Nitty Gritty June 4th Meeting Strategy.

[zenspearo]

Jim, I responded in the other thread but just in case you missed it, here it is.

While I agree (and have updated my post) that two cards need to be filled out to speak at both speaking opportunities, 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 External 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.

The fact that there is a huge push among the enviro RSGs to keep External C in play shows how important this is for them, and how important it is for us to get rid of it.

See the instruction for voting here. http://spearboard.com/showthread.php?t=85421

The RSGs voted it out fair and square. It needs to be GONE.
__________________

Originally Posted by Jim Day

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

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

[Fiskadoro]

Originally Posted by zenspearo

While I agree (and have updated my post) that two cards need to be filled out to speak at both speaking opportunities, I disagree, and some of the smartest guys on the fishing sides disagree, that External C can be ignored.

First off thanks for changing your posts. Like I said it's very important that speakers fill out more then one card so we have all the sections covered.

I'm not saying C should be ignored, I' saying that I think there's a technicality that I think they will use to keep it in play no matter what we say. That technically only the BRTF can remove C, and they will say they are not ready to do so at this point in order to contain or stop debate on that issue.

Additionally I think they are using this against us as a strawman to distract us from other topics that need to be discussed, that we need to keep pushing because they have been working for us.

Originally Posted by zenspearo

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

I do not disagree with that. Like I said C is a tool being used by the Einviro side to water down our proposals. They put it in there specifically for that reason, if we can get rid of it it's to our advantage to do so.

That said it's not the only issue involved, nor the only topic that will be discussed tomorrow, and we need to be ready to discuss the others as well, with people signed up, and ready to speak on them.

We've been making headway hitting some key points that have been working for us, we need to stick to them, and keep up the pressure. C is an issue but it is not the only issue, and we need to keep hammering away at our strengths as well. There is a larger game here don't be distracted or loose sight of the larger goals because of what's going on with C.

Honestly what I think is going to happen here is they are going to get you on the technicality and say that only the BRTF can eliminate a proposal and the BRTF is not going to do so at this point. I also think they are going to do that rather quickly tomorrow shutting down the debate on C early in the day.

Once they say it was never the RSG's right to remove a proposal that only the BRTF can do so, you guys are not going to allowed push your debate on it further.

Once agenda H is done, they are just going to cut off debate on C, saying the BRTF is not ready to make a decision on it at this point, and you will then be forced to move on to other items. I hope I'm wrong, but I bet money that's what will happen tomorrow, and that is why they have added agenda item H to the session to contain debate on C to that section only.

In simple terms they made agenda Item H to contain debate on C.

If that is the case then you guys need to be ready to move on to the other issues and have speakers lined up to speak on other topics when they cut off the debate on C.

My concern was that everyone was going to sign up to talk on C and then we were going to get burned when they stopped that discussion C and moved on to other items.

Simply put you put all your eggs in one C basket you might end up with an empty sack at the end of the day.

Jim