Date:
June
2nd
APPROVED
MINUTES of the Grower/Industry Committee
meeting of the OKANAGAN-KOOTENAY STERILE
INSECT RELEASE (SIR) PROGRAM held at the Pacific Agriculture Research
Centre in June 1st
Committee Members:
Gavin Young - Chair Westbank
Packers Ltd.
Jack Barkwill BC Fruit Packers
Norm Filipenko Sun
Fresh Coop
Paulo Araujo Grower
Pedro Barata BC Fruit Growers’
Association (Oliver)
Jack Barkwill BC
Fruit Packers
Norm Filipenko Sun
Fresh Coop
Russell Husch BC
Fruit Growers’ Association (Kelowna)
Joseph Lucich Grower
Hank
Brian Mennell Grower
Tom Ouchi Grower
Wayne Still Similkameen Okanagan Organic Producers
Assn.
Stan Swales Okanagan North Growers Coop Stan
Swales Okanagan North Growers Coop
Tim
Watson Brian Witzke Grower
Brian
Witzke Grower
Committee Members Absent:
Paulo Araujo Grower Absent
Pedro Barata BC
Fruit Growers’ Association (Oliver) Absent
Russell Husch BC
Fruit Growers’ Association (
Jack Morley Okanagan
Similkameen Coop
Greg Norton Grower Absent
Hugh Philip BCMAF
Regional Entomologist Absent
Gerry Shaw BC
Tree Fruits Absent
Peter Waterman Okanagan
Similkameen Coop Absent
SIR Staff:
Dr. Howard Thistlewood Program Director
Elise Petersen Business Manager
Bob Fugger Zone 2 Clean-up
Co-ordinator
Mr. Young
called the meeting to order at
AGENDA TOPIC #1:
Mr. Young
then
Mr. Young
called the meeting to order at 1:15 p.m., and started the opening by questioninged the Committee Members
if the minutes from the last meeting on
April 6th, 1999, 1999
Moved by Brian Witzke Seconded by Stan SwalesJoseph
Lucich
“ Accepted minutes for meeting dated April 6th
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
1
AGENDA TOPIC #2:
AGENDA TOPIC #2:
A
discussion regarding the Technical Options for Zone 1 & Zone 2 was
originally to be led by Bob Fisher-Fleming. Instead, Howard Thistlewood
and Elise Petersen (from SIR) presented the options. Howard first started the
presentation by noting that there was still a substantial amount of information
coming in. These results should be made available for the public meetings
within the next two weeks, as required.
Howard
then distributed to all present a handout titled “Codling Moth Management
Strategy Options”, which formed the basis of the staff presentation. He also
noted that Dr Richard Carew, from Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, is still
processing the results from his study on Economics of Codling Moth Management.
For the latest information on those results, please contact Howard. He then
showed what Dr. Carew e-mailed him earlier that morning, which gave some
figures, but had not been reviewed prior to the meeting.
Howard
then talked about what SIR did in comparison from 98-98 results. There were no
Zone 3 Trap results available for the meeting. Stan Swales did state that he
emailed the counts the night before, and it showed a climb in higher numbers
for 1999.
While
discussing banding information from urban areas, Howard was questioned on Urban
Incentives and the concept of the 200 Meter Buffer Zones surrounding orchards.
Brian
Witzke then asked what was happening to the abandoned orchards that were now classified
as urban sites, since they now have less trees on
their property. Howard explained that with the more precise monitoring tool of
banding, problem sites were being more clearly identified in Zone 1, some
surprises had been found, and that staff are better
able to deal with them.
Howard
and
It is
hoped that the GIS capability will permit some maps to be available by the time
of the Public Meetings to see what moth counts are in key areas of Zone 1. Otherwise, in the winter.
Hank
questioned if the banding had been looked at over the last couple of years to
do a comparison. Howard and
Howard
was questioned about the
Brian
Witzke stated that many growers are not able to make it with fruit sales these
days. He stated that $60.00/acre is too high to get a “yes” vote from growers.
Eradication was the Programs first strategy to start – and has changed its
strategy substantially. Breeding grounds in the urban areas should be SIR’s
first concern when first entering Zone 3. Urban areas need to be cleaned up.
Brian
Mennell questioned as to why if pheromone disruption worked so well in the
Jack
Barkwill stated that pheromone disruption worked in some places, but not all,
in his experience.
Gavin
Young noted that mating disruption and SIR can work well together, as in
Howard
then also added that a mating disruption strategy in the
Howard
then discussed costs and options for 2000, stemming from the recommendations of
the Technical Advisory Committee. The costs presented are preliminary – it
should be more accurate within two weeks. Elise then went through the costs of
each option.
Brian
Mennell questioned a slide comparing mating disruption and SIR cost per acre
and what it meant when “not including overhead”. Elise and Howard explained
that it compared the delivered cost to growers directly, excluding things like
trapping and banding, external administration, etc.
Hank
stated that there needs to be clearer costs of what the growers
costs would be.
Howard
then continued to page 14 options 3 & 4. He asked the committee if it is a
valid concerns to take the Program to Zone 3
immediately. The Technical Advisory Committee had cited issues of lack of
history from an absence of trap counts or damage data, presence of “abandoned”
host trees around orchards, grower education and expectation, and he was also
concerned about SIR performance in expansion into two Zones at once, as well as
cost, if we go straight on to Zone 3. Howard stated that the Program had learnt
from Zone 1 in 1994 that it must be delivered properly in Zone 3, without any
foul-ups. Also, clean up cost fees (about $21) are only what they are expecting
to be taxed for in Zone 3.
Tom Ouchi
questioned if Zone 3 would be tougher with a buffer zone and urban area since
there are more trees in the urban areas.
Tom Ouchi
stated that he agreed with Brian Witzke when he explained that SIR should work
on the Urban areas first and then work into the
orchard areas.
Howard
stated that the Technical Committee felt that the strategy should be to work
out from adjoining sites. Zone 3 urban people have also been paying taxes. They
have also had some clean-up and monitoring done earlier than expected
throughout 1999.
Brian
Witzke commented that he felt that clean up only needs to be done in Zone 2 and
Zone 3, and then by 2005 – SIR could get out of there.
Joseph
Lucich stated, on behalf of Zone 1, that people wanted SIR to stay, and that
many growers are happy with it.
Howard
then questioned if the Committee would like some time to make some
recommendations for SIR to put forth to the Board.
Hank
Markgraf suggested that the Committee needs some discussion time, without SIR
Employees involved, and come up with some recommendations.
Gavin
agreed and noted that everyone was to break for lunch. After the lunch break,
all Committee members were to attend back to the meeting – without SIR staff.
Minutes taken by Hank
Markgraf.
12:30 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.
Individual concerns expressed by each of us:
Brian M. - prior to
SIR Codling Moth was not a major problem
-
wants clean up program, not
worried about cost
-
wants some kind of
accountability
-
wants some finality to the
program
-
would like to have plant
shut down
Wayne S. - Zone 1
should have better use of Sterile Moth release
-
better use of expensive
moths
-
better micro management by
specific areas
-
Sterile Moths don’t bring
down the population, better to use Mating Disruption and banding
Tim W. - favours option 1
- finally
achieved what they (SIR) were looking to do
-
agrees with
-
no wide area release
required in Zone 1 anymore
-
proceed with clean up in
Zone 2 & 3
-
need an area wide program
-
disbanding program would
mean that with in 2 to 3 year we would be back to the same old problem
Tom O. - supports SIR Program
-
clean up program is bigger
that most people think
-
big shock to growers if we
go to full price right away in Zone 3
-
urban problem more of a
problem than we think
Joseph L. likes the way he does
not have to control codling moth
-
likes to have program
reduced to $50.00 per acre
Stan S. - need to move program into all zones quickly
-
likes moving into Zone 3
with ½ rate Mating disruption (200 lures per acre)
-
need to have excellent clean
up in urban areas
Norm F. agrees with Stan,
move quickly into all zones
-
decisions must be handled by
on organisation
-
SIR program may never end,
just change its focus from Codling Moth to Leaf Roller to ??
