SilverMallard

No, russ, I was responding to 3-4 different posts with that one. The reference to intelligence and education was directed SPECIFICALLY to Gary Lange in response to his critique of my famiarity with wild animals, wolves, and dogs...or whatever. Some of you fellas would do well to read stuff more closely before replying if something rubs you the wrong way. Remember all that sentence diagramming we did in secondary school? There was a reason for it.

The "good reason" was costly livestock predation combined with an occassional attack on humans to fuel the fires. During those days, we also wiped out the buffalo, hunted whitetail deer and elk to near-extinction in some parts of the US, drastically reduced the small game and furbearer populations, and deforested about 60% of the continent. We drained 75% of the nation's wetlands. Folks weren't very eco-conscious back then. But even today, wolves and livestock don't mix well. And that area near DD and 13 isn't exactly farm country. It's surburban housing and tourist resorts with some forested rough terrain interspersed in small tracts. Not very good wolf habitat for wild wolves, let alone for a pair raised in captivity. That's why I predict they will end up dead...sooner rather than later. And...for the record...I think that's unfortunate. So, you agree that the attempts to discredit my explanation of how they escaped was just because a few people mistakenly thought I was advocating their intentional eradication? How intellectually dishonest. Where I come from, grown men go out and find the facts before they accuse someone of lying or not knowing what they are talking about. And THAT leads to interesting and healthy debate.

The way they escaped was covered in detail with the owner of Predator World on the local news the past couple of nights. They showed the chewed up pieces of wire and demonstrated its strength and its normal uses. The pens were shown as well as the gate they escaped through. And they dug under the secondary perimeter fence. The State has made a public statement that Predator World was in 100% compliance and demonstrated no negligence. Gary, I grew up around wolves and coyotes...and mountain lions and small bears. I am a wilderness survival instructor with the American Camping Assn. And I have held numerous predator control permits issued by multiple states and the federal gov't. I used to be a trip leader with a major national organization that led backpacking photography trips into Grizzly Bear country. And I was a professional dog trainer for many, many years for clients including the now-former CEO of Purina. So your assessment of my knowledge, background, and expertise is of little value to me. BTW, there are more people injured by aggressive COWS in this country every year than there are by ALL wild animals combined. And more people die each year world-wide from coconuts falling from trees than from shark attacks. But none of that matters when YOU are the one of five people attacked by a shark, or one of the 20 or so attacked by a bear, or the only one attacked by a pack of wolves. Doctors and pharmacists kill more Americans every year with prescription medications than anything else but car accidents. And we aren't hunting doctors and pharmacists to extinction. I think some here are trying to ascribe a position to me that I have not taken, and now feel a need to "discredit" my statements...that they have misunderstood. That is NOT a reflection on my intelligence or education. It is a reflection upon theirs.

Again, we "hear" of more dog attacks because there are about 50,000 dogs living near people to every wolf in North America living...period. Yes, livestock predation was the reason for wolf eradication. See my list of their likely "food pyramid" above. Also, they will hunt for food at night. Most people are indoors...especially children. People really have very little to fear from a pair of wolves. A human contact incident would most likely be an adolescent boy stumbling upon them and getting too close out of curiosity. Same with snake bites, btw. About 75% of poisonous snake bites in US emergency rooms involve a male victim between the ages of 10-20 who tried to "mess with" the snake instead of leaving it alone. The wolves are "escapees" because they chewed through heavy gauge steel wire that is routinely used to cage bears and tigers...and wolves...in order to open a gate and leave in the middle of the night. What would YOU call that? And, yes, wolves can MOVE. And that is their nature. But they usually only do that to breed and when pursuing quarry that is traveling to avoid predation. They have been tracked electronically pursuing quarry over 500 miles in a matter of days. That is a big part of why I said they are likely to try to return to where they came to Predator World from. My wife's sister had a Dachshund that she gave to a friend with a traveling circus in Germany. 6 months later, the dog showed up at their doorstep. During that time, the circus had been in Northern Germany near Scandanavia. And their doorstep was in Bavaria...on the Southern tip of Germany. Germany is the size of Texas. So this was like Amarillo to Houston.

Good point Ms Ducky. Animals...not unlike most people...seek the easiest food sources. So they will feed on what they find that is easy to get at. That will be trash, small game animals, livestock, and then small children in isolation. The would take down a deer before they would attack a 10 year old. But they might take a 2 year old over the deer...easier to catch. Depends on what they FIND. Like I said, the wolves will probably die before they do any real predation. They've been raised in captivity. But remember this: even domestic pigs begin to grow tusks and hair and hunt in packs within 2 weeks of being liberated. A wolf raised in captivity is NOT a "dog." It's a disadvantaged wolf. And even domesticated dogs gone feral are dangerous to livestock and children...and sometimes adults.

