vol 39 no 9 american fisheries society • …us if we can help with your project. top: vie tags in...

03632415(2014)39(9)

FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

VOL 39 NO 9SEPT 2014

In this Issue:Portland 2015 – Call for Papers

Does Trapping Delay Salmon Migration? A Case for Open-Access Databases

Recreational Charter Boat Shark FisheriesGuidelines for Use of Fishes in Research

Meet AFS Staff: Denise SpencerCommentary from New President Donna Parrish

How to Tag a Shrimp (Once) that Molts 30 Times Faster growing strains of disease-resistant shrimp are providing a significant boost to the aquaculture industry. Developing and evaluating these strains is easier if different families can be tagged, then reared together under identical conditions. Tagging crustaceans is complicated by an exoskeleton which can be shed up to 30 times as the animal grows to a marketable size. NMT’s Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE) is injected as a liquid under clear or translucent tissue, and it cures to a pliable solid that remains externally visible. The tags are available in 10 colors, of which six fluoresce for enhanced detection. VIE can be injected into the abdominal muscles of shrimp as small as 0.2 g with little effect on growth or survival1. High tag retention through molts and maturation mean that the animals can be identified for life. By varying tag locations and colors, VIE provides the many unique codes required to identify test groups. Researchers around the world rely on VIE to evaluate the performance of various strains of shrimp2,3, but it is not limited to crustaceans. VIE is also widely used to tag fish, rays, cephalopods, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals. Please contact us if we can help with your project.

Top: VIE Tags in a posterior abdominal section of a pandalid shrimp. Center, bottom: VIE is injected with a fine needle into the sixth abdominal segment of juvenile white shrimp. (Photo courtesy of S. Arce). Right: An NMT Air Driven Elastomer Injection System can be used to tag 500 shrimp per hour.

Corporate Office 360.468.3375 [email protected]

Biological Services 360.596.9400 [email protected]

Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. www.nmt.us Shaw Island, Washington, USA

1Godin et al. 1996 Aquaculture 139:243-248. 2Brown et al. 2003 Aquaculture Research 34:49-54. 3Dinh et al. 2012 Aquaculture Research 43:1471-1479.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 389

Contents

Fisheries VOL 39 NO 9 SEPTEMBER 2014

President’s Commentary393 Revisiting the AFS LexiconDonna Parrish

Policy394 Effects of Industrial Water Intake StructuresThomas E. Bigford

Letter from the Executive Director432 Fisheries Inside the BeltwayDoug Austen

COLUMNS

395 An Assessment of the Scale, Practices, and Conservation Implications of Florida’s Charter Boat–Based Recreational Shark FisheryDavid Samuel Shiffman and Neil Hammerschlag

408 Trapping Effects and Fisheries Research: A Case Study of Sockeye Salmon in the Wenatchee River, USAJoshua G. Murauskas, Jeffery K. Fryer, Bryan Nordlund, and Joseph L. Miller

415 Guidelines for Use of Fishes in Research— Revised and Expanded, 2014Uses of Fishes in Research (UFR) Committee: Jill A. Jenkins, Henry L. Bart, Jr., James D. Bowker, Paul R. Bowser, J. Randy MacMillan, John G. Nickum, Joseph W. Rachlin, James D. Rose, Peter W. Sorensen, Barbara E. Warkentine, and Greg W. Whitledge

417 Open-Access Databases as Unprecedented Resour ces and Drivers of Cultural Change in Fisheries ScienceRyan A. McManamay and Ryan M. Utz

ESSAYS AND FEATURES

433 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 143, Number 4, July 2014

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS

435 Fisheries Events

CALENDAR

Cover: Photo credit: Christine Shepard / www.SharkTagging.com.

429 Q&A: Book EditorsFuture of Fisheries: Perspectives for Emerging Professionals. William W. Taylor, Abigail J. Lynch, and Nancy J. Léonard

INTERVIEW

426 Global Conference on Inland Fisheries:Theme 4— Policy and Governance

FRESHWATER, FISH, AND THE FUTURE

427 145th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society: First Call for Papers

AFS ANNUAL MEETING 2015

430 Denise Spencer

MEET THE STAFF

427 AFS Annual Meeting 2015. Photo credit: Travel Portland.

391 Units, Step Right Up: Get Your Free WebsiteJordan Allison

UNIT NEWS

436 The Things We Do for ScienceMilton Love

BACK PAGE

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 390

MEMBERSHIP TYPE/DUES (Includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory)

Developing countries I (Includes online Fisheries only): N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$10 OTHERDeveloping countries II: N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$35 OTHERRegular: _____$80 NORTH AMERICA; _____$95 OTHERStudent (includes online journals): _____$20 NORTH AMERICA; _____$30 OTHERYoung professional (year graduated): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHERRetired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHERLife (Fisheries and 1 journal): _____$1, 737 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1737 OTHERLife (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years): _____$1,200 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,200 OTHER: $1,200Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year): _____ $1,000 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,000 OTHER

JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (Optional)

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$55 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$65 OTHER PRINT North American Journal of Fisheries Management: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$55 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$65 OTHER PRINT North American Journal of Aquaculture: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$45 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$54 OTHER PRINT Journal of Aquatic Animal Health: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$45 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$54 OTHER PRINT Fisheries InfoBase: ____$25 ONLINE ONLY

Recruited by an AFS member? yes noName

EMPLOYERIndustryAcademiaFederal gov’tState/provincial gov’tOther

FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110•Bethesda, MD 20814-2199(301) 897-8616 • fax (301) 897-8096 • [email protected]

The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlightened management of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training.

Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 © copyright 2014. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproduction of material in this publication is permitted only under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199. Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer recycled paper with soy-based printing inks.

2014 AFS MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONAMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY • 5410 GROSVENOR LANE • SUITE 110 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2199

(301) 897-8616 x203 OR x224 • FAX (301) 897-8096 • WWW.FISHERIES .ORG

PAID:

NAME

Address

City

State/Province ZIP/Postal Code

CountryPlease provide (for AFS use only)Phone

Fax

E-mail

PAYMENTPlease make checks payable to American Fisheries Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank, or pay by VISA, MasterCard, or American Express.

_____Check

_____American Express

Account #______________________________________

Exp. Date _____________

Signature ______________________________________

_____VISA

_____MasterCard

All memberships are for a calendar year. New member applications received Janu-ary 1 through August 31 are processed for full membership that calendar year (back issues are sent). Applications received September 1 or later are processed for full membership beginning January 1 of the following year.

AFS OFFICERSPRESIDENTDonna L. Parrish

PRESIDENT ELECTRon Essig

FIRST VICE PRESIDENTJoe Margraf

SECOND VICE PRESIDENTSteve L. McMullin

PAST PRESIDENTBob Hughes

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORDoug Austen

FISHERIES STAFFSENIOR EDITORDoug Austen

DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONSAaron Lerner

MANAGING EDITORSarah Fox

CONTRIBUTING EDITORBeth Beard

EDITORSCHIEF SCIENCE EDITORSOlaf P. JensenJeff Schaeffer

SCIENCE EDITORSKristen AnsteadMarilyn “Guppy” Blair Jim BowkerMason BryantSteven R. ChippsKen CurrensAndy DanylchukMichael R. DonaldsonAndrew H. FayramStephen FriedLarry M. GigliottiMadeleine Hall-ArborAlf HaukenesJeffrey E. Hill

DUES AND FEES FOR 2014 ARE:$80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for regular members, $20 in North America ($30 elsewhere) for student members, and $40 ($50 elsewhere) for retired members.

Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription.

Nonmember and library subscription rates are $182.

Deirdre M. KimballJeff KochJim LongDaniel McGarveyJeremy PrittRoar SandoddenJesse TrushenskiUsha Varanasi Jack E. WilliamsJeffrey Williams

BOOK REVIEW EDITORFrancis Juanes

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONPablo del Monte-Luna


Prior to this year, the Pennsylvania Chapter’s website was antiquated at best. If our former webpage were a per-son, that person was decked out in bell-bottoms and plat-form shoes and the masthead was sporting muttonchops.

Several attempts to update our website were made over the past 5 years. These included contracting a web-master who would work with us on the layout and design. However, the partnership did not function well due to our need to have more than just a static website. We needed to update the page frequently with notifications to our mem-bers, but instead we were left with a website that con-tained a lot of information about the past proceedings of the Chapter but few instructions about how to get involved or where to attend our next meeting.

Last year, during a conference call held by the So-ciety to discuss the variety of services it provides to its Chapters, website design was one of the items on their agenda. Fully aware that we were struggling in this de-partment, our secretary and treasurer contacted the Soci-ety to see whether we could improve our dilapidated site. As it turns out, website design is no longer the daunting task that it was a mere 5 years ago. The Society intro-duced us to WordPress, an open-source content manage-ment platform, and now provides web hosting services to improve Chapter websites, which significantly reduces the cost of managing these pages. One of the major benefits of creating a webpage with WordPress is that it’s easy to use. Gone are the days of learning computer “language” and writing endless lines of code to display your message in a visually pleasing fashion. Now, updating your web page and membership is as easy as typing in a text box.

With the help of Society staff—via the phone, no less—we built a fully functioning website within an hour that was intuitive to navigate and aesthetically pleasing. Information from our old site was seamlessly migrated to the new pages and announcements about upcoming Chapter activities were actually displayed on the homepage before they happened. Thanks to the support provided by the Society, Pennsylvania Chapter members now have a reliable source of information on upcoming events and student travel grant opportunities or simply peruse pictures of workshops and summer socials of years past. You don’t have to take my word for it; go ahead and check out the Pennsylvania Chapters’ website pa.fisheries.org to see how we maximized the support we received from the Society to improve communication with our membership. If your Chapter is experiencing similar difficulties, take this opportunity to contact the Content Director, Sarah Fox, at [email protected]. The officers and the Executive Director have made it a priority for the Society to interact and communicate with the Units. Sarah will talk you through the easy process of creating your own Chapter website, and soon you’ll have a free site that any of your members can contribute to and help manage.

UNIT NEWS

Units, Step Right Up: Get Your Free WebsiteJordan AllisonThe Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Fisheries Society


Foundations oF Fisheries science

Edited byGreg G. Sass andMicheal S. Allen

Foundations of Fisheries Science highlights the classic and critical works associ-ated with fisheries management. With input from fisheries professionals and stu-dents from around the world, the editors selected 43 full-text articles along with 30 “honorable mention” citations (with associated abstracts) that have helped to mold the discipline of fisheries science. The selected articles were represented by 21 journals, ranging in discipline from fisheries, ecology, human dimensions, and others.

The book is organized into five sections (1. Managing Fish Stocks, 2. Managing People, 3. Managing Fish Habitat, 4. Managing Fish Communities and Ecosystems, and 5. Managing Fisheries Enhancements), which represent the critical components of fisheries (fish, humans, habitat) and the most common management approaches (regulations, stocking, habitat protection/restoration). Section editors provide in-sightful commentaries highlighting and summarizing the articles presented in each section.

Foundations of Fisheries Science can be used as a reference, or as a textbook to lead undergraduate and graduate courses and discussions.

801 pages, hardcoverList price: $89.00AFS Member price: $62.00Item Number: 550.72CPublished May 2014

TO ORDER:Online: Fisheries.org/shopAmerican Fisheries Societyc/o Books InternationalP.O. Box 605Herndon, VA 20172Phone: 703-661-1570Fax: 703-996-1010


• I n t e r n a t i o n a l NOT national society—AFS is an international society. We have members in 62 countries. We have meetings outside of the United States.

• There is no “Par-ent Society”—AFS is the Society. The Units within the Society should be designated by the name followed by Chapter, Division, Section, or Stu-dent Subunit.

• Society member vs. Chapter member—Some AFS Chap-ters allow for membership in their Chapter without those individuals being members of the Society. It needs to be clear to these individuals that they are not AFS members.

• Annual Meeting themes—Sometimes conventions run their course and sometimes they just take a break. The 2015 Annual Meeting of AFS in Portland, Oregon, is a “theme-less” meeting. We want to ensure that this Annual Meeting has the broadest possibilities for inclusion in the technical program. Without a long theme that includes a colon, most attendees will be able to recall the theme after the meeting is over.

If you have suggestions for bullets for future columns, please send them to me.

I am honored to be president of the Society for this year. I look forward to working on issues of importance for the better functioning of AFS. I hope you will join me and be involved at some level in AFS so you will receive the benefits of being an engaged member.

One of the responsibilities of being president of AFS is to submit a monthly commentary to Fisheries or find a guest writer to do so. Since I did not think far enough ahead to co-erce a friend or colleague to help me complete my assignment, I have to step up and accept the challenge. Needless to say, I have struggled with coming up with an appropriate topic for this first commentary. So, I decided to look back to 2011 to see what I wrote when I ran for AFS Second Vice President. The document in Fisheries had my background, AFS involve-ment, and a subheading entitled “Vision.” In the Vision section, I wrote that I would work on increasing educational opportu-nities for both students in fisheries programs and professional biologists through more continuing education opportunities. I stated that we need to work on communications among AFS members, especially for those who are unable to attend most Society meetings. I stated my support of the diversification of our workforce in fisheries and increasing AFS involvement with other international fisheries societies to more effectively address global fisheries issues. Finally, I submitted that I would work to increase the transparency of the Governing Board of AFS so that all members could know the business of the Soci-ety, whether they want to know it or not!

I am somewhat relieved that I, and hopefully others, still consider these ideas to be important for AFS to address four years later. The officers and Governing Board discuss many topics. Yet communications, education, member diversity, col-laboration with international societies, and Society governance remain relevant for the 2014–2015 plan of work. Stay tuned for more on these topics throughout this year.

This first commentary is a great opportunity to air some thoughts on what I hear members or nonmembers say about AFS. The first three have been written about by several previ-ous presidents. Despite the fact that these are not original, my hope is that these bullets will drive home the message one more time but this time in bold.

COLUMNPresident’s CommentaryRevisiting the AFS Lexicon

Donna Parrish, AFS President

AFS President Donna Parrishcan be contacted at: [email protected]

Foundations oF Fisheries science

Edited byGreg G. Sass andMicheal S. Allen

Foundations of Fisheries Science highlights the classic and critical works associ-ated with fisheries management. With input from fisheries professionals and stu-dents from around the world, the editors selected 43 full-text articles along with 30 “honorable mention” citations (with associated abstracts) that have helped to mold the discipline of fisheries science. The selected articles were represented by 21 journals, ranging in discipline from fisheries, ecology, human dimensions, and others.

The book is organized into five sections (1. Managing Fish Stocks, 2. Managing People, 3. Managing Fish Habitat, 4. Managing Fish Communities and Ecosystems, and 5. Managing Fisheries Enhancements), which represent the critical components of fisheries (fish, humans, habitat) and the most common management approaches (regulations, stocking, habitat protection/restoration). Section editors provide in-sightful commentaries highlighting and summarizing the articles presented in each section.

Foundations of Fisheries Science can be used as a reference, or as a textbook to lead undergraduate and graduate courses and discussions.

801 pages, hardcoverList price: $89.00AFS Member price: $62.00Item Number: 550.72CPublished May 2014

TO ORDER:Online: Fisheries.org/shopAmerican Fisheries Societyc/o Books InternationalP.O. Box 605Herndon, VA 20172Phone: 703-661-1570Fax: 703-996-1010


Industrial water in-take structures include facilities related to power generation, man-ufacturing, irrigation, snow making, desalina-tion, drinking water, and more. That diverse suite of uses either removes water from aquatic sys-tems (temporarily or permanently), returns it

at a different and usually higher temperature, and/or adds chem-icals specific to each use. What are the implications of these uses? Many of you have probably been involved in these is-sues, but should we become more engaged now that discussions have moved to another stage, one where our knowledge about natural and social science, resource management, and policy will help to identify decisions in this complex arena? For AFS, should we expand our existing Policy #9 on the “Effects of Al-tered Stream Flows on Fishery Resources” (policy approved in 1981 and revised in 1989) to include the full sweep of water withdrawals from all aquatic systems?

These are not new questions. However, the ramifications of large-scale water removals received renewed visibility when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) released a final rule in May 2014 on cooling waters for power plants and manufacturing facilities (USEPA 2014a). The EPA’s final stan-dards under its Clean Water Act (CWA) action were designed to reduce injury to fish and other aquatic life from existing water intake structures and factories. Though not applicable to the full range of water uses and limited to existing units rather than new facilities, the underlying science and related legal and policy applications are significant. This is a huge issue for fish and an opportunity for AFS.

Here’s how this regulatory action connects to AFS interests. The EPA’s jurisdiction is CWA section 316(b) that establishes permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to apply best technologies to water intake structures. Each facility requiring an NPDES permit must mini-mize harmful impacts to fish and fisheries. The EPA estimates that cooling waters entrain or impinge billions of aquatic eggs, larvae, and juvenile and adult animals. Impacts are greatest to

COLUMNPolicy Effects of Industrial Water Intake

Structures Thomas E. Bigford, AFS Policy Director

AFS Policy Director Thomas E. Bigford can be contacted at: [email protected]

Continued on page 431

early life stages via impingement, whereby animals are pinned against screens on intake structures. A smaller percentage is en-trained through the intakes and pass through the cooling system.

The EPA’s 539-page final regulation applied the best sci-ence in a very complex process dictated by litigation. The action relates to facilities that pull millions of gallons of water per day from rivers, lakes, estuaries, and coastal ocean waters. The EPA estimates that the rule covers more than 1,000 existing facilities that each withdraw at least 2 million gallons of water per day to cool machinery, about half at manufacturing plants and half at power plants. The 2014 action was the last in a series of rules released from 2001 to 2006 in response to a lawsuit. As designed by the EPA and accepted by all parties, the multi-phased rulemaking first addressed new facilities, then offshore oil and gas exploration facilities, and lastly power-generating and manufacturing facilities. A portion of those earlier rulemak-ings was remanded to the EPA for reconsideration, affording another opportunity to apply the best science. The new and ap-parently final rule in the series (pending further legal action or regulatory changes) describes a “holistic approach to protecting aquatic life impacted by cooling water intakes.” Most of the other water uses mentioned in my opening paragraph, either smaller daily volumes or different uses, remain covered by the general NPDES requirements set by EPA or states.

The potential impacts of these facilities could be enormous. A facility extracting millions of gallons of water each day, kill-ing most of the organisms caught in the intake, could have an adverse effect on ecosystem health and fish populations. Most of the effects will be local, especially when the facility draws water from a confined system such as a lake, a river bounded by locks or other barriers, or a narrow estuary. For example, some water withdrawals can have much more severe impacts on fish and ecosystems. In the Mount Hope Bay reaches of upper Nar-ragansett Bay (bordered by Rhode Island and Massachusetts), the Brayton Point coal-fired power plant used once-through cooling until EPA required the facility to convert to closed loop. Loss of fish eggs and larvae was a determining factor in the EPA’s decision.

Withdrawals and associated impacts can even be signifi-cant in the open ocean, as was determined during licensing for the Gulf Landing liquefied natural gas facility with an open-loop, once-through design off Louisiana (U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration 2014). That license, granted in 2005 but surrendered in 2009, provided a poignant example of the effects of manufacturing water withdrawal. For-tunately, in recognition of the potential effects on fish, most of

The EPA estimates that cooling waters entrain or impinge billions of aquatic eggs, larvae, and juvenile and adult animals.


Continued on page 431

FEATUREAn Assessment of the Scale, Practices, and Conservation Implications of Florida’s Charter Boat–Based Recreational Shark FisheryDavid Samuel ShiffmanLeonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy, Uni-versity of Miami, P.O. Box 248202, Coral Gables, FL 33124, and RJ Dunlap Marine Conservation Program, University of Miami, Causeway, Miami, FL. E-mail [email protected]

Neil HammerschlagLeonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy, Uni-versity of Miami, Coral Gables, FL; RJ Dunlap Marine Conservation Pro-gram, University of Miami, Miami, FL; and Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Miami, FL

ABSTRACT: Recent conservation efforts have advocated for SCUBA diving ecotourism as a nonconsumptive alternative use of sharks. Although generally overlooked by conservation ad-vocates, another nonextractive use is catch-and-release fishing, which remains poorly characterized for shark fishing. In this study, we use a combination of website content analysis and surveys of charter boat captains to assess the scale of Flori-da’s charter boat shark fishing industry. We further examine the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of charter boat captains whose clients fish for sharks in Florida. We show that recre-ational charter boat shark fishing occurs throughout the state but is heavily concentrated in the Florida Keys. Shark fishing is often the most expensive trip offered, suggesting that sharks are economically important to the charter boat fishing indus-try. Florida’s charter boat shark fishers who show a strong conservation ethic toward sharks practice catch and release commonly. Our results suggest that although some species are better candidates for catch-and-release fishing than others due to inherent physiological vulnerabilities to postrelease mortal-ity, Florida’s charter boat shark fishery can augment the recent “ecotourism conservation” argument that sharks may be worth more alive than dead.

