ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
February 4, 2020 @ 9:30 a.m.
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (upstairs conference room)
284 State Street, Augusta
Attending: Judy Camuso, Commissioner
Timothy Peabody, Deputy Commissioner
Jim Connolly, Director Bureau of Resource Management
Nate Webb, Wildlife Division Director
Kelsey Sullivan, Game Bird Biologist
Mark Latti, Communications Director
Chris Cloutier, Warden Service Major
Francis Brautigam, Director of Fisheries and Hatcheries
Becky Orff, Secretary/Recorder
Matt Thurston (chair)
Jerry Scribner (vice-chair)
Shelby Rousseau - by phone
Kristin Peet (by phone)
Don Kleiner, MPGA
I. Call to Order
Matt Thurston, Council Chair, called the meeting to order.
Introductions were made.
III. Acceptance of Minutes of Previous Meeting
A motion was made by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.
Vote: unanimous minutes approved.
- Step 3
1. Ch. 2 Bass Tournaments
Mr. Brautigam stated the rule change allowed organized bass clubs to increase the number of participants at club events from 15 to 20, only where they were able to relocate parking. They could have their event with larger club attendance while minimizing user conflicts at water access sites. This would allow them to holder larger events to be held off site and free up available parking for other anglers to use at water access sites. One minor clarification was made from the original proposal to clarify that all of the club participants needed to park off site. There were three public comments received. One was not relevant and two were in support.
A motion was made by Mr. Smith to adopt the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.
Vote: unanimous motion passed.
2. Captive Wildlife Rules
Mr. Connolly stated a couple of years ago we went through rulemaking to clarify what people could have and not have for species. By streamlining and clarifying the categories and listing species we decreased work, as well as making hedgehogs unrestricted. Within the rules there was a section 7.19 which had been removed, and we tried to be consistent in terms of clarifying what existing regulation applied to the topic we were talking about. When the rules were enacted we wanted to clarify we weren’t reaching into agriculture and regulating anything that was covered by agriculture. Agriculture included a definition that was broad enough to allow people to exhibit animals as part of their agricultural operation and have that be considered agriculture. There was a local orchard in Levant that had goats and a petting zoo when you went there to pick apples in the fall, and they were allowed to do that because that was an exhibition of animals associated with their agriculture. The Department’s challenge was there were people interested in bringing exotic wildlife in and exhibiting it in addition to their agricultural enterprise. We did not want to have that crossover where we would lose track of exotic wildlife when people were having a roadside zoo.
Mr. Connolly stated by taking the definition out and instead referencing when exotic wildlife was used for agriculture, like bison, water buffalo, emus, etc. that there would be a discussion between IFW and Agriculture to determine whether it was being used for agriculture or as a pet. The change came about as an effort to clarify between IFW and Agriculture with exotic wildlife that we still maintained control unless the species became mainstream in agriculture. The change was brought about as the result of a bill in the Legislature trying to change the Department’s authority. The compromise was that we would clarify when things when were agricultural and when they were exotic wildlife. We would maintain authority for exhibitions of exotic wildlife.
Mr. Connolly stated there was a change from the original proposal. 7.18 species lists (D.) there was a reference to any species native to Maine. When we checked with the Attorney General they advised that by classifying them we were making them eligible for people to have them. By classifying any animal the discussion switched from should they have it, to are they capable of having it. If we had any species native to Maine as a Category 1 species any licensed exhibitor in Maine just had to show they were capable of being an exhibitor, not whether they should have the animal. We didn’t want native wildlife routinely brought into captivity in Maine for any purpose other than the limited purposes of research and science. By taking that out and not having it listed we didn’t have to have those discussions.
A motion was made by Mr. Smith to adopt the proposal as amended and that was seconded by Mr. Sage.
Vote: unanimous motion passed.
B. Step 2
There were no items under Step 2.
C. Step 1
1. Migratory Bird Season 2020-2021
Mr. Sullivan stated there were a lot of sections and dates in the proposal that 95% were only adjusted for the calendar year. In section B. Sea Ducks and section C. Ducks regular, the starting date for the sea duck season was November 9 and the starting date for the coastal zone was November 6. Traditionally we started the sea duck season and the coastal zone at the same time, because the coastal zone was pretty much where the sea duck season was. There was a balance between people that wanted to hunt sea ducks as far into January as they could, and others that wanted to go earlier. We had a balance that with the third week of January as the ending of the sea duck season. The coastal zone was proposed to start on November 6 to maximize Saturdays.
