01-18-2013, 01:54 AM
[quote wormandbobber][quote The_Red_Leaker][quote harlin]
This is why we pay fisheries professionals to manage our fisheries. Believe it or not, the decisions they make reflect what the majority of anglers want. There is no evidence that anybody voted on or agreed upon the completely arbitrary introduction of perch in fish lake.[/quote]
Can you explain the process(es) the professionals have in place to find out what the majority of anglers want and furthermore if they are effective?[/quote]
I can think of three ways: 1) creel surveys 2) open houses 3) RAC meetings. The other ways are much less formal and harder to document (email, telephone calls, etc.)
According to a creel survey completed in 2010, only 13% of anglers went to fish lake to specifically target perch. Which was significantly up from previous years...I would guess that that number has possibly risen slightly since then. My beef is that it seems that the other 87% are either targeting trout or they don't care what they catch. It is
to me that the majority of fishermen--at least according to creel surveys--are experiencing a gradually worse fishery.[/quote]
Unless there is conflicting information in your study, page 3 reads as follows.
"Only 13% of all anglers were targeting a
specific game fish while angling. Five percent were targeting rainbow trout, 1% lake trout, 1%
splake, 5% yellow perch, and 1% tiger muskie or brown trout (Salmo trutta)."
That means 87% were there to catch whatever species was willing to nibble and of the13% targeting a specific species, 38% were targeting perch while all other species each held 7% of that 13% pie. Hmmm....
As to my question of effectiveness of DNR methods to acquire input this article sums up the point I was trying to make.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/outdoors/52...s.html.csp
The article refers to a survey done in 2011 in which 1,100 anglers participated in the pole. That is .002% of the fishing/combination license holders in the state at the time. It also says that the DNR plans on making changes to waters due to the results of the survey. Making changes to waters from .002% input.....wow.
True, anglers need to more involved but the DNR should also look at methods of getting input that are more effective. I highly doubt creel surveys and RAC meetings will catch enough of the 514,438 licensed anglers (2010 number) to get accurate opinion of the majority.
Just to be clear I am not making the DNR out to be the bad guys, just trying to spark a thought.
[signature]
This is why we pay fisheries professionals to manage our fisheries. Believe it or not, the decisions they make reflect what the majority of anglers want. There is no evidence that anybody voted on or agreed upon the completely arbitrary introduction of perch in fish lake.[/quote]
Can you explain the process(es) the professionals have in place to find out what the majority of anglers want and furthermore if they are effective?[/quote]
I can think of three ways: 1) creel surveys 2) open houses 3) RAC meetings. The other ways are much less formal and harder to document (email, telephone calls, etc.)
According to a creel survey completed in 2010, only 13% of anglers went to fish lake to specifically target perch. Which was significantly up from previous years...I would guess that that number has possibly risen slightly since then. My beef is that it seems that the other 87% are either targeting trout or they don't care what they catch. It is
to me that the majority of fishermen--at least according to creel surveys--are experiencing a gradually worse fishery.[/quote]Unless there is conflicting information in your study, page 3 reads as follows.
"Only 13% of all anglers were targeting a
specific game fish while angling. Five percent were targeting rainbow trout, 1% lake trout, 1%
splake, 5% yellow perch, and 1% tiger muskie or brown trout (Salmo trutta)."
That means 87% were there to catch whatever species was willing to nibble and of the13% targeting a specific species, 38% were targeting perch while all other species each held 7% of that 13% pie. Hmmm....
As to my question of effectiveness of DNR methods to acquire input this article sums up the point I was trying to make.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/outdoors/52...s.html.csp
The article refers to a survey done in 2011 in which 1,100 anglers participated in the pole. That is .002% of the fishing/combination license holders in the state at the time. It also says that the DNR plans on making changes to waters due to the results of the survey. Making changes to waters from .002% input.....wow.
True, anglers need to more involved but the DNR should also look at methods of getting input that are more effective. I highly doubt creel surveys and RAC meetings will catch enough of the 514,438 licensed anglers (2010 number) to get accurate opinion of the majority.
Just to be clear I am not making the DNR out to be the bad guys, just trying to spark a thought.
[signature]