Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Global Warming... Get Your Fishing in Now

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

FlyTalk
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

February 19, 2009

Global Warming... Get Your Fishing in Now

By Tim Romano

Photo by Tim Romano

Rivers full of hatchery fish, invasive species fouling up waterways, and now a little global warming. What a week of doom and gloom for the Fly Talk faithful. Sorry, but this one caught my attention two days ago on CNN. The story is "Five Places To Go Before Global Warming Messes Them Up."

Normally, I'd glaze over an alarmist story like this. Then I realized the second and third places are two of my favorite places to fish on earth. New Orleans, Louisiana, and Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Sobering to say the least.  To to hear that we'd better get a move on and see these places before they're gone has me depressed this morning.

In 10 years, maybe most of the the evergreens in Colorado will be gone (due to pine beetles unchecked by cold snaps that used to be more prevalent). In New Orleans, floods will be more frequent with storms (like Katrina) rendering the city almost uninhabitable. As the story says, "There are two ways to look at this: Either stay home (which might be less depressing and won't add more airline emissions) or get a move on it and see the hot spots you just can't miss."

The science says the paltry concessions we've been trying to make to fix this mess won't do a thing unless we get much more aggressive with them. I just don't see that happening... I'm going up to Rocky Mountain National Park and New Orleans as many times as I can. I'm bringing my camera and taking pictures. At least I can show my kids and grandkids what it used to be like. Any of you contend global warming is a myth? For those of you concerned... what places are you worried about, and where will you visit? TR

Comments (38)

Top Rated
All Comments
from MaxPower wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I don't contend that global warming is a myth, I contend it's a religiously fanatical scare tactic. It should never persuade nor dissuade us from enjoying the outdoors.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I live in Southern Indiana (and have for 45 years). In the last 5 months we've had a hurricane (yes, a hurricane in Indiana), a major ice storm and another high wind storm. The power outages have been staggering and the damage to the trees around here is unbelieveable.

It may not be "global warming" but I do wonder what the hell is going on. I've never seen weather like this in this area, especially in the frequency it's happening. We don't have weather anymore, we have "events". It's nuts.

Jim

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfish37 wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I think global warming is a myth. In fact, I believe some 750 scientists just recently came out and said it was a myth. I think it's all a natural cycle. If you remember around 1980 they were talking about another ice age.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ramcatt wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

global warming is a myth...
just like the flytalk photo contest ;)

honestly,
I think it is a bit egotistical to think that 2 of the top 5 places are in the lower 48.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Short Tract hunter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

The only thing that is real is the melting of the polar ice caps, you can't deny that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfish37 wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

The northern polar ice caps are melting, the southern ones are thriving.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Christian Emter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Global Warming is true, and it is taking over this planet if we don't do anything. Once that takes over we might be out of luck for hunting and fishing because they don't want come out because of the climate change. Elk for example are going to stay up in the high country where it is almost impossible to reach them. Unless there is 4 feet of snow they arn't going to come down making elk hunting a whole lot harder than it already is.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Evan V wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

What is the guy holding? Some kinda turtle?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I think it is better referred to as climate change. Climates are definitely shifting, but that is the way of the universe. Are these changes happening at an unusually rapid pace brought on by man? I am not convinced, but who cares about my non-PhD opinion. But no matter what the facts, I do believe that we should minimize our footprint wherever possible - tread lightly. If we run out of food, water, energy, or human ingenuity, then pestilence, war, and starvation will bring things back into balance.

A friend is an environmental scientist and university professor - about as socially liberal as one can be, supportive of conservation rather than preservation, and outspoken that climate change is way overblown. So, not all the scientific community is in agreement.

At one time I dealt with factory emissions - VOCs and particulates. Besides the VOCs, remember flourocarbons, the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, and scientists crying wolf over the impending ice age? The more publicity, the more the sky is falling, the more the support and funding for research. Focus shifted from one crisis to another.

It seems the scientific method tends to isolate whatever is being studied, excluding other factors. We all also see what is happening around us, and in some cases it is dramatic. But I don't think anyone has a handle on the big picture, yet. I find a theory regarding polar bears interesting. Seems that they might have evolved from brown bears to survive during an ice age. So, they are only here right now because of dramatic climate change. Some are mating with brown bears. If the ice disappear will the polar bears be "necessary" since brown bears can range further north? Will a new form of polar bear reappear during the next ice age?

I am very apprehensive about invasive species - Asian carp, quagga and zebra mussels, etc. But interesting that the ecosystems we love, in some cases, are the results of man - alewive, salmon, and steelhead in the Great Lakes, brown and brook trout in Michigan streams (that used to be infested with grayling). Seems the zebra mussels have helped turn Lakes Erie and St. Clair into some of the best smallmouth waters in the world. Who knows where things will finally settle, if they ever do.

I wonder if the native Indians were right when they told settlers that Seattle was a very bad place to build, since their past settlements had been wiped out by apparent earthquakes and floods. And New Orleans, and it's impact on the receding delta?

We have a hard time dealing with change, and have a harder time accepting there might be some things we cannot control. Will human ingenuity always prevail? If sea waters rise, I think that Dutch knowhow will be very employable.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from kirkdeeter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

That's an oyster.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sportsman Matt wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Funny thing is if you look at the weather from century to century, it's a cycle. One winter here in New England around 1675-76 it rained and rained, and caused mold on the wheat which caused the catalyst for the Salem witch trials. 60 years later, the same rains came through, and so on and so forth.
People have to realize that the planet has been here longer than we have, has been arid and desert-like, and also frozen over. We don't control what the planet does, it does. Global Warming is a theory, on that can't be proven, like the supposed demons and monsters haunting people in Salem MA during the witch trials.
I do believe in the air quality does affect the water vapor and contaminants do adhere to these airborne vapors, and when it rains the contaniments come back to earth with the rain. I also know that by creating "cleaner burning" vehicles, we're not changing the contaniments coming out of the pipe, just the quantity, while creating newer ones.

