NMFS proposes to reduce the hake possession limit

[newsman]

The National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to reduce the possession limit for hake: http://www.examiner.com/article/proposal-would-reduce-the-take-of-the-hake

[JBird]

Aaaaaaaand here come the bag limits on Ling....

[Walleyed]

I think I'm safe....the most I've every caught was 1200lbs....so I'm still under the 1500lbs possession limit. :D

[tautog]

If this passes, within 2 years there will be a 25 fish rec limit, 5 years-20, 7 years-15 fish.

[dfish28]

How about all those hake discarded off boats for a couple hundred pounds of whiting...

[Gerry Zagorski]

I can't even begin to type all that I'm thinking now....

I guess I can sum up my frustrations and thoughts by this.

- Term limits for congress
- Vote out everyone incumbent
- Campaign reform
- Reduce the size of Govenment so there are less self serving knuckle heads
- Get lobbyisists out of Washington
- Take our country back... A government of the people, for the people and by the people.

I'm all for conservation but not based on flawed science and or who put a check into who's campaign coffers in return for Political favors.

Sorry for the rant but when are we going to learn and get away from the politics as usual mindset in this country? These guys have to be sitting back and laughing about how they are duping us all. They have all the money and we've given them all the power. Time to get off this tread mill :mad:

[fishguy]

"In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over Communism. In this country, Capitalism triumphed over Democracy." -Fran Lebowitz

[shrimpman steve]

So Gerry does not have to edit


**** them!!!

[reason162]

"In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over Communism. In this country, Capitalism triumphed over Democracy." -Fran Lebowitz

Surely Fran would side with the regulatory/conservation bodies and NOT with the commercial fleet?

[fishguy]

Perhaps, but that wasn't my point.

I thought the quote really insightful and witty. I also believe it is absolutely true. I hate to get political but Gerry opened the door.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision is probably the worst in the post-WWII era. The conservative justices decision that money is free speech means, legally, the wealthy have more free speech than you and I (unless you are a millionaire, of course)
Fran's quote perfectly illustrates this stake in the heart of American Democracy. You can literally buy more Constitutional Rights now thanks to that decision.

[reason162]

Perhaps, but that wasn't my point.

I thought the quote really insightful and witty. I also believe it is absolutely true. I hate to get political but Gerry opened the door.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision is probably the worst in the post-WWII era. The conservative justices decision that money is free speech means, legally, the wealthy have more free speech than you and I (unless you are a millionaire, of course)
Fran's quote perfectly illustrates this stake in the heart of American Democracy. You can literally buy more Constitutional Rights now thanks to that decision.

I completely agree with you re Citizens.

However I don't see the regulatory people (and I suppose the environmental/conservation constituency) as analogous to the fat cats buying up policy makers. Those people are on the other side, the commercial side. We recreational guys are just caught in the middle.

The common theme on this (and other) fishing forums is that somehow there are people getting rich off imposing quotas on fisheries. I can't even begin to comprehend the logic of this argument. Surely the greed lies on the side of people who stand to profit off catching fish?

That's not to say that I agree with all regs. I can accept that the science is flawed in some cases, thin in others. I just find the knee-jerk reaction to any talk of regulations as "big government getting rich off us common folk" pretty hilarious.

[howardrf]

Thought I would build a part boat and get a captains license. Second thought TOO MANY REGS! Next year there might be a ban on recreational fishing!

[Joey Dah Fish]

Perhaps, but that wasn't my point.

I thought the quote really insightful and witty. I also believe it is absolutely true. I hate to get political but Gerry opened the door.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision is probably the worst in the post-WWII era. The conservative justices decision that money is free speech means, legally, the wealthy have more free speech than you and I (unless you are a millionaire, of course)
Fran's quote perfectly illustrates this stake in the heart of American Democracy. You can literally buy more Constitutional Rights now thanks to that decision.

Wow your interpretation of what the justices decision said is so far off you are not even on the same planet. What it said is businesses are treated like people. For example people pay taxes and they can donate to campaigns. Businesses also pay taxes so they to can donate to campaigns. So in your world if you done want businesses to be able to donate money's to campaigns the eliminate corporate taxes. You can't have it both ways. I will go on to say stop vilifying businesses. Did you know businesses have to pay the highest corporate taxes in the world in the US. Did you know businesses must match your social security contribution dollar for dollar? Did you know the business has to pay a multiplier that is higher than the employees multiplier for the employees unemployment insurance? Yet they employ people that already pay taxes. Another thought here while I'm on a rant. I don't think the employer should have to pay any unemployment multiplier if the employee want to keep his or her job. Then show up and fo a good job. I have plenty more to say on this but tired of typing. Yeah I'm pissed. The government is the problem and the idiot voters are the cause.

