[zenspearo]

WARNING: LONG BUT COMPREHENSIVE POST ON HOW TO FOLLOW AND DEAL WITH VARIOUS SCENARIOS THE MORNING OF JUNE 4TH.

So what's the rallying point now, somebody asks.

Here are my thoughts. They are mine only. Take it with a grain of salt but if you want to, you can print it out and bring it if it helps you track the action.

In fact, I recommend printing it and bringing it.

First: Again, don't let them succeed in painting fishermen as out-of-control, angry, or bitter. Project professionalism, matter-of-factness, courteousness. Thank them for the opportunity to let you speak. And then get down to business.

Second: How much time? I'd plan for one minute, and have a supplemental but completely separate point for another minute. My guess is you have one minute. But the fact that a huge number of fishermen show up will make a huge difference.

Here's the meat of the post.

How you respond depends on the result of the BRTF discussion.

What do we want? We want the BRTF to remove External Proposal C from Round 2 evaluation both in form and in substance. The latter is important. It does us no good if External Proposal C is removed in name but its MPAs and concepts are to be considered in Round 3 (which means that instead of the oppressive closures of External Proposal C being advanced as an array in a map, individual large closures off La Jolla, Point Loma, Laguna, PV, Malibu, Santa Barbara, Catalina of External Proposal C would be advanced individually. It's a somewhat hollow victory for us and is a win that the enviros are not entitled to since External Proposal C wasn't even supposed to be an issue now that it has been fairly voted off).

Here are some of the possible scenarios so you can prepare your speaking. Other scenarios may develop and you'll get the sense of it if you show up by 9AM and listen in.

Scenario 1) BRTF debates and does NOT remove External Proposal C from round 2 evaluation. In this case, we consumptives are in a world of hurt because our RSGs have compromised to move maps forward but they are giving External Proposal C a free pass when External Proposal C has already been voted off by the RSGs. THIS IS OUR NIGHTMARE SCENARIO. Because External C would, being the one that closes the most areas, get the best science score and kill all consumptives.

How to respond: We, very politely and very professionally and VERY firmly, point out that the public trust has been shattered. Point out the unfairness of voting according to the rules only to have the votes revoked by fiat. Point out that your trust is gone since the BRTF itself suggests that no proposal moves forward unless it gets broad cross-interest support and here we have a proposal with the least cross-interest support (below 50%) getting advanced. Tell them that you believe this is gaming the system. Suggest that we, the constituents, will want our representatives to start from scratch and retreating to the original starting point again because we, the constituents, have pushed our representatives to compromise believing that compromising and concensus are the way to go forward. Never would you imagine the rules be changed to give a free pass to an array that is so lacking in support, more than 50% of the RSGs rejected it. Make a very polite, very professional, but unmistakable stink that we feel betrayed and have no trust in the process. EVERYONE NEEDS TO GO DEFCON1 AT THIS SCENARIO.

Scenario 2. BRTF debates and removes External Proposal C from round 2 evaluation. Then we have either scenario 2.a or scenario 2.b.

Scenario 2.a. But they suggest that, in the words of the fourth point of Ken Wiseman's memo "SCRSG members to draw on all of the MPA ideas to date to develop their Round 3 MPA proposals, including borrowing and incorporating ideas from external proposals as useful and appropriate." THIS IS THE HOLLOW VICTORY SCENARIO FOR CONSUMPTIVES IF WE ALLOW IT TO PROCEED.
We need to point out, again vociferously and politely and clearly, that it's not "appropriate" that Marine Protected Area (MPA) that has been rejected are now snuck back in. If it's voted out, it's out. Don't sneak it back in piece-meal. Imagine the huge La Jolla MPA as proposed by the enviro's External C gets air time all over again. Or the huge Northwest PV area. The gains made by our RSGs by compromising would be lost. Use words in Ken Wiseman's own Point #4 to refute it. Like it's not "useful" for the process when an MPA is rejected in a map in the previous round has to be debated all over again. It shouldn't be allowed to move forward. Like forcing the RSG to "incorporate" would be unfair..etc...

Scenario 2.b. The BRTF removes External C from evaluation and also does not require the RSG to consider its MPAs going into Round 3. In this case, we are back to what it should have been: this is the result of the vote that was taken fair and square on May 21st. We would have accomplished our purpose by restoring the result of the vote. It's a victory, but it shouldn't have to be fought for but for the flip-flopping of the MLPA Initiative team.

How to respond: In this case, you want to thank the BRTF for its wisdom. Urge the BRTF to give guidance to the Implementation Team to be consistent and clear so the Regional Stake Holders would have clear instructions and a productive environment to work under. Suggest that this kind of rule changing shakes your confidence in the openness and fairness. Suggest that your faith is restored a little, but you are watching. Also, ask the BRTF to give guidance to the RSGs for minimum closures because this is an adaptive process--there is no need to rush into it when there is not enough scientific data to fully justify closures in many areas. Let the science catch up and let the economic data be developed. They don't have to rush and close everything at first try. As time goes by, they can adaptively change when they have more information. You can also dovetail in your discussion of California's fiscal problem and say that there is no rush to create large closures to 1) put people out of business in the worst economy since the depression, and 2) there is no DFG money to enforce them, and 3) there is no money to do scientific study to adaptively manage them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
My guess? They will try to go for scenario 2a. This is consistent with gaming approaches. They start with something ridiculous (ignoring the votes) and then give us back some (removing External Proposal C in name), and still end up ahead. If we aren't insistent, they will give us a somewhat hollow victory, removing External C in name but let its MPAs and their concepts go forward to round 3. We should argue and stand our ground to get scenario 2b, which is the result of the vote had the vote been honored.

Finally, for those who want to stay for the general comment at 11:30AM: Go for the socio-economic issues that affect your fishing/diving area locally. Also push for minimum closures again. Argue to go slow again.

I think you may need to fill out a separate card for the general comments.

These are my thoughts. Feel free to use/discard. I provide no guarantees.

Note: Some people will disagree with discussion on 2A as well as others. We can debate a long time on this based on BRTF prerogatives, based on policy, based on law, etc. All would be nice and good. And you probably would be right. I have my reasons for posting it.