As for the trout, you may see that they will either adapt or become extinct. I don't want to see the extinction part, but that's not in our hands, that's in the good ol Planet Earth's hands.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I am always amused by people who don't know bullhockey about climate science asserting that nothing humans could do could possibly affect climate. I'm not sure whether or not it's political "yellow dogamatism" or just that people have no grasp of numbers, and no sense of how atmospheric CO2 is measured and how the human induced changes have affected concentrations. I'll point out that the amount of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere is tens of billions of tons. I'll point out that volcanoes, all the ones that have erupted in the last thousand years, probably haven't put out as much CO2 as the US does, by itself, every year (to say nothing of China). I can note that the last time the earth had CO2 levels this concentrated was more than 40 million years ago. I'll add that most prior glaciations and interstadials have been linked to known causes -- orbital mechanics (Milamkovic cycles), continental drift, and major biotic events (terrestrial vegetation did alot to reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 one darned long time ago). I can note that the vast majority of scientists who actually STUDY climate agree that CO2 forcing can occur and is probably occurring.

And yet, someone will assert "doubt" that it's "just a theory." Heh. Hey guys, GRAVITY is just a theory too, but it'll still kill you if you let it have its way with you long enough. Vis climate, we may not in the long run have alot to worry about, or we may be like the guy who fell off the Empire State building -- as he passed the 10th floor heading for the ground he was heard to yell "So far so good!"

Where I wanna fish before it goes away -- an Alaskan waterway with some hefty salmon.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kirkdeeter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I'm gonna call that a slam dunk.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I don't think it's a turtle or an oyster. Probably a turd Al Gore flushed so he could alarm us about water quality.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Jim in Mo

LMAO!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rob wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Dear God - Who peed in this man's Cheerios this week?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rob wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Really - Who pee'd in your cheerio's this week?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I have three things to say to the F&S writers:
1. Here in Pennslyvannia I have not felt a single change in the climate. I believe global warmimng has been grossly overestimated to be uses as a ploticaal tool.
2.There have been natural climate changes since the Earth began and talking about man made global warming without proof on the website and magazine is very ignorate.
3. I would apprreciate ift if Field and Stream writters would stop basing entire posts and articles on things they heard on CNN.

Doing things like this are why people are ending their subcribtions.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Peter that's a good point about natural climate changes since the beginning of time. Foresters see that just by the tree rings. There are tight rings for bad years big growth rings for good years. Just like a marriage, except mine never got to the growth years.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike Diehl:
I have to question your theory that volcanic activity contributes far carbon into the atmosphere than man-caused activity. When Krakatoa erupted, the following year had no summer because of this activity.
As stated previously, I don't know if there is global warming. I also don't know, if the supposed global warming is man caused. Think about this; If you knew you were doing something degrade the environment, would'nt you stop? Our President believes in man-caused global warming. Why then, did he fly in a 747, to Denver,CO, to sign the stimulus bill? Wouldn't that signature have been just as valid in the Rose Garden? Why does he maintain the temperature, in the West Wing, at 80 degrees? Doesn't he know that there is a linear relationship between energy consumption and carbon output? If carbon-caused global warming is in fact areality, why would you ever allow a forest fire?
YooperJack

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

You guys crack me up. I was hungry for Oysters on the half shell (expensive in KCMO) then Jim made the turd comment. Saved me some money haha. Thirty years ago the libs were crying the globe is getting colder. Guess what at one time there was Glaciers in Northern MO. What warmed up the planet then.
Mike, in a few I will post a pic taken on the Klutina river in AK back in '84. wait til you see those fish. You can see them by punching my name. Give me a few minutes

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

mike Diehl,

Punch my name and check the fish. Klutina R. eventually flows into the mighty Copper River. Doesn't get as much publicity as some of the others.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sportsman Matt wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike Diehl, you forgot one thing. Cars, factories, civilization with machinery and power plants emit Carbon Monoxide (CO) that's the bad stuff. CO2 is Carbon DIoxide which is what every living breathing mammal puts out. Breate in a Nitrogen / Oxygen mixture, breathe out Carbon Dioxide. CO is deadly and affects the Ozone layer (O3) by attaching itself to the O3 to create CO2 and O2. O3 is what keeps the sun from roasting us. O2 is what we breathe. Plants take in CO2 and put out O2.

Enviromental Sciences 101 Basic.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Wow. Post a little factual science and get lots of negative feedback, and a little counterpoint. As to the latter, here goes:

@Yooper - Volcanoes emit a variety of gases and a whole lot of particulates. Catastrophic ones (like Krakatoa, Pinatubo, and lesser pipsqueaks like St. Helens) put out alot of alot of particulates. CO2 is optically transparent and doesn't cause global cooling. It's instead the particulates that reflect insolation at high altitudes. And yes, we put out ALOT more CO2 annually than all of the volcanoes in the last 1000 years, to the best that anyone can tell from ice cores. That's because even a big exploder like Pinatubo (which is a rare event) puts out CO2 in megatons. In the US we put out about 7 gigatons of CO2 per year.

