[Billfish715]

How long have "limits" on fluke been in existence. I remember the start of them, but I've forgotten just what year they all started. I remember that the early size limits were under 15" ( I think). They kept creeping up every few years until we got to where we are now. No one liked the limits back then, yet we were told that size and bag limits were going to save the fluke fishery. We didn't even know the fishery was in trouble but we accepted the proposals. There was no problem catching lots of fluke along the beaches so why was there such a doom and gloom forecast for the future? But, an increase of 1/2 inch didn't sound too extreme.

Until then, we could catch and keep the same size fluke as the commercial draggers did. The party boats were fishing along the beaches and their customers were happy with the 15" fluke they were taking home. That went on for years. There was never a time when that size fish was not around. How is that different now? Even with the draggers, the fishery was never decimated. It still isn't. There would still be plenty of fish around if the size limits were dropped to 15 inches.

So, even though the size limits were smaller than today, the fluke fishery continued to grow. Did fish growth suddenly change? How much do the scientists want the fluke populations to grow? Taking smaller fish never hurt the overall fishery before. Why would that not be true today? What is the proposed fluke population benchmark?

This mess has been going on for too long. Someone needs to call the scientists on the carpet and ask them how their regulations are working? Did they work in the 80's, and 90's? If they did, why didn't we stick with those limits? If they didn't work, explain why. They have to be accountable for their actions. I have to think the reason why they keep changing the limits is because they are constantly underestimating the total populations and yet they are still employed. There's nothing worse than moving the goal line back every time someone gets close to scoring. That's the way it seems to me.

By suggesting a "slot" limit, we are caving in to the regulators. By compromising with them, we are admitting that we accept their proposals. I used to think that slot limits were a reasonable answer for all of us. Now, I'd rather set my own limits and not give in.