VOL 34 NO 6 JUNE 2009

Fish news Legislative Update journal Highlights Fisheries calendar FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fi sheries.org job center

eXPerIeNCe the DIVersIty OF NashVILLe

Exploring the Peer Review Process: What Is It, Does It Work, and can It Be Improved? Abdicating Responsibility: The Deceits of IFQ Fisheries Policy

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 261 Biomark 262 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g VoL 34 no 6 jUne 2009 285 AmericANFisheries FiSherieS Society • www.FiSherieS.org

EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 301/897-8616 • fax 301/897-8096 • main@fi sheries.org

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

AFS OFFIcERS FISHERIES STAFF EDITORS PReSiDenT SenioR eDiToR Science eDiToRS Contents William G. Franzin Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam Madeleine Hall-Arber Ken Ashley COLUMN: COLUMN PReSiDenT eLecT DiRecToR oF Doug Beard Donald C. Jackson PUBLicATionS Ken Currens 264 PRESIDENT’S HOOK 304 GuEST DIREcTOR'S lINE Aaron Lerner William E. Kelso The AFS Annual Meeting: Field Biologists and Fighter Pilots, Unite! FiRST Deirdre M. Kimball what’s in it for you As a Fisheries Vice PReSiDenT Robert T. Lackey Take every opportunity possible to actually get Wayne A. Hubert mANAgiNg editor professional and what’s in it for your Beth Beard Dennis Lassuy into the fi eld to experience the natural context Allen Rutherford Agency? SeconD of where your data were measured. PRoDUcTion eDiToR The 2009 AFS Annual Meeting in Nashville, Vice PReSiDenT book review Edward J. Peters William L. Fisher Cherie Worth eDiToRS is the single best venue on the continent to Francis Juanes accomplish vital information exchange. PAST PReSiDenT Ben Letcher Mary C. Fabrizio Keith Nislow William G. Franzin COLUMN: eXecUTiVe DiRecToR ABSTRAcT TRAnSLATion Ghassan“Gus” N.Rassam Pablo del Monte Luna 305 STuDENTS’ ANGlE News: the role of the Student member in the AFS Fisheries information and technology Dues and fees for 2009 are: 266 FISHERIES $76 in North America ($88 elsewhere) for regular members, Section $19 in North America ($22 elsewhere) for student members, Michael E. Colvin and Jeff Kopaska and $38 ($44) retired members. Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription. JOUrNaL hIGhLIGhts: Nonmember and library subscription rates are $132 ($127). 268 JOuRNAl OF AQuATIc ObItUary: Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmember. ANIMAL HEALTH AND Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the 307 NIcHOlAS F. HuGHES American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, JOuRNAl OF AQuAculTuRE Authority on Salmonid Behavior Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 ©copyright 2009. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at an additional mailing offi ce. A copy of Fisheries Guide for UPDate: CaLeNDar: Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website, www.fi sheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor, 269 lEGISlATION AND POlIcY 308 FISHERIES EVENTS please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with Elden Hawkes, Jr. your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproduction of material in this publication is permitted only aNNOUNCeMeNts: under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American Feature: 309 JOB CENTER Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, 270 proFessionaL issues MD 20814-2199. exploring the peer review process: What is Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer it, Does it Work, and Can it Be improved? recycled paper with soy-based printing inks. Despite its importance to our fi eld, peer review has been little studied. in this paper, we summarize the literature concerning peer review. Dennis R. DeVries, Elizabeth A. Marschall, advertising index and Roy A. Stein Advanced Telemetry Systems . . . . 311 Biomark...... 262 perspeCtive: Emperor Aquatics, Inc...... 305 280 soCioeConoMiCs Floy Tag ...... 291 abdicating responsibility: Frigid Units ...... 289 the Deceits of Fisheries policy Hallprint...... 298 fisheries managers have been deceived by HallTech...... 291 fi sheries economists who use false economic Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. . . . 312 arguments to justify the free and perpetual Juniper Systems ...... 267 gifting of quota shares under ifQ programs. Kentucky State University ...... 277 Daniel W. Bromley coRRecTionS: The list of authors on the Table of Lotek ...... 295 Contents omitted the names of the fi rst two authors OnSet Computer ...... 267 of the article “Risks of Introductions of Marine Oregon RFID ...... 297 Letters Fishes: Reply to Briggs” in the April issue (Fisheries O. S. Systems ...... 301 292 TO THE EDITOR 34[4]). The full list of authors is Walter R. Courtenay, Quantitative Fisheries Center . . . . 299 Jr., Bruce B. Collette, Timothy E. Essington, Ray Sonotronics ...... 293 Hilborn, James W. Orr, Daniel Pauly, John E. Randall, Sound Metrics...... 279 and William F. Smith-Vaniz. Also, Courtenay’s e-mail Vemco ...... 302 address was listed incorrectly in the article – it should read “[email protected].” tell advertisers you found them through Fisheries! coVeR: Experience the diversity of Nashville at the 139th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, 30 August–3 September 2009. Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 263 COLUMN: William G. Franzin AFS President Franzin can be PRESIDENT’S HOOK contacted at [email protected].

The AFS Annual Meeting: What’s in It for You As a Fisheries Professional and What’s in It for Your Agency?

I have been attending AFS research. You will meet fellow relevance to the fisheries science Annual Meetings since the 110th researchers, resource managers, of the day. AFS Annual Meetings meeting held in 1980 in Louisville, and authors face to face and provide a service to members and Kentucky. I make my own decisions begin or maintain your network others in our professions: excellent on which meetings to attend of fisheries professionals. These opportunities for learning, now, but having been a bench people, in a wide range of fields, networking, and professional scientist and a science manager in will provide that essential go-to development. They also offer a federal agency, I often was faced resource that will make your great venues for recruitment of with either answering or replying work more efficient, whether you new employees to federal and to those two questions. A third need some bits of data on some state agencies since the meetings question usually was why I should small endangered species or the attract young, talented graduating attend rather than any number of latest management techniques students to present their work. other scientists who might wish for those charismatic species of With technical and leadership to go (I will leave the answer to salmonids, basses, and percids. It workshops, symposia, and poster that one to you). Given that this is all will be there in your network, sessions, the AFS Annual Meeting about the time of year when these just an e-mail or phone call is an educational experience at a questions and answers are asked, away. Participating in AFS Annual relatively low cost. How better to I thought I would address them Meetings is important for your find potential new employees than from both sides. To set the stage, career in fisheries; knowing other to see them present their own your abstract has been accepted professionals that you can call and research at a scientific meeting? and you now have to find the for those people to know your Many states and provinces are travel funds and justify why you or work will help you to establish facing budgetary shortages this your staff member should go and your reputation as a fisheries year and, as a result, they have deliver the paper. professional. Finally, if you become put restrictions on travel and For me it has always been easy involved in Society governance, meeting attendance. But for your to justify why I should attend you will benefit from learning one of our meetings. It is the how to participate effectively in aquatic and fisheries professionals, biggest, best, broadest fisheries meetings of a professional society there is no more cost-effective meeting on the continent, the that will help you in meetings experience than attending the meeting where you will meet the in your workplace and in your AFS Annual Meeting. By allowing eminent fishery biologists from community. these professionals to attend our North America and beyond. You Why should your agency meeting, you are making a small will learn about the latest fisheries support your attendance to an investment with big returns in and aquatic research directly from AFS Annual Meeting? Fisheries terms of future efficiency and scientists long before it appears play an important part in the performance. The science forming in the journals. If you have a economy and diet of countries all the basis of fisheries management great piece of research that you over the world. The recreational in your state/province is dependent are contemplating publishing aspects of fisheries and the on your scientists and managers and you just want to float a taxes levied on that activity help being exposed to the most up-to- trial balloon first, the audience sustain preservation of the aquatic date information possible. Our in a meeting room will provide environment. Management of Annual Meeting, this year in that test. Question-and-answer fisheries depends on credible Nashville, is the single best venue sessions after your presentation science and scientists depend on on the continent to accomplish can be invaluable in defining your scientific societies to maintain their that vital information exchange.

264 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Urban and Community Fisheries Programs: Development, Management, and Evaluation

Richard T. Eades, J. Wesley Neal, Thomas J. Lang, Kevin M. Hunt, and Paul Pajak, editors

464 pages Hardcover List price: $69.00 AFS Member price: $48.00 Item Number: 540.67C Published October 2008

TO ORDER: Online: www.afsbooks.org

American Fisheries Society c/o Books International P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 Phone: 703-661-1570 Fax: 703-996-1010

Increasing urban and suburban human populations and declines in fishing participation have reawakened an interest in urban and community fisheries programs. This work contains 40 papers presented at the September 2007 AFS Urban Fishing Sympo- sium. Chapter authors synthesize current research and provide real world examples through case study analysis, review new manage- ment techniques, and offer topic insights. The book will appeal to fisheries managers, administrators, park superintendents, academics, researchers, and students.

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 265 News: Fisheries

Large marine ecosystems heating up ecosystems, the areas where most marine A new United Nations report, compiled fisheries are produced and caught.” with key contributions from NOAA, found The most rapid sea surface temperature that 61 of the world’s 64 large marine increases were in the northeast Atlantic ecosystems (LMEs)—large coastal ocean and Mediterranean (Baltic Sea, North waters adjacent to continents—show a Sea, and Black Sea LMEs), in the north- significant increase in sea surface tempera- west Pacific off east Asia (East China Sea, tures in the last 25 years, contributing to and Sea of Japan/East Sea LMEs), and in The FAO report recommends that sea decreasing fisheries catches in some areas the northwest Atlantic (Newfoundland cucumber management plans specific to and increasing catches in others. Labrador Shelf LME). The notable excep- local circumstances need to be devel- Harvests in several northern Atlantic tions to the warming are in the California oped. Sea cucumbers make a substantial LMEs, including the Norwegian Sea, the Current LME and Humboldt Current LME contribution to the economies of coastal Faroe Plateau, and the Iceland Shelf, are (off the coasts of Chile and Peru). The communities, being in some places the increasing due to the increase in zooplank- report is available online at www.lme. most economically important fishery and ton brought about by the warming waters. noaa.gov non-finfish export. However, effective However, catches are declining in several management plans for sea cucumber fish- European LMEs, including the North Sea, Sea cucumbers being depleted eries are uncommon, making it difficult to the Celtic Biscay Shelf, and the Iberian Sea cucumber populations across the limit overfishing. The report also identi- Coastal LMEs, according to the report, The globe, from Asia to the Galapagos, are fies additional threats for sea cucumber UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: a increasingly in trouble, according to a populations worldwide, including global Perspective on Changing Conditions in new United Nations Food and Agriculture warming, habitat destruction, and illegal LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas. Organization (FAO) report. Sea cucumber fishing. “The large majority of these ecosys- stocks are under intense fishing pres- Asia and the Pacific are the top sea tems are shared by two or more countries, sure throughout the world and countries cucumber producing regions, with total underscoring the need for regional coop- like Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and regional production running between eration to advance sustainable manage- the Philippines export large quantities of 20,000 and 40,000 metric tons per year. ment,” said Kenneth Sherman, director them to China and other Asian markets However, Ecuador’s Galapagos Islands, of the NOAA Large Marine Ecosystem each year. Most high value commercial the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean, program. “The added stress of increasing species have been depleted. In a majority and Newfoundland in Canada are also sea surface temperatures makes it that of countries reviewed and in the African hotspots for production. The report is much more important that nations cooper- and Indian ocean regions, stocks are available at: www.fao.org/docrep/011/ ate to sustainably manage large marine overfished. i0375e/i0375e00.htm.

details: Registration page 9 of the Deadline: Annual Meeting 31 July 2009 Supplement Continue Your Education in Nashville GIS • MesoHABSIM • Side-Scan Sonar Conservation • Effective Speaking • Channel Design • Leadership Program R • Acoustic Technology • Fish Passage Select from the great variety of courses and workshops scheduled at the AFS Annual Meeting in Nashville in August. Expand your career horizons at a reasonable cost. When you register for the meeting, sign up for Continuing Education courses. AFS Limits the Number of students per workshop and reserves the right to cancel any undersubscribed workshop.

266 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g onset

$120 HOBO® Water Temp Pro v2 Loggers combine research-grade performance with exceptional value. Ideal for use in fresh or salt water, the HOBO® Water Temp Pro v2 provides a

Under number of key advantages: • Research-grade measurements • Waterproof to 120 meters (400 feet) • Easy to use graphing and analysis software study • Waterproof data shuttle for easy readout

Underwater Temperature Loggers: Considerations for Selection & Deployment Get tips on selecting & deploying underwater loggers To Learn more call Download our free white paper today 1-866-460-8979 OnSet Computer at onsetcomp.com/fisheries HOBO visit us at onsetcomp.com

Juniper Systems

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 267 VOLUMe 21 IssUe 1 JOUrNaL hIGhLIGhts: MarCh 2009 JOuRNAl OF AQuATIc ANIMAL HEALTH

to subscribe to AFS journals go to www.fi sheries.org and click on publications/Journals.

prevalence of viral erythrocytic Necrosis in pacifi c herring and Geoffrey C. Waldbieser, William R. Wolters, Carolyn R. Boyle, and Larry A. epizootics in Skagit bay, puget Sound, washington. P. K. Hershberger, Hanson, pages 23-35. N. E. Elder, C. A. Grady, J. L. Gregg, C. A. Pacheco, C. Greene, C. Rice, and T. Largemouth Bass Virus in Texas: Distribution and Management R. Meyers, pages 1-7. issues. Gregory M. Southard, Loraine T. Fries, and David R. Terre, pages Florfenicol residues in three Species of Fish after 10-day oral dosing in Feed. R. E. Kosoff, C.-Y. Chen, G. A. Wooster, R. G. Getchell, P. R. Bowser, 36-42. A. Clifford, J. L. Craig, P. Lim, S. E. Wetzlich, A. L. Craigmill, and L. A. Tell, A Quantitative enzyme-Linked immunosorbent Assay and Filtration- pages 8-13. Based Fluorescent Antibody Test as Potential Tools to Screen [Communication] Florfenicol residues in Nile tilapia after 10-d oral broodstock for infection with Flavobacterium psychrophilum. Nicole dosing in Feed: effect of Fish Size. P. R. Bowser, R. E. Kosoff, C.-Y. M. Lindstrom, Douglas R. Call, Marcia L. House, Christine M. Moffi tt, and Chen, G. A. Wooster, R. G. Getchell, J. L. Craig, P. Lim, S. E. Wetzlich, A. L. Kenneth D. Cain, pages 43-56. Craigmill, and L. A. Tell, pages 14-17. [Communication] polycystic Lesions in the Liver of the white Sturgeon. [Communication] Trematode Centrocestus formosanus infection and distribution in ornamental Fishes in mexico. César Ortega, Raúl Fajardo, Peter Taylor, Charlie E. Smith, and Marilyn J. Blair, pages 57-59. and Ricardo Enríquez, pages 18-22. development of a polymerase chain reaction Assay to detect expression Analysis of Selected immune-relevant genes in channel cyprinid herpesvirus 2 in goldfi sh. Thomas B. Waltzek, Tomofumi catfi sh during Edwardsiella ictaluri infection. Banu Elibol-Flemming, Kurobe, Andrew E. Goodwin, and Ronald P. Hedrick, pages 60-67.

VOLUMe 71 IssUe 2 JOUrNaL hIGhLIGhts: aPrIL 2009 NORTH AMERIcAN JOuRNAl OF AQuAculTuRE

to subscribe to AFS journals go to www.fi sheries.org and click on publications/Journals.

Juvenile Steelhead release Strategies: a comparison of volitional- production. Carole Engle, Kraig Ruebush, Carlos Leyva, and Jeremy Trimpey, and Forced-release practices. William L. Gale, Chris R. Pasley, Benjamen pages 138-146. M. Kennedy, and Kenneth G. Ostrand, pages 97-106. variability of egg characteristics among Female white bass and the effect of photoperiod Advancement of Atlantic cod Spawning on relationship between egg volume and Length at hatch of Sunshine egg Size and biochemistry. Randy W. Penney, M. Jeanne Hart, P. Lynn bass. S. E. Lochmann, K. J. Goodwin, C. L. Racey, and C. C. Green, pages Lush, and Christopher C. Parrish, pages 107-115. 147-156. [Communication] evaluation of commercial diets for First-Feeding effect of Sodium chloride, tricaine methanesulfonate, and Light on Spring chinook Salmon. Ronald G. Twibell, Ann L. Gannam, Susan L. New Zealand mud Snail behavior, Survival of Snails defecated from Ostrand, John S. A. Holmes, and Jeff B. Poole, pages 116-121. rainbow trout, and effects of epsom Salt on Snail elimination rate. [Communication] evaluation of walleye embryo Survival and Larval Randall W. Oplinger, Pat Brown, and Eric J. Wagner, pages 157-164. viability after iodine treatment. Konrad Dabrowski, Kyle Ware, Marta Jaroszewska, and Karolina Kwasek, pages 122-129. production characteristics and body composition of Florida pompano reared to market Size at two different densities in Low-Salinity [Communication] the effect of Food deprivation on the cortisol recirculating Aquaculture Systems. Charles R. Weirich, Paul S. Wills, response to crowding in Juvenile Steelhead. Jennifer M. Ramsay, Grant W. Feist, Carl B. Schreck, Ryan Couture, Joseph O’Neil, and David L. G. Richard M. Baptiste, Peter N. Woodward, and Marty A. Riche, pages 165- Noakes, pages 130-133. 173. [Technical Note] culture of pacifi c white Shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei [Communication] effect of turbidity duration on culture of walleye in a mixed-ion Solution. K. J. Parmenter, J. H. Bisesi, Jr., S. P. Young, S. J. Larvae. Richard D. Clayton, Joseph E. Morris, and Robert C. Summerfelt, Klaine, H. L. Atwood, C. L. Browdy, and J. R. Tomasso, pages 134-137. pages 174-177. the effect of dietary protein Level on channel catfi sh production the potential use of electricity to control burrowing Shrimp in oyster characteristics when Feeding on Alternate days in multiple-batch Aquaculture beds. Brett Dumbauld and Lisa Harlan, pages 178-188.

