Dave lets get a few thing clear. Kiley Dancy and Dustin Learning at the time were staff members and all calls or correspondence had to go through them. That was the job. Dustin Learning took over for Kirby Rootes-Murdy who is now a Renewable Energy Program Specialist at Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Kiley and Dustin were a pleasure to deal with and very helpful but they weren't decision makers. The key decision makers and state representatives were the ones I referred to as never replying or engaging in issues raised.
Not sure my work was censored, really? Look at the following link which has material I sent as part of briefing materials for the November 2019 meeting to discuss 2020 measures. Pages 31 through 101 is essentially all my work, analysis and emails with over a hundred people involved with the management of this fishery.
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...es_2019-12.pdf
Fast forward to 2021 and the below link I sent on November 30, 2021 discussing measures for 2022. The briefing materials included my email and only the URL with my analysis meaning anyone looking at a hard copy of the briefing material only saw the URL and not the content. My email is on page 25.
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...es_2021-12.pdf
Shortly afterward in 2022, the voice you love, Chair Mike Luisi, adopted a resolution where he himself determined what material would be included in briefing materials and it was strictly limited to short comments. That ended my analysis which I submitted from being included in either the briefing material or supplemental materials. In addition, all email addresses of Council, Committee and Staff Members were removed from the site. That change was made because I was Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption sending a letter a day asking the state for funding for the prison library. My work was censored from that point on.
I have absolutely no problem with my work being Peer Reviewed so I'm not sure where that notion is coming from as everything I've submitted in my analysis of the stock is predicated on data which is a result of systems and protocols which have already been Peer Reviewed.
In my opinion, pounding ASMFC and MAMFC is what I did for the better part of five years resulting in nada. If you recall, if the Council Member you refer to is who I think it is, remember he said and I quote "You can send as many charts and emails as you want, it won't make any difference whatsoever". I'm not wasting time doing that again.
"Suck it up", you're kidding me right? Whatever amount of time you think I've put into trying to change the fate of this fishery, triple it. What I've said is NMFS and the agencies tasked with managing this stock don't like people like me playing in their sandbox. I never said I didn't want to play in theirs, I've actually said the exact opposite. I want to work with NMFS, ASMFC, MAMFC, NJMFC. I'm not the roadblock my friend. You've said it yourself a hundred times, no one has ever said my analysis and conclusions are wrong, they just don't want to acknowledge I might be right.
So I'll ask you the same question you asked Dan and me. How do we get an audience to push this forward. I look at the people on the advisory panel and ask myself why this fishery is in the condition it is. Steve Witthuhn NY for hire, great guy with the same concerns I have and who I've shared all my analysis with. Michael Waine, ASA recreational who we've discussed. Greg Hueth, recreation Big Mohawk. W Howard Bogan, for hire. Charles Witek, recreational. And if you look at the Committee Members, there's some big names there including the Chair. This is my concern about the solution going through ASMFC or MAMFC because these are talented people intimately involved in the industry with different backgrounds and perspectives already yet we sit here looking at a dying fishery. I agree with Dan, the fight needs to be at the federal level and needs to focus on the problems facing the fishery as opposed to politics, economics, season lengths and quota allocations. The question is how do we get there as no one I've met ever wants or can arrange that discussion with NMFS.
I truly try keeping the faith and shying away from a fatalist attitude but please don't make posts suggesting I haven't been the open minded one here and reached out hundreds of times trying to create constructive dialogue with all these people. Remember, Jim Donofrio said the paper I put together when I first got involved, which was published in the Fisherman Magazine, was the best representation of the fishery he'd ever seen. Everyone from RFA and SSFFF including Jim Hutchinson agreed with that statement. Then politics got in the way and it died on the vine due to no lack of effort by me. So I'll re-engage if there's a clear path forward but as I said I believe we need a joint effort with commercial leadership, have everyone agree there's a serious problem with this stock and work together on a comprehensive plan to manage the fishery differently than it's been managed over the last two decades.
