11-20-2016, 02:18 PM
[quote Dog-lover]
Spend the million or so dollars stocking Walleye instead of Rotenone. Try something that Scofield hasn't already seen multiple times in the past.[/quote]
I could not agree more, doing Rotenone, yet again, is a colossal waste of our license dollars. Considering the job the Walleye did to the chubs in Starvation they would be the best choice to control the chubs, IMO. Using sterile eyes in big numbers for a few years to get the chubs under control is the best option, then simple cut back on the numbers being stocked and increase the numbers of of trout being stocked, until the lake gets a better balance of trout versus chubs, once that balance is achieved, its just a matter of keeping that balance in check by adjusting the number of eyes being planted from year to year. Its a win win, IMO and I just don't see the trout ever being about to control the chubs on their own, without some serious help.
[signature]
Spend the million or so dollars stocking Walleye instead of Rotenone. Try something that Scofield hasn't already seen multiple times in the past.[/quote]
I could not agree more, doing Rotenone, yet again, is a colossal waste of our license dollars. Considering the job the Walleye did to the chubs in Starvation they would be the best choice to control the chubs, IMO. Using sterile eyes in big numbers for a few years to get the chubs under control is the best option, then simple cut back on the numbers being stocked and increase the numbers of of trout being stocked, until the lake gets a better balance of trout versus chubs, once that balance is achieved, its just a matter of keeping that balance in check by adjusting the number of eyes being planted from year to year. Its a win win, IMO and I just don't see the trout ever being about to control the chubs on their own, without some serious help.
[signature]