Annotated Bilbliography on 8 catfish noodling sources

n.a.. Why "No" to Noodling. Missouri Department of Conservation, 2012. Web.
      16 February 2012 Annotation: A non-scholarly article, giving reasons from the Missouri Department of Conservation on why noodling is illegal in the state of Missouri and how its legality would effect the economy.

Hunt, Kevin M.; Hutt, Clifford P.. Characteristics of Texas Catfish Anglers and their Catch and Management Preferences. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division, December 2010. Web.
      15 February 2012
Annotation: A Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Survey results summary, giving the survey questions, their purposes, and the responses to them from Texas catfish anglers. Its relevance lies in a portion of questions aimed at responses to catfish noodling, showing how most catfish anglers in Texas felt about the practice and giving insight to the probability of legality there in the next few years.

Tatarenkov, Audrey; Barreto, Felipe; Winkelman, Dana L.; Avise, John C.. Genetic Monogamy of the Channel Catfish, Ictalurus Punctatus, a Species with Uni-parental Nest Guarding. Copeia, 2004. Web.
      15 February 2012
Annotation: An article on the breeding habits of channel catfish, which briefly covers noodling, since it was a skill used to electronically mark the catfish being studied.

Rochon, Bryon. Activity Involvement and Place Attachment of Fish Giggers in the Missouri Ozarks. University of Missouri-Columbia, July 2010. Web.
      15 February 2012
Annotation: An article delving into the background of the heritage of catfish noodling and how it is sociologically inherited by the groups that practice it.

Hayden, Sterling C.. The Social and Cultural Aspects of Paddlefish Snagglers in the Lake of the Ozarks. Graduate School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri-Columbia, December 2009. Web.
      14 February 2012
Annotation: An article that gives a background of the average gender, age, and education level of the common Missouri catfish noodler, as well as other characteristics, giving a general image of who a noodler is and why they noodle.

Morgan, Mark. The Social Hierarchy of Fishing: Myth or Reality. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006. Web.
      14 February 2012
Annotation: An article that dispels several unprofessional stereotypes associated with Missouri catfish noodlers, trying to erase the line between "normal, accepted angler" and "bad, stupid noodler."

Grigsby, Mary. Masculine Identity Work Among Missouri Noodlers: Community Providers, Pleasure Seeking Comrades and Family Men, and Tough Courageous Men. Southern Rural Sociological Association, 2009. Web.
      13 February 2012
Annotation: A sociological and psychological breakdown of the reason, practice, and tradition of noodling and how it is a Missouri reflection of the "big, tough man" that every male apparently wishes to be. Talks about how noodling is mainly a family tradition, and whether it is legal or illegal it will probably be practiced in the same numbers for many years to come.


Reitz, Ronald A.; Travnichek, Vincent H.. Angler Opinions Regarding Handfishing for Catfish in Missouri. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2005. Web.
      12 February 2012
Annotation: A summary of survey results regarding questions specifically geared toward Missouri anglers' opinions toward catfish noodling, ultimately giving a statistical analysis of whether noodling will be legalized any time soon.

(MWP1 Precis 8) Rhetorical Precis on "Why 'No' to Noodling" *Non-scholarly source*

In "Why 'no' to Noodling" (2012), a Q&A about the legality and effects of catfish noodling in missouri submitted online by the Missouri Department of Conservation, the department secures their assertions that catfish noodling is dangerous to their economy, since the two types of catfish most frequently noodled are both among their top five state-wide game-fish.  They first answer questions regarding what noodling actually is, so that the reader can establish the background to the issue, and then provide answer to why it is illegal, studies that have shown its effect on catfish populations (which they did not link), and the fiscal statistics resting on legal catfish angling in the state of Missouri.  They intend to elaborate on their laws and regulations to clear up any misconceptions about noodling in their state. Their intended audience are those who want legal reasons or scientific explanations to why they can't noodle, or those who just wish to learn what noodling is.

