95 research outputs found
Writers Talk Featuring Mark Dawidziak & Susan Streeter Carpenter
No full textWriters Talk, featuring two interviews from the May 7 Ohioana Book Festival. First, Mark Dawidziak, co-author of a book on forgotten American author Jim Tully. Then a talk with Susan Streeter Carpenter, author of "Riders on the Storm," a historical novel set in 1960s Cleveland.The media can be accessed here: http://streaming.osu.edu/knowledgebank/cstw12/WT_WCRS_04-16-11_MarkDawidziac_SusanStreeterCarpenter.mp3Ohio State University. Center for the Study and Teaching of Writin
Computer-Aided Music Therapy Evaluation: Investigating and Testing the Music Therapy Logbook Prototype 1 System
No full textThis thesis describes the investigation and testing of a prototype music therapy practice evaluation system: Music Therapy Logbook, Prototype 1. Such a system is intended to be used by music therapists as an aid to their existing evaluation techniques. The investigation of user needs, the multi-disciplinary team work, the pre-field and field recording tests, and the computational music analysis tests are each presented in turn, preceded by an in depth literature review on historical and existing music therapy evaluation methods. A final chapter presents investigative design work for proposed user interface software pages for the Music Therapy Logbook system. Four surveys are presented (n = 6, n = 10, n = 44, n =125). These gathered information on current music therapy evaluation methods, therapists‘ suggested functions for the system, and therapists‘ attitudes towards using the proposed automatic and semi-automatic music therapy evaluation functions, some of which were tested during the research period. The results indicate enthusiasm for using the system to; record individual music therapy sessions, create written notes linked to recordings and undertake automatic and/or semi-automatic computer aided music therapy analysis; the main purpose of which is to quantify changes in a therapist‘s and patient‘s use of music over time, (Streeter, 2010). Simulated music therapy improvisations were recorded and analysed. The system was then used by a music therapist working in a neuro-disability unit, to record individual therapy sessions with patients with acquired brain injuries. These recordings constitute the first music therapy audio recordings employing multi-track audio recording techniques, using existing radio microphone technology. The computational music analysis tests applied to the recordings are the first such tests to be applied to recordings of music therapy sessions in which an individual patient played acoustic, rather than MIDI, instruments. The findings prove it is possible to gather objective evidence of changes in a patient‘s and therapist‘s use of music over time, using the Music Therapy Logbook Prototype 1 system
Streeter Dysplasia, from Pelvic to Digits: A Case Report
No full textBackground: Streeter dysplasia is a term to describe fetal congenital syndrome which mainly characterized by constriction band on appendages, prenatal amputations of extremities, and acrosyndactyly. This syndrome has wide range of clinical manifestation between patients, as reflected by many other terms to describe this syndrome. Case: The author reported five cases of Streeter dysplasia with constriction band on different locations of the body, with a patient having a constriction band around pelvic and other multiple anomalies, patient with constriction around leg and caused acute limb ischemic, and several cases of acrosyndactyly around hand and foot. Result and Conclusion: Constriction band release surgery, as well as correction surgery for other abnormality was performed, either by direct closure or Z-plasty with satisfactory result in functional and aesthetic
NAWMP January 16, 2007
No full textNorth American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) panel discussion transcript with Carl Madsen, Jim McCuag, Harvey Nelson, David Sharp, and Bob Streeter. John Cornely is the moderator. This is the second discussion in a series recording the history of the NAWMP.NAWMP January 16, 2007
John Cornely – Franklin Gothic Med.
Carl Madsen – Bookman Old Style
Jim McQuag – Bookman Old Style
Harvey Nelson – Bookman Old Style
David Sharp – Bookman Old Style
Bob Streeter – Bookman Old Style
John Cornely – Good afternoon. This is John Cornely, retired US Fish & Wildlife Service and member of the Service Heritage Committee. We’re at the National Conservation Training Center, Tuesday, January 16 of 2007, starting the second in a series of North American Waterfowl Management Plan recording sessions, to record the history of the North American Plan. And this week, especially, we’re going to talk about the Offices in the United States and Canada, and the initiation of several of the first Joint Ventures. With us today we have Carl Madsen, Jim McQuag, Harvey Nelson, Dave Sharp, and Bob Streeter -- all members of the staff of the original Offices in the US and Canada. I’d like to start by having each one of you -- we’ll start with Carl -- just introduce yourself and tell us what your position was, and the respective Office - which Office you were in, and just a little introduction about the … your role in the Office. Carl?
Carl Madsen – Sure. I was brought in 1988 as the habitat specialist for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, US Office. [I] came from a background of mostly wetlands and waterfowl on the prairies, with a particular interest in private lands and agricultural programs. And that’s what I spent my career with … pretty much entirely before that, and brought that interest to the Plan.
John Cornely – Jim?
