For those of you unfamiliar with the crisis in fluke management, I'll post a short article written by Nils Stlope that explanins it pretty well. We all need to write to our Congressmen and Senators Now if we are going to have any fluke season at all during 2007 and possibly yeasr after that.

Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act - By Nils Stlope


With final deliberations on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act postponed until September, this is an opportune time to clear up some of the deliberate misunderstandings that have been made part and parcel of this process.



The original legislation, introduced by Senator Warren Magnuson, became law back in 1976 with all of the good intentions in the world; to remove mostly unregulated foreign fishing from the United States' coastal waters and replace it with managed domestic effort. After thirty years, that legislation, know known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, has been forced through a series of Jekyll and Hyde-like transformations that have turned it into the largest immediate threat facing U.S. fishermen.



To a very large extent this has been done through the expenditure of vast amounts of (so-called) charitable foundation dollars, most derived from "Big Oil." These dollars have been used to fund questionable research, buy mass media exposure, and influence federal administrators and legislators. These expenditures have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars over the last ten or so years, and it appears as if this massive investment is on the verge of paying off, with participants in many of our most important fisheries fast approaching or at the point of financial ruin.



Why? That's an impossible question for anyone other than the people who sign those million dollar checks to answer, and we wouldn't venture a guess. But we will devote this and the next FishNet to an exploration of where recreational and commercial fishermen are today relative to fisheries management (or, as an increasing number of them would say, mismanagement) and how they've gotten there, supplying some helpful illustrations along the way.



Summer flounder - an example of how bad it's gotten


The summer flounder stock supports one of the most important fisheries in the mid-Atlantic region. Commercial landings were valued at $28 million in 2004, meaning the fishery generated well over $100 million in economic activity. The recreational fishery is a mainstay of the party/charter boat fleet, and summer flounder are the preferred species for the majority of recreational anglers in the region.



Over a decade ago fisheries scientists determined summer flounder weren't doing as well as they could have been. In light of this, stringent management measures were put in place. Both recreational and commercial fishermen adapted, accepting larger minimum sizes, abbreviated fishing seasons and decreased possession limits. Over a period of several years both the commercial and recreational harvests were reduced by well over 50%. Predictably, the stock responded positively. The management restrictions have been eased slightly and the harvest by both sectors has been inching up. This is the way fisheries management is supposed to work: fishermen, whether recreational or commercial, "tighten their belts," the management measures work and the fishermen are rewarded for their sacrifices.



At a technical meeting held this past June, it was found that in spite of all of the fishing restrictions, the summer flounder population wasn't increasing quickly enough. Though the biomass, now estimated to be at 104 million pounds, had doubled, it was still less than it should have been according to an optimum stock rebuilding schedule that had been reformulated in 2004.



So, what's the big deal? Were the fisheries management world one that was based on rationality and reasonable expectations for both the fish and the many people and businesses that depend on them, a simple fix allowing for the continuing recovery of the fish and the continued viability of the recreational and commercial fisheries would be instituted. Fishing effort would be reduced slightly, the summer flounder stock might reach its supposedly preordained level somewhat later, shore restaurants would keep ocean-fresh summer flounder on their menus, bait and tackle shops would keep selling bait and tackle to one of their largest groups of customers, the dozens of party and charter boats that specialize in summer flounder would be able to stay in business, and the commercial boats and docks and other on-shore businesses that depend on summer flounder for a large part of their annual business wouldn't loose a major part of yet another one of their major fisheries. That seems like a pretty good deal for everyone concerned, perhaps approaching the status of one of those "win-win" situations.



Unfortunately - or perhaps tragically is a more accurate term - as things stand today that isn't likely to happen.



The Sustainable Fisheries Act is the culprit



When the Magnuson-Stevens Act was last reauthorized through the provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), the anti-fishing community - with the support of a few fishing groups representing an almost negligible number of recreational and commercial fishermen - successfully lobbied for a strict ten year "rebuilding" period for all species that were determined to be "overfished." In every fishery where there's not enough fish (according to what we can only refer to, considering the lack of solid information on any fishery, as an arbitrary determination), fishing effort has to be reduced to such an extent that the stock will be rebuilt to the desired level within ten years.



