Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

HH -- I must have lost you somewhere along the way. I absolutely love the Buffalo ... it was at the center of my life for many, many years. From our farm on Clabber Creek (actually a smaller tributary called Blue John Creek) the river was just a skip and a jump away -- and I did a lot of skipping and a lot of jumping in my childhood -- like nearly every summer day -- fishin', giggin', hikin', cavin', paddlin' -- you name it. My first job -- outside of working on the farm -- was hauling canoes for Fred Dirst, then the Barnes, then the Dodd's, then the Dillards -- was there any livery on the lower Bufflao I didn't haul canoes for? Probably not. You can't have not grown up on the Buffalo and not love the Buffalo. I love the Buffalo -- anyone tell you different they be lying.

Moreover I never ever said that the location within the permit is the "best place for this operation". Never ever. And again, if anyone tell you I did, they be lying. You can disqualify my opinion if you want -- and by the tone and accusations you have leveled I am pretty sure that you never even considered my opinions and viewpoint at anytime during this discourse. And that be fine -- I have a very keen perception and lots of years studying "why people make the decision people make" -- and it has never been my goal to lead you down some path of my choosing. I leave it to others to turn on the power of persuasion to affect some type of action or behavior. My approach with respect to decision analysis is typically characterized by questioning or proposing different interpretations or possibilities -- some of which may challenge conventional wisdom and impetuous conclusions -- and then critically analyzing such possibilities through the filter containing as much knowledge and experience that I can acquire (14 years of post-graduate studies and counting). I think you will find this to be a common theme in those discussions in which I participate.

Moreover to simply cast off opposing viewpoints as being dumb as in "dumb from the start" simply negates all possibility of one being able to extrapolate data in a manner that offers much relevance or legitmacy. Similarly, to denigrate the opinion of water quality experts simply because you believe they have some kind of hidden economic agenda is a serious lapse in judgement. Most water quality experts I work with tend to put economic considerations subserviant to those directly applicable to water quality standards. It is only when recommendations are being made that economic costs are considered -- and most water quality experts emphatically take the position that the world would be a much better place, a cleaner place if economic factors weren't even a consideration. Economic constructs are not imposed by any of the water quality experts -- that is but a tangential consideration. And I certainly cannot fathom in any fashion -- direct, indirect or even postulated -- where I myself would reap any economic benefits from the proposed C&H operation. I think you are looking for leads that simply don't exist. Cognitive dissonance?

And Allen -- tell me. Tell me what is the absolutely worst possible scenario, the worst of worst -- something like a tornado hits the barn and throws pigs and feces far into the air and takes out both dams on the holding ponds and let's the vilest most putrid waste ever imaginable drain into Big Creek and subsequently into the Buffalo. What do you believe to be the short-term effect and cost? What do you believe to be the long-term effect and cost? And just how likely is this to occur? In essence, let's begin to run a complete risk assessment on this project and put some numbers to the paper. I am far more interested in looking at the data and making projections rather than just saying "it's dumb" or "he's nothing but a troll" or using some editorial opinion writer to direct my decision making. I like cold hard facts and figures -- not suppositions, assumptions and testimonials.

And CC -- thank you for hoisting me up on your shoulders. The view is amazing! And your head isn't so big I have no place to rest -- again I respect both your opinions and passion. And despite an occassional lapse in tact you make up for it in humility (a blessed trait). As to Gilbert Springs -- still fecal coliforms, still probable contamination from rural septic systems -- albeit we agree Dry Creek is also a significant contributor and certainly includes contamination from livestock within the watershed. The broken septic line has been repaired -- as to the well, maybe yes, maybe no -- sadly we often have no way of knowing for sure as it is very difficult to isolate a particular fecal coliform to a particular person or household and there are a lot of septic lines within the recharge basin of Gilbert Spring which you have already stated includes the sinking portion of Dry Creek and this must also include its watershed and the recharge basins of those springs which contribute to its discharge. I might also state here I have drunk from Gilbert Springs during baseflow on numerous occassions without ill effect. NOTE: This is not an endorsement. Drinking from any open body of water merits caution in this day and age.