Jim McQuag – I came to the Canadian Wildlife Service as probably the first Director of the Canadian Wildlife Service not to be a biologist. My background’s in geography and land use planning, which was actually very suitable for working on the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. My position was as Director of Habitat, and then later as Director of Habitat and Water Conservation. And, in that role, I was the lead Canadian -- sort of the Canadian face on the international part of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and the liaison between the Canadian federal presence in the Canadian Wildlife Service and the Joint Ventures in Canada.
John Cornely – Harvey?
1
Harvey Nelson – Well, I started with the Fish & Wildlife Service back in 1950, so I had an opportunity to serve in a great variety of positions over the years. And at the time that the North American Waterfowl Management Plan concept was being developed, I was the Regional Director for the Service in Minneapolis, for Region 3, or the Great Lakes Region. And having had much early involvement in the early preparation of the Plan, when the North American Waterfowl Plan was signed in 1986, I was asked by the Director to serve as their first Director of that Plan. And so I did that. We start[ed] the initial program in Minneapolis, and then later, when the North American Wetlands Conservation Act was passed in 1989, we moved that office to Arlington, Virginia, to be in the Washington scene. And I stayed with the program, as I had agreed to do, the first five years, from 1987 to ‘92, and then I retired. I’ve been retired from Fish & Wildlife Service for the past 13 years or so.
John Cornely – David?
David Sharp – My name is Dave Sharp and I was hired in June of 1988 and worked until June of 1990. [I] worked in Minneapolis as part of the US Office there. I was hired as a population specialist, and my background was such that I came directly from the office of Migratory Bird Management in Laurel, Maryland, to Minneapolis. And one of the major things I was able to bring to the Office was the linkage of the Plan to the databases that we had nationally, so that we could continue to track the goals, the population objectives, that were set in the North American Plan, but then use the databases that we had in Laurel, and that we were collecting continentally, for waterfowl populations -- to track their status. And while I was in Minneapolis, one of the things I worked on was the Continental Evaluation Team and beginning to set up the science parts of the Plan, in terms of tracking population objectives.
John Cornely – Okay. Thanks. Bob?
Bob Streeter – Well, Harvey asked me to come and help him out in the spring, I think it was about February / March of 1988. I had been in research for in the Fish & Wildlife Service for about 15 /16 years prior to that, and had the opportunity to help start two new offices in research. And then I helped Harvey with a … initiate a program on the Mississippi River, just as a detail. And so he thought I might have some skills in helping organize, and get from the central office, and help in the Joint Ventures. And also one of my assignments when I came in was communications. They said that one of the complaints that the people out in the Joint Ventures had, and the US members of the Plan committee was, they wanted to know what was going on across the North American. And so communication was a big part of that. I think a lot of it too, was helping Harvey be a cheerleader. And Dave and Carl did a lot
2
of traveling. That we tried to get to all the Joint Venture meetings, support them in whatever way we could. Sometimes you’d get involved where they didn’t want us, but our job was to help support them from a national perspective, argue a little bit for money, represent the Plan program from a national perspective at various Fish & Wildlife Service meetings, etcetera, etcetera. We also started the US Implementation Board, and gave support to that group. That was non-government entities that helped argue for funding, and help implement the Plan. In about 1990, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act was to be implemented; it was passed in December of ’89. And I was moved to Washington to implement that program. And then start the Office in Washington. Harvey then later came in with the North American Plan Office. And then, when Harvey retired, I was named Executive Director of the North American Plan, as well as the Coordinator of the Wetlands Act. And stayed in that position until 1995.
John Cornely – Okay. Now, we know Harvey was working on kind of precursor efforts to the North American Plan. Like to stick with you Bob, and go back around the table to the other folks and just ask when did you first hear about the Plan, and kind of … what were your initial reactions to it. Bob?
Bob Streeter – Yeah. I can remember the day a box of publications came to the office I had in Fort Collins at the time, called the Office of Information Transfer. And it was a box of North American Plan copies, and they’re being distributed around the Service as a published Plan. And we started talking about that, trying to find out what it was. We learned what research people had been involved -- particularly northern prairie. And so that was my first exposure to the North American Plan. We didn’t know what was being done operationally -- and not much was being done operationally, right when that plan was signed. But that was the first I’d heard of it -- when I actually saw a document that was … had been completed in 1986.
John Cornely – Ok. David?
David Sharp – My first recollection of the North American Plan was 1985. I was working in Laurel, Maryland, and our office had been working very strongly through the Fish & Wildlife Service, in terms of using our databases to set objectives that might be use in the North American Plan eventually. And that was my first introduction to what the Plan was, and sort of what it was all about.
John Cornely – Harvey, we kind of know that you and a colleague in the Canadian Wildlife Service kind of said ‘we need a North American Waterfowl Management Plan.’ So you were there from the very beginning. Jim, when did you first hear
3
about the Plan? Was it right at the beginning or before it started, or sometime after that?