INTRODUCTION

Populations of many shark species are declining around the world, primarily due to overexploitation and bycatch by ex-tractive commercial fisheries (Ferretti et al. 2010). Population declines in some species have exceeded 90% in recent decades (Baum et al. 2003). Seventeen percent of all known species of chondrichthyans are considered at risk of extinction by the In-ternational Union for Conservation of Nature Red List (Camhi et al. 2009), and species that use pelagic habitats are particularly threatened (Dulvy et al. 2008). Sharks can play important roles in structuring marine communities, and their loss is predicted to have negative ecological effects (Heithaus et al. 2008; Ruppert et al. 2013). These issues are raising mounting concerns about shark biodiversity and conservation among wildlife managers,

Evaluación de la escala, prácticas e implicaciones de conservación de la pesquería recreativa de tiburón basada en botes de alquilerRESUMEN: actualmente, los esfuerzos de conservación han abogado por el ecoturismo mediante buceo SCUBA como una alternativa no consumista en cuanto al uso de los tiburones. Algo que generalmente ha pasado desapercibido por los conservacionistas en cuanto al uso no extractivo de los tiburones es la pesca de captura y liberación, la cual continúa estando pobremente caracterizada para el caso de los tiburones. En este estudio se utiliza una combinación de análisis de contenido de páginas web y sondeos a los capitanes de embarcaciones para evaluar la escala de la industria pesquera de Florida basada en botes de alquiler. Así mismo se examina el grado de conocimiento, actitudes y prácticas de los capitanes de botes de alquiler cuyos cli-entes pescan tiburones en Florida. Se muestra que la pesca recreativa de tiburones basada en botes de alquiler existe a lo largo de todo el estado pero se concentra principalmente en los cayos de Florida. La pesca de tiburón puede ser el viaje de pesca más costoso que se ofrece, lo que sugiere que los tiburones son económicamente importantes para la industria pesquera basada en botes rentados. En Florida, aquellos pescadores que mostraron una mayor ética de conservación hacia los tiburones, habitualmente practican la pesca de captura y liberación. Los hallazgos sugieren que si bien algunas especies son mejores candidatos para la pesca de captura y liberación debido a su inherente vul-nerabilidad fisiológica a la mortalidad que ocurre tras la liberación, la pesquería de tiburones en Florida basada en botes rentados puede abonar al argumento de la conser-vación ecoturística de que los tiburones valen más vivos que muertos.

scientists, policymakers, and environmentalists (Simpfendorfer et al. 2011).

Sharks are targeted by commercial fisheries worldwide for meat and for their fins, which are traded internationally for use in shark fin soup. A delicacy in traditional Chinese culture, shark fin soup can sell for hundreds of dollars a bowl, resulting in high economic incentives to exploit sharks solely for their fins (Clarke et al. 2006).

However, many nonextractive users depend on sharks for their businesses, raising additional concerns among stakehold-ers about their conservation. In the Republic of Palau, sharks


Although often overlooked in the conservation advocacy commu-nity, another potential nonextractive use of sharks is catch-and-release fishing (Cowx 1999; Ditton and Holland 2002). Catch and release is growing in popularity in the recreational fishing community (Ar-linghaus and Cook 2007). Surveys demonstrate that some recreational fishers are more interested in the challenge or excitement associated with catching large fish than in eat-ing their catch, and many fishers report that they enjoy their fishing experience just as much when their catch is released unharmed (Sutton and Ditton 2001). Babcock (2008) reported that most recreational shark fishing worldwide is catch and release, but despite growing popu-larity, frequency, economic impacts, and the motivations for this practice have not been studied previously. The catch-and-release shark fishing industry may represent additional support for ecotourism conservation advocacy by documenting addition-al situations where sharks may be more valuable alive than dead.

Florida is a global recreational fishing destination, resulting in over $8 billion in sales generated in 2011 (National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] 2011). The United States has one of the largest recreational shark fisheries in the world, and the state of Florida has one of the larg-est recreational shark fisheries in the United States (Schmied and Bur-gess 1987; Fisher and Ditton 1993; Figueira and Coleman 2010). This makes Florida an ideal location to

study the scale, practices, economic importance, attitudes, and conservation policy implications of recreational shark fishing.

A major component of Florida’s recreational fishing sector is charter boat fishing, where customers hire a boat and captain to take them fishing for a day, typically using rods and reels (Browder et al. 1981; Ditton et al. 1992; Leeworthy and Morris 2010). Charter fishing can also have large indirect economic impacts; because customers often travel from other states or countries to fish, they benefit local economies by purchasing hotel rooms and food in addition to paying the charter boat fee (Browder et al. 1981). Sharks have long been a target of char-ter boat fishing in Florida (Fisher and Ditton 1993; Figueira and Coleman 2010), but the motivations for recreational shark

are more valuable to the local SCUBA diving economy than to local fishers (Vianna et al. 2012), and in French Polynesia, a sin-gle sicklefin lemon shark (Negaprion acutidens) can be worth over $2 million in its lifetime (Clua et al. 2011). Gallagher and Hammerschlag (2011) found 376 SCUBA diving ecotourism operations worldwide that offer shark diving encounters, and customers are often willing to pay more to dive with sharks than any other animal. Recent conservation advocacy, termed here “ecotourism conservation,” has used the economic premise that many species of sharks can be worth more to local economies alive than dead as an argument for protecting them from extrac-tive fishing.

The Internet contains data that out-of-state tourists use to select and hire charter boats and is useful for examining both the scope of the shark charter fishing industry and its relative economic value.

Photo credit: Neil Hammerschlag / www.SharkTagging.com


fishing remain poorly understood. The goals of this study were to characterize the recreational shark fishery within the state of Florida using content analyses of websites and voluntary surveys. Specifically, we focused on assessing the scale of the fishery, establishing whether catch and release was commonly practiced, determining which shark species are targeted, and ascertaining the knowledge and attitudes of charter boat fishers toward the ecosystem role and population status of sharks.

METHODS

Tourism is a major component of online commerce, and the Internet is one of the primary sources that tourists use to plan vacations and excursions (Werthner and Ricci 2004; Mi-lano et al. 2011). Moreover, the Internet contains data that out-of-state tourists use to select and hire charter boats and is useful for examining both the scope of the shark charter fishing industry and its relative economic value. Accordingly, we used a leading Internet search engine (www.google.com) to identify charter boat businesses for this study (search terms in Appendix I). To be included in our analysis, charter boat companies had to explicitly mention the catching of sharks on their website.

We performed a content analysis of each of identified char-ter boat business website, focusing on several variables. The first was whether charter boats offered special shark fishing trips (and if so, what such trips cost, reported in U.S. dollars) or whether they simply listed sharks as a type of fish sometimes caught during normal fishing operations. The shark species that the charter boat websites identified that they catch most com-monly was noted and also whether a charter boat advertised catch-and-release practices, catch-and-kill practices, or neither. The analysis also documented how shark fishing trips were pro-moted as a proxy for the charter boat captain’s attitude toward sharks. The location where charter boats was based was noted, and many results were analyzed both statewide and regionally.

To further examine details regarding the knowledge, atti-tudes, and practices of charter boat captains who fish for sharks in Florida, we submitted a voluntary online survey to the 137 captains identified by our Google search. The survey consisted of 21 multiple-choice or short-answer questions modified from Anderson (2005) and was distributed to the captains of all iden-tified charter boat businesses (see Table 1 for questions).

In addition to website content analysis and the surveys submitted to charter captains described above, we searched the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS; www.sefsc.noaa.gov/about/mrfss.htm) and Marine Recreational Informa-tion Program (MRIP; www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries) databases. These databases include survey results from questions submitted to anglers (not captains of charter vessels as elsewhere in this study).

MRFSS was utilized to determine the total number of trips taken by recreational anglers on charter boats throughout Florida in the year 2012. MRIP was utilized to determine the

Table 1. Questions included in the voluntary survey distributed to all identified charter boat captains. Multiple-choice questions are indi-cated by (MC); other questions are free response.

• Where is your charter boat business located within the state of Florida? (MC)• Optional: provide the name of the city where your business is located.• Does your charter boat business offer specialized shark fishing trips? (MC)• How does the cost of your shark fishing trips compare to other fishing trips

you offer? (MC)• If a shark trip is offered, how much do you charge (for a 1/2-day trip for six

people)?• Are shark fishing trips a large component of your business? (MC)• To the best of your knowledge, what aspects of shark fishing most appeal to

your clients? Please select all that apply. (MC)• Which species of sharks do you catch most frequently? Please list any that

you consider to be commonly caught.• Which species of sharks (if any) do clients express a desire to catch in ad-

vance of the trip? (MC)• Of the species of sharks you catch, which (if any) are clients most excited

about catching? • Please indicate which of the following statements is true concerning your

catch-and-release fishing practices with respect to sharks. (MC)• If you do not always practice catch-and-release when fishing for sharks, what

factors into your decision? Please check all that apply. (MC)• If you practice catch-and-release when fishing for sharks, what motivates

this decision?• Please indicate which statement is most applicable concerning your client’s

views on catch-and-release fishing for sharks. (MC)• To the best of your knowledge, how healthy are shark populations in your

local area? (MC)• To the best of your knowledge, how healthy are shark populations in the

state of Florida? (MC)• To the best of your knowledge, how healthy are shark populations in the

United States? (MC)• To the best of your knowledge, how healthy are shark populations world-

wide? (MC)• If you reported any shark population declines, to the best of your knowledge,

what is the cause of these declines?• Is a healthy population of sharks important to you? (MC)• Why is a healthy population of sharks important, somewhat important, or

not important to you?



Table 2. Number of charter boat businesses and average cost of fish-ing by region. Cost is reported in U.S. dollars and standardized for a 1/2-day fishing trip for six people.

Region N (websites)

N (survey)

Mean cost (survey)

Min/max cost (survey)

Northeast Florida 7 1 $400 N = 1

Central (Atlantic) 5 0 No responses No responses

Southeast Florida 16 3 $550 $450/$650

Florida Keys 58 13 $561 $400/$700

Southwest Florida 33 3 $600 $450/$750

Central (Gulf) 5 2 $550 $500/$600

Panhandle 14 3 $213 $40 (3 people max)/$350

Table 3. Responses to the survey question “Are shark fishing trips a large component of your business?” There were 22 responses to this question.

Answer Response count

Response percentage

“I book a few shark fishing trips each year, and several other types of fishing trips are more regularly requested.”

9 40.9

“Shark fishing trips are occasionally re-quested, though they are a minor component of my total annual business.”

6 27.3

“Yes, customers often request shark fishing trips, though a few other types of fishing trips are more regularly requested.”

5 22.7

“I almost never book shark fishing trips.” 2 9.1

“Yes, the majority of trips I book are shark fishing.” 0 0

total number of reported individual sharks that were caught (and the number released alive) by anglers fishing from charter boats throughout Florida in the year 2012. Every shark species identified by charter boat captains (in survey responses or web-sites) as being commonly caught by the anglers was searched in MRIP.

RESULTS

Location and Cost

We identified 137 charter boat companies that reference catching sharks on their website (Figure 1). These businesses are found throughout the state of Florida but are heavily con-centrated in the Florida Keys (Figure 1). Twenty-five of the identified charter boat captains completed the voluntary survey (Table 1). A query of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s MRFSS database shows that in 2012, anglers took 842,756 charter boat fishing trips throughout Florida, though this includes all trips and not just shark-focused trips.

Thirty-three websites (24%) advertised a specific, targeted shark fishing trip. Prices varied based on location, length of trip, and number of people in the fishing party. Prices ranged from $300 to $2,800 with a median price of $775 (Table 2). In 29 cases (88%), the shark fishing trip was the most expensive trip offered by that charter boat company. Fifty-one businesses (37%) did not list prices or types of available trips on their web-sites.

Figure 1. Locations of charter boat businesses in Florida whose websites reference catching sharks. Relative sizes of symbols represent the number of businesses in each location.


The cost of shark fishing provided by survey respondents (a 1/2-day trip with six passengers was used as a standard; 53.6% of all charter boat trips on the Atlantic coast of Florida are 1/2-day trips according to Holland et al. 2012) ranged from $250 to $750, with a median cost of $550. Twenty of 25 respondents (80%) indicated that shark fishing trips are “priced similarly to most other trips,” one indicated that shark fishing is more expensive, and four indicated that it is less expensive. Survey respondents also indicated that shark fishing is an important component of their business, though not the largest (Table 3).

Catch and Release

Fourteen websites (10%) included a clearly stated exclu-sive catch-and-release policy, and 19 survey respondents (82% of 23 responses to the multiple-choice question “Please indi-cate which of the following statements is true concerning your catch-and-release fishing practices with respect to sharks”) indicated that they “always practice catch and release when fishing for sharks.” Additionally, 13 survey responses (65% of 20 responses to the multiple-choice question “Please indicate which statement is most applicable concerning your client’s views on catch-and-release fishing for sharks”) indicate that “Most clients are happier to release the fish they catch,” and the remaining seven indicated that clients are “just as happy” to release the sharks. Selected excerpts from website catch-and-release policies and survey responses are provided in Table 4.

Only two websites (1.4%) listed a catch-and-kill policy. Of these, one (located in the Panhandle) indicated that sharks were killed for food, and the other (located in Miami) indicated that sharks were killed for sport. Two survey respondents (8.6% of 23 responses to this question) indicated that they “almost always” practice catch and release, and two (8.6%) indicated that they “sometimes” practice catch and release (an additional two did not answer the question). When asked what factored into the decision not to practice catch and release, five survey respondents indicated that shark species influences the decision (55% of nine responses to this question), three (33%) indicated that the clients’ wishes are important, and one (11%) indicated that seeking an International Game Fishing Association world record requires landing the shark. The MRIP database shows that, overall, only 68% of all sharks caught in Florida by these anglers were released alive, though Great Hammerhead (Sphyr-na mokarran) and Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) sharks (these species are grouped as hammerhead in the MRIP database; Compagno et al. 2005), Lemon Sharks (Negaprion brevirostris), and Tiger Sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) had release rates of approximately 100% (Table 5).

Motivations

Based on survey responses, the aspects of shark fishing that most charter boat captains believed most appealed to their clients were “the challenge and excitement of catching a large fish”; “getting a photograph to show friends and family” was the second most common choice (Table 6.) Moreover, “obtain-ing fish to eat” was the least common choice as a motivation

Table 4. Selected excerpts from website catch-and-release policies and responses to the survey question “If you practice catch and release when fishing for sharks, what motivates this decision?”

Website catch-and-release policies

Catch-and-release shark fishing is great for families seeking a fun, eco-friendly day on the water.

All sharks are released unharmed. If a replica is desired we can get one done for you without killing the shark.

Times have changed. The “Jaws” craze is over, and with a greater public con-sciousness toward conservation, catch-and-release fishing has become the norm rather than the exception.

Shark fishing is strictly catch and release.

Most Florida Keys fishing guides all release sharks that are caught for sport so they can live to play again and handling them near the boat is done in the best interest of the shark.

Sharks help maintain the balance of marine life in the shallow flats as well as the open ocean. So when we catch these powerful fish we always practice catch and release so they may continue to do their job.

Catch and release is utmost important to keep up the survival of the species and our numbers here in Key West.

We practice fishing conservation. We like to release all fish that are not being eaten or mounted.

Catch and release is promoted when shark fishing to preserve this incredible rich fishery for many years to come.

Sharks are very hardy and can recover from a fight better than other species of fish that we release.

Game fish that are not very tasteful like shark are released.

We release for the future.

The future of fishing in our area is the smart management of our resource.

We recommend that our anglers who are lucky enough to catch a shark or billfish, and would like to have a trophy of their fish, choose to release their fish and have an exact replica built from a mold.

The fish gets to survive this ordeal and go on to create more hammerheads for all of our futures.

Survey responses

“There’s simply no need to kill the sharks. When a client wants a wall mount, that’s easily done with a simple measurement of the shark.”

“Why would I kill them???”

“Respect for the sharks and conservation.”

“I know the importance of keeping every species of shark in the ocean. Man is already affecting natural selection enough by killing mostly large and desirable fish and leaving weak and undesirable fish.”

“This is a fun family trip … you are only allowed 2 per vessel and besides all they really want is the picture and always happy to release them.”

“Declining or already declined shark population.”

“No need to kill something you are not going to eat.”

“Marina rule—no dead sharks on property except mako to avoid bad press.”

for shark fishing. Many charter boat companies advertise shark fishing on their websites using wording that suggests challenge and excitement (Table 7).

Species Captured

Fourteen websites (10%) list specific species of shark that they commonly catch, and the remainder simply state “sharks.” Of those 14, only 2 sites listed relative frequency of species capture (both had “hammerhead” sharks listed among the more commonly caught species), whereas others listed commonly


Figure 2. Frequency of a species being included on a list of commonly captured species either on a website or in a sur-vey response. *There are multiple species of hammerhead, thresher, and mako. **This is not a scientifically recognized species. ***This species is not found in the Atlantic Ocean and has likely been misidentified. +Fishermen are legally required to release these animals if captured (for hammerheads S. lewiniand and S. mokaran, Tigers G. cuvier, Sandbar C. plumbeus, Lemon N. brevirostris, and Silky Sharks C. falciformis, this applies only to Florida waters).

Photo credit: Christine Shepard / www.SharkTagging.com


Table 8. Selected responses to the question “Why is a healthy population of sharks important to you?”

Economic reasons

Shark fishing is a huge part of my business.

Brings more customers.

Quick and reliable fishing action makes for a better charter business.

Very important—so we can continue to fulfill our clients’ desires to fish for them.

Ecological reasons

“Indicates healthy fish stocks.”

“All part of the ecosystem.”

“Balance of nature.”

“They were created to be here and serve the purpose they were created for.”

“Because it’s natural to have an abundance, and because they are part of the ecosystem and food chain.”

“I am for preserving all natural species. I do not want to see any species of sharks disappear or decline. I would prefer to have the oceans as God intended them to be.”

“To keep a natural balance in the marine ecosystem.”

“They were here before us, we do need to respect them, and it is my future.”

“To keep the ocean in balance.”

“An indicator of the health of the marine world is the health of shark popula-tions. Having large predators in the ocean as a part of natural selection has made the oceans as fruitful as they were.”

“Keep the oceans clean.”

“Not to upset the balance of predator vs. prey.”

Table 6. Results of the survey question “To the best of your knowl-edge, what aspects of shark fishing most appeal to your clients? Please select all that apply.” There were 23 survey respondents who answered this question.

Answer Response count

Response percentage

The challenge and sport of catching a large fish 22 95.7

Getting a photograph to show friends and family 13 56.5

Experiencing new and different things 9 39.1

Experiencing natural surroundings, being outdoors 7 30.4

Trying to obtain a trophy fish 6 26.1

Getting away from the demands of other people 4 17.1

Obtaining fish to eat 2 8.7

Table 7. Examples of wording evoking challenge and excitement used to advertise shark fishing on charter boat websites.

The toothy beasts of the Florida Keys often surprise even seasoned anglers with their fight and acrobatics.

It’s challenging. These creatures strike savagely, make long drag-scorching runs, and in some cases, will explode from the water in a leap worthy of the most highly touted gamefish.

Shark fishing is just plain exciting. You’re targeting a powerful creature with an attitude … a fish that when provoked would just as soon bite you as look at you.

A front row seat to raw naked aggression.

When it took the bait all aboard said it was a once in a fishing lifetime sight.

Imagine the thrill of fighting one of the most feared predators of the sea.

For the angler who would like to do battle with a prehistoric fish of unbeliev-able strength.

Bring your big boy pants for this fishing.

Want to tangle with something really big? Shark fishing may be the way to go for your day on the water.

Sharks are an amazing and unique apex predator.

They rival Tarpon in the amount of adrenaline pumping excitement you can get.

Table 5. Data from MRIP database showing approximately how many of each species of shark were caught in 2012 by charter boat anglers in Florida and how many were released alive. Search terms are “species,” “2012–2013,” “Florida,” “all regions combined,” “number of fish,” and “charter boat.” PSE is “proportional standard error,” and the MRIP web-site notes that PSE > 50 indicates an imprecise estimate.

Species # Observed harvest # Release alive Total # caught % Released alive PSE

Hammerhead 33,733 33,733 100 44.4

Lemon Shark 5,291 5,291 100 38.6

Atlantic Sharpnose Shark 19,214 110,827 130,041 85.22465991 22.2

Nurse Shark 483 37,470 37,953 98.72737333 22.2

Spinner Shark 1,438 10,000 11,438 87.42787201 78.9

Blacktip Shark 136,741 159,486 296,227 53.83911662 21.5

Silky Shark 232 162 394 41.11675127 77.7

Black-nose Shark 8,683 2,472 11,155 22.16046616 41.7

Sandbar Shark 32 904 936 96.58119658 102.4

Bull Shark 1,778 3,664 5,442 67.32818817 47.1

Tiger Shark 2,420 2,420 100 71.4

Thresher Shark 0 0 0

Reef Shark 0 0 0

Total 68.6%


captured species without indicating relative frequency. Our results revealed that several species whose harvest is legally prohibited in Florida and in U.S. waters (due to concerns about declining population status) were included on this list of com-monly captured species (Figure 2). Additionally, several groups of related species were included together by charter boat cap-tains, and several species names not scientifically recognized were mentioned (Figure 2). The most common responses to the survey question “Which species of sharks (if any) do cli-ents express a desire to catch in advance of a trip” were Bull Sharks (Carcharhinus leucas, eight responses) and hammer-heads (seven). The most common responses to the question “Of the species of sharks you catch, which (if any) are clients most excited about catching” were also Bull Sharks (eight) and ham-merheads (10).