268 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g UPDate: Elden Hawkes, Jr. lEGISlATION AND POlIcY AFS Policy coordinator Hawkes can be contacted at ehawkes@fi sheries.org.

National system for marine protected areas programs. A $20 million dollar increase is also included for its The U.S. Departments of Interior and Commerce are fi sh passage (HTAP) program. partnering with federal, state, and territorial agencies to form The U.S. Geological Survey has requested a budget of $1.1 a National System of Marine Protected Areas (MPA). While billion for FY 2010. This is an increase of $54 million over FY MPAs have been established throughout the United States for 2009. About $22 million of the budget will go towards its decades, this new national system will offer an overarching climate change efforts, including the national Climate Change mechanism to coordinate effective ecosystem management. and Wildlife Science Center. This increase also refl ects a $23.9 MPAs are seen as important mechanisms for protecting biodi- million budget for its aquatic and endangered resources versity and restoring fi sh populations within ecosystems. programs. MPAs are areas where natural or cultural resources are The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has requested a bud- given greater protection than in the surrounding waters. In get of $1.6 billion for FY 2010. This is an increase from the the United States, these areas may span a range of habitats enacted $1.4 billion budget of FY 2009. The budget adds including the open ocean, coastal areas, inter-tidal zones, $17.5 million to its fi sheries and habitat conservation pro- estuaries, and the Great Lakes. The majority are “multiple- grams. This includes increases of $1.8 million for the National use” areas, which allow fi shing, diving, boating, swimming, Fish Hatchery System, $3.9 million for fi sh and wildlife con- and other uses. “No-take” MPAs allow human access but servation offi ces, and $0.9 million for aquatic invasive species prohibit extraction or signifi cant destruction of natural or programs. cultural resources. They are sometimes used as research and monitoring zones, to protect spawning or nursery grounds, or ASMFc approves river herring amendment to protect ecologically important deep-water habitats. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has Currently 100 federal, state, territory, and tribal agencies approved Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Management manage the nearly 2,000 MPAs across the country, often with Plan (FMP) for Shad and River Herring. The amendment no coordinated strategy. Two hundred and twenty-fi ve existing prohibits state waters commercial and recreational fi sheries MPAs will initially enter the system. The national system does beginning 1 January 2012, unless a state or jurisdiction devel- not bring state, territorial, or local sites under federal author- ops and submits for approval a sustainable management plan ity, nor does it restrict or change the management of any by 1 January 2010. MPA. Amendment 2 requires states to implement fi sheries- Eligible existing MPAs were invited to nominate themselves dependent and independent monitoring programs. In recogni- for inclusion into the national system beginning in November tion of limited state resources, the required monitoring will be 2008. The second round of nominations will begin later this identical to monitoring for American shad, a species closely year. related to river herring, so that monitoring can be conducted concurrently. This monitoring will also assist the river herring Fisheries agencies request increased 2010 funding stock assessment, which is expected to be completed in 2012. In May, several U.S. government agencies announced their The amendment also contains recommendations to member budget requests for fi scal year 2010. Many of these requested states and jurisdictions to conserve, restore, and protect criti- increases will be used to enhance fi shery and fi sheries-related cal river herring habitat. programs within the respective agencies. River herring stocks are a multi-jurisdictional resource The National Park Service (NPS) has requested a total occurring in rivers and coastal and ocean waters. While over- budgetary increase of $171 million over its FY2009 budget. A sight of river herring management in state waters lies with the portion of this request will go directly to its National Resource commission, river herring can be encountered in ocean fi sher- Stewardship program. Through this program, NPS efforts on ies beyond the states’ jurisdiction. Bycatch of river herring in climate change will receive an increase of $10 million while its small-mesh fi sheries continues to be a signifi cant concern. ocean and coastal recourse stewardship programs will receive Preliminary analyses indicate that, in some years, the total an increase in funding of $2.5 million. bycatch of river herring by the Atlantic herring fl eet alone The USDA Forest Service has requested a budget of $5.2 could be equal to the total landings from the entire in-river billion for FY2010. This is an increase of 9% over the FY 2009 directed fi shery on the East Coast. budget. The increase includes a 1% budget increase for its The plan will be available by mid-June and can be obtained wildlife and fi sh, and vegetation and watershed management via the commission’s website at www.asmfc.org.

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 269 Dennis R. DeVries, Feature: Elizabeth A. Marschall, and Professional issues Roy A. Stein DeVries is a professor in the Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn Exploring the Peer Review Process: University, Auburn, Alabama and he can be What Is It, reached at [email protected]. Marschall is an associate professor and Stein is a professor emeritus Does It Work, and in the Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, Ohio Can It Be Improved? State University, Columbus.

ABSTRACT: Though peer review is central to science, the process The phrase “peer review” can elicit an array of itself has received little formal evaluation. Here we provide an responses from scientists, including respect, fear, apa- overview to the literature on the peer-review process. Peer review thy, and downright anger. For nearly three centuries has its drawbacks, including financial cost, time, reliability, and (Kronick 1990), peer review has provided quality potential biases. An important gap in our knowledge is whether the control for the data entering the published litera- process works. Although most manuscripts show some improvement ture. The long history of peer review, combined with after peer review, reviewers often disagree, and errors can escape the its importance (careers depend on satisfying one’s process. To date, we do not know whether papers published with peer peers), has generated a huge literature. For example, review are generally improved over those without. Most journals use in our literature survey we considered > 220 papers. a single-blind approach (author blind to reviewers), whereas others Even so, much of this literature (about 60% of these use a double-blind approach, and a few use an open approach. Biases papers) occurred in editorial, opinion, or commen- toward authors (institutional, geographic, gender) apparently exist in tary papers as opposed to controlled studies. To dem- some fields. Unlike the formal training we receive in fisheries research onstrate how little our field has formally reflected on and management, no formal training process exists for peer review— without mentoring, how are new reviewers produced? Based on our this process, only five of those papers were from the literature survey, we recommend consideration of double-blind review, fisheries literature (Brown 1995; Hansen 2002; Jolley implementation of a rating system for reviews of submitted manuscripts, and Graeb 2007; Amos 2008; Cooke 2008), with and training and mentoring students to become good reviewers. about twice that number from the broader ecological literature. As an indication of our collective interest in peer review, one of the early experimental studies in peer review (Peters and Ceci 1982) has been cited 282 times. A quick scan through our literature cited section will reveal that the papers dealing with peer Exploración del proceso de revisión review exist in outlets that are probably not typically por pares ¿Qué es, cómo funciona y read by fisheries scientists or ecologists. Using this body of literature, we describe peer review, assess its puede mejorarse? success, consider potential concerns, and reflect on possible alternatives. We end by presenting some Resumen: Si bien el proceso de revisión por pares es fundamental characteristics of a good peer review and how we, as para la ciencia, éste no ha sido formalmente evaluado. Aquí se muestra scientists, learn to provide one, offering one training un panorama de la literatura acerca del proceso de revisión por pares. approach with which we have experience. Este proceso tiene varias fallas que incluyen el costo financiero, tiempo, confiabilidad y potenciales sesgos. Existe un importante hueco en nuestro conocimiento acerca de si el proceso realmente funciona. A pesar de que What is peer review? algunos manuscritos muestran una mejoría después de la revisión por pares, los árbitros a veces discrepan entre ellos y algunos errores pueden In peer review, experts evaluate a manuscript in an escaparse del proceso. A la fecha, no se sabe si los artículos arbitrados effort to assist editors in deciding if a submitted man- son mejores que aquellos que no lo son. La mayor parte de las revistas se uscript is worthy of publication, i.e., does it meet the basan en un enfoque de arbitraje sencillo-ciego (el revisor desconoce al standard for scientific rigor for that journal? Through autor) mientras que otras utilizan un enfoque de arbitraje doble-ciego y peer review, manuscript shortcomings should be sólo algunas usan un enfoque de apertura total. La discriminación hacia los autores (por institución, ubicación geográfica y género) aparentemente identified and corrected, and manuscript original- existe en algunas disciplinas. De manera contraria al entrenamiento que ity assured. The manuscript should be improved by se recibe en la investigación y manejo de pesquerías, no hay un proceso peer review, and critically flawed research should de entrenamiento formal—no existen mentores, para la revisión por pares be rejected. Whereas peer review clearly applies to ¿entonces cómo se producen los nuevos revisores? Sobre la base de esta areas beyond publication (e.g., grant proposals), in revisión, se recomienda tomar en cuenta el enfoque de arbitraje doble- this article we generally limit our discussion to peer ciego, la implementación de un sistema jerarquizado de revisores para los review of completed work or manuscripts. manuscritos sometidos y una buena tutoría hacia los estudiantes para que The peer review process varies among journals se conviertan en buenos árbitros. (Bachand and Sawallis 2003); however, most journal

270 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g editors ask experts to critically evaluate the submitted manuscript. 1995; Northcraft 2001; Cooke 2008). As such, peer reviewers Typically, editors ask for detailed recommendations that serve to provide input to four groups: inform an acceptance/rejection decision. Four of our American 1. The editor who requested the review, Fisheries Society (AFS) journals (Transactions of the American 2. The author, Fisheries Society [TAFS], North American Journal of Fisheries 3. The journal readers, and Management [NAJFM], North American Journal of Aquaculture 4. even to themselves as reviewers (Williamson 2003; Council of [NAJA], and Journal of Aquatic Animal Health [JAAH]) use an Science Editors 2006). editor, an associate editor who is a subject-matter expert, and peer reviewers. In this model, manuscripts are sent to two to three In reality, the responsibilities of the reviewer to the editor, the reviewers by the associate editor. Whereas the associate editor is author, and the readers are similar—peer reviews should be criti- known to the reviewers, both reviewers and the associate editor cal, but objective and fair, produced in a timely fashion, and allow remain anonymous to the author. The associate editor receives for creativity while not allowing the submitted work to go too the reviews, critically reviews the manuscript in light of the far beyond what the data support. In addition, even manuscript reviews and his/her expertise, and then provides both a review authors who are rejected for publication in one journal can ben- summary and a recommendation to the editor. The editor reviews efit from constructive review comments (Weller 1996; however, the manuscript (ideally), uses all submitted information to make see the concern by Kearney and Freda 2005 about the lack of con- an acceptance/rejection decision, and communicates directly crete comments provided by peer reviewers). Typically, reviewers with the author. provide expertise likely not shared with the editor and many of the Even though peer review is the critical evaluation of a manu- readers (Rennie 2003a), assuring that a manuscript is evaluated script by experts before publication, we suggest that the peer by experts in the field. Value added for the reviewers is recogni- review process includes three stages: tion among their peers, as well as by supervisors during evalua- tions (e.g., via annual journal reviewer lists), and the opportunity 1. a preliminary review by the editorial staff to determine if the to stay informed about the most current work in their field. In manuscript is suitable for the journal (screening), some cases (e.g., Williamson 2003; continuing education credits 2. a formal peer review (including review of the original in Glick 2007; monetary example in Adam and Knight 2002), submission and subsequent revisions), and incentives are provided to reviewers directly, although this appears 3. The continuing “review” upon publication when peer scientists to be relatively rare in our discipline. In a reviewer survey, Tite read and evaluate the paper (Koch 2001; Erren 2007). and Schroter (2007) discovered that small monetary incentives Relying on this description, many readers of a journal paper likely would not increase the possibility of a manuscript review bypass stage 3, accepting the published paper as fact, given it has in the face of time constraints, although non-financial incentives been peer reviewed. Those who have reflected more formally on (e.g., free journal access, annual reviewer acknowledgment, feed- this process express both their support and concerns: “an essential back regarding their review and the final decision, potential for component of scholarly publishing” (Mulligan 2005), “absolutely future invitation to serve on the editorial board, credit toward fundamental to the decision making process for publication” page charges for their next paper) were viewed positively. Given (the British Academy as stated by Croll 2007), “a treacherous that most reviewers are also authors, manuscript review becomes servant” (McCutchen 1991), “a flawed process” (Smith 2006), a high priority, knowing that their own submitted manuscripts and “a series of interactions among the editor, reviewers, and must be reviewed. author” (Weller 1991). Williamson (2003) argued that peer Time required by peer review seemingly accounts for most of review relies on trust and integrity among scientists, with Raelin the time required for overall manuscript evaluation, with most (2008) likening peer review to a game with high stakes (e.g., aca- delays driven by tardy reviews (Fisher and Powers 2004). As an demic careers). Authors also have applied the famous Winston example, we considered data from 2004–2006 in the four AFS Churchill quote (“Indeed it has been said that democracy is the journals—Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, North worst form of government except all those other forms that have American Journal of Fisheries Management, Journal of Aquatic Animal been tried from time to time”; 11 November 1947 speech to the House of Commons) to Table 1. Publication time data during 2004–2006 for four American Fisheries Society Journals argue that peer review, while flawed, remains (Transactions of the American Fisheries Society [TAFS], North American Journal of Fisheries the best system to serve as gatekeeper to the Management [NAJFM], North American Journal of Aquaculture [NAJA], and Journal of Aquatic published literature (e.g., Robin and Burke Animal Health [JAAH]), including the mean (6 1 SE) time spent in review, the mean (6 1 SE) 1987; Rennie 2003a; Fisher and Powers percent of time spent in review as a function of the time between submission and initial editor 2004; Alpert 2007). decision, the mean (6 1 SE) time taken for an author to revise a manuscript, and the mean (6 At its core, peer review provides an editor 1 SE) percent of time spent in revision as a function of the time between manuscript submission and final editor decision. with insight into the quality and suitability of a manuscript. By the end of peer review, editors should have the information to suc- cessfully separate “good” from “bad” science Days in review % in review Days in revision % in revision (McCoy 1993); indeed it remains the editor’s TAFS (04-06) 59.3 6 2.0 53.4 6 0.9 106.7 6 3.3 38.9 6 0.9 decision as to whether a manuscript is pub- NAJFM (04-06) 49.5 6 1.3 60.0 6 0.8 98.4 6 3.3 38.6 6 0.9 lished, revised, or rejected (i.e., reviewers do JAAH (04-06) 41.3 6 2.3 50.8 6 1.7 70.6 6 6.2 32.6 6 1.9 not vote, they only provide input; Michels NAJA (04-06) 44.7 6 2.3 58.8 6 1.5 66.8 6 4.6 36.1 6 2.2

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 271 Health, and North American Journal of Aquaculture. The number of journal (Annals of Emergency Medicine). Of 199 reviews with rec- days a journal submission spent in review varied among journals, ommendations, 15 recommended acceptance, 117 rejection, and ranging from 41 to 59 days, but requiring between 51 to 60% of 67 revision. The errors the reviewers identified differed among rec- the time between manuscript submission and initial editor decision ommendation groups, ranging from 17 to 39%. Surprisingly, 68% (Table 1). A second large portion of time spent between submission of the reviewers did not recognize that the conclusions were not and eventual publication lies with the authors in fashioning their supported by the data! Nearly 2/3 of the major errors were not iden- revised manuscript. Again, for the four AFS journals during 2004– tified by the reviewers. This controlled approach to evaluating the 2006, manuscripts spent between 67 and 107 days in revision, tak- effectiveness of peer review, in addition to several new techniques ing up 33–39% of the time between manuscript submission and published more recently (van Rooyen et al. 1999a; Landkroon et final editor decision (Table 1). Hence, both reviewers and authors al. 2006), offer promise for future studies of peer-review effective- contribute to turnaround time for manuscript publication. ness. In addition, the use of an index of quality that editors assign to each review has helped to provide some measure of review qual- Does Peer Review Work? ity for some journals (e.g., The American Journal of Roentgenology; Annals of Emergency Medicine; Callaham et al. 1998a) Determining whether peer review works depends on what it is Another approach to evaluating the peer review process has asked to do, and as we demonstrated above, defining peer review is been to assess how closely reviewers of the same manuscript agree. not simple. At one level, we might ask, are peer-reviewed manu- In summary, reviewer agreement has generally been low, but bet- scripts “better” than those rejected by this process? Is “bad” science ter than chance (e.g., Scott 1974; Cicchetti 1980; Marsh and Ball denied publication? Clearly, these are not easy questions to answer 1981; Plug 1993; Howard and Wilkinson 1998; Rothwell and (Jefferson et al. 2002) and they have been approached from a vari- Martyn 2000; Kemp 2005; Loonen et al. 2005). Complete agree- ety of perspectives, including comparing manuscripts before and ment may be impossible, given that reviewers have different areas after peer review, assessing peer review before and after manuscripts of expertise, leading to different assessments. Indeed, authors must have been modified, comparing peer-reviewed and non-peer- have trust that editors will incorporate reviewer background, reviewed manuscripts, and assessing agreement of peer reviews of potential biases, etc., into their eventual acceptance/revision/rejec- the same manuscript. Each approach has advantages and disadvan- tion decision. tages, but each provides a glimpse into the overall picture of peer review effectiveness. Concerns with peer review Forty-four assessors evaluated 111 manuscripts accepted for pub- lication in the Annals of Internal Medicine, conducting their evalua- Peer review has been critiqued as slow, expensive, unreliable/ tions both at submission and at acceptance (Goodman et al. 1994). inconsistent, and potentially biased. Clearly, the review pro- A 34-item evaluation (with a 1–5 scale for each item) was used to cess takes time. Given that reviewers are also authors, we expect assess study aims, methods and design, analyses conducted, discus- reviewers should be sensitive to turnaround time. However, time sion, conclusions, etc. With this approach, Goodman et al. (1994) demands in our science continue to climb. Couple these demands concluded that 33 of 34 items improved, arguing that peer review with the increasing numbers of journals and one can understand and editing improved manuscript quality. Similarly, Roberts et al. why turnaround times for manuscript review are long. Whereas the (1994) used two validated indices (the Gunning fog index and the digital age has certainly saved time previously used by regular postal Flesch reading ease score) to assess the readability of 101 manu- mail, overall time from submission to the first editor decision (i.e., scripts submitted to the Journal of the American Medical Association not including manuscript revisions) remains at about 13.4 weeks before and after peer review/editing, concluding that peer review for AFS journals (data combined for all four AFS journals during improved readability. Thus, while these studies demonstrate that 2004–2006). peer review likely improves a manuscript, they do not necessarily Though we rarely consider costs involved with reviewing, they speak to whether peer review weeds out bad science. are very real, both in time and dollars. Peer review accounts for To evaluate peer review in a more controlled way, studies have 2.6–7.5% of total journal costs for journals surveyed (Fletcher and used resubmissions of previously published papers, or have inserted Fletcher 2003), and estimates of the actual cost per article pub- known errors into papers, then sent them for evaluation. Peters and lished ranged from US$200 to US$2,500 (Donovan 1998; Smith Cici (1982) selected 1 paper each from 12 highly regarded psychol- 2006). Relative to personnel time costs, one estimate has the mean ogy journals, changed authors and institutions to fictitious ones, time for a review at 3 h, with a range from 0.5 to 16 h (McNutt et and resubmitted them to the original journal (published 18–32 al. 1990). For the New England Journal of Medicine, Relman (1990) months earlier). Of 38 editors and reviewers, only 3 (8%) detected estimates the annual cost of peer review to the journal is about the resubmissions, and 9 of the 12 articles were peer reviewed. Of US$1 million, with an additional 15,000–20,000 h of volunteer these, 8 were rejected (89% of those originally accepted), with reviewer time! No such evaluations of financial or time costs have 16 out of 18 reviewers recommending rejection, including men- been published for our discipline, but given the importance of peer tion of “serious methodological flaws.” Using a different approach, review to our field, perhaps this should be explored. Godlee et al. (1998) inserted 8 weaknesses into a published paper, Bias in peer review has received some attention and can occur and sent it out for review. Mean number of inserted errors detected at any stage of the publication process, including the initial deci- by reviewers was 2, with only 10% identifying 4 or more, while sion of whether to review a manuscript (c.f., rejecting it without 16% did not identify any inserted errors. Similarly, in a study where any external peer review) and during peer review itself. By not the authors constructed a manuscript they described as “a fictitious sending a manuscript out for peer review, an editor must feel but believable study,” Baxt et al. (1998) included 10 major errors that the manuscript does not (1) meet the journal’s scope or and 13 minor errors, submitting it to the reviewer database for a (2) meet its minimum requirements for publication. Such pre-

