01-18-2008, 03:44 PM
[reply]
I disagree that a DWR presence is a waste of time here.
... we really won't be asking the same people we want in the field more, to spend more time on the internet chatting? We are asking the biology and management folks to educate us. At least that's the way I see it.[/reply]
I can see your point, but I still disagree. Does the angling public believe that the biologists and management folks need not spend more time in the field? Should they be spending time on the internet chatting?
Email isn't much different than these boards. Think about the progression of a question raised on a forum (or email). A DWR person replies with an answer. That answer generates more questions. More answers. More questions. discussion. more discussion. more questions. more answers. argument. agreement. another question. another answer...
This chain can continue to grow, and grow, and grow. How much time does it take for a DWR person to answer a question either through email or a chat forum? That time might be well spent, but at what expense?
Education of the angling public is extremely important. It (obviously) needs to be done. But, how do you do it? Who does it? If the biologists are doing it, then they aren't doing their own jobs.
I've said in the past that the UDWR is screwing up by hiring biologists with degrees in fisheries management. Fisheries management is no longer a position that manages fish. It's a people management position. They (UDWR) need to update their positional requirements. Biologists should have sociology / psychology degrees in order to manage fishermen better! Isn't that what it's progressed to?
Drew -- this thread brings up a very good point. I wonder if you have any info on it: Prior to the DWR removing its forums, how many hits a day did the DWR website generate? Now that the forums are gone, how many hits a day to the wildlife.ut.gov website?
It's extremely unfortunate that the DWR did not have the cajones to stand up for itself with the forums. It's
that a simple letter from an animal rights group could shut down the forums that quickly. The dest part of losing that resource was THE LOSS OF INPUT FROM BIOLOGISTS! They may not have been posting on those forums, but there were other sections of the DWR website that had a plethora of information for anglers. The educational value of the DWR website was barely being recognized. The Hotspots map was simply the tip of the iceberg! It had tremendous potential!
But, without the forums, I would be willing to bet that the DWRs website traffic has been cut by more than 85%. What reason do people have to go there? Notices posted on the DWRs website most likely go unnoticed.
Drew -- rather than having management request for biologists like Richard and yourself to frequent BFT, or UOTF, why not request to re-instate the DWR's own forums? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense?? Bring people to your own site, where you already have the information fishermen are asking for!
[signature]
Quote:
I disagree that a DWR presence is a waste of time here.
... we really won't be asking the same people we want in the field more, to spend more time on the internet chatting? We are asking the biology and management folks to educate us. At least that's the way I see it.[/reply]
I can see your point, but I still disagree. Does the angling public believe that the biologists and management folks need not spend more time in the field? Should they be spending time on the internet chatting?
Email isn't much different than these boards. Think about the progression of a question raised on a forum (or email). A DWR person replies with an answer. That answer generates more questions. More answers. More questions. discussion. more discussion. more questions. more answers. argument. agreement. another question. another answer...
This chain can continue to grow, and grow, and grow. How much time does it take for a DWR person to answer a question either through email or a chat forum? That time might be well spent, but at what expense?
Education of the angling public is extremely important. It (obviously) needs to be done. But, how do you do it? Who does it? If the biologists are doing it, then they aren't doing their own jobs.
I've said in the past that the UDWR is screwing up by hiring biologists with degrees in fisheries management. Fisheries management is no longer a position that manages fish. It's a people management position. They (UDWR) need to update their positional requirements. Biologists should have sociology / psychology degrees in order to manage fishermen better! Isn't that what it's progressed to?
Drew -- this thread brings up a very good point. I wonder if you have any info on it: Prior to the DWR removing its forums, how many hits a day did the DWR website generate? Now that the forums are gone, how many hits a day to the wildlife.ut.gov website?
It's extremely unfortunate that the DWR did not have the cajones to stand up for itself with the forums. It's
that a simple letter from an animal rights group could shut down the forums that quickly. The dest part of losing that resource was THE LOSS OF INPUT FROM BIOLOGISTS! They may not have been posting on those forums, but there were other sections of the DWR website that had a plethora of information for anglers. The educational value of the DWR website was barely being recognized. The Hotspots map was simply the tip of the iceberg! It had tremendous potential! But, without the forums, I would be willing to bet that the DWRs website traffic has been cut by more than 85%. What reason do people have to go there? Notices posted on the DWRs website most likely go unnoticed.
Drew -- rather than having management request for biologists like Richard and yourself to frequent BFT, or UOTF, why not request to re-instate the DWR's own forums? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense?? Bring people to your own site, where you already have the information fishermen are asking for!
[signature]