Cheryl Nelson -Chronic Wasting Disease Advisory Board Recommendations from Wisconsin
From: "Jeffrey Powers"
To: "'Russ Mason'" <MasonR2@michigan.gov>, '''Rebecca Humphries'" <HUMPHRlR@michigan.gov>, '''Mary Dettloff" <DETTLOFFM}@michigan.gov>, "Douglas A. Reeves" <reevesd@michigan.gov>, '''District} 05'" <Dist} 05@house.mi.gov>, "'District 103'" <Distl03@house.mi.gov>, <mikelahti@house.mi.gov>, <samhunt59@yahoo.com>, <senjbarcia@senate.michigan.gov>, <senjallen@senate.michigan.gov>, '''Teresa Gloden'" <glodent@michigan.gov>, <gheinlein@detnews.com>, "'dtritsch'" <dtritsch@tds.net>, <"'ddundas@house.mi.gov.'''>, '''Darren Warner'" <dwarneroutdoors@gmail.com>
Date: 02/28/20098:52 AM Subject: Chronic Wasting Disease Advisory Board Recommendations from Wisconsin
CC: "'Webmaster, The Outspoken Sportsman'" <spo11sman-webmaster@hotmail.com>, "'William Moore'" <Outspokensp0l1@webtv.net>, '''Mattson, Rory -Gladstone, MI'" <rory.mattson@mi.nacdnet.net>, <loisw@tds.net>, '''Jacque Lafreniere'" <jacquel@tds.net>, '''Chamber of Commerce @beaverisland.org'" <chamber@beaverisland.org>
Dear Dr. Mason,
Please read through the attached document detailing the Wisconsin Chronic Wasting Disease Advisory Board's letter to reject the 10 year proposal regarding Chronic Wasting Disease management in the State of Wisconsin. I believe that you will see that this advisory board pointed out the same critical issues that I identified to you last October. In this times of economic crisis Michigan cannot afford to make the same mistakes that Wisconsin has made regarding the management of the White-tailed Deer herd in Michigan.
The report points out that "Baiting/Feeding Hypocrisy is Shameful", and clearly states the same discrepancies and contradictions that I pointed out to you last October.
The ONR should focus on the disease itself and not use CWO to advance other agendas
The plan ignores that fact that throughout the country, people have moved beyond the fears and learned to live with CWO
The dire predictions that CWO will cause the hunting economy to collapse are overblown
As a public official it is imperative that you look beyond your 2002 plan, and enter into a management strategy that objectively analyzes the information regarding the management of this disease in Michigan.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey F. Powers DVM
Powers' Do It Best Hardware
26259 Main Street
Beaver Island, Michigan 49782
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
LANSING
REBECCA
A. HUMPHRIES
GOVERNOR
DIRECTOR
March 22, 2009
Jeffrey F. Powers, D.v.M.
President, Beaver Island Wildlife Club
Power's Do It Best Hardware
26259 Main Street
Beaver Island, Michigan 49782
Dear Dr. Powers:
Thank you for your e-mail note dated 2/28/2009, concerning the recent response of the Wisconsin stakeholder advisory group (SAG) to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ten-year plan for managing Chronic Wasting Disease (CWO).
It is interesting that you apparently judge the Wisconsin SAG response to be a suitable role model for emulation by Michigan. Both minutes from the January 12, 2008 meeting of the SAG (SAG, 2008, attached), as well as the public media (Durkin, 2008, attached) have documented that the SAG voted to silence the technical workgroup that was appointed to advise them on scientific evidence relevant to CWO management. In light of this information, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the SAG was, and perhaps still is, only interested in hearing what it wanted to hear. Perhaps sound science did not fall into that category.
The letter you cited from SAG notes in several places that CWO "will be here [in Wisconsin] for decades to come," and that citizens have "learned to live with CWO." Notably, they have little choice. The disease has become established in their freeranging deer. Their options are now quite limited and none of them are particularly good.
Fortunately, in Michigan, we still have a choice. We do not have to accept defeat out of hand, and accept the likely decline of Michigan's deer and elk herds and the economies that depend on them. We do not, as you suggest, have to abdicate our responsibility to preserve the health of our priceless wildlife resources for future generations by mortgaging them for the short term monetary benefit of the few. Michigan had the foresight in 2002 to institute the CWO Surveillance and Response Plan to prevent CWO from becoming established in Michigan. It is, and will continue to be, followed. By that means, it is my sincere hope that Michigan will never find itself in the position to embrace as inevitable the bleak, divisive situation in which Wisconsin now unfortunately finds itself.
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Keith J. Charters. Chair. Mary Brown. Hurley J. Coleman, Jr.• John Madigan. J. R. Richardson. Frank Wheatiake
STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING. P.O BOX 30028 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909-7528 www.michigan.gov/dnr. (517) 373-2329
Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Outdoors!
- -------
Jeffrey F. Powers, D.V.M.
