You should read some of the other "surveys" Mr. Wallen has put out for IDFG.
I don’t believe there’s a way to write something entirely unbiased. However, if you go look at his references, he’s using relatively recent publications (oldest is 15 years old) from sources that may or may not be biased themselves. It would’ve been nice to see some research regarding amounts of lead found in game meat post processing to signal that he’s looked into some of the counter-arguments, though.
If this issue goes before the IDFG Commission, will it actually matter that most Idahoans oppose it? They didn't seem to have a very high regard for the majority opinion of Idaho hunters at their meeting last month...
Do you mind elaborating on the quotations around surveys in this comment? Based on my knowledge of surveys, this seems like an adequate set of questions from a significant sample size with some background research to substantiate his claims and questions. Full-disclosure, I'm getting a degree with a focus on human dimensions of natural resource management and hope to some day be on the other side of the keyboard writing surveys like this so I can communicate the public opinion to commissions in an (mostly) unbiased manner. Speaking of which, it's my final finals week and I should really be working on projects, but here I am...
Sorry to hear that. I'm not familiar with the Idaho commission as I'm in Wyoming and mostly focus on things happening here.
It's a fair question. In my opinion, surveys are most effective if they are objective and free of bias. A survey written in such a way as to promote an agenda may bear the title of "survey" but often it is just appears to me to be a piece of propaganda, which means it has little scientific value to me.
Even if you were to provide two sides to each question, do you think people would take the time to read the articles or evidence provided? I feel like this could lead to survey-fatigue, and people would bail out of your survey half-way through leaving you with half-baked responses to develop your hypothesis and therefore your recommendation. There's a balance somewhere, but I think trying to keep them short and succinct like the author has would lead to higher participation rates and a better hypothesis.
I agree. Unfortunately, this comes down to the author's discretion. I find it interesting that he is the project team on this survey. Surely there was some level of peer-review for a public facing document.
