Tim Smith

Probably the sun followed by increased CO2 releases from the deep sea. Saved you a few clicks there. L Stott, A Timmermann & R Thunell, Science, 2007, DOI: 10.1126/science.1143791 ...and speaking of CO2, JD. Still no word from you about how much CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere relative to what is there. If your thesis is that humans are so puny we can have no effect, you need to refute the current orthodoxy that says they do. How much carbon are we producing relative to what is out there in the atmosphere already?

Ok JD, I won't inflict any more semantics on you...but the question about how much carbon we are currently liberating stands (and don't forget to add to that the amount of timber being burned and cut and the effect of things like plowing). And no. Given that we probably had a global population of a few million or less at that time, we certainly did not cause the warming at the end of the Ice Age.

Shad are super sensitive to temperature changes and will die en masse if you even look at them cross ways. Rarely any cause for concern when shad are the only species in a kill.

...and for the record the more this discussion leans on graphs and citations and the less it devolves into name calling, the better I'm going to like it. Thank you for those graphs and links, Wayne and Eric.

Yet this below is more or less a poltical statement lacking data to back it up. Do you know how much CO2 man puts into the atmosphere relative to other sources? That's a figure that's easily known since we know how much fossil fuel we produce and sell. It's not just glaciers in Alaska that are melting. On average, glaciers all over the world are retreating. In places like Bolivia and Kilamanjaro, that retreat is about to eliminate those glaciers altogether. We are not due for a solar minimum for another 10,000 years. That's a long time to wait. Our current rate of change is causing us problems NOW. Volcanos cool the earth for a few months or years at a time, not over climate cycles. Many things affect the climate. Human beings now number over 6 billion and have much more leverage to be a player. We mostly agree here, but we differ in the amount of influence human activity can have in the modern era. The National Academy of Science has just renamed our geologic epoch the "Anthropocene" due to the huge influence we have had geologically and environmentally. Check out the amount of carbon we are pulling directly out of the ground and adding to the air. We are a significant part of that budget. I will also put it to you that our duration as a species, i.e. our "blipishness" will have a lot to do with whether or not we can make moral informed choices and take cooperative constructive action. For now, I will take heart that so many people at least agree on the need to take care of the environment. This pattern will play out over the years and unless someone dismantles the ability of scientists to measure the patterns, popular opinion will eventually come around. In the meantime, I just got 120 fresh new mangrove propagules to plant. Life is good.

Now that you've found the National Academy of Science, take the next step and actually read their document. For instance, the graph of the variability you're citing above can be found here on page 15. How you find that graph reassuing for your position is hard to fathom. Not only was the first decade of the 21st century the warmer than the last decade of the 20th (which was itself the warmest in the last 400 years), the rate of increase is completely beyond anything we've ever seen before. Yes, it has been warm in the past before. Yes, temperatures go up and down. But we're in a position now to understand why these things are happening and if current trends continue over the next 100 years, we're going to have some problems big enough that we would all be better off dealing with them now. But fine. Let's just wait for the disasters to mount up. I can just post those instead of data since no one's going to actually read the science anyway. I'm in a good mood anyway. I saw jaguar prints all over the place this morning.

Wayne, you are very very alone on the university argument. Take any prestiguious scientific organization and look to see what their opinions are on the matter. 97% of the National Academy of Sciences agree with human causes for the current warming trend. There is no more prestigious scientific organization in the country. People who are equating decades of careful science with some kind of propaganda just need to stop. Go to the facts. Search Ness' links at NOAA and then go to NASA and look at the data. There should always be skeptics but the skepticism needs to be based on something substantial. For the time being I guess I should just be happy that in this form most people seem to agree that we should take whatever steps we can to get off the oil/gas/coal treadmill as soon as we can... ...but even that view is a minority view in the general public.

