Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />f <br />1 <br />5. determine the effect of the tag on growth, survival, and wound <br />healing. <br />6. determine the ability of the reading and scanning equipment to <br />accurately detect the tag after injection. <br />7. determine the durability of the detector/decoding system for <br />field use. <br />This report provides the results of laboratory and field studies conducted in 1987 <br />through 1989, and recommends the future direction and use of PTT tags for endangered <br />fishes in the UCRB. <br />METHODOLOGY <br />General Study Design and Approach <br />The original study plan was to test PIT tags on several species and sizes of <br />endangered fish in a 'controlled' or laboratory setting. However, the number and size of <br />target fish available to conduct this evaluation was small. For this reason, we decided to <br />utilize non-endangered native fish, as well as endangered fish to accomplish the study. <br />PIT tags were to be tested on: <br />1. non-endangered adult fish, e.g., wild, adult roundtail chub Gila <br />robust ), <br />2. endangered juvenile fish, e.g., hatchery-reared Colorado squawfish and <br />razorback sucker, and <br />3. endangered adult fish, e.g., hatchery Colorado squawfish and razorback <br />sucker brood fish. <br />4