catman70

Wow. Sorry for asking. I'd think complaints would be with Phil for even placing this on the forum. Didn't mean to get you in trouble, Bill. All I was trying to get sorted was whether I should take a bass rod if we wouldn't be going past the WWTP. Makes me wonder if one of these guys was the one at Lake Ozark who was shooting a pistol at people fishing too close to his dock...

How low is lower? The description "65 to Powersite" is quite a bit of water.

Huh - I would have figured bait guys would be using real minnows or shiners.

Am I correct in my assumption that this is a rig for when they are running water? Also, does it see much use below Fall Creek?

And don't get me wrong - I don't want them to breach the dam. I only mentioned it to illustrate a point. I'm happy to pay $2-3 to use their launch or to use it as a portage, but (for those of you that don't know) they have a brand new 12' locked gate that bars access after hours. This situation makes it nearly impossible to float from PP bridge to the 160 bridge without significant struggle and risk. I think the new policy is that only Dawt customers can use the access, although they may have an agreement with other liveries. We would have been completely stuck had we not recovered one of their canoes from a drunk abandonment. I wasn't aware of the low water bridge between Twin Bridges and Hammond. Never thought the McKee to be much of an obstacle because it doesn't present itself as one 95% of the time, but I do understand your point.

We were caught off guard on a recent float to find that the owner (perhaps new?) of Dawt Mill had erected a large gate and would restrict private take-outs on their property. Now, I don't have a problem with a landowner doing what they want with their land. In this instance Dawt Mill has limited access while maintaining a navigational hazard (the dam). It seems to me that if they want to restrict access to their property they should provide a safe portage opportunity around the dam or breach a section of the dam. What's from stoping me from building a dam on Bryant Creek and charging all floaters/boaters a toll? Is this not essentially what they've done? Looking forward up your thoughts.

Back of coves, 2-6 feet deep, purple swimming minnow. Only fished the last two hours of daylight but caught more than a dozen crappie and several small bass.

Seems like since that big flood in 2011 the lower part of the river is really silted. I barely saw any fish in there the last time I floated it and the fishing was terrible. May a few floods within the bans will help. There's been quite a bit of gravel and sand mining downstream from Warren over the last few years and I have a feeling the big flood may have washed a lot of that in.

Feel free to keep all the Kentucky bass you catch.

Sorry, it crested on the 21 and was out the 22nd. Thanks!

Hello. Looks like the Creek created at 18' on 3/22, but I think the satellite was down for a day. Does anyone know if the water got higher than the 18' crest? Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

The tighter the lips the better the bite.

I think it depends on the flow volume being released from the dam. The greater the volume the greater the velocity.

Hey, Al, which potion(s) of that trophy smallmouth area to you think are the most productive?

I don't see what the difference is between his message of sustainability and what has been predicted in books like "The Population Bomb" for 40+ years – which couldn't have been more wrong. Whether you agree or not, please realize that he's suggesting a veritable monopolization of industry by major companies and, essentially, a one-world government. Large companies will help to create regulation on production of products. This leads to increased cost for production, which large companies can more easily distribute among their large consumer base. Of course, that won't be enough. We'll need a single government to regulate who gets resources and who doesn't. Forget the idea that the US consumes more than other countries because the US produces more than other countries. Forget that those other countries benefit from this production – often times at no cost to themselves. The moral of his story is that if we all sat around and ate ants with sticks 12 hours a day than the earth could support 3X the current population – YAY! No, my friends, the answer is to promote freedom of thought and industry. Promote research in nuclear fusion and, as Stephen Hawking suggests, migration to and population of other planets. That is the only way we will survive as a species.

It won't have to be made up by people in lower income brackets if we reduce spending. We can raise taxes 10%, decrease federal revenue, and drive more investment overseas if you really want to. However, without reductions and restrictions on spending we'll find ourselves back in the same place in a few years.

Infrastructure and delivery are something else entirely. It literally takes more than a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol. Yes, there are promising technologies out there but these still have to be developed.

The Fair Tax wouldn't be applied to items such as food and water (i.e., the necessities of life). It would only be on things like cars, electronics, etc. I would recommend reviewing this book: http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496

Actually, mean income is around $43K (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm). Furthermore, we have public school teachers who are making more than $100K once all the benefits are added in, so I don't think that number is absurd. You're probably right on the Jesus quote. However, I imagine that he didn't follow that up with "and so you should take 50% of everyone's paycheck who earn more than a certain amount under penalty of imprisonment". People in this country with small and large incomes alike give more to charity than any other country in the world. Charitable donations should be voluntary, and I think Jesus would agree. With all due respect, if a self-made individual is an elitist myth than who do you owe for the success of your business? Doesn't your logic suggest that your success is based on someone in government is helping you win these contracts? By your own admission hard work, intelligence and drive aren't enough. If taxes are the least of your worries are you sure you're paying your fair share?

To better address the "not decreasing taxes during economic hardships" issue let's look at the example of a small business. If taxes are lowered on a small business which is having difficulty making payroll, and may be operating at a loss to do so, than perhaps that small business will not have to lay off employees or reduce wages. Therefore, "trickle down" has worked and the employees have benefited from tax breaks given to the small business whose owners may list their personal income as $200K because that's how most small businesses structure their taxes. I understand your thinking that less taxes means less welfare support, but lowering taxes may mean less people to support on welfare. This brings me to another reason why I like the Fair Tax or a flat tax. If I'm out of work for a bit and rack up debt than I may have to work extra hard to repay that debt. The way our tax system is structured (even with the flat tax but to less of an extreme) I'm essentially punished for working harder and earning more money because 10% of $40K is twice that of 10% of $20 K. IMO the big lie out there is that our system taxes the rich. This isn't necessarily true. Our tax system taxes those aspiring to become rich.