Data from the MRIP database indicated that recreational charter boat anglers in Florida throughout 2012 caught over 550,000 sharks. According to the MRIP database, the four most common species reported as caught by anglers were Atlantic Sharpnose Sharks (Rhizoprionodon terranovae), Nurse Sharks (Ginglymostoma cirratum), hammerhead sharks, and Blacktip Sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus; Table 5).

The Importance of Sharks and Their Population Status

Seventeen of 22 captains (77%) who responded to the survey indicated that a healthy population of sharks was “very important”

to them, and five (22.7%) indicated that it was “somewhat impor-tant.” Captains provided both ecological and economic reasons for the perceived importance of sharks. Selected responses are provided in Table 8.

Captains perceive local shark populations as healthier than the global average (Figure 3). The most commonly reported causes of the perceived population declines were “overfish-ing” (three responses), “commercial fishing” (three responses), “bycatch” (three responses), “longlining” (two responses), and “shark fin soup/shark finning” (two responses).

DISCUSSION

As a global destination for recreational fishing, Florida is an ideal location to study the scale, practices, and conservation implications of the charter boat shark fishing industry, as well as the knowledge and attitudes of participants. The search en-gine methods used in this study resulted in the identification of 137 charter boat businesses that interact with sharks in Florida; they occurred throughout the state but were heavily concen-trated in the Florida Keys. This is likely to be a conservative estimate, because there are over 3,500 charter boat business registered throughout the state (K. Maxwell, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, personal communication), though Holland et al. (2012) noted only 234 charter boats op-erating on the Atlantic Coast of Florida. Any Florida-based charter boat that fishes for sharks in federal waters requires an NMFS Highly Migratory Species Charterboat/Headboat (CHB)

Photo credit: Christine Shepard / www.SharkTagging.com


permit (K. Brewster-Geisz, National Marine Fisheries Service, personal communication). As of 2006 there were 673 CHB per-mits issued to charter boats based in the state of Florida, more than any other state, and more than 16% of all CHB permits issued for the eastern seaboard, Gulf Coast, and Caribbean combined (NMFS 2006). Charter boats that operate only within state waters need no special permit in addition to their charter boat license to interact with sharks (A. Pody, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, personal communication), though Holland et al. (2012) noted that offshore fishing trips (i.e., into federal waters) are the most common type of trip of-fered by charter boat captains on the Atlantic coast of Florida. It is likely that there are charter boat businesses in Florida that in-teract with sharks that were not identified by the search methods used in this study. Though a satisfactory percentage of captains responded to our survey and all regions of Florida identified as shark fishing hotspots by the website content analysis were represented in survey responses, it is possible that captains who do not practice catch and release systematically chose not to respond to this survey. If this is the case, it would bias results re-lated to the frequency with which catch and release is practiced. Regardless, the charter boat businesses identified by this study can provide valuable insight into a poorly studied system, and additional research focusing on more detailed questions can im-prove our understanding further.

Though no captains who responded to the survey report-ed that shark fishing comprises the majority of their business, responses suggest that sharks are an important component of

the overall fishing. Holland et al. (2012) found that for charter boats based on the Atlantic coast of Florida, between 43.3% and 60% of trips targeted sharks, though often in addition to other species. Shark fishing is often the most expensive type of fish-ing offered, and the median cost of 1/2-day shark fishing trips listed on websites ($775) is almost as expensive as the 2004 average cost of full-day charter fishing ($894; NMFS 2006). This suggests that shark fishing is economically important to Florida’s charter boat fishing industry, though more thorough economic analysis would provide additional insight.

Captains surveyed in this study report that catch-and-re-lease fishing is commonly practiced when fishing for sharks, with few exceptions, but data derived from the MRIP database (overall release rate of 68% for sharks in Florida) suggest that this may not be the case for all species. Additionally, in 2010, 85% of charter boat captains in the South Atlantic region of the United States stated that less than one-quarter of their trips (targeting any species, not just sharks) were exclusively catch-and-release (Holland et al. 2012). Regardless, this represents a significant change in attitudes and practices, because large sharks were once commonly landed as trophies in this region (e.g., Figure 1a in McClenachan 2009).

Charter boat captains included in this study have among the highest support for catch and release of any studied group of anglers. All charter boat captains interviewed in this study re-ported that their clients are either happier (65%) or just as happy (35%) to release the sharks they catch. Though it is important



to note that this study surveyed charter captains, whereas other studies surveyed the client anglers themselves, this is among the highest values ever recorded for angler willingness to release. In comparison, only 61% of Texas catfish anglers reported that they were just as happy to release (Hunt and Hutt 2010). Agree-ment with the statement “I am just as happy if I don’t keep the fish I catch” on a 1- to 5-point Likert scale varied, with a mean of 2.45 for low-consumptive recreational fishermen (Fedler and Ditton 1986), a mean of 3.24 for Texas-based tournament anglers (Loomis and Ditton 2011), and mean of 4.7 for trout anglers in Tennessee (Hutt and Bettoli 2007).

In this study, charter boat captains reported that the most common perceived motivation of their clients for fishing sharks was the “challenge and sport of catching a large fish,” and the least common was “obtaining fish to eat.” Similarly, Fisher and Ditton (1993) found for non-charter boat anglers that “adven-ture and excitement” and “the experience of the catch” were among the most significant motivations for shark fishing and that “obtaining fish to eat” ranked among the least signifi-cant. These motivations are different from most other studied

groups of anglers (Holland and Ditton 2011). In contrast, recre-ational fishers who fish in on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, consider experiencing natural surroundings to be the most significant motivation for fishing and regard excitement to be the least important (Sutton 2006). Trout fishers in Tennessee consider the challenge to be important but far less important than experiencing natural surroundings and only slightly more than obtaining fish to eat (Hutt and Bettoli 2007). Rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii) divers in Tasmania valued catching lobsters to eat more than the challenge or adventure of the catch (Fri-jlink and Lyle 2010). Loomis and Ditton (2011) found that

sport fishers are more likely to val-ue the relaxation and chance to be outdoors associated with fishing, whereas competitive tournament fishers are more likely to value the experience and challenge. Among Texas black bass (Micropterus spp.) fishers, tournament anglers ranked

“for the challenge or sport” and “to experience adventure and excitement” higher and ranked “to obtain fish for eating” lower than nontournament fishers. By this measure, recreational char-ter boat fishers targeting sharks in Florida are more similar to competitive tournament fishers. Of the 22 saltwater fishing mo-tivations studies reviewed by Falk et al. (1989), recreational shark fishers and some competitive tournament fishermen were the only ones for whom “sport/challenge” was ranked as the highest motivation for fishing.

In this study, charter boat captains reported that the most common perceived motivation of their clients for fishing sharks was the “challenge and sport of catching a large fish,” and the least common was “obtaining fish to eat.”



Charter boat captains believe that local shark populations are healthy, whereas globally shark populations are in decline. Though the United States in general and state of Florida specifi-cally do indeed have healthy shark populations relative to many other parts of the world (Fowler et al. 2005), this perception among charter boat captains may be influenced by additional factors. This includes potential failure to acknowledge that local recreational fisheries can have a significant impact on popula-tion declines (which can occur in other taxa; see Coleman et al. 2004), as well as potential fear of restrictive regulations impact-ing their business. Techniques such as focus group discussions could address this perception in more detail.

Though this study focused on a large and important group of the recreational shark fishing industry, many other anglers fish for sharks. Charter boat captains’ clients are likely from dif-ferent socioeconomic groups than land-based shark fishers who fish from beaches and bridges, and recreational shark fishers who use their own boats may differ from either of these groups. Motivations, knowledge, attitudes, and practices of each group should be assessed separately. Though the sample size of re-sponses to our survey was relatively low (25 respondents of 137 identified charter boat operations), potentially impacting our re-sults and interpretation, all responses were consistent with our website content analysis, suggesting that we were indeed able to correctly characterize the nature of the charter boat shark fishing industry.

Both the website content analysis and survey responses re-vealed that most of the charter boat captains included in this study have a strong conservation ethic. Captains commonly practice catch and release, value sharks for their ecosystem services and the challenge they represent, and are concerned by declining shark populations. Charter boat captains and their clients may represent an as-yet untapped ally in shark conser-vation and management policy negotiations, and conservation advocacy nongovernmental organizations would be wise to ex-plore this possibility.

The list of shark species reported as commonly caught by charter boat captains largely matches what is found by local sci-entific surveys (Torres et al. 2006; Heithaus et al. 2007; Wiley and Simpfendorfer 2007; Shiffman and Hammerschlag, unpub-lished data), but there are noteworthy exceptions. Specifically, nurse sharks appear to be significantly underrepresented by charter boat captains in the reported catch based on local abun-dance. We speculate that these species are likely caught but not advertised because they may be considered to be relatively less exciting due to their size and often sedentary, docile behavior. This is supported by the fact that unlike our survey and website content analysis of charter boat companies, the MRIP database of surveyed anglers showed that nurse sharks are one of the most common species captured by anglers on charter boats. Both websites and respondents listed hammerheads among the most commonly caught species of sharks. Although hammer-heads are the third most common taxa reported (along with one



of the two species most commonly requested and the species customers are most excited about catching), these sharks are rare in Florida state waters (Torres et al. 2006; Shiffman and Hammerschlag, unpublished data). The discrepancy between natural abundance and catch rate suggests that charter fisher-men may be specifically targeting Great Hammerheads and Scalloped Hammerheads. Both local species are considered endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List (www.iucnredlist.org), and concerns about population declines resulted in a 2012 harvest ban in Florida waters (www.myFWC.com). However, charter boat captains are likely highly advertising hammerheads because they are large and exciting, as well as one of the species most commonly requested by customers.

Assessments of how sharks respond physiologically to fishery interactions are becoming increasingly common (e.g., Furshin and Szedlmayer 2004; Herberer et al. 2010). Brill et al. (2008) noted that Sandbar Sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus) can recover their blood oxygen transport ability rapidly postcap-ture, and Atlantic Sharpnose Sharks had postrelease survival of approximately 90% (Gurshin and Szedlmayer 2004). Using experimental catch-and-release methods throughout the Florida Keys, Gallagher et al. (2014a) documented a wide range in the physiological stress responses and postrelease survival of five coastal shark species, all of which are listed by the charter boat captains in this study as commonly caught by their anglers. The study found that Bull Sharks, Tiger Sharks, and Lemon Sharks exhibit relatively low postcapture physiological stress levels (low whole-blood lactate and PCO2 levels) and high postrelease survival rates following fishing, suggesting that they have low vulnerability to fishing capture stress (Gallagher et al., in press). Conversely, Blacktip Sharks and Great Hammerheads showed high physiological disruption and low survival follow-ing release (Gallagher et al., in press).

In fact, Great Hammerheads showed some of the highest mortality rates reported in the literature for any shark even at low hooking durations (Gallagher et al., in press). Additionally, several studies have found that Great Hammerheads and Scal-loped Hammerheads have among the highest at-vessel mortality rates of any species encountered in both pelagic and bottom longline fisheries, likely due to pronounced capture stress re-sponse (Morgan and Burgess 2007; Morgan and Carlson 2010). Due to their abnormally severe reaction to capture stress as well as high mortality rates after being caught, Great and Scalloped Hammerheads are not good candidates for eco-friendly catch-and-release fishing. Moreover, both Great Hammerheads and Scalloped Hammerheads are being considered for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, which, if successful, would impact how charter boat fishermen interact with these animals. Accordingly, we argue that Great Hammerheads and Scalloped Hammerheads (and all hammerhead species) should not be targeted by anglers if the desired fishing outcome is survival. Species-specific handling guidelines requiring the immediate release of “hammerheads” (without first “fighting” them to bring them to the boat and without posing for a photograph) may help reduce mortality of these endangered animals (Cooke

and Suski 2005; Gallagher et al. 2014b). In order to more fully evaluate the conservation benefit of this industry and whether it truly represents a nonconsumptive usage of sharks, future re-search should continue to assess the species-specific postrelease shark survival after exposure to recreational fishery interactions (Cooke et al. 2005, 2012).

Given the economic benefits of catch-and-release shark

fishing, our results suggest that under certain circumstances, Florida’s charter boat shark catch-and-release fishing industry may help further the recent “ecotourism conservation” argument that sharks may be worth more alive in their natural environ-ment than dead in a fish market (Gallagher and Hammerschlag 2011; Vianna et al. 2012). However, for this argument to be valid, the shark species commonly caught by these anglers must not suffer significant mortality or experience major losses in fitness after being released. By these criteria, many shark spe-cies are good candidates for catch and release. However, due to their endangered status and extreme stress reaction, Great Ham-merheads and Scalloped Hammerheads are not, which makes the potential targeting of these sharks by charter fishermen a conservation concern.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Kenneth Broad, David Letson, Gina Maranto, Captain Curt Slonim, Austin Gallagher, Julia Wester, and Catherine MacDonald for their assistance with this project.

FUNDING

Funding was provided by the Guy Harvey Ocean Founda-tion, the International Women’s Fishing Association, and the University of Miami’s RJ Dunlap Marine Conservation Pro-gram. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. This research was covered under University of Miami Institutional Review Board permit # 20120477.

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. 2005. Measuring angler attitudes toward the catch-related aspects of recre-ational fishing. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Arlinghaus, R., and S. Cooke. 2007. Understanding the complexity of catch-and-release in recreational fishing: an integrative synthesis of global knowledge from historical, ethical, social, and biological. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15:75–167.

Babcock, E. A. 2008. Recreational fishing for pelagic sharks worldwide. Pages 193–202 in M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch, and E. A. Babcock, editors. Sharks of the open ocean: biology, fisheries and conservation. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Baum, J. K., R. Myers, D. G. Kehler, B.Worm, S. J. Harley, and P. Doherty. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389–392.

Brill, R., P. Bushnell, S. Schroff, R. Seifert, and M. Galvin. 2008. Effects of anaerobic exer-cise accompanying catch-and-release fishing on blood-oxygen affinity of the sandbar shark. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 354:132–143.

Browder, J., J. Davis, and E. Sullivan. 1981. Paying-passenger recreational fisheries of the Florida Gulf Coast and Keys. Marine Fisheries Review 43:12–20.

Camhi, M. D., S. V. Valenti, S. V. Fordham, S. L. Fowler, and C. Gibson. 2007. The conser-vation status of pelagic sharks and rays. Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Newbury, United Kingdom.

Clarke, S. C., M. K. McAllister, E. J. Milner-Gulland, G. P. Kirkwood, C. G. Michielsens, D. J. Agnew, and E. K. Pikitch. 2006. Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecology Letters 9:1115–1126.

Clua, E., Buray, N., Legendre, P., Mourier, J., and S. Planes. 2011. Business partner or simple catch? The economic value of the sicklefin lemon shark in French Polynesia. Marine and Freshwater Research 62:764–770.


Coleman, F. C., W. F. Figueira, J. S. Ueland, and L. B. Crowder. 2004. The impact of United States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305:1958–1960.

Compagno, L., M. Dando, and S. Fowler. 2005. Sharks of the world. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Cooke, S. J., M. R. Donaldson, C. M. O’Connor, G. D. Raby, R. Arlinghaus, A. J. Danyl-chuk, and K. C. Hanson. 2012. The physiological consequences of catch-and-release angling: perspectives on experimental design, interpretation, extrapolation and rel-evance to stakeholders. Fisheries Management and Ecology 20:268–287.

Cooke, S. J., and C. D. Suski. 2005. Do we need species-specific guidelines for catch-and-release recreational angling to effectively conserve diverse fishery resources? Biodi-versity and Conservation 14:1195–1209.

Cowx, I. G. 1999. Are recreational fisheries sustainable in multiple aquatic resource user situations? Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Ditton, R., and S. Holland. 2002. Recreational fishing as tourism. Fisheries 27(3):17–24.Ditton, R., S. Holland, and D. Gill. 1992. The US Gulf of Mexico party boat industry:

activity centers, species targeted, and fisheries management opinions. Marine Fisher-ies Review 54:15–20.

Dulvy, N. K., J. Baum, S. Clarke, L. Compagno, E. Cortes, A. Domingo, and S. Fordham. 2008. You can swim but you can’t hide: the global status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18:459–482.

Falk, J., A. Graefe, and R. Ditton. 1989. Patterns of participation and motivation among saltwater tournament anglers. Fisheries 14(4):10–17.

Fedler, A., and R. Ditton. 1986. A framework for understanding the consumptive orientation of recreational fishermen. Environmental Management 10:221–227.

Ferretti, F., B. Worm, G. L. Britten, M. R. Heithaus, and H. K. Lotze. 2010. Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Letters 13:1055–1071.

Figueira, W., and F. Coleman. 2010. Comparing landings of United States recreational fishery sectors. Bulletin of Marine Science 86:499–514.

Fisher, M., and R. Ditton. 1993. A social and economic characterization of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico recreational shark fishery. Marine Fisheries Review 55:21–27.

Fowler, S. L., R. D. Cavanagh, M. Camhi, G. H. Burgess, G. M. Cailliet, S. V. Fordham, C. A. Simpfendorfer and J. A. Musick. 2005. Sharks, rays and chimaeras: the status of the Chondrichthyan fishes: status survey. IUCN, Newbury, United Kingdom.

Frijlink, S., and J. Lyle. 2010. A socio-economic assessment of the Tasmanian recreational rock lobster fishery. Report of the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, Ho-bart, Tasmania.

Gallagher, A. J., and N. Hammerschlag. 2011. Global shark currency: the distribution, frequency, and economic value of shark ecotourism. Current Issues in Tourism 14:797–812.

Gallagher, A. J., J. E. Serafy, S. J. Cooke, and N. Hammerschlag. 2014a. Physiological stress response, reflex impairment, and survival of five sympatric shark species follow-ing experimental capture and release. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 496: 207–218.

Gallagher, A. J., N. Hammerschlag, D. S. Shiffman, and S. T. Giery. 2014b. Evolved for Extinction: The Cost and Conservation Implications of Specialization in Hammerhead Sharks. BioScience.

Gurshin, C. W. D., and S. T. Szedlmayer. 2004. Short-term survival and movements of Atlantic sharpnose sharks captured by hook-and-line in the north-east Gulf of Mex-ico. Journal of Fish Biology 65:973–986.

Heberer, C., S. Aalbers, D. Bernal, S. Kohin, B. DiFiore, and C. A. Sepulveda. 2010. Insights into catch-and-release survivorship and stress-induced blood biochemistry of common thresher sharks captured in the southern California recreational fishery. Fisheries Research 106:495–500.

Heithaus, M. R., D. Burkholder, R. E. Hueter, L. I. Heithaus, H. W. Pratt, Jr., and J. C. Car-rier. 2007. Spatial and temporal variation in shark communities of the lower Florida Keys and evidence for historical population declines. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:1302–1313.

Heithaus, M. R., A. Frid, A. J. Wirsing, and B. Worm. 2008. Predicting ecological conse-quences of marine top predator declines. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23:202–210.

Holland, S. M., and R. B. Ditton. 2011. Fishing trip satisfaction: a typology of anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:37–41.

Holland, S. M., C. O. Oh, S. L. Larkin, and A. W. Hodges. 2012. The operations and eco-nomics of the for-hire fishing fleets of the south Atlantic states and the Atlantic Coast of Florida. University of Florida contract report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Hunt, K., and C. Hutt. 2010. Characteristics of Texas Catfish anglers and their catch and management preferences. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Hutt, C. P., and P. W. Bettoli. 2007. Preferences, specialization, and management attitudes of Trout anglers fishing in Tennessee tailwaters. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:1257–1267.

Leeworthy, V. R., and C. F. Morris. 2010. Linking the economy and the environment of Florida Keys/Key West: a socioeconomic analysis of the recreation activities of Mon-roe County residents. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.

Loomis, D. K., and R. Ditton. 2011. Analysis of motive and participation differences be-tween saltwater sport and tournament fishermen. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:37–41.

McClenachan, L. 2009. Documenting the loss of large trophy fish from the Florida Keys with historical photographs. Conservation Biology 23:636–643.

Milano, R., R. Baggio, and R. Piattelli. 2011. The effects of online social media on tourism websites. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2011:471–483.

Morgan, A., and G. H. Burgess. 2007. At-vessel fishing mortality for six species of sharks

caught in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Gulf and Caribbean Research 19:123.

Morgan, A. and J. K. Carlson. 2010. Capture time, size and hooking mortality of bottom longline-caught sharks. Fisheries Research 101:32–37.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Mi-gratory Species Fishery Management Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Ruppert, J. L. W., M. J. Travers, L. L. Smith, M.-J. Forti, and M. G. Meeka. 2013. Caught in the middle: combined impacts of shark removal and coral loss on the fish communities of coral reefs. PLoS ONE 8(9):e74648.

Schmied, R., and E. Burgess. 1987. Marine recreational fisheries in the southeastern United States: an overview. Marine Fisheries Review 49:2–7.

Simpfendorfer, C. A., M. R. Heupel, W. White, and N. K. Dulvy. 2011. The importance of research and public opinion to conservation management of sharks and rays: a synthe-sis. Marine and Freshwater Research 62:518–527.

