Wayne SW/MO

At the threat of being flogged, I have to say I don't think the "boats" will be missed.

They aren't like every other animal. They have little to no choice about leaving the area where they are born, daddy runs them off. It's ridiculas to think they sit around wondering where the females are, they're animals with different instincts. I too don't see any conflict with the MDC's belief that there is no breeding population. When females and kittens show up, then I will believe it if they don't acknowledge.

They may be deep south after this winter.

My wife, son and DIL are in it and none of them have a problems getting a job, but more important a good paying job with benefits. RN's make from $20+ to $40 and most work 3-12's.

Sorry to hear that. Chuck was a nice guy and his 200 Missouri Smallmouth Adventures is a great guide. I only met him once, but I still remember it.

I've thought about an Ipad or Xoom, not that I need one, but that has never stopped me before. The fact that you don't have to boot up every time you've put it away and want start up again, like a laptop, appeals to me.

Boar=Male. Sow=Female Yeah 400-600 pounds would definitely be an estimate. We're not talking Grizzlys, right?

Hardly Yankee land. At least its not as hilly Creek Wader. What county are you in?

We've had Altell, now Verizon, for many years and always had 4 bars in the park. We didn't have 3G until I saw there was 4G. I panicked and thought I would fall so far behind it would be like computers, I would never catch up.

That's good to know Chief.. I assume then that the regulations were weak, probably because they they hadn't expected using them.

Sorry, Arkansas beat you to it.

Here's some interesting information concerning radioactivity of nuclear plants. Radioactivity of coal ash

I threw that in for Cricket because I believe that was one of his favorite spots, maybe still is.

Yes it is. Lets see, you have gone from saying we will have to get our uranium from Kazakhstan to the Iraq war to a proposed pipeline from Turkmenistan to India, passing through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Apparently in your world we either go wind or solar, or we throw ourselves at the mercy of the TAPI pipeline, if it's every built, or Kazakhstan. You do realize we are talking about renewable energy, right? TAPI is old hat, Clinton was working on it. In my world we know that we need to generate electricity 24/7, cheaply and cleanly. I know that solar and wind will be limited no matter how hard we avoid the truth. Coal is dirty, natural gas cleaner, but not without its pollution, nuclear is clean and efficient and it's draw backs can be overcome without rebuilding the plants. In the time it will take to even think of using building alternates we could reduce pollution from electrical generation with nuclear and clear the way to make use of regional alternatives. We seem bent on putting the cart before the horse. We build electric cars to avoid the pollution of burning carbon fuels in our cars and instead burn carbon fuels generating the power for the cars. We put money out the gazoo into wind and solar knowing full well they can never replace a 24/7 generation process. We still have to have enough capacity to power our civilization even if the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Why is it ignorant to put in place a clean generation network and then chip away at it technologically. When a nuclear plant idles, it basically idles the generators while the rods heat like they always do. If you can provide cooling for a nuclear plant in the Sonoran desert, you can do it anywhere. An electric car running off of electricity from a coal powered plant is questionable in regards to clean. The same car running off of nuclear, wind or solar is unquestionably cleaner, but only one is dependable.

Hmmmm Suzy hole and Pete's pipe. What's next, Crickets Apron?:lol:

OK and I ask, what does that have to do with uranium to supply US nuclear plants? What part of we don't need uranium from [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox&hs=63U&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&&sa=X&ei=arVNTZLCJIGosQPR2JyRCg&ved=0CCUQvwUoAQ&q=kazakhstan&spell=1]Kazakhstan don't you get? Every since you posted the problem with uranium from there you've moved farther and farther away from the subject. Is your objection to domestic nuclear generation now based on TAPI? We don't likely need their natural gas either, given the fact that we have a large domestic supply.

Maybe defining "hole" should come first. At one time all the "holes" were holes. You couldn't see the bottom and the Bluff Hole and the Bridge Hole held some really big trout. There was a time when it was great fun to look over the Rock Bridge, right after the whistle blew, and watch the lunkers start to rise out of the depths. Maybe the Blue Pipe Run might be more appropriate.

While you were searching uranium production you should have made a note that while Kazakhstan produces 27% of the world supply today, Canada produces 20% and Australia 16%. It's hard to imagine that we would be held captive by an Asian country when the North American supply is equal. You could have avoided committing the same thing you accuse Limbaugh of doing. Your Kazakhstan example simply doesn't exist. TAPI? Has what to do with global warming or renewable energy in what sense? You're not changing the subject are you?

Me too Gary.

You sure do a great job of dodging. Yes Kazakhstan is number one, but did you notice that Canada was second and Australia three? Maybe you're suffering from the dreaded Rushbeckian:lol::lol:

That's common on the Kings at the 62 bridge. But Arkansas conservation has it under control I'm sure, given their superior work they must believe it's good for the river.:lol:

I doubt that that has as much effect as the competition from an over stocked stream and the general fear that the large fish instinctively show. These fish aren't afforded the deep water they had at one time where they could hide and feed during the day. Basically what I'm saying is they are hammered all day and only a near perfect presentation will make them lose their fear. It's always hard to know what presentation before you have strengthened their fear.

All of the alternatives that you mention have severe limitations. If you, and many others, believe that we are in a race to save the planet from ourselves, why would anyone want to fore go proven generation methods? Hydroelectric, coal, natural gas and nuclear are proven and able to meet demands. Hydro is limited by location and weather. Coal is dirty, and if scrubbing technology makes it clean we have to store co2. Natural gas limits co2 discharges, but increases gasses that can be worse. Nuclear is more viable and research indicates that it can probably be more stable yet. Solar and wind are not new by any stretch of the imagination, but the limitations have loomed over them like a black shadow, pun intended. You're right about countries capitalizing on our technology. China is presently building 27 nuclear plants and Russia 11!