[MRN]

The ND Sportsmens Alliance has posted a summary of their survey results. This is by far the very best estimate of what ALL ND hunters are thinking. The methodology is impecable. The summary is pretty straight forward (although I prefer "fewer than" to "less than" when talking about people). ;-) Some very good work Bobby.

It sugggests the preferred cap is 10, 500. What does anyone else think?

http://www.ndsportsmen.org/

M.

 

[cancarver]

issues with it, it seems to have been selected at random, all fine and good. however
few things that jump out at me
starting with #8

is leading the answer to yes. When you state a cause and effect in a question, you are leading the answeree to agree by identifing purpose/issue for the survey.

Better worded question
for example
rate your quality of waterfowl hunts in 1993 from 1 to 5
rate your quality of waterfowl hunts last year from 1 to 5

#9 they are combine two game species hunted in 1 question. by me reading that question I would have had two different answers for each type of game.

again 9
1 leading by the use of "more land"
2 leading by the use of the word "harder"
3 leading by using Guides and oufitters"
4 leading agian by the word use "harder"

#10 leading by stating "Over 25,000"

all these questions are leading/implying the problem or issue.

It has been a while since I have taken formal classes on surveys, but this survey doesn't have much validity. The writers had a strong opinion when writing it which "could" have led to skewed survey results. There is a reason why there are organizations like gallup, etc... that perform independent surveys so they have validity.

 

[prairie hunter]

From the ND Sportsmen's Alliance web site:

10. What the NDSA suggests be done:

a. Put a reasonable cap on the number of nonresident hunters.

b. Divide the state into six or more zones for nonresident hunters and allocate a specific number of licenses for each zone.

c. Allow persons who were born in the state who now live elsewhere a preference for hunting license.

*************************************

Of course I like 10.C.

Again, for me it is not necessarily about killing a bunch of ducks it is about hunting with friends and family that I grew up with in ND. Although we are very successful at what we pursue.

Now we are hunting with their children. Really do not want to lose that chance and if not licensed in ND as a NR, I may still return this fall to help "guide" these kids and call ducks. On many hunts I do not even raise the barrel until the kids are done shooting or other times I am shooting just to anchor a wounded duck.

As I have stated before - I am a ghost NR. I hunt 95% of the time from a pick-up with ND plates (relative or friend - not a guides). Often hunt on land owned by friends or relatives too.

Maybe my ND birth certificate may be good for something other than proving I am not a Canadian.

 

[Bobby Cox]

Cancarver:

Thanks for taking time from your busy schedule to criticize our survey. I haven't seen any evidence in your post that you have any idea of what you're talking about; until I do, I won't take the time to respond to each of your points. Your posts on this and other boards have made it clear that you are a nonresident hunter who opposes any type of restrictions on nonresident hunters. I suggest that it is the results of the survey that you really dislike, not the way in which it was done. The easiest way to try to make something go away is to try to discredit it ("Guides and outfitters" as leading---that was a good one). If that was your best shot at an attack on the survey, I'll consider it in pretty good shape. I encourage you to do your own survey to test the validity of mine. If you want, I'll even provide you with the HIP database to get you started, which will save you $100. Let me know.

 

[Guest]

Bobby,

I read the survey and agree completely with cancarver. It's not the results that are bothersome it's the manner in which the data was compiled and the questions asked. Question number 8 is completely leading; implicit in the question is a value judgment that non-resident waterfowl hunters are leading to poorer duck hunting. And yes I do know what I'm talking about in terms of conducting an unbiased surveys, I do if for a living along with analyzing data. Let me ask you how can an organization that has already come out against a group of folks conduct a valid survey? :eyeroll:

Question 8: Do you feel that increased numbers of nonresident waterfowl hunters in North Dakota in recent years have diminished the quality of your waterfowl hunting experiences? _____Yes _____ No _____Uncertain

Replies indicated that 49% of resident hunters felt increased numbers of nonresident waterfowl hunters in recent years had diminished the quality of their waterfowl hunting experiences, while 32% did not feel so, and 19% were uncertain. From the confidence intervals, we are 95% confident that the true population response of Yes to this question is between 44 and 53%, while those answering No to this question would be 29-36%.

