8057 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ideally, we would prefer to have definitive information for preparing hatchery production schedules--creel census data estimating angler use and demand (by water "category") and measures of angler "satisfaction," all with reasonable statistical confidence limits. Satisfaction is some measure of the difference between what an angler ex cte from a fishing experience and what was actually experienced. Even the Colorado State Auditor's report (1995) concluded that stocking levels should be set using comprehensive empirical data. In reality, DOW data is lacking in some areas, so we have been forced to use some estimates and assumptions in making hatchery production decisions. Deloitte & Touche (1995), Johnson et al. (1995), and others make explicit disclaimers that the information and assumptions forming the basis of their analyses came from DOW personnel. The credibility of any assessment we might undertake depends on solid information from the referenced sources. It is therefore unfortunate to encounter discrepancies involving the DOW over very basic issues. For example, while Deloitte & Touche (1995) state that, "... production shortfalls will decrease angler opportunity." Others, including Johnson et al. (1995), from an economic perspective, conclude that the DOW is stocking too many fish in some locales. The comments made by Deloitte & Touche (1995) are probably based on input they received from DOW employees (according to their disclaimer). It would be instructive to examine the assumptions and information provided by the DOW and to learn the basis for them. While some would contend that recreational angling can always be improved, and that the ultimate strategy is to maximize DOW's hatchery production and stock them into the state's waters (Standage Market Research 1994), others are not convinced. This approach overlooks the fact that we do not have enough information to estimate demand accurately and, therefore, production. Historically, hatchery production has responded to requests from biologists for fry, fingerling, and subcatchable fish that were based on a given water's productivity and meeting perceived angler demand. Catchable trout production, on the other hand, has been driven by a desire to maximize the productivity and efficiency of the remaining hatchery system potential. What we would prefer is an objective decision-making process founded on empirical data and robust estimates of other key variables. Until the DOW has confidence in data describing anglers' demand and willingness to pay (by water category), and some insight into what comprises angler satisfaction and preference, we will not be able to manage our hatcheries proactively. An updated study similar to Bergersen et al. (1982) should be designed to address these parameters, and to help us understand the factors contributing to angler satisfaction, which is vital for efficient fisheries management. After that point, we would be able to more accurately predict the effects of varying stocking rates. We could also design a program that balances the demands of our diverse constituents with other DOW management objectives, and to adjust hatchery production accordingly. We need more information to guide good decisions. It is important to reemphasize that there are several key variables involved in DOW's fishery management programs and our hatchery production system. They are 1) demand, which is characterized by what people want, and how much money they are willing to pay for that experience/opportunity; 2) angler satisfaction and its attendant elements (how important is each 33