Management plans controlling fisheries that are deemed "overfished" contain what are called rebuilding targets. These are levels of the managed species that, when attained, mean that the fishery can be harvested at what is called the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). In other words, at that level the fishery will produce the maximum level of harvest, year after year ad infinitum. Two years ago that biomass level was reduced to 204 million pounds for summer flounder, a calculated "pie in the sky" level that was so high that it had never been observed by fisheries scientists. When the target biomass level was reduced, the permissible catch to reach that smaller biomass level was reduced as well. Then, at the June meeting referred to above, (the results of which are available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0617/), it was discovered that some of the previous assumptions of the summer flounder management program were faulty, and in hindsight the cuts of the previous years, though very significant, weren't anywhere near adequate.



Accordingly, to be in conformance with the required rebuilding schedule and to have the required biomass by the expiration of the ten year "rebuilding" period, even more drastic cuts in fishing effort are now called for. The National Marine Fisheries Service is pressing for a reduction in the allowable catch by about 75% next year. The current quota (commercial and recreational) is 23.6 million pounds and NMFS, to meet the requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act and to compensate for changes in the statistics that are used to control the fishery (the less-than-sympathetic might refer to these changes as attempts to correct that agency's past mistakes), is pushing for 5.2 million pounds.



While this is all somewhat complicated, it can be summarized fairly succinctly: 1) the recreational and commercial summer flounder fishermen adhered to the rules established for them through the management program, 2) the fisheries management establishment discovered that it had messed up (not too surprisingly, considering the state of the science involved) and that the rules it had put in place weren't stringent enough, so they changed them, and 3) the change in the rules, coupled with the designed-in inflexibility of the SFA, means that both the commercial and recreational fisheries stand a good chance of being for all intents and purposes closed down.



Thanks for playing by the rules


Instead of saying "sorry, our mistake," and instituting further cutbacks in fishing that would allow the stock to continue to rebuild while at the same time maintaining the economic viability of all those businesses dependent on the commercial and recreational fisheries, NMFS is proposing to virtually shut them down (this in spite of the fact that, thanks to the sacrifices of and compliance by both the recreational and commercial fishing sectors, the current management program has been startlingly successful).



Continued in Part 2

Part 2

Summer flounder the first, but there are more to come


While the situation with summer flounder in the mid-Atlantic is among the most immediate and most visible of the results of the inflexibility that was injected into the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996, it certainly isn't unique. Fishery after fishery is going to be in the same place, in spite of the best efforts of the fisheries scientists, the fisheries managers, and the fishermen, because thanks to the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the best isn't necessarily good enough.



Recognizing the inevitable results of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, commercial and recreational fishing organizations have been lobbying in Washington to amend Magnuson-Stevens to once again allow for the careful application of subjective judgment in management decisions when its application can serve both the fish and the fishermen. Some of the same anti-fishing groups and individuals, bankrolled by the same organizations, that were so intent on removing what they professed to consider loopholes in Magnuson-Stevens via the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1976, have mounted a campaign to counter this drive.





Two organizations that have been most active in opposing any attempts to bring a modicum of reasonableness back to federal fisheries management are the Marine Fish Conservation Network and the National Environmental Trust. Together they ran an ad in the Washington Times last month stating that H.R. 5018, a bill introduced by Congressmen Pombo, Franks and Young that amends the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is supported by many commercial and recreational fishing groups, "contains loopholes that will increase overfishing." The rhetoric is familiar, in line with that regularly used by a handful of so-called conservation organizations.



Not grass, but astroturf


It would be easy to assume that these "conservation" organizations are, as such organizations tend to be, "grass roots;" membership supported and membership driven. However, this doesn't appear to be the case. The National Environmental Trust and the Marine Fish Conservation Network have both received millions of dollars from the Pew Charitable Trusts. Good for them, you might say, but what's that have to do with legislative loopholes that need to be plugged? According to the blurb from the Washington Times ad, the Marine Fish Conservation Network is "made up of over 190 organizations representing commercial and recreational fishermen, environmental groups, and aquariums from across the country." That sounds like it's "grass roots," doesn't it? Particularly considering that commercial fishermen are at the front of the list, we decided to delve a little more deeply into just which commercial fishermen, and other folks, this "network" represents.



Of the dozen or so organizations that the MFCN lists as members that obviously represent commercial fishing interests, at least half have what appear to be substantial ties with Pew. Pat White, past Executive Director of the Maine Lobstermen's Association, and Pietro Parravano, President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) were both members of the Pew Oceans Commission. The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association has been funded by Pew. The Institute For Fisheries Research (IFR) is a spin-off of the PCFFA. Salmon For All is a member of the PCFFA and Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, which has received upwards of $5 million from Pew. David Hallowell of the Humboldt Fishermen's Marketing Association, is listed as a Board member of the IFR.



