Table 5. —Tagging summary of American shad, Aloaa Sflpidis8lina (Wilson), and striped bass, Roccus saxatilis (Walbaum), in the Chesapeake flay States 

 by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Biological Laboratory, Beaufort, N. C. . and cooperative agencies, 1950-65 



^Includes American shad and striped bass tagged and released in Pennsylvania waters of the Susquehanna River. 



^Unpublished: Cooperative study with Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, Md. The tag returns, though few in number, suggested that shad return to 

 their native stream to spawn, but did not orove It conclusively. 



\alburg and Sykes (1957). In 1952 the estimated total catch of shad in the Potomac River was 853,066 pounds, the fishing rate 58 percent, and the 

 population weighed 1,470,035 pounds. 



^alburg (1955). This paper presents annual estimates of weight of the population, fishing rate, and spawning escapement of shad in the Maryland part of 

 Chesapeake Bay for the years 194A to 1952. 



^Jalburg (1954). This paper presents data on mortality of shad transported from Susquehanna Flats in Chesapeake Bay and released in impoundments la 

 Susquehanna River, and observations on movements of tagged flah 



Sftiitney (1961). The author concluded that there was no Indication that shad and striped bass fisheries would benefit appreciably if passage for the 

 species were provided at Conowingo Dam. 



^Unpublished: Cooperative study with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Maryland Department of Research and Education, Pennsylvania Fish 

 Coinnlasion, and New York Conservation Department. Analyses of tag returns and Interpretation of tracking tapes are incomplete. Study continued in 1966. 



Cooperative studies with the Maryland Department of Research and Education and the Maryland Department of Tidewater Fisheries. 



9 

 Unpublished: Analyses of tag returns incomplete. 



^^Lewis (1961). Petersen tags were returned selectively from gill nets In some size classes of striped bass as compared to nylon streamer and jaw ring 

 tags. There was little difference in the suitability of jaw ring and streamer tags. The streamer tag was chosen only because It was easier to obtain 

 than the Jaw ring tag. 



^'^Mansueti (1961). Tagging results showed that the bulk of the tagged fish remained in the Maryland part of Chesapeake Bay. Three tagged fish were 

 recaptured outside the bay on the Atlantic coast, and two were taken in the Virginia part of the bay. Exchange between bay and river populations of 

 Maryland fish was not very great. 



Unpublished: Submitted for publication in Chesapeake Science. The paper presents information on the seasonal pattern of movement of striped bass tagged 

 and released in the Potomac River. Data are presented also to show that stocks of fish from other Chesapeake Bay tributaries overwinter in the Potomac, and 

 that fish from this river contribute materially to the stocks of striped bass occurring along the northeast Atlantic coast. 



Unpublished: Preliminary findings indicated the annual spawning population weighed about 2,650,000 pounds and the fishing rate was about 40 percent. 



Unpublished: Preliminary analysis of the tag returns indicated that the population of fish available to the winter gill net fishery weighed about 

 1,000,000 pounds and the fishing rate was about 16 percent. Tag returns also Indicated that there was considerable winter mcrvement by the fish In the bay. 



