MSC 134
Fishing Gear Technology II
“Fish tagging programs are a vital part of a fishery manager’s
tools for assessing fish populations. Conducted properly, tagging
can yield a wealth of information, including data about
movement patterns, population structure, and mortality rates.”
1
 When marking fish – think about the reason for
marking.
 Identifying an individual fish or a group of fish?
 Will the mark affect the fish’s behavior or increase
mortality?
 What are the chances that the tag will be lost or
misidentified?
 There are a variety of tagging and marking methods
available.
1. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: http://www.fishtag.info/index.htm
2
Tagging and Marking Methods
 Biological (Natural Methods)
 Parasitic Marks
 Morphological Marks
 Genetic Marks
 Chemical
 Methods



 Physical (Mutilation or Tags)
 External


Mutilation
Tags
 Internal
 Tags
Immersion
Injection
Feeding
3
Physical Methods
 Mutilation – Clipping or punching fins or other body parts which
can later be used to identify individuals.
 Branding – Uses hot or cold instruments against the body of a fish
in order to produce an identifiable mark for recognition.
4
Physical Methods
Tags – Internal and External
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: http://www.fishtag.info/index.htm
5
Physical: Common Tag Types
 External
 Internal
 Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE)
 Thermal Tags
 Paper Fasteners
 Micro-tags
 Strap Tags
 Coded Wire Tags
 Dart /Anchor/ Streamer Tags
 Subcutaneous Tags
 Spaghetti Tags
 Body Cavity Tags

Dangler Tags


Carlin Tags
 Disc Tags
 Petersen Discs
 Carlin Tags
 Specialized Electronic Tags
 Pop-off Satellite Tag (PSAT)
 Global Positioning System (GPS)



Passive Integrated Transponder
Tags (PIT)
Radio Tags
Sonar Tags
DST GPS Fish Tag


Data Storage Tag (DST)
Global Positioning System (GPS)
6
Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE)
VIE Tag
7
Strap Tags
Occasionally referred to as Opercle Tags
8
Dart/Anchor/Streamer Tags
A tagged red drum, about
to be released.
9
Disc Tags
Petersen Disc tag below the dorsal fin
of a warmouth.
Carlin darter tag attached to a walleye.
10
Physical Methods
External
 Advantages



Can be seen without dissection of the fish.
Many allow for individual recognition.
Inexpensive.
 Disadvantages

Can cause higher mortality by:
 Attracting predators.
 Interfere with locomotion.
 Make the organism more susceptible to disease and infection.
11
Physical: Common Tag Types
 External
 Internal
 Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE)
 Thermal Tags
 Paper Fasteners
 Microtags
 Strap Tags
 Coded Wire Tags
 Dart /Anchor/ Streamer Tags
 Subcutaneous Tags (VIE)
 Spaghetti Tags
 Body Cavity Tags

Dangler Tags


Carlin Tags
 Disc Tags
 Petersen Discs
 Carlin Tags
 Specialized Tags
 Pop-off Satellite Tag (PSAT)
 Global Positioning System (GPS)
Passive Integrated Transponder
Tags (PIT)




Acoustic Tags
Radio Tags
Sonar Tags
DST GPS Fish Tag


Data Storage Tag (DST)
 Archival Tags
Global Positioning System (GPS)
12
Coded Wire Tag
A small piece of wire injected
into juvenile fish using small
applicators or by hand.
13
Body Cavity Tags
VEMCO acoustic transmitters.
Various body cavity tags
generally require “in the field”
surgical implantation.
14
Specialized Tags
Tethered Acoustic Tag
Pop-off Satellite Archival Tags. (PSAT)
15
Physical Methods
Internal
 Advantages
 Do not protrude from the body.
 Do not require removal of parts of the fish.
 Non-toxic and may put less stress on the fish compared to
other tagging methods.
 Can be inexpensive. *see disadvantages
 Disadvantages
 Can be expensive. *see advantages
 Trained personnel are necessary.
 Recovery is difficult.
16
Electronic Tags
 Passive Integrated Transponding Tags (PIT)
 Inserted using a veterinary syringe.
 Decoded with portable hand-held readers or automatic
readers.
 Tag detection range is very short.
17
Electronic Tags
 Continuously Transmitting Radio and
Acoustic Tags
 Larger than PIT tags – require an internal battery.
 Accurate geo-location is possible by a variety of
methods.
 Attachment of the tag can be internal or external.
 The detection range is generally less than 100 meters.

May extend to a kilometer in some instances.
18
• Continuously Transmitting Radio and
Acoustic Tags
 Pulsed Tags
 Radio tags.


Non-programmable pulsed radio tags.
Programmable pulsed radio tags.
 Acoustic tags.
 Non-programmable pulsed acoustic tags.
 Combined Acoustic and Radio Tags (CART)
 Hybrid tag: combines components of both radio & acoustic tags.
 Allow individual fish to be tracked between salt and freshwater.
 Coded tags
 Coded radio tags
 Coded acoustic tags
19
Electronic Tags
 Transponding Acoustic Tags
 Transmit an acoustic signal only when they receive an
interrogation pulse from a sonar.
 Size of tag varies according to frequency and range.
 Can be used for physical or physiological data telemetry.
 Data Storage Tags (DST’s)
 Also known as Archival Tags.
 Some tags can record data for up to 5 years and store the
information for up to 20 years.
 To retrieve the information, the tags must be recovered from
the fish.
 High cost of the tags are offset by the enormous amount of
data that can be generated from a single tagged animal.
20
VEMCO VR2W
Positioning System (VPS)
 VEMCO Telemetry
 Local Surveys and Results
 Cape Fear River Watch – Striped Bass
 Cape Fear River - Shad
21
Suppliers / Costs
 Biomark
 Fish Tagger
 Floy Tag
 Microwave Telemetry, INC.
 Northwest Marine Technology, INC.
 Weetags
22
Bibliographic Citations
 “About Tagging” Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 22
April, 2011. 15 June, 2012. http://www.fishtag.info/aboutTagging.htm
 Bridger, C.J., Booth, R.K. “The Effects of Biotelemetry Transmitter
Presence and Attachment Procedures on Fish Physiology and
Behavior.” Reviews in Fisheries Science 11 (1) (2003): 13-34
 “Fish Tagging and Marking Techniques” Arizona Game and Fish
Department. 2009. 15 June, 2012.
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/Fish_Tagging_Marking_Techniques.shtml
 Gibbons, J. Whitfield, Andrews, Kimberly M. “PIT Tagging: Simple
Technology at Its Best.” BioScience 54, (2004): 447-454
 “Making Waves in Acoustic Telemetry” VEMCO. 2011. 13 June, 2012.
http://www.vemco.com/index.php
 Thorsteinsson, V. “Tagging Methods for Stock Assessment and
Research in Fisheries.” Report of Concerted Action FAIR – Marine
Research Institute Technical Report (79). 2002: 26-81
23