Jack B. control is
something growers are now happy with
-
more trouble with orchard to
orchard contamination, than orchard to urban contamination
-
stay only with Codling Moth
control, do not stray off to say Leaf Roller control
-
Codling Moth program will
always need to be here to control hot spots and monitoring
Brian W. urban clean up
biggest issue
-
stay away from Leaf Roller
and other pests
-
long term monitoring can be
done by private sector (packinghouses, contractors)
Hank
M. option 3 is favoured
-
wants larger urban clean up
(buffer zones only)
-
worried about cost to
growers
-
worried about accountability
of program to growers
-
want to have the payment
program split into 3 equal payments
-
want to have some say in
questionnaire that will be going out to growers later this year
Brian M. would like to see
us move to a Mating Disruption program
Wayne S. would like to see us
continue on with a 3 pronged approach of Sterile moths, Mating
Disruption and Banding
Brian W. move to a Mating Disruption program and push to have “last
call” and puffer technology
Jack B. - perhaps we shouldn’t have our hopes too high
on just Mating Disruption, worried about effectiveness on high sides and
slopes.
Motion moved by the Committee.
Moved by Wayne Still
Seconded by Brian Witzke
“We
encourage the Board to move rapidly into Zones 2 & 3 with Mating Disruption
and full urban clean up, basically “Option 3” (with a buffer zone of 500 meters
into urban areas), but with micro management of Sterile Moth Release and Mating
Disruption in Zone 1. That an emphasis be placed on suppression of Codling Moth
as operational priority, not to other areas (i.e.: data collection, research
projects, and other insects) at this time.
We
encourage the Board to negotiate a change in the escrow agreement, as an
increase in the program speed should mean lower overall cost and a more rapid
conclusion of the program as a whole, therefore a more rapid withdrawal program
from the escrow agreement would be justified.
We
encourage the Board to implement these proposals with a grower cost of no more
than $60.00 per acre.”
Howard then
started with the Clarification of liability issues. Copies of “Responsibility
For Compensation For Workers” had been left on the table for Committee Members
to review (attached).
He stated
that he had visited three growers in
Creston to meet with
three growers who hat were not
allowing SIR Employees access on their property because of concerns they have
regarding liability or other and
personal issues.
One grower
was concerned of the potential liability of a
grower if an SIR Employee isgetting hurt on his
property and chooses to sue all parties. The
principal points of liability were discussed: these concern the full
protection of growers from claims for injury
by WCB legislation,legislation and the SIR
3rd
party and property
damage liability
insurance for 2
million dollars per instance. However, according to
legal opinion there remains
a very small chance of a
Some potential
legal suit areas that need
to be covered are if by an
SIR worker for other reasons or by WCB itself
if indeed a
grower was grossly negligent. Such suits are very rarely,
if ever, pursued by the WCB. Similar
potential liability exists for anyone else coming onto a growers
property. could
sue the grower (ex: mental cruelty). The only way in which the In that case the SIR Board could
guarantee that a grower would not have to pay
for any
reason, instead of the
orchardistwould require the Board to issue an indemnity,
which it is unable to do. But the Board could consider
getting such an indemnity by applying to from all of
the Regional Districts. Such a step is
most unusual, and has never been requested in the last
25 years, to the knowledge of Mr.
Mackiewich. It This could take 2-3 5-6 months,
if successful and it is possible that the Regional Districts would ask SIR to
use their legislated power of entry until that time.
Another
grower was concerned if an Employee was to cause damage to his property. SIR
would then cover the costs for any
equipment or property damaged, but not usually for normal wear and tear of
orchard activities such as damage to grass sod, unless malicious or excessive
on the part of the ATV driver..
Another
grower was not going to give us entryentry, as he no
longer wishes to participate in the Program in any way
just cause.
The SIR Board
may have to think about what they need to do. There may be a need for court
proceedings.
SIR
is covered for WCB, and insured for 2 million dollars.
Discussion
grew amongst the committee as to who is liable for what.
AGENDA TOPIC #5:
#5
Dr. Bob
VernonGreg Norton made ahis presentation
on Greenprint Agri-Food
Production Systems to the Committee. A handout was
issued to everyone regarding the suggested
direction of co-ordinated marketing
Company and a slide show was given.
A motion was
put forward.
Moved by Greg Norton Seconded by Wayne Still
“The SIR Board should host a marketing workshop to
review whether a marketing opportunity exists regarding benefits of the SIR
Program. An example of that would be the Green Print Agri-Food Production
Systems.”
CARRIED
Opposed by Brian Witzke
Gavin
adjourned the meeting at
___________________________ ________________________
Chairman
Secretary
6