Enjoy that walleye while you can: we're losing our freshwater fish species at an alarming rate:
North American freshwater fishes are going extinct at an alarming rate compared with other species, according to an article in the September issue of BioScience. The rate of extinctions increased noticeably after 1950, although it has leveled off in the past decade. The number of extinct species has grown by 25 percent since 1989.
The article, by Noel M. Burkhead of the US Geological Survey, examines North American freshwater fish extinctions from the end of the 19th Century to 2010, when there were 1213 species in the continent, or about 9 percent of the Earth's freshwater fish diversity. At least 57 North American species and subspecies, and 3 unique populations, have gone extinct since 1898, about 3.2 percent of the total. Freshwater species generally are known to suffer higher rates of extinction than terrestrial vertebrates.
Extinctions in fishes are mostly caused by loss of habitat and the introduction of nonindigenous species. In North America, there are more freshwater fish species in a typical drainage to the east of the Great Continental Divide than to the west, where a greater proportion of species have gone extinct or are found nowhere else.
Estimating the number of extinctions relies on scrutiny of historical records and careful estimation procedures, since the last populations of a species are often recognized as such only in hindsight—there is typically a lag of several years from the last observation of a species and its estimated year of extinction. Estimates are complicated by the fact that, on average, 6.7 new species are discovered each year, and occasionally a species thought to have gone extinct is "rediscovered." Nonetheless, Burkhead concludes that between 53 and 86 species of North American freshwater fishes are likely to have gone extinct by 2050, and that the rate of extinction is now at least 877 times the background extinction rate over geological time [Tim Beardsley, "North American Freshwater Fishes Race to Extinction," press release, American Institute of Biological Sciences, August 10, 2012].
If I were a conservative, I'd say we shouldn't let these fish disappear. We should make an effort to conserve these species so that our grandkids (not to mention folks in poorer nations) still have the opportunity to eat some of these fish and make a living fishing for them. But whenever I offer that conservative argument for using less oil or coal, I catch heck. So I'm probably wrong....
Essential reading: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
The comments I have heard from my father would indicate it isn't a problem here.
He fishes at least 60 days a year near his vacation house near Pierre and has told me last year was the best walleye fishing he remembers in his lifetime. Maybe they were just hungy. I'm sure GF&P must put out some report on our own population estimates.
Also: http://www.inquisitr.com/293859/thousands-of-fish-die-in-midwest-climate-change-blamed/
The introduction of non-native trout and other non native predator game fish is one of the biggest reason this is happening. I am afraid it is a case of Pandora's box in that there is really no workable option to reverse. No need to worry about Walleye, they are about as predator a fish can get.
But is this an issue for South Dakota? As one who loves fly fishing but is not fond of trolling for walleye, I have never had any luck trout fishing in the state, even on Rapid Creek which is supposed to be the best.
Justin, you need to talk to Kevin Woster. (RCJ reporter and master flyfisherman.)
Here's Kevin's outdoor sports blog: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/app/blogs/outdoors/
Justin have you tried any of the small lakes in Custer state park. I have always had good luck on them and also French creek.
No, I haven't tried Custer or French Creek, thanks for the tips.
Hey, Cory! But my coal lobbyist pals tell me we've got 200 years of cheap, available coal to fuel our electric needs! No worries.
And so what if fresh water fisheries can only sustain carp.
So what if farmers will turn over their land to graze wild buffalo because we can no longer depend on seasons and weather that won't flood out or burn out the crops we plant.
So what if we have a 10,000 year flood one year followed by a 2,000 year drought the next.
Who cares if the landscape gets burned off by forest and grassland fires every three years, or if new forms of high wind storms scrape what's left after the fires and floods.
That coal is cheap and we got 200 years of it. And maybe, 60 years from now, somebody figures how to make it become "clean coal," but decides it's too expensive, so we keep cooking the earth.
Folks, I am not a climate scientist and have no knowledge other than what I read. But when 98 percent of the real climate scientists tell you that you're in big, big, big trouble, maybe you ought to listen and act. Mitigation is 10 times more expensive than prevention. If you're Mitt Romney rich, it doesn't matter, but if you're Sibby and Dougal cash poor, you better duck for cover.
