Ssfff To Challenge Mrfss Landings Data

[CaptTB]

Let's see if I have the time to deal with all the mistakes and false information you just posted.

Originally Posted by Kensdock

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

False. The decision to challenge the MRFSS landings data from 2009 was made by Save The Summer Flounder Fishery Fund. RFA was not involved in the process, and if you bothered to actually read the original post in here you would have known that they were not even mentioned. Not to mention, there is no "business decision" involved, since it is a reaction to first hand knowledge by anglers, businesses and individuals who fish for Fluke that some of the assertions being made by MRFSS fly in the face of first hand observations made by people up and down the coast of the US (not just cape may fishermen's blogs by the way)

Since the data from MRFSS has already been declared "fatally flawed" the the National Resource Council of the National Academy of Sciences after conducting a review mandated by Congress, and since the newly reauthorized MSA demanded that NMFS make certain changes to MRFSS by a specific date, and since NMFS has yet to do what it is required by Federal law to do, SSFFF took it upon itself to hire an independent company to see if they could find out where the screwy numbers were coming from and if any outside information and analysis could help refine those numbers.

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.

False. IF you had bothered to read the original post you would know there is not our "own survey" being conducted. As a matter of fact, there is no survey whatsoever being conducted. But in order for you to know that you would have had to actually learn something, which you have seemed adverse to doing to date. Additionally, since there is no such survey being done, it would be impossible for me or anyone else to "manipulate the results." An accusation (or a supposition on your part that is based on nothing, other than your continued attempts to attack the integrity of people and organizations of which and whom you know nothing.

I find it typical of your cowardly attitude of taking pot shots at people and groups on the internet but not in person, knowing full well you would be laughed out of the room were you to make such wild ass and unsupportable accusations and insinuations to mine or anyone else's faces.

You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks.

Really? Since you obviously know nothing about the condition of those stocks I will gladly educate you. According to the most recent MAFMC Stock Status Report it states, according to the Office of Sustainable Fisheries - 3rd Quarter 2009 Status Report of U.S. Fisheries, that Summer Flounder are currently not overfished, not experiencing overfishing and are at 77% of the rebuilt size, still rebuilding and scheduled to be rebuilt by 2013.

Black Sea Bass are currently at 103% of their rebuilt size, are not overfished and are not experiencing overfishing.

So, according to the best available science both stocks are extremely healthy and still growing.

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.

That would be accurate if it were true, but since there are no surveys paid for by anyone that stands to benefit financially, and seeing as how there is no survey that would increase the quota (that is not how quotas are set and the quotas for 2010 have already been set) I would say it is safe to say you honestly do not know a blessed thing about the topic.

It is perhaps possible you could be more incorrect, but I highly doubt it. Perhaps in the future a little research outside of someone's weblog on your part would be in order. You would stand to be at least a little closer to the truth and perhaps a bit less inaccurate in your comments.