Tim Smith

No kidding. I've talked to Phil in private a few times and I get the sense I'm miles to the left of him. He has shut down several threads where I've posted, usually several posts after I've dropped out of the discussion. Usually the reason I've dropped out of the thread is the same reason he has shut it down... ...because BOTH sides have started to embarrass themselves by going personal. Or maybe he's a communist. Which seems more likely?

Not sure the fishing tackle industry would agree with you, but it is something to think about. Maybe we should be subsidizing the video game industry to keep the game quality high so they never venture outside?

Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Announces Local Projects to Help Kids Get Outdoors Funding will support partnership programs in 18 states and Puerto Rico WASHINGTON, April 4, 2011- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced $1 million in cost-share funding for children's programs in 18 states and Puerto Rico, furthering USDA's commitment to connect young people around the country with America's great outdoors. The two programs receiving funding through this announcement will reach tens of thousands of young people this year, and support the goals of both President Obama's America's Great Outdoors Initiative and First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! Initiative. The funds will be divided between "Children's Forest" programs and "More Kids in the Woods" projects. Combined, they build on long-term partnerships and at least 25,000 more children will be able to participate in outdoor activities and expanded opportunities to make first-time and long-term connections between kids and the outdoors. "America's children should have the opportunity to experience our great outdoors and gain first-hand knowledge about our magnificent natural resources, which are important to this country's wealth and health," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "Now more than any other time in history, our children are losing their connection to nature and our hope is to reverse that trend while instilling a curiosity about nature and a life-long commitment to conservation and stewardship." Each year, the Forest Service conducts thousands of programs that reconnect kids with nature - from nationwide, year-round programs that reach large numbers of children, to local events that are designed to address local needs. Collectively, conservation education, recreation and other programs reached more than 25 million children in 2010 and engaged thousands of partners across the country. The More Kids in the Woods program, now in its fifth year, is a competitive funding program for partnership projects that get kids outside and engaged in active, meaningful learning experiences. Projects focus on serving diverse youth and reaching under-served populations, using outdoor activities and nature-based learning to establish meaningful and lasting connections to nature and to improve children's health. Projects funded in 2010 reached more than 15,000 youth. This year, selected projects range from a mentoring program, to outdoor camps, to science education and experiments, to discovery and stewardship adventures, to programs that reach at-risk youth. Today's announcement expands a growing network of Children's Forests in every Forest Service region. Forests designated as Children's Forests will receive additional funds as they work with partners to connect kids and families with outdoor activities and the forest, support communities by creating new education and career opportunities, connect kids with education and mentorship programs, foster climate change understanding and solutions, and expand citizen stewardship of the nation's public lands. "The value of these programs and partnerships for youth must not be underestimated," said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. "Young people are tomorrow's stewards of our public lands, and we must invest in building lasting and meaningful connections between our youth and America's great outdoors." The recipients of the cost-share funding, selected from 174 agency submissions, include 21 More Kids in the Woods projects and nine Children's Forests. Awards were made to projects in: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Hawaii, Montana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. A full list of projects, descriptions, and funding is available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2011/releases/04/mkiw-recipients.shtml <http://USForestService.pr-optout.com/Url.aspx?530638x220420x203828> . Providing greater access to recreation in outdoor spaces is a priority of the Obama Administration. Let's Move!, a comprehensive initiative launched by First Lady Michelle Obama, has set a goal of solving the problem of childhood obesity and promoting healthy lifestyles. This Obama administration priority is fundamentally changing the conversation about how we eat and stay active, helping to ensure future generations are ready to win the future. Learn more by visiting www.LetsMove.gov <http://USForestService.pr-optout.com/Url.aspx?530638x220419x425577> . The Obama Administration's America's Great Outdoors initiative is a 21st century conservation and recreation agenda to create partnerships between the federal government and American communities on locally led conservation initiatives that protect our outdoor spaces and make them accessible to American families. Learn more by visiting www.AmericasGreatOutdoors.gov <http://USForestService.pr-optout.com/Url.aspx?530638x220418x647324> .

