Why Bother

FAOL Community Fly Anglers Online
1

Deanna’s article this week was Dead On. I work in environmental compliance for our counties largest employer. Because of my job, I was appointed by the MPCA to serve on an advisory board for a TMDL for the Minnesota River. The Minnesota has many problems. The TMDL was specifically to look at and reduce sources of phosphorous during 5 year low flow periods. The last event was 8 years ago and had an impact of 2 weeks. Phosphorous is an issue also during high flow periods. Why was this rather insignificant event targeted? The sources of phosphorous during low flow are from point sources. These sources are regulated. There is a potential for an ax over the neck.

The agricultural industry has a fair political clout in rural America. If we are ever to see improvement in overall river quality, we sportsmen are going to have to get more involved. We have to develop our own clout to get the attention of regulators.

Thanks Deanna - Keep up the good work

2

As a farmer and a fisherman, I’m torn on this one. I’m not sure what they’re farming to have posphorous levels that high (seems it might even be reaching a level that is detrimental to the crop)m but I suspect more that they just aren’t rotating, or able to rotate plantings as well as they should.

As a fisherman, my interest lies in protecting the environment of my passion. As a farmer (and I don’t rely on farming to make my living), I know how critically important the Industry is toour economy, and the incredible difficulties that already exist in the second oldest profession on Earth.

Its going to come down to money, eventually (likely long after we’re dead and gone), and at that point, we fishermen will lose. Agriculture is an economic producer, whereas fishing is not (at least it is negligible when compared to agriculture).

I don’t know what the solution is (I suspect there actually isn’t one, in the long run, most improbably). But I also suspect that this is an indication of inefficiency, and the beginning echos of a death-knell for the small farmer (500 acres and less). The solution, to me, appears to be more efficient rotation. If you have a small farm (less than 500 acres, and depending on the crop, that could not be enough either), you simply can’t rotate enough to produce a profitable crop each year.

So, if that is actually the scenario, do you sht down the family farm, or do you shut down the fisherman?

Or…and here is an interesting consideration…do you invest in research/infrastructure for solutions that might accomodate both?

In my mind, I think that ultimately the best we can hope for is to postpone the inevitable. We have an obligation to do that, even if we know what the ultimate outcome will be.

Kramer

Oh, I’m out there baby! And I’m loving every minute of it!

3

Great article, LF.
In my opinion it is much easier for all of us to blame problems on people so far away (them) that we can excuse our own inaction by saying we can’t make a difference. Thus we feel no guilt. Many organizations ( for example Trout Unlimited) are proving that people can make a difference at the local level. The solutions may not be perfect but they are infinitely better than doing nothing. Your call to action is VERY important.

4

It is indeed a very complicated issue. I am trying to be accusatory, and am in no means placing blame only on farmers. MPCA modeling would indicate that more sediment and fertilizer runnoff comes from urban storm drains than from ag land. When rainfall lands on roof tops, and asphalt, traditionally there is little to slow it down and thus deposit sediment before the water enters a stream. The technical solution is to slow the water down, allow infiltration, and/or filtration to remove sediments. We drained the wet lands - we need to create something to replace them.

Politically the answers are more complicated. Regulations exist for Pollution Control Agencies to control industries and municipalites that discharge through a pipe. Put in a pipe, you first get a permit. To get a permit, you meet certain standards. Stuff comming out of pipe is easily measurable.

In Southwestern Minnesota, they can’t even tell you how many improper individual septic systems exist, or heaven forbid, who owns them. They just know that many of the small streams don’t meet fecal coliform standards.

I don’t have answers, a year ago, I didn’t have a clue about the issues. I have gotten involved with local watershed groups, I attend PCA Information Meetings, and will be joining some of the local save the river groups. White43 will laugh and tell you that I am just sucking up as a representative of bad guy industry, but he will also tell you that I love to fish. My kids love to fish, and my grandkids love to fish. I want to protect some for them.

Thanks for providing a forum for me to rant.

Dennis

5

I’m dyslexic - and not much of a proof reader!! I really am NOT trying to be accusatory!