Cory, I think you should do a story on how extinct Democrat officeholders are becomming in South Dakota.
If I were a Believer in evolution, I’d say we should let these fish disappear as a sign that natural selection is working.
We should not make an effort to conserve these species becasue that would interfere with the natural selection process mandated by Darwin's evolutionary theory.
Your suggestion that we perserve the weakest fish species among us is well, ANTI-Darwinian.
When one worship Darwinian evolution, the acts of mankind are just another cog in the endless wheel of natural selection.
Or, are you suggesting that man operates outside of Darwinian evolution?
Oh, the memes never stop with Julie, who can't open her mouth without looking for ridiculous argument.
If you were speaking with genuine intellectual curiosity, I'd acknowledge the interesting question in your babbling: is human activity part of evolution? Humans are not separate from nature. Humans are part of the ecosystem; humans rendering more species of freshwater fish extinct is no more good or bad than pine beetles eating the Black Hills. Plagues, mutations, and competition happen, and the creatures most suited to the changing environment reproduce more frequently. That doesn't mean those creatures are "better"; it just means they got lucky genes. That fish get wiped out by humans doesn't mean fish deserve extinction or that humans deserve survival; it just happens.
But if humans can render species extinct, they can also stop species from going extinct. We can call either action a natural part of evolution. Evolution explains what happens, but it does not provide the moral framework that helps us evaluate our choice. The fact that we require something else for the basis of our values does not discredit evolution as scientific theory. The theory of gravity doesn't tell me whether I should let my child fall off the swing, but that doesn't mean gravity is bunk, either.
I do not think that word means what Mr. H thinks it means, Julie (NE), but being a believer in Darwinism, a big eater of fish, and a proponent of conservationistic acts, you can imagine how my innards are torn.
On one hand, Darwinism is clearly a fact ignored only by the weak minded.
On the other hand, nobody wants to see a fish pod disappear for ever.
On the last hand, some fish are really good to eat.
So that leaves me to eat the fish, contribute as much methane as I can to global warming just to piss off IP, and let Darwin and Mr. Howie's God sort the rest out while I go to bed with a full tummy and the knowledge that the Dems in SD can't even field a slate of semicompetents.
Imagine the irony of a couple of Bible thumpers explaining evolution.
If evolution requires species to make all species extinct, why don't all species try to kill each other?
--Evolution explains what happens, but it does not provide the moral framework that helps us evaluate our choice.
That's because Darwinian evolutionary theory neither needs nor acknowledges "morality".
--The fact that we require something else for the basis of our values does not discredit evolution as scientific theory.
Actually it does. Altruism (saving species out of a sense of "morality" for example; or caring for the weak & elderly among us) contradicts Darwinian evolutionary theory.
That's a crock. You obviously know nothing about evolution.
It is about adaptation, not annihilation.
Not all species eat their young, and almost all species have a symbiotic relationship with other species that is instinctively programmed for survival.
This is why we won't be sending you a welfare check to be an "educator".
-It is about adaptation, not annihilation.
It's about survival of the fittest, right?
--almost all species have a symbiotic relationship with other species
That's not accurate, unless by "symbiotic" you mean I catch you and then I eat you.
--that is instinctively programmed for survival.
How do you explain soldiers dying for their country? How do you explain strangers dying to save others? The fact is, that individual humans frequently act in purposeful ways that contribute to their own demise. That's not Darwinian evolution.
-This is why we won’t be sending you a welfare check to be an “educatorâ€.
enough.
Symbiotic can mean a source of food or it could mean insects cleaning infections out of animals.
Cattle would be extinct if humans didn't eat them. We have adapted, using animal husbandry to maintain that food source.
President Obama: tear out the Missouri River dams and rewild the West.
The Platte and Niobrara Rivers in Nebraska are dying at rates far above the national average: drain Lake McConaughy and open it to freedom.
--Symbiotic can mean a source of food or it could mean insects cleaning infections out of animals.
Well then, you're wrong.
Darwinian evolution has no concern regarding WHY the organism is consuming, just that it's biologically driven to survive by eating. So, it does not matter WHAT the food source is (an infection) or any possible benefit the food source may gain from the interaction--evolutionary theory states that those organisms most able to survive & reproduce in any particular environment will produce the best adapted and most numerous offspring.