Mr. Sullivan stated in section G. we were proposing to maintain the mallard bag limit which was reduced last year to a 2-bird limit. That was a change across the Atlantic flyway and was a Federal guideline. Based on mallard population trends the recommendation from USFWS was to maintain the 2-bird limit.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Scribner stated the waterfowl survey that some received, there was a question related to boundaries. Did that fit into the proposal in terms of boundary changes?
Mr. Sullivan stated the survey responses indicated the current boundaries balanced those desires. There wasn’t any resounding support to make any changes to the boundaries or season dates.
Commissioner Camuso asked if there was a limit with USFWS as to when boundary changes could take place.
Mr. Sullivan stated we did the survey to get ahead of that, 2021 was the next opportunity to make changes. Every 5 years we could make a change to the zone boundaries. The biggest question was the north and south boundary line and moving the line. The survey indicated 78% wanted to maintain the status quo.
Mr. Connolly stated one of the things we tried to do in our public interactions was to better assess what the public was really saying and who was speaking. Sometimes public hearings attracted people that had the most interest in seeing the change or the most they perceived to lose, but didn’t really give the middle and how big the middle was. We got the most vocal, but that may not be representative of everything. That was part of all of our planning efforts to better engage the public in a wider manner.
Mr. Smith asked how the eider and woodcock populations were.
Mr. Sullivan stated the eider population, there had been evidence that there had been declining breeding populations south of New Brunswick. North of New Brunswick they were pretty robust. We may see some changes to the eider season in the next few years because of that. Canada just reduced their season down to 60-days from 80 to 107. The bag limit was reduced to 2 from 6.
Commissioner Camuso asked how much of the decline was predation or as a result of the decline in mussels that they ate.
Mr. Sullivan stated he thought it was an ecosystem response. It was the food resources, they were not retaining the number of adults to maintain the nesting populations. Predation was a big part of it also.
The woodcock population, in a range wide general trend they had a slow steady decline. We did not see a lot of harvest on woodcock. The implications of harvest were pretty negligible so there had not been any changes to the season or bag limit.
Mr. Thurston asked how we chose the participants of the survey and how many were there?
Mr. Sullivan stated if someone had an email address tied to their MOSES and purchased a duck stamp they received the survey. It went out to 8,000 people and we received 1,000 responses.
V. Other Business
1. ATV Task Force report
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated there was a 15-member task force and they wanted to get public information into the task force. As they already knew what the issues were, they didn’t want to go to public hearings around the state, so a website was developed off the IFW ATV homepage. A survey monkey link was used and we received 1,077 responses even though the link was not advertised. Through social media word was quickly spread to comment to the task force. The questions asked were open ended. When reviewing the comments, the motorcycle/dirt bike people basically carpet bombed the survey questions. They answered the objective questions with minimal words, but commented with long paragraphs about how great dirt bikes were. About 300 of the 1,000 responses were related to dirt bikes. It showed how groups of interested parties could affect comments coming in on any particular issue. Looking at the structure of the report, he had received positive comments on the layout. The report in its entirety can be viewed at: https://www.maine.gov/ifw/atv-snowmobile/atv/governorstaskforce.html
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Thurston stated 65” and 2,000 pounds was basically what was permitted on the trails. What percentage of the sales market in respect to the units was excluded from their opportunity to sell to the general public that could be ridden in Maine?
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated in 2019 we had roughly 300 machines over 65” registered in Maine out of 70,000. Talking about the scale, it was a non-issue. They were $25,000 - $30,000 machines. It was concerning to some of the dealers and others that those machines be grandfathered. The task force recommendation was to grandfather the 300 machines over 65” that were currently registered. Grandfathered, meaning they could ride off their own property on someone else’s property with permission, but not allowed on the ATV trails. The task force recommended, if you chose to purchase a 70” machine if the law passed, the only place you could ride would be on your own land, or on the ice. The landowners were very clear, they did not want them in Maine. The concern was, the industry would not stop, so we were going to stop the industry by saying not to ship them to Maine. They would be allowed on a frozen body of water or on private land, but they would not be able to register them.