Money? All environmental problems are about money? What does that mean?? The oil industry works on about a 9000 billion dollar budget annually (excluding some foreign interests). The entire budget in the whole world for all climate change work is about 4 billion. 9000 to 4. Yes. This debate definitely exists because of money. If the oil companies weren't out there propping up the denial side, there would be no debate at all. TF, large scale natural systems will never, ever provide you better scientific evidence for what is happening than the kind of evidence we have for greenhouse gas effects now. There are no other logical explainations for what is happening now. The closest anyone has come to an alternative explanation is solar activity, and over the last 40 years that shows no correlation with the current increases in temperature. JD, if you have citations you feel refute climate change, I'd be delighted to discuss them. We may be stuck with the effect of politics in this debate, but logic and math and hard data don't answer to politics. An honest person still has a chance of getting this right. I realize no one is going to change their minds in the short term, but I'm not going to sit here and be quiet about this. People are approaching this like it's a big parlor game, but it's not. We'll all wait until the disasters mount up to the point that even the hardest hearts out there will be ashamed to play the skeptic. It grieves me to think how big those disasters will have to be to change some people's minds. I just got an email this morning. It was from a friend living with a family who's island washed away in a tropical storm this past October. That's not an isolated trend. Every sandy beach in Belize is eroding away at rates that have caught just about everyone's attention. There aren't nearly as many climate skeptics down here because they're already feeling the pain. Good luck to you when it's your turn.

Cold, I don't think "patronizing" is the word you want to use here. If I were patronizing, I'd mollycoddle you and assume you're a half wit and incapable of following through to investigate these questions you raise. I don't think that's the case. If anything I'm holding back an impulse to yell at you. I've seen the "October record ice increase" on denial web pages before and as you seem to acknowledge it's an utterly bogus argument. If you want more information on May and June ice that information is out there too. The papers and data and methodology for sea ice are available and transparent and if you actually cared to go and check them out.

If this were true the sky would indeed be falling. Astronomers watch those kinds of things like a hawk and it doesn't account for what has happened this year or over the past 30 years.

You can bet October showed record gains in sea ice. You can only have have record ice cover recovery when there is a lot of open sea available to refreeze. Talk about twisting statistics! The total mass of sea ice has been declining steadily for some time now. September is the annual minimum of sea ice. Obviously that's what they mean by "bellweather". You find the total amount of ice retreat by checking it at the time of minimum coverage.

Alright. I stand corrected. Plenty of people argue for predator erradication on the basis of lost of game and I thought you were going there. The crocs are usually fine. Although there was that day I forgot I had been processing fish samples and then got in murky water covered in fish guts. That was a little more excitement than I bargained for.

JD you need to rethink your math here a bit. How many turkeys are in Missouri? I must have seen a hundred just driving along I-70 last month. They must be in the hundreds of thousands. How many mountain lions? Virtually none. How are your 2 wandering cats possibly going to eat that many birds? You've blown the risk completly out of proportion. How big have these cats gotten in your mind? Later this week, I'll be diving with crocs and sharks in murky water. THAT's a risk. If it wasn't my job I wouldn't be doing it and I wouldn't subject other people to it. Talking about risks from non-resident mountain lions in Missouri is absurd. ...and by the way, the MDC doesn't provide nature. That came from a higher source.

Right. So you're saying the lions are the Christians in this case... ...because that's who's dying. Maybe you should go shoot the ones in the zoo too. That would strengthen your analogy.

Nice to have that pesky "conservation" stuff off the table.

