Laserfiche WebLink
<br />17 <br /> <br />Table 2. Numbers of Colorado squawfish caught by Vanicek (1967) in the <br />Green River, 1964-1966 in Dinosaur ~ational Monument by year <br />class. <br /> <br />Year of Sampling Year classes <br />capture effort 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 <br />1964 High 1 357 275 <br />1965 High 4 29 53 42 <br />1966 High 0 5 8 1 560 <br /> -------------------------------------------- <br />Tota 1 5 391 336 43 560 <br />Reproductive Success Good Good Good Poor Good <br /> <br />actually have been Age II fish. A recent conversation with Dr. Vanicek <br /> <br /> <br />These data suggest that some of the Age I fish caught in 1964 may <br /> <br />indicated this was very possible. If this were so, the 1962 year class <br /> <br />would not appear to be as small as indicated in Table 2. Therefore, it <br /> <br />is concluded that 1962 was a good year for squawfish reproduction in <br />Dinosaur National Monument because the available data suggests 1962 was <br />a better year than was initially indicated by Vanicek (1967). <br /> <br />There is no data to suggest that 1965 was also a good year, for <br />an analysis of Vanicek's data sheets indicates that effort in 1965 was <br /> <br /> <br />similar to the other years of his study. <br />Most of the young squawfish collected by Vanicek (1967) were taken <br />in Echo Park, although young squawfish were also taken in Island Park <br />and Split Mountain. No young squawfish were taken in the Green River <br />