Project Healing Waters

Personally, I think Taneycomo is one of the OVERALL best fisheries in Missouri. And I grew up fishing all over the state from the STL area to central MO, SEMO to SWMO. More variety of species and habitat, good # and locations of boat ramps, wading access at the top end, and it runs right through a town with a lot of lodging, dining, shopping, and entertainment options. The only other one with a similar mix of SOME of these aspects is LOZ, and the fishing at LOZ doesn't hold a candle to Taneycomo...anymore. Frankly, I've never fished anywhere in MO that doesn't have some level of stocking/management. The whole state is managed. And most of the waters in the state see some stocking...as do a great many of the waters in the Rockies we tend to think of as "wild." And I have never fished ANYWHERE that a youngster couldn't drown a worm or some Velveeta and catch a fish. That includes the oceans and the totally wild streams and ponds I have been fortunate enough to fish. Frankly, if you know a few key tactical differences and keep them in mind, I think wild fish are easier for a fly fisherman to catch than highly pressured stockers in a place like Taneycomo. The reason most think wild fish are tougher is the difference in FISH DENSITY. In the management zone on Taney, you can't hardly find a place to cast where there are no fish. In a Rocky Mountain stream, you may have to walk a mile or more between pockets of holding water. On the Current River here in MO, you may have to walk several hundred meters between pods of fish. And you can find anything in between. Taneycomo is one of my favorites because it offers so MANY options along the spectrum in one easily accessible fishery. And I think that is a huge tribute to MDC, DNR, and the regional community. Taney is a fishing jewel. But it's not a "pristine" jewel. It's a modern marvel of fishing.

These folks probably do the BEST training if you want to run drift boats in the Rockies. Their school is WAY more expensive, but it is worth it if you are serious about working in ID, WY, or MT. http://www.worldcastanglers.com/school.dates.shtml

This one is about as good as they get in terms of getting you into the business with the right knowledge and credentials. But remember...you CANNOT learn in 1 week what you will need to know to be a competent professional fly fishing guide. These schools just give you a push in the right direction. If you want to learn to be a good guide, you will also have to work in the field for a top notch outfitter for AT LEAST two seasons. Even then, you will only be truly competent to guide on the waters you worked on. After that, if you want to guide somewhere else, you put the time in fishing the water (100 days/year or so for 2-3 years) you want to guide on BEFORE you start taking people's money and calling yourself an expert. Finally, part of the reason I have recommended FFO is the Orvis Endorsement. No matter what people tell you, an Orvis Endorsed guide with a good recommendation from an Orvis Endorsed Outfitter can get a job with almost any fly fishing outfitter in the world...all other things being equal. So, even if you choose another school, make sure they're an Orvis Endorsed Outfitter if you have any desire to actually work as a guide. http://flyfishingoutfitters.net/index.php?...5&Itemid=39

Tyson I can't figure (if it's even true). But the others are pretty explainable. The pro argument goes like this: More water = more fish food = more/bigger fish = more fishermen = more tourism = more boat sales = more $$$. Additional gravel covered by water WILL provide more biomass...especially scuds and sowbugs. So they may be right. Seems pretty basic. As for the less wade fishing access argument, from everything I've seen and heard I am pretty convinced it will be DIFFERENT, not less. But the additional boaters below Taneycomo WILL be a reality as well.

I fish WAY below the top 4 miles of Taneycomo...100% fly rod. It's just a matter of time until some guides figure it out. I don't need any other species of fish in Taney. I catch 7 already. And that's all I'm saying about that.

SOLD

We're cool. That's what was frustrating me a bit though. You, me, and Al probably agree on about 99% of the important issues here. Unfortunately, the MEDIA and POLITICOS get us all bent around the axle about minute details and non-essential position points. And then almost nothing gets done. It happens with almost everything. We have a terrible lack of consensus building in this world today and way too much of a tendancy to try and divide/distinguish ourselves and break into small groups of "like-minded" believers who then fight over territory that is burning. It's dumb and very frustrating to me. I didn't mean to offend you either. And...yes...anyone who says there is no warming trend over the past several decades is simply ignorant of the facts. Beyond that, things get a lot more subjective. And let us not forget that even scientists make their living off of proving their own hypotheses and/or disproving those of their peers. So even they can become jaded.