 

[Bobby Cox]

Full Force Five:

If I had taken the time to respond point-by-pont to Cancarver, I would have conceded that question 8 should have been rewritten as: How have increased numbers of nonresident waterfowl hunters in recent years affected the quality of your waterfowl hunting experiences?, with multiple choice answers of a) they have decreased the quality of my experiences, b) they have not affected the quality of my hunting experiences, or c) they have increased the quality of my hunting experiences. Whether or not this would have made a difference in how people responded, I don't know. Regarding Cancarver's criticisms regarding questions 9 and 10, I totally disagree.

You asked how an organization with a preformed opinion could conduct a valid survey? By bringing in a qualified consultant who has no interest in the outcome, which I did by bringing in Dr. Brian Gray. He reviewed each and every question and made changes to almost all of them before the survey was mailed.

Here's something for everyone to think about: Don't you think it is an absolute travesty that a sportsmen's group had to do a survey like this, instead of the agency that hunters pay to manage the wildlife resources?

 

[Guest]

Bobby

Inquire about a refund. Several of those questions are completely leading, with the answer implicit in the question, blaming the non-resident for a perceived condition. If he did read question 8, why would he not change it to something like: How would you rate your duck hunting experience during the 2000 season 1) good 2) poor 3) etc etc. I asked another friend of mine who works for the largest survey firms in the nation, he just laughed at some of the questions. :eyeroll:

What does this prove, not much. Other than I wouldn't give a plug nickel for the results contained in your "survey" and the NDSA should not be a voice for real sportsman.

Full Force

 

[MRN]

Bobby,
Too bad you have to waste your time arguing here. I was hoping we could generate more discussion of the results and how the results should influence policy. Yes, such a survey, with the same impeccible methodology, should have been done by the G&F.

CC, FFF - question 8 - Leading? Come on, get a grip on reality.
This form of question is possibly the most common used in surveys - agree/disagree with a statement. The statement can be almost anything, and in the psychological literature is often is. This method is the most simple way to get at the information you want. It allows simple binomial statistics, rather than more complex/tedious non-parametric statistics that multiple choice/pseudo Likert scale answers require. I really think you have to go back and read the parts in your "So you want to be professional survey guy" pamplet on the theory/mechanism of leading questions. Having facts, conditional information, values, hypotheticals does not make a leading question. For example, only a theory of social conformity might suggest the following question be predisposed to an affirmative answer: "Most poeple think FFF is totally whack. Do you agree that FFF is whack?". But if we simply ask, " Do you agree with the statement - FFF is whacked and totally out there?", we have not asked a leading question (but we introduced another problem - 2 bonus points if you can identify it). Of course, all this depends on whether the theory of social conformity is correct. Probably different in hunters than in vegans choosing tofu brands.

Questions can always be asked differently, but better is another issue. Therefore, why do you believe this question is leading? What factor, other than the opinion of the respondent, influenced the proportion of responses in each category. The word "diminished" rather than "affected"? Since "improved" isn't a logical option, the use of the word "diminished" actually serves to remove vaguness and increase interpretability of the question - by far the biggest problem in any survey. Perhaps you meant to say that the specific choice of wording can affect the response rate, sure, but that is a different issue than "leading". But the choice of wording belongs to he who does the survey. Perhaps it went by too fast, but consider the likely proportion of responses in the alternate version of the question Bobby posted. You'd be much happier with the question, but much less happy with the responses. That's pretty funny.

Are we to be impressed that you talked to someone in a survey company? Come on, the folks that I know working in such places would love the finish their degree now. These "national" survey companies would be doing very very well to come close to the current study's soundness. No offence if that's where you work, but ....
M.

