Tim Smith

True story. When I was working the sediment project in California, we found a stream (one of the few streams in that part of California) that still had coho in it. Our study site ran inside a large timber company's holdings and had a boundary with a local land owner. As part of the study I had decided we needed to monitor terrestrial predation on the pools. We had trail cameras set up over the pools all over the watershed to quantify what predators were coming into the pools and how often. There was a large pool at the end of this particular study site that we knew had adult steelhead trapped in it. That particular pool was a bit of an outlier (adult fish don't normally stay in the watershed that late in the year), but we were curious what would happen there. We set up a trail cam on the creek channel (it was dry season and therefore safe) and watched it for a few weeks. You couldn't really see what was happening outside the creek channel in the photos but it was pointed upstream toward the pool that had a massive redwood growing immediately beside it (one of the really big ones with a diameter around 10' or more). Over time, we got some great shots of an otter catching an adult steelhead out of that pool. There were a few hiccups in the overall data set (the monitors seemed to be photographing fish below the surface of the water when they swam by, something we did not expect since it was a thermal sensor and the water surface should have prevented the monitor from detecting a temperature difference even if it existed) but we did find that predator visits were correlated with fish density in the pools...evidence that terrestrial predators could play a role in regulating juvenile salmonid populations (a hypothesis that would require further testing to explore). Then one day when we were checking that particular camera, we met a timber agent. We mentioned the camera was there and asked him to be careful of it so that we didnt get false recordings (it was a non-digital camera with a limited number of exposures). It was a friendly encounter, but the next week we went back to check the trail monitor and it wasn't there. Came to find out that the land owner on the property adjoining the timber company decided the camera was on his land and he took it. It may be true that the camera was on his land, but if so, only by a few feet at most. There was no marker on the creek and the single marker on the road was a hundred yards away. By the GPS measurement we were on the line. I contacted the landowner, explained that were were trying to get estimates of predation on adult fish and the overall parameters of the project. He responded with a long lecture about how environmental laws were preventing him from clearing the undergrowth to suppress forest fires like a responsible land owner and how he was going to call the sherrif on us for coming on his land. Since he had stolen state property it didn't seem he would have had a case even if were were a few feet over the line, but we decided not to press the matter since we needed to be able to sample safely in that area in the future (it was extremely remote site in a drug producing area and the overall stability of this guy looked pretty iffy). So the project kept going, and one day a couple of months later we looked up and there where that huge redwood beside the pool had been standing now sat a pile of garbage and debris...hiding the stump. A redwood that size hardly qualifies as undergrowth. That tree was also well inside the easement for the river and the removal was a direct violation of state law. Large trees like that are a major reason coho are still able to live in places like California. Once they are removed, the stream banks destabilize and erode, water heats up, habitat is lost and salmonid populations suffer. The wood from that tree would have earned him tens of thousands of dollars so he was motivated enough, scared enough, and greedy enough to try to get us out of the way before he took it down. I rarely, rarely catch flack from landowners. When I do, I remember this guy. So maybe Chief's guy is just an butt, or maybe he's upset because he's dealing with a lot of tresspassing and he has decided to blame Chief, or maybe... ...he's doing something he knows he shouldn't do and the paranoia has caught up to him. I doubt anything will crop up, but given his attitude I sure don't mind checking.

That's just one flavor of illegal.

It would be refreshing to actually SEE an alternative opinion on this rather than the same thing repeated over and over. Does this bill or does it not illegally circumvent the Missouri Constitution? That's the point on the floor. That's the counter-argument. Address it, or bring up a new point that has enough substance or civility to handle some critical feedback. If "You're a commie" is the best you've got, no one's going to miss you much when you go.

