03-07-2017, 05:33 PM
Fshrmn -- any ideas why they didn't take the opportunity to kill it then? I know that they look at lakes like this and try to take the opportunity on low water years -- obviously, the less water, the less rotenone needed.
I guess I shouldn't say "2 years in a row", but rather 2 treatments. Do 2 treatments on a low water year, followed by stocking after the second treatment and you'll have fish by the following fall.
so, what's the story on Scofield. Why hasn't the public gotten on board with a total rennovation? Why keep trying "unproven" methods (aka: stock the hell out of it with tiger trout) vs. proven methods (aka: rotenone)? Is it just a simple issue as pointed out by this thread (lack of understanding by anglers)? If so, using a committee method like was done on Boulder, Fish Lake, and even Panguitch might be the ticket. Get a group public, Blue Ribbon, and DWR people together to discuss and go over the options. The end result usually ends up being the result the DWR wanted to do in the first place -- it just takes some discussion to get the public to understand the "what's" and "why's".
[signature]
I guess I shouldn't say "2 years in a row", but rather 2 treatments. Do 2 treatments on a low water year, followed by stocking after the second treatment and you'll have fish by the following fall.
so, what's the story on Scofield. Why hasn't the public gotten on board with a total rennovation? Why keep trying "unproven" methods (aka: stock the hell out of it with tiger trout) vs. proven methods (aka: rotenone)? Is it just a simple issue as pointed out by this thread (lack of understanding by anglers)? If so, using a committee method like was done on Boulder, Fish Lake, and even Panguitch might be the ticket. Get a group public, Blue Ribbon, and DWR people together to discuss and go over the options. The end result usually ends up being the result the DWR wanted to do in the first place -- it just takes some discussion to get the public to understand the "what's" and "why's".
[signature]