Crippled Caddis

Gavin wrote: <If you want to do soft hackles, I'd recommend that you purchase a partridge skin...You might be able to use a webby saddle hackle, but youll probably have to strip one side of the hackle or fold the hackle in half. One or two turns is all you need.> I use a lot of hen saddles for soft-hackles. You can get almost any color and compared to a partridge they are very cheap so you can have a selection for what one good partridge costs. Even so I don't think anything can quite take the place of a partridge with good color. Another skin I find useful is Guinea. It's a great soft-hackle but you do need a full skin to find many small enough. Another full skin I can't even imagine being without is Pheasant. A Pheasant skin has 'feathers for every occasion' including soft-hackles. While I wouldn't LIKE the restriction I think that I could get by quite well at the tying bench and on the water if all I had was a Fox Squirrel skin and a full Pheasant skin.

<My hackle isn't as good as the example. Did I just choose poorly? Seems too long and not as dense> You nailed the problem with your first statement above. Poor quality of hackle, (your hackle appears to have a low barb count on the shaft) too long and not wound densely enough. And to be a bit picky neither your fly or the example on the Oz site use Cochybondhu, the feather for which the pattern was named so neither fly can be said to be a true Cochybondhu pattern. Since I always seem to mix it up with Furnace and a few others I won't even try to describe it but suffice it to say that Cochybondhu is a rather rare hackle and looking for a good cape might prove frustrating and quite expensive if you were so fortunate as to find the authentic color variation in a good dryfly quality cape. Perhaps Davy Wotton will see this thread and chime in as he IS quite knowledgeable on the subject. Although I've never actually gotten around to doing it I've often thought that in lieu of the proper Cochybondhu hackle a very good substitute would be to adopt the Adams hackling scheme by using mixed brown and grizzly in it's stead. It should result in a very adaptable fly suitable for many opportunities. I'd think it a very good adult midge imitator in # 18s and (much) smaller as well as suggestive of a broad range of terrestrial minutia.

<Looks to me like the hackle is too long> Er----too long, oriented wrong, waaaaay too much of it and wrong type of feather. Other than that it's jes' fine.;o) You need SOFT hackle that will lay back properly and move seductively with the current. Rooster hackle isn't gonna do it no matter what part of the bird it's taken from. Any upland gamebird will have feathers suitable to the task, Quail, Partridge, Grouse, Pheasant, Woodcock, Snipe etc. One of the tradional feathers and a very good one is Starling. In the US they are a non-native, invasive specie unprotected by federal law. Check state and local ordinances where you live and if it's legal drag out the old pellet gun and help remove a few from the gene pool. The English Sparrow or House Sparrow is another imported invasive specie that might well have feathers suitable for soft-hackles, especially in the sizes most suitable for small hooks, but I've never tried one. ALL other species of songbird are protected and as with any other protected specie it isn't legal to possess parts of them in any quantity. That can and does mean it's not even legal to pick up a shed feather from the ground.;o(

LMW wrote: <it is a great way to use any leftover chili> Please define the last two words. They simply don't compute. WARNING to those who have posted their Chili recipes: There are probably warrants outstanding on you at various locations in Texas. Crossing the state line would be ill-advised after using the word 'beans' in a Chili recipe. While tomatoes aren't yet a hanging offense if you use them you won't be accepted in polite society in Texas either. I would suggest you see the recipe at: <http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/10/11/162534/92>

Good thoughts Rabbi! If you don't know him you really need to meet 'bill0215' in the Bronx IIRC. You can meet him on the 'Bass Pond'. He flyfishes (very successfully!) almost daily in NYC as well as surrounding areas. Meet him at: <http://p207.ezboard.com/fthebasspondfrm2> I've bookmarked your blog for future reading pleasure. CC

Boggles the mind. Somehow I get the feeling that you might approve my post #28 here: <http://www.stopguncontrol.info/forum/showthread.php?t=1&page=2>

Vic wrote: <Interesting how this topic suddenly got quiet, huh.> From where I sit you're doing 'jes' fine'. 'Nother ol' 'right wing conservative' here who believes in the rule of law. Just as I believe that it is my right to work to change it if I don't think it's right and my duty to abide by it and uphold it until change is affected. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. Sir Winston Churchill ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.-------Justice Louis D. Brandeis ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "We have staked the whole future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."---James Madison, primary author of the Constitution of the United States ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The quality of government will never rise higher than the moral and intellectual stature of those who govern". James Truslow Adams (1936)

I don't think calling that a tragedy overstates the case. Another case of the activities of man shallowing the gene pool. And I'm certainly not referring only to the lost hunter who started the fire. Troutchaser wrote: <Makes me appreciate what I've got here in the ozarks.> Yes but-------- While we have a LOT of trout fishing we have no natives at all. Even resources such as the few tiny spring creeks in MO that have remnant populations of pure strains stocked many decades ago are constantly on the brink of extinction. Crane Creek and its' head of McCloud Rainbows teeter constantly on the brink. So far it comes back, even when reason says it shouldn't, but some day it won't. A drouth will persist too long or a bad winter following drouth will produce anchor ice that takes the last few survivors. One is left to wonder why MO DNR isn't propagating the Crane Creek strain and spreading them to other suitable watersheds to guard against total loss.

