Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Scofield survey results
#23
Perhaps. I would have no idea. But the timing and facts of the situation don't merit anyone getting any positive recognition IMO. It's coming up on 10 years since it was noted that the chub pop in Scofield was "skyrocketing". Sure, tigers were planted shortly thereafter, and that probably would have worked if managed appropriately, but clearly it was a fail.

Those opposed to rotenone point to it's failure in the past at Scofield. Are they saying that the treatment did not remove the vast majority of chub? How about pointing to the failure of implementing biological controls at the point when it was possible to do so? How about the many times rotenone has been successful? (e.g. strawberry - those cuts would never have been able to "stay on top" of a chub pop that was already out of control)

Am I just being stupid thinking that the obvious answer is a combination of chemical and predator control? Rotenone will never get every single chub from a drainage. They will be back, whether by bucket biologists, or naturally. There must be a mechanism in place long-term to keep their numbers in control.

In the mean time, this ship should be righted sooner than later.

(but not before this ice season - I need to stock up on chub meat [Tongue]).
[signature]
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Scofield survey results - by AmyC - 11-17-2016, 06:43 PM
Re: [AmyC] Scofield survey results - by dregs - 11-18-2016, 09:51 PM
Re: [AmyC] Scofield survey results - by gofish435 - 11-19-2016, 12:00 AM
Re: [AmyC] Scofield survey results - by 300win - 11-20-2016, 09:22 PM
Re: [300win] Scofield survey results - by Fishrmn - 11-21-2016, 09:43 AM
Re: [AmyC] Scofield survey results - by Charina - 11-21-2016, 06:14 PM
Re: [Fishrmn] Scofield survey results - by Charina - 11-21-2016, 06:47 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)