10-22-2019, 06:17 PM
[quote dubob][quote PBH]But there is also a monetary cost associated with a fishery that anglers avoid due to poor quality fishing.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]For some reason, I can't think of a single cost associated with avoiding fishing at Scofield. Please tell me what those costs are. I'm being serious; I can't think of a single cost. Who would bear that cost?[/size][/#800000][/font][/quote]
It has been posted before -- I doubt any of you, including Bob will read it this time -- why would you?
but, here it is again from the USFWS:
[quote "Better Fishing Through Management"]
Why is rotenone treatment cost effective?
It has been estimated that for each dollar spent on rotenone and stocked trout, anglers gained from $32 to $105 worth of fishÂing. On trout lakes that were
stocked but not treated, the gain from fish stocking alone was only $10 to $15.[/quote]
https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/fed...onebro.pdf
In the case of Scofield, with estimates given in this thread:
For every dollar spent on rotenone ($1.3M) anglers gained $$32 - $105 (* 1.3M = $41.6M - $136.5M) worth of fishing.
On lakes stocked but not treated (Scofield) the gain was only $10 - $15 (*1.3M = $13M - $19.5M).
Net loss to anglers rotenone vs no-rotenone = $28.6M - $117M.
I think a cost of $1.3M for a rotenone treatment is insignificant compared to what it most likely cost us to NOT treat it.
But you guys can just keep ignoring this stuff and look forward to an [eventual] bright outlook.
[signature]
It has been posted before -- I doubt any of you, including Bob will read it this time -- why would you?
but, here it is again from the USFWS:
[quote "Better Fishing Through Management"]
Why is rotenone treatment cost effective?
It has been estimated that for each dollar spent on rotenone and stocked trout, anglers gained from $32 to $105 worth of fishÂing. On trout lakes that were
stocked but not treated, the gain from fish stocking alone was only $10 to $15.[/quote]
https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/fed...onebro.pdf
In the case of Scofield, with estimates given in this thread:
For every dollar spent on rotenone ($1.3M) anglers gained $$32 - $105 (* 1.3M = $41.6M - $136.5M) worth of fishing.
On lakes stocked but not treated (Scofield) the gain was only $10 - $15 (*1.3M = $13M - $19.5M).
Net loss to anglers rotenone vs no-rotenone = $28.6M - $117M.
I think a cost of $1.3M for a rotenone treatment is insignificant compared to what it most likely cost us to NOT treat it.
But you guys can just keep ignoring this stuff and look forward to an [eventual] bright outlook.
[signature]