[tylerdurden]

This is what was posted on spearboard. From the MLPA email list. Garth Murphy showing the other sides view of us as a pain the side that the BRTF should just swat away and close us down.

SCREW THAT.

Garth Murphy:

Scott, you are correct. And less than a handful for 1. If you look at the deletion analysis figures you will see why scientifically.

If you look at the paltry number of consumptive fishermen compared to the population of the state and the tiny percent of Coastal income they make and food they put on the tables of the state, 1/4 pound per person per year! you will see why the letters favor 3. You should write a little summary of numbers of letters for 3, or ask staff for theirs, because I am sure someone must be crunchiing these numbers for the BRTF who do not have time to read the letters.

We could present those for the BRTF.

I also noticed that the 2 favoring letters are brief, usually a paragraph or two, and the 3 favoring are often a couple of pages and have good reasons and understanding of the issues.

There is big political pull by the well organized and wealthy commercial and CPFV crews, and a vocifereous but tiny number of young divers and kayakers who carry the weight with BRTF that we have to convince them to shrug off and move forward.g


On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM, wrote:

I find it interesting that most of these comments, (with thousands of 'additional letters' submitted), far and away support Proposal 3. It has been this way for at least the past four or five public comment submissions from Amy. I hope the BRTF are reading these. Especially the critique on the Southwick study.