Tim Smith

Birds.

There are black jaguars but no black...um...pumas. That photo is in low light and it's hard to know what color or size that thing is. Were there paw prints to go with the photo?

Interesting. Was there also ice a little further south in NWArk? It also usually takes some time for hypoxia to take hold and you have to have snow or thick grey ice to keep the light out. Black ice won't easily winter kill fish. Also, even the mainstem rivers in Colorado aren't fully iced yet. Slow runs and backwaters yes. Maybe it was a big shallow backwater area with an organic bottom where the fish got trapped and there was enough grey ice to cause winter kill? Maybe the drum were just the most sensitive species, or like you say the only species that used that particular habitat and they took the hit? But...at least one of the eye witness accounts also said they pulled the dying fish out of the water in the mainstem (with no ice) and they were still struggling and gilling and alive. That doesn't sound like hypoxia.

The state biologist said disease, and there is reason to agree with that since they are 99% of the kill. But what disease? Is 99% of the fish population in the Arkansas River made up of freshwater drum? Noooo. This one is a head scratcher. What usually kills fish in winter is hypoxia under ice. But there was no ice.

60 miles? 70 miles? That's not far in terms of weather. Do you have a link to the bird announcement today?

I also tend to believe the bird/hail thing. It has been seen before. I also think cold temps or at least a weather event that could have killed the drum, but cold increases O2 saturation levels in water. There should have been slighly more O2 in the water after a front, so it doesn't make sense that they suffocated. It could have been temperature shock, but if so, where are the other species of fish? Some of them would have died too. Also, was the temperature drop really that extreme, and why would this fish kill only have happened on that big river and not smaller ones. A bigger river should have responded more slowly to a cold front than other rivers around it. I'd put a dollar (and no more than a dollar) on a weather link between those 2 events...but it doesn't all make sense yet.

Were there groupies?

The report I saw said they were all about 1 pound. That would be a pretty big year old drum and doesn't sound like a lack of food. Nr did they look emaciated on TV...lots of high, broad backs. I agree with you if it was nutritional stress there would have been more than just drum dead too.

Is this seriously going to be a discussion about whether Obama or Murdoch killed those birds and fishes?

Exactly. But you do have quick temperature changes and chemical plants etc. I'd think those would be more common than a government extermination policy.

Yeah, but shouldn't you think horse before you think zebra?

Yeah there was a guy out on AM radio Saturday night saying the same thing. He said you know you're being targeted if there is an "X" in the contrail patterns above you in the sky. He had a good radio voice. Well modulated and articulate. And yes, he was a moron (or worse). I did think he was an improvement on the guy on the other channel saying we're all going to be forced to eat tofu at gun point by vegetarian FBI agents. Seriously though, 2 major kills so close and there's no link? It's way too soon to discount that.

CNN has picked up the red winged black bird/freshwater drum kills in Northwest Arkansas. The State of Arkansas is saying those events are unrelated...before they have any formal analyses in hand....which seems a bit premature. Biologists think the fish kill is disease, which makes some sense given that everything that died was drum. Yet the morts didn't have any obvious lesions and the ones in the video looked to have good condition factors. If it was a disease, it killed 'em quick. Not sure what disease would do that en masse in early winter. They think the bird kill was due to high altitude hail. On U-tube you can also see claims the kills are due to a government conspiracy to poison US citizens with "chemtrails", and a sonic boom. Oh, and one video also shows that wild hogs are attacking Arkansas, so you have that going for you too.

...and 5,000 red winged blackbirds dead not far away. What's next? Frogs? Gnats? Water into blood?

Thanks, Gary. Yours too.

May it indeed be the year of truth. Happy New Year, Ozark Fishers.

Don't look at me. JD started it. But I did like his post.

I like this (even if JD still has hard feelings about the global warming thread). Not sure if the carbon footprint required to pull together a pine box equals the offgassing from cremation, but that's a thoughtful, challenging post. I might be inclined to follow suit, but I'd also like to be interred in a place that's meaningful to me. Those tend to be bodies of water I have fought for and enjoyed and it wouldn't do to flump a whole carcass into any of those. We'll be doing the ashes thing.

