Last Nights Galloway Meeting....

[Capt John]

A few thoughts about the meeting last night pertaining to the proposed 2017 fluke reg's...

First off, nice to see Gerry at the entrance of the meeting room. Haven't talked to him in awhile. (old friend from our Sea School days).

Next, having the meeting, which I'm sure they knew was going to be a massive turnout, in a library which seats only 90 people was a joke.

The meeting was broken down to "questions and comments" sections after Kirby gave his dog and pony slide show trying to justify NOAA's ludicrous numbers and what the options that we are going to be force fed....sorry that's not going to happen.

I had to laugh when I saw the slide showing the "exact" number of fluke caught in NJ in 2016. How the hell did they come up with that? I'm sure not based upon any numbers I gave Quantech in the survey's they have me take during my fluke fishing season. They don't even ask me ANYTHING about quantity of fish from my trips.....so I know that number was pure pull it out of the hat bogus guesstimate.

The comments part of the meeting was the best as numerous organizations gave their thoughts....people with real numbers that can be proven. I got up their toward the end and said my piece telling those who wanted my input that after my spring Striper season comes to a close, I might as well shinkwrap the boat for the next 4 months as who the hell is going to hire me at 2 fish per angler?

Bottom line....this WHOLE process is total BULL****. Now you know why many business concerns don't even attend these meetings any more...they know the cards are stacked against them with all this bureaucracy. Are you aware there are 14 agencies with their hands on dictating weather or not I can fish here in NJ?

Here you go...(this is an email from a very reliable source)

“Under NOAA, you have:
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Commission),
GARFO (Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office)
MRIP (Marine Regional Information Program)
SAW (NE Regional Stock Assessment Workshop)
NEFSC. (Northeast Fisheries Science Center)
MAFMC (Mid Atlantic Marine Fisheries Council there are...Species Committees
The Scientific and Statistical Committee Advisory Panels.. includes 29 members
Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT includes GARFO, MAFMC, NEFSC, ASMFC),
Monitoring Committee for the FMAT. (Reps from each state, SAMFC, NEFSC, MAFMC, ASMFC, NMFS, US FISH & WILDLIFE) I suspect there are similar department structures for ASMFC and the NE COUNCIL.

As you can see this is a complicated bureaucracy. Add the fact that there does not appear to be anyone to specify what project goals are, set a timeline with a due dates and keep the process on track, it’s not surprising that they have been working on this for 30 years without any results.

In my opinion, the management issues overshadow the poor data issues, which is, on it’s own a big one.”

Now on to my comment of the day.....

The anglers aren’t killing the fluke fishing in NJ, these mismanaged agencies are. Let’s place the blame where it really belongs.

You know, just a few months ago I was seriously thinking about going to a bigger boat...but not now! When you see how the inner workings of this whole process works, and how delicate survival in the "for-hire" business is, making long range business plans is just about impossible. The boat that I have will do for now. Sad....very sad. I wanted to give my people, me and the crew some added comfort and add more days on the water, but looks like that's never going to happen.

[Rocky]

When I really started to look into where all of this data is coming from it blew my mind how many different agencies had their hands in the pie. You know what they say about too many cooks in the kitchen, unfortunately for us fisherman they are expecting us to eat this crap they are serving us.

[bunker dunker]

so what your saying is"9" government appointed agencies{or gov. recognized}
are on the pay roll to manage the fluke fishery here in n.j.????hhmmmm:rolleyes:

[gnuisance]

I'll likely be a minority on this one but I'm glad that fluke are being protected. Far too many fisheries have been raped to destruction around here. The notion that fisherman are going to protect the fishery is laughable. How's the winter flounder fishing these days? Weakfish? Whiting?

If there is any a shred of doubt about the sustainability of this fishery then roll the limits, size and season back. Roll it all back. That goes for commercial and rec. Do you see the fleets of boats that hammer the channels in the summer day after day after day? Do you think that's sustainable?

Guys who have a dollar on the line never see the big picture. They see their next fare, next trip, next season. It's a lot bigger than that.

[bulletbob]

I'll likely be a minority on this one but I'm glad that fluke are being protected. Far too many fisheries have been raped to destruction around here. The notion that fisherman are going to protect the fishery is laughable. How's the winter flounder fishing these days? Weakfish? Whiting?

If there is any a shred of doubt about the sustainability of this fishery then roll the limits, size and season back. Roll it all back. That goes for commercial and rec. Do you see the fleets of boats that hammer the channels in the summer day after day after day? Do you think that's sustainable?

Guys who have a dollar on the line never see the big picture. They see their next fare, next trip, next season. It's a lot bigger than that.

I understand your opinion, and I believe we can agree on a few things actually. However, by your post I assume that you are pretty much open to outlawing fishing if conditions warrant it.. fine.. let it be.. I will go catch sunnies, perch, maybe a laker or walleye here or there.. However, I want the EXACT SAME draconian regulations imposed on our friends that fish commercially, no matter how they do it.. NO "breaks", NO "bending the rules", NO "bycatch".. Hit as hard as we are- period. Whiting were killed with nets for pennies a pound decades ago.. Same with Weaks, same with Cod.. Winter Flounder?, we recs helped no doubt because of the ease of getting to where they live.. Tog?... There were plenty until the pot fishing, and "live market" pin hooking started, when people decided that $10-$15 was a fair price to pay for a small living Blackfish, and guys would happily go catch them by the hundreds every day they could get out.. Still doing it actually, regulations be damned.. Here's the bottom line-It was commercials in whatever form that did the lions share of damage.. So,, shut salt water fishing down completely??.. No problem,, but that means NO ONE FISHES.. NO "commercial exemptions"... When all the fish populations are rebuilt, we hold the commercials to the same tough to accept standards as the recs.. The populations will stay stable forever... bob

[AndyS]

My understanding is that there were around 140 in attendance, that is a very low number. There must be at least that amount of charter and party boat owners in the Sandy Hook area alone.
Another question is are the people making the fluke quotas the same people making the Bluefin Tuna, Black Sea Bass and Blueline Tilefish quotas ? If these people can't get a handle on fluke how can they possibly be trusted handling all the fish.

[Capt John]

I'll likely be a minority on this one but I'm glad that fluke are being protected. Far too many fisheries have been raped to destruction around here. The notion that fisherman are going to protect the fishery is laughable. How's the winter flounder fishing these days? Weakfish? Whiting?

