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.
Good question
Since the NPS calls the management plan proposal a “draft”, one might assume that there would be some potential to modify the various action alternatives if there was great public pressure to do so.
A number of folks have expressed the suspicion that the NPS has basically already decided what they want to do (or rather what they want Congress to authorize them to do and appropriate funding for) and that the whole public discussion thing is just for appearances sake so they can say they moved ahead with public support. But perhaps that is an overly cynical view.
In addition to the public comment webpage that I provided a link to in several posts above, there will be three public meetings to educate the public and discuss the draft management plan.
Here is a (lengthy) excerpt taken from the “Friends of Ozark Riverways” Facebook page:
“Ozark Riverways Provides Clarification on
Draft General Management Plan
VAN BUREN MO: Ozark National Scenic Riverways Superintendent Bill Black encourages public review and comment on the Draft General Management Plan/Wilderness Study/Environmental Statement (Draft Plan), which became available on November 8. The Draft Plan may be reviewed online at www.parkplanning.nps.gov/ozar. Comments may also be submitted on this website.
Once the Draft Plan was released for public review, the park recognized the need for clarification on several issues related to the plan and the public meeting format. According to Superintendent Black, “We are aware that information on gravel bar camping in the document has caused confusion, and we would like to clarify that. Access from the river to gravel bars will not change under any of the alternatives. However, drive-in camping on gravel bars would be allowed only in designated campsites. Examples of places where this would occur are Logyard and the existing campsites at Two Rivers.”
Another point for clarification relates to primitive campsites. The NPS preferred alternative proposes that some roads to primitive sites may be closed, however this information was transferred incorrectly to one of the tables in the document.
Additionally, Black says, “Because this is the “Draft” Plan, we recognize that there are going to be details we need to adjust or clarify. This is the intent of public review - to help us identify where we need to make those adjustments.”
Superintendent Black invites everyone who is interested in learning more about the Draft Plan to attend one of the public meetings. “We want to reassure everyone that the primary purpose for the open houses is to provide information and answer questions. If you are unable to attend an open house, it will not limit your opportunity to comment on the Draft Plan. We are encouraging that public comments be submitted online, which can be done at any time through the end of the review period. For added convenience, there will be computer stations available at the open houses for those who would like to submit their comments at that time. If those options aren’t convenient, we still welcome an old-fashioned letter to the park.”
The public comment period will be open through January 8, 2014.
Three public meetings have been scheduled at this time. Each will consist of an open house session for asking questions and sharing information. In Van Buren and Kirkwood, the open houses will be followed by wilderness hearings in order to allow individuals to express their opinions about the proposed wilderness designation. Currently, public meetings are scheduled for:
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Van Buren Youth & Community Center
Intersection of Business Highway 60 and D Highway, Van Buren, MO 63965
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Open House
8:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Wilderness Hearing
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Salem City Hall Auditorium
202 North Washington, Salem, MO 65560
10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Open House
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Powder Valley Conservation Nature Center
11715 Cragwold Road, Kirkwood, MO 63122
6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Open House
8:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Wilderness Hearing
As always, we look forward to hearing from the public and encourage all to visit the park’s website at www.nps.gov/ozar or our Facebook page for further updates. For more information, please contact Dena Matteson at (573) 323-8028 or dena_matteson@nps.gov.
Ozark National Scenic Riverways preserves the free-flowing Current and Jacks Fork Rivers, the surrounding resources, and the unique cultural heritage of the Ozark people.
-NPS-
–
Faye Walmsley
Chief of Interpretation and Public Information Officer
Ozark National Scenic Riverways
P. O. Box 490
Van Buren, MO 63965
(573) 323-4844”
Zones for Motorized Watercraft
Anyone have any sense of what the proposals for expanding the zones for motorized watercraft would actually look and sound like?
I have been fortunate not to have experienced any of this during my few and limited trips on the Current in October.
So, I don’t know how much motorized traffic has been occurring already (Plan A). Plan B does seem to be a significant expansion. Allowing 60 HP jet boats access all the way to Round Spring? The stretch from Round Spring to Two Rivers does give one a feeling of being truly remote in an incredibly beautiful wilderness setting – just as fine as many stretches on the Buffalo. Tranquility would be seriously breached and undermined by the noise created by gas engines.
I realize the NPS is in the hot seat here attempting to ride the rough edge between the interests of those seeking near wilderness experiences and the interests of those who are attempting to make livings, grow businesses, create jobs, and carry on local outdoor tradition (e.g. sucker gigging). And attempting to do this in an increasingly crowded world populated by people hungry for outdoor experiences. Without undermining the quality of the natural environment by affording more access via increased development. In an area where anti government sentiment dominates.
I can only make it as simple as Henry David Thoreau did, “In wildness is the preservation of the world.” I continue to come back to this as my one guiding light. We gotta have faith in the wild seed.
Placing all of this in the context of a civilization that grows increasingly unsustainable perhaps puts all of this in the proper perspective of folly chasing folly.