272 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g review screening can save substantial time for both reviewers and journals during 1997–2000 and 2002–2005, finding a significant authors (Groves and Abbasi 2004; Raveendran 2006; Johnston et increase in female first-authored papers in the double-blind journal al. 2007), although a negative decision with such a quick turn- post change, while not seeing such an increase BES, suggesting that around is certainly not what authors prefer. Though the potential a gender bias indeed existed (but see Webb et al. 2008; Whittaker for bias exists, we know of no study of bias during this pre-review 2008; Hammerschmidt et al. 2008 for an ensuing discussion). screening stage. Whether a similar bias exists in fisheries is not known, but we all Bias in peer review can influence publication, through char- must be cognizant of it and make every effort to eliminate it in our acteristics of the paper itself (e.g., innovation, statistical results, reviewing and editorial activities. study species), as well as characteristics of the author (e.g., geo- One important area of bias often not considered is reviewer selec- graphical location, institutional affiliation, gender). Although tion. No clear instructions or rules exist to guide reviewer selection. the peer review process could potentially stifle creativity and Because finding good reviewers can be difficult, individuals provid- innovation (Horrobin 1990, 2001), no conclusive evidence exists ing insightful, well-justified reviews end up being called upon more to support this perspective (recently reviewed in Rennie 2003b). frequently than their less insightful colleagues. In addition, many Another characteristic is termed “publication bias,” where papers journals allow or even encourage authors to suggest reviewers. published tend to have positive results, rather than negative ones. These reviewers may be used, depending on the editor, the subject This phenomenon has been documented in psychology, educa- of the paper, the expertise of the editor, etc. Whereas review quality tion, social and behavioral sciences, and medicine (reviewed does not appear to differ between author-recommended and editor- in Godlee and Dickersin 2003; see also Lortie et al. 2007 for identified reviewers, author-recommended reviewers tend to be less ecology). Two experimental studies have supported this finding critical and more likely to recommend acceptance (Earnshaw et al. by submitting two different versions of the same paper for peer 2000; Schroter et al. 2006; Wager et al. 2006; Rivara et al. 2007). review, one with positive findings and one with negative ones Although Goldsmith et al. (2006) did not find a significant differ- (Mahoney 1977; Epstein 1990). In both cases, the version with ence in the odds of a paper being accepted depending on whether positive results was favored. Clearly reviewers, associate editors, the authors suggested reviewers or not, they did find a significant and editors should be aware of such “publication bias,” so as to increase in the odds of being accepted if the authors named review- control for it. ers to be excluded (requests to exclude a reviewer were honored Perhaps of even more concern is the potential for bias in the 95% of the time), suggesting the potential for negative bias. One peer review process due to author characteristics. Papers published final issue is the bias of the associate editor who may seek to subject tend to be authored by individuals from the country of the journal the submission (for whatever reason) to a more intense review pro- publisher (e.g., reviewed in Godlee and Dickersin 2003; Lee et al. cess by choosing reviewers with a reputation for intensely critical 2006). However, is this a bias in peer review or do authors select assessment. Again, trust among the players is important. home-country journals for submission? Institutional affiliation of the author can contribute to bias (see the earlier example of Approaches to the Peer Review Process Peters and Cici 1982, where names and affiliations of authors on papers were altered). From manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Most commonly, peer review uses the single-blind method Pediatrics, Garfunkel et al. (1994) found that while no difference (Publishing Research Consortium 2008). With this approach, existed in acceptance rates of major papers across institutional reviewers are more likely to provide open and forthright reviews, ranks, brief reports from institutions with greater prestige were given that their identity is kept from the author. This may be par- more likely to be accepted than were those from lower prestige ticularly important for early-career reviewers, who may fear retali- institutions. However, given that paper quality was not evaluated, ation from senior scientists as a result of critical reviews if reviewer Garfunkel et al. (1994) could not relate their results to true bias. identity was known. Author identity is provided to the reviewer As such, the evidence for bias due to institutional affiliation is for background expertise and to gain some insight into the author’s equivocal. previous work, although this could potentially allow for less rig- One characteristic of authors that has received attention orous review. This form of peer review has been criticized for not relative to bias is author gender. When considering grant pro- being fair in that the reviewers know who they are reviewing but posal peer review, several (but not all) studies have found gen- the authors do not have the same privilege (secrecy may not be der bias in favor of males (postdoctoral applications, Weneras consistent with passing judgment of submitted work; Rennie 1998). and Wold 1997; grant proposals, Bornmann et al. 2007; but see By remaining anonymous to authors, reviewers are not necessarily Grant et al. 1997). Interestingly, when studied relative to pub- held accountable to the authors for their comments, though they lication peer review, most studies have found little evidence of may feel accountable to the editor. a gender bias in acceptance (e.g., Gilbert et al. 1994; Tregenza Variations on the approach include double-blind and open 2002; Lee et al. 2006), although detecting bias due to differential approaches. Double-blind peer review makes authors and review- acceptance also would require an assessment of submission qual- ers anonymous to one another. Thus, any information that would ity. One recent study stands out. Budden et al. (2008) compared serve to identify the author must be removed before review. Under authorship of articles published in two similar journals (Behavioral an open peer review system, the authors and reviewers are identi- Ecology and Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, BES) before and fied to one another. These two approaches correct some of the pre- after Behavioral Ecology switched from a single-blind (the author sumed problems with the single-blind approach, while introducing is known to the reviewers, but reviewers remain anonymous to problems of their own. Double blind allows the manuscript to be the author) to a double-blind review system in 2001 (here both evaluated strictly on its own merits, without bias from an author’s authors and reviewers are anonymous). Review at BES remained reputation, potentially improving the review process (Fisher et al. single-blind. Budden et al. (2008) tracked authorship in both 1994). While labor intensive for editorial offices to remove author

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 273 information, reviewers often identify blinded authors (masking scripts are posted for a moderated comment period prior to submis- success = 60–68%; Ceci and Peters 1984; Cho et al. 1998; Justice sion for regular peer review; Gura 2002); an interactive peer review et al. 1998; Katz et al. 2002), due to self-citation and citation of process followed by public discussion (Poschl et al. 2004); posting “in press” papers. In addition, some authors would prefer reviewers of all intermediate versions of a manuscript, associated reviews, know their identity rather than for reviewers to guess incorrectly and author responses to the reviewer comments (Carmi and Koch and allow that bias to guide their review. The open (or unmasked) 2007); an Internet collaboration approach (in Scientific American; approach is said to provide an ethical advantage (Godlee 2002), in Waldrop 2008); and a post-publication filtering approach (the that those passing judgment must be accountable to the author for Faculty of 1000; Wets et al. 2003). None of these approaches is their comments and evaluation, plus gaining credit for their contri- used widely, and no conclusions can currently be drawn as to their butions. Though this approach could lead to more thorough, rigor- effectiveness. ous reviews, given that the reviewer’s reputation to the author is at stake (Carmi and Koch 2007), even under a single-blind system, Characteristics of a good reviewer reviewers are clearly accountable to the editor (Davidoff 1998). Criticisms include the possibility of payback for either positive or The literature is replete with advice about how to review a jour- negative reviews in the future, given that reviewers and authors nal submission (e.g., Rosenzweig et al. 1988; Kuyper 1991; Waser will probably interact through their careers, thus reducing the rigor et al. 1992; Brown 1995; Benos et al. 2003; Moher and Jadad of critical assessments. In addition, more reviewers may decline a 2003; Provenzale and Stanley 2005; Bearinger 2006; Bourne and request to review if they know they will be known to the author Korngreen 2006). Given that our objectives do not include instruc- (van Rooyen et al. 1999b; Godlee 2002). tion on the mechanics of how to review, we point those interested Double-blind approaches have been compared to single-blind to these references. Rather, we focus on whether reviewers might ones. In several surveys, most respondents (56–84%) preferred have specific characteristics that tend to lead to high quality double-blind peer review (Stensrud and Brooks 2005; Regehr and reviews. We suggest that general characteristics of a good review Bordage 2006; Smit 2006; Publishing Research Consortium 2008). include being critical, thorough, thoughtful, constructive (to the Perhaps more important than participant perceptions is whether extent possible), and timely (Goldbeck-Wood 1998; Drotar 2009). either one works better, in terms of review quality and potential However, in an effort to quantify review quality, a number of jour- biases. Most studies revealed only a slight increase in quality with nals use a ranking system where editors or associate editors rank a double-blind system, either in terms of identifying weaknesses reviews on some scale. These scales are generally a 3- to 9-level that were inserted into an already-accepted paper (Godlee et al. system with varying levels of detail provided to the editorial board 1998) or editor evaluation on a 5-point scale (McNutt et al. 1990; concerning how scores are to be assigned to individual reviews (e.g., Justice et al. 1998; van Rooyen et al. 1998). However, as noted Stossell 1985; Siegelman 1991; Evans et al. 1993; Feurer et al. 1994; earlier, Budden et al. (2008) found an increase in the percentage of Friedman 1995; Callaham et al. 1998a; Kliewer et al. 2005; Green papers with a female first author after switching to a double-blind and Callaham 2006; Jawaid et al. 2006). This approach has been system. Clearly, bias may be reduced with a double-blind process supported by at least one study (Callaham et al. 1998a), ultimately with no loss of quality. American Fisheries Society journals should providing a way to quantify review quality and compare reviewer consider this option, though we know that it may be difficult in a characteristics (see below) with the quality of their review. field where geographic study locations likely could lead to author Although some researchers have attempted to compare review identification. quality with reviewer characteristics, this has been met with mixed An open system where authors know reviewers is generally not success. Two characteristics associated somewhat consistently with preferred, with one survey reporting that only 13% of respondents higher quality reviews have been lower academic or professional preferred an open system (versus 56% for double-blind and 25% for status or younger age (Stossel 1985; Evans et al. 1993; Black et al. single-blind; Publishing Research Consortium 2008). Similarly, a 1998; van Rooyen 2001; Kliewer et al. 2005; Callaham and Tercier trial run of open peer review at Nature did not meet with much sup- 2007), and more time spent on the review (up to a limit, after which port (Greaves et al. 2006). Review quality did not differ between no further increase occurs, Black et al. 1998). Other characteristics, a single-blind versus an open system (but see Walsh et al. 2000), such as peer review training, academic rank, gender, and years as although acceptance rates are likely higher under an open system a reviewer, were unrelated to review quality. Unfortunately, these (Goodlee et al. 1998; McNutt et al. 1990; Justice et al. 1998; van findings (other than reviewer age!) do not help editorial boards Rooyen et al. 1998, 1999b), and open reviews are more courteous, increase the quality of their reviewer pool. Younger reviewers may take longer, and are more likely to recommend acceptance than work harder, or they may have more time available, while review- anonymous reviews (Walsh et al. 2000). ers with greater expertise, time in the field, and rank may decline Several other approaches to peer review have been described, review requests more often (Stossel 1985). In our discipline, we but without critical review via the literature, we simply mention should consider these factors as we try to balance experience or them here. One approach is an “as-is” process (Tsang and Frey expertise with time in the profession when choosing reviewers. 2007) where reviewers are given only two options for their rec- ommendation—accept or reject. Reviewers do provide comments, Learning to review which the authors can use as they deem necessary, submitting their revised manuscript with a point-by-point response. In this regard, Most likely, few of us received formal training during our edu- it is somewhat similar to the approach now used in AFS journals, cation in how to review a manuscript. Yet, we serve as reviewers save for being double-blinded and limiting revisions to one. Other and are expected to suddenly know how to craft a high quality approaches take advantage of technological advantages of the review at some point between our undergraduate education and Internet, including an open moderated approach (where manu- our first academic or agency job. So how do we learn to review?

274 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Some students have advisors who mentor them in the review pro- helps the reviewer(s) answer questions from the group. The rest cess, perhaps working with them one-on-one on manuscript review of the lab asks questions and contributes ideas to this discussion. (Calleigh et al. 2001; Anonymous 2007). Other students have not Faculty mentors are responsible for ensuring that the discussion had this opportunity, and they have had to “learn by doing” during maintains an appropriate direction, asking relevant questions, their careers (Tsang and Frey 2007). In fact, Garrow et al. (1998) providing a balance to the critical review process, and making found that even editors usually lack formal training in the editorial sure that the group explores the value of the question being asked process; typically, they learn by collegial interaction with a more in the manuscript (e.g., what is the underlying ecological or man- experienced editor. agement justification?). After the meeting, the reviewer(s) and Can training sessions or workshops be used to improve the qual- reader(s) collaborate in drafting the review, and then meet with ity of reviews? If focused time is spent in a workshop or training the faculty mentor to discuss the manuscript and the written session designed to improve reviewing abilities, the thought is that review. The faculty mentor edits the review for content (is it cor- review quality will improve, in addition to the overall quality of the rect, well-stated?), presentation style (is the tone positive, even review process. Unfortunately, little, if any, improvement in review if critical?), and ultimately writes the final draft of the review. It quality occurs as a function of such training (Callaham et al. 1998b; is the responsibility of the faculty mentor to make sure that the Callaham and Schriger 2002; Schroter et al. 2004). Two concerns review is written as if they were the recipient of the review, a per- were raised—if the process is voluntary, it is most likely that the spective that is shared with the reviewer(s) and reader(s). below-average reviewers will not be the ones participating, lead- Clearly, advantages and potential disadvantages exist with ing to non-significant results (Calaham et al. 1998b). In addition, this sort of approach, particularly when compared with a more Schroter et al. (2004) suggested that those workshops they evalu- traditional one-on-one mentoring or a discussion of already-pub- ated may have been too short; the effectiveness of longer duration lished papers. The one-on-one approach provides a close working courses should be evaluated. One relatively easy approach that may interaction with the advisor or mentor (and may be quite time assist reviewers in learning (and it is one that reviewers like), is to intensive for the mentor), but is not as likely to have a full set of provide them with the other reviews of the manuscript, as well as ideas or questions as brought by a group. As such, the mentoring the editor’s decision letter, with the expectation that all reviewers is much more labor intensive and students will not get the benefit can gain a broader understanding of what other reviewers discover of group discussion. When conducting a similar process with an when evaluating a manuscript. This allows reviewers to compare already-published paper, students know the papers have already their comments with those of others. However, no one has deter- been through the peer review “filters,” and it does not lead to a mined if the below-average reviewers are ones who are digesting product at the end of the discussion, that is, a written evaluation this information or if it is just those who are already excellent. with an accept/reject decision. The knowledge that the paper We believe (and strongly support) involvement of graduate has already passed successfully through peer review reduces the students in the review process. In our view, this represents a criti- intensity of the discussion, simply because no real-life decision is cal step in their development. In a survey (N = 20 fisheries Ph.D. to be made. Students do not get to that last step of the process, students, from 13 U.S. universities), Jolley and Graeb (2007) found i.e., weighing the pros and cons of a manuscript, making specific that most felt that they had received some training in the peer- review process, either by working with a mentor or peer group, or recommendations for improvement, and putting those thoughts by working on their own manuscripts. When asked what training into a constructively critical review letter to the editor with a they would prefer, most indicated mentoring. Without some sort final accept/reject/revise decision. While concerns exist that the of structured mentoring approach, students will not be provided approach described above could lead to a “feeding frenzy” of criti- the tools, information, and abilities that they need to perform as a cism, preventing this falls to the faculty mentor to provide insight peer reviewer. Learning by doing is not an efficient approach, and from their experience, ability, and expertise, and to keep the dis- training sessions/workshops do not appear to be very successful. cussion on a critical, yet constructive, path. In addition, students Of course, these are certainly not approaches on which we should are presented with documents up front about the “rules” of the stake the future success of our peer-reviewed journals. As such, we discussion relative to anonymity (generally most of the journals present one suggestion for training graduate students as reviewers. for which we review maintain reviewer anonymity) and confi- dentiality (i.e., protecting ideas until they are published, guarding One approach to learning to review against subconscious adoption of ideas in a manuscript), to assure that the process is professional. We have used this approach in Here, we describe a model, used in varying forms in a number of the training of graduate students in our labs, producing students labs, in an effort to formalize a process for teaching the “how to” of who regularly and actively participate in the peer review process peer review. Regular editorial meetings are held, during which par- as reviewers and as editorial board members, and who have pro- ticipants (graduate students, research staff) participate in the activ- vided positive feedback through time that this training environ- ity of discussing the review of a manuscript. Prior to any manuscript ment that works. being reviewed in such a setting, permission is requested from the editor/associate editor. If permission is granted, two volunteers are Conclusions and recommendations sought to serve as the reviewer and the reader for the manuscript. These individuals are responsible for reviewing the manuscript While peer review is central to our science, concerns do exist. and discussing it together before the lab editorial meeting. At the Despite its importance, it is curious that we have not required lab meeting, the reviewer presents a summary of the manuscript, the same rigor of study of the peer review process as we do for including a summary of its strengths and weaknesses; the reader our science. A diverse array of literature exists, including some provides any needed additional background information and controlled research studies, from which we can draw conclusions

