NCRSG Webinar report and request for your opinion.

[DaveW]

Greetings,

This is a brief report and a request for opinions from the folks I represent as a regional stakeholder (NCRSG) in the MLPA processes. As many are aware, the issue of California Tribes and Tribal Communities (CTTC) and their rights to harvest in MPAs have been at the forefront of our (NCRSG) deliberations. In short, the CTTC representatives have promoted the idea that they have aboriginal rights of harvest that supersede subsequent resource regulations. The “I Team”, on the other hand, has sent out a document suggested that we (NCRSG) consider CTTC traditional harvest areas in our MPA planning and avoid them, but the special status they were hoping for can’t be granted.

The NCRSG held a webinar yesterday afternoon to deal with this issue. Some language was drafted to send on to the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF), which, essentially, expresses our displeasure with this and that this is really outside the parameters of the expertise of the NCRSG.

So the reason for this communication is that I will be asked to submit a vote on the language that was drafted – before Monday – and I would like folks to weigh in on it. To do this, first I will copy and paste the “ key themes from the NCRSG webinar” sent out by the I Team. Then I will copy and paste the actual language we’re voting on. The choices are yes, no, or abstain. Please opinionate.

Dave Wright

The “Themes:”

3. Key themes from NCRSG webinar
We have listed below a summary of some of the key themes expressed by NCRSG members during the webinar. This should be helpful to those NCRSG members who were not able to make the webinar.
• NCRSG tribal and tribal community representatives, and other NCRSG members, expressed a general feeling of disappointment – but not surprise – with the I-Team memo.
• NCRSG tribal and tribal community representatives stated that California tribes and tribal communities will need more time to develop an agreed-upon statement about tribal uses of marine resources. The statement will need to be discussed and approved by each of the tribal councils and governing bodies, and this cannot happen in time for the next BRTF meeting (March 1-2, 2010).
• Several NCRSG members stated that it will be difficult for the NRCSG to proceed effectively with its work without clear guidance of how tribal uses of marine resources will be considered in MPA planning.
• There was strong support for tribal perspectives to be heard in BRTF discussions about tribal uses of marine resources, and a desire for direct dialogue between tribal representatives and the BRTF regarding this matter.
• Several NCRSG members stated that the issue of tribal rights – including tribal uses of marine resources – should be addressed outside of the MLPA framework.
• There was a general concern that the views of all affected California tribes and tribal communities be considered in the development of the guidance.

The Language to vote on:

The NCRSG promotes the following to the BRTF:

1. The NCRSG recognizes that California tribes and tribal communities are inadequately
dealt with in the MLPA framework, including the Master Plan;

2. That the NCRSG requires policy guidance on how to address this issue and that without such guidance, the NCRSG is unable to properly discharge its function and runs the ris kof developing proposals that are less than robust;

3. That the MLPA Initiative shall appropriately acknowledge that California tribes and tribal communities have aboriginal rights to take marine resources and to use and manage coastal areas for traditional subsistence, cultural, religious, ceremonial, and other customary purposes. The tribal coalition will provide draft language to the NCRSG,
BRTF, and SAT.

4. The NCRSG suggests establishing a separate tribal advisory group to the BRTF
consisting of BRTF members, policy officials from DFG / Natural Resources Agency,
appropriate federal agencies, and California tribes and tribal communities (at a minimum
the NRSG representatives) for the purposes of developing appropriate policy guidance
to the NCRSG and to the CA Fish and Game Commission, and with a view toward
amending the Master Plan.

[arch]

Dave...I can't believe no one has given you an opinion. As you know the Native Americans were never even thought about in this process. Although they had stakeholder in present and previous areas. Every other state, federal and county agency has been involved from the top down, why not the BIA? The NCSR seems to have 7 stakeholders representing their people, that should be enough to piss off Ken. Now what will they do if they do not get the above endorsed? Will they just walk away? If so, they will be back with a lawsuit...in fact I hear there is 5 pending. If you give them what they want does that mean a lawsuit or change in areas already completed? I would have loved to see the local Kashia Tribe get something in the NCCSR...and they would have if 2XA was approved. The IPA was a cherry picking land grab. Nobody benifited and nobody ever will.

You have a tough decision to vote on...but don't worry about it. This is just the first big step in getting the arrays narrowed down...you will get shit all over by the I-Team, SAT & BRTF again. Good Luck and see you Monday in Fort Brag....