I used to run this in the background while I was working. You can hear the animals come up to the waterhole and then bring it up to watch them. There's some really dramatic stuff there sometimes.

Cruise the Lamar Valley in the Northeast end near evening. Found them every time I've done that... ...just watch for the crowds with binoculars. That's probably what they'll be watching.

One thing at a time... Invasive species are likely to be a huge potential problem, yes. You have walleye and smallmouth bass on the extreme southern end of their natural ranges in Arkansas. They're vulnerable to say the least. Make a smallmouth bass compete with spotted bass, or a largemouth bass compete with a snakehead in a slowly warming climate and you've got a serious pressure cooker on your hands.

There are resident populations in Wisconsin and Minnesota and they've been popping into Illinois and Indiana for visits for years. You can bet they take little tours through Missouri too.

Predators always catch blame.

JD is statistially correct here. The more people you find in an area, the lower the biodiversity, especially for large animals or rare animals. Al's comment about technology is also correct from a certain perspective. We have much more capacity now to do harm very quickly. However, we also have the capacity to learn and we have the capacity to find and implement technologies that are less harmful. If we can manage to tell ourselves the truth and make some simple accomodations rather than selling out our minds to the highest bidder we may have some reasons for hope.

Totally correct. Start pulling apart enforcement and all the resources that are being used to protect or prop up our rivers just watch these systems start to unravel. In some ways conservation goes against human nature and it's human nature that's the main problem. For instance, its perfectly natural to own property. Animals have territories, people have territories. I believe in private property rights too, but as Al mentions, flowing water (and the sediment and pollution that goes into it) are property held in common. My gravel mining fills your habitat and my right to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose (or public fishery). All of these issues come to some degree from a violation of that principle. It would be nice to imagine a sort of code of conservation chivalry where people just did the right thing. We've made a lot of progress over the last 50 years... ...but we aren't there yet by a long shot.

I agree with gravel and the rest but here's an entry that may catch some by surprise. Recent experiences have really put this into perspective for me... 1. Economic security. I had done a small data analysis of the effect of some parks and regulations on Belizean commercial species. Just prior to the economic downturn things weren't perfect, but there were some hopeful trends and the future looked pretty good. Now, probably as a result of the economic downturn and the slow economy, most of the parks in Belize are showing steep declines in commercial species, probably as a result of poaching. The fact that we have fish in our rivers depends very much on the fact that most people in the US don't HAVE to go to the river to find something to eat or abuse it through damaging short-cuts in development.

...given that those things have roughly the same chance of happening, might as well go with it.

From the AFS message board: EPA Opens Public Comment on Proposed Standards to Protect Aquatic Ecosystems WASHINGTON Today, as required by the Clean Water Act and pursuant to a settlement agreement, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing for public comment standards to protect billions of fish and other aquatic organisms drawn each year into cooling water systems at large power plants and factories. The proposal, based on Section 316( of the Clean Water Act, would establish a common sense framework, putting a premium on public input and flexibility. This proposal establishes a strong baseline level of protection and then allows additional safeguards for aquatic life to be developed through a rigorous site-specific analysis, an approach that ensures the most up to date technology available is being used. It puts implementation analysis in the hands of the permit writers, where requirements can be tailored to the particular facility, said Nancy Stoner, EPAs Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water. "The publics comments will be instrumental in shaping safeguards for aquatic life and to build a commonsense path forward. The input we receive will make certain that we end up with a flexible and effective rule to protect the health of our waters and ecosystems." Safeguards against impingement will be required for all facilities above a minimum size; closed-cycle cooling systems may also be required on a case by case basis when, based on thorough site-specific analysis by permitting authorities, such requirements are determined to be appropriate. EPA is proposing this regulation as a result of a settlement agreement with Riverkeeper, Inc. and other environmental groups. Flexible Technology Standards: Fish Impingement (Being pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake structure): Existing facilities that withdraw at least 25 percent of their water exclusively for cooling purposes and have a design intake flow of greater than 2 million gallons per day (MGD) would be required to reduce fish impingement under the proposed regulations. To ensure flexibility, the owner or operator of the facility will be able to choose one of two options for meeting best technology available requirements for reducing impingement. They may conduct monitoring to show the specified performance standards for impingement mortality of fish and shellfish have been met, or they may demonstrate to the permitting authority that the intake velocity meets the specified design criteria. EPA estimates that a more than half of the facilities that could be impacted by this proposed rule already employ readily available technologies that are likely to put them into compliance with the final standard without further modification. Fish Entrainment (Being drawn into cooling water systems and affected by heat, chemicals or physical stress): EPA is proposing a site-specific determination to be made based on local concerns and on a case-by-case basis, based on the unique circumstances of each facility. This proposed rule establishes requirements for the facility owner to conduct comprehensive studies and develop other information as part of the permit application, and then establishes a public process, with opportunity for public input, by which the appropriate technology to reduce entrainment mortality would be implemented at each facility after considering site-specific factors. Closed cycle cooling would be required at all new units of existing facilities which exceed a certain size threshold. The public now will be able to comment on ways to improve the proposal. EPA will conduct a 90 day comment period, and will carefully consider those comments before taking final action on the proposal. The administrator must take final action by July 27, 2012. More information: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/

