132 
Ocean waters from New Jersey to Maine in early sum- 
mer, move south in the fall to overwintering habitats 
in coastal waters from New Jersey to Cape Lookout 
in North Carolina, then return to their natal estuary 
in subsequent springs to spawn (Boreman and Lewis, 
1987; Waldman et ah, 1990; Dorazio et al., 1994; Welsh 
et ah, 2007). In contrast, the Albemarle Sound-Roanoke 
River (AR) stock of Striped Bass, hereafter referred to 
as the “AR stock,” has historically been viewed as a 
nonmigratory stock, and most fish are believed to re- 
main in their natal estuarine system, the Albemarle 
Sound estuary, throughout their lives (Merriman, 1941; 
Hassler et al. 1 ). Indeed, in the most extensive tagging 
study to date on the AR stock by Hassler et al. 1 , virtu- 
ally all (99%) of the 2428 returns of the 9220 adults 
tagged in the Roanoke River during the springs of 
1959-77, occurred within the Albemarle Sound estu- 
ary. The few returns that occurred outside Albemarle 
Sound (<1% of the total) were from an adjacent estu- 
ary (Pamlico Sound); remarkably, no returns were from 
ocean waters (Hassler et al. 1 ). 
These differences in migration patterns may have 
been due to differences in life-history strategies (non- 
anadromous vs. anadromous) between the AR stock 
and more northerly stocks, or it could have been a re- 
sult of a historic lack of larger, older fish (>600 mm in 
total length [TL] ) in the AR stock because of high har- 
vest levels. Differences in life-history strategy would be 
perplexing given that these stocks occur in the same 
zoogeographic province (mid-Atlantic coast of the Unit- 
ed States) and given that some of them are in close 
latitudinal proximity (e.g., the AR and Chesapeake Bay 
stocks). In 1988, the North Carolina Division of Ma- 
rine Fisheries (NCDMF) began a cooperative tagging 
program with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources 
Commission (NCWRC) to address this question and to 
further investigate the migration dynamics of the AR 
stock of Striped Bass. 
Much of the past work of tagging individuals from 
the AR stock was done when Striped Bass were at 
low levels of abundance and overfished (NCDMF and 
NCWRC 2 ). In more recent years (1991-2008), the AR 
stock, as well as the Chesapeake Bay stock (Richards 
and Rago, 1999), made a dramatic recovery from their 
1 Hassler, W. W., N. L. Hill, and J. T. Brown. 1981. The sta- 
tus and abundance of striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in the 
Roanoke River and Albemarle Sound, North Carolina, 1956- 
1980. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources 
and Community Development, Division of Marine Fisheries, 
Special Scientific Report 38, 156 p. [Available from the Di- 
vision of Marine Fisheries, 3441 Arendell St., Morehead City, 
NC 28557. 
2 NCDMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries) 
and NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commis- 
sion). 2013. Amendment I to the North Carolina Estuarine 
Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan, 420 p + appendices. 
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, North Carolina 
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, More- 
head City, NC. [Available from http://p 0 rtal.ncdenr. 0 rg/c/ 
document_library/get_file?uuid=d3fdf967-82d5-4653-8b79- 
20247c5ed5ad&groupld=38337, accessed January 2014.] 
Fishery Bulletin 112(2-3) 
depleted state in the late 1970s and 1980s. The esti- 
mated total abundance of the AR stock nearly doubled 
during the 1990s, increasing from 1.0 to 1.9 million 
fish, and remained at high levels (>1.8 million fish) 
throughout the 2000s (NCDMF and NCWRC 2 ). In ad- 
dition, the age and size structure of the stock expanded 
as larger (>600 mm TL) and older (age 9+) fish became 
more prevalent as the stock recovered (NCDMF and 
NCWRC 2 ). The recovery of the AR stock was a result 
of a combination of factors, namely more stringent fish- 
ing regulations that increased development to older 
age classes and improvements in environmental condi- 
tions that enhanced spawning habitat and recruitment 
of young Striped Bass (e.g., regulated river flows that 
were more conducive for the transport and survival of 
eggs and larvae) (Rulifson and Manooch, 1990; NCDMF 
and NCWRC 2 ). 
For this study, we first addressed the following ques- 
tion: Have Striped Bass of the AR stock increased their 
movement outside of the Albemarle Sound estuary since 
population rebuilding in the 1990s? After showing that 
the movement of the AR stock out of the estuary has 
indeed increased, we then related recapture locations 
of tagged individuals to both fish size and total annual 
stock abundance (density) in an effort to explain this 
increase in emigration over the past 2 decades (1991- 
2008). Lastly, we discuss the management implications 
of this increased movement given the stock is currently 
considered to be resident. 
Materials and methods 
j 
Fish tagging 
During the springs of 1991-2008, 42,534 adult Striped 
Bass from the AR stock (mostly >350 mm TL; Fig. 
1) were tagged and released on their well-described 
spawning grounds (Hassler et al. 1 ) -200 km upstream 
of the mouth of the Roanoke River in North Carolina 
(Fig. 2A). During weekly sampling events throughout 
April and May, Striped Bass were collected with an 
electrofishing boat and transported to a tagging vessel, 
where they were held in a “live well” until processing. 
Fish in good condition were measured (TL to the near- 
est millimeter), weighed (to the nearest gram), and sex 
was determined by expression of gonadal products. The 
fish were then tagged just above the posterior tip of the 
pelvic fin with a Floy (model FM-84 3 ) internal anchor 
tag (Floy Tag, Inc., Seattle, WA). Fish were immedi- 
ately released after tagging. The streamer of the tags 
indicated a “reward” (US $5 or a baseball cap) would be 
offered for reporting information on recaptured Striped 
Bass (e.g., recovery date and location, and tag number) 
3 Mention of trade names of commercial companies is for iden- 
tification purposes only and does not imply endorsement by 
the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 
