WPTAG mtg minutes from 01/14/2016

Discussion in 'Florida Flyway Forum' started by Capt Jeff Kraynik, Jan 22, 2016.

  1. Capt Jeff Kraynik

    Capt Jeff Kraynik Elite Refuge Member

    May 14, 2002
    Sebastian/The Keys/Ketchikan
    Meeting minutes from 2nd WPTAG meeting on Thursday, January 14 2016 at the Melbourne Beach Public Library:

    Facilitator and team leader: Jamie Feddersen Recorder: Angela Leggett

    Aim of Meeting: See agenda at end of this meeting summary (attachment 1) see page

    Review of December Meeting
    Overview of previous information and discussion from December meeting. TAG members completed their homework from December meeting and submitted comments to Jamie as requested.
    Quick Overview of December Meeting
    One permit type; 1 application; 3 phases with re-issue and preference points (like alligator re-issue)
    1a. No preference
    1b. No re-issue
    1c. Early teal separate
    1d. Allow 20 choices

    One permit type; multi-applications; by time frame; 3 phases per application; re-issue & preference; one permit per application timeframe.
    2a. one permit per season
    2b. No preference
    2c. No re-issue

    Multi permit types, one application period (by region); 3 phases; re-issue; no preference.
    3a. Preference
    3b. Early teal separate

    Age requirement to apply
    Give longest application period possible
    Have a youth exclusion (youth cannot apply)
    Add a claim period for awarded draws

    Previous action item overview
    Most members provided written descriptions of their preferred permitting plan. These were collected and summarized by FWC staff and presented to TAG members (discussion to follow).
    Previously established action item was for Katie Young (Licensing & Permitting Contact) to look into demographics of permitting applications applied for and awarded. Specifically those under 16, over 65 and non-resident hunters. Her findings are listed below:

    Resident applications account for 98% Non-Resident account for 2%

    Open discussion of ideas for permitting modifications
    In all, there appeared to be six major themes when summarizing TAG members permit plans. There was considerable discussion of modifications to online quota permitting system and determination of which categories were preferred by members and verification that TAG member comments and ideas were appropriately represented. Following discussion, all TAG members were asked to indicate their support for each plan. This was not an indication of “what I want” but rather a “what I can live with” indication. This was done to pare down the list and focus future discussion.
    RLIS Category
    All areas 1 application (number of permit types determined by number of application periods)
    Multiple Application Periods
    1 Permit per application
    1a. Group areas by region
    Goodwin type grouping for all permits
    SUPPORT: 7 members
    (Krentz, Emanuel, Richter, Kraynik, Echenique, Limbaugh, Monti)

    Each area 1 application (number of permit types determined by number of areas – 9ish)
    Single Application period
    1 permit per area
    SUPPORT: N/A - This scenario was ruled out during discussions

    All areas 1 application (number of permit types determined by number of application periods) (really a nuance of scenario1?)
    Multiple application periods (5 applications)
    1 permit per application (modified from TAG member original description)
    Grouping of all areas by day of week (three groupings)
    3a. Single application periods – IN FAVOR: 2 (Richter, Echinique)
    The original scenario described included a limitation of 1 permit per area per year. This is complicated for RLIS and system couldn’t exclude someone issued a permit in one application period from receiving an permit for the same area in a subsequent application period.
    SUPPORT: 9 members
    (Krentz, Emanuel, Richter, Kraynik, Echenique, Limbaugh, Monti, Sanders, Cook)

    All areas 1 application (One and Done; only one permit type)
    Single application period
    1 permit per application
    Addresses back to back (Sat/Sun hunts)
    This scenario will be difficult for RLIS if we due a “true” one and done. The system, as it is set up now, will not be able to exclude individuals issued a permit in Phase 1 drawings from securing a permit in Phase 2 drawings.
    IN FAVOR: 4 members
    (Richter, DeBerard,??)

