Summer Flounder Fishery

[Bucktail]

I'm planning on attending the January meeting of Save The Summer Flounder Fishery Fund in Manasquan at the Elks.  It's a public meeting, so people should definitely come out.  I'll be able to do an article for the paper about it too, which is a nice bonus.

What paper do you write for?

[Captain Dave Wittenborn]

Here are some of the latest articles I have on the Fluke Issue.  I will keep everyone updated as I learn more. 

Captain Dave

NMFS keeps fluke issue up in the airJohn Geiser • STAFF COLUMNIST • December 2, 2007

The National Marine Fisheries Service is doing some fancy broken field running with the summer flounder ball lately.

Patricia A. Kurkul, regional administrator for the service, sent a comprehensive letter to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council last week that spelled out her concerns with the way summer flounder management has gone and how it might go in the future, if something is not done.

The summer flounder monitoring committee met Nov. 15, and discussed some of the problems, but did not make decisive recommendations to the council, which will meet Dec. 11.

"I . . . hope that the council will act with the precaution necessary to ensure that the measures it recommends will assure that the 2008 recreational harvest limit for summer flounder will not be exceeded," she wrote.

"Based on currently available Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) data collected through Wave 4 (July and August), all but two states have exceeded their 2007 recreational harvest targets," she continued.

"Some states' averages are already quite high, and are expected to increase when data from Wave 5 (September-October) are available," she added.

"The state-by-state conservation equivalency management measures have not been effective in constraining harvest and, unfortunately, this is not an uncommon result," she emphasized. "The recreational fishery has exceeded the established target in all but three years of the summer flounder rebuilding period that began in 2000."

Kurkul did not mention that all landing targets were recommended by the council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's summer flounder board were based on advice from staff, the monitoring committee, independent biologists and advisors, and, ultimately, approved by NMFS.

"Changes in the management approach, or, at a minimum, in the methodology used to derive and estimate the effectiveness of proposed management measures, are clearly needed to ensure that the target is not once again exceeded, further jeopardizing summer flounder rebuilding," she advised.

"This is true, whether the council recommends coastwide measures or conservation equivalency, either regional or state-by-state, for 2008," she added.

Kurkul explained that prior to 2007, the monitoring committee had typically assumed in its calculations that next year's recreational fishery would behave similarly to the previous year.

"For example, angler effort, fish availability, average weight of individual fish, and compliance with regulations were all assumed to remain similar to the fishery in the previous year," she noted.

Later in her letter she emphasized that the monitoring committee stopped short of providing technical advice for how to best address issues such as "increasing angler participation and noncompliance rates."

Fishermen wonder how the learned biologists and management officials, including NMFS, only became aware of these factors in 2007, and how some of them still get it wrong. Kurkul, herself, must have remained in her office with the shades drawn.

For instance, where on earth did she get the idea that angler participation is increasing? Boat registrations are falling every year, boat sales are down, tackle and bait sales have crashed, party boats are carrying fewer persons every year, and party and charter boats are going out of business.

As far as the availability of fish: everyone in fisheries management is talking about a summer flounder biomass that is four times what it was when management was begun. The fish are bigger, heavier and more abundant — everyone knows that.

The claim that the monitoring committee could not have assumed in its calculations that the following year's fishery would behave similarly to the previous year is hogwash. They knew. Why they hesitated was fear and frustration at trying to cope with inflexible time lines and fixed targets.

The question of noncompliance rates can be answered easily: give anglers a fair and reasonable opportunity to take fish home to eat, and compliance will soar.

The battle is on to save the fluke fisheryBy JOHN GEISER • December 1, 2007

The campaign to save the fluke fishery for recreational and commercial anglers is moving ahead even as opposition from environmentalists and government increases.

Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-NJ, has announced that the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans will hold an oversight hearing at 11 a.m. Wednesday on rebuilding overfished fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Pallone, who serves as senior member of the subcommittee, requested the hearing after numerous complaints from recreational and commercial fishermen on the continuous assault on the annual summer flounder quota.

The stock has been built to historic highs in seven years yet the National Marine Fisheries Service and some environmentalists want to double its mass.

