Scofield DWR Netting

[dubob]

[quote PBH][quote dubob][quote PBH]But there is also a monetary cost associated with a fishery that anglers avoid due to poor quality fishing.[/quote]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?[/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 fish­ing. On trout lakes that were
stocked but not treated, the gain from fish stocking alone was only $10 to $15.[/quote]

[url "https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/federalassistance/native_trout/rotenonebro.pdf"]https://www.fws.gov/...rout/rotenonebro.pdf[/url]


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.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Okay, first things first. Thank you PBH for responding.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Second, I have not seen that report before. So again, thank you for the link. But just to be clear, the report is NOT a USFWS product. They obtained the report from the American Fisheries Society (AFS), Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee, Task Force on Fishery Chemicals. The document was made possible with funds provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I take umbrage at your assumption that “It has been posted before -- I doubt any of you, including Bob will read it this time -- why would you?” Of course I’ll read it. I’m always interested in getting to the truth of any matter. And here are just a few of the takeaway’s I got from reading the document.[/size][/#800000][/font][quote AFS] State and Federal resource agencies are entrusted with the task of maintaining healthy aquatic environments, protecting our bodies of water from misuse, and balancing the demands made by navigation, commercial, residential, recreational, and environmental activities. Since the likelihood of creating new water areas is very low, agencies in charge of fishery resources must manage existing resources to assure that the environment continues to thrive and to ensure that our fisheries are not depleted.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]While you and others may disagree, I think the Utah DWR is doing an excellent job of [/size][/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]balancing the demands made by navigation, commercial, residential, recreational, and environmental activities.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[quote AFS]It has been estimated that for each dollar spent on rotenone and stocked trout, anglers gained from $32 to $105 worth of fishing. On trout lakes that were stocked but not treated, the gain from fish stocking alone was only $10 to $15. [/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I agree with Curtis on this; they are just estimates, not hard fast figures based on quantifiable data. The model of estimation is not shown or explained. And how did the AFS determine “$32 to $105 worth of fishing?” Exactly what does that mean? Can you define that? I don’t have a clue what point they are trying to make. Are they putting a monetary value on the fish being caught and/or kept? Is it size or weight based? Please explain or point me to a document that explains how a value worth of fishing can be determined in dollars.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]And with either method, there is a net gain in value worth of fishing (whatever that is). And yes, I’m positive that the higher return is better than the lower return. But I’m not turning my nose up at a 1,000 to 1,500 % return on the investment of stocking only. And please don’t forget that the DWR is doing their very best to “balance the demands made by navigation, commercial, residential, recreational, and environmental activities.”[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]From the Scofield Reservoir Advisory Committee (SRAC) Report (July 2017), we have this: [/size][/#800000][/font][quote SRAC] When the Advisory Committee first met, they identified the need to reduce and control the Utah chub population, and unanimously agreed it was the most limiting factor in developing a quality fishery at Scofield Reservoir. The Committee identified two methods for reducing Utah chub biomass: biological control and a rotenone treatment. After a lengthy and careful discussion, a majority decision was reached to initiate a fisheries management strategy utilizing the biological controls laid out in this plan. As described in the previous section, a rotenone treatment is being planned and will be initiated if the Goals and Objectives of this plan are not reached. [/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]And the folks that made that majority decision were [/size][/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]individuals representing varying interests, constituency groups, and angling types.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]So, the bottom line for me is this – you still haven’t provided me with a single cost associated with avoiding fishing at Scofield. You’ve provided some estimates of differing GAINS associated with differing treatment options, but I don’t believe you explained any costs or economic impact that will adversely impact Carbon County.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]