And so it begins in earnest. Large scale wind projects in the North East!!

Sorry for the long rant but I am pretty passionate about this subject. I have commented plenty already about this so this is my last complete "airing of my grievances"!

Fishing Nerd, if you have seen my comments on this issue made both in this thread and others on this board, then you should recall that I am an advocate of a multi-pronged approach to addressing both the US and the World’s energy needs. However, in almost every aspect of life it seems obvious to most people that moderation in the approach and careful preplanning is the best way to ensure long term success.

You made a comment about how you don’t see gas stations and refineries are going to close anytime soon. While I believe that is true, I also observe that there are growing numbers of “environmental zealots” who really believe we can live in an idyllic world with “zero carbon emissions and free energy for all”. In fact, if they had their way they would certainly try and completely phase out all fossil fuel driven machinery in 10 years or less if they could. Look at the Biden’s administration goal of a 50% reduction of our Carbon Emissions by 2030, less than 10 years away. What about California’s plan to sell only Electric cars by 2035, less than 15 years away. I don’t care how rapidly technology advances these goals seem totally unrealistic and could be just the start of drastically cutting our use of oil and even the cleaner sources like natural gas and nuclear energy. If we gallop towards these false flags then society as a whole is headed for a total collapse.

Governments and politicians routinely make these broad, sweeping statements about how they know better than the rest of us. Yet their feeble attempts at trying to make this type of world-shaking transition happen is totally based upon how much or our taxpayer dollars they can throw at the problem. Virtually every project involving wind and solar power is only economically feasible because of ridiculously huge government subsidies. And even with that, the supposed beneficiaries of this technology are still paying more per KW hour than they were with the more traditional energy sources. Do we even have to discuss the hypocrisy of these politicians and super wealthy donors who want to tell us how to live our lives while they continue to be the largest consumers of energy. I don’t see folks like Joh Kerry, or Al Gore, or any of these supposed experts downsizing their mansions, selling their private planes, or dumping their huge yachts. And heaven for bid if you want to put up a wind farm that might disturb their precious multimillion dollar views. So, I guess you might say I am very skeptical of the folks who are pushing this agenda really hard. Maintaining their own political power always seems to be the real motive behind their actions.

Youi have also commented on how we should be careful not to allow our countries energy sources to be controlled by foreign and possibly hostile entities. As I recall, during the last 2 years the US was practically energy independent by using all the forms of energy at our disposal. Now if we go in the direction of wind and solar full speed ahead where do you think most of that technology is coming from? Of the top 10 producers of wind turbines, the US has only one, GE. Two of the other 10 are in China and 3 are in Germany. With Solar Panels, Asian Companies have almost a monopoly on this market. Sure, some of them have now set up plants in the US because the Trump Administration levied high tariffs on them but it still seems like a big national security risk if we throw all our eggs in that basket. And, just because many other countries are pursuing this direction does not mean the US has to follow them off a potential cliff! We are leaders, not followers, that’s why everyone wants to live in and emulate the USA!!

So, what are the real roots of this major push towards renewable energy? From what I have read we have enough oil and natural gas to sustain the planet for at least another 200 years. And if we ever got over our fears of another accident at a power plant (which you can never completely eradicate with any form of energy) then it seems to me that nuclear power is as close to a limitless source as exists. My opinion stems from my belief that politicians worldwide figured out that “Climate Change” is the one issue that no one could ever argue with because we all want to “save the planet”, right? In my own lifetime I have witnessed the zealots go from warning us about “Global Cooling” (anyone remember the Time magazine cover showing the earth as a big snowball) to “Global Warming” to the latest distortion of our language, the all-encompassing term “Climate Change”. Sure, the weather changes all the time. But if you look at things in perspective you realize this has been happening since the beginning of recorded history. How much of an ego do you have to possess (or power hungry do you have to be) to think that man can actually counteract the forces of mature enough to affect the temperature of the entire planet or affect the rise and fall of the seas.