[fishguy]

I did spin off on a tangent there. Government for sale isn't a new thing but now it's just so friggin blatent they don't even have to pretend anymore.

The reality of the New England ground fishery is that the commercial industry has pounded the shit out of that fishery so hard and for so long that there is real quantifiable long term damage. Cod is the poster child of that long term abuse.
The danger is over reaction from conservationists and regulators (just look at sea bass or striped bass, for instance)
The notion that anyone is getting rich from imposing these rule is ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as the tin foil hat crowd that denies climate change. BUT I do think that the notion that there are people earning a living making rules for fishermen based on flimsy numbers and who have absolutely no clue what is involved in earning a living on the water has merit.



I completely agree with you re Citizens.

However I don't see the regulatory people (and I suppose the environmental/conservation constituency) as analogous to the fat cats buying up policy makers. Those people are on the other side, the commercial side. We recreational guys are just caught in the middle.

The common theme on this (and other) fishing forums is that somehow there are people getting rich off imposing quotas on fisheries. I can't even begin to comprehend the logic of this argument. Surely the greed lies on the side of people who stand to profit off catching fish?

That's not to say that I agree with all regs. I can accept that the science is flawed in some cases, thin in others. I just find the knee-jerk reaction to any talk of regulations as "big government getting rich off us common folk" pretty hilarious.

[fishguy]

So you are ok with corporations being "people" and able to "donate" unlimited funds to our elected officials?
I'm not ok with that. At all.
Not for nothing, General Electric, the multi billion dollar company, doesn't pay diddly squat in taxes.


Wow your interpretation of what the justices decision said is so far off you are not even on the same planet. What it said is businesses are treated like people. For example people pay taxes and they can donate to campaigns. Businesses also pay taxes so they to can donate to campaigns. So in your world if you done want businesses to be able to donate money's to campaigns the eliminate corporate taxes. You can't have it both ways. I will go on to say stop vilifying businesses. Did you know businesses have to pay the highest corporate taxes in the world in the US. Did you know businesses must match your social security contribution dollar for dollar? Did you know the business has to pay a multiplier that is higher than the employees multiplier for the employees unemployment insurance? Yet they employ people that already pay taxes. Another thought here while I'm on a rant. I don't think the employer should have to pay any unemployment multiplier if the employee want to keep his or her job. Then show up and fo a good job. I have plenty more to say on this but tired of typing. Yeah I'm pissed. The government is the problem and the idiot voters are the cause.

[BigBull]

The way things are going soon we will all be flying the jolly roger and following the motto of ain't nothing illegal till you get caught. They are literally forcing our hand with this and its all bs. The people who makes the laws probably haven't even seen the ocean with there own eyes before.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I completely agree with you re Citizens.

However I don't see the regulatory people (and I suppose the environmental/conservation constituency) as analogous to the fat cats buying up policy makers. Those people are on the other side, the commercial side. We recreational guys are just caught in the middle.

The common theme on this (and other) fishing forums is that somehow there are people getting rich off imposing quotas on fisheries. I can't even begin to comprehend the logic of this argument. Surely the greed lies on the side of people who stand to profit off catching fish?

That's not to say that I agree with all regs. I can accept that the science is flawed in some cases, thin in others. I just find the knee-jerk reaction to any talk of regulations as "big government getting rich off us common folk" pretty hilarious.

Reason - Follow the money.... Are the people at NOAA who manage our fisheries "getting rich off us common folk" ? No, they are common folk just like you and me.... Do they eventually report up to people who are bought and paid for and are creating laws that favor Lobbyists, Special Interest Groups who all bought their favor with campaign funds.... You can bet they are. If not your head is in the sand... That's the way our political system functions.

It's not a fairly tale, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact.

