The pallid sturgeon must be one of the most debated fish in history.

For once, however, there is some good news about the endangered species. What’s more, local fishermen can play a role in preserving the sturgeon and restoring balance to the Missouri River.

The Missouri Department of Conservation is looking for volunteers to run trotlines along the river to collect adult fish that will be taken to a hatchery to become brood stock for the next generation.

The pallid sturgeon’s unusual life cycle has contributed to its tenuous hold on survival. It doesn’t spawn until it reaches 7 to 13 years of age. The Corps of Engineers made decisions to manage the Missouri River in ways to try to benefit the fish. But those decisions in turn cut off barge traffic and impacted communities and landowners all along the river.

This makes the Department of Conservation’s progress in bringing back the sturgeon especially welcome news. Missouri’s hatchery near Sweet Springs was the first in the nation to successfully spawn and rear pallid sturgeon in captivity. Some unknown factor is apparently hindering eggs laid in the wild from growing to maturity.

Last year, conservationists found larval pallid sturgeon in the river near St. Louis, breathing new life into the restoration program.

Two collections will be held in the region this spring. The first will be March 23 to April 15 at the French Bottom boat access and the other March 30 to April 15 at Nodaway Island.

Fishermen who want to join this worthy effort must register by March 13 by contacting Darby Niswonger at the Department of Conservation at 660-646-3140 or darby.niswonger@mdc.mo.gov.

We hope for a good catch of pallid sturgeon for the sake of survival of the species and more rational management of the Missouri River.

Joplin Globe, March 4

Former U.S. Sen. John Danforth not only delivered the eulogy on (March 3) at State Auditor Tom Schweich’s funeral, he also sent a stern message to politicians everywhere.

Danforth, one of the most respected Republicans in this state, exhibited great leadership as he stood before party members from both sides of the aisle and in front of Schweich’s family. He used the occasion to call for an end to the politics of personal destruction.

Schweich’s death at his home on Feb. 26 by an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound has now raised questions about the effects of political bullying. Danforth called it the natural consequence of what politics has become.

We applaud Danforth’s message and think that this portion is worth printing here:

“Words do hurt. Words can kill. That has been proven right here in our home state.

“There is no mystery as to why politicians conduct themselves this way. It works. They test how well it works in focus groups and opinion polls. It wins elections, and that is their objective. It’s hard to call holding office public service, because the day after the election it’s off to the next election, and there’s no interlude for service. It’s all about winning, winning at any cost to the opponent or to any sense of common decency.

“The campaign that led to the death of Tom Schweich was the low point of politics, and now it’s time to turn this around. So let’s make Tom’s death a turning point here in our state.

“Let’s decide that what may have been clever politics last week will work no longer. It will backfire. It will lose elections, not win them.

“Let’s pledge that we will not put up with any whisper of anti-Semitism. We will stand against it as Americans and because our own faith demands it. We will take the battle Tom wanted to fight as our own cause.”

Columbia Tribune, March 4

Around the country, state governments are usurping the power of locals.

Texas lawmakers fearing the “Californiation” of their state want to preserve “Texas miracle” job growth. In Alabama and Oklahoma, state legislatures prevent cities from enacting paid sick leave for workers. A new law in Arkansas won’t let cities protect gays and lesbians from discrimination.

In the Missouri General Assembly, proposed laws would limit the ability of localities to regulate Uber ride-booking services and forbid cities from banning single-use plastic bags.

Has this pending state ban on plastic regulation affected the decision to remove a proposed Columbia law from consideration? Proponents’ decision to table their law no doubt stemmed in large part from skepticism about chances for success. The state law under discussion by Missouri’s Republican legislature might have given them pause.

Industries find it easier to get their way in a few state legislatures than in hundreds of cities. The NRA has had famous success preventing local gun laws. Several states have acceded to the restaurant industry by blocking municipalities from hiking minimum wages or passing paid sick leave ordinances.

One of the biggest fights is in Texas, where the city of Denton banned fracking, prompting introduction of statutes requiring local referendums approved by the state and assessments of the cost in tax revenue of any attempt to regulate oil and gas.

I remember clearly Ronald Reagan’s call for devolution of authority from the federal government. He was reacting persuasively to what he and other conservatives saw as liberal policies from Washington. Now states with conservative management are seen as bulwarks against similar excesses from municipalities.

How does this square with the usual conservative mantra in favor of local control? On the other end of the spectrum, how do liberals come down on big government? It depends.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 5

It will be recalled that on Aug. 3, 2010, the 23 percent of Missouri voters who showed up for the primary election overwhelming approved Proposition C. It was intended to block the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, the part that requires everyone to have health insurance.

On (March 4), after the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a challenge to what amounts to a typo in a different part of the ACA, one of the 55 amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs awaiting them in their chambers argues that Proposition C meant Missourians hate far more about Obamacare than the individual mandate.

The brief was filed by the Missouri Liberty Project and the Missouri Forward Foundation, conservative political groups founded by Joshua Hawley and Erin Morrow Hawley, husband and wife. Both are associate professors of law at the University of Missouri-Columbia. No doubt they will have bright and lucrative futures in Missouri GOP politics.

Their argument in King v. Burwell, however, is strained. The King case turns on whether the IRS can give tax subsidies to people who buy health insurance from the federal health exchange, or if subsidies are limited to citizens of the 14 states that set up their own insurance marketplaces.

The overall language of the ACA, as well as the legislative intent established during long debate in Congress, made it clear that everyone would be eligible. But lawyers for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group that scoured the act in December 2010, looking for ways to attack it, found a seven-word phrase they thought was a deal-breaker.

One section of the law describes eligible taxpayers as those enrolled in health care plans acquired “through an Exchange established by a State.”

In their brief, Profs. Hawley suggest that in 2010, Missouri voters were keenly aware of these implications. They’re giving far more credit to Missouri voters than they deserve. Indeed, Prop C was passed four months before the eagle-eyed lawyers for the Competitive Enterprise Institute found their alleged fatal flaw.

The kindest interpretation of the Hawleys’ motives, as well those of the libertarian scholars behind King v. Burwell, is that they are driven by passion for a smaller, less intrusive government. Philosophically, this is fine. But in the real world, as it applies to the necessities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it comes off as social Darwinism. It comes off as selfish.

Should the court decide King v. Burwell for the plaintiffs, it will be an epic disaster. First for the 8 million Americans — more than 223,000 of them in Missouri — who bought subsidized health care through the federal exchange. Their costs will increase an by an average of 250 percent, and most will drop out.

After that the entire Affordable Care Act will enter a “death spiral,” because insurance works only if the insurance has enough people in it. The slowdown in rising health care costs will end. All Americans will pay more, except those who can’t pay at all. Many more of them will die premature deaths.

In theory, the court doesn’t consider real-world outcomes when it interprets the law. In practice, it does. It should.

It should consider the law as a whole, as some of its more conservative members have argued in previous decisions.

It should consider whether the four plaintiffs in whose name the case was brought can demonstrate any injury because of the ACA. They haven’t. There is legitimate question about whether they have standing to bring this case.

This conservative court’s rulings have tilted to the interests of corporate America, which is thriving in the age of Obamacare. HCA, the largest health care company in the country, filed a brief in support of the law.

One thing the court shouldn’t worry about is the feelings of the 669,947 Missourians (out of 4.1 million registered voters) who voted for Proposition C in 2010. That vote was not about a seven-word phrase. It was about the first three syllables in “Obamacare.”