Laserfiche WebLink
sucker, and bonytail in a controlled setting. Consequently, additional studies <br />were necessary to evaluate this identification system on sizes of fish not <br />formerly evaluated. This was necessary to determine if this tagging system could <br />be used in hatchery and field operations with propagated and wild stocks. <br />Because no single tag or mark is the suitable for all situations a number <br />of different tags and tagging systems may be required. Consequently, a variety <br />of tagging systems may be required in a recovery program. Before tagging and <br />marking systems can be implemented for hatchery and field operations, each system <br />must be evaluated for its suitability with a particular size and species of fish <br />along with other performance characters, e. g., retention, readability, tissue <br />healing, fish survival and growth over time, cost, and difficulty of application. <br />Goals and, Objectives <br />The goal of this study was to evaluate a variety of fish marking materials <br />and techniques for various sizes of Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, bonytail, <br />and razorback sucker. <br />The objectives of this study were to: <br />1. compare the performance of tagging techniques and systems to be <br />used to maintain identities of individual endangered fishes. The <br />following performance characters were compared for each tagging and <br />marking system tested: <br />a. survival (mortality) <br />b. growth <br />c. tag/mark verification (retention and readability), duration <br />and longevity <br />d. tissue response and biological compatibility to the tag/mark <br />e. convenience of application and recovery of information <br />3 <br />