If you think senators who voted set CAFOs above the law deserve a term other than "stooge" you are welcome to post it, and yes, we are fast approaching the 20th time this has been explained. ...and yes I absolutely dissect people's posts, because I want to understand what they're saying. You should try it some time. For instance, when I dissect your post, I see that you've ducked the issue of going through propper channels and you're trying to smear me on political grounds. Any rhetoric handbook you check will tell you that almost always happens when someone can't defend their point on the merits of its logic. I don't care if you dispatch your gut shot deer (They're mostly gut shot, eh? That's a shame.) with a hand gun or dynamite or a coke bottle. It's a non-issue. You dislike the MDC because it's a state agency? In my opinion that's about as senseless as hating FedEx because they're a private company. But you go ahead and paint me as a commie because I support them, it's the best you've got so fire away. Never mind I voted 8 years running for my Republican representative in Illinois because he had a pristine conservation record. Never mind I run my own business. Never mind I can out-Bible you in my sleep. Smear away.

For the 20th time, it's not about handguns and deer season. Crimeny. It's about going through proper channels. ...an approach vastly preferable to intentionally crippling the biggest ally you'll ever have in natural resources.

Shower cap,anyone?

...actually, I hear this is the PREMIER spot to fish in the entire Midwest. From here on, this place is at the top of my list for Missouri floats. And I find it interesting to note, that the only times I've had this much trouble from a landowner was when they were doing something illegal that they didn't want found out. Definitely making a trip...bringing sampling equipment too.

About how low class it is to take shots at a guy who has extended himself on behalf of your rights to fish?

This is why I warned my son off fraternities. Never trust a goat boinker.

Jeb, the scientists here are the MDC. You can see the results of their work every day. Make your decision on that basis. As for science being "for sale", I can tell you as a scientist that is a highly offensive statement. I (like many other people in many other professions) have scars all over my body and a growing list of death threats from NOT selling out. Scientist do try not to starve, but most scientists I know make significant sacrifices to do their jobs with integrity...often over and against politics and narrow self interest. I and most environmental scientists I know never managed to care very much about money, but we do care about telling the truth based on data and objective analysis.... ....no matter how much it makes you hate me. Once I get a minute one of us should start the "takings" thread. That's a good topic and there is indeed some science to discuss there (along with some value judgments which are outside science but have a lot to do with how to move forward on those issues).

No one said "eliminate". "Undermine" would be a better word. "Politicize". "Circumvent". "Hamstring". I'll pick up the land "takings" issue with you another time, Jeb, but that's a different topic I think. I fully confess I don't trust or think much of Wayne LaPierre's version of the NRA. But as others have said that's beside the point. Let science do its job.

So you agree, Jeb, that the bill is an attack on the MDC? As for the NRA, 30 years ago I would have had no problem with them, but the days they did anything meaningful for hunters have pretty much come to an end. There's nothing nefarious about having a political position, but the outcome of those positions have ramifications. Giving the legislature authority to micromanage things like methods of deer take opens the door to just about everything. You don't want that door open. If MDC ducks a fight this time, they'll find themselves in a worse position down the road at some point. Everyone is against unlawful landgrabs, the NRA has no special virtue here. It also has no special virtue on how to manage natural resources, and neither does the legislature. The professionals who study those things their entire lives DO have special virtue on those matters and they should be able to handle the day to day issues. Do you want your state senator on the phone to the MDC deciding what gets stocked and where it gets stocked and when? Happens all the time in Illinois. I can tell you it's not an especially savory road to take. Conserving natural resources is elitest? Again, I don't know if this level of decision falls under the perview of the MDC. This may be a tangent. The bigger point is that where the MDC is given authority, let it exercise that authority without the clown show hanging over their shoulder. No one is trying to lock up "all" lands. But if you want SOME land to remain wilderness (and I realize many people don't) SOME lands need a higher level of protection. There aren't many places like this in the world any more. If those little scraps of land aren't set aside they'll be lost entirely. The MDC has nothing to do with presidential federal land acquisitions. The link evaluated federal congressional votes for that process, not presidential edicts and the point was that the NRA set itself against the biology that showed that was the right thing to do. If you want to talk about presidents locking up areas for conservation, Bush set aside the largest marine reserve in the world just before he left office...and more power to him. These aren't blue/red decisions. This is what you do to conserve natural resources... Actually, you must have it both ways. You need natural lands, and you need developed land. and you need some that's in between. And if you want to keep natural lands intact you need a NATURALIST setting day to day policy, not the legislature.