 

[Guest]

MNR,

I'm not questioning the methodology, I'm questioning the question (s). The point I'm trying to emphasize is the survey and the questions, specifically question 8, is very leading and biased. Question 8 might as well just say, "Have non-residents ruined hunting in North Dakota". . yes, no, indifferent. But of course it's not a leading question with an inherent bias. :eyeroll:

I think this a a record, it only took you a few posts to get personal and attack the person, rather than the facts and/or ideas. Now if you'll excuse me I'll get to work.

"Yes, such a survey, with the same impeccible methodology, should have been done by the G&F." :lol: :roll: I wonder why? I mean the methodolgy is just flawless. :roll:

Full Force

 

[Eric Hustad]

Hang in there Bobby!!! Survery aside if only a few people were concerned then why was the pheasant opener called off and now limits might be imposed. It's because a lot of resident sportsmen voiced their concerns. However most of us have family/friends living out of state who will be affected by the limits, and it is a very difficult issue. In the end I think the voice of people who live in the state should be heard. Quality of hunting should also be protected and it is great to hear from a lot guys out of state who are also worried about hunting quality. Would you rather have a good chance at a good hunt or a for sure opportunity for a poor hunt. Those of us living here know what a quality hunt is all about. I tip my hat to the guys working to protect a heritage here and sticking their necks out. Your doing what the Game and Fish should be. I worry we are losing sight of what is important and that is to share and pass the hunting experience on to the next generation. I hope I'll be able to pass this on to my little boy someday, and not have to talk about the way things were.

 

[cancarver]

Bobby,

Like I stated, it has been a while that I have take a formal class on surveys. But now that someone else who is qualified, has discredited it maybe you could take some time to resond. Especially that you post it on your site and pass it as a valid survey of ND sportsmans views. If you would like to give away the database, I am sure we could put together a survey. But based on the fact that it is suspect that you were even given the database, I would highly doubt you would give to to me or any other independent survey firm.

BTW If you read my previous posts,

1 I am against outfitters and large leases/commercialization of hunting
2 I accept limits of they are based on the resource
3 In most areas for waterfowl I don't believe their is an overcrowding problem.
4 this is a land rights issue, if you don't own the land you do not have anymore right to hunt or walk on it than any other NR or resident.
5 The open land tresspass in law in ND has been taken advantage of by both residents and NR's
6 I am agianst restrictive zoning because it hurts the freelancer
7 we are all hunters, put your energy into fighting PETA and other anti groups rather than trying to limit fellow hunters
8 with the lower pond counts in the upcoming years you will not see 30,000 NR's

 

[Bobby Cox]

Well Full Force Five, it looks like we have an impasse here. You contend that because some of the survey questions were leading, in your and Cancarver's opinion, you "wouldn't give a plug nickel for the results contained in your "survey" and the NDSA should not be a voice for real sportsman."

In response, let me say first that all studies all flawed. I've been doing research for quite a while, and I haven't seen a perfect study yet. The real question is whether or not the study, given that it wasn't perfect, is good enough to draw valid inferences.

Let's take a moment to examine what we do know about the survey and our current impasse:

1. I can honestly say that the survey was an earnest attempt to estimate how resident hunters of North Dakota felt about nonresident waterfowl hunters and their impacts on the quality of their hunting. Early on in this debate (going back a couple of years or more), those opposing caps tried to portray the support for caps as coming only from a few disgruntled hunters in Jamestown, North Dakota who formed the North Dakota Sportsmen's Alliance. I told the Directors of the Alliance that we should go way out of our way to do the survey as best as we could to find out for ourselves whether resident hunters, as a whole, supported our views. So doing the survey well was just as important for deciding whether or not to continue the battle to restrict nonresident hunters (to a reasonable level) as it was for gathering ammunition to support the Alliance's viewpoint, and defending it against unfounded attacks such as yours. So it was very much in the best interest of the Alliance's efforts to try to measure public sentiment accurately and precisely.

