Tom Dakota ASMFC MAMFC meetings in DEC

[dales529]

It is unfortunate that Tom decided to delete hie thread because it had 300 views and only 1 response. Here is a guy VOLUNTEER that spent 3 years of research and analysis on his own time and dime. The amount of views and responses to "drama" are huge compared to the real drama.

Tom sent emails to 130 members of the SSC (science and statistical committees), MC (monitoring committee), TC (technical committee), ASMFC, MAMFC and NJMFC and deserves a better response.

His data which he has posted here in numerous threads has gotten a little push back which we expected but has opened more dialogue among these committees than I have seen in years,

Having said that at today's webinar meeting:
The MC still does not recognize that the regs taking primarily female flounder is an issue in the biomass.

Slots were discussed but a slot would only increase harvest, increase mortality and mandate shorter seasons. Again the slots discussed were 17 to 19" again ignoring the gender issue.

The general consensus from the Committees is also that the system is broken, stock assessment is difficult , the Bigelow trawls system is as broken as the boat and MRIP data and I quote" is being used at fine scales for
which it was not designed, with high uncertainties in the estimates at these levels, increasing the uncertainty in the outcomes of the measures set"

As well the email trail has included responses from the commercial side with some very interesting facts and there are those that propose to work with recs as the system is broken.

While we cant give you a copy and paste to send as they only count the petition or same text letter as 1 public comment, we implore you to get on board with this and send comments.

At the very least support Tom's efforts here and we will try to provide a place for your comments to be heard

[Chelsea-Sea]

I am sure that the email or address has been provided but maybe give it again?

[pectoralfin]

If Tom could provide a summary of his findings, I will send it out to the elected officials and others to get their support and have them contact the proper individual in NMFS.

[Rocky]

I have read a lot of Toms detailed findings and they seem to be falling on deaf ears. The continuation of the same fishery management plan will only continue the decline of the fishery.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is what they call management unfortunately!

Pectoralfin I'll reply later today and provide the MAFMC link. Tied up right now.
Rocky my friend, they're set in there ways and until we change the management paradigm nothing will change. My plan is to keep fighting the battle based on their own data to accomplish just that.

Information regarding the joint Commission / Council meeting being held December 9th thru 12th is available on the MAFMC website. Link is:

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

The information for posting comments is contained on the page you should be brought to and is as follows:

Monday, December 9, 2019 - Thursday, December 12, 2019
The Westin Annapolis - 100 Westgate Circle, Annapolis, MD 21401, Telephone 410-972-4300

Meeting Materials: Briefing documents will be posted below as they become available.

Public Comments: Written comments on meeting agenda items may be submitted using the online comment form linked below. Comments may also be submitted via email (to cmoore@mafmc.org), mail (to 800 North State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901), or fax (302-674-5399). All written comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. on November 27, 2019 to be included in the briefing book. Comments received after this date but before 5:00 p.m. on December 5, 2019 will be posted as supplemental materials on the Council meeting web page. After that date, all comments must be submitted using the online comment form linked below.

Online Comment Form

Webinar: For online access to the meeting, enter as a guest at: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/december2019

If you want your comments included with the briefing materials which is sent out to all Commission and Council Members before the meeting, deadline as mentioned above is 11:59 pm 11/27 or this upcoming Thursday Thanksgiving. Follow the above instruction if you plan on making comments, easiest and most effective is using the online comments form or as mentioned you can send your comments to Dr. Chris Moore via his email listed above. Dr Moore is the Executive Director for MAMFC.

Comments received after the 27th but before 5:00 pm 12/5 will be reflected in Supplemental Materials on the meeting page so they can be viewed along with the agenda for this meeting, difference is they are not in the briefing material which the decision makers receive so by default getting comments out by this upcoming Thursday is the best means of insuring your comments are in a document all the Commission and Council Members receive.

Any comments received after 12/5 but before the meeting are effectively comments of public record and not as visible or attached to the meeting.

Not sure when the briefing materials will be posted which will include my latest summary 5 page document I emailed to the 130 Members and associated people involved in the industry. It's the document which summarizes the analysis I've done and the reasons behind the stock increasing 900% between 1989 to 2003 and more important the reasons driving the fisheries decline by 40% to 50% since. Anyone planning on making comments, which I implore as many people as possible doing, please send me your email address and I'll email you the document which your comments should reference. Or you can just email me at smith.tom560@gmail.com directly and I'll provide the same. Read the documents before you provide your comments, it will provide you the baseline information in your reply.

We're losing another fishery. The lack of logic involved in decision making is epidemic but if we stop trying we fail. I wouldn't be spending the time doing what I am if I didn't think it will eventually make a difference. I want to inundate the Commission / Council with as many comment as possible, it's one of the best tools in our tool shed right now to not only voice our concerns and frustrations with policy decisions but have them as part of public record in meeting documents and stands a better chance as Dave mentioned of not falling on deaf ears is it's based on marine fisheries own data.

If you wish to listen in to the meeting, the webinar address is above. Summer flounder recommendations by the Advisory Panel will be included in the meeting on Tuesday, 12/10 between 3:30 and 5:00 pm.

I'll be checking my PM's and email consistently over the next 4 to 5 days so As soon as I receive any requests, I'll forward you a PDF of the document all Commission / Council Members received along with a longer document send to the Joint meeting in October at Durham NC which has more detail if anyone is interested.

I can't emphasize enough, as Rocky mentioned, our efforts to a large degree have fallen on deaf ears. But as Dave mentioned, there's been more discussion with people in high level positions and across industry lines over the last two weeks than ever before. It's movement which means it's positive. Long battle ahead but we need to continue laying the foundation and your comments will go a long way doing that.