Sutton, S. G. 2006. An assessment of the social characteristics of Queensland’s recreational fishers. CRC Reef Research Centre, Queensland, Australia

Sutton, S. G., and R. Ditton. 2010. Understanding catch-and-release behavior among U.S. Atlantic Bluefin Tuna anglers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:37–41.

Torres, L. G., M. R. Heithaus, and B. Delius. 2006. Influence of teleost abundance on the distribution and abundance of sharks in Florida Bay, USA. Hydrobiologia 569: 449–455.

Vianna, G. M. S., M. G. Meekan, D. J. Pannell, S. P. Marsh, and J. J. Meeuwig. 2012. Socio-economic value and community benefits from shark-diving tourism in Palau: a sustainable use of reef shark populations. Biological Conservation 145:267–277.

Werthner, H., and F. Ricci. 2004. E-commerce and tourism. Communications of the ACM, 47:101–106.

Wiley, T. R., and C. A. Simpfendorfer. 2007. The ecology of elasmobranchs occurring in the Everglades National Park, Florida: implications for conservation and management. Bulletin of Marine Science 80:171–189.

Appendix 1. Search terms used to identify charter boat fishing businesses on Google.com. Every permutation of “fishing term” and “location term” was searched.

Fishing term

Shark fishing Charter boat shark fishing Fish for sharks

Location term

Florida South Florida Florida Keys

Northwest Florida Northeast Florida North Florida

Florida Panhandle Southwest Florida Southeast Florida

Central Florida Gulf coast of Florida Jacksonville, Florida

St. Augustine, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida

Vero Beach, Florida Jupiter, Florida Boca Raton, Florida

Miami, Florida Key Largo, Florida Islamorada, Florida

Marathon, Florida Key West, Florida Marco Island, Florida

Naples, Florida Fort Myers, Florida Sarasota, Florida

Tampa, Florida Clearwater, Florida Homosassa Springs, Florida

Panama City, Florida Destin, Florida

www.sonotronics.com • (520) 746-3322

Offering more than a Two Fold ApproachProviding equipment for

Active and Passive tracking

Sonotronics

Mark and Relocate your Underwater Equipment

“working together to make a difference in the world we share”


FEATURE

Trapping Effects and Fisheries Research: A Case Study of Sockeye Salmon in the Wenatchee River, USAJoshua G. MurauskasAnchor QEA, 23 S. Wenatchee Avenue, Suite 220, Wenatchee, WA 98801. Email: [email protected]

Jeffery K. FryerColumbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, OR

Bryan NordlundNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Lacey, WA

Joseph L. MillerAnchor QEA, Wenatchee, WA

ABSTRACT: Trapping facilities are regularly used to achieve a variety of fishery research and management goals. Though care of sampled organisms is a central tenet of most agencies, the effects of trapping on fish behavior are seldom quantified. We used passive integrated transponder technology to calcu-late passage delay and blockage of adult Sockeye Salmon at a facility where all spring-migrating fishes were trapped for research between 2008 and 2010. Median passage delay ranged from 0.4 to 8.7 days, and 8% to 38% of the return (2,387 to 21,090 adults) was precluded from reaching upriver spawning habitat. A protocol limiting trapping to less than 24 h per week was implemented in 2011 and median delay decreased to 6 min, with the result being that nearly all fish were able to ascend to spawning grounds for two consecutive years. The annual varia-tion in delay was unrelated to run size or river flow, indicating that research activities requiring intensive trapping operations had inadvertently blocked tens of thousands of adult salmon from reaching spawning tributaries. We use this case study to advocate the adoption of a precautionary approach where trap-ping of adult migratory fishes is proposed but the effects are unknown.

INTRODUCTION

The use of traps has long been a common practice in fish-eries research and management. Entanglement, entrapment, angling, and electrofishing gear are commonly used by biolo-gists to gather data for characterizing fish populations around the globe (Murphy and Willis 1996; Kyle 2013). By the late 1900s, imperiled species such as American Shad (Alosa sapi-dissima), Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar), and Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) were regularly captured for research or propagation in the United States (Murray 1968; Moyer and Williams 2012). Likewise, management strategies of endan-gered Salmon and Steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) populations in the Pacific Northwest are dependent on concerted trapping of returning adults and sizeable artificial production programs (Levin et al. 2001; Harmon 2003). More recently, genetics-based

Los efectos del entrampamiento y la investigación de pesquerías: el salmón rojo del río Wenatchee, EE.UU., como caso de estudioRESUMEN: las instalaciones para el entrampamiento normalmente se utilizan en el cumplimiento de diversas investigaciones pesqueras y objetivos de manejo. Mientras que el cuidado de los organismos muestreados representa uno de los temas centrales para la mayoría de las agencias, los efectos del entrampamiento en la conducta de los peces son raramente cuantificados. Se utilizó un transponedor pasivo integrado para calcular el retraso y bloqueo du-rante el paso de salmones rojos adultos en instalaciones en las que todos los peces migrantes de primavera fueron ase-gurados para su posterior investigación entre 2008 y 2010. La mediana del retraso durante el paso varió de 0.4 a 8.7 días y se impidió que entre 8% y 38% (2,387 a 21,090 adul-tos) de los individuos regresaran al hábitat de desove. Se implementó un protocolo para limitar el entrampamiento a menos de 24 horas por semana y la mediana del retraso disminuyó a 6 minutos, dando como resultado que casi todos los peces fueran capaces de ascender a las áreas de desove durante dos años consecutivos. La variación anual en el retraso del paso resultó ser independiente del tamaño de la corrida y de la magnitud del flujo, indicando que las actividades de investigación que requieren de operaciones de entrampamiento han bloqueado de manera inadvertida el paso de decenas de miles de salmones adultos hacia sus sitios de desove en los tributarios. Se utilizó este caso de estudio para abogar por la adopción de un enfoque prec-autorio en el que se propone el entrampamiento de peces migratorios adultos aunque su efecto se desconozca.

research and management has expanded trapping efforts to re-move hatchery-origin adults from spawning grounds (Araki et al. 2007; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2012). Though many efforts involving trapping have provided important contributions to fisheries, negative effects are seldom considered in deference to the presumed benefit of the related management action or research objective.

Though many efforts involving trapping have provided important contributions to fisheries, negative effects are seldom considered in deference to the presumed benefit of the related management action or research objective.


Figure 1. The Wenatchee River is a tributary to the Columbia River in central Washington State (map courtesy of Joe Nowinski, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission).


Figure 2. The Tumwater Dam fishway (top) includes 19 pools, PIT arrays are located at slot 15 and slot 18 (red lines), and a trap above the fishway (highlighted by red oval). The fishway is closed above slot 18 under trapping operations and all fish must ascend the steep pass to the trapping facility. An aerial picture (bottom) shows the relative size of the facility.

As a simple case study to quantify the effects of trapping on fish behavior, we used passive integrated transponder (PIT) technology to evaluate the upstream passage of Sockeye Salmon (O. nerka) in a tributary to the Columbia River. All spring-mi-grating adult salmon were sampled for several years to conduct a reproductive success study on endangered spring-run Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) and Steelhead (O. mykiss; Williamson et al. 2010). The study was implemented in 2004, and passage delays were unnoticed until installation of PIT detection arrays at the trapping facility in 2008 (Fryer 2009; J. G. Murauskas, unpublished data). As a result of these observations, a limited trapping schedule and trap modifications to decrease handling time were implemented in 2011. We subsequently examined passage efficiency of adult Sockeye Salmon under both trap-ping scenarios—100% sampling and limited sampling—over a 5-year period to quantify passage success under both opera-tions.

METHODS

Study Area

Wenatchee River Basin Sockeye Salmon—one of two pre-dominant stocks in the Columbia River Basin—migrate each summer to reach spawning tributaries above Lake Wenatchee in central Washington State (Figure 1). Adults pass Tumwater Dam during their ascent in the Wenatchee River, where trap-ping activities have supported research and brood collection

activities for several agencies over the past two decades. The facility includes a vertical slot fish ladder, a count station, and a 6.1-m-long Alaskan-style steep pass leading to an adult fish trap. Two PIT arrays were installed in the fishway below the trapping facility (slot 15 and slot 18) in 2008 (Figure 2). After ascending the fish ladder or the trapping facility, Sockeye Salm-on pass through the lake and spawn in the Little Wenatchee and White rivers. Both spawning tributaries have passive PIT detec-tion capability as of the 2009 migration.

Between 2004 and 2010, all spring-migrating salmon were trapped (up to ~40,000 adults annually) at Tumwater Dam in order to conduct a reproductive success study on endangered salmonids. Following independent observations of unusual passage delays of adult salmon in 2010, an operation limiting trapping to 3 or fewer days per week was implemented in 2011. The two trapping scenarios available for analyses of PIT data therefore include 3 years of 100% trapping (2008 to 2010) and 2 years of limited trapping (2011 and 2012). The 100% trapping is referred to as 7D/W and limited trapping as 3D/W (i.e., 7 or 3 days per week) from here forward.

Analyses

PIT technology was used to quantify passage delays and obstruction, including standard 12.5-mm, 134.2-kHz full-du-plex tags and pass-by antennas deployed in the fishway below the trapping facility (Biomark Inc., Boise, Idaho). Detections of


PIT-tagged Sockeye Salmon were retrieved from the PIT Tag Information System for the Columbia River Basin, including fish tagged as adults at Bonneville Dam or juveniles released into Lake Wenatchee and the Wenatchee River consistent with regional tagging methodologies (Hillman et al. 2011; Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 2012). Delay was calcu-lated as the duration between the first and last PIT tag detection in the fishway and should be considered conservative because approach time is not included. Delay was also considered a di-rect measure of interaction with the project, such as fallback or repeated attempts at passage. Detection efficiency at slot 18 was calculated by dividing the number of fish missed at slot 18 by the total number of fish detected at instream detection sites located in spawning tributaries above Tumwater Dam (Figure 1). The proportion of fish last detected on slot 15 was adjusted by detection efficiency and multiplied by total adult returns to estimate the total number of adults blocked in a given year. Sur-vival estimates to spawning tributaries are not readily available in these circumstances given substantial recreational harvest (e.g., 2010 and 2012) and a limited ability to collect postspawn fish in tributaries (Hillman et al. 2011). Average daily stream flows measured upstream of Tumwater Dam (Plain, Washing-ton) during the month of July, in addition to total adult counts at Tumwater Dam, were obtained from Columbia Basin Research (Columbia Basin Research 2012) to detect any relationships be-tween environment or run size and delays.

Platforms in JMP 8.0.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) were used for descriptive and inferential statistics. Median values were used to characterize passage delay, and both delay and the proportion of fish blocked from passage were compared be-tween 7D/W and 3D/W trapping scenarios during 2008–2010 and 2011–2012. Median values were used for delays to limit the influence of outliers and consistency with passage evalu-ations conducted in the region (Keefer et al. 2004). Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis rank sums was used to test delays between trap-ping scenarios, a Pearson chi-square test was used to test the proportion of fish blocked between trapping scenarios, and a logistic regression and whole model test was used to evaluate the relationship between delay and the probability of being last detected on the downstream array in the fishway (i.e., blocked) across all years. Simple linear regressions (i.e., least squares estimator with a single explanatory variable) and resulting coefficient of determination (R2) were used to detect any rela-tionships between run size and river flows.

RESULTS

Median passage delays and the proportion of Sockeye Salmon blocked from upstream access were significantly great-er during 7D/W trap operations compared to 3D/W operations

(Tables 1 and 2; P < 0.0001). Under 7D/W trapping operations, median delays ranged from 10 to 209 h (8.7 days) and from 8% to 38% of the run (2,387 to 21,090 adults) was blocked from upstream access. Conversely, median delays under 3D/W operations were 6 min and less than 1% of the run was blocked for two consecutive years. Tributary detections allowed calcu-lation of detection probability in the uppermost fishway array (Table 1), though probability of detection in tributaries was not consistently available and survival post-trapping was therefore not estimable. A logistic regression further indicated that delay was significantly related to the probability of being last detected on the downstream array (P < 0.0001). Though run size and river flow appeared to have positive relationships with delays under 7D/W trapping, this relationship was not evident across all years. The shortest median delay (6 min) and proportion of blocked fish (0.5%) occurred in 2012 under a record Sock-eye Salmon return and greatest summer flows observed over the 5-year study period. As such, fish abundance and river dis-charge was unrelated to any variation in median delay across all years (R2 = 0.00 and R2 = 0.10).

DISCUSSION

These data demonstrate that intensive trapping can cause severe passage delays and preclude a large proportion of anad-romous fish from reaching spawning tributaries. Estimates of the direct effects in this study are troubling: the exclusion of over 21,000 adults from spawning in 2010 alone may have eliminated production of over 2,000,000 juveniles based on escapement to spawning grounds and estimated egg-to-smolt survival rates reported by Hillman et al. (2011). To put this into another perspective, the total number of brood collected for artificial supplementation of the Wenatchee Sockeye Salmon population over a 22-year period totaled 5,985 adults (Hillman et al. 2011), or 28% of the total number of fish obstructed in 2010 alone. Likewise, over a third of Wenatchee River Sockeye Salmon spent more time negotiating the trapping facility (<25 m) in 2010 than traveling nearly 500 km of the Columbia River and seven mainstem hydroelectric projects (~26 days in 2010). The apparent positive relationship (n = 3 years, R2 = 0.89) between run size and median delay under 7D/W operations fur-ther suggests that an increasing number of fish may explain the variation in delay across years under intensive trapping efforts.

Less clear but equally concerning are the indirect effects of passage delay. For example, stress experienced during the final stages of gonad development has been show to result in lower reproductive success (Patterson et al. 2004; Crossin et al. 2009; Roscoe et al. 2011). Additionally, arrival timing to spawning tributaries has been linked to important aspects of reproductive success in Oncorhynchus spp. (Dickerson et al. 2002; Hruska et al. 2011). In combination with the potential influence on ener-getic reserves (Nadeau et al. 2010), we suspect that the passage delays ranging up to several weeks under 7D/W trapping sig-nificantly influenced the reproductive success of Wenatchee Sockeye Salmon. We also hypothesize that the magnitude of delays we measured under 7D/W trapping—102 to 2,095 times greater compared to 3D/W—would have similar effects on

Over a third of Wenatchee River Sockeye Salmon spent more time negotiating the trapping facility (<25 m) in 2010 than traveling nearly 500 km of the Columbia River and seven mainstem hydroelectric projects (~26 days in 2010).


the reproductive success of other imperiled anadromous fish-es, such as alosines (e.g., Murauskas and Rulifson 2011) and Striped Bass (Rulifson and Dadswell 1995).

Negative effects of trapping on fish behavior have been documented in other species and regions. For example, holding of adult salmon at marking sites in the Yukon River was found to hinder their upriver migration and trapping was deemed more harmful to fish than previously believed (Bromaghin et al. 2007). Research on wild Rainbow Trout in New Zealand found that trapping induces a severe and prolonged physiologi-cal response. Trapping effects are likely a result of the multiple stressors encountered during trapping, including approach to the barrier, frequent bursts to seek passage, confinement, crowding, handling, and recovery (Clements et al. 2002). Considering the drastic reduction in delays and blockage observed with limited trapping and the inability to account for effects with run size or environmental conditions, our results confirm previous find-ings and add convincing evidence that trapping effects can be greater than baseline conditions.

The data used for our analysis are limited in two impor-tant aspects: how run sizes and environmental covariates may affect passage delays and estimation of posttrapping survival. We cannot infer how many days of trapping lead to a signifi-cant increase in delays, what delays would be absent a trapping facility, or how increasing delays may influence survival or reproductive success. These important questions remain un-answered based on our evaluation, though the significant rates

of obstruction and median delays orders of magnitude greater under 7D/W operations provide a weight of evidence that in-tensive trapping efforts should be closely evaluated prior to and during implementation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

With increasing research activities and expanded emphasis on artificial supplementation and genetic management, weir and trapping facilities are becoming an ever-increasingly used tool to manage fisheries. In the interest of minimizing unintended consequences of such activities, we suggest that managers use the case study provided here as an instructive tool. We further advocate that trapping activities should reflect a precautionary approach where the following considerations are made prior to implementation.

• The need for trapping, along with risks and benefits, must be identified. Some scenarios, such as trap and haul passage over high-head dams, require trapping; otherwise, trapping may be unnecessary to perpetuate populations. In the latter case, managers must consider whether risks may compromise the perceived benefits of trapping. For example, size-selective delays and blockage could unin-tentionally bias results of research. Likewise, obstruction of wild-origin adults in order to collect brood for hatch-ery production could negate the intended benefits of sup-plementation. Research and management proposals that require intensive trapping should not compromise safe, timely, and effective fish passage.

• Trapping facilities should be designed or retrofitted to minimize effects. Before management strategies are imple-mented that require fish trapping, facilities should be de-signed or retrofitted to minimize delays, provide safe fish handling facilities and conditions for operating personnel, and minimize impacts to the run at large. Facilities with the ability to target marked fish should receive priority for management or research to avoid handling excessive num-bers of fish. Actions that require trapping and handling fish should be fully vetted with fish facility design engineers and biologists prior to implementation.

• Trapping facilities should be properly maintained. In-sufficient maintenance or operation may magnify trapping effects. For example, debris can occlude intakes to auxil-iary water systems and compromise attraction flow to the facility. A high-velocity attraction jet may exceed or chal-lenge the swimming ability of a fish, whereas low-velocity attraction flows dissipate rapidly, making it more difficult for a fish to detect the facility. Inadequate or closed fishway entrances, at the least, cause fish to seek other routes of passage. This often leads to jumping and injury or mortality at impassable routes and biological consequences as previ-ously described (National Marine Fisheries Service 2011).

• Operational protocols should be established to ensure that handling effects are minimized. Complete closure of

Table 1. Median delays of Sockeye Salmon varied substantially with run size and average river flow in July (cubic feet per second) under 7D/W trapping compared to the significantly faster passage observed under the 3D/W trapping operation.

Year Trap operation Run size* Average July

flow (cfs)PIT-tagged sockeye

Median delay

2008 7D/W 28,340 3,636 103 76:24

2009 7D/W 16,034 1,793 247 10:13

2010 7D/W 35,821 3,330 682 209:31

2011 3D/W 18,622 5,506 359 0:06

2012 3D/W 66,622 5,586 426 0:06

*Run size is enumerated at the trapping site and therefore does not include fish obstructed from passing.

Table 2. Proportion of Sockeye Salmon blocked from upstream access ranged to nearly 38% under 7D/W trapping operations, whereas less than 1% have been blocked under 3D/W trapping since 2011. Detec-tion efficiency calculations were limited in 2008, 2009, and 2011 due to lack of upstream arrays or equipment limitations.

Year Trap operation

Fish detected above fishway

Fish missed on slot 18

Slot 18 detection efficiency (%)

Fish last detected on slot 15 (%)

Estimated blocked adult Sockeye Salmon

2008 7D/W 1 0 100.0 7.8 2,387

2009 7D/W 86 2 97.7 29.6 6,507

2010 7D/W 235 3 98.7 37.5 21,090

2011 3D/W 157 0 100.0 0.6 104

2012 3D/W 141 0 100.0 0.5 313


ladders for extended periods of time to allow handling of the entire run should be avoided. Examples of holding cri-teria have been derived from hatchery practices (e.g., Senn 1984), including trap flow rate and trap volume recommen-dations. Increasing water temperatures may further limit the mass of fish held, depending on species. Water-to-water transport should be prioritized in particular cases. Proper anesthetic techniques, recovery time, and postrelease loca-tion should ensure that fish are able to continue upstream migration with minimal effects, including fallback (Na-tional Marine Fisheries Service 2011). Trapping criteria should be based on well-established biological require-ments that translate into hydraulic design criteria, though best engineering judgment is often required to reflect a range of site conditions and overlap of species.

• Nontarget species or life stages that may be affected by trapping operations should be identified. Endangered spring-run Chinook Salmon and Steelhead were the target species in the trapping efforts analyzed here, where up to 38% of Sockeye Salmon were inadvertently blocked from reaching spawning tributaries during the study. Endangered species, such as Steelhead and Bull Trout (Salvelinus con-fluentus; Nelson et al. 2012), and species of concern, such as Coho Salmon (O. kisutch) and Pacific Lamprey (Ento-sphenus tridentatus), are likely also affected by intensive trapping operations. Resident fish, such as Cutthroat Trout (O. clarkii), Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), cyprinids, and Catostomids should also be considered, be-cause weirs and traps may affect the entire stream commu-nity.

• Passage goals should be established to ensure that trapping effects are within acceptable levels. Effective monitoring should be implemented to evaluate passage of target and nontarget species with statistical rigor. The pas-

sage goal should be a safe, timely, and efficient fish passage with no or minimal increase in delay, rejection of the pas-sage facility, or increase in injury or mortality compared to a nontrap operation. These parameters should be monitored and reported to stakeholders. Generally, median upstream passage time at Columbia and Snake river dams is expected to be 24 h or less for anadromous salmon and Steelhead, including the time required for a fish to locate the entrance, ascend the fishway, and exit into the forebay (B. Nordlund, unpublished data).