Ecofish is considered a commercial member of the MFCN. It's a company involved in selling, according to its website, "only the most sustainable, highest quality, healthiest, all natural, most delicious seafood to our customers." Ecofish has a six member advisory board that includes Carl Safina (Pew scholar and SeaWeb spokesperson), Matthew Elliot (consultant to Pew Seaweb and the Pew Commission), Rebecca Goldburg (Environmental Defense - recipient of over 3.8 million Pew dollars - staffer and author of the Pew Commission's report on aquaculture), and Heather Tausig (Conservation Director of the New England Aquarium - recipient of 10 million Pew dollars). The other two members, Michael Sutton and George Leonard, work for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which has a Pew SeaWeb office on site.



Though we aren't certain, some fairly extensive web searching indicated that several of the remaining "commercial" MFCN member organizations (the Abalone and Marine Resources Council and the Florida Fishermen's Federation) might be moribund - or at least have had a negligible web presence for the last couple of years. Two others (Signature Salmon and King and Sons Fishing Company) appear to be businesses that might be involved with commercial fisheries, but these both lack any discoverable web presence as well. So it appears as if the commercial fishermen that the MFCN lists so prominently could be represented only by organizations that are a part of the Pew "family," or by those whose members' activities are confined to very limited areas/fisheries.



Of the remaining 170+ MFCN member organizations, a listing of those that are significant (i.e. have a national presence and significant political clout) reads like a "who's who" listing of Pew grantees.



Pew largesse to selected Marine Fish Conservation Network members


The National Environmental Trust has received over 37 million Pew dollars

Oceana has received at least 22 million Pew dollars

Earthjustice Legal Defense has received over 20 million Pew dollars

The Public Interest Research Group has received at least 14 million Pew dollars

The New England Aquarium has received over 10 million Pew dollars

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership has received at least 8 million Pew dollars

The American Littoral Society has received over 6 million Pew dollars

Audubon has received over 4.6 million Pew dollars

Seaweb has received over 4 million Pew dollars

The Natural Resources Defense Council has received at least 4 million Pew dollars

Restore America's Estuaries has received at least 1.6 million Pew dollars

Conservation Law Foundation has received over 1 million Pew dollars

Sierra Club has received at least 800,000 Pew dollars

Reefkeeper International has received almost ½ million Pew dollars

The Marine Conservation Biology Institute has received over 400,000 Pew dollars

The Wildlife Conservation Society has received over 400,000 Pew dollars

Friends of the Earth has received 300,000 Pew dollars

The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association has received 250 thousand Pew dollars

The Pacific Marine Conservation Council has received over 200,000 Pew dollars

Alaska Marine Conservation Council has received at least $150,000 Pew dollars

Save the Sound has received over 100,000 Pew dollars

The Gulf Restoration Network has received over 100,000 Pew dollars

Tampa Baywatch has received over 100,000 Pew dollars



The list goes on and on. The organizations that serve as conduits for Pew dollars that are also members of the MFCN goes on as well. For example, the American Littoral Society has channeled over 6 million Pew dollars to various organizations and programs, including Reefkeepers International, Restore America's Estuaries and the MFCN itself.



The MFCN has about twenty recreational fishing members. It won't surprise anyone to read that there are organizations involved in recreational fishing who actually believe that 1) a fish killed for fun isn't as dead as one killed for profit, 2) that all the fish in the oceans should belong to them because they spend so much to catch them, and 3) that any organization that's out to stick it in the eye of commercial fishermen is worthy of their support. Based on our long observation of and participation of fisheries management, we can safely say that some of the recreational organizations in the MFMC are among them. The recreational fishing members of the MFCN range from local clubs (Newport County Saltwater Fishing Club), through state organizations (Jersey Coast Anglers Association) to national trade organizations (American Sportfishing Association). Also included are a number of recreational fishing publications (Salt Water Sportsman).



If we consider just one of the recreational fishing groups, how many of the claimed 600,000 recreational fishermen that Jersey Coast Anglers Association is supposed to represent would willingly oppose changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act if they knew it was going to shut down the summer flounder fishery - their state's most popular - for no fault of any recreational or commercial fishermen? Yet it appears as if that's what the Jersey Coast Anglers Association is doing. How many bait and tackle store owners in the mid-Atlantic would go along with the unnecessary closure of the fishery that accounts for a very large part of their total revenue each year? Yet the American Sportfishing Association, which claims to be representing their interests, is doing just that.