If there is any a shred of doubt about the sustainability of this fishery then roll the limits, size and season back. Roll it all back. That goes for commercial and rec. Do you see the fleets of boats that hammer the channels in the summer day after day after day? Do you think that's sustainable?

Guys who have a dollar on the line never see the big picture. They see their next fare, next trip, next season. It's a lot bigger than that.

I agree with you totally....but let's regulate with "factual" information and not "estimates" as I'm told even by the agencies dictating policy.

Everyone, including myself as well as most for hire's, wants a vibrant fishery for all species, but it has to be done in such a way as to maintain a healthy economic climate too. Are you aware of the massive ripple-down effect this will have on the shore communities and all the business that it will affect? Devastating to say the least!

Look, I don't take fish for the sake of killing. I ALWAYS urge my customers to "return" fish that they will not use for the dinner table. We've released many, many Striped Bass to swim another day but as paying customers, I am forced to oblige their wishes if the "insist" on killing a prized fish....bass or fluke. I can't count how many doormats I've released. Most of my anglers are, God bless them, catch and release fisherman. I am a very responsible person.

So, yes, I am totally in lock-step with "reasonable" limits to sustain a healthy fishery as you are, but from what I can see the numerous agencies monitoring and setting policy on ALL the recreationals are putting everyone under enormous burdens. One word for what I'm looking for....balance.

[Gerry Zagorski]

A few thoughts about the meeting last night pertaining to the proposed 2017 fluke reg's...

First off, nice to see Gerry at the entrance of the meeting room. Haven't talked to him in awhile. (old friend from our Sea School days).

Next, having the meeting, which I'm sure they knew was going to be a massive turnout, in a library which seats only 90 people was a joke.

The meeting was broken down to "questions and comments" sections after Kirby gave his dog and pony slide show trying to justify NOAA's ludicrous numbers and what the options that we are going to be force fed....sorry that's not going to happen.

I had to laugh when I saw the slide showing the "exact" number of fluke caught in NJ in 2016. How the hell did they come up with that? I'm sure not based upon any numbers I gave Quantech in the survey's they have me take during my fluke fishing season. They don't even ask me ANYTHING about quantity of fish from my trips.....so I know that number was pure pull it out of the hat bogus guesstimate.

The comments part of the meeting was the best as numerous organizations gave their thoughts....people with real numbers that can be proven. I got up their toward the end and said my piece telling those who wanted my input that after my spring Striper season comes to a close, I might as well shinkwrap the boat for the next 4 months as who the hell is going to hire me at 2 fish per angler?

Bottom line....this WHOLE process is total BULL****. Now you know why many business concerns don't even attend these meetings any more...they know the cards are stacked against them with all this bureaucracy. Are you aware there are 14 agencies with their hands on dictating weather or not I can fish here in NJ?

Here you go...(this is an email from a very reliable source)

“Under NOAA, you have:
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Commission),
GARFO (Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office)
MRIP (Marine Regional Information Program)
SAW (NE Regional Stock Assessment Workshop)
NEFSC. (Northeast Fisheries Science Center)
MAFMC (Mid Atlantic Marine Fisheries Council there are...Species Committees
The Scientific and Statistical Committee Advisory Panels.. includes 29 members
Fishery Management Action Team (FMAT includes GARFO, MAFMC, NEFSC, ASMFC),
Monitoring Committee for the FMAT. (Reps from each state, SAMFC, NEFSC, MAFMC, ASMFC, NMFS, US FISH & WILDLIFE) I suspect there are similar department structures for ASMFC and the NE COUNCIL.

As you can see this is a complicated bureaucracy. Add the fact that there does not appear to be anyone to specify what project goals are, set a timeline with a due dates and keep the process on track, it’s not surprising that they have been working on this for 30 years without any results.

In my opinion, the management issues overshadow the poor data issues, which is, on it’s own a big one.”

Now on to my comment of the day.....

The anglers aren’t killing the fluke fishing in NJ, these mismanaged agencies are. Let’s place the blame where it really belongs.

You know, just a few months ago I was seriously thinking about going to a bigger boat...but not now! When you see how the inner workings of this whole process works, and how delicate survival in the "for-hire" business is, making long range business plans is just about impossible. The boat that I have will do for now. Sad....very sad. I wanted to give my people, me and the crew some added comfort and add more days on the water, but looks like that's never going to happen.

Great to see you too John... A major victory last night for sure. It all started in the 430 meeting when Bob Rush on the NJ Marine Fisherman's Council who also happens to be on the Board of the NJRFA made a motion to to reject all the options that were being forced down our throats.

The 6:30 public comment meeting was the icing on the cake. Everyone who spoke stayed right on point to tell the council and the council agreed that none of the 5 options were acceptable since the science and methods used for stock assessments is flawed and can't be trusted.

We have a long battle and a lot of work in front of us here but I'm glad we and the 2 councils had the courage to finally take a stand.

It's certainly not over yet and there will be a lot of maneuvering and political pressure needed, but I'm pretty confident we are on the right path to have a good chance of saving of 2017 Fluke fishing season a forcing some much needed change.

Thanks to all who showed up to support our stance and I very much look forward to continuing the fight with you all.

[Sullivan]

I counted 98 people in the small room . I cannot say if it was a joke or not , but one thing I know is that most people were from an organization , or from south Jersey , Delaware bay area . So as far as the carpooling , 1000 people , and the rest of the crap I've been reading here , made for the best joke of the night !

[Gerry Zagorski]

I'll likely be a minority on this one but I'm glad that fluke are being protected. Far too many fisheries have been raped to destruction around here. The notion that fisherman are going to protect the fishery is laughable. How's the winter flounder fishing these days? Weakfish? Whiting?

If there is any a shred of doubt about the sustainability of this fishery then roll the limits, size and season back. Roll it all back. That goes for commercial and rec. Do you see the fleets of boats that hammer the channels in the summer day after day after day? Do you think that's sustainable?

Guys who have a dollar on the line never see the big picture. They see their next fare, next trip, next season. It's a lot bigger than that.

I think I speak for most here when I say we all support a managed fishery and the long term sustainability of the Fluke stocks. We can't however base our regulations on estimated landings and bio mass that are known to be flawed. It also does not make any sense to continue with regulations that have anglers targeting larger fish which are all breeders. Common sense tells you that taking them out of the population has a negative effect on rebuilding the stocks..