Jim McQuag – Well, actually it was sort of in the middle of that process. At that time I was a Division Chief in the Lands Directorate of Environment Canada, and we were doing a major internal review. And I got the assignment of reviewing Jim Patterson’s office. And so I had the wonderful opportunity of sitting down and having Jim Patterson explain to me this thing called the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, which was an amazing concept at that time, and something that just blew us away. Needless to say, his office got a very high evaluation from me. But it was then about three years later when I had the opportunity to come up to the Canadian Wildlife Service as an assistant to what had been Jim’s position, and then, eventually, came to be part of it. But my reaction to the Plan was that this was brilliant; this was something really interesting. And I loved the innovation aspect of it.
John Cornely – Carl, what … when did you first hear about the North American Waterfowl Management Plan?
Carl Madsen – Well, I’m not just exactly sure. At the time I was working in a project we called the Mid-Continent Waterfowl Management Project, out of western Minnesota, which had its roots in the Migratory Bird Office. We talked about some of those plans that were drafted before. There was concern about the failing waterfowl populations from the mid-continent region, and a couple of individuals did a rather extensive report on that -- Skip Ladd and Dick Pospahala had written that thing. And there was a group of people meeting to do something … what actions needed to be taken on the ground to turn this trend around. Bottom line came out that, well, let’s go out and try something. And we quickly focused on private lands. But, at that same time, there was a National Waterfowl Management Plan. I think John Rogers was probably Migratory Bird Chief then, I talked to him a number of times about a National Waterfowl Management Plan, which had a higher level than me. When you get to Harvey’s level, and up there, that’s where they start to put it together. And I first saw it then -- when the first publication was out. And of course we heard the signing that had happened there and in 1986 and thought well this is great. And then saw the details as the reports came out later. So, I think early on, there was … it had a genesis that was not just one thing that happened. There were a number of steps that came over from that.
John Cornely – Thanks. What I’d like now is for, first Harvey, and then Jim, to talk a little bit about the organization, and the formation of the Offices. First, Harvey, talk a little bit about the organizational structure of the US Office, and maybe a little bit of how you went about to identify the staff that you acquired there in Minneapolis.
4
Harvey Nelson – Well, once the Plan had been signed, and before the Offices -- both the Canadian and US Offices -- were established, we had a lot of discussion between the agencies as to what should be done and how we should organize the main operations of those Offices at the national level. And out of all of that, you know, came several different suggestions. But on the US side, we felt, first of all, we needed to identify the three / four principle components of the program, and then structure the office initially with specialists in those areas to help with the implementation process, and also the continued communications and contact process, with all the partners involved, as it expanded. So, at that stage, we said the number one component of this Plan is habitat. So we need a habitat specialist. We need to also, at the same time, reassess the population goals of … that the Migratory Bird Office had worked with, that the Flyway Councils had worked with in [the] US, and have a population specialist. And then, thirdly, we needed someone to kind of serve as the contact person for all these different cooperative efforts -- other than myself or whoever else would be available. And then we quickly reached the point that the demands for travel and attendance at meeting became so great, and also in the continued planning process, and I needed somebody else to help me directly, so we established a Deputy’s job that Bob Streeter came into. As most of you know, then Carl Madsen came in as a habitat specialist; Dave Sharp, [on] my left, as the population specialist. And then we had an administrative staff, very minimal staff, to do … to take care of the office requirements for the program, at that stage. Sharon Amenson was our administrative assistant, who had been in the Regional Office in Minneapolis a number of years and I knew of her capabilities. Liz Forchez came in, came on board as one of the secretaries; other people that we knew from the Region. And we added a few other people, but the whole idea was that we needed to develop a small, capable staff. And it never did get very large in that respect. But the main thing was that we had to get out there and get this Plan on the road and be able to support it and promote it, both from a philosophical standpoint, from a cooperators standpoint, and then the major issue became the funding standpoint. So, we started with a relatively small but capable group of people that were known around the waterfowl circles, for the most part. And that’s sort of how we developed, the initial staff. [We] had to be flexible, as the program expanded, then you’d need more specialists in given areas.
John Cornely – Okay, thanks, Harvey. Jim, how … what was your experience in Canada? Was it similar or were you organized a little differently?