The MFCN's Board of Advisors consists of representatives from the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association, Conservation Law Foundation, Gulf Restoration Network, Hawaii Audubon Society, the International Gamefish Association, Jersey Coast Anglers Association, National Audubon Society, National Coalition for Marine Conservation, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Pacific Marine Conservation Council, Prairie Rivers Network, SeaWeb, Sierra Club, Ocean Conservancy, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Eleven of the nineteen organizations represented have collectively received well over $75 million from Pew. Of the four organizations that aren't tied directly to Pew by funding or other connections, three are supported by recreational fishing, and two of those three have a demonstrated anti-commercial fishing bias.



The MFCN's Executive Committee has seven members. The organizations that five of them represent have collectively received over $60 million from Pew.



The other sponsor of the "overfishing" ad, and an outspoken critic of recreational/commercial fishing organization drive to inject some human judgment back into fisheries management, the National Environmental Trust, is the recipient of $37 million from Pew.



While it's obvious that we're supposed to believe that all of this "we need more stringency and less flexibility in fisheries management" hyperbole is the message of masses of people from a wide spectrum of organizations, could it be that the Pew Trusts are making all of the waves? Were that the case, it evidently wouldn't be the first instance where Pew was thought to be behind a supposedly "grass roots" initiative (see The Oil Slick following for another example). We can't help but wonder if the reaction of Congress to a focused lobbying effort that was the result of strategic grant-giving by a mega-foundation would be different from one that was truly reflective of grass roots interests.



At the same time, we wonder how many recreational and commercial fishing organizations with an honest commitment to the fish and to the future of fishing that aren't part of an agenda-driven foundation "family" are actually opposed to extending mandated rebuilding periods in particular fisheries to maintain the viability of the businesses that depend on those fisheries.



Recreational and commercial fishermen realize that healthy fish stocks benefit everyone who fishes and fully support the application of practical conservation measures. They also realize that fisheries science tends to be more imprecise than not, and know that tying those conservation measures too rigidly to imprecise data is a recipe for disaster - whether that disaster is as minor as a lost fishing opportunity or as major as a bankrupt business. The earlier data regarding summer flounder was retrospectively "corrected," and because the allowable quota is rigidly locked to an inviolate rebuilding schedule, we are now facing a disaster in that fishery that many of the involved businesses won't survive (and we are compelled to repeat here that, because of development pressures, a closed fishing-related business on the coast won't be replaced by anything similar). To have a management system that is incapable of recognizing and allowing for such situations - which are going to occur in fishery after fishery - does nothing for conservation and punishes the fishermen for unavoidable scientific imprecision.



Whether the population is rebuilt in ten years or in more than ten years is of no long term consequence to the summer flounder stock, but it's of overriding importance to the fishing businesses that depend on the fishery - and on the communities that depend on those businesses. In spite of what a handful of fishing and other Pew-funded organizations claim, granting fisheries managers the flexibility to equitably deal with such situations will have no negative impacts on the long-term viability of our fisheries.

My apologies to John for not posting this in the Conservation Issues and notices section, but not too mnay people read that section and I wanted to get the word out to everyone.

Guess there aren't any fluke fishermen on this board?

I love fluke but I fell asleep reading this long-winded albeit informative article. This should not be that complicated. It is a small flat fish that the masses enjoy catching and eating. We followed the rules to our own demise I guess it the conclusion. So the rules were f'ed up and now we all pay...I ask you, are you really surprised at this? Look at the way they count how many rec fish we take, this is an absurd and error prone approach. But they keep on keeping on….Further, to make laws governing the fishing limits based on these extrapolated results is utterly moronic IMO.

Frankly I don't understand exactly what the goal is of "management" really is and I KNOW they have demonstrated they don't know what they are doing time and time again. It is all a bunch of crap. They have been trying to re-build codfish for 25 years and they still suck at it. You cannot allow commercial fishing to the extent they do and expect any improvements in the fishery. They keep patting themselves on the back for saving the SB, BUT THEY DIDN’T DO JACKSH*T! It was SHUT DOWN for a decade, with clean up of coastal run off problems that allowed the SB to recover, IT WAS BECAUSE OF THEIR MANAGEMENT THAT THE SB GOT INTO TROUBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! They caused the friggin problem!!!!!!!!!! But somehow it was morphed and spun they they saved the fish. THE FISH WOULD NOT NEED THEIR SAVING IF THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE.


