##VIDEO ID:FE1-a1BXQDU## hello I'm Alex welcome to the conservation commission's Land Management subcommittee we have posted an agenda for today's meeting and we're going to start with a discussion of forest management and limit that to carbon credits then talk about hunting on conservation land then talk about dog registration and other issues and we're going to run till 1:30 so with us we have Dave Zac from the town Aaron Shock from the town uh Michelle lob from the commission and Eric um Bruce Stedman excuse me from the commission so with that um I'm going to try and queue up Forest management I did send out to the committee uh the verbage that we had reviewed on 1121 of 23 with some highlighted text uh which we need to go through today but the subject the main subject is the statement that commission will not sell carbon credits on lands already under its care custody and control and um a member of the committee uh questioned that sentence and um um we're going so we're going to focus on that sent sentence and then after we get done with that clarify U some other language which just highlighted and Aaron if you want to bring that up that would be great so Michelle you had the concern about carbon credits so why don't you start yeah so I made this thanks Alex I made this comment like throughout the review of this over the last year and um I I just think that it it's not completely informed with the current uh pace and development of carbon offense and I'm just suggesting that we either strike it um and leave it out rather than make this like blanket prohibition on it or leave reference to the commission will only consider eligible lands um consistent with the guidance of like the DCR and mass aabon so that because their guidance and research and the process and the market and how it's even implemented is changing very rapidly and quicker than this document would I think I would just like to lean on the researchers and you know approve markets and and I think the primary concern about this was that um putting a credit on conserved land doesn't meet like adequate um the principles of the offset which is called additionality which is that you're actually protecting more than would be protected otherwise but that is has been recognized as a um Challenge and a problem with the markets and it's now incorporated into the guidance that mass aabon and DCR have you can't you can't double dip anymore I mean they they recognize that so I am just saying that rather than us in our you know limited understanding of how this is progressing and how it's working put this in there that we either just take it out and if it needs to be Revisited that's going to be a conversation for a later commission or just lean on the experts here and just reference that it will you know follow suit with what that guidance is at that current time okay thank you so um Michelle did give me the link um to the document she just cited and I um spent some time with it and I wrote up some notes which I distributed and most recently I I sent them to all of you a couple days ago and again this morning attached to an email to Dave and one of the things that um that document does is it presents carbon uh projects in a in Lay terms it's very readable um and it lays out u in the table of contents uh chapters on uh things to be concerned about what's best for municipalities is a very nice document that was done by mass aabon in 2021 and I see dcr's name associated with it but it wasn't quite clear how they fit probably doesn't matter and in in the document that I circulated um I just lifted language from from that Autobon document that says that 5,000 acres is a sweet spot or a good place to begin I didn't invent any words I just lifted them and put them in a uh an attachment it's a one pager hold on I got to close my window got a bunch of got a bunch of leaf blowers going so um this is a matter for the town really because we don't we have about 2,000 acres and that document says that if you have 3,000 Acres or less it it it it going to be it may not be cost effective because you're going to have to hire a third-party reviewer to come in every 5 years years and it says that the money you get from the trust could from carbon trading could be put in a trust to pay for that third-party review so there's a good chance that a we don't have enough land to meaningfully participate uh to the amount of money that the town would get would get eaten up in Consulting fees and it would also mean that somebody some staff time on Dave's staff would have to spend time babysitting the carbon project so that's a an administrative decision that Dave's got to consider um and I'm I'm just reciting what that document said I want to be clear and not misunderstood I'm not necessarily expressing a point my point of view I'm reviewing as I did in the paper what the document that Michelle referenced says there's also a section so that's Point number one is the amount of land we have and the document saying that you really need about 5,000 acres to start the second is it had it goes through the pros and cons as Michelle alluded um there are arguments on both sides and uh one is the benefit side of and then the other one the other side is um that there has to be an additive benefit you can't take a piece of land which otherwise would not be uh altered and or a piece of land that is already protected and simply be neutral on increasing its carbon sequestration there has to be a benefit there have to be increasing um so um I think they thing talked about one of the risks for municipalities is storm damage and if your Force gets blown down by a hurricane or something like that um you've got an issue and I don't want to dwell on that but our land is already protected and this is me now but our land is already protected it has no risks there's not going to be houses on on it there aren't going to be roads in it and um so it's not quite clear whether the benefits of taking on a carbon trading program and increasing our ability to store carbon is in the mix yeah Dave your hand was up fix first Yeah couple of thoughts or comments Alex and I am by no means I do not know all that much about this so um these these are just somewhat random but um the first first um thing to put out there is that in years past and we never really looked at this with any any kind of true Focus or you know staff in time investment of Staff but when we did at least talk about it a few years ago there was consideration of bundling the town l in other words we we the town with conservation land Watershed protection land water supply protection land Etc we're probably in the I think we're easily over 5,000 we may be closer to 6,000 acres in land so in in in various towns so so there is an opportunity to bundle if we ever thought that was something to benefit the town and and all of that so I'll just put that out there um the second thing for me or question was although the land is protected under article 97 and this is a question for the group I guess what's to say a Conservation Commission 10 years from now doesn't say we want to actively cut Forest land that the Conservation Commission owns and controls is it is doesn't that kind of undermine the whole whole the whole notion that it's yes the land is protected from development but the trees aren't protected from being cut so again I I understand that you know with carbon credits you you know this whole challenge of land that's already quote protected but I use the word protected in in quotes because it's protected from development