Reading my material will take between 5 - 10 minutes if you read the shorter readers digest version. Maybe a half hour if you read both documents I send you. If you have questions regarding either, email me and I'll email back or call you to discuss if you provide your number.

Providing a public comment based on the materials and analysis presented should take no more than 15 minutes so if everyone has an hour to help save a vital fishery and have your opinion heard, it's an hour well worth the effort and we all have that right. This is one platform with no excuses not to use.

The over riding message is the following. With increased size limits placed on the recreational community coupled with selective harvest of larger fish commercially with higher market prices (even though they've maintained a 14" minimum) to mitigate the impacts of severe cuts in their catch quotas, larger sexually mature fish with a high percentage consisting of female breeders have been harvested over the last two decades. Age classes being harvested are primarily 3 - 6 year old fish, all sexually mature and a majority potentially as high a 5:1 females to males.

That change in catch composition has led to a significant alteration of SSB (Spawning Stock Biomass), the future of any fishery which has in turn led to a crash in recruitment, new fish coming into the stock.

Harvest of larger fish both recreational and commercial have also substantially increased discard rates and mortality rates assigned are killing quotas.

The key to changing the fate of the fishery is in the Commission and Council's hands making decision which will revert catch composition back to the harvest of smaller fish as was the case in the 80's and 90's when age classes 1 and 2 were almost exclusively being harvested as opposed to the older age classes today. Catch which consisted of an almost 2:1 ratio of males to females and more sexually immature fish. The same regulations which fueled a 900% increase in the spawning stock over the 15-yr period 1989 to 2003.

That's the extreme readers digest version but it is what's happened to this fishery and status quo which the Advisory Panel and Monitoring Committee are recommending to the Commission and Council for 2020 will perpetuate the decline in this fishery at an even more accelerated pace.

PLEASE GET INVOLVED, WE ALL NEED TO DO WHAT WE CAN EVEN IF WE BELIEVE THE ODDS ARE STACKED AGAINST US. My work is intended to save the fishery for future generations both commercial and recreational. As I said earlier, if we don't act, we fail and this fishery will take the same path as the winter flounder fishery which it's already showing signs of for many of the same reasons. Please do what you can and you can all do more than you think.

Hopefully my inbox gets filled up today with PM's and emails.

[1captainron]

Thank you Tom for all your countless hours of hard work and time put into this, it is much appreciated.....

However, as we all know the way the system works, it's not about data, not abut people's livelihoods or the fact that people just want to fish, it's about the $$$$.

You can bet your ass if we have a few hundred thousand to toss at one of these political hacks running the country, we'd have a voice. Drug companies, Special interest do it everyday and we can't do a dam thing about it.

Just the way the world works.

Originally Posted by 1captainron

Thank you Tom for all your countless hours of hard work and time put into this, it is much appreciated.....

However, as we all know the way the system works, it's not about data, not abut people's livelihoods or the fact that people just want to fish, it's about the $$$$.

You can bet your ass if we have a few hundred thousand to toss at one of these political hacks running the country, we'd have a voice. Drug companies, Special interest do it everyday and we can't do a dam thing about it.

Just the way the world works.

The proverbial however or but in a reply is usually never a good thing. Captain Ron, you know I respect your opinion and everything you've done for the fishery so I hold your comments and opinions in high regard.

It's about the $$$$ has been said as long as size limits started increasing, possession limits and catch quotas were being slashed both recreationally and commercially and the fishery has been in a state of decline since 2004, yet nothing ever happens. So in the absence of funding, which the community is no closer to raising today than in past, in your opinion is their an alternate course we should be considering or should we simply throw in the towel.

I ask that question out of no disrespect. I ask it because history has proven recreational interests can't align themselves and money can't or hasn't been raised. In the absence of funds and failures on the scientific and political fronts, I decided using the approach I'm using as a means of drawing attention to the Commission, Council, Technical Committee and AP members as well as the general public in an effort to raise awareness, force the issues outlined in my analysis to be acknowledged and opined on and maybe as a result create change in the management of not just the summer flounder stocks but other stocks as well. Whether it works or not, that chapter has yet to be written.

We have five choices, wait for funds which are probably not forthcoming, wait for a political approach which has fallen on deaf ears forever, wait for a scientific approach to refute marine fisheries data and models which has had the same outcome as the political approach, give up or try something different. Telling Washington they're data and science is wrong or trying to outmaneuver them legally is beyond a David and Goliath approach. It's a dead on arrival approach which is why it's failed and why I chose to take a different path. I'm not challenging marine fisheries data, which is not the same as saying I agree with it either. I'm using it to reveal trends which are at the detriment of the fishery to help guide and focus discussions with the Commission and Council, an approach different than what anyone else has used previously to my knowledge. My focus hasn't been recreational at the expense of commercial, commercial at the expense of recreational, it's been how do we reverse the declining trend the fishery as a whole has been on since 2003 to reverse fortunes, grow the biomass and benefit all parties involved.

In my humble opinion, that's a worthwhile strategy as opposed to waiting for money to come in from who knows where, continue to employ the same political and or scientific approaches which have not worked or throw in the towel and do nothing. Doesn't mean I don't respect and appreciate what others have done or they should stop trying, just means those efforts and the methodologies employed over a prolonged time frame have failed the fishery and it's constituents so I elected to use a different approach. As I said, the last chapter is yet to be written and if there's a door number 6 we should be considering, I'm all ears.

[Rocky]

Please don't give up trying Tom. If you do that it means they win, and then we will all lose for sure.

[Ry609]

Got my comments in. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.