The rest of your post is essentially an extended exercise in what Carl Sagan called the Fallacy of the Excluded middle. You reason that if CO2 was any kind of threat, no one would do anything that emits any CO2. As most people understand, there's a middle ground. And no one expects instantaneous solutions. Of course, cleaner (less CO2) emissions remain desirable.

@Sportsman Matt - Not sure what your point is. Yes breathing things emit CO2. That doesn't mean that 7 Gigatons (on the order of 24 Gigatons per annum world wide) is necessarily a good thing. Arsenick is a naturally occurring mineral, but it's still not good for you. Water comprises 93% of the human body, but you can still die of water poisoning (not drowning, *poisoning*) if you drink too much of it at once. That's Biology 101 by the way.

@Del in KS -- the last glacial retreat was one of many episodic glacial retreats that are a consequence of naturally occurring solar variation, periodicity in the earth's orbit, and periodicity in the position of the northern hemisphere relative to sunlight incidence. The combination of the latter two is generally known as the Milankovic cycle, and it explains *all* of the major periods of glaciation for the last several million years.

The reason why the current warming trend is widely viewed as "unusual" by climate scientists is because both solar output and orbital mechanics should put us in a cooling cycle right now. Instead we're warming. It doesn't take a wizard detective to notice that something new is happening.

And Del, those are some darned fine fish!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

For interested parties:

Milankovic cycles, a quick n dirty summary w/ a nice graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87

List of CO2 emissions by nation, 2006. Numbers in the table are thousands of metric tonnes. Each metric tonne is 1000 kilograms, or about 1.3 US tons (about 2600 pounds). So where the US has six million and something thousands of metric tons, that's about 7 billion US tons or "7 gigatons." It's written as 7,000,000,000 tons. If each ton were a bar of metal one foot long, you could walk from the earth to the sun and back and get almost 1/4 the way around your second trip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissio...

In re humans vs volcanoes, here is an interesting discussion on that subject from the United States Geological Survey:

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

My point here is not to make anyone feel bad. My point is that whatever your political affiliation, you can only make good decisions if you have good information. Since I'm sure we have plenty of retired military folks who read this, it's the difference between good intel and inaccurate or misleading intel.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike we don't have good information. Yeah, we have temperature records going back a couple of hundred years. If your an evolutionist, you believe that they earth is five billion years old. Our measurements cannot possibly reflect the true condition of this planet.
I guess my point is that someone will lose their job because of global warming. If in fact it exists, I guess that's OK. However, there is some chance that, while it might exist, it might have very little to do with mankind. From the behavior of our politicians, I believe that they use it as means to get elected. I see very few people willing to terminate their careers in order to alleviate global warming. I certainly don't want to see anyone forced out of their job for this "maybe".
YooperJack

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sportsman Matt wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike, I looked at the site, and you need to really read what's there.

As for the retired military guys, they can attest

Military Intelligence is an contradiction of words.

Just wanted to share that other little tidbit.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kirkdeeter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

At least I hope it's an oyster, since Romano ate it right after he took the shot.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FlyDave wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Peter, you probably can't feel climate change in Pennsylvania because of all the acid rain falling on your head.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ramcatt wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

peter...

I live in PA
this place is shithoused

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

@Yooper - you claim we don't have good information... you'll have to be more specific. We have direct temperature information for a couple hundred years, really good proxy temperature information from tree rings going back around 10,000 years, and relatively good proxy information from oceanic molluscs and terrestrial vegtation going back around 750 million years. Certain marine molluscs live only in certain water temperature zones. Certain terrestrial plants for certain temperature zones. It's a simplification, but if you've got a fossilized tropical rainforest, it wasn't a temperature regime like that of modern North Dakota. If you've got fossilized tundra, it wasn't a temperature regime like modern Florida.

Keywords you might want to look up: paleoclimatology, ostracodes, palynology.

@Matt - if you're still arguing with me, you haven't looked at the site.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike we don't have good information. Part of my job involves counting tree rings. Its unbelievable how much variation that you get. Is this variation due to temperature, moisture or competition? In MI, many trees rely on snowmelt for their annual diameter growth. In the U.P., they start growing a bit before Memorial Day, and are done growing by July 4th. However, they must process food for next year. Hence, during the rest of the summer, they make and store food for the next growing season. Also, I know about the mollusks, and their dependence on certain temperature ranges. I don't dispute your belief. I do question, however, where that continent was when those animals lived there. We know continents move. Granted, its only a few inches per year, but we're talking about hundreds of millions of years! Also, we know that the poles change locations, and we believe that, as poles move, so does the weather. When I was in college, declination, where I was (Houghton) was 0 degrees. Now its somewhere around 3 degrees. That's in 32 years! Can you imagine the change in a million years? I agree that it might be happening. There is a chance that its man caused. When the President says that we have to curtail our use of fossil fuels, you know that will cost some jobs. Maybe we could try it first in China.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Yoop, we definitely have good information. I don't count tree rings, but I know lots of people in the UofA lab or tree ring research, I know how they standardize their measurements, and I know what they do with their data. Scholars at the LTRR feel VERY VERY comfortable backtracking precipitation patterns and climate data for several thousands of years, and they have good intermittant data going back about 10,000 years. When you get older than that, you use other proxy data. It's not a precise science, but it does an outstanding job both in tracking relative temperature change and absolute CO2 values. And yes, continental drift affects currents (and therefore temperatures) when you start counting in millions rather than tens of thousands. But the geoscience is also good enough that one can know where continents were relative to the equator.