I follow the rules but I have NO FAITH WHATSOEVER in the ability of this regions fishery management. They just muck it up.

Dogfish in trouble...give me a friggin break

Tuna regs...totally screwed up esp when you look at what is done overseas and what is done here.

SB bycatch dumping and high grading....plenty of photos but they refuse to admit it goes on don't account for the catch as a commercial catch.

forage fish...too little too late (this should be the fishery managements slogan)

Taking breeder cod off Boston each fall. How can you expect to rebuild a fishery when you take these ripe fish during the breeding cycle no less? You can walk across the boats out there for gods sake and it is a small area. Shut it down, all together, everything for 10 years, then regulate it carefully, that is what it will take IMO.

Scup, weakfish, tog, winter flounder….The list is endless they are a bunch of overpaid idiots without a plan and poor communication skills.

IMO the "user group" theory is what doomed the success of fishery management. There are fish and fishermen. That’s it. There is economic benefit (and personal enjoyment) to the masses and there is economic benefit to the few, end of story. Regulate what is best for society based on that, not some political pressure to keep a "tradition" going that was a bad idea to begin with. It really pisses me off when I hear the Director talk about a fishery that is a tradition and that is why we keep it. WRONG, do what is right! Tradition is being used as a political spin tactic to avoid changing the status quo. Rod and reel SB fishing in MA is the perfect example.

end of rant

I fluke fish both rec. and commercially. I am not going to read the whole two part post although i do appreciate the time it took Mike to do that. My buddyon whose boat I fish, the boat captian/owner still gets his 200 #'s when he goes out. He is older though and doesn't push it as many days as he usually does. A couple of weeks ago after bass fishing quota (rec day) was reached we did three drifts and caught our 14 fish limit. Thats all fish 17 1/2 inches or better. I don't think we caught one under 24 on those three drifts. Very deep water though. But like everything else thats done in regard to the fishery thier doesn't seem to be a steady stream of common sense used instituting rules or catch quotas. When all of this means so much to all of us it can be very disconcerting one season to the next worrying about what we can or cannot fish for, or even if there will be any fish to go after next year.

O.K. Maybe the explanation was a little two long, here is the crib notes version. NMFS inplemented a ten rebuilding plan for fluke about 8 years ago. The plan was required by the magness act to be complete in ten years. NMFs set, what most people think, was an unreasonably high target for the total biomass of fluke in their plan. Now we are eight years into the plan, and the total biomass of fluke is higher than it has ever been, since NMFS began tracking it, but because of 1. the original target biomass and 2. the ten year requirement, they are going to have to just about shut down the fishery, for both commercial and recreation fishermen, NEXT YEAR. This has nothing to do with MRFSS or any other catch data, this is entirely due to the NMFS estimates of Biomass via trawl surveys. At this point the only option to save the 2007 and later seasons is to get some flexibility built into the Magnesson Reauthorization act, so NMFS can extend the rebuilding period. Again, there has never been a higher biomass of fluke and overfishing is not occuring, yet becauseof the ten year requirement they are about to, effectively, shut down all fluke fishing!

I think when push comes to shove they will not shut it down. I almost would be willing to give it up for a year just to see the heat come down on them hard. How can you shut down a fishery that is at record levels? This is the same boneheads counting dogfish.

Exactly what should one do to help keep it open? letters?

Letters to your congressman and senators asking the to pass the Magnesson reauthorization without the mandatory ten year rebuliding schedule. That will both enable NMFS to act and put the heat on them to do something to save the 2007 and later seasons. Right now their hands are tied because of the mandatory ten year rebuilding achedule in the Magnesson act. If it's repealed the NMFS can take emergency action to keep the fluke season open while rebuilding continues.

=================================
MakoMike wrote:

Letters to your congressman and senators asking the to pass the Magnesson reauthorization without the mandatory ten year rebuliding schedule. That will both enable NMFS to act and put the heat on them to do something to save the 2007 and later seasons.
=================================

MakoMike,

The fluke mess truly disturbs me because it is showing me that when push comes to shove, the recreational sector will react much like the commercial sector - and they are making the same mistakes.

