FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Afraid of the Truth?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Rick View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 16 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5204
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Afraid of the Truth?
    Posted: 17 February 2017 at 12:58pm
If you were listening to the discussion in Wilmington prior to the MFC voting on the petition, you heard Commissioner Laughridge reference my name and analysis that I've done on weakfish nursery areas in the Pamlico Sound.

You also heard Commissioner Willis challenge Chuck on relevance and ask if I am a biologist. You then heard MFC Attorney Phillip Reynolds inject his opinion into an open commission discussion, which he is prone to do as the "self-appointed 10th commissioner and Super-Chairman".  Phillip stated the reference to my work was "irrelevant" to the discussion.

For the record, I am not a biologist.

The nursery work I did is based on statistical and geospacial analysis of twenty-seven years of NCDMF data created by the Division's own biologists.

The work clearly shows that the Commission and Division is allowing trawling in what should be classified as permanent secondary nursery areas for weakfish. All trawling should be banned in those areas per state statute defining gear use in such areas.

If only Division staff were as interested in protecting our critical habitat nursery areas as they are in protecting their jobs trying to manage the unmanageable- unsustainable gears and methods fishing on depleted stocks. With that goal, they'll never work themselves out of a job.

If only Reynolds was as interested in promoting the commission's need to take action on behalf of the resource as he seems to be in preventing a commissioner from speaking on behalf of the resource, maybe our stocks wouldn't be in such bad shape.  Hopefully he understands that part of his job is to defend the commission's actions and is doing so in good-faith.  He should be providing legal advice based on foundations in rule and statute, not personal opinion.

Since Commissioner Willis and Attorney Reynolds seem to be afraid of the truth, you can review it here if you haven't already-

https://1drv.ms/p/s!ArHvxdSx-xlqggCT_gwDP-zDDEUt

Note: It's already been noted that Jimmy Nobles passed away from a heart-attack moments after making his public comment.  I found Reynolds' injection of levity with several of his comments to be inappropriate given that all sides obviously take the situation very serious.  Reynolds has a habit of doing this at meetings.  Because the Division refuses to engage on behalf of the resource, those of us actively engaged and spending our personal time fighting for sustainable fisheries certainly don't view the process frivolously.  My reasons for contempt of the process seem to grow by every meeting.  Reynolds' use of words like "conspiracy theories" is an attempt to belittle public involvement and public concern.  He should understand that his actions are part of the problem.  Trust is earned, not promised.  The recreational/conservation sector has little trust in the Division or the process.




Edited by Chuck Laughridge - 19 February 2017 at 4:20pm
Back to Top
BaitWaster View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar
NCW PATRON

Joined: 15 July 2003
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 13103
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BaitWaster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2017 at 1:09pm
Barister Reynolds job is to provide legal advice.

Aggravation of selected data by a lay person is perfect for public comment. Period.
Enjoy every sandwich - Warren Zevon

I'm not here for a long time, but I'm here for a good time.
Back to Top
CapRandy View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar

Joined: 21 August 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6476
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CapRandy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2017 at 1:26pm
Rick,you try hard.do not stop,I have been dealing with people who refuse to give information I am entitled to,they consider themselves superior to any other person and truly hate someone who stands up to them,keep the pressure on them everyday and sooner or later a break will come.
Murder is killing but all killing is not murder
Back to Top
Glacierbaze View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 09 January 2005
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 3716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Glacierbaze Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2017 at 1:59pm
His job is to provide legal advice, when asked by a commissioner, or to interject when they might be stepping on legal jeopardy, or exceeding their authority.  Not his place to become part of the discussion, or in any way influence it.


Edited by Glacierbaze - 17 February 2017 at 2:00pm
"You can never elevate your own character by stepping on someone else's."

"Never argue with a man who loves the sound of his own voice."
Back to Top
chriselk View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar

Joined: 22 November 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3296
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chriselk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2017 at 9:14pm
It was always my policy to include as authors on my publications whomever made a significant contribution, regardless of the letters after their name.

Some authors, including first authors on a publication, were students.  

