Laserfiche WebLink
contributing element to the overall experience, and what can/should DOW do about it?); 3) the <br />objectives for our program(s); and 4) fishery management variables (i.e., angler use, catch rate, <br />stocking rates, and regulations). While we know quite a bit about angler use and catch rate (with <br />confidence intervals of 10-30%), as well as other fishery management variables and objectives <br />for the program(s), it is the relationship among these variables that must be understood better and <br />applied to our management programs. <br />Potential Economic Approaches <br />The DOW's Aquatic Resources program has traditionally undertaken some of our most <br />diverse and costly activities--program administration, sportfish management, endangered species <br />recovery, habitat enhancement, and hatchery production and distribution--all of which expend a <br />significant portion of the agency's budget (43-50% for the period 1993-95). While the DOW is <br />currently fiscally self-sufficient, some of our programs are not, including the Aquatic Resources <br />program. <br />There are probably many ways to encourage the fiscal self-reliance mandated in our strategic <br />documents--to have programs "pay their own way." This report raises several options that may <br />be useful in that regard, including gaining more insight into what constitutes demand for, and <br />satisfaction with, our fishing programs and using those data to guide our hatchery production; <br />indexing subsequent years' hatchery production on angler use (catch, license/stamp sales) from a <br />given year; or adopting strategies from private enterprise, such as catchout ponds. Many Aquatic <br />Resources program activities require significant lead time to anticipate, plan, and budget. <br />Indexing expenditures to some quantifiable variable would be better than arbitrarily to cap or fix <br />program allocations as a percentage of the DOW's budget. <br />Currently, we cannot truly assess the public demand for hatchery-raised, catchable trout <br />from an economic perspective. Experience in urban fishing waters has demonstrated that the <br />public will "consume" all available supplies of catchable trout under the current pricing (license <br />fee) structure and market distribution schedule (year-round; 8 fish/angler/trip). A similar scenario <br />is evident from angler preferences for trout to be stocked seasonally in Front Range and eastern <br />plains' waters (without decreasing stocking into mountain waters). Demand for catchable trout <br />will always exceed supply under these conditions. To assess demand from an economic <br />perspective, we would have to use catchable trout in more controlled situations, such as is done in <br />Missouri (with the state park catchout ponds), to determine the willingness of the public to pay <br />for this relatively expensive hatchery product. The state of Arizona also uses the catchout pond <br />concept in urban areas where the trout product is provided totally by private sector trout farms, <br />which produce the fish in surrounding states. The user buys a license or permit to fish in the <br />catchout ponds. When the quota has been caught by an individual angler, that individual must <br />either quit fishing or purchase another "license" to fish. These programs are highly successful in <br />both Missouri and Arizona and may have applications in Colorado. <br />34