The commercial guys have a very strong lobby in all the upline businesses that make billions of dollars off of what is a public resource. Do you think they don't make contributions to people who are infuencial in fighting to protect their cause? I can assure you they do. Even we as Recreation Fisherman do the same. I know for a fact that a some of the money we donate to Recreational Fishing organizations go to Lobbyists and making donations to political campaign funds and oh by the way, on both parties to cover our bets.

Does all this make it right? No!! Why should any of us on either side have to spend the money on Fat Cats that should be spent on better science...

The answer is, that is how the system works.....The Fat Cats get what they need and we get screwed based on who deposited a larger check to the person in power who was eventually elected.

It's all about money and power and to think otherwise is, to quote you, "hilarious".

[Joey Dah Fish]

[QUOTE=fishguy;398336]So you are ok with corporations being "people" and able to "donate" unlimited funds to our elected officials?
I'm not ok with that. At all.
Not for nothing, General Electric, the multi billion dollar company, doesn't pay diddly squat in taxes.[/QUOTE
Yes I am. The problem is stupid people voting. Oh and by the way the the amount of people that they all employ dump tons of money into the tax revenue. They pay healthcare pensions etc. Don't blame the companies blame the people who vote for the idiots

[makosnax]

Reason - Follow the money.... Are the people at NOAA who manage our fisheries "getting rich off us common folk" ? No, they are common folk just like you and me.... Do they eventually report up to people who are bought and paid for by Lobbyists, Special Interest Groups, all trying to buy favor with campaign funds.... You can bet they are. If not your head is in the sand... That's the way our political system functions.

It's not a fairly tale, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact.

The commercial guys have a very strong lobby in all the upline businesses that make billions of dollars off of what is a public resource. Do you think they don't make contributions to people who are infuencial in fighting to protect their cause? I can assure you they do. Even we as Recreation Fisherman do the same. I know for a fact that a some of the money we donate to Recreational Fishing organizations go to Lobbyists and making donations to political campaign funds and oh by the way, on both parties to cover our bets.

Does all this make it right? No!! Why should any of us on either side have to spend the money on Fat Cats that should be spent on better science...

The answer is, that is how the system works.....The Fat Cats get what they need and we get screwed based on who deposited a larger check to the person in power who was eventually elected.

It's all about money and power and to think otherwise is, to quote you, "hilarious".
When are we getting a "Like" button?

[Detour66]

The only way rules well be changed in our favor is for Recreational Fisherman to organize nationally like the NRA and hire lobbyist to fight for our cause. Also voting for the politicians that support us will help also. Anything else will be a waste of time and effort sorry to say !! Money and votes win every-time....bottom line and The NRA is a perfect example!

[shrimpman steve]

like. 👍

[Blackfish Doug]

I can't even begin to type all that I'm thinking now....

I guess I can sum up my frustrations and thoughts by this.

- Term limits for congress
- Vote out everyone incumbent
- Campaign reform
- Reduce the size of Govenment so there are less self serving knuckle heads
- Get lobbyisists out of Washington
- Take our country back... A government of the people, for the people and by the people.

I'm all for conservation but not based on flawed science and or who put a check into who's campaign coffers in return for Political favors.

Sorry for the rant but when are we going to learn and get away from the politics as usual mindset in this country? These guys have to be sitting back and laughing about how they are duping us all. They have all the money and we've given them all the power. Time to get off this tread mill :mad:

Your 100% percent correct but buy their flawed science you are less then 1% correct.
Take our country back buy their flawed science A government for the government, for the government & by the government.

[reason162]

Reason - Follow the money.... Are the people at NOAA who manage our fisheries "getting rich off us common folk" ? No, they are common folk just like you and me.... Do they eventually report up to people who are bought and paid for and are creating laws that favor Lobbyists, Special Interest Groups who all bought their favor with campaign funds....

This is so convoluted I don't know where to begin.

Sure, our system allows moneyed lobbying for policy. It doesn't have to be this way (plenty of Western democracies don't allow anything close to our scale of pay to play), but it's the system we have.

So when it comes to fishery regulations, cut away all the bullshit and you have two competing "special interests" locking horns: the commercial, for-profit fishery vs. the conservationists.

If the commercial guys win, they get to keep more fish; hence, they make more money. If the conservationists win, what do they get? Do they get more money? It seems to me like you're saying they do (or someone, somewhere in that camp is getting rich), and that's what I find hilarious. The argument doesn't even begin to be coherent.

