08-02-2018, 06:43 PM
[quote Lonnie] The only thing we know for sure is that poisoning has never worked. [/quote]
I get so tired of this comment. It is wrong. It did work. Every time they did it, it worked. What you all fail to recognize is the goal of the poisoning. Was that goal a 100% kill with no return of chubs? Or, was it [rotenone treatment] simply a part of a long-term management plan?
[quote Lonnie]
The 3 times since 1970 has only produced 5-7 years of good fishing each time , then the chubs take over .[/quote]
Success!
So, if the management plan included a rotenone treatment every 8 years, then you can easily come to the conclusion that rotenone was successful!
Fast forward to today: the opportunity to poison Scofield fully expecting less than 100%chub kill followed by stocking of wipers, tiger musky, tiger trout, cutthroat, sterile walleye, etc. was a valid option that would have produced faster results. In stead, we are still here talking about 12" trout, and potential big tiger musky in the future.
[signature]
I get so tired of this comment. It is wrong. It did work. Every time they did it, it worked. What you all fail to recognize is the goal of the poisoning. Was that goal a 100% kill with no return of chubs? Or, was it [rotenone treatment] simply a part of a long-term management plan?
[quote Lonnie]
The 3 times since 1970 has only produced 5-7 years of good fishing each time , then the chubs take over .[/quote]
Success!
So, if the management plan included a rotenone treatment every 8 years, then you can easily come to the conclusion that rotenone was successful!
Fast forward to today: the opportunity to poison Scofield fully expecting less than 100%chub kill followed by stocking of wipers, tiger musky, tiger trout, cutthroat, sterile walleye, etc. was a valid option that would have produced faster results. In stead, we are still here talking about 12" trout, and potential big tiger musky in the future.
[signature]