2. A lot of highly qualified researchers think the survey was very well done. A very partial list of these folks includes myself (Ph.D., Wildlife and Fisheries Science from LSU, currently employed as a Wildlife Research Biologist for a federal science center), Dr. Brian Gray (Ph.D., Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi State University, currently employed as the Head of Conservation for a major wildlife conservation organization and who did his Ph.D. with a mail survey such as ours and who has since published at least a dozen papers using mail survey data), Dr. Glen Sargeant (Ph.D., Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point, currently employed as a Statistician at a federal science center), Mr. Terry Shaffer (M.S., Applied Statistics, University of Minnesota at Crookston, currently employed as the Chief of Northern Plains Ecology at a federal science center), and Dr. Mark Nawrot (MRN above [please fill in the educational details here, Mark], who is a Professor of Psychology at a major college and who also teaches a course in Research Methodology).

3. Two anonymous Internet posters, Cancarver from Wisconsin and Full Force Five from Minnesota, think the survey is totally invalid. We know nothing about Cancarver's credentials in reaching this conclusion, but we know that Full Force Five, who agrees entirely with him, stated above that "I know what I'm talking about in terms of conducting an unbiased surveys, I do if for a living along with analyzing data." We also know from Full Force Five's statement above that "I asked another friend of mine who works for the largest survey firms in the nation, he just laughed at some of the questions." We know nothing more about Full Force Five's or his friend's credentials.

4. Both of you and Cancarver took issue primarily with Question 8, even though the NDSA's viewpoint of restricting nonresident hunters was LEAST supported by the results of that question, where less than 50% of respondents answered Yes. All of your suggested changes to Question 8 would have simply allowed one to make an inference as to whether or not hunting quality had changed over time for resident hunters. We all know that quality of hunting could be influenced by a myriad of factors. We wanted to know whether or not residents perceived nonresident hunters as impacting the quality of their hunting experiences, so we asked this question directly. We were very careful throughout the survey to never say that nonresident hunters were "good" or "bad." That's what makes the questions nonleading. I think MRN above addressed quite well your accusations on "leading" questions.

5. Neither you nor Cancarver, nor anyone else for that matter, has any data whatsoever to refute any of the results of the survey. I'll make the same offer to you that I did to Cancarver---if you'd like to do your own survey to test the validity of ours, I'll send you the HIP database free of charge to get you started. The survey itself, if you follow the same accepted methodology that we did, will cost you about $1500 in postage, plus about 300 hours of time for data entry, error-checking, and analysis.

I could go on, but I really don't think it's necessary to convince anyone on this board of whether or not the results of the survey can be trusted. Your clear animosity toward the results of the survey, and for the North Dakota Sportsmen's Alliance, is evident in your statement, "I wouldn't give a plug nickel for the results contained in your "survey" and the NDSA should not be a voice for real sportsman." This statement strongly indicates that your efforts to discredit the survey are motived by your dislike of the results, and their significance in terms of restricting nonresidents' access to come and hunt in North Dakota each and every year they so choose. I think it's time for you to take your rubber knife and "rolling eye smiley faces" and retire from this gunfight. If you'd care to identify yourself, along with your mailing address, I will send you a reprint of the paper after it is published.

Here's something for all nonresidents to consider: Over the last few years, the freelance nonresident hunter who came to North Dakota to hunt waterfowl lost forever what he once had, and that situation has changed forever. The news about the wonderful waterfowl hunting in North Dakota was spread wide to the world via articles in DU and Wildfowl magazines, the Internet, and other sources. More and more and more nonresidents started coming to North Dakota, and hunters who either lived here or had been coming here to hunt as nonresidents for several the years could see the hunting quality deteriorate more and more every year. For wealthy nonresidents who don't mind paying large sums of money to guides or large landowners for exclusive access to hunt, the current situation is not a bad deal, and may even be better than it was in the past. For both the freelance nonresident hunter and the freelance resident hunter, the current situation is much worse than in the past, and our survey makes that clear. The only way nonresidents are going to maintain some semblance of "the way things were" is by restrictions on the number of nonresident hunters allowed. Eric Hustad stated well above that you can support restrictions and have good hunting in half or more of the years, on average, or oppose restrictions and have bad hunting each and every year.

