03-07-2017, 12:17 AM
I will look for the specific study done to determine the dollar values--it was a Washington State study and not done in Utah by the way. Ultimately though, Utah can show through their own creel surveys significant increases and declines in angler hours at specific waters. If you look at the situations at Strawberry and Schofield and even Panguitch for that matter, what you find is that angler hours dramatically decrease as the biomass begins to slant heavier and heavier to high chub biomass within the fishery. Part of the cost effectiveness of using rotenone is tied to the number of anglers utilizing the fishery before and after rotenone treatments. In all of the above examples, angler hours increase dramatically immediately following treatments. This is certainly not tied to population increases.
To put it another way, I remember the last treatment process at Panguitch lake. During that process, several of the local business owners were adamantly against a rotenone treatment because they feared they would lose business. However, one owner was able to sway the rest when he began to explain that he couldn't afford the reservoir to go another year without it. The biomass at the lake was comprised of over 95% chubs and his business was declining on a yearly basis because anglers weren't coming to the lake--fishing was bad. Immediately following the treatment, though, anglers returned and business has been booming ever since. In fact, if you look at the economic growth surrounding that reservoir since the treatment it is obvious that fishing has been good.
Overall, rotenone treatments are certainly cost effective when anglers have decline in dramatic fashion as in the Strawberry case and in the Schofield case. The dollars spent on such treatments are made back up in increased angling hours. The question you should ask is how much money do we lose when fishing deteriorates to a point when a fishery is no longer being utilized.
[signature]
To put it another way, I remember the last treatment process at Panguitch lake. During that process, several of the local business owners were adamantly against a rotenone treatment because they feared they would lose business. However, one owner was able to sway the rest when he began to explain that he couldn't afford the reservoir to go another year without it. The biomass at the lake was comprised of over 95% chubs and his business was declining on a yearly basis because anglers weren't coming to the lake--fishing was bad. Immediately following the treatment, though, anglers returned and business has been booming ever since. In fact, if you look at the economic growth surrounding that reservoir since the treatment it is obvious that fishing has been good.
Overall, rotenone treatments are certainly cost effective when anglers have decline in dramatic fashion as in the Strawberry case and in the Schofield case. The dollars spent on such treatments are made back up in increased angling hours. The question you should ask is how much money do we lose when fishing deteriorates to a point when a fishery is no longer being utilized.
[signature]