Website: http://mdc.mo.gov/fishing/regulations/sport-fish-regulations/why-no-noodling

MLA Citation:
n.a.. Why "No" to Noodling. Missouri Department of Conservation, 2012. Web.
     16 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 7) Rhetorical Precis on "Characteristics of Texas Catfish Anglers and their Catch and Management Preferences--Data Section"

(NOTE: The article used was a State Parks Department's Survey results submission. The section I am writing the Precis on is just the data section, showing percentages on responses made by Texas anglers toward Catfish Noodling. The Section starts on Page 58, and the tables containing noodling-related questions is on 81)


In their survey results to "Characteristics of Texas Catfish Anglers and their Catch and Management Preferences" (December 2010), Kevin M. Hunt and Clifford P. Hutt identify the opinions toward Catfish angling's importance and methods, as well as statistics on catfish caught in respect to size and age, as well as frequency of angling for the average catfisher.  They first list the results for the age, gender, and ethnicity of the anglers, as well as how important they deem cat fishing and their favorite methods; then, they inquired about their opinions on different catfish methods, the methods they used themselves, and ultimately the average size and number of catfish caught.  They write for the purpose of giving a state-wide background on the popularity, necessity, and methods of cat fishing, as well as the opinions of those who take part in it, who they are, and the way they take part in the sport.  Their intended audience contains anybody who wishes to know data about cat fishing in Texas.


Article: https://hdclel.org/MDWFP/Miscellaneous/2010TexasCatfishReport.pdf 
Pages 58-81


MLA Citation:
Hunt, Kevin M.; Hutt, Clifford P.. Characteristics of Texas Catfish Anglers and their Catch and Management Preferences. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Indland Fisheries Division, December 2010. Web.
     15 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 6) Rhetorical Precis on "Genetic Monogomy in the Channel Catfish"

In their article "Genetic Monogamy of the Channel Catfish, Ictalurus Punctatus, a Species with Uniparental Nest Guarding", Audrey Tatarenkov, Felipe Barreto, Dana L. Winkelman, and John C. Avise research the parental systems regarding the care of catfish eggs after they are laid, by keeping tabs on several nests and their resident catfish.  After identifying the kind of "families" the catfish construct, they had catfish noodlers take out the main protectors (since only one male catfish stayed at each nest most of the time) so they could count the amount of eggs in each mass and then examine the catfish that were in charge of guarding it.  They write in order to disclose a new theory that there is actually lifelong monogomy among catfish, and that they form families that are not so different from human families, having several generations located in any given nest.  Their intended audience are biology researches specifically interested in the species of catfish located in water channels in the southern United States.

Article: http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/johncavise/files/2011/03/275-Copeia-channel-catfish.pdf

MLA Citation:
Tatarenkov, Audrey; Barreto, Felipe; Winkelman, Dana L.; Avise, John C.. Genetic Monogamy of the Channel Catfish, Ictalurus Punctatus, a Species with Uniparental Nest Guarding. Copeia, 2004. Web.
     15 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 5) Rhetorical Precis on "Activity Involvement and Place Attatchment of Fish Giggers in the Missouri Ozarks--Literature Review"

(NOTE: The article used was a thesis. The section I am writing the Precis on is just the "fishing literature", a subsection of the literature review section, ranging from pages 10-14 of the linked article)

In Fishing Literature Review from "Activity Involvement and Place Attatchment of Fish Giggers in the Missouri Ozarks" (July 2010), Bryon Rochon illustrates the different subcategories of anglers ingrained into the heritage and history of the families located near the Ozarks. He first reviews the history of fishing in the region as far back as 1970, and then breaks down the data from several previous surveys taken by local anglers and identifies the different practices outside of contemporary fishing, mainly noodling. He writes in order to establish a background for the individuals who are the subject of his paper, and how their background was formed and conveyed by previous researchers. His intended audience are individuals doing research on fishing, fishers, or groups of fishers in the area.

Article: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/9274/research.pdf?sequence=3
Pages 10-14

MLA Citation:
Rochon, Bryon. Activity Involvement and Place Attatchment of Fish Giggers in the Missouri Ozarks. University of Missouri-Columbia, July 2010. Web.
     15 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 4) Rhetorical Precis on "The Social and Cultural Aspects of Paddlefish Snagglers--Results"

(NOTE: The article used was a master thesis. The section I am writing the Precis on is just the results section, ranging from pages 29-44 of the linked article)

In Sterling C. Hayden's Thesis Results on "The Social and Cultural Aspects of Paddlefish Snagglers in the Lake of the Ozarks" (December 2009), Hayden constructs an image of the average "Paddlefish Snaggler" (Catfish Noodler), using roughly 500 survey results. He revealed that, using his survey results, where noodlers are from (94% from Missouri), how old they are (almost exclusively in their 40's), thier gender (90% male), their educational and employment statistics (almost all completed high school, 11% college, and over 50% made over $40,000 wages), and their supposed effects on the natural reproduction of catfish populations. He intended to provide an image for the type of people involved in the noodling community, and to eliminate some unfortunate myths and stereotypes. His intended audience were those involved or interested in the legal battle for noodling's legality.

