My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8171
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8171
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/17/2009 11:47:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8171
Author
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Title
A Study to Determine the Biological Feasibility of Pit Tags for Endangered Fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
USFW Year
1990.
USFW - Doc Type
Grand Junction, Colorado.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
1 <br />I <br />1 <br /> <br />t <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />In Gardner, Humphrey, and 13th-hole ponds, fish were recaptured by either seines <br />or entanglement nets whereas angling was used to recapture fish from West Pond <br />because seines and entanglement nets were ineffective capturing fish. For interim <br />samplings, entanglement nets were set for about 2 h to maximize survival of netted fish. <br />At the termination of the study, nets were set overnight in an attempt to recapture all <br />fish in the ponds. In West and Humphrey ponds, 5% emulsifiable rotenone was used at <br />the termination of the study to remove fish. Rotenone was used because of a previous <br />agreement with the pond owner to remove all fish from these two ponds at the <br />termination of the grow-out pond study. West Pond contained dense aquatic vegetation. <br />We felt that rotenone may be more effective recovering fish than entanglement nets, <br />seines, or angling. <br />The performance of the tag, survival, and condition of the recaptured fish were <br />noted at each sampling. Following recapture, fish were anesthetized, measured (nearest <br />3 mm), weighed (nearest 1 g), and the presence (and functional operation) of the tag <br />and code verified by the scanning/decoding unit. PIT-tagged fish were closely examined <br />to note any swelling or infection at or near the insertion. A four-point scale (described <br />in Table 2 of Results and Discussion) was used to indicate the degree to which the <br />wound created by the hypodermic needle had healed (Prentice et al. 1985). After <br />information had been obtained from the fish, they were returned to the respective pond <br />of their capture in the field studies, or to the circular tank in the laboratory studies. <br />Fish that accidentally died or were intentionally sacrificed at the termination of the <br />study were necropsied and the presence of the PIT tag was verified, if applicable. In <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.