Al wrote: <Yep, the technology to produce energy from coal without undue environmental damage is available--. But that is only part of the coal equation. Getting the coal out of the ground is the other big problem---now it's being done by mountaintop removal, which has to be about the most horrific thing that's ever been done to forested mountains and tributary streams.> And when an energy addicted society runs out of oil or it gets so rare that all remaining supplies are set aside for national defense or it simply gets so expensive that the common man cannot heat his home or fuel his transport how long do you think principles concerning the landscape and environment will prevail? We know the answer to that---as do the energy producers. In the meantime they will continue to reap obscene profits from the ever decreasing petroleum and corner coal reserves. When the American people clamor for energy at any cost then a 'breakthrough' will be announced with the caveat that cheap energy can be ours if only we are prepared to make some sacrifices. 'The People' will demand that earth be sacrificed on the alter of their hunger for energy. The energy multi-nationals are depending on it. And they will get it unless some currently unsuspected source is discovered. And if that was to occur what do you think the chances are that the energy giants would allow it to be developed without interference? Or control? Bleak picture? Sure----but it's predicated on the basic nature of man, a principle that will seldom, if ever, fail. The energy giants are betting on it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."------NormanThomas

Terry wrote: <And all the finger pointing between the states is VERY childish. We are ALL in this thing and ALL 50 states and the whole human race are to blame for this problem.. A very good point! To steal a line from someone, "If we don't hang together we shall assuredly hang seperately". If we allow petty turf wars to splinter us then we'll pay dearly for it. It's past time to put egos on the shelf and co-operate for the good of every one of us. Russ wrote: <Wasn't Homeport fined a substantial amount by the ADEQ? Were the fines erased from the books or were they payed? I haven't found any information either way.> To be perfectly honest Russ that subject never arose in any of the conversations I had at Sowbug. I think all of us were far more concerned with getting something underway to ameliorate the damage that penalties are secondary at the present. But as Gary notes in his post the groundwork is done, only the details of how much remains to be determined. At this stage I think the important point is that Homeport has essentially admitted culpability by the settlement. Whatever you do don't take my opinion as gospel however!

I'm bringing this thread back to the top I hope. A lot of sensible discussion has taken place already but it seems little or no concensus was achieved. In the quotes below I see what I believe are lots of pertinant points that may have been either misinterpreted or under-emphasized. Al wrote: <The coal companies are almost as powerful. Anything that replaces oil also has the probability of replacing coal. Perhaps inadvertantly Al has identified both the problem and the solution. Coal gasification technology has existed for a long time. The Nazis were running crude coal gas plants on both military and civilian vehicles as long ago as WW2. The technology for 'green' coal gasification now exists and North America has virtually unlimited reserves of coal. But the reality is that it won't be used until the multi-national petroleum giants have milked remaining petroleum reserves for the last cent. In the meantime I suspect those same multi-nationals are quietly acquiring control of both existing coal industries and cornering mineral rights of known coal reserves. If we have a market researcher aboard I think a bit of research in those areas might prove revealing. Phil wrote: < nuclear power has the potential to be our best alternative to oil.> Sorry Phil, but in this I must violently disagree. While there is great promise indeed in nuclear power the byproducts are simply too dangerous. Current practice is to hide them and forget them. That doesn't work. Long after the containers have turned to dust the nuclear toxins will still be almost as inimitable to life as ever. Until such time as that problem is resolved nuclear power has nothing but a downside for life on earth. Kicknbass wrote: <I think the government should partner w/ the corporate world to develop the technology to move our economy away from our addiction to Oil. When the technology is developed, and the product can be produced and sold at a profit, the change will happen.> Why on earth should our tax monies be spent to further subsidize an industry that already recieves massive injections of public monies while chalking up obscene profit margins at the expense of the taxpayer? So long as we continue to BUY petroleum products at profiteering prices the multi-nationals have zero incentive to bring other technologies to market until such time as they have milked the last cent from petroleum. Al wrote: <Most of these industries get huge subsidies, tax breaks, and favorable treatment from the government. They are also among the largest donors to political campaigns.> An excellent summation of reality Al. Until such time as the voteing public awakens and exercises their right to "throw the bastards out" of office that continue to sell their constituents out absolutely nothing will change. In the final anaysis we get the government we deserve. If you want to know where the root of the problem lies take a good look in the mirror. If you have ever voted for an incumbent that has performed in less than a satisfactory fashion then the problem is the guy shaving you each morning. 'We the people' have the power to change everything. If we choose not to use it we have only ourselves to blame. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Ignorance and apathy are the principle enemies of freedom, surpassing even evil intent. Misguided good intentions are their greatest ally."--Myself

