3wt

Fishing should be good in and out of the park. I would expect a lot of success with mohair leeches, wooly buggers, san juan worms, nymphs etc. Fishing at Montauk is Thursay-Sunday and will be during daytime hours (wait for the buzzers), fly fishing only, and from the spring to the campground bridge. The upper current is under the same reg's as usual. Some caddis hatches, maybe small bwo's. I'm not sure that there will be much hatching though. If you're into camping, have a camper (or if you're brave), I would camp in the park (my opinion, but I like cold weather camping). It will be all but abandoned during winter, and is nice besides the lack of running water. You will only have the outhouse near loops 3&4, or use the lodge restroom when it's open. I think they are open for lunch at the lodge, but only limited diner food. Reeds may be open for food...not much else close. Oh, and I stand by my previous statements that the fly-only stretch at Montauk is one of the coolest places in Missouri to fish when there aren't hundreds of people crowding it...it's worthwhile during the winter season

I will have to say that I have not been impressed with Reed's fly tackle, especially fly selection. But, I have heard that their cabins are decent and cheap. I wouldn't let the rowdiness of the cabins at Montauk factor in. That's probably pretty rare, or non-existant during winter C&R. If you really want peace and tranquility, stay in the campgrounds (if you have some way of staying warm at night). The place is a ghost town during winter, which is a welcome change to the normal summer crowd.

Catch-and-Release Season * Beginning Time Ending Time 2nd Friday in Nov. through the 2nd Monday in February (Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday only) 8 a.m. 4 p.m. *The catch-and-release season has been expanded in 2006 to include Mondays. Copied from the mostateparkes website for montauk. I can't wait to get out there. I think Montauk during catch and release season is about as good as flyfishing gets in MO.

Phil, Yeah, the Fly Fishing only area at Montauk is really an awsome stream with a lot of character and structure. When you take away the traffic and pressure, you can really catch some nice fish in riffles and places where fish SHOULD be if you don't have a bunch of numbskulls walking on them all day.

GF - Good analysis. Just to mine a little further... If a human egg is living (indisputable), then it is a living 'what?' Things that are alive are of a kind or species. Then what species or kind is a fertilized human egg. Science does not recognize "almost" species, only species. The fertilized egg can only be human. So, it is human, and it is alive. It must then be as valuable as any living human.

Hank, Your thinking scares me. I don't really care what "greater good" is being served. This is not war, so your a-bomb argument is inapplicable. Think of the travesties that could be brought about by the greater good argument. If I could tell you that aborted fetuses may have the same research potential as the embryos we're talking about, then would you change your mind on abortion? I hope not. These are either lives or not. I don't care what sad cases can be cured, I'm not willing to gamble here. This is becoming hypocrisy at it's worst. If we can't say that these aren't humans, then lets not kill them. If you can't get that simple concept, then there is no point arguing here. Decide when a human becomes a human (please base it on something besides "I feel this way"). Anything before that point is fair game. Anything after that point is protected, no matter what "greater good" can be served.

Hank, With all due respect, you have brought up all of the wrong arguments. The economic issue greatly undermines the legitimate concerns. We can ensure economic success by any number of unethical practices. The argument here, and in any case like this, is not how much money we'll be out - ask Enron. My point is, we can't justify this on the "we'll make money" argument. Again it all comes down to money at what cost, cures at what cost, scientific discovery at what cost. Until we answer those questions, which we haven't, we just cant say yes to this. Look I'm all for biotech money in Missouri - I make my living through it. I'm all for cures. However, my ehtics are not situational. I can't say that a blastocyst is surely not human, and that we should sacrifice it. We have in many ways advanced faster technically than ethically. We haven't slowed down enough to say "should we," not just "can we." Here's the opportunity, and we're trying to constitutionally protect against it.

If there were no other reasons to oppose this ammendment, here is the sticker: 1.) There is obviously a controversial issue, and deserving of ongoing debate. Ammendment 2 seeks to take this issue out of scrutiny forever. 2.) Scientifically, this bill is misleading at best. At worst it redefines accepted scientific terms like cloning, and then bases it's "ban" on those falsey defined terms. A no vote will not end the debate, it will not ban any research or cloning, it will only keep us from changing our minds. From both sides the truth is not being told. We need to just say no for now and regroup wtih the corret information.

Sam, Do you have any feel for what kind of momentum would be required to make the blue ribbon area of the current catch and release? What kind of opposition would that kind of movement face? What kind of friends would it have whith MDC?

Yeah, wind and leaves are the scourge of fly fisherman too. Hooking a leaf, and then casting with it on the hook creates a helicopter effect, and ruins leader faster than I care to talk about.

