Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Dog and Raptor Training Advisory Group

Transcription

1 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Dog and Raptor Training Advisory Group Meeting #1: March 7, 2011 Fish and Wildlife Commission Room, First Floor 3406 Cherry Avenue, NE, Salem OR Meeting Notes ATTENDEES All nineteen Dog and Raptor Training Advisory Group (D-TAG) Members attended the first meeting: Kevin Blakely Andy Heider Scott Linden Rick Breckel Dave Illias Howard Meyer Bob Bullard Jan Johnson Jerry Ray Phil Carlson John Kerr Brandon Reishus Chuck Cates Larry Lee Philip Sperr Don Gilbert Leslie Like Bob Welle Jane Hartline Mary Orton of attended as the facilitator and mediator. She was assisted by Lea Kearns and Elaine Phillips. See Attachment 1 for a list of members of the public who attended the meeting. AGENDA The group used the following agenda as a guide for the meeting: 1. Welcome from ODFW and Oregon Consensus Kevin Blakely and John Hummel 2. Overview of Agenda Mary Orton 3. Check-in from D-TAG Members 4. Consensus and Ground Rules Discussion 5. Identifying Issues 6. Issues in Sequence Order (the agenda item was not addressed) 7. Public Comments 8. Next Steps 9. Wrap up and Adjourn 10. Additional Public Comment WELCOME AND INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS Kevin Blakely welcomed D-TAG and the members of the audience. He stated that ODFW intended to work collaboratively with D-TAG to meet the mission of ODFW while providing opportunities for hunters to work with their dogs and falcons. The result of the group would be input to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission on new rules for training dogs and raptors for hunting. He 1 Page

2 emphasized that the group was starting from scratch to discuss the rules and conditions necessary to meet these objectives. John Hummel, Director of Oregon Consensus, explained that this state agency maintains a roster of senior environmental mediators to assist with groups such as the D-TAG, and with ODFW, they had selected Mary Orton to serve as the group s facilitator and mediator. He encouraged the group to work in good faith and put forth a sincere effort to build a collaborative solution. Mary Orton provided some background on herself and emphasized that, as a mediator, she is a neutral party and works for the entire group. She said that should would facilitate the process but not advocate for a specific outcome: that she would focus on the process so the group could focus on the substance. She also introduced Lea Kearns, her associate, and Elaine Phillips, a UO intern, and said they would be assisting her with this process. CHECK-IN Mary Orton asked each D-TAG member to check in, during which members were invited to state their name, where they live, why they chose to serve on D-TAG; and to answer the following question: o Assuming the Advisory Group is successful: what do you want to be able to say you accomplished for yourself, your children, and your grandchildren? Responses to the question are listed below. Accomplishments o Have dog training be legal; not be outlaws o Preserve the resource o Hunting dogs to be legal April through August o Change the rules and ensure hunting and dog training forever o Support the committee o Ensure that we don t lose any current hunting or recreational activities o See as liberal a situation for those training hunting dogs o Leave it as good or better o Keep Oregon a destination for families and kids o Come up with a set of rules that is ethical and allows hunting at all times of the year o Come up with rules that continue to provide a valued resource for hunters and continue our sport o Want it to be easy to train dogs o Wants rationality in the process o Make the pie bigger for everyone with minimal regulation o Represent Eastern Oregon o Ensure resources for the future while also meeting the mission of the department o Simple, enforceable regulations o To include Sauvie Island management with ODFW rules about dog training o The process for dog training within ODFW s mission o Preserve culture and way of living o Take care of the land and habit balance o Generations in the future have the freedom and resources to enjoy hunting and training with dogs 2 Page

