Stop Proposed Riverways Transfer To State

[jdmidwest]

I really don't have a dog in the hunt anyway. I have never really cared much for the Riverways anyway. Too many people, poor fishing, and poorly managed campgrounds. On an average year, I may only spend a few days there. I could easily enjoy myself somewhere else.

What amazes me is that everyone seems to think it is such a money pit, a huge expense that someone else needs to spend money on. But nobody seems to think about where that money comes from that is being wasted. Nobody seems to think that it needs to be managed more efficiently.

It still comes out of our pockets. That is, if you are a taxpayer.

[Gavin]

Much ado about nothing IMO. The Feds aren't going to give it back.

[Mark]

Just enforce the regulations that are in place - fines for riding horses in unauthorized areas, accessing in unauthorized areas, and failing to reduce speed in jetboats to oncoming canoe traffic.

[grizwilson]

Guess it is over for now????

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/alex-stuckey/mo-senate-committee-strips-funding-for-takeover-of-ozark-national/article_75ac2d52-28ba-5872-9007-6ac36f0d2635.html

g

[gotmuddy]

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.

Rural people have good reason to distrust the federal government.

[hoglaw]

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.

Why do you assume that it's a good and financially viable thing to do and demand evidence to the contrary? Seems to me that these folks on the state side who failed in their attempt to take this over should have been the ones saddled with the burden of proving why it's a good and financially viable thing to do instead of that being assumed. Maybe you just have more trust in the motives of legistlators than I do.