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 275 and point to some areas for future work in this area. We recom- Caelleigh, A. S., J. A. Shea, and G. Penn. 2001. Selection and qualities mend that: of reviewers. Academic Medicine 76:914-916. Callaham, M. 2003. The evaluation and training of peer reviewers. Pages • AFS journals should evaluate the pros and cons of a double- 164-182 in F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, eds. Peer review in health sci- blind approach to the peer review process in an effort to reduce ences. BMJ Books, London. the potential for bias. Callaham, M. L., W. G. Baxt, J. F. Waeckerle, and R. L. Wears. 1998a. • AFS should consider instituting a system for the rating of Reliability of editors’ subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manu- reviews (e.g., pages 169–171 in Callaham 2003) by the edito- scripts. Journal of the American Medical Association 280:229-231. rial board (editors or associate editors) for use in future pos- Callaham, M. L., and D. L. Schriger. 2002. Effect of structured workshop sible research about the peer-review process. training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers. Annals • Although the evidence for the effectiveness of formal train- of Emergency Medicine 40:323-328. ing sessions or workshops is not positive, they may provide a Callaham, M. L., and J. Tercier. 2007. The relationship of previous train- useful tool for introducing students to the peer review process. ing and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review qual- We suggest that our experience with a mentoring approach in ity. PLOS Medicine 4:32-40. a group setting for training students in the peer-review process Callaham, M. L., R. L. Wears, and J. F. Waeckerle. 1998b. Effect of works well for our students and research staff. attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and perfor- mance. Annals of Emergency Medicine 32:318-322. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Carmi, R., and C. Koch. 2007. Improving peer review with CARMA. Learned Publishing 20:173-176. This article derived from two talks that were presented at Ceci, S. J., and D. Peters. 1984. How blind is blind review? American the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society Psychologist 39:1491-1494. in Anchorage, Alaska, in a symposium entitled “Written Cho, M. K., A. C. Justice, M. A. Winker, J. A. Berlin, F. Joseph, M. Communications: Writing and Reviewing Papers for Fisheries L. Callaham, and R. Drummond. 1998. Masking author identity in Journals.” We thank Donna Parrish, Katie Bertrand, and Martha peer review: what factors influence masking success? Journal of the Mather for their efforts in organizing this symposium, as well as American Medical Association 280:243-245. Charlie Moseley for obtaining the AllenTrack manuscript review Cicchetti, D. V. 1980. Reliability of reviews for the American Psychologist: and revision time information, and Alan Wilson, Stephen (Ash) a biostatistical assessment of the data. American Psychologist 35:300- Bullard, Russell Wright, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful 303. comments on previous versions of the manuscript. Cooke, S. J. 2008. Truth, faith, and transparency in peer review - perspec- tives on the AFS peer review process. Fisheries 33(5):242-243. References Council of Science Editors. 2006. CSE’s white paper on promoting integ- rity in scientific journal publications. SEC Editorial Policy Committee, Reston, Virginia. Adam, D., and J. Knight. 2002. Publish and be damned. Nature 419:772- Croll, P. 2007. Editorial: peer review. British Journal of Educational Studies 776. 55:347-350. Alpert, J. S. 2007. Peer review: the best of the blemished. The American Journal of Medicine 120:287-288. Davidoff, F. 1998. Masking, blinding, and peer review: the blind leading Amos, K. 2008. Transparency and the peer-review process. Fisheries the blinded. Annals of Internal Medicine 128:66-68. 33(4):197-198. Donovan, B. 1998. The truth about peer review. Learned Publishing Anonymous. 2007. Mentors of tomorrow. Nature 447:754. 11:179-184. Bachand, R. G., and P. P. Sawallis. 2003. Accuracy in the identification Drotar, D. 2009. Editorial: How to write effective reviews for the Journal of scholarly and peer-reviewed journals and the peer-review process of Pediatric Psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 34:113-117. across disciplines. The Serials Librarian 45:39-59. Earnshaw, J. J., J. R. Farndon, P. J. Guillou, C. D. Johnson, J. A. Murie, Baxt, W. G., J. F. Waeckerle, J. A. Berlin, and M. L. Callaham. 1998. and G. D. Murray. 2000. A comparison of reports from referees cho- Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript sen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Annals of to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine the Royal College of Surgeons of England 82:133-135. 32:310-317. Epstein, W. M. 1990. Confirmational response bias among social work Bearinger, L. H. 2006. Beyond objective and balanced: writing construc- journals. Science, Technology, and Human Values 15:9-38. tive manuscript reviews. Research in Nursing and Health 29:71-73. Erren, T. C. 2007. Judging words rather than journals or authors: a Benos, D. J., K. L. Kirk, and J. E. Hall. 2003. How to review a paper. reminder that peer review continues after publication. QJM An Advances in Physiology Education 27:47-52. International Journal of Medicine 100:799-801. Black, N., S. van Rooyen, F. Godlee, R. Smith, and S. Evans. 1998. Evans, A. T., R. A. McNutt, S. W. Fletcher, and R. H. Fletcher. 1993. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. journal? Journal of the American Medical Association 280:231-233. Journal of General Internal Medicine 8:422-428. Bornmann, L., R. Mutz, and H. Daniel. 2007. Gender differences in Feurer, I. D., G. J. Becker, D. Picus, E. Ramirez, M. D. Darcy, and grant peer review: a meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics 1:226-238. M. E. Hicks. 1994. Evaluating peer reviews: pilot testing of a grad- Bourne, P. E., and A. Korngreen. 2006. Ten simple rules for reviewers. ing instrument. Journal of the American Medical Association 272:98- PLOS Computational Biology 2:973-974. 100. Brown, R. W. 1995. Conducting an effective manuscript review. Fisheries Fisher, M., S. B. Friedman, and B. Strauss. 1994. The effects of blind- 20(7):40-41. ing on acceptance of research papers by peer review. Journal of the Budden, A. E., T. Tregenza, L. W. Aarssen, J. Koricheva, R. Leimu, American Medical Association 272:143-146. and C. J. Lortie. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased repre- Fisher, R. S., and L. E. Powers. 2004. Peerreviewed publication: a view sentation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23:4-6. from the inside. Epilepsia 45:889894.

276 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Fletcher, R. H., and S. W. Fletcher. 2003. The effectiveness of journal Goldsmith, L. A., E. N. Blalock, H. Bobkova, and R. P. Hall III. 2006. peer review. Pages 62-75 in F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, eds. Peer review Picking your peers. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 126:1429- in health sciences. BMJ Books, London. 1430. Friedman, D. P. 1995. Manuscript peer review at the AJR: facts, figures, Goodman, S. N., J. Berlin, S. W. Fletcher, and R. H. Fletcher. 1994. and quality assessment. American Journal of Roentgenology 164:1007- Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals 1009. of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine 121:11-21. Garfunkel, J. M., M. H. Ulshen, H. J. Hamrick, and E. E. Lawson. Grant, J., S. Burden, and G. Breen. 1997. No evidence of sexism in peer 1994. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewer’s recommendations review. Nature 390:438. and editorial decisions. Journal of the American Medical Association Greaves, J. S., J. Scott, M. Clarke, L. Miller, T. Hannay, A. Thomas, 272:137-138. and P. Campbell. 2006. Overview: Nature’s peer review trial. Nature Garrow, J., M. Butterfield, J. Marshall, and A. Williamson. 1998. The doi:10.1038/nature05535. Available at: www.nature.com/nature/peer- reported training and experience of editors in chief of specialist clini- review/debate/nature05535.html. cal medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association Green, S. M., and M. L. Callaham. 2006. Current status of peer review 280:286-287. at Annals of Emergency Medicine. Annals of Emergency Medicine Gilbert, J. R., E.S. Williams, and G. D. Lundberg. 1994. Is there a gender 48:304-308. bias in JAMA’s peer review process. Journal of the American Medical Groves, T., and K. Abbasi. 2004. Screening research papers by reading Association 272:139-142. abstracts. British Medical Journal 329:470-471. Glick, M. 2007. Peer review: an inexact but essential part of scientific pub- Gura, T. 2002. Peer review, unmasked. Nature 416:258-260. lishing. Journal of the American Dental Association 138:568-571. Hammerschmidt, K., K. Reinhardt, and J. Rolff. 2008. Does double- Godlee, F. 2002. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and blind review favor female authors? Frontiers in Ecology and the credit. Journal of the American Medical Association 287:2762-2765. Environment 6:354. Godlee, F., and K. Dickersin. 2003. Bias, subjectivity, chance, and con- Hansen, M. J. 2002. Reviewer rights and responsibilities. Fisheries flict of interest in editorial decisions. Pages 91-117 in F. Godlee and 27(10):32-33. T. Jefferson, eds. Peer review in health sciences, 2nd edition. BMJ Horrobin, D. F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the sup- Publishing Group, London. pression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association Godlee, F., C. R. Gale, and C. N. Martyn. 1998. Effect on the quality of 263:1438. peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. _____. 2001. Something rotten at the core of science? Trends in Journal of the American Medical Association 280:237-240. Pharmacological Sciences 22:51-52. Goldbeck-Wood, S. 1998. What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts. Howard, L., and G. Wilkinson. 1998. Peer review and editorial decision- British Medical Journal 316:86. making. British Journal of Psychiatry 173:110-113.

Kentucky State University

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 277 Jawaid, S. A., M. Jawaid, and M. H. Jafary 2006. Characteristics of Michels, R. 1995. Peer review. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis reviewers and quality of reviews: a retrospective study of reviewers at 76:217-221. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences. Pakistan Journal of Medical Moher, D., and A. R. Jadad. 2003. How to peer review a manuscript. Sciences 22:101-06. Pages 183-190 in F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, eds. Peer review in health Jefferson, T., E. Wager, and F. Davidoff. 2002. Measuring the quality of sciences. BMJ Books, London. editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association Mulligan, A. 2005. Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncology 41:135-141. 287:2786-2790. Northcraft, G. 2001. From the editors. Academy of Management Johnston, S. C., D. H. Lowenstein, D. M Ferriero, R. O. Messing, J. Journal 44:1079-1080. R. Oksenberg, and S. L. Hauser. 2007. Early editorial manuscript Peters, D. P., and S. J. Ceci. 1982. Peer-review practices of psycho- screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial. Annals of logical journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. The Neurology 61:A10-A12. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:187-255. Jolley, J. C., and B. D. S. Graeb. 2007. Writing, publishing, and review- Plug, C. 1993. The reliability of manuscript evaluation for the South ing: the students’ perspective. Fisheries 32(1):40-43. African Journal of Psychology. South African Journal of Psychology Justice, A. C., M. K. Cho, M. A. Winker, J. A. Berlin, and R. 23:43-48. Drummond. 1998. Does masking author identity improve peer review Poschl, U., K. S. Carslaw, T. Koop, R. Sander, W. T. Sturges, J. P. D. quality? A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Abbatt, J. T. Jayne, and D. R. Worsnop. 2004. Scientific quality Medical Association 280:240-242. assurance by interactive peer review and public discussion. Abstracts Katz, D. S., A. V. Proto, and W. W. Olmstead. 2002. Incidence and of Papers of the American Chemical Society 228: U357-U357 017- nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology CINF Part 1. journals with double-blinded peer review policies. American Journal Provenzale, J. M., and R. J. Stanley. 2005. A systematic guide to review- of Radiology 179:1415-1417. ing a manuscript. American Journal of Roentgenology 185:848-854. Kearney, M. H., and M. C. Freda. 2005. Nurse editors’ views on the Publishing Research Consortium. 2008. Peer review in scholarly jour- peer review process. Research in Nursing and Health 28:444-452. nals. Mark Ware Consulting Ltd., Bristol, UK. Available at: www. Kemp, S. 2005. Editorial comment: agreement between reviewers of publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm. Journal of Economic Psychology submissions. Journal of Economic Raelin, J. A. 2008. Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Psychology 26:779-784. Management Learning and Education 7:124-129. Kliewer, M. A., K. S. Freed, D. M. DeLong, P. J. Pickhardt, and J. M. Raveendran, R. 2006. Rejecting manuscripts without external review. Provenzale. 2005. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review Indian Journal of Pharmacology 38.5 (September-October 2006). quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Regehr, G., and G. Bordage. 2006. To blind or not to blind? What Roentgenology 184:1731-1735. authors and reviewers prefer. Medical Education 40:832-839. Koch, D. D. 2001. Peer review: a group activity. Journal of Cataract and Relman, A. S. 1990. Peer review in scientific journals—what good is it? Refractive Surgery 27:1707. Western Journal of Medicine 153:520-522. Kronick, D. A. 1990. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. Rennie, D. 1998. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1321-1322. Journal of the American Medical Association 280:300-302. Kuyper, B. J. 1991. Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research. _____. 2003a. Editorial peer review: its development and rationale. BioScience 41:248-250. Pages 1-13 in F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, eds. Peer review in health Landkroon, A. P., A. M. Euser, H. Veeken, W. Hart, and A. J. P. sciences. BMJ Books, London. M. Overbeke. 2006. Quality assessment of reviewers’ reports using a simple instrument. Obstetrics and Gynecology 108:979-985. _____. 2003b. Innovation and peer review. Pages 76-90 in F. Godlee Lee, K. P., E. A. Boyd, J. M. Holroyd-Leduc, P. Bacchetti, and L. and T. Jefferson, eds. Peer review in health sciences. BMJ Books, A. Bero. 2006. Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted London. manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Rivara, F. P., P. Cummings, S. Ringold, A. B. Bergman, A. Joffe, Medical Journal of Australia 184:621-626. and D. A. Christakis. 2007. A comparison of reviewers selected Loonen, M. P. J., J. J.Hage, and M. Kon. 2005. Who benefits from by editors and reviewers suggested by authors. Journal of Pediatrics peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review 151:202-205. by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Roberts, J. C., R. H. Fletcher, and S. W. Fletcher. 1994. Effects of peer Surgery 116:1461-1472. review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals Lortie, C. J., L. W. Aarssen, A. E Budden, J. K. Koricheva, R. Leimu, of Internal Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association and T. Tregenza. 2007. Publication bias and merit in ecology. Oikos 272:119-121. 116:1247-1253. Robin, E. D., and C. M. Burke. 1987. Peer review in medical journals. Mahoney, M. J. 1977. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of Chest 91:252-255. confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Rosenzweig, M. L., J. I. Davis, and J. H. Brown. 1988. How to write Research 1:161-175. an influential review. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America Marsh, H. W., and S. Ball. 1981. Interjudgemental reliability of reviews 69:152-155. for the Journal of Educational Psychology. Journal of Educational Rothwell, P. M., and C. N. Martyn. 2000. Reproducibility of peer Psychology 73:872-880. review in clinical neuroscience: is agreement between reviewers any McCoy, E. D. 1993. Review peering: a look at the ESA’s peer review greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123:1964- process. Bulletin of Ecological Society of America 74:232-236. 1969. McCutchen, C. W. 1991. Peer review: treacherous servant, disastrous Schroter, S., N. Black, S. Evans, J. Carpenter, F. Godlee, and R. master. Technology Review 94:29-40. Smith. 2004. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised McNutt, R. A., A. T. Evans, R. H. Fletcher, and S. W. Fletcher. 1990. controlled trial. British Medical Journal 328:673-677. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer-review- a randomized Schroter, S., L. Tite, A. Hutchings, and N. Black. 2006. Differences trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1371-1376. in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer

278 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. Journal of the American Medical Association 295:314-317. Scott, W. A. 1974. Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Personality and Social Let Psychology. American Psychologist 29:698-702. Siegelman, S. S. 1991. Assassins and zealots: variations in peer review. Radiology 178:637-642. DIDSON Smit, C. 2006. Peer review: time for a change? BioScience 56:712-713. help you discover Smith, R. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99:178-182. Stensrud, D. J., and H. E. Brooks. 2005. The future of peer review? Weather and Forecasting 20:825-826 NEW FACTS Stossel, T. P. 1985. Reviewers status and review quality: experience of Far shore of the Kenai River the journal of clinical investigation. The New England Journal of Our optional Medicine 312:658-659. Tite, L., and S. Schroter. 2007. Why do peer reviewers decline to Large Lens Set review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health gives your 61:9-12. DIDSON images Tregenza, T. 2002. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17:349-350. even more range Tsang, E. W. K., and B. S. Frey. 2007. The as-is journal review process: and detail. let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning and 3 fish shadows This Education 6:128-136. projected on telephoto van Rooyen, S. 2001. The evaluation of peer-review quality. Learned far shore Publishing 14:85-91. acoustic lens van Rooyen, S., N. Black, and F. Godlee. 1999a. Development of the 1 fish generates review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manu- 0.17˚ beams scripts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 7:625-629. 2 fish van Rooyen, S., F. Godlee, S. Evans, N. Black, and R. Smith. 1999b. to aid in Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ rec- species ommendations: a randomised trial. British Medical Journal 318:23- Woody debris identification. 27. on near shoreline _____. 1998. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer The review: a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical greater range Association 280:234-237. allows imaging Wager, E., E. C. Parkin, and P. S. Tamber. 2006. Are reviewers sug- gested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a from shore rater-blinded retrospective study. BioMed Central Medicine 4:13 to shore . doi10.1186/1741-7015-4-13. On the Kenai River Waldrop, M. W. 2008. What is Edit This? Scientific American website that’s at www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool- at least or-great-risk. 87 meters. Walsh, E., M. Rooney, L. Appleby, and G. Wilkinson. 2000. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 176:47-51. Waser, N. M., M. V., Price, and R. K. Grosberg. 1992. Writing an effective manuscript review. BioScience 42:621-623. Webb, T. J., B. O’Hara, and R. P. Freckleton. 2008. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23:351-353. Weller, A. C. 1991. Potential bias in editorial peer review: a study of A DIDSON U.S. medical journals. The Serials Librarian 19:95-103. with the optional _____. 1996. Editorial peer review: a comparison of authors publish- ing in two groups of U.S. medical journals. Bulletin of the Medical Telephoto Lens Set Library Association 84:359-366. Wenneras, C., and A. Wold. 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. For complete information and sonar movies Nature 387:341-343. Wets, K., D. Weedon, and J. Velterop. 2003. Post-publication filtering go to www.soundmetrics.com and evaluation: faculty of 1000. Learned Publishing 16:249-258. For demonstrations and sales information Sound Metrics Whittaker, R. J. 2008. Journal review and gender equality: a critical see www.oceanmarineinc.com comment on Budden et al. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23:478- Tel: 757.382.7616 • [email protected] 479.

