hank franklin

Yes, it is, especially when the politicians, the lobbyists etc. are buying. This is a great argument for keeping MDC out of the hands of the Legislature. Example: Some of the southern MO sheriffs and politicians no doubt don't mind deer-dogging. If the Legislature had control and the deer doggers wanted some favors they might get them via the political system. Less enforcement, longer season etc. If they needed some "science" then that could undoubtedly be had. The current system has a firewall against the Legislature. The NRA is backing a bill that challenges that. I'm not against the NRA per se, but I'm certainly against their position here.

Thank you Al for the basic Conservation Commission history. Jeb and I probably agree on many more things politically than we disagree. What I can't understand is why he doesn't get that this law is a direct challenge to the Conservation Commission? Clearly it is. You can debate if this is a good thing or bad but you can't debate that it's a challenge. The MDC bends already to the political winds. What does the 4-point rule have to do resource science? It doesn't. It's really quite arbitrary and is simply designed to grow bigger trophy bucks. A lot of hunters want that and they've successfully appealed through the system, so fair enough. I personally think it's ludicrous to require a hunter to determine if there's four points on side of a rack in order to shoot, but those are the rules. I passed on a buck this year cause I was unsure. Didn't have another chance either. My point is political winds are already influencing the system. To give the Legislature full or even partial authority would open the sporting world to all sorts of silly and stupid whims. As Al says, you might need to get out of the state to understand how good Missouri really has it. I have friends in Ohio who can't wait to hunt deer here. It's not that way because of the Legislature; I would argue it's that way because Missourians way back in the day had the good sense to cut the Legislature out. The pro-sportsman position clearly in my opinion is to keep it that way.

If handguns during muzzleloader season is OK, then yeah, MDC should just adopt the rule and go on. I'm not trying to make NRA look bad. The simple fact is they are backing a bill which is a direct challenge to the Conservation Commission's authority. Why? Do they not like the MDC?

To answer your question Jeb, I don't know what the NRA's real motives are. All I know is they are backing a law which does an end-run around the Conservation Commission's authority. Why they are doing that, I don't know, but that's what they are doing. I was and am anti-elk by the way, if that means anything, and I am sympathetic to the idea of reimbursing landowners who suffer elk damage. So I understand some of the Legislature's periodic gripes with MDC. But a Legislative take-over would be terrible and should be opposed by all sportsmen.

My question to the group is is it a good idea to allow handguns during muzzeloader season? I really don't know. I've only rifle-hunted so I kind of have my doubts, but at the same time I imagine with some minimum caliber limits etc. it might be OK. I don't really know.

This bill is really pretty obnoxious. Jeb, what the bill says is handguns are allowed during muzzleloader season, regardless what the Conservation Commission says. The key is the "regardless what the Conservation Commission says" bit. So, if this becomes law, the NRA would say to the Conservation Commission, here you go, amend the Wildlife Code. And the Conservation Commission will say no, we are in charge of the Wildlife Code, not the Legislature. This will then end up in the courts, which presumably would decide who has the authority to set the Wildlife Code. The NRA apparently would rather the Legislature have the authority and not the Commission. In this regard then yes, I think the NRA has an anti-sportsmen position. If the NRA merely wants handguns allowed during muzzleloader season, then they have the right to lobby the Conservation Commission for that switch just like any other group. The Smallmouth Bass Alliance has lobbied the Commission for changes in the smallmouth bass regs. The SMA has not gone to the Legislature, at least not that I'm aware of. The Legislature doesn't have the authority. This is a thumbnail sketch and I admit I have not researched exhaustively.

The Corps got it wrong. It was a difficult decision and I understand why they did it, but they got it wrong. Also, the "announcement" by Major Gen. Walsh was unprofessional and not the kind of document I would expect from a person appointed by the President and charged with making such momentous decisions. http://www.semissourian.com/files/mrc_statement.pdf It's really quite terrible actually. Misspellings, poor grammar, and not even signed. It was a mistake.

