Dan as I mentioned earlier, I'm glad to FINALLY see an authoritative body put the health of the fishery before politics. Some will view this negatively, some will view it positively, personally I'm part of the later grouping. Good to see a body trying to be proactive about a problem they recognize instead of kicking the can down the road and turning a blind eye.

Every fishery comes down to protecting breeders and the spawn, our current regulations for bass do the exact opposite. Same holds true for summer flounder. Without adequate reproduction and an annual harvest level which doesn't exceed reproduction, a fishery will eventually fail. If these fisheries aren't managed for the long term, there won't be a long term.

The only caveat I'll throw in to this is there's a balance in the ocean that exists naturally and is only impacted when we impact it. Too many bass could create a different set of problems than too few. It's the whole food chain argument. Fishery management needs to factor that into their regulatory decisions and everything else should fall into place. Case in point, let Cooke Inc. / Omega Protein rape the ocean of bunker and bass regulations won't matter because the fish won't have sufficient food supply to sustain the biomass.

Would rather see preventative measures being put in place than reactionary measures which recreational anglers and commercial operators have been hamstrung by for years. That doesn't make me a tree-hugger, makes me a realist. I for one applaud Va for being proactive and putting the fishery before everyone else trying to grab a piece of the pie. Long term like with any change I think this will be positive for everyone as opposed to the alternative we were working our way towards and for those old enough to have experienced the last bass collapse you'll understand precisely what I mean by that statement.