Petchenik worked with DNR’s licensing staff to run a query of the automated licensing system to see how many people bought a trout stamp for every year 2004-2008 but stopped buying the stamp after 2008. That total was 2, 268. Those people received a letter to verify their address was still current. The survey design called for 800 of them to get a survey in the mail to fill out and return. The surveys were mailed out the second week of October.
That should be an interesting survey. Hmmmm…didn’t the Wii game console come out in 2008-2009? :lol:
The information given by the DNR is more complicated than they present, and the information is misleading overall. Lets examine that actual raw data rather than what is presented in that article.
You would believe from the article, that the number of trout stamps has been decreasing; but that is not true. Trout stamp sales actually increased from 2004 to 2008 and 2009 is even higher. So it is obvious that while some folks have stopped buying trout stamps, even more new anglers are buying trout stamps.
If they are doing that survey to see why anglers are quiting, I would suggest that they ask the new anglers why they started. Maybe by doing that, we can get even more new trout anglers.
“The number of trout stamps sold in 2008 increased 5 percent over 2007, and 2009 sales increased 7 percent over 2008.”
http://dnr.wi.gov/news/DNRNews_article_Lookup.asp?id=1895
If you look at the PDF below, the number of trout stamps sold in 2008 was 136,836 and grew to 146,803 in 2009, a gain of 10,000 trout stamps. And trout anglers increased from 191,995 to 197,555. There was a decrease in both trout stamps sold and trout anglers from 2004 at 137,828 sold stamps and 212,414 anglers vs 2006 at 129,194 stamps sold and 189,168 anglers respectively.
However, the trout stamp fee increased from $7.25 to $10 in 2006, an increase of about 40%. Could the fee increase be a cause? The survey says…
“The cost of the trout stamp has increased from $2.50 during 1978-1983, to $3.25 during 1984- 1991, to $7.25 during 1992-2006, and currently is $10.00 (since 2006).”
“The number of trout stamps sold varies from year-to-year and averages about 142,000 stamps annually over the last 10 years. In 2008 sales increased by 5% over 2007 and in 2009 sales increased 7% over 2008.”
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pubs/troutstamp0810.pdf
So is the glass half full or half empty?
It reminds me of a true story told to me by my late best friend, Jim Greenlee, the former owner of Weinbrenner Shoe Company. Jim was the former VP to the Chariman of Bata, founded in 1894 which became the the largest international shoe company by 1931.
Early on, the Bata sent two employees to South America to see if there was a potential market. There reported independently to the Chairman. One came back and said that there was no market for shoes because no one wore shoes in South America. The other said that the market potential was great because no one wore shoes! Bata opened stores in Brazil and soon captured the South American Market.
change is coming.
All DNR staff I have talked to say the same thing.
ALL anglers are being asked for input.
Some of it will not be liked…
Lisa Gaumnitz
DNR Public Affairs Manager, Water Division
[(608) 264-8942](tel:(608) 264-8942)
lisa.gaumnitz@wisconsin.gov
101 S. Webster St.
Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
|[TABLE=“class: cf ix”]
|
[TR]
[TD]
Gaumnitz, Lisa L - DNR to me
|
[/TD]
[TD=“class: gH”]show details 10:57 PM (13 hours ago)
[/TD]
[TD=“class: gH”][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[LEFT]I’m hoping this year. Karl Scheidegger, an FH biologist and their outreach guy, this year takes over from Larry Claggett. He asked for comments from DNR folks earlier this year, and my big advice was to ease into the regs. Right now, page 3 is a wall of text and even I don’t want to read it. Hopefully, he can break it down a little so the regs are a little more approachable.[/LEFT]
[LEFT] [/LEFT]
[LEFT]Someone is also supposed to be updating the maps in some way to make those more useable[/LEFT]
[LEFT] [/LEFT]
[LEFT]If you have specific suggestions, please feel free to pass them on to me and I’ll forward them to Karl and to the other gentleman working on the maps. His name escapes me now, but I’ll remember it later…
[/LEFT]
Since they are asking for input, and want to know what anglers want…just tell them you want MORE fish and BIGGER fish that are EASY to catch and FIGHT real hard on waters than only YOU have access to. Is that asking too much? ;o)
OK, maybe ask for access to MORE waters.
I believe saying ONLY 2, 268 anglers leaving trout fishing during that time period of STAUNCH trout anglers is minimizing.
It is a BIG deal in my book.
Gross numbers are misleading unless you have the population from which they are taken.
2,268 anglers left but 2,268 out of what? Out of 136,836 in 2008. This is 1.6% of the 2008 stamp buyers. Then 10,000 new stamps or 4 times as many that were lost in 4 years were gained in a single year from 2008 to 2009.
