There's promise for improvement in the draft, but there are far too many instances of the phrase "seek to" in there for my liking. We need to "seek to" get some of the key ones changed to "shall"s, IMO, if these changes are to have any teeth.

As I've said before, the Option A and Option B stuff is a waste of time and a distraction. The reality is that neither of those "options" is realistic, and they're probably going to be used passive-aggressively to make the point that the status quo has been an appropriate allocation model, assuming both state-managed fisheries get equal priority (which is the real problem).

Really don't like that clause at the end... Seems to me it renders the Commission's guidance little more than expensive lip service in the end.