Here's one final point for all resident hunters to consider: There's been some discussion on this board regarding whether or not to form a North Dakota Waterfowler's Association or similar group. Muzzy (who works for NDGF) correctly pointed out that we have a preponderance of small wildlife clubs throughout the state now. I think that the relatively small readership on this board will only add another small club. If you truly are concerned about waterfowl hunting quality and other important wildlife issues, I urge you to join and become active in one of the already established sportsmen's groups. If you don't have the stomach or desire to be labeled as "one of the guys in the black hats," instead of joining the North Dakota Sporsmen's Alliance you could join the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, the United Sportsmen of North Dakota, Cass County Wildlife, or the group up at Grand Forks (forgive me, I couldn't remember the name). If you do, you will discover that all of these groups have been fighting on the same side for some time now, even though it is largely the Sportsmen's Alliance that gets beat up in the press and on Internet talk sites. In fact, there have been several joint resolutions passed by all the major wildlife clubs in the state in the last several months, which included the Sportsmen's Alliance.

 

[Bobby Cox]

Cancarver:

Your latest post wasn't up when I replied to Full Force Five, but I trust my reply to him fulfilled your request for a response as well. Forgive me, but I forgot to add to your impressive list of credentials that you "took some survey methodology courses some while back." Send me your e-mail address and I'll send you the database. Would you care to elaborate on how it was questionable how I received the database? Just so you'll know, anyone could pay the $100 to NDGF and request it.

 

[bioman]

Dear Dr. Cox:

Thanks for coming to this site and sharing your knowledge and information on the survey. I am a former resident who has witnessed the absolute destruction of the true "North Dakota waterfowling experience" by the greed and economic interests of both the State and commercial interests. I am ashamed at both the arrogance and hubris that most NRs espouse about their right to hunt in North Dakota. I am 100% for a cap number on NRs. I feel it should have been lower, and all the whining and *****ing that goes on these sites is a testament to the maturity and values that today's sportsmen espouse, especially NRs.

Keep fighting the good fight! Even though you have moved to the other Dakota.

Cheers!

 

[Guest]

First let me say my primary concern is the resource, in any situation or location.

With that said, I've hunted North Dakota the past several years, around the Oakes area. During that time I have never seen a reason for a cap. Never shared a swamp with another group and rarely hear shooting in the distance. Do I have distain for the NDSA, no not really, other than I think it's embarrassing for an organization to hide behind the slogan of "doing it to preserve the quality of hunting." I would rather you just say "doing it because we are greedy." I will not return to North Dakota, I have a cabin in northern Minnesota, which should be a nice substitute. Where things are simple and I feel welcomed. The hunting for waterfowl is not as good, but the grouse hunting and walleye fishing make up for it.

Now back to the issue at hand. My first impression of your post is that you're back tracking. In an early post you admit that Question 8 should have been reworded "If I had taken the time to respond point-by-pont to Cancarver, I would have conceded that question 8 should have been rewritten as", now you're thumping your chest and flashing your degrees, along with others, trying to prove the validity. I'm not going to spend time "making fine distinctions, splitting hairs or squabbling over this and that." Not because I'm somehow intimidated but because it would prove nothing. I prefer to remain anonymous.

The heart of the matter, this whole resident non-resident business is it's not 1973. Things change, maybe change is slower to come to North Dakota but it's inventible. Does it suck, yes. Does it bother me that they are putting a Wal-Mart near my house, where once was prime deer and wild-turkey habitat, yes. What can I do about it, not much. You can't bring back 1973.

In my estimation other measures should be taken before a cap.
1) Separate the pheasant and duck license.
2) More Zones.
3) Cap the zones
4) Limit the number of licenses available for outfitters.
5) Reduce the number of days for NR's from 14 to 7 contiguous days only.

I've wasted enough of my time, I'll just take my rubber knife and "rolling eye smiley faces" and retire from this gunfight :roll: I'm really intimated by you. :roll: Anytime you want to have a discussion about this, Thoreau and why he really went to the woods or any other topic, I'm game. Surveys will always have fundament flaws, agreed. From my perspective based on my education and common sense assessment. . . there is a fundamental bias with this survey.

