Denson et a\: Tag-reporting levels for Saaenops ocellatus in South Carolina and Georgia estuanes 



37 



These tags were completely orange and consist- 

 ed of two parts: a 6.4-nim x 25.4-nini laminated 

 disk wired to a 75-mm laminated streamer. The 

 streamer portion contained the words "tag in- 

 side," a tag number, name of agency, and the re- 

 ward message ("reward" or "$100 reward"). The 

 disk portion contained the return address, re- 

 ward message, a unique tag number, and the fol- 

 lowing: "reward, send tag, date, location, gear, 

 length, phone number to . . .". Tags used in GA 

 tags were also Floy tags (model FM-89SLI. As in 

 SC, the tag consisted of two parts. The laminat- 

 ed disk was slightly smaller (6.4 mm x 19 mm) 

 and yellow, whereas the streamer was the same 

 length (75 mm) and was the same color (orange) 

 used for fish released in SC. The streamer did 

 not contain the words "tag inside" but it did con- 

 tain the rest of the information found on the 

 SC streamers plus "return to...". The disk por- 

 tion contained much of the same information 

 found on the SC disk except "reward, send tag, 

 date, location, gear, length, phone number to . . .". 

 One half of the tags deployed in each state con- 

 tained the message "$100 reward"; the remain- 

 der contained the message "reward." The "re- 

 ward" message is the standard message that 

 has been used for over 10 years in red drum 

 mark-recapture studies in each state. Because 

 of limitations in project funding and duration, 

 the "$100 reward" tags also had an expiration 

 date; "reward" tags, however, did not have an ex- 

 piration date. 



After having been tagged, fish were retained 

 in culture tanks for a minimum of one week 

 to recover from handling. In preparation for re- 

 lease, marked fish were removed from the tanks 

 and transported in oxygenated water, at a bio- 

 mass density of <50 g/L, to the preselected es- 

 tuaries. The estuaries in each state were as fol- 

 lows: Charleston Harbor and Calibogue Sound in SC; St. 

 Simons Sound and Wassaw Sound in GA (Fig. 1). Three 

 replicate release sites within each estuary were stocked 

 with tagged fish. Upon arrival at each estuary, fish were 

 acclimated for 1 hour to ambient water conditions prior to 

 being transferred to holding tanks in boats. Within each 

 estuary, the selected stocking sites had similar habitat 

 characteristics and were geographically separate (>5 km). 

 At each site, fish were released individually approximate- 

 ly every 20 meters along the edge of the salt marsh to min- 

 imize the possibility of schooling behavior and subsequent 

 multiple captures by individual anglers. 



A total of 1774 fish were tagged and released during 

 the project. Approximately 150 fish were released at each 

 stocking site within each estuary (Table 1 1. Equal num- 

 bers of fish released at each site contained "reward" or 

 "$100 reward" tags. Fish were released into Charleston 

 Harbor, SC, and St Simons Sound, GA, during the fall of 

 1996 and into Calibogue Sound. SC, and Wassaw Sound, 

 GA, during late spring and early summer 1997 (Table 1, 

 Fig. II. The expiration date for "$100 reward" tags de- 



■vy 



y Charleston Harbor 



Calibogue Souna 



Wassaw Sound 



"^ Atlantic Ocean 



'\'^' St, Simons Sound 



L. 



FL 



+ 



40 80 Kilometers 



Figure 1 



Map of coastal South Carolina (.SO, Georgia (GAi, and north Florida 

 (FL) showing the location of each estuary where tagged red drum were 

 released during the reward study. 



ployed in fall 1996 was 31 March 1997, and for spring and 

 summer 1997 releases, the expiration date was 31 Decem- 

 ber 1997. Neither the study nor the releases were publi- 

 cized in any way other than by the normal information 

 provided by ongoing tagging programs in each state. Cap- 

 tured tagged fish were reported directly to the respective 

 Department of Natural Resources in each state. Partici- 

 pants who returned tags inscribed with "reward" received 

 a prize that would normally be awarded by each agency 

 (e.g. T-shirt or hati and those reporting a "$100 reward" 

 tag received a state-issued check for that amount. 



Our study was based on two assumptions: 1) $100 was 

 an adequate incentive to maximize reporting (assumed 

 -lOC^'f ) of captured tagged fish; 2) the quotient of returns 

 (the number of "reward"-inscribed tags divided by the re- 

 turns of "$100 reward" tags) would yield the angler report- 

 ing level (A) for the standard "reward" tag. Tags were re- 

 turned in either of two ways; phone message or mail. All 

 anglers who reported tags were later interviewed. During 

 the interviews respondents were asked to confirm their 

 reporting information and to express their attitudes and 



