Draft Ozark National Scenic Riverways Plan Draws Charges NPS Is Trying To Limit Access

$$$$$$, $$$$$$$$ $ $$$$$ $$ $$$$$ $$ $$$$$$.

$$$$ $$$$$$$$ $$$$$ $$ $ $$$$$$$ $$$$$$$ -- $$$$$$ $$$$ $$ $$$$$$$?

As is typically the case (see Hatteras) everyone agrees there should be "balance", the problem is defining where the balance point lies. My inclination is to lean toward the opinion of the locals rather than people who never have nor never will visit the area whether for recreation or solitude. And yes, money may indeed play a role - but that's not a bad thing. Is it not better that a river guide be employed then having him collect good stamps?

If the stamps he collects are good enough, he might be rich. I understand some old postage stamps are very valuable. The trick is finding the really GOOD ones.

But I don't see what collecting good stamps has to do with finding a job as a river guide.

"Obama is the philatelist President."--Newt Gingrich

Take that, Lee. Now, instead of entertaining ridiculous false choices confronting river guides, let's hear/talk about the management plan of the Ozark NSR.

ec - from what I can infer from the article, this plan would not reduce employment opportunities for river guides - and may in fact improve them, if the "outsiders" who hire such guides have a more positive experience on the river, perhaps make a return visit and spread the word about a great trip to other potential customers.

It sounds like at least part of the controversy is about limiting some of the current practice of "let's rev up the ol' ATV or 4WD and make our own road to get to the river" - and asking people to use planned access points instead. One of the photos in the story illustrates the problem with that practice. My experience with similar places like the Buffalo River is that river guides and canoe rental companies rely on established and maintained access points - not muddy ruts through the woods - to serve their customers.

I doubt the practice of driving an ATV or 4WD out into the river to party on gravel bars does anything to improve the quality of the experience - or the river - for the majority of visitors. Will some of the locals who have been used to doing so object? Certainly, but the fact that they've been tearing up the landscape to create their own "pesonal" access to the river doesn't mean it's a good idea - or a "right."

from what I can infer from the article, this plan would not reduce employment opportunities for river guides - and may in fact improve them,

That certainly isn't the impression given by the congressman, or for that matter Lee's $$$$$$. And of course my reference to "river guides" is a euphemism for all who's employment is dependent on park activities.

from what I can infer from the article, this plan would not reduce employment opportunities for river guides - and may in fact improve them,

That certainly isn't the impression given by the congressman:

"When bureaucrats in Washington try to restrict land and river usage for families and businesses, our district suffers"

or for that matter Lee's $$$$$$.

And of course my reference to "river guides" is a euphemism for all who's employment is dependent on park activities.

And no I don't think people should make their own roads to the rivers and I don't see anything that suggests the congressman thinks so either.

Sorry, Justin. Just responding to an earlier comment about stamp collecting.

No need to apologize, Lee. My post was piggybacking on your satire.

To get serious -- allowing the "locals" to manage lands isn't always the best idea. Just look at the overgrazing that was destroying rangelands throughout the west before the big, bad BLM began managing.

Or the fouled waterways that used to catch fire before that evil Clean Water Act came along. Or the air that couldn't be breathed until the Clean Air Act let us all heave a sigh of relief.

Or the countless petroglyphs with bullet holes. The Anasazi ruins torn apart by local citizens seeking treasures to sell. Those ATV tracks scaring the lands and eroding hillsides.

The Utah scout "leaders" who pushed a hoodoo over at Goblin Valley State Park. Or the Utah scout troop that worked hard to spend a day cleaning graffiti from rocks and hundreds of nails from pallets illegally burned in campfires in an area that was re-opened to ORV traffic a year ago after having been closed and cleaned up with a few thousand tax dollars by BLM crews. This troop's leaders said it was a chance to try to cleanse the name of scouts after the toppled goblin.

Need I go on?

If we are going to preserve something for those future generations, don't we need to protect if from those who would destroy it now? And if that means ticking off a few of the locals, all I can say is "Tough luck, folks."

Jim,

Did I read somewhere (probably the Traveler) that E coli is also an issue of concern for the Buffalo River?

If we are going to preserve something for those future generations, don't we need to protect if from those who would destroy it now?

Yes, but we don't necessarily need the feds to provide those protections. You cite destruction that occurred decades ago when neither feds or locals saw the need to protect. Please show me a local authority that would currently allow the destruction of rangelands, the burning of rivers or bullet holes in Petroglyphs.

I didn't say anything about local authorities. I'm talking about local locals. The rednecks and rubes whose guns and tires are bigger than their brains.

I didn't say anything about local authorities. I'm talking about local locals. The rednecks and rubes whose guns and tires are bigger than their brains.

And I said nothing about "local locals" or your biggoted references.

justinh:

re: E. coli concerns for the Buffalo River (a park similar in some ways to Ozark Riverways), you may be remembering a story in the Traveler this past summer about concerns for possible water quality issues from a large, "industrial-scale" hog farm upstream from the river.

As best I can tell, water quality for the Buffalo is still generally very good. This article includes a summary of a problem in one area back in 2010, and on-going testing for E. coli on that river.

One of the hot button topics for the proposed plan at Ozark Riverways involves horseback use. At present, there seem to be few limits on horse use along, across and in the river itself. That has led to complaints about boaters finding manure piles on gravel bars and the shoreline, and claims that the horse use (along with unrestricted camping along the river) is causing problems with water contamination. Horse users and those favoring unrestricted camping place the blame elsewhere. As usual, it's a complicated issue.

This link provides a lot of information in addition to the draft plan, including summaries of comments at public hearings for the plan.

Please show me a local authority that would currently allow the destruction of rangelands, the burning of rivers or bullet holes in Petroglyphs.

It is not that local authority allows the distruction, it is that local residents feel that they are entitled to do what they choose including the distruction of public land. At some point, because the land is publicly owned (and federally controlled) the feds, as the local authority, must step in.

Locals decide to grow pot on Fed land, squatters, squatters growing pot

Local vandals, more vandals, and more vandals; wait - more vandals! and a few more... (I give up - there are too many.)

locals dumping trash, more locals, more dumping, more trash, (too many of these, too.)

locals on atvs, locals are angry at other locals on atvs, more locals on atvs, even more entitlement, and some more entitlement (and again, too many to continue but I hope you get my point.)

locals poaching animals, locals poaching plants, locals poaching fossils, etc.

locals cutting trails, illegal tree cutting, even illegal christmas trees, even giant trees, locals want bike trails,

It is not that "Local Authorities" allow the distruction, it is that people believe they are entitled to do what they want, when and where they want. Eventually, someone has to step in to stop it; the land is owned by everyone, not just some of the people whom happen to live in proximity.

re: the comment from Lee about "The rednecks and rubes whose guns and tires are bigger than their brains" and ecbuck's response about his "biggoted references."

I was born in and have spent most of my life in the South, some of it in very rural areas that many would consider "backward," so I'm somewhat sensitive to stereotypes of this region. That said, there is a certain percentage of people in all parts of the country whose behavior shows no respect for other people or the land. In the case of the Ozarks, it's not biggoted to describe this group as Lee did in his quote. In fact, he pretty well nailed it.

I've been working my way through the various documents on the Ozark Riverways GMP website, and it's clear that both "outsiders" and some of the "locals" have major concerns about out-of-control behavior by the group Lee describes. Even some of the locals who don't want more controls on things like boat motor size and ATV and horse use are calling for more rangers and stricter law enforcement on the river to deal with what I'll sum up as drunks, drugs and deviant behavior.

The park will never have enough rangers to solve this problem via enforcement alone; there are just too many miles of river and shoreline. One approach (as suggested by this plan) for dealing with the problem of rowdy behavior is reducing uncontrolled vehicle access to the river, because the types of "rednecks and rubes" who are the troublemakers are usually too lazy to carry their cases of beer very far on foot. Yes, making those restrictions stick will also require manpower—and time—but the park needs to start somewhere to get this situation under control, and this is a reasonable step.

Once the parks begins to get a handle on this problem, the park experience will be greatly improved for both "outsiders" and the "locals" who want to be able to enjoy the river with their families - a request made by both groups at public meetings for this plan.

It is not that "Local Authorities" allow the distruction, it is that people believe they are entitled to do what they want, when and where they want. Eventually, someone has to step in to stop it; the land is owned by everyone, not just some of the people whom happen to live in proximity.

Well said, dahkota, and thanks for the examples you offered.

it is that people believe they are entitled to do what they want, when and where they want.

Yes SOME people do that. But that bears no relevance to whether local authorities or the feds have the best understanding on how to manage the land. In my opinion, those that live and work in and near the areas in question are more qualified and have a bigger stake in managing the land properly. Their voices should recieve more (not absolute but more) weight than those that have no connection to property involved.

In the case of the Ozarks, it's not biggoted to describe this group as Lee did in his quote. In fact, he pretty well nailed it.

Sorry Mtn, to disparage "rednecks", gun owners and people with large tires as a group is biggoted.

Thanks, Jim. Two National River(way)s I hope to get to one of these days.

ec:

It was pretty clear to me that Lee was not referring to "rednecks, gun owners and people with large tires" in general, but rather to the subset of that group described in more detail in my comment as the "drunks, drugs and deviant behavior" crowd – those who are causing so much trouble along the river.

It sounds like you've had the good fortune to escape many personal encounters with that crowd. When that group of hooligans and their misbehavior is being discussed, I have no problem with either scorn or disparaging remarks ... and that 's not the same as bigotry, at least according to the Cambridge dictionary definition. If you disagree in this case, feel free to consider me guilty.

Mtn - There are jerks of every ilk, gun owners, ATV drivers and environmentalist. I have no problem criticizing (and prosecuting) them individually. Lee's comments were far broader than that and consistent with his general disdain for gun owners, conservatives or anyone else that does not buy hook, line and sinker his philosophy. Any sentence that starts "The rednecks...." is biggoted.

In my opinion, those that live and work in and near the areas in question are more qualified and have a bigger stake in managing the land properly. Their voices should recieve more (not absolute but more) weight than those that have no connection to property involved.

And they do, as evidenced by the two month comment period, (documents and comment access located here), and the three local open houses scheduled in December and the two wilderness hearings scheduled.

as evidenced by the two month comment period, (documents and comment access located here), and the three local open houses scheduled in December and the two wilderness hearings scheduled.

That "evidences" they are heard, it doesn't show they are given more weight. The fact the local congressmen's and advocacies group comments were dismissed as "rhetoric" in fact suggests just the opposite.

ec - the description of some local comments as "rhetotic" comes from the author of the above story - not from the NPS or other decision-makers. And no, I don't see any evidence that local comments are given more weight in this planning process, and for public lands managed by a national agency, that's as it shoud be. I acknowledge that you disagre with that concept.

In terms of public input, this planning process has been going on since at least the summer of 2006. During that time, public meetings have been held in at least three locations in the vicinity of the park (Van Buren, Eminence and Salem, MO) as well as in St. Louis and Columbia; three more are scheduled in early January.

A map at this link depicts the locations from which comments were received at a point in late 2009. It indicates a lot of interest in this process in both the "local" area and a much wider area.

As is the case in any such plan, few individuals or groups will be completely satisfied with the final outcome. I don't think, however, that anyone can reasonably complain that the process has been rushed, or failed to offer plenty of opportunities for local voices to be heard.

Thank you, Dahkota, for a well researched post. ec, let's see some solid documentation that proves beyond doubt that locals provide better stewardship of lands and resources. As for trying to claim that local comments have been somehow overridden by those from people who "have never visited and never will," Jim's map pretty well dispells that myth.

"Biggoted" was a new word to me, so I checked its derivation. Turns out it refers to people of great wealth who "Got it Big." Interesting . . . . but seems like a rather awkward way of saying it.

c, let's see some solid documentation that proves beyond doubt that locals provide better stewardship of lands and resources

I could ask the same of you about federal stewardhip. Of course neither of us could provide proof " beyond a doubt" because we wouldn't even agree on what constitutes "better stewardship".

However, common sense indicates that locals (in general) are going to have more knowledge and more sensitivity than those from far away. The fact Arkansas runs a balanced budget versus the massive deficit spending of the Feds also speaks volumes about "better stewardship".

"However, common sense indicates that locals (in general) are going to have more knowledge and more sensitivity than those from far away."

Dunno if that is really true or not. After all, how many times have we all heard someone say, "Gosh, I simply did not appreciate _____________ until it was gone."

The fact Arkansas runs a balanced budget versus the massive deficit spending of the Feds also speaks volumes about "better stewardship".

Hmmmm. More than 30% of the money in Arkansas's state budget comes from the federal government.

Maybe if the federal government stopped helping states like Arkanasa be "better stewards," the Federal government wouldn't have an unbalanced budget. Additionally, Arkansas's debt is pretty huge - not something to brag about in a case such as this.

Ozark National Scenic Riverways is in Missouri, not Arkansas. In 2011, 44% of Missouri's state budget revenue came from the federal government.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/monday-map-federal-aid-state-budgets

"Gosh, I simply did not appreciate _____________ until it was gone."

And you don't hear that from those that are far away - because they never knew it was gone.

Hmmmm. More than 30% of the money in Arkansas's state budget comes from the federal government.

And where does that federal money come from - the states of course. All states get a major portion of their budgets from the feds. The lowest is Alaska at 24%. Arkansas is in the middle of the batch.

This state/federal money thing is turning into a snake-swallowing-tail, chicken or egg circular thing which, conveniently stops only where the true believers decide it stops.

All states get a major portion of their budgets from the feds. The lowest is Alaska at 24%. Arkansas is in the middle of the batch.

Yes, but Arkansas (and Missouri) receive a lot more from the Federal Government than they give. So, if the state sent no money to the Fed and received no money from the feds, they would be in a great load of trouble.

Dahkota I think you are confusing what is spent in the state with what is given to the state to support their own budget. Perhaps you would like to provide your source.

ec, will you provide your source that told you that Ozark National Scenic Riverways has been moved from Missouri to Arkansas?

ec, will you provide your source that told you that Ozark National Scenic Riverways has been moved from Missouri to Arkansas?

If you provide the source of where I said that was the case? By the way, Missouri has a balanced budget as well - as do the vast majority of states.

I do not think the local residents should have any more say than anyone else, and currently they have more than their share. These areas are not going to be turned over to states, and I for one, am delighted that is the case.

I think they should have more say and currently don't have enough. And if I were you, I wouldn't be so confident that they won't get control of at least some federal properties.

"The fact Arkansas runs a balanced budget versus the massive deficit spending of the Feds also speaks volumes about "better stewardship"."

"The fact Arkansas runs a balanced budget versus the massive deficit spending of the Feds also speaks volumes about "better stewardship"."

Hmmm - don't see anything about the Ozark National Scenic Riverways anyware in that sentence. Nor do I see you address that Missouri too has a balanced budget.

Perhaps you need to go talk to your high school English teacher about contextual writing skills.

And may we see some documentation that Missouri and Arkansas have balanced budgets -- without Federal aid?

without Federal aid?

Lee - the fed doesn't have money on their own to give away. They take money from the people in the states and then give (some of) it back. It is the Federal government that is on aid.

Total payments Missouri to the Feds $48.4 billion in 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

Total Fed contribution to Missouri budget 2012 $7.4 billion.

http://archive.oa.mo.gov/bp/pdffiles/2012presspacket.pdf

So tell me again how Missouri has federal "aid"?

I normally try to stay out the political aspects of these conversations as they bore me but really better stewards because they don't deficit spend. Can we stop with the troll like comments and just stick to things you know something about. Some folks consistently make specious arguments just trying to get a rise from people to discuss their pet govt theories.

but really better stewards because they don't deficit spend.

Yep - I think that is a very valid measure. Do you think chronic deficit spending shows greater responsibility?