The order to blow has been given. The situation obviously has gotten much worse since the Corps first announced possible plans to blow Bird's Point. Cairo is nearing the top of its flood wall. Parts of Birds Point is overtopping. I understand that the Corps and Maj Gen Walsh who made the decision probably had no choice. The MO levee had to blow. I'm still not sure it was the correct decision. I don't have the facts they have of course. The feds essentially own both sides in this issue. The MO floodway plan as I understand it was essentially recorded on the deeds of the landholders. Everyone knew. So on that point yeah, blow it. You have no choice. At the same time Cairo's very existence is due to the levees. Yes Cairo goes back to pre-levee times but at some point the federal gov't via the USACE made a plan to levee the town. At some point later FEMA enters with the National Flood Insurance Program which is focused on people either paying up or move out. Cairo being protected by the levee likely has been paying little or no flood insurance. (This gets into NFIP technicalities, sorry.) The point again is Cairo by FEMA's own rules is a dinosaur. It is doomed, either now or later. The Army Corps on the other hand is getting out of the levee business, to the degree practicable. River management while highly political nonetheless has been focused on not repairing breached levees when and if you can. So I can't see that the Corps would have a lot of interest in continuing to protect Cairo. It is a losing battle that very likely does not pass the cost / benefit test. The easy decision here is to blow the levee. As I said, given the record flows, the documented flood easement, and all-around extreme circumstances, you probably have no practical choice but to blow. The much tougher decision would be to go hands-off, and watch. I understand that might even be irresponsible given the circumstances, but federal policy in my view supports doing nothing. Instead you now have the Corps order and the terrible catastrophe of Bird's Point which must be fixed. With Cairo at best you're just buying time. At a very steep price. At worst you lose Cairo anyway. No easy way out.

It is a seriously difficult situation down there, more rain as we speak and the Ohio at Cairo possibly on the way to topping the Cairo levee. While I have been a NO on this issue I realize the arguments for NO are getting thinner. They may have no choice. A catastrophe anyway you look at it.

Ah if the world were only all apples to apples. If your house was protected by levees on all sides and meanwhile was near falling down, and the vacant lot across the street wasn't vacant but had a nice accessory building on it with a few odds and ends, and the best the flooding that lot would get me was a couple days reprieve and ya know, MAYBE I'd survive this flood but if I did the feds may come calling anyway saying ya know, either pay more flood insurance buddy or move to higher ground, well then eventually if not today or this year then maybe next, I'm gonna be on higher ground. Cairo's existence is at odds with the National Flood Insurance Program. The Corps has built the levees as best they can. Ride it out, and good luck.

On these points we agree. The levees were built to withstand Ma Nature to the best of our ability. Just let em be. Some guys with the Corps way back when said ya know, if we blow this here levee at Mussipy County it'd take the pressure off points further downstream. His boss said Sounds good to me son, put it in the plan. So it's been in the plan. Doesn't make it right.

Unfortunately with more rain tonight the pressure on Walsh to blow will increase. Yikes. The "easy" decision in some way would be to blow the levee. You can cite the big book that says it's been in the Corps planning all these years. Everyone on the MO side knew the circumstances. Sorry fellas, bill has come due. Also, from a legal standpoint "not blowing" would be hard to defend. Attorney: Mr. Walsh the paper says right here you designed this system to blow! River at record level at Cairo and you didn't blow! Why? But that in my mind is just hiding behind the paperwork. Just because the manual says so doesn't make it right. Walsh's response: All I knew fer sure yer honor was I was flooding Missourah. I had no guarantee Kay-ro would hold. I knew Kay-ro might fall, but then it might not. I took my chances yer honor. Win some lose some.

I agree in general. You might "own" the land behind the levee, but you owe your existence to the federal government. Limbaugh's decision essentially was an affirmation of that. It is clearly the Corps' call. From what I've read I think it would be a travesty to blow the MO levees. Cairo flood wall holds to 64 feet, the Ohio is expected to crest at 61.5. Yes that is precious little freeboard but still, you only need an inch or two. What do you gain by blowing the levee, two feet, three feet? If that? I don't know, but Cairo is already dealing with a huge sand boil and there's no guarantee Cairo will hold no matter what you do. The MO levee meanwhile appears solid and not in danger of a breach. Major General Michael Walsh needs to trust the levees. That's all you can do.

