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.
__________________