Outside Bend

Before the 1970's you wouldn't have seen an armadillo in Missouri. Today you can't swing a sack full of dead cats without hitting one. In the 1850's armadillos were only found in extreme southern Texas- since then their range has expanded throughout much of the southern US. It doesn't mean MDC has been drop-kicking them out of black helicopters, it just means that animals are doing what animals do- exploiting available habitat. A century ago you wouldn't have found coyotes in New England. Now they're relatively common. Not because some mustachio'ed villain was clandestinely letting them go, but because animals will do what they do- exploit available habitat. A century ago you would've had a tough time finding raccoons in our northern prairie states. In the past few decades their populations have been expanding because, as you can probably guess, animals will exploit available habitat. Suppression of wildfires paved the way for raccoons and armadillos. Logging and conversion to agriculture paved the way for coyotes in the eastern US. And the return of forests and healthy prey populations has paved the way for mountain lions in the Ozarks. And just like any other critter, lions are going to exploit available habitat. Given all the other critters out there which have had no problem expanding their ranges, it seems you're selling the lions a bit short.

Perhaps, and I'll admit I haven't been able to find much information about this legislation. But I could also see it becoming no more than a political #!@#-storm, too. It probably could be used to create more hunting and recreation opportunities statewide. But if the commissioners take the position of benefiting the most people with their money, you could just as easily see those funds diverted to urban areas and educational programs. If commissioners from ag-dominated regions feel MDC should pay landowners for deer damage, they'd be able to create those policies. If a Chamber of Commerce in the northwestern part of the state wanted their commissioner to pursue pheasant-stocking by the state, it could be done. If constituents in the Ozarks felt regulation of gigging and deer dogging seasons were inappropriate, they could be adjusted. And it may be a reach- but I could forsee situations where a well-connected landowners attempt to restrict access to our state's waterways via a Commission such as this. I'm not saying it could or would happen, or that the legislation was designed for those ends. But from what I know, this legislation seems to leave the door open for those sorts of attacks. There are many areas where I don't agree with MDC's policies and methods, but IMO they've done far more good than harm, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I do feel there's room for improvement, but I also would like to see more stakeholder involvement in the agency- more sportsmen going to meetings, inviting biologists/agents/bureaucrats to meetings/events, engaging the folks at MDC, asking questions creating a dialogue and rapport between the agency and the state's sportsmen. IMO it'd be at least as effective as more legislation- as of late I've noticed an inverse relationship between the amount of work getting done and the number of politicians involved

I can walk into a monastery looking for a hot date. It doesn't mean the place is loaded with females, just that I have poor judgement. MDC can't say there's female lions in the state if they have no evidence of female lions in the state, it's that simple.

Wow wrench, that sucks. Glad to hear Fido's doing alright, though. No chance of getting the shooter to cover vet costs?

I understand, but it's just not that simple. I'm not trying to boo you down Hank, and at the end of the day your opinion is your own. I'm just trying to understand why mountain lions are so outrageous, while all these others, more dangerous critters, are an acceptable risk.

I'm trying hard to remember my undergraduate genetics courses, but it seems like if you have the DNA, you can determine when novel genetic material is introduced into an organism. I know they've traced human migration pathways based on the genetic material contained in individuals, and I assume it'd be possible to trace shark pedigree based on the same principles- determining whom bred with whom, and when. It's probably a really bad explanation, and I'm not even sure it's what they did. Just bouncing ideas out there.

But you can't control mountain lions any more than you can ghosts, twisted ankles, or drunken hillbillies. That's my whole point. Even if we killed every mountain lion sighted in the state, it doesn't prevent more lions moving in from the west. And given that the risks posed by mountain lions is practically nil, is it really worth the effort?

X2. Mud is bad. Icy mud even worse. And even in felt soles those situations are tough- I can remember winters where I'd climb out of the river and my felts would ice up- ice on ice makes for a fun time. The only place in MO I've been in real trouble with rubber soles is on the boat ramps/landings on the lower Current River. The one's I'm thinking of are made out of what looks like concrete blocks- basically the stuff you build retaining walls with around the house. Slickest thing I've ever encountered. But if I can't walk on a couple 20 foot sections of stream bank out of the 120+ mile long ONSR...I'm alright with that

I dunno, perhaps I've just been lucky. I spend a fair amount of time on the water, and figure between work and play there's been about 150 stream days on my rubber boots over the past two years. Aside from the one less-than-sober spill in Wyoming, I haven't really had any issues. I wade more carefully now than I did with felts for sure- but I'm not sure that's an inconvenience. There have been situations/lies I've approached differently than I would have wearing felt soles, and there have probably been a few situations where I've had to add another foot or two to my cast because I didn't feel comfortable taking that next step- but I've had those situations in felts, too. But I haven't been catching fewer fish because of rubber soles, nor have I been unable to access the fishiest portions of streams. It may take a little longer, it may take a bit more thought, but you can still get out there and fish without going under. Again, it's just my personal experience, but I really haven't had a problem adapting to rubber soles. There are pros and cons of every piece of equipment in an angler's quiver- from fly rod to reel, line, boat hull type, jet vs. outboard, vest vs. chest pack, breathable vs. neoprene- take your pick. There's benefits and pitfalls to rubber soles too, and just like rods, there's probably some variability in quality and usefulness between manufacturers. And while I don't wish a fall on anyone, to me the big travesty isn't someone rolling an ankle or losing a flybox. It's trashing one of the most unique, biodiverse places on the planet. It's explaining to our children and grandchildren that they get to attempt to paddle, fish, and swim in six to ten inches of rock snot because Paw believed his freedom to choose appropriate footwear outweighed the costs to our recreational fisheries and waterways.

