denjac

I dont know of any on Table Rock, but Phil has one on Tany.

Phil, around 3 weeks ago I was up there and some folks were catching crappie in peach orchard cove. Its the first big cove upstream from the bridge on the right, about a mile if that. There is a nice cut on the left hand side full of laydowns and stickups . They were catching them there . Also the point on the left hand side had some whites on it . It turns into a mud flat not too far from the point . Also a good long dock on the right side going in that had alot of empty slips . How did you like the ramp ? Hope you didnt use the concrete one , you have to have all 4 wheels of your truck in the water to launch. The gravel one next to it is better although there is a hump behind it you might hit if you dont have your motor trimmed up high .

I just dont get the Floro craze. I have tried it several times and several brands. I dont get along with it, get a nick and its done for, get a kink in the spool , its done for . Very finicky stuff in my opinion . The cons out weight the pros for me. Maybe I am missing the boat?

The hair jig kept a smaller profile . I used an orange pork rind with it. Sometimes it was sure hard finding that hole in the pork with cold fingers. I cleaned out a 5 gallon bucket full of tangeled crankbaits, buzzbaits ect today. I found some greasy ole hair jigs in the bottom. All the rubber stuff was melted , but the hair held up fine through all those years in the bucket. Salvaged 10-12 Rogers deep Jim crankbaits and some slim Jims, also Rogers. It was his Jerkbait. Several old rebel craw crankbaits , spooks , tiny torpedoes. And last but not least an unopened package of Manns jelly worms ! Lots of memories in that old bucket.

I believe they are ! Even Charles was busting through and breaking tackeles. Before he always fell down if someone laid a finger on him.

Have some buddies I know doing the same thing on Stockton. Ixnay the docks though, all are on bluff banks 6-8 ft. Ruark, Chicken Rock, Mouth of Birch Branch. They might be on docks there if Stockton had any !

Phil, could a guy drag a dropshot rig ? Sounds like that ought to work too.

Bill, you paid him a nice compilment and there again he went on the defensive . Me thinks he protests too much ! (Julius Caesar) .

Word: Yum watermelon candy, speaking of which I am out ! Gotta make an Acadamy run.

The shimono binding up when wet is all luck of the draw. Think I have 5 or 6 of them and 3 of them bind up when wet. They wont own up to the problem either. Its not good when you pay big money for them .

I see no problem with it but I think they ought to put a wind turbine on every oil platform. There already there so why not. Bet there is also a way to turn a turbine with ocean waves.

Kinda thin skinned there T. Why do those qoutes implicate you in anyway shape or form ? Posting more just to ruffle their feathers ? Why would that ruffel anyones feathers ? I think your reading more into it than it is . Glad to see you have a good bite going. I hope I can get em going like that. Someones always on fish when the rest cant hardly get bit . Maybe we can hook up sometime in the Indians and catch a few. You really ought to give that winter series a whirl, its alot of fun and unlike most bigger tournaments where you just have to beat 10 or 15 of the guys this one you have to beat all of them. Its a tough crowd. I like you gave up tournament fishing for 10 years and just now dabbeling in it again. See ya on the water !

I think you two might have stumbeled on somthing I didnt realise. Maybe that is a gentic trait of Table Rock smallies. Will be interested in finding out .

Jason called me on his way home from Hickory. He was all excited telling me about the day you guys had. That was a nice brown, and like you said it came out of Capps.

Well I guess I am outgunned and ignorant. I will try to avoid all geneticly altered food sources. Common sense for me says to stay away from foods that have viruses and pesticides cloned into them. To each his own.

Dude, the copy and paste is because I am no expert on the subject and I doupt you are either. Just showing another side of the story . You are spouting propaganda for the altered crops . I am spouting propaganda for the stop of these practices. Monsanto said it best when concerened with the safety of their products. Yes I copied and pasted this quote too : Monsanto's View On GM Crop Safety A Monsanto official told the New York Times, October 25, 1998, that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."

