Current and Jack's Fork Rivers

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

Thanks for the reference
Yes, I had noticed that but it is not entirely clear to me that the NPS will define “primitive camping” the same way that you have, to include camping on gravel bars by river trippers, in view of the fact that in several other places in the document they have stated that camping on gravel bars will be permitted in designated sites only.



I hope they do, of course, but I think this needs to be clearly spelled out by Superintendent Black. Hopefully, Jo will receive an official response soon.

Primitive camping
is a pretty well defined term, I think we’re safe. I would consider gravel bar camping sacrosanct in the ONSR.

I’m confident these plans won’t restrict it. Even if they wanted to, it’s largely unenforceable. I don’t see NPS running a jon boat up and down the river after nightfall.

Bob’s right about one thing. County and state officials will lobby for the rights of those who spend the most money in their districts.

And that’s not primitive camping floaters.

I have alot less confidence in the NPS
to do the “right thing” than I used to.



During the recent government shutdown there were many examples of the National Park Service going “above and beyond the call of duty” to shut down features when it would have cost nothing to anyone not to do so.



As for the ONSR, during the recent government shutdown Superintendent Black went on record to say the the NPS would not close the Current and Jack’s Fork Rivers, not because it was the right thing to keep access open, but because he had been advised that he did not have the authority legally to do so. Of course, all access to the rivers was closed except in areas in which a county road abutted the river to allow access. Black did say that any river trippers who somehow managed to magically get on the river who were found camping overnight on gravel bars would be asked to leave.



That was probably unenforceable as well, which in my opinion was an excellent reason for the Superintendent not to go on record saying the gravel bars were closed. Especially in view of the fact that the NPS jurisdiction over gravel bars that are below the high water mark is very much in question.



So I for one would like to see this point clarified in writing rather than trusting to the “good intentions” of the NPS.

Short version of the plan!
Jo and the crew at River Hills Traveler have done an outstanding job of shrinking the plan to 17 pages with an outstanding comparison and maps.

http://rhtrav.com/wordpress/which-alternative-do-you-prefer-on-the-draft-riverways-gmp/



SYOTW

Randy

Yeah right Vic…
Next thing you know; you’ll be telling us you don’t have a commie flag tacked up on the wall in your garage…because you don’t even have a garage.



And if we don’t believe you; we should call & ask your wife.



:^/

BOB

OK, OK, I get it now

– Last Updated: Nov-12-13 11:47 PM EST –

Forgot about that song. Thanks for the link Pete.

My only Charlie Daniels album is my old vinyl version of The Charlie Daniels Band A Decade of Hits from the early 80's. Haven't listened to my LPs in at least 10 years, so I forgot about "Uneasy Rider." Now I gotta see if I can digitize that LP and get that stuff on my iPod.

I'm not a fan of his more recent stuff that I've heard on the radio -- a bit too jingoistic for me.

Now John Prine's "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore" is more my style. We used to sing it in the barracks all the time (along with "Illegal Smile").

Clarification on gravel bar access

– Last Updated: Nov-13-13 12:39 PM EST –

Jo Schaper of River Hills Traveler has received official clarification from the NPS regarding paddler access to gravel bars: http://rhtrav.com/wordpress/gravel-bar-camping-by-boaters-on-riverways-to-be-unchanged/#more-15460

In case you have difficulty accessing the site or don't wish to:

"By Jo Schaper

According to an email we received this morning from Dena Matteson, NPS park spokesman on the Draft General Management Plan said (and we quote) that none of the alternatives would change gravel bar camping where the gravel bar is accessed by boat, canoe, kayak, or tube. draftgmp

Matteson said:

“…we have found that the language in the draft GMP is confusing regarding gravel bar camping. None of the alternatives in the Draft GMP were intended to imply that all gravel bar camping was going to be restricted to designated sites only. Upon closer review of the document we discovered that this has been made unclear because it is discussed under the “Land-Based Recreation” section of each alternative, which is supposed to be specifically addressing gravel bar camping on gravel bars that are accessed by vehicles.

“This is unclear and understandably confusing. It has also been translated inaccurately to a couple of other places in the Draft GMP, such as Table 5 and Table 13. Those statements will need to be edited to something such as: “Camping on gravel bars accessed by vehicles would be allowed only in designated campsites.” These would actually be great points for folks to provide comments on – that the Draft GMP is unclear and confusing on this subject, so that we can make sure it is addressed before the final is issued.

So essentially, river access to gravel bars (e.g. by boat, canoe, kayak, raft, tube) will not change under any of the alternatives. However, camping on gravel bars that are accessed by vehicles would be allowed only in designated campsites. Please share this with your readers. We certainly understand the upset and anxiety that have developed and would like to put everyone’s fears about it to rest.”
- See more at: http://rhtrav.com/wordpress/gravel-bar-camping-by-boaters-on-riverways-to-be-unchanged/#sthash.MYbUQm2g.dpuf"

I had already commented on the unclear language pertaining to gravel bar camping in the draft document as NPS spokesperson Matteson suggests. It would be helpful if others did so as well when posting comments in support of one of the action alternatives. The site to post official comments to the NPS on the draft management plan for ONSR is here:

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=56208

Not cool
Hmmmm.

So folks not aware of this “coming correction” are currently providing comments and taking surveys without that info. NPS knows that gravel bar camping is a flashpoint. As soon as people read that gravel bar camping is restricted to designated sites on plans A, B and C, heck even Jo’s much appreciated spreadsheet states this, and they see that the only plan that allows it is “no action”, they won’t even bother reading further.

I’m afraid they will be be overwhelmingly in favor of no action. I think we (primitive camping floaters) will be unwitting accomplices to the river abusers and profiteers that Al refers to above.

Call me skeptical that this was a simple oversight.

Outside the Alternative Boxes?
Pete,



Thanks for bringing this to our attention.



A quick look leaves me asking: is NPS stuck with the choice of just one of the alternatives or are there mix and match possibilites? Can some of the best features of Alt. A be matched with some of the best of “B”?



I am a little suspect of the “preferred” plan. Kind of easy for NPS to try to hit the middle path by presenting extremes on both sides while sneaking in some features that really don’t square with the entire concept of National Scenic Rivers. This is especially the case with expanding motorized watercraft where NPS has already allowed it to creep past the allowed zones. Might as well just go ahead and legalize cannabis consumption on the river according to this logic. I can then set up my “NRS” concession – Natural River Shaman, guide service. Slide to Power Off.