They also had only been at Predator World for about 24-hours when they escaped. So it isn't their "home." I doubt they will return. They are most likely to try to return to where they came from, believe it or not. And they will probably die trying. Also, pregnant female wild animals are generally more volatile. She'll be even worse if she whelps pups. And they will have to feed them after she nurses them. A pack of ravenous wolves running around Kimberling City and Reeds Spring is NOT going to end positively, guys...laying all the romantic notions aside. Wolves don't attack people very often because we wiped them out almost everywhere in North America where anyone actually lives. And there was a good reason why we wiped them out.

I thought there were only two types: inland and littoral. As I understood it, littoral includes the inland, but also adds open-water navigation and safety...including charting, of course. I did not know that you could get an inland license just for a specific waterway. Interesting. Yes, the Alaska thing would require you get the "full meal deal." I was in the same "boat" (so to speak) guiding waterfowl hunts all over the US. And, yes, it does seem like overkill just to be legal running a jonboat around a 2' deep marsh. BUT, I could also have guided sea duck hunts off the coast of Maine during a Noreaster with that license. And that would have required everything they tested for. Running the Mississippi River in the Fall before dawn you need to know everything on the inland only license. There are wingdikes, big ole barges that will simply destroy you without noticing, and an avg 4mph current. Channel markers and caution buoys are very important. It's dangerous if you aren't well trained.

I said "simple," not to be confused with "easy." ie. simple rules, simple system of markers, etc. I like the 6-pack license because it lets you guide ANYWHERE (inland...or inland and littoral). And if that is what the license authorizes, then it's dead-on for what is required. If there was a license that only authorized a particular body of water, then it could be a LOT less extensive in many cases. But imagine the beauracracy necessary to administer such a licensing system. No, "one size fits all" is the best way to go and...in atypical fashion...the fed gov't took the most demanding case scenarios to set the licensing guidelines and figured overkill can't hurt. I like it. But it is a pain in the butt when you're trying to get one.

The license is about safely and reliably operating the BOAT. It isn't about catching fish. It isn't a "fishing guide" license. It is a license for the commercial operation of small motorized boats that carry up to 6 passengers at a time. Duck hunting guides who transport clients in boats need it too...depending on where they guide. Water taxi drivers need this or a superior license. The license has nothing whatsoever to do with fishing. And, personally, I have never heard a meritorious argument for why it would NOT be a good idea for anyone who puts people in a boat for hire to have one. FYI, the MAIN "hoop" that prevents most people from getting this license is the drug testing. That's based on surveys that have been done over the last couple of decades. The 2nd most troublesome "hoop" is that if you live in this part of the US you have to go to STL for a couple of days to get it. And most people fail the exams the first time they try. In my opinion, that is just due to lack of preparation. Most people fail the Rules of the Road test, which tests one's knowledge of the rules of safe navigation est. by the USCG. And there is a free book you can get from them to study by. And it's actually pretty simple stuff.

Most USCG criminal investigators are USCG Reserve. And they have law enforcement jurisdiction just like an FBI agent. And they appear to be regular Joes and Janes. Most have full-time jobs outside of law enforcement. Some are retirement age. All they have to do is book a day of fishing with a guide and that guide is in deep kimchee. And there is no way to "sniff them out." I have a friend who is one. He used to live in Branson. He traveled to other parts of the US for his 2-weeks of active duty time each year, where he ran undercover investigations in support of USCG law enforcement operations. And he is subject to activation/recall any time on 24-hour notice. He is also available 24/7 to local and state law enforcement for "back-up" or for his particular expertise. But...up until now...USCG has not targeted this AREA for a "crackdown." They tend to prioritize more dangerous waterways, and they respond to areas where there is a cluster of accidents/insurance claims. But that is not to say it couldn't start tomorrow. And if there is a fatality or serious injury involving a guide or two, you can bet they will start paying attention.

