sprig

Freshmen class is growing larger by the minute; now up to 12. For comparison, here's the 11 member 2000/2001 class. Four D in that class. Hope this one sticks it out until they win #8 (or better yet, 8 and 9).

That will take some GVSU math to figure out this poll. Welcome back

You guys are certainly Brady Bunch experts. Were you fans?

Not very Bayda like last year in the USHL, was he? Maybe the coach sees something the numbers don't tell us. At any rate, he has a good goal of playing D1 hockey. From Alaska, if the Sioux would happen to recruit him, maybe Hak will make it on Suze' list also

four of four would have been better

No doubt there, the best players on all Canadian teams, starting right away with 3 year olds through 12 year olds, play D, in house leagues right on up through the the higher divisions. Watched Joel Stepp (now in playing for the AHL Cincinatti Ducks), destroy our kids and everyone else's in South Sask, for several years all by himself, stopping all chances in the D end, and doing all the scoring in the O end.

Good night, and I lived through the end of the Bjorkman era, including seeing every home game, I believe, in '74-'75. With no internet (was Gore even born then), had no idea Broten was anywhere near close to becoming a Sioux. What better reason than that (a less than full scholly for NB), that it was time for Rube to go. Unfortunately, one year too late.

From the Vipers site, new head coach has this to say about recruit Hunter Bishop: Likely another one to watch at Vernon along with Genoway.

Who forgot to lock the padded room? For most sport fans, winning is primary.

Not only dmen, would have had to replace a couple forwards that had no interest in their own end also.

Maybe Mom can hold a press conference on ESPN and complain about Shephard and crew.

Not just environmental, however, but also, what single area gets water when they want it, and gets rid of it when they don't, when others upstream and downstream from them are in the same situation.

Seems to work for USCHO posters

Actually, western ND started and stayed very dry through May, but over the last few weeks it's gone to very wet, flooded roads and ditches, overflowing wetlands, and rain continues. Unbelievable. Of course Lake Sak is still very low. Maybe the DL basin could be piped directly to Missouri to float a few barges.

Not much concrete. And, from October through December, lots of vehicles with MN and WI license plates, everywhere. Assume they are occupied by sotas and sconnies. Must be something here they like.

I'd be happy to have such good friends and relatives. Where's the problem?

Just read "Dirty" on uscho and you'll understand why diggler balances on the edge of being banned.

The pumps and lifts are in place and pumping the DL basin into the Sheyenne may have already begun. AS far as I know there are no controls over the timing or flows that will be created by the pumping. As you probably know the SHeyenne flows into the Red very near Fargo, after passing through Lake Ashtabula and VC and through much of the farmland south of I94 and east of VC. When DL pumping coincides with Sheyenne Valley and RRV flooding, the fight pitting landowner against landowner and city against city will be staged in ND, long before that water ever enters Manitoba. I would guess anyone could make a good guess as to whom will win that political battle when it occurs. The Devils Lake area demands to pipe water into the basin from Lake Sakakawea just over 10 years ago were not met in the short term before the basin began filling and flooding. Somehow I have trouble feeling sorry for any area whose watersheds are totally destroyed, and whose solution is to get water from someone else when they have too little, and pass the problem on to others when they have too much. The pumped DL basin will take a very long trip through some very rich cropland (the richest in ND) as well as ND's largest cities (GF and Fargo), before ever entering Manitoba. From http://savethesheyenne.org/: I'm not sure how soil scientists think, but 300,000 to 550,000 acre feet of water (note maximums are larger than that) that enters into the DL basin from drainage, is hardly insignificant. That's, for example, five feet of water on sixty thousand acres in lower runoff years, or five feet of water on one hundred ten thousand acres in high runoff years. And that amount of drained water has entered the basin every year (and mostly at the upper end for those figures) for several years, since this wet cycle began in the mid-90's. Of course, these drainage numbers are from 1983, and the current numbers are likely much higher than that. I don't have the capacity to fathom the insignificance of that drainage. As near as I can google, the current level of the basin is 1439.3, covering 86,400 acres. That means that the low end of drainage above, if restored, could remove 3 feet of water, or reduce the size of the basin by 10,000 acres. The higher end of drainage repaired would stop over 6 feet of water from entering the basin, drying an additional 18-20,000 acres that are currently flooded. There is no doubt the basin has a long history of flooding, and good evidence of historic flooding events exist, prior to wetland drainage. But recovering 10,000 to 20,000 acres of farmland lost to upstream drainage seems significant to me. Why should the Sheyenne Valley and RRV landowners accept the 300,000 plus acre feet of water in average years (that is drained from the DL watershed), much less a much larger amount during major flooding events in the RRV (such as the 1997 event). It seems there is more for ND to worry about than what Manitoba thinks.

OK, here's a question. Which one place is so special that, during droughts, it gets water from whereever its needed, to keep things "perfect" for that special area, yet, during times of excess water, is able to get rid of it to remain "perfect". In both cases that "special" area remains "perfect", while others in the "nonspecial" areas have to face the extreme drought without their water, or take the floods and its associated economic impacts. Is the DL basin that "special" area? As I said previously, controlling water will always favor someone, while hurting others. Should the DL basin owners flood out RRV farms and homes in order to remain "perfect", or be allowed to "dry up" other areas during droughts. Fixing watersheds is an important first step, and that not only includes fixing drainage, but maintaining vegetation on the landscape to slow the flow of water during runoff events. In the case of farmland, grain stubble substitutes well for vegetation, but turning every square inch of farmland "black" every fall has been common througout eastern ND for decades.

Can't disagree with this, and I don't understand why Manitoba argues these points, if they have no evidence to support it. I do believe there are concerns in GF about what the extra volume dumped into the RRV might do during a flooding event. I'm not sure that plans to get rid of this water in the DL basin include holding some back and taking some of the flooding themselves during an event that could cause problems in the RRV similar to what has been experienced in the past. Any extra volume during an event like that can't be a good thing.

Heartless to whom. If the DL basin water is drained into the Red River, how much extra flooding might be caused in the RRV during a 100 year flood event due to the Red's inability to handle the water in a short amount of time? How much deeper might the water get and how much longer might the event last? Solving one's perceived water problem always creates new problems for others.

You might do the same (obviously your SU education has not). Drainage alone certainly did not cause the rise in the lake. Repeated excess snowfall, runoff, and rainfall has created a large part of the problem. However, the upstream drainage has contributed, and large currently flooded acreage could be dry right now if the upstream drainage issue was solved. There is a number, I believe it's in the 4-5 foot range, that is attributed to upstream drainage. Taking 4-5 feet off the top dries a large amount of land in the basin. I'm not sure why passing this excess water on to Canada to let them deal with it is fair to them. I guess it's to hell with the Canadians, we just want everything just right down here. Neighbor draining on neighbor has continued for years, and finally the only neighbor left to drain on is Canada. Just over a decade ago the basin was nearly dry, and there was a large political push to bring water into the basin from the west. Wouldn't it be great if any one area could take water from one area during a drought, and pass it on to another during flood events. And I do enjoy the education you're providing myseflt.

They got Spehar.

Always thought you were a rocket scientist. Now we know your expertise is hydrology. Years before any wetlands were drained Lake Agassiz existed also. The Pleistocence wasn't the 20th century. And don't forget the dinosaurs.

The point was, fix the source of the problem, rather than passing the problem on to others. The landowners in the basin, including farmers and homeowners, are some of those "others". The upstream owners, are the "source". Going back to the 70's, the upstream drainage contributed large amounts of water to the GF flood also.