The new survey that DEC has out through Cornell

[mike rossi]

I get that everyone wants a voice and in an ideal world that would be the case.

 

The bottom line is this whole ordeal may bring change and face it,  Most people don't like change.

There is usually a public comment or stakeholder input meetings phase before most laws or regulations are actually enacted. Everybody can have their say during that period, whether they get a survey or not.

[Doc]

Everyone thinks is so simple. You are talking out your butt, quite frankly. They are looking at a complex social issue related to hunting. It's not as simple as yes/no on AR. They're looking at a plethora of possibilities in this survey. Yes/No is not always the best question/answer combination. Levels of willingness are often considered a much more acceptable measure of social sentiment.

 

We run SAS and R and Alteryx at my company and I'm privy to the costs because I conducted the business transactions. You know what one basic license costs for just the access to Alteryx? $60,000 dollars per year. That's just ONE analytic software and one license. Again, that's just the software. The DEC doesn't have an analytics team. Cornell or some other consultant would be needed at a likely cost of $50-100k minimum just to have them step foot in the door. And, that's not including any modifications to DECALS. Building a whole separate system is likely a breach of contract with the third-party provider of DECALS first off; not to mention the overall cost to have to seek bids, navigate RFP submissions, and determine a vendor, and then determine the cost. DECALS would likely require a significant cash outlay from the DEC. Getting that, seeing DECALS was a cost overrun, is unlikely.

 

Conducting a reliable and valid survey is complex and they're going about it the best way possible.

 

Would I like 100% input? Yes; but I also understand that such an undertaking would be next to impossible and the ability of Cornell is well positioned to provide the results according to scientifically proven and accepted methodologies. This method is even more desirable if Cornell can gather federal funds, of which the "other simple" method will not.

The basic question of the survey and the stated purpose of the survey was simply to take the temperature of hunters regarding the AR controversy. It is indeed a simple yes or no question. This is not a complex social issue except for those that wish to make it so. Apparently you are neck deep in this science and hence your rabid support of it all. And it is not my intention to try to sully or downplay whatever interests you may have in the world of statistics. But I am generally in favor of sizing the solution to the problem and not turning every question that the DEC comes up with into some kind of in-depth study.

 

Plus, I am not in favor of making things so complex that there are ample opportunities for twisting and biasing the results. The first thing that came to mind when I saw the huge volume of touchy-feely questions was that there was enough mud being thrown in to spin whatever outcomes the DEC may want.

[phade]

I am not a stats guy, but theoretically, using a partial sample is cheaper, faster, and yields very similar conclusions to interviewing every person. Since in this scenario people can be surveyed at the time they buy their license, cheaper and faster may not be a factor. However, as I said, the responses still have to be analyzed and summarized into a meaningful report; so the DEC would likely contract with CHDU for that anyway, as well as designing the survey questions.

The contractors apparently feel that a mail survey is the way to go, rather than at the point of license sales. I don’t know why, but a clue might be in the survey itself. I did not read it; does it direct questions at inactive hunters? If inactive hunters are of interest in this survey (i.e. Did you quit because bucks are too small…); then only surveying active hunters is not sufficient… If it isn’t about inactive hunters, it may be something else…

 

This is the crux of it. No real NEED to sample 100%.

 

While I would love pie in the sky, it's not NEEDED.

[mike rossi]

Look, When I go to the town clerk for my license, she asks me what WMU I want my antlerless permit for. She then puts that into the computer. It doesn't seem to really be that much of a problem. So if she were to ask me whether I am for or against ARs, I doubt it would be that much more of a problem would it? And she could just as easily check a "yes" box or a "No" box couldn't she? Then let the damned computer do what computers were meant to do. No analyzing. No big expensive Cornell survey and resulting over-blown study. No need for touchy-feely investigations into your background and what makes you answer the way you did. You know what the question is, so ask the damned question and be done with it. Man, it seems as though everyone wants to take the long (expensive) way around to get a simple opinion.

 

Further, if more complex surveys are required, how about actually using up-to-date methods and technology. U.S. mail is about as archaic a way as possible and really stretches the credibility of any survey organization that is claiming to be using the latest most current technology. My gosh, this is the electronic age. I wouldn't think that postage, and manual submission, and paying someone to manually input the data into computers is really the most effective way to gather information. The DEC has a web site. There are many forms of cheat-proof survey software available. What the heck, you want to know hunters opinions, survey them there ...... for free, or for whatever the software might cost to use. No you won't get 100%, but you probably will beat the 7000 number by a bunch and save a pile of money in the process. This worship of the Cornell statisticians is getting a bit silly. We sit here and complain about every decision that comes out of the DEC when in fact most of that crap is based on studies by the supposed wizards at Cornell. 