I think the big concern we all share is how reacting to climate change will affect our economy. I can only caution that NOT reacting to climate change will also affect our economy and likely quite adversely. If nothing else, losing alot of good trout rivers in the lower 48 will almost certainly result in job losses. I will also add that the US is the nation that made the first intercontinental railroad, won WW2, built the interstate hwy system, and landed people on the moon. It's only an opinion, but I figure if we put lots of money into solar and wind, we can make jobs to replace the energy jobs we lose, and we will at the same time wind up keeping alot of money that we currently pay out to not-so-nice people in the middle east and south America. America used to be the CAN DO nation, and reducing our CO2 footprint is something we CAN DO and do it well if we set our mind to it. And in the long run our economy will be better off.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Red wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Tim, if you have to go to these places, please walk! We wouldn't want you to be part of the problem by adding to global warming!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike, I totally agree that we are a "can do" nation. However, keep in mind, economics involves choices. We can cover the great plains with windmills. The effects on migrating birds will be horrific! Also, we'll have decide what todo with the industries that use that energy. Don't quote me on this but I believe that over half of generated electricity is used to transmit that energy. We'll need two windmills to deliver the energy of one. We could relocate the steel mills to the upper midwest to more efficiently use the energy, but that would involve the loss of a lot of open space. We can dam every river in America. That will also produce renewable energy. What will that cost in terms of migrating fish? These are only a couple of the problems that we will face if we let the government allocate resources. I'm very optimistic, however, if we let markets make these determinations. With respect tothe stimulus, I was happy to see money budgeted for global warming research. If EVERY NATION in the world agrees to cut back pollution, I'm all for it. I'm not for any unilateral cutback on our part, or us, Canada and Western Europe. If there is a cutback, everyone should share.
YooperJack

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I am confident that it we allow "the market" to determine in effect our strategy vis a vis pollution, we'll be up to our necks in outhouse refuse in no time at all. Markets chase profits. Unless you do something to make the markets factor in the costs of stupid -- something like a huge carbon tax -- they're gonna mess everything up and assume that "someone else" (i.e. the taxpayer) will clean up the mess. And I dislike the idea of a carbon tax, because it adds cost, but does not necessarily add a solution -- especially as whenever the gov't gets ahold of a new source of cash, it invariably gets diverted to yet more stupid things.

It's for sure we could cut our energy usage with better transmission lines, and it's for sure that clean energy can only dramatically cut not end our dependence on fossil fuels. Still, most electricity in the US is used during daylight hours; a whole lot of solar generation will go a long way to cutting our emissions and at relatively low expense. These days, thermal solar is as cheap as coal. But you won't see alot of new thermal solar plants as long as the coal lobby can write the rules.

As soon as my own home loan is paid off, I'm going to put solar panels on the roof. If someone wants to write me a tax incentive to do it sooner, so be it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperRyan wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

TR, I appreciate your willingness to not shy away from a topic that obviously invites such opinionated and sometimes polarizing view points, even from within the respectful circles of the F&S online community. As the old saying goes - If you're not catching some flak, you're not over the target.

My two cents...

There exists a substantial body of evidence that has conclusively determined that the planet is indeed warming and in dramatic fashion. Those who dispute this quite simply have their heads in the sand. The debate revolves around two fundamental questions: 1)To what degree is this warming the result of man made circumstance? and 2) what if anything can we do about it? The first one, I'm sure, will continue to be debated for quite some time, but regardless of your stance on however significant or slight man's contribution to the problem is, we should all feel obligated to fully pursue any and all means of combating the problem, and I find this is especially true at a time when it makes such economic sense to do so. In many respects, reducing our carbon footprint can be seen as secondary benefits to addressing other important issues facing us like national security and giving our pedestrian economy a good swift kick in the pants. This being the matter of fact case that it is, what the heck are we all arguing about here?!?! We should all throw our full support behind economically sound initiatives to explore alternative sources of energy and also ways to become more energy efficient. Wouldn't you rather embrace such measures only to find out one day that they may not have been necessary than to not only to find out that they were?

Oh, and to answer the original question (remember that) I will be spending as much time as possible fly fishing Colorado trout streams before they all dry up. Case in point, and TR, this is right in our backyard, Denver water, presumably due to low reservoir levels, felt compelled to suddenly pinch the flow coming out of Gross feeding south boulder creek from a respectable 100 cfs down to 7 cfs. And to pour salt in that wound, they did it through the duration of what otherwise would've been the brown trout spawn. I know they usually taper it down for winter but 7! C'mon! My grandfather could piss 7 cfs through a bag of cotton balls.

-YooperRyan (no known relation to YooperJack, although the odds improve greatly if you're from Ironwood Jack)

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Sorry YooperRyan, I'm a Copper Country native. I lived in Ironwood for a year. Wish I had the time to trout fish then. Fantastic streams in Gogebic County.
As far as global warming, I wish I'd see some! We've had below average temps in Delta County for almost two years now. Add to this, it snows in Iraq, Egypt and Israel. Maybe there is warming. There is evidence that points in the other direction.
I don't dispute any money spent on Global Warming research. I get a bit emotional when someone says " Because of Global Warming, our plant is shutting down". If everyone on this planet puts forth a plan to mitigate global warming, I'm all for it. This has to include every nation. This also has to include our President and former VP's who have won Oscars. Pollution is pollution. Everyone has to fight it. I can't just say "It's OK for me to poolute because Ryan is taking steps not to pollute". You have to determine 1) Is this trip necessary? And 2) Am I making this trip in the most efficient manner? I do this and I expect everyone else to.
YooperJack

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from KingFisher907 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

and in the end, we all die anyway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew Ferraro wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

