canyoncreek,
The difference that crayfish make is probably more complex in those lakes than just providing food. They probably inhibit recruitment of game and forage fish also. They also modify the habitat influencing the species mix. Where they dominate, it is likely the forage, and particularly the total energy of forage, is increased. It is likely that the combination of fewer predators, more forage, and regular cropping by anglers sustain those fishery's relative performance.
If an introduced crayfish species is so prevalent such that a person can do no harm by introduction to their water ... then there is no reason to introduce them anyway. Why take the risk of transporting a prohibited species? As you prior said, they don't do well in water that has mud bottoms. How much extra will one get ... over say natives ... that are probably suited to making a better living in a pond? Just saying ... it may well be and it is probably true that there is probably a native crayfish that will perform better in most ponds up there than the Rusties. Where is Cody? I bet he could recommend a native crayfish that would produce as much forage in your pond as Rusties ever could without having to commit any crime. Just saying. How we imagine an introduction, (like in lakes where they extirpate native crayfish and make fat SMB), isn't very likely to happen in any member's pond. There are better choices that are not illegal that will perform better or perform as well as Rusties.
