Phil Lilley

Drove to the dam this afternoon. Talked and watched more than fished. Didn't see many caught except at outlet 2. Did see lots of browns and rainbows cruising in the flats below #2. Largest brown I saw - 26 inches and about the same size rainbow. More browns than rainbows. Watched a gentleman hook a brown in outlet 2 and walk out with it- or the brown took him out of the outlet. For the next hour, a half dozen of us fisherpeople and other non fisher tourist, watched him fight this fish. Up and down, in and out. At first we thought it was foul hooked- then it jumped and we saw it was not. A big male brown... nice. He reached for his net repeatedly, just to have the fish jet away. His right hand kept cramping- he'd switch hands and exercise it trying to get the blood circulating. Finally he got in the net... barely. 27 inches. Just under 10 pounds. Released. Jerry Backus Linn, MO I assume it caught on a scud... I didn't ask.

Nice to see you on the board, Doug. You'll like your new hobby... just let us know if you need any help.

Sometime this fall. Could be any day... I'll try to find out.

James emailed me back and said they are working on it.

Misleading measure may launch U.S. cloning October 16, 2006 BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist A new video available on YouTube marks a late attempt by pro-life forces to avert serious defeat in Missouri Nov. 7, with national implications. Cathy Ruse, speaking for Missourians Against Human Cloning, declares: "Amendment 2 is a fraud. It is an attempt to trick Missourians into approving -- in their Constitution -- human cloning, the right of biotech firms to do human cloning in Missouri -- something Missourians oppose by an overwhelming majority." But Amendment 2 is identified for many Missouri voters by the language at the beginning of the five-page, 2,000-word ballot initiative: "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being." That explains why polls have shown a substantial margin of support for the constitutional amendment, also backed by key Republican politicians and business interests. It seems to offer the best of all worlds: government support of stem cell research without fear of cloning. The problem is that the proposal so narrowly defines cloning as to open the door in Missouri to any cloning procedure that takes place outside the womb. If this is approved by a state that historically is a barometer of national trends and is considered a pro-life stronghold, it will be a national model for breaking popular resistance to what the scientists and biotech companies want. A campaign costing an estimated $20 million has helped build a substantial lead for the amendment. A September poll by the Republican firm McLaughlin & Associates shows a 59 percent to 31 percent advantage. Democrats appear to have no doubt, favoring it 75 to 22, with only 3 percent undecided. But Republicans are split, 40 percent in support and 45 against, with 15 percent undecided. Big Republican names -- former Sen. John Danforth, Gov. Matt Blunt and party contributor Sam Fox -- support the amendment. The $2 billion-endowed Stowers Institute in Kansas City, funded by GOP benefactors, spearheads the campaign. That establishment Republican support for Amendment 2 has created a difficult situation for first-term GOP Sen. Jim Talent, engaged in a difficult re-election campaign. I reported Talent's "defection from the anti-cloning ranks" in February when he took his name off a Senate bill to ban cloning on grounds it might hamper acceptable scientific research. Talent at that time was taking no position on Amendment 2, but he has since come out against it. In a recent debate with the Democratic Senate candidate, state Auditor Claire McCaskill, on NBC's "Meet the Press," Talent said the proposal "would create ... an unqualified constitutional right to clone the earliest stages of human life. " But he hastened to add he is not against stem cell research. McCaskill sought to cast the debate in terms of whether the candidates are for or against the medical miracles that can be achieved through stem cell research. She proclaimed "I come down on the side of hope, hope of cures and supporting science." But she put this in the framework of the constitutional amendment that, she said, "strictly prohibits human cloning." This confrontation on what is in the ballot proposition is enough to confuse voters. Amendment 2 bans only cloning that involves planting an embryo within the womb. It specifically prohibits government from interfering with somatic cell nuclear transfer, which involves replacing the nucleus of a human egg outside the womb -- the cloning procedure used to produce Dolly the sheep. Unequivocally, the proposal tries to keep politicians from interfering with its approved cloning process: "[N]o state or local government body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures." This language, contends the YouTube video, "provides biotech firms a blank check for taxpayer dollars to support unethical and unproven research that Missourians oppose." If government-approved cloning can be sold to the barometer pro-life state of Missouri, it will show up next in other states with major research facilities. Also, see video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlPG_276j8Q

http://anglersandarchery.com/ of course.

You know... I tried to find a thank you card online and thought this was cute... but as I look at it I think it might have portraid the wrong message... such as "thanks for opening a can of sardines". Oppps- thanks not what I meant- but it is kind of funny. BIG SMILEY FACE!!!

Jim will be here this week... may be. I'll ask him.

http://www.booktv.org/misc/annapolis_050606.asp The Google Story

Thanks, Al. I appreciate the discussion. When I have more time, I'll do some more research. We have a few weeks.

No- it's semi- to hard foam material, not soft plastic. I'm just not sure. Waiting for a reply.

Thanks!

I'm sure we can do something... I'll inquire and get back to you.

Not at any cost.