Lastly, people a lot smarter then me and who have been intimately involved in the process that serve on the Atlantic and NJ Fisheries Councils are in agreement. The process is broken and no one has any confidence that the science we've been using and the management path we've been on is the right one. They too have had enough and are ready to make a stand.

[gnuisance]

I understand your opinion, and I believe we can agree on a few things actually. However, by your post I assume that you are pretty much open to outlawing fishing if conditions warrant it.. fine.. let it be.. I will go catch sunnies, perch, maybe a laker or walleye here or there.. However, I want the EXACT SAME draconian regulations imposed on our friends that fish commercially, no matter how they do it.. NO "breaks", NO "bending the rules", NO "bycatch".. Hit as hard as we are- period. Whiting were killed with nets for pennies a pound decades ago.. Same with Weaks, same with Cod.. Winter Flounder?, we recs helped no doubt because of the ease of getting to where they live.. Tog?... There were plenty until the pot fishing, and "live market" pin hooking started, when people decided that $10-$15 was a fair price to pay for a small living Blackfish, and guys would happily go catch them by the hundreds every day they could get out.. Still doing it actually, regulations be damned.. Here's the bottom line-It was commercials in whatever form that did the lions share of damage.. So,, shut salt water fishing down completely??.. No problem,, but that means NO ONE FISHES.. NO "commercial exemptions"... When all the fish populations are rebuilt, we hold the commercials to the same tough to accept standards as the recs.. The populations will stay stable forever... bob

I agree with you bob. Commercial fisherman should have the same quota cuts that recreational anglers do and by catch should be much more closely regulated. Unfortunately commercial fisherman are much better organized than we are. And no, I don't agree with outlawing fishing except as an absolute last resort. Even then, limiting to catch and release should be considered. And hey guess what you can have a ton of fun catching and releasing fluke. They don't have to all end up in the hot grease.


I agree with you totally....but let's regulate with "factual" information and not "estimates" as I'm told even by the agencies dictating policy.

Everyone, including myself as well as most for hire's, wants a vibrant fishery for all species, but it has to be done in such a way as to maintain a healthy economic climate too. Are you aware of the massive ripple-down effect this will have on the shore communities and all the business that it will affect? Devastating to say the least!

Look, I don't take fish for the sake of killing. I ALWAYS urge my customers to "return" fish that they will not use for the dinner table. We've released many, many Striped Bass to swim another day but as paying customers, I am forced to oblige their wishes if the "insist" on killing a prized fish....bass or fluke. I can't count how many doormats I've released. Most of my anglers are, God bless them, catch and release fisherman. I am a very responsible person.

So, yes, I am totally in lock-step with "reasonable" limits to sustain a healthy fishery as you are, but from what I can see the numerous agencies monitoring and setting policy on ALL the recreationals are putting everyone under enormous burdens. One word for what I'm looking for....balance.

To me the questionable science argument sounds a lot like oil companies questioning climate change. They are always going to be able to challenge the science and in turn, produce their own with a more advantageous slant for them. I agree that the bureaucracy is out of control but I don't agree that the goal of these agencies is to end fishing. I'd like to think they actually have an interest in protecting the fish, maybe I'm naive.

[NoLimit]

I'll likely be a minority on this one but I'm glad that fluke are being protected. Far too many fisheries have been raped to destruction around here. The notion that fisherman are going to protect the fishery is laughable. How's the winter flounder fishing these days? Weakfish? Whiting?

If there is any a shred of doubt about the sustainability of this fishery then roll the limits, size and season back. Roll it all back. That goes for commercial and rec. Do you see the fleets of boats that hammer the channels in the summer day after day after day? Do you think that's sustainable?

Guys who have a dollar on the line never see the big picture. They see their next fare, next trip, next season. It's a lot bigger than that.

BWAHAHAHA - So how has that Bureaucratic Protection of your fisheries doing over the last 30 years. Nothing like beating your head against the wall with the same No Results strategy. Doesnt it occur to you that your "protection" has been broken for 30 years and its time to fix it? Finally where did you ever get the idea that recreational fisherman ever had any affect on a fishery? You have done Zero research on such things as juvenile mortality from trawling, bycatch losses, and destruction of habitat with industrial commercial fishing techniques

[NoLimit]

I counted 98 people in the small room . I cannot say if it was a joke or not , but one thing I know is that most people were from an organization , or from south Jersey , Delaware bay area . So as far as the carpooling , 1000 people , and the rest of the crap I've been reading here , made for the best joke of the night !

Lots of people saw the room restriction and decided not to go.

[gnuisance]

BWAHAHAHA - So how has that Bureaucratic Protection of your fisheries doing over the last 30 years. Nothing like beating your head against the wall with the same No Results strategy. Doesnt it occur to you that your "protection" has been broken for 30 years and its time to fix it? Finally where did you ever get the idea that recreational fisherman ever had any affect on a fishery? You have done Zero research on such things as juvenile mortality from trawling, bycatch losses, and destruction of habitat with industrial commercial fishing techniques

I'm actually a conservative on lots of things so please don't paint me into a corner. Environmental issues however require regulation. I guess you think we'd be better off with zero management???

[Gerry Zagorski]

I'm actually a conservative on lots of things so please don't paint me into a corner. Environmental issues however require regulation. I guess you think we'd be better off with zero management???

Yes let's not paint someone into a corner and start political name calling...

See my prior comments on your question about zero management.


"I think I speak for most here when I say we all support a managed fishery and the long term sustainability of the Fluke stocks. We can't however base our regulations on estimated landings and bio mass that are known to be flawed. It also does not make any sense to continue with regulations that have anglers targeting larger fish which are all breeders. Common sense tells you that taking them out of the population has a negative effect on rebuilding the stocks..

Lastly, people a lot smarter then me and who have been intimately involved in the process that serve on the Atlantic and NJ Fisheries Councils are in agreement. The process is broken and no one has any confidence that the science we've been using and the management path we've been on is the right one. They too have had enough and are ready to make a stand.

