Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br />~ <br /> <br />(Xl <br />, <br /> <br />C/l <br />c <br />3 <br />3 <br />CD <br />.... <br />.- <br />o <br />~ <br />" <br />o <br />~ <br />-I <br />CD <br />II> <br />- <br /> <br />'" <br />CD <br />-0 <br />o <br />=+ <br />> <br />-0 <br />::!. <br /> <br />I'.) <br />o <br />o <br />I'.) <br /> <br />Tobie 2.-Creel census and pressure counts for July 1998-2001 ond the <br />2001 Summer low Flow Test <br /> <br /> Quolity woters Regulor waters Total <br />Date Angler hours Catch rote Angler hours Cotch rote Angler hours Cotch rote <br />July 2001 '26,164 1.72 3,450 0.49 29,614 1.11 <br />July 9-15 4,706 2.16 1,155 0,49 5,861 1.33 <br />(Law Flow Test) <br />July 1-8, 16-31 19,699 1.45 5,166 0.49 24,865 0.97 <br />July 2000 21,949 1.07 7,748 1.6 29,697 1.34 <br />July 1999 21,043 1.24 9,118 0.39 30,161 0.82 <br />July 1998 27,674 1.23 7,459 0.39 35,133 0.81 <br /> <br />Provided by Marc Wethington, NMDGF, and Rick Vinton, Reclamation. <br />Notes: (1) Angler hours for the month of July 2001 ore not additive as the result of deriving full. month data based on a formula with adual counts <br />made during the Test. (2) The low flow data were gathered doily during the Test; the previous year's data for the same week were only gathered two <br />times during the week and the weekend, so data comparisons would not be based on the same number of sampling days. 13) Comparison can only <br />be made on the total monthly dato and the catch rates. 14) There is no real explanation why July 1998 and July 2001 angler hours are higher thon <br />July 1999 and 2000. (5) The high catch rote for the regular waters in July 2000 is due to public knowledge of the stocking dote and place and the <br />resulting catch rate (being at the right place at the right time). <br /> <br />------------ <br /> <br />------- <br />