10-17-2019, 03:00 PM
[quote scartinez]Probably because poisoning it... would cost lots of money. Seems like a reasonable answer.[/quote]
But at what cost?
How much money has the state lost by having an underutilized fishery for the last 20 years??
You have to look at both sides of the equation. Sure there is a monetary cost associated with poisoning a fishery. But there is also a monetary cost associated with a fishery that anglers avoid due to poor quality fishing. Where is the break-even point? How much has we lost because we took the 20+ year "let's take the slow approach"?
[quote scartinez]...and restocking it...[/quote]'
It's being re-stocked whether rotenone is being used or not. In fact, the costs of stocking over the past 20 years were probably higher than the cost of using rotenone to poison. Had a poisoning occurred, the stocking costs may have, in fact, come down. If restocking is part of your argument, your books are in the red and rotenone should have been used!
[signature]
But at what cost?
How much money has the state lost by having an underutilized fishery for the last 20 years??
You have to look at both sides of the equation. Sure there is a monetary cost associated with poisoning a fishery. But there is also a monetary cost associated with a fishery that anglers avoid due to poor quality fishing. Where is the break-even point? How much has we lost because we took the 20+ year "let's take the slow approach"?
[quote scartinez]...and restocking it...[/quote]'
It's being re-stocked whether rotenone is being used or not. In fact, the costs of stocking over the past 20 years were probably higher than the cost of using rotenone to poison. Had a poisoning occurred, the stocking costs may have, in fact, come down. If restocking is part of your argument, your books are in the red and rotenone should have been used!
[signature]