Page 2
March 22, 2009
Thank you for your interest in Michigan's wildlife. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Russ Mason, Ph.D., Chief
Wildlife Division
517-373-1263
Enclosures
cc:
Dr. Steve Schmitt, DNR
Dr. Daniel O'Brien, DNR
2
http://wwwqreenbaypressgazeltecom/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI 0=120080131/GPG0204/80131 0553/1233/GPGsports
Patrick Durkin column:
Deer herds to pay for CWO panel's squabbling
By Patrick Durkin
Outdoors columnist January 31, 2008
Last July, then-Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources secretary Scott Hassett appointed 17 citizens and an agency
biologist to study Wisconsin's six-year bailie with chronic wasting disease in white-tailed deer, then decide how to
minimize its impact on the herd, woodland habitats, our economy and all who benefit from healthy deer.
Hassell also appointed a technical team to give the advisory group the latest science on CWO, and review and offer
guidance as it developed recommendations. The team included a ONR sociologist, conservation warden and wildlifedisease
veterinarian; and two CWO experts from the U.S.
Geological Survey and University of Wisconsin.
The DNR presented everyone with a handbook that explained the project and encouraged teamwork. The booklet even
included an inspiring quotation from famed anthropologist Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Well, forget that. Six months and eight meetings later, this small group went home Jan. 26 doubting their work would
change anything in Wisconsin, let alone the world. The final report offers many insignificant suggestions, but no ultimate
goal for managing CWO, and no step-by-step plan with verifiable benchmarks.
Tom Givnish, a University of Wisconsin botany professor who served on the commillee, wrote this in his minority report:
"The majority report must be judged an abject failure.... The majority (took) so many management tools off the table that it
will be impossible to achieve substantial herd reduction or substantially slow the spread of CWO."
The plan merely tweaks hunting regulations that, if approved, would more likely confuse hunters than thwart disease. For
instance, the group recommended a statewide ban on recreational deer feeding, but endorsed current deer-bailing laws
for hunters, which allow 2 gallons of bait during deer season.
Ed Harvey, chairman of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, rejected most of the recommendations in a leller on Jan.
23. "Perhaps most importantly, we want to be very clear that (we) do not support the baiting or feeding of deer," he wrote.
When considering the atmosphere surrounding the group, maybe it's noteworthy they crafted anything. For instance, they
voted 9-6 at their Jan, 12 meeting to silence the technical team, directing they not speak unless spoken to. This prompted
Dr. Julie Langenberg, the DNR's wildlife veterinarian, to walk out.
That wasn't the first sign of trouble. Dr. Daniel Griffiths, a Lomira veterinarian representing the Wisconsin Veterinary
Medical Association, allended the group's meetings in July and August, missed the next two for other commitments and
never returned.
He said angry e-mails from group members dissuaded him. "E-mails were flying back and forth that if people missed meetings, their voices shouldn't be heard," Griffiths said Sunday. "There was nothing I could tell them that they wanted to hear. Some of them had set agendas. They were hostile to the scientists giving presentations at the first two meetings and treated them with disrespect. We had no common ground to work from at that point."
Givnish had similar thoughts. ''There was too much going on behind the scenes," he said after the Jan. 26 meeting. "There were ugly blogs on the Internet associated with this commillee. Some people have a creepy idea of what public service involves. We're supposed to resolve our differences through rational argument and common sense, not fisticuffs or worse. It's sad that happens, but I wasn't surprised."
Alan Crossley, the ONR's CWO project leader, represented the agency on the commillee. He said he tried to create a collaborative spirit within the group, and felt terrible that animosity often resulted instead.
3
"If anyone is to blame, it's me," Crossley said. "I never should have allowed that vote (to silence the technical team), but I
never thought it would pass. Maybe I'm too accustomed to the emotions surrounding deer.
People who don't work in this environment were probably more shocked than I was."
Whew. Big 01' sigh.
As disgracefully as the advisory group sometimes behaved, and as noble as it might be for Crossley to take the hit, the
true fauillies with the ONR's hierarchy, our governor and Legislature and all state institutions involved in CWO policymaking.
Wisconsin has yet to specify a long-term goal and comprehensive plan for managing CWO, and no leader has
championed one. Expecting 17 citizens and one ONR employee to go beyond the chieftains' audits, indifference and
second-guessing proved foolish.
Meanwhile, deer continue paying for our apathy.
4
Wrap-up Meeting of the CWD Stakeholder Advisory Group January 26, 2008 . 9am . 2pm DNR Headquarters, 3911 Fish Hatchery Road, Fitchburg, WI 53711
Note: 9 AM start
9:00 . 9: 10 Greetings. Congratulations on work at last meeting.
9:10.9:20 General comments from members.
9:20 -9:50 Reactions to report. Discussion of content concepts and changes or additions. HOWEVER, please note, we will not wordsmith and/or .group rewrite. the document. Many of you are quite capable writers and each of you would approach the report differently. So, your input in advance of the meeting is appreciated.
9:50. 10:00 Break
10:00 . 10:40 Minority Opinions. available for individual reading. Reaction to minority opinion.
10:40.10:50 Break
10:50 . 11: 10 Process and Performance: What did we do well? What could be improved?
11: 10 -12: 15 Plan presentation to Secretary: Content Primary presenter Other attendees
12:15.1:00 Lunch
1:00.1:15 Next?