You might miss people who don't use or have access to the internet. If you miss any segment of the population you bias the survey... Maybe that is why they choose to use old fashioned mail.

[phade]

Mark my words, they will issue a report that creates more questions that answers. I understand you make your living making simple issues into complex ones but this really isn't a difficult task.

 

As I stated where i work we set up a phone survey for employees to gather information. The employee calles in . is asked to enter their employee number (could be your license number) Then there are a series of 6 questions with 1 for yes and 2 for no. Results are available in spreadsheet format at any time. Cost was less than $20,000. and we control the questions and can modify them ourselves at any time to reflect new open positions available.

 

SO it may be out of my butt but that does seem pretty simple. At that point, just like HIP is should issue a number to validate your license.

 

I can pretty much guarantee you that DECALS has a breach of contract clause this would fall in. Again, for YES/NO is not always the best way to survey sentiment. YES/NO forces one way or the other. There's a reason that Cornell is not using it in the survey.

 

But still, in the end, this isn't going to be a survey where Excel is used to analyze results. Rudimentary methods like that reveal little and are hardly considered valid and reliable. Any company using such methodologies is not conducting valid and reliable stats surveying.

 

It's a much more difficult task that than you believe, trust me.

[phade]

The basic question of the survey and the stated purpose of the survey was simply to take the temperature of hunters regarding the AR controversy. It is indeed a simple yes or no question. This is not a complex social issue except for those that wish to make it so. Apparently you are neck deep in this science and hence your rabid support of it all. And it is not my intention to try to sully or downplay whatever interests you may have in the world of statistics. But I am generally in favor of sizing the solution to the problem and not turning every question that the DEC comes up with into some kind of in-depth study.

 

Plus, I am not in favor of making things so complex that there are ample opportunities for twisting and biasing the results. The first thing that came to mind when I saw the huge volume of touchy-feely questions was that there was enough mud being thrown in to spin whatever outcomes the DEC may want.

 

 

Can you gauge sentiment with Yes/No?

 

You are forcing a decision one way or the other - thus creating an invalid and therefore also unreliable survey.

 

Mail is generally considered the norm right now because it addresses all levels of socio-economic groups. Internet, while common, makes the survey invalid because bias is introduced.

 

Face it, YES/NO seems like is so simple it's the only way to do it. And, in reality, Yes/No actually leads to mistaken decision-making process.

 

For example, Yes/No on AR. Do you support it?

 

What about - determining why they are for it? This survey addresses it. The Yes/No misses out identifying those who are against it, say, as public land hunters, or those who don't have access to prime ground, or any of the other things they ask about in that survey.

 

Why is equally as important as the overall tally of Yes/No to support. If land access determines support or non-support, acting on AR is not the course of action. The course of action could be to incentivize private landholders to open land (just as an example).

 

In most cases, the why is more important than the actual support/non-support. I can clearly see this survey addressing that component.

 

QDMA pushes the "lowest hole in the bucket" philosophy. This survey is aimed at determining that and why to better lead to decision making scnearios down the road. Culver supports QDMA and I am sure he follows the lowest hole in the bucket method, and this survey is no different. A simple Yes/No addresses the middle hole in the bucket...not the lowest.

Edited October 31, 2013 by phade

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I can pretty much guarantee you that DECALS has a breach of contract clause this would fall in. Again, for YES/NO is not always the best way to survey sentiment. YES/NO forces one way or the other. There's a reason that Cornell is not using it in the survey.

 

But still, in the end, this isn't going to be a survey where Excel is used to analyze results. Rudimentary methods like that reveal little and are hardly considered valid and reliable. Any company using such methodologies is not conducting valid and reliable stats surveying.

 

It's a much more difficult task that than you believe, trust me.

 

 

Hmmm,. seems to work pretty well in an election.

 

If it makes you feel better. use 3 answers. Yes - NO and IDGAF

 

 

I know exactly why they aren't using it. IT IS BUSINESS just as it is for you. I don't begrudge anyone a living but to sit there and try to sell anyone on why a conplex survey and huge analysis is required to find out if the hunters of NY prefer white or wheat bread is BS and no amount of posting will convince me other wise. Your business has a vested interest in it BEING dificult and does Cornell.

[phade]

Hmmm,. seems to work pretty well in an election.