One of the things lacking with regard to water quality measures looking at fecal coliforms on the Buffalo River is our inability to readily determine the origin of the fecal coliform contaminants that have already been identified. As I mentioned before it is extremely difficult (and expensive) to isolate a specific organism to a specific person/household; and similarly, identification of a potential pathogen's original host -- be it cow, pig, chicken or human -- involves a lot of work: collecting a field sample of sufficient sample size in order to aquire statistically meaningful data, culturing the specific pathogen or organism, acquiring an appropriate DNA probe and then repeating the exercise over and over again under a myriad of meteorological conditions. These are very expensive assays and although they have been pursued in a few isolated instances within the watershed I am not aware of any extended DNA probe analysis having ever been carried out on the Buffalo River. Such a study has never crossed my desk and if it exists out there I hope someone will step forward and share it with me.

Albeit the internet serves as a readily available source of information I agree CC we can't believe everything we read on the internet. I love the OWL but they do have an "agenda" which they must support and we all like to "spin the facts" to fit our particular needs. And I am no exception -- I haven't quite got a grasp on my needs, but I certainly got the spin. You know I'm one dizzy dude.

As to my personal viewpoint -- honestly and with all the integrity -- I see this situation as a win:win rather than a lose:lose. If the permit is not revoked I have faith in the ADEQ and the NPS to provide the needed regulatory oversight to minimize the environmental impact of this CAFE on the Buffalo River's water quality -- especially given the tremendous public outpouring of interest and concern given to this matter. A lot of eyes will be on C&H. And if the permit is revoked -- perhaps all the better because then we can focus on other environmental issues, many of which in the grand scheme of things are far more important and relevant to the preservation of nature's marvelous works and wonders.

And thus -- and with apologies -- I wish you all well as I recluse myself from further discourse -- my points have been made and I will soon outwear my welcome if I continue. I have enjoyed riding CC's shoulders but thanks to the ACC the sidelines offer ample opportunity to keep myself informed on issues concerning our recreational and environmental endeavors. I have enjoyed this opportunity and I thank the moderators for allowing this discourse to proceed freely. Additionally I thank the contributors one and all for behaving as gentlemen/ladies when passions are so strong and division in thought and interpretation so evident. You are wonderful people.

Awww, don't climb down just yet! I very well understand that we all have our own biases. I can count no less than six involved in this issue before us (no, not six individuals here, but six general catagories of interest in the CAFO issue).

I had a rather lengthy reply with annotations and lost it in the whirled-why'd webz. One point was that it wasn't needful to find Mortimer Snerd's DNA on coliform bacteria to determine it did not come from his septic tank if that bacteria fas found a distance away and uphill from the Snerd residence.

Yes, we can certainly agree to disagree withut becoming disagreeable. It just requires setting aside emotion and sometimes ego. I try to succeed more often than fail, but my sometimes wry (or is that dry?) sense of humor does not translate well into text medium.

I see just as much danger to the watershed from the polically driven actions in NPS toilet and other facility closings at the same time that this agency, and State tourism agencies are still seeking to increase visitation. In fact, I am beginning to have second thoughts myself about my unending promotion of BNR visitation on a website which has over 100,000 members worldwide. Which brings me to muse... what if the State tourism agencies, the NPS and us lowely private advocates quit promoting visitation and it slowed to a trickle? Who would be hurt worse, the "local" economy, the BNR budget, or the concessionares who go out of their way to remain apolitical in the face of mounting pressure from all sides? But for fate, I would be one of them.

Michael

Flying pigs falling dead in the river, now that’s funny! And I did not say anything using the word “dumb ”or” he’s nothing but a troll”. So once again you have your facts wrong.

And once again this is about the Buffalo National River not anyone person.

https://www.facebook.com/KeepTheBuffalo ... erCrapFree" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has some good information, I think, at least showing visually where this stuff is. I'm still going through their facts and figures to see what is good or bad information. I also posted a link to ACC for other facebookies to come here and look at the discussions going on in our forums.

hollohead wrote: Plainly spoken " it's all about the Buffalo".

