Randall

I won't deny the will... and I'd pay to see the confrontation.

I would imagine they just play the helpful salesperson and ask what they need the hackle for to figure out which skin is right for their needs. The answer would be pretty indicative unless the lady knew about tying.

I found out about the whole fad thing when I went to replace a couple saddles my dad's dog ate when I was back home. Had to resort to Bass Pro who actually wouldn't sell to salons or non-fisherman and was keeping their feathers behind the counter. It's great the fly shops are making a killing on this, but it just seems ridiculous to me.

Great story! People guide the parks?

I've stayed there several times and its pretty good. They always have had an open site when I went.

Troutfiend, the Current is kind of a mess in the summer, but there are ways to get around it and still have some good fishing. Not many people put in upstream of Baptist Camp, so you won't deal with many canoes up there, although there will be plenty of wade fisherman. But if you are willing to fish early morning, or late evening, when the fishing is best anyway during the summer, you can fish anywhere you like without canoes bothering you much. Honestly, during mid-day in summer (when the canoes are thick) the fishing will be pretty slow anyway even without canoes, so it kind of works out. A typical mid-summer day on the Current for me involves getting up really early in the morning to fish, staying out until about 9:30, then going swimming, sightseeing, or otherwise killing time until about 6:30. Then I get back on the water and fish hard until after dark. Also if you can go on a weekday that will help tremendously. Agreed, and don't forget about the trico hatches either. You can get into some decent fish on top but you gotta get there early.

Don't lie, you broke off on a chub because you don't re-tie your knots. Got the paper written so I may be a go for next weekend.

Yeah... Washburn is a pretty good ways from KC though isn't it?

Hoffman's final is pretty straight forward and BGF's was cake last spring... I pretty much checked out after the MPRE and still got a B.

Float tubes are super easy and you can get them pretty cheap... forego a night at P&L when the student loan money comes in.

Warren County, about an hour west of St. Louis

I did once a few years ago with no success. If you get them in the fall, clousers and coyotes might work pretty well, kinda the same idea as throwing spinnerbaits or swimbaits when they move shallow and feed heavily.

Shot a big doe second weekend of rifle season with black powder then got a chance to go back out Christmas Eve in the snow. Didn't bother with the morning hunt so I walked over to the stand around 12:30 or 1, hadn't been in the tree 30 mins when a nice 8 walked by at about 20 yards. All I can think is that my climber sounded like a fight or rubbing. Good thing there was snow on the ground or I never would have found him, went 50 yards before I found a drop of blood, maybe another 50 after that where I found him... no exit wound. I was still sweating like mad from the walk/climb to my stand then I had to drag him out. He also had a thick orange goo at the base of his antlers - maybe tree sap from rubbing on cedars?

Streamers just turn me on... after watching the fish in my avatar crash a zoo cougar it was in my blood. Hoppers rock too but big nasty streamers just make me all tingly.

One of the best fishermen I've ever seen and an all around class act. Great video bud.

Looks absolutely disgusting and the legs split apart easily... well named sir.

I'll second that suggestion. Other than the velocity which I picked up on clearance, the Konic is easily the best reel I've got and comparable in price to what you're looking at. I have a BBS on my 3-weight that I like but I've had maybe a half dozen fish on the reel in the 4 or 5 years I've had it so I can't speak for reliability. Never fished a Ross.

Those are some of the questions MDC should be asking these boys. We don't know how the cat was behaving. Who's to say that an individual cat wouldn't break away from the ordinary behavior and become aggressive. As far as only one shooting, if he was quick on the draw and put it down quick, I see no reason for the others to shoot. The cat could have been trying to sneak away from the drivers (assuming it was a drive, which we also don't know), became aware of the stationary hunters and became aggressive in self-defense. Again, we don't know. The point I want to make before I quit procrastinating is that I want to see MDC investigate this incident, make it known that it was investigated and bring a criminal action if they are able to uncover evidence to rebut the threat claim. I would also like to see new regulations promulgated to deter future shootings. Now to the stuff I have to do but don't want to.

I don't see you as being argumentative at all, I think our back and forth is one of the more respectful I've seen on this forum. In a criminal case, the burden of persuasion rests with the state. At the point where the state meets the burden and shows the elements of the offense, the burden of production shifts to the defense, but the burden of persuasion does not. I think the defense has enough evidence to satisfy its burden of production to establish a cognizable self-defense claim and the state does not currently have evidence to rebut that assertion. Based on the evidence available, we have a mountain lion that was shot once in the head and that certainly should raise a red flag. Then we have one guy who shot it and would be the only defendant. The other 11 are witnesses. If they all say that the lion was a threat, there is a really good argument that a reasonable person would feel threatened and the shooting was justified. At the point where you have 11 witnesses supporting the defendant's claim that the cat was aggressive, the defense has carried his burden of production. My argument is that MDC needs to investigate this incident, interview these guys individually and see if they can cross them up or otherwise show that the cat posed no threat. The state could then introduce evidence in the form of the witness statements that the defendant is lying (or was unreasonable in his assessment) about the threat posed by the cat and support a conviction. As the facts have been presented to me, it does not look like the state can rebut the statements by the witnesses. It is true that a fact finder is free to disbelieve every one of the defense witnesses but I don't have the opportunity to be present when any of these guys speaks, so I'm basing my judgment on a written record without the chance to judge their credibility. I don't think I would believe these guys, but based on the facts in front of me I cannot say definitively that they are lying and the cat posed no threat. I want to know why the cat posed no threat but have not heard why it didn't; all I know is that 12 men say that they either felt threatened or would have in the shooter's position. That to me is reasonable doubt and the reason I would enter a judgment of not-guilty. If there were evidence that, for example, the cat was stalking a decoy or that the hunters had not made their presence known to it, I would change my opinion, but that evidence has not been presented.