You still don't get it? I've only said it about 3 times now: I am fine with the TU thing, I do believe there is global warming going on, I am pretty darned convinced that we DO have something to do with it, and I am all for less carbon-based fuel consumption. You keep trying to set up an argument that I am not a part of and ascribing it to me. And it's an assumption based on the evidence of your own testimony, Brian. What's wrong with folks saying, "Hey, let's calm down just a bit and talk about what we actually DO KNOW and figure out how to address THAT?" That seems very reasonable...maybe even wise...to me. Rejecting the BS surrounding the debate does not force one to take sides in the debate. Life is almost never an all-or-nothing proposition. Thinking dualistically is a tragic logic flaw that leads to all sorts of wackiness. (oh...dualism is either-or...this or that...one or the other...with no other possibilities considered) I thought my ethanol example would make my concerns on this matter clear. It isn't does/doesn't it exist for me. It's how do we BEST go about minimizing it. Knee-jerk over-reaction almost always turns out really, really badly.

The ICCP of the UN is an interdisciplinary group of scientists who advise the UN on policy issues regarding climate change. Climate impacts directly on geographical sciences such as natural history, climatology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, etc. Physicists are necessary to deal with some of the number crunching and astronomical phenomenon along with satellite measurements and such. The fact that you don't understand all of that tells me you are under-informed on this subject. Perhaps reading past the first paragraph would be in order. In the end, the letter basically says: Do NOT put all of our eggs in the "prevention" basket because that is not going to work. First of all, we don't know if carbon emissions are a "crisis" level issue or not. Secondly,...no matter what we do...there will be cataclysmic weather shifts that catastrophically impact humanity...someday. So we should be taking a significant portion of these resources and dedicating them to adaptation and mitigation instead of purely prevention of something that might not be the trigger. The problem they are addressing is the fact that these guys do the SCIENCE, but they are not allowed to write the reports for the ICCP that steer policy. And these scientists feel that THEIR EXPERT WORK has been flagrantly misrepresented by the folks who do write those reports: politicians and bureaucrats...many of whom have national and/or corporate interests driving their agendas. Here's my issue...just an example... Ethanol. Driven to popularity by "Global Warming" and the War on Terror. Ethanol production seriously depletes ground water...SPRINGS...and doesn't seriously reduce carbon emissions. It CAN substantially put a dent in our foreign oil consumption. But it will dry up our springs and creeks and...thus...rivers. This is all KNOWN scientific fact. So they sell us "green" flex fuel in the form of ethanol while destroying our fisheries and water supplies...and drive up the cost of food. So choose your poison: do you want to risk the 4 degree rise in temperature and at least HAVE water? Or do you want to turn the whole darn mid-section of the US into a desert within a decade or two of ethanol production at the levels these yahoos want and not really solve the Islamic extremist or carbon emissions problems? We were originally talking about the impact of all of this on FISHERIES to begin with. Personally, I'll take the balmy weather and water thank you very much. I'll plant a freaking palm tree for crying out loud. But I choose not to live in the desert for a reason.

Just read the whole letter and take a look at who wrote it. You quoted my post before I edited it, btw. The letter made me think of what I wanted to correct when I read it again this morning. CO2 occurs naturally and is beneficial...not a pollutant. So CO2 emissions are not necessarily harmful. Extremely high levels DO cause CHANGES...that is a given of science. Everything else you said? I'm right there with you. I see no problem in reducing them and I'm sure we can figure out how to make more money from doing it. We always do. Bottom line: I don't like hype and hysterics mixed with science. I have a very bad reaction to it. And I would have no problem with someone winning a Nobel Prize for telling the truth about it. But when someone produces the equivalent of Fahrenheit 911 for cutting consumption of carbon fuels, they shouldn't get a Nobel Prize for it. THAT was politics. Let's just deal with the facts and our BEST educated guesses and have rational conversations about real solutions. And...back to the subject...I have no problem with TU issuing this statement/addressing the issue. And their mission is preserving NATURAL COLD WATER FISHERIES in North America. So they wouldn't be happy with warmer streams providing less habitat for trout and more for smallies. But the smallmouth guys probably would. Frankly, it would RESTORE some of what was lost to development in the 20th century.