Here's the dates so far- 11/3 gonefishin 11/22 Luke 11/23 Leonard 12/23 WebFreeman 12/25 Crappiefisherman 1/1 leo 1/7 Kansas Fly Fisher 1/16 motroutbum 1/28 riverrat 2/14 TexomaOkie 2/16 Snow Fly 3/1 Hunter91 3/5 Goggle-Eyed 3/10 swimslow 3/15 The Caddis 3/22 Backcountry Outfitters 3/26 RainbowHunter 4/1 outdoor nut 4/2 davekeim 4/7 slabseeker 4/8 Kicknbass 4/9 superfly 4/15 rls1936 4/20 Terry Beeson 5/15 1HawgHunter 5/18 ollie 6/1 russ 6/12 stone9-7=2 7/12 Steve Smith 8/2 Gary Lange

I did with alittle success. I was surprised I didn't do better.

Sure- I hope to wade this week. Call me.

I just got off the water. I walked in just after 6 am to the rebar hole and started throwing woolies- nothing till it got light. There was a mud line coming from the old outlet #3 from the construction. It covered about 25% of the stream to the hole and backed up in the eddie. It wasn't that bad- the browns later when I got light kept coming up and swirling in the muddy water. One male about 20 pounds- scared me every time! Landed 5-6 rainbows and one small brown- best on red san juan worm #14. #14 grey scud caught a couple. Couldn't find anything the browns were interested in. Chuck walked in with a client at 8 am. He fished below me. The client was having a hard time hooking and keeping fish on- too much slack. NoBarb- if you don't mind me asking- what fly did you have the best luck on?

?? Stem cells can be taken from an umbilical cord after birth. I don't think adult stems cells are in short supply. Never heard that before. Embryonic stem cells may be because the only legal ESC's are the ones already in cryonic storage (frozen). I'm speaking off the top of my head again- dangerous sounding I know. I have to run to the college and pay some school bills and can't research anything for a while.

Did they ever start? Was hoping for glowing reports and dazzling pics by now!!

Super-sized... Nice smalley!

I hope so too... as hot as the NY Mets are tonight!!

I agree. Stem cell research is going on right now- adult- legally. Embryo also but there are guidelines. Can anyone state a good reason why this research is SO much better, showing that much MORE promise of cures? Why is this proposal so important to make it a state amendment? What about cloning human embryos? How far do you go to cure the sick... I should say TRY to cure the sick. Any scientist can hold a carrot in front of people and promise a cure... what assurances does the Joe-citizen have that they are telling the truth, or just wanting more money. Or if there a 'chance'.. what is it- a 90% chance? A 2% chance? How much does this 'chance' improve with embryos vs adult stem cells? How much money has MDA raised for how many years and how far have they gotten to cure MD? I'm not picking on MDA- I'm honestly asking a question.

I still say....

More stuff... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer Somatic Cell Transfer In genetics and developmental biology, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a technique for cloning. It can be used in embryonic stem cell research, in which the process is often called "research cloning" or "therapeutic cloning." It can also be used in reproductive cloning. The process In SCNT the nucleus, which contains the organism's DNA, of a somatic cell (a body cell other than a sperm or egg cell) is removed and the rest of the cell is discarded. At the same time, the nucleus of an egg cell is removed. The nucleus of the somatic cell is then inserted into the enucleated egg cell. After being inserted into to the egg, the somatic cell nucleus is reprogrammed by the host cell. The egg, now containing the nucleus of a somatic cell, is stimulated in such a way that it begins to divide. After many mitotic divisions in culture, this single cell forms a blastocyst (an early stage embryo with about 100 cells) with almost identical DNA to the original organism. http://www.aamc.org/advocacy/library/research/res0003.htm Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (Therapeutic Cloning) Cloning is the creation of multiple copies of a single molecule, cell, or virus. There are many different kinds of cloning, most of which are now commonplace in science. Cloning has allowed scientists to develop powerful new drugs and to produce insulin and useful bacteria in the lab. It also allows researchers to track the origins of biological weapons, catch criminals and free innocent people, and produce new plants and livestock to feed an undernourished world population. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) or therapeutic cloning involves removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell, replacing it with the material from the nucleus of a "somatic cell" (a skin, heart, or nerve cell, for example), and stimulating this cell to begin dividing. Once the cell begins dividing, stem cells can be extracted 5-6 days later and used for research. The AAMC supports on-going research into SCNT and has endorsed legislation that would allow such research to flourish. Reproductive cloning, on the other hand, is intended to create human beings by cloning human embryos. The AAMC and the National Academy of Sciences recommend a ban on all forms of this type of cloning. http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/web...2b?OpenDocument In the somatic cell nuclear tranfer technique, stem cells that are genetically identical with the cells of a recipient's own body could be derived. A somatic cell is any cell other than a sperm, egg, or cell that gives rise to a sperm or egg. The nucleus of the egg (containing its DNA) is removed and replaced with the nucleus (and its DNA) of a somatic cell (such as skin or blood) from the recipient. The egg containing the transferred nucleus is then encouraged to divide until it reaches the blastocyst stage, at which time the cells of the inner cell mass are removed and cultured. The resulting stem cells would be immunologically compatible with the recipient's own tissues because they would not contain DNA that produces proteins that the recipient's body would react to as "foreign". http://www.bioedonline.org/slides/slide01....er%22&dpg=8 Interesting reading. ******* Amendment 2 6. (5) "Human embryonic stem cell research," also referred to as "early stem cell research," means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer. For purposes of this section, human embryonic stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials. The amendment says "no cloning... can't break existing federal laws" but acknowledge SCNT as part of their research using embryonic cells. Is this a loophole?