[Kensdock]

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA . Once you made the decision you knew it would be necessary to pay for your own survey so the end result could be manipulated, I surmise. Short term economic gain is usually followed by a bust and this is just what you have ordered.You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks. Most of recreational anglers agree if there is to be a mistake with the quota/survey they would like it to fall on the conservation side. I would also like to have a longer flounder season,bigger bag limit and a shorter size limit.
I have learned from past mistakes that have been made by regulators pressured by commercial interest. Increasing the flounder quota based on surveys that have been paid for by those that stand to benefit financially is never going to be a good idea.

When I mentioned the RFA I was referring to the law suit over the sea bass season.


Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board had unanimously directed the Board to take action prior to September 1. The Board was presented with recreational harvest projections for black sea bass that indicated the harvest target could be exceeded by 86% to 165%.

Obviously, some processionals think the sea bass are over fished!


In the past you laughed at my when I started a thread calling for a moratorium on weakfish.
You also belittled my over a post about a NJ salt water license. If you take a look at the comments sent to the ASMFC calling for a moratorium and the active polls on the NJ salt water license topic, It should become glaringly apparent that I am not the only one that disagrees with you on some topics. Thankfully NJ anglers are big on forming their own opinions!

I see the MRFSS data and the observations of anglers is only good if it fits your argument.

At this point you are just using Semantics Captain!!