Laserfiche WebLink
21 <br />adequately addressed: 1) many mortalities are not reported; 2) <br />the continued bias against the squawfish as "trash fish" results <br />in intentioned mortalities; 3) portions of fishing pressure are <br />under represented; 4) the common misidentification of the fish <br />results in a subtle diminishing of the importance of unconfirmed <br />reports of squawfish captures and 5) the low catch rates reduce <br />the import of statistical data. All these may contribute to <br />underestimation of the true impact of angling. <br />The quantity of angling pressure on the squawfish <br />populations in either river is unlikely to tip the balance <br />between existence and extinction for this species. Yet the <br />cumulative impact of angling pressure in conjunction with the <br />many other constraints on the fish may have some management <br />implications. Angling pressure may be one of the impacts which <br />the state agencies participating in the RIP are better able to <br />control. <br />It is doubtful that angling mortality could be completely <br />eliminated. Since the endangered populations are not the <br />targeted species, the complete elimination of the incidental <br />catch of endangered fish would require the closure of the entire <br />fishery. Many anglers would protest. The potential biological <br />implications of the incidental harvest of Colorado squawfish must <br />be weighed against the political implications of closing an <br />entire river system to fishing. We cannot recommend such an <br />action. <br />