Don Allenbaugh

Congrats taxi, it is always a thrill to slam.

Dano, The river is falling about 1.08 to pool level. Be wading pretty soon I hope.

I live on the White and need to throw in my 2 cents worth. I do believe that no one to my knowledge ever talked to and/or consulted with any entity in Mo concerning the impact of min flow on any of the impoundments in Mo. Please if I am wrong so enlighten me. Now concerning some of the impact on Ak: It is a fact that if BS had an additional five more feet (proposed power pool) of water last spring and received the rains that we did there would have been far greater flooding than that which happened. If Norfork had also had an additional 3 ft of water (proposed power pool) to begin with the results from BS and Norfork would have been a diaster unknown untill that time. Min flow had four groups of people behind it: 1-Tyson foods, who spent over 3 million lobbying for it, The Arkansas Cattleman's Assoc, which spent 1 and 1/2 million lobbying for it (Forest Wood was Presdient of the assoc), the guides on the White River, and the AGFC. The North Ark FFA also supported it but did not pay for lobying as near as I could determine. Yjr corps was not initially for it nor was the SWPA. I was and still am against min flow. In my opinion the only thing min flow will help will be to dilute the pollution from the chicken farms and the cattle fields. In addition it will give the guides more water to fish and require more people to use guides since you will not be able to wade. Understand that the original proposition was to add 3000 cfs of water to the river 365 days a year. That would have added approximatelyh 18" of water to the White. At that rate wading fishermen would lose most of the productive wading waters. Those for min flow say 18 inches more water would add more wading water but in truth it would not as it would be poor wading water. 18 inches will also add to the loss of life as you will be required to wade in deeper water and everyone knows what that causes. I believe bank fishing will be greatly curtailed and thousands of acres of personel property and public property above the current power level will no longer be avalable. The SWPA did not come out for or against min flow because they will be paid yearly for water lost to min flow. Currently there is only wild speculation as to the true cost to taxpayers for monies lost. It will certainly be in the 10s of millions of dollars that the taxpayers will be required to pay SWPA for revenue lost. At present there are no payments being considered for private or public lands lost or for helping marinas or dock owners having to move their docks. Those who are say that flyfishermen are for min flow are fabricating that story. In talking to over 250 flyfishermen I have only talked to 10-15 that were for min flow As a matter of fact over 95% of the people who I have talked to in Ark about min flow are against it. There is one group who do favor it and those persons live on the river and have a dock It is understandable that these people are for min flow because on very low water they have an ingress and egress problem with their docks (perhaps it gould have been poor planning). I have asked the AGFC, Forest Wood, over 15 guides and many members of the NAFF to send to me or to give to me a site refererence on one case study that has been completed anywhere in the world that shows the results of instituiting min flow, positive or negative. I have not received any and if anyone on this board can show me one I would be very happy to read it and if justified I could change my mind. I do believe that at the present timethe White is a world class trout river and if "it ain't broke don't fix it". The min flow project has been approved by congress but it has not been funded. I do know that many thousand's of projects are approved and funding is delayed for years and in many cases never funded. One has to wonder with all that is happening with the bailouts if there will be any funds available to implement min flow. OK guys eat me alive.

I would say that most of the places on the White have adequate accommodations. I would recommend John Berry if you can get him. All around excellent guide and very personable. In my opinion one of the best of the best gudies on the river.

My self-- USMC 1959 TO 1965. Wife- USAF 1976 TO 2006.

It certainly was a good day. My friend Steve (72 fish) and myself (100 even, 1 of which was a fat 22" rainbow) fished below the dam and tore them up. I used the dreaded DB to catch about 90 or them and then some mixed scuds etc. There were several others ther and quite a few of them were doing well also. The fish were real fighters, I think they went down below the oxygen release and then can back up to the enterance at Dry Run and attacked anything in the water. Really surprised at the small number of fishermen at the park. Maybe a total of 15 at most.

Don't forget to pause for a moment: https://webmail.infodash.com/infodash.com/a...20of%20Time.wmv

Semper fi my fellow leathernecks.

Ethanol is in all grades.

I haven't used the Marine Sta-bil yet but I did buy it. It says it is for ethanol problems. John, I cleaned my tank and filled it with Tystar also. Then, my neighbor told me he had not had any problems and used Tystar amd the problems started. I hope that doesn't happen to us. According to one source the local marines along with the cottor trout dock have gas without ethanol. Anyone know for sure?

