hoglaw

The funny part is that gay pride weekend is probably the better time to be on the river. I'd much rather fish behind that group than a bunch of beer swilling tatooed rednecks. I bet the gay pride groups even pick up their trash!

The last time they did a tagged study, I was told the catfish were winding up in the delta, meaning that at one point or another during their life cycle, they swam downstream until they hit the White. At that point, they probably thought "what the hell!?" and booked it downstream until it warmed up.

either sit above your hole with the crawdad weighted to the bottom, or get below the riffle and throw upstream with a smaller weight (splitshot) and bounce it back to you. If there are sculpins in the river, I'd prefer those over crawdads for big browns. You just have to kill them before you fish with them for bottom fishing, or you can fish them live like a jerk-bait unweighted.. The crawdads need to be alive.

If you want to catch a for sure hog, I'd catch a couple of sculpins or crawdads.

I think lake Conway is the largest AFGC lake in the state. It can be very daunting to bass fish because it all looks the same. It is very shallow with trees and stumps EVERYWHERE. There is a marked channel, but I've never been brave enough to run above idle out there. The bream fishing is second to none. Crappie fishing is pretty good too. There are lots of bass, but bass fishing can be difficult. You're probably best off getting a map showing the old lakes before they were all flooded, or talking to the person you rent your boat from. I would imagine there's a good morning frog and buzzbait bite. Might just want to try that and bream/catfish for the rest of the day if that's your thing.

When you say "open faced," I assume you're talking about a spinning reel. It's a spinning reel if it spins around in big circles. A baitcast reel has a small cylindrical spool that rolls the line on and off if that makes sense. Follow Chief's tip. The problem you're having is line twist. Spool new line on exactly like he says. If you're backlashing a baitcaster, you need someone to actually help you. One way to practice though would be to tie on a 1oz sinker and practice lobbing it in the yard. Another trick for line twist is to take your lure off and pay out line behind the boat as you ride. The friction of the water will un-twist it. I suppose this might work if you let it all flow downstream and pull it back while wading, but I've never tried it that way. Sounds like a good way to make a mess. I've never tried hooking onto a stump for tension. That will actually implode older spools, but it's probably not a problem with newer ones.

The water is in great shape for fishing and the fish were biting hard this weekend. There was a killer frog bite for two hours before dark.

Skeeter: You probably misunderstood your attorney. If he actually said what you think he said, then you need to find a new one. Please don't shoot anyone. Also, don't electrify your gas cap. Other than the obvious issues of electricity near gasoline, placing booby traps capable of causing physical harm is a tort, and likely a crime in Missouri (it is in Arkansas). If someone tried to steal your gas and got hurt by a trap you had placed, they'd likely wind up getting your boat if you catch my drift.

taxidermist: Linguistics were a major part of this decision, even for the majority. Quite a bit of the opinion deals with the placement of the phrase "well regulated militia." Justice Scalia (who wrote the opinion) used linguistics in writing the opinion, essentially dealing with the "placement of commas" as you put it. Four of the nine justices did not disregard the constitution. They interpreted it, just as the majority did, but reached a different result. You disagree with their interpretation only because you like the result the majority reached. If you haven't read and understood the entire opinion, including the dissent, I think you're misguided when you call these people idiots and claim they "vote[d] against the constitution." Also, they overturned legislation. They looked at a law, decided it didn't jive with their reading of the constitution, and overturned it. How is this not legislating from the bench as you put it? I agree with the result as well, but this is an example of "judicial activism" at its finest. They overturned the will of the people, the voice of the legislature. I can't stand the phrase "judicial activism" because it's conservative spin against any decision they don't like. Here, it worked in our favor. Call a spade a spade and stop decrying judges who "legislate from the bench." If you wanted them to adhere to the laws as passed, the D.C. handgun ban would have been upheld. Four justices who are far more intelligent than you or me read the constitution, its historical context, and the English language in a way that was different from the result you wanted. Can't you accept that there's a little more to it than simply reading and "upholding the constitution?"