 

If it makes you feel better. use 3 answers. Yes - NO and IDGAF

 

 

I know exactly why they aren't using it. IT IS BUSINESS just as it is for you. I don't begrudge anyone a living but to sit there and try to sell anyone on why a conplex survey and huge analysis is required to find out if the hunters of NY prefer white or wheat bread is BS and no amount of posting will convince me other wise. Your business has a vested interest in it BEING dificult and does Cornell.

 

Again, this is going over your head. It's not business, it's actually gauging the sentiment of hunters.

 

Go ahead and poll Yes/No. It doesn't give you a direction to head because you don't understand why the support is implied or not implied.

 

AR could be supported because of frustrations from access. Access being the problem, not the AR desire.

[phade]

Hmmm,. seems to work pretty well in an election.

 

If it makes you feel better. use 3 answers. Yes - NO and IDGAF

 

 

I know exactly why they aren't using it. IT IS BUSINESS just as it is for you. I don't begrudge anyone a living but to sit there and try to sell anyone on why a conplex survey and huge analysis is required to find out if the hunters of NY prefer white or wheat bread is BS and no amount of posting will convince me other wise. Your business has a vested interest in it BEING dificult and does Cornell.

 

Not at all, but if that's your prerogative, so be it.

 

The premise is to actually make complex situations simple for decision-makers. It's quite the opposite, actually, of what you believe.

 

That's what Cornell is going to do. Take a complex social issue and determine root cause or sentiment and a direction of travel.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Not at all, but if that's your prerogative, so be it.

 

The premise is to actually make complex situations simple for decision-makers. It's quite the opposite, actually, of what you believe.

 

That's what Cornell is going to do. Take a complex social issue and determine root cause or sentiment and a direction of travel.

 

 

Just like they did on the last one?

[phade]

Just like they did on the last one?

 

Yes. The last one identified the real problem with statistical evidence and accomplished what it intended to. This is a deep dive survey into the problem with a root cause analysis.

 

I know you want to think this is simple, but trust me, Cornell is doing exactly as they should in such a process. Have faith in it even if you don't understand and think its overly-complicated. Sometimes people don't trust what their brain cannot process - its human nature. Overcoming it pays big dividends. I can pretty much say with confidence that the results will reveal the actual sentiment that you could take and run with. It may not give the info you WANT to see, but it will give an accurate picture as compared to simple Yes/No/IDGAF. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Yes. The last one identified the real problem with statistical evidence and accomplished what it intended to. This is a deep dive survey into the problem with a root cause analysis.

 

I know you want to think this is simple, but trust me, Cornell is doing exactly as they should in such a process. Have faith in it even if you don't understand and think its overly-complicated. Sometimes people don't trust what their brain cannot process - its human nature. Overcoming it pays big dividends. I can pretty much say with confidence that the results will reveal the actual sentiment that you could take and run with. It may not give the info you WANT to see, but it will give an accurate picture as compared to simple Yes/No/IDGAF. 

 

Really what did it accomplish? outline it for me oh wise and mentally superior one.

[phade]

Really what did it accomplish? outline it for me oh wise and mentally superior one.

 

It identified the trend from a measurable point of view that hunter sentiment may be shifting and that a  management and consumers (hunters) mindset is misaligned.

 

No need to get snarky Culver, that's pretty low. I'm not digging at you.

[mike rossi]

As Phade alluded to in post 56; this is about fairness & equity, not just a show of hands... If the majority of respondants want AR, but a segment of others, restricted to public land on weekends for example, feel they will be put entirely out of business, how will the DEC perform its legal mandate to equally distribute the resource?  Yes/No doesn't give you enough info to make a management decision in that regard....

[Culvercreek hunt club]

As Phade alluded to in post 56; this is about fairness & equity, not just a show of hands... If the majority of respondants want AR, but a segment of others, restricted to public land on weekends for example, feel they will be put entirely out of business, how will the DEC perform its legal mandate to equally distribute the resource?  Yes/No doesn't give you enough info to make a management decision in that regard....

 The survey doesn't even approach those subjuects. DId you read it? There is no possible way to even infer the standings of the participants in those areas. I could almost buy the argument if it went into questioniing things like where you mostly hunt. How the people around you hunt? It is silent in any tangible aspect other than "feelings"

 

It is squarely around AR's and the desire for bigger bucks.

Firearms season length

Doe harvest numbers

Current satisfaction level in a few categories.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Culvercreek hunt club]

 

No need to get snarky Culver, that's pretty low. I'm not digging at you.

Well if you are condescending and don’t realize it, I view that as even worse.

[phade]

 The survey doesn't even approach those subjuects. DId you read it? There is no possible way to even infer the standings of the participants in those areas. I could almost buy the argument if it went into questioniing things like where you mostly hunt. How the people around you hunt? It is silent in any tangible aspect other than "feelings"

 

It is squarely around AR's and the desire for bigger bucks.