Funding Boost for USDA Program Expanding Public Access, Habitat Restoration Draws Sportsmen's Praise $8 million in federal funds allocated to "Open Fields" public access program to increase hunting and angling opportunities on private lands WASHINGTON - The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership today welcomed a U.S. Department of Agriculture announcement regarding continued funding for the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, popularly known as "Open Fields," which is dedicated to expanding public access and conserving valuable fish and wildlife habitat on privately owned lands. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack stated that public access programs in 2011 will receive additional grants totaling $8 million toward the total of $50 million that is available for three years through Open Fields. Many of the grants funded in 2010, the first year of the program's implementation, were for multiple years and will receive continued funding in 2011. One of the signature issues of the TRCP, Open Fields was successfully included in the 2008 Farm Bill following the efforts of the TRCP and many TRCP partner organizations. Open Fields can open millions of additional acres of private lands to hunters and anglers by augmenting existing state access programs and encouraging new walk-in programs. The increased funding facilitates the creation or expansion of existing public-access programs or provides landowner incentives to increase sportsmen's access and improve fish and wildlife habitat on newly enrolled lands. "By allocating these millions of dollars to Open Fields, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is showing its support of practices that benefit fish and wildlife and public access to the nation's private lands," said Jennifer Mock Schaeffer, Farm Bill coordinator for the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies and chair of the <http://www.trcp.org/issues/farmbill/383.html> TRCP Agriculture and Wildlife Working Group. "Without the USDA's vote of confidence, these important conservation programs would not otherwise be funded." The $8 million to be made available in 2011 is in addition to the initial VPA-HIP monies approval for the program in 2010; approximately $11.75 million was awarded to 17 states last year following approval of these funds. "Our nation's hunting and fishing traditions are inextricably tied to the health of America's privately owned farm, ranch and forest lands," said Dave Nomsen, vice president of government affairs for Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever and member of the TRCP Agriculture and Wildlife Working Group. "We appreciate Secretary Vilsack's commitment to American sportsmen and our shared natural resources through his support of continued funding of Open Fields." Twenty-six states currently have public access programs for hunting, fishing and other related activities. Sportsmen are encouraging states and tribal governments to submit VPA-HIP applications for 2011 funding through the federal government <http://www.grants.gov/> 's grants portal to the Farm Service Agency for consideration. "America's sportsmen-conservationists already have demonstrated overwhelming support of the Open Fields program - and of similar private-lands conservation programs included in the 2008 Farm Bill," said TRCP President and CEO Whit Fosburgh. "We offer the USDA our thanks for continuing to see that public access and fish and wildlife conservation remain priorities of the federal government, and we look forward to working to sustain funding for these crucial programs as the 2012 Farm Bill is deliberated in the months to come." Learn more about Open Fields and other Farm Bill programs. <http://trcp.org/documents/reports/2007farmbillreport.pdf> Read more about the TRCP <http://trcp.org/issues/farmbill.html> 's work on the Farm Bill.

I've lived around mountain lions and I was glad they were there. I suppose I qualify as what skeeter thinks of as an "eco-nut" and I can point out several dogs on my block I'd be more than happy for a mountain lion to take. The chances this cat will become aggressive towards humans are statistically invisible (and it won't finish the day alive if it does) but it would probably be better both for the cat and all the people hyperventillating over it to catch it and ship it out.

From the AFS message board

Great comments by Justin and Al. In my experience, state the DNR have incredibly difficult jobs. They work hard and answer to many masters but are still very responsive to constructive engagement. Sportfishing groups get those kinds of regulations changed all the time. I wonder if you've talked to anyone at the Missouri DNR about this? There's statewide C and R for Illinois stream smallmouth during the spawn because the Illinois Smallouth Alliance took the time to build relationships in the DNR, did their best to demonstrate their sincerity by being a supportive partner, and made their case privately and respectfully over time. As a word of caution, though, if you do begin that process, be willing to listen. Don't assume you know everything just because you've read a few articles and spent some time fishing. Once you have all the facts (and some of them have been laid out pretty well above) you may well find that things are about as good as they're going to get with or without C and R...or, it may be that the DNR would like to try but needs more public support. Uninformed, bull-headed sniping (and I'm not saying you're doing that) gets tuned out pretty quick. Supportive engagement (especially from entire groups like TU or the Smallmouth Alliance) opens ears and gets things done.

TF I'm sorry I phrased that comment sloppily. I should have been more careful to say that was a general observation that seems to apply to some other posts I have seen here, but I wasn't talking about you. I apologize for not making that clear. I'll get back to the other stuff later.

