ODFW Biologists seek input

Taken from ODFW http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2011/may/050511b.asp

Biologists seek input on best methods to inform and engage Oregonians on coastal fishing and conservation topics
May 5, 2011

Online survey available through May 30, 2011

NEWPORT, Ore. – The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife launched an effort this week to learn people’s preferred methods to obtain or give information about ocean fishing, shellfishing and conservation.

The agency is asking anglers, clammers, crabbers, commercial fishers and those interested in marine education and conservation efforts to participate in a short online survey to improve how information is distributed and public feedback received.

The survey is available at www.surveygizmo.com/s3/525787/ODFWMRPCommunications

Biologists are receiving more written feedback via email and there are additional electronic tools available to distribute information efficiently. At the same time, ODFW’s Marine Resources Program has held public meetings to receive input on new harvest rules where few people attended.

“We know that people are very interested in the issues and we want their feedback, but we’ve recognized that people may not be able to go to a meeting,” said Gway Kirchner, assistant program manager at the ODFW Marine Resources Program. “We want to know if we need to adjust our communications and outreach efforts.”

Results from the survey and other evaluation methods will inform future planning and public engagement efforts.

###

Contact:


Brandon Ford, 541-867-4741


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dangerous to not offer meetings, in my opinion, which it sounds like this might be used to justify.  How else is someone given the opportunity to meet with public servants like fisheries biologists if there are never any public meetings?  Private meetings?  Doubt it. 

Dangerous to not offer meetings, in my opinion, which it sounds like this might be used to justify.  How else is someone given the opportunity to meet with public servants like fisheries biologists if there are never any public meetings?  Private meetings?  Doubt it.

I agree. I'm also not sure how this will benefit us.

I'm less concerned about the mechanism of giving feedback so much as I concerned about how checks and balances are placed on Oregon DFW biologists and employees (Or any state's DFW equivalent)

Real science is peer reviewed.  State agencie are rarely peer reviewed.

I'd like to see a panel formed of of non-conflicted scientists, stakeholders, and citizen stewards whose responsibility it is to gather feedback from various constituents and formulate policy recommendations at least in response to major biological opinions/actions.

-Allen

+1

However they can barely afford to study the subjects they do study. Then to have qualified people study their study would add significantly to the costs. However, without review I think their findings are still hypothetical inferences until proven to be sound science. They would just have to take on fewer projects I guess.

I'm less concerned about the mechanism of giving feedback so much as I concerned about how checks and balances are placed on Oregon DFW biologists and employees (Or any state's DFW equivalent)

Real science is peer reviewed.  State agencie are rarely peer reviewed.

I'd like to see a panel formed of of non-conflicted scientists, stakeholders, and citizen stewards whose responsibility it is to gather feedback from various constituents and formulate policy recommendations at least in response to major biological opinions/actions.

-Allen

Even at the NMFS level, we are struggling with this very issues.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/publicreview/new_england_phase1/docs/07_sciencerept.pdf

Our key findings are as follows:
1. NMFS Science Centers and Headquarters operate largely as independent entities in spite of National planning and coordination efforts.
2. The parallel organizational status for Science Centers and Regional Offices is appropriate, but it requires cooperation and coordination.
3. Management information is incomplete, piecemeal and hard to use.
4. There is too much program fragmentation, and investments in innovation are too small and/or subcritical mass.
5. There is insufficient scientific experience and leadership, focus on Science Centers, and follow-through, at Headquarters.
6. There are no functional program review policies.
7. The performance of stock assessment review processes is mixed, and needs to be improved in some regions.
8. Scientific Review Groups peer review marine mammal science.
9. Quality assurance processes for scientific input to the Endangered Species Act are evolving, but they are still incomplete, inconsistent, and lack adequate transparency.
10. Quality assurance of economic and social impact assessments and habitat science is largely left to internal review by the Science Centers and to Regional Fishery Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committees.
11. All Science Centers have internal review policies for documents and publications.
12. Too much faith is placed on independent peer review and the Center for Independent Experts.
13. The Federal Advisory Committee Act impedes science quality assurance.

-Allen

I’m not particularly enamored with the idea of sharing any more personal fishing intel with these folks, especially after the commercial folks turned their logbooks over to ODFW, who then gave them to the Nature Conservancy. That might be OK, but the commercial fishers took it as a breach of trust. I tend to agree. Also, I wouldn’t want this kind of input to replace the public meeting format. Seems to me that electronic info can be too easily manipulated, depending on what questions are asked & how the answers are interpreted.