Pallone said the hearing will examine the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the massive cuts fishermen have faced in an attempt to reach an arbitrary rebuilding target by the end of 2012.

Fishermen are particularly frustrated by the fact that the bigger the biomass grows, the more the harvest is cut back.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council recommended a quota of 15.77 million pounds for summer flounder in 2008, which is a cut from 17.1 million pounds this year, which was down from 23.59 million pounds in 2006.

Even as Pallone announced the date of the hearing, Patricia A. Kurkul, regional administrator for NMFS, sent a letter to the council urging that body to take action the morning of Dec. 11 in Secaucus to set regulations so tight that the quota cannot be exceeded.

Some environmental groups, especially those allied with the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group, are pressing NMFS to reduce the quota of 15.77 million pounds recommended by the council and the commission to 11.6 million pounds.

NMFS could achieve part of this demand without angering commercial fishermen further by simply pressuring the commission and the council to put such harsh regulations on the recreational sector, such as a two-fish limit with a 28-inch minimum, that the angling portion or 6.3 million pounds could not be filled, and quite possibly be as low as the 4.64 million pounds that would be allowed the recreational sector under the 11.6-million scenario.

This would also allow the commercial sector to harvest 9.6 million pounds instead of 6.96 million pounds as it would if the total allowable harvest were to be cut to 11.6 million pounds.

"This hearing will give recreational and commercial fishermen a chance to testify before Congress and explain their position that the current rebuilding targets are unattainable," Pallone said.

"It will also give members of Congress the opportunity to question NMFS about the "best available science' used in creating the yearly total allowable landing limits and whether the current rebuilding targets take into account environmental factors such as over development and the degradation of our estuaries," he continued.

"I will also be interested to hear if NMFS believes the current ecosystem can sustain all species at the rebuilt levels with regard to predator-prey relationships," he added.

Pallone said he hopes to get answers to the following questions:

Have rebuilding plans been established for fisheries identified as overfished and has overfishing ended in these fisheries?

What is the likelihood that these plans will achieve their rebuilding goals within the required time frames?

How are the rebuilding targets for overfished stocks established?

What type and quality of information and data is factored into those targets?

How are non-fishing impacts — such as habitat loss, pollution and predator-prey relationships —- factored into those targets?

What can Congress do to help NMFS meet rebuilding plan goals?

Representatives of the Recreational Fishing Alliance and Save the Summer Flounder Fishery Fund are expected to testify at the hearing.

Record fluke stocks argue against quota cutsBy TONY BOGAN • November 30, 2007

Our organization takes issue with the views expressed in the Nov. 25 commentary "Summer flounder catch quotas must reflect solid science" in which Lee Crockett, director of the Federal Fisheries Policy Reform Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group, said, "We want fisheries managers to follow the best scientific advice available in order to rebuild stocks, bring summer flounder populations back to health and thereby maintain a sustainable fishery."

The summer flounder stock is at its highest recorded level since such records have been kept and its sustainability is not in question. The stock of summer flounder, commonly called fluke, has quadrupled since its low point in the '80s. Through the sacrifices of both recreational and commercial fishermen, the stocks are healthier than ever and should be available to the public in reasonable and sustainable quantities.

Environmentalists have little good to say about the documented successes of the summer flounder rebuilding process. Instead, they are quick to mention "historic levels" of summer flounder, predictions of gloom and doom and "time running out." The only deadline looming is a date on a calendar embraced by the environmentalists as "the end of the line." The only truly endangered resource we can identify in this situation is those individuals, commercial and recreational, whose livelihoods are largely dependent on a healthy and robust summer flounder fishery.

The crux of this issue is an arbitrary 10-year rebuilding time frame implemented by Congress at the insistence of the environmentalist lobby. Crockett makes it clear he supports the "sooner" rather than "better" mentality. Our position is to allow both the fishery and the fishermen to coexist.

While Crockett has admitted there will be "negative economic consequences in the short term" associated with massive cuts in quota and possible closures, he fails to detail why such measures are necessary beyond meeting an arbitrary deadline. It is our observation that when a small business closes its doors, it's not short term. It is permanent and economically devastating to both individuals and the community.

