Meeting Evaluation

An evaluation form was distributed to all participants in their registration packet and participants were asked to turn it in upon departure from the meeting. Time was allotted at the end of the meeting to fill out and return the form. Fifty-two evaluation forms (52%) were returned. Below are summaries of the responses to the two open ended questions and to the specific questions which participants were asked to rank from strongly agree to strongly disagree. There were also suggestions that will be useful in preparing for and improving future meetings. Those suggestions are paraphrased at the end.

Question 1. What aspects of this meeting did you find most useful?

Overall, participants indicated the meeting was very beneficial to them. Most (40) respondents had only positive comments or no suggestions. Many of the comments indicated that the meeting was well planned and organized, that presenters did a great job, and that the topics addressed dealt with issues pertinent to their work. The most common response (23) was the benefit of the presentation information (all topics -10, genetics-5, sturgeon passage-4, and habitat-4). Networking (12) and breakout sessions (8) were valued for the opportunity to exchange ideas in an informal and relaxed atmosphere. The panel discussion and poster sessions were both identified six times by respondents.

Question 2. What aspects did you find least useful?

The only aspect of the meeting that was identified by more than one person was the lack of organization/structure in some breakout groups (10).

The months which attendees at this meeting could participate in future Coordination Meetings are:

June – 15

November – 41

December – 26

No Preference – 3

Other Evaluation Form Suggestions/Comments
- Several individuals suggested they would have liked more time to view posters and suggested they be displayed for both days.
- Due to travel arrangements some folks had to depart prior to the afternoon breakout on Wednesday. It was suggested that the meeting run from noon to noon to allow ½ day for travel at the beginning and end.
- The time frame and punctuality of presentations worked well.
- Combining the social and poster session together worked well.
- Inexpensive for a well organized symposium.
- Several individuals requested presentations be made available on CD/website.
- Name tags were too small and difficult to read.
- The presentation room was too cool.
- The room set up was a little crowded and there was too much background noise.
- There was not sufficient food at the social so perhaps next time we should collect money from participants and have finger foods catered.
- Try to limit talks given recently at other venues.
- Some technical jargon was not understood.
- Not enough talk/explanation of assessment protocols/techniques for gear standardization.
- Would like to see more on public outreach/education techniques.
- Have meeting on the weekend.
- Invite subject experts to lead breakout sessions.
- Establish an information clearing house for folks interested in sturgeon management/research.
- Hold product oriented breakout sessions on particular topic/question.
- Change locations next meeting.
- By not charging to attend the meeting many undergraduates and agency folks who might not otherwise be able to attend were able to participate.
- All aspects were interesting, most balanced meeting I ever attended.
- Right number of individuals to be comfortably social.
- Encourage participation from more citizen groups as well as agency and university folks.
- Do not include special interest groups.
- What is the plural of sturgeon?
- Hold the organized lunch on the first day.

 

Acknowledgements

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service steering committee members express our gratitude to other steering committee members Dr. Nancy Auer, Brad Eggold, Marty Holtgren, Dr. Ed Baker, Doug Carlson, and Lloyd Mohr for their advice and assistance in organizing and convening this meeting. We thank Glenn Miller, Jonathan Pyatskowit, and Joan Bratley for their tremendous contribution to this meeting which included meeting material preparation, motel and meeting room arrangements, coordination with presenters, and operation of presentation equipment. We thank Amy Welsh, Dr. Kim Scribner, Marty Holtgren, Dr. Nancy Auer, Dr. Trent Sutton, Chet Mackenzie, and Mike Friday who contributed presentations on specific topics by request. Thanks to Gary Whelan, Dr. Boyd Kynard, Steve Amaral and Dr. Luther Aadland for sharing their expertise as presenters and as panelists for the sturgeon passage discussions. Thanks to Emily Zollweg, Rob Elliott, James Boase, Brad Eggold, Nancy Auer, Doug Carlson, Henry Quinlan, Bill Gardner, and Larry Thompson for serving as facilitators and recorders during the breakout sessions. A special thanks to Brenda Archambo and Dona Crist of Sturgeon for Tomorrow, Black Lake Chapter for the numbered and signed, matted sturgeon mosaic photograph, shirts, sturgeon lapel pin and 2004 Sturgeon Guard hat, and to Dr. James (Randy) Jackson for a historic sturgeon reprint that were donated for door prizes. We express our appreciation to Sue Erickson of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Public Information Office for provision of “Sturgeon~King of Fish” posters included with registration materials. We also thank the Great Lakes Fishery Trust for provision of meeting folders, recognition of the need for regular coordination meetings, and for provision of the necessary financial support to make them possible.

Back to Contents | Back to Home