Next MLPA meeting--April 28 (Tues) in Oxnard

[Matt]

I OFFICIALLY HATE THE MLPA!


If you don't think your gonna lose LJ you are living in a dream now step up and fight for it!!! The beauracracy is unimaginable!! This thing is gonna get railroaded down on all of us. It is definitely time to stand up and be counted!!!

The double speak, the refusal to answer or even take questions of the pro-fishing side, it is truly something to behold! We stand a chance but you and YES I MEAN YOU...YES THE ONE READING THIS NEEDS TO STAND UP AND MAKE THE EFFORT OR FORGET LJ....I hope you all like fishing for spotties!! Because if these people have their way and that may even be threatened due to the endangerment of eel grass....no shit I am not kidding eel grass!! It is time to make a statement if you want to fish and share the experience someday with your children and grandchildren YOU MUST ACT NOW!!!!!!


Huge props to all the dudes who showed up to represent! Tyler and Chris et. al. thanks for the speech to read and the help re-writing it. CLAY !! Martin you have a great kid and it is very easy to see why he is the way he is! Kurt, Josh P, Josh, The guy in the suit who's name I have forgotten, Habanero, Chris, Tyler, T-Man, Fishcatcher, Gino you all made me proud to stand up and fight for what is ours!

BIG, BIG THANKS TO MJ AND PAL!!

STAND UP AND FIGHT OR LOSE IT ALL! If more of you don't show up we are done for!

[steveooo]

Today was just a day I could not swing. I will be at the next meeting for sure. Big thanks to the guys that made the drive up.

[dsafety]

After reading the posts above, I can sense the frustration but am not getting a clear picture of what we are up against. I understand the incredible uselessness of the bureaucracy but what are they doing specifically as they try to force this thing down our throats?

I have not yet attended one of these meetings. I will do whatever it takes to make the next one. (It sounds like I better come unarmed in order to avoid an unseemly incident). What I would like to know is how and why the opposition seems to be gaining ground against all logic.

Please educate me.

Bob

[Tman]

The 'eel grass' issue Matt is referring to, even the MLPAI (one of the member of their so called I Team) even called it, no chit, 'seal grass'....

hmmm...Freudian slip, maybe?

It was so easy to read between the lines of what they were saying.

And in the end of the "seal grass" discussion, one of the 'I Team' even admitted that they need more input from people that have closer access to viewing the eel grass, so in essence, what they are saying is that they are making assumptions since they don't have the time nor the inclination to actually pursue the facts they throw out there...this coming after a diver enlightened them on the fact that there is not a problem with the abundance of 'seal grass'...

I jotted many notes (yes I'm a freak), and some of the comments from the Task Force was unreal.

Such as the comment of kelp habitat studies, and a comment being made how "plans change overnight"...then a Mr. Evan Fox chiming in claiming it was a month long study, but concerns should be addressed to the scientific study board...who were conspicuously absent....hmmm..

Or the Kelp Habitat Evaluation, and how each party was not given sufficient time to prepare a defense or argument, relegating it to a later discussion time because no science advisory board members were present. hmmmm...

Then a Dr. Murray touched on the issue later, on the importance of kelp habitat to the eco structure. ie rock formations for kelp to flourish, sandy bottoms not conducive to kelp forests, eel grass and the abundance of kelp. According to his assessment (and his assistant), shouldn't LJ be very healthy and sustainable to life?

The only time LJ kelp is affected is when the kelp cutters come through and back down on the kelp. Was that even entered into the equation?

Again, hmmmm...

One postive - the comment of one Melissa Miller-Hansen ( I could be wrong on the name, 2 placards in front of her) who said, " If we show proof since we are on the water more, that the kelp and sea(eel) grass is healthy, that needs to be brought to our attention."

Last but not least, for all of you who have a passive, hopefulness attitude and choose to stand by, know this.....

The power to change MLPA's, are the DFG, CA Dept of Parks & Rec, a Long Term Monitoring Program (set in place), and an Outreach Education Plan (set in place), plus an 'Adaptive Management Process', are the powers involved to review and re-evaluate to see how the process is functioning statewide......

After 5 YEARS!!!!

If I am wrong about this, someone please correct me...
If I am not wrong, then I guess I took too many notes.

By the way, all meetings are recorded....

[Law Hand]

For Clay.

"Go at it boldly, and you'll find unexpected forces closing round you and coming to your aid"


Thank you for having the courage and the dedication

[PAL]

You guys were awesome - good job getting your views across. People noticed. Major props.

Why'd you leave early? We went til 10 PM! Got exciting when 30 RSG members - including MJ and I - presented a letter calling for a pause until the science catches up. More once I get home. We have another tough day ahead.

