IS BAYKEEPERS' EXTERNAL PROPOSAL C DEAD?

[zenspearo]

Quite a few of you PM'ed me and thought that Baykeepers' External Proposal C is dead. Gone. No longer included for Round 2 evaluation.

This is the proposal that sticks it to us fishermen. The ones that got voted off by the RSGs.

After all, wasn't that what Ken Wiseman did today?

WRONG! It is very much alive right this minute.

Actually, I thought the same thing when I read Ken Wiseman's memo for the first time.

See the memo here.

http://www.wonews.com/Blog.aspx?ID=6...&t=STEAMROLLER

But there is a very subtle switch-a-roo. This is what they hope most will miss.


Pay attention everyone. I missed it the first time too.

Remember the May 27th memo that started this whole mess? Ken Wiseman sent that to the SCRSGs ("Dear SCRSG members,....We have decided that all seven proposals will move forward for analysis and review as part of the Round 2 evaluation process....")

In one stroke, and by virtual fiat, Ken Wiseman decreed that all 7 proposals including the voted out external proposal C would go forward. So he has that authority (or at least in his mind, he does) to directly handle it with the RSGs. While it's true he mentioned Benninghoven's name, he communicated his decision directly to the RSG and that's that (or so he thought). Got that?

June 2nd is today. The new memo is now a "Proposals for Round 2 Evaluation" and it goes from Ken Wiseman and addresses "MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force" to "propose" that only six goes forward. Huh?

Hmmm. Why would he have the power to decree directly to the RSGs that 7 proposals go forward earlier and now he is NOT reversing what he did earlier BY SIMILARLY COMMUNICATING TO THE RSG?

He's only "proposing" it to the BRTF in the current memo, remember?

Here's why. It's the classic authority play. He's not reversing the earlier decision!!! He's tossing it to the BRTF so he can wash his hands, pretending that he did make an effort. If the BRTF refuses to remove External Proposal C, Ken Wiseman can shrug and say "hey, I tried."

That's the subtle sleigh of hand (among many in that memo). There is significance in the fact that the current memo is only a "proposal" and is not addressed to the RSGs, unlike the earlier fiat that is directed toward the RSGs. But it's only one aspect of the gaming.

How do I know that this External C removal is not a done deal? I bet anybody $20 bucks that the BRTF will, with great fanfare, declare that they will take up Ken Wiseman's proposal and "debate" it on June 4th. And they will even let the public have comments too. Whoa..whoa...whoa... Wait a minute. Why should the inclusion of External Proposal "C" be a subject of debate at all? Didn't it get voted off by the RSGs, which by the rules set out by the MLPA Initiative Team, must be gone? I'll leave it for people smarter than me to explain why. Needless to say, this stuff is all engineered in. Gamed in advance.


Let me take a guess why Ken Wiseman would take this longer route to "rescind" the earlier decision to include External C. Lemme see...Debate means the BRTF can go either way, right? Either way the BRTF decide, it gives their buddy Ken Wiseman political cover!!! Pretty slick, huh?

What does this mean for us? We need to show up and tell the BRTF "NO TO EXTERNAL PROPOSAL C" In the name of voting fairness, it needs to be GONE. Not only in name, but its arrays and MPAs, which have been rejected soundly by the RSGs, must be gone. Not snuck back in (did anyone read point #4 of Ken Wiseman's June 2nd memo--that's a sneak-back attempt, boys and girls).

Whoever says this I-team isn't good? It's the best money can buy, guys.
__________________

[Matt]

Just got this email and thought I'd post before I go fish

Who: MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force


What: REVISED draft meeting agenda (attached, changes also highlighted below)
When: June 4, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Where: Sheraton Gateway Los Angeles Hotel
6101 West Century Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90045
and via simultaneous webcast (on the day of the meeting) at

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/meetings_sc.asp (see attached for details).



Please note the following agenda changes:

* New agenda item: In response to strong interest among stakeholders and the public, a new agenda item (H) has been added focusing on Round 2 evaluations of draft marine protected area proposals. The BRTF will receive and discuss staff recommendations and public comment on this topic.

* Order of agenda items: It is expected that the task force will take up the new agenda item, Agenda Item H (Receive and Discuss Staff Memo Regarding Round 2 Draft Marine Protected Area Proposal Evaluations), first thing in the morning after introductions and that Updates (items A through E) will be received throughout the day.

* General public comment: Public comment on subjects related to the work of the task force, not listed on the agenda, will now be taken at approximately 11:30 a.m.

Parking Validation
Validation will be provided ONLY for Sheraton Hotel valet parking. Adjacent parking lots will no longer accept Sheraton validation

[Holy Mackerel]

just a reminder from Joe's post.

Don't be confused by the fact that there is another public comment at 11:30AM. The critical public comment on External C proposal may be immediately after their discussion of agenda item H, which can come as soon as 9:45AM (if they finish discussion in five minutes--doubtful but possible).

So nothing changes as far as timing. Show up by 9AM at the latest (8AM is better). Get your speaking card in.

***ON THE CARD, INDICATE YOU WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT "ITEM H, ROUND 2 MPA EVALUATION AND OTHERS" Don't say only "General", which is what we suggested earlier, because they may shove you to the split-off general comment period at 11:30AM. ***

[Matt]

thanks for clarifying that Chris!! See you up there tomorrow morning by 8

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by Holy Mackerel

***ON THE CARD, INDICATE YOU WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT "ITEM H, ROUND 2 MPA EVALUATION AND OTHERS" Don't say only "General", which is what we suggested earlier, because they may shove you to the split-off general comment period at 11:30AM. ***

I've been biting my tongue here but I feel it's about time someone said some things that are not being said.