I was trained in the biological sciences and worked in the medical community for 40 years of my life. I have been fishing recreationally for over 65 years and have operated my own successful charter business for the last 20 years. So, it should be self-evident that I have a great deal of concern and am strongly in favor of protecting our environment and the sport we all love, but only when the path forward makes sense. While Offshore Wind Turbines may be a part of the overall energy picture let’s not fool ourselves by looking at only a few small positives. One last example I will mention is the observation we all have that almost any structure in the ocean quickly becomes a home for many different species. However, what should not be overlooked is that this is not really increasing the overall quantity of fish, just change the locations where they congregate. This too can have an adverse effect by making it even easier to target and overfish certain species.

Once again, I want to emphasize that I believe we should be approaching a seismic change in the way our society operates in a very careful and measured fashion with scientific data from all different perspectives given the full weight of consideration. Not just listen to the latest person who screams the loudest “the sky is falling”!!!!!
 

BennyV

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 21, 2018
4,465
4,689
113
City Island, The Bronx
Green energy. Great on paper. Not so great in reality. The lifespan of these fans is a big limiting factor in my opinion. Also, how is any surplus energy going to be stored? Let me guess more batteries. Which equates to more strip mining. Electric cars are going to happen, that is inevitable. As far as powering everything with wind, solar, and/or water - we are a long way from having the technology to harness these natural resources to power everything in our day to day lives.
 

Capt Richie

Well-Known Angler
Feb 16, 2019
1,022
591
113
Green energy. Great on paper. Not so great in reality. The lifespan of these fans is a big limiting factor in my opinion. Also, how is any surplus energy going to be stored? Let me guess more batteries. Which equates to more strip mining. Electric cars are going to happen, that is inevitable. As far as powering everything with wind, solar, and/or water - we are a long way from having the technology to harness these natural resources to power everything in our day to day lives.
Yup I do agree,,But it can and will put a big dent in it ..Its more about being off grid,,and that scares big power company's and the politicians the have their hands in their pockets..
 
  • Like
Reactions: BennyV

BennyV

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 21, 2018
4,465
4,689
113
City Island, The Bronx
Yup I do agree,,But it can and will put a big dent in it ..Its more about being off grid,,and that scares big power company's and the politicians the have their hands in their pockets..
I agree with you as well. Big power and politicians will always be in our lives in one form or another. Someone has to pay for all those subsidies. It’s like whack a mole. They’ll pop up somewhere else. Big oil has and will continue to make investments in renewable energy; they will also continue to make acquisitions if they make financial sense. Another facet of the oil business is all of the byproducts that are created by refining. These byproducts wind up in the majority of plastics and chemicals that were interact with daily.

Also, I’d just like to add that all great discussions, conversations, and debates are give & take. Monologues and tantrums (from either end of the political spectrum) should not be entertained on forums and threads such as this one. Take it elsewhere. Everyone is entitled to opinion, but there is absolutely no reason to bulldoze others who do not conform to your point of view.
 

Capt Richie

Well-Known Angler
Feb 16, 2019
1,022
591
113
I agree with you as well. Big power and politicians will always be in our lives in one form or another. Someone has to pay for all those subsidies. It’s like whack a mole. They’ll pop up somewhere else. Big oil has and will continue to make investments in renewable energy; they will also continue to make acquisitions if they make financial sense. Another facet of the oil business is all of the byproducts that are created by refining. These byproducts wind up in the majority of plastics and chemicals that were interact with daily.

Also, I’d just like to add that all great discussions, conversations, and debates are give & take. Monologues and tantrums (from either end of the political spectrum) should not be entertained on forums and threads such as this one. Take it elsewhere. Everyone is entitled to opinion, but there is absolutely no reason to bulldoze others who do not conform to your point of view.
Yup our hunger for energy has many drawbacks ...and we all pay one way or another...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BennyV

Avenger

Angler
Jan 29, 2019
939
1,005
93

EXACTLY!

I've been hearing these fearmongers yelling "World is going to end in ten years if we don't do something right now!" for over forty years now.

And I'm going to point something out to a couple of people here who seem to love these straw man attacks. Nobody has said that clean energy is a bad idea, nor that it's not coming in the future. What we're pointing out is that it's being rushed by people who are falling for the fear, and by people that have their hands in the cookie jar no matter what the actual costs and drawbacks are. These advancements all need to be handled in a measured manner with decisions made by engineers, scientists and market economics. Not by Chicken Littles and politicians who mostly can't tell you how a lightbulb works. That kind of push always fails and has huge detrimental effects on the people and the nation.
 

