242 
Fishery Bulletin 115(2) 
Depth at tagging (m) 
Figure 5 
(A) Proportion of sablefish {Anoplopoma fimbria) that moved >200 km from their tag¬ 
ging location (dispersers) for each of 3 depth zones at tagging off Newport, Oregon, 
during 1996-1998 (tagging set 1) or 2003-2004 (tagging set 2). Fish at large for <1 
year were excluded. The number of recaptured fish with reliable location information 
is given above each bar. (B) Distance traveled (great circle distance between tagging 
and recapture location) by dispersing fish (exclusive of all residents, fish that moved 
<200 km from their tagging location) for each depth zone at tagging. Box plots show 
median, 25*^^ and 75*^*^ percentiles (box), 10^’’ and 90'^’’ percentiles (whiskers), and outli¬ 
ers. Fish from both tagging sets are combined. 
gear (data not shown). For fish of the sizes initially 
captured in this study, expected annual growth peaked 
at about 8-9 cm FL/year for small females and 4-5 cm 
FL/year for small males in zone 1, declining to <2 cm 
FL/year for all fish of both sexes in zone 3. 
To determine whether fish that dispersed gained a 
growth advantage compared with fish that were resi¬ 
dents, we applied ANOVAs to residuals from the non¬ 
linear growth model, evaluating each sex separately. 
There was no difference in growth of female fish that 
dispersed and those that were residents (ANOVA: 
Fi 355=2.1, P=0.148). In contrast, males that dispersed 
had significantly faster growth rates than male resi¬ 
dents (Fi 178=6.0, P=0.015). In addition, for dispersed 
males, growth was positively correlated with the dis¬ 
tance moved from the tagging location (regression: 
Pi 26=6.7, P=0.015). No relationship of growth with 
distance traveled was observed for female dispersers 
(Pi, 67=0.3, P=0.590). 
Discussion 
Probability of recapture 
Recapture rates in this study were higher than those 
of prior studies of tagged sablefish, with 16.7% of fish 
in tagging set 1 and 13.7% of fish in tagging set 2 re¬ 
captured. High recapture rates reflect the extended re¬ 
capture period (up to 20 years for tagging set 1 and 13 
years for tagging set 2), and the low natural mortality 
rate for sablefish (Johnson et al.^). The probability of 
recapture increased with fish size, as observed in prior 
studies (McFarlane and Beamish, 1990; Saunders et 
al., 1990; McFarlane and Saunders, 1997). Stachura et 
al. (2012), in contrast, found no effect of fish size on 
likelihood of recapture in southeast Alaska, but 88% of 
their fish were >60 cm FL. These patterns potentially 
reflect a nonlinear decrease in natural mortality rates 
with increasing fish size (e.g., Lorenzen, 1996). 
The marked contrast in recapture rates between 
depth zones 2 and 3 of tagging set 2 was suggestive of 
a depth effect on discard mortality. However, this result 
was likely to be in part due to different fishing effort 
between depths. On the basis of logbook data reported 
to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, limited 
fishing effort occurred at depths >900 m throughout 
the time period after tag deployment. Overall during 
the years 2004-2014, fish captured at depths >900 m 
accounted for 5.3% of the total catch reported by trawl 
fisheries logbooks and 15.8% of fixed-gear fisheries. 
Although logbook compliance is not 100%, these esti¬ 
mates clearly suggest fishing effort in deeper habitats 
was much lower than in shallower waters. Fish tagged 
in zone 3 tended to be recaptured later in the time 
series, in contrast with fish from zone 2, which were 
recaptured at a steadily decreasing rate over the 13 
postcapture years (Fig. 9). This contrast likely reflects 
increasing effort in deeper waters after 2008, particu¬ 
larly for fixed-gear fisheries. Based on depths of cap- 
