catman70

Floated from Riverview to Hwy 19 bride yesterday. Only caught a couple smallies. Most of the fish brought in the kayaks were largemouth (not spots). All were caught on flukes, buzzbaits and spinnerbaits, and most after the storms pushed through to cool everything down. It was HOT! Usually throw jigs during the middle of the day, but everything was covered in some sort of moss or algae. There were intermittent clumps floating on the surface as well. This was my first time on the Meramec as most of the time I head south of Rolla. Is that amount of vegetation normal for this river? Is it throughout or found in certain sections? We couldn't throw a jig without it coming back covered in green goop. I thought perhaps with all the houses and such along the banks that septic systems may be contributing an inordinate amount of nutrients and contributing to the algal growth. Thanks!

Eric, I'm not trying to defend the Bush administration. I disagree with much of their domestic agenda. However, the fact the Obama was the biggest benefactor of BP political donations can't simply be ignored. As for the flaming tap water: Methane (which is natural gas) is produced through anaerobic degradation of organic carbon. It's burned at landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and may rise to the surface as bubbles if you disturb the bottom of a lake that's covered with a lot of organic matter. In fact, it's created all the time on the earth's surface and, in some cases, can be created rather quickly depending on environmental conditions such as ambient temperature. It's entirely possible that methane can enter a drinking water well through entirely natural processes. The Water Systems Council acknowledges this and states that there are no known adverse heath affects caused by consuming water with methane: http://www.watersystemscouncil.org/VAiWebDocs/WSCDocs/6973231Methane_Gas.pdf If you're concerned about your water's quality I'd recommend a 3- or 4-stage reverse osmosis system. It can be placed under your sink. I think the initial cost is roughly $500 and you'll have to replace the filters and activated carbon every so often. However, it will almost certainly produce water that's of higher quality than 90% of the bottled water out there. I can't stress enough that I'm all for making sure wells a built correctly, that hazardous materials are being properly disposed of, and that the process of obtaining various forms of energy has as little negative environmental impact as possible. After reading interviews of Mr. Fox it is blatantly obvious that he has no qualm with misrepresenting facts to create "art". I'm just trying to help explain that while there may be problems that need to be addressed, things aren't as bad as Mr. Fox portrays them to be. Best regards, Tim

It's the perfect example. The same players are involved!

It seems that the largest concern is sediment transfer. I used to sell log homes in AR, and construction in general needs to monitored to assure proper measures are taken to reduce such transfer. The only compound of concern that I saw for AR in the presentation is chloride – a derivative of chlorine. They give a mixing ratio (500 ppm) discovered, and then a permissible concentration (20 mg/L). Trouble is that these two methods of expressing amounts are fundamentally different. The EPA's drinking water regulations call for a maximum permissible concentration of 250 mg/L of chloride ions in drinking water (http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-education2/76-chloride-sulfate.htm). Look, if these people/companies are in violation they should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. I think that AR – or AR counties – should pass regulations regarding construction (all construction, not just for drills) and disposal of fluids, and permits for drilling or construction should cover the cost of enforcement. This of course means that if a farmer wants to build a barn he needs to get a permit because the run-off from his activities may affect conditions downstream from his property. The idea that the federal government would do a better job that AR is bogus, IMHO. We've seen how good of a job MMS did with deep water drilling. What's more, AR may want to place more stringent regulation on drilling outfits than what the feds would impose. But... If AR did that they may be sued by the feds for disrupting interstate commerce. They're suing AZ for simply enforcing federal law. Imagine if AZ's law went beyond federal law.... Eric: Please read Bobber's first link. Not saying you have to believe everything on there, but please take it into consideration. Also, there's no such thing as clean, affordable green energy. Anything having to do with wind/solar is being subsidized out the wazoo. And yes, there are oil subsidies, put every step of the process from drilling to refinement to purchase is taxed. The government's windfall profits from oil and gas far outweigh the subsidies these companies have been given. No so with wind and solar. A spill anywhere can seep into the groundwater. Please look up Karst topography. Please do the research and tell me how they were exempted from the clean water act. I'm in total agreement that they should have to treat whatever water they discharge. What's more, I think studies should be done to determine the extent of the fracturing that may occur underground. It may be that the fissures are able to run up a few thousand feet to the water table, or it may be the excess water above ground is the only concern. Again, industries are allowed under the clean water act to dispose of hazardous chemicals/fluids so long as they pump them to depths greater than 4,000.