CONCLUSION

The case study described here provides an important ex-ample of the effects that intensive trapping operations may cause. Many anadromous fishes are endangered worldwide, partially due to their vulnerability through predictable runs in constricted estuarine and lotic environments (McDowall 1999). Trapping and weirs will ironically play an important role in conserving these fishes. Managers will therefore need to make decisions on how best to use the suite of existing facilities and plan for new traps where they are needed. However, it is im-perative that the consideration is given to effects on a holistic basis as opposed to basing decisions solely on management ob-jectives. The biological risks and rewards of trapping must be accurately identified, passage objectives established, and prog-ress carefully monitored. Ultimately, the value gained from the trapping activity needs to provide a clear benefit to the health and vitality of the fish populations in a basin.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the many individuals who were able to improve the trapping facility at Tumwater Dam, especially Jack Brown, Justin Fletcher, Ian Adams, Alene Underwood, Todd West, and Keith Truscott of Chelan County Public Utilities Dis-trict and Mike Hughes and Nate Dietrich of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. We also appreciate the ex-tensive PIT-tagging efforts of Chelan Public Utilities District (Dave Beardsley, Todd Jackson, and others) and Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission staff that allowed biologists to identify and resolve passage issues involving Sockeye Salmon. Steve Hemstrom of Chelan County Public Utilities District, Mike Schiewe of Anchor QEA, Tracy Hill-man of BioAnalysts, Inc., Mark Nelson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and several anonymous reviewers provided helpful suggestions to improve the intent of this article. Bio-mark Inc. has provided PIT equipment and excellent technical support throughout monitoring activities in the mid-Columbia River Basin.

REFERENCESAraki, H., B. Cooper, and M. S. Blouin. 2007. Genetic effects of captive breeding cause a

rapid, cumulative fitness decline in the wild. Science 318(5847):100–103.Bromaghin, J. F., T. J. Underwood, and R. F. Hander. 2007. Residual effects from fish wheel

capture and handling of Yukon River fall Chum Salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:860–872.

Clements, S. P., B. J. Hicks, J. F. Carragher, and M. Dedual. 2002. The effect of a trapping procedure on the stress response of wild Rainbow Trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:907–916.

Oncorhynchus nerka. Photo credit: Megan Stachura.


Columbia Basin Research. 2012. Data access in real time. Available: www.cbr.washington.edu/dart. (December 2012).

Crossin, G. T., S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, M. S. Cooperman, D. A. Patterson, D. W. Welch, K. C. Hanson, I. Olsson, K. K. English, and A. P. Farrell. 2009. Mechanisms influencing the timing and success of reproductive migration in a capital breeding semelparous fish species, the Sockeye Salmon. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 82(6):635–652.

Dickerson, B. R., T. P. Quinn, and M. F. Wilson. 2002. Body size, arrival date, and repro-ductive success of Pink Salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 14(1):29–44.

Fryer, J. K. 2009. Use of PIT tags to determine upstream migratory timing and survival of Columbia Basin Sockeye Salmon in 2008. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commis-sion, CRITFC Technical Report 09-03, Portland, Oregon.

Harmon, J. R. 2003. A trap for handling adult anadromous salmonids at Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23(3):989–992.

Hillman, T., M. Miller, J. Miller, B. Keesee, T. Miller, M. Tonseth, M. Hughes, and A. Mur-doch. 2011. Monitoring and evaluation of the Chelan County PUD hatchery programs. Prepared for the HCP Hatchery Committee, Wenatchee, Washington.

Hruska, K. A., S. G. Hinch, D. A. Patterson, and M. C. Healey. 2011. Egg retention in relation to arrival timing and reproductive longevity in female Sockeye Salmon (On-corhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences 68:250–259.

Keefer, M. L., C. A. Peery, T. C. Bjornn, M. A. Jepson, and L. C. Stuehrenberg. 2004. Hy-drosystem, dam, and reservoir passage rates of adult Chinook Salmon and Steelhead in the Columbia and Snake rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133(6):1413–1439.

Kyle, R. 2013. Thirty years of monitoring traditional fish trap catches at Kosi Bay, Kwa-Zulu-Natal, South Africa, and management implications. African Journal of Marine Science 35(1):67–78.

Levin, P. S., R. W. Zabel, and J. G. Williams. 2001. The road to extinction is paved with good intentions: negative association of fish hatcheries with threatened salmon. Pro-ceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268:1153–1158.

McDowall, R. M. 1999. Different kinds of diadromy: different kinds of conservation prob-lems. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 56(4):410–413.

Moyer, G. R. and A. S. Williams. 2012. Assessment of genetic diversity for American Shad in the Santee–Cooper River Basin of South Carolina prior to hatchery augmenta-tion. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 4(1):312–326.

Murauskas, J. G. and R. A. Rulifson. 2011. Reproductive development and related observa-tions during the spawning migration of Hickory Shad. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 140:1035–1048.

Murphy, B. R., and D. W. Willis, editors. 1996. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Murray, A. R. 1968. Estuarine net counting fence for trapping Atlantic Salmon. Transac-tions of the American Fisheries Society 97(3):282–286.

Nadeau, P. S., S. G. Hinch, K. A. Hruska, L. B. Pon, and D. A. Patterson. 2010. The effects of experimental energy depletion on the physiological condition and survival of adult Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) during spawning migration. Environmental Biology of Fishes 88:241–251.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Anadromous salmonid passage facility design. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012. Hatchery and genetic manage-ment plans. Available: www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/Hatcheries/HGMPs.cfm. (April 2012).

Nelson, M. C., A. Johnsen, and R. D. Nelle. 2012. Seasonal movements of adult fluvial Bull Trout and redd surveys in Icicle Creek, 2010. Annual report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, Washington.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2012. PIT Tag Information System for the Columbia River Basin (PTAGIS). Available: www.ptagis.org/ptagis. (October 2012).

Patterson, D. A., J. S. MacDonald, S. G. Hinch, M. C. Healy, and A. P. Farrell. 2004. The effect of exercise and captivity on energy partitioning, reproductive maturation and fertilization success in adult Sockeye Salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 64:1039–1059.

Roscoe, D. W., S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, and D. A. Patterson. 2011. Fishway passage and post-passage mortality of up-river migrating Sockeye Salmon in the Seton River, Brit-ish Columbia. River Research and Applications 27:693–705.

Rulifson, R. A., and M. J. Dadswell. 1995. Life history and population characteristics of Striped Bass in Atlantic Canada. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124(4):477–507.

Senn, H. G. 1984. Compendium of low-cost pacific salmon and steelhead trout production facilities and practices in the Pacific Northwest. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Williamson, K. S., A. R. Murdoch, T. N. Pearsons, E. J. Ward, and M. J. Ford. 2010. Factors influencing the relative fitness of hatchery and wild spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Wenatchee River, Washington, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67:1840–1851.

• Call 800-843-1172 to discuss your custom tagging needs • Email us at [email protected] • View our website for our latest catalog www.floytag.com

The World Leader & Innovator in Fish Tags

floy tag ad3.indd 1 1/24/2013 6:45:34 PM


ESSAYGuidelines for Use of Fishes in Research—Revised and Expanded, 2014Uses of Fishes in Research (UFR) Committee:

Jill A. Jenkins, ChairU.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, 700 Cajun-dome Blvd., Lafayette, LA 70506. E-mail: [email protected]

Henry L. Bart, Jr.Tulane University, Biodiversity Research Institute, Belle Chasse, LA

James D. BowkerU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program, Bozeman, MT

Paul R. BowserCornell University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Ithaca, NY

J. Randy MacMillan Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Buhl, ID

John G. NickumNickum and Nickum, Fountain Hills, AZ

Joseph W. RachlinLehman College of the City University of New York, Department of Bio-logical Sciences, Bronx, NY

James D. RoseUniversity of Wyoming, Laramie, WY

Peter W. SorensenUniversity of Minnesota, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conserva-tion Biology, St. Paul, MN

Barbara E. Warkentine State University of New York, Maritime College, Bronx, NY

Greg W. WhitledgeSouthern Illinois University, Center for Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Aquatic Sciences, Carbondale, IL

The Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research (2014; 2014 Guidelines), now available through the American Fisher-ies Society (AFS) website and in print from the AFS bookstore, is a resource to aid researchers and regulatory authorities re-garding responsible, scientifically valid research on fish and aquatic wildlife. The Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Field Research (American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpe-tologists [ASIH] et al. 1987, 1988) emphasized field research and was followed by the 2004 Guidelines including labora-tory research topics. Each version of the Guidelines has been jointly endorsed and/or published by the ASIH, the Ameri-can Institute of Fishery Research Biologists (AIFRB), and AFS—each focusing on the scientific understanding, global conservation, and sustainability of aquatic animals, fisheries, and ecosystems.

Changes with time necessitate revisions to make the Guidelines consistent with con-temporary practices and scientific literature so to remain relevant as a technical resource. This document provides not only general principles relevant for field and laboratory research en-deavors but includes specific requirements for researchers work-ing within the United States and outside of the country. Within the scope of their expertise, the 2014 Uses of Fishes in Research (UFR) Committee members updated and revised sections, resulting in a 90-page 2014 Guidelines hav-ing undergone thorough peer review. As before, topical areas were addressed (see Table of Contents on page 416). Expanded coverage was provided on U.S. and international agencies and programs relevant to research with fishes. The Surgical Proce-dures and the Marking and Tagging sections were reworked, and the Animal Welfare Considerations section received spe-cial focus by a UFR Subcommittee. Feeds and Feeding and the Administration of Drugs, Biologics and Other Chemicals are just some of the newly added topics. The 2014 Guidelines is user-friendly by way of hyperlinks to external Internet sites, intradocument sections, and tables of acronyms with corre-sponding terms, low regulatory priority drugs, and Office of International des Epizooties notifiable disease agents. Again, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) role is explained, expectations for research are provided, and a brief checklist for IACUC readiness is included. Overall, the 2014 Guidelines is the taxon-specific resource for our profes-sional societies and is a principal document for standards on the care and use of fish and aquatic vertebrates in research.

The Guidelines are frequently cited in protocols developed by fisheries researchers either competing for federal funding or by virtue of their agency rules. These Guidelines are consistent with the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) policy on humane care and use of laboratory animals, which is compliant with the Animal Welfare Act (1970). Recognition by PHS of the 2014 Guidelines and other taxon-specific guidelines (i.e., for mam-malogy and ornithology) as being the appropriate standards for wildlife research would alleviate some IACUC obstacles related to the necessity of applying standards of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NRC Guide; National Research Council [NRC] 2011) to research involving free-ranging ter-restrial and aquatic vertebrates (Sikes et al. 2012). Research

AmericAn Fisheries society

American Fisheries SocietyAmerican Institute of Fishery Research BiologistsAmerican Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists

Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research


on live vertebrates that is funded by the PHS and some other federal agencies requires compliance with the NRC Guide, a suitable standard for biomedical research yet less appropriate for research with wildlife, especially in a natural setting. Not-withstanding, the newly revised 2014 Guidelines will be a valu-able resource for members of the AFS, AIFRB, and ASIH and fisheries and aquatic wildlife researchers at large.

Suggested citation: Use of Fishes in Research Committee (joint committee of the American Fisheries Society, the Ameri-can Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, and the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists). 2014. Guidelines for the use of fishes in research. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. fisheries.org/guide-for-the-use-of-fishes-in-research

General ConsiderationsApproval of Research Plans by IACUCsProject Quality Assurance Plans and Standard

Operating ProceduresStatistical DesignMortality as an Experimental EndpointFish Health Management: Control of Pathogens and

ParasitesStatutory Requirements and Regulatory Bodies

International Regulations and GuidelinesBiosecurityFederal, State, and Local RegulationsPermits and Certificates

Animal Welfare ConsiderationsGeneral ConsiderationsStress

Stages of StressMeasuring and Avoiding Stress

Nociception and PainField Activities

Habitat and Population ConsiderationsField Collections

PermitsNatural History CollectionsRepresentative SamplesCollection of Imperiled SpeciesMuseum Specimens and Other Preserved Specimens

Live Capture Techniques and EquipmentField Restraint of Fishes: Sedatives

Drugs Approved for Use on FishLow Regulatory Priority (LRP) DrugsInvestigational New Animal Drugs (INAD)

Dangerous Species and SpecimensHandling and TransportFacilities for Temporary Holding and Maintenance

Field AcclimationCollection of Blood and Other Tissues

Marking and TaggingGeneral PrinciplesExternal Tags and MarksInternal Tags and Marks, and BiotelemetryGenetic MarkersStable IsotopesFatty Acids

Laboratory ActivitiesGeneral PrinciplesConfinement, Isolation, QuarantineAcclimation to Laboratory ConditionsFacilities for Long-Term Housing of FishesDensity of AnimalsFeeds and FeedingWater QualityWater Recirculation UnitsEffluents and PermitsDangerous Species and Specimens in CaptivityRestraint of Fishes: Sedatives and Related ChemicalsSurgical ProceduresAdministration of Drugs, Biologics, and Other Chemicals

DrugsBiologics and Other ChemicalsChemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS)

Final Disposition of Experimental AnimalsEuthanasiaStorage or Return to Aquatic Habitat

Future RevisionsLiterature CitedAppendix

Brief Checklist for IACUC ReadinessList of Low Regulatory Priority Drugs and Consideration

for Their UseGlossary of Terms and Acronyms

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE 2014 GUIDELINES

REFERENCESASIH (American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists), AFS (American Fisher-

ies Society), and AIFRB (American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists). 1987. Guidelines for use of fishes in field research. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Lawrence, Kansas.

———. 1988. Guidelines for use of fishes in field research. Fisheries 13:16–23.NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Ani-

mals, 8th edition. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Public Law 91-579. 1970. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1970. United States Statutes

at Large. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Library, Animal Wel-fare Information Center. Available: http://awic.nal.usda.gov/public-law-91-579-ani-mal-welfare-act-amendments-1970. (August 2012).

Sikes, R. S., E. Paul, and S. J. Beaupre. 2013. Standards for wildlife research: taxon-spe-cific guidelines versus U.S. Public Health Service Policy. Bioscience 62:830–834.

Use of Fishes in Research Committee (joint committee of the American Fisheries Society, the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, and the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists). 2004. Guidelines for the use of fishes in research. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Available: http://fisheries.org/docs/resources_useoffishes.pdf. (August 2014).


FEATURE

Open-Access Databases as Unprecedented Resources and Drivers of Cultural Change in Fisheries Science

Ryan A. McManamayEnvironmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

Ryan M. UtzThe National Ecological Observatory Network, 1685 38th St., Boulder, CO 80301. E-mail: [email protected]

Bases de datos de acceso abierto como un recurso sin precedente y causante de cambio cultural en la ciencia pesqueraRESUMEN: en la última década, el número de bases de datos de acceso abierto con utilidad para la ciencia pes-quera ha crecido exponencialmente en cantidad y alcance y su impacto ha sido considerado como muy importante en esta disciplina. El manejo, depuración e intercambio de datos de acceso abierto representa retos fundamentales en la ciencia pesquera. Muchos de los recursos actualmente disponibles de acceso abierto pueden no ser conocidos por los científicos pesqueros. Por lo tanto, aquí se presentan varias bases de datos a nivel nacional e internacional de libre acceso con aplicación en las ciencias pesqueras y se da un ejemplo de cómo pueden ser aprovechadas para re-alizar valiosos análisis sin hacer esfuerzos adicionales de trabajo de campo. También se discute cómo el desarrollo, mantenimiento y uso de las base de datos de libre acceso muy posiblemente representarán retos importantes para los científicos de la pesca en cuanto a las dimensiones técnica, financiera y educativa. Tales implicaciones culturales, que coincidirán con la disponibilidad cada vez mayor de datos gratuitos, debieran servir de impulso a la Sociedad Ameri-cana de Pesquerías a que volcara activamente su atención sobre estos problemas con el fin de facilitar la transición cultural que se avecina.

ABSTRACT: Open-access databases with utility in fisheries science have grown exponentially in quantity and scope over the past decade, with profound impacts to our discipline. The man-agement, distillation, and sharing of an exponentially growing stream of open-access data represents several fundamental challenges in fisheries science. Many of the currently available open-access resources may not be universally known among fisheries scientists. We therefore introduce many national- and global-scale open-access databases with applications in fisher-ies science and provide an example of how they can be har-nessed to perform valuable analyses without additional field efforts. We also discuss how the development, maintenance, and utilization of open-access data are likely to pose technical, fi-nancial, and educational challenges to fisheries scientists. Such cultural implications that will coincide with the rapidly increas-ing availability of free data should compel the American Fisher-ies Society to actively address these problems now to help ease the forthcoming cultural transition.

INTRODUCTION

The management, distillation, and sharing of an exponen-tially growing stream of data represents a fundamental chal-lenge to fisheries science. Data across all subdisciplines of ecology are becoming available in unprecedented volumes due to advancements in computational technology and the rapid growth of resources with the explicit purpose of housing and providing data to all scientists (open access). Yet despite such trends, a lack of needed information related to fisheries manage-ment continues to be cited as a challenge (Pauly 1995; Crone and Tolstoy 2010; Olascoaga and Haller 2012). How would the fisheries science culture benefit if data sets behind all published articles or publicly funded grants were archived and maintained in accessible, online data warehouses? Such a theoretically at-tainable future would both benefit and pose challenges to our field.

Although many scientific problems benefit from additional data, the disparity between the growth in data availability and continued calls for more information could reflect several phe-nomena that the culture of fisheries science needs to address. Manipulating and managing large, complex databases requires

advanced technological skills that are beyond the capabilities of most fisheries scientists (Lynch 2008; Cukier 2010; Kolb et al. 2013), because structuring databases, queries, and exploration capabilities requires very specialized training (Fox and Hendler 2011), adequate funding (Tenopir et al. 2011), and dedicated staff (Kolb et al. 2013). In many cases, researchers may simply not know about data resources pertinent to their lines of inquiry. Perhaps most critical, many are uncomfortable with the concept of sharing data, even after projects are finished. Understandably, apprehension may exist due to fear of unacknowledged work, compromised intellectual property, or stolen research (Silver 2003). Such unease about contributing to open-access data in-herently limits legitimate findings that may be drawn from those data sets. Ultimately, technological advancements and cultural evolution within the ecological sciences will substantially pro-pel data sharing. Fisheries science must adapt accordingly as well.

Despite the increasing awareness of these needs and challenges arising from open-access databases (Silver 2003; Lynch 2008; Reichman et al. 2011), we have observed few


formal discussions on the matter among fisheries profession-als. Symposiums and data summits documenting the benefits and problems of open-access databases have occurred within the fisheries science community as early as 1980 (Pacific Ma-rine Fisheries Commission 1980), and reports have highlighted the need for continual development of these resources, along with the associated challenges (Austen et al. 1998; Allen et al. 2006). Yet to our knowledge, a recently published article (Kolb et al. 2013) is one of the only contemporary descriptions of database management, standards, maintenance, and documen-tation in the fisheries-related peer-reviewed literature. During the 2012 Annual American Fisheries Society (AFS) Meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota, we organized a symposium entitled “Free Data: Opportunities in Open-Access Network Databases to Ad-vance Spatiotemporal Scales of Inquiry in Fisheries Science.” The symposium attempted to provide a forum to acquaint the fisheries science community with open-access data systems. Presenters in the symposium exhibited programs offering un-precedented, nationwide fisheries data resources, many of which have already produced novel scientific discoveries and nearly all of which are rapidly expanding (see Table 1). How-ever, as we have observed in the peer-reviewed literature, very little discussion involved the technical, financial, educational, or cultural obstacles to open-access data.

Open-access databases have and will continue to be devel-oped and maintained by multiple institutions within the fisheries science community (e.g., Beard et al. 1998; Seeb et al. 2007; Frimpong and Angermeier 2009; Wang et al. 2011; Hamm 2012). Many fisheries professions on the frontier of database management have been well aware of these issues for some time (Geoghegan 1996; Kolb et al. 2013). However, the cultural problems associated with an increasingly open-access scientific community should be more rigorously addressed through formal discussions within the community to ease the burden of cultural transition. Below we discuss how open-access databases have already changed fisheries science and how they may continue to do so. We also provide examples of national- and international-scale open-access databases that many may not be aware of de-spite their ambitious scope and valuable data offered. Finally, we present some principle cultural implications that arise with the increasing availability of free data and challenge the AFS community to proactively address these problems.

HOW HAVE OPEN-ACCESS DATABASES CHANGED FISHERIES SCIENCE?

Over the past two decades, open-access databases have already significantly changed fisheries science as a discipline. Because of publicly available data, global-scale marine stock assessments are now commonplace (e.g., Costello et al. 2012; Ricard et al. 2012) thanks to open-access catch data (Sea Around Us Project 2013) and published marine ecosystem models. Costello et al. (2012) developed a novel approach to discern declining trends in fisheries lacking any formal assessment us-ing publicly available data, including marine stock assessments (Ricard et al. 2012), trends in catch (Food and Agriculture Or-ganization of the United Nations 2011), and fish life histories

(Froese and Pauly 2012). Likewise, open-access databases for freshwater fish have provided opportunities to assess large-scale (e.g., continental) patterns in fish ecology. For example, open-access riverine fish assemblage data (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2013) and geospatial landscape coverage (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012; Multi-resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 2013) provided resources to establish relationships between landscape predictive frame-works and fish communities (e.g., Frimpong and Angermeier 2010). Similarly, Mims et al. (2010) mapped the frequency of different fish life histories across North America using publicly disseminated fish distribution data (NatureServe 2004). Using freely available information on aquatic resources, Loftus and Flather (2012) examined emerging trends in aquatic habitat, fish populations, and both recreational and commercial fisheries across the United States to isolate regions requiring more inten-sive natural resource management by the U.S. Forest Service.

