A letter from an environmental RSG member - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

zenspearo · 06-03-2009, 07:58 AM

I guess he's going to fight hard to keep External C going...

This thing is going to be hand-to-hand combat tomorrow.

We need to show up in force.

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

Fellow Stakeholders and members of the BRTF:

This new recommendation badly misses the mark. Because the Blue Ribbon Task Force clearly asked the RSG to emphasize SAT guidance (at preferred level no less), come off positions, reduce the number and duplication in arrays, and pursue cross-interest support while reducing the number of arrays on the table, I would hope and expect them to reject this recommendation because it completely fails to preserve these critical process fundamentals. I’ll only address recommendation #1 because the other three either are incompletely described or would require far greater process tweaks than either the decision made last Wednesday or the unwise concept of reversing that.

Before the RSG work sessions on May 20-21, the process leadership gave us our charge. Speaking favorably about the effort to unify sport and commercial fishing interests by FIC/FIN, Chairman Benninghoven said “now, cross that line in the sand.” Scott McCreary presented the BRTF guidance, saying “the BRTF is willing and able to make a recommendation,” and indicated the goal was “to advance the broadest range possible.” The phrase “if you don’t, the BRTF will” was used. Director Wiseman answered questions about duplication saying “I’m concerned about duplication….similar proposals don’t have the same weight.” The term “gaming” was used.

The clear implication was that there are overarching goals and guidance here that are not to be ignored. Our RSG is tasked to meet these goals in ways that we deem best based on our local and personal knowledge. But these goals were clearly presented as essentials. These goals are the purview of the BRTF, and we were given every expectation that they would be enforced. “Promise” was the term used in Mr. Wiseman’s memo last Wednesday in regards to duplicative proposals. I believe that this entire vote on arrays should have been avoided by merging one or more duplicative arrays as we were told would be the case. We can still do that of course, and move on.

In making the announcement last Wednesday evening that all seven proposals would move forward and receive evaluation, the MLPA leadership acted to say essentially “Wait. The guidance was not met. Round 2 produced the duplication we warned against. It did not advance a range of options as requested given the unnecessary elimination vote. It did not advance from the vote an array that meaningfully addressed the Science Advisory Panel Guidance. We must restore balance.” It was not an easy decision nor a very pretty one. But it was well advertised and clearly expected by those that read the guidance and heard the charge. It reflected the obligation of the process to advance arrays representing the range of ideas among the stakeholders. It acted to preserve a working platform for cross-interest work by all stakeholders, not just those given a majority standing in the RSG who do not enjoy this same advantage in the outside world.

I submitted a letter yesterday (pasted below) describing the process needs that last Wednesday’s memo preserved. I regret that now this action is being reconsidered by some, and ask that the BRTF does not reconsider it. To support the recommendation received today to about-face on Wednesday’s decision, the BRTF would leave the process in the following condition:

No array that meets the Science Guidelines or the BRTF guidance to emphasize their preferred levels.
No evaluation of Round 2 iteration SAT compliant arrays to inform and define tradeoffs and options for meeting these goals at levels of impact that are acceptable.
Reinforcement of artificially created “majority rule” straw vote process that removes valuable ideas from consideration
A dramatically lopsided round 2 outcome that duplicates single-interest values in four of seven arrays
Damaged process leadership credibility that ground rules, guidance and MLPA Act goals will not be enforced or retained if unpopular

Previous successful MLPA study regions were based on clear statements (platforms) for stating core values and interests of each “side.” The Staff acted in a previous region to protect fishing interests as represented in an external and internal array from the results of a straw vote that went the other way. The pillars of successful MLPA implementation in prior study regions were restored and advanced by staff last Wednesday as has been done in the past. Now some stakeholders – who already have a decisive numeric advantage as well as a dominant position in the process reflected in four of seven arrays – insist that the sole remaining platform needed to advance the values of scientific guidance and conservation be eliminated on threat of boycott. How many players threaten to fold winning hands?

I would hope the BRTF continue to act as our “referee” and preserve the “foul” called on depriving one constituent part of our stakeholder group the tools it need to work towards reasonable compromise.

Thank you.