    Each area 1 application (number of permit types determined by number of areas – 9ish; really this is the same description as scenario 2)
    Single application period
    1 Permit per area (modified from original TAG member description)
    9 permit types
    Currently happening at Ocklawaha Prairie – you can get second permit on Phase 2 drawings
    STAs fall under this scenario.
    The original description included a 2 permit limit for any area but was modified during discussion.
    SUPPORT: 7 members
    (Pastuer, Emanuel, Richter, Kraynik, Echenique, Limbaugh, Monti)

    Each area 1 application
    Multiple application periods
    1 permit per application
    The scenario doesn’t work on the FWC end as our goal is to reduce permit types and not add. The way this scenario is now it would make for at least 45 different permit types.
    SUPPORT: N/A - This scenario was ruled out during discussions

    FWC is prepared to do everything in our power to eliminate duplicate permits as this is a major issue to several TAG members.

    Permit reissuance Category
    NO on the ground reissuance
    (Emanuel 1st choice)

    RLIS Standby List
    (Krenz, Sanders 1st choice, Emanuel 2nd choice)
    This is a computer generated standby list. Only those on the standby list would be allowed to secure a permit at the check station.
    Random Draw
    3a. Declare hunt party (Pastuer, Emanuel 3rd choice, Richter, Kraynik, Echinique, Limbaugh, Monti, DeBerard , Howard, Daniels, Krenz 2nd choice)
    3a. All Individuals may Draw (Cook)

    FWC would like to minimize the number of permits issued at the check station and possibly have no on the ground issuance.

    Applications & Issuance Category
    Application Timing Period (This was a theme in several TAG member plans; however, we did not discuss timing of application periods. This will be discussed at the February meeting)
    Status Quo
    All application periods closer to hunt date (current @ TM Goodwin)
    All application periods earlier in the year (September)

    Age Limitation
    All youth exempt as hunter on permit – SUPPORT: 11
    (Emanuel, Richter, Kraynik, Echenique, Limbaugh, Monti, DeBerard, Howard, Daniels, Krenz, Cook)
    This idea will be discussed by FWC and other agency staff for feasibility

    Permit Issuance
    “Claim” Permit online - SUPPORT: 12 (All members in attendance)
    Preference Points – SUPPORT: 1 (Limbaugh)
    Online Return with online reissue – SUPPORT: 11 (Pastuer, Emanuel, Richter, Kraynik, Echenique, Limbaugh, Monti, DeBerard , Howard, Daniels, Krenz )
    Be aware that any permit returns must begin approximately ten days prior to hunt.
    Upcoming timeframe and deliverables
    Within 3 days of meeting, disseminate recap of meeting to the public and solicit input - heavily advertise need for public input via GovDelivery and Social Media
    Summarize all public input
    Third meeting of WPTAG February 18, 2015 at DMS Facilities Management (DIMICK Building) Address: 111 South Sapodilia Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL
    Review all public input
    Continue developing recommended changes to quota permitting system and reissuance of permits
    Reach consensus on permitting

    Within 3 days of meeting, disseminate recap of meeting to the public and solicit input
    FWC WPIT meets and makes final decision on waterfowl quota permitting using information and recommendations provided by WPTAG.

    ACTION ITEM: Members to go back to duck hunters to discuss various plans. Also determine their preferences. What is more important, securing at least 1 permit per year or would they like the option to hunt every venue in the state at least once? TAG members are to provide feedback to Jamie at earliest convenience.

    ACTION ITEM: Katie will review the ideas discussed regarding the RLIS system and create a flowchart that will show the pros and cons of each suggested permitting system. She will attempt to have this done by the end of January so TAG members can disseminate permit information to their constituents before duck season ends and forum participation drops off but indicated her currently scheduled workload may make it extremely difficult for her to finish the task before the “due” date.

    ACTION ITEM: Katie and Jamie need to talk to Division leadership about stakeholder desire for multiple application periods versus FWC internal desire to reduce such periods.
    ACTION ITEM: Andrea, Jamie and Brian Emanuel need to get together and talk about Ocklawaha Prairie (possibly Esmeralda marsh) to discuss gate keeper and other miscellaneous issues.

Share This Page