You still haven't addressed the problem of human altruism.
The first humans who want to extirpate predators argue for deregulation of industry: i want it now, daddy.
Julie, you seem to think that the word "fittest" bears some moral connotation. It does not. You have an environment with certain conditions. You have organisms that are suited to varying degrees to those conditions. The organisms that are better suited to those conditions manage to reproduce sooner, more frequently, more successfully, thus loading the environment with more organisms with those specific traits. Feedback loop. That has nothing to do with moral quality, just the chances of those environmental conditions.
As for altruism, there is no conundrum here, and no indictment of evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory prevents the development of creatures who experience consciousness, love, altruism, or anything else remotely or deeply connected to morality. Evolution can encompass morality (including altruism) as just another environmental adaptation. Altruism may be a useful trait in our environment (come on, be honest: who besides Ayn Rand readers find total selfishness really sexy?). Altruism may be a secondary trait connected genetically with other positive traits that allow possessors of those genes to mate more frequently than other possessors of that gene kill themselves before successful mating. Or altruism may be an insignificant trait, something like green eyes that doesn't get in the way of the major drivers or reproductive success.
None of this says altruism or morality don't exist. None of this discredits the theory of evolution. If anything, this discussion demonstrates the explanatory power of evolution. We can explain fish extinctions and altruism without having to appeal to the supernatural.
Now, as for the value judgments on fish species going extinct:
Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Good or bad? Evolution doesn't answer that and doesn't have to. The environment changed, suddenly and drastically. Traits that enhanced survival pre-asteroid lost their advantage post-asteroid.
Freshwater fish are going extinct at a higher-than-historical rate now. Good or bad? Evolution doesn't answer that and doesn't have to. We can use evolution to understand what is happening, but we then have to apply our human morality and self-interest to decide what should happen. If those species are going extinct because of our over-consumption and pollution, we should do a cost-benefit analysis to determine what losing those fish costs us and what trying to stop these extinctions will cost us. Biodiversity is useful to us (in extremis, being the only species on the planet would be very bad; being one among many species of plants and animals at least gives a variety of things to eat besides each other); maybe we will find that having more fish species around is better for our survival than fewer. Or maybe we'll decide that no other species gives a darn about other species, so let's eat up until there's nothing left! Evolution won't care; it's a natural process, not a supernatural father fretting and judging us. But we will care if we lose too many fish, turn our lakes and streams into dead zones, and trigger some ecological chain reaction that affects our survival.
Why waste your time, Cory?
She obviously knows nothing about evolution OR ethics.
Altruism implies there is an objective good or evil.
She seems to think evolutionary theory has only been written about by Darwin, and she apparently hasn't even read his seminal works.
Denying the existence of symbiosis between species is one of the stupidest things she has ever written and that is saying a lot.
Justin, you may be right. But I haven't practiced my evolution arguments for a while. It's worth reminding myself and readers coming here for the first time why evolution and morality don't exclude each other. (Of course, I haven't read much Darwin, either! :-D )
Other than Darwin and Mendel most people haven't read or heard of much evolutionary science because it is pretty boring. But many have proposed alternative theories: Non-Darwinian evoloution, molecular evolution, Neo-Darwinism, and more recently endosymbiosis.
Some say symbiosis is a challenge to natural selection, and Darwin himself wrote "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection" ( The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, p. 164).
The obvious existence of symbiosis has often been used by religious scholars as a proof natural selection is "false" (and therefore the Earth is naturally 3,000 years old, right?). But more recent scholars have expanded the theory of evolution beyond the 1859 work, not surprisingly. Evolution turns out to be a lot more complicated that Darwin's original theory of natural selection, but that hardly means evolution as a concept is dead. It just means the theories have been tweaked and "survival of the fittest" isn't necessarily the only force at work.
