Wayne SW/MO

I agree that the cost of keeping NO dry has reached the point of being ridiculous. If it were not for the history I doubt that they would. I may be wrong, but I don't think any private insurance companies offer flood insurance in flood prone areas. I believe the insurance in areas prone to flood is also a federal limb.

You had to crowd in didn't you, couldn't go to the back of the line to 3X.

X2

Do you feel the same way about cities that are below sea level? We aren't just talking about farmers here and in fact the whole point of the discussion isn't about those in flood plains and those that live outside them, it is about who gets spared in the flood prone areas.

I haven't camped there in a couple of years, but it was fine then. It is somewhat primitive and it has a lot of river front.

Like some other fish they have a strip of red meat that should be removed. They should be skinned rather than scaling because it's easier. Beyond that you can fry them like any other fish that has a lot of bones, cut slits to the backbone every 1/8", make sure you get flour in the cuts and fry them up crisp. As far as taste goes, there's a successful restaurant in Omaha that specializes in carp. My great aunt used to bake them if they were about 12# or bigger and as I recall the bones, while plentiful, were too big to be dangerous.

I suppose one of the problems I have with the issue is that the COE took on a project intended to prevent floods and not make them worse. The problem as I see it is they have made it worse. and the fact that they can lower the flood level by eliminating a levee indicates that the levees increase the water levels. In their failure they create a different flood by creating channels instead of the slow inundation that generally creates better soil rather then washing it away. Many have mentioned lives at risk, but a cities, in my mind, would be easier to evacuate then a scattered rural area. Economically we would be better off to rebuild cities then to simply pay for losses where an individual can't collect on his crops. There will be some job creation rebuilding some farm structures, but I would think rebuilding a town like Cairo away from danger would do more for them and the economy. I have to question why they can't protect cities, I would think their perimeters wouldn't come close to the length of a levee protecting farmland.

That's a good point Cricket. Maybe the winters are getting to be too much for their aging bones. I know mine went that way a long time ago.

The bottom line is that in comes down to the opinion of the agent and unless it's challenged it will be upheld by a county judge. The bad thing is that a rule that reside in a gray area can go either way in the courtroom. In the long run it always seems to me that the judges tend side with the public when it comes to wildlife laws. On the other side that tendency is more often then not a negative outcome for the outdoorsman who wants wildlife well protected.

You do have to remember that flooding those areas naturally isn't the same as opening the "faucet". In a natural flood the rise is slow and deliberate and often improves farmland by dropping silt. When they blow a levee or open gates they create flash floods that wash across farmlands which can all but destroy them. I don't think you can compare a house on Taneycomo to a farm house miles from a river. There are no levees on Taney, but millions have been spent giving people in flood plains a sense of security. If the levees aren't there to keep them from flooding, why build them at all? It seems to me it would more economically feasible to flood urban areas. The rebuilding would at least create jobs, where as in rural areas the losses are virtually all loss. Criticism of farmers living in flood plains makes little sense when you're comparing them to urban areas also living in flood plains, or below sea level.

I would disagree with that Tim. When the flood is a minor expansion of a water way that might be true, but when you talk about square miles of flooding that isn't true. Rabbits, Quail, fawns and many other small animals simply can't outrun a flash flood of a large area. While birds can fly their nest can't. Given the fact that planting has taken place, how do increase yields as an after thought?

I question whether or not the COE is realistically evaluating the choices they are making. It seems to me that the loss of crops, wildlife and structures in the areas they are choosing to flood is unrealistic in the end. In the end their decision is going to hit most families hard. Food shortages and high prices may not be a good trade off in the end.

If I understand it right Sam it is to provide a stronger flow in the White, below the dam. It appears this year that they sorely need that 5' of flood pool.

That brings back a lot of memories, when I lived in OK Texoma was my favorite lake. Age has changed the environment a lot. I don't know if it affected the real bass, but it did the black bass.

I think this season was primarily for Redhorse suckers which make a spring run. You don't see as much of it now because numbers are down. I suspect that numbers are down due to the fact that gigging methods have become so deadly. You just don't see big Redhorse anymore.

It will cover up a lot of fine bank fishing spots. What gets me is they are selling it as necessary for the non native trout that have seemingly survived for over 50 years under the present flows.

I've seen them launch on Forsyth/Taneyville road. The way it's rising you might be able to launch at Empire and motor over the dam pretty soon.

I think the judge will have the last say on that. I don't want to act as though I can read minds, but I suspect the picture taking violated the agents idea of Immediately.

I don't know exactly what the MDC considers taking, but many states say that catch and release must be done without removing the fish from the water. Having witnessed a few big trout struggle to survive after long picture taking sessions below TR, I wish they would enforce that at Taneycomo.

As you probably know it is very close to full and there isn't a lot of bank space left to access good water.

There's one off the side of the highway, 90 I believe it is. It's where the highway hits the river and there's a bluff with a pull off.

They can't send too much downstream because there is no where for it to go.

A product called Gluvit does a good job of protecting against rocks and gravel. It is as easy as paint to put on.

Just the Rock?

Hmmm. Me too. I always thought the Montana stone had the lower thorax in yellow chenille and the Bitch Creek had the lower tail section in yellow chenille.