Outside Bend

Pretty wild...that you can hear the trains running in the background makes it especially eerie....thanks for sharing!

I could see being upset about it on a free-flowing stream, but those tailwaters stay dang cold even in the middle of summer. With the fish being caught around 9 am and the guys' staying around a while to make sure it recovered...it seems like they did everything within their power to make sure the fish made it alright. I'm happy with that. Fish of a lifetime, for sure. Congratulations!

Find as many maps as you can get your hands on- DeLorme atlas, MDC's Conservation Atlas, Forest Service maps and USGS quadrangles are all good resources. You should also be able to find most MDC properties on their website (I think that'll take you there). And it looks as though you can download a file that'll make all the MDC Conservation Areas pop up in Google Earth, too. Google "USGS Water Data," that information can give you a pretty good idea of how streams are faring right now with the drought. Good luck!

Aren't the 1800's earlier than the 1960's? And whether or not Al Gore or anyone else is making money from green technology is immaterial- it has no bearing on whether or not the science is valid. It's just one of the standard red herrings climate change skeptics use to debase the discussion. Folks have studied sunspots, and there's not much correlation between them and the climate change we're currently seeing. While sunspots could explain some of the temperature change, they don't explain the high concentrations of atmospheric CO2- the hypothesis doesn't fit the observations.

Sorry, I thought you were saying they should try and selectively shock the carp. On the whole electrofishing doesn't usually cause many problems, but it's tougher on some fish species than others. Low DO, high temperatures, and other factors can also push fish to the point where they won't recover from the electricity. I'd be hesitant to do much of it on our large rivers in the summer, especially with a couple federally threatened and endangered species potentially swimming around.

And shocking isn't targeted- you get both the invasive carp and the native species.

Plus the site allows you to work at your own pace- you can save your place and resume the test whenever you have time. As far as cost goes, I figure if you can afford buying and operating a boat, you can swing the $35 bucks to get certified.

Looks real nice RFD. I'm working up a material order as I write this, should hopefully be able to start working on them next week..are we tying one fly for each participant, or two?

Wayne pretty much nailed it- low flows + high nutrients = algal blooms. If it's green it's not the invasive algae they're having problems with in Arkansas.

My guess would be that most parents aren't going to allow their 15 or 16 year old to operate a motorboat solo. They probably set the cutoff at 21 in 2005 because at that point most boaters aren't under direct parental supervision, and likely because the 20-30 demographic contributes significantly to the total number of boating accidents.

Some scientists are interested in studying climate over the past 200 years, some scientists are interested in studying climate over the past several thousand years. If you'd like to call that "adjusting the time scale to fit their needs," it's your prerogative. But we can look at climate over a much longer scale. We can look at climate over the past several hundred thousand years- which includes ice ages and interglacial periods. And even when we look at the long time scale you're talking about JD, this current event doesn't fit with the cyclical pattern you're talking about- temps are rising much faster, and there's a whole lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was during previous interglacials. Saying it's part of a pattern only works if it actually fits the pattern.

Climate scientists don't look at what happened in one year vs. another Wayne, they're looking at changes over a much broader timescale. You're right that the events are anomalies, and you're right that it'd be interesting to know what caused them. But the presence of those anomalies doesn't alter the long-term trend, which is what climate scientists are looking at in the first place.

To me it seems like a pretty smooth upward swing. Yes there's seasonal variation, yes there's anomalies which throws some bumps in the graph- but that's science, and the general trend toward higher CO2 concentrations looks pretty clear. You even have two separate entities collecting the data and receiving very similar results- indicating the results are pretty precise. Not to mention all the other ways we've been measuring atmospheric CO2 concentrations...

Russia's also been dealing with record-breaking drought over the past several years. Drought that caused them to halt grain exports, which in turn caused higher global food prices, which helped foment political instability in several nations. Let's not omit that. The repercussions of climate change go far beyond polar bears and penguins.

I'd definitely look into Whites Creek trail along the 11 Point in the Irish Wilderness. You may also check out Sam A Baker State Park- not sure how much hiking is available, but it's a neat area.

Unless there's a warmwater discharge (like a power plant) to the lake, probably no cause for alarm. I'd be much more worried about getting pink-eye or an ear infection than an invasion of nutcrunching tropical fish- but those don't sell as many papers.

Drove over the bridge at Eminence yesterday- it's awfully low, but there's still a few folks floating it. Sorta in the gray area between a good float and a miserable drag. I floated Two Rivers to Powder Mill two weekends ago and it was easy going, nice trip even with a few jetboats to contend with.

Just as it's impossible to know up front what impact gas fracking will have on our environment, or building new oil pipelines, or melting the tar sands. We NEVER know what impact our new technologies are going to have on the environment, but that doesn't stop us from developing and using them. It's impossible to foresee the impacts and outcomes of ANY technology we use- if you're fine with that model for other technology, I don't see how you can rationally use it as an excuse not to develop renewables.

