"Are you willing to risk fewer fish to keep, more throw backs, a higher probability of exceeding your quota, risking more severe regulations the following year for just the CHANCE at a slightly longer season, knowing they could easily shut you down long before it is over anyway?"
Basically, what this boils down to is the claim that we should not trust the scientist who put together the alternatives. A NJ scientist (Tony Baum, principal biologist for the NJ Bureau of marine Fisheries) put together alternative regulations to meet the 2010 quota. I don't think we should have to say: we don't trust the scientist who figured out the alternatives, so lets pick the most conservative option.
If you really want to reduce throwbacks, lets make the season 2 weeks long and make C&R fishing illegal outside of those 2 weeks. That way we would be certain of not exceeding the quota and would drastically reduce throwback mortality.
I thought this whole exercise was to try to pick a set of regulations that would be the most attractive to the largest number of people. The vast majority (over 80%) of the people answering this poll want a longer season. The frustrating part for me is that since we are not scientists, we need to be given alternatives that are actually alternatives for meeting the quota.