You can get most people to believe in anything. 80% of our population has no idea what composes our atmosphere and no understanding of chemistry. Forget about the "truth" it's a political issue now. We are on a 5 billion year old rock and people with economic interests and agendas are trying to make sense out of 100 years of accurate temperature data. On Friday it was reported that some of the "scientists" doing most of the fear mongering missed a sheet of Artic ice the size of California because of sensor error.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MPN wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

The heat from the anger in these comments is causing global warming!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Short Tract hunter wrote 3 years 41 weeks ago

A year later and the problem hasn't gotten any better.....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MPN wrote 3 years 41 weeks ago

Short Tract Hunter,
Where did you dig this story up from? Forgot I even post on it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from FlyDave wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Peter, you probably can't feel climate change in Pennsylvania because of all the acid rain falling on your head.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from MaxPower wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I don't contend that global warming is a myth, I contend it's a religiously fanatical scare tactic. It should never persuade nor dissuade us from enjoying the outdoors.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I think it is better referred to as climate change. Climates are definitely shifting, but that is the way of the universe. Are these changes happening at an unusually rapid pace brought on by man? I am not convinced, but who cares about my non-PhD opinion. But no matter what the facts, I do believe that we should minimize our footprint wherever possible - tread lightly. If we run out of food, water, energy, or human ingenuity, then pestilence, war, and starvation will bring things back into balance.

A friend is an environmental scientist and university professor - about as socially liberal as one can be, supportive of conservation rather than preservation, and outspoken that climate change is way overblown. So, not all the scientific community is in agreement.

At one time I dealt with factory emissions - VOCs and particulates. Besides the VOCs, remember flourocarbons, the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, and scientists crying wolf over the impending ice age? The more publicity, the more the sky is falling, the more the support and funding for research. Focus shifted from one crisis to another.

It seems the scientific method tends to isolate whatever is being studied, excluding other factors. We all also see what is happening around us, and in some cases it is dramatic. But I don't think anyone has a handle on the big picture, yet. I find a theory regarding polar bears interesting. Seems that they might have evolved from brown bears to survive during an ice age. So, they are only here right now because of dramatic climate change. Some are mating with brown bears. If the ice disappear will the polar bears be "necessary" since brown bears can range further north? Will a new form of polar bear reappear during the next ice age?

I am very apprehensive about invasive species - Asian carp, quagga and zebra mussels, etc. But interesting that the ecosystems we love, in some cases, are the results of man - alewive, salmon, and steelhead in the Great Lakes, brown and brook trout in Michigan streams (that used to be infested with grayling). Seems the zebra mussels have helped turn Lakes Erie and St. Clair into some of the best smallmouth waters in the world. Who knows where things will finally settle, if they ever do.

I wonder if the native Indians were right when they told settlers that Seattle was a very bad place to build, since their past settlements had been wiped out by apparent earthquakes and floods. And New Orleans, and it's impact on the receding delta?

We have a hard time dealing with change, and have a harder time accepting there might be some things we cannot control. Will human ingenuity always prevail? If sea waters rise, I think that Dutch knowhow will be very employable.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

Sorry YooperRyan, I'm a Copper Country native. I lived in Ironwood for a year. Wish I had the time to trout fish then. Fantastic streams in Gogebic County.
As far as global warming, I wish I'd see some! We've had below average temps in Delta County for almost two years now. Add to this, it snows in Iraq, Egypt and Israel. Maybe there is warming. There is evidence that points in the other direction.
I don't dispute any money spent on Global Warming research. I get a bit emotional when someone says " Because of Global Warming, our plant is shutting down". If everyone on this planet puts forth a plan to mitigate global warming, I'm all for it. This has to include every nation. This also has to include our President and former VP's who have won Oscars. Pollution is pollution. Everyone has to fight it. I can't just say "It's OK for me to poolute because Ryan is taking steps not to pollute". You have to determine 1) Is this trip necessary? And 2) Am I making this trip in the most efficient manner? I do this and I expect everyone else to.
YooperJack

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfish37 wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I think global warming is a myth. In fact, I believe some 750 scientists just recently came out and said it was a myth. I think it's all a natural cycle. If you remember around 1980 they were talking about another ice age.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ramcatt wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

global warming is a myth...
just like the flytalk photo contest ;)

honestly,
I think it is a bit egotistical to think that 2 of the top 5 places are in the lower 48.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike Diehl:
I have to question your theory that volcanic activity contributes far carbon into the atmosphere than man-caused activity. When Krakatoa erupted, the following year had no summer because of this activity.
As stated previously, I don't know if there is global warming. I also don't know, if the supposed global warming is man caused. Think about this; If you knew you were doing something degrade the environment, would'nt you stop? Our President believes in man-caused global warming. Why then, did he fly in a 747, to Denver,CO, to sign the stimulus bill? Wouldn't that signature have been just as valid in the Rose Garden? Why does he maintain the temperature, in the West Wing, at 80 degrees? Doesn't he know that there is a linear relationship between energy consumption and carbon output? If carbon-caused global warming is in fact areality, why would you ever allow a forest fire?
YooperJack

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sportsman Matt wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike Diehl, you forgot one thing. Cars, factories, civilization with machinery and power plants emit Carbon Monoxide (CO) that's the bad stuff. CO2 is Carbon DIoxide which is what every living breathing mammal puts out. Breate in a Nitrogen / Oxygen mixture, breathe out Carbon Dioxide. CO is deadly and affects the Ozone layer (O3) by attaching itself to the O3 to create CO2 and O2. O3 is what keeps the sun from roasting us. O2 is what we breathe. Plants take in CO2 and put out O2.