BoatGuy

Angler
Feb 8, 2019
347
162
43
Sound Beach
I have a question that I do not know the answer to. Lithium batteries...are they recyclable to make new batteries?
Or is just depleted and no longer useable?
 

jpd

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 24, 2018
2,978
3,672
113

Fossil fuels anyone?

There are two main ways to deactivate lithium-ion batteries. The most common technique, called pyrometallurgy, involves burning them to remove unwanted organic materials and plastics. This method leaves the recycler with just a fraction of the original material—typically just the copper from current collectors and nickel or cobalt from the cathode. A common pyro method, called smelting, uses a furnace powered with fossil fuels, which isn’t great for the environment, and it loses a lot of aluminum and lithium in the process. But it is simple, and smelting factories that currently exist to process ore from the mining industry are already able to handle batteries. Of the small fraction of lithium-ion batteries that are recycled in the US—just 5 percent of all spent cells—most of them end up in a smelting furnace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avenger

Roccus7

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 22, 2018
7,214
8,899
113
Midcoast Maine
Looks like the good, old Jones Act will be one of the biggest allies in the fight against wind farms...

Offshore Wind Farms Show What Biden’s Climate Plan Is Up Against

Offshore Wind Farms Show What Biden’s Climate Plan Is Up Against​

The U.S. has fallen way behind Europe partly because of an old shipping law and opposition from homeowners and fishing groups.

A constellation of 5,400 offshore wind turbines meet a growing portion of Europe’s energy needs. The United States has exactly seven.

With more than 90,000 miles of coastline, the country has plenty of places to plunk down turbines. But legal, environmental and economic obstacles and even vanity have stood in the way.

President Biden wants to catch up fast — in fact, his targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions depend on that happening. Yet problems abound, including a shortage of boats big enough to haul the huge equipment to sea, fishermen worried about their livelihoods and wealthy people who fear that the turbines will mar the pristine views from their waterfront mansions. There’s even a century-old, politically fraught federal law, known as the Jones Act, that blocks wind farm developers from using American ports to launch foreign construction vessels.

Offshore turbines are useful because the wind tends to blow stronger and more steadily at sea than onshore. The turbines can be placed far enough out that they aren’t visible from land but still close enough to cities and suburbs that they do not require hundreds of miles of expensive transmission lines.

The Biden administration wants up to 2,000 turbines in the water in the next eight and a half years. Officials recently approved a project near Martha’s Vineyard that languished during the Trump administration and in May announced support for large wind farms off California’s coast. The $2 trillion infrastructure plan that Mr. Biden proposed in March would also increase incentives for renewable energy.

The cost of offshore wind turbines has fallen about 80 percent over the last two decades, to as low as $50 a megawatt-hour. While more expensive per unit of energy than solar and wind farms on land, offshore turbines often make economic sense because of lower transmission costs.

“Solar in the East is a little bit more challenging than in the desert West,” said Robert M. Blue, the chairman and chief executive of Dominion Energy, a big utility company that is working on a wind farm with nearly 200 turbines off the coast of Virginia. “We’ve set a net-zero goal for our company by 2050. This project is essential to hitting those goals.”

The slow pace of offshore wind development highlights the trade-offs between urgently addressing climate change and Mr. Biden’s other goals of creating well-paying jobs and protecting local habitats. The United States could push through more projects if it was willing to repeal the Jones Act’s protections for domestic shipbuilding, for example, but that would undercut the president’s employment promises.

These difficult questions can’t simply be solved by federal spending. As a result, it could be difficult or impossible for Mr. Biden to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 2035 and reach net-zero emissions across the economy by 2050, as he would like.

“I think the clear fact that other places got a jump on us is important,” said Amanda Lefton, the director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the agency that leases federal waters to wind developers. “We are not going to be able to build offshore wind if we don’t have the right investments.”

Europe’s head start means it has established a thriving complex of turbine manufacturing, construction ships and an experienced work force. That’s why the United States could have to rely on European components, suppliers and ships for years.