Just because you have a degree does not make you any smarter, just perhaps that you were the product of your environment-usually because of white privilege  There are a lot of shrimpers, ghetto kids and immigrants smarter than many of us, me included.

As for Rick's intelligence and reasoning, his posts clearly define his abilities and have set a bar that certain governmental agencies should seek to match.
The above comments are my personal opinion and do not represent those of any organizations or agencies I may be a member of.
Back to Top
BrackishWater View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 18 December 2014
Location: Pamlico River
Status: Offline
Points: 420
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BrackishWater Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 February 2017 at 9:47pm
I am glad you brought this up, Rick. I too thought it was out of line for Reynolds to interrupt a Commissioner when he was providing an answer to a direct question from another Commissioner.

It most certainly came across to this citizen in attendance that he was assuming the role of the Chairman by stepping in to end open discussion by the Commission members. I thought the role of the MFC attorney was to provide legal guidance to the Commission? Is it also the role of the MFC attorney to end debate when he deems it not relevant to the subject at hand? If that is the case then what is the role of the Chairman?

Perhaps a more appropriate response would have been to advise the Chairman of his concerns and have the Chairman take action to end Commission discussion. Yet Reynolds had no similar concerns as the Chairman was recounting stories of fishing trips with the former Director. Certainly makes it appear it only applies when he does not agree with the subject matter...

I am sincerely open to being corrected if I am reading this all wrong.
A rising tide lifts all boats...
Back to Top
cnaff View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 22 October 2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 847
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cnaff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 February 2017 at 10:33am
Utterly spot-on chriselk. If the process is to be valid as a means to administer science, fairness of allocation, and equal protection under fisheries law, then the participants must be considered to be in good faith. Inasmuch as the commission has regularly denigrated, blocked and variously smeared good faith contributors to its discussion, and employs its attorney to do so by proxy when it's own dead ass is too stymied to verbalized its own parliamentary duties as written in law, then IT is the incompetent entity obfuscating and blocking the just application of public resource law in N.C. Then it is OUR job to see that the incompetent entity is appropriately excised from the body politic. How degrading it must be to serve on that commission under such popinjays as Corbett and Reynolds, who should not be involved in this purely by dint of their behavior, which certainly would put the lie to any claim they might make on intelligence, for they lack good faith. Excellent, though painful point that some of theses shrimpers exceed our individual and collective mental abilities. Unfortunately the fact is that we wouldn't be here doing this if that was not a valid, good faith observation. Baitwaster deserves kudos for setting up this little exchange, where Glacier CRUSHED his bad faith ass, laid the field bare for Chris to tell the truth that only good arguments stand up to reasoned criticism. In NCMFC meetings and operations, strong arm tactics, and inappropriate legal bullying carry the day and always have. Kill it, lest it breed; meaning bring on better lawyers to bust the monopoly on speech held by the people of bad faith BW supports so asiduously.
V/H Dog
Back to Top
Glacierbaze View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 09 January 2005
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 3716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Glacierbaze Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 February 2017 at 12:18pm
Is there an archive audio of the meeting?  I am still curious why Joe Shute abstained. Would a 6/3 vote have created a super majority that might dictate a particular course going forward?
"You can never elevate your own character by stepping on someone else's."

"Never argue with a man who loves the sound of his own voice."
Back to Top
Redfish View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar
NCW SUPPORTER

Joined: 27 February 2004
Location: At the Bar
Status: Offline
Points: 5232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Redfish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 February 2017 at 2:15pm
My guess is Joe is a commercial serving in a rec spot.  Check his past votes.
Back to Top
Ray Brown View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar
NCW FOUNDER

Joined: 14 July 2003
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 14354
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ray Brown Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 February 2017 at 3:29pm
I saw nothing wrong with the attorney calling the discussion because it was no longer Germaine and the chairman was not reeling it in.

While one commission members questions about a layman's credentials was out of line it should be noted that most other commission members accurate response to it was...silence. Only when an argument began due to a rebuttal was it necessary.

Having said that, I do feel that at times the attorney comes awful close to being the tenth commissioner, but I don't think it is by design. We all need to self reflect at times on our words and actions as we get caught up in the moment. We have a role, but no more than that.