Firearms season length

Doe harvest numbers

Current satisfaction level in a few categories.

 

 

They ask the WMU you largely hunt. Questions 11-13 then address the sentiment. The WMUs are given a % rating of public to private holding and weighted accordingly.

 

If, say for example, WMUs weighted heavily for public show high hunter sentiment against ARs, they'll be able to determine that. Likewise, if high private land WMUS show responses strongly supporting that AR, then they'll be able to relate AR to an access and resource distribution problem.

 

So, it is in there pretty resoundingly.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I will have to trust you. Hopefully you are more up on this than identifying a buck.

[phade]

Well if you are condescending and don’t realize it, I view that as even worse.

 

I'm not being condescending at all. I am explaining how complex the methodologies are and I merely have a background understanding into why they are that way. It's no different that some IT person explaining to me how servers work and communicate. I don't understand it, and I'm not offended when they explain it to me.

 

So view me as worse, then, for all I care.

[phade]

I will have to trust you. Hopefully you are more up on this than identifying a buck.

 

Wow.

[mike rossi]

 The survey doesn't even approach those subjuects. DId you read it? There is no possible way to even infer the standings of the participants in those areas. I could almost buy the argument if it went into questioniing things like where you mostly hunt. How the people around you hunt? It is silent in any tangible aspect other than "feelings"

 

It is squarely around AR's and the desire for bigger bucks.

Firearms season length

Doe harvest numbers

Current satisfaction level in a few categories.

No, I said earlier, I did not read it, I am hedging my bet that there is a legitimate reason for the way they are doing it and bet against that it is some conspiracy and/or revenue generating scheme. 

Edited October 31, 2013 by mike rossi

[BUCKANDAQUARTER]

As Phade alluded to in post 56; this is about fairness & equity, not just a show of hands... If the majority of respondants want AR, but a segment of others, restricted to public land on weekends for example, feel they will be put entirely out of business, how will the DEC perform its legal mandate to equally distribute the resource?  Yes/No doesn't give you enough info to make a management decision in that regard....

 

I think this sums up the gist of it.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

 If the majority of respondants want AR, but a segment of others, restricted to public land on weekends for example, feel they will be put entirely out of business, how will the DEC perform its legal mandate to equally distribute the resource?  Yes/No doesn't give you enough info to make a management decision in that regard....

 

 

How do they meet that mandate with any change? there are always those in opposition and those without (or limited) access to the resource at equal levels. What standardd are they measuring this by?

 

By the way, I would have thought with some of your previous posts you have made about changing regulations that you would have read the survey, at least out of curiosity.

[mike rossi]

How do they meet that mandate with any change? there are always those in opposition and those without (or limited) access to the resource at equal levels. What standardd are they measuring this by?

 

By the way, I would have thought with some of your previous posts you have made about changing regulations that you would have read the survey, at least out of curiosity.

Before I try to answer that, I thought of some other stuff. HIP was brought up several times. For the privilege of hunting migratory game birds, hunters are required by law to help collect biological data. That is much different than requiring people to give an opinion on a social issue - no offense, but that idea is just a little silly if you think about it.... Second, all the hip data goes to people who analyze, summarize, report, and make recommendations on MB management. The buck doesn't stop at adding up body counts. The buck wouldn't stop with a social study about AR either.

 

How do they meet that mandate with any change? there are always those in opposition and those without (or limited) access to the resource at equal levels. What standard are they measuring this by?

 

I guess they try to do the best they can and I don't believe there is a standard. 

 

By the way, I would have thought with some of your previous posts you have made about changing regulations that you would have read the survey, at least out of curiosity.

 

I don't hunt deer and this is mostly a social issue within the deer hunting community. I am more interested in the way hunters are reacting to this survey because the sport would be better if we are all on the same page.

[Doc]

You might miss people who don't use or have access to the internet. If you miss any segment of the population you bias the survey... Maybe that is why they choose to use old fashioned mail.

My proposal was that the Yes/no question be handled at the time of license purchase. The survey would then become a condition of getting your license. All licensed hunters would take part ..... involuntarily if they wanted to purchase a license. You can't reach all affected parties any more fairly and completely than that.

 

As far as more complicated surveys, an internet survey with a lot of respondents is certainly more accurate than a miniscule random mail survey. Yes a few will be excluded on an internet survey, but surveying a mere 7000 respondents by mail will exclude a lot more than that. Here's the deal, we have this technology called the internet. Let's use it.