Installing giant offshore wind turbines — the largest one, made by General Electric, is 853 feet high — is difficult work. Ships with cranes that can lift more than a thousand tons haul large components out to sea. At their destinations, legs are lowered into the water to raise the ships and make them stationary while they work. Only a few ships can handle the biggest components, and that’s a big problem for the United States.


A 1,600-mile round trip to Canada.​

Lloyd Eley, a project manager, helped build nuclear submarines early in his career and has spent the last eight years at Dominion Energy. None of that quite prepared him for overseeing the construction of two wind turbines off the Virginia coast.

Mr. Eley’s biggest problem was the Jones Act, which requires ships that travel from a U.S. port to anywhere within the country, including its waters, to be made and registered in the United States and owned and staffed by Americans.

The largest U.S.-built ships designed for doing offshore construction work are about 185 feet long and can lift about 500 tons, according to a Government Accountability Office report published in December. That is far too small for the giant components that Mr. Eley’s team was working with.

So Dominion hired three European ships and operated them out of the Port of Halifax in Nova Scotia. One of them, the Vole au Vent from Luxembourg, is 459 feet (140 meters) long and can lift 1,654 tons.

Mr. Eley’s crew waited weeks at a time for the European ships to travel more than 800 miles each way to port. The installations took a year. In Europe, it would have been completed in a few weeks. “It was definitely a challenge,” he said.

The U.S. shipping industry has not invested in the vessels needed to carry large wind equipment because there have been so few projects here. The first five offshore turbines were installed in 2016 near Block Island, R.I. Dominion’s two turbines were installed last year.

Had the Jones Act not existed — it was enacted after World War I to ensure that the country had ships and crews to mobilize during war and emergencies — Dominion could have run European vessels out of Virginia’s ports. The law is sacrosanct in Congress, and labor unions and other supporters argue that repealing it would eliminate thousands of jobs at shipyards and on boats, leaving the United States reliant on foreign companies.

Demand for large ships could grow significantly over the next decade because the United States, Europe and China have ambitious offshore wind goals. Just eight ships in the world can transport the largest turbine parts, according to Dominion.

Dominion is spending $500 million on a ship, being built in Brownsville, Texas, that can haul large wind equipment. Named after a sea monster from Greek myth, Charybdis, the ship will be 472 feet (144 meters) long and able to lift 2,200 tons. It will be ready at the end of 2023. The company said the ship, which it will also rent to other developers, would let it affordably install roughly 200 more turbines by 2026. Dominion spent $300 million on its first two but hopes the others will cost $40 million each.

Fishermen fear for their livelihoods.​

For the last 24 years, Tommy Eskridge, a resident of Tangier Island, has made a living catching conchs and crabs off the Virginia coast.

One area he works is where Dominion plans to place its turbines. Federal regulators have adjusted spacing between turbines to one nautical mile to create wider lanes for fishing and other boats, but Mr. Eskridge, 54, worries that the turbines could hurt his catch.

The area has yielded up to 7,000 pounds of conchs a day, though Mr. Eskridge said a typical day produced about half that amount. A pound can fetch $2 to $3, he said.

Mr. Eskridge said the company and regulators had not done enough to show that installing turbines would not hurt his catch. “We just don’t know what it’s going to do.”

Annie Hawkins, executive director of the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, which includes hundreds of fishing groups and companies, worries that the government is failing to scrutinize proposals and adequately plan.

“What they’re doing is saying, ‘Let’s take this thing we’ve really never done here, go all in, objectors be damned,’” Ms. Hawkins said. “Coming from a fisheries perspective, we know there is going to be a massive-scale displacement. You can’t just go fish somewhere else.”

Fishing groups point to recent problems in Europe to justify their concerns. Orsted, the world’s largest offshore wind developer, for example, has sought a court injunction to keep fishermen and their equipment out of an area of the North Sea set for new turbines while it studies the area.

Orsted said that it had tried to “work collaboratively with fishermen” but that it had sought the order because its work was complicated by gear left in the area by a fisherman it could not identify. “To safely conduct the survey work and only as a last resort, we were left with no choice but to secure the right to remove this gear,” the company said in a statement.

When developers first applied in 2001 for a permit for Cape Wind, a project between Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, resistance was fierce. Opponents included Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who died in 2009, and William I. Koch, an industrialist.