As Eric said, the ban only applies to trout streams. As far as rubber soles- you can stand in them, walk in them, wade in them...even fish in them! Just like your other gear- rod, reel, line, digital camera- there's a learning curve. But in two years of wearing rubber soles on lakes and streams in Missouri, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Montana, Colorado, Idaho, and Wyoming- I've only dunked once. And that was due more to a lack of sobriety on my part than failure on the boot's part For what it's worth- a wading staff can help quite a bit as well.

Stream Team Website From the map it looks like there may be a few active Stream Teams on the upper Black- you can probably call Stream Team at 573-522-4115 x 3591 and get names and other information.

You'd be far more likely running into a venemous snake, rabid mammal, or strung out tweaker on your run than a Missouri mountain lion. It's much more likely you'd be mistaken as a deer and shot by a hunter, than mistaken as a deer and being nabbed by a lion. You could sprain an ankle, break a leg, come down with Lyme disease, have a tree fall on you. But we don't eliminate all copperheads, or all raccoons, or all bats. We don't ban hunting, even though hunters have killed far more Missouri outdoorsmen than mountain lions. We don't cut 50 foot swaths along our recreational trails to reduce the likelihood of widowmakers. Working and playing outside is inherently risky, and it's impossible to know and minimize all the potential dangers out there. And while you are correct that lions are potentially dangerous, there are lots of potentially dangerous animals out there- some are even pretty common. Singling out lions becomes arbitrary.

The animal wasn't harassing people or livestock, so by law, it had to be released.

Fish Kills Men by Biting Off their Testicles.

Jack Gartside's gurgler pattern is a topwater standby, and I've caught lots of largemouth on meat whistles as well.

Felt doesn't have the same material properties as other materials that make up wading boots. It's much more porous than leather or rubber, and it has no weave pattern like nylon or thread. Felt's basically just matted wool, and as such is much tougher to keep clean than those other materials. It takes felt longer to dry than those materials (allowing aquatic critters to stay viable for much longer), and it's much harder to disinfect all those nooks and crannies.

Probably a swan, there have been a few around Eagle Bluffs this winter.-

It hasn't been found in free-flowing streams in Missouri yet, but it has become a nuisance in undammed streams in other parts of the world.

But it's so comfortable! As far as enforcement goes, I imagine it'd be a random check, and IMO, wouldn't be any tougher to decipher than whether someone is using a treble hook, lead shot in a waterfowl area, or doesn't have a plug in their shotgun.

1.) Didymo is an invasive diatom which has adapted to systems and conditions well outside its native range: Here, Here, Here 2.) Didymo alters aquatic food webs and stream hydrology- Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here. 3.) Didymo infestations cost local recreation and tourism industries, not to mention fish and game agencies- Here 3.) Anglers have been implicated in the movement of didymo and other invasive aquatic organisms- Here, Here, Here, Here, 3.) Angling gear- specifically felt soles- has proven to harbor aquatic invasive species, and provides a means of transporting critters between streams- Here Now, looking at the scientific facts, why is it you think banning felt soles is a bad idea?

I suppose I'd argue that ruining a perfectly good pair of perfectly good felt soled boots is pretty minor compared to ruining a perfectly good fishing/floating/recreational stream. But they're not my boots For the anglers who fish Taney exclusively, 100% it probably is an inconvenience, but I'm betting the number of folks who fish Taney to the exclusion of all else (RR, Crane, NFOW, etc), is pretty small. Most folks would have to buy another pair of boots anyway (even if Taney was excluded from the ban), so IMO it's sort of a moot point. Plus there's the hatchery- if didymo was introduced to Taney and got into the hatchery, infected water could be shipped with browns to trout streams all across the state, effectively defeating the whole point of the felt ban. It's a bummer, but it's no one's fault but his own. The regulations are out there, they're not difficult to find, and it's the responsibility of the angler to know the rules on the water they're fishing.

It's been reported from free flowing streams in Alberta, New Zealand, Patagonia and Quebec. Other than that, I'm not sure. I don't know of any streams that have completely crashed due to didymo invasions, but Rapid Creek in SD is suffering a 50% loss of their wild brown trout population due to a drought/didymo combination. The fishery is recovering, but the fish population is much different now than it was before didymo took hold. Whirling disease (another reason to ban felt), has completely eliminated some western fisheries altogether. There's a lot of evidence didymo alters trout's prey base, creating higher populations of midges and worms and lower populations of mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies. There's also some indications it may interfere with spawning activities, although there hasn't been much research in that area.

Yes. Then again, no one expected an algae native to low nutrient boreal streams would become a nuisance in fertile western tailwaters. Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it will never happen.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts. Remove the emotional arguments, and just look at the science.

The reg won't go into effect until March 1st, 2012, so you should be fine.