Public input sought on proposed Magnuson-Stevens guideline revisions

[newsman]

Now's your chance to tell NOAA what you think of its proposed revisions to fishery management guidelines, in person or writing. See http://www.examiner.com/article/public-meeting-scheduled-for-input-on-magnuson-stevens-fishery-guidelines

[Little Sister Charters]

It is my contention that the Magnuson Stevens Act is fundamentally flawed. Instead of managing for "maximum sustainable yield" (and always getting it wrong), they should manage for "abundance". Then, when all stocks are healthy they can harvest 20%/year of 100% healthy stocks and US commercial landings and recreational landings will be far better than they are now.....JC

[CCMPmonmouth]

Wow Little sisters, Now there is flawed thinking. Adding 20% percent to numbers generated by flawed data, Then waiting for the govt. to give you a share. Thank heaven your not a wildlife manager, we will all be waiting for our quota of Woolly Manmouths and Mega Mouth sharks.

[Little Sister Charters]

Wow Little sisters, Now there is flawed thinking. Adding 20% percent to numbers generated by flawed data, Then waiting for the govt. to give you a share. Thank heaven your not a wildlife manager, we will all be waiting for our quota of Woolly Manmouths and Mega Mouth sharks.

Woolly mammoths? Mega mouth sharks? I'm guessing we are not talking about the same thing! Specifically, I am referring to fish (plug in flounder, fluke, sea bass, mega mouths, etc.). You tell me what is "flawed" with harvesting no more than 20 % of healthy stocks as opposed to the current practice of harvesting 60% (or more) of decimated stocks?
I forgot I even posted here until a friend showed me what you wrote. I am on the GOM RAP (recreational advisory panel) representing recreational fishing interests and I speak about this issue all the time. Please put your above statements into perspective because I must be missing your point.
Thank you!........JC