Mrs. Rousseau stated in front of her office in Rangeley she felt like the big machines were going by constantly. Rangeley allowed the bigger machines to be used on Rt. 4 and there had been vehicle collisions because of them.
Mr. Smith asked how wide the bridges were on the trails, he thought they were 60”.
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated American Forest Management had a company policy and they were 60”. The company was agreeable to go to 65”. There had been a huge compromise with the major landowners, they were at 60” and collectively they agreed to move forward with the concept at 65”.
Mr. Sage asked if something similar would be happening with snowmobiles? Some of the trails were intermingled.
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the trails would never be wide enough to pass two 65” rigs. People would have to ride accordingly. ACF would be going through rulemaking and would have the trail standards. We were not recommending a trail width. There would be some places you could pass two 65” rigs, but that would not be the necessary standard to build to. The task force report included a page on the role of the state program and the ATV clubs and that was the current program under ACF. Only 15% of the current registered owners belonged to clubs, they wanted to increase the interest in clubs. Objective #2 in the report was having a set of standards for the trails. ACF had a Maine motorized trail construction and maintenance manual. The task force recommended that be adopted as a standard for all trail construction and maintenance in Maine.
Mr. Thurston asked if they did not build to that standard, did they not get any of the grant money that was available?
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated above and beyond that they would not get the money and trail would be closed. If a trail was not built to the standard or maintained to the standard the trail would be closed until it was brought to that standard.
Mr. Scribner stated there were a lot of multi-use trails in the Eustis area. What occurred last year was the Eustis ATV club did a lot of ditching, etc. without letting the landowners know. There needed to be conversations between the landowners and the ATV clubs if they were going to maintain trails to a standard.
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated that was included in Objective #4 of the report for outreach and education. The task force heard it clearly that the landowners had a club member come to them and ask if they could put a trail on their land, they agreed to it, then there was zero communication beyond that. The landowners wanted to be kept in the loop. Other objectives in the report were discussed.
Mr. Thurston stated he had a question about Objective #2 to amend the current ATV landowner permission law to give landowners the ability to restrict the types of ATVs allowed on their trails on their properties. Independent landowners might choose not to have a 65” rig on their trail?
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated the basis for that, the current landowner permission law in Maine said if there was a state ATV trail on the property that it’s permissive use for anything defined as an ATV. It was aimed at the dirt bike issue. Landowners wanted to make it clear if they had permissive use for all ATVs and a dirt bike was registered as an ATV, that they should be always allowed on the trails. The landowners wanted to make it clear that they may want to eliminate a certain type of vehicle on their property and they would have the right to do that. Items for further consideration on page 29 of the report were discussed.
Mr. Sage asked if the task force was continuing to meet. How would they work on the items that were tabled?
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we would need a mechanism to bring up the issues. We would work with the IFW Legislative Committee on what should be done with the items. There would probably be bills in the next legislative session relative to some of the topics.
2. Mere Point update
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated we went through rulemaking last fall on the boat launches, and the section for Mere Point had been removed from that rulemaking. In January 2019 an informational meeting was held. There was a large turnout of people that came to express their views. Related to the boat launch itself, we heard from people that wanted to launch bigger boats than what it was intended for and we heard from people in and around Mere Point that they wanted to restrict the size. We were looking at what the next steps would be. Mr. Circo was reviewing use agreements with the City of Brunswick to determine what was needed in rule and what could be done with a use agreement with Brunswick. Typically, our boat launches were not size restrictive. Some of the complexities had to be figured out such as what could be done without damaging the existing boat launch. We needed to focus on those things and whether they needed to be in rule or in an agreement with Brunswick.
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated commercial use was discussed at the meeting, mostly by clam diggers. The intent of the construction of the boat launch was to serve the marine industry, the commercial as well as recreational use. LMF money was used and the application stated the clam diggers and other marine uses were appropriate uses of the boat launch. That brought up some of the air boat concerns which would be discussed at another time. We were still working on what would be before the Council as a proposed rule.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Thurston asked if Brunswick would modify the existing site. The existing site was for under 24’.
