Outside Bend

And Mizzou has coupled with a few private individuals to start "paddlefish ranching" in private ponds. They'll stock a couple paddlefish per pond- often in heavily fertilized golfcourse ponds, and the fish will graze down the plankton. In five years or so the guys come back, shock or net the paddlefish out of the ponds, and harvest the eggs. Osage catfisheries has been doing it quite a bit in golf course ponds around LOZ, and they seem to be pretty successful.

It's a weird dynamic- while I don't like the idea of waste, I'm not allowed to sell the crappie or bass our trout I catch, or the deer, turkey, or ducks that I kill. And I can see why MDC would be reticent- their hatcheries produce most of the paddlefish harvested in the state, I'm sure they don't want to be on the hook for underwriting the commercial caviar trade. I wouldn't really have an issue with MDC selling eggs, although I don't know much about that area- they're only producing 100,000-200,000 paddlefish per year, and a single paddlefish can have tens of thousands of eggs. I'm not sure how many eggs they harvest, how many pounds of eggs that is, the market price of raw paddlefish eggs per pound...but I'd be a bit surprised if it was a windfall. I doubt it'd even cover one black-helicopter mountain lion/rattlesnake parachute drop!

Exactly- you're not altering the genetic material of the walleye. Just as you don't turn into a human-mushroom hybrid when you're injected with penicillin (fungi crap), walleye-carp hybrids don't pop up because you inject one with the hormones of the other.

My only concern would be who maintains and cleans the recycling bins once they're installed. Like Mic said- you may try contacting a local MDC office, your city park's department, or DNR/Missouri State Parks- they probably have a list of things which can be done.

Good deal, what size soft hackles are you guys fishing? New to the NWA area, may have to check this out this weekend.

I'd suggest taking a look at the patterns you've found most effective, and working from there. Flytyer.com and flyfishingforum.com are both pretty good resources- you can find materials lists and recipes for many popular smallmouth patterns- they'll tell you what materials are used as well as what hook sizes and models work best for each pattern.

Had packages from Lancer and MikeH on my doorstep this evening, thanks guys.

We could discuss the big fires in Texas, in Russia, in Australia, or in the arctic- which hasn't burned in thousands of years. It's not a "local event."

Joe- I don't see the problem with asking questions. The upper Meramec has been a quality fishery in the past, and folks want answers as to why it's declined- seems reasonable to me. If it's a habitat issue then yes, there's not much we can do about it. But even MDC seems to think browns can still persist there- it's more a matter of producing enough browns in the hatcheries to stock in the first place. If that bottleneck is the issue, I don't see anything wrong with trying to work around it- getting fish from out of state or private contractors, even upping the length limit on browns or even making them C&R only statewide- reducing the number of browns harvested could knock down stocking requirements on other streams, allowing the Meramec to receive more fish.

DaddyO's flies were at my doorstep yesterday morning...look great! I'm thinking of cooking up a few in smaller sizes for carp while it's raining this afternoon.

Mic's and Gavin's both arrived today...nice ties!

No worries FS, look forward to seeing 'em.

Just a Day float? Bay Spring to Alley could be nice, too. Looks like great weather for it!

True. I'm not sure whether it's a habitat quality issue in the Meramec, or whether it's a matter of MDC being at the limits of their brown trout production capacity- I know they've had a couple rough years producing browns at Shepherd of the Hills, and it may be the latter. If so, MDC swaps hatchery fish with all sorts of other states- SD and WY come to mind. Perhaps with a little lobbying they could augment state production of browns with some out-of-state fish. Or even reallocate the fish produced in the state- a lower proportion of browns stocked in trout parks, making up for the loss with more, easier to produce, rainbows. Just thinking out loud, but I'm not sure most park attendees know or care about the difference between browns and rainbows, they're looking for fish to fill the cooler. Has anyone contacted the Conservation Commissioners? Jay's a bigtime angler, one would think the MDC director would be all over improving the state's trout resources, especially one so close to a major city. And with the new TU chapter developing in St. Louis, this could be an excellent project for them to get involved with.

And there's more to the sewage than just poop-antibiotics and other adjuncts can wind up in the water and be detrimental to fish and other aquatic critters as well. Are there Ozark hellbenders in the Buffalo? If so, their threatened status may put a wrench in any large-scale animal development.

Thanks for that!

Definitely not necessary, but it's a good skill to develop. You can reinforce the wingcase fibers with head cement or other adhesive, and there are plenty of plastic materials- Nymph Skin, scudback, even plastic strips from a sandwich baggie colored with a sharpie, that can also do the trick.

My guess would be no. But since climatology isn't the study of daily temperatures it doesn't really matter, either.

