hoglaw

Thanks for the advice. We fished live crawdads on the outside channel of main river bends. We all had limits to weigh, but it wasn't enough. We WILL be returning next year, as this was an absolute blast. The entry fee was $6, and the prize pool was $700 plus. There was another $10 for T-shirts, and another $10 for the 800lb crawfish boil. This was one of the more enjoyable events I've ever fished, though I'm sure it helped that we killed 3-30's of Busch Light in 24 hours. pics here: livingroom.12003.net

For what it's worth, Microsoft is trading at a near 52-week low. Murphy oil is trading at a near 52-week high. If McCain has his way, federal taxes on end-user petroleum are going to be placed on moratorium right? That would seem to be pretty beneficial to big oil, but the market has probably taken that into account.

What's the technique for "grabbing?" Do you sneak up on fish, or hide out with your hands in the water and wait for them to come to you?

I have an old fiberglass canoe with all the seats stripped out for solo fishing. It doesn't weigh a thing and I can stand up and walk around in it. I can also lay rods down at my feet and not have to grab them every time I get into the trees. I use a single blade extra long paddle, and mainly stand up to paddle. If I'm just cruising, or going long distances, I'll sit down on a cooler or something else. I can move the center of gravity to any part of the boat I want...closer to the front/middle for long distances on calm days, closer to the back for manuvering or on windy days. I can scull with one hand to get into perfect position while maintaining a tight line on my shakey-head. I can jump out of my boat into deep water without getting anything else wet (though I can't get back in!). Where's the freedom in a kayak?

You can build fires anywhere you want as far as I know.

This is a belief. It is not provable or disprovable. It is probably true that there is a greater proportion of atheists in "science" fields than in the general population. I don't know why this is. I have a idea, but since it's not readily testable or disprovable through empirical evidence, it's not a theory. See the distinction? And in response to the person who said "stop teaching science as religion" or something to that effect, what do you mean? Should we not teach science at all since kids are highly impressionable? Disclaimers that alternate theories including ID exist have been held unconstitutional. I think all kids are taught the scientific method and the meaning of theories. The problem is that it's too difficult a concept for a young mind. I suppose I have to agree with you that when kids are presented with the theory as evolution as the only explanation for the origin of life, they may mistakenly believe that it's being taught as absolute truth. But what's the answer? Stop educating children about scientific advances and theories? It's a bit like objecting to sex-ed that's anything other than "don't do it." If parents have that big of a beef about teaching children facts and observations, they should home school them or put them in private schools.

were you fishing live bait on the bottom, or were they accidental bass fishing hook-ups?

First of all, no one believes that the "intelligent designer" came from other beings or another place and/or time. This was propagated by the ID proponents as an effort to avoid being associated with religion. The fact of the matter is ID is inherently and purposefully religious. The most important case on point to date is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In Kitzmiller, an extremely religous and conservative trial judge could not help but find that ID's primary purpose was to advance religion in schools, and that it had the primary effect of advancing religion. This was after over a month of testimony by both sides on the issue of whether ID was religious, or its own scientific theory. The case was, of course, upheld. Now, I shouldn't say that no one believes the designer came from another planet. Lots of people believe lots of strange things. However, the fact remains that ID as we know it is a clandestine effort to lend scientific credibility to religious teachings in an effort to get them into the public schools at the k-12 level. It is not possible for science to prove or disprove the existence of God as we, the believers, understand God today. Completely impossible. Short of a direct manifestation on a fiery chariot, it can't happen. Science does not tell us what to believe in, or that we have to make a leap of faith to "believe" in the big bang. Science only tells us theories of what might have happened, coupled with evidence supporting those theories. Even Newton's "laws" (which purport to be more than theories) are subject to being disproven, or are subject to constraints. Science does not attempt to "prove" the origin or meaning of life. It can only debunk or support things we observe and ideas we may have. The only universal truths and absolute answers come from religion. That's the difference. I can believe in anything I want to in the name of religion. It doesn't have to be proven or disproven. It's faith. ID is faith masquerading as science when it doesn't need to. If you want to believe in ID, that's fine. You have a right to believe in anything you want. Just don't teach your religion to elementary school students in public schools.

This is not correct. Saying that "science" is one side of the argument and one side must be wrong is not an accurate statement. "Science" or "evolutionists" do not profess to have all the answers, or even a single definitive answer on the origin of life. Science has only give us a testable theory based on observable phenomena that has the ability to change as new experiments necessitate, or to be completely proven wrong. This is only a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory. It is an observable phenomenon given a name and tested through the scientific method. Our current notions of gravity are everchanging, and may one day be completely turned on their collective ear. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is a fundamentally religous theory. It begins with an end conclusion: God created life, and attempts to fit pegs into the holes in that conclusion. It is not a theory. It is a belief. It cannot be proven wrong. It cannot be tested. It is not in the same league as science. This is not to say that it is incorrect or inaccurate in any way. Every idea touted by ID proponents may in fact be completely correct. But it's not a theory. Science and Intelligent design are not the two sides to this argument. They are apples and oranges. To pit them against eachother is like having the Blues play the Rams in a tiddlewinks tournament to see which sport is really the most athletic.

