Tag Reporting Rate Estimation: 2. Use of High‐Reward Tagging and Observers in Multiple‐Component Fisheries

Tag return models can be used to estimate survival and tag recovery rates. The additional knowledge of an estimated tag reporting rate allows separation of the total mortality rate into fishing and natural mortality components. We briefly review two methods for estimating tag reporting rates: high‐r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:North American journal of fisheries management 2002-08, Vol.22 (3), p.727-736
Hauptverfasser: Pollock, Kenneth H., Hoenig, John M., Hearn, William S., Calingaert, Brian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 736
container_issue 3
container_start_page 727
container_title North American journal of fisheries management
container_volume 22
creator Pollock, Kenneth H.
Hoenig, John M.
Hearn, William S.
Calingaert, Brian
description Tag return models can be used to estimate survival and tag recovery rates. The additional knowledge of an estimated tag reporting rate allows separation of the total mortality rate into fishing and natural mortality components. We briefly review two methods for estimating tag reporting rates: high‐reward tags with a 100% reporting rate, and catch from multiple‐component fisheries with a 100% reporting rate in one component (e.g., due to the presence of observers in a boat‐based commercial fishery). The assumptions of each method are presented and discussed. We simulated the effects of combining the two methods to obtain more robust estimates of the tag reporting rate and other important parameters, such as the exploitation rate. When high‐reward tags did not produce a 100% reporting rate or when the observer component in a multiple‐component fishery did not have a 100% reporting rate, the combination of methods provided better estimates. It is still necessary to assume that the high‐reward tags in the observer component of the fishery have 100% reporting rate. However, this is a much weaker reporting rate assumption than those used for each method alone and is much more likely to be satisfied in real fisheries applications. Therefore, the combined method should tend to give less biased estimates in practice than either method used separately.
doi_str_mv 10.1577/1548-8675(2002)022<0727:TRREUO>2.0.CO;2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_879468806</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>18614186</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3507-cdbf9ec6eb0083ad64b79b11bfccceb800402cc22327e590d7ebb1c67dab50143</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdkU1u2zAQRomiBeKmuQNX_VnIGVKiKKVFgECwkwJxDRj2miCpkcNCllRSTpBdjtAz9iSl4KLLLrrhkOCbb_E9Qi4ZzJmQ8pKJrEiKXIqPHIB_As6_gOTyarvZLHbraz6HebX-zF-R2V_yNZkBlyIRZSbPyNsQvgOAKASfkW6r93SDQ-9H18WbHpEuwugOenR9d0X5nO4C0r6hd27_8Ovl5waftK9pXNtPC7qr6doE9I_oA3UdXR3b0Q0tRrTqD0PfYTfSpQsP6B2Gd-RNo9uAF3_mOdktF9vqLrlf336tbu4TmwqQia1NU6LN0QAUqa7zzMjSMGYaay2aAiADbi3nKZcoSqglGsNsLmttBLAsPScfTrmD738cMYzq4ILFttUd9segCllmeVFAHsn3_yRZkbMsHhG8PYHW9yF4bNTgY03-WTFQkxk19a2mvtVkRkUzajKjTmZUfKkqjpi0OiU9uRaf_zdGfbtZrqaP9DdDm55Z</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>18614186</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Tag Reporting Rate Estimation: 2. Use of High‐Reward Tagging and Observers in Multiple‐Component Fisheries</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Pollock, Kenneth H. ; Hoenig, John M. ; Hearn, William S. ; Calingaert, Brian</creator><creatorcontrib>Pollock, Kenneth H. ; Hoenig, John M. ; Hearn, William S. ; Calingaert, Brian</creatorcontrib><description>Tag return models can be used to estimate survival and tag recovery rates. The additional knowledge of an estimated tag reporting rate allows separation of the total mortality rate into fishing and natural mortality components. We briefly review two methods for estimating tag reporting rates: high‐reward tags with a 100% reporting rate, and catch from multiple‐component fisheries with a 100% reporting rate in one component (e.g., due to the presence of observers in a boat‐based commercial fishery). The assumptions of each method are presented and discussed. We simulated the effects of combining the two methods to obtain more robust estimates of the tag reporting rate and other important parameters, such as the exploitation rate. When high‐reward tags did not produce a 100% reporting rate or when the observer component in a multiple‐component fishery did not have a 100% reporting rate, the combination of methods provided better estimates. It is still necessary to assume that the high‐reward tags in the observer component of the fishery have 100% reporting rate. However, this is a much weaker reporting rate assumption than those used for each method alone and is much more likely to be satisfied in real fisheries applications. Therefore, the combined method should tend to give less biased estimates in practice than either method used separately.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0275-5947</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1548-8675</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1577/1548-8675(2002)022&lt;0727:TRREUO&gt;2.0.CO;2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</publisher><ispartof>North American journal of fisheries management, 2002-08, Vol.22 (3), p.727-736</ispartof><rights>2002 American Fisheries Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3507-cdbf9ec6eb0083ad64b79b11bfccceb800402cc22327e590d7ebb1c67dab50143</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1577%2F1548-8675%282002%29022%3C0727%3ATRREUO%3E2.0.CO%3B2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1577%2F1548-8675%282002%29022%3C0727%3ATRREUO%3E2.0.CO%3B2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,1414,27907,27908,45557,45558</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pollock, Kenneth H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoenig, John M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hearn, William S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calingaert, Brian</creatorcontrib><title>Tag Reporting Rate Estimation: 2. Use of High‐Reward Tagging and Observers in Multiple‐Component