8057

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8057
• Author: Bennett, J. R., D. A. Krieger, T. P. Nesler, L. E. Harris and R. B. Nehring.
• Title: An Assessment Of Fishery Management And Fish Production Alternatives To Reduce The Impact Of Whirling Disease In Colorado.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: Denver, Colorado.
• Copyright Material: NO

Another option for assessing the public demand for this type of fishing is also possible by
examining commercial aquaculture sales of catchable trout in the private sector and the gross sales
from private fishing ponds throughout the state. An alternative to the highly structured, pay-as-
you-go, closed public-fishery program in Arizona and Missouri would require anglers fishing at
waters managed with catchable trout to purchase either a trout stamp to be displayed on their
Conservation Certificate, or "catchable trout tags" to fasten to any trout caught at these waters.
The DOW could then index catchable trout production to the amount of "product" the angling
public was willing to pay for in previous years' sales of stamps or tags. These latter options
would better accommodate the present habitat conditions in Colorado, in which 41% of our
waters are managed in the Intensive Use category. In summary, the DOW needs to assess
demand for catchable trout, develop a new management strategy or tool that is responsive as an
economic index of this demand, which provides a basis for the production and distribution of
catchable trout, and a context in which environmental limitations can be considered.
Because we do not have pertinent information on demand to form the basis for
recommending how hatchery production should be amended, the following discussion of
alternatives will focus on initiating an appropriate information base. Results obtained from
implementation of these alternatives will assist the DOW in making decisions regarding hatchery
production, based on demand and angler satisfaction. However, they should be used with the
other reliable key parameters (angler success and catch rates) to adjust hatchery production goals
in the future.
Standardize key terminology and processes (e.g., cost of producing various sizes and
species of fish; data about the existing aquatic habitat base; angler use, etc.) to minimize
confusion about key data and how they were derived and used. The official data should
then be published, and others should be encouraged to use it rather than re-creating slightly
different perspectives with each attempt to use the information.
2. Initiate a study similar to Bergersen et al. (1982) to gain a more thorough understanding of
"angler satisfaction" (and its components) and more relevant estimates of angler success
(CPH) and demand by water category.
3. Initiate an economics-based study (Johnson et al. 1995) that examines the cost, benefits,
and anglers' willingness-to-pay for hatchery-reared fish in Colorado. This should be done on
a broad enough scale that the results can be applied to the entire hatchery system (based on
what they call a discrepancy between the economic cost of producing catchables and their
economic benefits, Johnson et al. [1995] suggest that Colorado's catchable trout program
might be inefficient).
4. Assess demand for catchable trout through catchout pond programs, commercial sales of
catchable trout to the private sector, and gross sales from private fishing ponds statewide.
35