Read this: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002 And this is the list of signatories to the above open letter and their credentials: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 I can't reprint this stuff here because that would be a copyright violation. Otherwise I would. It's important stuff. Most of these guys are former or present SENIOR scientific staff with the International Panel on Climate Change for the United Nations. The title of the article is: "Don't fight, adapt." It is far more of a national security and economic prosperity issue that we end our addiction to carbon-based combustible fuels as our primary source of energy and fabrics (in the grand sense...textiles, plastics, etc.) But we all know the environment will also benefit greatly. That is not in question.

Al, take a deep breath. We're actually not arguing opposing sides of this one. On the subject of leading climatologists with advanced academic and professional credentials who work specifically in the field of climatology...do the research. I have. It's about 60-30 who are of the following opinion: Climate is changing, always has been. We ARE having SOME impact on atmospheric warming, but we're not sure how much. CO2 is actually a non-pollutant, but a significant increase MIGHT cause changes...HOW negative we are not sure. The warming to date is within statistical norms universally accepted by geoclimatologists. The Earth has an amazing ability to adapt. We simply lack the long-term data to draw conclusions. Most of the predictive modeling is seriously flawed and NOT DONE BY CLIMATOLOGISTS...the folks who are actually in that business. Furthermore, this is roughly what the latest UN study said. What I am saying is: most of the dire predictions we have and are reading, seeing, hearing are NOT persuasively supported by the science. And that is a pretty well-established fact within the serious scientific community...who, by the way, lambast An Inconvenient Truth for it's "Chicken Little" assertions, but who readily agree it brought needed attention to the subject. Agreed! Most of the hype is politically and media driven to further agendas that are NOT really about protecting the environment. Most of it does not come from respected scientists. A bit has, but some of them want to grab headlines (and thus grants) too.

Yeah, the key to me is WHO those "handful" are. They happen to be well over HALF of the world's leading CLIMATOLOGISTS. These are the guys who have doctorates in the field of actually studying and predicting long-term global weather patterns. They are the guys who HEAD most of the top academic and government climatology programs and weather agencies. And they aren't convinced that there is an ecological "problem." And they are convinced that there is a LOT of bogus junk science hype floating around.

This is my take on the reality behind the hysteria: 1. We're running out of oil sooner than later. 2. What's left has already unhinged the geopolitical balance in a nuclear armed world because of its concentrations/ownership vs. consumption. (US and Europe loses, Russia and OPEC win) 3. If we don't get off of the stuff, we will be enslaved to those who sit on the deposits...within 2 decades or so. 4. Americans refuse to believe that people are that power-hungry, mean, etc. We think if we're "nice," they'll be "nice." 5. So the "scientific community" is being manipulated to whip the public into a frenzy about saving the planet using "global warming." In a way, it's all true. If the Muslims or the Russians get ANY more powerful than they already are, the world will be a horrible place. And the only two ways to prevent that are: TAKE the oil from them by force (not gonna happen) or end our total addiction to the stuff. And the case can be made as well as most that the global climate is warming (in part) due to carbon emissions. As for Missouri's fish...again I say the fish and fishermen will adapt. MDC will adapt. Less trout and more warm water species. Think about THAT for a second... In the 1950s, the USACE destroyed thousands of miles of the best smallmouth bass fishing free-flowing rivers in the WORLD. The tailwater trout fisheries were man-made to mitigate the loss created by the dams. Thus, most of the hatchery work of MDC and the USFWS was born. Would it really be so bad to restore a bunch of that prime smallmouth water? Hmmmm..... And 4 degrees would eliminate most of these darned ice storms.

Yeah, but if all those trout streams turned warm, that would be more habitat for smallies! I think climate change is very real. I think the extent to which it is man-made carbon emmissions related is highly debated in the scientific community. I also think climate change is NOT NEW. Think about it a second... Pretty arrogant of us to think it's our fault or that we can stop it if it's not entirely our fault in the face of the scientific record. We will do what ALL species do in the face of changing ecology: ADAPT or perish. The only constant in the cosmos is CHANGE. Some people, regions, and ecosystems would undoubtedly BENEFIT from a long-term 4 degree increase in mean global air temperature. With all that said, we ALL know that fossil fuel consumption is bad and should be reduced as much as feasible on a constantly evolving basis.