Here is an excellent book discussing modern theories of endosymbiosis and the tremendous power of symbiosis in the process of evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Blind-Spot-Evolution-Selection/dp/0618118128
And since nobody is likely to ever buy that book and your library probably doesn't have it, here is an article about the leading proponent of endosymbiosis, a more complete view of evolution that challenges neo-Darwinists' reliance on the theories of Darwin and Mendel: http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/16-interview-lynn-margulis-not-controversial-right/
I think it is safe to say the majority of biologists are still neo-Darwinists, and don't agree with her theories. But it is thought provoking and at a minimum reminds us that evolutionary science didn't stop in 1859.
Symbiosis makes perfect sense in evolution. From organism A's perspective, organisms B is just another environmental condition to which to adapt. Doing something that helps organism B survive and flourish that in turn helps organism A survive and flourish makes at least as much sense as competing with and eating organism B.
But hey, Julie doesn't want to believe in the social contract, either.
--Other than Darwin and Mendel most people haven’t read or heard of much evolutionary science because it is pretty boring
Odd that you mention Mendel because he was a CRITIC of Darwinian evolution. Why was he a critic by the way?
--Nothing in evolutionary theory prevents the development of creatures who experience consciousness, love, altruism, or anything else remotely or deeply connected to morality.
Darwinian evolution states that each organism is biologically determined to further its own survival and reproduction, and those organisms best able to do so will prosper; those that do not., will vanish. There is NO accounting for organisms that act to harm themselves in order for others to prosper. That is NOT Drawinian evolution.
Because Mendel was a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Kiddie Diddlers, Pat.
--Denying the existence of symbiosis between species is one of the stupidest things she has ever written and that is saying a lot.
Strawman. Again.
"Reproduction of his experiments has demonstrated the validity of his hypothesis—but, the results have continued to be a mystery for many, though it is often cited as an example of confirmation bias."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Controversy
Julie Gross, sophist. Julie is constructing word games, not an honest scientific critique. Evolution does not exclude the possibility the organisms might develop altruism or an impulse to cooperate with some other organisms (of the same species or others) rather than compete. Evolution does not require that altruistic or cooperative species be the fittest and wipe out every other species. Altruistic/cooperative species need only be "fit enough" to maintain some niche in the environment. Julie has no real argument here; she just wants to disagree.
--Evolution does not exclude the possibility the organisms might develop altruism
Darwinian evolutionary theory does.
I'm having toruble understanding what Julie's point is. Does she have one?
If we truly believe and adhere to Darwinian evolutionary theory, the extinction of other species in furtherance of our own biologically pre-determined survival is of no concern to us.
If we desire to "save" other species simply out of the goodness of our hearts (altruism) or for some moral imperative (diversity is good), then we're making decisions outside of evolutionary theory.
For example, the jaguar cares nothing about whether he catches and eats a young gazelle or the elderly, or eats so many as to put the gazelles in danger of extinction. The jaguar NEVER passes up a meal of gazelle if passing on it means saving the gazelle herd for future jaguars, Likewise, a herd of gazelles will not endanger themselves to protect a slow, elderly gazelle--they'll leave her behind, and she'll become a meal for the jaguar.
Darwinian evolutionary theory does not explain why humans act differently.
In fact, Darwinians would use the extinction of other species by humans as evidence that humans the evolving and becoming fitter. Strong humans survive; weak species become extinct.
Wrong, Julie. You continue to load your language with value judgments that evolution does not make or require. I accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation of the existence of life. I also accept the idea that we should be concerned about the increased numbers of species going extinct, as such increased extinction could be a harbinger of trouble for our species. Concern for other species could well be an evolutionary adaptation that makes homo sapiens "stronger" and "fitter"... or, more accurately, improves our chances of continued survival and reproduction.
--I also accept the idea that we should be concerned about the increased numbers of species going extinct, as such increased extinction could be a harbinger of trouble for our species
Darwin would disagree: the fact that humans are thriving and some species are becoming extinct as a result is evidence that humans are EVOLVING to be fitter.
Evolution is mechanical according to Darwin: there are no "feelings" or "concerns" involved--it's survival of the fittest (biologically), not survival of the most caring or the organism with the most forethought.
That's the problem with Darwin's evolutionary ideas: it flies in the face of human experience.
--improves our chances of continued survival and reproduction.