Wayne, Just to clarify, no the stem cells themselves are not life. As an anology, killing a blastocyst for it's stem cells could be like killing somebody for an organ, that could then be kept alive and used for cures. Stem cells are different from sperm and eggs in that they have a complete set of DNA (sperm and eggs each have 1/2 a set). Human cloning and cloning a human being are not different terms. They are being used for cloning a human, and cloning a human with intent to allow it to grow before you kill it. It's scientific hair splitting and it really irks me. Again, this only makes sense if we assume that we have to default to humanity from the point of conception, since we can't prove otherwise.

Al, I’m with you except on 2 points: 1.) It’s not about whether you hold the viewpoint that life begins at conception, it’s about whether you can prove it doesn’t. If not, we can’t take the risk. 2.) Your analysis about “cloning” stem cells is not exactly right. The point is that once you perform SCNT, and clone a blastocyst, you must get the stem cells out, which kills it. If you could do this on only existing embryos from IVF without harming them, the issue would pretty much go away (except mass producing embryos just so you can take the shotgun approach to getting pregnant is still pretty morbid, and ethically questionable). Stem cells cannot be grown into a human, so the cells dividing is not cloning. So you can definitely be for adult stem cell research and against embryonic. Brian, No, the scientific community as a whole is not a conspiracy. You might be surprised how incredibly cutthroat it can be for funding though. I spoke with a colleague whose father is a professor of some type of medicine as SLU. He said that stealing information, falsifying data, and doing other unethical practices occur much more than you know. Here’s the thing, most scientists take a purely naturalistic approach to reality. This system really does not allow for the existence of morals or ethics. These concepts are imposed by society either by belief in a higher power or by arbitrary rules for advancing the society. The problem is why does science protect human life at all? From that standpoint I would much rather save Michael J. Fox than a lump of cells with no real human characteristics besides genetics. Now, you get into the real slippery slope where the ends can ALWAYS justify the means – If you can kill one human to save ten, then you should. If we do assign humanity to anything, then we do so scientifically. But if we want that to be a special status, we must do so outside of science. I wasn’t commenting on Michael J. Fox, and will have to disagree with you on one thing – People in the middle of issues usually have WORSE judgment on them. Being in the middle of this introduces emotion and bias. Taking a step back from things like this should offer clarity. Wayne, Not really on with the analogy. As I pointed out to Al, he is incorrect on exactly what part of the issue is being taken exception to. You have to kill a human blastocyst to get the stem cells, no way around that. If you have a sense that those embryos might be humans, then you should not kill them. gonefishin, Good point about the wording of the bill, but again, if you believe that embryos at any stage might be alive, you should vote against this ammendment based on the research. Just as a general comment, I appreciate that we all have well developed viewpoints, and haven’t fallen back on the “it’s just a religious belief” argument. I think we’re all discussing the right part of this issue.

I'm not sure what type of pop up would leak rain through if you touch it. They are generally nothing like a tent, and are a vinyl completely water proof material. They are generally very cramped, and I wouldn't suggest them for anything but sleeping, but then again, I don't need brining my living room with me camping. I like to spend time outside. Unless you spend alot more money, you won't get much more room out of a conventional trailer.

I think the current has improved. I have personally caught fewer fish in the 10-12" range and more 14-17 inchers in my few trips this year. This could be pretty incidental but I would like to think the regs are helping. Also, I've always understood that the browns have not spawned in the current river. But on my last trip, I caught about a 3" brown near ashley creek. It was in September, so I find it difficult to believe it is a little guy that got stuck in with the stockers (when do they stock? I thought it would have to be bigger by Sept.) I found this pretty interesting. I think the current has improved. I have personally caught fewer fish in the 10-12" range and more 14-17 inchers in my few trips this year. This could be pretty incidental but I would like to think the regs are helping. Also, I've always understood that the browns have not spawned in the current river. But on my last trip, I caught about a 3" brown near ashley creek. It was in September, so I find it difficult to believe it is a little guy that got stuck in with the stockers (when do they stock? I thought it would have to be bigger by Sept.) I found this pretty interesting.

Brian, I'm no hypocrite. I can't argue with you. I don't care if it sounds over the top, but I can't come up with a legitmate argument justifying IVF. Can you make an argument for it without emotional plea about infertility? The same logic applies, stem cell cures at what cost and fertility at what cost? As a culture and society we absolutely cannot assign value to humanity, and then in the same breath assign humanity ARBITRARILY. That means if we don't know when to assign humanity, we MUST err on the side of life. Like I said, take the religion out of it and we still value human life. Are your Christian, Jewish and other friends scientists? Do you realize that as a whole we (Americans) are greatly scientifically illiterate? Do you realize how easy it is to have the wool pulled over our eyes? There is only one issue of any worth in this debate. Can we say without any reservation that blastocysts are non-human. All other arguments are smokescreens. Wayne, Once the stem cells are removed from the blastocyst (which dies), the cells are no more a life than a stem cell removed from an adult. In a sense they All cells are clones of eachother by virtue of how they reproduce BUT this is not the same as human cloning as you are not replicating the organism as a whole. Scientifically there's a big difference. Now, the amendment protects SCNT, which is inargualby a cloning technique. The people invovled with this amendment have hijacked the term cloning to refer only to cloning an embryo and then GROWING the clone in a uterus. This has never been the accepted use of the term, and is pretty much a flagarent example of agenda-driven science.