No one's putting all their chips on one source- use solar, wind, or tidal energy when it's available, use biofuels, hydro, geothermal etc when we have immediate energy demands. We can even store water uphill a la' Taum Sauk- fill it when it's sunny or windy, drain it when it's not. Everything's on the table. We haven't licked storage yet, and just like you I'd like to see it resolved. But just as you've been saying, we shouldn't abandon current technology when we don't have the next step figured out. We know how to generate power via renewables- not knowing how to store it shouldn't preclude us from using the technology we have. Is there technology available today which will completely eliminate our need for fossil fuels? No, but that's a strawman anyway- no one's saying there is. But the cost of the technology has dropped exponentially in the last three decades, and if the trend continues, we're looking at solar directly competing with fossil fuels in less than ten years- a little more than five years in some of the sunnier parts of the country.

Oh yes, this is what I was looking for a couple days ago... I've been wanting to tackle the Murdich Minnow. Count me in if you'll have me.

I did google it. First thing that pops up is a piece by an Oregon legislator (or candidate). He claims "Let me make this clear, I have no degree, no accreditation, no published papers on the topic." Obviously qualified to speak on the issue, though. His claims regarding climate science range from patently false ( "Then there is the issue of Modeling their works. They cannot get a single model to work,") to absolutely ludicrous ("I will say… one model actually works, but it debunks AGW and CC.That model is Farmers Almanac."). In one instance he claims Greenland's loss of ice cover is no big deal- and the article he cites as evidence claims precisely the opposite. Let me make this clear, I have no degree, no accrditation, no published papers on the topic. But if a layman like myself can find a handful of reasons not to believe this guy after barely reading his article, I'd be curious to see what an actual climatologist has to say. Once again Jeb, you're missing the point. Anyone can go online and write a diatribe on why climate science is bunk- it doesn't make them an expert, it doesn't even mean they have a clue what they're talking about. At best folks like this are just profoundly ignorant of how science works- at worst they're charlatans, claiming to know more than the folks actually studying the issue, perverting or outright manufacturing evidence to support an ideology. Their claims don't have to be tested, they don't have to be validated, they don't have to be factual or even logical- they're not science. The reason why papers like this don't show up in scientific literature, the reason they're not entertained in the scientific community- it's not because scientists are a bunch of big ol' meanies, it's not because educated elites are trying to squash the underclass, it's not a vast conspiracy to try and keep people from driving Dodges or using incandescent light bulbs or eating flatulent livestock. It's because the arguments against the climate change hypothesis have not stood up to scientific analysis. Repeating the same tired arguments over and over and over again doesn't change that outcome. In a lot of ways it mirrors your beliefs regarding research- just as it's unwise to invest in fruitless energy research, it's probably unwise to expend energy defending demonstrably false arguments. I've watched this thread closely but rarely commented, because the discussion always winds up in the same spot. It's one thing to be skeptical, but substituting a handful of weak, factually inaccurate arguments for reams of tested, verified evidence is simply irrational. If you're not convinced by all that evidence, that's fine, that's your perogative. Personally, I believe no amount of information is going to convince those folks. And that's alright, too. To riff off jeb's ealier analogy, there's still people who believe the earth is flat, despite all the evidence to the contrary. There are people who believe flouridation is a communist plot, that the world will end in December because the Mayans said so, that Steven Seagal is a talented is a talented actor. As beliefs these they're perfectly innocuous, but we don't craft policy around them. I don't see why climate science would be any different. If you don't believe in global warming fine, just don't expect everyone else to wait while you mull it over some more.

Strange analogy, jeb- given folks have known the earth was round for thousands of years, and there wasn't much debate about it. The earth orbiting the sun was much more controversial, and it wasn't scientists doing the persecuting. Much like now, the folks with the data were being ostracized because their position conflicted with the prevailing worldview. Doesn't mean they were wrong, though. But your comparison of science and religion demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what science does, or how science works. Unlike religion, science encourages skepticism- even requires it. That's just not the case with religion. Look at atom theory- ideas were proposed, tested, theories were modified based on the results, and we've been able to come up with a pretty solid idea of how atoms work and how they're structured without ever seeing inside one. It's still a theory, it still hasn't been proven, but other theories have been tested and it's the best explanation of our observations we have. Same with climate science. It's not accepted because scientists blindly believe humans are causing global warming. It's accepted because other hypotheses have been tested, and so far human-induced climate change is the best explanation for what we're seeing, our observations and our data. That's what science does.

I wouldn't be opposed to an all-out ban of live bait sales, but it's neither here nor there- the proposed rule only affects crayfish. I wouldn't be opposed to MDC biologists studying the environmental impacts of minnow or cricket introductions- after all, that's their job. But again, it's neither here nor there- the proposed rule only affects crayfish. We don't know whether there's anything in the works for other bait, and it's immaterial regardless- it's a slippery slope. There's no logical reason to think MDC is going to ban minnows or cricket sales just because they've banned crayfish sales.

Bump. I can swing this, and I need more motivation to tie.

Here here! Now if only there were some way citizens could effect legislation through the election of representatives who share their interests and concerns.... Busting drunken boaters on MO lakes and streams leads to overhead drone surveillance and singing the Russian (not Soviet, mind) national anthem? Gotta love hyperbole- you guys could make Glenn Beck blush If you guys think drunk boaters are an acceptable risk, if you feel the laws are too strict, vote for folks who will make the change.