The proverbial however or but in a reply is usually never a good thing. Captain Ron, you know I respect your opinion and everything you've done for the fishery so I hold your comments and opinions in high regard.

It's about the $$$$ has been said as long as size limits started increasing, possession limits and catch quotas were being slashed both recreationally and commercially and the fishery has been in a state of decline since 2004, yet nothing ever happens. So in the absence of funding, which the community is no closer to raising today than in past, in your opinion is their an alternate course we should be considering or should we simply throw in the towel.

I ask that question out of no disrespect. I ask it because history has proven recreational interests can't align themselves and money can't or hasn't been raised. In the absence of funds and failures on the scientific and political fronts, I decided using the approach I'm using as a means of drawing attention to the Commission, Council, Technical Committee and AP members as well as the general public in an effort to raise awareness, force the issues outlined in my analysis to be acknowledged and opined on and maybe as a result create change in the management of not just the summer flounder stocks but other stocks as well. Whether it works or not, that chapter has yet to be written.

We have five choices, wait for funds which are probably not forthcoming, wait for a political approach which has fallen on deaf ears forever, wait for a scientific approach to refute marine fisheries data and models which has had the same outcome as the political approach, give up or try something different. Telling Washington they're data and science is wrong or trying to outmaneuver them legally is beyond a David and Goliath approach. It's a dead on arrival approach which is why it's failed and why I chose to take a different path. I'm not challenging marine fisheries data, which is not the same as saying I agree with it either. I'm using it to reveal trends which are at the detriment of the fishery to help guide and focus discussions with the Commission and Council, an approach different than what anyone else has used previously to my knowledge. My focus hasn't been recreational at the expense of commercial, commercial at the expense of recreational, it's been how do we reverse the declining trend the fishery as a whole has been on since 2003 to reverse fortunes, grow the biomass and benefit all parties involved.

In my humble opinion, that's a worthwhile strategy as opposed to waiting for money to come in from who knows where, continue to employ the same political and or scientific approaches which have not worked or throw in the towel and do nothing. Doesn't mean I don't respect and appreciate what others have done or they should stop trying, just means those efforts and the methodologies employed over a prolonged time frame have failed the fishery and it's constituents so I elected to use a different approach. As I said, the last chapter is yet to be written and if there's a door number 6 we should be considering, I'm all ears.