Effect of Different Reward Levels on Tag Reporting Rates and Behavior of Common Snook Anglers in Southeast Florida

Abstract

Based on the high‐reward tagging method, we determined that reporting rates by recreational anglers for tagged common snook Centropomus undecimalis along the Atlantic coast of Florida were approximately 60–70%. Additionally, we found that angler reporting rates were influenced by the use of high‐reward tags. To estimate reporting rates, we tagged 989 common snook (range = 600–1,132 mm total length) with internal anchor tags that bore one of eight variable‐reward messages (the word “Reward” with or without a specified monetary amount from US$5 to $200) during the summer closed‐harvest season of 1995. Approximately equal numbers and sizes of fish were tagged in each reward group. The $200 reward was assumed to be sufficient to elicit a reporting rate of 100%. Return rates during the first year were quite variable and ranged from 13.7% for $5 tags to 25.0% for $25 tags, while the $200 tags had a return rate of 18.7%. Return rates generally increased with increasing reward amount, reaching an asymptotic value at approximately $75 in year 1 and $100 in year 2, above which return rates did not change. In subsequent years, angler behavior appeared to change, as indicated by decreases in the reporting rate of unspecified “Reward” message tags and an increase in the asymptote of the reward level–return rate relationship. This may indicate that angler reporting behavior changed due to the use of high‐reward tags. The results from this experiment will facilitate the deconstruction of total mortality into fishing and natural mortality components derived from tagging programs. They also provide insight into angler behavior related to the design and use of high‐reward tagging programs to elicit tag returns.

Evaluating the efficacy of the Florida Keys’ angler-assisted permit tagging program

“…Anglers should be properly trained on tagging procedures to further limit tag loss (Loftus et al 2000;Lucy and Davy 2000;Gollan et al 2012). Angler nonreporting is usually measured using high reward tags following Pollack et al (1991;e.g., Jenkins et al 2000;Pollock et al 2001;Denson et al 2002;Taylor et al 2006). Monetary or souvenir rewards have anecdotally encouraged anglers in other tagging programs to report their tags and participate in tagging programs (Kohler and Turner 2001;Ortiz et al 2003;Jech et al 2009).…”

“…3). The 65 % recreational angler-reporting rate is taken from Taylor et al (2006) and is the midpoint of the 60-70 % return rate estimated for tags on common snook. The 30 % tag retention rate comes from an unpublished pilot study (S. Stephens, unpublished data) where five permit at the Florida aquarium were double tagged.…”

“…Given 16 tags have been recovered out of 996 in Florida waters and assuming a 30 % tag retention on average with a reporting rate of 65 %, the return rate for permit tags is estimated at 8.2 % which is around half of the return rate estimated for common snook by Taylor et al (2006). We explore the expected number of tags returned over a range of the number of permit trips dedicated to tagging using different levels of tag retention and angler catch rate to illustrate the potential problems associated with tagging permit given participation levels and angler typologies.…”

“…Tag shedding is usually evaluated by double tagging fish in the wild; occasionally fish are tagged and observed for tag shedding in a laboratory setting (e.g., Hampton 1997;Winner et al 1999;Boucek and Adams 2011). Nonreporting is measured using high reward tags and the assumption that such tags are always reported (reviewed by Pollock et al 2001;e.g., Jenkins et al 2000;Denson et al 2002;Taylor et al 2006). Uneven distribution of seeded tags is a more difficult question, but has received some attention (Gillanders et al 2001;Bolle et al 2005).…”

Accuracy and precision of fishery and demographic estimates from a spatial tag-recovery model when inter-regional movements are treated as fixed

“…Imperfect tag-reporting rates can seriously affect parameter estimates from tag-recovery models and there are a number of ways for estimating tag-reporting rates, such as release of high-reward tags (Pollock et al, , 2002Hearn et al, 2003). The release of high-reward tags is frequently used to measure tag-reporting rates (Latour et al, 2001;Taylor et al, 2006;Vandergoot and Brenden, 2014), although depending on what reward level is needed to elicit 100% reporting and the level of exploitation that a stock experiences it also has the potential to considerably increase tagging study costs. For our simulations, we evaluated two levels of high-reward releases.…”