In the early days of the summer flounder plan when stocks were at seriously low levels, coastwide recreational measures were considered more effectively and more easily implemented than any other scenario. Moreover, since the recreational sector had been underfishing its harvest limit, coastwide measures could hardly be judged unfair. But with the dramatic increase in summer flounder availability and accompanying increases in recreational landings came the push for a new system. That new system would have to take greater cognizance of state fishing idiosyncrasies to ensure both effective and fair, that is, equitable, controls. Equivalency offers the promise of answering that requirement.
Free lunches are still hard to find, however.
Going forward, the possibility of considerable differences among state measures, especially minimum size, will complicate determinations of fair and effective state equivalencies. And it's possible recreational fishermen from neighboring states will look enviously upon measures of adjoining states, thus prompting more public debate and dissatisfaction. The question of possible changes to harvest limit allocation also arises. This is not to say which approach is best, but to point out the possibility of considerable debate over the issue. Nevertheless, it's reasonable to assume equivalency in one manner or another will remain a feature of the summer flounder plan.