Neither wanted the turbines marring the views of the coast from their vacation compounds. They also argued that the project would obstruct 16 historical sites, disrupt fishermen and clog up waterways used by humpback, pilot and other whales.

After years of legal and political battles, the developer of Cape Wind gave up in 2017. But well before that happened, Cape Wind’s troubles terrified energy executives who were considering offshore wind.

Projects up and down the East Coast are mired in similar fights. Residents of the Hamptons, the wealthy enclave, opposed two wind development areas, and the federal government shelved the project. On the New Jersey shore, some homeowners and businesses are opposing offshore wind because they fear it will raise their electricity rates, disrupt whales and hurt the area’s fluke fishery.

Energy executives want the Biden administration to mediate such conflicts and speed up permit approval.

“It’s been artificially, incrementally slow because of some inefficiencies on the federal permitting side,” said David Hardy, chief executive of Orsted North America.

Renewable-energy supporters said they were hopeful because the country had added lots of wind turbines on land — 66,000 in 41 states. They supplied more than 8 percent of the country’s electricity last year.

Ms. Lefton, the regulator who oversees leasing of federal waters, said future offshore projects would move more quickly because more people appreciated the dangers of climate change.

“We have a climate crisis in front of us,” she said. “We need to transition to clean energy. I think that will be a big motivator.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avenger

Old Mud

Well-Known Angler
Dec 31, 2018
3,145
4,176
113
82
On this side of the lawn
I think the Jones act is one of the smartest things they have ever done. Without it even our Navy ships would would be built in China or other country's. Our forefathers were right on the ball. The rest will happen one way or the other. For reasons other than someone needs to leave a legacy.
 

Avenger

Angler
Jan 29, 2019
939
1,005
93
I think the Jones act is one of the smartest things they have ever done. Without it even our Navy ships would would be built in China or other country's. Our forefathers were right on the ball. The rest will happen one way or the other. For reasons other than someone needs to leave a legacy.

John McCain constantly advocated for repealing the Jones Act.

America's hero, you know.
 

PaulE

New Angler
Mar 10, 2021
9
7
3
The Jones Act is important to US success in many ways, but that's another thread. Dominion Energy is building a state-of-the art wind turbine installation vessel down south and is positioning itself to make loads of money installing units for all companies that don't make the same move. American yard, American workers, and American crew.

Petroleum companies aren't getting into wind and solar because they will make money backing up the failures... If that were the case, they wouldn't need to invest in them at all. Danish Oil and Natural Gas Company looked into wind energy some years ago. Then they changed their name to Orsted. Google Orsted and see how much they failed. BP has 2200 mW of wind turbines operating, they changed their name in 2001 from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum. Foresight. They recently bought a fifty percent share in Equinor. That's not a paper move.

Fish Nerd seems to be citing points based on good factual research. To call them talking points is a bit of a distraction... If you can "Google" what he says and show that there is a lot more truth that discredits the point he makes, then you can call it a talking point. Otherwise, it's a fact.

The International Monetary Fund reported that in 2015, US subsidies for oil, gas, and coal were $649 billion dollars. The US defense budget was $599 billion. According to the IMF, fossil fuels account for 85 percent of all global subsidies," and reducing these subsidies "would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.

Citing that trenching for transmission cables is environmentally damaging is questionable when you compare an eighteen inch cable to a twelve inch pipe network. Which have numerous leaks that are simply accepted as within operational norms. Monopile turbines do, in fact, offer fish aggregating features, although not as good as old-style steel grid construction. But they have a longer life span and are more stable. They can also be retrofitted with updated turbines, instead of building new structures, which is more cost effective. Also, the life span of the turbines is mostly based upon technological advances resulting in obsolescence, not failure. Many machines are kept in use well past their technical lifespan. Look at most of our military equipment.

There's plenty more, butI know the way things go with opening peoples' minds, so I'll save myself some time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capt Richie

PaulE

New Angler
Mar 10, 2021
9
7
3
I had a break in my meeting, so I did want to add one other point... George was very correct when he said that these structures do not create more fish. Although they can result in a small increase in biomass due to the feeding and protective benefits they provide, they mostly concentrate the biomass in a small spot, which often serves to provide easier harvest opportunities, resulting in a net loss of biomass due to the harvest rate outstripping the protective and feeding benefits.