That's a much better argument than using a few big brown trout as evidence of management success. That was the main point I was making and if it were up to me I'd probably do some of the things you're suggesting. ...although maybe it has been a while, but last time I looked weren't there some C and R regulations on the Current? Arkansas has had a ton of help from the Feds and tailwater enrichment but I'm not knocking them. I prefer to fish places like the Sylamore for smallmouth, but I've been to Dry Creek with my kids and I accept that they're playing the hand they're dealt reasonably well (and in fact, just because it's snowing doesn't mean its particularly cold...it gets a lot colder than freezing most places I've lived.) That's the thing. We can't even have this conversation until you define what "good" is. For some elderly or obesese or incompetent people or people who have young kids, the trout parks might be ideal management. Waddle to the railing, hook 5 in 30 minutes and out. Folks might like them even better if they squeezed some lemon on them the morning before they stocked them. I know Illinois people who make that pilgrimage every year. That's Illinois dollars in Missouri pockets and that's "good" management from a certain perspective. And even though I agree that it makes sense to accomodate the sport angler as well as the meathead, we're still playing a losing game. You want to manage Ozark trout for sustainability, but in fact they're only marginally sustainable. None of it exists without a massive infusion of government cash (which is running out fast). All of that is pretty funny next to all the anti-government posts from people with "trout this" and "trout that" in their names since once the government is done, so are the trout. If we want a truly sustainable fishery, we've got a whole 'nother level to reach.

It's going to take some parsing to decide what is meant here by "good management" and "mis-management". I'm not knocking the Arkansas DNR and certainly I agree they succeeded in keeping the anglers off the fish long enough for them to grow. But the White/Norfork system is a complete aberration. It's just not fair to use a few freakish browns from a system with abnormally high growth to say that Missouri is mis-managed compared to Arkansas. The Missouri fishery is just different. Also you have to consider the gigantic Federal hatchery on Dry Creek that has nothing to do with the State of Arkansas. They've been loading the White and Norfork for decades. Give someone enough Federal money and anyone can pump enough millions of fish into a river to look like a genius. The people lined up shoulder to shoulder under the hatchery in Montauk State Park in Missouri look pretty happy most days too... ...if you like that kind of thing.

As I understand it, management has very little to do with the White River/Norfork trophy browns. Those fisheries are beneath productive warm water reservoirs constantly enriching the reaches below the dams (which is where the world record was caught).

Agree with all of that. The ISA fund-raiser/banquet is coming up soon and you could meet people there if you're up for a drive to Chicago. They have Central Region meetings on a regular basis too. They have a very strong catch and release/conservation culture. It's a good organization. For additional sites, also add the Mackinaw, north of Bloomington and further west. Near Champaign, the Vermilion drainage is good. Also, if you want to drive a little further into Eastern Indiana, the smallmouth fishing there is phenomenal.

Haven't finished reading this yet, but so far it is living up to billing. Anders Halverson is an academic fisheries biologist from the University of Colorado who has written a detailed history of salmonid management in the continental US. The part I'm reading now is a summary of the early motivations to promote hunting and fishing in the culture (remarkably, to promote a martial spirit among young men and make them better warriors??) and the gradual evolution of the Federal/governmental role in fisheries management. At the center of the discussion is the early concensus that the activities of man will always destroy aquatic systems and that the only way to maintain viable fish populations is through fish husbandry (raising them in a hatchery and dumping them back into the system that can no longer support their reproduction). Halverson represents this as the first (generally accepted) environmental movement in the US and a model that is still alive and active in US politics, conservation and philosophy. Having sat through and participated in decades of discussions around these issues I can well imagine what is coming in future chapters and I'm looking forward to the read. Here are a few passages in the early chapter of the book that set up the general premise. Here he quotes an influential politician and nature writer's views on the disappearance of trout from streams in Vermont prior to the Civil War (George Perkins Marsh): Fishing was valued for cultural reasons... And pollution from industry was killing it but no one was willing to reduce the impact of industry... ....and no one would obey game laws... ...so the solution was to just raise fish in culture and dump them into polluted over-fished streams in sufficient numbers to keep everyone happy. The rest of the book explores the history, outcomes (especially unintended outcomes) of fish culture, especially the propagation of rainbow trout.