Phil, you're dead on regarding guidelines and requirements. Here's the jurisdiction issue in a nutshell: 1. The US Coast Guard requires this license on all waters under federal jurisdiction...period. The USCG asserts that this applies to all USACE-managed waters, lakes or rivers. And it applies to any fee charged for any activity involving the use of motorized watercraft. 2. But the USCG lacks the enforcement assets and resources to assert said jurisdiction that widely. 3. There is no such thing as an "exemption" for any USACE-managed waterway or resevoir. There are only places they historically CHOOSE not to enforce the law. BUT HERE IS THE BIG PROBLEM: Operating without this license is a federal crime...a C felony. And EVERY business liability insurance and property and casualty insurance policy in this country has a felonious acts or criminal acts exclusion for coverage. What that means is that ANY guide who charges clients and then puts them in a boat without the appropriate USCG license for his class of vessel, # of passengers, and operating waters HAS NO INSURANCE COVERAGE...even if he is paying for it. And the insurance industry has been winning these cases in court. And they are pressuring the USCG to charge their clients who file claims under their policies and do not have the license. So, when you see a guide ad that says, "licensed and insured," and you're getting in a boat on a USACE-managed waterway or lake, you need to ask them WHICH license. The AR guide license is NOT enough for their insurance to pay in the event of injury or loss. And MO has no state guide license. Anyone who has the USCG OUPV (6-pack) license is authorized to use the title "Captain." Anyone who doesn't have a current 6-pack license is NOT authorized to use that title. Only guides who wade fish or use canoes, driftboats, rafts, etc...NO MOTORS...do not need the license on The White River, Norfork tailwater, or any of the White River Chain of Lakes. Those waters are all USACE-managed and the USCG claims jurisdiction. That's "where the rubber meets the road" exactly as it was explained to me by a few attorneys and the USCG officials in STL. And for the guides out there who don't have it, look up the penalties for a class C felony conviction. Each passenger in your boat is a separate violation. So 2 passengers = 2 class C felonies.

I had a pair of of Cabela's Dry Plus Warrior Waders, that's the breathable camo ones for duck hunting. So far, they are the best breathables I have ever had...period. But I just got a new pair of WJ waders that I've only worn once. So I can't compare them for durability yet. I put about 400 days of VERY hard abuse on those Dry Plus waders before they got a little leak. And I mean abuse...not use. I'd buy them again in a heartbeat and may go back to them if these WJ's don't meet my expectations for durability. But they sure look and feel like they will and I have great confidence in the WJ brand.

None of the above. I'll bet they're dead in a few days. Smashed on the highway or shot.

Well, at this point, I have spoken at length with BOTH men. And, Steve, your vision of what transpired is ALMOST right. I DID read almost all of the deleted and edited posts, btw. And they both contacted ME, not vice versa. And both were cordial, polite, understanding, seeking resolution, and professional. Moose's original "offending" post was a classy "thank you" to ALL of the guides who guided his guests written and posted on the first anniversary of his grand opening. His motive was to reach out and thank the guides for their cooperation and contributions...to acknowledge that publicly. He used his financial records of payments to put the list together. And he had no idea anyone was upset with him. The guide who was "offended" was the moderator/guide in question here...whom we all know was Jimmy Traylor. Jimmy T had guided for Moose once and had written a puff piece singing his praises on FFAM. And that was the extent of their interaction. They had not spoken for a few months since. JT deleted that post. Moose thought he messed up and didn't post it right. He knew JW was out of the country and called JT because he is the Mod on that forum. JT told him to repost. Moose did. JT edited ALL of the list of guides out of that post. Then Moose posted a thank you about the OLN show and listed JW, another guide, and Lori Sloas for their help. And JT edited out John and Lori's names. That's when Moose sort of "went off" over there and when John Berry came over here and posted about it. THAT is what happened...confirmed by BOTH parties, who BOTH regret the way they handled it and can't wait until the whole thing is a distant memory. But it became a public event. So now the public needs some closure. I'm trying to provide that. Hopefully, this explanation will do that. Both of these men bring something important to different market sectors of the Ozark trout fishing scene. Both are decent fellows. NEITHER is perfect...just like the rest of us. Now for a note of personal observation... JT's been around here for over a decade. Moved up from TX as an "outsider" too...just like Moose. But Moose, because of the type of business he is running, made a "big splash." JT was able to ease in and learn quietly. Moose didn't have that luxury. He had rooms to fill for an entire season. And he's trying to fill the high-end traveling angler niche...WHICH WE NEED...and that carries BIG overhead, thus BIG risks and a necessary high-profile marketing presence. But let's all stop and think about this: almost every last one of us was "the new guy" at some point in the not too distant past. And I would bet dollars to donuts that every last one of us ruffled some feathers in the early going. This region is not known for it's eagerness to embrace change OR welcome newcomers into the business community! I can recall a BUNCH of controversies and some outright cat fights involving several of the business providers in the ozarks fly fishing community that we now all consider part of the family. But being the "new guy" is TOUGH no matter who you are or how good you are about trying to play nice. We ALL made mistakes and stepped on toes in the early going. And I think we need to keep that in mind when dealing with newcomers to the scene. I think we should cut them a bit of slack and judge them on their ability to learn and adapt over the first few YEARS, instead of sitting like raptors on the branch waiting to pounce if we see them make a misstep. Maybe we could try offering some HELP instead of trying to TEACH them a lesson or "put them in their place." And it is NEVER a good thing when a BBS moderator uses the priveleges of THAT role to address a personal matter of his/her own. I've been moderating and owning BBS's for about 12 years now. And that just isn't an acceptable way of doing the job. JT knows that. He heard it straight from me. And he agrees that he screwed that part up. The rest is between him and Moose. And that is NONE of our business. And I think they'll get it worked out. And it almost always takes two to tango. And they both know it and both feel like they made some mistakes. This stuff happens in business. It's just part of the deal. But wise and skilled business people learn quickly to keep the ugly side of business out of the public eye. Businesses should look like a swimming duck. Above the water, the duck looks peaceful...gliding across the water effortlessly. Underwater, he's paddling like a madman. I have never met a business owner or manager who wasn't dealing with a bunch of ugliness and uncertainty and struggling to stay on top of it all. But your customers and prospective customers should never know it. And it's a compliment when they take it for granted and say things like, "Wow! You've got the dream job!" That means they are completely unaware of the down-side of what you do. And that's a GOOD thing. Unfortunately, some days you get the bear and some days the bear gets you. Nobody's perfect.