Jim McQuag – It was actually quite different, inasmuch as the Canadian Wildlife Service had undergone some major cuts in 1981, where much of the habitat program itself had been sort of decimated, and there was very
5
little of that left. And as the North American Plan developed, it became the major habitat initiative of the Wildlife Service. And so the Habitat branch became the focus for that effort within the Canadian Wildlife Service. And when I became the Director of Habitat, it was the most important, and by far the largest program, not only in Habitat, but in the Canadian Wildlife Service at the time. We didn’t specialize at all within the office in Ottawa on habitat itself, the science of it, or the population. That work was done by the Migratory Birds branch, which we worked with fairly closely, but wasn’t within our office. So our focus was more on the coordination and the liaison within Canada, and the coordination and liaison between Canada and the United States. And that was the major role. And similar to the Office in Minneapolis, and later in Washington, there was also a very strong promotion role that was attached to the work that we were doing. And in that sense, we developed and worked on communications, and the development of things like Waterfowl 2000, and the other communication vehicles and documents, to explain the Plan. And out of that also grew our tracking program -- the program to track the actions so we had something to report. Those were all roles there. In terms of staff, our first Communications Coordinator was Illie Carack, and she came in and she initiated a lot of the programs, long and very close coordination with Harvey’s office. And also we brought in Danelle Tebo. And Danelle came to us from Agricultural Canada, and she was sort of in the position that Bob was with respect to Harvey in the original. And she was supporting the work that I was doing and looking after various aspects of it. But the office never really grew much beyond two or three people, in terms of responsibility for the North American Plan. And as I said, the first, and primary, goal of that was coordinating within Canada and coordinating between US and Canada, and then later with Mexico.
John Cornely – We know, now, you know, 20 years later, that much of the implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in the US and Canada was done through individual partnerships called ‘Joint Ventures.’ Where did that concept come from? We’ll start with Harvey. You know, many of us had been working in conservation, in federal agencies, for some time up to that point, and we weren’t really familiar with that concept. Could you enlighten us a little bit on where that came from and how it came to be applied to habitat.
Harvey Nelson – Well, to back up just a little bit then, perhaps. Most of you are aware that during this earlier period, prior to the North American concept coming onboard, we in each country -- US and Canada -- we had developed national waterfowl management plans in both countries. And that was an effort to try to bring together a whole series of other prior actions dealing with, you know, habitat requirements – country wide, establishing priorities, and geographic regions of the country, and all leading to different concept plans, that the Fish & Wildlife Service and
6
the various Regions had been involved with, the Flyway Councils, had been involved with … and that all culminated in this National Waterfowl Management Plan. The idea then being to try to get some better coordination of these efforts so they weren’t being done piecemeal, but getting them all under one umbrella. And the same effort was underway in Canada, for the Canadian National Plan. And then, when the final decision was made to move forward with bringing these various planning efforts -- the national plans, other related habitat plans -- bringing them all under one umbrella, so to speak, as an international plan; that led to the decision to then establish a North American Waterfowl Management Plan. And in the implementation process of that planning effort the question then became how do we bring this down to the field level for implementation? And at various meetings we had discussions about different methods that could have been used, but I remember at a meeting that we had at Ottawa ‘bout that time between the two directors of the Canadian Wildlife Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, and some of the rest of us involved, we went through, again, the review of where these national plans stood, and the need to have … to condense that then into an overall national waterfowl management plan. And that became the North American Waterfowl Plan. And in that process, when it got to the implementation stage, how to do it, somebody said ‘well, gee, some of the other methods that we employed over the years haven’t been too successful, and there’s a lot of fragmentation, going different directions, how do we bring all that together?’ And then discussion led into ‘well, let’s look at the corporate world. Joint Ventures have been a good move on their part in many cases.’ You could cite examples of how different interests were brought together, pooled their resources and funding, and established Joint Ventures, to collectively accomplish a given set of objectives or given programs. ‘Why don’t we try that? Not really been used in government, but at this point let’s try something different.’ So, the idea of having Joint Ventures and partnerships between -- in this case -- natural resource agencies, that would be the foundation for the implementation segment of this Plan. So that’s how we got into establishing Joint Ventures and the partnerships that are needed to make it successful. And it turned out, you know, to be a very successful program. There was a lot of concern early on that this was contrary to the way we have done business in the past. A lot of reasons why it wouldn’t work. A lot of reasons that … at that stage, people were speculating about what it was going to cost to carry out the initial phase of this program. And these people would say ‘we’ll never be able to get that kind of money’ or ‘we can never get enough people to do this.’ But yet we said Joint Ventures with partnership arrangements through some kind of … and getting down to the local level on the ground, there are a lot of organizations out there that we can bring to the table. And by golly, we think this will work. So, that’s how we started in that direction.
7
John Cornely – Were there any guidelines from the corporate world, or … I mean, this concept was discussed, but then what was the next step -- to try and actually adapt this to habitat management, natural resource management, and really get down to implementation. We’ll start with you again, Harvey, and then ask others to comment.
Harvey Nelson – Well, initially we had to sell this to our own Directors, and our own governing bodies, so to speak, in both countries for that matter. And Jim Patterson and I, at that stage, and Jim had explored a lot of this type of thing at the Canadian level, and he helped me sort of determine how to assess that on the US side. And we did get some advice from some key people in national conservation organizations that had some exposure to this. We selected some, at that stage, some companies that had been successful in forming new Joint Ventures to carry out some new missions, and were being successful. And so we had a little booklet of examples to defend our position, when necessary.
