Beginning of the end

[Kain]

State report for Washington from the research project entitled: Understanding People in Places

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01190/wdfw01190.pdf

[jager]

You know there is a problem when the WDFW does a survey and gardening is the second highest rated "outdoor" activity!

The word gardening shouldn't be anywhere near anything they are doing.

Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources .......Really?

I sure am glad the money I spend on hunting and fishing in this state goes to this type of research.

[Malottguy]

• Residents are generally not willing to pay a fee for more access to land areas near their
homes for outdoor recreation.
At the state-wide level, Washington residents were not willing to pay a fee for access to more
land areas near their homes; however, there was some variation across the value orientation
types and counties. For example, Mutualists were the most willing of the value orientation
types to pay for more access (41.1%), whereas Utilitarians were the least likely to want to
contribute funds for this purpose (24.5%). The largest percentages of people who were
willing to pay a fee for more access to land areas near their homes were found in Cowlitz and
Pierce Counties (>40%).


Says a lot about the Discover Pass. I heard someone talking about the Discover Pass and saying how the people wanted it, well seems we DON'T.

[bobcat]

People that do a lot of hiking, and/or mounting biking, I think did like the idea of the Discover Pass, because without it, many of the trails they use would have been closed.

[Malottguy]

I read that too, but goes back to the posts about the pass and why should we(hunters, fishers) pay twice type of thing when they(hikers, etc) never pay.


Interesting read though and I am curious how the WDFW is actually going to use this information in our near future.

[Kain]

There has been a bigger and bigger push to develop a hands off approach to wildlife management.  They have been pushing "wildlife viewing" and wildlife tourism as the future money maker for the state.   It is very telling that more people have, or will be, wildlife viewers but are not willing to pay for it.  The WDFW will continue to bite the hand that feeds it and push for less and less hunting as a management tool.  It is starting with the predators and will flow over to other game animals eventually.

All the money from the discovery pass program will be counted towards wildlife viewing and not money generated from hunting and fishing.  This will further push the false claims that wildlife viewing contributes far more than hunting and fishing. 

Does anyone know a single person that got this survey? 

[GlennGTR]

If elected as state rep in 2012, the traditions of hunting, fishing, and the right to keep and bear arms will be one of my top priorities. More money needs to go to the management of our large game animals. WDFW needs to focus on meeting the needs of hunters, fishermen and wildlife.

[GlennGTR]

WDFWs JOB IS TO MANAGE WILDLIFE, NOT GO OUT ON MAMBIE PAMBIE PSYCH EVALUATIONS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH STRONG HEALTHY ELK HERDS, AND PROTECTING OUR SALMON POPULATIONS.

[Tom Reichner]

Does anyone know a single person that got this survey?

Yes, I do.

In fact, I got the survey! 

I was glad to be able to have my opinions & values go "on record".

[Malottguy]

Were they randomly emailed to people? I usually get things like this in my email or one saying there is one I can take on their site, but not this time.

We as hunters are the ultimate wildlife viewers and we appreciate what we are viewing much more than most others who claim they watching. Especially in a conservation stand point.

[Tom Reichner]

Were they randomly emailed to people? I usually get things like this in my email or one saying there is one I can take on their site, but not this time.

We as hunters are the ultimate wildlife viewers and we appreciate what we are viewing much more than most others who claim they watching. Especially in a conservation stand point.

They were not emailed.  The survey was much more involved and formally conducted than the type of thing that would normally be sent in an email.

The survey came to me via USPS mail, in a large envelope with a lot of pages to fill out.  It was a first-class survey if ever there was one - not just some piece of junk that you'd find in your "in-box".

[Kain]

Does anyone know a single person that got this survey?

Yes, I do.

In fact, I got the survey! 

I was glad to be able to have my opinions & values go "on record".

Glad someone got one.  I thought it would be weird if no one on here had gotten one or knew anyone that had. 

[Lowedog]

Wonder how they chose who to send the survey to.  I know they have my address.   

[Malottguy]

Wonder how they chose who to send the survey to.

 

Wish we could of all had the chance to take it.

[Tom Reichner]

Wonder how they chose who to send the survey to.

 

Wish we could of all had the chance to take it.

The language in the survey doesn't directly answer the question of exactly how they determined who to mail it to, but it does indeed show that they were attempting to get a representation of the populace in general.

If "we" (HuntWA forum members) had all had a chance to take this survey, then the results would have been skewed.  The goal of the survey was not to find out how hunters and sportsmen feel about wildlife & outdoor recreation.  Rather, it was to find out how the population in general feels about these issues. 

It is apparent from the following quote (from the survey) that they undertook extensive efforts to ensure that the results were representative of the overall Washington residency:


Data were collected using a mail-back survey administered to residents in Washington in the fall
of 2009. Sampling was stratified by county to allow for generalizations at the county level in
addition to the overall state level. Four thousand, one hundred and eighty-three surveys were
returned, resulting in a 31.8% response rate for the mail-back survey. A telephone nonresponse
survey was completed, and tests for differences between mail survey respondents and
nonrespondents were conducted. Demographic comparisons between respondent data and U.S.
census information were additionally conducted to determine if data were representative of the
Washington public. Based on these tests and comparisons, data were weighted by gender to
adjust for an underrepresentation of females in the sample. For reporting at the aggregate,
statewide level, data were also weighted to accurately reflect the true proportions of the
population represented by each county.