Laserfiche WebLink
t <br /> ki <br /> ng, e.g., <br />marking system, PIT tags may not be practical for batch mar <br /> marking large numbers of fish such as those that might be stocked for <br /> <br />1 experimental augmentation. This tag may be more practical for marking small <br /> lots of endangered fish e.g., individual wild fish and brood fish for genetics <br />' management. PIT tags could be recovered from senescent brood fish in the <br /> hatchery and reused which would reduce long-term tagging costs. <br /> 10. Carlin tags should be continued to be used in research, monitoring, and other <br /> management programs in the UCRB, consistent with the policies set by the <br /> Technical Group of the Implementation Committee. Results from this study <br /> have been promising, and it appears that PIT tags are biologically compatible <br />I with the fish tested. However, additional information on the performance of <br /> PIT tags for Colorado River basin endangered fishes is required before they <br /> can be recommended either to be used in conjunction with or replace current <br /> <br /> tagging systems. <br /> 11. Several researchers have recently raised concern about the use of the <br /> Carlin-dangler tag on Colorado River fishes. For these fishes, this tag has <br /> been evaluated in a field setting but not in the laboratory. Because this tag <br /> will probably be continued to be used, it would be prudent to evaluate it in a <br /> controlled setting comparable to other tagging systems. Carlin tags should be <br /> evaluated for short- and long-term retention capabilities, the technique and <br />1 method for attachment, and component durability (polyethylene thread vs. <br />stainless steel wire). <br />28 <br />