[reason162]

So in your world if you done want businesses to be able to donate money's to campaigns the eliminate corporate taxes. You can't have it both ways.

Sure you can. Our campaign finance laws are a travesty, it's literally a free for all and the most money wins. If you don't see that as a problem, you don't recognize a threat to democracy when it's right in front of your face.

Many countries do just fine (better) with much stricter campaign finance laws. Many countries don't allow paid tv ads, or limit campaigning to a much shorter duration. Some countries limit spending. Almost all other Western democracies (and some not-so-democratic countries) have better transparency laws than we do.

Look at a state like Nebraska. Their 2 senators can be bought for chump change by a billionaire PAC. You think that's good for democracy? You think that tastes like freedom?

We do agree on one thing: idiot voters are the problem.

[Dino]

"in the soviet union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy." -fran lebowitz

in soviet russia.. Ling catches you!

[Gerry Zagorski]

This is so convoluted I don't know where to begin.

Sure, our system allows moneyed lobbying for policy. It doesn't have to be this way (plenty of Western democracies don't allow anything close to our scale of pay to play), but it's the system we have.

So when it comes to fishery regulations, cut away all the bullshit and you have two competing "special interests" locking horns: the commercial, for-profit fishery vs. the conservationists.

If the commercial guys win, they get to keep more fish; hence, they make more money. If the conservationists win, what do they get? Do they get more money? It seems to me like you're saying they do (or someone, somewhere in that camp is getting rich), and that's what I find hilarious. The argument doesn't even begin to be coherent.

I'm confused here but that's nothing new and I think maybe we are looking at this from a totally different perspective and we might be saying the same thing.

My argument is not about the money being made by Commercial Guys or the Conservationist. It's about how those groups can influence our political system.

Yes, the Commercial Fishing Industry makes more money if the laws and quotas are favorable to them. What I'm saying is the politicians making the laws are the ones who are profiting by taking money from their Lobbyists.

Conservationist group motives are a bit different... It's not money they are after it's promoting their ideology. If they win their conservation agenda gets advanced. However that is not to say these groups don't throw money and votes around and influence politicians making the laws just like the Commercial interests do.

[Poncho]

It's April 9th! Shouldn't we be all fishing or getting tackle or boats ready to fish! Screw all this political bullshit, JUST FISH!

[dakota560]

There's only two things any of us need to concern ourselves with. First is how do we reduce the over fishing of any fishery by commercial concerns. Technology and the amount of boats fishing these days will destroy every stock in the ocean without regulations or realistic quotas.

Second is until the powers to be deal with the above, doesn't matter what the regs are because I have no intention of following them. No going to subsidize politicians bank accounts and the commercial industry by throwing back fish that end up in nets and at the market for $20 a pound!

Sick and tired of getting it up the a&s by politicians, time to make our own rules.Property taxes, sales tax, state withholding tax, federal withholding tax, real estate transfer tax...........politicians have their greedy hands so far into every one of our bank accounts as it stands now the last thing I'm going to do is allow them to ruin a sport that every one of us has a God given right to enjoy. Not going to allow some bureaucrat in Washington or Trenton to dictate what I can and can't do with a resource which is being taken away from recreational anglers to subsidize big business profits and politicians bank accounts. When commercial concerns are reeled in, I'll play ball but until that happens it's time to take matters into our own hands. Every other aspect of our lives are negatively impacted in some way by government personally I refuse to kowtow to government in their efforts to ruin a recreational sport we've all enjoyed our entire lives. Not going to happen in this lifetime!

[Capt Sal]

I completely agree with you re Citizens.

However I don't see the regulatory people (and I suppose the environmental/conservation constituency) as analogous to the fat cats buying up policy makers. Those people are on the other side, the commercial side. We recreational guys are just caught in the middle.

The common theme on this (and other) fishing forums is that somehow there are people getting rich off imposing quotas on fisheries. I can't even begin to comprehend the logic of this argument. Surely the greed lies on the side of people who stand to profit off catching fish?

That's not to say that I agree with all regs. I can accept that the science is flawed in some cases, thin in others. I just find the knee-jerk reaction to any talk of regulations as "big government getting rich off us common folk" pretty hilarious.

