I wanted to say that I agree with one common theme throughout this thread. Our (DWR) communication with our angling public needs to improve. We do struggle at it. To be completely honest we have problems getting our angling public at the RAC’s amd Wildlife Board meetings. A lot of the time the feedback we do get is from the angling groups such as Trout Unlimited, The Utah Bass Federation, Rocky Mountain Anglers etc. Do these groups represent our angling public? I don’t know. They might… and then again they might not. The simple truth is that they are easy to find and that makes it easy to get feedback from them, and they are passionate about helping the DWR.
This brings me to the big question… In your opinion what would be an effective way to get feedback from as many of the everyday anglers as possible.
This brings me to the big question. What ideas do you have to solicit input that would truly represent 415,000 anglers. The kicker is that is has to be cost effective and possible.
Sorry to blow the new truck deal. My guess is that most of those trucks have between 60-100,000 miles put on them each year. At that rate they don’t last long. And most of them are 4X4’s, which I suppose is a luxury also !!!
They don’t have much of a choice on the Friday thing, not considered a "vital’ service by the State, so they get the 4 10 deal. Then most of them go in and work on their day off anyway !!!
Hiring more CO’s is a good idea. You only have two CO’s for all of Utah Co., so it is hard for them to be in 3,4,5 places at once. One of the new cost cutting proposals is to take the Peace Officer designation away from Park Rangers. That is STUPID !!!
Drew, we are thankful that you take the time to respond to threads like this and do it in a helpful way without getting upset with the poster even when the threads get heated.
Although we don’t get 415,000 viewer on this site we do have the highest number of viewer of any fishing web site in the state. It might not be able to give you an answer to every question the DWR has about every problem but we do have a wide variety of opinions represented here. To get answers to some of your questions you could try doing a poll from time to time and see what you come up with or just start a thread asking a question. I would think there is no correct answer to all the problems the DWR faces about better communication but it might be worth a try. If nothing else it could be another means of communication for the DWR. Thanks again Drew.
This brings me to the big question… In your opinion what would be an effective way to get feedback from as many of the everyday anglers as possible.
This brings me to the big question. What ideas do you have to solicit input that would truly represent 415,000 anglers. The kicker is that is has to be cost effective and possible.
I’m just kind of spit-balling, but how about surveys/questionnaires at some of the more popular boat ramps during some of the busiest times of the year. You could even put those in a drawing for some prizes to encourage participation.
Anyway Drew, I think it’s cool that you make yourself available here and respond professionally. Thanks.
Thanks for chiming in on posts such as this. It seems that it is always easier to pontificate and complain than to propose real solutions, but I’ll give a shot at a reply. (I’m not ready for bed yet.)
RE"Our (DWR) communication with our angling public needs to improve. We do struggle at it."
To be honest, it seems to me that the Utah DWR tries to bend over backwards to communicate with the public. You already use a variety of media to “get the word out”. The truth is that a significant percentage of the 415000 anglers you noted are apathetic in the extreme. They simply don’t give a hoot about anything except that there are planters to catch when they trek out to the pond 1-2 time a year. I don’t think there is anything you can do to reach these types. That said, here are a couple of thoughts on how to reach the rest of us.
As much as there are frequent silly, idiotic, confrontational and mindless posts on forums such as this and others, it is a valuable tool in the modern world to “spread the word” for the DWR and take in genuine input from the “average Joe”. I believe doing what you are doing here in responding to this post and participating in this and other forums will help immensely in giving you the input you desire. (albeit, you may not like everything you hear[;)][pirate] )
Having a presence on shows like “Roughing it outdoors” will reach a large number of people that you want to reach. I know this is already often done.
I haven’t lived in Nevada for 7 years, yet I get a monthly email update from NDOW. Some of that info is still worth reading. The DWR ought to have that too. (monthly or weekly)
The different groups are certainly a valuable tool for what you seek, but sadly, the goals of the different organizations often vary markedly. For example, Bassers will often disagree with fly anglers. Unfortunately, that means that you will need to take input from all of them and not assume that only one group speaks for all anglers.
For regulations changes, consider providing a written summary of reg changes with the purchase of every license at the point of sale. State Parks gives me a fairly slick, yet no doubt pricey booklet every time I renew my annual parks pass. The DWR may consider doing the same and it can likely be done at lower cost.
.