there's no real protection from cutting the trees so I get get the conundrum we're in here you know if you're adding more land to permanent preservation that's that's a way to to to utilize carbon credits but I'm I'm still stuck a little bit on there's no guarantee the trees will still be standing 10 years from now or 20 years from now or or 50 years from now so can somebody help me understand that piece of it yeah I'll get to you in a minute Michelle um first thank you for clarifying the bundling it didn't occur to me the only numbers I know is how much conservation land we have so okay that's clarified that we do have over 5,000 Acres uh on the carbon and cutting this policy says it's not in our it's not our objective to harvest Timber or firewood um but in the carbon deal is my understanding once you sell a carbon you don't own it and um so you are are held accountable for um maintaining the amount of carbon you're sequestering you can it doesn't always have to be the same trees but the sum total of the sequestration needs me the same so it's an accounting game yes no I I got that but you you don't own the carbon therefore you don't own the trees yeah before Michelle before Michelle jumps in one one other quick thought and and I'll put it I guess this might be to Michelle's point is I I like the rest of this document in general like generally the commission will take a passive role in the management of forest lands I guess my question is if the economics and and whatnot of carbon um credits is is fluid and changing and and evolving why put in such a blanket statement or why not either remove it all together or put it in as something a little more General if you know the commission may in the future consider carbon credits if seen as advantageous to uh uh um you know uh got where you're going something like that y why do the blanket elimination of it Michelle yeah um same same echoing Davis but also you know consistent with goals and Mission whatever and also with the guidance of like these locally specific programs but I just wanted to profer an example of when this could be advantageous to the town and fit within a carbon offset is something like um you know tree disease and this is going to happen more in the future like Pine damage especially red Pines like even age red Pines are just all dead the town has no money to manage that for anything better than that so they they're not sequestering they're not pro providing much Wildlife have debt other than you know insect food for birds or something but that would be a potential situation where it might be viable for you and think in the future when we're going to have more insect outbreaks and more tree disease and damage and the policy does I wasn't done Alex I'd like to continue my thought thank you I'm trying to move us along so we can get this done in a half hour okay well I've been commenting on this for a year and so if this is my place to do it I'd like to finish the thought so this one of the evolutions of the carbon offset is not just carbon sequest like carbon credit it's also to do with habitat management and putting something into early successional habitats that first sequester the carbon and then store it so I'm just making a point that the entire program and the economic program is getting into a more nuanced situation than these big International credit buying things which I think was sort of where this statement came from so that is why I think that it should be attached to the greater guidance and not be such a blanket prohibition thanks by the way I I don't have uh I don't have an objection to striking it I don't have a an objection to um changing the wording at all and I don't want to be misunderstood in that way uh Bruce I agree with striking the sentence and leading it more open to doing other things in the future um I did have some questions about I mean it looks like the under the existing restrictions section it talks about conservation restrictions as a as a problem so those might reduce your 6,000 acres to less even if you bundled um don't know who the buyers are it says you should know who your buyer is first well that's a from what we've said that's a very fluid situation so I'm in favor of striking the sentence and letting other people work on it uh in the future okay so we have uh just moving us along at 1223 um this this management thing is not about alltown land it the policy is not about alltown land so hopefully the 20000 acres is accurate given this policy um and and I understand we have more than that if somehow they were bundled would the so that there might be discussion on the part of the commission how about if we rather than strike it um modify the sentence to um along the lines that Michelle or well Michelle said strike it but along the lines that Dave was talking to kind of fuzz it up yeah Bruce oh I was on a different topic sor yeah so this this subject would when it comes time before the commission this would be a good topic to talk to them about um on the other hand if we strike it it won't probably occur to most of them and I I'm happy either way actually to striking it brings this conversation to a close uh coming up with some words takes more time um um I'm okay with sending it not letting the perfect get in the way of the good so we can get something to the commission for them to talk about um what's your what what's your desire I think we should in the version we have put it a strike through so they see that we are considering striking it and then that will enable a conversation that's an idea Michelle I mean I could just spout off a sentence right now if you want to write something in and you can change words as needed does that get us where we're going quicker yeah sure um so how about the the commission will consider carbon credits on lands blah blah blah blah um um if if consistent with and what do we have missions and policies of the commission and consistent with current guidance from Regional what are we going to say I mean the mass out ofon DCR article exists in 2021 I don't know what what our reference should be doing forward how about Statewide guidelines sure everybody I go for that da what was the did you say the commission may yeah like the word may that's fine I'm good with that yeah Okay so we've got eron's language and then the suggestion that we put a strikeout through the existing sentence so that people can see that um well I i' drop that I would go with just including this as as the draft and see what they say Okay Ain do you want to add to the beginning of what you wrote that the that the subcommittee is considering substituting the following so that it's clear well but they never saw this before so and then while she's doing that um I made some changes where it used to say commission I put in director of conservation and development um because the commission doesn't enter into contracts and down below um it would be fall to the director to create and maintain an inventory right and um and the commission would need to review and approve all those before any contracts were signed yeah y so in what go if we're if we're getting to the point where we're happy I would ask that we elim all the yellow highlighting right but I I have a couple of questions when we have a minute yeah uh three quick things it struck me at the beginning that having the Salvage be the very first thing it just was offputting um since that's kind of a a secondary issue i' I'd put it at the end of the sentence personally um I wondered about I felt like I understood from