Why are you trying to inform furries about furries, anyway? We're furries. We kind of already know what we do. Yes, it was fun reading the results of the survey, but, if you really want to inform "the scientific literature" those results were something I should not have known about.
This sounds similar to complaints that are made of other "obvious" research. The problem is you only think you know what we do, and the point of some research is to actually check that in a more rigorous way, hopefully with less bias than personal experience. Just making assumptions that some things are already known without checking can lead to big problems. Additionally, actually doing something like a survey not only double checks qualitative statements, but quantifies it too. In other words, it clarifies something from, "I think a lot of furries do X and those tend to be Y," to, "This percentage of furries do X, and this percentage of them do Y." And of course these results should be reported in literature even if obvious, so someone else can avoid having to repeat the work or find a way to improve upon the work.
This sounds similar to complaints that are made of other "obvious" research. The problem is you only think you know what we do, and the point of some research is to actually check that in a more rigorous way, hopefully with less bias than personal experience. Just making assumptions that some things are already known without checking can lead to big problems. Additionally, actually doing something like a survey not only double checks qualitative statements, but quantifies it too. In other words, it clarifies something from, "I think a lot of furries do X and those tend to be Y," to, "This percentage of furries do X, and this percentage of them do Y." And of course these results should be reported in literature even if obvious, so someone else can avoid having to repeat the work or find a way to improve upon the work.