I believe that's where a lot of us are coming from. And if I made a comment, in another thread, that suggested that based on public outcry, the powers-that-be might ought to be looking for another drainage basin and it was discarded (as everybody else’s emotionally charged opinions and comments were methodically taken up and basically dismissed), followed by a lecture that all rivers are special, that we shouldn't be assaulting the small hog farmer and told that would merely displace the problem, I was fine with that. Those things are true, but to many of us, however dreamy-eyed we may appear to the practical minded who have thorough knowledge of the science and the facts, the Buffalo River, tarnished as it might already be, is sacred. Someone who quotes Dr. Neil Compton in their signature line should realize that the Buffalo held for Dr. Compton a special place in the pantheon of natural places in the state and in the nation. Questioning someone's motives is never well taken. Many here have gainful employment applying their days of study to ultimately the benefit of large corporations who look at their bottom line and have the resources to defend themselves from the dreamy-eyed. I'd like to think that believing something is sacred and different is at the base of many movements that saved those places. When so many rivers were being dammed for flood control, this belief led to the saving of the Buffalo. Now, even if there is pollution occurring, I think that we need some of that belief to prevent future assaults on this most special river.

Curtis, you are a role model of mine in a few ways, and I'd like to thank you for all that you do. You are a steward in many ways, and you are active throughout the state in many different watersheds.

I never knew Dr. Compton personally, but have only read about and heard others speak of him. For quite some time now I've had his words below my posts so that folks not familiar with might become more so. Those words are powerful and inspiring to me, and I think others.

I spend most of my work time trying to reach people, engage them, and educate them about best management practices they could use (and should!) to help protect water quality. More often than not, I'm pretty successful at achieving buy-in and adoption of best practices.

Some people are easy to reach, some real hard, some might not be reachable. Turning these potential stewards off to wanting to learn and become actively involved through accidentally creating or triggering emotional barriers can immediately end connection and more importantly, trust.

If the people that own most of the land, have lived there their entire life, and make most of the municipal decisions. You don't want to make that mistake if at all possible to avoid.

Reason being, they are the largest factors in what the water quality of the watershed will be - in regard to all historic sources of point and non point source pollution, present, and future.

One thing I've learned doing water quality education for a living, is that you can't make people listen. You can ask them to though. If they will listen, and you do also, then you communicate and build trust and positive relations.

That's what it's going to take to win the future of the watershed, that's what it's going to take to correct some of our current issues that are impacting the watershed. We can have a better water quality, we can have a community-driven, all stakeholders at the table, agreed upon watershed management plan.

Sometimes the best way to educate a person about something is through indirect pathways, you know like Tom Sawyer might have done.

If you can't communicate effectively with the most important stakeholders regarding water quality, forget about it. Here, right now. That's a way worse than the new CAFE.

I think most of all of this conversation is very productive and educational. I've learned a lot anyway. There's more out there to get at in the meantime though no matter what.

Don't sit back and stay uninvolved if you have a watershed you love. Whether you work, live, play or simply own land. Please get involved. When you get involved and help make others aware, be moderate in your approach, build positive relations, and use vetted information.

Your watershed needs you!

Web mineing for information on this CAFO has been interesting. I've watched an interview with one of the owners. In it one could see the construction nearly complete on the confinement barns and what looked like quite a few contractor vehicles onsite.

I also visited some information on the CAFOs in North Carolina where Cargill also has a presence. I wasn't exactly clear on whether the moritorium on new operations of over 250 hog capacity was still in effect. However I did see passing mention of two major disasterous lagoon overflow events and a impact on the New River and other areas.

I also finally saw maps overlaid on topo maps which accurately outlined the confinement buildings, lagoons and spray fields. It also showed the proximity of those fields to the creek, school, dwellings and the old swimming hole on Big Creek. It didn't show flood zones though.

And an interesting question popped up regarding the water supply for the hog factory... what is the estimated gallonage of use and what is the source?

In one of the hearings another figure came to light. Newton County is to expect an additional $50,000 in new tax revenue each year from the CAFO. Really? That is surprising. Especially when I remember thefigure of $47 per person estimated spent by each of the 1.1 million visitors to the BNR. Of course I still have no idea of the source of these figures, any of them. I am led to remember the Statistics course I took at ASU last century and the lesson I never forgot on how to make statistics support your premise. But if the factory operation brings $50,000 into the county coffers, what is the net profit if visitation drops off by .1 million to an even 1 million visitors (days?).

Still more questions than answers.

The economic impact of tourism in the counties, and its benefit to the local community is a key point that is not understood or accepted by many over that way, from what I understand.