Stooge. Senators.

Because they are against scientific conservation of natural resources.... http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/the_anti_conservation_mission_of_the_nra/C41/L41/ ....and they want control of Pittman Robertson tax funds through their stooge senators. http://illinoispolicy.org/uploads/files/PRAct10-28_1.pdf

It depends on the category of law. Fiscal responsibility and things periferal to their mission that all state agencies have to obey, of course. Decisions about how to manage natural resources? No.

Exactly. Instead of going through established channels, they're working to set a precedent that will put politicians directly in charge of day to day decisions at MDC. This has nothing to do with handguns and deer.

And you'll let politicians over-ride the MDC on every issue from now on so you can pass this bill? Looks like the anti-elk group has found a way to strike back.

The NRA has been hiding in the skirts of the sporting community for decades. Unless you feel strongly that you need an Uzi that you bought the same day to shoot a deer, their extremist core agenda over the last 20 years does nothing to advance fishing opportunities. Now they want your conservation department to run on the whims of politics. It's like pushing a brand new high tech vehicle off the cliff so you can ride a clown car instead.

I just want to point out that I'm pulling out of this thread right now and it will be a shame if it gets an "X" for becoming a political debate. This is a moment we should all agree. However we spin it, we are indeed better off that he's gone. I apologize for taking the bait and going off topic. I suggest we get back on the straight and narrow.

These are lost ecosystems in many ways. The levees protect the floodplains (most of the time, but not often enough to make them safe). Unfortunately, they also prevent the river connecting to the backwater lakes and floodplains the way they have historically. The duck managers have gotten millions of acres back into wetlands, but they have reversed their natural cycle by planting in the spring and then flooding in the fall. Those systems are built to attract ducks but they don't do what flood plain lakes historically did. Fish want the opposite. They need the natural flood cycle with high water in the spring when fish are laying eggs. Those backwater lakes are traditionally spawning grounds and nursery areas in the spring. Where they're connected adequately to the main channel they enhance the overall productivity of the river. At one point the Illinois River was the most productive freshwater fishery in the world because of that flooding cycle. But most of that has been choked off because of levees. I agree it would be great if there were a way to get back to that point where those kinds of wetlands were abundant again. It would change the nature of the large Midwestern Rivers and possibly the water quality of the Gulf of Mexico... ...I just don't see how you get there from here.

In which case we will have ignored both Ike ("Beware the military industrial complex.") and George Washington (avoid foreign entaglements)... ...and we will have become a pathetic, hopeless, violent nation dependent on war to survive.

Well said!! We'll see how much deterence we get out of this. If they have their stuff together, they'll have a response planned. But they've been getting the stuffing knocked out of them for quite a few years now. This could be a turning point.

Quill's right, that 90% number is exaggerated although when I was serving as a salmon steward in Olympia, it was indeed harbor seals (not sea lions in this case) that were taking the chinook. You could clearly see when they took one as they'd all gather around and try to tear off bits. The take was usually 2 or so each morning...a tiny percentage of the total run of over 10,000-19,000 fish. http://brooksmith.blogspot.com/search?q=salmon The number varies, but that low percentage of take is typical. The problem, of course, is that people SEE them taking the salmon and they assume that's the major problem. It's not. FT is right. It's the dams and the habitat and problems they create.

Thanks, Mitch and SB. SB, you're making the right choices with your family the fish will be here when there's time...and in the meantime, I can recommend a baby backpack that works really great for wade fishing. Not that I ever did that myself. As far as my wife (oops...make that EX wife) knows.

Yeah I agree with helping Cairo. That's how I voted. I'd also agree with giving them one last chance for assistance to move and then cutting off the Federal tap for them after that. Do we really have to bail them out every 15 years???