troutfiend1985

Ollie, I would love to come down but the schedule is not working out. One of these years I will be there. Is anyone going to take pics?

I have a G. Loomis Venture on my 5 wieght and it has worked great for three years, and I see it working great for years to come. Very smooth drag, a little heavy but that has never bothered me. At 100$ you can't beat it in my opinion. I think you should check it out. I also have a Lamson Guru on an 8 wieght and it is very nice. A little pricey at 200$ but I love mine for carp and bass. But if you're only going to be doing trout fishing and a little bass fishing with this reel I would go with the Loomis.

KC we have to get back to the idea that WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE. You're entitled to your opinions, but do you know what was going on at this camp zoe? Do you have personal knowledge of the extent of these drug deals or lack there of? Do we know that camp zoe was either ignorant or not condoning drug sells or skimming money? Unless you're a Fed or entangled in this mess then you really don't. Your using someone else’s facts and representing them as the whole truth or you have a limited amount of knowledge that is based on personal experiences. Either way the knife cuts, there simply isn't a lot of information on this subject. Even if you went to these parties, do you really know the behind the scenes details? If so, then I would be impressed and back down from my position of let’s wait and see. I truly doubt this is a black and white issue, I think this whole issue is a color of gray. Is the Gov. acting in the publics best interest here? Hard to tell as I don't have enough information to base a sound opinion on it. I think right now the best thing to do is to take a critically neutral standpoint. In that I mean that you can be critical of the Gov. but not be able to base a sound and logical opinion that the government was 100% wrong or that Camp Zoe was 100% innocent. Do you see what I mean? This information will trickle down, and within a couple of months(hopefully) there will be more info on this situation. Yeah it sucks to see this happen, but right now we don't know why it happened. Attacking Ness, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't make sense. Yes, drug deals go on at major concert venues, but this isn't a major concert venue and we really don't know what was truly going on here. That is why we have a legal system, so that we can sort out these things. Is camp zoe innocent? Only time will tell. One thing is for sure, I think we can do away with the ad hominem attacks.

That is actually the first brown that I have ever seen from RR. Way to go!!

Now look guys, I'm going to get back to the whole idea that we don't know what the evidence is or isn't. What evidence do we have? Not much besides one journalists account on what happened. I would have to assume that for the government to take this kind of action there needed to be something more than just this. As for drug laws, if you don't like them then start some petitions. I'll sign, because I am still waiting for a war on poverty(good ol' LBJ). The only thing that I could think is that maybe this guy was skimming money off the dealers, I have no proof and this is mere speculation so don't get your panties in a twist if I offended you. Look, he still has his lands(right now) and I'm sure that if his bank accounts were closed without a trial then the ACLU will be all over this. If not, then this guy should contact a law school with a clinic(I'm assuming that SLU has one). Also, there might have been a grand jury already held. That is a scary thing to think about. We could a have a process going on about me or you right now that may be indicting us without our knowledge. Scary stuff. As far as justifying drug use, you're not going to win that battle. No one here can honestly say that using drugs does not have health effects. However there can be no logical argument that our war on drugs is working. We are the worlds largest consumers of: Marijuana, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin and Methamphetamine(as of 2004). We are the drug capital of the world. Where am I getting this information from?? Three research articles that I written, countless research articles I have read and comparative analysis of my own. However, with saying this I hesitate to buy the argument that alcohol is more dangerous than say, cocaine. Yes, there might not be as many deaths in direct relations to cocaine as there are from alcohol. But what do you think causes all of this inner-city violence? Cocaine wars. There's a war on the streets guys, and the war is over drug dealing turf. The only reasons that I support ending the war on drugs is: 1. To take that money and begin a war on poverty, and 2. To end needless violence in inner city US. That’s it. I don't want to associate with drugs, I've seen what they have done to my friends. At the age of 17, I lost two friends to OD's on heroin and cocaine. Good guys, but it takes superman to kick that stuff. I have three people I know of that were either friends or people I knew well who are in jail for possession, and one more friend in jail for shooting a kid over drug money. So to that extent, I cannot say that drug use is a victimless crime. Sure, do what you want as long as it doesn't affect me, but you can't tell my friends parents (brandon and ryan) that their deaths were victimless.

