3010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . . . . . . . . MAY 17 - PHASE I CONTINUED The remaining seven transmitters were checked using the RF-40, which was still able to receive signals at short ranges. Two transmitters, weaker than the others, were marked to prevent their implantation in squawfish. Following this testing, the receiver was returned to the manufacturer for repair and testing. MAY 18 THROUGH 22 - PHASE III CONTINUED Without a receiver, the tracking of the tagged fish, Phase IV, was of necessity, temporarily postponed. A trip to Green River, Utah, was therefore made on May 19 to capture squawfish in the secondary study area. The river be- tween Green River and the border of Canyonlands National Park was electrofished, and on May 21 a 1362 g (3 lb) and a 1589 g (3-1/2 lb) squawfish were taken in Barrier Creek. These fish were implanted with tags 40.602 and 40.612 and re- leased. The next day, May 22, electrofishing continued, but no suitable fish were captured. At this point, even though only seven fish had been radio tagged~ it was decided that further tagging operations would be suspended since time of spawning was rapidly approaching and the trauma of surgery any later might hinder or pre- vent spawning. This decision meant that Phase III was complete. MAY 28 - PHASE I RESUMED The repaired RF-40 receiver and the new SR-40 search receiver arrived. The SR-40 receiver is designed to constantly scan all the transmitter frequencies and to indicate on one of the 10 channels which transmitter was being received. In theory, transmitters 40.600 and 40.602 would be received on channel one, 40.612 on channel two, etc. Each receiver was tested using the remaining five transmitters. At this time, it was discovered that the SR-40 would not pick up the signal from the 11