Tim Smith

Yes, birth control pills and estrogen mimics from other sources. Sewage treatent does a lot of good but it doesn't fix everything. They've found feminized fish (with both sperm and eggs) downstream of just about every sewage treatment plant they've checked.

Njardar, I spent a lot of time in a kayak in Central Illinois and the kind of fishing you'll do will make all the difference in what you buy. If you do try for smallmouth, most of the good places will be north and east of you, although the IDNR stocked a reservoir socuth of you (Newton?) with smallmouth and there are also good smallmouth (and obscene numbers of muskie) below Lake Shelbyville in the Kaskaskia. The Corps built the reservoir on top of a good river population that gradually died out in the reservoir and the upstream river as the lake matured. There have been some attempts at restocking above the dam but it will probably be a long time before that makes a difference, if it ever does. If you get into stream fishing, beware rod holders that hold your rod up at an angle as most of the good smallmouth fishing streams will have substantial amounts of overhanging brush. On lakes you'll be fighting chop and wind. You'd do well to prioritize comfort in both settings as some of the best fishing occurs during times of year you won't want much contact with the water. I was happy in a 9.5' Perception on streams (cheap and a little crampy but functional) but I preferred a canoe on most lakes. The set-up that made me the most envious for Illinois stream fishing was the 1 man kevlar canoe with dual horizontal rod holders, a cable-winch anchor system, 26 pounds total weight and a whisper of a draft. Google up the Illinois Smallmouth Alliance and check out their forums. They have a lot to offer if you can meet some of the guys close to you (most are around Chicago).

Classic stuff. The journalist screwed up the estrogen issue... Estrogen, is a problem from the wastewater itself, not the purification process. ...also liked the anglers in the comments section disregarding the population estimate from a formal mark-recapture study because they saw a lot of gar (probably not even aligator gar) in another creek somewhere. Horrifying dreck. Interesting issue though. Glad the company is on board with the impact assessment.

I like this comment. Nature finds "a" way but it isn't necessarily the "best" way. The only requirement nature has is that it works. It's a lot of fun to play adaptationist games as to "why" certain things happen, but the details of history and the constraints of ancestry often play a much more important role in why things are the way they are. The egg-size/egg quantity trade-off that Justin mentions here is a generally accepted evolutionary trade-off (more or less the same quantity/quality trade-off Muddy mentioned earlier). One problem with the winter flood theory is that in places like the Pacific Northwest, winter floods drive the whole system and most of the spawning happens between October and March. The salmon/steelhead in that region apparently do have the ability to shift spawning timing because a few summer runs occur in that region, but those summer-run systems have the same flood cycle. Something else seems to be driving spawning seasonality. Both taxa have nests, both undergo egg predation. Centrarchid males guard their eggs and fry over a nest and salmonid females bury most of their eggs in gravel of the "redd" (nest).

Actually, centrarchids hatch with a small yolk sac too. It's not nearly as large as the salmonid sac and it doesn't last long but it's there.

Chief, are you talking about the period the eggs are "running" out of the female adult fish or the time it takes for the eggs to eye-up or go to larval stage? Since the title is "incubation" I'm guessing you mean egg development. Sometimes fish don't have a huge range of choices about things like incubation time. Salmonids and centrarchids aren't closely related and it may be that these species have just inhereted a physiological range of possible incubation times from their ancestors. Maybe they're just doing the best they can inside that range. There may be nothing adaptive about those traits at all. If there were an adaptationist angle in play here, I agree that effects of temperature are most likely to drive those differences. Salmonids tend to lay during colder months when physiological demand for energetic resources is lower among the cold-blooded egg predators they typically encounter. Even though the total time in the stream bed is longer, the total energetic demand from predators in the stream during incubation is probably similar or even less. The greater threat is probably from large winter storms that move bedload and bury the redds. Any quality/quanity comparison weights on the side of the trout going for a quality effort. Trout/salmonid eggs are huge compared to bass/sunfish, with a much more substantial yolk. They also tend to lay fewer eggs and the aelvins they produce are much bigger than larval sunfish. Larger fish (especially at that stage) have better burst speeds, more internal resources, fewer potential predators and therefore a better chance of survival.