The monopoles may not be the best for fishing on, as well as the larger tethered units that are being developed. However, I personally feel that they will serve a great accidental purpose, one that no one wants to see introduced (including me, for fear of it getting out of control), but one that we do need, and have unknowingly benefitted from forever. They will serve as MPAs. Keeping commercial fishermen away from these population concentrations will help somewhat in preserving and producing biomass. The structures that do not concentrate fish in a way that promotes good hook and line harvest also serves to maintain a reserve biomass. Same with the tethered structures, which will be off-limits. The key is to keep them away from traditionally productive areas for the most part, so they don't significantly impede harvest opportunities.

Think about some of your best fishing spots of the past, and you will probably realize that there was an even better fishing spot discovered close by some time afterwards. Most good fishing spots aren't good enough to support constant harvest more than a couple of days a week, even by hook and line. Some of the best drops I have fished over the years turned into just okay spots when a new, great spot was discovered close by. Soon after, both spots usually become just okay, because the first spot no longer had the virgin spot near it to feed it with biomass.
 

Capt Richie

Well-Known Angler
Feb 16, 2019
1,022
591
113
The Jones Act is important to US success in many ways, but that's another thread. Dominion Energy is building a state-of-the art wind turbine installation vessel down south and is positioning itself to make loads of money installing units for all companies that don't make the same move. American yard, American workers, and American crew.

Petroleum companies aren't getting into wind and solar because they will make money backing up the failures... If that were the case, they wouldn't need to invest in them at all. Danish Oil and Natural Gas Company looked into wind energy some years ago. Then they changed their name to Orsted. Google Orsted and see how much they failed. BP has 2200 mW of wind turbines operating, they changed their name in 2001 from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum. Foresight. They recently bought a fifty percent share in Equinor. That's not a paper move.

Fish Nerd seems to be citing points based on good factual research. To call them talking points is a bit of a distraction... If you can "Google" what he says and show that there is a lot more truth that discredits the point he makes, then you can call it a talking point. Otherwise, it's a fact.

The International Monetary Fund reported that in 2015, US subsidies for oil, gas, and coal were $649 billion dollars. The US defense budget was $599 billion. According to the IMF, fossil fuels account for 85 percent of all global subsidies," and reducing these subsidies "would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.

Citing that trenching for transmission cables is environmentally damaging is questionable when you compare an eighteen inch cable to a twelve inch pipe network. Which have numerous leaks that are simply accepted as within operational norms. Monopile turbines do, in fact, offer fish aggregating features, although not as good as old-style steel grid construction. But they have a longer life span and are more stable. They can also be retrofitted with updated turbines, instead of building new structures, which is more cost effective. Also, the life span of the turbines is mostly based upon technological advances resulting in obsolescence, not failure. Many machines are kept in use well past their technical lifespan. Look at most of our military equipment.

There's plenty more, butI know the way things go with opening peoples' minds, so I'll save myself some time.
649 Billion in welfare OMG..
 

Old Mud

Well-Known Angler
Dec 31, 2018
3,145
4,176
113
82
On this side of the lawn
John McCain constantly advocated for repealing the Jones Act.

America's hero, you know.
Well he was from the midwest you know. Not to many folks that live out there know just what the Jones Act really meant. All are not as fortunate as we few who live in a State that borders an International ocean. Anyway because he was for repealing the Act had nothing to do with his political views. He was in fact a Hero !! A hero is NOT defined by politics. It is defined by Deed.
 

Capt Richie

Well-Known Angler
Feb 16, 2019
1,022
591
113
Well he was from the midwest you know. Not to many folks that live out there know just what the Jones Act really meant. All are not as fortunate as we few who live in a State that borders an International ocean. Anyway because he was for repealing the Act had nothing to do with his political views. He was in fact a Hero !! A hero is NOT defined by politics. It is defined by Deed.
Yes he was ..I may not agree with all his views & votes,,But a true American ..Unlike General Bone Spur..who had no Idea what the Jones Act is,,
 

Members online

No members online now.

Fishing Reports

Forum statistics

Threads
3,899
Messages
137,720
Members
1,035
Latest member
Boomer43