troutfiend1985

Are you at UMKC? I'm over here at Washburn.

I re-read the original post, nothing in there suggested that one should not be concerned with the situation in Japan. Rather, the post merely stated that if you like baits from there then you might want to get them as the crisis in Japan may affect the availability of the baits and the price of them. I really cannot see why this would be offensive, the person merely made an observation that was relevant to fishing and did not pertain to an insensitive remark on the situation in Japan. And really people, is this what it takes us to get offended, as compared with all the b.s. on tv, radio and the internet we want to crucify a person for putting information about fishing on a fishing forum as if it was meant to belittle the situation and crisis that Japan has?

Man I wish Finals are coming up in a hurry this time, and it seems that Secured Transactions and Professional Responsibility will be the closest thing I see to either P&L or fishing until May.

Thanks for all the info guys. dpenrod, I wish I could get out to one of those lakes, I don't have a watercraft though. I'm looking at one of those float tubes, but then again I probably won't use it much. Maybe one of these days when I get out of school.

Could not have said it better. Both were right on.

Only if you want to pick me up in KC

Hey guys, I've always wondered if there is areas that you could wade on taney when there is moderate generation(like 1 or 2 units). It seems that when summer comes around I always want to go to Taney but the darn generators are going Thanks for any info.

I did it a couple of times last year and mainly ended up with using marabou jigs. I tried deer hair poppers a few times but never really got any bites on them, I think because of my lack of casting skills and the amount of pressure the lakes recieve. Anyone here bass fish on the fly rod at JAR?

Mic that is awesome. I have a 6 year old and this summer she is going to drown worms on the fly rod, I'm hoping that we catch a bluegill or two. Keep taking her, that is an awesome thing to do and hopefully one day she will realize how special those moments are.

Hey DD, that is some great info you posted up and I really appreciate it! I was wondering about the size of flies that you are using on this Polish Nymphing set up, is sz 10 the general rule of thumb, or do you get smaller than that? Thanks again.

To me, it would seem that the state of Missouri(if it hasn't done so already) and KS should just tell people to throw the darn fish, like Silver Carp, onto the banks. But, at least in Kansas, this act would be "Wanton Waste." It seems silly to have invasive species problems and yet the idea of Wanton Waste applies to these species. To me, it would make more sense to have the idea of wanton waste only apply to those fish that have limits to them under the state laws, or that are actual game fish. I like the idea of keeping fish and having something like a round up for invasives. It could work, we as humans have been efficient at ruining things by overharvest, now maybe would could take that trait and apply it to invasives.

Ahh, I got it, I jst need to learn how to read better Then I would say as an attractor for Mayfly hatches: Adams Adams parachute Pheasant Tail Parachute GRHE Parachute Sizes can vary, I don't fish size 12's, so maybe 14-18? As far as the actual mayflies, I would think the only one on there that I didn't see is the Red Quill.

Yes, Oneshot is right about this. Taney + Lilleys Landing = good times If the Dam is generating, then you could always rent a boat. If that's not for you then you could go to Roaring River. Might be crowded in the main section but you could go to either the C&R section or below the park to the white ribbon area.

Mic I like your idea. I will try to look through some of my old notes and find some stuff. I did see that caddis flies aren't too big on your list, I think you might want to add some to your box(in my best super secret whisper voice). However, this might be a good starting place to see what's in your stream that you fish. http://www.mostreamteam.org/interactivemap.asp

I guess it's just what your definition of public is. What I was meaning is that this is a private forum in that it is operated by a private host. I understand your confusion, but the idea of a public forum would be more or less one operated by the government, in short and simple terms. Wishing to picket a local mall, private forum, being on the sidewalk picketing something would be a public forum. I guess in your post you're getting at the idea of the public being able to talk about things on this board, but what it boils down to is who operates the site, which would be Lilley. Small thing, wouldn't get worried about it but the point just comes down to the idea that Lilley can shut down a topic. Public forum in that anyone can view it, private forum in that it is owned and owperated by a private actor(really not that big of a deal and I should've put that out there earlier).