John Cornely – Jim, could you comment on that.
Jim McQuag – The Joint Venture concept was one that, not only was a brilliant idea in the sense of a new way of doing business, but it actually really applied to the way, the only way, of doing business really, in a multiple jurisdictional setting. When you’re trying to form partnerships between federal governments, across international borders, states, provinces, non-government organizations, and trying
Pioneer spirit: A critical preface for Bess Streeter Aldrich\u27s Song of Years
No full textThis research project was conducted for the purpose of writing a critical preface for the author Bess Streeter Aldrich\u27s 1939 novel Song of Years. Aldrich began receiving mainstream critical success in 1911 when The Ladies Home Journal published the first of many of her stories. Over the next forty years, Aldrich wrote over one hundred short stories and eight novels, all of which were published and celebrated worldwide. Yet many factors have kept Aldrich out of the established literary canon and have contributed to her being relegated to the lesser tiers of American literature. Her style of writing, considered sentimental by some critics, her choice of hopeful and positive story lines, as well as her designation as a regionalist author have all played significant roles in her being shunned or forgotten by critics and in causing many of her books, including Song of Years, to fall out of print. This research, in the form of a critical preface, argues that Bess Streeter Aldrich\u27s works are representative of the true nature of the lives of the pioneers who settled the Midwest of the United States and that the pedagogical value of her novels warrants a justifiable place for her among the respected authors of the American modern literary canon
Michigan bibliography. A partial catalogue of books, maps, manuscripts and miscellaneous materials relating to the resources, development and history of Michigan from earliest times to July 1, 1917; together with citation of libraries in which the materials may be consulted, and a complete analytical index by subject and author.
No full textLettered on cover: Michigan bibliography. Streeter ... Michigan historical publications, 1921.v.1. Books, pamphlets, etc. -v.2. Maps and atlases. Manuscripts in the Burton historical collection.Mode of access: Internet
Michigan bibliography : A partial catalogue of books, maps, manuscripts and miscellaneous materials relating to the resources, development and history of Michigan from earliest times to July 1,1917; together with citation of libraries in which the materials may be consulted, and a complete analytic index by subject and author /
No full textLettered on cover: Michigan bibliography. Streeter ... Michigan historical publications 1921.v.1. Books, pamphlets, etc.- v.2. Maps and atlases. Manuscripts in the Burton historical collection.Mode of access: Internet
[Photograph 2012.201.B1267.0188]
No full textPhotograph used for a story in the Daily Oklahoman newspaper. Caption: "Mrs. Alice Streeter would be a good bet to stump any panel trying to guess her occupation.
NAWMP part 2
No full textNorth American Waterfowl Management Plan oral history transcript of panel discussions. The first discussion features Red Hunt, Harvey Nelson, Rollie Sparrowe, Dick Hopper, George Finney, and Bob Streeter (moderator). The second discussion features Ken Rick, Bob Streeter, Harvey Nelson, Jim McCuag, John Cornely, and Dave Sharp (moderator).1
Oral History Cover Sheet
Name: North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Part 2 of 2)
Date of Interview: January 10, 2006
Location of Interview:
Mediator for First Panel: Bob Streeter
Mediator for Second Panel: Dave Sharp
First Panel Consists of: Red Hunt, Harvey Nelson, Rollie Sparrow, Dick Hopper, and George Finney
Second Panel Consists of: Ken Rick, Bob Streeter, Harvey Nelson, Jim McQuaig, and John Cornely
Most Important Projects: North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Brief Summary of first panel: Talks about the concept of forming a plan and early implementation to about 1987. Talks about it taking shape in he 1984, 1985 time period. Had meeting at Remington Farm in Maryland. Knew it had to be an international plan. Talked about writing the plan, negotiations between the U.S. and Canada about what to include in the plan. How to get money into Canada to help them implement the plan. Talked about the need for partnerships, the importance of farm policies in both countries and prioritizing the issues. Coining the Joint Venture concept, establishing the first designated areas in the U.S. and Canada. Wanted to take a responsible approach to achieve goals. Had people responsible for editing the first plan and had a oversight committee that was “keeper” of the plan.