previous meetings down there near the end it says all Forest cutting plans are subject to commission review and approval I thought they were subject to the state's approval that we actually don't have that much approval capacity for a cutting plan true that's true Bruce yeah um I don't even know how to describe what we do have in that capacity well I mean this is the commission's land sorry to interrupt but this is the commission's land so what is happening on private land it goes to the state the state approves it and then the concom gets copied for comment but for the the land that the concom has care cesting control over I would say that in that case the commission does have some you know management oversight to say no yes or no we don't want it managed that way I got confused then about yeah absolutely I agree with Aaron 100% and then the other one was I was curious about promoting large white pine trees personally I would promote a much more diverse hardwood forest but is there a reason why that those large white pine trees are seen as something to promote they're critical for Bears but we're not specifically managing for Bears we're probably managing more for biodiversity so I agree and um I thought we were so didn't you have masked species in here too yeah it says produce hard and soft MK large yeah seems oddly specific I mean Bears aren't listed they're not critical they're not a focus of anything else we're doing it it fits be it fits beautifully with our mission and uh in many cases when somebody goes to the woods to cut they cut big trees that has been that has been a problem and white pines are critical for um are critical but as far as insect diversity Oaks are critical so it says they're included here in mass production trees but then we specifically single out White Pines which just seems kind of odd maybe it's because they don't produce Mass they don't they I mean they have seeds that squirrels eat yeah yeah so we're I think we are we're dabbling in Perfection okay and I think just removing it and because it's covered under hard and soft Mass I would leave it please about large trees I agree large large mature trees yeah large mature trees no I want to leave white pines did you write White Pine Alex yeah but I think we have a majority that wants large well how about I have a suggestion large mature what's the problem with with white pine it's not a problem with white pine it's just I I think they're equally as valuable as a big mature white oak that that's not excluded but I think it's the singling out of one species so yeah that's what it is um it is a singular species that is that is that is critical and I I really think let's send it to the commission we have what they think an opportunity to get comments we will get this back we can talk about it again that's fine but it's we're now over the half hour I I brought it up by yield let's send it to the commission and see what they said that's it thank you for me sounds good so if we could eliminate the yellow highlighting and Aaron if we um do we need a motion to send this to the commission I don't see why I mean if everybody's comfortable with moving it to for their review I think that's fine okay and would you also eliminate uh all of the word processing artifacts except your comment the strike out not highlight and so on and so forth we don't need to send that to the commission you want me to eliminate Alex just right here um if you the track changes yeah in track changes get rid of for all the formatted stuff like that y it's just Nether and that's terribly distracting I I suggest letting her do this offline and move to the go and then up at the top up up at the top of that file we need to just either eliminate the submitted to the subcommittee and reviewed by the subcommittee or add that it was reviewed by the subcommittee on this day and the decision made blah blah blah and all that stuff in the head air you can um I just soon I don't know whether it's noise what she's typing now um is probably more important than what's in the heading so I would suggest that we eliminate what's in the header thank you you got that Aaron yes can you eliminate the header what's in the yes yeah am I still sharing no no took it down yep okay so moving along to hunting um I actually thought Force management would be easier than hunting um I sent out a bunch of stuff um Michelle I spent quite a bit of time tracking down questions you had about how for the how far things shoot and I sent that out in um in a file called um I think it's reg rules and regulations or something like that and I also included a bunch of Mass wildlife stuff about um tree stands which you had a question about there's a bunch of stuff in there about where you need landowner permission that would apply probably to the to the commission so I don't have something queued up to send to the commission U Bruce no I I'm listening to until you're ready to hand your hands up I was just getting in the queue okay so I don't have something specifically queed up but there are it seems to me we got about three alternatives for hunting um eliminate it completely from concom land that would be administratively simple um disallow Firearms but allow bows and arrows including crossbow no including um compound bows I didn't track down whether Massachusetts allows crossbows and I should have done that while I was on their website I somehow recall that that's allowed for for U perix but I'm not sure about it so I didn't write about u i just defined what a crossbow was and how far it travels um so anyways the the alternatives are to to propose to either eliminate it completely and change the website to eliminate it from those concom lands that are heavily covered by the buffer um or disallow simply firearms and um um I don't have a preference I don't have I just want to I'm interested in what you folks think Bruce so I had a couple of questions because not being a hunter I don't know the answers um why is the minimum um draw weight important rather than the maximum wouldn't you be concerned about damping down the power and and capacity of a of across of a boat because State the state sets how many pounds of pressure is on the projectile we're talking about a yeah and like for turkeys it's 30 lb and um for deer it's 40 lb so it varies depending on the species and there's nothing about the maximum and most people it's hard to pull a bow 40 pounds right and I wonder I wonder if maybe if you only had a 20 pound pull that the there's more instances of the animal only being wounded you can't be out there you can't be out there with a 20 PB p right but the question is why but it's against the law but why why is that the rule if we don't know we don't know it's just a curious question and then um uh I think one of the issues that might come up is near the at the very bottom of page two talks about using blank cartridges yeah that's yeah but is it fair to say that if someone was out there training with blank cartridges people in the vicinity wouldn't know the difference between in terms of what they hear yeah all I'm telling you is what the state allows no I I understand I was just trying to extrapolate into our own circumstance and just I understand this is all part of it yeah I understand okay that's it for that part that you know putting that page together I I could have immersed deeper but that was about four hours of work oh this was helpful to me just to see this the the framing so and I don't know if we're going to be ready to send something to the commission um I would be I would welcome the discussion on their part but I don't have like I said I don't have anything drafted for your consideration and this this actually actually fit inside uh larger policy we're just isolated it Taran just want to remind I guess on a state law that if we do prohibit hunting in areas where it would otherwise be allowed by state law then we would have to mark the boundaries of the parcels where hunting is prohibited um so just in terms of a staff um yeah task that would be something that if we did do a townwide Prohibition we would have to mark all the boundaries on those sites I can count on you to bring that up but we do not po we don't allow hunting on all conservation land and we don't post those where it is not allowed now I don't know about uh the posting rules for municipalities if putting it on the website is good enough and I just didn't go there yeah I just mean from an enforcement standpoint I think like an EPO would have a hard time going after some like let's say for example we do a townwide Prohibition and somebody goes onto a a parcel that's unmarked and somebody calls an EPO and says they're hunting here it's not allowed I think an EPO would have a hard time you know enforcing if the boundaries weren't marked just I understand the the sorted history with things being allowed and not allowed and properties not being marked it's just it's a state law so um I will call Dave Unitas who is a law enforcement agent for the area or one of his compatriots and I'll ask him but I don't think my personal feeling is that the administrative hardship shouldn't be the reason to do it or not do it it should be I'm not I I didn't mean to imply that that would be the reason I just mean it's something we should consider in terms of Staff yeah but you don't do it now and you don't allow hunting on certain Parcels so um I don't know if the current practice is lawful and should continue that's a whole another issue um I don't know who came up first Michelle or Bruce Michelle oh I just in regards to Aon statement it would apply to both making a blanket prohibition but also the option number two I think was to um not allow hunting on those lands which we viewed as having significant buffers to Trail so that comment would affect many of our con our options I guess is my only comment I'm not quite sure what you just said so you presented like three options one is outlawing alt together um like basically reducing the the which property it was allowed based on the buffer overlay and then not allowing Firearms so Aaron's comment about posting would it's also relevant to option two which is changing which properties I mean it's already not posted and so maybe it doesn't make a difference I'm just saying that it's not just relevant to the all conservation lands prohibition great Bruce so I have a question for Dave um on if if the point of view of the whole town is at a on a contentious scale of one to 10 and dogs is 10 where is hunting um in the past 10 or 15 years Bruce I would say hunting is a one or a two is really not we don't we don't get many complaints we don't get many concerns honestly there we we had some we had one individual last year adjacent to uh the Brickyard Conservation Area so they do they do happen I guess what I was going to say is you know part of this whole effort is to in my mind and one of the reasons I pushed for this committee and and the work we're doing is to reset it was a chance to reset you know we've we''ve got a really good commission right now and good staff and great let's reset let's let's look at what's happened in the last 30 years here and you know my predecessor Pete Westover did an amazing job at acquiring so much land and and and I haven't changed some things and and this is one of them that has troubled me is are we clear on our rationale for hunting no hunting what areas we allow what areas we don't so I think this is great to be having this conversation um and and whether we like it or not the way it's been done I think generally has worked out pretty well a knock on wood we have not had Serious injury B there's a pretty good understanding of where hunting is allowed on Amor conservation land and where it isn't and I get it that to make that better we should be posting those lands that are no hunting so I again I I'll just focus on the reset I think I I think it's a great time to review this like we're doing with dogs and hunting and say ah is this good or not I am I am informed more well informed by those buffer zones and part of me Alex as you think about the you know no hunting change our areas based on the new information on buffers or the third option was no firearms I mean I lean toward using the buffers and maybe saying hey of the I'm staring at your email from um 95 I guess it is Alex where you you you have all the attachments and you know we list seven or eight areas where hunting is allowed and maybe three or four of those go away based on the um we we think there should be more safety for trails and and and hunting buffers um so that's kind of where I'm leaning um but but again I I defer to the group you know know and and your wisdom on on where we go so I I Dave I also sent you a map today which is from New Hampshire and it's of Southeast New Hampshire and it shows all the towns where New Hampshire has prohibited rifles during deer season and I suspect it's a safety issue um because New Hampshire does allow rifles muzzle loaders and deer hunting and um I own both um and I do I I have land in New Hampshire and it's not posted I do allow hunting on it um but New Hampshire has taken a different view for its densely populated Southeast corner of the state and um that's M and I made a note that Massachusetts does not allow rifles it it does allow shotguns with a slug M um but so I offer it on what a neighboring state is doing um so I this is a case where I would really welcome the discussion by the commission and not letting the perfect get in the way of the good I I I I would propose that we put some Alternatives in front of them and let them talk about it um and this is is a to me we may not get many complaints and we may actually not have much hunting I don't know but um this is a substantial change in the way things have been I think Bruce asked on a scale you know you say it's a two I think in this town if you put it off a referendum uh I have a pretty good idea where it would come out on the vote at the time level um and I I don't want to base our approach on what and anticipating what the town would do on a referendum I'd rather do it based on um some um legitimate basis such as safety right if I could Alex that's yeah that's kind of where I was going um and and yeah I I agree with you if you put it out on a townwide referendum my guess is residents would say probably no hunting I don't know if that's where you were going or not but um but the evidence to date over the last 20 to 30 years is again the system has has worked if we want to tweak it if we want to restrict more areas to no hunting because of our new mapping that we we've done with buffers then so be it but I I agree maybe we put it to the commission to discuss I I do worry a little bit I think we need to frame the options very carefully because this conversation could be a very long one and and we'll likely get some attention from others which is fine but outside of the commission every time anytime you talk about hunting in the valley it it it can be a hot button issue so yeah um okay moving along um and it may be this this isn't ripe to go to the commission