536 



Fishery Bulletin 102(3) 



Figure 2 



(A) Recapture locations of tagged fish that migrated out of the Merritt Island 

 National Wildlife Refuge no-take zone. (B) Original tagging locations offish that 

 migrated into the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge no-take zone. R = red 

 drum, B = black drum, S = common snook, H = sheepshead, T = spotted seatrout, 

 J = crevalle jack, K = bull shark. Numbers before species codes (letters) indicate 

 the number of individuals of that species that were captured at that location. 



from all available recapture sources. In contrast, we 

 calculated migration rates exclusively from the recap- 

 ture data collected during FMRI sampling activities. 

 Although this procedure excluded tag-return data from 

 recreational anglers, it permitted a quantitative assess- 

 ment of recapture rates based on standardized FMRI 

 col lection gear, comparable sampling effort, and lOO'* 

 tag reporting rates. We resolved potential problems 

 related to differences in habitat characteristics and 

 sampling intensity by including only data from the NTZ 

 and a fishable area of a similar size and habitat type 

 in the adjacent Banana River (BR, Fig. 1). This BR 



zone corresponded precisely to the sampling zone used 

 for population comparisons in Johnson et al. (1999), 

 denoted as "FBR" (fished Banana River) in that study. 

 Species that did not contribute any FMRI recapture 

 information in either of these two areas were excluded 

 from our analyses. Tag recovery and migration rates 

 were calculated separately for the NTZ and BR. For our 

 purposes, "migration" was defined as a directional fish 

 movement across the NTZ boundary from the original 

 tagging location, and we made the assumption that 

 the migration patterns of recaptured fish represented 

 the migration patterns of the overall population. Rela- 