Article:

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/5348/research.pdf?sequence=3
Pages 29-44

MLA Citation:
Hayden, Sterling C.. The Social and Cultural Aspects of Paddlefish Snagglers in the Lake of the Ozarks. Graduate School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri-Columbia, December 2009. Web.
     14 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 3) Rhetorical Precis on "The Social Hierarchy of Fishing: Myth or Reality?"

In "The Social Hierarchy of Fishing: Myth or Reality?" (2006), Mark Morgan determines that there is actually no demographic, psychological, or justifiable difference between what are known as "high-class anglers", who catch fish using modern equipment, and those who noodle, outside of a social stigma that has grown against them. He first conducts a survey of people classified as "high-class anglers" and "handfishers" using a set of twelve identifying, opposing characteristics, and then breaks down the reasons for high-class anglers' bad opinions toward noodlers in respect to each characteristic individually. He intends to reveal that the idea of the "red-neck, uneducated low-life" is actually just a stereotype that has grown from commercial anger and clashes in individuals' family culture, and to convey that the average noodler is actually just that: average. His intended is most likely those exploring the issue who want to see the truth behind whether noodlers are actually strange, scandalous country folk or just normal people.

Article: http://www.ncd-afs.org/Pages/34/RP%20Morgan%202006.pdf


MLA Citation:
Morgan, Mark. The Social Hierarchy of Fishing: Myth or Reality. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006. Web.
     14 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 2) Rhetorical Precis on "Masculine Identity..."

In her acticle "Masculine Identity Work Among Missouri Noodlers: Community Providers, Pleasure Seeking Comrades And Family Men, And Tough Courageous Men" (2009), Mary Grigsby asserts that the culture behind catfish noodling is actually an ingrained way of expressing masculinity among those who practice it in the United State's southern states. She first reseraches the psychology and general age/gender groups that practice catfish, concluding on the middle-aged male majority and their mindset when it comes to the activity. She writes in order to give a psychological or scientific reason for the popularity of catfish noodling and the cultural and social reasons for its practice. Her intended audience consists of those who are looking for a background taken from a fresh perspective on the issue, looking at the sport from a different stance than the legal one which is most often encountered.

Article: http://www.ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/srsa/pages/Articles/SRS%202009%2024%202%20218-243.pdf?pagewanted=all

MLA Citation:
Grigsby, Mary.  Masculine Identity Work Among Missouri Noodlers: Community Providers, Pleasure Seeking Comrades and FAmily Men, and Tough Courageous Men. Southern Rural Sociological Association, 2009. Web.
     13 February 2012

Working Thesis for MWP1

Catfish noodling should be legalized in all states that harbor major catfishing because does not post a significant threat against the local catfish populations, and because the majority of hatred against catfish noodling is based on petty stereotypes and insufficient data and assumptions by those who do not understand the culture and heritage ingrained in the sport.

(MWP1 Precis 1) Rhetorical Precis on "Angler Opinions Regarding Handfishing for Catfish in Missouri"

Ronald A. Reitz and Vincent H. Travnichek, in their article "Angler Opinions Regarding Handfishing for Catfish in Missouri" (2005), investigate the opinions of groups of demographically determined anglers to determine the reasons, oppositions, support, and likelihood of catfish "noodling", or handfishing, legalization. They first describe their different categories of anglers: general, those who just fish, maybe not exclusively for catfish; catfish anglers, those who had fished specifically for catfish on at least one occasion within the last year; avid catfish anglers, those who had fished for catfish on several occasions within the last six months--they then discussed, dissected, and related the data they received from surveys to all these groups to explore the opinions, methods, and likelihood of legalization for catfish handfishing in Missouri. Reitz and Travnichek seek to bring a perhaps undisclosed issue into light and try to discuss it in a serious tone, illustrating the opinions on the issue from those who are most directly affected by it in order to give a realistic overview on its potential legality.  Anglers, legal professionals, or individuals who are personally interested in the issue and wish to expand their knowledge on its methods and legalization, as well as how positively it is regarded, are what their intended audience most likely consist of.

