2017 Fluke quota reductions....

[dfish28]

Same as all the othe other breeders we are killing... If we kill all the big "trophy fish" we are not leaving those to breed the next generation... We need to wake up and take the babies before we kill the adults... 14" min at 8 and have a good day... Just my thoughts...

[dales529]

As usual the thread is getting way off topic. SSFFF, Cornell and or Rutgers are neither the leftist agenda, have zero government ties per this study or have anything to do the current or future regulations, Breeders , Not Breeders of any species have little to do with current "stock data". Biomass Stock data is surveyed by some in one way and all SSFFF is trying to do is assess the stock of Summer Flounder in another direction to see if there are major differences in the current Stock data by "others" that do have government ties . And YES the SSFFF study will bring Sex, Size and Breeders into the study so its that important.
Maybe there is a difference and maybe there isn't but this is the best scientific scenario of fighting what we believe to be inaccurate data.

Again the regulation standards are set in accordance with current stock data reports as reported and in compliance with the Magnuson Stevens Act Then reported to States to decide given those results how to set the regulations with reductions or increases.
There are many levels to the whole process and debating slot fish, vs size limits etc is useless at this point until the studies are complete and the findings are accepted.

If you really want to HELP than attend the meetings, or donate to RFA-NJ, SSFFF or whomever your fishing rights advocate of choice is.
The bottom line is we need re-authorization of MSA ( Magnuson Stevens Act), SSFFF findings in our favor and a HUGE Voice by population of active recreational fishermen.

Complaining on fishing sites does NOT constitute a HUGE Voice of us recreational fishermen and while I agree nothing to date has made us feel better I can tell you from my last 8 years of getting involved by fundraising fishing trips , attending meetings etc at least you feel that you are doing something more than responding to the negative posts of possible fishing reductions while getting a better understanding of how hard the fight is with a very limited fisherman voice when it matters.

YOU each and everyone of you matters, have insight and opinions that are valued. We all just have to get behind one issue at a time, fund the research, the fishing advocate groups, go on the fundraising fishing trips (how F--ng hard is that?) and stop bitching after the fact.

Oh at the end mother nature rules and sends curves that no one can forsee like Hurricanes, beach replenishment, beach access, migratory patterns of fish etc etc which makes it all the more difficult
JUST my .02

[Joey Dah Fish]

Originally Posted by dales529

As usual the thread is getting way off topic. SSFFF, Cornell and or Rutgers are neither the leftist agenda, have zero government ties per this study or have anything to do the current or future regulations, Breeders , Not Breeders of any species have little to do with current "stock data". Biomass Stock data is surveyed by some in one way and all SSFFF is trying to do is assess the stock of Summer Flounder in another direction to see if there are major differences in the current Stock data by "others" that do have government ties . And YES the SSFFF study will bring Sex, Size and Breeders into the study so its that important.
Maybe there is a difference and maybe there isn't but this is the best scientific scenario of fighting what we believe to be inaccurate data.

Again the regulation standards are set in accordance with current stock data reports as reported and in compliance with the Magnuson Stevens Act Then reported to States to decide given those results how to set the regulations with reductions or increases.
There are many levels to the whole process and debating slot fish, vs size limits etc is useless at this point until the studies are complete and the findings are accepted.

If you really want to HELP than attend the meetings, or donate to RFA-NJ, SSFFF or whomever your fishing rights advocate of choice is.
The bottom line is we need re-authorization of MSA ( Magnuson Stevens Act), SSFFF findings in our favor and a HUGE Voice by population of active recreational fishermen.

Complaining on fishing sites does NOT constitute a HUGE Voice of us recreational fishermen and while I agree nothing to date has made us feel better I can tell you from my last 8 years of getting involved by fundraising fishing trips , attending meetings etc at least you feel that you are doing something more than responding to the negative posts of possible fishing reductions while getting a better understanding of how hard the fight is with a very limited fisherman voice when it matters.

YOU each and everyone of you matters, have insight and opinions that are valued. We all just have to get behind one issue at a time, fund the research, the fishing advocate groups, go on the fundraising fishing trips (how F--ng hard is that?) and stop bitching after the fact.

Oh at the end mother nature rules and sends curves that no one can forsee like Hurricanes, beach replenishment, beach access, migratory patterns of fish etc etc which makes it all the more difficult
JUST my .02

That was like a buck fifty Dales no 2 cents. But I whole heartedly agree with every word you said.

[frugalfisherman]

Blame it on the Clinton support group "Fish Lives Matter".