I think putting a conservation district office, a couple of school teachers, or municipal projects that are paid for by those dollars would help portray this economic benefit.

Show tangible benefits. Teach about the topic. Educate the residents that vote and make decisions.

Then move into why protection is relevant and beneficial.

Now that’s the Half Ton I like to hear! I know I’ve said some thinks on this post that aren’t too popular with some folks. But I am very adamant about stopping the Hog Farm. It’s not about the data and the numbers. It’s about risk verses the consequences. So really the question is, is the risk of having the farm in that location worth the consequences of an unforeseen event. And it’s not about the things you can think of it’s about the things we can’t think off. Space Shuttle accidents, car crashes, train derailments all a consequence of an unforeseen event. All the engineering, data collection, and calculations can’t protect you from something we didn’t foresee. That’s it I’m done and I’m sure I’ve worn my welcome completely out! PEACE!

Half Ton wrote:The economic impact of tourism in the counties, and its benefit to the local community is a key point that is not understood or accepted by many over that way, from what I understand.

I think putting a conservation district office, a couple of school teachers, or municipal projects that are paid for by those dollars would help portray this economic benefit.

Show tangible benefits. Teach about the topic. Educate the residents that vote and make decisions.

Then move into why protection is relevant and beneficial.

Arkansas has a Department of Tourism that is supposed to measure the effects it has on the State. It is a part of it's mandate and I would suspect required for their funding each year. their budget was $126,591,486 in 2012. I realize that a good portion of that budget is spent managing the State Parks and paying the 1,600 or so employees. But one suspects that they are required by the legislature to present annual reports on the dollar value of tourism in the State.

I suspect that the BNR likewise has to quantify and justify their economic impact for budgetary reasons. Maybe this is a discussion I should direct to Mr. Cheri. He seems like an approachable sort of fellow, though I have never met him in person.

Codger,

This may be the info you were looking for regarding flood area's
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u4bwnqrri70d4oe/l9reiBX1KY#/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not sure of the source yet, but I bet it's the same folks who are running the https://www.facebook.com/KeepTheBuffalo ... erCrapFree" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; page on FB.

Some interesting testimony regarding the way the presentations tot he public went with a bit of "skewed" data and lack of data.

I'm just thinking outloud here:

If ACC and few of these organizations got together like the above page, buffalo river foundation, buffalo river alliance, etc...would the ACC put their name on it and would members here join in a education seminar to just spread the "facts" to residents in this area? Perhaps ACC can even work with the NPS to help get the word out? I would even guess there is grant money available to help us do just this feat if the organization so chooses to go this route?

thoughts?

Interesting suggestions, but I can only guess (I have been wrong before) that ACC would rather not enter into the fray, at least as a club. On either side of the controversy. It takes a long time to build a good reputation for an organization, but only a brief lapse in judgement to tear it down. Nah, IMHO, there are plenty of loose groups involved to one extent or another which are not particularly concerned with their long term viability as is ACC. I am satisfied that they are giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues on their forum. No one paying attention at all would deny that it is a hot-button topic in many quarters.

Here are the park visitors by year:
https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/ ... ?Park=BUFF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here are some other reports the park puts out:
https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/ReportList" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These is even a pdf on how they count the numbers they get.

If we could find some actual tourism spending #'s for this area, then perhaps we can show what was mentioned here already. A real impact on the local population because of this operation.

jclaudii wrote:Here are the park visitors by year:
https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/ ... ?Park=BUFF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here are some other reports the park puts out:
https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/ReportList" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These is even a pdf on how they count the numbers they get.

If we could find some actual tourism spending #'s for this area, then perhaps we can show what was mentioned here already. A real impact on the local population because of this operation.

The Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism publishes and annual report which estimates visitation and average dollars spent. Average stay was 3 days and average spent was $392.93. They use receipts from the 2% tourism tax to calculate their figures.

http://www.arkansas.com/!userfiles/apt- ... t-2012.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Somewhere in the various reports I have read I saw an estimation of $47 per visitor day spent by BNR visitors. And as your link showed, the 1.1 million figure reflects visitor days, not individual visitors.

If the "local population" does not realize the impact by now they aren't going to. Some may not have been impacted by the tourism enough to notice it. Some may still have a bad taste in their mouth from when the River was protected to begin with.