Well maybe I'm wrong(won't be the last or first time) but conservation issues get close to the heart. After all, this is something we love, otherwise why post? And in saying that, this is a section to post your opinions, and with opinions come disagreements that can/will lead to arguments. I have no problem with arguing, as drew noted But I really don't want to get into national politics, which it appears that I'm not the only one. I don't mind someone calling me wrong, and if I've seen them on the forum before and they were arguing, then sure as heck I'm going to get back with them. I think just staying off of national politics is what has been requested. Now, I'm sure if we really start getting into local politics(BTW IMO they're more important) then we'll end up not being able to talk about those if they don't show some relevance to outdoors. Just my .02

All I'm trying to get across is that this is Lilley's rules, and that there aren't clear lines of politics/non-politics. I put up some things in the beginining that tried to illustrate the point, but there is no hard line. And you're right about who cares if its political, an argument is an argument, but I didn't bring up the "shall not be named" topic Hey, c'mon Eric you like to argue too

Tim, Websters dictionary uses this as its secondary definition, and uses the words Politics to illustrate a secondary definition. If you note, the word politics is tied "party." The main definition is that of relating to government, while conservation is protecting and preservation. There's you lines, not hard to follow. And Tim, hate to be a jerk but, have one of those scientific tests you've conducted sorted out what is politics and what is conservation? No, not to my knowledge, thus this is a study of semantics and a gray issue. You're looking for something that doesn't exist. So far everyone else that I've seen on this post is saying that its a issue by issue basis, no hard line rules, thus the difference between science and real life. Laws/Rules/Constitutions are gray buddy. Just going to have to accept that. Why is it important that this is Lilley's forum? Because it is Lilley who runs the ship, he makes the "laws" that govern this forum. The constitution doesn't apply here, no 1st Amendment because no govenrnment actor. He can kick you off, no big deal. Tim, you can always start up a forum, go through all that work and apply your own defintion and draw your own lines to what is and isn't politics. However, Lilley is under no obligation to put up a list of rules, or play Justice Scalia and draw lines about what is and isn't politics. I'm done with this, not because I'm mad, but because there is nothing left to say. You have a point but it's moot. Oh well, get on with it and just don't expect people to not get heated about controversial subjects or for Lilley to write out a constitution of sorts for what is and is not politics.

Political a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government : of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics Conservation : a careful preservation and Protection of something; especially : planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect Here’s the problem Tim, and this is what I was trying to illustrate before. I’m not posting these definitions here to be a jerk, contrary I’m posting them here to illustrate. Look, when I said world wide view before, it is apparent that Global Warming is not appropriate to this forum. Yes, you can argue that it is conservation and I would agree with you. BUT the problem is that this topic is not directly tied to MDC or streams and lakes, it’s bigger than that which makes it more of a political problem. Why, because look who the front runners are, donkeys, elephants and big oil and green. That is why such large issue topics are not really conservation topics FOR THIS PARTICULAR PRIAVTELY OPERATED THREAD. How can I say this with a straight face, especially when I refer to MDC, and MDC is a government agency? Because MDC stops the lines at its borders, it doesn’t go past them. You can talk about things that affect MDC, and other like state entities, KDWP etc. But Tim you have to realize that some of these posts are just begging for it, and none more than global warming. Are you seeing the donkeys and elephants getting upset over stream improvement in Little Piney? No. Are you seeing the two major political parties drawing lines over the federal dam budget cuts? Not really, but when you get into things that are so debatable as global warming, where there are two sides and they both have their heels in the ground, then you get into a whole new ball game. Look, science has tests that solve problems. This works for science, but real life doesn’t work like that, and this is just going to be a gray issue. You’re probably going to have to ask yourself if this is more government, outside of MDC and like agencies, or is this more red and blue issues? You dig? No black and white here, just a judgment call.

