The survey was constructed to attempt to provide an numerical score for the sentiment of each opinion. This was based on a 1 to 7 scoring system. For each of the appropriate questions the average, median, mode, and standard deviation were calculated. Scores of over 5 should be considered positive and under 4 as pretty negative. A relatively high sigma indicates a divisive issue. It is important to recognize those issues with a wide divergence of opinion. Maintenance of the status quo is probably advisable in these cases, but they certainly deserve further scrutiny. Some of the answers are no-brainers with score above 6 or under 3. These are the easy ones.
I also asked questions that had a yes/no type of answer. These I analyzed as a percentage of the total saying yes. The total number of surveys returned was 24. This is a relatively small number of the members, but not inconsistent with the general response to surveys. Those who did not respond have no complaint if we follow the advice of those who did!
Although this may be a mute point considering the lack of a bulletin editor, the results of the survey show that most people think that the web bulletin is sufficient and that paper should be paid for. This choice got a score of 5.25. General feeling that a paper bulletin should be provided only scored 2.77 and even lower number were willing to pay for the paper bulletin (2.74). Nonetheless the choice of "no paper bulletin" also received an unfavorable score of 3.79. Given the current situation, we can probably allow the paper bulletin to die without consequence if no one steps forward to be the editor. We should not knock ourselves out to find an editor.
The current meeting format is generally good with a score of 5.50. Everyone answered this question. The Median and Mode were both 6 and the sigma was only 1.01. there was very little controversy on this issue. The question of wanting more social time was neutral (4) The only thing that people wanted more of was "fishing information." This question got a 5.76 score, with a mode of 7 and median of 6.
The important question of the start time scored a very slightly positive answer (4.04) but this was one of the largest sigma questions at 2.16. This indicates that there was a lot of disagreement on this, with score running from 1 to 7. This could be a very divisive issue.
The other questions about the length of the meeting and its component parts all came back negative. In general, it was not too long or too late.
This was an interesting section with purposely provocative questions. A few people took umbrage at the questions. Nonetheless the idea that we were just a fishing club got very low marks and support for conservation was overwhelming at 6.63 with a sigma of only 0.49. There was a positive answer that members felt they did not have enough information. There was a stronger sense that we should do more physically (5.86) and that we should increase financial support (5.04).
That the current programs are good got a generally score (5.26). The question about wanting to hear more about other members experiences got a high score of 5.92, so Mandy's idea of a members mike night is well received.
When asked about specific topics to hear about:
67% of the respondents sometimes or usually attended the workshop; the other 33% never attended. Lack of time was the most often cited reason, although 3 respondents were new members who either felt that they would be "jumping in in the middle of something", or hadn't yet had the opportunity to attend. The respondents wanted an informal, but not free-for-all workshop (5.00). They liked the bull sessions, but this was one of those high sigma answers ( 7s and 2s and 3s).
Of the special programs desired 54% said they wanted to learn about knots and 50% specific fly tying techniques, e.g. deer hair bodies, winging etc. 38% wanted sessions on tackle preparation and 33% rod repair and CPR. Other suggestions included special homemade tool solutions and first aid.
96% of the respondents buy at least $5 of raffle tickets. (the one who didn't owns a fly shop and doesn't think it seemly to win). 50% buy $5 and 38% buy $10. The quality of the raffle was generally positive (4.9). The respondents liked that there was a big prize each month.. The "free choice" system is generally positive, but again a high sigma answer. However the high marks, 6s and 7s, outnumber the 1s by over 2 to 1. These results were exactly mirrored in the specific ticket per item question ( its nice to get consistent answers!).
83 % of the respondents buy raffle ticket at the dinners. Those who didn't either own a fly shop or find themselves too busy in the kitchen. Most buy $20 or more with a significant number claiming to spend more than $40. The prizes are considered good (5.9) but an equivalent score would like to see more variety of rods and reels. There is a positive opinion that there are too many 5 and 8 wts (4.9) although this is a high sigma opinion. There was a desire for more types of big ticket items in the raffle. Although only 33% asked for specifics. Guided trips was the highest scoring of the specifics at 13% of the respondents.
A slightly positive opinion admitted to seeking a bargain at the auction (4.2). There was a very high score for the members flies (6.1) which matches the anecdotal information we hear. People said they would pay more for really special things. Although the idea that they would pay really big money for some items was barely positive (4.1), 58% sis suggest items they would like to have in the auction. Trips were very positive, particularly weekend getaways guide services and lodge stays. Reels and Artwork were also popular choices, particularly saltwater reels and fly plates. Of the rods, Speys, small rods (0,1,2 wt) and rod building kits were the most popular.
Most people wanted to find fishing buddies. A desire for more fishouts and more family events got slightly positive scores (4.27 and 4.3). 38% of the respondents never went to the casting, only 8% usually went. The rest went sometimes or rarely. More comprehensive casting lessons were desired with a score of 4.84, but neither did they feel that it should meet more often nor would they pay a fee for the lessons. Competitive casting, either for fun or serious competition was a non-starter.