Enviromental Sciences 101 Basic.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike we don't have good information. Yeah, we have temperature records going back a couple of hundred years. If your an evolutionist, you believe that they earth is five billion years old. Our measurements cannot possibly reflect the true condition of this planet.
I guess my point is that someone will lose their job because of global warming. If in fact it exists, I guess that's OK. However, there is some chance that, while it might exist, it might have very little to do with mankind. From the behavior of our politicians, I believe that they use it as means to get elected. I see very few people willing to terminate their careers in order to alleviate global warming. I certainly don't want to see anyone forced out of their job for this "maybe".
YooperJack

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike we don't have good information. Part of my job involves counting tree rings. Its unbelievable how much variation that you get. Is this variation due to temperature, moisture or competition? In MI, many trees rely on snowmelt for their annual diameter growth. In the U.P., they start growing a bit before Memorial Day, and are done growing by July 4th. However, they must process food for next year. Hence, during the rest of the summer, they make and store food for the next growing season. Also, I know about the mollusks, and their dependence on certain temperature ranges. I don't dispute your belief. I do question, however, where that continent was when those animals lived there. We know continents move. Granted, its only a few inches per year, but we're talking about hundreds of millions of years! Also, we know that the poles change locations, and we believe that, as poles move, so does the weather. When I was in college, declination, where I was (Houghton) was 0 degrees. Now its somewhere around 3 degrees. That's in 32 years! Can you imagine the change in a million years? I agree that it might be happening. There is a chance that its man caused. When the President says that we have to curtail our use of fossil fuels, you know that will cost some jobs. Maybe we could try it first in China.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Yoop, we definitely have good information. I don't count tree rings, but I know lots of people in the UofA lab or tree ring research, I know how they standardize their measurements, and I know what they do with their data. Scholars at the LTRR feel VERY VERY comfortable backtracking precipitation patterns and climate data for several thousands of years, and they have good intermittant data going back about 10,000 years. When you get older than that, you use other proxy data. It's not a precise science, but it does an outstanding job both in tracking relative temperature change and absolute CO2 values. And yes, continental drift affects currents (and therefore temperatures) when you start counting in millions rather than tens of thousands. But the geoscience is also good enough that one can know where continents were relative to the equator.

I think the big concern we all share is how reacting to climate change will affect our economy. I can only caution that NOT reacting to climate change will also affect our economy and likely quite adversely. If nothing else, losing alot of good trout rivers in the lower 48 will almost certainly result in job losses. I will also add that the US is the nation that made the first intercontinental railroad, won WW2, built the interstate hwy system, and landed people on the moon. It's only an opinion, but I figure if we put lots of money into solar and wind, we can make jobs to replace the energy jobs we lose, and we will at the same time wind up keeping alot of money that we currently pay out to not-so-nice people in the middle east and south America. America used to be the CAN DO nation, and reducing our CO2 footprint is something we CAN DO and do it well if we set our mind to it. And in the long run our economy will be better off.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperJack wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike, I totally agree that we are a "can do" nation. However, keep in mind, economics involves choices. We can cover the great plains with windmills. The effects on migrating birds will be horrific! Also, we'll have decide what todo with the industries that use that energy. Don't quote me on this but I believe that over half of generated electricity is used to transmit that energy. We'll need two windmills to deliver the energy of one. We could relocate the steel mills to the upper midwest to more efficiently use the energy, but that would involve the loss of a lot of open space. We can dam every river in America. That will also produce renewable energy. What will that cost in terms of migrating fish? These are only a couple of the problems that we will face if we let the government allocate resources. I'm very optimistic, however, if we let markets make these determinations. With respect tothe stimulus, I was happy to see money budgeted for global warming research. If EVERY NATION in the world agrees to cut back pollution, I'm all for it. I'm not for any unilateral cutback on our part, or us, Canada and Western Europe. If there is a cutback, everyone should share.
YooperJack

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from YooperRyan wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

TR, I appreciate your willingness to not shy away from a topic that obviously invites such opinionated and sometimes polarizing view points, even from within the respectful circles of the F&S online community. As the old saying goes - If you're not catching some flak, you're not over the target.

My two cents...

There exists a substantial body of evidence that has conclusively determined that the planet is indeed warming and in dramatic fashion. Those who dispute this quite simply have their heads in the sand. The debate revolves around two fundamental questions: 1)To what degree is this warming the result of man made circumstance? and 2) what if anything can we do about it? The first one, I'm sure, will continue to be debated for quite some time, but regardless of your stance on however significant or slight man's contribution to the problem is, we should all feel obligated to fully pursue any and all means of combating the problem, and I find this is especially true at a time when it makes such economic sense to do so. In many respects, reducing our carbon footprint can be seen as secondary benefits to addressing other important issues facing us like national security and giving our pedestrian economy a good swift kick in the pants. This being the matter of fact case that it is, what the heck are we all arguing about here?!?! We should all throw our full support behind economically sound initiatives to explore alternative sources of energy and also ways to become more energy efficient. Wouldn't you rather embrace such measures only to find out one day that they may not have been necessary than to not only to find out that they were?

Oh, and to answer the original question (remember that) I will be spending as much time as possible fly fishing Colorado trout streams before they all dry up. Case in point, and TR, this is right in our backyard, Denver water, presumably due to low reservoir levels, felt compelled to suddenly pinch the flow coming out of Gross feeding south boulder creek from a respectable 100 cfs down to 7 cfs. And to pour salt in that wound, they did it through the duration of what otherwise would've been the brown trout spawn. I know they usually taper it down for winter but 7! C'mon! My grandfather could piss 7 cfs through a bag of cotton balls.