Unfortunate response to a difficult topic, Ness. Go back and look at the position paper of the American Fisheries Society calling for sweeping changes in the way fisheries are managed due to climate change. Then look at the poll results (both here and in the general public) that show only 40% of the public believes climate change/global warming is an important topic. Yes, there are those who try to end the discussion by dragging it into the mud. That doesn't change how important it is.

Concur with Al, although I couldn't confirm what kinds of backcrossing might have occurred. This fish was part of a "spot or not" quiz on the ISA boards a few years ago.

Policy is never tidy, but it can make a big difference without being perfect. CFC regulations are violated everywhere (especially in China and the US), but the Toronto accords work well enough that the ozone hole is beginning to close up again... ...just as the Clean Water Act is regularly violated but rivers are in vastly better shape than they were 40 years ago. Just as a sideline...I was just in Texas. They are apparently the only state who has refused to set state CO2 regulations for their powerplants since the US Supreme Court decision in 2007 the CO2 is a pollutant and covered by the Clean Air Act. It looks like Texas will be going back to court to avoid enforcing regulations. According to the report I heard yesterday, the Texas lawyers will be arguing the case on the grounds that they can't MEASURE CO2, not that greenhouse gases aren't a problem. Hmmm. Could it be that those lawyers realize they'll end up filleted and grilled if they try to take the denial case into a group of people who will actually fact check their arguments (even on a court stacked with Bush appointees)? Absolutely. Gator, mi dah-tah, it has already been pointed out to you what kinds of scientists (ones who study the topic) who affirm global warming and the kinds of scientists (minorities of scientists in other fields) who don't. You didn't bother to address that points and I really can't help you.

There were two last subtantive points from the other thread and then everyone can stick their heads in the sand and suppose the world is out to get them. If anyone will actually bother to look at the East Anglia emails, you won't find fraud. Look at the text and read it in context and it's a group under seige and concerned that their normal work is going to be portrayed as some kind of evil conspiracy...what did Gator call them? "Terrorists?" As for "selling" the global warming science. The poll was sitting in about the same position as opinions about climate change in the overall society (60/40 against). I was actually suprised it was that close given how conservative fishing groups tend to be. But no. No one here is going to sell you anything. That's the problem already. You've been won over by a bunch of hucksters. It'll keep happening over and over until you man up and do your homework. Eventually you'll see the light. Too late, perhaps, but it's coming, no matter who you threaten to shoot. That's it I'm done here. The moderator is getting headaches and its time leave the field. Anachronism out.

Sorry, JD. That's not how science works. Scientists compete with each other for grant money. If the climatologists were lying, the other fields would be at their throats. But the other fields that COMPETE WITH CLIMATOLOGISTS FOR FUNDS look at the findings and largely agree with them. You're going to have to build your conspiracy theory some other way. This one isn't valid.

Pretty sure we're off topic now.

First, The people researching climate aren't also researching or selling alternative energy. You're lumping them all together into one big bag of "people I don't know and who are therefore evil and out to get me". There is NO payoff for a scientist to promote false findings. It ENDS their career. IMMEDIATELY. Secondly, markets are not and should not be completely free. If you think completely free markets are the way to go, you also believe it's ok to allow human slavery, child pornography, trade in nuclear weapons, murder for hire, unregulated pollution, toxic streams, dead fish, and anarchy. The government has a appropriate role in regulating markets and ensuring they work to the general good. That's the same reason the government funds basic research, much of that exists to find out what changes or opportunities might be coming and then allow the markets to capitalize on them. Individual companies can't make a buck on that stuff even though they collectively benefit from the findings. That's why government is often/usually the driver subsidizing new technologies (as they have with nuclear power, the Volt and others), so that when those changes come, society and markets have some resources available to deal with them. You can sit on the sidelines and assume all of that is happening so some far off boogie man can enslave you, or you can conclude its the normal function of society and participate...hopefully beginning with an actual mastery of the facts and data surrounding global warming. Third, the point about seat belts had nothing to do with government regulations (even though the government does require you to use them). You're missing the point. Seat belts are a logical decision to minimize risks even when you can't control all the risk you will encounter. As you acknowledge, you're better off with them than without them.