Brief Summary of second panel: Started with time period 1987 and went to around 1990. Talked about Joint Venture Management Boards, the North American Wetland Conservation Act with getting money to Canada and Mexico. Getting Mexico signed on with the North American Plan. Talked about the logo and how it picked by Harvey and Jim. Talked about partnerships and how people worked together to get the job done, addressing the communications issues also to help get people on the same page. Had an awards program to recognize people or groups that did a good job. Talked about other supporters, such as other government agencies. Wanting to recognize others who worked in the background to help get this done. 2
KEY:
BS
Bob Streeter
RS
Rollie Sparrow
RH
Red Hunt
DH
Dick Hopper
HN
Harvey Nelson
GF
George Finney
*not sure who is talking or if particular person marked as talking is correct
My name is Bob Streeter. I’m a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee. I had the opportunity to work the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in a couple of capacities and help implement the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. We have a panel here today that’s going to be talking about the period from when the plan, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, uh concept had been basically agreed upon and then during the writing the period until it’s early implementation. Until this document here, that we call the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, it was signed in May of 1986, became a document that brought a lot of partners to the table to protect wildlife habitat across the continent. And the people I have with me here today are (unclear) group. First of all I like to introduce Red Hunt, Red is from California and he was on the Waterfowl uh from the state of California waterfowl programs for years and became active in the early days of the North American Plan and has continued as a retiree to represent California on the North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee and the council staff for the North American Wetlands Conservation Council. Next to Red is Harvey Nelson; Harvey has been involved in the North American Plan also from before it was even conceived. He’s worked with waterfowl, waterfowl research, management and was active in the development of the Plan; was the first director of the U.S. office that implemented the Plan and is still, in his retirement years, still active in waterfowl issues. Rollie Sparrowe, Dr. Rollie Sparrowe, who was with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management Office, he was one of the first technical uh persons working with the North American Plan; continued on as Deputy Assistant Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and then with the Wildlife Management Institute. Rollie is now retired and, but continues in his conservation work uh nation wide and well as locally in Wyoming, where he lives. Next gentlemen is Dick Hopper, state of Colorado, Dick is a waterfowl researcher, waterfowl biologist in Colorado and was has been active in the early days of the North American Plan Committee and has uh continued with his interests 3
in this area. And finally the last member is our partner from Canada, Dr. George Finney. George was with the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada and uh is now with a group called Bird…
GF: Bird Studies Canada.
BS: Bird Studies Canada and uh is a non-government organization, in Canada. These gentlemen will uh will be discussing and debating and uh pulling some the background out of their, their heads, what they remember in terms of the meetings they were at; who was there, who did what and try, we’re going to try and take this period from about 1984, when there was a meeting in Remington Farms uh Maryland, where there was a group of biologists and administrators from Canada, from the U.S. that came to an agreement that there had to be international plan and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that would incorporate all of the other mini plans that had been worked on for several years going back some of them back to the 1950’s. This North American Plan would take shape in the period of 1984, 1985, negotiations to get it approved in Canada, the U.S. thru the ’85 to the signing in ’86, and then we’ll talk a little bit about, go into the first maybe the first year of the Plan Committee uh establishment and how they emerged to govern the North American Waterfowl Management Plan as it actually started being delivered in the ground. So lets go back to Remington Farms, 1984, and Harvey I think you were at that meeting, can you then summarize what you thought was the result, the summary of that meeting, what came out of it in terms of agreements between the Canadian and U.S. personal that were there.
HN: Well, may have to back up just a bit cuz there were a lot of people at that meeting. Uh I was in an administrative capacity and uh didn’t really participate in the full meeting, but uh this was the acumination of a lot of earlier attempts to get some agreement in principle about developing an international plan, something that would oversee the two national plans that had been developed or in a process of being developed and try to focus on the real needs at the moment. And uh that, the negotiating committee uh…also was there the drafting of the plan and uh others around this table today were involved more directly in the drafting process and the other negotiations that followed. But I think one of the other important things we talked about in a different panel, was that uh at that stage, just prior to that meeting, there had been a gathering of some of the key 4
administrators in Canada and the United States and it was important to get those key people around the table and get a common agreement on this is the way to go and this will indeed be an international plan and then there was concern as to whether or not it needed to be a treaty or not, we talked about that in earlier session. And the ultimate outcome of all that discussion was that, let’s make it an international agreement; doesn’t have to go thru all the state department approval and similar approval in Canada and that’s what led then to the, the uh negotiating committee that was present, the members that were present, of which a number became part of the drafting committee. And uh perhaps Rollie or others that were more actively involved in the drafting committee could speak to that part of it.
BS: Before we go to that Harvey, could you dredge up and names of any of the people that may have been at that meeting at Washington between Canadian folks and the U.S. folks? Was it at Secretary of Interior level, was it the Directors of the Fish and Wildlife, Canadian Wildlife Service, do you recall any particulars on that? I know you weren’t directly involved in that but do remember any of those?
HN: Well, my understanding was it was strictly and informal uh meeting to be sure that everybody in the administrative position or responsibility to help make those decisions, was present and a chance to offer their final comments and agree in principle that this was the way to go. So there be no further debate or misunderstanding later and then they also had to make some decision about uh whether or not it was to be a treaty or an amendment to a treaty or call it a general, or just a international agreement; which it turned out to be.
BS: Ok.
HN: Uh there were a number of people at a meeting at Washington and uh…you know I can remember some of them but I’m reluctant to try and name all of them, I might miss some.