Of course. Clearly Mr. Walsh can decide on his own. If the President doesn't like his decision Mr. Walsh can be removed. If Mr. Walsh has any second thoughts he will likely consult the President, or at least the President's staff. A president cannot remove a federal judge. Not without serious cause anyway. I don't want to argue with you. I am fascinated by the decision-making. If Walsh comes to the president and says, uh, whaddya think? then Obama will not only have to deal with whatever info Walsh gives him, he'll have to consider that it's Illinois, which he represented. So yes of course politics would enter that. I don't know how Obama would act, but the scales clearly would be tipped toward Illinois. Walsh might choose to deal with the facts independently of the President. If so bully for him. If it's his decision then I gotta believe he's gonna put his faith in the levees and unless he knows with near absolute certainty that Cairo will fail, he won't blow the Mo levee. He's a levee guy, he's a civil engineer and he works for the Corps. His inclination likely would be "trust the levees." He may opt to do nothing with the facts that he has, and without consulting the President. I highly doubt that he would blow the Mo levee without consulting the President.

Okay, I had to dig a little deeper. The Southeast Missourian is saying it's Major General Michael Walsh's decision. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stands ready to launch a precise, technical -- and hopefully highly effective -- 48-hour operation that will begin with barges of explosives moving upriver and culminate with the ebbing of unforgiving floodwaters through the floodway's reach. But the 200 or so Corps employees who are stationed in Mississippi County along the levee are waiting for the word from one man -- Maj. Gen. Michael Walsh, president http://www.semissourian.com/story/1723267.html Okay then, who is Mr. Walsh? The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release March 11, 2011 President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts: •Madelyn R. Creedon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Department of Defense •Alan F. Estevez, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, Department of Defense •Lewis A. Lukens, Ambassador to the Republic of Senegal and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Department of State •Paul Wohlers, Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia, Department of State •Rear Admiral Jonathan W. Bailey, Commissioner, Mississippi River Commission •Major General Michael J. Walsh, President, Mississippi River Commission http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/11/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts He's a political appointee. The decision is the President's.

No, all Limbaugh said was the Corps had the authority. It's their call. Obviously the decision hasn't been made yet. At some point somebody, some singular person, is going to have to make the decision. And I say that's going to be the President.

Yes, Cairo is in decline but it's still a town of some 3,000 people. It also has historic value. On the Missouri side you have 90 or so families. In the simple math of how many people you displace, Cairo wins. Cairo however literally is a creature of the levees. Yes so is the Missouri bottomland but without levees Cairo would have been swallowed up years ago. From a pure floodplain perspective it has no business being there. The Missouri bottomland is also valuable however in large part because of levee protection, and secondarily because of federal ag subsidies and price supports. The feds spend money on the levee, and spend money on the crops behind it. The feds of course to a degree subsidize the poverty behind the levee in Cairo. This is what makes the issue so fascinating to me. Both sides in this debate are basically paupers of the federal government. There's no denying it. So who then does the federal government choose? The spillway plan dates to 1920s when Cairo was a robust place with even strategic value, and the Mo bottomland farmers were probably subsistence type farmers at best. Clearly today Cairo is in decline, and the Mo bottomland is highly valued. Has the original Corps plan been reviewed over time? If so what does the cost / benefit say? This I'm not sure of. You also have to consider FEMA. FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program and also of course responds (if you can call it that, sorry) to natural disasters. My point is that the goal of the NFIP is to get people out of the floodplain. So if you have 3,000 people in one floodplain and 90 families in the other, who do you choose? It would seem that FEMA has a lot to gain frankly by wiping out Cairo. It is at odds with the NFIP. FEMA of course is a federal agency, so you have the Corps responsibility for levee maintenance at direct odds with FEMA and floodplain management. FEMA is calling BS on the Corps through NFIP regulations that is a long story, but the short of it is the missions of the two federal agencies are in direct conflict. Finally you get to the decision itself, and here you deal with certainty. If you knew with 100% certainty, or even 95% certainty, that blowing the Missouri levee would save Cairo, maybe you do it. I say maybe. But you don't know with 95%+ certainty. All you do know is you've created a huge problem in Missouri. So basically on this point alone I say leave it alone. Why create one disaster to maybe save another. Of course, which is the bigger disaster? This I don't know, though likely it would be Cairo in my estimation. Yes it's in decline but the cost of making that whole has to be less than the Missouri side. You have to consider future costs however, which might tip the cost / benefit the other way. So in the end I say without absolute certainty, or very near to it, you don't do it. Since when did we know better than Mother Nature? Who are we to play God? I gotta believe ultimately we lose in that game. Last point is who, exactly, will make this decision? I'm not sure who the Number 1 guy at the Corps is, but would it be his call? Ultimately I think he would defer to, you guessed it, the President. And what state did the President used to represent? This is not a political statement, just fact. There's an assumption I think that the Corps makes the call, but I understand government and I really doubt that any appointed official, no matter high up, is going to take that one on. He's going to defer and eventually I believe the President will decide. Missouri, hang on.

