# "The planned demise of commercial fishing"



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

A new article from an alleged news source known as "Thumb Wind". Simply reinforces the need to bolster our efforts and double down on contacting legislators to ask for their support of the pro-sportsman, pro-conservation bills.

https://thumbwind.com/2019/10/20/demise-michigans-commercial-fishing-industry/

This is posted on their Facebook page if you are a facebooker and would like to offer comment.


----------



## bluealaskan (Sep 18, 2011)

What a bunch of crap. Good story for them to get more support from the non sportsmen. Sent the 3 rep's listed letters asking for their support of these bills. We have to keep the pressure from our side.


----------



## Sander vitreus 01 (Jan 2, 2008)

It's about the power of future management of the MI Great Lakes fishery. 

What happens with the State will translate to the negotiation with the tribal. There's many more tribal than state license. The tribal have made some progress towards sustainable, but have been loosely regulated at best. Consider Mullet Lake, Bay DeNoc, Ghost Nets and the continued black market sales and etc!

So what kind of fishery do you want for yourself and more importantly the up and coming generations for the next 20 years and beyond?

The current perch on Saginaw Bay are at a historic low. With scientific proof the DNR lowered sportfisherman limits to (25) in hopes of promoting a rebound. Meanwhile the netters keep on netting perch. No quotas

Its part of their livelihood they say, supposedly it depends on it. Even if the reported numbers wouldn't add up for the multiple net lifting labor effort and gas. If you fish the Bay, you'll see there's a lot of "Perch nets," soaking out there in prime spots, every year!

Again, there has been no commercial quota on perch or whitefish on Saginaw Bay. 

Further, consider the most destructive practices for netting perch would be the same as placing a net across the titabawasee river mouth for walleye.

For sake of perch, it has been nets across the Pine River and elsewhere for years, every spring. 

Is it all finally catching up?

Now they even say the whitefish population is low.. But seeing video of lifts and then the truckloads headed off to Chicago and New York by the tons. They're saying business can't survive with these proposed "modern," fees and regulations?

They are the only ones who heavily target whitefish.

As far as sportfisherman, Tawas dock hadn't been the same for whitefish in 15 years. Guys that used to get them off Alpena are saying the same. If you're ice fishing Saginaw Bay it's like shooting a banded duck, if you are lucky enough to get one!

Regardless, placing blame on cormorants, another invasive species or in the past blamed on pollution. It's always gonna be a hush, hush by another huge factor which is overfished by commercial harvest.....

Age old story, Ya can't continually take more than the resource can sustain!

Now commercial wants the privilege to move on to the next. 

Net the Walleye? Get real...


----------



## Big Tuna (Mar 29, 2017)

Thanks for the info mr.

I learned along time ago that you fight fire with fire.

The higher a bill climbs the legislative ladder , the more nails start poking out of the woodwork. We have to beat them back.

Stand up , be accounted for and make those calls.


----------



## bluealaskan (Sep 18, 2011)

Just received answer from Rep. Pauline Wendzel. Said Bill 4568 is hers, thanked for support and she is looking forward to it passing. That's great.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

bluealaskan said:


> Just received answer from Rep. Pauline Wendzel. Said Bill 4568 is hers, thanked for support and she is looking forward to it passing. That's great.


Yup hers is the GPS net location bill. Needs to pass with the other two. Definitely thank her for pushing this.


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

bluealaskan said:


> Just received answer from Rep. Pauline Wendzel. Said Bill 4568 is hers, thanked for support and she is looking forward to it passing. That's great.


First off, it is sad that I have defend myself everytime I make a post on here especially anything dealing with the bills before the legislature. Let me explain for the umpteenth time I am not involved with anything associated with netting, all I do is comment on issues that need more definition for clarity.
Having said all of that I would like to discuss a statement made on the video at the sub committee regarding the re write if the commercial fishing bills.
The day the meeting was held I was doing my husbandly duties.........canning tomatoes.
I was listening to my laptop when a statement caught my attention. The lady representative that presented the alternative bill said something that would cause problems to the 3 bills as written. I believe that all the bills state the elimination of perch netting, and she said if these bills pass as is it surly will initiate court battles the basis being the "due process clause" within the law. Simply stated you have to prove your case for elimination of something, without basis, that has been going on for at least 100 years
In the court system you have to prove your opinion using data, scientific papers, test cases and long term studies by professionals not rumor or theory. In the case of commercial netters there is no evidence that netting caused the depletion of perch..none. Conversely, proven data shows netting has little impact and the root cause of the depletion is the loss of food base, an overabundance of walleye and predator fish along with the cormorant issue. I know I'm going to receive backlash from this statement but please keep it sane and provide substantiation to your rebuttal. The data should be current, like no more than 5/6 years old. The data going way back has little credibility As the bay ecology has dramatically changed.
In order for the bills to advance they have to pass the sub committee first or they are dead and you have to start over. The legislature does not want that to happen, they want a revised bill to get approved before the Native American Compact is re written. I think interesting happenings will be coming in short order.


----------



## Spartazoo (Jan 28, 2004)

If I am writing that fluff piece to support the commercial fisherman, I am not highlighting their license fees in the article. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude a $200 fishing license to net millions of pounds of fish from the great lakes is ridiculously low. Do the math... 65 licenses with 13 operational. 65 x $200 = $13,000 to harvest 2,000,000 pounds of fish. That equates to $.0065 per pound of fish netted. That's right, not even one penny per pound. It might as well be zero.

Compare that to an individuals $26 license to take a few fish per trip.

It is simple math. Let's conservatively estimate there are 1.5m licensed anglers in Michigan. $26 x 1,500,000 = $39,000,000. I was slow at picking up less than/greater than in school, but I think I could even figure this one out.

In my opinion, the commercial fishing operations kryptonite are the fees they pay to their take ratio. They need to stay away from that. Even supporters (if they are objective) will figure out the place they are buying their $13.99 per pound fish is paying .007/lb to harvest the resource. That is unbalanced in any opinion.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Gordon Casey said:


> First off, it is sad that I have defend myself everytime I make a post on here especially anything dealing with the bills before the legislature. Let me explain for the umpteenth time I am not involved with anything associated with netting, all I do is comment on issues that need more definition for clarity.
> Having said all of that I would like to discuss a statement made on the video at the sub committee regarding the re write if the commercial fishing bills.
> The day the meeting was held I was doing my husbandly duties.........canning tomatoes.
> I was listening to my laptop when a statement caught my attention. The lady representative that presented the alternative bill said something that would cause problems to the 3 bills as written. I believe that all the bills state the elimination of perch netting, and she said if these bills pass as is it surly will initiate court battles the basis being the "due process clause" within the law. Simply stated you have to prove your case for elimination of something, without basis, that has been going on for at least 100 years
> ...


Why is it that hou demand specific proof for arguements yet you wont provide any proof that you are not a commercial fishing plant on here like most of us believe? Provide us your true identity or you will be viewed as a what we belive you really are. What are you afraid of? Why not just come clean?


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

Spartazoo said:


> If I am writing that fluff piece to support the commercial fisherman, I am not highlighting their license fees in the article. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude a $200 fishing license to net millions of pounds of fish from the great lakes is ridiculously low. Do the math... 65 licenses with 13 operational. 65 x $200 = $13,000 to harvest 2,000,000 pounds of fish. That equates to $.0065 per pound of fish netted. That's right, not even one penny per pound. It might as well be zero.
> 
> Compare that to an individuals $26 license to take a few fish per trip.
> 
> ...


See, I know this would happen. Your going on a tirade that has nothing to do with what I reported. Your response was full of un supported information and had nothing to do with what I reported. Just an observation, 2,000,000 pounds of fish probably include carp, catfish not perch. The perch harvest is about 30,000 pounds. 26.00 dollar, average fee is a little high. I assume that 13.99 cost for perch is a little high, around 2.50 pound. Will you substantiate the 2,000,000 pound fish harvest. Will you prove that 13.99 pound for perch. Please double check that 26.00 license fee. Thank you.


----------



## Spartazoo (Jan 28, 2004)

Gordon Casey said:


> Conversely, proven data shows netting has little impact and the root cause of the depletion is the loss of food base, an overabundance of walleye and predator fish along with the cormorant issue.


I think anyone that is objective to the current ecosystem, has to admit, the increase in walleye, muskie, pike, and other top of the pyramid predator fish has had an effect on perch. To think otherwise would be a bit foolish. Having said that, how much of an impact, I think, is part of the debate. The bottom line is lots of walleye + commercial netters = less perch. There is going to be less under either scenario.

My main contention is the netters have not paid to play. The sportsman have. the reality is money talks and bulls**t walks... The people who have paid want and probably deserve control.


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Why is it that hou demand specific proof for arguements yet you wont provide any proof that you are not a commercial fishing plant on here like most of us believe? Provide us your true identity or you will be viewed as a what we belive you really are. What are you afraid of? Why not just come clean?


A broken record. Not looking for proof only corroborated data. Trophy, are you taking exception to anything I said in my post? The due process clause, the perch harvest, the cause of the decline. Remember, present data not emotion. Thank you and keep it sane and factual.


----------



## Spartazoo (Jan 28, 2004)

Gordon Casey said:


> See, I know this would happen. Your going on a tirade that has nothing to do with what I reported. Your response was full of un supported information and had nothing to do with what I reported. Just an observation, 2,000,000 pounds of fish probably include carp, catfish not perch. The perch harvest is about 30,000 pounds. 26.00 dollar, average fee is a little high. I assume that 13.99 cost for perch is a little high, around 2.50 pound. Will you substantiate the 2,000,000 pound fish harvest. Will you prove that 13.99 pound for perch. Please double check that 26.00 license fee. Thank you.


My post HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU! I hadn't even seen your post when I typed that. You call that a tirade? Geez, I was respecting your viewpoint. Now I think you are just a hot head.


----------



## Spartazoo (Jan 28, 2004)

Ok, let's break this down...



Gordon Casey said:


> Will you substantiate the 2,000,000 pound fish harvest.


Michigan commercial fisherman take 2.5m pounds of fish with tribal fisherman taking another 3m pounds.

https://thumbwind.com/2019/10/20/demise-michigans-commercial-fishing-industry/



Gordon Casey said:


> Will you prove that 13.99 pound for perch.


This article is a few years old, but it states $15.50 per pound back then.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/yellow-perch-price-rise-1.3579974



Gordon Casey said:


> Please double check that 26.00 license fee.


Michigan resident license fees are $26 and nonresident license fees are $76

https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-350-79119_79146_82448---,00.html


----------



## Big Tuna (Mar 29, 2017)

You're right Gordon , so please tell us what evidence does the commercial fishing industry have to prove that they haven't depleted the perch population? On the flip side of things the DNR has demographics and historical data that proves what's been going on in the water's for decades upon decades . If you truly believe that the blame needs to be pointed at the transition of our Great Lakes Waters because of invasive species ,or whatever else is being said, do you think the comm. netters should be able to continue to net perch until they become non-existent?

As far as the due process clause, that is just something else that's being thrown against the wall to see if it will stick .My guess is it won't.


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

Spartazoo said:


> My post HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU! I hadn't even seen your post when I typed that. You call that a tirade? Geez, I was respecting your viewpoint. Now I think you are just a hot head.


Sorry, I'm a little gun shy.


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

Spartazoo said:


> Ok, let's break this down...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe the 2,000,000 include rough fish throughout the Great Lakes. Not to equate that number with Saginaw bay perch harvest.
That 13.50 dollar is retail, check the Sea Grant survey to get the wholesale value at the dock, around 2.76 dollars. That's what the netters get. Not sure on that 2.75, maybe Trophy can fact check, he is good at that.
Don't forget the 11.00 senior license, that will drop the average.


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

"Big Tuna" said:


> You're right Gordon , so please tell us what evidence does the commercial fishing industry have to prove that they haven't depleted the perch population? On the flip side of things the DNR has demographics and historical data that proves what's been going on in the water's for decades upon decades . If you truly believe that the blame needs to be pointed at the transition of our Great Lakes Waters because of invasive species ,or whatever else is being said, do you think the comm. netters should be able to continue to net perch until they become non-existent?
> 
> As far as the due process clause, that is just something else that's being thrown against the wall to see if it will stick .My guess is it won't.


Please review the Sea Grant survey results, specifically for Saginaw Bay. This is "benchmark" data to define the fishery. All the proof is there. By the way, have you viewed the Sea grant survey?? The DNR data is the Sea Grant survey. Don't poo-poo due cause, it's been tried and tested for many years. All you have to do is prove your stance using valid evidence. 

So far, this conversation is sane and respectful, lets hope we can keep it that way. Good information sharing.


----------



## Big Tuna (Mar 29, 2017)

Then please explain to us Gordon why the DNR supports the three good bills?


----------



## Spartazoo (Jan 28, 2004)

Gordon Casey said:


> I believe the 2,000,000 include rough fish throughout the Great Lakes.


No... the article clearly states MICHIGAN'S annual commercial harvest is 2.5 million pounds with tribal operations taking another 3.0 million pounds. I read it as a total amount including all fish. 

Also my post listing $15.50/lb was referencing the retail value. The amount people pay that the commercial operations are targeting for support. I made no reference to the wholesale dock value and didn't intend to. that wasn't my point.


----------



## Spartazoo (Jan 28, 2004)

"Big Tuna" said:


> Then please explain to us Gordon why the DNR supports the three good bills?


Why does the DNR support these bills? It's simple in my opinion. They have between 1.5-2.5 million sport anglers buying resident and nonresident licenses. Factor in the additional recreational passports millions more are buying and that amount probably totals well over $80 million in base revenue. The commercial operations don't even generate $20k. My research tells me, the commercial fishing catch is being heavily subsidized by the DNR and the sport fisher's dollars.


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

"Big Tuna" said:


> Then please explain to us Gordon why the DNR supports the three good bills?


The bills are in their infancy and will debated, horsetraded, modified as it moves up the latter to final draft. There is a lot of "open door" politics at sub committees and "closed door" politics when the bills are in final draft where representatives and senators will surely combine the reps. and senate version into one bill. The sub committee members will state they did their job, it's the others that did the changing. Same with the DNR, they supported their base, it was the legislature that changed it.


----------



## Big Tuna (Mar 29, 2017)

Sparta Zoo you forgot to mention the 35,000 jobs that it creates , the 2.3 billion dollars that it pumps into our state's economy. 

The point Gordon wants us to believe is it is just the DNR supporting their base. Geeeze, stupid me. I thought it was the DNR was simply following their mission statement which is to conserve , protect and manage our natural resources for our future.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Gordon Casey said:


> In the case of commercial netters there is no evidence that netting caused the depletion of perch..non


Of course there is no evidence. They are not reporting accurrate harvest #'s. So makes sense there is no evidence. Time for a drastic change which will be very soon!


Gordon Casey said:


> Let me explain for the umpteenth time I am not involved with anything associated with netting, a


Let me say it again for the umpteenth time, if your not affiliated then sir you DON'T have any facts!


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Why is it that hou demand specific proof for arguements yet you wont provide any proof that you are not a commercial fishing plant on here like most of us believe? Provide us your true identity or you will be viewed as a what we belive you really are. What are you afraid of? Why not just come clean?


What is hard to believe is that Gordon is still allowed to cause problems on nearly every post he makes. His anti Sportsmen antics allowed on here blows my mind. He continues to claim he has facts and the rest of us are unstable throwing emotions around. Far from accurate, as If Gordon would be the only one with facts is he is affiliated with them. No other way he could know as much as he claims. Thorn rubbing the Sportsmen of this site the wrong way.


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

"Big Tuna" said:


> Sparta Zoo you forgot to mention the 35,000 jobs that it creates , the 2.3 billion dollars that it pumps into our state's economy.
> 
> The point Gordon wants us to believe is it is just the DNR supporting their base. Geeeze, stupid me. I thought it was the DNR was simply following their mission statement which is to conserve , protect and manage our natural resources for our future.


You are absolutely correct, that is the DNR mission statement. But the DNR is a department within the Michigan government. Eichinger reports to some some body above him. The DNR does not make law, they provide input to law. The final decision does not rest with the DNR. The DNR get overruled frequently.
The DNR is a great organization, their job is to be a purist to their mission statement. The Representatives and Senators have to look at other factors not just what is best for one element within a finalized bill.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Gordon Casey said:


> There is a lot of "open door" politics at sub committees and "closed door" politics when the bills are in final draft where representatives and senators will surely combine the reps. and senate version into one bill.


Make it all "open door" politics. Let me guess the "closed doors" part of it is When they divide the pay offs,vacations,timeshares ect.... Gotcha. Not going on vacation this year Gordon, numbers are low.....


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Gordon Casey said:


> Representatives and Senators have to look at other factors not just what is best for one element within a finalized bill.


Sportsmen & Sportswomen and local bussinesses are by far a more important factor than a company selling fish to Chicago and New York.


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> Make it all "open door" politics. Let me guess the "closed doors" part of it is When they divide the pay offs,vacations,timeshares ect.... Gotcha. Not going on vacation this year Gordon, numbers are low.....


born, maybe a little bit of hyperbole there!!!! But there is a little bit of truth there.


----------



## Big Tuna (Mar 29, 2017)

Gordon Casey said:


> You are absolutely correct, that is the DNR mission statement. But the DNR is a department within the Michigan government. Eichinger reports to some some body above him. The DNR does not make law, they provide input to law. The final decision does not rest with the DNR. The DNR get overruled frequently.
> The DNR is a great organization, their job is to be a purist to their mission statement. The Representatives and Senators have to look at other factors not just what is best for one element within a finalized bill.


Gordon no need for any kind of education when it comes to dealing with the state agencies or legislature on how all of this works. I did it for decades. 

Hell I'm more than willing to bet my toe jam has done more in protection of our natural resources as well as sportsman's rights at the state and federal level then most that post here. Please note i didnt say "you". I know you cant take much abuse.

Carry on, i enjoy your spins.


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

"Big Tuna" said:


> Gordon no need for any kind of education when it comes to dealing with the state agencies or legislature on how all of this works. I did it for decades.
> 
> Hell I'm more than willing to bet my toe jam has done more in protection of our natural resources as well as sportsman's rights at the state and federal level then most that post here. Please note i didnt say "you". I know you cant take much abuse.
> 
> Carry on, i enjoy your spins.


Were my spins on here accurate??


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Gordon Casey said:


> Were my spins on here accurate??


Not even close!


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> What is hard to believe is that Gordon is still allowed to cause problems on nearly every post he makes. His anti Sportsmen antics allowed on here blows my mind. He continues to claim he has facts and the rest of us are unstable throwing emotions around. Far from accurate, as If Gordon would be the only one with facts is he is affiliated with them. No other way he could know as much as he claims. Thorn rubbing the Sportsmen of this site the wrong way.


Sorry born, your twisting, twisting words again like you always do. Your again throwing around disparaging remarks and name calling. All I'm doing is passing on information as I see it. My post was just about the due process clause I heard during the sub-committee read out. Nothing more, and sooner than later you and a few others twist it into pro-netting rhetoric. Everything I have said was respectful, I wish others will try.


----------



## Big Tuna (Mar 29, 2017)

Gordon i understand and even agree with you at times on SOME of your comments.

I understand the " open door , closed door "meetings that happenes in the world of politics . I also understand the resource science has to be mixed with what we can call the Social Science when dealing with different bills and issues.

I'm also proud to say I never once have sold my soul for not protecting our natural resources as well as sticking up for the sports persons of this state. Can you say the same?


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> Not even close!


That comment was not intended for you. With no knowledge at all you chime in.


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

If the 3 bills pass into law as written, the only real changes I see would be the banning of netting perch, and perhaps a website for showing where nets are. Any increase in fines, penalties and license fees wouldn't effect sport fishermen directly. If they abide by the rules, they should incur NO fines anyway. Nothing else would be different on a day to day basis for commercial fishing. So, if they are really only taking $138k/year worth of perch (industry wide) - minus expenses they aren't losing much there.. They can't keep walleye now, so no change there. Why are they crying so loud over what amounts to chump change? 
I'd guess that all the "dirty pool" from the commercial industry plays a part in the DNR avidly supporting the 3 bills as well. 
Also, they like to push the idea that people of Michigan should be able to buy local fish. YOU CAN buy as much perch, walleye and whitefish as you like now. You will still be able to if the bills pass as written, and NONE of it would be significantly less expensive if it came from the bay. For that matter, I'd LOVE to know the percentage of "local fish" that STAY local.


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Gordon Casey said:


> Sorry born, your twisting, twisting words again like you always do. Your again throwing around disparaging remarks and name calling. All I'm doing is passing on information as I see it. My post was just about the due process clause I heard during the sub-committee read out. Nothing more, and sooner than later you and a few others twist it into pro-netting rhetoric. Everything I have said was respectful, I wish others will try.


Sir I have not much to say to you from this site or in person. You are the one that twist **** around and when people call you out you cry worse than my granddaughter. I did not call you any names sir so get for facts straight. You are not on the Sportsmen side so you can call it whatever you want. Most see right thru you. Really shocked your still around and why we even respond to you is beyond me. Believe me Gordon I am being respectful, could let out how I truley feel about your anti antics but I will not give you self satisfaction. Your agenda will back fire on you soon enough....


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Gordon Casey said:


> That comment was not intended for you. With no knowledge at all you chime in.


Lol dont give a rats azz if it was intended for me or not. You spin everyones post around including mine so I spoke up! I have more knowledge on the subject than you think so again your wrong....


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

"Big Tuna" said:


> Gordon i understand and even agree with you at times on SOME of your comments.
> 
> I understand the " open door , closed door "meetings that happenes in the world of politics . I also understand the resource science has to be mixed with what we can call the Social Science when dealing with different bills and issues.
> 
> I'm also proud to say I never once have sold my soul for not protecting our natural resources as well as sticking up for the sports persons of this state. Can you say the same?


If you personally had responsibility to protect resources within your professional responsibility, I commend you for not wavering. If you lived to your principals and were rigid, you can sleep well for doing what's right in your mind. But, I'm sure your aware government agencies above you can change your conclusions.
I lived in the Engineering world. I had total and direct responsibility for a specific discipline within an organization. I would present my specific direction the organization should follow. If my proposals were accepted, I felt I did my job. If the organization went to a different direction, I also slept well because I stuck to my principles.


----------



## Gordon Casey (Jun 13, 2017)

Bay BornNRaised said:


> Sir I have not much to say to you from this site or in person. You are the one that twist **** around and when people call you out you cry worse than my granddaughter. I did not call you any names sir so get for facts straight. You are not on the Sportsmen side so you can call it whatever you want. Most see right thru you. Really shocked your still around and why we even respond to you is beyond me. Believe me Gordon I am being respectful, could let out how I truley feel about your anti antics but I will not give you self satisfaction. Your agenda will back fire on you soon enough....


Dammit born can't you keep this thread respectful. Everything was going well until you chimed in. Yet another thread that you destroyed will soon be locked.


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

"Big Tuna" said:


> These articles are only telling one side of the story.


Kind of like the multitude of threads on here, where anyone questioning a certain set wisdom are derided and accused of having threads getting shut down. Sad commentary that some demand the media to be fair and balanced, but want to shut down the voices of reason or compromise on here.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the media can't find a source that can't rise above the insane rhetoric.

FLAME ON!


----------



## Bay BornNRaised (Oct 23, 2017)

Lund Explorer said:


> Kind of like the multitude of threads on here, where anyone questioning a certain set wisdom are derided and accused of having threads getting shut down. Sad commentary that some demand the media to be fair and balanced, but want to shut down the voices of reason or compromise on here.
> 
> Perhaps, just perhaps, the media can't find a source that can't rise above the insane rhetoric.
> 
> FLAME ON!


What side are you on? Anything positive to offer towards topic at hand?


----------

