Tim Smith

You know Phil does have a message box here, Jeb. If you'd use it and talk to him about this, you could save a lot of keystrokes and forum space whining about how the rules are enforced as you would prefer. When you do talk to Phil you'll find out (although you already know this) that he's not against free speech or against the topic. He's against the toward childish name calling that tends to crop up from some quarters. Most of the adults on the forum would like to be able to discuss things that are still in flux and likely to be important to the country and the planet over the long haul... It's a free country. And it's a good forum. And that's one big reason why. Sorry that doesn't mesh with your preferences.

Yes, that in an orangethroat and yes they are awesome in aquariums. I've kept quite a few over the years. Frozen brine shrimp and a little rock cover and they're good to go.

Here in Colorado there are companies that will install them for 200$ with no further costs. They take surplus production back to the grid to recover their costs. Regional differences might not make the same deal work in MO. We get 300 days of sun a year.

Yes, the California case (if I'm thinking of the right one) was a siting error. Raptors were getting chewed up because they rode the thermals into the blades. On top of that, once the local raptor population crashed, the rodent population exploded, drawing in more birds. The major wind corridor is in the High Plains. It may not be suitable on a large scale in some places. It's still a siting issue. The habitat wasn't suitable (although I think the wind generation potential was very high). I don't see a serious downside to having conventional fuel plants mixed in with the wind farms. They can carry the load when necessary. Wind cuts the overall reliance on fossil fuels.

Combination facilities are usually important to cover natural cycles, yes, but peak wind times are generally during daylight hours when demand is high.

It's appropriate for this thread to have already run toward silliness. To say wind isn't a viable energy source simply isn't true. Wind turbines produced an average of 17% of the energy produced by our major energy utility in Colorado during 2011. They had a peak production day of 57% in 2012. The state average is 9.3%. It's true that wind energy production is only competitive in the current market because of tax breaks, but given the incredibly low environmental impacts, those tax breaks are worth it and should be renewed. Yes, some wind turbines cause problems with bird kills. Put them in an Appalacian (or Ozark) mountain pass where birds and bats are funneled toward them and they're going to be killers. Put them on the high plains with no cover in sight and almost NOTHING gets killed. I'm aware of one study tracking bird kills in Eastern Colorado with monthly surveys for bird kills that hasn't produced a dozen carcasses over the last 3 years. Windmills that are properly sited don't cause problems.

What justifies the 1/8 spot? Mouth size? Hmmm. Seems like a hard call to make.

Pretty gratifying to see how far the understanding of this issue has come over the last 5 years.

Gimme all the snakes and gators you can. Some of the best fishing stories I have involve getting cross-ways with those guys... ...that said, one of the snakiest rivers I ever saw was the Buffalo in Central Arkansas. Never had any trouble with the demographics on the bayou either, but plenty of bad encounters on Ozark streams. Not sure why that is, but that's how it has played out.

Big improvement. My kayak and canoe look ridiculous with all the registration numbers and tags plastered all over them.

I agree with you, Ness. Making a commodity out of a fishery does feel a little...cheap? But the species would be gone otherwise. More than one species will probably owe its survival to this kind of market-based conservation as time stretches on. Hopefully the market won't crush 20 other species to save the one.

Strongly agree with the decision to buy locally. This week a ship full of 20K pounds of pangolin meat headed for China ran aground in the Philipenes. Almost half the elephants in Africa were killed THIS YEAR by poachers filling illegal Chinese demand for ivory. Rhino horn, tiger penis, bear gall bladder, shark fins... ...I've gotten sick of watching that country treat the natural resources of other countries like their own personal and illegal menu. I'm especially sick about it because they're doing it with the dollars we spend on their crappy plastic products. I've always tried to buy locally, but I think this year it goes into overdrive for me. Until China starts obeying conservation laws around the world, I'm going to do my best to avoid buying anything from there...especially fishing tackle.

Two.

Glad to hear that, guys. We've had 2 big snows in three weeks that are keeping us in the 70% of average snowpack range. Hopefully that will continue long enough to get us through the pinch.

Did climate change affect the 2012 drought? Climatologists who linked the 2011 drought in Texas to climate change said "not this time" http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/12/climate-change-not-2012-drought Apparently the finding is controversial and depends on whether or not differences in sea ice and snow pack affect the location of the jet stream. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/12/1859541/yes-climate-change-is-worsening-us-drought-noaa-report-needlessly-confuses-the-issue/ We're down to rationing yard watering in 2013 already here in Colorado so this one isn't over yet.

Thanks for posting this, mic. I agree that's a good model for parties who disagree. The book author did the right thing by focusing on the content of the question and had the self confidence to deal with the content of the vegan's point without seeing it as a personal attack.

Those are great for pulling through the open pockets in heavy slop. If you catch something you'll have to horse it back to the boat in a huge tangle of weeds but they work in that setting.

Ditto. Not sure it's worth getting stinky for cats when other things work too.

Mostly true, but you can be fooled. I've taken tube samples on gut contents of literally thousands of black bass and hundreds of white bass. From the outside you can be sure you've got a fat female full of eggs then once you empty the bellies...oops...it's just a gigantic meal of shad. To be sure, check the pore.

