Laserfiche WebLink
<br />' RESULTS AND DISCUSSION <br />During the first year of the study, 10 Colorado squawfish were captured <br />and implanted with radiotransmitters (Table 2). Of the 10 fish, two (B07 and <br />B09) were recaptured fish (fish that had been previously caught and tagged <br />with numbered Carlin tags). Fish (A10) was recaptured twice during the second <br />year of the study (Table 3). Radiotagged fish were monitored during ice <br />covered conditions from December 1986 through March 1987. There were 590.8 <br />total observation hours on these 10 fish from which 118 hours (472 15-minute <br />observations) were used for analysis. Eight radictagged fish from the first <br />' year were still operational and were monitored during the fall 1987, but only <br />three (A10, All, and Bll) were operational into the second winter. During the <br />second year, 10 additional fish were captured and implanted with <br />radiotransmitters (Table 2). Of these 10 fish, four (BB7, C87, C95, and A91) <br />'were recaptures at time of implantation and two (B85 and C00) were recaptured <br />after winter monitoring. During Winter 2 from December 1987 through March <br />1988 there were 74 total observation hours from which 34.5 hours (138 15- <br />minute observations) were used for analysis. Three fish (A00, A91, and C95) <br />tagged during the second year were not located during winter monitoring but <br />were re-contacted in the spring 1988. During the first tagging trip for the. <br />' second year, tag B09 was located and transmitting on a gravel shoreline at FM <br />79.2. It is unlikely that the tag was expelled by the fish based on previous <br />studies that indicate radiotag retention (Tyus 1988 and Wick et al. 1983). <br />' Fishermen frequent the area where the tag was found and it is possible that <br />the tag was discarded during evisceration. This fish was originally caught <br />sharing this study for implantation by angling. Natural death cannot be ruled <br />' out: however, the fish had behaved normally during previous contacts. During <br />the second year, fish C93 apparently died in January 1988. This fish was <br />caught in October 1987 and was carrying a large, red and white Dardevil <br />embedded in the lower jaw.. Attached to the lure was 6 feet fishing line which <br />' had tangled around a small tumbleweed. The fish appeared underweight but <br />strong. Stress related to carrying this lure and of the implantation may have <br />been factors contributing to the cause of death. The fish behaved normally <br />after tagging until January but may not have been in good enough condition to <br />make it through the entire winter. This may indicate the importance of fall <br />feeding and conditioning prior to the winter period. <br />' Fish movement <br />Of the 20 fish implanted during fall months in the 2 year period, only <br />' three (A09, B07, and BB7) moved downstream and relocated aver 4 miles or out <br />of the study area after implantation. Fourteen fish remained within the study <br />areas in which they were tagged. The farthest moving fish (A09) was tagged at <br />' RNA 96.4 in the Government Bridge study area during fall 1986, and was located <br />15 miles downstream in the Maybell study area at RU 81.4, 3.5 weeks later <br />(Table 4). ly, A09 used the same embayment as four other <br />radiotagged fish. These downstream movements could have been due to <br />disorientation from the surgical process or the MS 222 anesthesia. However, <br />not all fish moved downstream after release, and some downstream movement may <br />be indicative of increased activity in the fall. B08 moved 4.4 miles in the <br />fall of 1987 but had been implanted the previous year, thus eliminating <br />implantation) disorientation as the cause. All fish that moved downstream in <br />1 <br />15 <br />