3 o Falconry interests included o Preserve and improve our hunting resources (protect against land degradation) o Future opportunities o Clear rules o Protect habitat CONSENSUS AND GROUND RULES DISCUSSION The group discussed the timeline for their process. See Attachment 2 for the schedule that would result in the Fish and Wildlife Commission considering proposed rules changes at their June meeting. They agreed that they wanted to review the draft rules before they were sent to the Rules Coordinator. As a part of this discussion, the group briefly discussed who was represented at the table and why ODFW had a seat. While some questioned whether ODFW should instead simply receive the recommendations of the D-TAG, others felt it was important to have ODFW fully participating in the process. The group agreed on a definition of consensus and agreed to a set of ground rules, as follows, and signed a copy of the ground rules. Definition of Consensus Consensus means that even if we may not love it, everyone s viewpoint has been considered, and all of us support and endorse the decision. Ground Rules Rights and Responsibilities 1. Every Advisory Board member has the right to be heard. 2. Every Advisory Board member has the responsibility to try to find solutions that work for everyone involved. Behavior 3. We let the facilitator manage the discussion. 4. We listen well and let others finish before talking. 5. We demonstrate respect for all points of view and everyone present. Meeting Management 6. The facilitator will send draft meeting notes to Advisory Board members for review within four days after each meeting. Digital documents and transcription of flipchart pages will be sent to Advisory Board members within 24 hours. 7. Facilitator will keep a parking lot for issues to be addressed in the future and for issues that the group is having difficulty resolving. 8. Advisory Board members will take breaks as needed. Decision-Making and Report to the Commission 9. We help others understand the reasons behind our support for or opposition to a proposal. 10. Once an issue is resolved, we do not reopen it until all other issues are resolved, or unless resolution of another issue impacts the resolved issue, or the group agrees to reopen the issue. 11. We operate by consensus, not voting. 3 Page

4 12. The Advisory Group will produce a report to the Commission that will include all items on which the Group attained consensus, and for those items without consensus, all points of view expressed by Advisory Group members. 13. ODFW staff will incorporate consensus items in the proposed rule. 14. For those items without consensus, ODFW staff will decide what to put in the proposed rule. 15. No topic will be included in the draft rule that was not presented to and discussed by the Advisory Group. 16. The Advisory Group will have the opportunity to review the draft rules at least 96 hours before they go to the Rules Coordinator. PUBLIC COMMENT Some members of the audience gave public comment at this time. Others waited until later in the meeting. Notes were taken on all verbal comments and are posted at along with written comments that were turned in at the meeting. IDENTIFYING ISSUES D-TAG members gathered their ideas for issues to be addressed at their upcoming meetings regarding dog and raptor training, and grouped them into categories as follows. Use and Take of Domestically Raised Game Birds o ODFW problem with releasing birds? o Marking requirement for pen raised birds o Need for a permit o Permit requirement o No permit o Rules for release of domestically raised game birds how many? Where? When? o Take limit restriction to three birds per dog o Rules need to be formulated to allow take of domestic game birds for training o List of types game birds o Use and take of domestically raised game birds and their marking or banding o Regulation of birds relating to application o Take birds out of season (e.g., female pheasants) o No limit on number of taking o Permit not being area specific o Include more species in releasable birds o Definition of release Seasonal and Area Limits on Training Activities o Harassment of wildlife o Year round training o Hunting preserve year round o Wildlife harassment new rule: When? Where? o How does trial permit system help? o Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act o Wildlife needs to be protected from disturbance o Training on public lands 4 Page

5 o Dogs running at large Definition of Wildlife o Pen raised birds are wildlife o Definition of wildlife o Pen raised birds are not wildlife o Impact of bird rules on the raising and releasing and taking of other species such as elk (definition of wildlife) Hunting License Issues o Out of state gunners o License for shooters: residents $6, non-residents $12 Disease Introduction by Domestically Released Game Birds o NPIP birds only any state Additional categories/issues: o Property owner rights o Line between training and hunting/testing o Dead birds o What are the problems with current behavior? o Land 640 acres West of the Cascades; 1280 acres east of Cascades o Economic Impact NEXT STEPS D-TAG members discussed ideas for the agenda for their next meeting, and a meeting schedule for their upcoming meetings. Ideas for Next Meeting s Agenda o Work on sequence of issues to be addressed* o First draft rule o Information from ODFW on whether we can change the statutory definition of wildlife o Definition of pen-raised birds as wildlife o Consolidate topics* o How ODFW arrived at pen-raised birds and wildlife o Comments from state vet on disease* *Items may be completed before the next meeting D-TAG Preliminary Schedule for Meetings (Sites to be verified, which may affect the dates.) March 15, Tuesday, Eugene o Meeting 10am-6pm; public comment 6pm-7pm o Site TBA March 23, Wednesday, Salem o Meeting 10am-6pm; public comment 6pm-7pm 5 Page