JD, what you're enveiging against here is really a certain kind of urbanism, not liberalism. This 2 dimensional left right debate doesn't accurately describe how conservation or even politics works. Google up some of the most extreme environmentalists like Earth First! and it's founder David Foreman. Republicans. Barry Goldwater Republicans, sir. The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act and the EPA began under Nixon's signature, and even though it has been Republicans who have gutted it since that time there are plenty of Republican congressmen and congresswomen who have bucked that trend just as there are many (most) Democrats fully understand the need to use natural resources. Where the debate starts to go badly awry is when new things come down the pike that no one has had the time to learn in depth, or it when it becomes clear that individuals will need to give up certain things to keep natural resources intact for humans to enjoy the long term... ...and that's not a political debate. It's a moral one.

I work in salt water and all my multi-tools try to freeze up from time to time. Just emmerse them in any kind of oil overnight when they start to get stiff. Pull them out the next day, open the blades, wash the whole thing with soap and you're good to go again.

There are also fines for possessing raptor feathers, used to be up to 25,000 for bald eagles back when they were on the endangered species list. ...might have had the wrong kind of feather in his cap.

Multi-tools are great when you keep them in your pocket for spur of the moment repairs. It's wasted in your camp box. Tool quality is an issue though. I've had good luck with both Gerber and Leatherman when they were big enough. I bought an 'ergonomic' Gerber last year that did avoid squishing my fingers when I used the pliers, but was just too small with too small of a blade to do any real work.

I should have mentioned the otters, thanks for filling in the blank there, Al. ...and I'll defend the tourism angle a bit by pointing out that predators are part of the overall perception of the natural quality of an area whether you see them or not. Some people want water slides in Branson, other segments of the tourism market value "wildness". Those people look at the wildlife in an area and make travel decisions based on what's there. The number one thing people want to see in Yellowstone is a bear. I've never seen a mountain lion in Big Bend (and most people don't), but I've been there over and over because its wild enough that I know I could. Same applies for the Cockscomb Jaguar Preserve in Belize. No one ever sees live jaguars there, but it's one of the most popular spots in the country because you could. It's not a huge economic driver, but it's enough to at least compensate for livestock damages.

Tourism leaps to mind. Some types of tourists definitely WANT predators in the area. What is the perceived value of a fishing/hunting/camping site with and without predators? Does the reputation of the Ozarks as a natural vacation destination increase or decrease if mountain lions are present. If you can manage the low-level risks of predators and still keep them in the area, even the possibility of seeing one becomes an economic draw for some markets. As far as environmental issues... Here's one article that discusses how mesopredators (like raccoons) have become over abundant and are causing environmental problems. Most of the song bird deaths in the US are due to nest predation by raccoons, for instance. The Rise of the Mesopredator Author(s): Prugh LR (Prugh, Laura R.)1, Stoner CJ (Stoner, Chantal J.)1, Epps CW (Epps, Clinton W.)2, Bean WT (Bean, William T.)1, Ripple WJ (Ripple, William J.)3, Laliberte AS (Laliberte, Andrea S.)4, Brashares JS (Brashares, Justin S.)1 Source: BIOSCIENCE Volume: 59 Issue: 9 Pages: 779-791 Published: OCT 2009 Times Cited: 8 References: 66 Citation Map Abstract: Apex predators have experienced catastrophic declines throughout the world as a result of human persecution and habitat loss. These collapses in top predator populations are commonly associated with dramatic increases in the abundance of smaller predators. Known as "mesopredator release," this trophic interaction has been recorded across a range of communities and ecosystems. Mesopredator outbreaks often lead to declining prey populations, sometimes destabilizing communities and driving local extinctions. We present an overview of mesopredator release and illustrate how its underlying concepts can be used to improve predator management in an increasingly fragmented world. We also examine shifts in North American carnivore ranges during the past 200 years and show that 60% of mesopredator ranges have expanded, whereas all apex predator ranges have contracted. The need to understand how best to predict and manage mesopredator release is urgent-mesopredator outbreaks are causing high ecological, economic, and social costs around the world.

Skeeter the question you're asking is what is at the bottom of the whole conversation here. Is the real but very low level risk of threats from a mountain lionworth the aesthetic ecological and potential ecotourism benefits? There was a link provided on another mountain lion thread that had a complete (sort of) listing of all the attacks/confrontations over the last century. All of those attacks happened in the west and relative to the number of people and mounain lions slipping past each other in the wild it's vanishingly small. The elk they're talking about putting back in the Ozarks are a bigger threat due to increased mortality risk during collisions with cars. For me, the answer is yes, you do want them. We have to be a bit more careful in places that have predators, but I also know that for the most part they are not looking for trouble. A rancher or a family with kids in the middle of nowhere might feel differently...but I would hope they could at least see the point. This photo is from a sampling site where I work right now. This might be from a mountain lion, but it's probably a jaguar. Every time I find one of these, it's a good day.