I don't know we'll see eron so I think the last time we discussed hunting there was some level of consensus among Commissioners that if we allowed hunting on a given parcel we didn't want it to be stated to some degree like you can only hunt on the north side of X parcel right because if we do that it becomes really complicated to try to figure out where the boundaries that someone can hunt are and where they're not right um and I'm just looking at the map and based on the buffers there isn't a single parcel that's not impacted by buffers to some degree so if we're saying we don't want people hunting within say 500 feet of a trail there is going to be prohibition on every single parcel somewhere where um and so I'm just putting that out there as fodder for this because like it will be become really difficult to enforce I think if we say you you can hunt on say you can only hunt on um in Lawrence swamp that's the only place I think that's really big enough and and off the beaten path enough to allow hunting but you can't hunt within 500 feet of a trail in Lawrence swamp then it becomes very nuanced in terms of enforcement of that so So based on that it seems like there's no Parcels where there wouldn't be some sort of issue like that just an observation from looking at the map okay thank you Bruce well I recall that discussion um centering on Simplicity which is what Aaron was getting at and um I just if it's that complicated and sorry the other thing I think we need to emphasize more than once in this whole discussion outside of this subcommittee is that this is about the conservation lands not the whole town because that Crossing is we have to remind people we're only talking about one thing here a subset of the whole and that may enable us to be a little more easily simplified and maybe even prohibitive given that there's a lot of other things in town where it is fine M um I don't have the map in front of me but I thought that there were a couple sites that were barely maybe impacted and you're probably looking at it okay there we go like those green ones next is it a rail trail so there's are all Lauren swamp Parcels down here okay so there are three Parcels that are not entire like terribly impacted I see the southern end of that Southern one is but again like the 500 feet is was not arbitrary but it's it's B it's based on the building sitb back right so if we said 400 feet and I don't know it's reasonable Alex so I Look to You for maybe finding on that but if it's 400 feet does that clear that up I mean I'm just looking for options for that keeping option two open so is it if is it really if we go with option two that just excludes everything or are there places that are marginally impacted and if we reduce that 500 foot buffer then they're sort of in the clear yeah my um a comment um the 500 foot buffer has a basis and to search for a buffer which allows us to get the answer we want is arbitrary and I would I you could go to you could go to two feet two yards to get the answer you want um like if you said I just want to eliminate half or save half then I don't want to search for a method to get an answer we're looking for I would rather start with a criteria and see where that leads us because that's that's that if challenged that that becomes our um our um our rationale I've got to step away I got a garage calling about my truck keep going so could could could someone remind me where the 500 feet came from exactly what I was GNA say um and I one of us needs to look this up because I'm pretty sure that there was a difference between the buffer for a building and the buffer for a trail I think there is and therefore it's entirely possible that where it says hiking trail merge 500 feet it's at it's 200 or 300 so I this is a question I've been asking for a while and uh I think what I what was said previously on the town website was 500 ft from a dwelling or 150 ft from a paved road that was like the state supposedly the state rules however I know somebody who recently went to a hunter safety training and they said it was 500 feet now from a pave Road or yeah 500 feet I believe so I was asking the question of that but I didn't know the answer um and I tried to do some research into it but I couldn't get a definitive um so maybe Alex knows definitively but that all those 500 buffers were based on what I understood to be accurate from a paved Road or from a residence but the paved Road thing I don't claim to know um it's a you know there may be a different answer there this is again just based on a trying to establish a quick visual I I have in my hand right now a um business card from Ian cipac he is an outdoor education specialist and hunting specialist in Massachusetts um I met with him many months ago you know again if we wanted him to come in and talk with us about hunting rules and regulations uh from the state standpoint I'm sure he would come um but he is a hunter of Turkey um deer what else is there uh pheasant gr so we have resources if if Alex does not know the answer I I I feel like we got a little muddled in this before and we never had definitive answers on these these setbacks for the rail well the rail trail may be more more clear but these unimproved Trails well and I think where it got muddled Dave was talking about firearms and how far things go right with fire firearms because I think that that was ultimately why we kept the buffers to try to say you know if somebody's doing this like let's say somebody's using a firearm to hunt on a piece of conservation land and they're within 400 feet of a trail could potentially their um discharge of their firearm impact somebody on the trail so I think that those two things are where the lines got crossed um yeah I agree with you I remember those discussions again I'm not a hunter but I know enough I know enough to be about hunting to be dangerous um but uh but like for instance um pheasant hunting you know I'm quite sure those pellets for pheasant hunting are not going to go 400 feet so I think that's where we never had really complete answers you know as a group is that an option then for a different alternative alternative four or D well yeah for instance Atkins Flats could you allow could you allow um pheasant hunting there would that be safe maybe Alex can Pine on this well but Alex just to summarize I think where we what we did while you were gone that we need more definitive information about the buffer distances based on the kinds of hunting that's being done and whether it's a road or a trail or a building you know and because that may yield a slightly different map that allows hunting at certain places and then where we ended right when you came back was oh well maybe there's an option that says well we're only going to allow bird hunting and not for mammals or something that would constrain without completely eliminating hunting so those are just things we discussed while you were gone yeah no I um I understand but I would rather not I personally would rather not Tinker with the buffer because when somebody comes in who uh criticizes us and in in in a in a pro hunting way I would like to cite that we're simply taking off taking the buffer from what Mass law allows from buildings and stuff so we have a basis for what we're doing that doesn't mean that we can't allow peasant hunting or Upland game bird hunting with dogs even um with a shotgun and and birdshot but we could eliminate uh the use of slugs MH so that could be an option Alex is what you're saying yeah yeah sorry it took me a while to get