Ignorance ? I think not. GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD-A SERIOUS HEALTH RISK Genetically engineered foods containing genes derived from bacteria and viruses are now starting to appear in the shops, and foods with insect, fish, and animal genes will soon follow. These genetic changes are radically different from those resulting from traditional methods of breeding. Yet, the sale of these foods is being permitted without proper assessment of the risks and without adequately informing the public, even though many scientists say that genetically modified foods could cause serious damage to health and the environment. WHAT IS GENETIC ENGINEERING? Genes are the blueprints for every part of an organism. Genetic engineering is the process of articficially modifying these blueprints. By cutting and splicing DNA-genetic surgury-genetic engineers can transfer genes specific to one type of organism into any other organism on earth. WHY DO IT? Scientists want to transfer desirable qualities from one organism to another, for example, to make a crop resistant to an herbicide or to enhance food value. IS IT NECESSARY? At first sight it may seem appealing. However, closer examination reveals that commercial and political motives are taking precedence with little regard to the possible dangers. We already have the ability to feed the world's population without the risks posed by genetic engineering. Why subject humanity to these unnecessary risks? WHAT ARE THE DANGERS? (Please see more detailed discussion below.) Those identified so far include: New toxins and allergens in foods Other damaging effects on health caused by unnatural foods Increased use of chemicals on crops, resulting in increased contamination of our water supply and food The creation of herbicide-resistant weeds The spread of diseases across species barriers Loss of bio-diversity in crops The disturbance of ecological balance Artificially induced characteristics and inevitable side-effects will be passed on to all subsequent generations and to other related organisms. Once released, they can never be recalled or contained. The consequences of this are incalculable.WHAT IS THE SITUATION NOW? Genetically modified foods available, or about to appear, in U.S. markets include tomatoes, squash, yeast, corn, potatoes, and soybeans (which are used in 60 % of all processed foods, such as bread, pasta, candies, ice cream, pies, biscuits, margarine, meat products and vegetarian meat substitutes). Genetically modified organisms are also used to produce cheeses and canola oil. But this is just the beginning. In a few years it may be almost impossible to find natural food. The food industry and government appear to be complacent. They assume that these new foods are not substantially different from existing foods and pose no special risks. But this assumption is wrong and dangerous. The radical changes being made by biotechnologists could never happen in nature, and have already caused toxic side-effects. Current regulations require only minimal safety testing for some foods, and none at all for others. In no case do regulations require evaluation of long term impacts on health. Most genetically modified foods will not be labelled. Under present regulations manufacturers are already introducing genetically modified ingredients into many processed foods without informing consumers. The government is ignoring the wishes of the public. Surveys consistently find that 85-90% of consumers want clear labelling of all genetically engineered foods. DESPITE INTENDED BENEFITS, MANY TECHNOLOGIES PRODUCE DISASTROUS SIDE-EFFECTS. Increasingly, society is recognizing side-effects such as nuclear pollution, global warming, and the toxic effects of pesticides and herbicides. Medicines are often withdrawn because the side-effects turn out to be too poisonous. In every case, it has taken time for hazards to come to light and for action to be taken. Genetic engineering poses the greatest danger of any technology yet introduced. Because many of the damageing effects of genetic engineering are irreversible, we must prevent problems before they occur. The precautionary approach is essential if we are to protect ourselves, our children, and all generations to come. We must take action now, if we want to prevent an avalanche of genetically engineered foods from inundating the market and placing virtually everyone at risk. WE MUST ACT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! Genetically engineered foods are being introduced without due regard for health, yet many damaging effects will be irreversible. What is needed TO PROTECT OUR HEALTH: Any food produced through genetic engineering should be banned until scientifically shown to be safe and safe for everyone. In the meantime, labeling should be required for any food that contains even one genetically engineered ingredient, or that has been produced using genetically modified organisms or enzymes. Full disclosure labelling will allow consumers to choose what they eat. It will also help scientists trace the source of health problems arising from these foods. All applications of genetic engineering should be banned that carry the risk of accidental or intentional release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Write to members of Congress, food producers, supermarkets, the press and consumer groups, expressing your concern and enclosing this leaflet. Make copies of this document for friends, family, colleagues, students, trades unions, clubs and societies. Alert everyone to the dangers. DANGERS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS The scientific facts demonstrating the need for an immediate worldwide ban Because living organisms are highly complex, genetic engineers cannot possibly predict all of the effects of introducing new genes into them. This is the case for even the simplest bacterium, not to mention more complex plants and animals. THIS IS BECAUSE: [*]the introduced gene may act differently when working within its new host[*]the original genetic intelligence of the host will be disrupted[*]the new combination of the host genes and the introduced gene will have unpredictable effects; and therefore[*]there is no way of knowing the overall, long-term effect of genetically engineered foods on the health of those who eat them. THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME OF THE FACTS: [*]Unnatural gene transfers from one species to another are dangerous. Biotechnology companies erroneously claim that their manipulations are similar to natural genetic changes or traditional breeding techniques. However, the cross-species transfers being made, such as between fish and tomatoes, or between other unrelated species, would not happen in nature and may create new toxins, diseases, and weaknesses. In this risky experiment, the general public is the guinea-pig.