You have to look at this in a strategical light rather then on just it's face value. These people do this stuff for a living. They do not make mistakes and they are not stupid. Everything they do is for strategic gain. They have one goal and that is to get their way, and they will use everything at their disposal to do so. It's politics that's how it works.

First off... what is C and why is it in there to begin with.

Well some might say it's the end of the world anti fishing proposal that will shut down fishing for ever. It sure looks that is what it is.... right.

Well they truth is that is not what it really is. C is a political maneuver to sway the debate where they want it to be.

The BRTF (politicians) already knows pretty much what they want to put in place but since they have through the process with the RSG (public) their goal is to get the RSG to submit a proposal that already looks like what they already want.

If they have to rewrite the proposal that the RSG puts in front of them it's their political necks on the line. For them it's all much easier if the RSG just gives them something that looks just like what they already want.

Proposal C is not going to be passed on by the RSG it does not have the votes. It's not in there as a viable proposal. C is in there and they want to keep it in there as a bargaining chip to sway the debate just enough to the environmental side to get the RSG to give BRTF the exact proposal they want. It's there purely as a counter balance to the support on the fishing side.

When Wiseman told the RSG members to vote he never had the intention of removing C he just wanted the fishing interests to make some compromises and consolidate their plans. Less Plans or compromises on the fishing side means more weight on the envrio side which sways the end result toward the enviros.. Get it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but technically according to process rules the only group that can remove the proposals unless they are withdrawn voluntarily is the BRTF(politician's) and they are not going to hand over that right to the RSG (public). The RSG is just an advisory board and has no real power, ultimately whatever they say can be trumped by the BRTF, and the BRTF are not going to give up their power to the RSG.

Recently the fishing side has made some great progress the vote clearly shows the more fishing friendly proposals have strong support in the RSG.

Now instead of building on those strengths and those victories they have the fishing community talking about C. Even though C is a lame duck proposal that will never go forward even if it remains in the process.

I mean honestly do you guys think for one minute they did not see this coming. Wiseman and others knew that fisherman would raise hell about pushing C through they planned on it. They knew also that all they have to do to kill the debate on C is to say that removal of proposals is and always will the BRTF's decision.

Tomorrow if you guys go in there only ready to debate C, the days going to be wasted for the fishing side.

Trust me the whole "ITEM H, ROUND 2 MPA EVALUATION"' debate is going to end with them simply saying that it's the BRTF's not the RSG's decision and then they are going to cut off all debate on that subject. What are you going to do then?

Especially if everyone has only signed up to comment on ITEM H

I would strongly suggest that you have people sign up for Both the general and Item H comment period, and if each individual can sign up for both they should do so. You need to be ready to discuss more then C at this meeting or we are going to loose some momentum.

You don't win by attacking weaknesses but by eliminating your opponents strengths. I'd say that is exactly what this is all really about. Rather then discussing our strengths they have totally swung the debate to one issue, a technicality, that they created, and to which they already have response prepared.

Even if they get rid of C (I doubt they will) it does not matter that much as C is never going anywhere anyway as the RSG has no intention of passing it on as the final proposal to the BRTF.

It's all a huge strawman, and they are laughing while we try to beat the sh!t out of it while ignoring the larger issues and our real strengths.

They don't get their way through fair debate, they get it by limiting debate, or more precisely the public's input, and they have us limiting our own debate by focusing on a single issue. That's the real point of what they are trying to do here.

Just my opinion, Jim

[zenspearo]

I haven't read all of Jim Day's post but one thing caught my eye.

and it's a common ground for agreement.

Please sign up for BOTH the agenda item H and the general speaking at 11:30AM.

That means you will fill out TWO cards.

Hey, you are already there anyway, what's the problem?

That way, each of us takes two bites of the apple.

Lots to talk about--trust me.

Breaking news:

At the end of every speech, whether during agenda item H or general item, EVERYONE please address the point that there is, in addition to a science data gap, a socio-economic data gap, a financial gap, there is now a credibility gap. The science data gap and the socio-economic data gap comes from the inadequate Ecotrust data. The finance gap comes from the fact that the state is flat broke, and we see the cost creeping up at every turn --and no way to pay for closures and DFG is broke. The credibility gap comes from the constantly shifting rules, the demoralized RSGs and incidents like not providing science data material to the RSG until the night before and expecting them to act on it the next day on voluminous data they don't have to read.

This process needs to be paused for these gaps to be fixed.


This point needs to be repeated 100 times. Trust me, it's a critical push we are giving on the point. Take ten seconds everyone and say this. 100 times. 200 times.

[zenspearo]

But I disagree, and some of the smartest guys on the fishing sides disagree, that External C can be ignored.

We need to apply maximum pressure to eliminate C, because it is a drag on consumptives.

If it is evaluated in Round 2, it will get huge science scores (bigger and ridiculous closures = higher scores. No brainer there) and look like the fair hair child of all the proposals, and that put HUGE pressure on the consumptive RSGs to give up more to keep up. Even though External C is unrealistic, it is a foot at the neck of our RSG reps.

WE NEED TO RELIEVE THAT PRESSURE OR OUR RSG REPS WILL BE FORCED TO GIVE UP MORE AND MORE.

That's our job.