Article: http://www.sdafs.org/catfish/Literature/Angler%20Opinions%20Regarding%20Hand%20Fishing%20in%20Missouri.pdf

MLA Citation:
Reitz, Ronald A.; Travnichek, Vincent H.. Angler Opinions Regarding Handfishing for Catfish in Missouri. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2005. Web.
      12 February 2012

Questions on Catfish Noodling

Catfish Noodling is the act of using your bare hands to catch catfish.
Questions:
1. Is it legal?
2. What is the general method of noodling?
3. What impact does it have on catfish populations?
4. Are there health risks?
5. What states are in conflict over it?
6. Where did it originate?
7. Are there currently legal battles for/against it?
8. Where is it popular?
9. Is it effective/innefective?
10. Who is generally interested? (age, gender, etc.)
11. Is it getting more/less popular with time?

Rhetorical Precis on Good Reasons Chapter 4

In Chapter 4, "Drafting and Revising Arguments", of Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer’s Good Reasons (2012), Faigley and Selzer assert different strategies on how to evaluate a thesis, discern reader attitudes, organize arguments, and proofread written arguments. They first explain how to clearly state and evaluate one's own thesis, followed by how to identify reader attitudes toward you, as the writer, and your topic; lastly, they break down a step-by-step on how to organize your argument and an outline of how to proofread both your own arguments as well as others. Faigley and Selzer write in order to give a clear and thorough guide and the follow-up to writing an article, supplying tips on how to effectively present everything from the introduction to the conclusion. Their intended audience is students who have just written an argumentative paper that wish to go back and proofread, making sure they presented and articulated their argument as well as possible.

Rhetorical Precis on Good Reasons Chapter 7

In Chapter 7 of Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer’s Good Reasons (2012), “Putting Good Reasons Into Action”, the authors list ways to effectively choose a purpose for writing an argument. They list common purposes, give an example, and list effective ways to incorporate you purpose into the writing so that the reader understands it. Faigley and Selzer intend to give insight on how to thoroughly analyze purpose and procedure behind writing arguments. Their intended audience is those being educated on writing argumentative research papers who want to know the best way to choose their topics.

Rhetorical Précis on "Digatal Sampling of Music and Copyrights..."

In "Digital Sampling of Music and Copyrights: is it infringement, fair use, or should we just flip a coin?" (December 2011) by Christopher C. Collie and Eric D. Gorman, the authors assert that, regardless of dispute over the legality of music sampling, a compromise should be attained between the music producers being sampled and budding artists in order to not stifle creativity or industry, tactfully weaving in a history of related court cases and a hypothetical example based on the works of a real artist recently affected by the issue.  Collie and Gorman begin by giving a light overview on the issues at hand, including the actual text behind the laws of copyright, distinguishing the difference between the copyright to a musical composition and the copyright of recorded works, and then describing fair use and how its legal use has been involved in court cases before the sampling issue; then they give a list of court cases--some between a company hosting a misspelled title for an mp3, and another between the band The Beastie Boys and a recording company they sampled from--and a legal proposal on how to peacefully resolve the issue, followed by a breakdown of how a court case might go with a hypothetical common artist both with and without their proposal being accepted.  They strive to end the dispute between companies that own copyrights and those artists who are trying to breathe new life into older works without siding with one group or the other, taking the approach of a subjective view with a balanced sense of justice and equality, trying to appease both the record companies and the artists while still ending the fiasco once and for all.  Their intended audience is most likely a wide range of people who take a particular interest in this matter, since they took a common, popular issue and wrote about it in a professional and scholarly way, trying to set a new standard by both adressing and resolving the issue peacefully.

