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
Question 2. What aspects did you find least
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
- Combining the social and poster session together worked
- 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
- 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
- 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.
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.
to Contents | Back to