As far as Joe's vote. He didn't vote against reform and for a man who has lived and worked his whole adult life in the shadow and company of men who make their living with nets and trawls then his vote, or lack thereof, was big for him and a disappointment to many within both groups that know him both recreational and commercial.

The resource will need his vote again before his term is up.

Edited by Ray Brown - 18 February 2017 at 3:43pm
Some trawl operator will be forced to change in order to reduce bycatch. If you worry about that more than stopping the bycatch then the resource is secondary to you. Recovery has one less advocate.
Back to Top
BaitWaster View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar
NCW PATRON

Joined: 15 July 2003
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 13103
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BaitWaster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 February 2017 at 9:49pm
The vote wasn't for or against the resource.  It was about the Petition.  Up or down.  Yea or ney.

You should reach out to the commissioners who voted for the Petition and find out if they agree with all of the proposals.   I suspect they don't. The vote was to move the process along which includes providing alternatives if required if the fiscal note comes in with more than a million dollar impact (it will).  

Shute's vote wouldn't have made a difference with respect of the Petition going forward.  It was already done deal.  I won't speculate as to the reason for an abstention but will  proffer it was not that he is "against reform." 
Enjoy every sandwich - Warren Zevon

I'm not here for a long time, but I'm here for a good time.
Back to Top
Ray Brown View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar
NCW FOUNDER

Joined: 14 July 2003
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 14354
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ray Brown Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 February 2017 at 9:07am
Bernie.. did you not listen to commissioners? Several specifically said their vote for the petition was really about doing something for the resource. Thank God for people with that attitude.
Some trawl operator will be forced to change in order to reduce bycatch. If you worry about that more than stopping the bycatch then the resource is secondary to you. Recovery has one less advocate.
Back to Top
BaitWaster View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar
NCW PATRON

Joined: 15 July 2003
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 13103
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BaitWaster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 February 2017 at 9:29am
About doing something. Agree.
Enjoy every sandwich - Warren Zevon

I'm not here for a long time, but I'm here for a good time.
Back to Top
BrackishWater View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 18 December 2014
Location: Pamlico River
Status: Offline
Points: 420
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BrackishWater Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 February 2017 at 9:31am
From my observation, the commissioners that voted in favor of moving the Petition forward were all very interested in doing something positive for the resource. They were also more comfortable with that vote after the attorney finally gave them the confidence that anything they had concerns with in the current form could be addressed during the rulemaking process.

I have talked with the commissioners and they all got on this commission because they care about the future of our coastal resources and they want to leave a positive legacy. Even the commissioners in the commercial seats. When the commission was stacked in favor of the commercial industry, it was all about protecting those fishing rights. Now with a pro-resource majority it is time to strike a blow for the resource and all of the pro-resource commissioners realize they have a finite opportunity to do so. Especially with a new Governor and especially those that are into a second term. 
A rising tide lifts all boats...
Back to Top
sea byrd View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar

Joined: 18 July 2003
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 7485
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sea byrd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 February 2017 at 1:10pm
Originally posted by BaitWaster BaitWaster wrote:

The vote wasn't for or against the resource.  It was about the Petition.  Up or down.  Yea or ney.

You should reach out to the commissioners who voted for the Petition and find out if they agree with all of the proposals.   I suspect they don't. The vote was to move the process along which includes providing alternatives if required if the fiscal note comes in with more than a million dollar impact (it will).  

Shute's vote wouldn't have made a difference with respect of the Petition going forward.  It was already done deal.  I won't speculate as to the reason for an abstention but will  proffer it was not that he is "against reform." 

BW, you have really outdone yourself with that comment.
The petition is ALL about the resource. Not who should get more fish or economic impact, it''s all about the obvious destruction of a healthy ecosystem being done by current trawling in nursery areas and nothing else.





fiogf49gjkf0d
Favorite pastime. Catching fish and eating the few fish I am allowed to keep. At least I am not killing four times the number I eat.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.11
Copyright ©2001-2012 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.