6

Kramer,

We’re talking primarily about hay crops and chicken farming…two of the absolute worst agricultural offenders in terms of runoff phosphorous contamination. But here’s the crux of the problem as I see it:

  1. Most of Northern AR is coming under a mitigation plan to reduce phosphorous runoff from ag. Waste-water treatment plants (the #2 offender in the White River Basin) have recently come into voluntary compliance with much stricter standards of Phosphorous emissions. Obviously, the plan is not unworkable or too big a burden for the REST of Northern Arkansas…just the Crooked Creek watershed.
  2. The reason being given for exempting the CC watershed farms is simply this: the water from CC doesn’t leave the state of AR until it flows down the Miss River into LA. If it doesn’t leave the state, none of the neighboring states can sue. FYI, what triggered most of the water quality initiatives in AR in recent years has been a successful lawsuit by the State of Oklahoma against AR, and threats from MO to do likewise if AR didn’t take appropriate action. So what these AR farmers, politicians, and political appointees are saying is, “If we’re only polluting AR, then we can keep on polluting. Woo-hoo!”
  3. Contrary to what you may believe about fishing and ag, sport fishing is a HUGE economic influence in SWMO and Northern AR…especially trout and bass fishing. Ask anyone who lives in or visits the region very often. In the tourism town of Branson alone (a mere fraction of what goes on in the Mountain Home, AR area!), the Missouri Dept. of Conservation (MDC) estimates trout fishing (not nearly as big as bass fishing) contributes $13 million/year to the local economy. I bet bass fishing in the Tri-Lakes region easily surpasses that 10 times over…maybe quite a bit more. Now move on downstream of CC to the Cotter, Flippin, Mountain Home, Norfork area of AR and you will see that the combined economic impact of trout, bass, and striper fishing is probably on par with the ag impact for the same region; and that it DWARFS our paultry take from fishing here in MO!
  4. The point is that sport fishing IS big business, but it always seems to be taking a back seat to the powerful ag and hydropower lobbies in the region. And it’s high time the tables were turned a bit more in favor of protecting these world-reknowned fishery resources.

Fishing the Ozarks

7

Consider this, I live in a different country in fact the other side of the world. Not so many years ago I was a small dairy farmer we had no subsidies no kickbacks rebates or anything else that would have made life a little easier. One thing I did establish as the soil was mostly made up of pumice and perlite which would more likely turn to concrete than pug(ie harsh volcanic pyroclastic soil)was a wetland for effluent from the cowshed, this worked wonderfully with flaxes and bog plants, not only was it working well but it encouraged birdlife and we had lizards where no lizards were meant to be. Over the number of years the soil surrounding it build up naturally into a rich tenable topsoil. The coliform levels at the far end of it was the same as soil from another part of the farm which was not only on top of a hill but never fertilised either. Along came legislation the effluent pond and subsequent wetlands had to be demolished by order of local government we had to dig a new oxidation pond lined with concrete and rubber with a cap on it. The sludge had to be cleaned regularly and put somewhere which meant it got sprayed on the soil, which in the area means everytime it rains the topsoil goes too. The birds went and the reptiles did as well, we paid over a $1000 a year just in permits for the privilege of having a ruddy great pond of filth.

Unfortunately many farmers around the world believe that fertiliser is the way to go, its expensive and if the soil isnt looked after properly or isnt of great humus quality run off will occur, in some ways local government isnt helping.

In short, we took the long term approach and conditioned the soil rather than throwing fertiliser at it, it was costly in terms of grass growth but worth it, in the end government legislation and well meaning but short sighted environmentalists put us out of business in the way we wanted to farm. It is easy to forget each soil type and each region is different what works for one may not work for another and in extreme cases be detrimental

No matter where in the world you are there are well intentioned people on both sides. Maybe education in other types of farming could be the key? Or dairy farmers learning to grass feed as opposed to cereal feed or planting species which will retain runoff. You never know.

[This message has been edited by Jo (edited 25 January 2005).]

8

Jo is dead-on to what I alluded to in my post. Shutting down the farmer, or shutting down the fisherman is only a temporary fix that will ultimately result in an imbalance that we may or may not be able to reverse. Those type “solutions” don’t actually address the problem, they only shift the burden. The only viable, real, long-term solution is to find a way for both to coexist.

Agriculture is Arkansas’ 2nd most productive industry (trailing only the manufacturing of all durable goods produced in Arkansas). That being the case, the farmer is going to win this round if it is approached as an “us against them” issue.

I wonder what would happen if local TU chapters invested in researching alternative farming methods, or crops. For example, there isn’t much farmed timber, and certainly very little growth in that industry in Arkansas. Imagine a TU chapter actively supporting and assisting the timber farmer, and aggresively trying to grow the Industry.