SR, birth ratios don't have much to do with the adult and sub-adults showing up in Missouri. The observed sex ratio (scant as they are) does not fit a stable population of mountain lions. You are right to be watching for changes in lion populations. Predator sightings are increasing everywhere. The odds seem to be in your favor in the long run. But at the moment there's no conclusive proof of a stable population. Science demands proof. MDC's position fits the available data. Maybe we'll learn something tomorrow that changes that but for today there's no reason to see a conspiracy here.

You were paying plenty of attention. Bee and mountain lion sex ratios are not related. It's a tangent.

General information about sex ratios doesn't help you with mountain lion patterns. Citations are pasted below that have info on sex ratios. The females are more dense in resident mountain lion populations. Males have much larger territories and their mortality rates are higher. In the studies below female to male sex ratios were 2/1, 5/1, 1.2/1.... There's no basis to criticize anyone for saying there is no evidence of a breeding population when one known female shows up and the only sex ratio you know with accuracy is 1/4. Males range widely, females stay put. Find a female with a territory and then it's time to talk about breeding populations. CHARACTERISTICS OF A HUNTED MOUNTAIN LION POPULATION IN WYOMING USA Author(s): LOGAN K A; IRWIN L L; SKINNER R Source: Journal of Wildlife Management Volume: 50 Issue: 4 Pages: 648-654 Published: 1986 Abstract: Population characteristics were estimated from June 1981 to July 1983 for a hunted mountain lion (Felis concolor) population occupying a 741-km2 study area in the Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. Based on the capture-recapture of 46 lions and radio-telemetry, snow-tracking, and harvest data, winter population densities were estimated at 29 km2/lion (1981-82) and 22 km2/lion (1982-83). Sex ratios of 28 kittens and 22 adults did not differ (P < 0.05) from equality. Kittens, born primarily in autumn, comprised about 50% of the population each winter, and 11 postnatal litters averaged 2.7 kittens. Some juveniles dispersed at about 12-15 months of age; 5 were recovered 9-274 km for their natal areas. Two resident females bred at 13- and 19-month intervals. The age structure of both sexes was young, the oldest adult being about 7 years old. Observed mortality the 1st year was 27% of the total population and 0% the 2nd year; immigration apparently compensated for mortalities. Home areas of 4 resident females averaged 67 km2 and overlapped almost completely. Those of the 2 resident males overlapped slightly and averaged 320 km2. Male home areas overlapped several female home areas. Survival and Mortality of Cougars in the Trans-Pecos Region John H. Younga,*, Michael E. Tewesb, Aaron M. Hainesc, Gilbert Guzmand, and Stephen J. DeMasoe aTexas Parks and Wildlife Department, 3000 IH 35 South, Suite 100, Austin, TX 78612 (JHY) bFeline Research Center, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, MSC 218, 700 University Boulevard, Kingsville, TX 78363 (MET) cDivision of Science and Mathematics, Upper Iowa University, Baker-Hebron Room 105, Fayette, IA 52142 (AMH) dTexas Parks and Wildlife Department, 1205 College Street, Junction, TX 76849 (GG) eCaesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, MSC 218, Kingsville, TX 78363 (SJD) *Correspondent: john.young@tpwd.state.tx.us Associate Editor was Earl G. Zimmerman Abstract We analyzed data from studies of cougars (Puma concolor) completed during 1982–1997 in Big Bend, Carlsbad Caverns, and Guadalupe Mountains national parks, and Big Bend Ranch State Park. We estimated annual and seasonal (hunting and non-hunting periods) rates of survival and rates of cause-specific mortality for 31 males and 29 females. In the three studies, annual rates of survival for females were higher than those for males. Seasonal rates of survival were variable between sexes and among studies; however, pooling males and females revealed that rates of survival at Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains national parks and Big Bend Ranch State Park were lower during hunting periods (1 September–31 March) compared to non-hunting periods (1 April–31 August). However, pooled rates of survival for males and females at Big Bend National Park were equal during hunting and non-hunting periods. Trapping was the greatest annual source of cause-specific mortality in all study areas. Shooting and unknown sources were the next greatest sources of mortality. Mortalities from intraspecific strife and natural causes were documented only in Big Bend National Park. Rates of survival for cougars in Texas and the Guadalupe Mountains of New Mexico are among the lowest in the United States. Low rate of survival should be considered when developing management plans; however, we caution against extrapolating results from limited study areas to the entire region. Cooley, Hilary S., Robert B. Wielgus, Gary M. Koehler, Hugh S. Robinson, and Benjamin T. Maletzke. 2009. Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis. Ecology 90:2913–2921. [doi:10.1890/08-1805.1] Articles Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis Hilary S. Cooley1,3, Robert B. Wielgus1, Gary M. Koehler2, Hugh S. Robinson1,4, and Benjamin T. Maletzke1

