Bob I actually enjoy your posts so don't take it that I'm coming at you. We just have completely contrary opinions about this matter. Please read the Fisherman article per the attached link (Gerry I hope I can post it here, if not delete and I apologize) https://www.thefisherman.com/index.c...2&ParentCat=19 and tell me it's not more likely for some positive change to come out of Rutgers study than not. Again are there guarantees here.....never. But among other things we need information to support our position to create change in this or any fishery and I believe in this particular case and in the long run this study will be instrumental in the legislative powers adopting a slot limit. That's my opinion, opposing opinions are probably as steadfast in their beliefs as I am in mine. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate.

You cannot harvest exclusively female fish in any fishery and expect sustainability. You don't need a degree in Fisheries Management to realize that. And for the advocates of the Steepness Theory, their logic and statements are completely flawed. The decline as people on that side of the argument have stated is not a six-year decline. Summer flounder egg reproduction has steadily and consistently been declining over the last 25 - 30 years to the point it's been obliterated. And the trend line on the decline corresponds with the inverse trend line with size limit increases. The higher the size limit, the lower egg reproduction statistics. It started and accelerated around 2002 as we approached the 17" limit which is the cross over point in Rutgers study that proves almost all fluke beyond that size captured were in fact females. They are absolutely right on point with their findings and conclusions. Just don't see how a study of that nature can be viewed negatively. I share your frustrations in general but believe this is one situation that will ultimately benefit our cause.