10-22-2019, 10:10 PM
Wiper -- it was asked, so I gave. I didn't make those numbers up. They have been published by the USFWS -- a trustworthy source put on paper, not a verbal recollection.
Nobody said those dollar numbers were the equivalent of a dollar-in-hand to be spent by a local concession. Those estimates were dollars "worth of fishing". That could be money spent at a local gas station, a boat registration, tackle at Cabelas, worms from the local worm stand, or even a boat purchase. Or, those dollars could even be enjoyment, satisfaction, hours spent fishing at Scofield vs the alternative (NBA game, video games, hunting, hiking photography). Quality.
Regardless, those are high numbers -- and the USFWS published them to show that using rotenone is a fiscally sound strategy. The cost of using rotenone may be high, but the cost of NOT using rotenone may be higher!
You mentioned that the lake "is showing improvement". That's something that we can argue. So far, the only thing the DWR has shown us are wipers and tiger muskies. What they did not show us from either spring or fall is anything trout. We do not know what condition or shape the trout are in. We don't know "K" factor prior to stocking of trout, or "K" factor from spring sampling. That alone would tell a story -- good or bad. I'm hoping it's good.
With the amount of food in Scofield, it is very obvious that we should see something in the way of wipers and tiger musky. It should also be noted that the wipers being stocked are larger than most wiper stocking elsewhere in the state - this would be a strategy to help mitigate lake elevation (higher than any other wiper lakes anywhere) and to help with competition with chubs. But, stocking larger fish always comes at a dollar cost -- again, a cost directly attributed to not using rotenone.
I'm not crying over spilled milk. I'm actually very hopeful, and even excited to see quality wipers and tiger musky already showing up - much sooner than anticipated by anyone. That's great! But I'm also skeptical and critical -- where are the trout numbers? Why aren't they saying anything about the trout? Wasn't this whole plan (utilizing sterile hybrids to control rough fish) supposed to benefit the trout? What about chub numbers? Where are they? Hopefully those young-of-the-year chubs will be on the decline over the next couple years.
Done deal? You make it sound as if the plan is set in stone, and cannot change. If anything, we all know things change. Rotenone was just recently approved for use in Yellowstone National Park. Things change. At this point, I hope that the future for Scofield is bright. But things change, and often do. Never say never -- there may come a point where the option to use rotenone may still come. Hopefully not. That would be something to spill milk, and then cry over.
[signature]
Nobody said those dollar numbers were the equivalent of a dollar-in-hand to be spent by a local concession. Those estimates were dollars "worth of fishing". That could be money spent at a local gas station, a boat registration, tackle at Cabelas, worms from the local worm stand, or even a boat purchase. Or, those dollars could even be enjoyment, satisfaction, hours spent fishing at Scofield vs the alternative (NBA game, video games, hunting, hiking photography). Quality.
Regardless, those are high numbers -- and the USFWS published them to show that using rotenone is a fiscally sound strategy. The cost of using rotenone may be high, but the cost of NOT using rotenone may be higher!
You mentioned that the lake "is showing improvement". That's something that we can argue. So far, the only thing the DWR has shown us are wipers and tiger muskies. What they did not show us from either spring or fall is anything trout. We do not know what condition or shape the trout are in. We don't know "K" factor prior to stocking of trout, or "K" factor from spring sampling. That alone would tell a story -- good or bad. I'm hoping it's good.
With the amount of food in Scofield, it is very obvious that we should see something in the way of wipers and tiger musky. It should also be noted that the wipers being stocked are larger than most wiper stocking elsewhere in the state - this would be a strategy to help mitigate lake elevation (higher than any other wiper lakes anywhere) and to help with competition with chubs. But, stocking larger fish always comes at a dollar cost -- again, a cost directly attributed to not using rotenone.
I'm not crying over spilled milk. I'm actually very hopeful, and even excited to see quality wipers and tiger musky already showing up - much sooner than anticipated by anyone. That's great! But I'm also skeptical and critical -- where are the trout numbers? Why aren't they saying anything about the trout? Wasn't this whole plan (utilizing sterile hybrids to control rough fish) supposed to benefit the trout? What about chub numbers? Where are they? Hopefully those young-of-the-year chubs will be on the decline over the next couple years.
Done deal? You make it sound as if the plan is set in stone, and cannot change. If anything, we all know things change. Rotenone was just recently approved for use in Yellowstone National Park. Things change. At this point, I hope that the future for Scofield is bright. But things change, and often do. Never say never -- there may come a point where the option to use rotenone may still come. Hopefully not. That would be something to spill milk, and then cry over.
[signature]