We would like to ask Crockett one important question: If we can rebuild the stocks in a time frame longer than 10 years and achieve the same results while keeping people in business at the same time, would he not support such an initiative?

Shouldn't the destination, not how short the journey is, be our goal? Crockett apparently prefers the motto "Save the fish at the expense of the humans" instead of "Save the fish and the humans."

Crockett commented about fishermen questioning the science used behind the rebuilding targets, biomass size, etc. He stated "the data and the model used to develop the target have been reviewed and validated by independent scientists 16 times in 23 years."

But conveniently omitted is that in those 23 years, the rebuilding target has been lowered time and again. Even the scientists admitted their estimates of a rebuilt summer flounder population were vastly overestimated, starting at about 338 million pounds, more than 120 million pounds higher than today's "best available" science.

Fishermen are not questioning the scientists' veracity, only some of their conclusions. Commercial and recreational fishermen along the coast are seeing a fishery the likes of which many have never seen in 40 or 50 years. Yet we are told the stock still needs to at least double. Fishermen wonder what ocean these scientists are fishing in.

Our goal is to hire, at our own expense, independent scientists, not government scientists, to either validate or invalidate some of the methods, targets and conclusions currently in use. Does Crockett fear hiring independent scientists? We are attempting what his organization has done for years: questioning the status quo.

The suggestions Crockett makes to mitigate the economic consequences associated with more cuts and closures have been proposed by commercial and recreational fishermen for the last decade. Anglers and commercial fishermen also have proposed his suggestions of "slot limits" and "angler surveys" for years. The very scientists he mentions have stated time and again that such things are not feasible at this point in time, and may never be. Crockett's "solutions" are but another attempt to distract readers from his otherwise dubious agenda to stop fishing.

As an example of the deception inherent in Crockett's commentary, he closes with the statement, "Ultimately, we should all share the same goal: a healthy fluke population. . . . And the best way to achieve that is through science-based management that allows fishing at sustainable levels, rather than practices that will leave our oceans emptier in the future."

This belies the fact our oceans are far from "emptier," but have the highest level of summer flounder ever recorded. Our goal to hire independent researchers and add common-sense legislation to the Magnuson-Stevens Act governing fisheries management is long overdue.

Tony Bogan, Brick, is a member of the Save the Summer Flounder Fishery Fund.

[IrishAyes]

That's a bunch of useful information there Captain Dave.  Thanks for the post.   

[bayonne]

put a 2 year ban on comercail fishing and then drasticly cut their catch and limmit them to beyond 3 miles and yull see a big come back its always the rec. angler thats getting the short end of the stick while the netters do as they want wipeing out in shore grounds

[Pops Soul]

 

God I hate politics, But I love to fish Thanks for all that great INfo Capt Dave, reading it makes my blood boil bngh

[Captain Dave Wittenborn]

Some more info-
Captain Dave
www.CaptainDavesCharters.com

Issue may call for legislation
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-6th Dist.) testified yesterday before the House Fisheries Subcommittee in Washington that legislation may be required to provide flexibility in managing fisheries during their rebuilding period.

Pallone, a senior member of that subcommittee, arranged for the hearing due to concerns among both recreational and commercial fishermen that the fluke season will be severely restricted or even shut down next year due to the necessity to stay on track toward what may be an unrealistic target -- and despite the relative abundance of the species.

That legislation would involve a change in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that was just reauthorized last fall. The only reason we were able to enjoy a somewhat reasonable fluke season this year was because Rep. James Saxton (R-3rd) was able to get a three-year extension of the summer flounder rebuilding period into that legislation. Allowing fishery managers the flexibility to deal with the situation on a timely basis would be the best long-term solution.

Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) testified that the current law ties the hands of fishery managers, and noted that the stock is now at a size not seen in 25 years. He also accused the Pew Environmental Group of wanting to stop fishing with their call for a 10-year moratorium on fluke fishing.