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. If you want to encourage business to move to the U.S. than the logical way to do so is to reduce the cost of doing business here. Also, the top 50% of wage earners pay about 90% of the taxes (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html). I agree that 10% means more to someone like me who pulled in $24K last year than it does to someone making $100K, but some day I hope to be making $100K and don't think working hard my whole life to get there should result in me making $50K after taxes. I got A's in my last two semesters of calculus, so I think I can do the math. Actually, the progressive tax is the worst idea ever conceived since it is the foundation of instituting a communist government. At least that's what Marx said when he wrote the Communist Manifesto. That's why I personally like the Fair Tax (national sales tax) with federal budget limitations set as a percentage of GDP. I agree that the corruption has to be cut, as well as our military interventions overseas. However, the entitlement programs eat the majority of the budget with Defense coming in third (20%) behind Medicare/Medicaid (33%) and Social Security (21%). I think the "trickle down" thing plays into the whole class warfare mentality which also is a cornerstone of implementing a communist-style government. The bottom line is this: What gives people the right to take 50% of someone's income away from them just because they work hard and are successful? The idea that they lied and/or cheated to make that income is, for the vast majority of instances, BS. To make the case let's apply our tax code globally, which is what the UN would like to do. If you live in the US and are on welfare you still fall in the richest 10% of the world's population. Therefore, implementing the progressive tax code on a global scale, those people would be taxed at 50% of their income so it can be given to people in Africa or Asia who eat a bowl of rice a day. Would this be fair? Did the people on welfare in the US cheat the people in Africa and, therefore, should surrender a large portion of income? That's essentially what you're arguing. Furthermore, if the "Bush tax cuts" only helped rich people than why was there a big to-do about extending them only for the middle class at the end of last year? Trickle down does work because of the effect it has on small businesses. I encourage you to call your local SBA office and have them explain to you the tax structure of most small business and how the owners of those businesses appear to be "rich" when they are anything but the sort. Decreasing their taxes and their cost of doing business frees money for raises and new hires.

Chief: Actually, it costs more to make ethanol than gasoline. Massive subsidies hide the true costs. Also, most ethanol generation processes require more oil-based fuel as an input than what is gained as an output in ethanol, not to mention the drain ethanol production has on water resources. There are a few fledgling techniques that show great promise to reduce this trend, but they are extremely new and relatively unproven on a mass-scale. What's more, most car engines cannot run on ethanol without burning out seals and other internal parts. FlyTyer: I'm sorry but your statements are illogical. We find ourselves in a situation where the dollar could collapse or be removed as the reserve currency, resulting in high commodity prices and/or hyperinflation. Our tax system needs fixing – fair tax, flat tax, etc – where everyone pays in a bit and the government doesn't pick winners and loser by manipulating the tax code (e.g., GE). Simply raising taxes does nothing to address the long-term problem which is government spending. For example, the actuary of social security said that the system will become defunct in 20 years if nothing is done to revise the system. The problem is systemic and throwing more of other people's money at it is not the solution. I also take issue with your statements about cutting taxes and the economy. I think all your examples had extenuating circumstances (e.g., cold war, prescription drugs, educational bills, etc.). FDR's economic advisors openly admitted in journals after the fact that government intervention in the free market didn't help fix the depression. In fact, they further increased the problem by stifling growth and investment by increasing government intervention, regulation and taxation. It was actually the deregulation and tax cutting after WWII that lead to the baby-boomer growth spurt. It's as simple as running a lemonade stand. If you have to pay less to operate your business (i.e., taxes and regulation) than you have more money to hire employees and expand operations. These sorts of investments and expansions lead to additional revenue generation which, multiplied by a fixed tax percentage, results in greater tax revenue.

You may be surprised to know that life cycle analysis between coffee cups isn't cut and dry: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2004/11/ecotip_coffee_c.php I think Republicans did it just to try and show off for the Tea Party people. I, like many of you, don't really care for either party. However, IMO the biggest threat this country faces is the devaluation of the dollar. $6/gallon gas this summer will decrease traffic to outfitters and tourist destinations that depend on people driving significant distance. Unfortunately the only people seriously addressing this issue are the Tea Party folks and some Republicans.

Hello, everyone. I joined OA some years ago while in Springfield, and now I'm finishing up a MSD in Environmental Engineering in Rolla. Along with finishing my last semester I'm helping a professor apply his knowledge of water treatment systems to fix up small to medium size community wastewater treatment plants. Obviously, the quality of water being discharged from these systems has a direct effect on the health and quality of our fisheries. Maintaining our fisheries - rivers and streams - for the next generation is why I made the career change in the first place. If anyone knows a community or resort that's having issues with their current plant, please don't hesitate to call or refer them. Respectfully submitted, Tim Canter 573-612-1123 FrontierET.com

I took a geological engineering course sometime back and I think I recall a number of caves running under 44. Supposedly there's a particularly large one that's near the surface just south of Rolla that could become a sinkhole anytime. Could just be a rumor though...