[hammer4reel]

Was an OK turnout.
Many of the same faces who also Marched on Washington.
But I was VERY surprised that most of the for hire Captains who's livelyhood depends on this fishery were not at this meeting.

was happy to see the council finally draw a line in the sand

[Capt Sal]

My understanding is that there were around 140 in attendance, that is a very low number. There must be at least that amount of charter and party boat owners in the Sandy Hook area alone.
Another question is are the people making the fluke quotas the same people making the Bluefin Tuna, Black Sea Bass and Blueline Tilefish quotas ? If these people can't get a handle on fluke how can they possibly be trusted handling all the fish.
The for hire people were supposed to jam themselves into a small library that holds 90 people. They have been doing there part from day one. How many do you think it held and if 5,000 people showed up they would be standing outside and never be heard!

[hammer4reel]

The for hire people were supposed to jam themselves into a small library that holds 90 people. They have been doing there part from day one. How many do you think it held and if 5,000 people showed up they would be standing outside and never be heard!

Sal IF 5000 people showed up their voice would have been heard well above those of us that did show up.
as it would have hit local press and possibly nationwide.
Sure seems plenty of for hire owners do ALOT of crying here in the board, yet when a chance to have their voice heard happens and they dont show makes no sense.

Many of us took time off of work and traveled a far distance to support the industry.
while others that live an hour away who arent even working right now didnt show.

[Capt Sal]

Sal IF 5000 people showed up their voice would have been heard well above those of us that did show up.
as it would have hit local press and possibly nationwide.
Sure seems plenty of for hire owners do ALOT of crying here in the board, yet when a chance to have their voice heard happens and they dont show makes no sense.

Many of us took time off of work and traveled a far distance to support the industry.
while others that live an hour away who arent even working right now didnt show.

Should be held at the Raritan Expo and more media coverage. I have been to many of these meetings and none were in a big building or near the Metro Politan area. Galloway Twp at a library is not the way to go.

[dakota560]

Should be held at the Raritan Expo and more media coverage. I have been to many of these meetings and none were in a big building or near the Metro Politan area. Galloway Twp at a library is not the way to go.

There have been impassioned posts from Party Boat Captains and For Hire guys about how if the proposed options are passed they'll be out of business. There's also been more information posted about this past Thursday meeting about car pooling, arranging transportation and getting a huge turn out for the meeting. Even though the turnout felt good based on the seating capacity of the library, it's an embarrassment how few people actually attended. And it appeared the people who had most to lose were the people who failed to attend, voice their concern and show their support. It's exactly why the recreational community gets screwed every year, because everyone wants to bitch and moan but when it counts we fold. Your comments "The library wasn't the way to go" is a crock of shit quite frankly. You know NJMFC and or ASMFC probably book it this way to minimize public attendance but if they scheduled this meeting outside in the parking lot based on what's at stake 1,000 people from this site alone should have attended and every Party and Charter operator should have made an effort to be there. Recreational anglers have no lobbyists and are not well funded, all we have is our voice when an opportunity presents itself and if we can't organize that then we deserve the fate handed down from the powers to be. If it ends up being 2 fish at 19 inches, I for one don't want to see one post from a Party Boat or For Hire Captain. You had your chance and decided it wasn't worth the effort to speak your piece of mind and support the cause.

People had their chance to overwhelm the Council which would have been headline news somewhere. Of all the members and sponsors on this site alone only a handful attended which is an embarrassment. The people who had the courage to speak, knowing how difficult it is for most people to speak in front of a large group, have my utmost respect for putting themselves out there and standing up for their convictions. For you to suggest The Galloway Library is not the way to go because of it's size is a bullshit excuse for people to sit on their ass and an insult to the people who decided to go, have their voice heard and try to make a difference.

There's been more information shared, more effort made by a handful of people on this site to help avoid a complete disaster when NMFS makes their decision in a month or so. What have you done other than being a critical observer to help the cause? If we all followed your logic no one would have attended the meeting because of venue size and the comments sent back to NMFS would have been the public supports the 5 options because no one attended the meeting. It's exactly that perspective which is killing the recreational angling community.

If people don't want to get involved in what was arguably one of the most important meetings regarding fluke in years then don't but as I've said when the hammer falls don't waste anyone's time bitching about how unfair NOAA / NMFS is because your lack of support gave NMFS exactly what they hoped for to shove another set of cuts down our throats. And when fluke season rolls around and the parking lots are empty and all the boats on Party Boat row are still in their slips, reread this thread and ask yourself how that happened.

[NoLimit]

The leftist press, academia, and politicians hate the lifestyle of hunters and fishermen. Do not think that reasoning with them will work. They despise this sort of rugged individualism and want everyone eating out of a box. A case in point is the girl in Wisconsin who bagged a nice buck and was humiliated in school by her teacher and principal. She actually said " people don't kill things". It got zero attention in the press and the politicians did nothing.

If you want action you need to take advantage of the new administration in DC.

[Blackfish Doug]

I want to thank everyone who came to that meeting & put in their educated opinion. I hope your fight goes over well & you all get positive results.

[hammer4reel]

Sal it appears that Galloway is the normal meeting spot for these meetings throughout the year

2017
January 5 (at Galloway)

March 2 (At Stafford Twp. Municipal Bldg., 260 East Bay Avenue, Manahawkin, NJ 08050)

May 4 ( at Galloway)

July13 ( at Galloway)

September 7 (At Stafford Twp. Municipal Bldg.. 260 East Bay Avenue, Manahawkin, NJ 08050)

November 2(at Galloway)

[dakota560]

The thread 2017 Fluke Regulations NJ public Meeting by dales529 was posted on 12/23/16, a full two weeks before the meeting informing everyone about the importance of attending. There were almost 5,000 views of that thread. There are ~5,000 members of this site. The owner of the site posted to draw attention to the importance of the meeting and I'd be surprised if there were 10 people from NJF who attended including the 100 or so Party Boat and For Hire Captains who regularly post here. Its the bane of the recreational communities existence. Bitch and moan about the resource being taken away from us but when there's an effort to organize our voice no one gives a shit. I'm sure the guys who didn't attend will like Capt Sal have every bullshit reason why it wouldn't have mattered either way but it's that prevailing attitude which will ultimately cost us the resource.

So Capt. Sal to your point if the meeting was held at Jacob Javitz Convention Center we would have had what maybe 10,000 people attend because there was adequate seating? Then you would have posted traveling into the city is just too far away. Point is there are people willing to get off their ass and try and then there's guys who want everyone else to do the work for their benefit while they sit back and spew every possible bullshit reason why things won't work out. If you adhere to that philosophy you already lost and while your entitled to your own opinion don't insult the people trying to make a difference along the way with your obtuse opinion.