Al, I agree with your assessment of the EPA studies. However, I'd like to note that many of the employees at the EPA are paid way too much for the relatively menial amount of data they produce each year – not to mention the analysis that goes into it. Did you completely read Bobber's link to the "debunking" of Gasland? It appears that PA and NY require fracking compounds to be listed and are made available for public review. Also, I don't have a problem with regulating concentrations of specific compounds. If a pollution event occurs than a neighboring fracking operation can have their fluid checked for that specific compound. If these companies are forced to turn over their exact formulas (i.e., mixing ratios) they put themselves in danger of loosing a competitive advantage – similar to what the feds did to Monsanto with Round-Up. What's more, industries are allowed to release hazardous fluids at depths of 4,000 ft and greater below the surface. Most fracking takes place at 6,000 ft or more. That's why I'm not sure exactly which areas of regulation these companies were exempted from. The "isn't one too much" argument is one that can be used for any situation that has the potential to be hazardous. For example: Isn't it possible that a truck or train with harmful chemicals could overturn and pollute a stream? Therefore, we shouldn't allow the transportation of harmful chemicals. I suppose my whole point is that based on what I've seen from Gasland and what I've read elsewhere Mr. Fox seems to disregard fact to make points. He's even openly admitted it in interviews. Once someone goes down the Michael Moore route their films should not be considered documentaries. There should be further studies and increased oversight, but I don't think this film justifies a knee-jerk reaction that fracking shouldn't be done anywhere. Eric1978: No, it's not Heinz, but the substance that's primarily used (other than sand and water) is found in most ice cream. I assume in St. Peter's you're on city water and not well water. If it's the former I'd be more worried about the halogenated chlorine compounds that are known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. These form as the chlorine used for disinfection progresses through its life cycle. If it's the latter – well, who knows what your neighbor is dumping in their yard, and with MO's Karst topography it's probably finding its way to your well relatively unfiltered. Furthermore, the energy companies' proprietary property represents a portion of their profits. If we remove those profits people who have a 401K, mutual funds, etc. will suffer. Surely you're not suggesting the government take over the energy industry. That's not working so well in Venezuela. Tough to drive to the river when you can't buy gas. I've spent too much time on this and need to work on writing a thesis. Again, not saying that fracking causes no harm. Just saying I don't think it's as bad as what the film suggests.

Hi Leo. I'm in St. Louis from time to time and will shoot you an occasional email. Maybe we can head to Busch for a bit. By the way, I tried your email and it was bounced back as undeliverable. Could you please check to make sure it's accurate. Thanks! Tim

Perhaps the concerned citizens could build a levy wall with a gate around the sensitive areas whereby the gate could be closed and the water level maintained at a desired level during flood events. Another problem solved!

Here's a recent article from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing Yes, there's been problems, but a 2004 EPA study found fracking harmless. Also, it appears that as recently as this past winter environmentalists – particularly those concerned with climate change – were championing fracking and it's fruits as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Bottom line: There's 14,000 wells on a shale formation in TX alone. If 140 have problems that's 1%, and I think there are less than that with problems. Now, I want to protect human health and the environment as much as the next guy (that's why I became an environmental engineer), but let's keep things in perspective. Should these companies be forced to disclose proprietary information? No. Should they be required to formulate compounds using substances (or concentrations of substances) that aren't harmful? Yes. Or perhaps they can add a dye or indication so that if the fracking fluid does leak into water its presence is known immediately.

I'd just like to point out that it's ok for industries to pump hazardous wastes underground so long as they're releasing it more than 4,000 ft from the surface. I've been unable to discover which portions of the clean water act the fracking was exempted from. The whole thing or just parts? Also, I'd like to point out that the VP has no direct input into the bills. If he did, how do you (you know who you are) know that our VP didn't write in the subsidies for "green" energy that were prevalent throughout the 2005 energy bill? Maybe it was Obama who oversaw the exemption. He's been the biggest benefactor from BP in terms of donations and he voted for the 2005 energy bill both times it came to a vote in the Senate.

Take summer classes.

The story isn't too detailed, but if the only stage that didn't occur was disinfection, than I'd say the power went out to the UV lights and the flow wasn't disinfected. Having to disinfect treated wastewater is a relatively new occurrence. I'd say the lights were probably only installed in the last 5 years. If pumps went out then there could be an overflow in the headworks, but this would mean that none of the water was treated. The story seemed to suggest that the water had gone through some level of treatment, so I don't think that's the case. Perhaps all flows are downhill until a certain point in the system, and the water backed-up and overflowed at that point. Without visiting the plant I couldn't say. As far as the reporting goes, many plants discharge above their permitted limits a few times throughout the year – particularly after heavy rains. Not sure they have to report a spill immediately to a State agency unless it's ongoing. I think they just list it in their monthly report. There may be specific county or city regulations that require immediate disclosure.

Generally you only need a trout stamp if you are keeping fish, but you need one if you are fishing at all above the 64 bridge on Taneycomo. A buddy of mine said a MDC officer told him he needed one to fish the NFWR, but I don't believe it. Illegal immigrants pose a problem with this as well. Not so much in the rural areas as in the urban or semi-urban, but I've talked to several people who say folks show up who can't (or pretend not to) speak/read English to fish. They keep everything they catch regardless of size or species. Since they're not in the system, there's no real way to police them. Give them a ticket and they'll just disappear.

