Will Congress go along with a plan to give the Ozark National Scenic Riverways to the state of Missouri?/Marty Koch
Is Congress in the mood to return units of the National Park System back to the states in which they are located? An indication could come Tuesday, when a U.S. House of Representatives Committee considers legislation that calls for Ozark National Scenic Riverways to be given to the state of Missouri.
The legislation is the darling of Rep. Jason Smith, a Republican who doesn't want the National Park Service to implement a management plan that would bring an end to some 65 miles of illegal horse trails in the park and place limits on the horsepower of motorboats that use the Current and Jacks Fork rivers that flow through the Riverways.
In his legislation, H.R. 4020, which was introduced to Congress back in February and is scheduled to come up for discussion Tuesday before the House Subcommittee on Public Land and Environmental Regulation, Mr. Smith argues that the proposed management plan would "prevent members of the public from accessing the lands that compose the park." To accomplish the transfer, the Republican wants the federal government to pay all costs associated with it.
Mr. Smith also provides an avenue for the federal government to reacquire the Riverways: if the state of Missouri ever attempted to sell portions of it, or if the state managed the Riverway in a way other than how its been managed under the Park Service.
Perhaps to cover his bets in case the committee fails to report the bill out to the House floor, Rep. Smith has another measure for the committee's consideration. H.R. 4182, if passed, would essentially prohibit the Park Service from implementing the General Management Plan now under consideration.
Proponents say the structure of the preferred alternative in the draft General Management Plan is long overdue and necessary to prevent further degradation of the 134 miles of the Jacks Fork and Current rivers that course through the rumpled, cave-studded, spring-gushing countryside of southern Missouri's Ozark Mountains.
Opponents, including Rep. Smith, counter that the approach would convert "the vast majority of the park to a natural area where evidence of human use is minimal." From his perspective, the Republican maintains the park's preferred alternative would be devastating to area economies and continue what he sees as efforts by the Park Service to limit access to the forests and rivers within the National Riverways.
The preferred alternative does state the Park Service's intention to gain control over motorized watercraft on the rivers, in part by increasing the percentage of river corridor open only to non-motorized watercraft (ie., canoes or kayaks). And the proposal aims to better manage camping on gravel bars by restricting to designated campsites where visitors could drive their vehicles.
The preferred alternative also would create "river management zoning," under which efforts to better manage motorized and non-motorized river use would be instituted. Under the plan, 34 percent of the Current and Jacks Fork rivers would be restricted to non-motorized craft, 14 percent would be open to motorized and non-motorized during the high season that falls between March 15 and Labor Day, and 52 percent would be open to both motorized and non-motorized traffic year-round.
Comments
Rep. Smith's latest online "Weekly Capitol Report" is titled, "Eighth District Tourism Alive and Well." In it, he notes, "With the summer season now upon us many families are enjoying the outdoors. We are blessed to have tremendous recreation opportunities in the Eighth Congressional District that are enjoyed by locals and visitors alike."
He continues, "In addition to historic sites, I visited our pristine state and national parks and small businesses that rely on the rivers... I spent time on the Current River near Round Spring to learn about the small businesses that provide goods and services to visitors. Along the way I heard from business owners and private citizens who are concerned about new management plans in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways and how these changes will impact their communities. I will continue fighting any efforts to limit access to our federal lands."
Unfortunately, this particular "national park" isn't nearly as "pristine" as it should, and the proposed management plan tries to address some long-standing problems. During his trip, Rep. Smith apparently didn't bother to find out if any of those tourists supporting those local businesses are concerned about problems the new mgmt. plans tries to correct.
Imperfect or not, based on experience across the country, there seems to be little doubt the NPS label draws at least some tourists who probably wouldn't bother to come if the "national" label were removed.If this proposal actually makes it into law, it will be interesting to see what the result will be on tourism, and "the small businesses that provide goods and services to visitors." If, as some predict, the number of "outsiders" drops off, that can't be good news for local business.
Based on my experience at a similar area (Buffalo National River), most the locals who are complaining the loudest about NPS management don't spend much money in area businesses, such as canoe and boat rentals, overnight lodging and restaurants
Well, until you can prove otherwise, I have no reason to doubt the language of the legislation.
The congressman's record on this issue speaks for itself. And, frankly, there's no evidence in the Park Service's preferred alternative that it aims to, or would, reduce visitation to the Riverways. And the congressman has presented no evidence that it would.
We can all conjecture about Rep. Smith's motives, but my personal theory about this bill is it's primarily vote pandering in an election year, in a time and area where it's popular to ride the "anti-federal" platform. The sad reality is voter turnout around the country is dismally low, and the local groups in Rep. Smith's district making the most noise about the proposed management plan in the past year are those who don't like proposed steps to deal with long-identified problems on the river. He anticipates those same voters will turn out to support him.
In other words, he's addressing the squeaky wheel in his local district; even if this bill fails, he can trumpet it come election time as his attempt to defeat the heavy-handed outsiders.
Is that approach wrong? It's a reality of politics. It's "wrong" only if you believe the end-result if his bill passed would ultimately be diminished protection for the resources in the current park.
Nothing better than a pile of horse crap in a spring fed river. Who doesn't like their trout blanched in crap?
"Really? Every lawmaker is decieptful everytime they speak?"
Well, okay. I should have been more clear. It's only conservative members of the GOP.
I'm still aghast at the rhetorical gymnastics that convert "taking steps to reduce e-coli in the water" to "reduce public access".
So, if a tree falls in the woods...
Is it a Conservative's fault?
Wow! Some people would debate the politics of a Pine Cone.