BS: Ok, thanks. Well we had a letter that came in from Dick Yancey, from Louisiana, he was a member of that first negotiating committee and he gave us a list of from Canada there was Douglas Rosenburogh from Toronto, who was a Canadian uh…
GF: He was the uh…
BS: Canadian Wildlife Service or… 5
GF: No he was Ontario Providential Director.
BS: Ok, and uh Bob Andrews, who’s Director of Wildlife from Edmonton from Alberta.
GF: Yea, right.
BS: Uh George, Dr. Finney was on that committee and represented Canadian Wildlife Service. From the Untied States, it was Don Minnich who was a… Associate Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service at that time for refuges and wildlife…
[Someone saying Deputy]
BS: deputy. Dr. John Rogers, who was the uh… Migratory Bird Management Office at that time. Uh Jack Grebe was a Fish and Wildlife Service consultant. He was a former Director of the Colorado Division of Wildlife but he was hired as a former, as a consultant there as experienced in waterfowl. Kevin Lloyd, from North West territories. Dr. Bob Bailey, was a Canadian Wildlife Service uh kind of a counter part, I believe, to John Rogers the technical uh…
GF: no Jake Grebe, he was our writer.
BS: No, uh Bob Bailey.
GF: Bob Bailey was our writer.
BS: He was your writer, ok.
GF: Jim Patterson…
BS: Jim Patterson was there…
GF: was the counterpart.
BS: then Dr. Jim Patterson was the next one and Rollie, you were there. And uh, then it says (unclear) Dick Yancey. So that was the first negotiating committee, did that, the composition of this committee change over the next year while this uh, first draft was occurring?
GF: No, (unclear) Wallen took over from John Rogers when he moved to Alaska. Um and that’s when Don Minnich came on.
*RS: And Don Minnich came on. They had that Remington Farms meeting um, I think there may have been another person or two there, but what you’re describing is the actually steering company that set about writing the plan. And at that point I took John Rogers job and he went to Alaska and I think it stayed pretty stable through, certainly to the first draft the next spring. 6
BS: And the people who actually did the writing, was Bob Bailey and Jack Grebe. How did that come about?
*RS: When we met as a group, we took a shot at writing some parts of it and negotiating some parts of it and suggesting exact wording and then when we were done with each meeting, those two guys were charged with putting the pieces together and putting it in uh written format and then it would come back to us for review prior to the next meeting.
GF: The uh, the first meeting at Remington Farms, from my recollection, was um we had had discussions back and forth between principally the Migratory Bird Offices and CWS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. But it was the first time that we came forward with essentially an agenda on each side of the issue, about what we felt needed to be in the plan. Uh what was important to us and so we can, from the Canadian side we came forward with a proposition about widespread habitat protection plan; that did require funding from the United States in order to help us out. Um, we didn’t know going into that meeting whether that would even be acceptable as a proposition in the States. We similarly were there talking about how we were going to handle issues related to trying… to calm down the regulatory process. Um, were talking about substance harvesting issues and other issues like that. So as I recollect, Rollien, the principal meeting or the principal meetings were sorting out whether we, our agenda was common enough that we could actually proceed. And in reviewing my notes, (unclear) as I got back from that meeting, my basic conclusion was that the hard work had been done with getting through the providences and then, in fact, the agenda between the Canada and the United States was very very similar; and that the principals that we and the main items were larger in accordance and that didn’t mean there weren’t other important issues around, but we felt confident enough coming out of the initial meeting to really put our foot down on the accelerator. And we got through, I think, in four meetings or perhaps five we got through negotiating the first draft and in uh something like seven months, which was quite remarkable when you think about.
*RS: It was, and we directly confronted such issues as what did we need to know that we didn’t have in hand and we would then charge often our Migratory Bird Office, and I’d go back to the staff and hand them the request for the data that we thought we needed to illustrate things down the road for the to continue the writing and of course the writing 7
itself, any time something went down on a piece of paper, a lot of people had a kind of network wanting to see this, even though there wasn’t direct public involvement in this there was a lot of networking out thru the councils to the states and the providences and so there was input from a lot of people who were never there.
*GF: And one of the most important things I think that we concluded at that session was that we weren’t going to try to drive this as solely as government programming, that our non-government partners uh such as Ducks Unlimited and Wildlife Habitat Canada and others which emerged uh would be, could be and would be featured as the delivers of the program. Which may, which confirmed the fact we needed to develop a very broad, basic partnership in order to deliver the program and really sent a challenge out in front of us; not that some partnerships didn’t already exist but uh it… we really did come to the conclusion that government agencies themselves couldn’t themselves couldn’t deliver this program; it was too ambitious.
*RS: One strong focus that we identified in those very first meetings was the importance of farm policies in both countries and we had had a, I think, had had a bit of a jump ahead of Canada in working directly with our farm bill, it’s a different kind of system, but that did indeed become right from the start a major focus on how to deliver changes on the landscape.
