05-12-2015, 07:04 PM
[#0000FF]"Habitat Improvement" is one thing. Total destruction of the lower river and rerouting into a shallow marshy inlet area is something else (The Delta Plan). That may have been the environment in earlier times but since then there have been a lot of changes that make it a less attractive idea. It would displace a few farmers and other businesses along the river. And the change in flows would undoubtedly affect the spawning of species other than the Junies.
Improvement is in the eye of the feds. If there were an open election as to what outcomes were preferred by the "average" citizen and/or angler I question how many would vote for the continued costly pursuit of Junie Nirvana as opposed to having the plain old good fishing of Utah Lake.
Yeah, yeah. I know. I'm a heathen for still not buying into the save the sucker program. I'm all in favor of a major cleanup of the lake, but not at the expense of the otherwise good fishing it provides.
The politics and the expense of the sucker saving efforts are disproportionate to the amount of benefit the suckers will actually receive. I wonder if anybody has ever done a cost analysis on how much per sucker we are spending.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Improvement is in the eye of the feds. If there were an open election as to what outcomes were preferred by the "average" citizen and/or angler I question how many would vote for the continued costly pursuit of Junie Nirvana as opposed to having the plain old good fishing of Utah Lake.
Yeah, yeah. I know. I'm a heathen for still not buying into the save the sucker program. I'm all in favor of a major cleanup of the lake, but not at the expense of the otherwise good fishing it provides.
The politics and the expense of the sucker saving efforts are disproportionate to the amount of benefit the suckers will actually receive. I wonder if anybody has ever done a cost analysis on how much per sucker we are spending.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]