My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9432 (2)
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9432 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 10:09:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9432
Author
Modde, T. and M. Fuller.
Title
Feasibility of Channel Catfish Reduction in the Lower Yampa River.
USFW Year
2002.
USFW - Doc Type
Vernal.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
120
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
the Lower Gunnison River were too low. <br />2. Fish were not in the 2.3-mile stream reach downstream of the dam. <br />3. Fish were in the 2.3-mile reach but were not in the plunge pool <br />immediately downstream of the dam. <br />4. Fish were in the plunge pool but were shy or reluctant to use the <br />man-made entrance or could not locate the downstream fishway <br />entrance. <br />5. Fish entered the fishway entrance but only partially continued up <br />the fishway or were reluctant to continue beyond the entrance. <br />6. Conditions in the fishway were too threatening or stressful. <br />Information on the use or nonuse of the fishway by the target species was needed <br />to determine if adjustments needed to be made either to baffle configuration or <br />number or to river flows if the target fish were not using the fish passageway. <br />Using telemetry to monitor the movements of radio-tagged sub-adult and adult <br />Colorado pikeminnow in and near the passageway could possibly answer some of <br />these questions about their use or nonuse of the facility under the situations <br />described above. <br />Surgical Procedures <br />Surgical protocol for implanting radio transmitters was established from <br />procedures initially developed for Colorado pikeminnow by Hart and Summerfelt <br />(1975) and Tyus (1984). Colorado pikeminnow were not implanted during the period <br />that corresponded immediately prior to and during spawning. This was done to <br />avoid stress and eliminate the risk of the transmitter being expelled by the <br />enlargening egg masses in gravid fish (Bidgood 1980; Marty and Summerfelt 1986). <br />Telemetry Equipment <br />Transmitters. LOTEK° model MCFT-7A (7-volt battery output) and MCFT-3FM <br />(3-volt battery output) digitally encoded transmitters (148-152 Mhz) were <br />implanted interperitoneally in sub-adult and adult Colorado pikeminnow. Each <br />transmitter had a unique identity code (e. g., Code 75) which was the fish's <br />specific transmitter signature. Each transmitter had an 40-cm external trailing <br />antenna, that consisted of a plastic-coated metal cable, and extended outside the <br />14
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.