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated that was what we needed to work with them on. What was the original intent of the launch site? The other site had been closed to commercial operators due to eel grass and use was moved to Mere Point. What was the foundation of the agreement with Brunswick, and etc.
Mr. Scribner stated it was obvious when public comments had come in about Mere Point that enforcement was definitely a primary concern in that there seemed to be a bias in terms of who had been deemed responsible for enforcing the regulations that had been in put in place and agreed to at Mere Point. It needed to be made clear who was responsible for enforcing and that they were going to enforce.
Deputy Commissioner Peabody stated that was the reason for the rulemaking, because we didn’t have the enforcement tool. The regulations were under an agreement with Brunswick that they were going to do the enforcement. The warden service really couldn’t enforce a town ordinance. The rulemaking was to open up enforcement by wardens and marine patrol.
3. Deer Feeding
Mr. Webb stated last winter there were a few bills in the Legislature related to deer feeding, baiting, mineral licks and related activities. The Committee held over two of the bills, one related to a potential expansion of the timeframe when mineral licks would have been allowed to be placed. The other bill was a concept draft regarding the baiting of deer that didn’t have any specific language. There were a number of concerns expressed by the bill sponsor and some of the Committee members. The fact that baiting wasn’t legal in Maine and was in other states, there were some perspectives in the hunting community that would be a nice option to have in Maine. There was also some concern expressed over equity and fairness between those that had the means to establish food plots as compared to those that did not have those means and couldn’t put out bait or bucket of apples. The Committee carried over the two bills and asked the Department to report back to them with a series of recommendations on how to move forward. They requested we consult with stakeholders, hold internal conversations within the agency and also review the scientific literature on all the issues and make recommendations. A number of internal conversations took place with the wildlife division and warden service to get a sense from the perspective of the staff distributed across the state what was going on on the landscape and what some of the concerns and issues were. We held a meeting with stakeholder groups in October 2019 that was well attended. We also contracted with a professor at the University of Maine in developing a public survey on deer feeding and baiting. A very similar survey was recently completed in New Brunswick and we were able to modify the questions for Maine and gather some prospectus from the general public. The information was compiled, and a report submitted to the Legislature.
Mr. Webb stated what we heard unanimously from stakeholders was there was no interest in legalizing deer baiting or expanding the use of mineral licks. There was no support for prohibiting food plots or requiring permits for food plots or fees for food plots, all of which were ideas that were discussed by the Committee. Scientific literature was pretty clear on some of the risks that a lot of the activities posed with regard to vehicle collisions, disease transmission and habitat degradation. Our recommendations to the Committee were that they not move forward with any changes to the current requirements and statutory language. We recommended the Department start educating the public on the issues. It was something that had been done in the past but probably not to the level that we would have liked to do with the resources we had available. We now had more staff and a revamped information and education division. Messaging may have been mixed in the past particularly with regard to feeding. We had some significant concerns with feeding but it was legal. The public survey demonstrated there was a lot of support for it under certain circumstances. We recognize and heard from stakeholders that we needed to tackle more from an outreach perspective before we could consider moving forward with any changes to regulations or statute. We also recommended to the Committee that the Department pursue working with some current feeding operators to collaboratively change the way they were feeding in a manner that minimized risk. As an example, there were significant feeding operations that were run by towns or individuals or organizations that were feeding 100’s of deer all at one spot. What we were considering was trying to identify one or two of the individuals and working with them to move their feeding operation to an area where there was quality winter shelter for deer that was away from the road, making sure they were feeding an appropriate type of feed in a way that spread the feed out on the landscape and minimized risk of direct nose to nose contact that could occur currently at some of the sites. We would basically be working with a willing partner to demonstrate ways to feed deer that minimized the risks.
Mr. Webb stated we also thought it was important for the Committee to hear more about chronic wasting disease (CWD). We were able to bring in Dr. Krysten Schuler of Cornell University, an internationally renowned expert on CWD. She gave a presentation to the Committee about the disease and what the risks were and what it could mean to Maine if we got it, what we needed to do to hopefully prevent getting it, and the response if we did get it. The Committee discussed the two bills and whether or not to move forward with some legalization of baiting for deer hunting. In the end, they voted unanimously ought not to pass the bill that would have expanded the use of mineral licks. The concept draft bill on baiting for deer which had no language, they recommended the bill pass unanimously, but the change would be a slight adjustment to the penalty for baiting deer for the first offense. The issue kept coming up and there were bills each session. Dr. Schuler also gave a public presentation on CWD and there was a very different perspective from members of the public.