And see, I think that's right. But I think it's just when we get a little "too" worldwide is when the problem starts. I don't know, just my .02. However I do reserve the right to verbally abuse Outisde Bend whenever I get the opportunity

How do we do this better? Leave out names of talk show hosts, don't bring up donkeys, elephants, political theories or presidents, don't reference political agendas heard on the radio/tv, don't threaten to shoot each other, don't bring up social sytems that don't pertain to conservation and don't bring up global warming. What do we do to make this forum less of a burden? Read above. How do we talk about government without talking about politics? We talk about the MDC, MDC is a seperate entity from politics IMO. Yes MDC is a governmental body in MO, but it doesn't have elections, red ties and voting campaigns. So, what is right and wrong with the MDC would probably be fine, what is right and wrong with the president, congress, supreme court, MO legislature, welfare, SS, etc. would be irrelevant. Surely we can do this without limiting ourselves to irrelevant issues? What is relevant? This is a fishing forum, this thread is dedicated to conservation issues. Thus what would be relevant is conservation issues involving fishing and hunting. Expressing a view on global warming is not a conservation issue directly relevant to fishing IMO(note, I said in my opinion) because it is not limited to fishing/hunting. Does that make sense, it's a fine line. What would be relevant, stream improvements, issues involving federal action on dams is relevant but it's not relevant to bash a local representative or congressman who we/you/I think are dictators. I not getting at you Tim, this is just what I see going on with the whole conservation forums. C&R, length limits, whether we should have stockings in urban trout programs etc. is very relevant. I think what is going on here is we are starting issues that are relevant and then are hijacked by political agendas. There are political websites. Maybe I'm over the top but I think this type of stuff above is what is giving Lilley a headache.

Thanks Ducky. One of these days I can get down there, hopefully June or July. I appreciate the info.

I just have a qustion and would appreciate any help. I have wanted to go down to this area for a while, but I was wondering if a boat is required, or if there is public access for wading. Hoping that maybe this summer I can get down there for a day.

Whew. Getting hot here. Look, I know my comment came out only at welfare but when I was writing it I was generally meaning the fact that every time we have a darn conservation issue lately we always end up with references to irrelevant issues/topics that have no material bearing on issue we started with namely politics on the federal level that have no bearing on conservation issues. I think you can loop social security and all other federal topics in this as well, and that wasn't too far of a stretch when reading my statement that the politics thing on here is old, although these are the first few times I've expressed that feeling. Member of TU? No. Last time I checked it wasn't a requirement to be politically active, although they do good things for trout fishing and I like a lot of what they do. Contacted my local representative? Not about this issue yet but I have been in touch with him on other issues within the last month. Yet again, none of this is relevant besides it being an ad hominem attack and misdirecting another issue. I'm going to contact my rep, but I don't think this was a topic which was brought up with a purpose of getting a KS resident, who does not actively tailwaters to contact their representative. But guess what, I'm going to contact my rep anyways because I love our outdoors and hope that one day I can get back down to the white and fish it again(only been once). I would really think that the people you want to rally around are those who would be most affected; guides, local fisherman, hotels and marinas. Contacted any of those people lately, especially the local hotels in these areas and maybe BRANSON BUSINESSES AND TELL THEM HOW THIS COULD IMPACT TOURISM? Contacted any newspapers? Found any numbers on how much money is spent in Arkansas and MO for trout fishing? See, these are relevant because they materially affect this issue by showing how these cutbacks could affect local business and local tourism to these areas. Get mad at me, call me a smartass and a juvenile, and reference that I'm lazy. That's fine I don't really care because none of those apply outside of maybe being a smartass. If you think that I was referencing you particularly in that post then I'm sorry, it was aimed at more of a general theme lately, specifically those who want to actively bring up irrelevant political issues. I can understand how politics are relevant in some ways to this forum, the mountain lions, the didymo situation and this topic. However the more we can discuss these specific topics the less you will find Lilley itching to shut it down.

Eh, this topics done. We probably crossed the point awhile back. Look call a rep and it doesn't hurt anything. That's what they should be there for. No need to make a fuss out of it, or use pent up cabin fever here. As far as the bill, outside of petitioning, maybe call up local newspapers. That's where I would go and you'll reach more people that way. Other than that the only thing I have to say is posting a welfare reference on a fishing forum is like arguing with your kid, it's hard to tell who the 4 year old is from across the room.