I think you misinterpreted Lou
– Last Updated: Nov-16-13 8:59 AM EST –
The "no action" alternative described in the draft management plan represents the status quo with regards to river and land management use.
Action alternative "A" would limit motor powered craft usage very significantly from what is permitted now. In fact, all of the management plan action alternatives would limit motor traffic on some of the upper stretches of the rivers (down to Akers on the Current and down to Rymers on the Jack's Fork) from what is currently allowed.
Refer to this table from the draft management plan which appears on page 48: http://www.riverhillstraveler.com/DGMP/motorizedvsnonmotorized.pdf
The first column titled "No-action alternative" shows the horsepower limits which are currently permitted by the NPS. This reflects the current river management plan that dates back to 1989. But there is a caveat. The 60/40 hp motors which are currently being allowed on the rivers are actually prohibited by the Code of Federal Regulations but this has not been enforced by the NPS. Action alternatives "B" and "C" would formally allow these motors on certain stretches of the river as shown in the table.
Here is an except from page 47 of the draft management plan:
"During public scoping meetings it became
apparent a major topic of public interest
was in the size of motors currently allowed
on the rivers. Existing park regulations (36
CFR 7.83(a) (2), see appendix C) prohibits
the use of motors rated higher than 40 hp
by the manufacturer from Big Springs
upriver to Alley Springs and Round
Springs. However, for many years the
National Riverways has interpreted the
regulations as allowing (and the public has
been using) motors rated up to 60 hp if
they were equipped with a jet powered
prop that effectively lowered the usable
horsepower to 40 hp. The National Park
Service has recently been advised that this
interpretation of the regulations is in
variance with the Code of Federal
Regulations. This issue has been included in
this comprehensive planning process
because the discussion of motor size could
logically include a range of alternatives for
how the public recreates on and uses the
rivers."
I am a relative newcomer to the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. I have paddled most of the Jack's Fork from the Prongs down to West Eminence, and all of the Current from Baptist Camp down to Two Rivers and thus far I have relatively infrequently encountered power boats. I haven't had any really unpleasant encounters with power boat users in the ONSR (and I certainly have elsewhere) but most of my trips have either been in the off-season or during weekdays. I have heard some pretty loud gigging boats at night at Pulltite in October but the din was rather brief in duration.
I imagine that power boats are encountered much more frequently on the lower stretches of the rivers and on weekend days in peak season.
It would seem that none of the action alternatives would likely result in paddlers being more likely to encounter power boats unless enactment of one of the action proposals somehow encouraged more power boat users to come to the rivers.
OK
Pete,
Thanks.
I got “A” mixed up with the no action plan. But, I consider “A” to be highly preferable to “B” regarding the motorized craft. The barn door may be open now but no need to make it any wider.
I agree
As a paddler, I find action alternative “A” preferable to “B” and vastly preferable to “C”.
I guess my position might be considered selfish by power boat users, but I would really prefer not to encounter the noise and wakes that go along with power boats. One usually hears them coming long before they are seen, and very often the same boat is encountered twice, once going upstream and once going back down. There are relatively few places left in the Midwest where one can paddle a river free from the sounds and smells of powerboats and the Current and Jack’s Fork are two of them, and being spring fed they can be paddled year round. There are many places for power boaters to go.
Power Boats
Noise and wakes are a problem, but some power boaters are downright dangerous.
I specifically recall one incident on the Current in mid October and the river was low. We were between Bee Bluff and Two Rivers paddling loaded canoes. I was the third canoe in line paddling downriver in the narrow channel.
We heard, but could not see, a power boat coming upstream around a bend. As he became visible he was approaching our lead canoe at a high rate of speed and yelling “get out of the road.”
There was no place for us to go except in the channel because the river was so low. Even if we had taken to the shallows we would have run aground before being able to get out of his way.
At the last second he decided not to collide with our lead canoe and veered off to the shallows as he cussed us in language I had not heard since growing up in New York City. He barely missed ramming the lead canoe head on.
So, my comments are going to support the power boat limitations of Plan A. I really don’t see the need for 40hp above Two Rivers. Aside from a few idiots like the one we encountered above, the responsible power boater I have seen above Two River are primarily fishing. I believe they can easily move among their fishing spots with less than 40hp motors placing paddlers in jeopardy.
In my experience power boat motor horsepower is like boundary bag capacity. Whatever capacity you have you will use. So for a lighter load, use a smaller bag. For lower speed use less horsepower.
Yeah
I have had more encounters of that type with power boaters than I would have liked. I have been lucky thus far on the Current and Jack’s Fork.
I should probably say that it is only a minority of power boaters who behave in a way that is at best rude and at worst dangerous to paddlers, but the yahoos certainly stick in your mind.
I lived for a number of years on Tim’s Ford Lake in Tennessee, and it did seem at times that the power boat operators’ IQs were inversely proportional to the horsepower of their motors.
