Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />moved into or out of the creek. With a large scale turnover in personnel, net placement changed <br /> <br />the most between 2005 and 2006, which may have affected catch rates. This potential <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />complicating factor is discussed in the fmal paragraph of this subsection. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Equipment issues <br />River otters (Lutra canadensis) have been known to chew holes in nets and eat the <br /> <br />captured fish. In addition, fyke nets can be washed away when flows rise quickly. Prom 2001 to <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2005, complications associated with otters and river flow were considered infrequent and oflittle <br /> <br />consequence. In 2006, river otters did compromise fyke-netting operations. Crews responded by <br /> <br />shifting efforts from fyke-netting to more electrofishing and trammel netting. If this were a major <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />factor influencing catch rates, however, one would predict a decrease in fyke-netting catch rates <br /> <br />and a subsequent increase in catch rates for the other two gear types as effort is redistributed; <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />however, this did not happen (Table 1). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Crew turnover <br />While project personnel remained consistent from 2001-2005; the entire crew was <br /> <br />replaced in 2006. Changes in personnel in 2006 resulted in some minor changes in specific net <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />set locations and a general decrease in overall sampling effort as the crew was not in place until <br /> <br />late spring. This factor does not, however, explain the observed decrease in catch rates over the <br /> <br />entire study period. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Catch Per Unit Effort Summary <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />. <br />