Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. .) ... <br /> <br />. ~ lo. . <br /> <br />of Colorado squawfish collected is greater than reported by previous <br />investigators (Crosby 1975, Lanigan and Berry 1981, Wick et al. <br />1981). This probably reflects our increased effort and differences <br />in sampling techniques. Also this study included the White River <br />in both Utah and Colorado, while the other studies were geographi- <br />cally limited to one state. <br /> <br />During this study, Colorado squawfish ( >60 mm TL) comprised <br />less than 1% of the total number of fishes collected. However, <br />Colorado squawfish ( > 60 mm TL) also comprised less than 1% of the <br />fishes collected during standardized sampling in both the Green <br />River (Tyus et al. 1981 B) or the Yampa River (Tyus and McNatt <br />1982) . <br /> <br />Our data indicate Colorado squawfish utilize a major portion <br />of the White River for considerable periods of time, and are capable <br />of migrating long distances, both up and down stream,.. in relatively <br />short periods of time. <br /> <br />This paper only summarizes findings of the White River study. <br />It is recommended that the White River Report (Tyus and Harper 1982) <br />be consulted for more detailed information. More importantly, all <br />FWS studies (Green, Yampa and White rivers) should be combined <br />before meaningful conclusions about endangered species in any sub- <br />basin can be placed into perspective. <br /> <br />ACKNOWLEDGMENT <br /> <br />Primary funding was provided by the Bureau of Land Management. <br />Limited funding was provided by FWS in 1980 for survey work. The <br />Ute Indian Tribe provided access to the White River on the Uintah <br />and Ouray Reservation during the study.. The Colorado Division of <br />Wildlife furnished aid in collecting specimens. <br /> <br />48 <br /> <br />I <br />i <br />----L- <br />