[Mr Mugu]

JJ, Mike G, and Steve M were a couple of the
local guys that showed.

Heard from the ladies that Pierpont represented
at the mixer!

Big thanks to everyone!
/MJ

[Dan]

sounds like you guys did a great job. thanks. when/where precisely is the next meeting??

[bellcon]

Being self-employed and a father of 4
free time is hard to come by (I wasn't fishing)
I wish I could have been there with you guys
and I apprieciate your efforts more than words can express
I WILL MAKE A MEETING THATS A PROMISE!

For now:
I was so impressed and inspired by Clays efforts that
I will be making another $ donation to the cause today
In his honor

Thanks Again to all of you who went
Thanks to Paul and MJ for their continued efforts
Thanks to Chris and Steve and others for pumpin up the troops
all of you!

P.S-
that video of Clay just stole best post of the year in my book!
Clay... youda Man!

[Holy Mackerel]

Originally Posted by PAL

You guys were awesome - good job getting your views across. People noticed. Major props.

Why'd you leave early? We went til 10 PM! Got exciting when 30 RSG members - including MJ and I - presented a letter calling for a pause until the science catches up. More once I get home. We have another tough day ahead.

Paul, I need some details! After getting up at 3:30am, ~5pm was all I could handle!

Time to rally our base, as you can see from the testimony above this process is inherently flawed.

One portion went something like this...

RSG Member: "why are we getting this big stack of scientific information the day before this meeting, shouldn't have time to review it, so we know what we are talking about before we can make a decision."

BRTF Member: "You really don't need to know that information"

Btw, must give Matt Fallon, our gregarious one, props for delivering our message. We pulled our time together, to give one strong single message, rather than repeating ourselves. We can use this strategy next time. Others all contributed their time, on different angles we could not get in our 3minutes of ceded time. It was a plus to have one strong single message, then other voices speaking on their own, to show there were more than one of us, and other perspectives.

chris

[fryguy]

I've worked as an environmental chemist for years, and I can tell you that there are only two reasons that the scientific data was presented with inadequate time for its review.

1. The science is crap. How good is a science team if they can't put together good evidence until the deadline. The data must've been rushed or they are just incompetent. Either way, there is no way that they performed a thorough study. I'd like to see them admit this.

2. It was a Phillip-Morris-type agenda driven study where facts are cherry picked and opposing data is omitted. They are aware of the subjectivity driving the study and know that it would be easily noticed under adequate review. If this is the case, they ought to be ashamed of calling themselves scientists and an investigation into the cause of their subjectivity is required.

I'm an ass cause I didn't make the meeting, but I would've flipped over a pretentious comment like "You don't need to know about that".

We need publicity... lets call Turko.

[SeaDog]

The whole process is in many ways brilliant by those who would love to eliminate fishing. They have the legislative authority to shut down large portions of fishing grounds and are pushing hard to complete the process before those most affected have the time to organize and provide counter arguments.

They also seem to understand that closing certain areas will be more effective in reducing fishing because they will reduce access. These areas are targeted for closure while other areas that are similar in geography and biological makeup are not considered.

The science presented was incomplete and largely inconclusive. I don't mean to say that a college professor with a hand full of students looking at a small amount of data and previous models is incompetent, I just don't think it's sufficient data to warrant endangering the lifestyle and livelihoods of many Californians.

Any working model should be constantly measuring the error between predicted results and estimated results. The only clear predictions I heard were not quantifiable. When questions were asked for clear predictions and expectations for the closures, they were immediately dismissed.

I guess my point is there were groups and individuals that painted fishermen as ignorant people who want to kill all the fish and environment they live in. At least one speaker accused us of ruining the chances for our children to fish. Fishermen are not stupid, ignorant people, but what we seem to be is complacent and maybe even lazy. We are about to lose a lot with little justification but the large majority of us are just standing by unwilling to participate.

-the other Josh

[Billy V]

Originally Posted by fryguy

I've worked as an environmental chemist for years, and I can tell you that there are only two reasons that the scientific data was presented with inadequate time for its review.

1. The science is crap. How good is a science team if they can't put together good evidence until the deadline. The data must've been rushed or they are just incompetent. Either way, there is no way that they performed a thorough study. I'd like to see them admit this.

2. It was a Phillip-Morris-type agenda driven study where facts are cherry picked and opposing data is omitted. They are aware of the subjectivity driving the study and know that it would be easily noticed under adequate review. If this is the case, they ought to be ashamed of calling themselves scientists and an investigation into the cause of their subjectivity is required.

I'm an ass cause I didn't make the meeting, but I would've flipped over a pretentious comment like "You don't need to know about that".

We need publicity... lets call Turko.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...........baffle them with bullshit.
-Thats the MLPA BRTF strategy