RFA CALLS FOR FLEXIBILITY TO REBUILD FISHERIESWashington, D.C. - December 5, 2007, Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources on rebuilding fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
 
The House Committee on Natural Resources invited the RFA to share its views on the challenges in meeting the requirements of the MSA.  Using summer flounder, a vitally important recreational fishery on the East Coast as an example, RFA testified that the current law has tied the hands of fishery managers.  The summer flounder stock is now at a size not seen in 2! 5 years, fishing mortality has decreased over 80%, total harvest has decreased over 96%, and both total stock biomass and spawning stock biomass have increased 251% and 280%, respectively.  However, despite what can only be considered strong progress, recreational fishermen will face the most restrictive quotas in history.
In his opening statement, Cong. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) suggested a need to write flexibility into the MSA.  The RFA welcomed this announcement and Mr. Donofrio said, "I am grateful for Mr. Pallone's leadership and I am heartened to hear that Mr. Pallone is considering legislation " to inject flexibility into the law.   Mr. Donofrio further said, "Without flexibility in the statute, fisheries managers will continue to be held to unrealistic and unachievable expectations".
The RFA also took exception to calls from environmental activists to shut down t! he summer flounder fishery.  Mr. Donofrio said, summer flounder " has experienced rebuilding similar to that of perhaps the most famous rebuilding success [striped bass].  Yet…the Pew Environmental Group recently called for a 10-year moratorium on all summer flounder fishing….At least Pew admitted what they have denied for so long.  They just want to end fishing."
After the hearing, Mr. Donofrio said, "The continued hyperventilation and breathless calls to shut down fisheries are pretty transparent.  The fishing community is apparently a good source from which the environmental community can fund-raise.  Fishermen across this country know that it is patently unfair to place unrealistic scientific objectives on fishermen to rebuild fish populations.  Scientists, managers, fishermen, and members of the environmental community know full well the limitations of fisheries science and the uncertainties in the marine environment.  It is my hope that interested parties ca! n agree that the statutory regime cannot dictate biologically impossible results and that common sense revisions need to be made."
Mr. Donofrio concluded by saying, "I am grateful for the opportunity to represent the views of recreational fishermen before Congress.  I commend Congressman Pallone for calling for this hearing, as well as other members of the Committee, including Chairwoman Bordallo, and Ranking Republican Henry Brown (R-SC), for their interest in these issues."
 

Frank supports flexible deadlines for rebuilding fisheries
By MINI KOLLURI
Standard-Times correspondent
December 06, 2007 6:00 AM
WASHINGTON — Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told a House subcommittee Wednesday that federal law needs to be amended to allow more time to rebuild overfished fisheries.

As of last year, 74 fish stocks were identified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as in need of rebuilding. "This way we can promote healthy fisheries and healthy fishing communities at the same time," Rep. Frank told the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.

Rep. Frank expressed his concern that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, enacted in 1976 and amended in 1996, lacks sufficient flexibility.

The act sets the rebuilding time frame at 10 years and allows exceptions to the rule only when the biology of the relevant stock of fish, environmental conditions or an international agreement in which the United States participates dictate a greater time frame.

Rep. Frank is the co-sponsor of a bill that would permit an extension of the rebuilding period beyond the current 10-year limit.

"If rebuilding weakened stocks can be achieved in, for example, 13 years instead of 10, the positive impact on fish stocks will ultimately be the same," he said. "But, because the rebuilding targets will be reached on a more gradual glide path, with less severe reductions in fishing, the negative economic burden on affected fishing communities will also be less severe."

The bill, introduced by Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., would allow the 10-year rule to be breached when a rebuilding program cannot be effective only by limiting fishing, when more time is needed to minimize the economic impact on fishing communities, when one or more fish stocks in a multi-species fishery (like the New England groundfish fishery) are on "a positive rebuilding trajectory" or when the rebuilding targets are substantially increased after the rebuilding period has begun.

Last year, the law was amended to give summer flounder fisheries an extension of three years after the fisheries said that they could not meet the targets in time.

A report released Tuesday by the Marine Fish Conservation Network criticized the fishing industry, especially New England Fishery managers for allowing what it termed "chronic overfishing" of cod, flounder and other groundfish species.

