Quote:
|
My point is why are we giving up 3 fish to a stock that is rebuilt
|
That is a fair question. But first understand that to the vast majority of fishermen as evidenced by many of the posts in this thread, very few people are giving up anything. Again, I respect those that have been successful, but you (generally speaking) are in the vast minority of anglers. And if you were limiting out every time at 8 fish at 18", I hope that the 17.5" size limit allows you to capture your limit more quickly without traveling as far and allow you to make an extra couple of trips. That is a win for everyone and you still get your "meat".
I can give you the long winded technical reason for 8 vs. 5 fish bag limits that many would say isn't based in a ton of common sense to most anglers or I can give you the more practicable answer. Practically speaking - because we still have a long way to go in the work of SSFFF, RFA and all the groups working to improve science for Summer Flounder and other species. It becomes a mathematical exercise quite frankly. The mathematical exercise in reducing the size 1/2" and gaining five days of season required capping the limit at 5 fish. I'm not saying I agree with the system any more than the next guy, and am working hard to try to improve the systems to provide results for the better of as many as possible. We saw the bag limit go up from 6 to 8 not long ago, if everyone keeps working together to improve the science and the processes we can strive to get the bag up again from 5.
Here's another point to consider NO MATTER WHAT THE REGS. We may UNDERFISH our harvest target this year, and still have to be MORE RESTRICTIVE NEXT YEAR if the quota goes down. Another reason to continue to support the work that has been effective in supporting quota increases.
I know that many believe that the management process is some "black hole" with puppeteers working behind the scenes. By and large, our fisheries are managed by a lot of every day folks. Spend enough time and it becomes comprehendable. I don't know much about rocket science so I don't know if I would call it that, but just because it isn't understood by an individual(s) doesn't mean it's incomprehensible to all. There remains, comparatively speaking, so many unknowns in fisheries management. There are problems with becoming slaves to the process no doubt. But there are a lot of creative ideas bounced around aimed at improving the science and the process and we all need to continue to do our part to support those efforts.
Finally, since it was brought up in this thread, my decision to support option 5 had nothing to do with potential effect on my business considering fluke fishing accounts for about 5% of my trips. Such has been my business pretty much from day one, irregardless of what the regs have been over the past decade. It was based primarily on the belief based upon personal contact that many would benefit from the lower size. As for constraining the harvest to the target, I put forth the researchable reasons for supporting this path, but at the end of the day, MRFSS is still MRFSS (even behind the MRIP name), a recreational ESTIMATE that is simply incapable in its current form to support the management processes as they are currently implemented. What it spits out next year is truly anyone's guess, including mine. I am hoping for the best just like the rest of you.