6 o ODFW Commission Room reserved Mar 28 & 29, Mon & Tue, Salem o Meeting 10-6pm; public comment 6-7pm o ODFW site reserved o Note: this is tentatively scheduled as a two-day meeting and may revert to a one-day meeting April 7, Thursday, Bend o Meeting 10am-6pm; public comment 6-7pm o Site TBA, Bend or elsewhere April 15, Friday, Salem o Meeting 10am-6pm; public comment 6-7pm o Possible agenda item: Review of draft rule MEETING EVALUATION The meeting concluded with Mary asking D-TAG members, and members of the public, to provide one piece of feedback about what they liked about the meeting, indicated below with a plus symbol (+), and one piece of feedback about what they would like to change for the next meeting, indicated with a delta symbol ( ). Below are the results of this exercise. D-TAG Members + + Setting the ground rules A bit faster pace + Ground rules -> o Reviewed Less time on rules, more time on nuts and bolts o Listened o Modified OK if facilitator is a bit more pushy moving along the agenda o Aligned Went well so far + Having all stakeholders at the table Today went well enough, let s see how + The facilitator was professional the next ones go + Positive attitude of facilitator No public comment period + Facilitator did a good job of assuring all See signs of progress were listened to Certain group members being more + Good facilitation patient + Good and orderly Need minutes and information soon + It was what I expected, but I thought we would get at least one item started after meetings (96 hours is a long time 48 hours more reasonable) Nothing noted. Public + + The informality of the meeting Went well so far + Process was clear and transparent Get to the issues + Consensus defining process did Would have liked to talk about the issues more engage all members of the D- Get to the point! 6 Page

7 + Too much time spent on the rules Keep better time: too many digressions that took too much time so meeting agenda was not timely Have something to say, I had expectations of learning where the group stood re: the issue vs. a fresh start TAG + We had one the ground rules + At least now you have a representative group (members) of the advisors who understand the needs of the dog trainer + Got everyone in the same room + Lots of dog people to speak for us Get ground rules done before the group meeting (more of it at least) Will there be a public comment period next time? WRAP UP AND ADJOURN Mary and Kevin thanked the group for their good work and the members of the public for attending. The meeting was adjourned. 7 Page

8 Appendix 1: Attendees Members of the Public Dave Budeau, ODFW, Salem Michelle Dennehy, ODFW Wildlife Communications Coordinator, Salem Rich Galetti, Dusky Hunting Retriever Club, Yoncalla Linda Galetti, Dusky Hunting Retriever Club, Yoncalla Linda Galith, HRC Trina Gilbert, OUSDA, Roseburg Bob Graham, Oregon City Randy Hand, OSP, Klamath Falls Jim House, NWFTC Dory C. Johnson, NWESSC, Sheridan Lowell Lea, OSP Dennis Leis, Oregon Brittany Club, Oregon City Tod Lum, ODFW, Roseburg Holly Michael, ODFW, Salem Larry Porter, Oregon Brittany Club, Portland Mel Schmidt, OHA, Pheasants Forever, Woodburn Dave Skoube, NWESSC, Corvallis Steven Souder, Umpqua Valley Retriever Club, Roseburg Susan Souder, Umpqua Valley Retriever Club, Roseburg Larry Sowa, Oregon City Joe Waitman, Oregon Brittany Club, NW Pointing Dog Association, Canby Robin Whaley, Umpqua Valley Retriever Club, Dusky Retriever Club, Salem Retriever Club, Eugene 8 Page

9 Appendix 2: Timeline 9 Page