So if 2,268 lost over 4 years is a big deal the gain of 10,000 gained in a year should be very big deal.
I’m not against doing the survey.
What I am against is the slanting of statistics to make it seem as if the sky is falling when in reality, the data tells a totally different story.
This sometimes happens when a researcher massages the data to add importance to their project. It seems more important to say that 2,268 anglers left rather than to say that 1.6% faithful anglers left over a 4 year period. And that statement seems more important than to say that than .4% (less than 1/200) leave per year. They all are true but they convey a different sense of urgency.
It must be a serious concern or Wisconsin who is about as cheap as it comes is sending out surveys.
All groups are being asked for their input. It hasn’t happened in 20 years and the results will be eye opening.
will come back to this when the survey is over and the data is tallied up.
Lets examine the article you referenced to see if you are correct.
“The Department of Natural Resources mailed out surveys earlier this month to more than 800 randomly picked fishing license holders who had once been trout anglers but who had not bought a trout stamp that would allow them to fish for trout in Wisconsin’s inland waters since 2008.”
http://dnr.wi.gov/news/DNRNews_article_Lookup.asp?id=1947
With all due respect, all groups are NOT being asked for their input. It is a limited survey of 800 fishers compared to a total of 136,836 stamp buyers in 2008. And it is limited to those who did not buy stamps, so NONE of the 136,836 who DID buy licenses are being asked their opinion.
That is exactly the point I made in my first reply. They are not asking any of the new anglers or older anglers that have repurchased stamps why they bought stamps. So since they are ignoring over 136,000 anglers how can you say all groups are being surveyed?
I estimate the cost of 800 surveys at about $2.00 a survey for printing, mailing, and data logging is less that $2000.00 not counting the researchers time for analysis. If the survey can be read by an OCR, it is even cheaper. It is pretty cheap anyway. So big bucks are not being spent in my view. They are surveying about 1/3 of their data set of 2,268, and they will be lucky to get a return of 1/3 of the surveys or 10% of their total data set. Is 10% an adequate sample? I look forward to their statistical analysis as to the confidence level of their data.
There is almost always a form of sample bias as to who returns a voluntary survey. Usually those who have a complaint will return voluntary surveys so the return sample will probably be biased toward those who will have negative reasons why they stopped fishing. That’s the way it goes.
Don’t look at the statistical results of the surveys alone. Examine whether they did a probability analysis of their results to see how likely the results are to actually represent the views of their target group. So we look first at the validity of their results BEFORE we look at the results. I truly hope it is not a case of GIGO.
WDNR of the state of Wisconsin with many well trained biologists and scientists think that this survey is a worthy effort.
I believe I will error on the side of people with YEARS of experience.
This people leaving trout fishing in Wisconsin is an EPIDEMIC and needs attention and not be swept under the rug.
Actually we don’t know how many well trained biologists and scientists think this valuable or not. You are concluding something not evidence. You first state a fact, that the DNR has well trained biologists and scientists; but you have offered no proof of the conclusion as to how many do or do not feel it is worth the effort. If you do have evidence you can present it.
As for my opinion, I think it is worth the effort IF the survey is designed correctly and they get a result that has good correlation with the actual beliefs of the target group. I think the published results should list not only what percent gave each answer but also a probability analysis as to the confidence level in each answer.
Secondly, I think epidemic (def - widespread, excessive prevalence) is way overstating it. Trout anglers are increasing not decreasing so how can those leaving be an epidemic? If there is an epidemic it is those beginning to trout fish not those leaving. If there be an epidemic it is in the use of hyperbole.
I leave it to those who read our contrasting views to decide who is more correct.
doing damage control before the stats come out from the survey?
Survey going to change things you don’t want changed?
Trying to disprove a survey before the results come in smells
of bias.
I have been doing my part to get kids in to trout fishing by doing numerous presentations locally at schools.
My next presentation is at Richland Center High school in the middle of November.
I have Westby/Viroqua/Wauzeka and Ithaca schools on my agenda for later in this school year
I believe the ones not starting are directly effected by the ones hanging it up.
What in my post shows bias?
I think if anyone has shown bias it is your lack of reply to the specific facts about how surveys are done and what they can and cannot show. They cannot show why more anglers are becoming trout fishers if you don’t study them. That is a form of bias.
If there be bias it is presenting the study as “All groups are being asked for their input. It hasn’t happened in 20 years and the results will be eye opening.” Saying that a limited study is all encompassing is more than bias. It is a fallacy. Prejudging the results as “eye opening” is bias
Having a predisposition to believe what ever the results are, if the results are not statistically significant is bias. I have no idea what the study will find. I am saying that whatever the results are, they need to be analyzed for how they reflect the actually views of the target group. If that be bias, it is bias for the truth and good science.