[Rocky]

I had a choice to attend the meeting and try to make a difference, or not to attend the meeting and make no difference....I was there!

[Capt Sal]

The thread 2017 Fluke Regulations NJ public Meeting by dales529 was posted on 12/23/16, a full two weeks before the meeting informing everyone about the importance of this meeting. There were almost 5,000 views of that thread. There are ~5,000 members of this site. The owner of the site posted to draw attention to the importance of the meeting and I'd be surprised if there were 10 people from NJF who attended including the 100 or so Party Boat and For Hire Captains who regularly post here. Its the bane of the recreational communities existence. Bitch and moan about the resource being taken away from us but when there's an effort to organize our voice no one gives a shit. I'm sure the guys who didn't attend will like Capt Sal have every bullshit reason why it wouldn't have mattered either way but it's that prevailing attitude which will ultimately cost us the resource.

So Capt. Sal to your point if the meeting was held at Jacob Javitz Convention Center we would have had what maybe 10,000 people attend because there was adequate seating? Then you would have posted traveling into the city is just too far away. Point is there are people willing to get off their ass and try and then there's guys who want everyone else to do the work for their benefit while they sit back and spew every possible bullshit reason why things won't work out. If you adhere to that philosophy you already lost and while your entitled to your own opinion don't insult the people trying to make a difference along the way with your obtuse opinion.
I don't care what you think. They always pick the place.You attack party boat owners?You have all the answers. If you went your a hero? Things are being done to fight this so get off your high horse.I never said we lost.It will take alot but what you don't realize is that this is nation wide and the meeting you went to was small. It was not an insult.Maybe you should use your energy and copy and paste what Jim Hutchinson writes about this. I think he is a little more qualified than yourself?

[dakota560]

If you don't like what I write or can't accept opinions other than your own, don't read my posts. All guys like you do is piss and moan and when someone challenges your position you get defensive and deflect. Small meeting so again I guess no one should have attended and like I said the NJMFC would most likely not initiated the motion to reject all five options. As the saying goes, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" And yes I think it's a disgrace there wasn't strong representation from the Party and For Hire audience on this site. I know there are many who share that opinion in spite of what you might think.

If these regulations go through, I lose a past time. If they pass guys like you who have a business involved stand to lose a lot more. Same guys who will be the first to post when their livelihood is taken away. So from my perspective stop grousing, if your not willing to do anything and attend what was arguably the most important fluke meeting in recent years to voice opposition to the proposals then don't whine when the hammer falls. Like I said, if you don't appreciate my comments or find them offensive, don't read them. It really won't ruin my day.

[Capt. Lou]

[QUOTE=dakota560;471543]The thread 2017 Fluke Regulations NJ public Meeting by dales529 was posted on 12/23/16, a full two weeks before the meeting informing everyone about the importance of this meeting. There were almost 5,000 views of that thread. There are ~5,000 members of this site. The owner of the site posted to draw attention to the importance of the meeting and I'd be surprised if there were 10 people from NJF who attended including the 100 or so Party Boat and For Hire Captains who regularly post here. Its the bane of the recreational communities existence. Bitch and moan about the resource being taken away from us but when there's an effort to organize our voice no one gives a shit. I'm sure the guys who didn't attend will like Capt Sal have every bullshit reason why it wouldn't have mattered either way but it's that prevailing attitude which will ultimately cost us the resource.

So Capt. Sal to your point if the meeting was held at Jacob Javitz Convention Center we would have had what maybe 10,000 people attend because there was adequate seating? Then you would have posted traveling into the city is just too far away. Point is there are people willing to get off their ass and try and then there's guys who want everyone else to do the work for their benefit while they sit back and spew every possible bullshit reason why things won't work out. If you adhere to that philosophy you already lost and while your entitled to your own opinion don't insult the people trying to make a difference along the way with your obtuse opinion

[Oceanroamer]

If it was to be a major center and only a couple hundred showed up, it would look empty and have the reverse affect. Instead it looked jammed in small place and the headline can be that it's overcrowded.... So I don't think it can be too big of a place. But something a little better. Maybe hold 500?

I don't understand why more people don't go. There are tons of fishermen that live within twenty minutes. The industry shops, charters and other businesses were not represented well enough either.

It is also good that lots of people spoke. Rather than just say "I agree with so and so." People gave heartfelt thoughts and while some themes get repeated which is great. Fresh views come up with each passing moment.

[reason162]

I don't understand why more people don't go.

One reason could be not every angler is opposed to the proposed regulations, or think the science/data is fatally flawed. Some anglers might think erring on the side of caution is not a terrible idea.

These people might be in the minority, or maybe this forum is structured in a way that gives that impression; hence the surprise that not everyone actually agrees with showing up at this meeting and blasting the "gov'mnt bureaucrats" and calling for their heads.

Other forums have a decidedly more diverse set of opinions, which probably reflects more accurately the makeup of a northeastern state's fishing population.

[Rocky]

One reason could be not every angler is opposed to the proposed regulations, or think the science/data is fatally flawed. Some anglers might think erring on the side of caution is not a terrible idea.

These people might be in the minority, or maybe this forum is structured in a way that gives that impression; hence the surprise that not everyone actually agrees with showing up at this meeting and blasting the "gov'mnt bureaucrats" and calling for their heads.

Other forums have a decidedly more diverse set of opinions, which probably reflects more accurately the makeup of a northeastern state's fishing population.

You are the first person I ever heard that agreed with the way the science is collected and you are obviously willing to go along with it from what you wrote. That is amazing because I would really like to know your in-depth views on this issue because as you said the people that agree with the restrictions are few.
I honestly would be one of the first to dry dock my boat to save a fishery, but in this case I don't think that would fix anything.

[Gerry Zagorski]

One reason could be not every angler is opposed to the proposed regulations, or think the science/data is fatally flawed. Some anglers might think erring on the side of caution is not a terrible idea.

These people might be in the minority, or maybe this forum is structured in a way that gives that impression; hence the surprise that not everyone actually agrees with showing up at this meeting and blasting the "gov'mnt bureaucrats" and calling for their heads.

Other forums have a decidedly more diverse set of opinions, which probably reflects more accurately the makeup of a northeastern state's fishing population.

