04-11-2008, 07:08 PM
Let me reply to my own post, because I left out another important item (#4) that was explained in the meeting last evening. 4) In order for anyone to stock fish, they first have to have a permit. This permit allows entities to put fish in private ponds. Dave explained that IDF&G is the permitting agency and at this point no one from the canal company has submitted for the permit.
Now my two cents: Stocking fish is an expensive endeavor. The last figures I remember seeing, IDF&G spends several dollars per pound every year. I really doubt the canal company is seriously intending on doing it. I have a couple of reasons for thinking this way. First, I have to remember what the “bottom line” is for Twin Lakes Canal Company. Some people make the mistake of thinking that the goal of any canal company is money. While it certainly is an important factor, the sole purpose of the company is to provide agricultural irrigation water. None of these companies want to operate in the red, and sure, they are going to be looking for ways to provide income in order to operate, but their first priority is season-long water. All other considerations are secondary to the best interest of the irrigators. For fisherman, I know it smarts a little to hear that kind of talk. With that in mind, it leads me to the second point I’d like to make, and the answer to this obvious question: What reasons would the company have to make such a move? I think it boils down to shareholders in the canal company are beginning to think that their best interest, managing and delivery of water, is being confronted with other interests. And some of these other interests are suggesting aggressive quality controls that end up being tremendously expensive. I see the company’s response as a way the canal company can flex it’s muscle a little as they try to maintain their sovereignty and control of their own ends.
[signature]
Now my two cents: Stocking fish is an expensive endeavor. The last figures I remember seeing, IDF&G spends several dollars per pound every year. I really doubt the canal company is seriously intending on doing it. I have a couple of reasons for thinking this way. First, I have to remember what the “bottom line” is for Twin Lakes Canal Company. Some people make the mistake of thinking that the goal of any canal company is money. While it certainly is an important factor, the sole purpose of the company is to provide agricultural irrigation water. None of these companies want to operate in the red, and sure, they are going to be looking for ways to provide income in order to operate, but their first priority is season-long water. All other considerations are secondary to the best interest of the irrigators. For fisherman, I know it smarts a little to hear that kind of talk. With that in mind, it leads me to the second point I’d like to make, and the answer to this obvious question: What reasons would the company have to make such a move? I think it boils down to shareholders in the canal company are beginning to think that their best interest, managing and delivery of water, is being confronted with other interests. And some of these other interests are suggesting aggressive quality controls that end up being tremendously expensive. I see the company’s response as a way the canal company can flex it’s muscle a little as they try to maintain their sovereignty and control of their own ends.
[signature]