It won’t happen, but it would produce better results. They just wouldn’t be tangible NOW, so it won’t be considered viable.

Kramer

Oh, I’m out there baby! And I’m loving every minute of it!

9

Nobody has said anything about shutting down the farmers in the CC watershed or elsewhere in AR. The plan which has been devised by NRCS and EPA to reduce Phosph. runoff is being adopted across N AR. They’re simply trying to exempt the CC watershed farmers…about 2 dozen of them. Their ONLY argument for WHY they want the exemption is that CC water never leaves the state, so they won’t be sued for bad water.

CC is a Blue Ribbon Smallmouth stream and it empties into the White River (trout fishery) at Cotter, AR. CC has been the scene of a lengthy and controversial fight over gravel mining for the past decade or more, also. CC’s environmental significance should not be overlooked just because they can’t be sued by a neighboring state over it. In point of fact, ONE SINGLE RESIDENT of the state who uses CC in some way could file the same sort of lawsuit that the state of OK won vs. the state of AR over the same issue.

I grew up on farms. I’ve managed farms for wildlife benefit and production. I KNOW they can coexist, and so do our conservation organizations and gov’t regulatory bodies. A lot has changed since the 1970s days of antagonism. NO ONE has stated that the proposed regulations will put farmers out of business. They’re simply arguing that if they can’t be sued by a neighboring state then there is no sense in reducing the pollution. That is a TERRIBLE reason to seek an exemption.

Fishing the Ozarks

10

And if that is the case, kiss those waters goodbye.

That’s been my point all along. There is really little debate on which side will win this issue if it is approached as “us against them.” In that scenario, the farmers have obviously already won the battle, thus the proposed action. And if the approach continues to be an “us against them” issue, they will win the war as well.

The proposed action is a fine example of the scenario you cite JC. Its a “fix it for today” solution that does nothing but shift the burden of a problem we still aren’t dealing with.

I don’t believe that over the course of time, recreational fishing will ever supplant the requirements and benefits of agriculture. Were we dealing with commercial waters, the outcome would be uncertain, but we aren’t. From an economic standpoint, one is a major contributor, while the other is merely a distraction.

Without cooperation and mutually beneficial solutions, we’re only prolonging the inevitable. We aren’t changing anything. Those streams may not die in my lifetime, but unless we change something, they’re going to die. And shutting down the farmers isn’t a practical solution. It simply isn’t going to be allowed to happen.

Cooperation and compromise are our best hope, IMO.

Kramer

Oh, I’m out there baby! And I’m loving every minute of it!

11

As with some of the fore mentioned posts: One-person, in a lot of documented cases, will and does make a real difference. It is so easy, and rather comfortable, to set back and complain or point out the errors of policy and/or legislation. When it comes to environmental policy, demographic purging seems to be the order of the day and psycho graphic propagandas are offered tools for the purpose of divisional opposition group platform formations. It seems that the belief is culminated by strength in numbers, simply said; whose voice is raised the loudest. Still yet, some believe that financial wealth will graduate a particular group to that of validity and merit; over all other interests. In my book I would have to respectfully define this as complacency.

Solution comes from resolution and resolution comes from thorough and complete research. Not just a means of measuring the data as pertinent to cause but more as a measurement of all data, most importantly is the analyzed conclusion of cause and effect. Once this is measured there seems to be a big rush towards the introduction of said recommendations and legislation to prevent conflicts by muting the legal merit of the disenfranchised parties.

So many speak of a balance in nature and the truth is that there is no such thing. Nature is not balanced nor will it ever be. Nature is made up of opposing forces of constant energy, a mass of evaluating controls. Even on the streams that we fish so often, one can see and read these opposing forces, as we better understand them the better our daily yields. I submit this; nature is best measured through a level of tolerance. It is within the tolerance levels that life can be sustained, any alter in this will allow for some life forms to benefit better than others may. Through this knowledge of a known, a much better balance of cause-and-effect in nature?s tolerances can be achieved.

