Laserfiche WebLink
30 <br />are reconditioning. It is also possible that the fish were in poor <br />condition or were stressed by surgery. However, behavior of these <br />nonmigrant fish during the premigratory period did not appear abnormal, <br />since their local movements were similar to those of other squawfish <br />radiotracked in 1982 and 1981. Still another possibility is that the <br />proper environmental stimuli were not experienced by the fish. This <br />possibility will be discussed later, in the temperature section. <br />Migratory movement was noted in radiotagged fish number 12 prior to <br />losing contact on June 11. It moved from its upstream capture site <br />river km 170, (mile 105.5) to river km 96.6 (mile 60). Fish number 11 <br />was also tagged at river km 170 (mile 105.5), and contact was lost June <br />23 after noting a downstream movement of 8 km to river km 166.5 (mile <br />103.4). The last contact with fish number 3 was July 7 at river km 89.5 <br />(mile 55.6); this fish was originally tagged at river km 86.5 (mile <br />53.7). <br />Spawning Areas <br />River km 26.4 (mile 16.4) was the only site at which Colorado <br />squawfish were observed by radiotelemetry to undergo spawning behavior. <br />However, this is not the only site at which spawning may occur. In <br />1981, similar behavior, presumably spawning, of radiotelemetered <br />squawfish was observed at river km 29.8 (mile 18.5). In addition, four <br />larval squaw€ish were collected at river km 28.8 (mile 17.9) in 1981, <br />providing conclusive evidence that spawning occurred upstream of river <br />km 26.4 (mile 16.4) (Haynes and Muth, 1982). Aggregations of ripe fish <br />captured at several locations throughout the lower 32 km of Yampa Canyon <br />suggest spawning at other sites. It is also possible that individual