2 Fishery Councils, NJ and Atlantic (coast wide) think otherwise and they have way more collective knowledge of our Fluke fishery and the science then most... I think I'll trust their judgement on this since the easy out for both councils would have been to accept the regulations being handed down from the NFMS as is... They did not.


And check this out

Most of the reporting in the media about commercial fishing and declining stocks in the Northeast dwells on how dire the situation has become with the fault generally attributed to fishermen and “overfishing.”

The view on the waterfront is very different however. Fishermen have long maintained that there is a huge disconnect between what they see on the water and the conclusions derived from the NOAA surveys and stock assessments. Their claims have been dismissed as self-serving. Now it seems the fishermen have a strong case. On a recent bottom trawl survey, a typical industry net caught four times as many flatfish as the rig used on the government trawl surveys.

For years fishermen have clamored for more collaborative research using industry vessels. They were largely ignored. But in August, Dr. Bill Karp, director of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, revealed a plan for NOAA Fisheries to shift all or part of its trawl surveys from its research vessel, the Henry B. Bigelow, to commercial fishing boats. At the same time, from August 7-21 the Point Judith fishing vessel Karen Elizabeth was at sea conducting a twin-trawl survey on behalf of the Science Center with a team of scientists working alongside the crew.

The boat was rigged to tow two nets simultaneously, each of the type used on the Bigelow, with one significant difference. One net was fitted with a rockhopper and the other had a chain sweep. Because different fish species behave differently, fishermen use a chain sweep, attached to the leading edge of the net and in contact with the sea floor, when targeting flatfish such as witch flounder. These fish hide in the sediment on soft bottom to evade predators. You will hear fishermen refer to fishing boats with rockhoppers as “hard bottom boats” because those boats typically go after other species such as cod and haddock which tend to be found over rocky or gravel bottom.

The Bigelow uses a rockhopper on every tow, despite surveying in our multispecies fishery. That is because this gear allows nets to be towed across a variety of habitats. A net equipped with a chain sweep is prone to snag on a rocky bottom. Its exclusive use of a rockhopper has been a point of contention with the fishermen since the Bigelow commenced operations in these waters. Fishermen openly questioned its accuracy in estimating flatfish abundance. The survey work on the Karen Elizabeth has provided the evidence that their skepticism is well founded. Here are some relevant quotes taken from the Science Center’s own paper, authored by the scientists who were on the Karen Elizabeth to conduct the study:

“On average, catch rates in the experimental chain sweep gear were about 4-fold the catch rates of the rockhopper sweep gear used on the standard survey.”
And here are some actual figures, also taken directly from the report: “A total of 53,495 witch flounder were caught during the 118 representative tows of the twin trawl, with 43,789 caught in the net with the experimental chain sweep and 10,706 caught in the net with the rockhopper sweep.”

These observations come as no surprise to the industry but it is startling to consider that our groundfishermen, many of whom are in straitened circumstances because of low catch limits, are constrained by surveys that are evidently underestimating stock abundance by a large factor, certainly with respect to witch flounder which were the principal focus of this study and more than likely with some of the other flounders such as yellowtail.

Chris Roebuck, owner and captain of the Karen Elizabeth told me that the witch flounder (fishermen know them as grey sole) caught on the survey trip amounted to 30,000 pounds which represents 4 percent of the TAC (total allowable catch) allotted to the fishing fleet for the whole year. On just one boat and in just two weeks! In theory a single boat could catch the entire yearly quota if it kept on fishing.

This example illustrates the fact that serious problems plague fishery management in New England. These problems are not, as some would have us believe, all attributable to rapacious fishermen. Groups with an agenda antithetical to fishing have been trying to sell the idea that the problems stem from “too many boats chasing too few fish.” In truth there are not many boats left and there are certainly a lot more witch flounder out there than the people at NOAA thought. I might also add that this is one of the best fish you could ever hope to find on your dinner plate.

The takeaway here is that solutions can be found if people continue to work together. NOAA Fisheries deserves credit for the willingness to partner with fishermen in undertaking this survey. The industry is hoping that it is an indication that the culture within NOAA is changing. We will withhold judgement until December when we learn whether the data gathered here will be accepted and incorporated into the next stock assessment.

Don Cuddy is program director at the Center for Sustainable Fisheries.

[Oceanroamer]

One reason could be not every angler is opposed to the proposed regulations, or think the science/data is fatally flawed. Some anglers might think erring on the side of caution is not a terrible idea.

These people might be in the minority, or maybe this forum is structured in a way that gives that impression; hence the surprise that not everyone actually agrees with showing up at this meeting and blasting the "gov'mnt bureaucrats" and calling for their heads.

Other forums have a decidedly more diverse set of opinions, which probably reflects more accurately the makeup of a northeastern state's fishing population.

That group aside, tons of people in agreement with those on this thread don't go. People that are close by. People in the industry. No one can make every meeting, that's a given. no issues. But no way, the amount of fishermen in south and central Jersey has were all completely tied down, plus the inland group that come from the west.

[reason162]

You are the first person I ever heard that agreed with the way the science is collected

Whether I agree with the data, your incredulity speaks to my point about this forum (and your own circle of fishing friends) being an echo chamber. I know people who feel that the science is flawed, that this is just nonsense from Big Government etc, and I also know people who feel the opposite.

and you are obviously willing to go along with it from what you wrote. That is amazing because I would really like to know your in-depth views on this issue because as you said the people that agree with the restrictions are few.

My view is that the rec/comm industry have been remarkably myopic time and time again when it comes to conservation, and that while their input is part of the process, the regs should ultimately be based on what the data reflects. The fact that the industry cries "bad data!" is a surprise to no one; they are not exactly disinterested parties to the issue at hand.

Further, the argument I hear a lot on this forum re regulators setting capricious quotas because "they have to justify their job," I find completely nonsensical. If the bag limit on fluke is 50 fish per day @12", these guys would still have a job. It's an attempt at false equivalency --- "regulators have agendas just like the comm interests do!" --- that only unthinking people would take seriously.

I honestly would be one of the first to dry dock my boat to save a fishery, but in this case I don't think that would fix anything.

You might be right, and if the sex ratio paper submitted by SSFFF passes peer review and gets incorporated into future reg paradigm, then I'm all for it. But just because something makes "common sense" to you or to all the fishermen you know, doesn't mean it's true. Much of science is counter-intuitive, and if we ignore data and just go with common sense...our species wouldn't have made it past the dark ages.