The theme of this site is that people are getting rich imposing quotas on fisheries? How did you come to that conclusion? The theme is this-Fisheries management is flawed with bogus data and it is run by unqualified people. If a fishery is healthy I do not have a problem with a hard working commercial netter making a living. I do have a problem when they put stricter regulations on recs. for that same species of fish. No matter how you look at the ''big'' commercial fishing companies have more money hence more lobbyists going to Washington. Even a small mom and pop commercial business is backed up with the money of the larger commercial fleets. It took the devastation of our fishery nation wide by Russia and Japan to get the 200 mile limit in place. Until we have a President that is a salt water fisherman we are screwed. We as recreational fisherman just want our ''fair'' share and we will never be able to match the money for lobbyists that the commercial side has. This is not nation wide only coast wide. If we all and I am talking the entire nation,put the money in one pool for lobbyists we might have a chance. In the end every fish in the ocean will be regulated.
If we revamped the entire Fisheries Management and hired all new biologists where would they start? That's correct they have no data so they would still have use the flawed data. This is not only New Jersey being screwed. It is nation wide. How many people are employed by NOAA nation wide?

[fishguy]

We did have a salt water fisherman president. George Dubya was and he created the largest Marine Protected Area in the country...where fishing isn't allowed.

[fishguy]

I just want to get this straight. You think that unlimited millions of dollars being "donated" to political candidates is NOT the problem? The problem is people who engage in their Democratic duty as citizens in a Democracy by voting? Is that what you are saying? I think that's what you're saying. Soooooo...people shouldn't vote? They should vote for someone else? Not going to happen because no matter who runs the amount of money needed to compete is so huge that everyone has to play the fund raising game. As long as unlimited cash is flowing the entire system is corrupted.


[QUOTE=fishguy;398336]So you are ok with corporations being "people" and able to "donate" unlimited funds to our elected officials?
I'm not ok with that. At all.
Not for nothing, General Electric, the multi billion dollar company, doesn't pay diddly squat in taxes.[/QUOTE
Yes I am. The problem is stupid people voting. Oh and by the way the the amount of people that they all employ dump tons of money into the tax revenue. They pay healthcare pensions etc. Don't blame the companies blame the people who vote for the idiots

[dfish28]

Soooo...., anyone hear bunker are around!

[Gerry Zagorski]

I'm confused here but that's nothing new and I think maybe we are looking at this from a totally different perspective and we might be saying the same thing.

My argument is not about the money being made by Commercial Guys or the Conservationist. It's about how those groups can influence our political system.

Yes, the Commercial Fishing Industry makes more money if the laws and quotas are favorable to them. What I'm saying is the politicians making the laws are the ones who are profiting by taking money from their Lobbyists.

Conservationist group motives are a bit different... It's not money they are after it's promoting their ideology. If they win their conservation agenda gets advanced. However that is not to say these groups don't throw money and votes around and influence politicians making the laws just like the Commercial interests do.

Read this http://fishtruth.net/

[Joey Dah Fish]

I just want to get this straight. You think that unlimited millions of dollars being "donated" to political candidates is NOT the problem? The problem is people who engage in their Democratic duty as citizens in a Democracy by voting? Is that what you are saying? I think that's what you're saying. Soooooo...people shouldn't vote? They should vote for someone else? Not going to happen because no matter who runs the amount of money needed to compete is so huge that everyone has to play the fund raising game. As long as unlimited cash is flowing the entire system is corrupted.


[QUOTE=Joey Dah Fish;398346]

No I'm saying people need to vote. But not the stupid ones that just vote to line their own pockets with entitlement programs. I think if you are on the dole you should be able to vote . Except people on social security they paid in

[fishguy]

I think you are saying people "on the dole" should NOT be allowed to vote. I'm not even going there.

America, for all the chest thumping we do about Freedom and Democracy, has a pathetic voter turn out. We love us some Constitutional Rights, baseball and apple pie but as a nation we are terrible at voting. Anything approaching 55% is considered a good turn out. Just over half of eligible voters. How lame is that? And then people complain about the government. Well, you get out what you put in. In my opinion, if you don't vote than you should STFU about anything related to gov't.

[bunker dunker]

this is the same old story over and over again.we march,no change...we vote,no change.we start groups,no change.sea bass is in good shape but cut the rec guys take.is been going on for years and years.my grandfather told me way back when they put the first size limit on fluke that once they did it they would keep right on taking.

[Joey Dah Fish]

I think you are saying people "on the dole" should NOT be allowed to vote. I'm not even going there.