Phil, I absolutely agree with you, but don't expect everybody to buy into the Bible. That being said all is not lost. We don't need everybody to believe the Bible, just to admit that we don't want to kill innocent humans. Now, scientifically the beginning of a new human organism is at conception. If nobody can come up with a better pinpoint on the beginning of life and justify it beyond any reasonable doubt, then we can give embryonic research of any kind a free pass. Until then we must go by our idea of not killing innocent humans and ban any kind of embryonic research. The real argument is not religious, not political, and not about cures or the possiblility of cures. It's about once and for all getting a scientific backbone and admitting what science has known for a long time now. Human life begins at conception. The problem is that this will kill embryonic research and abortion. So agenda driven scientist will still dodge the question and make it about cures (read money/political affiliation). Just a biochemical engineer's take on it. If you can find a flaw in my logic, please point it out; if not vote no on 2. Brian, I hear you, but you must realize those frozen embryos are not just hunks of cells, they are individual humans. You're right, don't listen to Rush. Go out and try to find somebody who can explain to you why a embryo is not a human without resorting to emotional arguments about cures. If those frozen embryos are human, then embryonic stem cell research is murder.

Terrapin, SCNT, the proposed favorite method of creating stem cell lines require is cloning - flat out. I'm sure Dolly the Sheep's creators would take exception to the redefinition of the word cloning. As for the discarded blastocysts from IVF: Just because they will be discarded does not change their status of humanity. If you can answer the following question, you might have a shot at justifying embryonic stem cell research. At what point is a human being 100% human and why?

Quote from Al "The initiative specifically prohibits human cloning. There is a vast difference between human cloning and using already existing blastocysts to clone stem cells." False. This is taking a blastocyst and cloning it, just not growing it. The verbiage "cloning ban" are blatantly false in a scientific sense. The ONLY issue here is whether a blastocyst is human. Scientifically it must be. Medically, you'll find differing opinions - many of which are agenda driven. I don't know what else to call something that is 100% genetically human, alive, and 100% genetically individual.

The extra ferruls in the 3 or 4 pc rods must add something, BUT you most likely will not be able to notice it. Don't let the convenience factor be downplayed, the shorter rods are great for any packing, plane, train, car, whatever. In short, there's a reason that "travel" rods are popular(so popular that they're not really called travel rods anymore) - you can transport them and the action loss is minimal. You won't go back to 2 pc if you get a 3 or 4 pc.

Weird, I have mainly catch rainbows below the park this year.

If the fish is small enough, I usually flip them over, and try to keep them in the water (which in my mind makes them panic less). Also, I try this while holding them just behind the dorsal fin...I know it seems weird, and like you won't be able to hold on to it, but it really turns them "off." Maybe it's my imagination, but give it a try, hold a fish upsidedown with your hand on the upper portion, then switch to behind the dorsal fin. Surely some lucky guy is out there fishing today to try this out and report back.

NO TO DREDGING!!! Come on, if you don't find fishable water in the fly area at Montauk, you don't know where to look for fish. You don't need to rely on obvious deep holes to catch trout. Trust me, if you spend some time fishing the riffles and undercuts, you'll find fish that nobody else casts at. The natural feel of the stream is a good thing, and should be preserved. Fishing a chaing of deep holes really cheapens trout fishing (see Maramec Springs).

I was there for the weekend. Pretty much the 2nd worst time I've ever been to Montauk-second only to a flash flooding weekend. I'm glad people have fun, but wow, talk about too many people on the stream. And isn't a trout tournament like trying to get champagne from McDonalds? They just don't go together. Really though, I'm glad they raise money and I'm glad people have a good time. I just wish they would do a better job advertising for those of us who don't want to end up competing with the meat-hunt. Just a thought.

Montauk over Bennet any time. I've never actually been to RR. As far as Montauk vs. Taneycomo goes, well that's really apples and oranges. Montauk's range is from a medium river to large spring creek in stream size. The one time I've been to Taney, it was a barely wadeable large river, and reading the water is completely different. Not to bad mouth it, but if you're used to smaller trout streams, you would probably need to spend some time at Taney with somebody who knows the stream. If you're taking a long weekend, I would HIGHLY suggest a Saturday through Teusday over a Thursday through Sunday. Mondays and Tuesdays at Montauk are usually desolate, leaving you and the fish.