BS: Wasn’t there recognition early on that this plan could not be one strictly acquisition, that that’s why it had to move out with private lands, work with Ag. Programs, other government entities, try to get everyone stirring towards the same end point?
*RS: Well as George described in those first four, five meetings, we talked about things like those kinds of strategies uh and we knew very well that a whole bunch of it, acquisition, wouldn’t be compatible in either country with politics and economics and a lot of realities and so we were focusing on what became an important principal out of the plan was learning to use other people’s money and other programs, like agriculture, that we’d only partially been connected to, where it wasn’t money given in the name of wildlife but we could work within those programs to make outcomes on the landscape that got done what we thought needed to get done. So, we had a lot of pretty fundamental discussion. Another one that hasn’t been mentioned, was vitally important, is the American team rather readily accepted uh that the mandate to deliver would be 8
larger in terms of dollars in the U.S. because with more people and uh a more of a interest in harvest and recreational utilization of the birds, when they came down into the United States, that we would have to find a way to send resources to Canada where the habitat was to get the job done. And that was a pretty fundamental agreement that we came up to quite early.
*GF: There was also, in the process, forces at work that which were trying to prioritize the, where we would put or programs and one of the things we came…uh we came to the conclusion that if we’re going to have a broad enough political constituency in order to sell this program at the magnitude that we needed to sell it, that we need to have a… we needed to have a truly uh national program that contemplated programming from coast to coast and from south to north. What else was I recollect had to deal with some rather silly issues, there was a proposition on the table at one point that mergansers not be considered waterfowl and be excluded from the plan (everyone kind of laughing/chuckling) because it didn’t taste very good. But then again we concluded that uh…that probably wasn’t a really good long-term strategy (everyone kind of laughing).
* HN: You know another important dimension of that meeting and one of the outcomes was the renewed emphasis on the importance of private lands. And it dub tails with the, what’s been said about the, need all the cooperatees you can get and you had to recognized that a lot of the habitat out there that people were talking about existed on private lands and there have to be some mechanisms developed to provide enough incentives to private land owners to be willing to participate.
*DH: I think these were all the things that were talked and considered (unclear, a noise disrupting tape) Venture. Uh the concept of Joint Venture would, you know, we recognize that uh this focus of this plan was waterfowl but at the same time we knew well enough that there are many other migratory birds uh that utilize these wetlands and associated uplands as well as what 250 species of rare and endangered birds. And uh, not to mention mammals, that sort of thing so I think it was an effort to uh, to try to uh gain all those interests that we could at the grass roots level so that everybody had an ownership in it and were more willing to contribute uh, deliver the funds that uh were available to us. 9
BS: I might be putting you on the spot a little bit here but uh, Red and Dick, would you address from the state prospective and maybe the international’s prospective, what was the climate going into these discussions in terms of the creative tension between the states and the federal government in the U.S. and where you might want to address this a little bit?
RH: Yes, it uh, I think there was a great learning process in participating in the North American as far as the states were concerned. Uh, within the states there were a certain amount of parochialism uh between the states there was a little bit of jealously, between the Flyways there was quite a bit of jealously and between the states and the federal there was even more. And what we had to learn right away is that by working together we could get the job done and if you just wanted to take the short route, or so to speak, it wouldn’t happen so that was the biggest change. And the other one that was apparent to us is that we saw the need to get something done in Canada right away and the overriding thing we first got started was someway to expand on what DU had been doing in the prairie providences in Canada and really get out the habitat thing, so we went out and beat the drums to get all the support we could for getting U.S. dollars into Canada.
DH: Yea I think the bottom line was that uh, the flyways recognized the, that something needed to be done habitat wise. We were in a bad situation there for a number of years and uh, so it was I think it was easy for the Flyways to overlook some of the internal squabbles that might have been apparent to us. In recognizing then that uh we needed to focus our efforts, especially in the production areas, and that was basically Canada and uh…the Flyways, I really believed, welcomed the implementation of the plan.
BS: Rollie did you want to comment on that?
RS: Interesting to mention is keep in mind the timing of this. While the plan was being written, people like me in my role of the Fish and Wildlife Service came forward and proposed to the states 25% reduction in waterfowl harvest nationally and had some pretty tumultuous years in our actions that I personally feel that the fact that we were simultaneously building this other goal and working toward it, and it came out right then, probably saved us from going further in the acrimony and the disagreements because we all had begun to fix on this plan and the habitat base as a way out of this dilemma.
BS: George, you didn’t face any of those issues in Canada did you? 10
[Everyone laughing]
GF: Yes we did, we had our fair share. Um and dealing with um… uh harvesting the plan was one of the most difficult areas that we had given the fact that we were trying to, as I said earlier, calm down the amount of time that we were spending on the allocation and regulation decisions. Um and I think we came up with a
- …
