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. 

[Malottguy]

I understand that if we from this board got the chance to take it that it would have skewed the results and I wasn't implying it be just we on this board, but more people in general.

The worst part of surveys like this is they survey almost a to small of the populace, but I understand that not everyone can take it and they are using percentage of the people that live in Washington to get an idea and a "general" idea.

I do hope they put this information to good honest use. To many times they do these surveys and just set them aside, which was a waste of taxpayer money.

 

[fair-chase]

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. 

Translation: We did not acquire the demographics that we were after so we just made up a bunch of crap and filled in the blanks. WDFW.

[hughjorgan]

This is BS... Why should our dollars that we pay for hunting/fishing licenses go to compensate for livestock loss when we as hunters don't want wolves here in the first place. If people want to view wolves and have them in this state they should take full responsibility and pay for livestock losses.

Residents are less accepting of landowner compensation schemes compared to other
possible management strategies for addressing potential wolf-related livestock losses.
Approximately 45% of Washington residents found it acceptable to compensate landowners
for loss of livestock caused by wolves. When asked more specifically whether it was
acceptable to use certain sources of funds for compensation programs, residents were more
supportive of using dollars from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses (46.1%) as opposed
viii
to state tax revenue (40.3%) for this purpose. Among the value orientation types, Distanced
individuals were the least accepting of compensation schemes and Mutualists were more
accepting of using hunting/fishing license funds to support compensation programs. Residents
of many counties in eastern Washington (except Douglas County) were more likely than
residents in the northwest portion of the state to rate landowner compensation for loss of
livestock due to wolves as an acceptable WDFW strategy.

[Annette]

I see the mutulist want the wolves but they don't want the damage they do to be paid out of the general fund....REALY..WDFW Better take a closer look!

[Malottguy]

Yes, I do.

In fact, I got the survey! 

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

Tom how did you answers compare to the final results. I am not looking for exact answers but an overall feel you got from your standpoint to that if the general populace.

[Wacenturion]

Nothing more than management by consensus rather than management by leadership, which WDFW sorely lacks.  They do however excel at "go to meetings" and "publish reports".

Sign of the times....and it will get worse.  Nothing but a waste of money, especially in this economic climate.

 

[runamuk]

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".

I am pretty sure I got this survey as well the computer I am on I cant find the pdf viewer so cant open it.  I always fill out surveys best I can and if they ask about activities I am involved in or have interest in I tend to note it so gardening, hunting, and farming all rank together pretty equal for me in number of dollars spent and time devoted to it.  WDFW may be interested in gardening as more and more people not only garden they feed wildlife in their yards, and other people only experience the out doors through gardening or visiting a city park. will try and look at it later with the laptop

[Tom Reichner]

Tom how did you answers compare to the final results. I am not looking for exact answers but an overall feel you got from your standpoint to that if the general populace.

Malott Guy,

I honestly forget what most the questions were.  I got this months ago - perhaps even a year ago.  In fact, I think it was last summer when I got it and responded.  There were many questions, and I simply forget what they were.  I should have photocopied it, but simply didn't think to do so.

I have very politically conservative views, as well as a pro-hunter stance, and a generally anti-government bias.  My answers reflected these values. 

I realize that my views, and those of most of us on here, are not typical of the population in general.  Hunters (and their opinions/views) are certainly in the minority.  This shouldn't be a surprise - haven't we all known this for years? 

The one question I do remember specifically was the one about being willing to pay money to the state for the opportunity to have access to more land.  My answer was an emphatic "NO"!   

[Malottguy]

Thanks Tom for the response.

As I have said I wish these surveys could involve more people in a population. Polling even 10% of a populace could be way off from what most in that population think. Because 10% of Okanogan County would answer more one way than 10% of King County. Along with King County having more people in that 10% than Okanogan County.

[Gringo31]

I can't believe that on any poll in this state that

Participation in walking/hiking/running (82.2%) and gardening (80.7%) were the top most
frequently-reported outdoor activities near the home for Washington residents.

Again, I call BS.  Washington would be a bit thinner if 82% walk/run or hike in the woods.  I also don't see 4 out of 5 with a garden.

[runamuk]

I can't believe that on any poll in this state that

Participation in walking/hiking/running (82.2%) and gardening (80.7%) were the top most
frequently-reported outdoor activities near the home for Washington residents.

Again, I call BS.  Washington would be a bit thinner if 82% walk/run or hike in the woods.  I also don't see 4 out of 5 with a garden.

the numbers reflect those who responded to the survey only.....so 82% is probably correct for the survey group but doesnt actually reflect the population being a WDFW survey it will be biased toward those who hunt, fish, or are active in WDFW as that is likely where they pulled their sampling for the survey....so it seems pretty accurate that pulling a sample from out door enthusiasts you would get a higher rate of those activities.  Gardening includes container gardening on a deck in an apt if that is an outdoor activity.  We get a bit closed minded when we assume a garden is only planted for veggies on farm ground, and that all fishermen support hunting ....many dont, many could care less about hunting I've met people who fish and are against hunting so this survey is probably reflective of the sample chosen and then the actual respondents not representative of the state.