Outside Bend

It may or may not be a new species, but saying it's the same as a wild salmon is like saying a splake is the same as a brook trout, or a mule is the same as a horse. You're combining the genetics of two very different organisms which couldn't spawn together in the wild, to create an organism which couldn't occur in nature. The truth is, I'm not even opposed to genetic modification, provided the consumer is aware and has the choice to purchase other products. What does concern me is the production mode, when these fish escape (anadromous fish have that nasty habit of trying to get out), and how they will interact with wild salmon populations. Will they breed with wild fish? Will those offspring possess foreign genes? Will these GM salmon be able to out-compete native stocks? Will offspring between GM and native fish survive? As I said in another thread, the aquaculture industry hasn't even mastered the keeping-the-fish-in-the-tank technology, I'm really hesitant to green-light projects whose impact on the environment, and already decimated wild salmon stocks, we don't know.

Most of the grafts you're talking about occur between strains of the same species, or closely related species. The genetic modifications discussed in the article are between widely divergent species. To use your analogy, it'd be like grafting apple scion onto shortleaf pine rootstock. It's a little difficult to explain, but grafted trees aren't much like the GM organisms discussed in the article. A grafted tree isn't a blend of genes like you'd find in a sexually reproduced organism (or these GM salmon), rather it's more like two discrete organisms in a symbiotic relationship- the scion wood producing food to nourish the rootstock, the rootstock providing disease resistance, drought tolerance, and food storage capacity. It makes sense, as the idea grafting is to produce fruit of uniform quality- i.e. without influence from other trees, including the rootstock. Both the rootstock and the scion wood maintain separate genetics, and there's no influence of the rootstock on the fruit or seed produced. Unlike these GM fish, in which genes from a very different organism (hagfish?), would be introduced into a salmon's genome, and would be able to be inherited by that salmon's progeny, including wild stocks. That's what makes me nervous. And no worries Wayne, I don't get worked up about differences of opinion. Plus I went fishing, and all is well

And the Chileans

To me there's a big difference between selective breeding and the genetic modifications they're discussing in the article- they're not even talking about hybrid vigor- they're discussing putting the genes of an unrelated species into another animal. Personally I don't buy the "do it or we'll starve," argument; I've yet to see starving people who could afford fresh salmon, and if these folks were genuinely worried about human welfare, other fishes are far easier to culture. It's a matter of economics- salmon producers want a way to produce the same poundage of fish using less inputs (food), thereby increasing profits. Genetic modification is their solution. If they can alter their genes as to be completely, 100% foolproof sterile, I'd have no problem with their culture. Then again, we've heard folks make those claims before. Anything less than that I don't want to gamble with.

Right, as is any fish with a dorsal fin comprising spiny and soft dorsal rays- snooks, dolphinfish, jacks, remoras, roosterfish, perches, temperate basses, true sunfishes, cichlids, barracudas, swordfish, gouramis, snakeheads, and others- we're talking tens of thousands of species. I'm just saying if the goal is to get all the true sunfishes (family Centrarchidae), you don't need to (and it'll make your life easier) leaving out the pygmy sunfish. Either way, good luck!

I understand your point JD, I guess I'm just not sure whether an Amendment would have a tangible effect. The 2nd Amendment exists, and IMO is pretty clearly stated, but the fact that it exists doesn't keep people from attempting to erode it, doesn't mean it goes unchallenged. I guess I just think pro and anti-sportsmen have irreconcilable differences, that wouldn't be solved by adding an Amendment to the Constitution.

To me the article sounded a little confused- I'm not sure how an Amendment protecting hunters/anglers rights would keep a developer from turning land into condos- to me that's more of a local zoning issue. Doesn't MO already have a statute making it unlawful to interfere with hunters and anglers as they pursue their sports? If not, I'd be all for that.

Right. But the question was where is Fiocchi headquartered, not where Fiocchi's US subsidiary is located. My point being that while the ammo may say "Made in the USA," the profits aren't necessarily staying stateside.

I'm not sure anyone's twisting anything- your stated that war is good for the economy. While some individuals and businesses may be prospering, it's also true there have been numerous layoffs in the defense industry. This isn't the same as the mobilization during WWII, and looking around, I don't see the defense industry lifting us out of recession anytime soon. That's fine, but framing war as a tool for economic prosperity strikes me as more than a little callus, the idea of putting mean gold ahead of the golden mean. To me the ideas "war is good for the economy," and "war is good," are two very different things, and should never be confused. Ok. Where is Fiocchi headquartered?

