Thanks, Dakota

[Billfish715]

Thanks for keeping at it and keeping us informed. You deserve our utmost gratitude for all that you are doing. Thanks for posting the contact information as well. I was happy to share my feelings with people who are directly connected to perhaps solving our plight. We've griped and complained to each other on this board for years and we may still continue to rant here; but this was a chance for others to hear our concerns.

If something comes of our comments, great. If nothing happens, I know that we at least tried. Sooner or later, with enough fishermen getting involved, even if with only comments, things will turn our way. Again, thanks.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Yep.... Thanks Tom, you're sticktoitiveness is exactly what is needed... This isn't a sprint, it's a marathon. We need keep things white hot and continue to hold fisheries management accountable.... You rest, they rest.

Billfish and Gerry thanks for your words of encouragement and Billfish thanks for taking the initiative to highlight this as a separate thread. I do this because like many of us I've seen too many fisheries exploited in my lifetime which are no longer. Fisheries which in my opinion could serve all the interested parties, both commercial and recreational, and still maintain their viability if managed properly. It doesn't have to be binary. I see businesses going out of business and a mainstay industry of shore communities up and down the coast providing recreational enjoyment and economic opportunities for millions slipping away. If a 30% - 40% decreases or more in every aspect of the fishery (Biomass, SSB, Recruitment, catch quotas, gender and age composition) are not driving factors to change the regulations, I'm not sure what is. Again this is the message hopefully the Commission and Council will hear, acknowledge and address next week.

If the best we can do is one day at a time, one meeting at a time and one stock at a time than that's what needs to be done. Data in fisheries management will always be scrutinized to arrive at best data from best available science which it should be. I don't view that as negative but there's work to be done if regulatory decisions are being based on that data. Believe it's in everyone's best interest to improve the quality where possible in support of making correct management decisions.

In the summer flounder fishery, the dots haven't been connected. The elective target of larger sexually mature fish in the mid nineties by commercial parties to stay in business started the trend. The regulatory mandate to harvesting larger sexually mature fish recreationally which also started in the late nineties and progressed through today exacerbated that trend. Catch composition changed materially and never looked back. Result was age and gender composition of SSB changed and never recovered resulting in a spawning stock with less recruitment strength. Combine that with the most highly concentrated biomass in history in the winter south of Long Island, Montauk and Massachusetts (areas 613, 616 and 537) being continually pounded during the fall / winter season (summer flounder spawn period) and that's the 15-yr decline in the fishery we're feeling and will continue feeling until regulations are changed.

Marine fishery data supports these findings and conclusion 100%. Southern states of the Mid-Atlantic's regions biomass have been destroyed which is why 70% of the catch now comes from the local waters mentioned. That biomass will be destroyed as well if allowed. There's too much pressure on a declining spawning stock, pressure which will intensify with the recent commercial increases and continued recreational size limits and this fishery has no choice but to continue it's decline. Anyone taking the time to review the trends and relate changes in policy decisions to changes in long standing relationships at exact intervals is overlooking the obvious.

Hopefully with the comments provided by site members here and others, these issues will be on the radar screen at next week's meeting, discussed and at some point factored into future policy decisions. We're at the right level with the right message, movement in the right direction from where we were last year so thanks again for everyone who took time to provide commentary to the Council and Commission, your efforts are not only greatly appreciated they're meaningful.

[Rocky]

Dakota is the man when it comes to putting facts and data together on paper. Not many people would put so much effort into fighting for the needed changes to save our resource.

Thank you sir and I am glad you are on our side.

[dales529]

x4 . I KNOW this was no easy task and at least a year in the making. Tom you did such a great job with the analysis and presentation. Glad to see it got the attention to date it deserves and hopefully more so at next weeks meetings. One hell of an effort my friend and much appreciated.

[shrimpman steve]

Nice work Tom.

Thanks again for the words of encouragement gentlemen. When our concerns are actually heard and regulatory changes made to address the issues impacting the fishery, those words will echo louder.

Just FYI, for anyone who submitted comments or wishes to review other comments made, they've been updated on the MAFMC website at the following link:

http://www.mafmc.org/council-events/...ouncil-meeting

under Agenda Overview and Briefing Materials / Compiled Supplemental Materials. Comments were posted yesterday as Kiley Dancy mentioned and start on page 348. Comments also appear on Tuesday October 8th Agenda for Summer Flounder 2020 Specifications 4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. under Additional Public Comments. Easier to view them there.

Thanks again for everyone's efforts.