8176 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

catch rates of bluehead suckers, Colorado pikeminnow, channel catfish, common carp, or black bullheads. Suitable sites for effective hoop-net sets were limited, but one Colorado pikeminnow and 20 flannehnouth suckers were captured with this type of gear (Table 3). Analyses of all data (1996 and 1997 combined) showed that the most abundant species captured in the hoop net was the red shiner, and the catch rate of red shiner in the Woodside section was significantly higher than in the Canyon section (Table 7). The catch of red shiner is probably smaller than the actual number of this species that entered the net, since the mesh in the hoop net used was large enough to allow most shiners to escape. The catch rate of channel catfish in the canyon section was fairly high. However, 32 out of 38 channel catfish captured with hoop nets were caught in one day at river mile 0.1. If the data from that day were eliminated from consideration, then the catch rate for this species would have been quite low. Analysis of variance of the catch rates of channel catfish without data from that day showed that there were no signif cant differences by location. Flannehnouth suckers, relative to other species, were caught in high numbers in both the Canyon and Woodside sections. All other species captured were represented by few individuals, and there were no significant differences in catch rates between locations for Colorado pikeminnow, bluehead sucker, black bullhead, common carp, or green sunfish. The species assemblage caught in the Canyon section differed from that caught in the Woodside section (Figure 21), but neither area produced large numbers offish. Most of the drift nets that were set filled with debris in a short amount of time, so the catch from these nets was quite low. This, in turn, was the reason that this gear type was not used more frequently. Flannelrnouth sucker was the only native species captured in drift nets, and they were more abundant in the catch than any non-native species. Non-native species captured included Utah chub, common carp, sand shiner, green sunfish, red shiner, and channel catfish (Tables 3 and 8). Locations suitable for light traps were quite rare in the Price River. Therefore, use of this gear type was quite limited. The four light traps set in 1996 produced large numbers of red shiners, one flannelmouth sucker, and one speckled dace (Table 9). No native species were captured in minnow traps during this study. Red shiners accounted for 94.2% of the fish caught, and common carp were the only other species represented in the catch by more than one individual. Minnow traps set in the canyon section produced a more diverse species assemblage and larger numbers offish than those set in the Woodside section (Figure 22), but statistical comparisons of these data were not made. Sites that could be effectively sampled with a seine were rare in the Price River, but this gear type proved to be the most effective way to capture small fish. Three native species (flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker and speckled dace) and six non-native species (common carp, fathead minnow, red shiner, sand shiner, channel catfish, and Utah chub) were caught with seines (Table 3). Most seine hauls produced no fish which produced a distribution of catch rates that was highly skewed. Transformations were unsuccessfully used in an attempt to normalize the distribution. Therefore, the assumptions of parametric statistics could not be met so statistical comparisons of catch rates are not reported here. However, examination of catch rates (Figure 23) suggested that the Woodside section had more bluehead suckers, flannelmouth suckers, common carp, fathead minnows and Utah chubs than the Canyon section. Catch rates in the Canyon section were higher for sand shiners, speckled dace and channel catfish than in the 10