Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the backwater <br /> <br />was too deep to seine. The middle <br /> <br />part was seined several times and depths and bottom type suggested <br />I <br /> <br />an efficient sample except that the entire width could not be sam- <br />pled in one sweep. Only a few young-of-the-year squawfish were <br />found here. The upper part was thoroughly sampled from bank to <br />bank and produced the majority of the young-of-the-yea~ squawfish. <br />Samples from other backwate~s also indicated a preference of upper <br />portions of backwaters with a relatively shallow depth. Therefore, <br />sampling efficiency was excellent in the upper portion of the <br /> <br />backwater, good in the middle part and poor or non-existent near <br />the mouth. If just the upper portion is analyzed, a large turn- <br />over of squawfish young is indicated. <br />The question remains, what happened to the marked fish? It <br />is possible they died from the marking and handling process. This <br />is extremely doubtful due to the great amount of caution used in <br />handling the fish and the small amount of anal fin actually <br />clipped. <br /> <br />Another explanation is that the fish moved considerably, <br />either within the backwater, or between that area and other habi- <br /> <br />tats in the immediate area. As mentioned earlier, an intense ef- <br /> <br />fort was made to locate the marked fish, especially downstream <br />from the sample backwater. The area above and below the backwater <br />was very deep, which prohibited sampling other than very close to <br />shore. Failure to find marked squawfish, or any young-df-the-year <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />....-. ...... <br />