The Illinois Department of Conservation (back when it was called that) did extensive studies of the success of different sizes and species of esocid stocking and they saw very little success with Northern Pike stocking. The recommended escoid was Kentucky strain muskie which is more adapted to southern latitudes than other genetic type.

What would be an epic fail would be to base policy statements and public information on speculation and assumptions about adaptive behaviors. Quite a few males get driven to places where they have no hope of reproducing... ...such as fishing forums. Chief is right on this one. They don't have solid information and neither do you. That's just how it is sometimes. Cut them some slack! Dealing with the public is not an easy process.

Even if there is an occassional female, there isn't a ratio of males to females that would indicate any kind of settled population or any other evidence of reproduction. You don't draw sound scientific conclusions on scant evidence. If this is all the information they have right now then it makes sense for them to be conservative and wait until they have something conclusive. They're going to be under a lot of pressure from all sides on an issue like this and taking hasty actions or positions will only lead to trouble later. If things are in flux and lions are re-establishing themselves in Missouri now it will take a while to know that for sure (and if it's only one or two lions the fact that they are here today doesn't mean they will be here tomorrow). Give this some time and take it easy on your Department of Conservation. They need your support.

Not strange in my opinion. It sounds like they were addressing some of the normal issues that would be raised by the public. "No, we didn't put them there." "No, we don't know where it's from or what sex it is but we'll find out soon." "Please contact us if you think you see one too." What did you see that was strange?

