Nitty Gritty June 4th Meeting Strategy.

[zenspearo]

Guys:

First, thank you thank you for sacrificing your time to go and protect fishing interests. Years from now, you will look back and be proud of what you did this week.

Having said that, there are changes to the schedule, and I want to discuss that and also suggest final strategy issues (they are changing things with this MLPA meeting faster than Paris Hilton changing boyfriends--somebody is scrambling!!!)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just received this email from the MLPA Initiative Team:

Here's what relevant to us

* 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.

H. Receive and Discuss Staff Memo Regarding Round 2 Draft Marine Protected Area Proposal Evaluations (this item is expected to be heard first, at approximately 9:40 a.m.)
Potential Action: Provide guidance regarding Round 2 evaluations of draft MPA proposals
Potential Action: Provide guidance regarding the development of SCRSG MPA proposals in Round 3


* 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.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Note: The new item on the agenda has its own public comment immediately after discussion at 9:40AM. That means show up early and be ready to listen and comment.

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. IN FACT, IF YOU CAN (AND YOU SHOULD), SIGN UP FOR BOTH SPEAKING SESSIONS. THAT WAY, YOU GET BOTH BITES OF THE APPLE.***

[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.

[zenspearo]

Lastly: Is it still important that a large number of us show up?

Answer: Yes. If we get outshouted by the enviros, we just handed our RSGs a huge defeat. We don't know if the extent of their mobilizing but you can bet they will try to keep External Proposal C in play.

Just go. Years from now, you'll be glad you did.

[Holy Mackerel]

Lastly: Is it still important that a large number of us show up?

Answer: Yes. If we get outshouted by the enviros, we just handed our RSGs a huge defeat. We don't know if the extent of their mobilizing but you can bet they will try to keep External Proposal C in play.

Just go. Years from now, you'll be glad you did.

Thanks for all the updates Joe, not only years, but a YEAR from now WE all will be glad we went.

If anyone is on the sidelines about going, let me ask you:

What is preventing you from going?

(hint work is not an answer, many of us are missing work, and have lots of projects etc due)

[tylerdurden]

Wonder what surprises they will have in store once we show up too?

Since we are making the drive up, we may as well comment during both comment sessions.

[Fiskadoro]

***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 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

[Holy Mackerel]

Looks like you fixed the post, but now I agree completely, that everyone should sign up for both speaking times. Agenda H is specifically for the discussion by the BRTF of the memo concerning Ext. C commentary. So it would be appropriate to discuss your thoughts on this matter.

I hope eveyone stays for both comments! You will still get home in time for Lakers vs. Magic finals! :D

[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.
__________________
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]

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.



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

[Fiskadoro]

Looks like you fixed the post, but now I agree completely, that everyone should sign up for both speaking times. Agenda H is specifically for the discussion by the BRTF of the memo concerning Ext. C commentary. So it would be appropriate to discuss your thoughts on this matter.

Agreed!!! Debate on C will only be one section of tomorrows discussion, we need people ready to make comments in both the sections. If each individual can sign up for both then we should all do that. If that was not allowed then we should divide up and have some sign up for one section and some sign up for the other so our voice will be heard in both sections, and on all the issues.

Jim