Lee Crockett, who directs the Federal Fisheries Policy Reform Project for the Pew Environment Group, said in an interview that summer flounder, cod and other fish species have been overfished for several years and that conservation was an imminent need.

"The bill that Frank supports is vague about the deadlines and does not talk about how much the target should be," he said. "We cannot have an open-ended process."

Andrew A. Rosenberg, a member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, told the subcommittee that overfishing continued in about half the fisheries identified.

"The principal factor hindering the ability to meet plan goals is not reducing the exploitation rate quickly enough or far enough to begin rebuilding," he said. "The worst case of this is allowing continued overfishing in the early stages of the rebuilding plan and hoping to "catch up' to the rebuilding timeline in the later years of the plan. This is a strategy for failure."

Mr. Crockett, who agreed with Rosenberg, said that the Magnuson-Stevens Act was correctly focused on conservation and science-based management and that it is the only way "we are going to build healthy fish stocks that support fisheries in the long-term."

 

[IrishAyes]

Thanks for the update Capt Dave.   

[Hotrod]

 

[ped579]

Here we go again... bngh

This is the same rhetoric that got us in this predicament in the first place with Saxton voting for a more stringent bill with no wiggle room. 

DUH???

[fishon42]

Unbelievable 18 1/2 inches.. that is just retarded. End of story.

[Captain Dave Wittenborn]

Some more info.
Captain Dave

Public hearing on summer flounder set for Tuesday
By JOHN GEISER • CORRESPONDENT • December 7, 2007

A fixed biomass target for summer flounder and a rigid time line for reaching it will be among the problems that fishermen will bring up next Tuesday when the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's summer flounder board and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council meet jointly in Secaucus.

The meeting will get under way at 8:30 a.m. and run through 11 a.m. at the Holiday Inn Harmon Meadow, 300 Plaza Dr. The public is invited to attend.

John V. O'Shea, executive director of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, comes down on the side of strict regulation of participants in the fishery to achieve the goal of doubling the present fluke biomass to 214 million pounds by the end of 2012.

Tony Bogan, former member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, stands on the belief that the fishery should be managed with enough flexibility that the stocks can be safely increased without causing socio-economic damage to the recreational and commercial fishing communities.

"Skeptics feel that the rebuilding target is unachievable," O'Shea wrote in a column in the ASMFC's periodical, "Fisheries Focus."

"They cite the lack of progress in recent years as evidence the stock might be constrained by habitat loss or overcrowding and conclude it is not worth trying to reach the rebuilt target biomass even though both sectors say they need more fish," O'Shea added.

"Scientists say the target is realistic based on the production capacity of the stock demonstrated by its expansion despite heavy fishing pressure," O'Shea added.

Bogan counters that he would like the executive director to show him where fishermen have said it is "not worth" trying to reach the rebuilt target biomass.

"At all of the meetings that I have attended, no such comments were made," Bogan said. "What has been stated was that fluke might very well be closer to (or at) a "rebuilt' status, hence the reason the science is being questioned.

"Long before O'Shea was involved in fisheries management, fishermen were the ones pushing for healthy fish stocks," Bogan stressed.

"It was commercial and recreational fishermen, not O'Shea, who pushed for the 200-mile limit in the 1970s to remove the massive foreign factory ships that were strip-mining our oceans," he reminded. "It was commercial and recreational fishermen, along with some environmental groups, who pushed forward the clean ocean bills that have transformed our waters over the years, not O'Shea.

"It was the aforementioned fishermen who have made the sacrifices over the years that have helped along the rebuilding process for summer flounders and countless other species, not O'Shea," he continued.

"O'Shea references fishermen saying they "need more fish," Bogan added. "On the contrary, what we have been saying is that "we need you to stop taking more fish away from us.' In 1997, when the quota was less than half of what it is today, recreational fishermen were allowed to land more than one million more fish than we are today.

"That's right, half the quota, but one million more fish," he stressed. "As the stock continues to grow, fishermen continue to get fewer fish. Sound backward to you? Welcome to fisheries management."