 

[prairie hunter]

Bobby, nothing wrong with anonymous posters, that is what the internet is about. I am pretty sure there are few people on this site that post both with their name and an anonymous handle.

Bioman, I too believe that something needs to be done to insure that ND maintains quality access. Hunting success is a function of effort, luck, experience, and many other variables, but if you do not have places to go then you cannot succeed from the start.

With that said, in the late 1970s, there were well over 50,000 resident waterfowl hunters and may be 10,000 nonresidents. That totals over 60,000 hunters. This number is relatively close to the 60,000 to 70,000 waterfowl hunters in ND last fall. Many people hunt ND when the water levels are high, publicity ultra-high (ND tourism articles in magazines, TV shows, and ND game & fish press releases I might add). The difference now is the level of leasing, etc. Nonresidents at the time were limited to 10 days not 14. Just like now, hunting pressure and competition was often intense on weekends in the late 70s and early 80s but weekdays were open.

The area north and east of Woodworth (around the US F&W research station) was posted heavy in the 1970s and early & 80s. Not posted in '94 or '96, this area is now posted heavy again. Same posters bright green, orange or red signs. Who is leasing this land residents or NR ?

I remain highly skepticle that anything done by the ND government will change or impact what is occurring in ND. Mother nature maybe, government we will see. I have been blasted on this site for stating some of my comments earlier in March, but stand by my original beliefs that the outfitters will get what they need to survive and grow from the state of ND. Only severe drought will set them back.

Look at my recent post regarding NR deer hunting. NR landowners get first picks (this law does not distinguish between the retired farmer now living in AZ or the rich banker in California that owns pheasant land in SW ND). The guides get the next share of licenses. If the legislature follows this precendent, Cancarver will get a license, he owns land in ND. Anyone hunting with a guide will get a license next. The guy growing up in ND wanting to return to hunt with friends and family (often on family land not in his name) will fight for what is left.

 

[Perry Thorvig]

There are different ways to interpret the results of the NDSA poll. It all depends on your point of view. I look at it this way.

The recent North Dakota Sportsmen's Alliance poll reveals that half of those North Dakota residents that were surveyed had only hunted for 13 years or less. (I have been hunting in North Dakota for twice that amount of time.) That half has only been hunting since 1988. They are what I would call the new; North Dakota hunter - probably a lot of guys under 30. The ND resident who started in 1988 began his hunting at a time when hunting pressure was the lowest (around 30,000 licenses) that it has been in maybe the last 50 years ; certainly since 1975 when there were 73,310 licenses issued. In the new North Dakota hunters first five years of hunting there was virtually no pressure and not many ducks. Remember how dry it was in those days? A good number of the birds that the new hunter first shot may have been snow geese. We had some real good snow goose shoots in 1987 and 1991. In the last eight or nine years water has increased along with the ducks. The new hunter experienced wonderful duck shooting during this period of ideal conditions. Much to the dismay of some residents, the non-residents found out about the North Dakota increase in ducks and the new resident hunter started to see more non-resident license plates. It is only natural that these new hunters would be a little resentful. On the other hand, the old-timers have seen this kind of hunting pressure before and lived through it.

Despite this growth in non-resident hunters, the North Dakota hunter still got out there to hunt for an average of 10 days according to the poll. That is more than my six days that I hunt in two long weekend trips to North Dakota. They also got 15 birds a piece. That is probably a little better than what I and those in my hunting party do for a season average if the snow geese are not cooperating. So, I conclude that the average resident has done alright despite growing hunting pressure.

The other, almost encouraging, result of the NDSA poll is that only 49% (less than half) of the respondents said they felt that their waterfowl experience was adversely affected by NRs. The other half was not impacted or didn't know. We have a virtual tie. I wonder if the old North Dakota hunter has a different attitude than the new hunter who has only hunted during this recent growth in hunting pressure.