1. Opportunities for members to continue involvement.
o February 27 NRB meeting omid-late March public hearings oApril 23 NRB meeting
2. How do people want to be kept in the loop about the presentation to the Secretary and the decisions of the Natural Resources Board?
1:15.2:00 Closing: Final comment from members, Department and facilitator.
NOTES CWD Advisory Group. Meeting #7 Recommendation Formulation 1/12/2008 9 AM To 4 PM . Fish Hatchery Meeting Objectives: 1. Working our plan:
o Recommendation identification and discussion Advisory Group Members attending: Ken Anderson, Alan Crossley, AI Brown, Jerry Davis, Steve Gehrke, Tom Givnish, Scott Maves, Tony Grabski, Steve Hookstead, Ron Kulas, Phil Muehrcke, Ken Vertein, Bob Page, Jim Peterson, Nick VanDriel Absent: Chris Brockel, Dan Griffiths, AI Phelan Technical Guidance Team attending: Jordon Petchenik, Julie Langenberg, Mike Samuels, Chuck Horn Meeting Facilitator: Kathleen Wolski Meeting consultant: Patricia Van Gorp Greeting and Agenda Overview Pat Welcome. Expression of appreciation for attendance by the public and the media. Look at agenda and duration of today. Group had expressed willingness to go until 8 PM. The group will revisit the need to work beyond the usual 4 PM
5
close later in the agenda.
Timeline Review
Alan
RE: The request from the group for a one month extension:
The Secretary supports the group in taking the time necessary.
However, the ability to impact the 2008 hunting season remains tied to the
completion of the Group.s hunting related recommendations to submission
by the end of January.
The Group agreed to move forward toward completion today. The group
will review their progress later in the agenda and make a decision.
Public Comment No comments from the public.
Participation by
Technical Team and
Public
A motion was made that public and technical team participation be in the
form of offering new information or in response to questions made by Group
members.
(carried 9 yes. 6 no)
Straw Polling Document
All The Group had received copies of a straw Polling Document in advance of the meeting. Individuals had been asked to review the listing of recommendations previously submitted by members and consider their preliminary vote prior to the meeting. The idea being that taking a straw poll at the January meeting would indicate which items required additional dialogue and which substantive agreement already existed. The Group proceeded to go through the Polling Document without discussion. but with clarification or explanations, as needed. The Group voted that any item receiving a unanimous straw vote would be deemed a final decision. All other items could be reviewed with further discussion. (unanimous)
Polling Document
All
Polling Document complete.
Duration of today.s meeting
o Group decided to go until 8PM or earlier, 12-3
Final Recommendations
All
Discussion of how to proceed.re: level of detail to recommendations:
o Motion to use 20% below goal as the benchmark and then tell the DNR what they don.t want to include in the season, motion failed 7-8 Final vote document appears on the DNR CWD web and was e-mailed to all members at the conclusion of the meeting. Pat -Insert vote # as indicated below in final vote document.
o Motion to amend dmu goals to take into account CWD prevalence, motion failed 5-10
o Motion to adopt Tony Grabski.s season structure in lieu of season structure, motion approved 9-6
o inclUding October youth and disabled hunts
o Striking .CWD Zone. and .Hunting Season Structure. paragraphs
Reflection on Group.s
6
contribution to disease management
All
The Group took a look at The Spectrum of Wisconsin.s CWO Management Choices graphic. They reflected upon where, in their individual opinion, the culminating affect of the Group.s recommendations appeared on the Spectrum. The results indicated the majority of the participants assessed the impact as continuing the monitoring and study approach and .slowing the spread of the disease Two (2) members assessed the Group.s recommendation as the equivalent of .doing nothing. to manage the disease.
Submission of recommendations and/or extension.
All The Group approved submission of the recommendations as completed to the Secretary and the National Resources Board (with minority opinions) by the end of January 2008.
Next Steps: Report
Pat Pat will take the recommendations as stated from the group and put into the Advisory Group summary and recommendation report. Pat will send everyone a copy next week. Members wishing to issue minority opinions are requested to use the outline on the HANDOUT. The Advisory Group report may contain minority opinions from members only. (Organizations are welcome to provide separate responses to the Secretary and NRB, if desired) Minority opinions are due to Pat by midnight January 23, 2008. Only opinions received in electronic form (Microsoft Word) can be included unless advance arrangements are made with Pat to submit hard copy. Between January 16 and January 26, members are encouraged to share the report with their affiliate organizations.
Next Steps: Wrap-up Meeting (optional)
A meeting of those able and interested in attending will be held January 26, 2008 (9 -2?) DNR Office, 3911 Fish Hatchery Road, Fitchburg, WI. The purpose will be to:
o Share observations about the report as a group.
o Plan for the presentation of the report to the Secretary and NRC Board. D Evaluate the performance of the group and process This is not a regularly scheduled meeting of the Advisory Group No action on recommendations will be taken. All members are encouraged to provide input on the 3 agenda items to Pat or Alan in advance, if they wish.
Adjourn 6 PM