Bogan said these facts have been constantly brought to the attention of the ASMFC, but O'Shea has remained silent.

"Three years after I mentioned it to him, I am still waiting for him to acknowledge the fact and try to address the shortcomings of this and others of the current management system," he emphasized. "Like most bureaucrats, he apparently prefers the same old, same old as opposed to change."

Bogan said that fishermen are wondering when they will see the benefits that they were supposed to see after making all of the sacrifices over the years.

"You remember the sacrifices, right?" he asked. "The ones that have not affected Mr. O'Shea's job or income, only the fisherman's."

"With a fluke biomass higher than ever recorded by scientists, why are we still being asked to cut back even further?" Bogan asked. "O'Shea would have you believe it is because of recreational and commercial landings, discards and unreported landings (another item that NMFS and ASMFC acknowledge but refuse to account for)."

"We as fishermen believe it is due to science that is severely lacking good information and using arbitrary time-lines imposed by Congress at the behest of the environmental lobby, and embraced by fisheries managers such as O'Shea as the end-all, be-all of fisheries management," Bogan said.

"In the March 2006 issue of "Fisheries Focus,' O'Shea wrote about public comment being an "integral part' of the ASMFC's fishery management process," Bogan pointed out. "In the March 2007 issue, he starts two paragraphs off with the phrase, "Doing what is best,' two paragraphs with "being fair,' and a third with the term "fairness.'

"If public comment is such an integral part of management, and listening, learning and understanding how a fishery (which means the people and the fish) works would most certainly be needed in order to "do what's best" and be "fair,' how can one explain O'Shea's previously quoted comments?

"How could O'Shea be so far off the mark when talking about what fishermen have "said' or "want?"' Bogan asked.

"The only answer I can come up with is O'Shea's apparent love for public comment does not truly exist," Bogan concluded. "He may "listen' to fishermen when they speak, but apparently he hasn't "heard' a word we've said."

[ped579]

Finally the gloves are coming off.  It is about time we start using stronger language and follow through with our intentions.

I am talking about the John-Q-Public guy and gal.  I have to give a big ata boy to a small handfull of people who are our mouth piece.  I wish I could articulate as well as they do under pressure.

Thank You

Paul

[IrishAyes]

Nice job keeping everyone informed Capt Dave.  Let's continue the good fight.   

[Captain Dave Wittenborn]

Council's fluke TAL accepted by NMFS
Sunday, December 30, 2007
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be publishing a final rule accepting the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's TAL (total allowable landings) of 15.77 million pounds of fluke. Only 40 percent of that figure goes to recreational fishing. Though the TAL represents a 7.8 percent drop from last year, it's far better than the much lower TAL endorsed by the Monitoring Committee and pushed by some environmental groups.

Recreational regulations will be published shortly in another final rule. It will be some time before a choice of regulations for N.J. waters will be presented, but we're probably looking at a 19-inch minimum length. Even larger reductions were made in the TALs for scup (porgies) at 38.8 percent and 15.6 percent for black sea bass.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) saw that final rule and stated "I am disappointed in the 8 percent cut in summer flounder quota for 2008, but without the stellar lobbying effort of the fishing community, we may have been faced with even bigger cuts. These consistent cuts to the yearly quotas have not produced the result that was intended, and that is why I am planning to introduce legislation to add flexibility to the Magnuson-Stevens Act when we return in January."
 

[Bucktail]

Nice to know we have someone like Rep. Frank Pallone looking out for us!  He does not represent my district, so I can't vote for him.  But I hope those who can, remember this when it's time.

[IrishAyes]

We need more politicians to fight the battle with/for us.  They are the ones who have to change the existing laws.

[TurboDan]

As I post just about weekly, the announcement for the Jan 21 rally in Manasquan was published in The Coast Star this week once again.  I've also secured a photographer to go to the rally, and I will be making sure I talk to a few of the guys behind the organization so we can have a preview article the week before to really get the word out.

Of course, I'll be at the event myself and we'll have an article and photos in that week's issue.  Happy to do my part!

[ped579]

 

Thanks Dan...