Comment from Rob McAleenan

I think this is a very good approach. It is allowing the fishery and individual to prepare for the implementation of the proposed rules. I also think that the narrative could be a little bit clearer to the layman so that they can fully understand the intent. After all, anyone can be a shore based fisherman so it could affect wide swaths of individuals. Is there data supporting the proposed changes to the whiting limits that can be taken? Without this data, also being presented openly and transparently, I could not take up a position for this rule. Also, what is the impact assessed regarding the fishery and the individual fisherman? Is the population of pacific whiting being impacted by the lack of or implementation of this rule? In other words, are we creating change for the sake of change? I would propose that the applicable organization, such as the National Marine Fishery Service, provide relevant data to support and defend the position that they are taking. This way, all affected parties have a solid idea about the what and the why in regards to the rule change. As a government, we must consider the effects of our actions on the populace that we serve. I think that is the very least we can do as civil servants. Read that again…civil SERVANTS. Thank you.