We concur on all points, Steve. Success does actually come with its own down-side. And longevity also carries with it that intimidation factor for newcomers. It's just that whole "new kid in school" phenom, but folks tend to think they are being slighted and that it's because the regulars and old-timers are "cliquish." Not usually. They just KNOW EACH OTHER already. Stick around, participate, recognize and respect the tenure of their established relationships, and sooner rather than later they will know you too. And you will be a "regular."

Of course you are right. I said it was an ideal about how I feel things SHOULD be...in a perfect world, as you say. But because it cannot exist is not reason not to shoot for that ideal. The higher you aim, the higher you land. I guess the real moral to this story is this: if your goal with a site is the free flow of info, it hurts your credibility every time you decide to restrict it. If there is an apparent or suspected financial motive to it, it really hurts. Phil takes the high ground here on OA and does a darned good job of it. I could name other BBS's where the owner doesn't do a good job of it. They end up with a bunch of cronies and butt-kissers hanging out on their boards telling each other how great and how smart they all are...because they all know how great the owner is, and the owner has decided they are great guys too. BARF! Then there are the sites where the moderators are so heavy-handed and caustic that the participants are afraid to say anything very candid or bring up potentially controversial subjects...no matter how important they are. That's kind of distillation of what I have observed over the 12 years I've been doing the on-line hunting and fishing thing.

Back to the original question...which is a healthy one to discuss now and then...MY OPINION is that a top-notch Internet forum should be an unbiased source of information from as wide of an array of sources as possible without regard to commercial interests. In a free speech and free association environment where money doesn't play a role, the TRUTH and the BEST IDEAS will always win out eventually. It's a ruthlessly fair way to do things. Thus, the consumer gets the info he/she comes there for in the first place and the commercial interests involved are all on an even playing field. I also believe that if an industry person doesn't want to provide that sort of public service in his industry, then he should't even have a BBS on his website...maybe just a blog where he edits any and all replies to his own column. But...again...that MY OPINION. Sort of an "ideal" of what things "should" be.

Oh! Now I understand your question. There is a lot of overlap in the players on this forum and on FFAM. And if you go over there and read about this nonsense, you will see that a couple of the guys from here have kicked him while he was down and then high-fived it with the rest of the "guide clique" over there. So I suspect Moose just figured he should remove himself from BOTH forums.

I didn't take it as a slam, WebFreeman. I think Davy was saying that the guide/mod in question feels that Moose has violated some unwritten rules about business they did together, and thus he is using his "position" as a moderator to censor Moose's contributions to FFAM. Davy himself said he isn't taking either side. It's actually much worse than that. I just read everything I could find on the matter, and the guide/mod in question seems to me to be engaging in some defamation as well. And then he locks the threads so that Moose cannot defend himself or even address accusations being leveled at him. And the guide/mod also deleted posts made by and posts mentioning John Berry...another long-time guide on the river and frequent contributer to these forums. In fact, the guide/mod over there posted a message to ME to email him...not a "would you please email me," mind you! Just a command to email him. I doubt Moose will be posting over there anymore and I doubt that will cost him a nickel. At over $200/night for lodging, meals, and concierge service; I doubt many of his target customers are reading any of this nonsense. And he has no problem finding good guides because he is paying them 50% more than the going rate on the river and his clients are big tippers. And as long as guides can get good paying work and their checks don't bounce, many of the top guides will be guiding his guests.