Mr. Thurston stated to understand the capacity of CWD and the discussion around prions and what it did to the piece of dirt the deer were on. He had a food plot, what information was there about bringing prions into the state through the seed source that he used.
Mr. Webb stated what Dr. Schuler tried to reinforce was there was a lot more we did not know about the disease. Her message was that we needed to be cautious. There was evidence that plants that were growing in area where the soil was contaminated by prions could uptake those prions into the plant tissues. In theory, he did not believe it had been demonstrated to actually occur, the prions could be spread by moving the plant material which could include the seeds to another location. At this point that was a theoretical risk that we did not know if it was actually legitimate. CWD could spread just by wild deer moving across the landscape. It did spread that way but was very slow. In some cases it jumped, it had jumped across the Atlantic Ocean into Norway. The vast majority of jumps had been traced back to movement of captive cervids. There were some where we did not know how it moved, there was no indication it was captive cervids. The potential to move prions was being looked at. The best theory for how it moved to Norway was urine-based lures but they did not know.
Mr. Thurston stated we did not allow captive whitetails in Maine. It seemed a lot of the disease started with captive herds. Were captive cervids behind double fencing?
Mr. Webb stated not currently. He thought there were about 27 captive cervid facilities in Maine. There were new fencing standards, however, the majority were grandfathered and had inadequate fencing. The best practice was double fencing of 10’ or 12’ high. The captive cervid program was managed by ACF and they were doing the best they could with the resources they had. We worked very closely with them. Some of the facilities were very large.
Commissioner Camuso stated there was progress a few years ago and limited the number of the kind of cervids that could be brought in legally and where any live cervids could be brought in from. We didn’t really have live cervids coming in, most of the time they were bringing in gametes from New Zealand for breeding. Most of the facilities we had were just a few animals. There were only 10 that had more than a dozen animals.
Mr. Webb stated a peer review paper had been published demonstrating that prions were in reproductive material. Whether that was a realistic risk or not, he didn’t think we knew.
Mr. Smith stated he also had a food plot. He heard that some of the big seed production places tested for the prions.
Mr. Webb stated he felt the conversation around that was for urine-based lures. Two of the bigger companies that produced those had their own internal certification program. Eighteen states had banned urine-based lures. There were synthetic based alternatives.
Commissioner Camuso stated the Committee had been hung up on the fact that we did not have CWD and didn’t need to worry about it. The presentation showed how quickly it could spread and how it could jump across the country. The only chance we had of saving our deer hunt was to keep it out of Maine. In 2005 WI spent $17.5 million in the first year of dealing with it. It would decimate our ability to do anything.
Mr. Webb stated in Quebec in a captive facility they had one detection and they spent $2 million to deal with it. That was basically the annual budget for the Wildlife Division. Our best course of action was prevention. There had been some cases such as NY, a portion of MN, a portion of IL, where they detected it and implemented an aggressive control program. Basically, it was a radius and it was a scourged policy for deer, and they were able to eradicate it.
Mr. Thurston stated he found the discussion around taxidermy at the presentation to be interesting. He felt we probably had a lot of animals coming back that weren’t caped out properly. We needed to educate more on proper handling.
Mr. Webb stated we had reached out to taxidermists and meat cutters to make sure they understood the regulations and if they had animals coming in from out of state that didn’t meet the new rule that went into effect in 2018 to contact the Department. Border patrol had also been brought into conversations.
Mr. Scribner stated in terms of prevention, he felt that was where we needed to put our biggest effort. In Dr. Schuler’s presentation in NY the vast majority of hunters supported elimination of urine-based lures. He felt it Maine it probably wasn’t a big step to make the assumption that Maine hunters would also support that. That would be a simple win on the prevention side of things that we could have right away. Was that a legislative process?
Mr. Webb stated in NY they had the benefit of having a positive case, they had a control program and they believed they eradicated it. The hunters were aware of that, so he felt that helped with support from the public and hunting community in NY. CWD was not high on the awareness for most hunters in Maine.
Commissioner Camuso stated the CDC had changed their recommendation 2 years ago so that they recommended you did not eat any meat from a CWD positive animal.
Mrs. Rousseau stated she came from an area with a lot of people feeding deer. She lived in an area with a triangle of deer feeding stations on both sides of the road. Deer/vehicle collisions were happening there, she had hit a deer right after a log truck had also hit a deer. She had seen 9 deer be hit and killed there. There were deer feeding stations popping up intermittently, they were not even regularly feeding. She felt those were the ones most problematic. It was socially irresponsible. CWD was in Quebec and she lived 20 miles from the Canadian border.
Mr. Webb stated what we heard in situations like that was they would rather have diseased deer with CWD, than no deer which is what would happen if they stopped feeding. That was the sentiment we heard from those feeding in northern Maine.
Mrs. Rousseau stated it was a generation of people that were primarily feeding the deer. She thought it was a social thing for them. She wished those same folks would go with her along the Magalloway River and see the dead deer lying there. Their bellies were full of grain. The Town of Wilsons Mills allocated $15,000 each year of tax dollars to feed deer.
Mr. Webb stated the Aroostook County Conservation Association had recognized the issue and had taken a proactive approach and were working with landowners and existing feeders and they were buying alfalfa in big round bales and taking them in away from the roads into good quality deer wintering habitat. If people were going to feed deer that was the responsible way to do it.
Mr. Scribner stated in terms of specific feeding operations where they were near roads, deer were being hit, etc. it was his understanding the warden service did have the ability to shut down those types of feeding operations.
Commissioner Camuso stated they could issue a summons, but some people did not care and would not stop.
4. Lead ammunition
Mr. Webb stated he wanted to brief the Council on lead ammunition. There had been some media coverage of bald eagles and the idea that most likely those cases were due to consumption of meat that had been harvested with lead ammunition. The Department was part of the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (NEAFWA) and the Commissioner was our representative on the group at the Director level. The association had recently passed a resolution with regard to non-lead ammunition and joined the North American non-lead partnership and basically it permitted the association and our agency to start working proactively on public outreach and education on the benefits of using non-lead ammunition when hunting and harvesting wildlife. The concerns over toxicity of lead obviously to humans was well known and documented. There had been major steps to address that and that was the case as well for wildlife with requiring non-lead ammunition for hunting waterfowl and non-lead tackle. It was not a new issue for the state or the agency, however, using non-lead ammunition for hunting big game was something we hadn’t really tackled to a large extent but we were planning to. Mr. Webb stated he had been using copper bullets for about 10-12 years and they performed unbelievably well. They were slightly more expensive. A typical box of copper ammunition was about $30, cheaper lead ammo was about $20. Many purchased copper ammunition for hunting and would target practice at a range with lead ammunition. Ranges were designed to capture and deal with lead.
Council Member Comments and Questions
Mr. Sage stated they were not looking to ban the lead ammo, just change over?
Commissioner Camuso stated no bans, just promoting non-lead. Promotion of a superior product.
Mr. Smith asked if it was just CA that had ban. What about national wildlife refuges?
Mr. Webb stated CA had a statewide ban for lead; there was an executive order at the end of the Obama administration that required non-lead ammo for hunting in wildlife refuges which was rescinded when the administration changed.
Mr. Scribner stated he thought we could learn a lot from CA, even though we were proposing that hunters make this choice, he was afraid from an availability perspective there were 100’s of calibers out there. It may be hard to get non-lead ammo for certain calibers.
Mr. Webb stated with buying stuff online it was pretty easy to search for things, there were 342 center fire options in a whole range of calibers. Those were all widely available commercially produced. The other option, there were also boutique ammunition companies that would so special loads. He did not believe there were any calibers where a non-lead bullet wasn’t produced.
Commissioner Camuso stated we were looking to have a portion of the website dedicated to promoting non-lead alternatives with some testimonials from people that used non-lead and also list places where you could go to get it.
VI. Councilor Reports
Councilors gave reports.
VII. Public Comments & Questions
There were no public comments or questions.
VIII. Agenda Items & Schedule Date for Next Meeting
The next Advisory Council meetings were scheduled for Thursday, March 26, 2020 and Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. at IFW Augusta.
A motion was made by Mr. Sage and that was seconded by Mr. Smith to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.