Until recently, only individuals who possessed large data sets could explicitly test such broad-scale questions. Modern open-access data repositories provide the prospect of large-spatial-scale, high-resolution research for everyone. Though extensive databases have provided the means to address big questions, they also have expanded the conceptual frame-works of scientific questions. Influxes of data can change (1) how scientists view natural phenomena (Nelson 2008), (2) the analytical approaches and predictive output of research (Luo et al. 2011), and (3) the speed and nature of hypotheses genera-tion and testing (Luo et al. 2011). In addition, scientists taking advantage of open-access data need familiarity with statistical/database programs that best handle larger data sets and increase data mining efficacy (Reichman et al. 2011). Furthermore, big data, processes, and results are now being packaged as re-search products to promote future meta-analyses and support evidence-based research (Reichman et al. 2011).

Open-access databases are also facilitating scientific de-bate through unprecedented means. Data transparency allows findings to be validated or disputed repeatedly by different researchers to eventually arrive at consensus. Global-scale ma-rine fisheries stock assessments offer a classic example of such debate. Worm et al. (2006) famously derived quantitative mod-els to conclude that by 2048 marine fisheries resources would disappear. Because the authors applied open-access resources to arrive at this conclusion, others could access the same data sources but render different conclusions (Murawski et al. 2007). Some contend that the first assessment misapplied open-access resources through poor understanding of the data, but both studies were peer-reviewed in top-tier journals. We argue that scientific debates spurring from use of open-access resources is a positive trend, because the consensus of conclusions derived from the same data source will be strongest when subjected to validation by multiple researchers.

The increasing prevalence and awareness of open-access data has also changed the roles of fisheries professionals. For example, data repositories are increasingly developed and maintained by universities and smaller agencies with varying


Table 1. Examples of open-access databases pertinent to fisheries science. Listed examples are limited to established regional-, national-, and international-scale efforts.

Database Description Website

Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation (BISON)

Synthesized and permanent repository of biological occurrence data for the United States from numerous distributed systems and formats. Supported by the Core Science Analytics and Synthesis (CSAS) program within the USGS.

bison.usgs.ornl.gov

Data Observation Network for Earth (DataONE)

NSF-supported cyber infrastructure for the preservation, access, use and reuse of multiscale, multidiscipline, and multinational environmental science data. dataone.org

Dryad International repository of data underlying peer-reviewed biosciences publications. Allows authors to upload data from their accepted work. datadryad.org

FishBase

Relational database of 28,500 marine and freshwater fish species, including distribution, phenological characteristics, habitat preferences, physiological at-tributes, International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List status, and taxo-nomic information.

fishbase.org

FishTraits Trophic attributes, reproductive ecology, habitat associations, and salinity/tem-perature tolerances for 809 native and exotic North American freshwater fish taxa. fishtraits.info

Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON)

Physical, ecological, and biogeochemical data on a global network of lake ecosys-tems supported by a grassroots network of scientists. gleon.org

Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER)

NSF-supported network of long-term ecological studies, including sites and pro-grams in stream, lake, and marine ecosystems throughout North America and the South Pacific. Includes heterogeneous variables across sites.

lternet.org

Multistate Aquatic Resources Information System (MARIS)

Population estimate, total catch, total weight, and water quality records collected by state agencies. Currently includes data for nearly 600 fish species collected from >16,000 sites across 16 states.

marisdata.org

National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON)

NSF-supported continental-scale observatory planning to collect 30 years of data to gage the effects of climate change, land use change, and invasive species on natural resources and biodiversity.

neoninc.org

National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP)

Nationwide database of fish habitat quality delineated by National Hydrography Data (NHD) plus catchments. Includes land use, dams, road crossings, and habitat quality metrics.

fishhabitat.org

National Gap Analysis ProgramData sets used to determine how much of an ecosystem type or a target species’ habitat is currently in conservation areas. Data include land cover, predicted distri-butions of vertebrate species, and stewardship layers.

gapanalysis.usgs.gov

NatureServeNonprofit conservation organization initiated to provide scientific resources for ef-fective conservation. Hosts a freshwater fish distribution database linked to HUC-8 USGS watershed codes.

natureserve.org

Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS)

Integrated marine species presence/absence data sets from around the world. Currently offers 33.6 million records. iobis.org

Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI)NSF-supported observation platform planning to collect climate variability, ocean circulation, area-sea exchange, and seafloor process data in coastal and deep sea ecosystems for 25–30 years.

oceanobservatories.org

Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFin)

Provides detailed marine fisheries data, including trawl survey data, bycatch estimates, and age structure of target species, from fisheries offshore of Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska. Supported by the National Marine Fish-eries Service.

pacfin.psmfc.org

Dr. Ransom A. Myers (RAM) Legacy Stock Assessment Database

Compilation of stock assessment results for >200 commercially exploited popula-tions of marine organisms from around the world.

ramlegacy.marinebiodiversity.ca/ram-legacy-stock-assessment-database

Standard Methods for Sampling North American Freshwater Fishes

Freshwater fish data collected using standardized sampling techniques. Allows users to compare their data with those collected using standardized methods. fisheriesstandardsampling.org

StreamNetProvides a wealth of biological and physicochemical data related to fisheries man-agement in the Pacific Northwest, with emphasis on the Columbia River basin. Maintained by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.

streamnet.org

USGS BioDataProvides access to USGS-collected aquatic bioassessment data. Includes fish, macroinvertebrate, and algal community data, as well as physical habitat survey data from across the United States.

aquatic.biodata.usgs.gov

degrees of multidisciplinary services (Lynch 2008; Kolb et al. 2013). Databases, rather than analytical results and inter-pretation, are being funded as deliverables (Lynch 2008; Kolb et al. 2013) that have the potential to move research into new directions. The degree to which the availability of open-access databases has increased the efficiency and productivity of in-stitutions is unclear, because the annual global growth rate of

publications has remained steady (Larsen and vonIns 2010). However, one downside of increasing efficiency may be ele-vated expectations of institutions on research staff productivity. Collaborations have been on the rise, with the mean number of authors per paper in the sciences more than doubling be-tween 1954 and 1998 (Larsen and von Ins 2010). Data sharing very likely has provided collaborative opportunities within and among scientific disciplines.


OPEN-ACCESS DATABASES IN FISHERIES SCIENCE

Freely available databases applicable to fisheries science have grown exponentially in quantity and scope over the past decade. Table 1 lists a number of regional-, national-, inter-national-scale open-access data resources and illustrates the diversity of accessible information. Many examples listed in Table 1 provide site-specific collection information with vary-ing degrees of detail. For example, the Ocean Biogeographic Information System provides records on tens of thousands of marine species from around the world but is limited to presence/absence data, and the Multistate Aquatic Resources Information System (MARIS) posts state agency–derived data on freshwa-ter fish collections, many of which include abundance, length, and weight (Figure 1). Similarly, USGS BioData provides data on fish, invertebrate, and algal community collections and physical habitat surveys across the United States (Figure 1). Other databases offer organism-specific information: FishTraits provides biological, ecological, and environmental tolerance parameters for more than 800 North American freshwater fish, whereas FishBase houses physiological, phenotypic, and dis-tributional information on thousands of marine and freshwater fishes. Many state agencies and educational entities have begun to host state-specific data sharing portals as well. For instance, the Fishes of Texas Project (supported by the University of Tex-as at Austin; fishesoftexas.org) hosts thousands of records from throughout the state, some dating back to the mid-1800s, and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (iowadnr.gov) posts databases on a wealth of aquatic ecosystems and assemblages.

An Example of Open-Access Database Utility

To illustrate how open-access data may facilitate novel approaches to detecting trends, we provide an example of map-ping fish traits using a combination of spatial (e.g., GIS) and life history data derived entirely from open-access sources. Maps of fish traits across watersheds can be useful for establishing links between landscape properties and fish life histories (e.g., see Olden and Kennard 2010), spatially predicting potential ecological responses to landscape development, or prioritiz-ing conservation efforts. Digitized maps of 865 freshwater fish distributions within eight-digit hydrologic catalog units (HUC-8) were assembled from NatureServe (NatureServe 2004). We compiled lists of all native fish species (n = 731) currently ex-isting (within the last two decades of sampling) within each HUC-8. Fish trait information was accessed through the Fish-Traits database (Frimpong and Angermeier 2009).

For the sake of brevity, we focused on only two traits: potadromy/anadromy and nest-guarding spawning behavior. Potadromous and anadromous fish are species that migrate en-tirely within freshwater or migrate from saltwater, respectively, to complete their life history requirements (Moyle and Cech 2004). Nest-guarding fishes construct a cavity or pit in which eggs are laid, fertilized, and guarded until embryos hatch or larval stages are reached (Balon 1975). Because trait informa-tion for all species was incomplete due to insufficient biological

information on highly endemic and/or not formally described species, we accessed NatureServe Explorer, FishBase, litera-ture searches, and general searches to update missing traits with new information or find the closest phylogenetic relative as a substitute. Closest phylogenetic relatives were either the nearest parental clade (subgenus), species of potential hybrid-ization, or species commonly misidentified as the species of interest (in that order of preference). Within a GIS, we summa-rized the number of potadromous/anadromous fish species and the proportion of nest-guarders currently occurring within each HUC-8 and mapped the distribution of traits (Figure 2).

Potadromous/anadromous fish were more numerous in the Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes Region, Ohio, and Tennessee basins and several watersheds in the Northeast (Figure 2). The proportion of nest-guarding fishes per watershed was higher in the Midwest and showed increasing prevalence with decreasing latitude (Figure 2). Fish traits are advantageous in that they con-solidate information across many species into concise groups that can be used to infer convergent adaptive strategies and common responses to disturbance (Frimpong and Angermeier 2010). Maps of trait frequencies can provide a geographical base for prioritizing restoration or preventative management actions. For example, watersheds with many migratory fish may be prioritized for fish passage enhancement, whereas those with higher nest-guarding frequencies should effectively maintain sensitive populations by limiting anthropogenic flow fluctuations. Our brief analysis shows that the availability of large databases can quickly and efficiently produce scientific findings.

CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

Although open-access databases will continue to create un-precedented opportunities in fisheries science, challenges also accompany their promulgation and use. Many researchers have based their careers on relatively small spatiotemporal-scale projects constrained by the limitations of fieldwork. Conse-quently, the concept of open-access data remains foreign to many and this can lead to multiple problems. For instance, re-searchers remain reluctant to share their own data, open-access sources are often inadequately acknowledged or incorrectly cited, and resources required to maintain these systems often proves scant (Allen et al. 2006). Yet to address the broad-scale environmental problems impacting contemporary aquatic and marine ecosystems, future researchers will inevitably rely on data that they did not collect. A cultural shift that includes cog-nizance of how open-access data systems should be ethically used, supported, and expanded must ensue.

Full Participation

As researchers, we should recognize that the data we generate might prove valuable well beyond their originally intended use. The ability to share data has grown along with the expanding scope and number of open-access networks. Several resources mentioned in the preceding section (such as Dryad and the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database) offer


Figure 1. Distribution of fish sampling locations provided in USGS BioData and Multistate Aquatic Resources Information System (MARIS) open-access databases.

opportunities to upload data. Others, such as MARIS, offer a lo-gistic framework for posting state agency–generated databases. Although many fisheries professionals remain understandably wary, the practice of data sharing should gain traction within our society. Most important, additional data improve the scope and inference capability of nearly all scientific endeavors and thus represent a substantial, fundamental value for the entire community. Yet despite the benefits of data sharing and avenues to help do so, an estimated 99% of ecological data remains in-accessible after publication (Reichman et al. 2011). Obviously, there are many cases in which data cannot or should not be shared, as in the case of sensitive information, ancillary data

not owned by the immediate authors, and data not supported by publication or documentation. However, for the most part, anxiety about data sharing should be allayed based on various reasons and awareness of incentives. Concerns that others may benefit from data at the personal expense of those who collected it can be easily preempted by retaining raw data from open-ac-cess sources until all planned publications have been accepted or by placing data in repositories requiring appropriate permis-sion (Reichman et al. 2011). Institutions such as the National Science Foundation now expect greater data transparency as a condition for awarding grants and an increasing number of high impact publications (i.e., Nature and PLoS Biology) encourage


or require data sharing as a condition of manu-script acceptance. Finally, open-access data can facilitate novel means of professional dialog, such as online forums to debate findings. Such cultural evolution has been successfully imple-mented by several journals in the Public Library of Science (PLoS; plos.org) system.

Proper Citation, Acknowledgment, and Use

Ensuring that open-access data are con-sistently and properly acknowledged would significantly benefit both users and contributors. One major source of sensitivity toward sharing is the apprehension that data collectors may not be adequately recognized for their intellectual contribution (Silver 2003; Allen et al. 2006). Thus, open-access resources should not be dis-seminated unless supported by publication or technical documentation that provides proper acknowledgements. Additionally, proper data citation ensures that detailed sampling method-ology can be tracked and understood without having to restate such information in studies that utilize the data. Nearly all open-access da-tabases listed in Table 1 post citation and use guidelines to help those using data cite work ap-propriately. Authors, manuscript referees, and journal editors should consistently make certain that open-access sources are cited correctly. Best practices would also include a nod to the open-access database in the acknowledgement section of a manuscript.

Ensuring data quality and accuracy rep-resents a major challenge associated with all open-access resources. Even if an investigator downloads the highest quality data possible, methodological misunderstandings could eas-ily lead to spurious conclusions if the data were not suitable to address a particular question. One hypothetical example of data misuse could involve the MARIS data set (see Table 1). Though much of the data in the MARIS system are derived from agency sampling efforts for entire fish assemblages, many data sets within the system targeted select species, such as sur-veys for a sport fish of interest. Catches of nontarget species collected during such surveys can be reported in the data, even if the equipment and methodology used were not ideal for the nontarget species. An investigator interested in modeling the abundance or distribution of the hypothetical nontarget species would need to carefully consider whether or not to include such data. Analogous situations could be construed from any of the databases listed in Table 1.

Although it is the responsibility of investigators to un-derstand the limitations of the data and apply it appropriately, the most commonly cited means to address the challenge is

to provide high-quality and standardized metadata, defined as complementary information that describes all aspects of the data at hand. Metadata has received extensive attention in the ecological sciences literature and a common structure has been standardized by the Ecological Society of America: ecological metadata language (Fegraus et al. 2005). We will not delve into the metadata issue except to state that fisheries science should adopt similar standardized practices and incorporate the con-cept into educational programs. Every student graduating from a fisheries science program, either undergraduate or graduate, should be capable of understanding and applying metadata from commonly accessed data resources and also know how to document and structure data to make sure that it is used as it is intended in the future.

As a society, AFS would benefit from a greater awareness of deep ethical issues associated with proper data dissemina-tion and use. Many fisheries scientists may never receive

Figure 2. Example of the utility and opportunity provided by open-access data. Maps of fish trait (potadromy/anadromy and nest guarding) frequencies in watersheds across the United States were created using NatureServe fish distributions (NatureServe 2004), FishTraits (Frimpong and Angermeier 2009), and FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2012).


personal acknowledgment for the data they helped generate. Though many such individuals are paid from publicly derived funds (i.e., taxes), the majority of fisheries researchers, direct-ly or indirectly, also receive funding supported by the public. Many scientists possess and work with sensitive information (e.g., personally identifiable information) or data protected un-der copyrights, which if shared would constitute a breach of security or ethical violation within their respective organiza-tions. Though many fisheries scientists are not placed in these difficult situations, the majority of fisheries professionals will likely face decisions regarding whether or not to share or accept data or when to extend coauthorship to data generators. Institu-tions or sponsors demanding open-access policies and 100% transparency in methods may require all raw data, including ancillary information, to be open access. Though the dissemina-tion of final data products is typically encouraged, it is ethically problematic to pass along ancillary data owned by others, even if those data sets are open access. As another example, some scientists do not consider sharing unpublished data as grounds for coauthorship; however, each scientist has a personal respon-sibility to consider whether those who have shared data have also contributed to the publication by sharing ideas, such as methods for utilizing the data.

Resources for Databases

Open-access databases require financial and personnel support, a point often underappreciated by the communities that depend on them (Allen et al. 2006). To offer accessibil-ity, databases must establish cyber-infrastructural capabilities and host the system on a proficient server. Ensuring data qual-ity requires some degree of direct review, systematic digital checks, and creation of metadata, all of which involve dedica-tion of time from personnel (Kolb et al. 2013). Additionally, databases housing sensitive information, such as data related to endangered species or highly valuable exploited commercial stocks, must be adequately protected from malicious intent. As databases proliferate in number and size, the need for commit-ted resources will grow (Allen et al. 2006). Key major funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), have begun to offer programs to fund database creation and upkeep. Additionally, several nonprofit initiatives, including the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (earthobservations.org) and the Data Conservancy (dataconservancy.org) are designed to aid in the organization, integration, and distribution of com-plex environmental databases. However, to effectively sustain open-access databases, our scientific community as a culture must fully recognize their value and need for resources to main-tain them (Lynch 2008).

Duplication of Effort

By providing common shared resources, open-access data have the potential to eliminate unnecessary duplication in compiling and curating information. As one example, the Core Science Analytics and Synthesis program of the USGS devel-oped Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation, a repository synthesizing biological occurrence data from a multitude of

resources including federal and state programs, universities, and publications (Table 1). Frequent use of the same underlying resource may increase scientific rigor by standardizing method-ology across many different investigations. However, common resources may also result in considerable overlap in scientific queries, increased competition among individuals and teams, and decreased likelihood of ethical give-and-take in a future open-access society. Duplication in scientific efforts occurs not only by utilizing the same resources but also in the race to create them. To our knowledge, at least three independent concurrent efforts were executed to link the National Inventory of Dams with the National Hydrography Dataset Plus version 1 (Martin and Apse 2011; Hadjerioua et al. 2012; Ostroff et al. 2013). The technical and financial resources invested for each effort would have likely benefited from shared resources or at least shared knowledge. Though some duplication of effort is unavoidable due to research deadlines, disparate disciplines, or unwilling-ness to share recognition among multiple entities, open lines of communication within and among members of our society are needed. Ultimately, such dialog will increase collaboration, data creation efficiency, and more useful products that advance our science.

Shifting Patterns of Professional Experience

Analyzing data without setting foot in the field carries nu-merous potential consequences for fisheries scientists. Many of us entered fisheries driven by a fascination with aquatic environments resulting from experience outdoors. Given the attractiveness of database management in terms of funding support and advantages of data sharing for collaboration, we question how field-based studies and outreach in fisheries will be valued in the future. Publishing case studies is becoming increasingly difficult despite the value of publishing all find-ings (Clapham 2005). We foresee the possibility of diminishing incentives for field collections accompanied by heavier burdens on those who continue field activities. If our profession con-tinues to largely shift away from fieldwork toward time spent in front of computers, will our profession remain attractive or even available to new scientists? In addition, as analyses har-nessing open-access information continue to grow in scope and spatial scale, cognitive awareness and familiarity with local systems could potentially decline. Thus, we question whether the accumulation of information will be applicable to manage-ment at smaller scales. Will we be required to mandate field components in theses or dissertations?

Promulgating data sharing also increases the potential for cross-disciplinary research, which is increasingly regarded as critical to address contemporary environmental challenges (Pennington et al. 2013). Perhaps because many ecological problems involve multiple physical and biological processes operating at widely varying scales that require diverse exper-tise, interdisciplinary studies have often proven more impactful (Porter et al. 2012). Specifically to fisheries, high-quality hy-drologic, oceanographic, and atmospheric data will allow scientists to investigate problems with resources they would never be capable of collecting within their own labs. Yet many


career assessment metrics within ecological and fisheries sci-ence rely on the evidence of scientific productivity solely within our discipline. For instance, interdisciplinary efforts may lead to reduced citation rates for researchers within the biological sciences (Larivière and Gringras 2010), which may represent a problem for career advancement in some areas of the fisher-ies profession, particularly academia. A full discussion on how to correct this cultural problem would be beyond the scope of our commentary. But the role of open-access databases on the growth of interdisciplinary science represents another reason why the field of fisheries must proactively adapt.

Changing Climate of Scientific Publishing

For an increasing proportion of scientists, participation in open-access data provision is not optional but mandatory. In February 2013, the executive branch of the U.S. federal gov-ernment released a memorandum requiring federal agencies with greater than US$100 million in research and develop-ment to provide public access to publications and published data generated by federally funded research (Holdren 2013). Entirely open-access journals have experienced rapid growth, and articles from these publications now comprise up to 12% of scientific work published annually (Laakso and Björk 2012). Many researchers favor open-access journals because of the accessibility. However, the debate over open-access journal policies remains equivocal. Widely varying publishing fees cause many to question not only editorial quality of open-ac-cess publications but also the existence of academic publishing in general (Van Noorden 2013). Other potential problems in-clude the increasing fragmentation of information sources and the changing role or decreased justification of academic librar-ies (Monastersky 2013).