This war is good for China's economy, no doubt. But it seems like very few are reaping the benefits stateside. And I'd argue fueling economic growth through the death of soldiers and civilians is never good business. I think you're at least a little right, though- when my buddy went to Iraq it wasn't Uncle Sam supplying his body armor (gov't issue was apparently a joke), some friends and I went in on it together. Someone is making a pile of money (my guess is stashed in an offshore bank account), off military equipment that doesn't actually meet the needs of the soldiers fighting these wars.

Well if you don't like it, you're free to leave I'm by no means enamored with Obama. But Palin's made it clear to me in the '08 campaign she had no idea what the job she was applying for actually entailed. For me, that's a pretty big disqualifier. Her subsequent appearances have driven home the fact her views don't generally reflect mine, so no, I probably won't be voting for her in the future. Just my opinion though, and this is, after all, America. Reasonable people can disagree without wishing bodily harm on one another. But I'd take the Tina Fey imitation over the real deal any day

I wouldn't call her a pitbull by any stretch of the imagination- she's good at rhetoric, but put her on the defensive, in an interview- anywhere she has to actually think about what she's saying- and she seems to fall apart. I was on the same page as McCain right up until he announced Palin as his running-mate. The more I learned about her and saw her in action, the more it motivated me to vote another direction, but I don't think that was the intended goal

The river.

Honestly? I won't pay for access to something I already own. But knowing how some folks treat public accesses, I can completely understand why a landowner would want to regulate who's on their property.

I've only had one pucker experience- crossing a sandy tributary stream out west when I went up to my waist in sand and mud, all by myself. Definitely a nervous situation. As for the Hawn/Pickle Springs area, it's one of my favorite parts of the state. My family owned some acreage along Jonca Creek which was recently donated to the State Park; a bittersweet experience. At least now everyone gets to enjoy it as much as I have : )

Thank you, Al.

I'm not changing my approach, I'm just trying to understand your logic. You realize that lead is harmful if handled or ingested, but you don't understand why you wouldn't want people throwing lead products in places they can be handled or ingested by wildlife? As for brass, I'm not hedging. I was simply stating that an item containing 2% lead would have less lead toxicity than an item containing 96% lead- I figured that was a pretty reasonable assumption. If they want to ban brass too that's fine by me, as I stated, there are ways to produce brass without using lead.

It's true, birds and some bat species are getting nailed by wind turbines in some areas. Birds also smoke transmission lines and radio towers, etc as they migrate in the dark. Turbines tops are also an excellent place for birds of prey to perch and whack songbirds, prairie chickens, etc. I'm not sure it's comparable to the damage done by, say, a three-month long oil spill, though. And I can say unequivocally I've never been enchanted by the perfume of an oil refinery, or marveled at the aesthetics of an oil derrick drilling platform, pipeline cut, tarballs, oiled wildlife, or slicks measuring in square miles. There's tradeoffs for every action we take.

Wayne, how exactly would a loon or swan or smallmouth understand how to safely handle lead? Surely you guys are smart enough to realize a compound containing 2% lead would be far less toxic than a compound containing 96% Lead. And I'm hoping you guys are smart enough to realize Zarraspook's article regarding brass clearly states it can be manufactured without lead entirely. IMO, that makes it a non-issue. We can't ban lead because not enough studies have been done (thousands are apparently not enough), but we know enough from the handful of inconclusive studies done regarding tungsten to determine it's not a viable option for fishing tackle? Surely you guys recognize the idiocy of that argument.

Nice Char!

My daddy did it, my grandaddy did it, my great granddaddy did it...are you suggesting we eliminate a nostalgic piece of rural heritage? BLASPHEMY! That's all I got to say about that.

I guess I'm at a loss for words... Thousands of studies have been performed conclusively illustrating lead's toxicity- to people, to livestock, to other mammals, to birds, to fish, to invertebrates, to amphibians, to plants. Lead's toxicity has been understood for at least 2500 years. The Greeks figured it out. The Egyptians figured it out. The Romans figured it out. People have recognized lead as a poison since before people recognized the Earth revolved around the Sun. I figure at this point the issue's pretty much been settled. If you can't figure it out, it's not because there's a lack of research.

Wayne, the lead bullet issue isn't restricted solely to condors- any animal which will scavenge carcasses- coyotes, bears wolves, ravens, eagles, hawks, your dog, would exposed to potential lead poisoning. Birds are a part of the ecosystem in which they live. Birds have suffered due to lead tackle. Therefore, ecosystems have suffered because of lead tackle. Wayne- if someone developed a high density plastic with the same weight properties of lead (but which was non-toxic), which you could cast into jigheads, spinners, sinkers, etc...would you switch?

left-leaning "foundations," (really no quotes are necessary, they are, after all, actual foundations) are not the same as the US federal government. Try again.