Wayne SW/MO

when we were living in central OR a large fire started in the mountains just to the east of us. Like all fires they brought in the bulldozers and skidders o help the firefighters. Eventually it reached a wilderness area and they stopped fighting it, moved the equipment to the other side of the wilderness and started prepping to stop it when it came out. I do remember that they just let it go when it hit the line. In the west they have wilderness smoke jumpers who jump in to put out fires, small ones, in the wilderness areas. They then get to walk out with packs that I believe were in the 80# range if I remember right.

TC it sounds like you had a good plan and I suspect your conversation will have some repercussions, albeit not earth shaking.

Good grief cricket I think everyone knows where that first picture was taken. You gonna give away all your honey holes?

The thing is TC he can be armed on his land and I think it would be hard to convince a jury that he was intimidating someone, even though that was most likely his intention. I read on another post that someone else was armed and if that was true then everything changes. If someone with no dog in the hunt came down there armed he would obviously be there to intimidate and play vigilante as a so called hired gun. The fact that he had the law on the way wouldn't help either of their causes, I would think so anyway. I would even think he might be susceptible to legal action.

I know in the west they don't bring any mechanization into the wilderness areas. If the smoke jumpers can't control it they let it burn, at least they did when I worked out there. I'm not sure that a chain saw would be considered mechanization however.

The problem troutfriend is that he thought, right or wrong, that he was confronting trespassers. I think it would be hard to make a case against one facing many that he thought were breaking the law by invading his property. The bottom line is that if this is some new event then he's probably and outsider who bought some property and thinks he owns more than he actually does. I suspect if he wins out then the the accesses are worthless and that money could, and should, go to another more friendly county. I wonder how the commissioners would view a move like that? It would be great if the whole issue of access was tested in the MO supreme court, but the farm bureau would sink millions into a floater unfriendly decision. I have read that the original definition of navigational stream did not mean that it was floatable but that it was significant to use as a landmark in navigation. We're talking before roads and even trails. Basically anything that flowed year around could be used as a landmark for navigation from one point to another. Not all of the Missouri was floatable, but Lewis and Clark used it to get to the other side of the Rocky's.

The east side of Coombs Ferry can be good. I would hit the drops around deep water and work towards the 86 bridge.

The old Shakespeare white glass rod used a spiral outer wrap called the Howald Process. It made them famous until Fenwick brought out the graphite.

Actually they all had them and all but one were farmers. I also did a garden for many years and my son does now. Sounds good on the surface, but they were only supplements and the grains you classify as harmful are an important part of the pyramid. If a farmer were to lose money one year on his wheat and be unable to plant the next year and you multiple that by thousands, you risk a real shortage of food. People won't be able to grow there own or buy enough local as you would hope, but are more likely to revolt. The experiment of driving people to the land to grow their own and free themselves from markets was tried in Cambodia by Pol Pot in the mid 70's. Check out the results of that fiasco. The original idea of subsidies was to insure that farmers could make some profit in a year, hold on to their land and plant the next year. The conservation portion was designed to keep land available for production if needed and give owners reason to keep marginal land and pay the taxes on it. What no stringers of 30" trout?

Not a good choice of words on my part, but whats new, I shouldn't have said you, many would have been a better choice. CRP is another subside, is it not? Beyond you I see references to corporate farms for instance, but a corporate farm is not necessarily a publicly traded company, but a family farm using the same tools that other small business people use to protect their assets and family. It is hard for me to believe that the congress will take the time to construct a farm Bill that would accomplish what it needs to. If the bail out is ant indication they simply don't have either the skill or the desire, or both. Of course any attempts to blame one party or the other is no more that the kettle calling the pot black.

swinging one has always worked for me, but trout use this maneuver themselves, so maybe it's natural to them.

I don't know Tim, are we talking about the value of farm subsidies or the questionable process of determining them? As the debt skyrockets we realize that government over spending produces the same results as when we do as individuals. If we can't afford the vehicle we have we don't stop driving and walk to the doctor, grocery store or work, we down size. It helps to put things in perspective. Whether a farmer is a true corporation, or incorporated the family farm, he's in it to make money. In order to do that he has to invest thousands planting or brood stock produce something that has yet to be valued. Not only is it yet to be valued, none of his products are guaranteed to make it to market. On top of that you want him to contribute to conservation projects, at his expense, that you think is necessary?

Unless they have changed the rules, it's no mechanization.

Empire really doesn't see a lot of use, but it is a very nice park.

Farm subsidies have always been part of our national security and they always should be. I'm not saying that some isn't excessive, but stand alone would invite a disaster. Beyond air and water, food is right up there with things we can not do without for very long. It's also one of those things we can't depend on foreign markets to provide. Farming is a gamble, always has been and always will be. If you let the food supply become unstable, prices will reflect it and the damage to the population will start at the bottom. subsidies are meant to stabilize the market and if they fail don't blame the farmer, blame the politician who is out of his element in trying to manage them.

The state park and corp area at the dam area comes to mind. Long Creek corp area isn't too far, it's off of hiway 86. Bear Creek is a little harder to describe, but it's closer then Long Creek.

That might well work now, but it hasn't been around all that long. But I'm not sure I want to spend $700 to rebuild the carbs to find out.

I'm aware that they are a saltwater fish that was landlocked in NC. Bad use of words on my part, I should have said "resident" probably. I simply meant there was a population all ready there. That's interesting and would relegate the wiper to little more than a sport fish, as opposed to accomplishing an adjustment in the environment. Over the decades in watching huge masses of gizzard shad one has to wonder what it does to the environment. They were common in the rivers around my home when growing up, but never in large numbers. I assumed that was because of physical constraints in the environment where they remained vulnerable. In the huge, unnatural, reservoirs they seemed to find safety in numbers and area. I hope they are stocked, stripers, but I was curious as to why wipers weren't given the fact they have a termination built in. If they don't work out, they die out.

It's made my '99 Mercury a very expensive motor. I've spent a fortune having my carbs rebuilt and there seems to be no cure.

Given the fact that wipers are as capable of taking large gizzard shad, admittedly not the largest, wouldn't they eventually consume more do to increased numbers? It would be interesting to know what the biomass's of the two fish are in LOZ and Truman.

Since the large reservoir building era began, Gizzard shad have presented a problem. They not only develop a huge biomass, they have few predators. They came from the creeks and rivers where gar and cat's fed on them, but the gar didn't follow them into the resovoirs, at least not in equal numbers. The cats don't normally hunt the open water for food. I fished Texoma heavily before and after they were introduced there and never saw any decline in the bass population or success ratio. There was a decline eventually, but it was do to environmental changes and stockings of smallmouth cured most of that. To the best of my knowledge the only species that suffered a decline was the sand bass, but the population was huge and I don't know the final word on that. The biggest reason for the lack of conflicts is simply that the two species hunt and feed in different spheres. Stripers feed just like whites, by herding shad in open water.

I would think the infertility would be a plus for control. The hatchery capacity is a good argument up to a point, they are already obligated to several other wiper programs. On the other side however would it make a difference if they were producing stripers instead of wipers?

I've been on this forum from the start or near it, not just the present but the predecessors, and I have a great interest in politics. I try to never miss out on a political debate, but I've never seen what I would consider even a hint of bias on this forum. I also don't judge friends and neighbors by their political beliefs, even my family doesn't agree.

I would be curious to know why the MDC isn't considering Wipers for Bull Shoals? They have a lot of experience and success in the fish . I realize that Bull Shoals has some native Strippers, but it appears very few, certainly not enough to worry about false spawns. Any thoughts?

I'm jealous!