I see that this subject is very touchy for a lot of people. I want to extend my sorrow to the family of the owners of that property. I would also like us to take a minute and see what happens next. We have to remember this guy is still innocent, although the court of public opinion has seemed to chimed a split verdict. Right now he is not convicted of anything, has not been charged with anything and has not lost his land. I know that this is some of the frustration about this situation, the idea that we don't know what is going on over there and right now it seems that the government is outside its limits. But we also have to remember that we don't have all the information, and most likely no one outside the federal authorities has this information. I have read about cases that have been thrown out for constitutional violations, and this guy has an attorney so lets give the process a chance. I would also like to take a minute to say the idea about discussing the qualities of legalizing narcotics on a public fishing forum is probably not the best place to do so. I know that this is a outlet for all of us, but we aren't going to convince each other on this topic. While drugs laws draw scrutiny from people, we have to remember that kids do watch these forums, and that there are other places to discuss these issues. I don't care to express my opinion on the "war on drugs" and I don't think the "war on drugs" is an appropriate topic for this forum. I'm not trying to get all Ness on you guys , I'm just trying to say that we're not going to convince each other on this topic, it truly is a fruitless tree. So my advice is that we calm down, drink a beer and see what the next few weeks brings.

I don't think he was pulling my chain he was a pretty honest guy that was really concerned about the situation. I fished the park area, and then a little down by the lower access area.

So I went out to Crane yesterday. Had a blast, enjoyed the fishing and the trout(caught three). But I stumbled upon some troubling news: According to one guy I ran into, the upper wire road access is dry. I have heard that the upper access can get dry, as in only a pocket or two of water, but he said the whole thing is dry, no water left at all. I'm hoping for some rain, Crane needs it. I definitley hope that this changes before the spawning season.

Just let me know. Chief, in about a month I will be fishing quite a bit

Oh, probably about 10 on Saturday. Maybe earlier, but probably no earlier than 9.

Haven't been away from the law school gig in a while. Looked back on my schedule today to realize that I had not had a day off from studying since early September. But that is going to change Saturday, I'm heading down barring horrible weather. Haven't been out in 2 1/2 months to fish, and haven't fished for trout in at least 3. Anyone been down lately? Any chance at hitting any dry fly action?? I'm just looking for some r&r to be honest, any fish I catch will be an added bonus. Any advice is appreciated. Happy veterans day

I would say go for them carp!! That would be an awesome experience. 10lb Carp kicks the crap out of a 10lb rainbow any day(at least in the fight). Wooly buggers and leech imitations should work well, and as previously mentioned a minnow pattern should be deadly. Good luck.

And your previous post was on topic? I like you ness, but treat me to the same level that you are treating yourself.

You make me want to throw up on my laptop with that breathing document comment. Look, in the way that I was using the 5th Amendment I was referring to law and not a political view. Do you go to the court and propose "your honor, the constitution is but a political document?" I would really like to see the judge's reaction to that. Yes, the constitution is a source of positive law, but that does not mean referencing necessarily starts a political debate. My view of Scalia has nothing to do with whether the Constitution is a form of political speech, rather it is my personal view of a justice that I do not think should sit with the other 8(oh god, now I'm referring to politics). And by the way, I did not bring up Scalia actively, you looked to my personal interests to draw that conclusion. I find it funny that you feel the need to snipe my position, accuse me of being ignorant of the federalist papers, and interject after I already explained that eminent domain can be used here. And how was there any doubt Missouri could do this before Kelo? Yes, Kelo may be right on point with this issue, but it would be a government taking, and it would be for public use, so why are you even bothering to comment? Oh, to throw in the Federalist papers(which by the way I have read a few, so don't be so quick to jump to conclusions on my lack of knowledge). Its funny to me that I was making a stand that referring to the Constitution is not political, thus not inappropriate for this forum, while you specifically refer to the Federalist papers in which are a political form of communication. So, KATroutman, what the heck was your primary purpose in posting? You didn't add anything that wasn't already said. All I see is you parroting my former posts in order to criticize my position while adding nothing new in the process. And to me, I find that funny

Dead on, and trust me, Dreams keep the world going. I'm not of the position that public access to all streams is wrong, I just don't know if its right(if that makes any sense lol). To answer Terry's question, the takings clause(eminent domain) is found in the 5th Amendment; "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The liberty that eric is referring to (I believe) is located in the 5th Amendment. However that is due process, and is a subject for a different web site. I don't know what about the constitution is political, in all reality it is a legal document. However, I know that marriage is political, even though it has a legal element in it. I would think that it would be in this fourms best interest to keep the topic on eminent domain and the 5th if we're going to talk about law. IMO. I hope that I haven't offended anyone, if I have then I want to make sure that everyone knows that it was not my intention.

