Stop Proposed Riverways Transfer To State

[Terrierman]

This would not even be an issue had the NPS managed the Riverways according to their own rules instead of letting things get out of hand like they have.

[fishinwrench]

What is involved in "administrating a riverway" ?

Y'all make it sound like it takes a panel of 23 who each draw 400,000.00/yr., and that it is more complicated and stressful than managing Disneyland.

Who here couldn't handle that quite successfully for nothing more than a single modest living wage?

[Smalliebigs]

Oh man wingnuts? Militants? The MDC is in for state control, hardly wingnuts. You guys are always talking about how screwed up the riverways recreation area has become. Who has managed it for the last 50 yrs?

Totally agree 100%.....when your arguments are filled with acusational terms like wingnuts and militants you sound like the Global warming police and Al Gore.....you have lost any and all credibility in my book with your BS........you sound like this......believe what I say and if you don't well then you are a dumbass hoosier. I don't believe your arguments in regards to the state becoming that saddled with budget short falls.....The feds do a shity job right now of maintaining the ramps and accesses, as well as enforcing anything at all.

[Feathers and Fins]

What is involved in "administrating a riverway" ?

Y'all make it sound like it takes a panel of 23 who each draw 400,000.00/yr., and that it is more complicated and stressful than managing Disneyland.

Who here couldn't handle that quite successfully for nothing more than a single modest living wage?

Glen, you ask who and the answer is most everyday Joe's could the problem is a bureaucrat would be in charge and we don't need to look hard to see what those do to simple jobs.

If this went to MDC who is a permissive agency it could be a good thing, they say what you can do everything else is a cannot! MDC does have short comings but by in large they do a good job. I just wish there was more enforcement agents for protection of the resource.

[jdmidwest]

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.

That is the point, I have not seen any data on what revenue the Riverway generates, but I do know for a fact it does. The land and timber are a major resource along with the concessions.

Everyone is quick to assume that it will be a big burden to take it over, but I have not seen any data that shows it will be. Just because there is a budgeted amount for improvements on the agenda does not necessarily mean there will not be money generated to pay for it. Nor does it mean the improvements are needed.

What I fail to see in the arguement is why it would be bad for the State of Missouri to take it over. There has been no data produced that shows it will be a big debt liability if they do so. Pittman Roberts money should still come in on it. Revenues generated will stay in state.

Missouri has a great State Park system and does a better job of managing them in my opinion than the NFS does. I can only see benefits and improvements it the state takes it over.

[Al Agnew]

That is the point, I have not seen any data on what revenue the Riverway generates, but I do know for a fact it does. The land and timber are a major resource along with the concessions.

Everyone is quick to assume that it will be a big burden to take it over, but I have not seen any data that shows it will be. Just because there is a budgeted amount for improvements on the agenda does not necessarily mean there will not be money generated to pay for it. Nor does it mean the improvements are needed.

What I fail to see in the arguement is why it would be bad for the State of Missouri to take it over. There has been no data produced that shows it will be a big debt liability if they do so. Pittman Roberts money should still come in on it. Revenues generated will stay in state.

Missouri has a great State Park system and does a better job of managing them in my opinion than the NFS does. I can only see benefits and improvements it the state takes it over.

Pittman-Robertson money does not go to the DNR. DNR would be managing it if it became a state park. MDC has nothing to do with state parks. MDC is not in the business of managing things like state parks. Their focus is on fish, wildlife, and forestry, and the Riverways is far more than that.

You're dreaming if you think that there are tons of money to be had from "managing" the forests along the Riverways. For the most part it's a narrow strip along the rivers, with much of it steep and bluffy, much of the rest in old bottom fields that will take many moe years, if ever, before they produce marketable timber. Not to mention that intensive timber cutting within sight of the river, which most of the land is, will NOT be a popular thing with visitors.

And you're also dreaming if you think that concessions will pay for it.

