Right because limits should be based on how much it costs fishermen to go after the species. How about this? If regulators feel that the limits need to be reduced below what's "worth it", they just close the season?

Does anyone have any actual science behind these proposals - good or bad?

They start small and eventually they'll take it all.Only thing everyone in their fancy boats will be able to do in a few years is have lunch and pull water skis.Sell the boats, the cost per trip/slip to try and pay for the amount of fish means nothing to these people in charge.NOTHING.Boat yards will see less $$ shops at the boat yards see less $$$.The bait guy gets less $$$.We are losing it all little by little.Seems like there's not much we can do about it.....:wall:

I agree we're losing little by little, death by 1,000 cuts. However, we have also from time to time been the excessive ones impacting too much. Unfortunately, fisheries management is far from a well oiled (and accurate) machine.

Ya.....those fishermen and boat owners also happen to be voters,taxpayers and citizens.........so the question I put to you johhny boy is do we manage the fish stocks for the good of the people and the commonwealth or just for the health of the fish stocks unto it's self?

Limits shouldn't be based on the price of fuel and whether those limits allow for high enough margins when the fish are brought to market.

I believe the guess was that the MPA would create a no intrusion zone in the " HOPE " ( where have we heard that before ), that the overflow would replenish nearby areas to be fished.:confused:

I'm not talking about bringing anything to market but rather referring to rec. folk( that's families) catching enough fish for the freezer to offset the cost of running There boat........