Then again, those leading the charge on the rec side are in the party/charter sector who have as much of a financial conflict of interest on this issue as those who sell their catch.

MakoMike, wouldn't you agree that getting rid of the 10 year rebuilding requirement would create an enormous loophole in a system that needs its loophopes fixed rather than new ones created.

Do you have any doubt that the commercial groundishing fleet in New England wouldn't exploit such a loophole to the fullest extent that they could. Is that what we really need?

We already have a means of extending the 10 year rebuilding period when a stock is in particularly tough shape. Take a look at the Georges Bank cod rebuilding schedule set at 20 years (INCLUDING PHASED-IN OVERFISHING THAT WAS ALL FOUND TO BE LEGAL).

The problem with the Fluke mess, as I see it, is that at every available opportunity fishery managers (many of whom are fishermen) set the regs to take as much fluke as possible right at the margin of of the rebuilding plan. Throw in the uncertainty of the science involved (that all sides like to point out) and you have a recipe for disaster. So that's where we are now.

Things didn't have to get this this out of hand if only some real precaution was was used early on. Yes, I know Fluke are rebuilding remarkably well but just not in time to make it for 10 years. However, everyone knew the rules going into the rebuilding period and everyone chose to maximize harvest.

Just my .02,
Mike F.


For some more context on the Fluke problem, see...

==========================================

Asbury Park Press

August 27, 2006

Letter to the Editor: Rebuild stock of flounder

The Press has published a series of articles and an editorial
appropriately describing the Mid-Atlantic's summer flounder (fluke)
fishery as economically important and with many problems. However, I
disagree with the way you characterize these problems and the solutions.
("Don't founder on flounder," editorial, Aug. 14.)

The problem is basic mismanagement, which has resulted in rampant
overfishing and a perpetually languishing stock. In eight of the last 13
years (1993 to 2005), the recreational fishing sector exceeded its share
of the catch by an average of 50 percent annually. In one year, it
exceeded the quota by more than 122 percent.

Your coverage suggested the need for flexibility in overfishing and
rebuilding timelines, which would weaken the Magnuson-Stevens Act, our
nation's fisheries law, and would keep summer flounder at a level unable
to support our fishermen for the long term. A better solution is to end
overfishing and rebuild the stock, which is what Reps. H. James Saxton,
R-N.J., and Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., are trying to do.

Michael L. Pisauro Jr.

Governmental Affairs Agent
New Jersey
Environmental Lobby
Trenton
==========================================

Mike,
yes there have been some mistakes made, but IMHO the big mistake was in settingg the biomass target to start with. At best it is nothing but a guesstimate as to what the biomass was sometime in the 1930s. Now we have a stock that is well on its way to being rebuilt, but is about to be shut down because of that guestimate. I do think that, at the time, the ten year rebuilding timetable seemed like a good idea, and I agreed that it was was. But this episode demonstrates that we need to have some kind of discretion when it comes to these long leadtime rebuilding plans, so if a mistake is made it can be corrected before it does some serious damage.

I also agree that the NEFMC would be the prime candidate for abusing any discretion that was given to the councils, and that there should be some strict guidelines on who has this discretion and when it should be used. But the fluke mess will become the poster child for how bad long term fixed timetable rebuilding plans can be. If this situation is not adressed in time for the 2007 season, it will be used by some vested interests, as a lever against all rebuilding plans.

It is true that many of those leading the fight have a vested financial interest in the fishery. But that doesn't mean that they don't represent the "man in the street" of recreational fishing. Again, it's not like the codfish, in the sense that here we have a fish that is at its historical highs in terms of biomass, as reported by the NMFS. Yet they want to close the fishery, that is still recovering to meet some pie-in-the-sky biomass numbers in an artifically set timeframe, and do lots of harm to people who rely on the fishery for a substantial part of their income, not to mention the thousands of anglers who enjoy fishing for and eating these fish.

I guess it really comes down to a question of where do we draw the line when it comes to uncertain science vs people's lives and enjoyment. If we were talking about a situation similar to the nadir of the striped bass popluations, I would have a very different view of things.

That letter is tremendously misleading because it totally misstates the facts when it comes to the rebuilding of the fluke stock and overfishing. The stock is far from " a perpertually languishing stock." In fact it as the highest level since the NMFS started tracking it, and overfishing is not occurringl. However, if the author has said that there is no overfishing and that the stock is at the highest ever seen by the fishery managers, the entore letter would not have the same effect, now would it?