jeb

Wow, talk about spin! Here's what you said. You can scroll up and read it for yourself. I (like many other people in many other professions) have scars all over my body and a growing list of death threats from NOT selling out. No word twisting at all on MY part, obviously. Again, I have nothing against the MDC. Just trying to get to the truth. I'll summarize what I believe that to be at this point. -NRA tried to get the MDC to allow handguns during muzzle loader season to increase participation and opportunity. Getting more folks using guns and hunting is an NRA thing, and this clearly makes the most sense for the motive to do that. -MDC refused, so the NRA is taking it to the legislature to pass a law that the MDC would clearly then have to allow. -MDC may decide to challenge that law in court. -If they win, it may set a precedent that could protect what some seem think is their autonomy for years to come. -If they lose, it means the legislature can excersise some authority over the MDC. It does not seem to mean any dire or wholesale changes to the MDC, though.

Wife wanted to go out on the boat for a little while yesterday, to get the 7 month old Shepherd puppy used to it. Anyway, water temp in the Prarire Creek cove was 69 at about noon. Crazy that it went up 10 degrees in 2 days! I didn't get a chance to do much real fishing with 2 big dogs and the wife in the boat. But we did see a sad scene while driving home down Old Prarire Creek road. Folks have been lined up along the road lately fishing. Some guy was carrying a stringer of black bass to his truck. Looked like mostly pregnant females. Nothing huge, but still. Idiots.

Yet you say "Let science do its job.". And then you say we should not take it face value. Ummmmm, okay. I agree, that's the way it should work. At least when money and politics don't get in the way. My position does not need any redemption. But I think it's obvious that what you've stated backs up my assertion that science is for sale these days. Carrying "scars" from not selling out, etc. I don't want to stand with anyone. I was merely trying to get to the truth. Something I'd think a scientist would be interested in. Seems the truth is that NRA has no nefarious motive, unless someone has something more than conjecture and innuendo to disprove their claims.

Tell us, exactly, how that furthers "their agenda". And make sure you present something more than opinion to back that up, please. Until then, it's conspiracy theory. Actually, worse than that, IMO. The link you posted clearly states that is not their aim (I noticed nobody quoted that part of the article. Hmmm.) To wit: Like with countless other proposed laws each year throughout the country, the NRA supports this bill because it expands hunter opportunity and choice. It does this while maintaining the spirit associated with this lesser weapons season. Expanded opportunity and choice help to improve critical hunter recruitment and retention efforts. So it sounds like they are just trying to expand opportunities to get more hunters into the sport. THAT sounds like an "agenda" or motive the NRA would have. So unless someone can come up with a smoking gun or evidence to the contrary, that is what we need to go with. Not aspersions and conspiracies. That is possible, I guess. I agree with their reading of the law in their response. It's obvious the MDC can't pass laws, only enforce them and pass rules. So the legislature is free to pass new laws which the MDC must enforce. But that doesn't mean this might not be some kind of precdent setting deal. I don't know why it would be, unless the MDC really wants to pick a fight over it. Seems the logical, and likely, outcome would be just that they'd enforce the new law and life would go on just like before.

I never claimed most do. I said science is for sale these days, and I stand by that remark. You also seem to be backing up that claim with your responses. So the point is, you can't just take science at face value, no matter who it comes from. Politics and money are too interwined with science these days to take it at face value.

Water temps up near the dam were pretty much the same. Clarity was 10+ feet in most areas.

Wow, someone that actually posted a link to pertinent information! Thanks. I'll read it soon and respond.

I'm confused. You say my statement is offensive and then go on to admit it's a pain to not sell out. So which is it? Does anyone really think the scientist that said tobacco smoking was not harmful really, really believed that?

Obviously complete BS here. I already stated I think they've been on the wrong side on things like cop killer bullets. It seems you are the one with the anti-NRA glasses on since you glazed over that in my replies.

Don't know. Headed there shortly, though. Water temps in the PC area were in the 59-60 range yesterday, but the water is very muddy yet. Nothing seemed to work very well around there, at least for me.

Don't see the problem. God forbid they try to make energy more affordable for all Americans, and see energy companies make money. I know the polictally correct path these days is to dinegrate any successful company, but I still think it's okay.

That's not a logical arguement based on the facts we have at this point. It is merely a conspiracy theory. Show me some evidence that the NRA has any evil intent here. Not conjecture and aspersion, but something, anything, concrete. Like the letter mentioned in the linked article. I'll fall in line with you if there is some proof. The NRA does not always make the right decisions. Cop killer bullets is one example. But I'm not ready to throw them under the bus with no evidence, either. Some courts have held that some of the roadless designations are illegal. I imagine it will all end up at the supreme court someday. The Obama land grab has already been defunded, thanks to getting some balance back in the federal congress. So the fight is far from over on that one.