there yeah in your absence Alex yeah that's what I was saying like 500 feet for pheasant or turkey or Grouse I mean that is that is a long way yeah 500 feet well there is a a range down in belter town I believe where neighbors have had plate glass windows smashed because of pets coming from the gun range um where they're shooting clay pigeons and and um those are pellets they're and they're carrying a long ways with enough Force to break windows so but the gun range down in you know in holy op range is very very aware of uh how far pellets can go and they put a limit on on size that can be used in their uh ski range and I'm a member of that by the way Bruce Erin I don't know who won first um I was just going to make a suggestion that the commission consider something um and the consideration is this say the only place the commission allow was hunting is Lawrence swamp parcels and that the entrances to the Lawrence swamp Parcels be be marked in some manner with signage that states hunting is permitted in this location so to warn hikers and so forth and then you know just based on sort of the density of trails and so forth on other Parcels it seems pretty pretty thick to permit in other location it just seems like it starts to get a little a little Troublesome there so just a food for thought it seems like Lauren swamp there are some issues with Trail overlappings but there are Trail entrances that could be marked and then there could be a designated location where it was permitted in town on conservation land and then we basically say other areas would not be permitted to consider to try to narrow Us in okay um I want to try and this up um Bruce yes I'll just maybe Michelle went first I'm sorry Michelle Bruce go ahead I'll just note that I think we still we need more definitive information about the two prohibitions at the top of the Massachusetts on page one one says 150 fet at one point we used 500 in part because it wasn't a hard pay Road it was a trail and we don't have a bullet that says about Trails so I I think we need to have more factual information on what the state allows and doesn't allow in the law about the distances before we would know what to say on a on a placard at Laurence swamp well what I gave you is it came from Mass wildlife okay well hunting hunting rigs so that homework's been done what you got is the distance from a road and the distance from an occupied dwelling then we need to figure out for ourselves how far away from materal Michelle I just was wanted to get clarification from Aon when you say laurren swamp Aaron um is that one of those Parcels or is that collection of those Parcels it's these it's the collection of parcels basically that are south of the bike path but east of Southeast Street okay so it would saying Lauren s would include that one that's pretty much totally covered by a buffer um this one here no north of yeah yeah so that's right so this is right off Station Road um when you come in south of Station Road that's that parcel and it's because of the trails yes okay thanks Aon is it possible to um name the parcels we have a list on the website but can this map be altered so that each parcel is is named every parcel in the town of amest or every parcel the red lines yeah so those are already labeled I no I mean so that somebody can know in the upper right oh it says pic and kathern Cole Eastman Brook okay Atkins Flats excuse me you're absolutely right but the Lawrence swamp well the Lawrence swamp are sort of like there's not individual names for each individual parcel they're sort of a collection of Lawrence swamp Parcels that we just refer to as Lawrence swamp um and those are interspersed with a lot of water department land where hunting is already permitted um or allowed by the town so that made me kind of feel like there's already people down there hunting and so if we were going to designate an area it just seems like a logical one to me um and also like the most distance between Trails um okay so thank you um just it's 5 one um and we will end at 1:30 I got to drive to Rhode Island and I still got a pack and blah blah blah um it's going to be happy trip it's my birthday on Saturday and I get to celebrate with my granddaughter and my daughter and um we're going to go to the fire fireworks or whatever it is in Providence it's going to be fun anyways uh I can't draw up anything in writing now and perhaps I could draw up something on Sunday and get it to Aaron for Monday morning and um and and copy you guys and um put out some Alternatives rather than this is our recommendation and and write up um an explanation of what we've done from an analysis standpoint and use this map right here and um the downside of sending this to Commission in the Pro is that it's a larger public View Scott does go I talk to Scott about does he sit in on concom meetings and what he does is he quickly scans the videos after a meeting and um and he has scanned the videos for this subcommittee and he just remembers the dog issue from years ago and thought Oh this will be good for the readers so um and by the way I thought his article was excellent um but if we bring this subject he's probably going to write about it so that's why I would like to have a pretty clear explanation of how he came up with the buffer size and at least for send that to the commission and um if you guys think that it's premature to send it to the commission I'm okay with that I just missed the last commission meeting and sending something to them I'm trying to get caught up or we're trying to get caught up mindful of our deadline and um I'm I'm open to your will Dave Alex I think you're right I think you know there's no question that if this is brought up at the commission level I mean we're bringing it up in a public meeting today Scott can easily you know review this this meeting um but I do think if it's brought up in the commission meeting we should you know be be ready for a broader view I guess my recommendation might be I'm not sure if I heard you correctly but if you were willing to create a an a brief Narrative of the options that we've discussed today and bring that back to the next meeting of this group I would love to okay kind of process it a little bit have you come up with four or five options that we've discussed today discuss them at the next meeting and then we I think we would be ready to bring that to the the full commission the other thing I was going to just say is um going back to Aaron's suggestion about Lauren swamp practically speaking from an enforcement standpoint from an administrative standpoint a staffing standpoint designating one area and not you know slicing and dicing and and all these fine points all over town to me makes a lot of sense um you know it' be much easier to post and enforce and educate and do Outreach here here is the area that we allow hunting here is our rationale here you know here are the seasons by which people can hunt there for for for this species or that species so from a practical standpoint that makes a lot of sense to me so those are my two comments I'm I'm well I made clear where I wanted to wind up and knowing I might not and I I would never write something and submit it to Aaron without this group looking at it and say yes that's fine so it does if I wrote something on Sunday or somebody else wanted to volunteer and write something that's fine too but if I wrote something on Sunday it would get to everybody um you know when I go to bed which is prob going to be around midnight and then we got we got Monday and