For what it's worth: I'll be finishing my MSD in environmental engineering this year and I specialize in wastewater treatment. A quick look at Finley flow rates suggest it's pushing 78 cfs, which mans in a day it pushes over 8 million gallons. I think by today the water that was released has been significantly diluted. Furthermore, the primary concern with releasing untreated water is the solids content (will cause siltation) and the organic carbon or ammonia (which cause eutrophication, or reduction of dissolved oxygen, in the receiving body of water). The story suggested the water had already undergone primary treatment, and suggests even secondary and tertiary treatment as well. Disinfection is the very last stage and may plants don't disinfect at all. The vast majority of pathogens cannot survive outside conditions similar to the human body for more than a couple hours. I'd say by this time you have nothing to worry about fishing anywhere on the Finley or James in terms of health safety. Of course, I understand the "ewwww" factor...

Anything BP does has to be approved by the EPA. Genetically engineered microorganisms for the use of bioremediation has been banned (either explicitly or otherwise) by the EPA since the technology's arrival in the 80's. There's some research going on, but nothing to my knowledge has been allowed to be commercialized. Florida's fishery really took a hit with the cold weather, and now – if this continues – even more havoc will be wreaked. On the bright side of things: With all the organic carbon and nutrient deposition that is or will occur from either the oil or the naturally-occurring microorganisms that will consume the oil, the affected areas will probably be much more biologically productive in 50 to 75 years than they otherwise would be. If only we had a Hollywood movie director to solve this problem for us...

Has anybody heard anything more on this article: http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762 It appears that recreational fishing will be lumped in with commercial fishing, and the decisions regarding limits, seasons, etc. will depend more on emotion than scientific basis. Please comment and input. Thanks!

With regards to population: I was referring to the population of trophy-class fish. Sorry for not being more explicit. Matt, I recognize the pit-falls to placing such decisions on ballots, and you're right in that it's not a good idea. I was merely trying to illustrate that there should be a more effective way of polling the public rather than speaking to the parties listed in the White Paper. Perhaps the questions is how to allocate additional resources to enforcement? You would think that the sales tax that funds MDC activities is dynamic enough to increase revenue relative to inflation and population. Maybe wasn't needed is an audit of programs and activities, followed by a prioritization of resources? But then we get into a "who watches the watchers" sort of thing. By the way, Matt, I chaired our Stream Team chapter for the Water Environment Federation group here at MS&T in Rolla this semester. Every semester we try to have an individual come in and talk to our group as well as the American Society of Civil Engineers as a whole. This fall a gentleman spoke about mine tailings. If you (or anyone else out there) would be interesting in speaking about the resources in Missouri streams this spring we'd certainly be welcoming. I think environmental engineers (such as myself) would be interested in a broad array of topics, but to involve the other civils the focus should probably be on damns, gravel mining or the like. Thanks! Tim

I'm in agreement with there being a 15" statewide length limit with 18 or 20" for trophy areas on certain waters. Also, I would like to have seen Bryant Creek and North Fork of the White River in the studies. However, I suspect the enforcement issues would have come to bare on both. That being said, I'd like to put forth a couple points of view that I've not seen considered throughout the thread: • It seems the creation of the SMAs was done under the pretense of growth studies – to see if such action would encourage a greater population of larger fish. As it should be obvious that it would, I speculate there is a considerable amount of pressure to avoid increasing length limits. Reading other blogs on other topics it always seems that a particular group talking believes itself to be in the majority. • The MDC should be, in part, commended for advancing the timetable of the study. What was initially to be roughly a 20-year study was moved up and now additional bodies of water are being considered and added to the list ahead of schedule. • If the biologists at MDC are taking a purely scientific approach to the growth study than it makes sense to limit the bodies of water included for a couple of reasons. First, it's important to focus enforcement on those bodies so that the results aren't being negatively affected by poachers. The worst thing to have happen would be no difference in populations. Second, some streams with equally good habitat would have to be left unchanged so as to establish a control group(s) for the study. Otherwise, who's to say environmental conditions (i.e., more rain) didn't play a role in increasing populations. • There may be an interest by the scientists to continue the study (rather than convert all bodies of water) simply because it's a means of work and income. Not to say it's not valuable information – it just is what it is. As noted in the Power Point posted earlier, other states may be improving their fisheries based on the findings of the MDC study. • MDC has to balance the wishes of of the public as a whole. It would be very interesting to place a initiative on the ballot of the next statewide election, or somehow poll individuals not directly invested one way or another. We assume we are in the majority because to us our logic makes sense. I've thought that way about a great many political ideas. However, why is our belief any more justified than the man who helps feed his family by taking small bass form the local stream? Going the other direction, wouldn't the populations of smallmouth get even bigger if we restricted fishing to every three years? What about from March to October when the heaviest pressure is applied? Certainly there is a unintended kill rate simply do to foul hooks or the stress of being caught. The point is that we're not arguing on behalf of the fish, but rather for our desire to use the resource how we want. • I've said this before and I'll say it again: Trout are an invasive species as much as zebra muscles and big head carp. The difference is that they're placed here intentionally. While rainbows typically prefer water that is colder than what smallmouth will tolerate, the same cannot be said for browns. Both species of trout compete with bass (and may very well out-compete them) in the winter months with the salmonoids tend to remain more active. Not only does the MDC support the trout program, they discourage research that seeks to quantify or qualify the degradation to native species population due to trout stocking. My brother ran into this problem. Therefore, I'd suggest that if one is serious about restoring smallie populations to their full potential, that same person cannot be in favor of trout stocking on the same stretches of water. • Perhaps what needs to be done is to make the smallmouth bass the official state fish, create a blanket 15" limit, and compel anglers to purchase a stamp (similar to the trout stamp) if said anglers wishes to fish in the trophy areas or to keep smallmouth throughout the state. The funds from the stamp could be used to increase enforcement throughout the state.