RE" To be completely honest we have problems getting our angling public at the RAC’s amd Wildlife Board meetings. "
It seems to me that there is a lot of sentiment that the RAC’s and WB meetings are a waste of time and that in spite of everything discussed there, the outcome is predetermined. I know this is not fishing related, but the way that the Wildlife Board handled the recent deer hunting changes left a very bitter taste in the mouths of many sportsmen, regardless of whether they favored or opposed the changes that were passed. It seemed to many that the WB was swayed by a certain special interest group and the voice of those in opposition, (which included the DWR itself) was ignored. This perception may not be totally accurate or fair to the RAC process, but perception is reality and that is what you are battling right now with respect to the RAC process and the WB. Obviously, reform in the WB will have to be undertaken by the legislature and Governor, and until this happens, I don’t know how much “teeth” the RAC meetings will be felt to have in the eyes of many involved sportsmen.
Anyway, thanks again for asking the questions you did here and I hope you receive useful input. Sorry I was a windbag, I guess it is time for bed.
Thanks a lot. Quite a few good ideas. The UDWR does have a facebook page. I will share these ideas and see what we can do.
Drew
Drew – is there any way that we could get the fisheries biologists (especially those in the southern region) hooked up with Twitter accounts so that they can keep us all updated as to their daily doings? That would be sweet!
OK, got one more for you. I would love to see a readily accessible summary of the results of the gillnetting, electroshock, and other studies done by the biologists put on the website. If possible, with a brief interpretive opinion of the results from the project leader. Typically we see the crews out there, but we rarely hear about the results except if a crash or problem is imminent or an illegally introduced species is found.
It is informative to see the summaries of the large game winter counts. (the total numbers, buck:doe ratios etc.) The same would hold true, at least to me of the fishing surveys.
just one more little tid-bit on the RAC meetings. in the north, lets be honest, the population is between Layton, an Ogden, yet they hold the RAC meeting in Brigham City. 30 miles away from the population. i think an obvious ploy to keep attendance down.
just my cynical self.
OK, got one more for you. I would love to see a readily accessible summary of the results of the gillnetting, electroshock, and other studies done by the biologists put on the website.
Like I said: Twitter for the biologists! Why wait for the report? Let’s have their thoughts immediately! I can see it now “just pulled 5,000 chubs from the gillnets at Piute…” Why not?
FWIW – througha gramma request, you can get everything you just asked for already. Further, when reports are published, they are available.
my question is this: do we want our biologists working in the field, or do we want them sitting in front of a computer?
RE"Like I said: Twitter for the biologists! Why wait for the report? Let’s have their thoughts immediately! I can see it now “just pulled 5,000 chubs from the gillnets at Piute…” Why not? "
Yes, this would be good.
RE"FWIW – througha gramma request, you can get everything you just asked for already. Further, when reports are published, they are available.
my question is this: do we want our biologists working in the field, or do we want them sitting in front of a computer? "
Sure, a gramma request would work, but it seems that Drew and the DWR are trying to get away from that and make information more easily accessible. Right or wrong, I always think one files a gramma request when an agency or person has something to hide.
Your point about keeping the biologists in the office is valid, but for gillnetting surveys and such, they aleady have to process the samples and data and make a report. Sending the results over to IT and making them easily available for public consumption would not make more work for the biologists. (It might for the IT guy though)
Just think how nice it would be to have at our fingertips hard data that the public could view to see how well (or not) our fisheries are doing. Maybe we wouldn’t hear so many silly complaints and demands to “ban all bait” and other draconian measures like we do now.[;)]
The problem is knowing what to look for. (try a search for “meristic analysis” and see what comes up.
Should the DWR start publishing a directory of all reports written? Where do we expect them to draw the line of “spoon feeding” anglers? Maybe we should just have our own personal biologist available to not only query the reports for us, but to also answer all the questions we’ll have for him once we read the report?
Further – you mentioned that maybe we wouldn’t hear so many silly complaints – I’d beg to differ. If anglers were looking at every report from every project, I fear it would create so many questions / comments that our biologists would be further tied to their computers (as if they aren’t alread!). Do we expect our average Joe Angler to be able to interpret these reports with any amount of accuracy?
I like having information at my fingertips too – but we can’t just expect to have everything online at a moments whim. We want information as soon as the nets are pulled, we want tickets written the moment an infraction is incurred, we want big fish at every bite, and we want each species of gamefish in our own backyards – trohpies, no less. We want a lot. At what expense?
Wish my legs back then were 40in that was a long time ago over 30 years. We used to catch em back then though to bad those days seem to be gone Anyone remember the floating store at p v at the port ramp,that might give away my age but what the heck,we used to go and get bait there and a soda then fish all day. I’m not saying that there isn’t great fishing around here it just seems like you have to fight alot harder nowdays to get away from the crowds and catch a few fish…Atleast spring is just around the corner[;)]