05-21-2019, 09:06 PM
Wow Dubob. I'm impressed.
FWIW - I also manage a budget, and just wrapped up my own $1.1 million project. The money was not easy to get, but through proper planning I was able to get that project and the money approved. Rotenone treatments are the same. With proper planning those approvals and prioritization issues are all addressed. It takes time - which there has been plenty of with the Scofield situation. In the 20 years that we've known there was an issue, the funding could have been secured.
[quote dubob]
Those are NOT answerable questions by anybody posting on these forums. The very BEST you could hope for on this forum is a WAG. [/quote]
How very untrue. In fact, wormandbobber has discussed this very thing on this very site in the past in this discussion:
http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gfo...476;page=1
The American Fisheries Society states in their Q & A section of "Better Fishing Through Management" document:
[quote American Fisheries Society]
Q. Why is rotenone treatment cost effective?
A. 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]
https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/fed...onebro.pdf
Scofield fits into the "stocked but not treated" category, and thus is only gaining $10 - $15 worth of fishing vs. $32 - $105. That's a net loss of $17 - $90.
[signature]
FWIW - I also manage a budget, and just wrapped up my own $1.1 million project. The money was not easy to get, but through proper planning I was able to get that project and the money approved. Rotenone treatments are the same. With proper planning those approvals and prioritization issues are all addressed. It takes time - which there has been plenty of with the Scofield situation. In the 20 years that we've known there was an issue, the funding could have been secured.
[quote dubob]
Those are NOT answerable questions by anybody posting on these forums. The very BEST you could hope for on this forum is a WAG. [/quote]
How very untrue. In fact, wormandbobber has discussed this very thing on this very site in the past in this discussion:
http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gfo...476;page=1
The American Fisheries Society states in their Q & A section of "Better Fishing Through Management" document:
[quote American Fisheries Society]
Q. Why is rotenone treatment cost effective?
A. 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]
https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/fed...onebro.pdf
Scofield fits into the "stocked but not treated" category, and thus is only gaining $10 - $15 worth of fishing vs. $32 - $105. That's a net loss of $17 - $90.
[signature]