[*]Biotechnology companies also claim their methods are precise and sophisticated. In fact, the process of inserting genes is quite random and can damage normal genes. Genetic research shows that many weaknesses in plants, animals, and humans have their origin in tiny imperfections in the genetic code. Therefore, the random damage resulting from gene insertion will inevitably result in side-effects and accidents. Scientists have assessed these risks to be substantial. (Refs: Palmiter, R.D. et al (1986) ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENETICS 20: 465; Inose, T. et al (1995) INT. JOUR. FOOD SCIENCE TECH. 30:141.)[*]Unpredictable health damaging effects. When genetic engineers insert a new gene into any organism there are "position effects" which can lead to unpredictable changes in the pattern of gene expression and genetic function. The protein product of the inserted gene may carry out unexpected reactions and produce potentially toxic products. There is also serious concern about the dangers of using genetically engineered viruses as delivery vehicles (vectors) in the generation of transgenic plants and animals. This could destabilise the genome, and also possibly create new viruses, and thus dangerous new diseases. (Refs: Green, A.E. et al (1994) SCIENCE 263:1423; Osbourn, J.K. et al (1990) VIROLOGY 179:921.)[*]Genetically engineered products carry more risks than traditional foods. The process of genetic engineering can thus introduce dangerous new allergens and toxins into foods that were previously naturally safe. Already, one genetically engineered soybean was found to cause serious allergic reactions, and bacteria genetically engineered to produce large amounts of the food supplement, tryptophan, have produced toxic contaminants that killed 37 people and permanently disabled 1,500 more. (Refs: Nordlee, J.A. et al (1996) THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 688; Mayeno, A.N. et al (1994) TIBTECH 12:364.)[*]Increased pollution of food and water supply. More than 50% of the crops developed by biotechnology companies have been engineered to be resistant to herbicides. Use of herbicide-resistant crops will lead to a threefold increase in the use of herbicides, resulting in even greater pollution of our food and water with toxic agrochemicals. (Ref: Goldberg, R.J. (1994) WEED TECHNOLOGY 6:647.)[*]Health-damaging effects caused by genetic engineering will continue forever. Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, genetic pollution is self-perpetuating. It can never be reversed or cleaned up; genetic mistakes will be passed on to all future generations of a species.[*]Inadequate government regulation. Biotech companies claim that government regulatory bodies will protect consumers. However DDT, Thalidomide, L-tryptophan, etc. were approved by U.S. regulators with tragic results. Recently it was found that 80% of supermarket milk contained traces of either medicines, illegal antibiotics used on farms, or hormones, including genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH). The facts show that regulators are not protecting the public adequately. (Ref: Epstein, S.S. (1996) INT. JOUR. HEALTH SERVICES, 26:173.)[*]Ethical concerns. Transferring animal genes into plants raises important ethical issues for vegetarians and religious groups. It may also involve animal experiments which are unacceptable to many people.[*]Gene transfer across species and competition from new species damaging the environment. When new genetic information is introduced into plants, bacteria, insects or other animals, it can easily be passed into related organisms, through processes such as cross pollination. This process has already created "super weeds". Existing species can also be displaced from the ecosystem with disastrous effects, as happened with genetically modified Klebsiella soil bacteria. (Ref: Holms, M.T. and Ingam, E.R. (1994) Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America (Supplement), 75:97)[*]Crops are now being engineered to produce their own pesticides. This will promote the more rapid appearance of resistant insects and lead to excessive destruction of useful insects and soil organisms, thus seriously perturbing the ecosystem. In addition, the pesticide produced by the plant may be harmful to the health of consumers. (Refs: Union of Concerned Scientists (1994) GENE EXCHANGE, 5:68; Mikkelsen, T.R. et al (1996) Nature 380:31; Skogsmyr, I. (1994) THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS 88:770; Hama, H. et al (1992) APPLIED ENTYMOLOGY AND ZOOLOGY 27:355.) GLOBAL THREAT TO HUMANITY'S FOOD SUPPLY Giant transnational companies are carrying out a dangerous global experiment by attempting to introduce large numbers of genetically engineered foods widely into our food supply. Because genetic manipulations can generate unanticipated harmful side-effects, and because genetically engineered foods are not tested sufficiently to eliminate those that are dangerous, this experiment, not only jeopardizes the health of individuals, but could also lead to national or even global food shortages and large-scale health threats. There is no logical scientific justification for exposing society to this risk, nor is it necessary to take this risk for the purpose of feeding humanity. It is only of benefit to the biotech industry, which will obtain short term commercial gains at the expense of the health and safety of the whole population. Tampering with the genetic code of food is reckless and poses a serious threat to life. It could easily upset the delicate balance between our physiology and the foods that we eat. There is already ample scientific justification for an immediate ban on genetically modified foods in order to safeguard our health. CAMPAIGN TO BAN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD For further information or to offer your support for this campaign, please contact <A href="mailto:jfagan@mum.edu">jfagan@mum.edu Also, for further information and solutions read: GENETIC ENGINEERING: THE HAZARDS, EVEDIC ENGINEERING: THE SOLUTIONS by John Fagan Ph.D. - an award-winning geneticist who returned his government grants and began new research inMaharishi's Vedic Science. To order, phone 800-831-6523. John B. Fagan, Ph.D. Professor of Molecular Biology Maharishi University of Management (Maharishi International University 1971 to 1995) 1000 North Fourth Street Fairfield, Iowa, 52557-1078 Phone(515) 472-8342 Fax (515) 472-5725 email jfagan@mum.edu