From the AFS message board: American Fisheries Society * American Sportfishing Association *Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies * Berkley Conservation Institute, Pure Fishing * Boone and Crockett Club Conservation Force * Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation * Dallas Safari Club * Delta Waterfowl Foundation * Ducks Unlimited * Izaak Walton League of America * North American Bear Foundation * North American Grouse Partnership * Orion the Hunter's Institute Pheasants Forever * Pope and Young Club * Quail Forever * Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Ruffed Grouse Society * Texas Wildlife Association * The Conservation Fund * The Nature Conservancy * The Wildlife Society * Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Tread Lightly * Trout Unlimited * Whitetails Unlimited * Wildlife Forever Wildlife Management Institute March 17, 2011 The President The White House Washington, DC 20500 Dear President Obama: Our organizations, representing the hunting, fishing and conservation community, are writing to encourage your strong support for several long-standing conservation programs in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget negotiations. The Continuing Resolution approved by the House of Representatives (H.R. 1) strikes directly at America's highly successful tradition of federal support for conservation and management of fish, wildlife and their habitat. HR 1 includes the elimination of funding for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, the elimination of funding for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, significant cuts to Farm Bill Conservation Programs, the drastic reduction or elimination of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Forest Legacy, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund and the National Fish Habitat Action Plan. The Senate substitute has programmatic reductions in some of these programs, but we believe that any cuts beyond this level will have lasting impact on our ability to ensure the successful conservation agenda for the 21st Century called for in your America's Great Outdoors report. While we fully acknowledge that conservation programs should shoulder a fair and proportional burden of reductions to the Federal budget as required to address the budget deficit, these provisions of HR 1, in our view, represent a deliberate move away from America's long conservation tradition and, specifically with respect to the interests of the hunting, fishing and outdoor community. We are very disappointed that the House considered these actions without consultation with the hunting, fishing and conservation community, and appeal to you to please give significant and favorable consideration to our perspectives. These vital conservation programs with clear track records of measurable success are foundational to fish, wildlife and habitat conservation, good for the economy in creating jobs particularly in rural communities, and critical to providing opportunities for access to and enjoyment of fish and wildlife resources by America's sportsmen and sportswomen. Given the importance of these programs in your conservation, recreation and environmental agenda, we urge you to protect them in ongoing budget discussions. We fully expect that the final funding levels included in a final FY 2011 Continuing Resolution will greatly influence the FY 2012 process. We strongly urge you to hold the line on any cuts that go further than those in the Senate substitute. Thank you for your sincere consideration of our views.

Largemouth were thick in the spawning flats in Middle Tennessee yesterday. They're looking for nest sites now.

Sort of.

Continually unraveling.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367684/Nuclear-plant-chief-weeps-Japanese-finally-admit-radiation-leak-kill-people.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Hopefully the new power line to the facility will finally get this under control...but it appears things were not in control up to this point and this was just the disaster it was feared it might become. The containment facilities have been completely breeched. The director of the Japanese company in charge is weeping during press conferences and admiting lethal levels of radiation have been emitted. The Japanese now have a completely and permanently unusable site in their country-side and it remains to be seen how large that area will eventually be. I would have liked to see more safe nuclear development, but this is a major step back for this technology and I am even less likely to trust what engineers say from this point forward. They consistently just don't seem to get it. All the notions about how it would be cheaper if the safety restrictions were less invasive sound really, really hollow now. We have plants in the US that have been leaking tritium into groundwater over periods of years already. Looks like we were getting off easy. All these reassurances about how nuclear power is perfectly safe and how there was no risk of radiation leaking out of these facilites and all these people talking about suitcase reactors in individual homes need a serious readjustment in their understanding about the risks here. At least the radiation won't reach us at any harmful level.

This one hit home a bit after a trip to the South Platte last week in Denver. Every willow in sight had been chainsawed to the ground. From the AFS Message Board Informing instream channel maintenance works to sustain river ecosystem functioning and biodiversity Supervisors: Dr Jon Harvey and Prof. Ian Cowx Project Description Climate change is predicted to cause dramatic changes in UK rainfall patterns potentially leading to increased summer and winter flooding and subsequent possible damage to property and land use. To minimise these potential problems, many rivers are being subjected to heavy channel maintenance works, but little is known about the impact of these activities on aquatic ecosystems, or the ecological status of the targeted rivers. The overall aim of the study will be to assess the impact of river and channel engineering works on aquatic biota, and identify remedial measures to ensure protection of aquatic ecosystem functioning and biodiversity. The findings will make a major contribution to understanding of how river and channel engineering activities influence aquatic fauna and flora, and provide practical guidance environmentally friendly and socially acceptable river engineering works