A Reward‐Recovery Study to Estimate Tagged‐Fish Reporting Rates by Idaho Anglers

Abstract

From 2006 to 2009, we tagged and released 22,202 fish with T‐bar anchor tags valued at US$0 to $200 if returned. Our intent was to assess angler tag reporting rates in Idaho and to determine whether reporting rates declined over time or differed between species. A total of 4,643 tags were reported by anglers. Assuming a reporting rate of 100% for $200 tags, weighted mean reporting rates were 54.2% for $0 tags, 69.7% for $10 tags, 91.7% for $50 tags, and 98.9% for $100 tags. By combining $100 and $200 as high‐reward tags to increase sample size, nonreward tag‐reporting rate was 54.5%. Tag reporting rates varied between groups of species, being highest for harvest‐oriented species, both coolwater and warmwater, such as walleye Sander vitreus ($0 = 68.3%), yellow perch Perca flavescens (58.5%), and crappie Pomoxis spp. (59.7%), and lowest for largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides (39.2%). There was little variation in tag‐reporting rates over time, weighted means being 53, 56, 50, and 56% from 2006 to 2009, but reporting rate did appear to decline for some species (most notably crappies). There was some evidence of a slight violation of the assumption of independence in tag‐reporting, indicated by nonreward tag‐reporting rates being marginally higher for anglers reporting both nonreward and reward tags than for those reporting only one or the other (signifying possible batch‐reporting of tags). No batch‐reporting was evident from differences in reporting rates for households reporting multiple tags compared with those reporting only one tag. Our results suggest that anglers in Idaho reported over half the nonreward tags they encountered, but rates appeared to vary among species, and this knowledge is being used to estimate angler exploitation across Idaho. Received November 22, 2011; accepted April 5, 2012

Capacity building in stakeholders around Detroit River fish consumption advisory issues

“…Partnerships have long existed among scientists, nonprofit organizations, and volunteers interested in freshwater ecosystems. For example, for several decades, fisheries biologists have partnered closely with anglers to gain information about the size, age, and location of harvested fishes through tag returns (Cardona-Pons et al 2010, Meyer et al 2012. These data are used by fisheries biologists for developing population estimates (Pine et al 2003), validating ages (Bruch et al 2009), and assessing fish movement patterns (Hilborn 1990).…”

Using Tag‐Return Models to Estimate the Number of Times Fish Are Captured in Fisheries with High Catch‐and‐Release Rates

“…Although this assumption is seldom met in practice, when the reporting rate is known or estimated from an independent study or with high-reward tags (e.g. Pollock et al 1991;Meyer et al 2012), mean catch can be divided by the reporting rate to provide an unbiased estimate of mean catch. However, even with known reporting rates, the assumption that all tags that are removed from released fish are reported must be met to provide unbiased estimates of mean catch using this model.…”

“…The first assumption was that all tags are reported. In practice, this assumption can be mitigated for if a reporting rate is known or estimated (Pollock et al 2001(Pollock et al , 2002Meyer et al 2012) but still requires that all fish from which tags are removed are reported. Additionally, the model-derived estimator also has the same assumptions common to most tagging studies, such as no tag loss other than anglers removing tags, tagging does not affect survival or catchability, and complete mixing of tagged fish (Pollock et al 2001).…”

“…Catch-and-release recreational angling has been increasing in popularity over the last several decades (Cowx 2002;Gaeta et al 2013). Thus, methods for estimating exploitation rate in recreational fisheries using reward tag-return studies (Pollock et al 1991(Pollock et al , 2001(Pollock et al , 2002Meyer et al 2012) may not be appropriate when the goal of the fishery is not necessarily harvest. Additionally, when catch-and-release regulations are in effect, exploitation is seldom of interest, and other metrics, such as total catch or the average number of times a fish is caught, may more valuable for evaluating the performance of the fishery.…”

A test of the detection range of acoustic transmitters and receivers deployed in deep waters of Southeast Alaska, USA

“…For Pacific halibut, extensive mixing suggested by passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagging programs [6] has served to justify coastwide assessment modeling [7] and conventional tagging data have been used to estimate seasonal cross-boundary migration rates [8] that are important to consider when discussing fishery season dates (sensu [9]). However, conventional tag-return data can be biased by varying levels and loci of fishing (tag return) effort (sensu [10]), biased rates of tag detection (sensu [11]) or reporting (sensu [12]), and the rates at which tagged animals mix into the untagged population during the interval between mark and recapture (sensu [13]). Furthermore, mark-recovery methods that produce only endpoint data (i.e., locations at tagging and recapture) are unable to address many of the more complex elements of fish-movement dynamics, such as the timing, frequency, and recurrence of movements.…”