Greg Helms

Stakeholder, South Coast Region MLPA

06-03-2009, 07:58 AM	#1
zenspearo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 167	A letter from an environmental RSG member I guess he's going to fight hard to keep External C going... This thing is going to be hand-to-hand combat tomorrow. We need to show up in force. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. Fellow Stakeholders and members of the BRTF: This new recommendation badly misses the mark. Because the Blue Ribbon Task Force clearly asked the RSG to emphasize SAT guidance (at preferred level no less), come off positions, reduce the number and duplication in arrays, and pursue cross-interest support while reducing the number of arrays on the table, I would hope and expect them to reject this recommendation because it completely fails to preserve these critical process fundamentals. I’ll only address recommendation #1 because the other three either are incompletely described or would require far greater process tweaks than either the decision made last Wednesday or the unwise concept of reversing that. Before the RSG work sessions on May 20-21, the process leadership gave us our charge. Speaking favorably about the effort to unify sport and commercial fishing interests by FIC/FIN, Chairman Benninghoven said “now, cross that line in the sand.” Scott McCreary presented the BRTF guidance, saying “the BRTF is willing and able to make a recommendation,” and indicated the goal was “to advance the broadest range possible.” The phrase “if you don’t, the BRTF will” was used. Director Wiseman answered questions about duplication saying “I’m concerned about duplication….similar proposals don’t have the same weight.” The term “gaming” was used. The clear implication was that there are overarching goals and guidance here that are not to be ignored. Our RSG is tasked to meet these goals in ways that we deem best based on our local and personal knowledge. But these goals were clearly presented as essentials. These goals are the purview of the BRTF, and we were given every expectation that they would be enforced. “Promise” was the term used in Mr. Wiseman’s memo last Wednesday in regards to duplicative proposals. I believe that this entire vote on arrays should have been avoided by merging one or more duplicative arrays as we were told would be the case. We can still do that of course, and move on. In making the announcement last Wednesday evening that all seven proposals would move forward and receive evaluation, the MLPA leadership acted to say essentially “Wait. The guidance was not met. Round 2 produced the duplication we warned against. It did not advance a range of options as requested given the unnecessary elimination vote. It did not advance from the vote an array that meaningfully addressed the Science Advisory Panel Guidance. We must restore balance.” It was not an easy decision nor a very pretty one. But it was well advertised and clearly expected by those that read the guidance and heard the charge. It reflected the obligation of the process to advance arrays representing the range of ideas among the stakeholders. It acted to preserve a working platform for cross-interest work by all stakeholders, not just those given a majority standing in the RSG who do not enjoy this same advantage in the outside world. I submitted a letter yesterday (pasted below) describing the process needs that last Wednesday’s memo preserved. I regret that now this action is being reconsidered by some, and ask that the BRTF does not reconsider it. To support the recommendation received today to about-face on Wednesday’s decision, the BRTF would leave the process in the following condition: No array that meets the Science Guidelines or the BRTF guidance to emphasize their preferred levels. No evaluation of Round 2 iteration SAT compliant arrays to inform and define tradeoffs and options for meeting these goals at levels of impact that are acceptable. Reinforcement of artificially created “majority rule” straw vote process that removes valuable ideas from consideration A dramatically lopsided round 2 outcome that duplicates single-interest values in four of seven arrays Damaged process leadership credibility that ground rules, guidance and MLPA Act goals will not be enforced or retained if unpopular Previous successful MLPA study regions were based on clear statements (platforms) for stating core values and interests of each “side.” The Staff acted in a previous region to protect fishing interests as represented in an external and internal array from the results of a straw vote that went the other way. The pillars of successful MLPA implementation in prior study regions were restored and advanced by staff last Wednesday as has been done in the past. Now some stakeholders – who already have a decisive numeric advantage as well as a dominant position in the process reflected in four of seven arrays – insist that the sole remaining platform needed to advance the values of scientific guidance and conservation be eliminated on threat of boycott. How many players threaten to fold winning hands? I would hope the BRTF continue to act as our “referee” and preserve the “foul” called on depriving one constituent part of our stakeholder group the tools it need to work towards reasonable compromise. Thank you. Greg Helms Stakeholder, South Coast Region MLPA __________________ A spearo, but we are in this MLPA mess together Last edited by zenspearo; 06-03-2009 at 08:09 AM.