[size 3][font "Times New Roman"]Here is your chance to voice your opinion on Utah’s RAC and public input processes. There is currently a survey being conducted by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources that asks the public to answer questions regarding the public input processes and provide comment. If hunt and fish in Utah, click on the link below to take this 10 minute survey. [/font][/size]
[size 3][font "Times New Roman"] [/font][/size]
[url "http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=935712818968"]http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=935712818968[/url]
[signature]
I took the survey and it seems reasonable. Hopefully they will get some constructive input.
[signature]
I also took it. Let's see what happens next.
[signature]
I took the survey.....it took like 30 minutes....but worth it.
[font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3]I took the survey and I really had no business doing so. 3/4 of the questions that were asked were about things I had no clue about. I'm sure that there are people who are so involved with the DWR public input and RAC processes and know how they work that are qualified to give meaningful feedback on this survey but for the average citizen who might attend a RAC meeting or two and might volunteer for a DWR project or two, a lot of questions were way too involved and over their heads, including mine. I'm not that involved to give good meaningful feedback on this survey and only can skew results on things I know nothing about.[/size][/black][/font]
[signature]
[cool][#0000ff]Welcome aboard and thanks for posting this. I found it and took it the other day and was going to put it up on the board, but just hadn't got to it.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I have another survey I am going to post as soon as I get the language and the facts right...about anglers' willingness to chip in $1 a year for habitat improvement and fisheries restoration.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
[black][size 3]I can see what you are saying BLM, When I first saw this post and clicked to look at it, I noticed it was on the Surveymonkey website. Not a place I would expect to take an official Govenrment survey, not when they have programmers a plenty that I know of, but, I went over to the DWR website, and low and behold, there was a request to the public for this very survey. [/size][/black]
[black][size 3][/size][/black]
[black][size 3]OK, says I, they want my self recognized political cluelessness for some reason on a topic. So I also took the test. And with the obvious result skewing effects that the DWR must know are coming, my answers will be included at some point and analyzed along with the responses of those very few people that really would have the experience to know what the heck some of those questions had to do with. I think they should have included an "I'm clueless" catagory in each question that allowed the honest folks to admit they would have no idea. The Neutral option supplied on some of the questions, does not qualify as a no opinion catagory. [/size][/black]
[size 3][/size]
[size 3]Well folks there you have it. Go forth and skew those results as you see fit. Heck, as I looked at it, I realized that a person could really do a bang up job by taking that survey multiple times (proxies and puppets came immeditately to mind) - it would not take a computer genius to see the possibility for entertainment there. They should have required some form of real ID for the results to be considered valid. But on the other hand ... they did say thank you.[/size]
[signature]
Interesting to read about the apparent confusion with this survey. It seems very straightforward to me, but maybe it's because I have done extensive academic research into the need to incorporate public input into environmental decision making processes at a grassroots level. Most environmental legislation proposals emanate from special interest groups with a certain inclination to advocate for specific conservation issues they deem to be most important. Bass folks advocate protection for bass, trout enthusiasts advocate for trout, etc. Yes, some of these conservation principles are logical......some however are overly radical such as legislating that all bass should be released or all trout should be released. This domination of the "process" through which wildlife legislation is proposed and implemented is problematic in that legislation often favors those special interest groups at the expense of the general angling public. Special interest groups are more organized and have a disproportionate voice than pedestrian, run of the mill anglers.
However the regs in the proclamation that result from this legislative process AFFECT ALL anglers because everyone has to abide by the laws. Thus, in light of notions of individual autonomy, democracy, fair representation, as well as egalitarianism, all people that are affected by the laws should have a VOICE in constructing these laws rather than just having an small group of people with special interests dictate what everyone should do. This is simple democracy at work.
Thus, I do think that this is a very positive, and extremely significant move on the part of the DWR to make an attempt to incorporate input from the general public into the actual decision-making process, rather than utilizing the decide, announce, and defend approach that typifies what goes on in Rac meetings. At those meetings......suggested proposals are already in place and the public meeting solicits public comment but the public commentary has very little or no actual POWER to affect the decisions. This is starkly exemplified by the Yuba perch controversy. The public input had no effect on changing the regs for 2007.
So please do not just throw away your basic American rights......voice your opinion. Be active in co-constructing your society. Your voice matters whether you think you are clueless or not. Our democratic process are flawed.....and it seems it's finally taking a turn in the right direction. Please don't just go and invalidate your own perspectives by saying you have no right to comment cause you are uninformed. Please take the time to inform yourselves too. Additionally some of the jargon terms are defined at the outset of this survey.
Some of you mentioned that you don't know how the RAC works. THAT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. There are questions regarding that in the survey. Everybody who buys a hunting or fishing license in Utah or even those who don't and just enjoy seeing wildlife should do the survey. Don't let the fact that you haven't ever been to a meeting stop you from participating.
[font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3]I can't say I agree with everything you have to say. An uninformed voter is a dangerous voter. The right to exercise your vote also entails the responsibility to be educated and informed to make intelligent decisions. It is a basic premise in the democratic process. Voicing an opinion that has little or no merit because it was made on a guess or a whim, does no one any good and can aid in making bad decisions. Be careful what you ask for because you just may get it and then we'll all have to live with it.[/size][/black][/font]
[signature]
Yes, very true......you are right about needing to be informed. I urged that too in my verbose spiel....lol.
[signature]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3]And a fine verbose spiel it was![/size][/black][/font]
[signature]
My input is, if they want to get the public more involved, they need to educate the public more and advertise what they want and when they want it. We all know that costs money, but these types of surveys are a start. I think they should have asked a few more questions that would have shown them that most of us don't know exactly what they do.[pirate]
[signature]