Stop Proposed Riverways Transfer To State

[Wayne SW/MO]

But our DNR has done such a wonderful job, just look at the Niangua!

[Chief Grey Bear]

But our DNR has done such a wonderful job, just look at the Niangua!

Classic example of why we shouldn't let the legislature control the MDC.

[SpoonDog]

IMO it's a moot point. Driving your ATV through the river or on unauthorized trails is still going to be illegal, whether the Park Service owns it or MDC does. Same with hauling your camper out onto the gravel bar, or wandering hinder and yon on a hundred-person scenic horse trip. MDC's mission is to conserve fish, forests and wildlife just as the Park Service's is- changing departments doesn't necessarily change the management, and I could see MDC being even more restrictive than ONSR has been with some uses.

And as many people on this board who complain about MDC's lack of enforcement, I'm amazed anyone would advocate they manage the Riverways.

[Al Agnew]

Neither MDC nor DNR has the funds to administer the Riverways. Nor do they have the personnel. This would be like adding about 25 state parks or wildlife areas to their responsibilities all at once, with (I guarantee you) zero additional funds to do so, because the legislature isn't going to allocate any money over and above what MDC or DNR have now. Only choice would be steep entry and use fees to recoup some of the spending. There would be pressure to maximize use, and thus user fees, at the expense of the well-being of the resource. The feds aren't going to pay for something they have no control over.

I also guarantee you...what a lot of the politicians, and advocates calling for the Riverways to go to the state, are really wanting is for much of it to be privatized. And I suspect they know that if they succeeded in getting state control, they would have no choice but to sell off parts of it.

[ness]

Neither MDC nor DNR has the funds to administer the Riverways. Nor do they have the personnel. This would be like adding about 25 state parks or wildlife areas to their responsibilities all at once, with (I guarantee you) zero additional funds to do so, because the legislature isn't going to allocate any money over and above what MDC or DNR have now. Only choice would be steep entry and use fees to recoup some of the spending. There would be pressure to maximize use, and thus user fees, at the expense of the well-being of the resource. The feds aren't going to pay for something they have no control over.

I also guarantee you...what a lot of the politicians, and advocates calling for the Riverways to go to the state, are really wanting is for much of it to be privatized. And I suspect they know that if they succeeded in getting state control, they would have no choice but to sell off parts of it.

That passes the smell test.

[ness]

I think a big part of this is the deep distrust some rural folks have in the federal government, and that goes back generations in some cases. Folks down there have been screwed through eminent domain or hassled by revenuers for a couple hundred years. That's why you see the militias and preppers down in those parts, and not in my subdivision.

I don't fault a guy for making a buck from selling horseback rides, and I can understand why he'd be pist if that was about to get upended. But this is a bad idea, and I get the feeling the folks calling for it are doing it more out of emotion and less out of what makes the most sense. It really works pretty darn well as it is.

[Mark]

Good point about the root of distrust. And I don't fault the guy trying to make a buck on horse trail rides, but stick to the authorized trails or private grounds. There are plenty of trails available and they don't HAVE to have their trail rides on the river, they just don't want to be told to keep their horses out of the rivers.

[Feathers and Fins]

Neither MDC nor DNR has the funds to administer the Riverways. Nor do they have the personnel. This would be like adding about 25 state parks or wildlife areas to their responsibilities all at once, with (I guarantee you) zero additional funds to do so, because the legislature isn't going to allocate any money over and above what MDC or DNR have now. Only choice would be steep entry and use fees to recoup some of the spending. There would be pressure to maximize use, and thus user fees, at the expense of the well-being of the resource. The feds aren't going to pay for something they have no control over.

I also guarantee you...what a lot of the politicians, and advocates calling for the Riverways to go to the state, are really wanting is for much of it to be privatized. And I suspect they know that if they succeeded in getting state control, they would have no choice but to sell off parts of it.

Al, I am not disagreeing with you in the least bit, but I also smell something that could happen that left a bad, very bad taste in my mouth. It is called ( The Forrestry Adventure Pass ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Forest_Adventure_Pass Very few things ever had me so mad in my life than charging people for the use of the National Forrest! This could be what might happen here.

[jdmidwest]

What makes you think the state could not afford it?

The Riverways is a money maker. Thousands of acres of forest to be managed for a profit. Floater fees. Concessionaire fees paid by vendors at the campgrounds. Camping fees.

Systems are in place now, it would just be a transfer of who funds them and where the income will be shifted. It should not cost the state any more to run the Riverways than the Feds, should it?

Unless you are stating that the Riverways is a money losing waste of our tax dollars and only the Feds know how to run losing propositions.

[Al Agnew]

What makes you think the state could not afford it?

The Riverways is a money maker. Thousands of acres of forest to be managed for a profit. Floater fees. Concessionaire fees paid by vendors at the campgrounds. Camping fees.

Systems are in place now, it would just be a transfer of who funds them and where the income will be shifted. It should not cost the state any more to run the Riverways than the Feds, should it?

Unless you are stating that the Riverways is a money losing waste of our tax dollars and only the Feds know how to run losing propositions.

I'd like to see any figures you have supporting the notion that user fees are paying for the administration of the Riverways now. I highly doubt it. Only a percentage of users pay anything, either indirectly through concessionaire fees or campground fees. Do it yourself floaters, jetboaters, hikers, horseback riders, picnickers, swimmers, visitors to the former state parks and other places like Blue Spring, pay nothing. I suspect that, in order to even come close to paying for the administration of the Riverways, there would have to be fees collected from all those people. Entry fees to every picnic area, fees to use boat accesses, fees to use trails that go across Riverways land. And of course, that would necessitate a few more people to collect all those fees, too.

Our national parks, of which this is certainly one, are NOT and have never meant to be for-profit enterprises. Our tax dollars ARE paying for them to some extent, and I for one am happy to have my tax dollars going there. Not that I mind paying some use fees, because I think that those who use it more should pay more...as long as the fees are going for the upkeep of the parks and not into general revenue. But there is a big philosophical difference between a government program and a for-profit business, and that difference in this case would manifest itself in, as I noted before, making decisions maximizing visitation and use in order to bring in more money, instead of making decisions on what's good for the resource.