Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

I just sent an email to Mr. Van Hemmen requesting full disclosure of meeting times and locations. I hadn't heard about the Bahr's meeting until today and I think we all deserve to know well in advance when the cancelled meeting will be rescheduled.

I suggested a venue that can hold several hundred people so we don't get shut out like the Red Bank meeting.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Here are Riks emails today:
.................................................. ............

Hello All,



At the bottom of this note I indicated that I will be at the bar at Bahrs at 530 tomorrow evening. Since that time, there have been various developments and I will not be at Bahrs in response to requests to be extra cautious at maintaining the general peace and quiet.



At this stage I am between a rock and a hard place to further the discussion on the subject. It appears that, for the time being, I will have to take the discussion of the proposal out of the public sphere. Too many supporting stakeholders feel restrained in speaking out on this matter, and that results in an asymmetric debate. This bums me out because I believe that vigorous but courteous public debate allows faster progress than back room sausage making, but it appears that public debate has been forced off the table by a small group of very vocal opponents of the idea. I suspect that from now on we will need to have smaller working groups, with policy positions for various stake holders, etc.



This is frustrating. The truly discourteous opponents are a very small minority, but they have chosen to destroy their opportunity to be engaged in this effort. For the time being, the discourteous opponents will be exempted from the discussion and I hope the courteous opponents will fairly and ably represent them. At this stage, my personal count indicates that the proponents of the concept outweigh the sum of courteous and discourteous opponents. However, I would certainly note that the opponents appear to have a stronger aversion than the strength of the attraction of the concept shown by the proponents. This, by itself, introduces an interesting dynamic. Do 150,000 moderately positive votes balance against 50,000 strongly negative votes?



Meanwhile, I have also received so much feedback at this stage that I probably need to engage in a swampdrain to develop NMS V2.0 at which time we can run another test.



Updates will follow, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or comments.



Best,



Rik van Hemmen

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Here is a follow up email from Rik

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


If do you not think that I have the best of intentions for your interests also, what do I need to do to convince you otherwise? And how can you state that I am excluding any interest or obviously have a hidden agenda?



I have offered RFA to make presentations to specific fishery interests and have not received an answer yet. The March 23 meeting was supposed to be open to all interests, but was intended to be limited in size. I did not pull the plug on the meeting, the meeting was pulled because there were other people who were unsure about the venue. Part of that was related to behavior at the Library meeting (not yours, which as far as I am concerned was opposed, but courteous and actually funny in a helpful way).



You were there at that meeting and you saw the reactions I got. To say nothing of the stuff on the internet and notes I have received. On the other hand, don’t for a second think that the reactions at that meeting were in any way typical. I had plenty of meetings before that where the reaction was positive and I continue to keep getting positive reactions.



You know it is not just about trash. At the very least, you could have noted below what I said at the meeting probably half a dozen times: It is about yield more than anything else. You have read a copy of the draft nomination and you certainly know you can call me if you need more input.



Anytime you want to discuss more specifics in front of any group of your choosing I am available, as long as the discussion will be courteous and thoughtful. You heard the comments during the library meeting. I would say that they were often less than constructive and to a significant extent total lies. If it is necessary, I will listen to more people telling me that the feds will screw up anything (while today we are hunting and harvesting clams on much cleaner water due to federal actions supported by Ducks Unlimited), that clams harvested in the 1960’s in front of sewer outlets were better than those that are harvested today (even when the comment was made, I was at a loss for a civil answer), that there will be more regulations (even though from a fisheries and hunting point of view it will simply be state regs) and that somehow the NMS will stop hunting, fishing or whatever (even though there is no hint in that regard in anything I have written or said). But I do think I have gotten those messages, and there are still lots of other people who I am sure would like to provide different comments too, and probably would like to make those comments without being abused, or threatened, or questioned about their motives.



I doubt very much that everything fits in a neat category and I never stated so. I find that the issue is complex and that after this thing has been mulled over by everybody, there will be no categories. There will simply be people who have thought about it and decide to be for, or against, without being threatened or shouted down. Hopefully both sides can respect those decisions. There may be people who are personally in favor, but who still do not support the idea, or the other way around. However, the only way we all are going to make up our mind is to look at all sides of the issue and to slowly work to a resolution.



Next, your interpretation of the 50,000 v 150,000 conundrum was the opposite of my intention. I meant to point out that this is not a majority rules issue, and that those who have strong positive connections to the water possibly should have a stronger voice in the decisions. I’ll leave it you to decide whether the stronger voice is the birdwatcher or the waterfowler. I am strongly on the waterfowler side as long as there are sufficient birds for the birdwatcher to see when they make the same effort to see them as the waterfowler makes to shoot them. I have no intend to create a petting zoo. This place has been a man eats duck world forever, to think it should become a petting zoo makes no sense, and it would be a disservice to our culture.



Meanwhile, what makes you think that somehow at some time in the future there will not be people who want to vote water fowling out of the rivers? The vegan count is not going down in this state. A properly designed NMS that locks in hunting will make that less likely.



Was your email a parting shot? Do you want to stay dialed in on these updates, or do you think that I am on a lost cause, and simply want to be left out of the discussion? I do not think you are on a lost cause as a person who loves to hunt on the rivers, but I also do not want to deal with baseless accusations here.



Best,



Rik

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

I think Rik is just afraid. Typical tree hugger says he has 150,000 people in favor of it? I haven't heard of one. Perhaps he can hold a meeting for only them and we can see if anyone actually attends. Of the so called 150,000 are any of them from NJ ?

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Maybe stores can post these in their windows.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

It is kind of like this. You know the jars they put out with a picture of a homeless puppy dog. Well let me tell you i am all for helping poor animals but the truth is some of that money goes toward the anti hunting campaing.Trust no tree huggers.I can't believe i just agreed with Joey lol

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Wow !!!!!!!!

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Joey and sal. A force to be reconed with for sure!

Next wi be dogs and cats living together:)

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Miracles do happen. :D

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

I believe Mr van Hemmen just wants to make "presentations" on his plan and, as others have started, he is afraid of actual debate on the topic. He is obviously afraid of any heated response that might come from those that make their living on & from the water. And that only shows me that he is truly living in a fairy tale world. His tendency to refer to Birdwatchers and waterfowlers lead me to believe he is simply refusing to acknowledge that their are actually people that make their livelihood on or from the water and he will not even take those people into his consideration.

Personally I believe that this whole effort is nothing more that a bid for Mr. van Hemmen to become the Prince of the Two Rivers. As he stated at the Red Bank meeting, he believes the Sanctuary would not be controlled by the federal government but by a commission formed from people chosen by the towns abutting the sanctuary. And who better to lead that commission than the all seeing, all knowing Rik van Hemmen?

Perhaps, one or two of us need to join his group so that we can better track his "Back room sausage making" meetings? Or maybe we all need to join the group and by sheer numbers we could all steer the group away from this effort?