Brewlugger, Capt Ron, GDubs, Rocky I appreciate your responses but it makes my point at the same time. So few willing to try yet so many willing to complain.

I'm not looking for accolades, I'm hoping to make a difference in my life and in this particular case with the summer flounder fishery. I've been fortunate to be introduced by Gerry to a number of people involved in the industry over the last three years and have been more fortunate to be mentored by Dave (Dales529) who is a wealth of knowledge and good friend. He's given me a good understanding of the process, great guidance and support every step of the way.

This battle will be won in my opinion in one way and one way only.......through using NOAA's / NMFS's / ASMFC's own data to point out inconsistencies and changes in historical relationships over the years which either make no sense or are trending in the wrong direction based on policy decisions made over those same time frames. In other words, identify what changed when the fishery started it's decline in the early 2000's and compare those attributes to the 600% growth we experienced in the biomass between 1989 - 2002 and the answer will reveal itself. In my opinion it has. Instead of simply reducing catch by tonnage (metric tons), fisheries management instead attempted to reduce catch by increasing size limits for recreational anglers which caused a series of unintended consequences to the spawning biomass destroying recruitment in the process. It also allowed commercial operators to improve the value of their catch by harvesting the fish recreational anglers are now discarding, killing younger age fish in the process which in the 80's and 90's were the age fish being commercially harvested and brought to market. The regulations are killing this fishery for anyone who wants to understand the big picture.

I recently emailed a 16-page document to the Chair of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council "ASMFC", Chair of the Scientific and Statistical Committee "SSC" (advisory board for policy decisions to the ASMFC) and Mark Terceiro who is the lead scientist for the Summer Flounder stock. Anyone interested in the email or analysis sent, pm me your email address and I'd be more than happy to share the document with you. Document will be included in the materials handed out to Council Members at the upcoming September meeting this year. Content of the draft was to identify changes in historical relationships within this fishery over the last thirty-years in an effort to focus fisheries management on the issues hurting the fishery and policy decisions which in my opinion have led to it's decline. Fact based analysis using their own data. Michael Waine, newly appointed Atlantic Fisheries Policy Director for American Sportfishing Association "ASA", John DePersenaire Fisheries Policy & Science Researcher Recreational Fishing Alliance "RFA" and others have also been involved in this process which will eventually fan out to include all Council Board Members, SSC Board Members and state representatives. Word and knowledge of these facts needs to be disseminated to the bodies responsible for the management and fair allocation of the resource.

Case in point. Currently reviewing the 66th Stock Assessment Workshop "SAW" full report. In the 57th SAW, number of fish making up the biomass in 2002 was estimated at approximately 131 million fish. As most are aware, recreational anglers were penalized in 2019's regulations for significantly higher historical catch levels based on the new method of collecting data under the Marine Recreational Information Program "MRIP". Recreational catch under the old method in 2002 was 11,854 metric tons, that number increased to 16,473 metric tons for the same year under the new method of capturing data under MRIP. That's 4,619 metric tons more or over 10 million pounds of summer flounder the recreational community is being assessed with catching, a majority of that catch if you can believe it coming from shore based catches, not boats. At the same time, recruitment for 2002 now show an increase between the two consecutive Stock Assessments of approximately 13 million new fish yet the overall population in the biomass in the latest assessment shows an increase from 131 million fish to 174 million, 42 million more. That's a mathematical impossibility but as discussed previously in other threads all based on "best available science" and revised reference points being used in models. Policy decisions are being made on statistical data which is being materially changed within consecutive stock assessments. In the latest SAW, recreational catch levels for the last eight years, 2010 - 2017, were increased collectively by almost 40,000 metric tons, approximately 5 million metric tons a year on average or in excess of 10 million lbs of fish per year, a majority of which were supposedly caught from shore. In the survey forms I've been able to find, there's not one question about number of fish caught. It's all based on "Fishing Effort" and an algorithm which somehow converts "Fishing Effort" into catch. Have no idea how it ultimately translates to catch statistics but to have that degree of margin of error in two consecutive Stock Assessments is cause for concern. Statistically speaking, it's completely outside confidence and margins of error percentages in any sampling I've been involved with in my career. That's just one example of changes in historical relationships or inconsistencies in data which are ultimately dictating our fate regarding access rights to this fishery and a fair allocation of the resource. Changes and inconsistencies which need to be challenged and deserving of an answer from fishery management based on facts, not anecdotal arguments.

Enough said, I'll continue to face the challenge with the few who have dedicated their time as well in doing so. If we're successful, everyone can read about it in industry publications, won't waste more of anyone's time here for those only interested in fishing reports as opposed to the overall health of the fishery and the regulations that decide that health which ironically produce those reports.