New regulations for boaters on the Current

[3wt]

Lowering the number is the answer. It's flat out no fun to float when it's so jammed with morons that you can't get a paddle in the water...that's really no exaggeration.

I think we can regulate what goes on, and that we also can regulate fisheries for the purpose of being good for fisherman.

I only wish the idiots wouldn't ruin my ability to bring decent beer for sandbar campouts (all my favorites are only in bottles).

[jdmidwest]

The glass part was taken care of a while back in Arkansas, now all I see at the bottom of the river are beer cans and Smirnoff bottles. Much better than the first time I floated it the week after July 4, 1987. It was the trashiest river I had ever been on back then, trash everywhere. The AG&F used to complain about cleaning up the fire pits at the Bayou Access with backhoes and dump truck. Finally, they just closed it to camping to solve that.

Mo. is starting on the glass part now but the litter has been under control for the most part. The problem is, they are trying to regulate people just having a little fun on the weekend with the way they are doing it. I don't have a problem with it. I have always been amazed how few accidents occur with the drinking. You hear about drownings on the lakes but never on the rivers much. I photographed for an hour the spills at one bad bend last summer on the canoes tipping over, but nobody was hurt. If you have ever been to Party Cove on many of the lakes you will have seen worse drinking and nudity and sex acts. The only difference is they are the more affluent in the high class boats, not rentals. I have enough common sense to avoid the crowds when I want to fish or take the family on an outing. There are miles of floatable streams in MO. I choose to float the Jacks Fork or the Current River on the weekends for a good time, not for a good fishing trip or a family get together with the kids.

Just another freedom taken away..........

[Al Agnew]

Yep, there are already enough laws to take care of the problem, all you need is enforcement of them. But this isn't a matter of freedoms being taken away, because there ARE already laws against the public drunkenness, drugs, underage drinking, nudity, and public obscenity. You shouldn't have any more freedom to break these laws on a river than you do on a city street, because the river is no different. And, what exactly do you think gives the party idiots the EXCLUSIVE right to enjoy A NATIONAL PARK on weekends? Not everybody can take their families during the week. And just maybe a lot of people WANT to take their families on what is arguably the crown jewel of Missouri Ozark streams, instead of a slower, murkier river (the only kind that DON'T have a huge canoe rental business and accompanying party hooligans).

Another freedom taken away? BS!

[Forsythian]

Mark, I'm sure you're a nice guy and all, but you're not very politically astute. Maybe "General Topics" or some other such venue would be a better place for your koolaid-induced rantings. Peace dude.

[3wt]

I'm with you Al. I wouldn't go to Yellowstone and expect it to be like Mardi Gras. The parks are mainly set aside for enjoying nature, not partying to the point of ruining the experience for everybody else involved.

[jdmidwest]

If a man who drinks a few beers while enjoying a float makes me a party idiot, then I am. People drink to the excess and don't cause problems all the time at bars, picnics, bonfires, tailgate parties, and county fairs. It is getting to the point that the only place a man can have a beer is at home. While I am fishing it is usually no alcohol involved anyway. And I don't know where everyone is from, but I have access to miles and miles of rivers and streams in southeast MO Ozarks that are clear and cool and full of fish. They don't have any canoes on them for the most parts and you can usually go all day on the weekend without running into anyone. They most definitely do not have jet boats that you have to worry about swamping you in a riffle either like Current, Jacks Fork, 11PT, or Meramac. If I wanted EXCLUSIVE access to a river or a park on a weekend, I personally would not want to see a soul around except for friends or family.

Are we just getting too old to remember what it was like to be young? I know I am past the target crowd of 20-30 age group.

[porter57]

im kinda flip flopped on this issue.

ive enjoyed both peaceful fishing and wild partying on the rivers.

kinda think there are some civil liberties issues involved.

perhaps more regulation of the number of canoes rented would help

this situation. its just like on the lakes,we fishermen have no right to deny skiers thier pleasure and we are both seeking the same type of water. if people would be a little more respecting of thier fellow users this might not be the problem that it has become.

[catman70]

"If people made good decisions and didn't draw attention to themselves when they were drinking the laws wouldn't have to be changed. As far as drugs are concerned, zero tolerance!"

Alcohol is a drug just like pot, cocaine, viagria and asprin. What makes it a controlled substance or not is strictly cultural. There is nothing innately evil about any of these, and most illegal drugs were used for medicinal pruposes at one time. It's the people that use the drugs (particularly in a habitual manner) who are to blame for any problems associated with any of them.

[Crippled Caddis]

<kinda think there are some civil liberties issues involved>

Indeed! Under the most basic tenets of a Democratic or Republican form of government the will of the majority becomes law. I think it must be obvious even to those in denial that the will of the majority in this case is for orderly conduct that doesn't infringe upon the rights of the majority to enjoy the river for the reasons it was set aside. Wild parties were never cited as one of those reasons. Never forget that the sole deciding factor in considering the constitutionality or interpretation of any law is the 'original intent' of those who promulgated the law. ALL other considerations are secondary.

< most illegal drugs were used for medicinal pruposes at one time>

True! But totally irrelevant to the enforcement of the law as it exists at present. We are all at liberty to try to change any law with which we disagree. That is one of the foundations upon which a Democratic or Republican form of government is predicated. But it is incumbent upon us to abide by existing law until such time that it is no longer the law. THAT is the bottom line.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples' minds". ---Samuel Adams

[davekeim]

Such a small issue to heavily weigh our minds! In this world of................... which you all can see, can we come up with something better to battle?

Signed,

Cardiac