One of the guys in the story had a canola field. He didnt plant with Monsanto seed. He had some volunteer canola that was Monsanto come up from a neighbors field across the road. When Monsanto sampeled his plants ( they just come and do it dont ask for permission) and found a few of theres in the bunch they sued him. He didnt want it on his place. Monsanto won the case. I just think thats wrong . I am more worried about the health aspect of it more than the other. I feel they need to label all vegetable products and let us make the choice. What would you guys choose to eat ?

Japan has banned the use and importing of geneticly altered seeds and there products. They said they were going to study the United States children for 10 years before they gave it a thumbs up.

I just dont think genetic material should be able to patented . Its a life whether plant or animal, where will they draw the line ?

EPA turns down ban on lead in fishing tackle Lead weights By Colin Moore - 05.Nov.2010 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has denied the petition calling for a ban on the manufacture, use and processing of lead used in fishing gear. In a letter to the petitioners, a consortium of environmental groups, the EPA indicated that the groups weren't convincing in their contention that the requested rule is necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, as required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The EPA said that the increasing number of limitations on the use of lead fishing gear on some federal and state lands, as well as various education and outreach activities, call into question whether a national ban on lead in fishing gear would be the least burdensome, adequately protective approach to address the concern, as called for under TSCA. EPA's letter also notes that the prevalence of non-lead alternatives is increasing and suggests a gradual move toward nontoxic components.. The fishing tackle industry had united with anglers in general in opposing the lead ban, saying it would be costly to implement now. On Aug. 3, the American Bird Conservancy and a number of other groups petitioned EPA under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to "prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of lead for shot, bullets, and fishing sinkers." On Aug. 27, EPA denied the portion of the petition relating to lead in ammunition because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate ammo under TSCA. Environmental groups have tried to ban lead from fishing weights, jigs and other tackle components before. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated in the past that, while ingesting lead fishing weights might be responsible for the deaths of some waterfowl, such fishing tackle does not pose a serious threat to wildlife populations as a whole.

This is Capps around 1963. I am standing right by the Mill. Has it changed any ? We used cane poles and cheese to catch em.

http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/the_future_of_food/ This is some scary stuff !

Boy you had your hands full with that guy ! Nice fish. Water lookes slick where the pciture was taken but then again that fin will make em come and get it . Did you say buzz bait ? That viagra to me ! Going to Stockton in the morning to deer hunt and fish . Would have fished the rock, but there are no fish left in the dam area .