First line in the article. May not say eliminate, but that's certainly the way it sounds. Maybe take control of it would be more correct. The National Rifle Association has thrown its full force behind a legislative effort to wrest control of Missouri's fish and game away from the Missouri Conservation Commission. Well, I'd have to see the science to agree. And who the scientist are. Like it or not, science is for sale these days.

It could be. I don't mean to say it's not. My only point/question is what I asked in my first post here. And nobody has presented anything thus far to backup the assertion that, basically, the NRA is out to eliminate the MDC. Again, the evidence could be there, for all I know. I would just like someone to show it to us.

Can you be more specific about what Bush did "with energy companies"?

No, not at all. Not sure where you got that from what I said, but I don't know enough about it yet to understand if it's any kind of attack. Sounds to me more like the legislature wants to at least have some input into the process. That is already the system in most states, so it does not seem unreasonable to me. Maybe. Maybe not. But that's not my question. The question is why would the NRA care? Why would they be pushing to have the MDC disbanded, as the conspiracy theorist on this issue seem to hold? And where is the NRA letter which supposedly supports this line of thinking? Hey, it could be that letter is there and shows them as the devil incarnate. I'm just not willing to accept that notion based on opinions pieces written on the internet. Not everyone. Clinton and Obama are certainly for them, as proven by their actions. And I've seen no proof whatsoever, at least so far, that anyone is trying to stop that process. Hmmm. I thought this was bill that was being considered by the MO Legislature and has be passed by majorities and then has to be signed into law by the governor. Are you saying that there is one senator calling the MDC demanding this? Or are you adding to the hype instead of stating the real issues? Obvioiusly taken out of context, and putting words in my mouth. What I said was: and they are against the elitest attitude that all lands should be locked up from the public except those able bodied enough to be able to hike 100's of miles to access it. That's fine. That's why there is a legal process setup to do that through the fed and state legislatures. I'm fine with that. But the Clinton and Obama illegal land grabs should not be allowed, again, anymore than a different president being able to lift true wildnerness protection. That is incorrect. The linked article discussed what the AHSA based its findings on voting records on and the first bullet was the illegal Clinton Roadless land grab. BTW, did you notice the AHSA's doesn't even have a web presence anymore? Could you be more specific? Not sure what "biology" you are referring to, of what "right thing" you are talking about. Are you saying it's okay to do things illegally, as long as it happens to be something you believe is right? Out of context, and again putting words in my mouth. My point was, of course, that you if you don't demand that pols follow the law as long as they're doing something you approve you, you need to be ready for when a pol does something illegal that you don't like, too.

That may be the way you see it, but I see it quite differently. I think they are against unlawful land grabs, and they are against the elitest attitude that all lands should be locked up from the public except those able bodied enough to be able to hike 100's of miles to access it. There are state and federal congressional processes for locking up so called wilderness areas. Presidents should not be able to circumvent that process with "roadless" (Clinton) or "wild lands" (Obama) edicts anymore than another president should be able to say "Okay, all federal lands are now open to strip mining and drilling. Go get 'em boys!". You can't have it both ways.

I don't see the connection. It could be that the MDC would just adopt the rule/law and life would go on. Or it could be it will become a hybrid where the legislature would just have more input into the current system. Even if there was a court case and it was won by the state, I don't see where that automatically means total control is wrested from the MDC. I think there are a lot of folks wanting to make the NRA look bad, for various reasons. And they are not always perfect or right. But in this case, I'm just not seeing anything thus far to indicate anything nefarious on their part.

Yep, I got all that, thanks Here's the leap I have yet to get any understanding of. Why would the NRA want that? What evidence is there that their aim is shift all of that power back to the legislature? The answers may be out there, but thus far, and no offense, I have not seen anything but opinions and conspiracy theories. Is there a link to this NRA leter that supposedly reveals their real motives?

Help me understand why the NRA would care about a court challenge to the MDC. That "guest commentary" opinion piece linked to above (not a news article) did not link to the NRA letters or explain the motive, so I'm curious. I'm NOT saying the guy is wrong, just would like to have more info.

I posted this in a thread in the Beaver Lake forum, and some of the guys liked it quite a bit. So I figured I'd post it here as well. This was taken last Tuesday evening, 4/26/11. The flood gates are rarely opened on Beaver, so it was quite a site to see. You can the picnic grounds flooded on the main lake near the dam, too.

Wow, 93 boats and the winner didn't even have a limit? I guess I'm glad I'm out of the area for a few days! Thanks for the report, Jeff.

Thanks. It's a Canon G5. The Cannon G line is really nice. Gives you a lot of power if you like to set things manually, still does "auto" well for the wife, great lenses and still pretty compact. I'll probably upgrade to the current generation, G11, soon. That will be my 3rd one. The first two pictures I posted were from my cell phone camera, and it likes to tint things a little red at times.

Went down to the dam this evening and snapped a few pictures. Pretty awesome site. Here's one: Old Prarire Creek Road is flooded over and closed right now.

Water was running so fast across Old Prarire Creek road (we live just off that road) yesterday that it peeled up the pavement in one spot: