# New NRC commissioner took his seat 1/1/18



## kzoofisher

John W. Walters of Vanderbilt was appointed to the Natural Resources Commission by Governor Rick Snyder, with his term beginning January 1, 2018. 


John works for Roseburg Forest Products, based in Eugene, Oregon. The company manufactures softwood and hardwood plywood, particle board, and engineered wood products (I-Joist and LVL for residential construction). John works from his home office as the Territory Sales Manager, Engineered Wood Products (EWP), selling and traveling EWP in four states. John has been in the residential building materials industry since 1988.


As John was growing up, his parents, Bill and Irene Walters, and his Boy Scout Master Bill Lee, taught him about the outdoors and respecting the state’s natural resources. They emphasized, “Leave it better than how you found it.” He was raised hunting, fishing, and appreciating the great outdoors. John is an Eagle Scout with a Bronze Palm.


John earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing from Northern Michigan University in 1987.


John loves to fly fish all year for trout, which is what invigorated his passionate involvement in conservation. He has served as the state chairman of Michigan Trout Unlimited and president of the Headwaters Chapter of Trout Unlimited. He also served as a board member of Anglers of the Au Sable and was most recently vice-president. He served as a member of the Pigeon River Country State Forest – Advisory Council and as chairman since 2010. John has also served on the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s – Rural Development Fund Board

John and his wife reside in Vanderbilt along with their closest hunting and fishing partner, Sue. Married since 1992, the couple has two German Short-hair Pointers, George and Winston. They spend much of their time on the river chasing trout, in the woods hunting upland birds and deer, or snowshoeing throughout the winter in northern Michigan,


----------



## toto

This so fraught with danger it's ridiculous, I'm NOT referring to just fly fishing aspect either. Doesn't it bother you that he is heavily involved in the forest protect industry, and therefore capable of swaying decisions that could enhance his companies business? This pick bothers me from so many angles it's not even funny. We now know too that our governor is obviously deciding to sway the NRC towards more for the fly guys. Here, let's makeiteasy, just make ALL waters of Michigan flies only, why not just eliminate the little guy all together?


----------



## Trout King

More special interests appointees, how wonderful.


----------



## kzoofisher

His track record with conservation groups that support the wise use of resources, without exploitation that damages the environment, is encouraging. Not everyone who makes a living in forestry is a bad person. Some have their heart in the right place.

The point of special interest appointees, esp. industry appointees, is well taken. The NRC currently consists of:
2 people from timber, 1 with a minor in mining 1 with a minor in Ag 
3 people from Ag
2 lawyers 
They all also have credentials in conservation groups like DU, land conservancies and so forth.

They wield great power over all our natural resources and the rules that govern our fishing/hunting, with very little oversight. That was a concern I voiced a while back when I thought the baby was being thrown out with the bathwater just to satisfy a tiny special interest group of hunters. But the allure of being associated with a successful special interest group is strong and many outdoors people jumped on a speeding train whose destination they didn't understand. I also noted at that time that the concentration of power in the hands of fewer people, and political appointees to boot, was bad policy and likely to have the opposite effect from the one intended, though the effect would probably work out well for me. All the commissioners terms expire between Dec 2018 and Dec 2021. The next Governor will have an unprecedented opportunity to guide the direction of natural resources management and fishing/hunting in Michigan. It will be very interesting to watch.


----------



## Mr. Botek

kzoofisher said:


> His track record with conservation groups that support the wise use of resources, without exploitation that damages the environment, is encouraging. Not everyone who makes a living in forestry is a bad person. Some have their heart in the right place.
> 
> The point of special interest appointees, esp. industry appointees, is well taken. The NRC currently consists of:
> 2 people from timber, 1 with a minor in mining 1 with a minor in Ag
> 3 people from Ag
> 2 lawyers
> They all also have credentials in conservation groups like DU, land conservancies and so forth.
> 
> They wield great power over all our natural resources and the rules that govern our fishing/hunting, with very little oversight. That was a concern I voiced a while back when I thought the baby was being thrown out with the bathwater just to satisfy a tiny special interest group of hunters. But the allure of being associated with a successful special interest group is strong and many outdoors people jumped on a speeding train whose destination they didn't understand. I also noted at that time that the concentration of power in the hands of fewer people, and political appointees to boot, was bad policy and likely to have the opposite effect from the one intended, though the effect would probably work out well for me. All the commissioners terms expire between Dec 2018 and Dec 2021. The next Governor will have an unprecedented opportunity to guide the direction of natural resources management and fishing/hunting in Michigan. It will be very interesting to watch.


Concerning for sure if an anti-hunting/fishing individual is elected as Governor. There are other states experiencing right now what it's like to have anti-hunting members running their equivalent of our NRC. We shall all see together.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## swampbuck

The current Governor has appointed or reappointed every member, in fact I believe he did it in his first term.

I do find the opportunity for the wrong governor to wreck havoc concerning our sport a bad idea, and have been saying that for years.

As far as their varied interest's....well, they are in charge of all natural resources, not just the warm blooded ones, so that's pretty logical.

It's probably not a good time to cause division among outdoorsmen.


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> The current Governor has appointed or reappointed every member, in fact I believe he did it in his first term.


 Indeed. This was brought up during the discussions on the Scientific Management Act and supporters refused to acknowledge it was possible. Very short sighted by the special interests that were pushing the Act unless they saw it coming and were just scamming the folks who were gullible enough to believe that a "simple, common sense" solution to a political issue was possible.



swampbuck said:


> It's probably not a good time to cause division among outdoorsmen.


 Agree. Unfortunately, the dividers are once again lining up to say that if they can't get their way they are going to take their ball and go home. I can't say I entirely blame them, the arguments of philosophy and emotion have been losing a little more each year and sooner or later reality can't be denied.


----------



## toto

Taking my ball is not what I meant. I'm just concerned about the direction of our natural resources direction. I'm not so sure that having this much power in the hands of a few is wise. I'm not completely sure what the answer is, but I'm quite sure there has to be a better way.


----------



## swampbuck

toto said:


> Taking my ball is not what I meant. I'm just concerned about the direction of our natural resources direction. I'm not so sure that having this much power in the hands of a few is wise. I'm not completely sure what the answer is, but I'm quite sure there has to be a better way.


The legislature still has oversight. But that route is not without risks. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> The legislature still has oversight. But that route is not without risks.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


I've heard this and I'm wondering what oversight they have? They give advise and consent to appointments. After that, what? The Legislature makes the budget and could defund* the NRC I suppose, but the reaction from both the public and businesses that depend on the NRC making decisions would be extreme. There may be a mechanism for removing a Commissioner that I'm not aware of. If so, standard practice would indicate that it would require more reason than "I don't like the way the Commissioner votes".

The Legislature still has the power to name game species; that's the only power they have as far as regulating game goes. They can't create a season for a new game species or alter a season for an existing one. They can't overturn, rescind or liberalize decisions made by the NRC relating to the taking of game. Both the NRC and the Legislature are bound by any ballot initiative that took effect before May 14, 2014. I'm not aware what power the Legislature has to change other laws that were passed before that date but they might have some. Any new law would not be able to regulate the taking of game. They can regulate agriculture, mineral extraction, timber and commercial fishing. Again, what oversight power do you see them having in regards to game regulations? I must be missing something.

*Commissioners make $155,000 a year for 12 public meetings, conference calls and I suppose keeping up with whatever subjects come before them. They probably get in some good fishing and hunting while the *learn* about an issue, too. Not a bad gig.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Taking my ball is not what I meant. I'm just concerned about the direction of our natural resources direction. I'm not so sure that having this much power in the hands of a few is wise. I'm not completely sure what the answer is, but I'm quite sure there has to be a better way.


Sorry about that, just basing my opinion on previous posting from you. Glad to see you've decided to stick it out.


----------



## toto

Not totally clear what you mean koo but to clarify further, our natural resources should never have become a political issue. In fact in the original administrative procedures act, way back when the department of conservation was first started; it was dictated that legislature was hands off. All I have ever asked us to take special interests out of resources, follow the science and everything would be fine. I understand your point of doing what the public asks for, but there's also reasons for NOT doing things too. Hope that made sense.


----------



## toto

After getting some sleep i re-read these posts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these folks serve at the pleasure of the governor and I don't believe there is any way to remove one member legislatively, about the only way would be if they did something illegal. For example, let's say one member used this position to enhance his business, or accepted a bribe, that would be a reason. In reality, it just bothers me that a select few have the power to effect our outdoor pursuits. I suppose it's pretty much the same with all of us, the fact that the elite are having their way in these matters is just sickening to me. On that, I'll bet we can all agree. One thing that will be interesting is to see what will happen in the chumming issue. As you know, some fishing guides got chumming banned, frankly I couldn't care less; however now the guides are whining that they have lost business and want the chumming ban reversed. 2 things about that, 1) they used science to stop the chumming and 2) This also sort of puts the NRC in a trick bag, perhaps they would love to reverse it on one hand, but dare not on the other hand. This is an example of what I'm talking about. They haven't changed yet, as far as I know, but we'll see what happens in the future. Sorry for the long post and the sidetracking.


----------



## swampbuck

The last I knew, they don't get paid, they are voluntary positions.

As far as the legislature. The NRC operates under the advice and consent of the Senate (per the MNREPA)

But the bottom line is that the NRC makes regulations, the Legislature makes LAWS. And legislative law supercedes regulations.

Sent from my XT1254 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> But the bottom line is that the NRC makes regulations, the Legislature makes LAWS. And legislative law supercedes regulations.


 The law states that "The natural resources commission has the _exclusive_ authority to regulate the taking of game as defined in section 40103 in this state.", emphasis mine. Seems pretty clear to me that the Legislature has no authority. If they pass a law regulating the taking of game they are in violation of existing law. Incidentally, this is why it is important to get more fish on the game list. If walleye were on the list the Legislature wouldn't be able to pass a law allowing commercial take.

They can name game animals. If they choose to write a new law that supersedes this one they can do that. But they cannot decide that the limit on bluegill be increased to 1000 or decreased to 0. The public can also initiate a new law, complete with an appropriation, and send it on to the Legislature.




swampbuck said:


> The last I knew, they don't get paid, they are voluntary positions.


You are correct. The list I looked at Called the DNR Director *Commissioner* and I didn't catch it. Thank you.


----------



## Liver and Onions

kzoofisher said:


> *Commissioners make $155,000 a year for 12 public meetings, conference calls and I suppose keeping up with whatever subjects come before them. They probably get in some good fishing and hunting while the *learn* about an issue, too. Not a bad gig.



Just in case someone doesn't read any further, kzoofisher did correct this post. The Commissioners are volunteers. ZERO pay. Probably get millage for meetings attended.

L & O


----------



## swampbuck

kzoofisher said:


> The law states that "The NATURAL RESOURCES commission has the _exclusive_ authority to regulate the taking of game as defined in section 40103 in this state.", emphasis mine. Seems pretty clear to me that the Legislature has no authority. If they pass a law regulating the taking of game they are in violation of existing law. Incidentally, this is why it is important to get more fish on the game list. If walleye were on the list the Legislature wouldn't be able to pass a law allowing commercial take.
> 
> They can name game animals. If they choose to write a new law that supersedes this one they can do that. But they cannot decide that the limit on bluegill be increased to 1000 or decreased to 0. The public can also initiate a new law, complete with an appropriation, and send it on to the Legislature.
> 
> 
> You are correct. The list I looked at Called the DNR Director *Commissioner* and I didn't catch it. Thank you.


They can pass any law they want. As far as the rest you can refer to the MNREPA.

But really all they have to do is lean on the NRC, if the NRC was to do something that crossed the line of scientific management, it wouldn't be difficult to make that happen. And right now the CWD response is that scientific management plan.

The SFWMA was passed to prevent ballot proposals. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but these folks serve at the pleasure of the governor and I don't believe there is any way to remove one member legislatively, about the only way would be if they did something illegal.


There may not be any way to remove them short of them committing a crime. I don't know so I'm not willing to say definitely.


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> They can pass any law they want. As far as the rest you can refer to the MNREPA.
> 
> But really all they have to do is lean on the NRC, if the NRC was to do something that crossed the line of scientific management, it wouldn't be difficult to make that happen. And right now the CWD response is that scientific management plan.
> 
> The SFWMA was passed to prevent ballot proposals.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Yes, they can pass any law. When they pass a law that gives them the authority to regulate game they will open the door to ballot proposals which apply to any item the Legislature has authority over except appropriations. That is why authority is given exclusively to the NRC, to prevent ballot proposals and cut off an activist Legislature. I'm sure many people didn't understand it that way. That's their problem. The law is the law. And since this law is an amendment to the MiNREPA it supersedes whatever you thought was true ten minutes ago.

They can lean on the NRC. That will be true if the whole Legislature are members of SCI or PETA or DU or TU. But that isn't oversight. If the NRC tells them to go jump in the lake what are they going to do? If it involves the taking of game they will do nothing. If it involves the sale or purchase of State land, closing of campgrounds and access sites, cutting of timber, construction of bike paths, they can do plenty by passing a law. If the Legislature or anyone else thinks the NRC isn't using "principles of sound scientific management" to regulate game they can sue. I'm trying to remember the last time the State sued itself and I got nothin'. If individuals want to sue, and bring in their own biologists to refute data, and bring in managers to refute actions, and get their lawyers to demonstrate that the management/scientific principles weren't sound well, good luck.


----------



## swampbuck

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I will say that there is a reason hunting groups lobby the legislature, including the MAPR guys

Hopefully we never have to go that route again.

Sent from my XT1254 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## rork

kzoofisher said:


> Clearing up a little confusion here. I didn't make my point very well and swampbuck said some things that are quite true. My position is *not* that the Legislature can't write new laws, they certainly can. My position is that the Legislature under *current* law can't regulate the taking of game.


You lost me at that point, but I get how (later than the part I quote) some things are referendum proof due to expenditures - though I think that law needs modification, since if citizens want to remove wolves as a game species in the state, I don't know of good reasons why they shouldn't be able. I do get how if a road expenditure is half spent and the road half built we may want to finish it.

Teach me why the legislature is unable to pass new laws that contradict previous laws (that aren't constitutional amendments), cause I fail to understand that this is the case. Whether it's stupid or not is a separate matter, and not my question.


----------



## kzoofisher

Under current law "The Natural Resources commission has the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game as defined in section 40103 in this state". If the Legislature wants to change a game regulation they have to first change the law to grant themselves that authority. They have the power to change the law. 

I thought the discussion was whether or not Lansing could change a game regulation that the NRC passed. I don't believe they can at this time. Regulations are different than laws and only the Legislature can pass a law with the one exception that a law can be petitioned and placed on the ballot under certain circumstances. The Legislature can create regulations in many cases, but at this time they have passed a law that takes away that power in relation to the taking of game. Should they choose to change the law then yes, absolutely they can give themselves the power to change game regulations. The key word is *game*. Species that are not defined as *game* can be regulated by Lansing. That would include some very popular game fish that are also taken commercially. Both the NRC and Lansing can name new game species. Only Lansing can take a species off the game list.

The amendment to 1994 PA451 was an indirect initiated state statute as can be seen in swampbuck's previous link to Ballotopedia. The initiative was known by a couple of names: Michigan Natural Resource Commission Initiative and the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act or SFWCA, which is what it was called in most news stories. Lansing can choose to alter that law anytime it wants. 

I hope this clears up some of the confusion.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> Here is a copy of what I was talking about: Read the last line, I think you'll see exactly what I see.
> 
> “As trout grow larger they become less vulnerable to many predators, though humans remain an important source of trout mortality. In addition to human-induced changes to the landscape and stream habitats, which can increase mortality, impair trout reproductive success, and reduce population levels over the long term, angling harvest and fishing techniques also lead to death of trout. Several researchers have estimated hooking mortality (i.e., the percentage of hooked trout that die after release) for fish captured using various types of fishing gear. Summarizing results from over twenty studies on trout and salmon, Wydoski (1977) found that hooking mortality averaged 25% for anglers using live bait, 6% for those using spinners and other artificial lures, and 4% for anglers fishing with artificial flies. Of these studies, only two involved wild trout caught on artificial lures or flies in a stream (Shetter and Allison 1955; 1958), and both were conducted in Michigan. The overall percent hooking mortality of stream trout using flies, artificial lures, and worms from the Shetter and Allison studies were as follows: brook trout (flies- 2.0%, lures- 2.6%, worms- 42.4%); brown trout (flies- 0.0%, lures- 1.5%, worms- 20.3%); and rainbow trout (flies- 5.8%, lures- 6.3%, worms- 35.4%). A more recent study in Maryland (Pavol and Klotz 1996) used similar procedures to Shetter and Allison. They produced similar results for flies and lures with brown trout (and flies with brook trout), but found 8.7% hooking mortality for brook trout using lures. Nuhfer and Alexander (1992) reported 8.3% hooking mortality for trophy wild brook trout caught on treble-hooked lures in three Michigan lakes. Schill (1996) noted that hooking mortality from bait angling can be substantially reduced if bait anglers “actively” fished bait (without a slack line) and cut the line on fish that were deeply hooked, leaving the hook in the fish. * Mortality after 72 hours for 199 wild brook trout and brown trout* *caught in a Wisconsin stream by active baitfishing was 4.5% (DuBois and Kuklinski 2004)*.
> 
> Use of barbless hooks has been promoted to reduce hooking mortality, but Schill and Scarpella’s (1997) review of many studies indicated that barbless hooks did not reduce hooking mortality for fly- or lure-caught trout. They concluded that there was no biological basis for imposing barbed hook restrictions on fly or lure anglers. They suggested “possible merit” to the use of barbless hooks by bait anglers intent on releasing trout.”
> 
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> -Troy


Thanks. The complete study is behind a paywall but I did find the abstract online. It's going on 40 years since I learned to worm fish for trout and the first sentence jumped out at me. This is the important part "tight-line fishing with *immediate hook set*" (emphasis mine). I may have learned differently than others but we never set the hook immediately because that almost always resulted in a missed fish. I would feel the tap tap of a bite, give it slack and wait a few seconds to set. Judging how long to with made all the difference in the world between a missed fish, a caught fish and a gut hooked fish. The same patience and timing is needed for other fish, especially finicky ones like walleye. With that in mind I just don't think that a regulation calling for *active* fishing of bait would result in reduced mortality or be workable. It wouldn't reduce mortality because unless thing have changed a lot, fisherman are going to wait for the fish to take the bait more fully instead of missing the majority of bites with an immediate hook set. Setting the hook right away is needed with artificial lures so you get the fish before he spits it, hence the reduced mortality. Getting the fish to hold on to the bait and try to swallow it is a major attraction to live bait and the whole rationale behind the wide array of scented artificials. Somebody (Gulp!?) even promotes that their flavor gets fish to hold on to the plastic 3x longer and gives you time to set the hook. So I just don't see guys doing the immediate hook set. And it wouldn't be workable because it would be unenforceable. If you can't convict a guy who has on a 1oz weight and is jerking the rod 20 times a cast how are you going to write a ticket for not fishing fast enough? Enforcement Division wouldn't waste their time trying to write tickets. It would be like the rule didn't even exist.



_We used an active fishing technique (tight-line fishing with immediate hook set) to compare mortality, injury, and capture efficiency of wild, stream-resident salmonids captured by barbed or barbless single hooks baited with leaf worms Lumbricus rubellus. Mortality at 72 h (2– 7%), anatomical hooking location (superficial or deep), and eye damage (5% of captures) in brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis did not differ between hook types. However, brook trout that were deeply hooked were more likely to die when barbed hooks were used. Mortality and eye damage in brown trout Salmo trutta were similarly low, but sample sizes were insufficient for comparison of hook types. Hook types did not differ significantly in terms of hooking efficiency, frequency of fish escape after hooking, or the mean unhooking time in which fish were held out of water. Active baitfishing resulted in levels of postrelease mortality that were substantially lower than those commonly reported in baitfishing mortality studies._

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...riods+of+downtime+or+disruption+in+the+future.


----------



## swampbuck

kzoofisher said:


> Under current law "The Natural Resources commission has the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game as defined in section 40103 in this state". If the Legislature wants to change a game regulation they have to first change the law to grant themselves that authority. They have the power to change the law.
> 
> I thought the discussion was whether or not Lansing could change a game regulation that the NRC passed. I don't believe they can at this time. Regulations are different than laws and only the Legislature can pass a law with the one exception that a law can be petitioned and placed on the ballot under certain circumstances. The Legislature can create regulations in many cases, but at this time they have passed a law that takes away that power in relation to the taking of game. Should they choose to change the law then yes, absolutely they can give themselves the power to change game regulations. The key word is *game*. Species that are not defined as *game* can be regulated by Lansing. That would include some very popular game fish that are also taken commercially. Both the NRC and Lansing can name new game species. Only Lansing can take a species off the game list.
> 
> The amendment to 1994 PA451 was an indirect initiated state statute as can be seen in swampbuck's previous link to Ballotopedia. The initiative was known by a couple of names: Michigan Natural Resource Commission Initiative and the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act or SFWCA, which is what it was called in most news stories. Lansing can choose to alter that law anytime it wants.
> 
> I hope this clears up some of the confusion.


I agree they can. But to further that I will bring up the crossbow issue, which I was intamentely familiar with. The NRC had no intention of doing that, but because of a house vote, and impending legislative action, the did so under the shadow of legislative action.

Changing a law is not necessary, threatening to expose the weakness of NRC authority is enough. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## toto

swampbuck said:


> Changing a law is not necessary, threatening to expose the weakness of NRC authority is enough.


This may be the best statement in this thread. Anyways, I don't Kzoo, I do know guys who do that, but it seems to me, the bigger the fish, the less you have to wait, knowing that I try to set the hook as soon as I can. Do I miss fish, yep, but I suspect they are only the smaller ones. Now, having said that, taking into account your admission of waiting for the trout to swallow the hook, I don't know how you go against the study. What I mean is, I would suspect that the study practitioners would have the same issues, setting the hook too quick misses fish, etc. However, here's what you MAY have missed. In this study it is also stated that at times they would have to cut the line, and yet the fish survived after the 72 hour period. One thing that this has proven, that either side sees the evidence, and neither side will believe it. So if that's true, how on earth could we expect the NRC to make the proper decision. As stated, and I'm still doing a study, the chumming issue. Anyways, perhaps it's best we move this back to what to do about the NRC, and how to fix it, and leave the gear restriction debate for another day, agreed?

So here is an article I was referring to somewhat about the reversal of chumming https://www.freep.com/story/sports/...usiness-after-chumming-regulations/425973001/


----------



## rork

kzoofisher said:


> Under current law "The Natural Resources commission has the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of game as defined in section 40103 in this state". If the Legislature wants to change a game regulation they have to first change the law to grant themselves that authority. They have the power to change the law.
> 
> I thought the discussion was whether or not Lansing could change a game regulation that the NRC passed. I don't believe they can at this time. Regulations are different than laws and only the Legislature can pass a law with the one exception that a law can be petitioned and placed on the ballot under certain circumstances. The Legislature can create regulations in many cases, but at this time they have passed a law that takes away that power in relation to the taking of game. Should they choose to change the law then yes, absolutely they can give themselves the power to change game regulations. The key word is *game*. Species that are not defined as *game* can be regulated by Lansing. That would include some very popular game fish that are also taken commercially. Both the NRC and Lansing can name new game species. Only Lansing can take a species off the game list.
> 
> The amendment to 1994 PA451 was an indirect initiated state statute as can be seen in swampbuck's previous link to Ballotopedia. The initiative was known by a couple of names: Michigan Natural Resource Commission Initiative and the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act or SFWCA, which is what it was called in most news stories. Lansing can choose to alter that law anytime it wants.
> 
> I hope this clears up some of the confusion.


I do not agree. I think you are reading the law too literally. An ordinary law might have words to the effect that "and no future legislation can contradict this", but that does not make them true.


----------



## toto

It took me a while to get back to the computer but I just wanted to say how off based your last response was Kzoo. Who ever said anything about trying, or needing to regulate how long before one should set the hook, that might qualify for the best attempt at diverting the truth. The TRUTH is, IF you read the report, that 4% of the fish caught and released survived more than 72 hours, and that included those that swallowed the hook and the line was cut. The simple fact is, your whole argument, and that of TU etc is that these fish need protection, "it's a conservation thing", I call B.S. on that. These fish have returned to an acceptable level, if not the level of when this all started way back in the early 1900's. There are other ways of controlling harvest, you could go with slot limits, one fish limit, or any combination you choose, but to just eliminate waters from roughly half, or more of the general population; that is being taxed, at least partially, to maintain these waters, is just simply theft, and the NRC is complicit in it. It's just like QDMA, it's all B.S. The ONLY reason these guys want a 3 point on one side thing is so they can try to have bragging rights, they are looking for their 15 minutes of fame. That and the fact they don't know how to hunt. Look at their argument, they say it's to protect the herd, tell me again how that works. First of all, by their own admissions these deer need to live to be 3 year olds, instead of 2, therefore, it would seem you would have one more year class of animals running about, does that sound like it makes sense for the health of the herd? Especially when added to the fact that we hear of CWD more and more every year, and tell me again, how does that make any sense that it's for the health of the herd? Seems to me whoever sold this load of crap should get into a sales job somewhere, he'd be rich over nite. We can broach the subject of chumming too if you like, the simple fact was these guys wanting to outlaw chumming due to one guide having better success than others, now they end chumming, and guess what happens, some guides (whether involved in the first fiasco or not) now want to bring chumming back because they are losing business. So which is it, losing business due to one guide chumming and catching fish, or no one chumming and catching fish. 

I raise these issues, not in an effort to belabor the point, I bring them up as we see now just how that social issue stuff REALLY is, not some pie in the sky nirvana look at it. There was always a reason to eliminate X amount of deer every year, science said so, science said eliminating X amount of deer was actually good for the deer herd, not more deer, sheesh. As for chumming, I haven't looked yet, but I have my suspicions that the amount of sodium sulfite used the study in Oregon rates right up there with the Coca Cola study years ago, you'll have to look that one up, suffice it to say, it was a joke. Now we come to the flies onlyl issue, why, just tell me honestly why we have it? The fish have been replenished, and perhaps with the addition of the dams over the years, at least on the AuSable, the habitat has reached it's carrying capacity, I suggest it has, especially when you know what happens with leaves picked up off the streets in Grayling every fall. So it seems that another good idea backfired, at least to a degree, and that was eliminating the septic systems from leaching into the river, I AGREE IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO STOP THAT MADNESS, I put that in all caps so you could see where I stand on that. There is always a trade off with everything, this effort actually cleaned up the river too much. Anyways, these are the issues the NRC needs to address, in an honest, forthright, non-biased way. Now the real question is, can they? Doubt it.

BTW, the only way to get rid of a commissioner is for the governor to remove him/her, or find proof of something illegal, for example, let's say the guides gave them all 3 fishing trips, or whatever, that would be illegal, it's bribery. And that could go for the other subjects as well, and that in one reason I am against someone from within any of the outdoor activities being on the committee. In the forestry products industry, out! Member of TU, FFF, Anglers of the Ausable, out! Just as two examples. Carry on.


----------



## rork

toto said:


> but to just eliminate waters from roughly half, or more of the general population; that is being taxed, at least partially, to maintain these waters, is just simply theft, and the NRC is complicit in it.


I don't understand perhaps, but it was a very long comment.
How are waters "eliminated" and where did they go?
If a dirt bike or mountain bike or horse is not allowed to use a trail is the trail "eliminated", and have we stolen from these poor victimized anti-walkers?
If a park in Oakland county is bow-only, has hunting there been eliminated?


----------



## toto

Good questions the answer is difficult, it could be a matter of safety, it could be a matter of soil erosion, but in this case to ask where the water went is a stupid question. It went no where and we ALL own it for the benefit of all. What part of that do you not understand? Btw my eliminating waters I meant "locking out" those who prefer not to fish witout using bait, its, again, all of our waters and no one owns fish until they are captured.


----------



## rork

toto said:


> Good questions the answer is difficult, it could be a matter of safety, it could be a matter of soil erosion, but in this case to ask where the water went is a stupid question. It went no where and we ALL own it for the benefit of all. What part of that do you not understand? Btw my eliminating waters I meant "locking out" those who prefer not to fish witout using bait, its, again, all of our waters and no one owns fish until they are captured.


"I prefer to use dynamite. So I am locked out, by my own preference. I am being victimized!"


----------



## toto

Showed your intelligence there. You just don't get it why bother. I have no time to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Typical liberal thinking if you can't understand a cogent argument, go to belittling.


----------



## swampbuck

Toto, I see your point about bias, but I also think that knowledge on an issue like forestry for example could have positive value. Right now Ag interest's hold a majority.

I don't know what the solution would be. 

The thing that worries me the most would be an anti hunting Governor.

Sent from my XT1254 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## toto

Dont disagree with that at all swamp.


----------



## rork

toto said:


> Showed your intelligence there. You just don't get it why bother. I have no time to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Typical liberal thinking if you can't understand a cogent argument, go to belittling.


You are completely ignoring my counterarguments, for example about mountain bikes and horses, where you simply do not answer direct questions. 
Why don't we allow baiting for turkeys and waterfowl?
And who is belittling really?


----------



## Ranger Ray

Do we allow some baiting of turkeys for people who use 16 gauge shotguns? How about those that use bows. Your comparisons aren't apples to apples. One understands bows only in a high risk area. Its for safety purposes. Fly's only water, because an organization or a small minority wants it, is not the same. If you can't understand the difference in argument. well, there is no reason to have a discussion on it.


----------



## toto

Rork, as stated by RR, you just don't get it, this is plain and simply an example of people not wanting to use the science, when that science suggests something other than their preferred outcome. In an earlier post, i gave a link to a research paper showing mortality rates are pretty equal, you either didnt read it, or you just disregarded it as it doesnt fit your narrative. Of course you could say, "well thats just one study" yeah and it was only one study that got chumming banned. The bottom line line is, you and others are trying to blame the victims game, "we are victims because we dont have enough of our own water to play in and we have to dhare it with those Neanderthal bait fishermen". Now they are beginning to start again, now they claim they need more water as "their" water is too crowded, I was there when it was said so I know what I heard. Btw I did answer your questions, I stated it could be for safety reasons, it could be for conervation reasons such as soil erosion etc. Did you not read that part either? I'm beginning to think you don't bother to read anything that could educate yourself. I'd give you a link to how and why TU started but I'm confident you don't have an attention span that long.


----------



## rork

I have not mentioned trout mortality at all. I have not claimed any harm to me either, but you respond about that too. My point has been completely different - that you can quit complaining and join us. 
I haven't gone there but there might also be an economic argument = fly tourons spend more money. I'm not saying we need more fly water, but I would not complain if there were, and I am open to arguments on both sides. You arguments against it are not impressing me.

We don't allow baiting of turkeys and waterfowl because it is too effective. As time passed some outdoor pursuits have gotten more sporting - that's been a trend for at least 100 years. Aldo Leopold noted it in Game Management, 1933. We want it to be fairly difficult and depend on skill. It's true we are backsliding in MI in some cases where we need population control or the money (baiting bears and deer; permitting crossbows in bow season). 

Fly's-only water is not closed water. Bow season is not closed either, but people are free to not go if they prefer - and complain about how we stole from them, which we've all heard before. I hunt public land so bow season suits me better.


----------



## 357Maximum

I am starting to think having some fly only water is a good thing. It keeps a certain "type" of folk all in the same place and away from where I fish so I don't have to deal with them or their Subaru Brokeback in my way at my favorite parking spot. Not sure a group that will not spring for a few dozen crawlers can claim they are helping the local economy though. Having Orvis on speed dial to order what one needs does not support the local economy any more than buying that Subaru did.


----------



## rork

357Maximum said:


> Not sure a group that will not spring for a few dozen crawlers can claim they are helping the local economy though.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02393728 is one source I see sited, but it's pretty old, pretty small reaches, and from Pennsylvania. I can't seem to find a study from MI.
Economic value per mile per year of catch and release trout fishing:
Fly-only: 70,515$
Not fly-only: 14,076$
That's adjusted to 1988 dollars.
Amount spent per person per day about 3 times higher. The rest is due to great numbers per mile in the fly only water.


----------



## 357Maximum

rork said:


> The rest is due to great numbers per mile in the fly only water.


If I had my way them numbers would be much much higher per mile of water, cause if I had my way there would be a lot less miles of fly only water for all ya all to ply your trade on all the while be supported with money from MY WORM DIPPING LICENSE. Then you could really jump up an toot your own numbers, :lol: wherever you wanna pull them numbers from, just like you did here. You really really like your elitist feather only water...we get that, you do not have to keep saying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. We see through you, your point is made clear....very clear.


----------



## swampbuck

His proposal meets and in fact exceeds every requirement of the MDNR and MDEQ.


----------



## kzoofisher

swampbuck said:


> His proposal meets and in fact exceeds every requirement of the MDNR and MDEQ.


Right, that's why there is a lawsuit. MDEQ requirements fail to adequately protect the resource. This is the same DEQ that said "no problem" in Flint. If you are down with flatly accepting whatever the State approves I'll remind you that it's also the same DNR and NRC that say OK to flies only water so you can stop arguing now. Or is it that their authority shouldn't be questioned by anyone but you?


----------



## toto

The same DNR and NRC who say ok to flies only, nuff said. I think any government entity should questioned.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> I think you said it best when you said aren't popular to me, and that's the problem ME,ME, Me and to heck with everyone else.


 I think you are getting confused about the difference between "to" and "with". Read it again with the idea that it doesn't say what you want it to say.



toto said:


> You state only one study, well it was only one study that outlawed chumming, oh yeah that benefited you so that's acceptable to you.


 Obviously you don't remember that I was opposed to the chumming ban and thought the whole episode was stupid. If you are going to make a straw man argument don't soak it in gasoline.



toto said:


> On the Platte BTW, it has been determined that the phosphorous levels are somewhat from natural death things as plant life etc.


 A lawsuit was filed in 1986 against the DNR over the phosphorus discharges of the hatchery. That's the time frame I'm talking about and comparing to current discharges from the Platte hatchery. One of the posters here, toto is his handle, has talked about how instrumental he was in helping bring that suit and clean up the river. You should look him up and see what he remembers.


----------



## kzoofisher

toto said:


> The same DNR and NRC who say ok to flies only, nuff said. I think any government entity should questioned.


Congratulations! You've just won todays *Complete Lack of Self-Awareness* trophy.


----------



## 357Maximum

kzoofisher said:


> Are we really going to risk the fishing and canoeing segments of the Grayling economy for 2.5 jobs? There is a wood processing plant about to open that is bringing 100 times that many jobs. Risking the river and the jobs at Ray's and Penrod's and Carlisle and Borcher's just to line one guys pockets and *stick it* to the *fly guys* is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Frankly, I'm surprised that some of you show such poor judgement.



If the guy that is running the old hatchery would dump 3-5 million gallons of rotenone into the last spillway every other week (to make sure there are no escapees of course), I would help pay his legal fees and buy him a beer for just being a responsible citizen.


----------



## Waif

kzoofisher said:


> Right, that's why there is a lawsuit. MDEQ requirements fail to adequately protect the resource. This is the same DEQ that said "no problem" in Flint. If you are down with flatly accepting whatever the State approves I'll remind you that it's also the same DNR and NRC that say OK to flies only water so you can stop arguing now. Or is it that their authority shouldn't be questioned by anyone but you?


Meanwhile ,the fish as usual have no say in the matter.

Eight hundred members demanding a property be kept opened to fishing ,did not define fishing for whom. Leaving them exclusive. It is understood why.
It is for the state,( per Judge Mertz) not anglers to interpret the law.
Effluent discharge can ( and should) be monitored ,and held at a do no harm level. Smolts also, though concerns about artificial fish in an artificial fishery ( native browns?) purseued with artificial bait/ flies has a wiff of it' s own as an imported non native recreation.....The site is, (and why should it not be?)highly defended as the stretch of water it is. Short time frame of splashing about with wippy sticks in the rivers history ,but a strongly entreched tradition in what to humans seems a long run.


----------



## toto

Oh I remember it very well. The stance from PLIA was that there were 2400 pounds of phosphorous coming into Platte lake, of that 400 pounds was coming from the hatchery. So the question was/is where was the other 2000 pounds coming from? I'll say this again, I agree with you on the fish farm, I don't, and never will agree on flies only. You said none of the proposals sound like they would be popular to me, who's ME if not You? Look you are only looking out for your own well being, while playing right into the hands of such groups as PETA, HSUS etc. Congratulations on finally letting us know what's REALLY important to you and your ilk, the almighty dollar. Don't deny it, youve talked about property values, economies, etc and THAT seems to be your most important issue.


----------



## kzoofisher

So, the Platte hatchery was a problem when it added 400# to the river and Harriet Hills has a permit for 1500#. I'll let you do the math on your own.



kzoofisher said:


> None of those sound like they would be popular to me.


 Let me rephrase that in a way you might be able to understand. "If your idea of a one fish slot is anything like the slots I mentioned it is my opinion that the idea would not be popular with the public at large". See? I meant the to me, or in my opinion if you prefer, your idea seemed like it would be wildly unpopular. You read it as though it said, "None of those sound like they would be popular *with* me." I've noticed you misread things a lot and I take that into account when you claim some deep knowledge of law or history. Turns out you're pretty much always wrong.



toto said:


> Congratulations on finally letting us know what's REALLY important to you and your ilk, the almighty dollar.


 You must be joking. I'm concerned about the government subsidizing a business and possibly driving others out of business and you think that is selfish? There is quite literally no benefit in this fish farm to anyone but the owner and great risk to the rest of Crawford County. On top of that, tax dollars are being used to line the guys pockets. Crony capitalism at its worst. I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a little extra cash or other benefits being thrown around to get you guys to fight so hard for this.


----------



## rork

Waif said:


> Meanwhile ,the fish as usual have no say in the matter.
> 
> Eight hundred members demanding a property be kept opened to fishing ,did not define fishing for whom. Leaving them exclusive. It is understood why.
> It is for the state,( per Judge Mertz) not anglers to interpret the law.
> Effluent discharge can ( and should) be monitored ,and held at a do no harm level. Smolts also, though concerns about artificial fish in an artificial fishery ( native browns?) purseued with artificial bait/ flies has a wiff of it' s own as an imported non native recreation.....The site is, (and why should it not be?)highly defended as the stretch of water it is. Short time frame of splashing about with wippy sticks in the rivers history ,but a strongly entreched tradition in what to humans seems a long run.


a
If I am following where you mean I think it is open to anyone, despite your attempts to paint it as otherwise. It is gear, not people, that are outlawed. If you disdain non-native recreation, propose catch and release fish trapping (or whatever you are imagining), and banning the use of firearms for hunting. My flint knapping skills are not the best, but I can work on it.


----------



## Ranger Ray

It was open to "anyone" before fly's only. It appears "open to anyone" was not the argument of the day, when some deemed it necessary through crony legislation, to change it to fly's only. So stop this silly "open to anyone" BS argument. There is no scientific reason, so much of the wadable water in Michigan rivers is fly's only. Time to change the fly's only water, for all gear users to use. If there is a scientific reason for it, figure it out in limits and size, like used on 90% of the rest of the water in this state.


----------



## rork

Ranger Ray said:


> It was open to "anyone" before fly's only. It appears "open to anyone" was not the argument of the day, when some deemed it necessary through crony legislation, to change it to fly's only. So stop this silly "open to anyone" BS argument.


It's not BS. Anyone can learn how. I did it about 50 years ago with almost no money and with no mentors. I just observed it was fairly common. It's not that hard. Stop the silly insinuations otherwise.


----------



## Ranger Ray

The point is, anyone could fish any gear before they had to make it fly's only. Why should someone who wants to use a mepps have to switch to the way you want? Because it's the way you want to fish? Sorry, not a good enough reason. It's why crony legislation was used to pass it. Seeing how we now have a scientific mandate to manage by, time to eliminate the crony legislation, manage by science, and for all types of gear fisherman.


----------



## Waif

You seriously consider flies only open to anyone? I don't.
I have brought trout to hand on dries ,so am not ignorant or anti fly fishing.
Just don't say anyone ,when anyone is not accurate.

Non native recreation? What is native recreation? Torturing enemies? Gambling? Anything else I know of from written records is just work and surviving with social functions having more than recreation at their heart.

Planting non native fish is still planting non native fish. You and I both know why browns were such a choice at their introduction. The only bright side is that they are not plastic ,yet..

If you (personally) disdain native fish ,then why protest non native conditions of a waterway?
(Pollution,method of harvest /entertainment/access , or even closing the water to all fishing , ect.)

I'm all for not polluting waterways or speeding up their conditions to match those of older waters as they evolve. Yet pollute "we" do.
But... I am not against aquaculture. An example being irrigation water used for raising shrimp before applying it to crops in Arizona. A better use of a precious resource? Or simply a money grab?

Through regulation and permit ( when granted) process , water of a certain amount of main flow can be diverted and returned to a stream.
That waters temp ,p.h. ,volume, and anything added to it can be monitored.
I know ,because I did paperwork on four discharge sites into a trout stream ,and at another site raised p.h. to an acceptable level before discharging into a public water drain. With a monitor always ready to tattle should the level be too low and a $$ fine to follow.

So. I recognize dinking around with a trout streams waters is serious. And I would not have the stream abused for an industries sake.
However the process is in place to do so.
Your being an jerk changes none of that process , or it's over site.

When fish are planted and beloved ,why complain if a fish raising site is put on site that produces fish others can enjoy elsewhere? 
Ye olde not in my back yard syndrome. How did that work out for natives? But you expect different treatment. Why is that?

Make accountability for affecting the waterway the priority.
Attempting to deny permitting is fine. But what if a permit is in hand and construction begun? What are you doing now to ensure monitoring will be sufficient ,and that penalties and corrective actions will be in place to prevent or remedy harm? Beyond the standard periodic lick and a promise from government agencies...


----------



## rork

Ranger Ray said:


> The point is, anyone could fish any gear before they had to make it fly's only. Why should someone who wants to use a mepps have to switch to the way you want? Because it's the way you want to fish? Sorry, not a good enough reason. It's why crony legislation was used to pass it. Seeing how we now have a scientific mandate to manage by, time to eliminate the crony legislation, and manage by science, and for all types of gear fisherman.


I have previously responded that it's not just about science. It's also about state economics, fishing licenses sold, recreational opportunities, satisfaction of anglers, and public health. I'm not saying that list is exhaustive. If a law says otherwise I'll call it stupid to ignore those factors, as well as point out you should just go and win this one in court. I'm OK with there being designated wilderness too - it's a tiny percentage of the land with tougher gear restrictions. I have not fished fly only water in a decade - it's not my own self-interest causing me to write.


----------



## rork

Waif said:


> You seriously consider flies only open to anyone? I don't.
> I have brought trout to hand on dries ,so am not ignorant or anti fly fishing.
> Just don't say anyone ,when anyone is not accurate.


You failed to say why. 
OK, almost anyone. Having both arms working fairly well helps for example, and both legs help on rivers. But that's true for drift fishing too. The major impediment I've seen here seems just unwillingness. Money might seem essential but isn't. I own no vest and only use waders when steelheading, partly as rebellion against fashion mattering.


----------



## wyandot

rork said:


> It's not BS. Anyone can learn how. I did it about 50 years ago with almost no money and with no mentors. I just observed it was fairly common. It's not that hard. Stop the silly insinuations otherwise.


I can afford it, I can cast a fly rod, but it's still B.S. It should put to a vote by licensed anglers, lets see how many for and how many against.


----------



## Waif

rork said:


> You failed to say why.
> OK, almost anyone. Having both arms working fairly well helps for example, and both legs help on rivers. But that's true for drift fishing too. The major impediment I've seen here seems just unwillingness. Money might seem essential but isn't. I own no vest and only use waders when steelheading, partly as rebellion against fashion mattering.


I'm not looking to bait fish flies only.
Though missing a limb inspires teasing waders...

The best argument for those feeling excluded from flies only waters is being able to fish them.
While not passionate about participating anymore myself ,the history is recognised.
While not Voelkers , I have generations of flyrods from those in my life.
Different versions of holy waters involved ,but fishing them is a connection to those who will not wade them again.
Seeing what has become of those waters ,and what fly fishing has become does not deter concern for other waters or those who feel connected to particular home waters.
Perspective matters maybe , but while I will poke fun at the debates ,I would not have the playing field tainted by real pollution or water heating ect...

Still , it should not be a flies only waters concern because a precedent can be at the heart of it.
When anyone's favorite water is at potential (real or imagined) risk , and they look around for support....Who uses what gear and where and why should despite the difficulty be put aside temporarily.Then get back to arguing when a water quality concern is resolved.
I can live with a facility diverting and returning a portion of main flow. But only if it does not taint the flow below and penalties for doing so discourage such.
As well as pre determined restitution for violations.

So ,I feel for those who object. Yet understand the state has a process that needs to be worked better than just voicing objections.
And wish those that object well hoping they are looking beyond if a facility is installed.
Study the process and hold those responsible for allowing it ,and those who would be tasked with enforcing it's feet to the fire before it gets built.
Too often the fight is if something is allowed and not how, then passions cool and what happens after tends to go un noticed or kept controlled.


----------



## kzoofisher

The "science doesn't exist to support it" canard just keeps getting repeated. It's been debunked a number of times; doesn't keep its advocates from repeating the *fake news*. The most recent comprehensive study by the MDNR showed that just a slight increase in harvest on UP streams (same #of anglers, higher limit) hurt both size and numbers of fish. Not hard to extrapolate from that what would happen on the most popular streams in the State that are hours closer to population centers. Protecting heavily pressured streams by reducing mortality is a no brainer for anyone who cares about the resource, and hooking mortality is pretty easy to control with gear types. The upper Au Sable hasn't been stocked in decades when it used to be constantly stocking to maintain the fishery. 

As for monitoring discharge from the fish farm....YES! Again, that is what the lawsuit is about. Letting the owner do his own monitoring and reporting when he has already admitted that meeting the same standards as the Platte facility is not feasible for him is unacceptable. Letting the fox guard the hen house is what it amounts to. And remember, the fish farm is not located in GR water. The East Branch is 100% open to all gear types. It flows into the mainstream in Grayling where the water is still 100% open and continues that way for miles downstream. This battle is about protecting all the trout streams in Michigan despite what the *cut your nose off to spite your face* crowd would like you to believe. Ever fish the unmentionable where this guy has his other operation? I've been worm dunking there since the '70s and I can tell you that it has an extraordinary number of rainbows in it. I stood above a beaver dam there once on opening weekend when the water was high, probably a dozen folks all jammed together taking turns and we pulled rainbows out of there the whole day. Took maybe a 1/2 hour to get 4 keepers and I played C&R for the rest of the day. Not sure how many some of the locals got, they just kept *gifting* them to their kids. Kids looked like they could use a little protein.


----------



## toto

Ok first of all, you call wrong nearly 100% of the time, therefore I must be wrong for supporting against the fish farm, huh who'd a thunk it. Secondly, you caught 4 legal rainbows in 1/2 hour using bait, then you fished the rest of the day playing catch and release, right? So I have 2 problems 1) you just admitted to "technically breaking a game and fish law and 2) why would you KILL all those fish after having your limit? After all you are so he$# bent on eliminating bait fishing because the fish will die in the high majority, but you just admitted to doing so, wow . As for the Platte thing, apparently you didn't get the memo, I stated exactly what the issue was understanding completely what I was saying. My whole thought on the Platte was, obviously there was far more to the issue than just the hatchery, remember 2400-400=2000, see the problem now? I already knew at the time the DNR had the money set aside for a cleaning system to bring it to zero discharge, it was just a matter of having them (PLIA) understand eliminating the coho and thereby the hatchery was merely a band aid where the arm was cut off. Do I need to draw pictures for you or can you figure out for yourelf now? I almost forgot, if this affluence is so harmful, why would the fishing below his other facility be so Good? Also, if it is so terrible to have this stuff in streams (which I believe it is) then why would the town of grayling put thier leaves from the streets into the rivers every fall, wouldn't the oils, anti freeze, or other contaminants be even more harmful? Again not advocating for the fish farm, as again to help you with your retention, I'm against it at this time, but you really can't have it both ways, oh wait all those rainbows you caught worm dunking didn't die, or did they, I'm so confused. Proving once again, it's hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Just stop kzoo, you have just killed your own long drawn out argument.


----------