[reason162]

And check this out

Methods should be examined and updated as needed, and if the model is obsolete you abandon the model. But Gerry, recall that locked thread on NOAA incorporating climate change data into future models. It seems to me that people agree with the science only when the science agrees with them. Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Methods should be examined and updated as needed, and if the model is obsolete you abandon the model. But Gerry, recall that locked thread on NOAA incorporating climate change data into future models. It seems to me that people agree with the science only when the science agrees with them. Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

OK so you want to bring Climate Change into this conversation? How about we stay on topic here.... Fluke.

Do you really believe the science being used to assess the Fluke stocks is accurate?

[reason162]

OK so you want to bring Climate Change into this conversation? How about we stay on topic here.... Fluke.

I bring it up as an example of incorporating new methods and data for regulation models, just like your example of using different trawling techniques. And since climate change is happening, and is affecting the distribution and migratory patterns of all life on this planet, I do think it's relevant to fisheries science.

Do you really believe the science being used to assess the Fluke stocks is accurate?

I think it's a moving target. Methodology can always be improved, and there can always be more funding to make those improvements. But as it stands, I accept the benchmark studies over people's "common sense" instincts, or what they see out on the water, or industry-funded "data" that might or might not pass peer review muster.

Generally, when it comes to conservation, I'm a conservative in the true sense of the word: I take a pessimistic view on fish stocks, and don't like taking chances with the resource.

[hammer4reel]

Also throw this in the mix. It was asked WHO set the rebuild level at over twice the level it has ever been.
Wasn't answered at the meeting, but took very little research.
The unreasonable level was set by the Pew group .
Yep the same people who have over 50 million invested in running the catch shares program !

Follow the money



And for Reason.
How can you believe projected data above what's Actually found happening on the water ?

One of my friends who fishes for fluke commercially for over 30 years has had to fish for his catch running from manasquan from barneget to well past fire island every season .
During the summer months.

But the last two seasons there have been so many fluke around he hasn't had to fish more than 5 miles from manasquan for the entire season .
Normally catching his 500 pound quota is four hauls a night
.

[Rocky]

Whether I agree with the data, your incredulity speaks to my point about this forum (and your own circle of fishing friends) being an echo chamber. I know people who feel that the science is flawed, that this is just nonsense from Big Government etc, and I also know people who feel the opposite.



My view is that the rec/comm industry have been remarkably myopic time and time again when it comes to conservation, and that while their input is part of the process, the regs should ultimately be based on what the data reflects. The fact that the industry cries "bad data!" is a surprise to no one; they are not exactly disinterested parties to the issue at hand.

Further, the argument I hear a lot on this forum re regulators setting capricious quotas because "they have to justify their job," I find completely nonsensical. If the bag limit on fluke is 50 fish per day @12", these guys would still have a job. It's an attempt at false equivalency --- "regulators have agendas just like the comm interests do!" --- that only unthinking people would take seriously.



You might be right, and if the sex ratio paper submitted by SSFFF passes peer review and gets incorporated into future reg paradigm, then I'm all for it. But just because something makes "common sense" to you or to all the fishermen you know, doesn't mean it's true. Much of science is counter-intuitive, and if we ignore data and just go with common sense...our species wouldn't have made it past the dark ages.


The insight I was hoping to get from you is obviously not there. I normally would thank a person for trying, but in this case I can't even give you a participation trophy on this matter.

[NoLimit]

And since climate change is happening, and is affecting the distribution and migratory patterns of all life on this planet, I do think it's relevant to fisheries science.

Just when we thought you could not be more irrational, you plumb new depths.
Please enlighten us as to why a fish would travel hundreds of miles in reaction to a 2 degree temp change when they can travel a few miles to a different depth and get all the T delta it could need. Your absurd theories are as ridiculous as your notions of "climate change".

We see you have something against common sense and you prove the point very well, again and again.

[dakota560]

One reason could be not every angler is opposed to the proposed regulations, or think the science/data is fatally flawed. Some anglers might think erring on the side of caution is not a terrible idea.

These people might be in the minority, or maybe this forum is structured in a way that gives that impression; hence the surprise that not everyone actually agrees with showing up at this meeting and blasting the "gov'mnt bureaucrats" and calling for their heads.

Other forums have a decidedly more diverse set of opinions, which probably reflects more accurately the makeup of a northeastern state's fishing population.

There's no doubt the data being collected especially biomass and annual harvest, both recreational and commercial, can be challenged. The ASCMF council members speaking at the meeting don't dispute that. The commercial count while having more structure I'd bet is under reported due to inaccurate reporting of dead discard and illicit trawling. Recreational harvest is a completely different situation, it's embarrassing how they arrive at a number and they essentially admitted that at the meeting. Biomass numbers who knows if they're correct, under reported or over reported but there's been valid arguments about the techniques used to collect that data which have merit and should be addressed. Put all that aside and for argument sake let's assume everyone agrees with the data. Check out the two charts on page 7 and then I would challenge your last comment about the feeling of the northeastern states fishing community.

http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file//5...16_Revised.pdf

MSA was adopted in 1976. Recreational regulations were implemented early 80's. Commercial and recreational were asked to make sacrifices to rebuild the stock which everyone agreed with. Not like we had a choice but I think it's fair to say everyone understood what MSA was trying to accomplish and supported it. For the better part of 35 years, we've sacrificed. Limits started I believe at 10 fish at 14 inches and the creel limit has been reduced ever since while the size limits have increased ever since. Everyone was told these short term (35 years!) sacrifices would result in a stable sustainable biomass and future benefits to anglers and commercials alike. In '10 or '11, NMFS publicly stated the biomass was rebuilt.

Compare all that to the data on the charts. The combined harvest has dropped from a high over the last 36 years from ~26,000 metric tons to ~8,000 metric tons in 2016. At the same time the biomass trend line doubled between 1980 and 2004. From 1988 to 2005 the trend line increased from ~7,000 - 8,000 metric tons to ~50,000 metric tons, that's a 500% - 600% increase in biomass. Those are staggering statistics based on the existing data that have shown marked improvement in the biomass and significant reduction in harvest numbers. Most people looking at that data would conclude past sacrifices have rebuilt the biomass and the years of benefiting from the 35 years of sacrifice were upon us. Instead once again we're staring down the barrel of a loaded shotgun and being told to make further sacrifices to the extent we're almost looking at a closed fishery for the next few years.