This wader bag from Hodgman is made to carry TWO pairs of neoprene waders and 2 pairs of wading boots. So it will carry 2 pairs of breathables with room to spare for other stuff. It is a large, Cordura-type canvas with a hard bottom in it. It's black. It has been well used, but not abused. In other words, it's not spotless. But it isn't damaged in any way. This is one of those bags you can pack ALL of your fishing stuff in to take on trips. I've done it many times. I used to pack all of my waterfowl hunting stuff in it too (except for gun and shells. This one is $49 and I pay UPS Ground.

Cleaning out the fishing/hunting closet and I have decided to part with my WJ Fusion Vest. It's dark olive and in like-new condition. Warranty transfers to new owner. Great vest, but I am not a vest guy. Is compatible with a hydration bladder and holds TONS O GEAR! Very comfortable (for a vest) even when worn all day. $59 and I'll pay shipping via UPS Ground. Size XL.

Perfect condition, but used. Sage (olive) color. Warranty transfers to new owner. $49 and I'll pay UPS Ground shipping to US address upon receipt of funds.

Ditto.

I think this is the key to understanding my comment about young NWS and young Copperheads. They look SIMILAR, but the actual pattern on their bodies is different. They are merely more alike in size and colors. For MOST anglers and hunters, that's close enough for government work! I have seen two Copperheads near outlet #3 on Taneycomo over the decade I've fished there. Neither was in the water. They were sunning on gravel next to the same big rock in summer. The first was an adult. A few years later, I saw a juvenile. The elder did swim away when I startled it. I didn't startle the little one and it stayed put. I haven't seen a Cottonmouth in MO since I was a kid. Growing up in East Texas...now that's a different story! They were everywhere there was water nearby. And they could be ornery. In that part of TX, we had more of them than we had rattlesnakes by a wide margin. The Spring River in AR has quite a few snakes. It's actually on the cusp between a cold water and warm water fishery. I almost stepped on a Cottonmouth there this past summer. But 5 minutes later I was wading where he had slid into the water to get away from my clumsy and oblivious trampling.

Kohl's has a LOT of good performance clothing at awesome prices.

Good ID pointers so far, but there's one good one that has been missed so far: Cottonmouths and Copperheads are comparatively SHORT snakes. If you are looking at a snake over 4' long and wondering if it is a Cottonmouth or a Copperhead or some harmless snake, there's better than a 99.5% chance it is NOT either of these two vipers. The only poisonous snake that has a native range in MO that gets more than 4' long is the Rattlesnake. Cottonmouths tend to be noticeably FAT/thick. And they generally appear to be a charcoal gray to black. They can appear "aggressive" at times, but 90% of the time or more will flee at the first sign of a human being. Juvenile Northern Water Snakes and Copperheads are the ones that are hardest to distinguish. The Copperhead develops the distinct markings over the first year of its life. The young ones often do not have an obvious copper tinted head. And the body camo pattern evolves as well (on both the NWS and the Copperhead). And at less than 1 year old, they will both be less than 4' long. By next year, however, the NWS will be well over 3', and the Copperhead will still probably be under 3'. The Copperhead will have the distinct copper head and hourglass pattern on the body that is sharper in contrast than the more "camo-like" pattern on the NWS. And, yes, a NWS does appear to have a triangular head. That gets a LOT of them killed. Finally, over 90% of all snake bite "victims" seen by doctors in the US each year (USDHHS) are males under the age of 25 who have been bitten on the hands/arms. The moral of that story is simple: leave snakes alone and they will leave you alone. I try to give ALL snakes as wide a berth as possible and not worry about identifying them...even though I am pretty good at ID'ing them.

JD, You got the red and blue mixed up. The hierarch goes Blue, Red, White...descending order...just like first through third place ribbons in a contest.

Not a big fan of Cortland products.

Agreed...if it were only one. The other suggestions are good too. But I prefer using a sink tip line or leader to get the fly down instead of heavy weighting of the fly itself. This allows the fly to "hop" along the bottom better. And with a slower retrieve rate and clearing waters, this can become a determining factor in enticing fish to strike. Of course, a conehead or tungsten bead is a LOT cheaper than a sinking leader or sink-tip line and extra spool. But fooling that giant smallie out of that glarly hole...priceless!