Emminent domain is in the Taking's clause, not an affirmation of a right to private citizens to access land. I know that's pretty shallow, but I just got done with a one hour presentation to satisfy my ABA oral presentation requirement so my brain is shot. I'll look into that a little more and give you some language that shows what I'm talking about. Eric, one thing I want to make clear is that Eminent domain scares the hell out of me, and this is an area where the Supreme Court is giving great deference to the Federal Government. Liberty is gauranteed in the bill of rights, but marriage is not. I'm going to end the marraige part in order to keep this thread from going "political" but I'll PM you a portion of my outline for con law II that will show you what I'm talking about. You're in the ballpark on this, but there is an important distinction. Plus I'll give you my political view, as I think we might be on the same side on this issue.

Just wanting to know if the ponds have been stocked. I know that James A Reed seems to be the last one that you can fish. But any knowledge on the other KC ponds? Just a poll for fun. Feel free to respond.

G Wilickers batman. How about that whole 1st Amendment right?? Maybe, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell anyone? I'm pretty sure that was the supreme court protecting a minority. However in protecting this minority, it also protects the majorities rights, in that freedom of speech is not limited because a view is controversial. I'm pretty sure that our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are upheld by the Supreme Court. Name me one right in the BILL OF RIGHTS that hasn't. Can you name one constitutional right that has not been affirmed within the last 10-20 years? While you may have frustration with the federal government, the Supreme Court is not the lone watchdog of Congress. Nor does the supreme court base its rulings on whether a statute is politically wise, rather the court defers to whetehr the statute is CONSTITUTIONAL i.e. does congress have the power to regulate in a certain area and whether a State is acting within its powers of the 10th Amendment. I'm pretty sure that land access is NOT and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Nor is MARRIAGE, it may be a fundamental right, but we are getting into advance Constitutional Law which envolves a complex answer to a simple question, one which I will not get into here.

Ugly Birds?? You're killing me smalls

As loong as she doesn't want to listen to Justin Beiber, then I would fish with her anyday.

No Croce? I know there is a lot of good music out there, but Croce is one that I can listen to as well. Also, Nirvana's Unplugged in New York was a very good CD. Again, not for everyone and I can understand how yelling can put someone off of a song. But "Where Did You Sleep Last Night(In the Pines)" and "Oh Me" are two songs that I think are just out of this world. just my .02. But I'm definitley surprised that Croce didn't get mentioned more in here. "You Don't Mess Around With Jim" always reminds me of Cricket

I think that you're boot strapping there. However Chief, when you keep a fish you affect commerce, because you keeping one fish from that stream is one less fish you buy at the market. So, as you see commerce is broad enough to cover what you are after , it just gets sketchy as to what a court will say on the tiny creeks.

Commerce is just about anything, but it does not have a definition. In law, it is a term of art. However, I think that the court will start to use a balancing test when creeks like Crane are being used for an illustrative point. Meaning, how much do the interests in private property weigh on hand, and how much does public rights weigh on the other, again, just my opinion.

Ah, I'm glad you brought up the point that redwoods and flint hills have public access. I think this makes my point even stronger, as both the streams in missouri and the redwoods in California(and the flint hills) have public access lands, but both have areas where there are private areas as well. Showing that you can own these properties and have public access in the parks. However, you cannot access the persons redwoods in her backyard(legally) just because there is public land that borders the persons yard. The difference with streams is that water runs through the lands. You cannot own the water, but you can own the land beneath the water. So as long as you don't touch the bottom of the stream you wouldn't be tresspassing. Crane starts bringing in the gray area of law. I would think the amount of time that you would have to be dragging a canoe on crane would outweigh the capability of floating the stream. I'm not sure why I put hickory in there(you got me there ) But the main thing is how much of the water is capable of being waded v. the amount water that is capability of being floated. But Eric you are right, in this is my opinion. However I think Crane is going to be a stretch to even the most open minded judge. Just my opinion.

I don't know what the ACLU agenda is, I know that they are very involved with 1st Amendment suits and US constitutional issues. Here we really don't have too much of a constitutional issue, and in fact I have a hard time thinking of one. Most likely they ignore these issues as the constitution does not address access rights, only that no deprevation of property without due process of law. At least that's how I see it.