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 279 Perspective: Daniel W. Bromley Bromley is the Anderson-Bascom Socioeconomics Professor of Applied Economics at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Abdicating Responsibility: The Deceits of Fisheries Policy

ABSTRACT: The imperiled status of global fish stocks offers clear evidence of the comprehensive Abandono de responsabilidades: failure of national governments to provide coherent management to protect those stocks. The universal el engaño de las políticas pesqueras policy response to this failure seems to consist of nothing more imaginative than the free gifting Resumen: El estado precario de los recursos pesqueros a nivel mundial to the commercial fishing sector of permanent representa una clara evidencia del total fracaso de los gobiernos nacionales endowments of income and wealth under the utopian en brindar un manejo coherente para proteger dichos recursos. Ante esta claims associated with individual transferable quotas situación, la respuesta política universal parece consistir en nada más (ITQs). It now seems that the fishing industry is imaginativo que donaciones permanentes al sector de pesca comercial to be entrusted to become exemplary stewards, to bajo el utópico reclamo de las cuotas individuales transferibles (CIT). become efficient, to maximize resource rent, to Pareciera que la industria pesquera tuviese la encomienda de convertirse stop racing for fish, and to make society better off. en la administradora ejemplar, eficiente, que maximiza la renta, que pone These exultant promises are rendered false by the fin al acaparamiento de los recursos pesqueros y que se encarga de crear incoherent models from fisheries economics that are una sociedad mejor. Aunque entusiastas, estas falsas promesas provienen confused about the essential concepts of: de modelos bio-económicos inadecuados en los que se confunden 1. efficiency; conceptos básicos como: 2. economic rent; 1. eficiencia; 3. resource rent; 2. rentabilidad económica; 4. ricardian rent; 3. rentabilidad del recurso; 5. average costs and average revenue 4. renta Ricardiana; among firms and across an industry; 5. réditos y costos promedio tanto entre empresas como a 6. extra-normal profits; través de una misma industria; 7. stewardship; 6. utilidades extra-normales; 8. Property; 7. administración; 9. rights; 8. Propiedad; 10. Privileges; and 9. Derechos; 11. Property rights. 10. Privilegios; y 11. Derechos de propiedad. This spurious and misguided embrace of ITQs can only compound the tragedies of past malfeasance Tal apego al falso y erróneo concepto de CIT, solo servirá para acumular las by the dangerous endorsement of this bundle of tragedias de malos manejos en el pasado, propiciados por la aprobación de confusions, contrivances, and deceits. este manojo de confusiones, estratagemas y engaños.

Introduction

The economic crisis now sweeping the world has been attributed to the abandonment of governments’ necessary oversight responsibilities whose purpose is to reassure citizens that economic processes conduce to the enhancement of public well being. For several decades, the prevailing Zeitgeist has celebrated the wisdom and prudence of the widest possible scope for individual autonomy in matters of creating income and accumulating wealth. These attitudes have flourished in an evolving culture that will- ingly accepted a falsely dichotomized polity—there is the “economy” and then there is “government.” The resultant, encouraged by the profound ascendancy of globalization throughout the 1990s, was an imperative that government (the realm of collective action—“politics”) must not be allowed to interfere with the economy (the realm of alleged individual “freedom”). The currency crisis to strike Southeast Asia in 1997 was an early warning of what happens when wealth creation is unhitched from what might be thought of as proper adult supervision. National fisheries policy since the advent of the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) seems small stuff indeed compared to the economic trauma that began in the summer of 2008. However, the central argument advanced here is that widespread abdication of

280 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g due diligence on the part of national governments with respect To those not indoctrinated by the fisheries literature dating to their fisheries resources arises from the same Zeitgeist that back to Scott Gordon’s article in 1954, this assertion will be has brought us the worst economic scenery since the worldwide quite incomprehensible. To be as clear as possible, the unique depression of the 1930s. “source” of overfishing is that the annual rate of human-induced In national financial affairs the debate is cast in terms of mortality on a renewable fish stock induces a decrease in future “free markets” versus government “interference” in the market. stocks and their productivity. Overfishing, like overhunting In fisheries policy the debate is cast in terms of the documented and overgrazing, is straightforward biology, taught to count- failure of national governments to manage—assure the sustain- less undergraduate students exposed, for the first time, to the ability of—fish stocks versus the utopian vision of so-called elegance of a Lotka or a Volterra. “privatization” and the implied abdication of management. Why do people fish? They fish to gain control of a future The advocacy of individual fishing quotas—known as IFQs or value—fish that can be eaten or sold. Fishing is explained by a ITQs—is the natural resource equivalent of economic deregu- quest for future value. Why do people overfish? They overfish lation dating back to the triumphalism of the 1990s when the because their desire for the control of future value exceeds the Soviet Union collapsed and it was happily announced that rate at which a renewable natural resource can produce future “markets had won.” In contrast to the emerging understanding value. How does one prevent fishing? You do not allow fishing. in world financial affairs that “the market” and its self-interested How does one prevent overfishing? You constrain the quest for players cannot be trusted with the greater public good, quite the control over future value to the rate at which nature can yield opposite ideology persists in fisheries policy—just leave it to the up future value today—and for evermore. If people are caught industry to bring about efficiency and rent maximization. in the act of overfishing, penalties are imposed. Human societ- This faith in the universal beneficence of individual maxi- ies, over a rather long history, have figured out how to prevent mizing behavior underwrites the several deceits of contempo- all manner of unwanted activities and outcomes—from child rary fisheries policy and the bewitching allegories advanced on pornography to organized dog fighting. It is no great mystery, their behalf. I will discuss the five core deceits that authorize and ownership plays no part in the story. Only fisheries econ- utopian claims about the beneficial outcomes to arise from an omists—and ideologues—believe that property rights (or the introduction of IFQs. These deceits are: lack thereof) explain overfishing. Is it possible to stop overfishing? Departments of natural 1. overfishing can be blamed on missing property rights; resources in approximately 50 states seem to have figured this 2. Private ownership is necessary and sufficient for socially ben- out. Overfishing in federally-managed fisheries occurs because eficial stewardship; the government agency charged with preventing overfishing has 3. ifQs must be of infinite life and freely tradable in order to failed to do so. Does it matter that the National Marine Fisheries produce the desired efficiency and stewardship properties; Service is in the U.S. Department of Commerce, rather than 4. ifQs are private property; and in a government department concerned with natural resource 5. ifQs are necessary and sufficient to produce efficiency, and to conservation? Does it matter that the regional fisheries manage- maximize resource rent, in a fishery. ment councils contain locally prominent representatives of the I will show each of these claims to be incoherent. I will then commercial fishing industry (Okey 2003)? Does it matter that offer a brief outline of a national fisheries policy that acknowl- regional politicians interfere with the findings and recommen- edges the clear need for allotted catch shares, but that rejects the dations of fisheries scientists? common myth that an IFQ fishery is one that will not require If fisheries economists wish to offer up plausible hypotheses careful and attentive management by governments. I will also about overfishing, it will be necessary to develop comprehen- explain the economic logic that underpins the imperative that sive explanatory models as opposed to trivial ones. The act of fishing firms must pay a royalty share (resource rent) on the fish overfishing has become elaborately obfuscated by bogus claims they catch and sell. about ownership. Those bogus claims are then magnified in fal- Before proceeding, the term “IFQ” is generally used to con- lacious ways. note a particular set of attributes. In particular, an IFQ fishery has all of the following attributes: Property Rights and Stewardship • Catch shares—portions of a fixed total allowable catch A key to creating incentives for more sustainable behavior is to (TAC)—are given away free (gifted) to members of a provide fishers with more secure harvesting or territorial rights specific fishery based on certified catch history over a to fish. Such rights enable fishers to enjoy a sustainable flow of politically determined time period; benefits from fishing with an enforceable right to exclude others • This allotment is a gift in perpetuity and the gift may from those benefits but generally do not give ownership over the be leased or sold to others; resource stock…. • There is no attempt by governments to capture the …a key to generating appropriate incentives is for fishers to have resource rent in a fishery. the ability to exclude others from fishing, thereby reaping both the pain of overexploitation and the gains from conservation. The Five Deceits Exclusive property rights, however, do not guarantee sustainability…. The Ownership Fetish The key to IAFs (incentive-based approaches to sustainable From an economic theory point of view, the major source fisheries) is to provide harvesters with long-term secure rights of the overfishing problem is the lack of property rights. (Hannesson 2004) that are legally enforceable, along with (Anderson and Holliday 2007:9) corresponding duties by non-owners to not interfere with these

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 281 rights (Cole and Grossman 2002). In practice, individual rights. Of course this is nonsensical. The stewardship properties harvesting rights are often specified as a revocable privilege… of Yosemite National Park, or the Grand Canyon, do not seem However, these privileges are de facto economic property rights, defective by the absence of exclusive private property rights provided that adequate monitoring and surveillance exists. therein. The timber resources on federal lands in the United (Grafton et al. 2006:701) States do not seem under threat by the absence of private prop- erty. Indeed there are plausible arguments that timber resources These quotes are consistent with the tradition in fisheries economics. Sadly, they are also consistent with the deep and are bounteous precisely because they are protected by public chronic conceptual confusion in that literature (Bromley 1989, ownership rather than by private ownership. This brings us to 1991, 2006). We see here that revocable privileges are long- the sufficiency argument. term secure rights, that such privileges are de facto economic The state of Washington passed the Forest Practice Act in property rights, and that these revocable privileges protect the 1945 to require that private landowners replant trees on land holder from non-owners. Those who understand legal matters from which they had harvested trees, or leave a certain number will tell us that it is quite impossible to believe that “revocable of trees per acre to enhance regeneration of the stock. If private privileges” are “secure rights.” They would also point out that it property were so salubrious for stewardship, this law in the state is impossible to believe that such “privileges” are “de facto eco- of Washington would, quite obviously, be unnecessary. The Soil nomic property rights.” These dual impossibilities spring from Conservation Service was created in the U.S. Department of the legal reality that “privileges” cannot be “rights,” that there Agriculture following the Dust Bowl because farmers—obvi- is no such thing as “de facto rights,” and that there is surely no ously the owners of the land they farmed—were destroying their such thing as “economic property rights.” Finally, since those top soil by practices giving rise to soil loss in the neighborhood holding “revocable privileges” are not owners, it is logically of 15 tons per acre per year. If private ownership of land were impossible to claim that these revocable privileges protect the sufficient for stewardship, the Soil Conservation Service would holder from “nonowners.” Only owners can be protected from be redundant. Virtually every city in the United States has local non-owners (Hohfeld 1913; Becker 1977). ordinances requiring that private dwellings (and surrounding Some fisheries economists have acquired the habit of using landscaping) be kept in some plausible state of repair. Owners terms—concepts—to mean anything they want, and very often who ignore such ordinances are subject to fines. If owning pri- to mean nothing at all. Robert Brandom (2000:6) reminds vate property were a sure guarantee that an asset—a house and us that “Grasping a concept is mastering the use of a word.” a yard—would be kept neat and tidy then such laws would be Fisheries biologists must come to a shared understanding about redundant. concepts such as recruitment and age class before they can write These examples remind us that private (individual, exclu- down models of population dynamics. Ecologists must do like- sive) ownership and control not only fails the sufficiency claim, wise with concepts such as succession and resilience. Physicists it cannot even survive the necessity claim. While this fact is are not free to define entropy to mean whatever they wish—at well known among economic theorists, it seems to have gone the moment—for it to mean. In contrast, many fisheries econo- unnoticed by many who contribute to the fisheries literature. mists seem under no obligation to adhere to the precise legal To be precise about the matter, if the “time preference” of a meaning of the legal concepts they invoke. Fisheries economists private owner is such that income now trumps income in the are not at liberty to deploy legal concepts as if seen through a future, then private owners will be quite intent on liquidating “looking glass.” (destroying) a renewable natural resource in order to spend the Ignoring the above legal mumbo-jumbo for the moment, proceeds—or invest them elsewhere (Smith 1969; Clark 1973; notice that the authors regard “exclusive property rights” as Page 1977). It is surprising that so many fisheries economists necessary but not sufficient for stewardship. This hedge is prob- remain innocent of this work. Perhaps they have been smitten lematic for the simple reason that the claim of necessity is itself by the utopian claims for IFQs. bogus. As above, a necessary condition for sustainability—the only On Perpetuity condition—is that a renewable resource will be used (“drawn down”) at a rate that does not diminish its capacity to reproduce …ITQ fishers may often be expected to favor management itself in subsequent time periods. Those who claim that exclu- actions that protect and enhance fish populations, because the sive property rights are necessary (but not sufficient) for sustain- value of a quota share increases as stocks become more abundant. Problems that may arise, such as misreporting or high-grading ability commit a logical fallacy that pervades public perceptions of catches, have been successfully countered by the use of about private ownership and socially-beneficent behavior. This observers, required by the management system but paid for by fallacy draws on political ideology—and nothing more than the industry.…Experience with ITQ systems shows that many such ideology—that sanctifies the individual as the sole decision fishers willingly support and adhere to conservative management maker who can produce “optimal” outcomes. But its core flaw strategies and may also avoid fishing practices that endanger is that it reflects the same incoherence exposed in the previous habitat or threaten other species, so long as they are guaranteed section—the desire to embed overfishing in the realm of prop- long-term rights. But this does not mean that enforcement and scientific monitoring are unnecessary in ITQ systems; both are erty rights rather than in the realm of biology and how humans essential unless catch levels are set at precautionary low levels. act with respect to nature. It is thus unsurprising that the two countries with perhaps the Notice that if private ownership were necessary for steward- most fully developed ITQ systems, New Zealand and Iceland, ship, as the above quote implies, it would be impossible for there have some of the highest costs of management per fishing vessel. to be good stewardship in the absence of individual property (Beddington et al. 2007:1714; emphasis added)

282 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Here we see yet another rendering of the optimistic specula- IFQs and Property Rights tions concerning how IFQ (ITQ) programs are alleged to work— fishers “may often be expected,” “problems that may arise …have [I]ndividual permanent catch quotas of a regulator-determined been successfully countered,” “may also avoid.” Notice that all TAC are only a stage in the development of management from licensing to private rights. This evolution can be expected to of these promising results are strictly conditional: “…so long as continue until the owner has a share in management decisions they are guaranteed long-term rights.” It seems that fishing firms regarding the catch; and, further still, until he has an owner’s can be expected to act in socially optimal ways—except when share in management of the biomass and its environment…. they decide not to. We need government observers—and fish- (Scott 1989:33) ing firms need “guaranteed long-term rights.” The cynic might speculate that this resembles a threat—give us long-term rights [A]nother important issue is the quality of the property right in what really counts, i.e., the resource itself and its environment. or we will not be good stewards. More curiously, the necessity (Árnason 2000:23) of observer coverage, and high “management costs,” suggest that even with the “most fully developed ITQ systems,” fishing The so-called public goods, of which roads, public parks and firms—like teenagers—cannot be trusted out alone. If IFQs are national defense are often-quoted examples, are by definition non- so salubrious for stewardship and enlightened management, why amenable to private property rights. But, on closer inspection it is there a need for on-board observers? Why can’t these firms turns out that there are ways to turn public goods into private goods. (Árnason 2000:24) with IFQs be trusted? For example, Branch and Hilborn (2008) seem to praise the British Columbia groundfish trawl fishery The solution to the current wasteful race to fish involves where individual transferable quotas and “100% observer cover- establishing property rights. Individual transferable quotas age” produced “optimal” results. represent a positive step toward private property rights, and The common assertion (as above) is that IFQs must bestow they have stopped excessive exploitation and improved fisher “long-term rights” and that the IFQs must be fully transferable. profitability. With the exception of New Zealand, however, current ITQs still rely heavily on political management of the It is claimed that only in this way can the holder of an IFQ (I resource. The ultimate solution is full-fledged property rights. refuse to call such a person an “owner”) capture the future value (Leal 2000:27) of his/her beneficent stewardship over time. We see that anIF Q program is intended to allow the lucky recipients of these gov- These quotes capture the standard deceit—that IFQs are pri- ernment handouts to make money two ways—either by fishing vate property rights. There are two genres of literature to which or by selling the gifted IFQs. we might turn for an answer to this important legal matter. Of course reality undermines such optimistic speculation. We could consult some fisheries economists whose grasp of the Since an IFQ is for a share of an unknown future TAC, there relevant legal literature—as above—is seriously defective. For is sweeping uncertainty concerning what, exactly, the empirical instance, Cole and Grossman (2002) discuss how economists content will be of a share of an unknown TAC in 5 or 10 years. are often confused about legal concepts such as property rights. What exactly is the value in 10 years of a share of an unknown Or, we could consult the U.S. Congress. The Magnuson-Stevens TAC if the buyer has no idea whether or not the fish stock will Fishery Conservation and Management Act states: crash because of increased ocean temperatures? It is not in doubt that a seller and a buyer of an IFQ could conjure some SEC. 303A. LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE price that both would find compelling. However, that is not the PROGRAMS. economically pertinent question. The only question that mat- a. In General.—After the date of enactment of the ters is whether or not that eventual and highly speculative mar- Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and ket provides a sufficient incentive for current holders to practice Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, a Council good stewardship each and every season they fish—that is, until may submit, and the Secretary may approve, for a fish- ery that is managed under a limited access system, a the current holder decides to cash out. The requisite incentive limited access privilege program to harvest fish if the properties are vanishingly small. program meets the requirements of this section. It will be claimed (as above) that IFQs must be granted in b. no Creation of Right, Title, or Interest.­—Limited perpetuity so that holders will have a long-run motivation for access privilege, quota share, or other limited access stewardship. Perpetuity induces stewardship, unless it fails to— system authorization established, implemented, or see Clark (1973), Page (1977), and Smith (1969). Apparently managed under this Act­— it is possible to believe most anything. The argument for perpet- 1. shall be considered a permit for the purposes of sec- ual IFQs fails. Does “tradability” matter for long-run efficiency? tions 307, 308, and 309; It cannot matter for the reasons above. The only situation in 2. May be revoked, limited, or modified at any time in which trades among holders of IFQs (catch shares) might con- accordance with this Act, including revocation if duce to efficiency is within a single fishing season. That is, if one the system is found to have jeopardized the sustain- holder ends up with excess landings no great harm is perpetrated ability of the stock or the safety of fishermen; by a consensual bargain that transfers all or a portion of that 3. shall not confer any right of compensation to the overage to others. No great harm would result, as well, from ex holder of such limited access privilege, quota share, ante swaps of shares before a season starts. However, these trades or other such limited access system authorization if enhance efficiency within a single season only. it is revoked, limited, or modified;

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 283 4. shall not create, or be construed to create, any It would seem that their IFQ cases are simply TAC cases. We right, title, or interest in or to any fish before the have an attribution problem here. fish is harvested by the holder; and Not only are catch shares and TAC limits locked together 5. shall be considered a grant of permission to the as “one thing” managerially, there is a good chance that they holder of the limited access privilege or quota share are linked in the mind of those who fish. The linguistic cha- to engage in activities permitted by such limited rade of “rights-based” fishing over the past decades has induced access privilege or quota share. those who fish to believe that they are gaining “rights” (rather than a revocable permit under the control of fisheries manag- IFQs are permits and nothing more (Macinko and Bromley 2002, 2004; Bromley 2005). Of course this legal clarity does ers) when they receive the marvelous free gifting of catch shares not deter the issuance of contrary opinions among those who under IFQs. Having received this enormous free income stream, write about IFQs. Many authors claim that because IFQs can embodied in something they imagine to be a “right,” renders be transferred (leased or sold) they thereby become a property them more willing to accept hard TACs. We might, to good right. The fact that they can be (and have been) contested in effect, understand this to be a form of bribery: “We will give you, divorce proceedings is also claimed to make them a property for free, all of that wealth and all we ask in return is that you right. The fact that bankers will loan money to purchase IFQs now behave better than you have heretofore.” Of course, the seems adequate to these observers to render IFQs a property large management costs in New Zealand and Iceland, and the right. In this latter regard, recent financial difficulties remind need for elaborate observer coverage in many fisheries, suggests us that U.S. bankers have shown themselves quite eager to lend that many governments have been duped. money on a wide variety of instruments of dubious credibility If one wished to test the stewardship properties of catch and provenance. Apparently one could obtain a mortgage with- shares (IFQs), the careful researcher must analyze a large num- out a credit history, without a down payment, and without an ber of TAC-controlled fisheries and then find some that have income to service the debt. introduced IFQs. The pertinent research question would then I now turn to a recent effort to document the alleged salubri- become—have catch shares enhanced the stewardship prop- ous stewardship outcomes of IFQs (Costello et al. 2008). To set erties of a fishery already under coherent and bindingA T C the stage, the authors wish to describe a fishery without IFQs: management? Only then could the researcher be sure whether the claim of stewardship is correctly attributed to catch shares Because individuals lack secure rights to part of the quota, they and not to the existence of a firm AT C. After all, it is bind- have a perverse motivation to “race to fish” to outcompete others. This race can lead to poor stewardship and lobbying for ever- ing TACs that explain the absence of overfishing. Catch shares larger harvest quotas, creating a spiral of reduced stocks, excessive stifle racing, but their contribution to stewardship across seasons harvests, and eventual collapse. is nugatory. (Costello et al. 2008:1679) Recall that the purpose of a TAC is to prevent overfishing, Notice once again the conventional catechism that overfish- while the purpose of allotted catch shares is to preclude racing ing is inevitable in the absence of “secure rights.” And from this for fish in a given season. It is precisely here that we encounter false encomium to something called “rights,” the story glides the fount of so much conceptual and policy mischief. The advo- immediately to IFQs—we are put on notice that in a fishery cates for IFQs have violated the first “law” of coherent economic without IFQs there is a good chance of an “eventual collapse.” policy—one policy instrument for one policy problem. If overfishing From this inauspicious start the authors set about to test the is a problem, then address that problem with a single coher- following proposition: “Can catch shares prevent fisheries col- ent policy instrument. This is the purpose of a TAC, and the lapse?” (Costello et al. 2008:1679). dreary record of fisheries management suggests that AT Cs are However, their findings are comprehensively spurious not taken seriously, nor rigorously enforced, in many fisheries. because they failed to make the essential distinction between If racing is a problem, then address that with a single coherent the effects of a binding total allowable catch (TAC) as opposed policy instrument. That is the purpose of allotted catch shares. to the effects of IFQs (catch shares). Notice that it is impos- With overfishing addressed by a meaningful and binding sible to make this distinction because an IFQ is simply a share TAC, and with racing addressed by the allotment of catch of a TAC. So when they tell us that they found 121 fisher- shares, what possible reason can there be for the free gifting ies using “catch shares” they should have told us that they of allotted catch shares into perpetuity to the members of an found 121 fisheries in which AT C limits had been introduced. industry—without any obligation to return resource rent to the Notice that this correct specification of the research question nominal owner of the valuable fish in the EEZ? The only pos- undermines the celebration of IFQs (and catch shares) as solv- sible reason can be yet another deceit—that by handing over ing the overfishing problem. Since a “catch share” is a portion the public’s wealth in the EEZ fisheries to the private sector, of an annual TAC, this would seem to suggest that prior to members of the industry will then buy and sell these gifted quota the introduction of catch shares there were no limits on total shares in an elaborate exercise of consolidation until decentral- catch in these 121 fisheries. Could it be that all of these fisher- ized “rationalization” has created a closed class of vessels earn- ies were crashing not because of the absence of IFQs (catch ing excess (extra-competitive) profits. shares) but because of the absence of binding TAC limits? Is We now encounter the final conjuring—that the creation of it possible that the authors have captured the effects of the this extra-competitive income constitutes the maximization of introduction of catch limits (TACs) but have chosen to attri- resource rent, thereby bringing about “efficiency” in the fishery bute the reversal of “eventual collapse” to catch shares (IFQs)? which will “make society better off.”

284 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Resource Rent and Efficiency

One can interpret the arguments over ITQ programs primarily as a debate over objectives: proponents of economic efficiency against those more concerned about jobs, social equity, and community impacts. (Hilborn 2007:155)

This quote captures yet another conceptual confusion that has plagued fisheries policy for decades—achieving efficiency versus something else vaguely called “jobs, social equity, and community impacts.” The problem here is the false choice on offer—you can have an “efficient” fishery, or you can have those other things. This framing puts managers and public officials on Figure 1. Fishing effort vs. revenue and cost. notice—if they decide in favor of jobs, social equity, and com- munities it signals that they do not care about “efficiency.” Of Though we could draw on a large number of accounts of this course this then reinforces the worst (or the best, depending) iconic figure,I will use the one that was presented to the Pacific anecdotes about managers and politicians—given a choice, they Fishery Management Council in a report pertaining to the pro- favor “inefficiency.” posed introduction of an IFQ fishery. The authors wrote: The incoherence of this approach does not preclude its wide acceptance—as revealed here in its repetition by an To explain how sustainable and economically desirable resource esteemed fisheries biologist. This particular incoherence has rents arise it is useful to look at a simple fishery model (Figure 1) its origins in the failure of most fisheries economists to com- that includes: fishing effort; revenue and costs; and a biological prehend the concept of efficiency, and then to pass on that optimum called maximum sustainable yield (MSY). MSY is a standard reference point for the biologically optimum level of failure to non-economists where it can do mischief. Very soon catch. In Figure 1 MSY is reached at point E2—beyond this it has been repeated often enough that it comes to be thought point revenue begins to fall as catches fall and costs continue true. We can set the record straight with a few tight paragraphs to rise due to the increased effort needed to catch fewer fish. (Bromley 1990). Resource rent is the vertical difference between the revenue Efficiency is a property that concerns economic decisions at curve R and cost line, C. The difference is largest at point the margin. Technical efficiency is attained when all factors of E1. This point is referred to as the Maximum Economic Yield production are allocated precisely in accord with their respec- (MEY). At MEY the resource rent is greatest, the fishing effort tive marginal contribution to the desired output. Price efficiency is at its lowest, and the total catch at E1 is equal to that at E3, is attained when that allocation also brings the marginal value the point at which revenue equals cost, only normal profits are of the contribution of those factors to total output precisely in earned, and a depletion of fish stocks results. MEY is therefore accord with their marginal cost. Top level efficiency means that a desirable ecological and economic goal for the management of a sustainable fishery. The resource rent accrued at MEY would both technical and price efficiency prevail, and that the final generate the highest net revenue and result in the largest return product is traded in a market where its price is perfectly in accord to society. with the marginal valuation of the consumer of the product. In contrast to this quite elaborate theoretical idea, efficiency in Most fisheries do not operate at E1 and fail to maximize the fisheries literature has become thoroughly mongrelized to rents. They operate at E3. This is because the cost line C mean that resource rent has been maximized. The deceit is then includes an allowance for normal profits. New entrants will compounded by the fact that most authors are confused about continue to enter an unrestricted fishery until E3 is reached the concept of “rent.” and a profit can no longer be made. At E3 all rent has been The concept of efficiency has a profound bearing on pub- dissipated and the stock is being over-fished by the difference lic policy—what we call welfare economics. Every economist is between E3 and E2. Even if regulations restrict fishing to presumed to understand the two fundamental theorems of wel- MSY and some rents are generated this is still economically fare economics for the simple reason that these two theorems inefficient compared to E1. Over time rents can be increased underwrite any possible prescriptive claim/policy recommen- through incentives and entrepreneurial behavior by improving output markets (increasing the height of the revenue curve) or dation. The indirect theorem tells us that for any possible set improving technologies (decreasing the angle of the cost line). of initial conditions—factor endowments, income and wealth (Sylvia et al. 2008:2-3) position, institutional arrangements (legal structure)—there is an allocation of resources that is Pareto optimal. This means Notice that the vertical distance in Figure 1 is referred to that the particular allocation cannot be improved upon and it as resource rent and it is claimed that this magnitude must be is, therefore, Nash efficient. The direct theorem tells us that this maximized in order to produce the “largest return to society.” efficient allocation of resources can be sustained by competi- The reader is then told that fishing effort must be restricted tive markets that assure equilibrium across all margins (Bromley from E3 or E2 back to the “efficient” level of effort—E1. It is 1990). Both confusions—efficiency and resource rent—can be also claimed that all of us (“society”) are suddenly made bet- exposed with reference to Figure 1. ter off when effort is driven back to E1 because it is here that

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 285 “resource rent is maximized.” It is said that here the fishery will profit that would otherwise accrue to firms when aggregate effort be efficient. If resource rent is maximized in an efficient fishery, is less than E3. and if society is alleged to be better off at E1 as opposed to E3, Notice how the authors of the above quote describe this the question worth asking is what sort of magic has transpired process—“New entrants will continue to enter an unrestricted to bring about this happy result? The magic is that firms are fishery until E3 is reached and a profit can no longer be made” evicted or bought out—it is called “rationalization”—in order (Sylvia et al. 2008:2-3). However, these authors have already to generate extra-competitive profits in an exercise reminiscent told us that “the cost line C includes an allowance for normal of a quest for a “sole owner” (Scott 1955). A sole owner is a profits.” The reader is therefore induced to believe that firms monopolist. which are actually making normal (competitive) profits are Scott denies that a sole owner is a monopolist (1955:117). unable to make any profits at all. From this deceit emerges the However, for a single fishery—say the Alaskan halibut/sablefish standard prescription that these fishing firms, because they are fishery—it seems difficult to maintain that having that particu- “not making any profit” would actually be better off if they were lar fishery exploited by a single owner is not a situation ofa evicted or bought out of the fishery so that they might escape single (monopoly) supplier of halibut/sablefish into the market. the impoverished servitude of rent-dissipated fishing. After all, The same reasoning applies to the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island wouldn’t they be much happier as electricians or school teachers crab fishery, or indeed the Bering Sea pollock fishery. (Bromley 2008)? Apparently those who fish cannot be trusted I will return to this matter, but it is first necessary to focus with their own occupational choices. attention on the common assertion that a fishery with effort In a serious theoretical faux pas, Gordon lamented this situ- level E3 is inefficient. The standard account refers to “rent dis- ation by saying: sipation” when aggregate effort is at E3 rather than at E1. The idea of rent dissipation seems wasteful—as if something impor- This is why fishermen are not wealthy, despite the tant is disappearing or being squandered. The problem is that fact that the fishery resources of the sea are the the term rent has a very distinct meaning in economics, and richest and most indestructible available to man. (Gordon 1954:132) a different meaning in the fisheries literature. Rent (correctly speaking, “economic rent”) is the net revenue to a firm that is The flawI have in mind is not his claim of fisheries as “inde- in excess of what would be necessary to keep the firm engaged in structible” but rather the observation about poor fishermen. His its current activity. Economic rent is extra-competitive (excess) assertion is akin to lamenting that an Iowa family farmer is not profit. Industries with blocked entry, or with some other means wealthy despite being settled in the middle of the most bounte- to prevent competitive pressure, earn economic rent. The point ous agricultural land in the world. of a competitive market economy—see the above first and sec- It is now apparent that the “rent” fisheries economists wish ond theorems of welfare economics—is to provide opportuni- to maximize is not resource rent at all but is, instead, economic ties for entry so that supply is increased and prices are thereby rent—excess profits accruing to the lucky firms not excluded “pushed down” to their competitive (lowest possible) level. from the fishery. The pursuit here is simply to maximize the Consumers gain from lower prices. That is the sole justification income that would accrue to the sole owner (a monopolist or a for a competitive market economy. “near” monopolist). The standard account of Figure 1 invites the unsuspecting The slippery nature of “profit” shows up in yet another curi- reader to believe that something horrible is happening when ous claim: effort E3 is observed. It is said that “rent dissipation” has occurred and the fishery is “inefficient.” But which rent do fish- Even when management sets harvest quotas that could eries economists have in mind here—economic rent or resource maximize profits, the incentives of the individual harvester are rent? The common lament seems to be that resource rent is being typically inconsistent with profit maximization for the fleet. (Costello et al. 2008:1679) dissipated as the fishery moves toward E3—but this is incorrect. As effort expands from E1 to E3 it is the economic rent that is The abiding problem here is that the job of fisheries managers being dissipated—and this is not to be lamented. In fact, the is to protect fish stocks—not to try to maximize the profits of the dissipation of this economic rent is precisely what happens in fleet. Only a sole owner (of the entire fleet) in a particular fish- a competitive economy. It must happen if the industry is to be ery would be concerned with maximizing profits of the fleet. The competitive rather than monopolistic (or oligopolistic). At E3 above quote seems to suggest that individual fishing firms should all fishing firms are earning competitive profits—what all firms be treated as mere pieces of capital (vessels) to be deployed or earn in a competitive market. If firms were not earning com- shunted aside so that aggregate fleet profit can be maximized. It petitive profits, they would exit the fishery to realize a greater is rather like General Motors or Ford closing assembly plants in return for their labor and management skill in other lines of order to increase corporate profits. Except here the “plants” to work. Notice that when aggregate effort is less than E3, there be closed (removed from the fishery) are individual firms. Are are extra-competitive returns (excess profits) to be made in the individual fishing firms—many of them family firms—nothing fishery as evidenced by the vertical distance betweenR and C in but pieces of capital to be used or banished as government fish- Figure 1. We see that these excess profits serve as the attractant eries managers seek to “maximize profit for the fleet?” (the “economic pheromone”) that draws entrants in pursuit of I am not aware of another setting in which economists these artificially high returns. Firms will enter—capturing some would seriously claim that “maximizing industry profits” repre- of that excess profit—until all firms are earning no more than sents the pertinent objective function. Firms seek to maximize competitive returns (normal profit). We now see that this thing profits—industries do not and cannot because an “industry” is called “rent dissipation” is nothing but the elimination of excess not a plausible decision-making entity (unless the “industry” is

286 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Contents Diver s ity AFS in Nashville—The First Time Ever 2 Sponsors 2 Accommodations 3 Contacts and Committee Chairs 3 Getting to Nashville 4 Travel Tips 4 Tours and Sightseeing 5 Socials 7 AFS Spawning Run 7 Silent Auction ...... 7 Trade Show 8 Poster Session 8 Student Activities 8 Continuing Education Courses 9 Workshops 10 Oral Presentation Format and A/V Check-In 11

The Greening of AFS’09 11 we gaining ground? Are fisheries andthe foundation of AFS: of Plenary Session 12 Symposia 14 Did you know that 2009 is the Year of Science? 18 Schedule-at-a-glance 21 Registration Form 23

www.fisheries.org/afs09

AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 1

AFS in Nashville—The First Time Ever The Tennessee Chapter of AFS and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency would like to extend a welcome to all members, delegates, and their friends and families to the 139th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society from 30 August to 3 September, 2009. There are so many wonderful cities and towns across the United States but only a handful have such a unique character that the mere mention of their name conjures up vivid images. Nashville is one of those great American cities. Known the world over for its music, the city is equally celebrated for its natural beauty, classic architecture, world-class museums, and famed Southern hospitality. A short drive away from the city will bring you to various civil war battle sites, the Jack Daniels Distillery, and world class fishing places like Dale Hollow Lake (world record smallmouth), the Caney Fork River (trophy brown trout), and Reelfoot Lake (the “earthquake lake,” Tennessee’s only natural lake). This year’s meeting theme “Diversity, The foundation of fisheries and of the American Fisheries Society: Are we gaining ground?” couldn’t have been at a more appropriate location than in Sponsors Tennessee. From the high mountain streams in the east to the Mississippi River delta in the western part of the state, Tennessee has some of the most diverse aquatic habitats and animals on the Given the harsh economic realities of 2008 and continent. The Program Committee is pleased to present a fantastic lineup of excellent presentations 2009, the Nashville AFS’09 Planning Committee is with 32 symposia and nearly 1,000 posters and oral presentations. There will also be 12 continuing especially grateful that the following companies have education courses and workshops at the meeting. contributed funds as of 1 May 2009 to make the AFS The AFS 2009 Planning Committee has tried to get as much of Nashville and Tennessee into Annual Meeting a success for all participants: their social themes as possible. The Sunday night “Welcome” Social will start off at the Renaissance Hotel Ballroom and will conclude with musical entertainment provided at the historic Ryman Auditorium located across the street from the Convention Center. The Trade Show Social will enable attendees Walleye Level ($10,000) to check out the latest technologies and services from over 50 vendors. The Student Social will take Bill Dance Outdoors, Inc. place at the world famous Wildhorse Saloon located on Second Avenue, just a few short blocks from the Convention Center. For the Wednesday night social, participants will be taken to Smiley Hollow, Sturgeon Level ($5,000) a working Tennessee farm located just north of Nashville, where they will be treated to some of the AECOM finest Southern cooking around. A Nashville send-off will end the socials and the AFS meeting on Miller Net Co. Thursday night at the Convention Center, with the official handing over of the AFS flag to the AFS Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. 2010 crew from Pittsburgh. HDR, Inc. Nashville’s central location in the United States makes it an easy destination to get to by way of ground transportation or by air. By interstate, Nashville is said to be located within an 8-hour drive of Striped Bass Level ($2,500) over 50% of the U.S. population. Nashville’s airport is located about 15 minutes from downtown and is Georgia Power serviced by several major airlines. There are so many things to do and places to see in Nashville and in Tennessee you might Blue Catfish Level ($1,000) consider coming a few days early or staying a few days after the meeting. Ohio River Ecological Program On behalf of the AFS 2009 Planning Committee and the residents of Tennessee, Welcome to Electric Power Research Institute Nashville! Tennessee Valley Authority Geosyntec Bobby Wilson Wendell Pennington and Associates, Inc. General Meeting Chair Crappie Level ($500) Phil Bettoli, Mark Bevelhimer, Frank Fiss Mississippi Chapter of AFS Program Co-chairs Camp Marymount

2 AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org Contacts and Committee Chairs General Chair Continuing Education Hospitality and Protocols Bobby Wilson Kathryn Winkler Lance Rider 615/781-6578 AFS Coordinator 731/423-5725 [email protected] 301/897-8616 ext. 213 [email protected] [email protected] Local Arrangements Chuck Coutant Dave Rizzuto Daniel Dauwalter 865/483-5976 731/423-5725 208/345-9800 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Budget and Finance Tim Churchill Social Events Rob Todd 615/781-6645 George Scholten 615/781-6572 Accommodations [email protected] 615/781-6574 [email protected] Team AFS 2009 has chosen a place for the 139th Annual Meeting that will [email protected] provide everyone excellent access to all of the meeting activities and ameni- Program Signage ties that Nashville has to offer. The host hotel for the 2009 Nashville meeting Phil Bettoli Jason Henegar Eric Ganus is the Renaissance Nashville Hotel (part of the Marriott chain of hotels), which 931/372-3086 615/781-6573 615/837-4255 adjoins the spacious, modern Nashville Convention Center; all of the talks, [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] posters, workshops, the trade show, and several socials will be held at this complex, which is easily navigated. The Renaissance Nashville Hotel was Mark Bevelhimer Don King Spawning Run recently renovated and is one of Nashville’s finest luxury hotels; at $139 night 865/576-9938 615/781-6506 Jim Pipas (double-occupancy), it’s a heck of a bargain! The Organizing Committee [email protected] [email protected] 615/781-6628 requests that you book rooms at this hotel first because filling our 625-room [email protected] block is essential to obtaining free meeting space; don’t forget to mention Frank Fiss Program Guide that you are attending the AFS meeting to secure the conference rate. In the 615/781-6519 Sue Lanier Green Committee event they are needed, two overflow hotels with negotiated conference rates [email protected] 615/781-6540 Anna George (Sheraton Nashville Downtown and Holiday Inn Express) are located within [email protected] 706/694-4419 easy walking distance; all three hotels are within five blocks of each other and Registration [email protected] all offer great access to downtown Nashville nightlife. Please visit the Nashville John Mayer Tours and Transportation ‘09 Annual Meeting website at www.fisheries.org/afs09/ and click on the 931/484-9571 Mike Bramlett Silent Auction “Lodging/Transportation” link for complete information on where to stay and [email protected] 615/781-6592 Reggie Wiggins how to make your reservations; here’s what you will see there: [email protected] 731/423-5725 Audio/Visual [email protected] Renaissance Nashville Hotel Pat Black Fundraising We need to fill up this hotel first, so please start here. 615/781-6579 Fred Heitman Photography • Room Rates: $139 single/double, $159 triple/quad [email protected] 865/548-3474 Todd Maszaros • Toll-free reservations: 1-800/266-9432 [email protected] 615/781-6511 • Cutoff date for convention room rate is 26 July 2009 or whenever the room Student Activities [email protected] block is filled. Richard Strange Trade Show • Make sure to tell the hotel you are with the American Fisheries Society 865/974-7228 Doug Peterson group to get the correct room rate. [email protected] 423/587-7037 [email protected] Overflow Hotel: Sheraton Nashville Downtown Hotel Bradley Ray • Room Rates: $139 for all types of rooms 731/881-7255 Shawn Johnston • Toll-free reservations: 1-800/447-9825 [email protected] AFS coordinator • Cutoff date for convention room rate is 30 July 2009 or whenever the room 301/897-8621 ext. 230 block is filled. [email protected] • Make sure to tell the hotel you are with the American Fisheries Society group to get the correct room rate.

Overflow Hotel: Holiday Inn Express-Nashville Downtown • Room Rates: $142 single/double/triple/quad • Toll-free reservations: 1-877/863-4780 • Cutoff date for convention room rate is 21 July 2009 or whenever the room block is filled. Make sure to tell the hotel you are with the American Fisheries Society group to get the correct room rate.

AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 3 Cab: Cab fare to downtown Nashville from the airport is about $25 each way. Getting to Nashville Taxi stands are located outside of Level 1—Ground Transportation area. For more information about ground transportation services available at Nashville International All you need to know to arrange for transportation can be found at the Lodging/ Airport go to: www.nashintl.com/ground_trans/. Transportation link on our webpage. Here’s what you’ll read: Rental Car Information: Most rental car companies operate at the Nashville Nashville is centrally located in Tennessee and couldn’t be an easier city to reach. International Airport, so there are many different options for car rentals. To get from Three major interstate routes can bring you here from the east and west (I-40), north the airport to the Renaissance Hotel, exit the airport and take a left on Donelson Pike or south (I-65), and southeast or northwest (I-24). Ask your favorite GPS device to and go ½ mile to I-40 West. Turn left onto I-40 West and follow the directions listed take you to “611 Commerce Street, Nashville, TN 37203” (the Renaissance confer- above for driving in from “The East.” ence hotel address), or follow these simple directions: By Boat: The navigable Cumberland River flows right through downtown From West (Flagstaff, Arizona) on I-40 (1,539 miles/22 hours): Follow I-40 East Nashville; however, arriving by boat is not recommended by the Planning to downtown Nashville and exit on Broadway (Exit 209B). Turn left onto Broadway. Committee for two reasons: no shoreline facilities are readily available to Follow Broadway to 7th Avenue and turn left. Stay on 7th Avenue for one block. Turn conference attendees arriving by boat and the five-block portage to the right onto Commerce Street. The Renaissance Hotel and Convention Center are on Renaissance Hotel is all uphill. the right and the parking garage is on the left. Maps: For maps of Nashville go to: www.visitmusiccity.com/visitors/ From East (Raleigh, NC) on I-40 (540 miles/8.5 hours): Follow I-40 West to down- mapsandtransportation town Nashville. Take Exit 209A (Broadway) and turn right onto Broadway (and follow Weather: Nashville temperatures in late August and early September italicized directions above). generally range from the 60s and 70s for the lows, to anywhere from the From South (Mobile, AL) on 1-65 (450 miles/7 hours): Take I-65 North to I-40. mid 80s to the low 90s for the highs. August and September are relatively Follow I-40 West (toward Nashville) and exit on Broadway (Exit 209A). Turn right dry months in Tennessee, with an average rainfall of about 3.5 inches each onto Broadway (and follow italicized directions above). month. Expect a lot of sunshine! From North (Gary, Indiana) on I-65 (440, miles/7 hours): Follow I-65 South until it joins I-40 in Nashville. Stay on I-40, following Nashville signs. Exit at Broadway (Exit 209B). Turn left onto Broadway (and follow italicized directions above). From Southeast (Chattanooga, TN) on I-24 (130 miles/2 hours): Take I-24 The Greening of AFS’09 until it merges with I-40 West (toward Memphis). From I-40 West take Exit 209A This year, we’ll show y’all the green side of Southern hospitality, and we don’t just (Broadway) and turn right onto Broadway (and follow italicized directions above). mean collard greens. We’re saving trees—and greening your wallet—by banning From Northwest (St. Louis, MO) on I-24 (300 miles/5 hours): Follow I-24 until drink tickets. Instead of wasting thousands of bottles and cans, we’re going to it joins I-65 in Nashville. Follow I-65 until you merge with I-40 to Nashville. Exit on provide kegs that will reduce packaging and energy waste in transportation. At our Broadway (Exit 209B). Turn left onto Broadway (and follow italicized directions Wednesday social at Smiley Hollow Farm, you’ll be eating vegetables grown at the above). farm by the family that has lived there for over 100 years. In addition to eating locally, we’re working with our suppliers and venues to be green in Nashville. Travel Tips Meeting Location The Nashville Convention Center is committed to supporting and encouraging Parking: The Renaissance Hotel offers a covered parking garage across the street sustainable practices, making substantial efforts to minimize their environmental from the hotel. Charges are $6 per day for self parking. Other parking garages and impact through: • Energy management software. lots in the area generally charge $6–12 daily rates. • Heating and cooling is done using steamed or chilled water. By Plane: For conference attendees arriving by plane, you will fly into Nashville • Low-flow automatic faucets and flush valves. International Airport (BNA), a mere 9 miles from downtown Nashville. BNA is served • Automatic soap and paper towel dispensers to reduce waste. by 14 airlines, operating 400 daily flights to nearly 90 markets and 50 non-stop • Environmentally-responsible cleaning products/supplies. markets. For more information please go to: www.nashintl.com. A customer service • Donation of excess food to area food banks. agent is stationed curbside on the ground level of the airport each day, 6:30 a.m. to • Recycling cardboard, paper, aluminum cans, and fluorescent light bulbs. 11:30 p.m., to provide assistance with any type of ground transportation. Here are Hotels your options for getting to the Renaissance Hotel and Nashville Convention Center Marriott International is committed to greening their operations through solutions that once you’ve landed: include: • Key cards made from recycled plastic. Gray Line Airport Express Shuttle services the downtown Nashville hotels • New pillows filled with material made from recycled bottles. from the airport Level 1—Ground Transportation area. Service begins at 5:00 a.m. • Coreless toilet paper to save trees, water, and packaging waste. The toilet tissue and runs until 11:00 p.m. They depart every 15–20 minutes from the airport and is also made of recycled material. every 30 minutes from most hotels. Although no reservations are required for this • Pens in guest and meeting rooms are made of 75% recycled material service, in order to receive a discounted rate of $16 round trip, go to the conference • All new paint is low in Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), which is safer and website and click on “Tours” to reserve and pre-pay for this shuttle service. less polluting. Metropolitan Transit Authority: MTA city buses depart the airport from Level Travel Our transportation to the meeting is often the least green activity of a meeting. We 1—Ground Transportation area more than 10 times per day and arrive at the encourage you to carpool or carbon offset your travel to the site. downtown transit station, which is about three blocks north of the Renaissance Hotel. As always, we encourage you to reuse your conference bags for trips to the grocery Schedules are located at the Welcome Center located on the baggage claim level. store, brown bagging your lunch, and carrying field equipment. New this year: you All MTA buses are accessible to people with disabilities. For more information, visit can even recycle them with your milk jugs! www.nashvillemta.org or call 615/862-5950.

4 AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org Tours and Sightseeing Known as Music City USA, Nashville, Tennessee’s vibrant capital city is more than music. Whether your interests lie in music, historical, or cultural attractions, the arts or family fun and entertainment, you’ll find many ways to enjoy Music City and we encourage you to strike out on your own adventure. Visit www.visitmusiccity.com for local attractions and activities. However, some special tours are planned so you can meet fellow fish-heads and get a unique perspective of Music City and central Tennessee. Registration for these tours is being handled directly by Gray Line of Nashville. To register, please go to www.grayline.com/afs, or contact Susan Baldridge by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 1-800/251-1864. It is strongly recom- mended that you book your tour in advance of your arrival to the meeting, as Gray Line will have very limited tours available for onsite purchase. We expect several of these tours to fill quickly, so don’t delay! Please check the Annual Meeting website for tour updates, as well as information on fishing opportunities. ALL TOURS DEPART FROM THE RENAISSANCE HOTEL. BE READY IN THE LOBBY 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO DEPARTURE.

Duck River Field Trip • Sunday, 30 August, 9:00 a.m.–2:30 p.m. • $40 Adult, $36 Child 4–11, Child 0–3 Free without lunch, (includes transportation, box lunch, and beverage for age 4 and above. Wear appropriate field clothing.) The Duck River is located approximately one hour south of Nashville in central Tennessee. It is the larg- est tributary to the Tennessee River located entirely within the state. The Duck flows in a westerly direction from the Eastern Highland Rim across the Nashville Basin and the southern portion of the Western Highland Rim for approximately 497 km where it joins the Tennessee River. The river drains an estimated 8,100 km2. Nationwide, the Duck River may be considered as having one of the most extant biologically diverse aquatic faunas with 146 species of fish, 53 mussel species, and 22 snail species. Local experts in the identification and natural history of these species will demonstrate collection techniques, species identification, and ecology and provide an overview of the current threats and opportunities for conserving this extraordinary freshwater ecosystem.

Nashville City Tour—Discover Nashville Tour • Sunday, 30 August, 9:30 a.m.–1:30 p.m. and Monday, August 31, 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m. • $42 Adult, $37 Child 4–11, (includes transportation and admission to the Country Music Hall of Fame Museum) Enjoy a guided city tour of Nashville to include a drive-by of the following: the Bicentennial Mall, State Capitol, Historic Second Avenue, Music Row and Studio B, Fort Nashborough, Vanderbilt University, and The Parthenon. Your tour will include admission into the Country Music Hall of Fame Museum; the museum presents the crown jewels of its vast collection to illustrate country music’s story as told through the turns of two centuries. A treasure trove of historic country video clips and recorded music, dynamic exhibits, and state- of-the-art design all contribute to an unforgettable museum experience.

Civil War—Battle of Franklin Tour • Sunday, 30 August, 9:15 a.m.–3:15 p.m. • $47 Adult, $42, Child 4–11, (includes transportation and admission to Carnton and Carter House) On 30 November 1864, Carnton was engulfed in what was possibly the five bloodiest hours of the Civil War at the Battle of Franklin. Afterward, the mansion housed hundreds of the more than 6,000 Confederate casualties, leaving the floors permanently blood stained. The property includes a restored 1847 garden, slave cabin, smokehouse, and springhouse. Adjoining the property is the largest private Confederate cemetery in the nation, a National Historic Landmark. Next, you’ll visit the Carter House.On 30 November 1864, the Carter family was awakened by Federal troops and soon the home and grounds were commandeered as the Federal Command Post. Tents were pitched in the dooryard as barns and outbuildings were quickly torn down to provide breastworks against the oncoming Army of Tennessee. With the main line of defenses close to the house and outbuildings, the family was soon caught in the swirling center of one of the bloodiest battles of the War Between the States. Enjoy lunch on your own in downtown Franklin (weather permitting), with free time for shopping afterwards.