I am one of dialog to a point, once the effects of resolution have been measures, including the benefit for all opposing parties, action must be taken and implemented, no more constant talk about doing something. Does this mean send it to someone and say; ?Now get it done?, No! Make it happen through presentation to all parties of interest, formation of actions groups, in newsprint and design a true project plan that also solves the problems of those who feel that the resolution may bankrupt them. It is time to stop complaining and pointing our perceived problems, roll up the sleeves and get your hands dirty. There are so many grant organizations out there that anything that has to do with environmental improvements can get funding; caveat of any project that is well though out and properly presented. Don?t expect everyone to jump on the boat and reach into their pockets, some want to be involved but they are those of less financial means. A dream is but a dream until a person takes one step towards making that dream a reality; it then becomes an action plan.

If a farmers land is draining amounts of Nitrogen, above the levels of tolerance, help them design a solution and then help them get funding for it. Stop fighting the battles or looking for them as battles take very long and are not always the best approach, one does not need to make a point they only need to solve one. The battles can be won but more important is the fact that a battlefield is cleared of those straggling warrior groups, true alliances must be formed. For those that believe that merely making others aware of problems by shouting, going to the news agencies or just forming groups to fight a battle: I don?t call that proactive but consider it to be a part of the problem that distracts from resolution. Complete the process and find ways of assuring the introduction of the resolution by getting your hands dirty. A hard fought battle is one that will be revisited often; alliance building clears the battlefields.

I am not one that likes to speak of my own accomplishments and will not do so now. I submit this as a case in point. I recently moved to an area that is considered to have one of the worst economies in the country, my original hometown. Everyone here said that nothing can be done and political delegates will never do anything to help. I was even told that there is no way to get others to agree on anything, much less get involved. Long story short; I am no quitter and created that action plan that I spoke of: The entire of Congress recently voted on a grant from the allocations fund for this area and it was approved, not a lot but a pie is made up of many pieces and more will come from Congress. The city and county are now working together on joint projects (another thing that I was told would never happen), A huge grant organization, with 190 million dollars of funds, has created an action group that will implement/fund many of the plans and a few more. The community has become very actively involved thru participating in many of the newer multitude of action groups that are implementing different projects from the master plan. Several organizations were formed for the purpose of researching and applying for different grants and so on. The local TU Chapter was once debating it but a new President stepped up to the plate and got TU very actively involved in the local projects; I cannot say enough positive things about this gentlemen, Shane Pinkston. All of the projects are passed among different groups and they are all doing great work with the projects. For myself, I help where I can but they are no longer my projects, I don?t have the need for attention or complete ownership, the action plan and projects are supported by research, analysis and resolution; it is the people that take the credit as it is their community and we are all doing the work.

Irony is this: Some of those voices that hollered the loudest about nothing being done, the ones that called them selves community driven and pointed out all of the fault as well as problem. Now, it seems that those who accused everyone of being lazy and worthless for not doing anything, still sing their songs of spite. I have even heard a few, that did nothing more than insult everyone through print, are now taking credit for all of the positive projects that are now underway because they somehow brought attention to the community sub-standards. Some of those self appointed saviors are still the ones that are now complaining about everything that everyone is doing, they even predict failure and to no surprise: They still do nothing more than shout loudly, as they always did.

Point that I am trying to make: Get your hands dirty, open your eyes and ears, help everyone and everything effected, form resolution and an action plan, get funding for all parties of interest, form action groups; Implement the projects and stop complaining about those that do nothing, you just may be one of them?

[This message has been edited by BenC (edited 25 January 2005).]

12

Bravo BenC!

Your paragraph 5 hits the nail on the head, and relays better what I was trying to say than I ever could.

It sounds as if your plans are proactive and more inclusive, which is the point I was trying to make. If all interested parties are included in the solution, and receive some benefit from it, then we’ve made a major step towards eliminating, or at least reducing the implication of the problem, as opposed to “fixing it for now, so we get our way.” The short-sided view of “stop the other side” only leads, inevitably leads, to a counter attack at some point, until ultimately whatever resource the battle was over is entirely depleted or damaged beyond utility.

It takes a “big picture” approach, by ALL sides, to find a feasible, practical solution. That mandates cooperation and objectivity, in addition to (and no less important than) a firm conviction to one’s personal preference.

Kramer

Oh, I’m out there baby! And I’m loving every minute of it!

13

Thanks JC and Krammer!

I can’t help but add this: It seems, in far to many cases, that the biggest problems, are the last introduced solutions… (In referrence to those qucik resolutions that JC mentioned)

Krammer is also dead on, everyone can and should be able to benefit equally.

[This message has been edited by BenC (edited 25 January 2005).]