Bad decisions all around. This is beginning to remind me of something.... Knock him out John!!

One man's trash is another man's livelihood. Don't forget a lot of those 3rd world fishers are also on the edge of starvation. And it's not just the 3rd world that's scraping by and insisting on traditions. The US fishing industry (including recreational guides) is furious about many of the current and emerging crop of regulations and there's quite a bit of sentiment about the right to hand down fishing rights from father to son and to preserve local practices. There's real pain there now because of the effort to keep the industry small enough that it won't expand with the rising stocks and crash everything again. They're furious at the government right now.

There has been a healthy amount of skepticism about the potential causes and severity of these kills here since the thread began. But one reason these kinds of kills are of interest to me is that I have seen some of the mechanics behind how they are handled and they definitely leave something to be desired. Fish kills do happen all the time, but they happen for a reason. The state of the art on researching fish kills is often not up to the task of determining those reasons. From time to time that becomes a serious problem. For instance, a marsh in Barataria Bay that had been heavily oiled by the Macando spill experienced a fish kill in late summer. The state biologists said "it's heat, because heat drives down O2", but organic decomposition also drives down O2 and there was a substantial amount of oil in Barataria Bay during summer that might have racheted up BOD. So the Macando spill may well have contributed to that kill, but the oil industry immediately insisted there was no connection between those events. In that case (and unfortunately in others) the state of Louisiana, anxious to reassure the public that their fish were safe to eat, agreed with BP. Yet LA had no substantive supporting evidence to let BP of the hook. Much was made of the fact that the fish that died didn't contain hydrocarbons, but the logical pathway for the spill to kill them had nothing to do with hydrocarbons. Unless a kill is a certain size no one bothers to even count the fish. Even when formal inquiries are made, the cause of about 1/3 can't be resolved. And even when a cause is established, and there appears to be a human factor, the BP scenario above often lets the perpetrator say "well fish kills are natural, it was the heat, or just a freak occurance that had nothing to do with us". Sometimes they get away with that. A kill here and there won't wipe out a stream, or bird population, but they are definitely something to take seriously and if they become too frequent they can do serious local damage. It makes sense to keep an eye out for them and personally, I'd like to see better applications of technology to determine their causes.

The steps that have been taken to rebuild marine fisheries have been controversial... ...but some stock numbers are already increasing. Maybe better days are ahead. From the Cleveland Leader; US Fishers Won't Overfish for the First Time Since 1900 By Julie Kent <http://www.clevelandleader.com/user/3> . Published on 01/09/2011 - 11:07am ; www.clevelandleader.com The United State's top fishing experts say that for the first time since at least 1900, US fishers won't take too much of any species from the sea. Scientist Steve Murawski (AFS member, '02), who retired as chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service last week, said: "As far as we know, we've hit the right levels, which is a milestone. And this isn't just a decadal milestone, this is a century phenomenon." Murawski says that it also signals the coming of increasingly healthy stocks and better days ahead for fishers who have suffered financially. The fleets in New England have deteriorated since the mid 1990s, dropping from 1,200 boats to about 580. Murawski believes that the worst times have passed. And end to overfishing, however, doesn't mean that all stocks are healthy but scientists believe that it's an important first step to getting there. When a species is overfished, fishers are catching them at a rate that scientists believe is too fast to ensure the species can rebuild and stay healthy. In 2007 a reauthorization of the nation's fisheries law, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, included a mandate to end overfishing by the 2010 fishing year, which concludes at different times in 2011 depending on the region. The US is the only country that has a law that defines overfishing and requires its fishers not to engage in it. He says: "When you compare the United States with the European Union, with Asian countries, et cetera, we are the only industrialized fishing nation who actually has succeeded in ending overfishing," Under the new rules, fishers in New England work in groups called sectors to divide an annual quota of groundfish, which include cod, haddock and flounder. Should they surpass their limits on one species, they must stop fishing on all species. Federal data earlier this year indicated that New England fishers were on pace to catch fewer than their allotted fish in all but one stock, Georges Bank winter flounder. Murawski says that he did not expect fishers to exceed their quota on any stock. Regulators also believe that in other regions with overfishing, including the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic and Caribbean, catch limits and other measures will end overfishing this year. Detailed stock assessments will give the final verification that overfishing has ended nationwide.

So what is the wind speed velocity of an unladen African lion?

The sub-species of Florida panthers is tan... ...and will probably soon be extinct. They've interbred with pumas that were brought in from South America. The ones that are genetically pure suffer badly from inbreeding (as evidenced by defects like the almost always present "kink" at the end of their tail).