I also do fly fishing youth education for the Marathon County DNR and for BOW (Becoming an Outdoors Woman, UWSP). I am a certified DNR Angler Educator, having taken the DNR course for TU leaders in 2007. It is not about who teaches and who does not. It is about the design parameters of the study and what it can show and what it cannot.
Being a good fly fisher does nothing to teach you about what is a valid study and what is not. What does is having an advanced postgraduate degree from Stanford University and actually having a peer reviewed article published in the leading publication in my area of study. I have done both.
So I have no bias other than that the study result in valid results and not result in a simple listing of survey results that may or may not be valid.
Back in the day I did many presentations at Trout Unlimited Chapters.
One thing I noticed in the crowd of the 24 plus presentations that I did was
the glaring lack of “children” at the meetings. The next generation was all
but being ignored.
I spoke at the 2010 Madison Fishing Expo. I can remember someone coming on
here and trying to minimize my speaking there because it was a “Hook and Bullet” crowd.
The guy finally came right out and said he didn’t like the show because it wasn’t a
fly fishing only venue.
Yes I talked about worms all the way up to flies to these people “kids” at the Madison Fishing Expo.
I am scheduled to speak there again in February of 2012. I have also been asked to speak
March 17th and 18th in Eau Claire at the “Hook & Bullets” crowd there.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pubs/troutstamp0810.pdf
See the nice photo of the trout part way down the pdf?
Is my photo I donated to the WDNR.
[http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/regulations/2011/documents/TroutRegs11-12 LowRes.pdf](http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/regulations/2011/documents/TroutRegs11-12 LowRes.pdf)
See the cover shot of the 2011/2012 Trout Regulations?
Is my photo I donated to the WDNR
I was once one of the Trout Stamp Competition Judges a couple years back. I donated my time and
was not compensated.
I have donated many photos to Matt Mitro the lead Trout Scientist for the state of Wisconsin.
I believe my opinion is valuable.
I have no problem with bait or spin fishers. That is how most fly fishers, myself included, began to fish.
We need to be careful that we do not use the bad behavior of some members of a group to tar and feather all members, whether they be bait fisher, spin fishers or fly fishers. I agree that we need more youth. We also need more females.
Our chapter does pretty well in that regard. The third and fourth photos show our female chapter president and mothers who bring their children to our events. Mothers can be fishing mentors to their children:
We teach youth fly casting.
We teach advanced high school students from two school districts about how stream improvement affects stream physics, chemistry and biology. Even young people that do not fish can help preserve the resource when they know not only fishers should care about water quality and biologic diversity.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. But not all opinions have equal validity in areas of scientific study. The best opinions are evidence based and not emotionally based. There should be no expectations on the results or else there is a pre-study bias as I have described previously.
Good works in fly fishing is it’s own reward for which I don’t expect any greater influence on the DNR. What matters is if the opinion is valid and has a scientific basis. Although we both have taught kids and volunteered, our opinion has no currency unless that is opinion is on volunteerism or teaching fishing, which we both have done.
So the value of one’s opinion is based on the area of one’s expertise. In this case we are discussing the design and validity of a scientific study; and whether the results will actually correlate with the study group. Whether you or I are good or even exceptional fishing instructors does not matter; just as it does not matter whether the head of the study has taught kids to fish.
Our volunteerism in getting more kids and adults into fishing shows why we are interested in the results, but the results of the study must be valid to begin with for us to use those results to keep folks in fishing.
I would care to venture a wager that 90 percent of the 2, 268 anglers leaving trout fishing in Wisconsin are the spin and worm guys that like keeping trout and feel they have been micro managed off the streams. I guess it isn’t an epidemic if you don’t fall in to those categories?
I would really like to see what questions are asked on the survey before deciding whether or not the survey results will be of any value. Is there a way to get a copy? I do not feel anyone can state that the survey is good or bad until they know what questions are asked. The fact that trout stamp sells have increased really does not enter into this because it sounds to me like someone is interested in retaining trout fishermen which is, to me, very important. I guess since I am very strong on “customer retention” and “customer service”, I am very interested in knowing why someone who has purchased a trout stamp for 5 straight years now has stopped. Their reason may be very easy to “fix” now and later it may be too large and costly to “fix”.
It is good that trout stamp sells have continued to increase, but, I feel it would be even greater if we would not lose the previous customers.
It is much easier to fill a gallon jug with water if you fix the small hole in the bottom before it becomes a larger hole and we can never fill the jug…
Just my opinion and nothing more…