There has been some discussion on the problems with ethanol and I did some research into the problems and the possible help available. First of all Sta-bil now has a Marine Formula Sta-bil ethanol treatment. I have not tried it yet but I just bought some at Bass Pro Shops. I did found the following on Boat US and think it is worth reading (I am not endorsing this product as I have not used it): The biggest problem with ethenol (E-10), which is really one problem among many, is that E10 breaks down into water. Now, Gas and Diesel were known for years to break down into water at a 1%-2% rate. You can see this to be true in the manufacture of fuel tanks. All fuel tanks set the pick-up for the gasoline (the line to take the gas to the engine) not at the bottom of the tank, but rather just above to leave 1%-2% in the tank. So, this break down problem exists with E10. The government studies told us that "1-2%" breakdown would be all that would occur, plus it would "burn cleaner; yadda, yadda, yadda." Well, that's not what actually happened. Most consumer groups have found that 3-5% breakdown is the standard with 8% as a high reported. Further, the fuel begins to break down after just 28 days- this begs the question of "when does the 28 days begin?". The 28 days begins when the fuel goes into the storage tanks before it is even brought to your gas station's or marina's fuel storage tanks. So, because of this, the water gets past our fuel tanks and into the water seperator- further, it can get past that and wreak havoc on our fuel pumps, injectors, fuel lines, engines, etc. So, what is the cure? Traditional fuel treatments fall primarily into two groups; Surficants and Emulsifiers. Surficants cause the moisture content of fuel and the freestanding water in the tank to sink to the bottom where it can be drained or pumped out. This water bottom usually goes undetected until it causes major problems. Surficants contain petroleum distillates and can do nothing with the water. Oil and water do not mix. Lucas is what I used to use and it falls in this category as does Valvoline and many others. You can tell what it is because the bottle has to give a warning label that it is petroleum based. Can you even drain your tank? I couldn't and had to have it pumped out along with my overhaul. The other type is called an Emulsifier. Emulsifiers absorb a small portion of the water and allow it to be burned off during operation. They still leaves a water bottom. The water that is in suspension with the fuel exposes all metal fuel system components to water, causing rust and corrosion of injectors, pumps, etc. Startron and Sta-Bil are examples of Emulsifiers. Both of these traditional fuel treatments lead to additional costs and increased equiptment failure and downtime. Who wants to be repairin' when they can be fishin'? Unfortunately, I found this out the hard way. Fortunately, I have plenty of time because the commercial truck sales that I normally do is pretty darn slow. Anyways, I was shown a product called Sentry Gas- they also have Ethenol RX for your first time treatment. Sentry is different than the other two types, in fact, they're unique. Sentry treatments initiate a process of Micro Encapsulation and Valence Bonding, converting all water to a combustible liquid. The water then becomes a component of a combustible liquid that will pass through all filters and burn off in the combustion process. This burning is kinda like a chemical water injection system for a truck that removes all carbon deposits from pistons, valves, and cylinders. (This water injection also increases horsepower!) It's real easy to see this for yourself. Just take a little glass bottle, put some fuel in it, then put some treatment in it, and then put some water in it (in equal amounts). Next put the lid on and shake it up. You'll still see the layer of water on the bottom. For some real fun, put a nail in it and wait a week or two so you can see what is happening to the bottom of your tank. It ain't pretty... This test with Sentry shows no water, and a week later there is no rust on the nail. This test with Startron leaves water on the bottom and a very rusty nail. Decide for yourself. I buy it from my friend at www.sentrytreatments.com/jasons ;

I wonder if congress will now appropriate the monies needed since they just spent a little trying to fix the mortgage mess?

Not that odd. I catch crappie and smallmouth every so often right above Jenkins creek. I have had 2 largemouths spend several months in a hole below my house ( I live a couple of hundred yards above Jenkins). The hole beside the dock at Red Bud usually has both in it.

Super shot

If anyone is in the area it would be well worth your while to take a walk along the shore. There is a nice path and you can observe some extremely nice rainbows, cuts, brooks, and browns in a natural habitat. It strokes the fishing fires within you.

Great, let's get back to fishing.

No. 30mgwt adds about 4 feet of water.

Thank you Dano and Phil. I really enjoy this forum and believe that it is no place to contest the pros and cons of any of the canidates for any office. If anyone wants to do that let them start their own site. DELETE DELETE DELETE By the way Dano if the water ever goes down on the White give me a call.

I doubt it very much. It is still 26 and 1/2 feet above pool level and they want to get it down. I sure wish they would turn it off for a couple of days.

All ready proven to be a lie. No swift boat this year. See: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/a...8+campaign+news

I live on the White about 300 yards up river from Red Bud Shoals and about 1000 yards from Rim Shoals. I have my own weather station and local conditions can be accessed on the web by clicking on the following link: http://www.weatherlink.com/user/donallen1/ The weather is updated every minute and if you click on the map tab above the blue box you can see where I am located. If you click on the summary tab there is additional weather information. Enjoy and fill free to give the link to anyone.

Great going. A wonderful catch that will last the rest of his life. Dano, there is hope for us flyfishers, the one in my picture was taken with a #20 nymph (who would figure?).

John, You are right, it has been fabulous. The D B was my champion again. I won't give you the numbers for 3 days of fishing because most of the readers would think I was full of dodo but you know better. There was a guy one day throwing a green wolly bugger and he was doing real well also. I fished where Dry Run emptys in now. Didn't know that was you when I stopped or I would have just beeped the horn and waved.

What comes around goes around. Back in the 50s we (the hunters and liberals in Pennsylvania) voted U. S. Senator Hugh Scott (head of the republican senate at the time) out of office because the repubs wanted to restrict gun control. Conservatvies were a dirty name back then because they wanted to control everything we did like some of the liberals want to today. Both sides have good and bad, but one thing you can count on is that NONE of the pols are for any American (rich or poor) who work for a living. By the way Trav it is against DOD policy to have any type of weapons in a house on an American base. They have to be stored in the armory.