Informal synthesis of 3 texts on plagiarism and music sampling

While I stated my opinion vicariously through the summary of the first two articles (which probably wasn't a very good thing to do in a summary...), I receieved a good amount of insight from the third article I chose, "Digital Sampling of Music and Copyright: is it infringement, fair use, or should we just flip a coin?" by Christopher C. Collie and Eric D. Gorman. They interested me by including a legal proposal toward the end of the paper that represented their method at the best way to solve the music sampling dispute--to cut a deal. They proposed that we should consider including a formula in law that, if an artist felt another artist's sampling of his work could be considered copyright infringment, could make amends for any harm done without causing the first artist to forfeit his work. For example, if a song was a minute long, and thirty seconds of it contained a drum track from a sampled piece, take 1/2 (30/60), and multiply it by one third, meaning that the sampled artist would take away a sixth of the money earned from that particular piece of music. I feel that, from what I've read, this sort of "deal" is probably the best solution to the sampling issue. Whether or not this generation has a problem keeping the definition of "plagiarism" in check, music sampling is a powerful and innovative method of expression, and shouldn't be stifled because of related issues, but rather encouraged in a way where nobody loses.

"Digital Music Sampling" and "Plagiarism Blurs Lines" Summary

While the two different sources talked about two topics that initially seemed unrelated, there was a common motif to both the pieces: that the idea of exchanging ideas is drastically different for this generation in both the creative and professional fields, due to progression in social technology. While the idea of plagiarism used to be very straightforward--if it's from a book that you didn't write, then don't take credit for it--the modern ease of attainment for relevent information has made it not-so-cut-and-dry.  While the radio show talked about how we may need to redefine terms of copyright to benefit the creativity of the country's youth, the article talked about how the creativity of today's youth may actually be waning, and the idea of copy and paste could much more appealing and quick than finding your own words to students; in fact, the difference may not even be clear to a handful of them.  But is it laziness that causes people to cut an paste music tracks to make a new collage that they could potentially take credit for? While it's debateable, the idea that the two go hand in hand may not need to be universal--while some rules need to be defined about what can or cannot be taken from the internet without proper citation, the same exact rules may not need to be "copied and pasted" into the music industry; perhaps, even if the two issues do resonate a common creed of the new generation, they need to be approached seperately to find what is needed to set both of them down the right path. Most of the guests on the talk show spoke positively about sampling music, but all the references in the article provided the vision of a new and potentially dangerous view on copyrights when it came to online sources. Ultimately, the articles joined to produce the idea that America's students may be finding new ways to produce creative works, but it may be a problem if their creative mindset bleeds into their professional views--whether or not sampling music is illegal or wrong, the idea of plagiarism will most likely need to be firmly laid down in the near future, or stripping lines from wikipedia pages could possibly be a new, innovative way to "breath new life into a research paper".

Rhetorical Précis on Good Reasons Chapter 3

     In Chapter 3 of Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer’s Good Reasons (2012), “Finding Reasons”, the authors discern the different key points in identifying, building, and supporting arguments, and break down components that make up the difference between what could be a good argument and a bad argument, or even an argument and something else entirely. They first explain how to identify an argument, both by distinguishing one in everyday conversation, and by telling the differences between one type of argument from another or a persuasive article versus an argumentative one; they then elaborate on different types of arguments and how to involve oneself in both others arguments and one’s own more effectively—things such as argument categories, how to analyze issues, how to read into, examine, and find evidence for arguments, and how to establish different kinds of standpoints or contributions to arguments were listed and discussed. Faigley and Selzer intend to emphasize to the reader that an argument is something that can be weighed, analyzed, broken down, and evaluated, and give textual examples and list major rules and factors in being able to do these things when reading or writing arguments. Their intended audience is those being educated on writing argumentative research papers, supplying them with different recipes and ingredients for identifying, defining, researching issues on, and writing or reading arguments.

Rhetorical Précis on Good Reasons Chapter 2

      In “Reading Arguments”, Chapter 2 of Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer’s Good Reasons (2012), the writers express that there are certain cardinal practices that can make reading arguments more effective, productive, and personally enlightening, and that these skills are essential to develop when learning to write one’s own arguments. Faigley and Selzer elaborate on these practices by giving advice on how to explore different viewpoints to create a well-rounded view on an issue, evaluate the work thoroughly in order to establish the author’s credibility, and lastly suggest to keep an eye out for logical and emotional fallacies, all while providing easy-to-understand and still relevant textual and visual examples. The authors strive to show the most effective ways to evaluate a written argument in order to better the learning processes students experience while they harness the skills to write arguments themselves. Their intended audience is students enrolled in courses requiring them to read and evaluate arguments about different controversial issues, which requires them to keep a level, unbiased opinion to maintain a scholarly poise.