-YooperRyan (no known relation to YooperJack, although the odds improve greatly if you're from Ironwood Jack)

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from MPN wrote 5 years 4 weeks ago

The heat from the anger in these comments is causing global warming!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from kirkdeeter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

That's an oyster.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

You guys crack me up. I was hungry for Oysters on the half shell (expensive in KCMO) then Jim made the turd comment. Saved me some money haha. Thirty years ago the libs were crying the globe is getting colder. Guess what at one time there was Glaciers in Northern MO. What warmed up the planet then.
Mike, in a few I will post a pic taken on the Klutina river in AK back in '84. wait til you see those fish. You can see them by punching my name. Give me a few minutes

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

mike Diehl,

Punch my name and check the fish. Klutina R. eventually flows into the mighty Copper River. Doesn't get as much publicity as some of the others.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Wow. Post a little factual science and get lots of negative feedback, and a little counterpoint. As to the latter, here goes:

@Yooper - Volcanoes emit a variety of gases and a whole lot of particulates. Catastrophic ones (like Krakatoa, Pinatubo, and lesser pipsqueaks like St. Helens) put out alot of alot of particulates. CO2 is optically transparent and doesn't cause global cooling. It's instead the particulates that reflect insolation at high altitudes. And yes, we put out ALOT more CO2 annually than all of the volcanoes in the last 1000 years, to the best that anyone can tell from ice cores. That's because even a big exploder like Pinatubo (which is a rare event) puts out CO2 in megatons. In the US we put out about 7 gigatons of CO2 per year.

The rest of your post is essentially an extended exercise in what Carl Sagan called the Fallacy of the Excluded middle. You reason that if CO2 was any kind of threat, no one would do anything that emits any CO2. As most people understand, there's a middle ground. And no one expects instantaneous solutions. Of course, cleaner (less CO2) emissions remain desirable.

@Sportsman Matt - Not sure what your point is. Yes breathing things emit CO2. That doesn't mean that 7 Gigatons (on the order of 24 Gigatons per annum world wide) is necessarily a good thing. Arsenick is a naturally occurring mineral, but it's still not good for you. Water comprises 93% of the human body, but you can still die of water poisoning (not drowning, *poisoning*) if you drink too much of it at once. That's Biology 101 by the way.

@Del in KS -- the last glacial retreat was one of many episodic glacial retreats that are a consequence of naturally occurring solar variation, periodicity in the earth's orbit, and periodicity in the position of the northern hemisphere relative to sunlight incidence. The combination of the latter two is generally known as the Milankovic cycle, and it explains *all* of the major periods of glaciation for the last several million years.

The reason why the current warming trend is widely viewed as "unusual" by climate scientists is because both solar output and orbital mechanics should put us in a cooling cycle right now. Instead we're warming. It doesn't take a wizard detective to notice that something new is happening.

And Del, those are some darned fine fish!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

For interested parties:

Milankovic cycles, a quick n dirty summary w/ a nice graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87

List of CO2 emissions by nation, 2006. Numbers in the table are thousands of metric tonnes. Each metric tonne is 1000 kilograms, or about 1.3 US tons (about 2600 pounds). So where the US has six million and something thousands of metric tons, that's about 7 billion US tons or "7 gigatons." It's written as 7,000,000,000 tons. If each ton were a bar of metal one foot long, you could walk from the earth to the sun and back and get almost 1/4 the way around your second trip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissio...

In re humans vs volcanoes, here is an interesting discussion on that subject from the United States Geological Survey:

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

My point here is not to make anyone feel bad. My point is that whatever your political affiliation, you can only make good decisions if you have good information. Since I'm sure we have plenty of retired military folks who read this, it's the difference between good intel and inaccurate or misleading intel.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Red wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Tim, if you have to go to these places, please walk! We wouldn't want you to be part of the problem by adding to global warming!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I am confident that it we allow "the market" to determine in effect our strategy vis a vis pollution, we'll be up to our necks in outhouse refuse in no time at all. Markets chase profits. Unless you do something to make the markets factor in the costs of stupid -- something like a huge carbon tax -- they're gonna mess everything up and assume that "someone else" (i.e. the taxpayer) will clean up the mess. And I dislike the idea of a carbon tax, because it adds cost, but does not necessarily add a solution -- especially as whenever the gov't gets ahold of a new source of cash, it invariably gets diverted to yet more stupid things.

It's for sure we could cut our energy usage with better transmission lines, and it's for sure that clean energy can only dramatically cut not end our dependence on fossil fuels. Still, most electricity in the US is used during daylight hours; a whole lot of solar generation will go a long way to cutting our emissions and at relatively low expense. These days, thermal solar is as cheap as coal. But you won't see alot of new thermal solar plants as long as the coal lobby can write the rules.

As soon as my own home loan is paid off, I'm going to put solar panels on the roof. If someone wants to write me a tax incentive to do it sooner, so be it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from KingFisher907 wrote 5 years 7 weeks ago

and in the end, we all die anyway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew Ferraro wrote 5 years 6 weeks ago

You can get most people to believe in anything. 80% of our population has no idea what composes our atmosphere and no understanding of chemistry. Forget about the "truth" it's a political issue now. We are on a 5 billion year old rock and people with economic interests and agendas are trying to make sense out of 100 years of accurate temperature data. On Friday it was reported that some of the "scientists" doing most of the fear mongering missed a sheet of Artic ice the size of California because of sensor error.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I live in Southern Indiana (and have for 45 years). In the last 5 months we've had a hurricane (yes, a hurricane in Indiana), a major ice storm and another high wind storm. The power outages have been staggering and the damage to the trees around here is unbelieveable.

