Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br />t~ <br />0 <br />~ 5 <br />a. <br />x <br />w <br />~ 0 <br />0 <br />L <br />U 10 <br />0 <br />L <br />~ 5 <br />Z <br />0 <br />10 <br />1995 <br />7 <br />6 6 <br />3 <br />2 2 <br />1 <br />Apr May Jun Jui Aug Sep Nov <br />Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct <br />® Crew Days ^ Northern Pike <br />10 <br />a~ <br />.«- <br />U <br />5 <br />0 <br />U <br />.Y <br />0 °- <br />c <br />.c <br />r- <br />10 Z <br />0 <br />L <br />5 -a <br />Z <br />0 <br />FYcv~ 2.-Total number of northern pike collected and total number of days that <br />sampling crews spent in the field. One crew day represents the efforts of one sampling crew <br />for one day. Sampling gears included electrofishing, fyke nets and trammel nets. <br />near Hartland. More electrofishing in early November failed to catch any additional northern <br />pike. <br />Only one northern pike was collected within the study area in 1996. In contrast with <br />1995, several days of electrofishing had been conducted prior to it's capture. An important <br />contributing factor to successfully capturing pike with electrofishing was river flow. When <br />sampling began in 1995, the water was high enough that shallow, weedy areas along the <br />shoreline were flooded. These flooded shoreline habitats contained most of the northern pike <br />7 <br />