Keep in mind that the state parks are not money making enterprises, either. DNR gets sales tax revenue just like MDC. In terms of personnel needed and maintenance, enforcement, etc., this would be like adding something like 20% to the budget needs of the DNR, if you go on such things as the number of campgrounds, access points, roads to be maintained and patrolled, etc. Without a corresponding increase in the sales tax, they wouldn't get 20% more money. The legislature ain't gonna appropriate it.

You guys ask what could be entailed in running the Riverways. Let's look at that a little closer. You have an elongated park with 100 miles of river running through it. Dozens of roads entering it, many of them unauthorized. Those two things right there require a lot more personnel to patrol and maintain than any state park. You have multiple developed access points, dozens of campgrounds and picnic grounds, fragile geologic features galore, and a bunch of local people who think it's their God-given right to use it in any way they want and who dislike ALL government control, not just the feds. One of the reasons the feds have done a poor job is because the locals kick and scream whenever they threaten to do anything that might possibly inconvenience them and limit their ability to make money off it. You think they won't kick and scream if DNR decides (as they will if they are concerned about protecting the resource with limited personnel) to shut down some of those unauthorized roads and trails?

Could DNR or MDC handle managing it? Yes, but it would require state money over and above what they're getting now, and it would require MDC changing their focus. It wouldn't be easy, and they'd have to still face the same problems the feds are facing with conflicting uses and bad feelings. And, here's the kicker. They'd also be under the thumb of the Missouri legislature, which has never shown itself to be interested in being good stewards of the land, nor of being generous with funds for state parks or conservation.

Mark my words. This is a bad idea which would result in a degradation of the resource that is the Riverways.

[SpoonDog]

Back in 2009, I wound up camping at Montauk SP a couple days before the two nice old ladies running the campground were about to lose their jobs. They were two of hundreds of employees let go that year due to budget cuts. You guys complain about how ONSR services were cut last fall- the same thing happens at the state level.

om what I've read, ONSR's budget is a little more than 6.5 million. That's comparable to MDC's budget for all conservation agents. It's more than they spend on wildlife biologists, it's more than they spend on fish biologists, it's more than they spend on research biologists. If we have the money to throw around, I'd rather see it spent elsewhere.

[living_waters]

From a political point of view I have been listening to Jason smiths arguments ( and his unending robo calls). Economics and "his" constituents dominates his discourse. To be practical the two could be the very same, I have yet to hear of the ecological impact. Should this not be priority when discussing something of this nature?

Would it be such a tragedy if the parks returned to primitive camping and did away with full rv hook ups and access for their christmas lights and astro turf? Would it be so devastating to have to travel at 8 mile an hour upstream and not 18? If it meant your grand kids kids could enjoy the same pristine river your kids did?

The main political motivator is the changing policy proposed by the park service and infringement of rights, the initial purpose of the park service was to protect the river from us, maybe we need to consider who can best protect the river and not consider the economic impact until the first is figured out.

[awhuber]

The main political motivator is the changing policy proposed by the park service and infringement of rights, the initial purpose of the park service was to protect the river from us, maybe we need to consider who can best protect the river and not consider the economic impact until the first is figured out.

This is not quite right.

The enabling law ;

The stated purpose of the newly created ONSR was: For the purpose of conservation and interpreting unique scenic and other natural values and objects of historic interest, including preservation of portions of the Current River and Jacks Fork River in mo. as free flowing streams, preservation of springs and caves, management of wildlife, and provisions for use and enjoyment of the outdoor recreation resources thereof by the people of the United States...

Recreational use is equal priority with all other purposes.

[Al Agnew]

Equal priority...but what happens when recreational use harms the resource? This is the balancing act common to all parks. Sometimes you can't have it both ways. You can't have equal priorities when one priority detracts from the other. So equal priority doesn't mean do whatever the heck you want recreationally. Recreational use can be regulated so that it causes less, or no harm to the resource, depending upon the type of use, but the resource has to come first.