As one of the leading skeptics in the discussions concerning the Overlooked Mistakes out of court settlement I feel it incumbent on me to issue a "Mea Culpa" and admit to being wrong in many of the assumptions I voiced on the subject. Rather than trying to paraphrase it and get it wrong again I'm going to copy in verbatim the words of Greg, the attorney who represented Trout Unlimited in the case, direct from his post on John Wilson's Flyfishing Arkansas & Missouri forum. If anyone would like to read the entire thread you can access it at: <http://p222.ezboard.com/fflyfishingarkansasandmissourifrm14.showMessageRange?topicID=3262.topic&start=1&stop=20> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <This is just the first step in the process. Until the silt stops coming off that hill, there is no way to determine the extent of the damage to the river or how to correct it. After the site is stabilized and the silt is no longer entering the river, then the Court will deal with the issues of damage to the river, how to fix it, money damages, and civil penalties. The amended complaint that was filed on Thursday makes it crystal clear that damages are being sought for any harm done to the river. It is also important to note that, if Homeport fails to comply with the terms of the consent decree, then it will be in contempt of court. With all due respect, anyone who thinks that this consent decree isn't good for the the river, and is the end rather than the beginning of this litigation, is simply misinformed. TU had just as much input into this consent decree as ADEQ and Homeport did and would never have agreed to it if it did not think that it was the best thing for the river and the trout that live in it.> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In conversations with John Wilson and Dennis McCarty, Arkansas state co-ordinator for TU and plaintiff in the TU suit, they echo every point made in the quote above. In summation it appears that a very good settlement for the future of the river has been made. The offender has a limited time to make good on the provisions of the settlement without being in contempt of court. Damage assessment is still on-going and it may be quite some time before AGFC and/or ADEQ even know the financial losses initiated by the failure of Homeport to follow sensible legal requirements. As pointed out in Greg's post an amended suit will ask for reimbursement for the damages to the system, but how long it will be before we know the extent is currently anyone's guess I suspect. I cannot close without once more donning the hat of the skeptic by warning all concerned not to relax their guard. This isn't over by a long shot and warrants close scrutiny by the public lest offender or state agency attempt short-cuts. CC

Terry wrote: <I understand TU's position on this and it is not just a matter of membership. It is a simple matter of their mission> It's that and much, much more. Having been concerned with stream access issues in several states and reading up on 'navigable waters' laws as much as possible, requesting legal opinions etc., I know the subject to be a more tangled mess than a backlash on a cheap reel. The legal definitions vary from state to state----even in the too-few cases where a legal definition even exists. In most cases the definition is left to the opinion of the court. In short it is one of the more tangled legal birdsnests of the American system of law. It would be beyond stupid for TU or any other advocacy group dependent on public support to become embroiled in such an insoluble morass. Until the Supreme Court defines a national standard navigability cases will continue to be decided by local judicial authorities whose opinions are as widely varied as those of the public at large. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Taking refuge as I find I often must, I quote one more wise than myself: "It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant chances that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow."--- James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, Federalist no. 62, February 27, 1788

<kinda think there are some civil liberties issues involved> Indeed! Under the most basic tenets of a Democratic or Republican form of government the will of the majority becomes law. I think it must be obvious even to those in denial that the will of the majority in this case is for orderly conduct that doesn't infringe upon the rights of the majority to enjoy the river for the reasons it was set aside. Wild parties were never cited as one of those reasons. Never forget that the sole deciding factor in considering the constitutionality or interpretation of any law is the 'original intent' of those who promulgated the law. ALL other considerations are secondary. < most illegal drugs were used for medicinal pruposes at one time> True! But totally irrelevant to the enforcement of the law as it exists at present. We are all at liberty to try to change any law with which we disagree. That is one of the foundations upon which a Democratic or Republican form of government is predicated. But it is incumbent upon us to abide by existing law until such time that it is no longer the law. THAT is the bottom line. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples' minds". ---Samuel Adams