That's definitely an interesting page. Good information on the original study. I also notice the Northern Arizona University Page is linked to a cougar information page (bottom of the table 1 link..."Lion Attacks Introduction and Table of Contents") from a town in CO near where I live now. That's a suburb that has recently been carved out of wild lands around Denver. Looks like they're pretty nervous about having cats around (and certainly there are attacks on humans around Denver from time to time, although a handful of incidents among 7 million residents in the state doesn't exactly leave me shaking in my boots). That page also links to a speech by Michael Crichton saying DDT didn't kill birds (still like Michael Crichton?). In South Denver they also have a coyote sighting web page where you can send out the city workers out to kill coyotes wherever you see them. That's the mentality there. Also noticing that many of the people in the 1990-2000 attack list (on the cougar info page, not Gary's link) sue the government after they are attacked. I assume they don't win, given that there are no awards cited and the slant on the (1990-2000) page is pretty heavily anti-predator. I also see that attacks I know about 3rd hand that aren't on this. There are more attacks happening (unreported for one reason or another) than are listed here.

I remember that photo from the ISA boards, Gary. That's an awesome shot. I managed to get a picture of one in the Badlands in South Dakota last year but yours is far better.

I remember when PETA went after the Jackson Hole elk hunt one winter. The protesters came out and did their harrassment shtick for the TV crews (national crews in that instance) and the hunters were understandably upset. But when they interviewed the hunters for their counterpoint, the elk were packed into the field right behind them. All the talk about tradition and sportsmanship came off a little hollow when the elk were so standing close and docile they might as well have been cattle. There are still plenty of elk around Yellowstone despite the wolves. I drove into Yellowstone January of last year from the Montana side and saw them in the dozens. Someone had a bull elk on a trailer field dressed and draped over both ends it was so huge. Gizzlies scare me too. Friends and field crews I know in Alaska are generally armed and I don't blame them a bit.

Hear a Reuters report of more dead birds in KY. Still don't know why. ...but if you're going to do a blackbird pie, I hear you'll need 4 and 20 of them. But they're supposed to sing once you serve it. From the looks of those birds, they're going to be a little flat.

Had a similar incident with my cheetahs and my son as a toddler at the Milwaukee zoo. Your physiological responses in a situation like that make it pretty clear your family is more important than the cat. Of course, the chances a cat in the east will go aggressive that way seem pretty far fetched. They barely even have enough habitat to eek by. How could they possibly make it if they confront humans? Certainly things are different in the west. I worked in coastal California for a couple of years where mountain lions are thick. We'd find fresh deer carcasses and cat tracks in the stream beds and several people in our crew saw them while we were working. One of the properties we sampled there was owned by a USDA animal control officer (which in Alaska is aparently enough qualification to be the head of the DNR). He was a great guy and loved to talk about his work. Often that involved taking down mountain lions after they killed livestock (and yes they were often llama kills). He said the hunt was mindlessly simple. Start the dogs on the carcass. Follow the trail and since the cats have little stamina they won't be far from the scene and they won't run far during the chase. They simply run up a tree and they rarely turn on the dogs. He generally took them with a pistol. If climate change is a controversial issue, predator management is another level beyond even that. In the west, where they still have relevant populations of all the big predators, they're lining up to do battle over wolf seasons and coyote control and a hundred other issues. In Alaska the animal control agent they hired to run the wildlife division has legalized commercial trade in bear pelts and encouraged systematic culling of the bear populations around Anchorage and elsewhere to increase deer/elk/moose/caribou herds. Fourty former state biologists have petitioned for his removal and biologists still inside the agency who object to the new policies are being reassigned and removed. Those fights will never go away not only because of different value systems about animal life, but also because of different perspectives about risk and personal and economic safety. I don't like the idea of taking predators just because hunters want more deer to shoot. The wilderness is not a farm and the DNR isn't in the ranching business. I'm not interested in paying tax money so hunters don't have to actually learn their hobby. I'm also impatient with people who want predators dead just because they see them as a general threat. To me that's a level of intolerance that's just not warranted. I'm also not sure I care to pay your predator control bill because something came and grabbed your pooch. If you love them so much, bring them inside at night. Once you're losing your livelihood or something turns aggressive toward humans...ok. Fine. I'm not going to judge that farmer. But I sure wish that mountain lion were still alive.

If it's local wood, that's more or less true. I heated my house in Illinois for a year on wood fuel. If anyone else in the family but me would have bothered to start the fire, we might have never stopped. How would that one work?