Fisheries</title><title>North American journal of fisheries management</title><description>Tag return models can be used to estimate survival and tag recovery rates. The additional knowledge of an estimated tag reporting rate allows separation of the total mortality rate into fishing and natural mortality components. We briefly review two methods for estimating tag reporting rates: high‐reward tags with a 100% reporting rate, and catch from multiple‐component fisheries with a 100% reporting rate in one component (e.g., due to the presence of observers in a boat‐based commercial fishery). The assumptions of each method are presented and discussed. We simulated the effects of combining the two methods to obtain more robust estimates of the tag reporting rate and other important parameters, such as the exploitation rate. When high‐reward tags did not produce a 100% reporting rate or when the observer component in a multiple‐component fishery did not have a 100% reporting rate, the combination of methods provided better estimates. It is still necessary to assume that the high‐reward tags in the observer component of the fishery have 100% reporting rate. However, this is a much weaker reporting rate assumption than those used for each method alone and is much more likely to be satisfied in real fisheries applications. Therefore, the combined method should tend to give less biased estimates in practice than either method used separately.</description><issn>0275-5947</issn><issn>1548-8675</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqdkU1u2zAQRomiBeKmuQNX_VnIGVKiKKVFgECwkwJxDRj2miCpkcNCllRSTpBdjtAz9iSl4KLLLrrhkOCbb_E9Qi4ZzJmQ8pKJrEiKXIqPHIB_As6_gOTyarvZLHbraz6HebX-zF-R2V_yNZkBlyIRZSbPyNsQvgOAKASfkW6r93SDQ-9H18WbHpEuwugOenR9d0X5nO4C0r6hd27_8Ovl5waftK9pXNtPC7qr6doE9I_oA3UdXR3b0Q0tRrTqD0PfYTfSpQsP6B2Gd-RNo9uAF3_mOdktF9vqLrlf336tbu4TmwqQia1NU6LN0QAUqa7zzMjSMGYaay2aAiADbi3nKZcoSqglGsNsLmttBLAsPScfTrmD738cMYzq4ILFttUd9segCllmeVFAHsn3_yRZkbMsHhG8PYHW9yF4bNTgY03-WTFQkxk19a2mvtVkRkUzajKjTmZUfKkqjpi0OiU9uRaf_zdGfbtZrqaP9DdDm55Z</recordid><startdate>200208</startdate><enddate>200208</enddate><creator>Pollock, Kenneth H.</creator><creator>Hoenig, John M.</creator><creator>Hearn, William S.</creator><creator>Calingaert, Brian</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200208</creationdate><title>Tag Reporting Rate Estimation: 2. Use of High‐Reward Tagging and Observers in Multiple‐Component Fisheries</title><author>Pollock, Kenneth H. ; Hoenig, John M. ; Hearn, William S. ; Calingaert, Brian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3507-cdbf9ec6eb0083ad64b79b11bfccceb800402cc22327e590d7ebb1c67dab50143</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pollock, Kenneth H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoenig, John M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hearn, William S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calingaert, Brian</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>North American journal of fisheries management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pollock, Kenneth H.</au><au>Hoenig, John M.</au><au>Hearn, William S.</au><au>Calingaert, Brian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Tag Reporting Rate Estimation: 2. Use of High‐Reward Tagging and Observers in Multiple‐Component Fisheries</atitle><jtitle>North American journal of fisheries management</jtitle><date>2002-08</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>727</spage><epage>736</epage><pages>727-736</pages><issn>0275-5947</issn><eissn>1548-8675</eissn><abstract>Tag return models can be used to estimate survival and tag recovery rates. The additional knowledge of an estimated tag reporting rate allows separation of the total mortality rate into fishing and natural mortality components. We briefly review two methods for estimating tag reporting rates: high‐reward tags with a 100% reporting rate, and catch from multiple‐component fisheries with a 100% reporting rate in one component (e.g., due to the presence of observers in a boat‐based commercial fishery). The assumptions of each method are presented and discussed. We simulated the effects of combining the two methods to obtain more robust estimates of the tag reporting rate and other important parameters, such as the exploitation rate. When high‐reward tags did not produce a 100% reporting rate or when the observer component in a multiple‐component fishery did not have a 100% reporting rate, the combination of methods provided better estimates. It is still necessary to assume that the high‐reward tags in the observer component of the fishery have 100% reporting rate. However, this is a much weaker reporting rate assumption than those used for each method alone and is much more likely to be satisfied in real fisheries applications. Therefore, the combined method should tend to give less biased estimates in practice than either method used separately.</abstract><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</pub><doi>10.1577/1548-8675(2002)022&lt;0727:TRREUO&gt;2.0.CO;2</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0275-5947
ispartof North American journal of fisheries management, 2002-08, Vol.22 (3), p.727-736
issn 0275-5947
1548-8675
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_879468806
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
title Tag Reporting Rate Estimation: 2. Use of High‐Reward Tagging and Observers in Multiple‐Component Fisheries
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T20%3A32%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Tag%20Reporting%20Rate%20Estimation:%202.%20Use%20of%20High%E2%80%90Reward%20Tagging%20and%20Observers%20in%20Multiple%E2%80%90Component%20Fisheries&rft.jtitle=North%20American%20journal%20of%20fisheries%20management&rft.au=Pollock,%20Kenneth%20H.&rft.date=2002-08&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=727&rft.epage=736&rft.pages=727-736&rft.issn=0275-5947&rft.eissn=1548-8675&rft_id=info:doi/10.1577/1548-8675(2002)022%3C0727:TRREUO%3E2.0.CO;2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E18614186%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=18614186&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true