I have had some very good hunts in recent years in North Dakota. The ducks were everywhere. But, overall, I have also been disappointed with the overall hunting experience. However, I know that my disappointment has much more to do with the diminished flight of snow geese than it has with other non-residents crowding me out. It is increasingly difficult to combine snow goose hunting and duck hunting in the same trip to North Dakota. That's why I am disappointed. That used to be what we waited 11 months a year for. Now, it is almost gone.

If I were a resident and had the NDSA survey in front of me, I might be tempted to blame the non-residents for my disappointment over the last few years. I know that if the NDSA gave me a choice on a survey of keeping some folks out of my state, I would probably answer, "yes"; Therefore, that probably explains why there are 66% who want limits but only 49% felt adversely impacted by non-residents.

That's the way I see it. By the way, I can live with a 20,000 something cap. Just keep the licenses out of the hands of the guides and outfitters!!

 

[MRN]

Bobby - your points are all right on, although your style is far too gracious and professional and magnanimous. Haven't you learned anything from Benny? (Is Benny on any boards anymore? ) Being reasonable and saying something could have been worded differently is only useful with similarly reasonable folk. Can I have the database too? I too would like to spend my spare time crunching numbers and taking crap, rather than finishing my boat blind.....

FFF - personal? Without thought, rationale, or solid basis you sought to impugn both the integrity and professionalism of a group of good scientists. However, by way of illustration, did the suggestion that you were whack "lead" you to think - "Hey, I must be whack". Of course not, thereby showing that "leading" questions are a pretty small threat to internal validity (unless you are dealing with feeble minded folk).

However, asking clear questions about a specific topic (that you think might be biased, and Bobby touched on in #4) is a much tougher deal. To wit, lets take a closer look at your suggestion: "How would you rate your duck hunting experience during the 2000 season 1) good 2) poor 3) etc etc" Responses to this question tell us nothing about either the role of non-residents or the quality of waterfowling - the information we are actually seeking. This is about as useless a question as can appear on a survey. And you charge folks???? In the case of the survey used, the question you claim is biased actually contains conditional information which is needed to get to the information sought.

Finally, you fail to understand that people can influence whats happening. if ND wants it to be 1973, then we can make it so. That's exactly what's happening here. We aren't going to be mowed over like you say you are. Fine,you can lay down, but we're not about to.

Bioman - always like your thoughtfulness. Since you're in Sacramento - do you know Mike Riley? He a buddy? (joke to few folks here)

M.

 

[cancarver]

perry good points, I will also add that in NDSA results found that residents hunted 10 days, where in the G&F hand out they claim based on HIP that residents hunt 4 days a year.

bobby as far as my credentials they will never match up to a PhD from LSU. I only have an undergrad in environmental science and a Masters in Resource Analysis. So I quess I am wrong, (arrogance of Phd's) BUt I would be more than happy to post a link to your survey on some of the other sites and see what they think. I could title it either "check this survey out, what do you think" or I could lead them in like some of your questions and say "check out this survey, look at how they are leading the questions, and how can a survey from a org supporting 10,500 NR's produce a valid survey, what do you think?"

I also like the spam at the end of your post. There is a reason I post here and not the other ND site. Because though we may not agree on issues and how to solve them, these people here are not commercial enteprises, they care about ducks and duck hunting. To suggest that a waterfowl organization is not the best idea, is a shameful attempt to promote your own interests. Waterfowl Orgs whether small or not only help the ducks, look at WI and MN very political, and their interests represent ducks, not land greedy shooters. If they can put together a small Waterfowl org that believed in not harming the freelancer, and attempted to control guides, along with all the other benfets of similar orgs I would be one of the first in line to send my membership dues. The org wouldn't have to be big, NDSA is evident of that, 1500 memebers out of what? 70,000 sportsman in the state. Your org seems to be politcal and probably has done some good, but recomending 10,500 NR's, come on.

 

[prairie hunter]

I am not going there no more. Too hot for me.

Go hunting.