Ok. You're saying except for watersheds named as "non-drinking water" on pages 41-44 of Regulation 2 the de facto standard has been the drinking water standard. The bill reverses that de facto standard to "non-drinking water" and then almost guarantees a 5 year wait while data is collected to allow any enforcement could occur. I suppose most of the affected unnamed streams are small streams? In the bill, it does seem there is a way to reverse the drinking water designation. That would probably require repre$entation and a legal fight. I bet a lot of consulting firms would be happy to get those monitoring contracts. But the reality is there's probably little money for that anywhere so the chances anything gets over turned are slim and none. Ironically too, if anyone does a study for a TMDL limit, the bill says they have to notify the discharge permit holders for the duration of that study. So during that time, the polluter's self interest will be to pollute as much as possible to push the average up and set the regulatory standard as lax as possible. Wikipedia shows the EPA has fined the Kochs the equivalent of the GDP of a reasonably sized country. It makes sense they would be counter-punching where they could. Not sure what the Kochs have accomplished the environmental side...other than paying fines...but they do sponsor the program NOVA on PBS. I appreciate your bringing up this issue. You're right I've spent a little time on this. I've worked on the research end of 2 TMDL projects (including one for which I wrote, conducted and analyzed the field component of the grant). Chemistry makes sense to me. Policy, on the other hand, makes me want to hurl.

...unless the males have just eaten a huge meal.

Yes, we do already have TDS, chloride and sulfate stream standards in place, which the bill specifically strikes down. See page 45 of Regulation 2 (governing surface waters) at; http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg02_final_110926.pdf I see in the existing regulation 2 standards for water quality. One that is based on long term averages and one that is a hard limit for drinking water. So there are already 2 water quality criteria (more than that, really, but only 2 for TDS, Cl, and S). What the proposed bill seems to want to do is limit "drinking water" as a designated use (again, drinking water a much higher standard) to streams that are already in use for drinking water or on official lists of potential drinking water sources. A proper TMDL study will set limits for TDS, Cl and S that do not impair fisheries. That standard is generally much lower than the one for drinking water. This isn't an issue for the legislature. In 1967, the Ark. legislature created the Soil & Water Conservation Commission, and ceded legislative power for such matters to it, much like they gave fish and game matters to the AGFC to decide. Only once since (1987) has the legislature butted in, over a matter of riparian vs non-riparian water user rights. (S&WCC has morphed over the years into the ANRC and the ADEQ we now have). This one might cut a little closer to the heart of the matter, but it may go beyond inter-agency issues within Arkansas. TMDLs are implemented by the state, but are federally mandated (Clean Water Act). Having a State Legislature setting limits on implementation of a Federal regulation is probably more than I can wrap my poor head around. It may well be out of bounds for the Legislature to decide these things. The proper agency should be the Arkansas office of the EPA. Some folks that know the law better than I say the bill violates the Clean Water Act, and that the EPA will never let it stand. If my guess above is correct, that's why. Other problems are assigning 4ft3/m average flows to small streams (which may actually be much smaller and would allow too much contaminant to prevent damage to biota). Also, how many streams have 60 samples over a 5 year period that the bill requires? Probably not many. That would stave off regulation for 5 years and assume that someone had the money to actually collect those samples.

I have no doubt that the bill was put together by industry people. My question is what is the impact of the language in this specific bill. That's going to require backing up a step or 2. If the bill was in response to new regulations, would it not have stated so or at least referenced such? Yes, the bill does reference new regulations. The new regulation is the Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards are being established by the EPA for a wide variety of contaminants as part of the Clean Water Act. Those require quantitative scientific support for the standards for pollution limits. As a result, all over the country impaired watesheds are being studied to determine how much various groups holding discharge permits are allowed to release. Here's a recent example of a TMDL study from Arksansas. http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/tmdl/2011/ar/final/saline_r_tmdlf_aug2011.pdf Here's a discussion from the EPA about how the TMDL process is unfolding. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/implement.cfm Yes, we do already have TDS, chloride and sulfate stream standards in place, which the bill specifically strikes down. See page 45 of Regulation 2 (governing surface waters) at; http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg02_final_110926.pdf TMDL standards will replace those standards and will be the regulatory instrument put in place by the EPA for each watershed where TMDLs are created. And yes, they are high standards indeed IMO, and have served us well for several decades. I think I need to look again at the types of watersheds and the fine print here. In general TMDLs improve water quality protection and are intended for watersheds that are already impaired. TMDLs do entail a monetary burden because they are generally put in place to improve conditions in watersheds that are impaired. The EPA regulates TMDLs and approves them so they should be in control of the process from the beginning. The drinking water issue (and effective uses in general...the presence of trout, for instance can alter TMDLs) is one I should probably look at more closely. It seems they're asking for several things there. I'll look at this again and finish posting tonight.

On black basses the un-scaled area around the vent is circular on a female and pear shaped on the male (it's a little bigger at the anterior end to make room for the sperm duct there). White basses might be the same. Archdale, I think a lot of people catch and keep now and then, but where and when and to what species you do that to can be pretty critical. Just remember that dive mask increases the size of everything underwater by 25%. How many big quality fish are actually there? Not that many.

This bill could pertain to new regulations. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are being written for a whole host of new contaminants and disturbances. New heat, sediment, and nutrient regulations are all coming online that states will have to abide by in the coming years. Different states are dealing with the new regulations in different ways. Is TDS, chloride and sulfate already online or recently online? Breaking out drinking water as "designated uses" is something that can be done under the Clean Water Act and that occurs in other states. It would be a pretty high standard indeed if all waters were held to the same expectations. Professional labs I know charge about 15$/sample/analysis once the sample is delivered to the lab. Along with TDS, nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspended solids, and a bunch of other things also need to be measured. It does add up. The three things listed here are probably some of the less concerning water quality parameters. Mostly people scan down the list past these three (although they can indicate problems). It really does take a lot of resources to sample a body of water properly. In most states, the sampling that's done isn't even close to adequate. Anyone sampling once a year in a body of water (especially a stream), doesn't have any useful information about that stream. After 20 years and if many other streams are sampled, there are some uses for that data, but almost all water quality parameters vary by huge amounts depending on recent weather and other disturbances.