14

I won’t disclose BenC’s location, but his region truly did get clobbered a couple of years ago by plant closings. I’m glad to see it is fighting back.

What Ben said: "If a farmers land is draining amounts of Nitrogen, above the levels of tolerance, help them design a solution and then help them get funding for it. " is exactly right.

As an editor of a rural newspaper, I am constantly fighting against quick-fix environmentalists who would just crush the farmers out of business.

Fortunately, member of our legislature, Allen Louderback, R-Luray, has introduced a bill (HB 2777) that would provide a reliable revenue stream for helping farmers fix the problems they cause as well as point source problems. Because the majority GOP needs an environmental flag to wave going into this fall’s elections and the bill doesn’t call for new taxes, it has a good chance. (Ben…You and Shane might want to tighten your local boys up on it.)

We can fix these problems if we work at them with a decent respect for everybody and quit grandstanding.

15

Thank you very much Colston! There is now a whole host of bew avenues for funding. Presenting the Governer with real action plans hepled him get 10’s of millions of state dollars for funding projects and business’s in the economically depressed areas approved. I will pass your additional info along and I am scheduled to do a tying demo for the local TU Chapter so, I will pass it along there as well.

Your statement: “We can fix these problems if we work at them with a decent respect for everybody and quit grandstanding.” That is best way that I have ever heard it presented. It should be the very first statment in every environmental groups Mission Statement. Very well said!

16

Having recently become a landowner on the East side of Lake Norfork,(so recent that I haven’t even received the deed, yet) this topic has been brought to my attention, and needless to say hits very close to home. I have plans on building a log cabin, and retiring there with my wife in the future. Obviously, my concern is that the fisheries remain intact until, and for a long time after we get there.

I am by no means an avid fly fisherman at this point, but hope to gather enough skill to enjoy some lazy afternoons on the White River in search of trout, when not meandering on the lake. I don’t have a background in Conservation, work for any agencies, or anything like that. But I do share what seems to be a common concern for keeping what few resources we have left in as close to a natural and pristine state as possible.

The discussion that I’ve read has been very informative, and has also raised a question or two. Being a “landowner”, do I have any direct voice in the matters of the state, or does that priviledge only come with residency? I realize that I could join and support TU, but wondered if I could take it any further.

And, if this legislation does pass and the waterway and fishery is destroyed, what does that do to the money allocated for the White River Basin Comprehensive Study? They’d no longer need it to study the affects that fishing and recreation would have on the waterway. Maybe they turn around and use the money to bring the river back to life. Seems like the old Catch-22 situation again. The short time it takes to ruin something is always tenfold when it comes to restoring it.

Well, thanks for bringing this issue to the foreground, and letting me introduce myself! I’ll definately be following this thread with great interest.

Jim

“We did not weave the web of life, we are but a strand in it. Whatever befalls the Earth, befalls the People of the Earth”~ Chief Seattle

17

Do you mean on the property in AR or in general? If it’s AR, I will this year. If it’s in general… I think I may know where you’re going with this question.

18

Jim,

All of the work that I began and the plans that were introduced, including the master project plan; the alliances built as well as a joint coalition with the Governor and 2 US Congressmen, not to mention other Delegates. Getting all of the city and county officials to join forces and make real commitments. Including the development and creation of several other organizations: I started all of this while a resident of another state, I didn’t move up here until I was notified that some of the funding for these projects had been approved. No, I get no remuneration for any of my efforts nor did I have temporary residence up here; I just wanted to do something to help my old hometown. I didn?t focus on the State border issue nor did it become one. As a person that wants to forge ahead and make things happen, you will find that these type of issues are mostly from those that focus on perceived road blocks. Don?t become a victim of the ?why you can?t do that? type, you may find that the road is clear and support draws to you like a magnet if you just stay focused and remain actively proactive.

One thing I learned; everyone wants resolution but if you don?t’ personally start the ball rolling yourself; you will be in the same group of others that are waiting for someone else to get it going. I firmly believe that the biggest obstacle that we all have to over come; is the one that we create.

I don’t know what I may possibly do to help you but my email address is listed in my profile, feel free to use it if I can be of assistance.

Best Regards

19

Jim K,

You’re exactly the kind of person who is driving the economic engine of the Ozarks. That’s both good and bad. The population in the Ozarks is exploding as folks find it ideal for retirement. You move here and contribute in many ways. But, with each new house that is built and with each new business relocation, we increase the burden upon our streams and rivers. You see what I mean? I’m glad you’re conscientious enough to care about such things.

