looking like a barnyard. And then there are the flies that always seem to ruin the camping around the stable areas.

Closing accesses to launch is the interesting one, they really don't say what will go. Williams is one I wonder about. All of the upper river accesses give you choices based on how you want to float and for how long. Less access would lead to less choice.

And that illustrious representative is the Federal Government, working to protect the state he represents. Maybe let the state take over and run the land within its border.

[Gavin]

I can see that the jet boaters wouId have an issue with plan B...I'd prefer A though...They might eliminate or restrict my use of those rivers in the future, but that is OK...I love to float in the ONSR...but it gets too much use at the moment...Thinking that there are several thousand miles of river that you can do what ever you want too on......Lets keep some quiet water.

.

[jdmidwest]

I can see that the jet boaters wouId have an issue with plan B...I'd prefer A though...They might eliminate or restrict my use of those rivers in the future, but that is OK...I love to float in the ONSR...but it gets too much use at the moment...Thinking that there are several thousand miles of river that you can do what ever you want too on......Lets keep some quiet water.

.

Making it a Wilderness Area is a great idea. But who controls it? And who can use it?

It has been over commercialized in past years, it would be hard to return it to what it was when the indians and schoolcraft used it. Big timber is gone. Too many people on the river.

[hank franklin]

The plan is open for public comment. The link below should take you directly there.

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=158&projectID=15793&documentID=56208

FWIW, Alternative B is OK with me. I would prefer no motors above Two Rivers also, maybe a seasonal restriction (Mem Day to Labor Day?).

I am no fan of the federal government for sure, but our national parks are treasures and they must be preserved. To get worked up over this as some kind of federal encroachment is to lose sight of the facts: the park is not being preserved, it's being abused. The wilderness character of much of the river is being lost. Some kind of "correction" is needed. While Alt A might be nice it's also unrealistic and in my opinion truly does not represent "tradition." The Ozark tradition is making use of the rivers for commerce, fun, and sport. We've been trying to draw people down here to the beauty and wonder for years. You just gottta strike a balance. At some point the beauty and wonder gets spoiled and I've felt that way on trips over the past few years. A camper on every gravel bar. Jet boats buzzing. Trails and ATV tracks everywhere. The Current in my experience (first float in 1989) has gone from a jewel to something of an amusement park. I go other places now when I want to "get away," and that's kind of sad.

[Coldspring]

Let's not forget that the park was lined by farms and homesteads and private resorts only 45 years ago. I'm not sure what the wilderness character like, that must have been before the timber boom stripped every ridgetop along the rivers. West Eminence had a population of 10,000 at one time, will present day Eminence become a ghost town of sorts if park service succeed in ending tourist usage and more businesses closing up? The park was originally planned to be a recreational area, not a natural preserve that allows anglers to endanger it's biotic community if they follow present laws.

[Al Agnew]

Let's not forget that the park was lined by farms and homesteads and private resorts only 45 years ago. I'm not sure what the wilderness character like, that must have been before the timber boom stripped every ridgetop along the rivers. West Eminence had a population of 10,000 at one time, will present day Eminence become a ghost town of sorts if park service succeed in ending tourist usage and more businesses closing up? The park was originally planned to be a recreational area, not a natural preserve that allows anglers to endanger it's biotic community if they follow present laws.

A little hyperbole, maybe? The Park Service is in no way attempting to end tourist usage. Yes, it was not meant to be a natural preserve, but the enabling legislation's stated goal was to protect it, not commercially develop it. The reason it was made into a National Scenic Riverway was because these two streams were arguably the greatest gems of the Missouri Ozarks, with a combination of natural characteristics unmatched by any other streams in the state.

Many parts of the riverways are being overused, and too much of that use is unregulated and unpoliced. The overuse is damaging the rivers along with the experiences of many of the visitors. You don't fix that by allowing MORE use that is incompatible with protecting the resource and the quality of the experience. You fix it by a little tighter regulation of the use, and at some point, limiting the use.

By the way, banning motorized use above Pulltite should be almost a no-brainer, given the crowded conditions of that stretch in warmer weather and the potential for accidents with high speed boats in and around all the other users in and on the water. And banning motorized use above Bay Creek is the same thing, but even more so, because the upper Jacks Fork SHOULD be the premier "wilderness" river in Missouri.

[hank franklin]

if park service succeed in ending tourist usage

That's not what they are recommending, at all.

[Coldspring]

And banning motorized use above Bay Creek is the same thing, but even more so, because the upper Jacks Fork SHOULD be the premier "wilderness" river in Missouri.

Well, it's not a "wilderness". It is more of a scenic easement. There are cabins that can be seen from the river, right up on park boundaries. Not including the Teacher's Assoc. camp. The river corridor on upper Jacks is 1/2 to mile wide, surrounded by homes, and timberland. Hwy 60 is not far. W/o being next to rippling water to mask the noise you get to enjoy the constant songs of lawnmowers, chainsaws, and semi-trucks on the highway.

One of my favorite opinions is from a local Sierra Clubber only minutes away from the river. I always find it amusing those that retire from other areas to a cheap piece of property in the area on a few acres and think they own the place and want to restrict others away. This person wants the plan that will close off the accesses and campgrounds on the upper Jacks. What would they stand to gain? Oh yeah, someone can drive them down to the Prongs and they can paddle through to Alley and not see anyone for a few days. That's great if you don't hunt, dayhike, or wadefish the area, and are only a few minutes drive. Closing off those accesses and roads will hurt other types of users than the overnight primitive camper floater royalex canoe/subaru driving types.

I personally think the upper Jacks is overfished. A moratorium on fishing for a few years would help it more than anything.

[ColdWaterFshr]

I received today a postcard in the mail on this. So I went and downloaded the document. Good grief - its 500 pages. Typical federal gubbamint, eh? Good lord. Then I figured someone on here had researched it and boiled it down for us. Thank you, Al!

Let me just say this.

Every time I go to either the Jacks or Current I am amazed and disappointed at how many more people I see and evidence OF people than the last time I was there. And I've been going for almost 30 years now.

The closing of these illegal roads and access points is absolutely necessary. The motorized boats above Akers, and above Eminence . . . . . those have all gotta go.

I like Plan A the best even though I don't think it goes far enough. I'd like to see daily admittance #'s capped and permits issued for overnight camping.

Plan B is the NPS's "preferred alternative". Preferred based on what? A blending of the public input they have received so far?? I don't like the suggestive wording of "preferred" at all. Its like they are trying to vote for us. Does it say anywhere in those 500 pages exactly what is meant by this?