As we've all said, NMFS increased the regulations and if you look at the recent downturn in the biomass trend line it certainly coincides with increases in size limits resulting in more female fluke being pulled out of the biomass. Here's another article which is an interesting read

http://www.cptdave.com/summer-flounder.html

Excerpt from article:

Reproduction:
Both males and females become sexually mature at the age of 3. The fecundity (number of eggs produced in a single spawning season) of females increases with size and weight. A 14 inch female produces about 460,000, and a 27 inch female about 4,200,000 eggs in a season. Reproduction takes place in the fall, as soon as the fish begin migrating to wintering grounds. Peak spawning activity occurs from early September through early November in water temperatures of 53 to 66 degrees F and at depths of 60 to 160 feet. The center of spawning activity occurs off the coasts of New York and New Jersey with less concentrated activity occurring in southern New England waters. The eggs float in the water column, hatching 72 to 75 hours after being laid.

As has been mentioned, the downward trend of recruitment numbers certainly coincides with the increased size limits legislated by NMFS. Add to that per the article that the prime spawning season for fluke is early September to early November, how about we protect the fishery during that time frame. The recreational season is almost closed by that time but when these fish school up and migrate to their winter grounds they get pounded bu commercials who to my knowledge have no closed season. If the biomass numbers are so important which no one is arguing, why not protect these fish during that spawn and close the fishery during that prime spawning period? I'm not suggesting cutting harvest quotas, just change the timing of the harvest.

I posted a video which has been around for a while of a commercial boat off Block Island tossing three totes of large female fluke in protest over the regulations. There's ~50 large fluke discarded dead. from the looks of it 26 - 27 inch fish. From the above article, that translates into potentially ~210,000,000 eggs taken out of the recruitment pool for at least one if not multiple years. Think about the exponential impact of that fact on recruitment numbers. Think about the impact of the entire harvest during the spawn, the numbers are unfathomable! Can you imagine the impact on recruitment and the biomass if these egg layers were given another year or two to procreate.

One last point regarding the second chart which may be the most significant factor driving proposals and further reductions. Where is the science or calculations that resulted in a ~62,000 metric ton biomass goal. A number which based on NMFS data has never in the history of the fishery been attained! It's such an important number since it's ultimately the goal driving or influencing all decisions yet no one discussed it or talks about how it was arrived at and what data supports it. As I mentioned at the meeting. NMFS continues to manage the effects and not the cause of biomass decline which in my opinion is a material flaw in their management of the resource. What their proposing makes no sense when you factor in their own data and what most believe it's suggesting.

While these points were being made at the very small unimportant meeting at Galloway Township, copious notes were being taken by a few members of the ACSMF Counsil. It was as if the light bulb went off and they were having a revelation. Hopefully these facts and interpretations of the data work their way back to the powers to be and are factored into the regulations were faced with in '17 and beyond but more important how NMFS views the fishery and manages it prospectively.

With all that said, while I agree recreational and commercial interests care immensely about the biomass numbers, I believe the vast majority of people impacted by this fishery view our current situation as nothing more than dysfunctional government selling hope to the general public and in the eleventh hour pulling the carpet out from underneath us. A completely contradictory position from when they publicly stated the biomass stock was rebuilt only five or six years ago. They've essentially taken the hope and promise of a better fishery which all of us clung to in the many years of sacrifice and destroyed it with the proverbial wrecking ball with these draconian reductions being proposed!

[gnuisance]

Whether I agree with the data, your incredulity speaks to my point about this forum (and your own circle of fishing friends) being an echo chamber. I know people who feel that the science is flawed, that this is just nonsense from Big Government etc, and I also know people who feel the opposite.



My view is that the rec/comm industry have been remarkably myopic time and time again when it comes to conservation, and that while their input is part of the process, the regs should ultimately be based on what the data reflects. The fact that the industry cries "bad data!" is a surprise to no one; they are not exactly disinterested parties to the issue at hand.

Further, the argument I hear a lot on this forum re regulators setting capricious quotas because "they have to justify their job," I find completely nonsensical. If the bag limit on fluke is 50 fish per day @12", these guys would still have a job. It's an attempt at false equivalency --- "regulators have agendas just like the comm interests do!" --- that only unthinking people would take seriously.



You might be right, and if the sex ratio paper submitted by SSFFF passes peer review and gets incorporated into future reg paradigm, then I'm all for it. But just because something makes "common sense" to you or to all the fishermen you know, doesn't mean it's true. Much of science is counter-intuitive, and if we ignore data and just go with common sense...our species wouldn't have made it past the dark ages.

Excellent points all around. THanks for your eloquent voice of reason. Your point about the echo chamber on this particular site cannot be overstated. Go to a fly fishing website and see how they feel about the fluke limits

[Charlie B]

How many people fly fish for fluke??? Come on really...Charlie

[Walleyed]

How many people fly fish for fluke??? Come on really...Charlie

Ok.....it was me....but I was drunk and some jerk dared me.

[Charlie B]

Ok.....it was me....but I was drunk and some jerk dared me.

Now that"s a good one...Charlie

[hammer4reel]

There is an older gentleman that fly fished at Belford every spring . For FLUKE.
He throws clousers in about 8 foot of water and pounds fluke there ..

[Charlie B]

I did not mean to imply that fluke could not be caught by fly fishing. But only that people on a fly fishing site are not generally as interested in fluke fishing as those here are. And many fly fishermen are catch and release purists so would not approve of keeping fish. Therefore restrictive regulations are fine with them... Charlie

[dales529]

I don't believe there is a Fluke Fishermen and / or poster on this thread that isn't concerned about conservation.
To that point the goal is and should always be the conservation provides sustainability to the Fluke stocks and for future generations of recreational fishermen / women

Our problem isn't science itself its that those that are setting the regulations admit that their science is flawed, outdated and only as accurate as "examples subject to change" The main issue to me is that the current politics today delay the use of the modern technology available to now become "the best science available" and these same agencies appear as frustrated as the fishermen but their hands are tied by the same agencies they work for.
When the councils say " The system is broken" its time to look at new science " period.

Whatever it is debate it informatively, respectfully and please leave the political partisan party crap out of it. It has never been and will never be the answer. We should often recognize either party that contributes to Fishing related matters and it has been many from both sides. Contrary to popular belief "your party" has been both responsible for where we are today and for trying to make it better, Go figure