< Clean up Arkansas politics? What about the other 49 states; ain't gonna happen.> While you're 100% correct about the problem as a whole Arkansas does have a richly deserved reputation as a poster child for 'Good Ol' Boy' politrics. (Yes--I DO know the proper spelling of the final word!) I would remind you that in the lengthy debates preceding the adoption of the 2nd Amendment that no mention was made of target shooting, hunting, skeet or trap. The 2nd Amendment was written solely to insure that the American people would always have the means to overthrow a despotic form of government, foreign or domestic. The greatest concern of the authors by far was domestic despotism. "When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny."---Thomas Paine, Intellectual Father of the American Revolution "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."----Thomas Jefferson "Corruptisima republica plurimae leges." (The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.)---Tacitus, Anals III 27

<ADEQ and Ark TU striking a deal with the devil that has ZERO punitive aspects or remediation is nothing short of pathetically embarassing...and completely normal.> Dano may have to correct me but I believe TUs only legal role in the case was as a 'friend of the ADEQ' in the complaint. If I am correct they had little if any effect on anything one way or the other, being little more than interested spectators, much like ourselves in truth. Dano????

<What about clean-up of the existing damage, or is it possible?> It is widely thought that a clean-up of Arkansas politics is a neccessary first step.;o(

Thanks for the eddresses SM. I sent a modified version of my original post to all the senators for whom you provided an eddress. Sadly all 3 promptly bounced. Unfortunately I am a Luddite regarding computers and 'googling' is something I do with saltwater when I feel a sore throat coming on.;o( CC

Copy of e-mail of encouragement just sent to Ms. Norma Champion: <Ms. Champion, I am not one of your constituents nor am I even a resident of the state of Missouri, but I DO live downstream. As a resident of the White River drainage basin in Arkansas and a perennial defender of our water I am writing to tell you that I greatly deplore SB 364. It might well be considered the very model of the type of legislation calculated to destroy what little clean water that remains in the Ozarks. It is so egregiously evil in intent that it boggles the rational mind to think that it would even pass out of legislative committee. Through public sources I understand that you oppose SB 364. Good for you! Many of your neighbors to the South visit your state for recreational purposes. I myself just within the last few weeks bought an out-of-state annual fishing license and trout permit. I had hoped to visit some of the fisheries in Missouri in the next year. I now wonder if any will remain if SB 364 is permitted to pass. Not only is SB 364 an egregious violation of federal water standards but it is a huge disservice to Missouri's neighbors downstream. It would adversely affect our waters as well and create ill-will between neighbors both private and governmental. Please do all within your power to short-circuit this evil and prevent approval.> Anyone know who else I might forward a copy of my opinion to that might need to know that downstream neighbors are aware of what is going on?

I'll be there if I can swing it!

addendum to: <it (is) incumbent on the same groups cited above to form a joint venture program to monitor every grain of dirt and blade of grass disturbed in the course of developement to prevent further damage to the river.> Such a working group should be prepared to seek injunctive relief in the shortest possible timeframe in order to short circuit damage before it becomes an accomplished fact. That means the group needs an attorney intimately involved in the goals of such a watchdog venture who can take action on a moment's notice. Any delay in getting that ball rolling will only result in another disaster for the fishery so an action plan capable of being set in motion virtually instantly should be at the very top of any priority list. Forming a 'committee' and holding 'meetings' after the fact is a certain formula for failure.

<this might not be such good news> Indeed that has been the worry ever since the closing was announced. Market reality basically dictated it as a final result. It was far too valuable for any entity to buy other than a commercial venture. In order for the public to have access in the area it is incumbent on organizations such as the Friends of the Rivers and North Arkansas Flyfishers, Trout Unlimited and the relavent national organizations to begin exerting pressure on the new owners as soon as their identity is announced to provide some means of access for other than those to whom they sell lots. Whether such an effort can bear fruit is somewhat remote as one of the primary selling points of what will be some VERY expensive real estate will be access to hallowed waters. In light of the on-going Overlooked Mistakes boondoggle I think it incumbent on the same groups cited above to form a joint venture program to monitor every grain of dirt and blade of grass disturbed in the course of developement to prevent further damage to the river. A bit of foresight in this instance can help prevent such disasters in the future. The Homeport fiasco SHOULD be sufficient reason for the developer to 'mind his Ps & Qs' but if we depend on that we are fools deserving of what results.

John wrote: <I would also recommend that you get the largest net you can find. The only time I use a net is when I land a big fish. You don't need a net for a dink.> AMEN! The average 'trout net' verges on useless when you really need a net. Unfortunately I really needed a net today and it was in the van.;o( I managed to beach the fish and revive it (successfully I hope) but I really must solve the carrying hassle so I have it when needed.

Count me in!