Ssfff To Challenge Mrfss Landings Data

[CaptTB]

Originally Posted by Kensdock

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA .

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

And yet the RFA is not involved in any review of MRFSS at this time, so again you are completely wrong. You feel the need to try and bash RFA even when they are not part of the topic.
Pathetic.

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!

My dear sir, do you even know what the term overfished means? Sorry, if you did you would know how ridiculous your statement is. The fact that a harvest target for the recerational sector or a quota for the commercial sector is exceeded does not mean a stock is overfished. In addition, while exceeding a harvest target COULD mean that "overfishing" is occurring, it does not have to mean that, as is the case with Sea Bass.

I would suggest you go look up the definitions of those two words (overfished and overfishing) before you try to use them in a sentence. To date, you have not used either of them correctly.

I see the MRFSS data and stock observations made by anglers is only good if it fits your argument

No, the difference is my use of angler observations comes from thousands of people from all walks of the fishery (land based, boat and partyboat) as well as professionals and industry people from states along the coast.

You, on the other hand, read some weblogs of cape may fishermen and consider yourself an expert and call that "research."
Plus, you do realize that the stock status information is not MRFSS data don't you? No, I suppose you don't know the difference.

This from the guy that does not even know the definition or proper use of the terms he is using.

Here, I'll help get you started: From the Magnuson Stevens Act: "The terms "overfishing" and “overfished" mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis."

From the National Marine Fisheries Service: "NMFS' definition of "overfishing" from the national standard 1 guidelines was the basis for this language, but Congress deleted the qualifier "long-term" before "capacity." The intent was to apply the "overfished" label to more fisheries by focusing on the current capacity to produce MSY. See the discussion of "optimum."
Issues:
Congress may have confused the situation by lumping an adjective (describing a fishery) and a verb (describing an activity) in the same definition. The activity of overfishing may occur in a fishery that is not in an overfished status; harvest in an overfished fishery may not be overfishing."

By the way, I noticed you still haven't answered my questions. C'mon Ken, these were YOUR NUMBERS according to YOUR RESEARCH as you called it. So, stand up and defend your statements, retract them, back them up, whatever.

here, I'll post them again in case you missed it the first three times:

Originally Posted by CaptTB

I notice you still have not commented on the numbers posted. So Ken, how realistic are your numbers? Not what you caught personally, but your "estimates" that were derived from your "research" as you put it?

Is it realistic to think that Fluke fishermen in NJ caught the equivalent of the entire Fluke biomass in one season? Is it realistic to assume, as you did, that NJ recreational fishermen landed more fish (your 10% at 250lbs) than the entire coastal quota for both recreational and commercial combined?
Is it realistic to think that NJ recreational fishermen caught more fish (cutting your numbers in HALF) than the entire recreational sector on the eastern seaboard?