America, for all the chest thumping we do about Freedom and Democracy, has a pathetic voter turn out. We love us some Constitutional Rights, baseball and apple pie but as a nation we are terrible at voting. Anything approaching 55% is considered a good turn out. Just over half of eligible voters. How lame is that? And then people complain about the government. Well, you get out what you put in. In my opinion, if you don't vote than you should STFU about anything related to gov't.

That's correct people on the role should not be able to vote period. They have no skin in the game they shouldn't be able to vote for an increase in the pay check they don't work for period. You should have to be a contributing to society citizen period :D

[Capt Sal]

It should be mandatory that everyone that the right to vote ''must'' vote.

[Joey Dah Fish]

It should be mandatory that everyone that the right to vote ''must'' vote.

That's communism. Not freedom.

[fishguy]

That's communism. Not freedom.

Umm, I don't think you know what communism is.

Compulsory voting is fairly common in some western democracies. As much as I fear the general stupidity of the average American I think mandatory voting for every eligible voter could be a good thing. Make Election Day a national holiday so nobody has the excuse of having to work.

As for not letting anyone "on the dole" vote, you mean anyone getting gov't assistance, right? So no welfare recipients, anyone getting food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, social security, unemployment, disability, gov't student loans or tax credits (which might as well be counted as a handout)
Who's left?

[shresearchdude]

Well I had a big rant ready but then got timed out....just as well.

Fishguy nailed it when he pointed out what GW stood for and followed thru on.
Federal budgets continue to shrink. Federal research continues to shrink. If you want more science that is better? well -there are fewer conducting it.

For those that think that NOAA are a bunch of bozos? well that's just a bit wrong. But you have the freedom to say what you want.

[Capt Sal]

That's communism. Not freedom.

Joey you are more educated than to make a statement like that. Not even close to communism! I think we are getting off the subject of a government run program with appointed positions in a nation wide travesty.

[Capt Sal]

Well I had a big rant ready but then got timed out....just as well.

Fishguy nailed it when he pointed out what GW stood for and followed thru on.
Federal budgets continue to shrink. Federal research continues to shrink. If you want more science that is better? well -there are fewer conducting it.

For those that think that NOAA are a bunch of bozos? well that's just a bit wrong. But you have the freedom to say what you want.

I do no not think that everyone that works for Noaa is a dumby. There are some very educated people on the staff. A few people taking notes about what the daily catch was will not help.Do you think the science is flawed? Do you think the entire system should be revamped? I am sure the research you do helps but is it used properly? I consider myself a fairly educated individual with some college back ground and I have been to numerous meetings. More politics than science is what I heard. I went to a meeting in NY on bunker. I was told by a biologist the reason for the decline in bunker was the guys throwing cast nets! He was eighty years old and did not know what a bunker reduction vessel was! That's flawed and how did he get the job?

[bunker dunker]

I think what is being said here is that as free Americans we should not be forced to do anything against our will{with in the laws].why dose this always happen when we speak of the limits and laws of our beloved sport.could our
government have some corrupt members???could the government just not care about the businesses that have made a living for 2 or 3 generations in the recreational fishing market????.why are we never heard???why do they tell us that certain fish stocks are in the best shape ever and still cut the limits???

[Gerry Zagorski]

Well I had a big rant ready but then got timed out....just as well.

Fishguy nailed it when he pointed out what GW stood for and followed thru on.
Federal budgets continue to shrink. Federal research continues to shrink. If you want more science that is better? well -there are fewer conducting it.

For those that think that NOAA are a bunch of bozos? well that's just a bit wrong. But you have the freedom to say what you want.

John - I hope you don't take all the rants here about NOAA personally. I don't think they are directed at the people like you doing the work. It's directed at the people who are making decisions on the regulations based on flawed science rather then the people who attend these meetings and fish day in and day out.

One blatant example is Sea Bass... The science would say the stock is in decline but you can hardly drop a clam down on any lump and avoid one from taking the hook. Heck, they are so thick a hack like me could easily fill my limit and more :)

I have no doubt that there are fewer people conducting science as it relates to stock assessments. However, with NOAA having a 2015 budget of $5.5 billion and 12000 employees, you'd think we'd be capable of doing a better job of assessing fish stocks. If not, the money and resources are not being allocated correctly.