A bald eagle going after a stringer of fish is a little different than a mountain lion acting aggressively toward a person or stalking children. An eagle can't kill you, a mountain lion on the other hand is a pretty one-sided fight no matter who you are. When it comes right down to it, human life is worth more than the life of an animal, period. I thought I listed pretty good reasons for slow-playing this matter. Our system of justice favors the presumption of innocence and places a heavy burden on the state to overcome that presumption. It certainly isn't perfect, but in order to have a just society we must have in place a system that protects the innocent even if it means that sometimes the guilty walk. In this case, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support a conviction. I'm not justifying what they did, I'm just saying that we shouldn't be so quick to carry torches when we don't have all the facts. If it comes out that MDC didn't investigate this and took their claim at face value then I'll be happy to grab a pitchfork and join the angry mob so long as the focus is on the department.

Glory Daze made a good point about MDC keeping their mouths shut at least for a while about any investigation they are hopefully conducting. If the hunters think that MDC is just interviewing them for research or information gathering then they will be more cooperative and potentially implicate the shooter. Al Agnew also made a good point about people being more likely to report shootings. Maybe this group had their story straight or were (though unlikely) threatened by the animal. An individual or group in the future may not be as sharp and end up on the wrong side of criminal charge that will set the sort of precedent we want and send a clear message. Or maybe I'm grasping at straws and giving too much credit to MDC; at this point I'm blatantly speculating and just hoping that my faith will be rewarded.

Probable cause is the standard for going to trial on a criminal charge, and people have been convicted on crimes a lot more egregious than this on circumstantial evidence, but I really think that this incident should be investigated to determine the behavior of the animal and the circumstances under which it was shot before proceeding with a prosecution. My primary concern is that if this were prosecuted it will boil down to 12 guys saying that this cat was acting in a manner that caused them to fear for their safety. MDC needs to cross these boys up and get inconsistent stories so that they can make a showing that the animal posed no danger. The worst thing that could happen is for these guys to get the case dismissed or acquitted and set a precedent for shooting a mountain lion based on proximity to people. Troutfriend's comment about the amiguity of the "threatened" standard is as right as they get. I think that Lilley made a good point about MDC being in a position that will require them to promulgate new regulations speaking to that standard. Another idea I liked that was alluded to to deter shootings is to administratively suspend hunting privileges pending a thorough investigation by MDC officials and/or suspension or revocation upon a finding that the shooting was unnecessary. It wouldn't be a criminal proceeding so the BRD standard wouldn't apply. Something needs to be done, but a criminal prosecution without better evidence to support a conviction is certainly not my first choice.

I agree that mountain lions should be protected and those that kill them without cause should be prosecuted. Based on what i've read, MDC should investigate this incident further but I really don't think they should file charges unless/until they have an ironclad case against the people involved. If MDC does a piss-poor job of investigating or gets too eager to set an example the case stands a good chance of being dismissed or the defendants acquitted, which would get more publication and embolden would-be poachers beyond the extent to which failure to prosecute this incident would. Additionally, it does remain possible that this cat was spooked and behaving as though it was cornered. If it was becoming aggressive, regardless of whether it was in self-defense, it may have posed a threat equivalent to deadly force and killing it was certainly justified under those circumstances. Finally, the hunters probably did not intentionally provoke it and were otherwise acting within the law, thus justifying killing the animal if it became aggressive toward people. If MDC was to prosecute this, they would have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the cat was shot in violation of the law which provides that a shooting is legal if the cat is posing a danger to people. It appears as though all of the evidence currently favors the hunters who claim the cat was posing a danger to them. An MDC investigation would probably shed light on the behavior of the cat, the range at which it was shot, the angle of the shot, etc.... Simple interviews outside the presence of the other hunters should be able to put to bed any question as to whether the cat actually posed a danger and the circumstances under which it was shot. Nobody wants to argue that even an intentionally provoked animal should be allowed to attack or kill a human, but we would probably all agree that intentionally provoking a non-game animal for the purpose of killing it or just pissing it off, ultimately resulting in the death of the animal, should be punishable. (I'm including animals out of season or taken by non-permissible methods as non-game). In my view, MDC owes it to the people to investigate this incident in good faith but charges shouldn't be filed unless there is evidence showing that these guys intentionally provoked the animal or shot it without justification. If they prosecute this without proof it will be a waste of taxpayer money, a waste of judicial resources and it will not deter others from killing mountain lions but may embolden them by setting a precedent for finding in favor of defendants who say the cat posed a danger.

Nicely done... I'm jealous

Fished today with Kyle from about 1:30 to the whistle and we did okay. We fished the entire length from the wire to bathroom hole then went and fished below the suspension bridge and down into the river. I caught 10 or 12 with the biggest being a fat 16" on my first cast, the rest were in the typical stocker range with a couple that had clearly been in the river for a while. Fly selection was the usual: any nymph, scud, egg, san juan, bare hook etc... We didn't see or hook anything big but we did see a smallmouth that I would guess at 3-4# swimming around the park. The scenery more than made up for the mediocre fishing with the entire park blanketed in snow. Maybe when it all melts and the water comes up a little it'll pick up.