Let's get something straight about the LPDMI surveys
Feb 10, 2016 12:49:48 GMT -5
hartman756, daappleknocker, and 1 more like this
Post by Dale Malusi on Feb 10, 2016 12:49:48 GMT -5
There has been talk about the wording of the MAPR surveys and bias there-in.
Following is a letter from a noted member of the MI/DNR concerning The LPDMI survey language. It seems that he admits that the NW12 survey was biased. I may be mistaken, but "Consequently, we replaced this paragraph with the following sentence:" seems to affirm "could potentially lead to biased answers".
You be the judge;
"We appreciate the comments provided by all reviewers. We received comments from 15 people. We have addressed all the comments received and have prepared a final version of the questionnaire. The comments received and the changes that we made are described below.
Many reviewers were concerned with the inclusion of all or parts of the following paragraph in the questionnaire:
The intent of the proposed APRs is to protect young bucks from harvest; increase the overall number of bucks; increase the number of 2½ year-old and older bucks available to hunters in the region; and to increase hunter satisfaction.
Many reviewers felt that some information in this paragraph could potentially lead to biased answers because the statements were either inaccurate or misleading. The reviewers stated the proportion of bucks may increase but the overall number of buck may not increase. Furthermore, hunter satisfaction may not improve for all hunters, especially for those hunters that could not take bucks protected by APRs.
Consequently, we replaced this paragraph with the following sentence:
This proposal aims to protect most 1½ year old males by allowing the harvest of only those antlered deer that have four or more antler points on one side, each one or more inches in length.
Some reviewers suggested two additions to clarify the proposal. The first suggestion was to state that antler points need to be at least one inch long to count as legal points. The second suggestion was to state that youth were exempt from APRs only during the youth season. We made changes to address these comments.
One reviewer suggested that we remove the following two questions. These two questions were:
2. Do you own at least 5 acres of land in the area affected by the proposed regulations?
3. Do you farm in the area affected by the proposed regulations?
Both of these questions were requested by the NRC; thus, we did not alter the questions.
One reviewer requested that we allow respondents to select “no opinion” as an answer to the question about supporting the proposed regulation. The NRC has already requested will only provide “yes” and “no” as valid answers; thus, we did not change the wording.
We do not plan to release copies of the final questionnaire because we do not want to risk having the final questionnaire circulated and causing confusion with the official survey. The samples for both surveys have been selected, and we expect the questionnaires to be delivered in mid-November.
It will take about three months to complete the APR survey; thus, we anticipate a report will be completed in March. Although the survey should be done in March, the NRC has committed to completing a thorough review of the effects of APR regulations. This review will not be completed before the APR survey is done. Therefore, even if the proposed APR regulations are supported by at least 66% of hunters, the NRC does not plan to make any regulation changes until the review of APRs has been completed.
Once again, thanks for your assistance.
Brian"
I fail to see where any of this statement is made by an organizer of the LPDMI, regarding the wording is true;
"They had NOTHING to do with the MAR process that was in place and were added only because of the whining that took place by groups that were stunned that the NW12 passed so convincingly.
If you believe that the NW12 passage was due to healthy fawns, reduced car accidents, etc., which by the way weren't questions, then I'll tell you the reason the LPDMI surveys only got majority support was because of the addition of the irrelevant questions that bastardized the proposal process integrity. "
Following is a letter from a noted member of the MI/DNR concerning The LPDMI survey language. It seems that he admits that the NW12 survey was biased. I may be mistaken, but "Consequently, we replaced this paragraph with the following sentence:" seems to affirm "could potentially lead to biased answers".
You be the judge;
"We appreciate the comments provided by all reviewers. We received comments from 15 people. We have addressed all the comments received and have prepared a final version of the questionnaire. The comments received and the changes that we made are described below.
Many reviewers were concerned with the inclusion of all or parts of the following paragraph in the questionnaire:
The intent of the proposed APRs is to protect young bucks from harvest; increase the overall number of bucks; increase the number of 2½ year-old and older bucks available to hunters in the region; and to increase hunter satisfaction.
Many reviewers felt that some information in this paragraph could potentially lead to biased answers because the statements were either inaccurate or misleading. The reviewers stated the proportion of bucks may increase but the overall number of buck may not increase. Furthermore, hunter satisfaction may not improve for all hunters, especially for those hunters that could not take bucks protected by APRs.
Consequently, we replaced this paragraph with the following sentence:
This proposal aims to protect most 1½ year old males by allowing the harvest of only those antlered deer that have four or more antler points on one side, each one or more inches in length.
Some reviewers suggested two additions to clarify the proposal. The first suggestion was to state that antler points need to be at least one inch long to count as legal points. The second suggestion was to state that youth were exempt from APRs only during the youth season. We made changes to address these comments.
One reviewer suggested that we remove the following two questions. These two questions were:
2. Do you own at least 5 acres of land in the area affected by the proposed regulations?
3. Do you farm in the area affected by the proposed regulations?
Both of these questions were requested by the NRC; thus, we did not alter the questions.
One reviewer requested that we allow respondents to select “no opinion” as an answer to the question about supporting the proposed regulation. The NRC has already requested will only provide “yes” and “no” as valid answers; thus, we did not change the wording.
We do not plan to release copies of the final questionnaire because we do not want to risk having the final questionnaire circulated and causing confusion with the official survey. The samples for both surveys have been selected, and we expect the questionnaires to be delivered in mid-November.
It will take about three months to complete the APR survey; thus, we anticipate a report will be completed in March. Although the survey should be done in March, the NRC has committed to completing a thorough review of the effects of APR regulations. This review will not be completed before the APR survey is done. Therefore, even if the proposed APR regulations are supported by at least 66% of hunters, the NRC does not plan to make any regulation changes until the review of APRs has been completed.
Once again, thanks for your assistance.
Brian"
I fail to see where any of this statement is made by an organizer of the LPDMI, regarding the wording is true;
"They had NOTHING to do with the MAR process that was in place and were added only because of the whining that took place by groups that were stunned that the NW12 passed so convincingly.
If you believe that the NW12 passage was due to healthy fawns, reduced car accidents, etc., which by the way weren't questions, then I'll tell you the reason the LPDMI surveys only got majority support was because of the addition of the irrelevant questions that bastardized the proposal process integrity. "
At the moment, I can't see anything changing for the better.