Oh...I forgot...Davy, when you post something on a BBS on the Internet, the owner of the BBS holds the copyright unless you reserve it in writing on that specific post. That's the law. Most user agreements on professional websites spell that out, too. In effect, if you post something on a discussion forum, it becomes public domain.

Ah! Thanks for the explanation, Davy. Now it's pretty clear what the whole bru-ha-ha was about. As is typical, it takes two to tango. And there is usually bad judgment or behavior on both sides of a flare-up like this one. But I will say this: Moose is a "new kid in town." Has anybody bothered to just explain this stuff to him? Or did he just get slammed without knowing why? That would be an important factor to me. I don't know him. I do know the guide/mod. I do know the business climate of northern AR's outdoor rec industry. So I tend to want to give Moose the benefit of the doubt.

I try to spend a few days to a couple of weeks reading them before I start posting anything. It gives you a better insight into the personas of the key players, of the overall group, etc. But sometimes you can still commit "sins" without knowing it.

Well, my understanding of Moose's dilemma doesnt really involve much "argumentation." It all started when a guide who moderates another fishing forum started editing his posts on that forum to delete all references to his business and/or praise for "competitor" guides of his. (I'm not sure...since it was deleted before I read it) So Moose made a couple of "hey, wait a minute" kinds of posts. They also were deleted. It was stupid and childish (on the part of the guide/moderator). And I'll bet it made Moose realize just how "vulnerable" and out of control a biz owner is on a BBS that he doesn't own. And any possible gain isn't worth the BS. So he split. And if I'm reading the situation correctly (I haven't spoken to anyone about any of this), I suspect that guide/moderator just lost a source of well-heeled clients due to his sophomoric shenanigans.

I have no idea what is really going on, but I could take an educated guess. Moose owns a luxury lodge on the White that he just opened last year. He only got on these forums very recently and probably because one of the guides he's been channeling clients to recommended he do so "for promotional purposes." Now, in non-Internet business, when you promote or advertise your business, you have a LOT of control over content. And in sales and marketing, you NEVER bring up a negative...EVER. You won't see Ford running a commercial saying, "Even though the Ford 500 has been the worst-selling car Ford ever produced, it's still a great car and you should try one." And when the commercial is over, you don't see a bunch of criticism tacked onto the end of it. Marketing via BBS's and blogs on the Net is a different game. You expose yourself to criticism that is attached directly to any mention of your business...or persona. For a business person, all this "free speech" on the Net is a two-edged sword. Every time you type something honest, you lose a potential customer. You MIGHT also gain one, but you definitely lose one. Someone reads it and thinks, "I'd never do business with that guy because of what he just said." And then they usually post something to that effect. If your purpose in participating in forums and blogs is to promote your business, you better not shoot from the hip or speak too candidly. You have to be a PR genius. And you have to learn to MANIPULATE popular opinion rather than get mucked up by it. Many entrepreneurs...especially outdoorsmen and women...have ZERO tolerance for that BS. They don't want to be "manipulators." They are straight-shooters by nature. And they despise confrontations...especially in public. I suspect Moose found this out the hard way and has suddenly realized what the game is all about. And he has decided it isn't worth his time/energy to mess with this nonsense. Better to write a well-crafted ad and run it in the major papers and/or magazines...better to deal with a select few TV show producers and outdoor writers who ARE professional PR people and who have 100% control of their forums. So he's backing off. I don't blame him one bit. I also suspect that he might have been "baited" into getting on the forum over at that other site by someone with less than noble intentions...somebody who WANTED to embarass/harass him. Someone who wanted to hold HIM hostage and make HIM conform in "HIS" arena instead of having to beg sports off of him and kiss HIS butt. Or, he might have been encouraged to get on that forum by someone who just doesn't know the first freaking thing about promoting a business via the Web. Even some people who have had success with websites have no clue how it impacts their other business...quite a high % actually. And they have NO idea how to make it a positive. Just a guess... P.S. I wrote this to hopefully give some of the readers here a bit of a feel for the business owners who DO participate. If you value their expert opinions/info, you should respect their unique situations. If not, they won't stick around.

Yep! And there are electric co's and various research projects with universities and the state running demo projects and such on other alternative uses for poultry litter. The other KEY to reducing pollution is to develop ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE (if not rewarding, which is the real goal) pollution reduction technologies and then educating the waste treatment, real estate development, and ag industries aware of them and facilitating their wisespread use. This is another area the JRBP is pioneering in the Ozarks.