Quote:
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me if I'm wrong but technically according to process rules the only group that can remove the proposals unless they are withdrawn voluntarily is the BRTF(politician's) and they are not going to hand over that right to the RSG (public).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