On a narrow river, when I hear a powerboat coming I will try to get over next to the bank before it appears, just in case the driver happens to be a jackass, but as you point out, that is not always possible.
powertrip paddlers
– Last Updated: Nov-16-13 6:04 PM EST –
I've never had any problems with any power boaters on any river, or horse riders. I've been purposely rammed by canoers though, and found several paddlers to be of the arrogant or unfriendly persuasion. I don't particulary want to see many people everytime I go out, but they are there and have as much right to be there as I do. If I wanted privacy, I would buy my own land...it's cheap in the Ozarks...and put up no trespassing signs. If you don't want to encounter other users take up another hobby in a place that isn't so popular. Backpacking in the Ozarks requires physical effort, more than sitting in a boat and steering. Try mountain biking, rock climbing whatever. Maybe paddlers are just as lazy as they accuse the powerboaters of being. A river like the Current is a lazy man's river, and will attract lazy people. It's not like it takes a high IQ or knowledge of technology to steer a canoe or kayak on the Current or Jacks Fork, the indians did it long before white man arrived in Missouri, and they built their canoes, they didn't purchase a storebought petroleum product with a mastercard and immediately cop an attitude that they are some kind of wilderness voyageur. Fact it requires more knowledge to work a motor boat as it has parts and requires registation licenses. The paddlers bother them more than they bother the paddlers because they have to be on the lookout and have the liability of injury to worry about. Powerboaters could arguably be smarter than paddlers, they have a larger investment in the vehicle for starters. They can take their whole family out for a pleasant day, and some of those family members might be feeble, handicapped, or elderly.
discourteous paddlers
There is no question that one encounters loud, unruly and discourteous paddlers on the Jack’s Fork and Current Rivers. That has been the experience of many others who post here who paddle the ONSR and it is addressed in the draft management plan as well.
In my experience, these people have always been patrons of canoe liveries, not that there are not many well-mannered canoe livery clients as well. But paddlers simply don’t have the potential to endanger others’ safety the way a power boater can.
As I said before, I have not encountered a power boater who exhibited malicious behavior on the Current or Jack’s Fork Rivers. But I have elsewhere, particularly on lakes in Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
I have had power boaters pass me at high speed unnecessarily closely many times. I have had some deliberately set a course straight at me and veer off at the last moment. I have twice had power boaters come at me at speed and turn quickly in close proximity in an attempt to throw up a big wake to swamp my canoe. Objecting to behavior of this type does not constitute a “power trip”.
It might interest you to know that there are quite a few paddlers who are mountain bikers as well. I am one, and in years past I did quite a bit of road biking. A number of times I had drivers zoom past me when I was as far onto the shoulder as I could get, at very high speed coming as close to my bike as they could. I also have had bottles and other objects thrown at me from passing cars.
Obviously, only a tiny minority of drivers engage in truly nefarious behavior like this, just as a tiny fraction of power boaters engage in the types of activities I described. But those who do certainly don’t manifest high IQ.
It looks like you are missing the point
– Last Updated: Nov-16-13 8:03 PM EST –
The NPS is proposing possible policy changes, and considering that it is a National Scenic Riverway, naturally some people on a paddling message board are going to prefer that the new plans do not include less stringent rules regarding power boats. The fact that some people here have had bad experiences with a few power boaters (and it looks very clear to me that it's been with a "few"), is no reason to act as if that means they are in actuality bad-mouthing the whole bunch. Going one step farther, the idea that powerboaters must somehow be smarter than paddlers, or that naturally they are more careful than paddlers just makes no sense. Applying that form of logic would lead one to conclude that drivers on the road would be smarter and more safety conscious too, which we all know would be ridiculous. Within any recreational group you'll find the whole range of personalities and behaviors. Speaking for myself, I can say that the vast majority of powerboaters I've run across are "regular people" like us who don't want to cause anyone any grief, but I've also noticed that when the careless ones among them screw up, the results are a lot more catastrophic than what happens when an unskilled paddler simply bumps his canoe into a rock or another boat (brilliant observation, huh?). Fortunately, the powerboat wrecks I've observed were more humorous than dangerous, at least once they were over and done with (though in each case not at all humorous to the boat's owner), but on a small river like the Current it's not hard to imagine the danger level to others on the water being a lot greater. Think about it. What's wrong with horsepower limits based on the size of the river? They put speed limits on small winding roads and residential streets for the same reason. On rivers, speed limits can't be enforced, but rules regarding the size of the motor can be.
Me too
– Last Updated: Nov-16-13 8:31 PM EST –
Within the small minority of powerboaters who've I've considered rude or stupid, many of them got some sort of a thrill out of passing by at high speed really closely, and driver and passengers all crane their necks to see the expected carnage in their wake. I've found the best way to deal with them is by "not even noticing" them and continuing calmly on as if this sort of thing happened every few minutes or so. And yes, the ones who do that sort of thing are just plain stupid, and whether that's in I.Q. or actions, it makes no difference to me. Still, I'm not lumping all powerboaters, or even a significant proportion of them into that category, but such people ARE out there.