My take on the article? - The title is ""Breaking News: Missouri Government working with Fed to subvert YOUR rights through RFID Technology?" But the case they're discussing, the injunction they link to, has absolutely nothing to do with RFID technology. RFID technology is never mentioned in the court documents. The Plaintiff enters no complaint about or against RFID technology. - According to the court documents provided in the article, the Plaintiff is not the employee of the Defendant. The Plaintiff was never asked by their employer to provide information on their CCW status, at least according to the court documents the article is predicated upon. The Plaintiff wanted to add his CCW credentials to his driver's license. He went to the license office, and was asked to provide proof of citizenship/residency- birth certificate, Nothing really surprising there- no different than the myriad voter ID laws which have became popular- and if you need to prove eligibility to excercise your 15th Amendment, why shouldn't you have to prove eligibility to excercise your Second? It's all part of the same document, and I'm not sure there's any rationale saying we can chose to interpret one portion of that document strictly while interpreting another liberally. Anyway, it's not what the Plaintiff took issue with. Missouri apparently contracts verification and issuance of the license to a private third party- some out of state company in Georgia. This is what the Plaintiff objected to- that his private information (CCW status) was sent to another group without his knowledge or consent. In a way I understand that, but then again...you have to show your driver's license to all sorts of folks for all sorts of reasons- applying for jobs, getting a hotel, entering some businesses, buying alcohol/cigarettes/aerosol paint or glue from Wal-Mart...I'm not sure how "private" that information really is. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in court. But what really surprised me was the last paragraph- how the alleged violations of this guy's civil rights mean we all need to get behind MO HB 436 and SB 325. I didn't know what they were, so I looked them up- SB 325 is a motion to invalidate all Federal gun laws, including the Gun Control Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. I didn't know what those dealt with, so I checked 'em out, too: - The Gun Control Act of 1934 restricted the sale and possession of automatic machine guns, sawed-off rifles and shotguns, silencers, bombs, grenades, poison-gas weapons, and weapons (except shotguns) with a bore of > 1/2"- cannons. - The Gun Control Act of 1968 was a measure designed to restrict ownership and purchasing of guns by convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts, illegal aliens, the mentally ill, folks who have renounced citizenship, folks who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, rapists, stalkers, and folks who have been convicted of domestic abuse. The legislation also mandated firearms dealers be licensed, and that firearms have serial numbers. That doesn't give me the warm fuzzies. The gun lobby wants government crows about enforcing the laws already on the books, while simultaneously attempting to take those laws off the books. To me the '34 and '68 measure are reasonable. This new effort To me this goes beyond protecting law-abiding individual's right to use and to enjoy firearms- these guys are saying it doesn't matter if you're a criminal, it doesn't matter if you're deranged, it doesn't matter if you're here illegally. Those shouldn't be obstacles to you owning whatever weapons you see fit, whether hand gun or hand grenade. And if we're willing to grant illegal immigrants Second Amendment rights, doesn't that set a precedent for granting them the other rights enumerated in the Constitution- voting, probable cause, and all the rest?

Great posts, Mark- I think a lot of folks forget or ignore the human component of these cuts. There was a pretty nice article I was reading about the cuts, about how they affect children's programs far more dramatically than programs for seniors. http://www.npr.org/2013/02/27/173054385/old-triumph-over-young-in-federal-spending-and-sequester-makes-it-worse There's a lot of good in these programs, and I think that often gets lost in the rhetoric.

Yep, PM'ed you my addy.

It can get confusing, especially when the terminology is frequently used interchangeably, but here's how I've always thought of it- Native- (generally) present in an area before European settlement. There are cases where species have expanded their range over the past several hundred years- even though armadillos, cattle egrets and coyotes probably aren't native to Missouri in the strictly historic sense, I still tend to consider them as native species. Nonnative, exotic, etc- species which are present due to human introduction- cats, dogs, rats, pigs, loosestrife, asian carp, mosquitofish, Japanese honeysuckle, and all the rest. Wild- Capable of reproducing and maintaining viable populations. A nonnative organism can still be considered wild if it can successfully reproduce- brook trout in the Rockies are a good example. Feral- The descendents of domesticated species, which no longer rely on human support. Dogs, cats, horses, pigs, goldfish, one could probably even argue brown and rainbow trout.

The dog's reaction- priceless!

And it goes beyond the educational programs- we're talking reducing or eliminating trash and restroom cleanup, closing campgrounds during the off-season, reducing the presence and effectiveness of rangers. That'll effect a whole lot of outdoor enthusiasts. In part I agree- we practically give away much of our public wealth in the form of mineral, oil, and gas leases. We're giving up those assets for pennies on the dollar, and I'd like to see the market (as opposed to politics) have a much greater role in how those leases are allocated, and how much is paid for them. But there are free public golf courses, and there are free public concerts. IMO it's just the government providing a societal benefit (like roads or schools or scientific research or museums), and I'm not sure why the public should have to pay substantial sums from their own pocket to access property and assets they already own. And many public lands serve a primary role of protecting habitat and biodiversity- public recreation is only a tangential benefit. And I guess I'm just knee-jerk leery of public goods public lands and assets falling into private hands- say what you want about the government, the private sector hasn't done a great job protecting resources, either. Example- I used to love visiting Marble Creek Campground, a Forest Service property between Ironton and Fredericktown. Out of the way, some really scenic granite shut-ins, and some pretty good fishing for black bass and panfish. Funding was eliminated for the campground, and the Forest Service was forced to close the facility- reducing access to the stream. The property was subsequently sold to a group of private investors who set about doing some remodeling- namely eliminating most of the brush and riparian vegetation- preferring to give picnicers an uninterrupted view of the creek and denuded streambank as opposed to protecting the resources of the park. That's just one example of the issues we face when we discuss privatizing public lands- often the interests of making money don't mesh well with the interests of protecting our natural heritage. It's something all anglers, sportsmen, and outdoor enthusiasts need to be aware of, and need to pay attention to. I'm off to go work my second job now- I guess I realized if you cut so much from your budget it's negatively impacting your quality of life, you're not having any fun, you need to figure out a new strategy.

I tend to imagine JD packs enough heat at any given moment to deal with any nuisance wildlife