The decision was 5-4, but it's nearly impossible to define the Court on a liberal/conservative basis. Justices Stevens and Souter were both republican appointees (Ford and Bush Sr.), and both disagreed with the majority. Additionally, Justice Kennedy joined the majority opinion though he has frequently been on the "liberal" side of things. Anyone who attempts to define the Supreme Court as liberal/conservative is barking up the wrong tree. These guys are far too intelligent to be bound by traditional political labels, and they don't have to pander to voters. Trav, it's disingenuous to believe that any gun control legislation will be "used as precedent." Legislation is not legal precedent for Supreme Court opinions interpreting the constitution. The gun lobby is as guilty of propagandizing as the anti-gun lobby, particularly when you say things like any gun control measure is just a stepping stone for further gun control. I think we all agree that firearms can't be completely unregulated, right? The Supreme Court's ruling goes far beyond D.C. Essentially, any prohibition on functional firearm possession in the home is going to be unconstitutional from here on out. As a last aside, this is a great example of "judicial activism." It was a 5-4 opinion addressing a fundamental right protected by the constitution. Basically, the Court interpreted the Second Amendment in a way that it has never been interpreted before. That's as "activist" as it gets. I personally agree with the opinion and with Justice Scalia's rationale in reaching the right result. This is going to be a great counterargument for me against anyone who decries "liberal activist judges" in the future. God bless these United States and God bless the Court.

I have access to published opinions and would be happy to copy and paste it here. However, it's probably around 50 pages and I'm not sure what the text limit is. I don't have a way to link it since it's only available by password, but I'd be happy to help anyone out who wants to read it. Also, you can probably get it on the Supreme Court's website. That is free, and there might even be a recording of the oral arguments just in case anyone else is as big a nerd as I am.

I haven't read the opinion yet, but it was a 5-4 decision. As I understand it, the crux was determining whether the second amendment applied to individuals. It's a darn tough question. The text of the second amendment references a well regulated militia, so the question is whether the framers of the constitution meant the second amendment to apply to everyone, or just in context with a "well regulated militia." I'm actually a bit suprised at the decision as I thought it would go 5-4 the other way. Restrictions on gun ownership will still be allowed, they will just be judged with "strict scrutiny." If the court had gone the other way, gun restrictions would likely have been judged on a "rational basis" review. As I understand things, any law restricting gun ownership will now be allowed to stand only if it is "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest." After this decision, we should look forward to cases challenging prohibitions on convicted felons owning firearms, and bans on assault rifles and machine guns. In any event, this is the first case analyzing the second amendment in a long time.

Bobber: That's too funny. Looks chilly to me, but then again, everything north of Bella Vista is chilly to me.

Rusty: It's nothing like the Illinois, Elk, or pretty much any river in Missouri for that matter. There are people there having a "good time," but no tatooed mobs screaming for flashers. If you're there on a week day or two, you might have the place to yourself.

That's a big 10-4 on the Head Country. Darn good stuff.

I went from the farm to 62 on Sunday. Fishing was really slow from about 10-3 or so. Once some of the clouds rolled in, the action started heating up. I caught all of my fish on hula grubs and horny toads, with the latter catching the most. I hooked an absolute monster in shallow water about a mile above 62. She was barely pinned in the tounge, so when I got her beside the canoe, I gave the line a quick pop with my hand and off she went. Never got a chance to measure her, but she was a 3lb plus fish for sure. The water was amazing. Great current, great temperature. We swam and played so much that I almost forgot about fishing. I would echo your sentiments about the crowd at the 62 bridge. It was awful on Sunday night. I had to leave my canoe unattended while we went to get the truck because I was afraid to leave my girlfriend down there by herself. We got my little brother's truck stuck in the gravel bar downstream of the bridge. Fortunately, a couple of guys were glad to help me out with a group push. The language barrier was pretty high, but apparently a half burried tire and a big "oh $hit" is universal. It's not the migrant workers there that bother me, it's the local resident rednecks that grafitti the bridge with racial slurs and apparently discard all of their beer in the river. Has anyone ever floated Osage or waded it to any extent? That last pool looks nice but I'm sure it gets pounded. Maybe a float from the berryville bridge down to 62 would be good, even if you had to drag quite a bit.

Has anyone ever used a Holland grill? I'm a total novice smoker/bbq'er, I normally grill on superhot charcoal. Supposedly the Hollands are adaptable for slow smoking. I got one as a gift and I have a propane outlet on my porch, but I haven't hooked it up yet. I can't imagine grilling steak or medium rare burgers on anything but charcoal. Any nuggets of wisdom concerning Holland grills would be greatly appreciated.

wow Seth, your plan sure does simplify the practice of law. Only the innocent get attorneys. Maybe we could expand that to the civil practice too, only the side in the right gets an attorney. Then again, if we're going to do that, why even use attorneys at all? Why stop there, why not just throw out the entire constitution! That would simplify things quite a bit, and no lawyer would ever have to be in that terrible conundrum of defending the constitutional rights of his client regardless of their "guilt" or innocence. I understand your notions and respect your sentiment, but as a practicing attorney (75% civil, 15% criminal defense, 10% municipal prosecution), I can tell you that it's not as simple as saying that you won't represent anyone who actually did it. There's a lot more to representation than "getting a client off" of a charge, particularly in the case of clients with poor cases (notice we don't say "guilty"). I will do the best job I can do governed only by my clients' informed decisions insofar as they don't conflict with the rules of ethics which always trump. If this means working hard for a guilty man, then I do my job and hope the prosecution does theirs (or the other way around when I'm prosecuting someone who I feel isn't guilty but where I still have probable cause to proceed). There are two halves in the adversarial system, and both have to work hard to get the right result.