What would most directly improve my (and your) chances of reproduction would be to eliminate abortions, contraception, and laws prohibiting rape, since Darwinian evolution states that the most successful procreators are the most likely to populate the future with the best-adapted offspring. (Obviously, I'm not advocating any such things).
But today, the best educated, best fed, and best taken care of mothers are NOT having many kids; it's POOR mothers who have the highest birth rates worldwide. Just the OPPOSITE of what Darwin told us.
Something is diffeent about humans that Darwin failed to explain.
That’s the problem with Darwin’s evolutionary ideas insofar as humans are concerned: it flies in the face of human experience.
Julie, run, don't walk to your favorite book vendor or library and read 'Thinking Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman immediately. Think of this notice as someone throwing you a lifeline.
No, evolution does not fly in the face of human experience. It may not explain every aspect of human emotional and moral experience, just as gravity does not. But the fact that gravity doesn't explain why I like ice cream does not invalidate gravity.
Now, one more time, let's look at the value-laden fallacy of Julie's words. She says: "But today, the best educated, best fed, and best taken care of mothers are NOT having many kids; it’s POOR mothers who have the highest birth rates worldwide. Just the OPPOSITE of what Darwin told us."
Evolutionary theory does not say that the people Julie considers more morally admirable are the people are will win the evolutionary contest for simple existence. Indeed, wealth does appear to reduce reproductive rates (it also reduces infant mortality rates). That could lead to any number of biological outcomes. But the fact that at the moment, evolution appears to be selecting for a socioeconomic trait that Julie doesn't like does not disprove evolutionary theory.
This reminds me of an argument about intelligent life on other planets. Some people have wondered why we haven't found more evidence of extraterrestrial life, especially signals or visits. One hypothesis is that perhaps as intelligent life develops, instead of building starships, it develops technology that keeps the species so entertained and engaged that it never bothers to leave the house, let alone the planet. We thus don't see starships buzzing around the galaxy because the aliens are all too busy Facebooking and blogging and playing Tetris... until an asteroid comes and smashes their planet to bits. Intelligence, a trait we really like, could thus lead a species to behavior that is not in its best interest. That doesn't disprove evolution; it just says evolution does not guarantee outcomes that affirm our values.
One more sci-fi note: Dr. McCoy once said to Mr. Spock, "I've found that evil usually triumphs unless good is very, very careful." Put a fair fighter and a dirty fighter in a ring, no ref, no help—who has the best chance of winning? Your answer neither proves nor disproves natural selection.
"Odd that you mention Mendel because he was a CRITIC of Darwinian evolution. Why was he a critic by the way?"
It's not odd at all if you were educated on the topic. Mendel's contributions are central to the beliefs of neo-Darwinists, which comprise the majority of modern biologists.
Being a critic of contemporaneously held beliefs is the trademark of a good scientist.
The proven evolution of eukaryotic cells is completely contradictory to your view of "eat or be eaten". The only reason cells have nuclei is because bacteria ate other bacteria and the "eaten" bacteria became part of the "eater", creating a new species of cells with membrane covered nuclei.
--Evolutionary theory does not say that the people Julie considers more morally admirable are the people are will win the evolutionary contest for simple existence.
You keep using "moral"--I did not and neither did Darwin. I was taking about TRAITS that biologically translate into reproductive success.
Sorry, but Darwin stated it just as I did in Origins:
Individuals with characteristics which increase their probability of survival will have more opportunities to reproduce and their offspring will also benefit from the heritable, advantageous character.
Healthy, well-to-do mothers living in better circumstances with better health care are just the mothers Darwin was talking about, yet it's poor mothers who are reproducing at a greater rate.
-Mendel’s contributions are central to the beliefs of neo-Darwinists, which comprise the majority of modern biologists.
Why was Mendel a critic of Darwin's theory?
I'll give you one more try, chump
--Indeed, wealth does appear to reduce reproductive rates (it also reduces infant mortality rates). That could lead to any number of biological outcomes.
Well, you have it backwards, of course.
Darwin said said that succesful traits (like wealth that translate to living in a better environment) lead to better/more successul adaptations through more reproductive success. In other words, the BIOLOGY of evolution drives the changes, not the changes leading to "biological outcomes."