I find this issue fascinating (and fortunately I don't have a personal stake in it) and would love to hear what people think here. My vote is no, don't blow the levee, for reasons I'll get into later. Have to run now. Thanks for voting.

Al, I don't want to be overly cynical but it seems likely Elder vs. Delcour would be scaled back somewhat, especially re these small streams and creeks where passage is rare and mainly on foot. It seems quite likely any right of passage here could be lost altogether. This isn't based so much on concepts of law but politics and the constitution of the court as I know it. What I would fear more is an action of the legislature. Here too the established float streams would probably not be affected, but the smaller streams like Shoal could see rights eroded. Put it this way: Do you feel that Elder vs. Delcour would be expanded? That the float-fisher's rights would be enhanced any? This I find highly doubtful.

Exactly.

I agree with Al, I refuse to lose my rights because of the actions of idiots. But I will say this: The legislature and the Courts today would NOT BE ON OUR SIDE on this one. We would lose, clear and simple. Anyone who wants to push this to a ruling, either by action of a court or, worse, the General Assembly, in my view is extremely foolish. A likely outcome in the courts would be a ruling more favorable to landowners. If the Legislature got a hold of it, all sorts of stupid crap could be thrown in there. This is classic ain't broke don't fix. Of course harassment is uncalled for, but you as floater are the guest of the landowner. So if the landowner wants you gone you git. To try to press it and assert more rights in my opinion is to invite "clarity" via a ruling or worse a law, both of which in this political climate would very likely be a loser for us. My two cents.

CRP is one of the good gov't programs. Ask any resource scientist. Corporate ag welfare is ridiculous. Price subsidies are OK but in this market it's all out of whack. Unfortunately the survival of CRP probably depends on the survival of big corporate ag. Horse trading at the highest levels. Viewed from this perspective the true cost of CRP is exponentially greater, because you gotta pay off the big boys to survive. My somewhat cynical .02

Al, a solo canoe no doubt is more agile than my 17-footer. I can't handle that Meramec bend in my 17-footer and get anything more than a few fly-bys. If I'm strictly controlling the boat then yes the bow guy will get some good looks but in my experience that bend needs to be fished slow and deep and I haven't found the mojo. We hit that in the jet earlier this summer however and had some hot action. Love that spot. What I liked about the kayak was its ability to get into the middle of brush, downed trees etc. That's an area in my 17-footer that I really can't touch.

Two guys in a canoe is the best fishing option. The stern paddler puts the guy in front in position. You should be able to have at least one good cast in practically all situations. Where the jet boat shines is on the bigger rivers. There are sections of the Meramec below Sullivan for example that just can't be fished very thoroughly from a canoe. You can get some good shots from a canoe but you can't sit and be thorough. I'm thinking in particular of a great long rocky run between the State Park and the Caverns. Canoe fishing through there is pretty much hopeless. I've got limited experience in a kayak. Boat control takes precedence there unlike the canoe where you can often just let the thing bounce and run itself aground if necessary. Yes you can get to more areas in a kayak but I much prefer the canoe. If I'm on skinny to medium water, canoe. Bigger water, jet boat.

Reminds me of a deer stand I used to have.