Quote:
Originally Posted by bmercury
Pretty sure that you understand there is an actual need for conservation.
When you call someone that disagrees with you over a matter of policy a "terrorist" that makes it impossible to ever find any sort of compromise or common ground. Not cool.
Also, no one that is in the middle or sitting on the fence will ever take you seriously.
|
Wow...sorry, have to chime in and disagree with you, obviously you did not attend a single meeting. It was cordial up front at the beginning even though I had an insider tell me that we were about to be "RR'd".
As the meetings progressed, it was obvious that some people did not play by the rules. Even in War you have Rules of Engagement.
We, kayakers, spearfishers, boaters, shorefishers, all agreed there needed to be conservation. We did all we could to compromise without losing vital fishing grounds. We gave areas in hopes of keeping certain areas. We even suggested slot limits. All fell on deaf ears, they had an agenda and planned, yes planned, to make sure their agenda would be met.
Terrorists are funded. Someone supplies them with the weapons, they don't play by the rules. Maybe calling an eco-friendly environmental a terrorist is a bit harsh, I'll give you that. But, had you been at some of the meetings, it would be very likely that your stance would definitely sway, especially watching groups come together with agreed upon compromises, a closure here, full closure there, to keep certain fishable areas open.
Then, swoosh comes the rug from under your legs, it's suddenly, as in without notice, decided that the whole process was wrong and needed to be done over again. A key member of the BRTF would suddenly admit it was his fault, and the whole process would need to be 'reevaluated'.
New lines would have to be drawn up, even though they had 'insufficient data' to move forward. The 'insufficient data' would be included in the process, even though it wasn't thoroughly evaluated. The best part was how, even though this was supposed to be an open forum, as in, a fair and open process, that was not to be.
Speaking time was cut short, interrupted, or the speaker was admonished by the chairman for speaking his thoughts. We were told that we had to be 'courteous' in our speeches or we would be cut off. So much for free speech. Meanwhile, the conservationists were allowed to speak first (before the certain board members, er, bored members, got bored), school children bused in as class assignments and told what to say, probably for extra credit, even though when offered a free half-day fishing pass hands shot up in the air.
And the beauty of it, the absolute beauty of it all, when we showed up at one meeting wearing black shirts as a sign of unity, we were the ones branded as using 'threatening and intimidating' antics, only to see in subsequent meetings the 'other side' handing out t-shirts stating MLPA's Work, even though no MLPA's had been in force.
So let's do a recap...
It is well known that the MLPA process is funded. Look it up, do some research, and you will find the power players behind it...
It is also well known that certain members of the BRTF are on other boards...again, look it up.
It is also well known that certain members were relegated to other positions regarding their views of this whole process, with others put in place who agreed to take on the task of accomplishing the funded mission. Translation = they didn't do a good job.
It was also quite obvious that the issue was not about the Clean Water Act as it was supposed to be about. Kind of like the Somali pirates who say they are protecting their fishing grounds from outsiders, yet hijack cruise ships. Or oil tankers.
And it was indeed quite obvious that it was not about fishing conservation when you have key members of the Laguna Beach community explicitly state that they don't like to see kayakers, boaters, spearfishers disrupting their entitled right to view the ocean.
So let's see...a terrorist is funded, doesn't play by the rules, and uses whatever means necessary to achieve their goal, all based on having the same viewpoint of their benefactor.
So maybe 'terrorists' was too strong of a word...please enlighten us on a new word to call them so that we may submit it to Noah Webster...