CONCLUSIONS

Open-access databases will increasingly influence all scientific disciplines in the coming decades, including fisher-ies science. In the face of such cultural evolution, expanding the lines of communication addressing the creation, participa-tion, education, use, and maintenance of shared data resources among fisheries scientists is essential for our society to adapt accordingly. To ensure that our subdiscipline evolves in pace, we contend that the American Fisheries Society should take actions to encourage the evolution of an informed and data-transparent scientific community. The society could actively help realize this goal through several pathways. Open-access databases could be hosted by the society website, or at the very least dedicated web space could be provided to help scientists locate data (i.e., an active, web-based version of Table 1). Soci-ety journals could, and we argue that they should, (1) begin to offer the data used to generate articles if authors agree to have them posted; (2) strongly encourage or require data posting with accompanying metadata, similar to the PLoS ONE sys-tem; (3) require explicit instructions on how to acquire replicate data sets when articles assess open-access data; and (4) require authors to demonstrate steps made toward ensuring that they understand the structure of and have properly used open-access

data when publishing using such resources. The Electronic Services Advisory Board (ESAB) of AFS has been actively ad-dressing these problems for over a decade and is well poised to advocate for the advancement of such concepts. Any number of other actions could be employed by the larger society to further data access and transparency, such as conference workshops, educational initiatives, and amendments to societal missions. Whatever actions, if any, are taken, our science will continue to evolve toward an open-access data society and our community must adapt as well as it can.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank P. Ruhl, J. Kennan, S. Hetrick, M. Davis, M. Bevelhimer, A. Loftus, S. Bonar, P. Neubauer, P Goldstein, D. Okamoto, J. Parham, D. Wieferich, D. Hendrickson, E. Frimpong, and J. Read for presenting their development and research on open-access databases at the 2012 Annual Ameri-can Fisheries Society Meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota. We thank Glen Cada, Jeff Schaeffer, and five anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. The authors contributed equally to this effort.

FUNDING

This research was sponsored by the United States De-partment of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind and Water Power Technologies Pro-gram. This article has been authored by an employee of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT Battelle, LLC, un-der contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy. R. Utz is supported by National Science Foundation cooperative agreement #EF1138160.

REFERENCES

Allen, S., D. Beard, W. Fisher, L. Hartsell, A. Iles, F. Janssen, A. Loftus, M. McGuire, D. Miller, A. Ostroff, S. Shipman, S.-M. Stedman, and J. Waldon. 2006. Proceedings of the National Fisheries Data Summit. Focusing on applications to the National Fish Habitat Initiative. Report from the Computer User Section of the American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Available: www.fishdata.org/content/reports. (Novem-ber 2013).

Austen, D., D. Beard, H. Drewes, P. Haverland, D. Johnston, A. Loftus, D. Miller, S. So-baski, J. Waldon, and L. Borge-Willis. 1998. Proceedings of the National Freshwater Fisheries Database Summit. Report from the Computer User Section of the American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Available: www.fishdata.org/content/reports. (November 2013).

Balon, E. K. 1975. Reproductive guilds in fishes: a proposal and definition. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:821–864.

Beard, T. D., D. Austen, S. J. Brady, M. E. Costello, H. G. Drewes, C. H. Young-Dubovsky, C. H. Flather, T. W. Gengerke, C. Larson, A. J. Loftus, and M. J. Mac. 1998. The Multi-state Aquatic Resources Information System: an Internet system to access fish-eries information in the upper Midwestern United States. Fisheries 23(5):14–18.

Clapham, P. 2005. Publish or perish. Bioscience 55:390–391.Costello, C., D. Ovando, R. Hilborn, S. D. Gaines, O. Deschenes, and S. E. Lester. 2012.

Status and solutions for the world’s unassessed fisheries. Science 338:517–520.Crone, T. J., and M. Tolstoy. 2010. Magnitude of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil leak. Sci-

ence 330:634.Cukier, K. 2010. Data, data everywhere. The Economist. Available: www.economist.com/

node/15557443?story_id=15557443. (February 2010).Fegraus, E. H., S. Andelman, M. B. Jones, and M. Schildhauer. 2005. Maximizing the value

of ecological data with structured metadata: an introduction to ecological metadata language (EML) and principles for metadata creation. Bulletin of the Ecological So-ciety of America 86:158–168.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2011. FishStat Plus—universal software for fishery statistical time series. Available: www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/en. (March 2013).


Fox, P., and J. Hendler. 2011. Changing the equation on scientific data visualization. Sci-ence 331:705–708.

Frimpong, E. A., and P. L. Angermeier. 2009. Fish Traits: a database of ecological and life history traits of freshwater fishes of the United States. Fisheries 34:487–495.

———. 2010. Trait based approaches in the analysis of stream fish communities. Pages 109–136 in K. B. Gido and D. A. Jackson, editors. Community ecology of stream fishes: concepts, approaches, and techniques. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 73, Bethesda, Maryland.

Froese, R., and D. Pauly, editors. 2012. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available: www.fishbase.org. (February 2013).

Geoghegan, P. 1996. The management of quality control and quality assurance systems in fisheries science. Fisheries 21(8):14–18.

Hadjerioua, B., Y. Wei, and S.-C. Kao. 2012. An assessment of energy potential at non-powered dams in the United States. Department of Energy, GPO DOE/EE-0711, Washington, D.C. Available: http://nhaap.ornl.gov/system/files/NHAAP_NPD_FY11_Final_Report.pdf. (January 2014).

Hamm, D. E. 2012. Development and evaluation of a data dictionary to standardize salmo-nid habitat assessments in the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 37:6–18.

Holdren, J. 2013. Increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research. Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Office of Sci-ence and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. Available: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_ac-cess_memo_2013.pdf. (August 2013).

Kolb, T. L., E. A. Blukacz-Richards, A. M. Muir, R. M. Claramunt, M. A. Koops, W. W. Taylor, T. M. Sutton, M. T. Arts, and E. Bissel. 2013. How to manage data to enhance their potential for synthesis, preservation, sharing, and reuse—a Great Lakes case study. Fisheries 38:52–64.

Laakso, M., and B.-C. Björk. 2012. Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longi-tudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine 10:1–9.

Lariviere, V., and Y. Gingras. 2010. On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Tech-nology 61:126–131.

Larsen, P. O., and M. von Ins. 2010. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 84:575–603.

Loftus, A. J., and C. H. Flather. 2012. Fish and other aquatic resource trends in the United States: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-283, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Luo, Y., K. Ogle, C. Tucker, S. Fei, C. Gao, S. Ladeau, J. S. Clark, and D. S. Schimel. 2011. Ecological forecasting and data assimilation in a data-rich era. Ecological Applications 25:1429–1442.

Lynch, C. 2008. How do your data grow? Nature 455:28–29.Martin, E. H., and C. D. Apse. 2011. Northeast aquatic connectivity: an assessment of dams

on Northeastern Rivers. The Nature Conservancy, Brunswick, ME. Available: http://static.rcngrants.org/sites/default/files/final_reports/NEAquaticConnectivity_Report.pdf. (January 2014).

Mims, M. C., J. D. Olden, Z. R. Shattuck, and N. L. Poff. 2010. Life history trait diversity of native freshwater fishes in North America. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19:390–400.

Monastersky, R. 2013. Publishing frontiers: the library reboot. Nature 495:430–432.Moyle, P. B., and J. J. Cech. 2004. Fishes. An introduction to ichthyology, 5th ed. Prentice

Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Multi-resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2013. National Land Cover Database.

Available: www.mrlc.gov/. (January 2013).Murawski, S., R. Methot, and G. Tromble. 2007. Biodiversity loss in the ocean: how bad

is it? Science 316:1281–1284.

NatureServe. 2004. Downloadable animal datasets. NatureServe Central Databases. Avail-able: www.natureserve.org/getData/dataSets/watershedHucs/index.jsp. (November 2011).

Nelson, S. 2008. Big data: the Harvard computers. Nature 455:36–37.Olascoaga, M. J., and G. Haller. 2012. Forecasting sudden changes in environmental pol-

lution patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:4738–4743.Olden, J. D., and M. J. Kennard. 2010. Intercontinental comparison of fish life history strat-

egies along a gradient of hydrologic variability. Pages 109–136 in K. B. Gido and D. A. Jackson, editors. Community ecology of stream fishes: concepts, approaches, and techniques. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 73, Bethesda, Maryland.

Ostroff, A., D. Wieferich, A. Cooper, and D. Infante. 2013. 2012 National Anthropogenic Barrier Dataset (NABD). USGS Science Base Catalog. Available: www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/512cf142e4b0855fde669828. (January 2014).

Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission. 1980. 33rd Annual report of the Pacific Marine Fish-eries Commission for the year 1980. Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, Portland, Oregon. Available: www.psmfc.org/resources/publications-maps-2/psmfc-annual-reports. (November 2013).

Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome in fisheries. Trends in Ecol-ogy and Evolution 10:430.

Pennington, D. D., G. L. Simpson, M. S. McConnell, J. M. Fair, and R. J. Baker. 2013. Transdisciplinary research, transformative learning, and transformative science. Bio-science 63:564–573.

Porter, A. L., J. Garner, and T. Crowl. 2012. Research coordination networks: evidence of the relationship between funded interdisciplinary networking and scholarly impact. Bioscience 62:282–288.

Reichman, O. J., M. B. Jones, and M. P. Schildhauer. 2011. Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology. Science 331:703–705.

Ricard, D., C. Minto, O. Jensen, and J. Baum. 2012. Examining the knowledge base and status of commercially exploited marine species with the RAM Legacy Stock Assess-ment Database. Fish and Fisheries 13:380–398.

Sea Around Us Project. 2013. Sea Around Us Project. Fisheries, Ecosystems and Biodiver-sity. Available: www.seaaroundus.org/. (March 2013).

Seeb, L. W., A. Antonovich, M. A. Banks, T. D. Beacham, M. R. Bellinger, S. M. Blaken-ship, M. R. Campbell, N. A. Decovich, J. C. Garza, C. M. Guthrie, T. A. Lundrigan, P. Moran, S. R. Narum, J. J. Stephenson, K. J. Supernault, D. J. Teel, W. D. Templin, J. K. Wenburg, S. F. Young, and C. T. Smith. 2007. Development of a standardized DNA database for Chinook Salmon. Fisheries 32:540–552.

Silver, S. 2003. A new slant on data access. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:343.

Tenopir, C., S. Allard, K. Douglas, A. U. Aydinoglu, L. Wu, E. Read, M. Manoff, and M. Frame. 2011. Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE 6:1–21.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Ecoregions of North America. Available: www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm. (January 2013).

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. BioData—aquatic bioassessment data for the na-tion. Available: https://aquatic.biodata.usgs.gov/landing.action. (January 2013).

Van Noorden, R. 2013. Open-access: the true cost of scientific publishing. Nature 495:426–429.

Wang, L., D. Infante, P. Esselman, A. Cooper, D. Wu, W. Taylor, D. Beard, G. Whelan, and A. Ostroff. 2011. A hierarchical spatial framework and database for the National River Fish Habitat Condition Assessment. Fisheries 36:436–449.

Worm, B., E. B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J. E. Duffy, C. Folke, B. S. Halpern, J. B. C. Jack-son, H. K. Lotze, F. Micheli, S. R. Palumbi, E. Sala, K. A. Selkoe, J. J. Stachowicz, and R. Watson. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Sci-ence 314:787–790.


adaptive management, enhanced environmental justice, and enforceable regulations for more sustainable management of inland fisheries. The goal of this theme is to understand the opportunities and constraints to cross-sectoral and cross-juris-dictional governance approaches and to develop methods to assure that governance decisions take into account the contribu-tion inland fisheries make to food security, human well-being, and ecosystem productivity at the local, regional, national, and global levels.

REGISTRATION NOW OPEN

Registration is now open for the Global Conference on In-land Fisheries. Some travel support for students and presenters from developing countries may be available; see the website for more information and updates. The proceedings will be copub-lished by AFS and FAO, and the conference is being organized by Michigan State University and FAO.

Keep up with all of the conference news on Facebook (www.facebook.com/inlandfisheries), LinkedIn (www.linkedin. com/groups/Global-Inland-Fisheries-Conference-7402542), and Twitter (@inlandfisheries).

FRESHWATER, FISH, AND THE FUTURE

Global Conference on Inland Fisheries: Theme 4—Policy and Governance

The global conference “Freshwater, Fish, and the Future” convening at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Orga-nization of the United Nations (FAO) in Rome in January 2015 includes four main themes: Biological Assessment, Economic and Social Assessment, Drivers and Synergies, and Policy and Governance. Each theme will conclude with a Future of Fisher-ies discussion forecasting various scenarios, along with recom-mendations for achieving the conference vision of a sustainable fisheries future. This month’s column describes Theme 4.

THEME 4: POLICY AND GOVERNANCE

The Policy and Governance panel chair is Devin Bartley from FAO. Bill Taylor from Michigan State University and Nancy Leonard from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council are acting as panel facilitators.

How do we ensure that inland fisheries are fully integrated into decision frameworks? Though local-scale governance is largely responsible for management of production and harvest of fish from inland systems, fisheries and other freshwater re-sources beyond local jurisdictions are governed by large-scale decision-making structures and processes that may be inappro-priate or inadequate to address these resources. Policy may not be informed by science developed to understand inland fisheries systems or policy makers may have other important priorities. Development of new approaches, including “footprints” or “equivalents,” that link inland fisheries science directly with the needs of policy indicators will assist strategic decision making,

Photo credit: Antony Grossy.


CONTRIBUTED PAPERS AND POSTERS• Those who wish to present in Contributed Papers or Poster

sessions at the 2015 AFS meeting are required to submit abstracts by 13 February 2015. This includes Student Presentations.

• Confirmation of acceptance or refusal of abstracts will be communicated by 17 April 2015. (Student presentations will be considered for a “best presentation” award if the student fills out additional application paperwork available at www.fisheries-society.org/education/BSP.htm.)

FOR MORE INFORMATION: VISIT: FISHERIES.ORG > ANNOUNCEMENTS

AFS does not waive registration fees for presenters at symposia or contributed papers sessions or workshops. Registration forms will be available on the AFS website (http://fisheries.org/meetings) in May 2015; register early for cost savings.

Start planning a trip to Portland from 16 to 20 August 2015 for the 145th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, cohosted by the Society, the Western Division, and the Oregon Chapter in down-town Portland at the convention center. The Program Committee has decided to go “theme-less” for the 2015 meeting, in hopes of encourag-ing a more diverse submission pool of symposia, contributed papers, and posters, with an aim to gather proposals covering multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary topics—including aquatic resources—as well as those interesting our international and regional audiences.

SYMPOSIA• Proposals for Symposia must be submitted by 16 January 2015.• The list of accepted Symposia proposals will be posted on 13 Feb-

ruary 2015.• If accepted, organizers must submit a complete list of confirmed

presentations and titles by 6 March 2015.• Abstracts for Symposium oral presentations must be submitted

by 13 March 2015.

AFS ANNUAL MEETING 2015145th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society: First Call for Papers

Kayaking through downtown. Photo credit: Julia Grieve & Travel Portland.


PROGRAM COMMITTEE CONTACTSProgram Cochairs:

Jim BowkerU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceAquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership ProgramTel. 406-994-9910 E-mail: [email protected]

Nancy LeonardNorthwest Power and Conservation Council Tel. 503-222-5161 E-mail: [email protected]

Contributed Papers Subcommittee Chair:Peter GalbreathColumbia River Inter-tribal Fish CommissionTel. 503-731-1250 E-mail: [email protected]

Symposia Subcommittee Chair:Craig BusackNOAA National Marine Fisheries ServiceTel. 503-230-5412 E-mail: [email protected]

Posters Subcommittee Chair:Tom Friesen Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis Research LabTel. 541-757-4263 E-mail: [email protected]

Mt Hood. Photo credit: Travel Portland.

Waterfront Park and Mt Hood. Photo credit: Jim Fullan & Travel Portland.


like Rachel Carson, David Starr Jordan, Spencer Baird, and Theodore Roosevelt.

• Creative nonfiction popularized books such as Beautiful Swimmers and Distant Waters by William Warner; Song for the Blue Ocean: Encoun-ters along the World’s Coasts and Beneath the Seas by Carl Safina; and The Founding Fish by John McPhee.

What needed fisheries books do you feel haven’t been written yet?

Books need to be written about the role of fisheries in re-gard to human well-being. If society cannot look at water and see fish, then we have not made our point that fish are impor-tant; right now, they look at water and do rarely see or value the fish within. As such, choices that ultimately effect fish diversity and productivity are impacted by society using the water and the lands in ways that often reduce fisheries.

Also, I think there could more books written on the role of technology, the magnitude and importance of our fisheries sup-ply chain and business principles, and the role of the policies and legal enforcement in fisheries and fisheries sustainability.

What’s next on your plate?I am chairing the Global Conference on Inland Fisheries

(26–30 January 2015; FAO Headquarters; Rome, Italy). This is a groundbreaking conference that will, for the first time, address the challenges and opportunities for freshwater fisheries on a global scale. Never before have scientists, policy makers, and the international development community gathered together to discuss the food security, economic, and ecological issues as-sociated with inland fisheries around the world. Inland fisheries are critical food resources, especially in much of the develop-ing world, yet agricultural, water management, and investment policies are often at odds with maintaining their long-term sus-tainability. A lack of reliable data and a local, rather than global, approach to inland fisheries issues has hampered international monitoring and conservation programs. This conference seeks to tackle these issues head on.

For more information on how to join in William W. Taylor’s efforts, please visit: http://inlandfisheries.org.

INTERVIEWQ&A: Book EditorsFuture of Fisheries: Perspectives for Emerging Professionals. William W. Taylor, Abigail J. Lynch, and Nancy J. Léonard506 pages, paper. List price: $60.00. AFS Member price: $42.00. Published July 2014.

Learn the “what I know now that I wish I knew then!” les-sons now rather than later!

This book contains more than 70 short mentoring vignettes on past experiences and visions for the future, authored by many notable mentors from the fisheries field. The volume is intended to inspire and empower the next generation of fisheries profes-sionals with advice from seasoned professionals by providing personal “lessons learned” and insights from the topics that most influenced their illustrious careers while also addressing the most urgent issues on the horizon for fisheries. We talked to William W. Taylor about the book and how it developed.

Why did you decide to write this book?Key to my professional success has been having a good

community of mentors who supported me in the things I could not do by myself, was scared to do by myself, or did not even know existed. With this book, I wanted to empower the next generation of fisheries professionals as my mentors empowered me. The American Fisheries Society has been crucial in my life, both for knowledge enhancement and leadership development, not to mention providing me with lifelong friends. Helping others get access to this extensive network and community of mentors could provide information for a much broader range of future professionals than I, alone, could accomplish. This book is a way to have a collective record of the AFS wisdom that can be shared.

What will the reader learn from this book?There are 73 mentoring vignettes—each one will enlighten

and empower readers and show them that many things are pos-sible, given a supportive mentoring network. The book shows readers what others have been through and offers ways for them to be better prepared for the challenges they will face in life and the profession.

What other fisheries book has inspired you in your career and why?

Those of us in the fisheries and science fields read a variety of books and journal articles. Seminal literature for me can be divided into the following broad categories:

• Technical books: The Handbook of Computation for Biolog-ical Statistics of Fish Populations by William (Bill) Ricker; International Biological Programme (IBP) books on fish production and secondary production; The Biological Pro-ductivity of Waters by Viktor Sergeevich Ivlev, translated by Bill Ricker; Feeding Ecology of Fish by Shelby D. Gerking; and Information Theory in Ecology by Ramon Margalef.

• Biographies: Biographies of famous scientists and statesmen


MEET THE STAFF Denise SpencerThis July 2014

marked four years since the Society welcomed aboard Office Adminis-tration Manager Denise Spencer. Her influence at AFS extends far be-yond her job title.

“I help make things run smoothly, assuring everybody is doing what they’re supposed to and

that they’re responsive to the needs and questions of member-ship,” Spencer said. “If there are any issues, I’m the person that people come to and we figure out what to do.”

Spencer is not only in charge of human resources and over-seeing accounting and IT; she also manages meeting planning with Administrative Coordinator Shawn Johnston, handles is-sues involving office facilities, and engages with the Hutton Junior Fisheries Biology Program and other continuing educa-tion programs.

“From ensuring that we have ink cartridges for our print-ers, to working with other building tenants on a project to replace the roof, Denise carries the responsibility of ensuring that our office is working smoothly,” Executive Director Doug Austen said.

Initially hired as an intern, Jasmine Sewell, who now works full time as the AFS Units Coordinator, said the staff seems to be much closer since Denise joined the team. “She’s extremely helpful and knows how to do everything, whom to contact and exactly when to have things done. Denise is amazing with time management,” Sewell said.

Speaking of time management, Spencer has been married for 40 years, is a mother of two sons, and is also a grandmother. Her hobbies include sailing, bird watching, horseback riding, and anything to do with wildlife. Spencer’s love of nature ex-tends into the woods where she likes to go camping. Every October, her family plans a trip to Yogi Bear’s Jellystone Park in Hagerstown, Maryland, during Halloween, because the town is known for their month-long spooky festivities. Spencer’s campground decorating skills extend into the office, where she brings the holiday spirit to her coworkers as well.

