Laserfiche WebLink
_47- <br />of the creel, represented only from 8% to 21% of the population. <br />Reasons for the discrepency are probably based on growth rates and <br />fisherman selection since, after a year in the river, the 1976 <br />fingerling were mostly too small to interest fishermen. Snake River <br />cutthroat trout made up a very small portion of the population, and <br />the 1976 planted fingerlings were notably lacking in the samples. <br />Discussion <br />The difference in abundance of the 1976 fingerling rainbow trout <br />and cutthroat trout in the electro-shocking samples is puzzling. The <br />rainbow trout apparently survived very well, while the cutthroat trout <br />all but disappeared. Reasons for this are unknown, but some possible <br />explanations should be considered. Cutthroat fingerlings were stocked <br />in 1976 at a smaller size (4 inches vs. 5 inches) and later in the year <br />than the rainbow fingerlings so size could be a factor in overwinter <br />survival, or possibly the larger, earlier planted rainbow had filled <br />the available habitat. <br />Date of stocking had no apparent effect on the percent return <br />of catchable rainbow trout in 1977 (Table 21). Early stocked fish <br />returned at a slightly higher rate, which would be expected, since <br />those fish were vulnerable to anglers over a longer period of time. <br />Table 21. Percent return of catchable size rainbow trout stocked in <br />the Flaming Gorge tailwaters, 1977. <br />Month stocked Mark Number Harvest Return <br />April-May Rt. Pelvic 89142 4,171 51% <br />June-July L. Pelvic 17,005 8,212 48%