Chub, shhhhhh.

So I'm fishing in the annual "Drum Rodeo" in Smackover Arkansas. I've never caught drum (on purpose) before, so I was wondering if anyone had any experience or advice. This is more of a cultural event and a big party for me, but I would like to catch some respectable fish. I've caught accidental drum fishing deep diving crankbaits before, but I imagine this will be a live bait affair. It's on the Ouicita River, so I'm sure it will be big and muddy when we go (two weeks). Do drum hold in current this time of year? Are they on sand bars or gravel/rock points? Backwater or main channel? I plan on drowning crayfish and nightcrawlers until we find them, but a little knowledge would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance: Hoglaw

This is the greatest thing I'll read all day. Nova did a special not too long ago about the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. When I was in law school, this was the hot debate and it was the basis for some of our intra-school competitions. You should try to find the Nova episode if you can. It's probably a free download. If you have any interest in the ID debate at all, I would strongly suggest finding the episode as it's the best example of an ID case building a lengthy trial record and going to appeal in the Circuits. The USSC has yet to rule on the issue, and I'm not sure if they denied Cert. in the Kitzmiller case or not.

It's nothing compared to the monumental judgment you'd be facing if a canoe flew off your roof and went through the windshield of a suburban. In any event, the two by fours could probably handle the stress. As long as your roof rack and straps are good, I don't think the 2x4's are the weak link in the chain. Someone probably knows better than me though. It would be especially helpful if you had tension on the front and back of each canoe with a ratchet strap to the frame. Two big canoes scooping air are just levers that create a heck of a lot of torque on the front of your roof rack (and the jerry-rigged 2x4). If you're talking about a Wrangler, you might even be able to get the front wheels off the ground at 70! If you're hauling two canoes, surely there's another vehicle in your convoy right? Just get foam pads from Walmart and make them carry one.

Do you have anyone making a trip to Northwest Arkansas anytime soon?

The Arkansas animal cruelty statute penalizes anyone who "subjects an animal to needless cruelty." I would imagine Missouri's is probably similar. Shooting an animal in defense of one's safety, another's safety, or one's property is not a criminal act in Arkansas. Now, if you sit on your porch blasting scary looking dogs on sight, that's a different story. Defending yourself or your chickens is acceptable.

I saw 50+ elk and another 50+ turkey at Ponca a few weeks ago.

Who did you play with in Fayetteville?

Your hooks are only as weak as your line is strong. You can't straighten a decent hook with 8lb line. From my limited experience, carp are a little line shy. You probably wouldn't want to go very big, so any hook other than cricket hooks would probably get the job done just fine.

I know that creek, or at least I think I do. There's a creek that comes in on the North side of the river between Pangburn and Ramsey. I've never floated it, but I've paddled up it while fishing the Red. It's always good for a few bass, pickrel, walleye, and crappie. Last time I was there, we got into a whole bunch of smallish crappie on a top right by the confluence. It gets shallow very quickly, and I've never been far up it. In fact, I think it looked dry last time I was there but I can't remember. If it's floatable, I'm sure there are fish in it that don't get any pressure. The LR is full of other species besides trout, and the creek is probably a good hangout for lots of them.

So it's a liberal slant if the picture and caption are arguably "liberal," (although I don't know where you get a liberal/conservative distinction out of this story) while the rest of the text tells the whole story? Does this mean that only liberals go on to read the articles while the conservatives look at the pretty pictures? That's like people accusing wikipedia of having a liberal slant...pretty comical to me at least. In all seriousness, the municipal ordinance is a generally applicable non-criminal penalty. At least that's how it would work in Arkansas. I would imagine that most prosecutors would just drop it. It's too bad a dog had to be shot, but I think we would all concur that if we were in his unfortunate shoes, that dog would have been toast.

It's not a "slide" per say, but Robert Randolph plays the best steel guitar around at the moment.

Yes, there's an AGFC ramp that was put in a couple of years ago under the White River bridge. The water is high enough for a small ship at the moment.

What's the generation schedule been like? I'm coming to LR this weekend and we're thinking about a float.

We're getting pounded here in Fayetteville. I'm at the upper end of the White River watershed. The really heavy stuff was farther south. Ft. Smith had baseball sized hail. It looks like we'll be sending plenty of water your way, and with more storms lined up in the Pacific, we're going to have a few more heavy rains. As much as I rag on you Missouri folk, I sure hope everyone makes out okay.

Sounds like your access was "Romp Hole." It's the last public access before the state line.