“One of the greatest things about Denise is her talent at planning and decorating for events such as our annual AFS holiday open house. [She] brings in boxes of decorations and turns our office into a little holiday wonderland,” Austen said. “Denise’s touch with these events helps to make AFS a wonder-ful place to work.”

Spencer serves as one of the backbones of the Society, bringing life and cohesion into the office, all while lending her utmost dedication to each staff member. During Annual Meet-ings, Spencer rarely leaves the hotel because she is always circulating from one event to the next, making sure that every-thing is running as planned. During the 2013 Annual Meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas, AFS Past President Don Jackson

insisted that Spencer see something in the area other than the hotel lobby. She was grateful for the adventurous detour they took to a place called the Old Grist Mill (featured in Gone with the Wind) on their way back from purchasing conference ma-terials. Spencer’s efforts are rewarded by these kind gestures from AFS members.

“It’s not so much what I do for the members, it’s more so what the members do for me,” Spencer said.

For Spencer, five years down the road for the Society means enhanced global awareness of AFS and all it has to of-fer, an expected increase in terms of membership (especially from youth and minorities), as well as more involvement and attendance at Annual Meetings. Under the new leadership of Austen, Spencer is optimistic for the future of AFS and what her contributions will bring.

“Everything is a team effort with Doug,” Spencer said. “Each section of the staff is involved with all the details and enjoys working in such an open atmosphere.”

The Society under Austen’s direction is focused on in-creased communication between the AFS office and our members. Spencer focuses her efforts at the Society with a sim-ilar goal-set: To give members more reasons to stay members.

“I aim to increase AFS’ responsiveness, the connections from the home office to the membership, as well as bring continuing education and distance learning to our members,” Spencer said.

Spencer’s efforts are recognized and admired throughout the AFS office, as she is one of the main gears that helps keep the Society operating efficiently.

Support Stories

Last year, the Governing Board asked me to take the notes for the Annual Meeting that are used to create their board books every year. It’s a big responsibility and a lot of pres-sure. I had to sit in front, at a huge table with around 50 people and write down everything anyone said. As I typed on the computer, whatever I wrote appeared on a screen behind me so everyone could see what I was writing. De-nise put numbers on everyone’s place cards at the table so I knew who was speaking. This helped me out a lot because, at that time, I didn’t know who everyone was! It was very intimidating to have so many people in one room, speaking fast and staring at the screen to see if what I wrote was correct. She even sat with me for part of the meeting so I’d be more comfortable.

—Jasmine Sewell, Units Coordinator


able. With our unparalleled skills related to fish, we can help to set limits for water removals and fish kills, design monitor-ing protocols, evaluate success, and recommend other changes. You, with your local facilities and AFS as a society, could help to design facility and cumulative caps to control aquatic im-pacts that have huge economic and ecological implications.

The courts have decreed. Plaintiffs accepted. Regulators have acted. Eyes are now focused back on the fish. This is a good time for AFS to engage. Your ideas will help as we con-sider our options. Perhaps some of you work in this arena and could help to guide our Society. Your input will help us chart our course on behalf of those billions of eggs, larvae, and juve-nile and adult fish that are killed each day.

REFERENCES

Presidential Documents. 2011. Improving regulation and regulatory review. Federal Regis-ter 76(14):3821–3823. Available: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf. (July 2014).

U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration. 2014. Deepwater Port Licens-ing Program. Available: www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_page/deepwater_port_ licensing/dwp_current_ports/dwp_current_ports.htm, Gulf Landing tab. (July 2014).

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014a. Cooling water intakes. Available: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/. (July 2014).

———. 2014b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—final regulations to es-tablish requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities and amend requirements at phase I facilities. 40 CFR Parts 122–125. Available: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/316b-prepub-preamble.pdf. (July 2014).

Denise Spencerthe offshore liquefied natural gas facilities in the United States are now closed loop and wouldn’t require up to hundreds of millions of gallons of water for cooling each day. The Gulf Landing process and the industry’s shift to closed-loop designs offer insights into how manufacturing and power facilities can be engineered to avoid entraining and impinging billions of or-ganisms daily.

Our opportunity flows from the EPA’s final regulations, which require the application of “best technology available” (USEPA 2014b, p. 117). That concept was described in CWA section 101: “to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters,” with the interim goal of “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for rec-reation in and on the water.” Via President Obama’s Executive Order 13563 on improving regulatory efficiency (Presidential Documents 2011), all agencies are also required to pursue their mandates with the most innovative and least burdensome tools available. Although not required by the legislative or executive branches, the challenge cascades to fisheries scientists, regula-tors, and everyone in between. As an example, we would be a logical messenger for an ecosystem approach to conserving our nation’s waters. AFS as a society and its members are in a perfect situation to add scientific depth to best technology avail-

Continued from page 394 (Policy)


insight into a possible career, Hutton engages students in the critical STEM activities (science, technology, engineering, and math) through working for 8 weeks during the summer with a host fisheries professional. It is an area that the federal agen-cies define as part of their core mission (four agencies currently contribute to the Hutton Program) and is also an AFS area of strategic importance. We both benefit and, happily, it is an area where there is tremendous growth potential.

The AFS Annual Meeting is the most preeminent forum for fisheries science offered anywhere. Reflecting this, many feder-al agencies support the Annual Meeting and in many cases their staff are actively engaging in meeting organization, developing symposia, or contributing papers. The next possible step is to better involve federal fisheries leadership in proactively devel-oping focused sessions on key topics that will clarify or better define the state of knowledge on these issues. This could be at our Annual Meetings or through smaller, specific workshops on such topics. We also don’t take advantage of the forum of the Annual Meeting to convene panels of these fisheries leaders to discuss and provide insights on science and management needs and expose them to the value of these events for the profes-sional development of their staff.

Taking this science and management insight to Congress has always been an activity of AFS but inconsistently provid-ed and often without regard to the rhythms of Congress. Our federal partners value this role and are encouraging AFS to ex-pand this activity area. By reengaging federal partners as well as building more active dialogue with congressional staff, our goal is to make congressional briefings or other activities more frequent and more valuable.

Finally, through our independence and balance of science and management, AFS can provide programmatic reviews that give federal partners the insight into their programs or facili-ties that is necessary to ensure that they maintain relevance and continue to adhere to high standards of excellence. This can be through technical reviews of field stations, provision of com-ments on policy or management documents, or involvement in panels and other means of engaging in dialogue.

There’s much more that AFS can do, including expanded professional development through certification, distance learn-ing, and continuing education programs; building awareness of unique federal facilities and programs; and supporting such ef-forts such as the National Fish Habitat Plan, development of fisheries data standards, and others. What else should AFS be doing or how can we do this better? Your input and sugges-tions are always welcome. Contact me at [email protected] or contact our AFS policy director, Tom Bigford, at [email protected].

Federal agen-cies and their staff make up a substantial share of AFS mem-bership, averaging about 20% in past membership sur-veys. The only group of members more numerous than feds are state biologists and administrators, with their numbers running at slightly less than 30% in re-

cent years. Reflecting this membership population, it’s fair to say that AFS has been a critical partner for federal agency fish-eries programs. That involvement has declined in recent years but it still is important and, with some additional attention, could be an area of strength and value for the Society and the fed-eral partners. The math on this is pretty simple. Because of our Washington-area office location, the geography nearly demands that we be engaged in federal agencies and the congressional activity that directs their work. We pay a premium for office space that provides this access to D.C., and without proportion-ate federal agency and congressional involvement, we would be far better off financially to move elsewhere. More important, AFS, like no other fisheries-focused organization, brings to the table a unique degree of science integrity, street credibility, and access to science, management, and administration that can help to solve important fisheries conservation problems, clarify situations, and advance the dialogue about key fisheries issues. As with any relationship, there exists an important balance of providing value to each partner while maintaining respect and integrity. AFS can advance its fisheries mission through coop-erative work with federal partners. Likewise, the federal agency gains value. However, this relationship should in no way dimin-ish the ability or impose any reservation on AFS to offer science criticism to federal agencies or Congress when necessary. It is clearly possible to do both in a respectful manner.

AFS currently has cooperative agreements or grants with several federal agencies and they focus on a few key areas: the Hutton Program, Annual Meeting support, science briefings to Congress, and technical reviews to science. We can do more with each of these and there are other potential areas of mutual interest that need attention.

The Hutton Junior Fisheries Biology Program provides a small but important contribution in exposing high school stu-dents to fisheries management and science and is targeted at, but not restricted to, minority students. More than providing

Fisheries Inside the BeltwayDoug Austen, AFS Executive Director

COLUMNLetter from the Executive Director

AFS Executive Director Doug Austen can be contacted at: [email protected]


Sexual Segregation of Spiny Dogfish in Fishery-Dependent Surveys in Cape Cod, Mas-sachusetts: Potential Manage-ment Benefits. Andrea Dell’Apa, Jennifer Cudney-Burch, David G. Kimmel, and Roger A. Rulifson. 143:833–844.

Temperature, Hatch Date, and Prey Availability Influence Age-0 Yellow Perch Growth and Survival. Mark A. Kaemingk, Brian D. S. Graeb, and David W. Willis. 143:845–855.

A Field Test of Eugenol-Based Anesthesia versus Fish Restraint in Migrating Adult Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. Christopher C. Caudill, Michael A. Jepson, Steven R. Lee, Travis L. Dick, George P. Naughton, and Matthew L. Keefer. 143:856–863.

Potential Fitness Benefits of the Half-Pounder Life History in Klamath River Steelhead. Brian W. Hodge, Margaret A. Wilzbach, and Walter G. Duffy. 143:864–875.

Stock-Specific Size of Juvenile Sockeye Salmon in British Colum-bia Waters and the Gulf of Alaska. Terry D. Beacham, Richard J. Beamish, John R. Candy, Colin Wallace, Strahan Tucker, Jamal H. Moss, and Marc Trudel. 143:876–888.

Critical Habitats and Stock Assessment: Age-Specific Bias in the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Population Survey. Gina M. Ralph and Romuald N. Lipcius. 143:889–898.

Relationship between Juvenile Fish Condition and Survival to Adulthood in Steelhead. A. F. Evans, N. J. Hostetter, K. Collis, D. D. Roby, and F. J. Loge. 143:899–909.

Size-Selective Mortality of Steelhead during Freshwater and Marine Life Stages Related to Freshwater Growth in the Skagit River, Washington. Jamie N. Thompson and David A. Beauchamp. 143:910–925.

Cluster Sampling: A Pervasive, Yet Little Recognized Survey Design in Fisheries Research. Gary A. Nelson. 143:926–938.

Increasing Dominance of Odd-Year Returning Pink Salmon. J. R. Irvine, C. J. G. Michielsens, M. O’Brien, B. A. White, and M. Folkes. 143:939–956.

Fishery and Hatchery Effects on an Endangered Salmon Population with Low Productivity. Arliss J. Winship, Michael R. O’Farrell, and Michael S. Mohr. 143:957–971.

Ecomorphological Diversity of Lake Trout at Isle Royale, Lake Superior. A. M. Muir, C. R. Bronte, M. S. Zimmerman, H. R. Quin-lan, J. D. Glase, and C. C. Krueger. 143:972–987.

Fine-Scale Movements and Home Ranges of Red Snapper around Artificial Reefs in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Maria N. Piraino and Stephen T. Szedlmayer. 143:988–998.

Low-Temperature Tolerance of Juvenile Spotted Seatrout in South Carolina. Katie V. Anweiler, Stephen A. Arnott, and Michael R. Denson. 143:999–1010.

Sampling Little Fish in Big Rivers: Larval Fish Detection Prob-abilities in Two Lake Erie Tributaries and Implications for Sampling Effort and Abundance Indices. Jeremy J. Pritt, Mark R. DuFour, Christine M. Mayer, Edward F. Roseman, and Robin L. DeBruyne. 143:1011–1027.

Thermal Tolerance, Survival, and Recruitment of Cyprinids Exposed to Competition and Chronic Heat Stress in Experimen-tal Streams. Matthew P. Dekar, Cagney McCauley, Jesse W. Ray, and Ryan S. King. 143:1028–1036.

Fish Assemblages of Shoal- and Shoreline-Associated Seagrass Beds in Eastern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. Jacquelyn A. De An-gelo, Philip W. Stevens, David A. Blewett, and Theodore S. Switzer. 143:1028–1036.

[Note] Fishway Bottleneck Relief Models: a Case Study using Radio-Tagged Pacific Lampreys. Matthew L. Keefer, Christopher C. Caudill, and Mary L. Moser. 143:1049–1060.

Spatial and Temporal Variation in Otolith Chemistry of Juvenile Atlantic Menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. Jason J. Schaffler, Thomas J. Miller, and Cynthia M. Jones. 143:1061–1071.

High Diet Overlap between Native Small-Bodied Fishes and Non-native Fathead Minnow in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Sarah E. Zahn Seegert, Emma J. Rosi-Marshall, Colden V. Baxter, Theodore A. Kennedy, Robert O. Hall Jr., and Wyatt F. Cross. 143:1072–1083.

Prevalence of External Skin Lesions and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Gulf of Mexico Fishes, Post-Deepwater Horizon. Steven A. Murawski, William T. Hogarth, Ernst B. Peebles, and Luiz Barbeiri. 143:1084–1097.

Is Mobility a Fixed Trait? Summer Movement Patterns of Catostomids using PIT Telemetry. Michael T. Booth, Alexander S. Flecker, and Nelson G. Hairston Jr. 143:1098–1111.

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTSTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietyVolume 143, Number 4, July 2014


William W. Taylor, Abigail J. Lynch, and Nancy J. Léonard, editors

Future of Fisheries: Perspectives for Emerging Professionals

506 pages, paperList price: $60.00AFS Member price: $42.00Item number: 550.73PAvailable July 2014

TO ORDER:Online: www.fisheries.org/shop

American Fisheries Societyc/o Books InternationalP.O. Box 605Herndon, VA 20172Phone: 703-661-1570Fax: 703-996-1010

Learn the “what I know now that I wish I knew then!” lessons now rather than later!

Future of Fisheries: Perspectives for Emerging Professionals contains more than 70 short mentor-ing vignettes on past experiences and visions for the future authored by many notable mentors from the fisheries field. The volume is intended to inspire and empower the next generation of fisheries professionals with advice from seasoned professionals by providing personal “lessons learned” and insights from the topics that most influenced their illustrious careers while also addressing the most urgent issues on the horizon for fisheries.


DATE EVENT LOCATION WEBSITE

September 28–October 2, 2014

ICHE 2014 — 11th International Conference on Hydroscience & Engineering Hamburg, Germany http://iche2014.baw.de/why/index.

html

October 1–3, 2014 EMSEA — The Second European Marine Science Educators Association Conference Gothenburg, Sweden www.emsea.eu/conference-2014-goth-

enburg

October 12–16, 2014 WCMB-2014 — 3rd World Conference on Marine Biodiversity Quingdao, China http://wcmb2014.csp.escience.cn/dct/

page/1

October 14–17, 2014 Aquaculture Europe 2014 San Sebastian, Spain www.marevent.com

October 20–24, 2014 41st Annual Meeting of the Alaska Chapter of the American Fisheries Society Juneau, Alaska www.afs-alaska.org/annual-meetings/

fall-2014

October 23–24, 2014 National Workshop on Large Landscape Conservation Washington, DC www.largelandscapenetwork.org/2014-

national-workshop/

October 26–30, 2014 Aquatic Resources Education Association Conference Traverse City, MI www.areanet.org/conferences.htm

October 26–31, 2014 Ocean Optics XXII Portland, ME www.tos.org/oceanopticsconference/

November 10–14, 2014 AAGG 2014 — 27th Meeting of the Argentine Associa-tion of Geophysicists and Geodesists San Juan, Argentina www.aaggreunion2014.org

November 17–21, 2014 2nd International Ocean Research Conference Barcelona, Spain www.tos.org/2nd_ocean_research.pdf

December 3–4, 2014 14th Flatfish Biology Conference Westbrook, CT http://nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/Milford/flatfishbiologyworkshop.html

January 21–23, 2015 Texas Aquaculture Association–45th Annual Confer-ence & Trade Show Kemah, TX www.texasaquaculture.org

January 26–30, 2015 Global Conference on Inland Fisheries Rome, Italy inlandfisheries.org

February 16–19, 2015 2015 Annual General Meeting, WA-BC Chapter of AFS

Richmond, British Columbia wabc-afs.org/2014/06/3530/

February 19–22, 2015 Aquaculture America 2015 New Orleans, LA www.marevent.com

February 22–27, 2015 Aquatic Sciences Meeeting Granada, Spain http://aslo.org/meetings/

March 4–6, 2015 2015 Idaho Chapter Annual Meeting Boise, ID www.idahoafs.org/2015AnnualMeeting/

May 17–19, 2015NPAFC International Symposium on Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Production in a Changing Climate: Past, Present, and Future

Kobe, Japan www.npafc.org

May 26–30, 2015 World Aquaculture 2015 Jeju Island, Korea www.was.org

June 22–24, 2015 Fish Passage 2015 Groningen, Netherlands www.fishpassageconference.com

July 26–31, 2015 World of Trout Bozeman, MT

August 16–20, 2015 AFS Annual Meeting Portland, OR

February 22–26, 2016 Aquaculture 2016 Las Vegas, NV www.marevent.com

September 19–22, 2016 OCEANS 2016 Monterey, CA www.oceanicengineering.org

February 19–22, 2017 Aquaculture America 2017 San Antonio, TX www.marevent.com

CALENDARFisheries Events

To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS web site calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/ province, web address, and contact information to [email protected].

(If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.)

More events listed at www.fisheries.org


BACK PAGE

The Things We Do for ScienceSo, one of the ways you can tell the age of many shark

species is by looking at the rings in their vertebrae. And one of the things that you can do to validate that the rings are laid down yearly is to inject a live fish with tetracycline. The fish incorporate the antibiotic into their bones and that nice mark is then visible under ultraviolet light. One time I was validating angel sharks’ vertebral rings. I would go out with commercial gillnetters and as the angels were brought up (nice and alive), I would point to one, give the fisherman a $5 bill, take the fish, measure it, inject it with tetracycline, put a tag in it, and re-lease it, hoping that someone would catch it again so that we could look at one of its vertebra and find the antibiotic mark. Naturally, if I wanted to inject lots of fish I would have to bring with me lots of $5 bills. And that is the reason why, on several occasions, I found myself walking through a darkened harbor (the boats would leave at 2 a.m.), with a satchel containing (1) syringes (for the tetracycline), (2) vials of a liquid (the tetra-cycline), and (3) maybe $300 in small bills. I used to kind of worry how this might appear to an agent of the law, but then

figured that I could always share that I was a biologist, giving me carte blanche to do almost any sketchy thing imaginable.

IS THAT AN ANGEL SHARK HANGING FROM YOUR PANTS OR ARE YOU JUST HAPPY TO SEE ME?

Bobby Reid, just an excellent commercial fisherman out of Santa Barbara, tells this story about an angel shark’s ability, when captured, to bend backward and bite. The story concerns a not-too-popular crewman: “This guy was a whiner. So one day we were pulling angel shark nets and even though I’d told him to be careful, he made a fatal mistake. He was holding a live shark by the tail in front of him when it bent backward and bit him right in the crotch, just missing his vitals.”

Excerpt from AFS member Milton Love’s book: Certainly More Than You Want to Know About the Fishes of the Pacific Coast.

...but then figured that I could always share that I was a biologist, giving me carte blanche to do almost any sketchy thing imaginable.

Squatina californica. Photo credit: Kelly Bracken.

OCEAN RIVER

CREEKLAKE

ATS has reliable aquatic tracking systems for

every environment. Live chat with a Consultant now at atstrack.com.

Squatina californica. Photo credit: Kelly Bracken.

OCEAN RIVER

CREEKLAKE

ATS has reliable aquatic tracking systems for

every environment. Live chat with a Consultant now at atstrack.com.

Seeing Through the Noise:Detecting Acoustic Tags at Electrical Barriers

The Eagle Creek National Fish Hatchery was the site for testing the feasibility of detecting HTI acoustic tags in the presence of the pulsed field of direct current generated by a Smith-Root Electrical Barrier. With an output of up to 9 kW of electricity pulsating in this 1-2 ft deep waterway, the concern was that the electrical signals from the barrier would interfere with the HTI acoustic system preventing detection of the tag signals. And with the shallow depths and slow velocities, there were also concerns about data loss due to tag signal collisions. The feasibility tests concluded that neither challenge presented issues for detecting HTI acoustic tags.

Do you need to detect fish at an electrical barrier or noisy site? To find out if it’s feasible, connect with HTI’s fisheries scientists at (206) 633-3383 or [email protected].

Imag

es c

ourte

sy o

f Dav

e O

uelle

tte

A Weatlh of Experience & TechnologyBuilt on the Principles of Sound

www.HTIsonar.com

An HTI Acoustic Tag detected at an electrical barrier shown without tag filter. The same HTI Acoustic Tag detected at the same location with tag filter.

Electrical Pulses Shown in Blue Diagonal BarsElectrical Pulses Shown in Blue Diagonal Bars Electrical Pulses Filtered from ViewElectrical Pulses Filtered from View

UnfilteredTag DetectionUnfilteredTag Detection

FilteredTag Detection