I’ve said this before, but ANYONE who uses the waterways in question for ANY purpose is defined by law as a “stakeholder.” Now, some stakeholders carry more political and even legal weight than others. Obviously, the farmers whose lands are drained by the CC watershed are primary stakeholders. The residents, companies, and recreational users of the White River downstream of CC are also stakeholders. Any landowner directly effected (like the farmers) are always considered primary stakeholders. You are a bit removed from the issue, but still a stakeholder. In a political sense, you will have MORE power as a resident of AR than you do as a non-resident landowner. But that should not keep you from voicing your opinion to the regulatory and legislative bodies. The area in question is important to anglers from all over the world in addition to everyone who relies on the water of the White River Basin. The state of AR is a little bit sensitive to this issue, but only as it regards tourism dollars.

I hope I answered your question. And for the record, I don’t live in AR either. Nor do I own real estate there. I have family members who do, but not me. I live on the MO side of the border, on Lake Taneycomo, upper Bull Shoals, and Table Rock Lake. I’m in Branson. So I’m upstream of this mess at Cotter and Flippin. But I care about the fishing in CC and downstream of CC. And I care about clean water…period.

One point that has not come up much in this discussion: cleaner water is good for EVERYONE…including the farmers. They just obviously aren’t smart enough to realize it.

Fishing the Ozarks

20

I’m just posting this as additional background for those unfamiliar with Crooked Creek and its environmental significance…

South Shore gives $25,000 toward new Conservation Education Center

As the new Fred Berry Conservation Education Center at Crooked Creek nears its opening for students, teachers and the public, South Shore Foundation is providing a $25,000 grant for the center. The center’s site is just west of Yellville and includes Kelly’s Slab. It is the second conservation education center built by the Arkansas Game and Fish Foundation.

The center is named for Fred Berry, a retired Yellville-Summit teacher, because Berry’s donation financed the purchase of the 421-acre site, including nearly three miles of Crooked Creek frontage.

“This project demonstrates how one person, Fred Berry, chose to put his concern for our natural resources into action,” said South Shore Foundation Chairman Jodie Elizabeth Jeffrey. “We are glad to support this wonderful center, which embodies our interest in preserving our environment, and to recognize the efforts of the Arkansas Game and Fish Foundation as well.”

Berry gave stock in the former Bank of Yellville to the state Game and Fish Foundation, which sold the stock for $1 million and purchased acreage along Crooked Creek. Berry was named to the Arkansas Outdoor Hall of Fame in 2001 and is a board member of Arkansas Nature Conservancy. He became a South Shore Foundation board member in 2002.

The educational building, with a pavilion, has classrooms where fourth- to sixth-grade students and teachers will study Ozark plants, animals, and streams. Additional acreage will have hiking trails and wildlife viewing areas, access to the creek for fishing, and a new access point at the upstream edge, which will provide a one- to two-hour float to Kelly’s Slab. The land will be open to camping, picnicking, horseback riding and mountain biking, but will be closed to vehicles and hunting.

Crooked Creek is described by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as a premier smallmouth bass location, rising south of Harrison near the Boone-Newton county line, flowing through Harrison, then east past Yellville to join the White River. It is fished by waders, boaters and from the banks. It’s also noted for disappearing underground at times during the year near the White River.

The Game and Fish Foundation raised approximately $200,000 to build the center, including donations from South Shore Foundation, Entergy, Walton Family Foundation, Southwest Electric Cooperative, Arkansas Outdoor Hall of Fame, Arkansas Wildlife Officers Association, Larry Grisham Turkey Trust, the Game and Fish Foundation and individual and anonymous gifts.

Selection of a staff for the Crooked Creek Center is under way so educational programs for students and teachers can begin during the first semester of 2005. A full-time teacher and two part-time teachers will work onsite, according to staffing plans. Three area wildlife officers will work from offices at the center as soon as it opens.

The architectural firm of Polk, Stanley, and Yeary of Little Rock donated design and supervision of construction of the facility, and the Game and Fish Foundation selected the Tony Davenport Construction Co. of Yellville as the builder.

South Shore Foundation is the charitable foundation of Northern Arkansas Telephone Company.

Originally published December 28, 2004

Fishing the Ozarks