Tuesday and that's that's kind of rushing it so I'm happy with what Dave suggested um gives me um I'm in the middle of negotiating a bunch of land transfer back to Indians in no the Brunswick and that's taking up a lot of time um so I'm sorry that I don't have this in a in better form for you so I um I want to you raise your hands if you agree with Dave I mean I I agree with Dave I guess I'm still concerned about that parcel that's all blue and buffered being part of Lauren swamp um so it relative to you're and aon's suggestion about keeping it simple and place singular Place based I just how would we based on our justification for admitting other places that I guess is um an outlier I think we might be jumbling things I think what Dave was suggesting was we refine the discussion a little bit before we bring it to the commission yes I agree with that he also talked about if we're GNA allow it have yeah but I think that warrants more discussion okay um just like we we got to discuss it more before it goes to the board I think is the okay so Bruce hold on but there with regard to Waller and swamp there is one one parcel uh on the along the the trail that has almost no buffer the best I can tell a lot of green and it's an identifiable parcel and if if there's an entrance to that maybe that's where Dave was thinking of putting signs then there's that one that's kind of shaped like a pistol uh or a revolver with a long barrel going out and then the cylinder and the handle um I don't know if that's an entire lot that has green in it it looks like it so that could be that could be open and they could be signed and so from an administrative standpoint that would be a lot easier so I I I'm happy to draft something um given given you know coming back to this committee next time we meet I'm not going to do it on Su night um go ahead Bruce well i' I've moved away from what I was gonna say to before we leave here can we be really clear about when we're meeting in the future when are the future meetings of this this subcommittee so we can we need to go back we need to go back to Tuesday and I need to talk to eron about um um we had talked about giving her uh several agendas at a time to post or have available for posting it's just difficult to know you know a month in advance what we're going to talk about so sorry it relates to when can the Animal control officer come to Dr next time we meet we tried and it didn't work this time so no she was already I sent out a note she has she's in training in Palmer that she had already paid for can I just and she was not near her calendar when she said she could make it okay can we just restate the DAT so um she can she can be with us next time we meet and I but that's a whole another topic can we button this one up all right bye so it's agreed that something will get drafted for this committee to look at and um for the next time we meet which will be on on the the normal Tuesday and I'll put an agenda together for Aon Aon what is my deadline for posting that next meeting the I would need to to get it by Thursday the 26th at noon um to post it so that we could meet on Tuesday the 1st okay so there's no reason I know pretty much what we're going to talk about I can get it to you before the 26 I actually need to post it by noon so I can get it to you okay what day of the week is is the 25th that's Wednesday that's our meeting day and I think that's why this has been so challenging for both of us is like we have a meeting and then I've got like follow so how about how about if I get this to you this coming Monday yeah that's fine okay that date will be 21 22 that's the 23rd okay yes the agenda is going to look a lot like this one even though we don't get down as far as we'd like to okay we done with that and so far just for summary we're going to postpone this discussion on Hunting we're going to have something to review in writing for our next meeting I'd like to go for an hour and a half at that next meeting and I'd actually like to start going it to two hours but I think that probably really stretches it for Michelle um just me excuse me okay I mean I think yeah I mean and Dave but I I just get nervous about where we are on the calendar that's all we got we got a ways to go um and um let's see and we have agreed to send the first topic Force management to the to the commission and we need to set a comment deadline um for that so what will we giving them a week we had been giving them two weeks I think it need the comments need to come back for our meeting okay we can give them a week I mean maybe we should see if people can do a week I think that was the issue last time people just um maybe in the agenda Aon when we list this we could like give them like some warning that we're going to be asking for comments during a week like it's Incorporated the yep I mean if we're giving it to them by the 25th that means that they if they have two weeks they'd be getting it back to us by the 9th of um October and then we would have it in time for the 15th which is our following meeting and we've got other things to talk about in between like dogs and hunting so I mean I do other folks did say a week wasn't enough time um so I think giving them two weeks to look at it would you know at least for now I think that will be that will work with what we're trying to wrap yeah I'd be comfortable giving them a week and offering extensions for those who have a tough time but we haven't we've only been getting comments from Rachel and and Andre did give us some comments so but Rachel's been pretty consistent yeah Dave I apologize I gotta run I have a staff member retirement party that I'm part of coming up so I've got a run with just 10 minutes left in your meeting see you let me just switch the dogs real quickly Carol can come to our next meeting and I'll say that the numbers that I got from the town clerk on the number of dog licenses sold I have no doubt but what that data is accurate in terms of the number sold what I'm concerned about is that there has been a decline in the people registering their dogs and that's one way to explain the the the drop in those numbers uh so we got an we got a an enforcement I talked to Carol on the phone about that and she said she knows of I think she named 25 dogs that are not registered so there's a uh I I'm going to talk to Carol about the things we I've already talked to her about some of the things we want to talk to her about and I'll queue her up again but um and and I'll send out a list of suggestions and so thank you for your time um Carol Carol's not as able as she used to be she tells me she doesn't craw into porches anymore uh she doesn't she doesn't help people get skunks out of traps she teaches them how to do it and the police officers help her when she can't do something so she's 80 now I that's probably U personal information that I should not anyway she told me that's how old she is so her she's very willing to do her job but she doesn't do everything she used to do thank you bye Bruce I'm I'm interested in number six before we end say it again I'm interested in item six on the agenda before we end the suggestion okay go ahead I suggest that we divide up the topics among ourselves and write do whatever research is needed write a draft proposal of what it should be and have them ready when the time comes on the agenda because they seem like they're simp they seem simple but but at least um we have a a jumping off point and not asking Alex to write every a draft of every single one although I may yield to him on