It may not be "global warming" but I do wonder what the hell is going on. I've never seen weather like this in this area, especially in the frequency it's happening. We don't have weather anymore, we have "events". It's nuts.

Jim

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Short Tract hunter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

The only thing that is real is the melting of the polar ice caps, you can't deny that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I am always amused by people who don't know bullhockey about climate science asserting that nothing humans could do could possibly affect climate. I'm not sure whether or not it's political "yellow dogamatism" or just that people have no grasp of numbers, and no sense of how atmospheric CO2 is measured and how the human induced changes have affected concentrations. I'll point out that the amount of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere is tens of billions of tons. I'll point out that volcanoes, all the ones that have erupted in the last thousand years, probably haven't put out as much CO2 as the US does, by itself, every year (to say nothing of China). I can note that the last time the earth had CO2 levels this concentrated was more than 40 million years ago. I'll add that most prior glaciations and interstadials have been linked to known causes -- orbital mechanics (Milamkovic cycles), continental drift, and major biotic events (terrestrial vegetation did alot to reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 one darned long time ago). I can note that the vast majority of scientists who actually STUDY climate agree that CO2 forcing can occur and is probably occurring.

And yet, someone will assert "doubt" that it's "just a theory." Heh. Hey guys, GRAVITY is just a theory too, but it'll still kill you if you let it have its way with you long enough. Vis climate, we may not in the long run have alot to worry about, or we may be like the guy who fell off the Empire State building -- as he passed the 10th floor heading for the ground he was heard to yell "So far so good!"

Where I wanna fish before it goes away -- an Alaskan waterway with some hefty salmon.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kirkdeeter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I'm gonna call that a slam dunk.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I don't think it's a turtle or an oyster. Probably a turd Al Gore flushed so he could alarm us about water quality.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rob wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Dear God - Who peed in this man's Cheerios this week?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rob wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Really - Who pee'd in your cheerio's this week?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Peter that's a good point about natural climate changes since the beginning of time. Foresters see that just by the tree rings. There are tight rings for bad years big growth rings for good years. Just like a marriage, except mine never got to the growth years.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sportsman Matt wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Mike, I looked at the site, and you need to really read what's there.

As for the retired military guys, they can attest

Military Intelligence is an contradiction of words.

Just wanted to share that other little tidbit.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kirkdeeter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

At least I hope it's an oyster, since Romano ate it right after he took the shot.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ramcatt wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

peter...

I live in PA
this place is shithoused

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

@Yooper - you claim we don't have good information... you'll have to be more specific. We have direct temperature information for a couple hundred years, really good proxy temperature information from tree rings going back around 10,000 years, and relatively good proxy information from oceanic molluscs and terrestrial vegtation going back around 750 million years. Certain marine molluscs live only in certain water temperature zones. Certain terrestrial plants for certain temperature zones. It's a simplification, but if you've got a fossilized tropical rainforest, it wasn't a temperature regime like that of modern North Dakota. If you've got fossilized tundra, it wasn't a temperature regime like modern Florida.

Keywords you might want to look up: paleoclimatology, ostracodes, palynology.

@Matt - if you're still arguing with me, you haven't looked at the site.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Short Tract hunter wrote 3 years 41 weeks ago

A year later and the problem hasn't gotten any better.....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfish37 wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

The northern polar ice caps are melting, the southern ones are thriving.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Christian Emter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Global Warming is true, and it is taking over this planet if we don't do anything. Once that takes over we might be out of luck for hunting and fishing because they don't want come out because of the climate change. Elk for example are going to stay up in the high country where it is almost impossible to reach them. Unless there is 4 feet of snow they arn't going to come down making elk hunting a whole lot harder than it already is.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Evan V wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

What is the guy holding? Some kinda turtle?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sportsman Matt wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Funny thing is if you look at the weather from century to century, it's a cycle. One winter here in New England around 1675-76 it rained and rained, and caused mold on the wheat which caused the catalyst for the Salem witch trials. 60 years later, the same rains came through, and so on and so forth.
People have to realize that the planet has been here longer than we have, has been arid and desert-like, and also frozen over. We don't control what the planet does, it does. Global Warming is a theory, on that can't be proven, like the supposed demons and monsters haunting people in Salem MA during the witch trials.
I do believe in the air quality does affect the water vapor and contaminants do adhere to these airborne vapors, and when it rains the contaniments come back to earth with the rain. I also know that by creating "cleaner burning" vehicles, we're not changing the contaniments coming out of the pipe, just the quantity, while creating newer ones.

As for the trout, you may see that they will either adapt or become extinct. I don't want to see the extinction part, but that's not in our hands, that's in the good ol Planet Earth's hands.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

Jim in Mo

LMAO!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MPN wrote 3 years 41 weeks ago

Short Tract Hunter,
Where did you dig this story up from? Forgot I even post on it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 5 years 8 weeks ago

I have three things to say to the F&S writers:
1. Here in Pennslyvannia I have not felt a single change in the climate. I believe global warmimng has been grossly overestimated to be uses as a ploticaal tool.
2.There have been natural climate changes since the Earth began and talking about man made global warming without proof on the website and magazine is very ignorate.
3. I would apprreciate ift if Field and Stream writters would stop basing entire posts and articles on things they heard on CNN.

Doing things like this are why people are ending their subcribtions.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs