Current and Jack's Fork Rivers

Actually…
those people don’t even like alternative C. They want “no action”. they like things as they are, with little plan for protection of the resource.



Our illustrious idiot of a House representative supports the no action alternative. He said something to the effect that he would fight “park service encroachment on our public lands”. HUH??? Hey, doofus, those public lands are administered by the Park Service, and they wouldn’t BE public lands if the Park Service hadn’t come along and bought them up.



As much as I love my native Ozarks, I sure do dislike a whole lot of the people living there.

My view so far

– Last Updated: Nov-11-13 1:58 AM EST –

I am still trying to digest the differences among the plans. So far I am leaning toward Plan A, except for the following provision (which is also in Plan B and Plan C):

“Camping on gravel bars would be allowed in designated campsites only.”

This is a direct quote from table 13 - the alternative comparison table found on page 126 of the draft plan. Under the non-action alternative “campers would continue to be allowed to locate their own campsites on gravel bars.”

I will explore this further but one of the objectives in my comments will be to continue to allow paddlers and hikers to locate our own campsites on gravel bars and not be restricted to gravel bar camping only in designated campsites. However, my comments will support restricting other campers (drive in, ATV, horseback, etc.) to designated campsites only.

We do have until January to submit our comments, so I have more time to study the draft plan before submitting my comments.

I can understand why some paddlers may think it’s not worth their effort to submit comments because the moneyed interests always win. Well, they didn’t win when the Ozark Scenic Riverways was created, and they didn’t win their attempts to dam up the Grand Canyon or the Buffalo River.

It’s true that they usually win. It’s true they will keep trying. It’s also true that we have to win every time and they only have to win once because when they win the resource we are trying to protect (in this case the Current and Jack Fork) will be forever changed for the worse.

But goddamn it we have to f--k--g keep trying because if we don’t comment and keep trying to protect what we love then they will surely win and the Current and Jacks Fork will be worse off forever.

I Will Make My Voice Heard
Heck, I’m probably on the FBI’s “Surveillance roster” as I have been VERY vocal about my concerns on his stances to our illustrious “Teabagger” representative, Jason Smith. I’m certain he’d promote logging it, mining it, and building 5-Star hotels on the banks if he could pull it off? So, PLEASE, any of you whom use the Riverways or would like to visit, let your voice be heard!

Good point
Yes, others have noticed the entry in the table of proposed alternatives that states “Camping on gravel bars would be allowed in designated campsites only”.



Again, this applies to all three of the alternative management plans “A”, “B”, and “C”. I have not as yet found in the text of the document clarification of this statement as to whether this applies to paddlers on overnight river trips, and if so, which gravel bars would constitute “designated campsites” and where would they be located. The index of the document has no entries for either “gravel bars” or “camping”.



There is a facebook page for the Current, Jack’s Fork, and Eleven Point Rivers and others have posted queries requesting clarification on this issue.

That’s it buddy
You’re going on the “No Paddle” list straightaway.

and will promptly be sent a
horse.

Thank you VERY MUCH
for posting this. It’s immensely helpful to those of us disinclined to wade through all the BS to get to the really informative stuff you provided. I’ll paste the link on the ACC web site and put something about this in the next newsletter.

Funny!
Heheheheh

Hey Terry
If it’s a good horse you could trade it straight up for the Colden canoe of your choice - how does a Starfire sound?



Oh, by the way welcome to the club. I’ve been on the FBI surveillance list since 1969 when I circulated McGovern-Hatfield petitions to end the war while stationed in Minot. A year later we were under surveillance when we picketed Spiro Agnew at a campaign stop in Minot. I still have the peace flag I was carrying.

Aha, so
does that make you a pusillanimous pussyfooter, a hopeless, hysterical hypochondriac of history, or just a plain, old nattering nabob of negativism?

Nope…
In the plan, it specifically states that the gravel bar camping will be restricted to designated sites only, EXCEPT FOR PRIMITIVE CAMPING. In other words, in all three alternatives, camping as it is done while floating–setting up your tent on any gravel bar you come to–will still be allowed. What this provision is trying to stop is the nimrods who pull their campers out onto gravel bars that are accessible by the often unauthorized roads. Unfortunately, this wasn’t pointed out in the news releases, so it’s one of the things that has gotten a lot of people up in arms and is being exploited by the “aginners” who don’t like the Park Service doing anything to control them.

Vic
Vic is a fan of Charlie Daniels; a loyal follower of brother John Birch, a member of the Antioch Baptist church, and has a commie flag tacked up in his garage.



:^)

BOB




You might be right

– Last Updated: Nov-11-13 2:14 PM EST –

but if you actually read this in the draft management plan can you support it with a page reference?

I certainly have yet to find in the document anything that clearly says that. On the contrary, what I have found thus far argues that gravel bar camping would only be allowed in designated areas.

I can refer you to Table 5, titled "Recreation Activities by Management Zone" which appears on page 49 of the plan. The fourth entry down in the "Activity" column is "Camping on Gravel Bars" and it carries the footnote "camping on gravel bars would only be allowed in designated areas." This applies to all of the river-based management zones, "non-motorized river", "seasonal mixed-use river", and "mixed-use river". As far as I can tell thus far the "designated areas" are not specified anywhere in the document.

Table 13 titled "Summary of Key Differences Among the Alternatives" says the same thing. In that table the row entry "gravel bar camping" which appears on page 126 states "Camping on gravel bars would be allowed in designated campsites only" and that is the same for all three proposals "A", "B", and "C".

As for camping being unrestricted in areas zoned "Primitive", even if that is true it won't help much in terms of camping on gravel bars accessible from the river. If you look at the land management zoning map for the proposed "Alternative A" that appears on page 67 you will see that even under that alternative, which has far and away the most land zoned "Primitive", only a small portion of the Current River above Round Spring would be zoned that way, just above and below Pulltite. None of the Jack's Fork below Bay Creek would be zoned "Primitive".

And if you look at the zoning map for "Alternative B" (favored by the NPS) on page 75 you will see that virtually none of the Current River (except for the aforementioned area near Pulltite) all the way down to Robert's Field would be so zoned. Under "Alternative B" the only portion of the Jack's Fork that would be zoned "Primitive" would be a portion of the stretch between Blue Spring and Rymers.

Under "Alternative C" (zoning map on page 81) you will find that none of the Current River would be zoned "Primitive" and the only part of the Jack's Fork that would be would again be a stretch between Blue Spring and Rymers.

It may be that the intent of the NPS is indeed to restrict gravel bar camping only for vehicular access but as far as I, and others, can tell so far, that is not spelled out clearly anywhere in the document.

Jo Shaper, who is the assistant editor of "River Hills Traveler Blog - Trav Talk" (http://rhtrav.com/wordpress/draft-gmp-issued-nps-prefers-alternative-b/comment-page-1/#comment-29407) has made phone inquiries regarding this issue but has not yet received a definite answer. Here is a response she made earlier today to a query I posted on the blog:

"I asked for clarification on that Friday from the park’s information officer (in two phone calls) and was told that the “designated gravel bars” applied to drive-in party sites, and that the use of gravel bars by boat float campers needed to be clarified. I gave her my example that, in 1996, my husband, brother and I floated from Akers to Van Buren, and we never stayed in any designated campsite during the week because none of them were convenient to making 10-12 miles a day, plus we felt it actually safer NOT be at a developed campsite. If you read the document under Alternative A, it talks about preserving the character of remote float camping, but doesn’t go into any details. Remote float camping certainly would not entail herding people into designated sites. That defeats the purpose.

During my phone conversation, the information officer had an off the phone conversation with a co-worker; the gist of their discussion was it was directed against the drive in gravel bars, not the remote leave no trace float campers, but that was unofficial information.

After reading the interpretation in the story published yesterday in the Kansas City Star, I sent off an email re-asking the question to the Park’s fire information officer, whom I have been told is the guru on this document.

Today is a federal holiday, so won’t get an answer until tomorrow, but will post when I do. -Jo Schaper asst. editor
- See more at: http://rhtrav.com/wordpress/draft-gmp-issued-nps-prefers-alternative-b/comment-page-1/#comment-29407"

Here is a link to the Kansas City Star article:
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/08/4607395/plan-calls-for-new-missouri-riverways.html

There has also been considerable discussion to the topic of gravel bar camping by river trippers on the Facebook page for the Current River, Jack's Fork, and Eleven Point, which interested parties can check out if they wish.



But
he is a mastermind in the ways of espionage.

Does the…
…body come attached with the head?



No message…or is it? (OK! OK! Kill the scratchy violins play’n Nino Rota stuff!)

I did think of that…
but didn’t want to go there…



Speaking of this group they all need to plan a retirement home on the Current River that allows geezers to paddle. And comes with a line of rockers on the bankside porch of course so they can continue their “conversation”



Because of the requirements, they will have to fund it. I don’t think such an animal exists.

Inquiring mind wants to know?

– Last Updated: Nov-11-13 7:11 PM EST –

Where is all the money for those horse trails, trail camps, trail maintenance & upkeep, a learning center, 2 new campgrounds, and staff to man them, going to come from anyway?

They currently don't have the staffing necessary to man the fancy new Ranger stations at Akers Ferry, or Pulltite?
Those 2 edifices to government spending, the re-engineering cost, and cost overruns resulted in the addition of about 5 showers, and 5 bathrooms.
Those projects only cost several million dollars!
That some pretty damn expensive bathrooms!

Ranger presence on the river to curb the stupidity of the river dorks, dopers, 4 wheelers, goat ropers, and jon boat jockeys?
Virtually non-existent. I personally have not seen a ranger on the river in the past 2 years.
Solution: Build more horse trails, horse trail camps, campgrounds, learning centers, parking lots, bathrooms, and shower stalls?

I think what is needed is a merry go round at Two Rivers, a water park at Akers with a plume ride, a big roller coaster with a neat name at Round Springs, a go cart track at Cedar Grove, and zip wires strung over the river every 5 miles. Maybe a dirt bike track at Blue Spring?

That's what it's all about; screw that scenic riverway theme; we're talking Worlds of Fun!

All the ONSR really needs is a "community organizer", and a multi million dollar website that doesn't work! That would be a start.......

BOB

Bob is mostly right
I haven’t seen a ranger on the Current River EVER, but I’ve only been paddling the Current since 1993. But I betcha if we had the Fall Ozark Rendezvous on the Current this year during the shut down we would have seen some.



Also, I have to admit to liking some of Charlie Daniels stuff (can’t bitch at The Devil Went Down to Georgia), but I would not call myself a big Charlie Daniels fan the same way I call myself a big fan of The Band.



I’m definitely not fan of John Birch, and never have or will belong to any Baptist church for obvious reasons. As for that commie stuff, have you heard my iPod playlist Songs of the Wobblies?

Page 40:

– Last Updated: Nov-11-13 10:45 PM EST –

Under the heading:

Factor 3: Provide Desirable Visitor Experiences and Services

All three action alternatives would share the following actions:

(Down toward the bottom of the list)

Restrict gravel bar camping to designated campsites only--except for primitive camping)

This has nothing to do with zones marked "primitive". Primitive camping is usually meant to signify tent camping with no services, exactly what you do float camping on gravel bars. Yes, they should have spelled this out in each alternative, but it's there, and the employees appear to agree with that interpretation in their remarks to Jo. I would be VERY surprised if the higher ups don't agree as well.

Charlie Daniels
On peace signs, long hair, commie flags, and brother John Birch:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=952h-AJ3Bcg