beavers but i' I'd be open to taking one who wants to take camping I I'd like Michelle to pick the ones that are easiest and best for her and I'll pick the others I'm not looking at it thanks Bruce for the dibs um what are what are they just if someone can read them beavers and I already have that pretty much done camping system for identifying encroachment periodic report to the commission on the condition of trails and each unit of conservation land that's kind of like the citizen group that we talked about and compatible Recreation uses how about Michelle if you come up with the uh do the citizen group Trails the trail committee sure okay so that's that's in my summary which you already got um C can I ask a quick question about the beaver thing um I know Alex You' done a bunch of research on state laws pertaining to beavers and sent some stuff around but I think what I what I had in mind or what I think the policy discussion was going to be was when and where the commission allows trapping of beavers and for what reasoning on conservation land um like sort of a more you know for public health and safety reasons or danger of damaging roads or that type of thing um it have we gotten to that because I don't remember that we've okay we've never talked about beavers okay okay I just wanted to make sure because I I did I put some together some stuff together in preparing a talk for Amor's neighbors okay so I did a bunch of homework for them for my talk with them and that was about wildlife in our backyards oh oh oh gotcha okay all right I was getting mixed up yeah it strikes me that the system for identifying encroachment and the periodic report on conditions are related and so I'd be willing to work up something that combines those two and obviously camping and Recreation are also related so that could be one one little memo well Michelle does a lot of camping I thought maybe she'd leap for that one yeah well I took my assign I can do camping I think that's kind of short if okay I think the encroachment one is going to be involved and probably you'll need to talk with Ain about that one yeah and the camping thing I mean the town has done a at least Dave has done a Prohibition on camping in ammer for a variety of reasons because of tent encampments and trash and you know damage caused by campers so I think like that one has been pretty simple but it's really just to Circle back and make sure the commission's okay with that and while we're on this topic I I kept a record of things we've worked on and has it too so um um next week U how about if I go through what I've got and think come up with what I think is done talk to Aaron to make sure we agree and see if we can't put a bunch of stuff together that's ready to go to the commission yeah okay yeah CU we kind of jumped around okay dogs uh we've got uh not much time left I [Music] um um I have not been personally been able to go through the comments we've received by Rachel I read her comments I did not have a chance to look at Andre um and I think it's going to take a while for us to wrestle with some of her suggestions particularly with regard to um uh the I particularly with regard to her suggestions I'll just leave it at that um did we receive any other comments just Andre and Rachel the comment that Jason made in the meeting which basically said I'm you know my my only concern is that we not have rules that are not enforced orfor enforcable or enforced that was his comment yeah well that goes to the entire policy document um so the way I would the way I would set up the next meeting is invite Carol to come at the beginning at the top of the meeting out of courtesy to her my God and any conversation with Carol uh uh is I'm expected to be fairly protracted um so I we'll spend at least a half an hour with her if not 45 minutes as we get into the suggestions on what she might do for us and Reporting and you know the recordkeeping for incidences and all that kind of stuff registration of dogs um it may even take an hour so I'd like to cue her up for the to appear before us first and try and put a time limit on it which will be tough and then spend the if we could split the hour and a half between Carol and actually dealing with the comments we've received uh does that sound reasonable to you yes yep okay and I I would hope that we could have something to go to the commission um in addition to that that'll be a little tough but I'd love to I just feel a very strong need to be sending something to the commissioner as a result of every meeting I don't know what it would be yet it'll be something Michelle you was something you said you wanted to make sure it got there and it sounded like you wanted it to go pretty quickly it was uh I have to look back through your emails but maybe um rule rules and oh um are just our rules and regulations yeah yeah that's kind of like a summary isn't it yeah okay but I know we started out with trying to just approve that so it might be at the end when it's all consistent with all this back background stuff that we go there so another question that's going to come up um I think Rachel raised it is should there be a primer like an introductory paragraph at the top of each one of these rules and we've talked about that so we're probably not going to get through that discussion today but this came up a long time ago about what is each one of these actually going to you use for and you know like Aon said or we're gonna take it out of the document and post it in a kiosk and so therefore it needs to have some introductory thing um so I don't I don't know I don't know when an introduction to a particular policy is warranted or not so we need to Grapple with that and then I'd also like to talk about the schedule once we get this all done because it's my understanding that once we get all on at the end of the calendar year the next thing to happen is um assuming the commission has voted on everything is to hold public hearing and get comments from the public and then that's process but don't we have to have the comments before the commission votes excuse me yeah the commission would approve it during a public hearing so I think that's what what Bruce is getting at so like when we hold a public hearing you take public comment and then at the end of when the hearing is closed you would vote to approve the document based on potential changes or edits but don't we have to go through a public it's a it's a change in our rules doesn't there have to be a public hearing just for that right any anything any rules and regulations governing conservation land requires a public hearing so the whole land use policy would in my opinion require that we post it make it available for the public to review and hold a public hearing to take comment on but I'm saying I think and I think what Bruce is saying is the approval process is the hearing so we we're going through this administratively to get it as final as possible that final version will be what we share we put it through the public hearing process take comments might make some final changes and then as part of the public public hearing process the commission would then close the hearing and approve the document at that time and then at that point it'd be in a in full effect so the comment that that comment period you're talking about we give them 30 days or something like that yeah I mean I think yeah I think that's reasonable or whatever the commission thinks is reasonable okay it is 131 thank you folks safe enjoy enjoy the weekend you too byebye bye thanks very much