Floated from 6-Crossings down to Ross Bridge on Saturday. Started out slow and a little rainy, but as the day went on the fishing and the weather picked up. Caught several large goggle-eye and many smallmouth on soft-plastic crawdad imitations of assorted colors. Largest smallie was 16.5" with a couple others at or near 14.5". Many others less than 14 with a few simultaneous hook-ups. Seems that the larger ones were holding very close to woody cover - rootwads and downed trees. Smaller fish could be found throughout the river.

Thanks, Al. I think we will stay in the trophy section. Looks like the shuttle may be a little longer for the less crowded section, but it may be worth it. I'll let you know how we do.

Finally going to float the Piney this weekend. Was looking for opinions on the best stretches: – Slabtown to FR 1792 – FR 1792 to Ross Bridge – Moab to Devil's Elbow Thanks for your help! Tim

BMAN: You may be correct on the vessel having the right-of-way over a wader, but I think a non-motorized vessel has the right-of-way versus one that is motorized. My reasoning for this stems from knowing that sailboats are always assumed to have the right-of-way because lack of a motor renders them less controllable. I don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply to a canoe or drift boat.

Really? Because the video suggested things have been getting out of hand since the 1960's. Maybe if you old folks had been keeping an eye on things (like so many other government programs i.e., social security) we wouldn't be in the mess we find ourselves in now. Then again, I guess it's easier to complain and blame others than to take a hard look at what you could have done or can do.

On which part of the lake will you be staying? Once you have that figured out I'd call local marinas and/or the chamber of commerce of the nearest town. There should be guides listed in there, and I'd think they talk to the marinas to drum-up business. If I were looking my first call would be to Alhonna Resort (spelling?). They're on the 7mm but have been around for a long time and may have good insight. If you're on the other end of the lake try calling the bait shop in Camdenton. Sorry, don't know the name.

Got down to LOZ for a bit this past weekend. Had to mostly study for finals, but got out on the water from 5 to dark on Friday and Saturday. Here's what I found: Bass are in the shallows and possibly on beds in 1 to 7' of water. Caught only one fish under 15" Friday - about 12 total - biggest about 3-4# @ 19". Saturday was not as productive, but I did fish the same water with the same bait. What bait? Well, figuring that out is part of the fun isn't it? I was using a crawdad imitation in a watermelon-seed green - about 5" on a 1/8 oz. jig. That color seemed to be more productive than a couple others I tried, but I think any bait that sticks on the bottom this time of year will at least get a reaction strike out of them. Oh, I was using 6lb line as well. I enjoy the extra fight even if it means retying after every fish. So, hitting bass on the shore and, when motoring across a dock I'd throw a black and chartreuse 2" crappie jig on a 1/16 oz head. Let it sink for a 10-20 count and then slow-roll it back to the boat. Most of the crappie were under-sized, but did catch 3 nice slabs. With the baitfish so abundant I took a casting net along with me and, when the opportunity presented itself, caught some shad for catfish bait. Mostly got my bait stole as I had to study most of the day, but did catch a 10# channel and got broke off by a much bigger fish on 20# line. I'm in a cove off the main channel but very near the Gravois arm. Hope this helps! Tim P.S. I've been advised to keep Kentucky bass as they out-compete the largemouth and don't get as big. Kentuckies have a rough spot on their tongue while largemouth do not. Feedback is welcome.

"Attach a ¼ oz bell sinker to the end of your line and at 2 foot intervals, put on your favorite small crappie jigs tipped with a minnow or crappie niblets." When you tie your jigs to this rig are you tying them directly to the main line, or are you tying a small secondary line from the main line to the jig?