My hope for this summit is that it will continue to develop ways that managers can better understand how the recreational fishery functions, and determine which management regimes will continue to develop the substantial socioeconomic value of this industry. I suspect they will consider the Morris-Deal Commission’s “Vision for Managing America’s Saltwater Recreational Fisheries,” as well as recommendations from the MAFAC Recreational Fisheries Working Group concerning the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). I am sure there will be a great deal of discussion about the “Vision” thing, with most of their attention focused on the issue of flexibility with the rebuilding timelines. For a number of people, this is the heart of the entire reauthorization effort. When I was a member of the commission, I did not agree with the majority on the necessity for more flexibility. By and large, I think the current MSA works fairly well. Going to some sort of constant-harvest strategy, which essentially lowers the rebuilding bar for a longer period, will not and cannot be good for recreational fishing. Recreational fisheries do the best for user groups and for the industry when the stocks are at or near fully rebuilt status. That is what excites anglers. That is what drives the number of trips. That is what gets anglers buying tackle. Yada, yada, yada. Anglers use the least-efficient methods to catch fish, and they need strong stock biomass to be successful. Anglers also like to have a normal distribution of sizes so they have a reasonable chance to catch a trophy. It’s not rocket science; it’s common sense.