You have it exactly backwards.
because mendel believed in eugenics and wondered about creating a better human race:
"The religious implications of Mendel's theory were minimal, so no significant religious opposition to Mendelian genetics arose. However, in the early twentieth century, many eugenics proponents began using Mendelian genetics to promote various programs to control human heredity, including sterilization, birth control, incarceration, and regulation of marriage certificates. The Roman Catholic Church and some conservative Protestants opposed eugenics, but they did not criticize Mendelian genetics. Rather they rejected eugenics as a misuse of genetics."
http://www.enotes.com/mendel-gregor-reference/mendel-gregor
--Think of this notice as someone throwing you a lifeline.
Try Darwinian Fairytales.
But you have to be able to read philosophy.
give a man a weapon and he'll kill something with it: basic genetics.
Right wing social engineering: think hunger games.
"I’ll give you one more try, chump"
One more try at what? To deny Mendel's influence on neo-Darwinian theory can be described in one word: wrong.
Mendel's first biographer in fact referred to him as an evolutionist.
What Mendel believed is less important than what his experiments led modern scientists to believe, however.
The fact that "Intelligent" design proponents try to use Mendel to refute Darwin is irrelevant. Both of their theories are central to the beliefs of modern evolutionary synthesis.
Just google Mendel and neo-Darwinism (which is an imprecise but oft-used moniker for modern evolutionary synthesis).
Modern scientists don't think Darwin had it all right either. That doesn't mean they think the earth is 3,000 years old or that Noah fit all the species onto a boat. If that's what you believe, that's fine, but don't go around bragging about it because Darwin's theory wasn't complete.
--Modern scientists don’t think Darwin had it all right either
Tell us, oh wise wiki one, what parts of Darwinian evolution theory do modern scientists think he had wrong?
The ball's back in your court...
They don't think random genetic mutation is the only force behind the introduction of new species. In some cases they don't think random mutation has anything to do with it.
Fossil evidence doesn't align with that.
spontaneous abortions, frogs with ten toes, hermaphroditic salamanders, you know: the run of the mill anthropocene stuff.
Mutations as the result of biomechanized war: there's a leap in evolution, huh? Get out of the way, kids: we're having adult conversations about the Ryan budget. The pump don't work because the vandals took the handles.
Are you going to see Bobby D Larry?
Of all the concerts I've seen I've never seen him so I may pay the 60 bucks.
I had tickets for when he opened for the Grateful Dead in Highgate, VT but the roads were so inefficient for that show I missed almost the first main set and the entire opener despite leaving 5 hours early.
You should all come out to do some salt water fishing instead. These fish are not having problems. My parents have caught plenty of them this summer off the coast of Oregon and they are really good eatin'! The crabbing is awesome too (for Dad), although, I can't eat them because I'm allergic to all shellfish.
If I'm not mistaken, the salmon run has been greatly diminished and is the source of a big fight between Canada and the U.S. (Probably better defined as a fight between Washington state and B.C.) Haven't heard it make the headlines in the last few years though, so maybe it has recovered.
I did go coho fishing on a driftboat years back and it was the best fishing I've ever had anywhere.
Justin: a daughter went.
https://twitter.com/Lovely_Hooligan/status/235884090681864192/photo/1
Lyle Lovett at the Sanfe Fe Opera for ip.
http://www.santafeopera.org/tickets/reserve.aspx?performanceNumber=5684
Julie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory#Who_is_Playing_the_Game.3F
"At first glance it may be surmised that the contestants of evolutionary games are the individuals present in each generation who directly participate in the game. On reflection however we see that individuals live only through one game cycle, and instead it is the strategies that really contest with one another over the full time span of these recursive games. So it is ultimately genes that play out a full contest – genes of STRATEGY (i.e. selfish genes). The contesting genes are not just present in an individual and his/her direct linage; they are also present to a relational degree in all of the individual’s kin."
Evolution as big picture and long game—wow, Bill! We can learn a lot from evolutionary theory! We might even figure out that preventing accelerated extinction of freshwater fish will enhance the survival of future generations of homo sapiens!
Yeah, maybe Cory. If nothing else, it could perhaps continue to give meaning to that old wisdom "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll stay out on the lake in a boat and drink beer all weekend."
go to dylan, bill?