podum

If they have DNA, why no mention of the sex of the animal? Thought that would be in the write up.

good luck oneshot. see you at the tailwater

blue or white with crystal flash. or olive (sculpin)

I was in Denver for all the wrong reasons (daughter health issues) and we got snowed in on Tuesday because of a snow storm in Western Kansas. Denver dodged the snow but it was cold. THe sun broke through at noon and my brother in law got a wild hair - lets go fishing! By 1pm we were off to the closest option - highway fishing on clear creek up the canyon from Golden. Not a great option but I needed to get out badly. Low expectations arent a bad thing. On our third stop up the canyon, we found a deep ice free hole and spooked a fish on our way down. First one we'd seen. About 30 minutes into fishing the hole with deep nymphs, I got this one out of the tail end of the pool. God smiled on me yesterday in more ways than one, but this was one of those smiles.

Amen.

Thanks all. Digesting the info. . .

Looking for a casting rod for lightish crankbaits (shad raps, fat free shad, etc . . .). I've never been happy with any of my rods for these baits. While fine for spinnerbaits, jigs and plastics, I've struggled with throwing crankbaits on these outfits especially with any wind. Suggestions in the > $80 range?

http://hopperjuan.blogspot.com/2010/01/hopper-juan-tying-video.html Try this link. It got me hooked on tying foams. Simple and cheap. Hobby lobby has a pack of multicolored foam for 4 bucks that will keep you in business forever. You can float them with any dropper. With heavier nymphs you can double the foam on the floater fly.

Answer: You can catch them anywhere in the Mississippi drainage up to the first dam.

okie, your description is dead on. Multiple jumps. Had no idea what these things were. Until an old timer cursed me for throwing one back. He wanted them for big cat bait.

ive caught them below bagnell dam while fishing for whites.

It is both fact and fiction. Been there for a month . . .

Wayne, get that Rushbeckian checked out ASAP. The rash you get with that is nothing to mess with . . .

On the NIMBY front, I lived in Columbia Mo for 9 years. It was in my backyard and I had no problem with it being there. The waste issue carries far less exposure risk (really, really tiny risk) than living near an operating plant (really tiny risk).

solar and wind are both unreliable and, more importantly, will require massive upgrades to the transmission infrastructure. These infrastructure improvements will cost so much that it will require massive government expenditures (private utilities/developers) would seldom build a wind farm without someone else paying for the transmission lines because the power produced would not cover the investment costs within a reasonable time. Solar and wind have a place, but our treasury isnt in a place where hundreds of billions can be funnelled to these projects. Long term, maybe. Nuclear plants are about the least likely terror target other than for shock value. THey are highly secure, built out of concrete so thick it would take a massive hit to do any damage and any attack would be highly unlikely to cause a radiation release. The truth is that if you want less carbon from the power generated during the next 30 years (1) without massive economic impact, (2) without the need to build billions of new transmission lines immediately, and (3) produced by plants paid for by private dollars, then nuclear is the only real option.

Tim, you are right that excuses are hollow, but the "catastrophe" that was three mile is a pimple compared to what most climate change activists claim is being done daily by fossil fuel power gen. And that was one accident, with minimal (though highly publicized) impact in the course of 40+ nuke plants generating during the past 40 years in the US. And, the crime of it is that virtually no new plants incorporating new, better tech have been built in 25+ years. Criminal, if the complaints about the harms of coal and gas are to be taken at face value.

Al, we have a leadership crisis on the energy policy issue and have for 40 years. A leader could stand up and explain the NEED for nuclear energy, at least in the near term. A leader could blow up the NRC and start a regulatory agency that addressed safety without huge cost impacts and YEARS being tied up in approval processes. Todays nuke power technology is far beyond the Three Mile Island tech. Lower grade fuel with far low chain reaction speeds. Not to mention Three Mile was a human failure more than a tech failure. I think most rational people believe that Cap and Trade is a disaster waiting to happen if people want to have any job opportunities into the future.

Tim, I don't want to start an argument for and against the cause of short or long term climate variability. We agree to disagree on that. The point of my post is that the nuclear generation option is both viable, improving as a cost effective option, a hedge against the foreign oil price bomb, and far less an environmental concern than all of the coal, gas, oil extraction impacts that have been discussed in this and other threads. The "not in my backyard" argument on nuclear waste illustrates a misunderstanding of the risks of radiation (much of the uranium that would end up as waste back in Yucca Mtn. came from NV to begin with) and a conflation of nuclear bomb radiation with the waste that comes from nuclear power gen. The two are in different universes.

Nuclear energy and nuclear waste are misunderstood in ways that have generated irrational policy and public hysteria. If you want out of carbon and petroleum, it is the only cost effective, workable solution given current technology and infrastructure. I, like kev, am not concerned about so much about the carbon. But I would love to use nukes as the solution to part of the oil dependence problem. There is more common ground in this thread than most think. A man-made climate change skeptic does not necessarily disagree with a conservation ethic, reduction of oil use or many of the other policies advocated with climate change crowd. My complaint is the use of a consensus argument as scientific proof of something that is not provable given current climate understanding.

i offer the following as an eloquent synopsis of the skeptic's viewpoint: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2097

http://www.sierratradingpost.com/p/4302,3060H_Redington-RedX-Fly-Fishing-Outfit-2-Piece.html

The MDC's biggest problem here is a Ray County jury. Very unlikely that a jury out there would convict. The false statements to a law enforcement officer charge is another matter. Not sure why these aren't pursued since letting this go in such a publicized case would seem to encourage persons in a tight spot in the future to lie in order to see if the story floats. That is a bad decision.

Tim, I don't know where to start with your comparison of man-made warming skeptics to creationists. It's offensive. What you are calling "the science" is really your (and others') conclusion about the data. There would be no argument about what "the science" is if the conclusion that man is the driver of climate change IF that conclusion was a scientific proof. It is not a provable hypothesis right now. Maybe in the future it will be. Consensus is not a scientific proof. Arguably, your consensus argument for man-made warming (which is all over this thread) is much more like the flat earth and earth as the center of the universe arguments of the 14th and 16th centuries than my dissenter argument is like your creationist comparison.

wrench, that's hillarious and consistent with my own recollections

And Justin, I'm opposed to a world without pork. Even if it takes changing my mind on this issue.