I feel like I'm a pretty well versed trick worm and shakey head fisherman, but what exactly is a spot remover?

My fine is $150 also.

So Russ helped me do a float in his area that I've always wanted to do. My girlfriend and I put in on slightly high water and prepared for a long day of fishing new water. There wasn't another boat in sight, and only a single vehicle at the put-in that didn't look to be fishing. We floated about 15 minutes when Kelly said "there's a ranger waving at us up here." My heart jumped into my throat. I nearly forgot that I had crossed state lines, being so close to home. I had a non-resident annual permit, but it expired recently. It had completely slipped my mind to renew it. The MDC fellow was nice, but nailed us just the same. He let us share the ticket, and requested that I walk back to his truck so he could check my identity and issue me the citation. We proceeded to hike through a quarter mile of brush and pastures, hopping a fence or two, and finally reaching his truck. Then it dawned on me. We were possibly the only people to float this section on this particular day, and if any others did float behind us it certainly wasn't many. We took our time getting ready and putting in, and drug an anchor all the way down to him. This guy saw my Arkansas tags at the put in, and went through all this trouble to check my license which, as it turns out, was expired. So, to all of you who don't think these MDC guys do anything other than bust drinkers, this guy went the extra mile. I'm not pissed about the ticket. It was an honest mistake, and I should have had a current license. I get my Arkansas licenses on the same day every year, and I should probably start doing the same with Missouri and Oklahoma as well. I'm a little pissed that Missouri charges non-residents more for tickets than residents, but it's not worth the fight. Wacky, thanks for the shuttle. That float is a good one, and we'll be back to an overnighter when the water drops out. Everyone else, double check your license.

10-4 on the trick worms. I prefer white. Not sure about the bass.

Wow, so many opinions here. ADEQ is a good start. Also, the EPA has jurisdiction since the Little Red is a navigable waterway (I believe), but you'll get more response out of the ADEQ. There are lots of statutes dealing with dumping, and the penalties can be pretty severe. I would contact the county sheriff's department. County judges are useless figureheads with no legal experience required. That might be a dead end. Don't listen to Trav's nihilist ramblings. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Go take some pictures. If you have GPS, get the coordinates of the dumpsites. They're likely on private property and the landowners may ultimately be responsible. As far as the chicken litter stuff goes, it is NOT illegal to spread chicken litter on fields. Chicken litter is a wonderful fertilizer and is less harmful and contains less phosphorous than many commercial fertilizers used in the same effective amounts. South Arkansas would love to have barges of chicken litter floating towards it. The problem is that the contract farmers in Northwest Arkansas cannot afford to truck away all the litter they produce. They wind up having to spread it on their fields in amounts much greater than what is normally needed for agricultural purposes because they can't afford to do anything else with it. I do agree that legislation should be passed to make the commercial processors responsible for moving it, but then the cost of chicken skyrockets. Right now it's an "externality" that is paid in the end by the users of the waterways rather than the purchasers of the chicken. Finally, cruelty to animals laws are not nonexistant in Arkansas. Subjecting an animal to needless cruelty carries a potential penalty of a thousand dollar fine and a year in jail. Maybe this isn't harsh enough for you, but the law exists and is occasionally enforced.

tubes. You should fish tubes. I would also throw shakey head finesse worms. Also, you won't encounter nearly as much "riff raff" on the Buffalo as you do on other waters. Most of the people (at least on the last holiday weekend I went) will be families.

I would think the conventional wisdom would be tipping people that we understand to count on tips for a significant portion of their living. I bill by the hour and am paid salary by my firm, and obviously wouldn't expect a tip. When I bartended, tips were pretty much all of my income. I would think that anyone who dictates the rate for their services should not expect to be tipped, but fishing guides appear to be the exception to that rule. I've tipped deck hands on chartered boats in foreign countries, and I've tipped fishing guides because I knew they expected it. Sure seems like they should build that into their billing scheme though.