Jack Daniel’s Distillery Tour and Shindig • Tuesday, 1 September, 9:30 a.m.–3:30 p.m. • $70 Adult $65, Child 4–11, (includes transportation, lunch and music) The Jack Daniel’s Distillery is where it all happens. It’s where Mr. Jack first crafted the recipe for Old No. 7. It’s where the pure, iron-free cave spring water flows. And it’s where every drop of Jack Daniel’s Tennessee

AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 5 Sipping’ whiskey is still made today. You’ll enjoy touring the oldest registered distillery in the United States, hearing the stories, and viewing the whiskey making process. Afterwards, enjoy lunch on Barbecue Hill. If there was one thing that Jack Daniel was known for almost as much as making Tennessee whiskey, it was entertaining. The menu includes battered and fried catfish fillets and hickory-smoked pulled pork, creamy coleslaw, homemade potato salad, bubbling baked beans, hush puppies, peach cobbler with Jack Daniel’s whipping cream, and coffee, tea and lemonade. You’ll also enjoy listening to live music by the “Jack Daniel’s Barrel House Gang,” playing a wide variety of bluegrass and country music to get your toes tappin’.

Nashville Unpublished Walking Tour • Tuesday, September 1, 10:00 a.m.–12:00 noon • $18 Adult, $13 Child 12–16, (includes tour guide) Hear the unpublished Nashville stories, “naughty and nice” about these great streets, buildings, songs, events, and people that have made Nashville a city whose name is known throughout the world. The lyric of Nashville’s history is composed of romance and tragedy, heroes and villains, civility and war, and southern belles and brothels. The stories you will hear while on tour read like a John Wayne or Randolph Scott movie, with characters such as Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Andrew Jackson, and Fannie Battle who was arrested by the Union Army for compromising their soldiers and the Army’s secrets at the same time. All of these Nashville characters will come to life with stories of time spent in Nashville. While on tour you will experience a behind the scenes tour of the Ryman Auditorium, known as the “Mother Church of Country Music,” and long-time home of the Grand Ole Opry.

Grand Ole Opry • Tuesday, 1 September, 6:00 p.m.–9:30 p.m. • $55 Adult, $50 Child 4–11, (includes transportation and show tickets) The Grand Ole Opry is the longest running live radio show in the United States. This is a must-see for anyone coming to Nashville. The Grand Ole Opry is a part of Americana and the show itself is responsible for launching the careers of almost every well-known country artist throughout the history of country music.

General Jackson Showboat Lunch Cruise • Wednesday, 2 September, 10:45 a.m.–2:30 p.m. • $69 Adult, $64 Child 4–11, (includes transportation, cruise and lunch) “Fiddlin” around with Tim Watson”—Tim Watson returns with his high-energy country music and comedy show. Tim is famous for his fantastic fiddle playing, down-home humor, and winning personality. Audiences of all ages love Tim’s funny stage antics. But don’t be fooled, Tim and his band are very talented musicians who offer a great show filled with country music classics. Includes a delicious Southern lunch served family style in bottomless bowls. After this two-hour cruise, you’ll leave with a smile on your face and country music in your heart!

Homes of the Stars Tour • Wednesday, 2 September 9:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. • $43 Adult, $35 Child 4–11 (includes transportation and tour guide) You will enjoy a driving tour through the neighborhoods of the elite country music artists who call Nashville home. While on tour, you will see the homes of country music greats such as Alan Jackson, Trace Adkins, Ronnie Milsap, Dolly Parton, Martina McBride, Ronnie Dunn, Kix Brooks, Trisha Yearwood, Lori Ann Crook, Little Jimmy Dickens, and late legendary performers such as Webb Pierce, Hank Williams, Tammy Wynette, and other famous Nashvillians.

Hermitage Mansion Tour • Thursday, 3 September, 9:30 a.m.–1:30 p.m. • $48 Adult, $43 Child 4–11, (includes transportation, admission and lunch) Tour the stately manor of President Andrew Jackson. You’ll be guided through the mansion by costumed historical interpreters, weaving tales of Jackson’s colorful and controversial life, along with stories of his family and the slaves who lived and worked there. The tour is highlighted by the complete restoration of the mansion, which appears just as Jackson would have seen it in 1837. Also on tour are a film, museum, church, formal garden, Jackson’s tomb, and original log cabins. Bountiful buffet lunch included afterward at the Hermitage House Smorgasbord.

6 AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org An Evening at Smiley’s Wednesday, 2 September, 6:00–10:00 p.m. Offsite: Smiley Hollow The Wednesday night social will be the signature event for the week. Attendees will take a short bus trip to the Tennessee countryside to a place called Smiley Hollow. If you’ve heard of Southern cooking, then you know about mouthwatering morsels that’ll warm the cockles of your heart. At Smiley Hollow, they’ve got some of the best comfort food south of the Mason-Dixon Line and their barbeque pork is world-class. This family farm has been around for about 55 years producing and serving various vegetables such as corn, to- matoes, bell peppers, yellow squash, and turnip greens as well as many other vegetables that grow in this area. In addition to Smiley Hollow activities such as hayrides, putt-putt golf, and horseshoes, be prepared to be entertained by one of Nashville’s best local bands—Next of Kin. Known for its “vintage Socials Americana rock, with a little blues, grooves, and country,” Next of Kin was Welcome Social recently a finalist in the competitive Corporate Band Challenge. For those who Sunday, 30 August, 6:00-8:00 p.m. are not musically inclined there is plenty of room to explore or simply have a Food and drinks in the Grand Ballroom of the Renaissance Hotel, then quiet conversation with a friend. entertainment and cash bar at Ryman Auditorium from 8:00–10:00 p.m. The Welcome Social will kick off the meeting on Sunday at the conference Farewell Social hotel with plenty of food and beverages. But that’s only the beginning! Later Thursday, 3 September , 5:30–7:30 p.m. in the evening you will have the opportunity to walk across the street and Grand Ballroom (center section) of the Renaissance Hotel be entertained at the “Mother Church of Country Music,” the historic Ryman The Thursday night going away social will take place at the Convention Auditorium. You don’t have to be a country music fan to enjoy some of the Center attached to the conference hotel. It will be a good setting for saying acts that we have lined up for the night’s entertainment. 2nd Nature will start goodbye to Nashville and hello to Pittsburgh. the night off with some harmonious tunes about wildlife and the outdoors. 2nd Nature, an award winning country/bluegrass trio based in Nashville, is comprised of three wildlife professionals who have diverse backgrounds AFS Spawning Run in songwriting and performing that span more than 30 years. Next up, the Wednesday, 2 September, 6:00 a.m.–9:00 a.m. renowned band Six Wire will entertain attendees with their “strong vocals, big Cost for the race and a spawning run T-shirt: $30 guitars, and memorable songs.” Six Wire was the first runner up in the “Next Whether you’re a walker, jogger, or serious runner, all are welcome to partici- Great American Band” contest sponsored by Fox Television in 2007. They pate in the 2009 AFS Spawning Run. The 5-km race will be held in Nashville’s were also the backup band for Country Music Television’s show called “Can largest and most scenic municipal park, Centennial Park. Originally a fair- You Duet?” ground and the site of Tennessee’s 1897 Centennial Exposition, Centennial Park still retains features that were present at the Centennial Exposition, in- Trade Show and Poster Social cluding Lake Watauga and a full-scale replica of the Greek Parthenon. Home Monday, 31 August, 6:00–8:30 p.m. to a gilded, 42-foot replica of Athena, and a 6-foot replica of Nike, goddess of Nashville Convention Center West/Center Exhibit Halls victory, the Parthenon was constructed originally in 1896 as a tribute to the The Monday night Trade Show Social will be similar to other AFS Trade Show city of Nashville for its reputation as “the Athens of the South.” For the serious Socials in that it will be held in the exhibit hall with all of the vendors and runners, the 5-km course is USATF certified (#TN04002DJR) and consists of sponsors. Good food and abundant beer and wine will be available while you three different, low-gradient loops. For walkers and joggers, the 5-km course take in the Trade Show, chat with the many suppliers of specialized fisheries will provide ample opportunity to enjoy the manmade and natural beauty of equipment, and see the newest gadgets and equipment. You’ll also have the opportunity to wander through the poster area and see the latest develop- Nashville’s largest municipal park. If you are a first-place finisher, Nike, god- ments in fisheries science and management. dess of victory, will not be present (because of a prior commitment) for your ceremonial “wreath of victory” crowning. Other as yet to be determined prizes Student Social will have to suffice. Tuesday, 1 September, 6:30–8:30 p.m. Offsite: Wild Horse Saloon After the Career Fair, students are invited to kick up their heels at an exclu- Silent Auction sive social event at the world famous Wild Horse Saloon. Home to hot music A silent auction will be utilized in place of the traditional AFS raffle due to a and dancing, the Wildhorse Saloon is rooted deep in country music traditions. state law which prohibits raffles in Tennessee. The proceeds from the auction Students will enjoy tasty snacks, including the Wildhorse’s famous fried will be used to support the Skinner Fund, which supports student travel to pickles, cold drinks, latest name act entertainment, and free dance lessons our meetings, and the AFS 2009 meeting budget. Some of the silent auction during this social. The upper levels of the Wildhorse have been reserved so items include a goose hunting trip on Reelfoot Lake, a guided fishing trip on there will be plenty of space for students to catch up with old friends and meet Kentucky Lake, a 19” color television, outdoor hunting and fishing gear, and new ones. autographed photos of various country music celebrities, just to name a few.

AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 7 Trade Show Student Activities The annual Trade Show will run from Monday to Wednesday at the Nashville Convention Center. On 31 August, Monday night, the Trade Show will host the Tuesday is Student Day at AFS Nashville 2009. The AFS Education evening social, featuring finger foods, beverages, and entertainment. Booth Section, its Student Subsection, and the chairs of the Student space is still available as of this writing, but is filling up rapidly. Please contact Subcommittee of the Nashville AFS’09 Planning Committee have developed AFS Trade Show Coordinator Shawn Johnston at 301/897-8616 (ext. 230) or a number of activities to benefit student attendees. The AFS values the [email protected] for more information. participation and attendance of students at its Annual Meeting—and these activities and opportunities for student involvement will ensure a rewarding Trade Show Exhibitors experience by all who attend. Advanced Telemetry Systems Inc. Sound Metrics Corp Student-Mentor Lunch Alpha Mach Inc. The Student-Mentor Lunch is designed to introduce students to mentors Tennessee Chapter of AFS in fisheries science. This is a great, casual opportunity for students to AFS Membership and Hutton Program make contacts, receive support and guidance, and gain insight into what is U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needed for a successful career in fisheries. Plus your mentor will buy your BioMark lunch! If you are interested, make sure that you sign up on the registration USDA Forest Service form. Mentors can also sign up to take students to lunch when completing BioSonics Inc. registration. Univ of N. British Columbia Quensel River Research Centre Floy Tag and Mfg. Inc Student Colloquium U.S. Geological Survey The Student Colloquium, “The Fisheries Science Career: Perspectives Frigid Units from Interview to Retirement,” will begin after the Student-Mentor Lunch. USDI Bureau of Land Management The colloquium will consist of presentations about landing a job and facing Halltech Aquatic Research Inc. future challenges such as changes in the economy, budget constraints, and Vemco Division, Amirix Systems Inc. job availability. The colloquium will conclude with a detailed reflection on HDR a distinguished career, including an examination of challenges faced and Entrix Washington—British Columbia Chapter, AFS decisions made. Hydroacoustic Technology Inc. Aquatic Eco-Systems Inc. Career Fair In-Situ Inc. Following the Student Colloquium, the AFS Career Fair will showcase a Loligo Systems number of potential employers from federal, state, and local agencies; Juniper Systems Inc. fisheries universities and colleges; consulting companies; and non-profit Glotaku Originals Artwork organizations that hire fisheries professionals. Students are encouraged Lotek Wireless to attend the Career Fair from 5–6:30 p.m., prior to heading to the Student Forestry Supplies Inc. Social. Students will have a chance to meet with employers and university Myriax Inc. representatives who are looking to fill currently advertised or future posi- STAR ODDI tions. Students seeking employment are encouraged to bring current copies NOAA Oceanographic Data Center of their resume. Employers or those interested in having a table at the Miller Net Company Career Fair should contact Bradley Ray at [email protected] . NOAA Fisheries Service Taylor and Francis Group publishers NOAA Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Southeastern Fishes Council Northwest Marine Technology Subaru of America Smith Root Inc Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Poster Session It is a tradition that posters will be displayed in the Trade Show venue (Exhibit Hall on the lower level of the Nashville Convention Center) to encourage lots of interaction between meeting attendees and poster authors—and AFS’09 will be no exception. Posters will be available for viewing beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Monday (the same time that the doors swing open for the Trade Show Social). Poster authors will be asked to attend their posters on Wednesday between noon and 2:00 p.m. to answer questions and interact further with conference attendees.

8 AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org Student Social The Student Social is being held at the Wildhorse Continuing Education Courses Saloon, which is just a short walk from the The Continuing Education Committee (CEC) has put together a diverse suite of courses for the 2009 conference hotel. The venue offers a range of Annual Meeting. The courses range from learning to speak effectively in a public venue, to building lead- activities on each of the floors, but from 6:30- ership skills, to complex modeling of instream habitat for river management. When you register for the 8:30 p.m., two of the floors will be open only meeting, please consider taking one or more of these courses. Some are free, and all of them will help to students. There will be a modest amount of increase your professionalism, perspective, and skill set when you return to your job as a field student, drinks and appetizers available. At 6 and again manager, or administrator. at 8 p.m., country dance lessons will be offered by Wildhorse Saloon staff free of charge. After Introduction to Instream Habitat Modeling Using MesoHABSIM 8:30 p.m., feel free to stick around and continue Instructors: Piotr Parasiewicz, Rushing Rivers Institute, the conversation or move downstairs to hear why [email protected] Nashville is known as Music City! Date/time: Saturday, 29 August, 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Sunday, 30 August, 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Best Student Paper/Poster Symposia Includes 3 hours of field work. This year, students who underwent the process Tuition: Student $150, Member $250, Non-member $300 of being invited to compete for the best paper or River restoration planning demands tools capable of quantifying the consequences of flow and channel poster award will have their very own symposia. modification at various temporal and spatial scales. The Rushing Rivers Institute focuses on developing The best student paper symposium will take an efficient habitat assessment approach to analyze functional relationships between river biota and place Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning, their physical environment at the watershed scale. A recently developed habitat modeling approach, and best student poster entries will be arranged called MesoHABSIM, and its associated software, SimStream, is experiencing growing popularity in river as a group in the poster display area. Stop by restoration and management planning throughout the Northeastern United States. to hear research findings from students around Key Outcomes: The objective of this course is to introduce the participants to the process of a new, the world. Also stop by the Poster Ssession on ground breaking method in instream habitat modeling. After completed, course participants will have Monday night to examine and interact with all knowledge of habitat modeling techniques and a good understanding of the principles and processes students presenting posters. involved in the MesoHABSIM approach. It will help them to utilize the approach and/or its components for Student presentation evaluations needed! the benefit of riverine fisheries restoration and management. The AFS Student Subsection of the Education Target audience: Researchers, fisheries professionals and managers of any level who want to get the Section is working to provide students who general knowledge about this technique and may consider applying it in their profession. are not part of the Best Student Paper/Poster symposia with some useful feedback, but they Mapping Aquatic Habitat Using Low-Cost Side Scan Sonar and GIS will need your help. Anyone attending a student Instructors: Adam J. Kaeser and Thom Litts, Georgia Department of presentation can provide constructive feedback Natural Resources, [email protected], on student papers and posters on the forms that [email protected] will be provided throughout the meeting venue Date/time: Sunday, 30 August, 8:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. and in your registration packet. Attendees at oral Tuition: Student $75, Member $100, Non-member $150. Workbook provided. PowerPoint presentations, paper sessions in which a student is presenting demonstration datasets and processing tools will be made will be asked to evaluate the student’s presenta- available to all participants. tion; those students seeking feedback will be Session I: Introduction to side scan sonar and image interpretation announced by the moderators of each session. Session II: Mission planning and execution Posters by students seeking feedback will be (capturing and working with sonar data) designated where the posters are displayed. Session III: Image processing in ArcGIS (practical demonstration) Look for more details on the process of submit- Session IV: Habitat map development and applications ting your evaluations when you register at the A need exists within the natural resource community for an inexpensive and rapid technique to map meeting site. Thanks in advance for supporting and quantify aquatic habitat features in navigable waterways. The Humminbird® Side Imaging system student presenters and assisting in their profes- allows users to quickly capture high-resolution, geo-spatially referenced images of underwater habitat. sional development! Unlike more expensive side scan systems, the Humminbird® system employs a boat-mounted transducer that allows for the survey of shallow, rocky environments. We have developed a technique Student Workers utilizing ArcGIS 9.x to transform Humminbird® images into georeferenced sonar image maps (SIMS). Students interested in earning a few extra dollars These maps show underwater habitat in a spatial context and can be used within a GIS to map, to help offset the cost of the meeting will be able measure and quantify features such as: rocky areas, large woody debris, and areas of fine sediment to work as audio-visual technicians and carry out (sand/mud). The potential fisheries applications for such detailed habitat maps are numerous and other jobs at the meeting. More information and a widespread, and the tools and techniques to develop such maps are just now within reach natural sign-up sheet will be available when early regis- resource professionals and their agencies/institutions. tration opens in May. Richard Strange (rstrange@ Target audience: Natural resource professionals interested in aquatic habitat. utk.edu) will coordinate student worker activities. Background required: Basic understanding of GIS is helpful, but not required.

AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 9 Sharing Street Smarts About Getting Them to Say, “Yes” to Conservation participation from students. Topics will include: an introduction to stream res- Instructors: Michael E. Fraidenburg, [email protected] toration, benefits of stream restoration, adaptive environmental management, Date/time: Sunday, 30 August, 8:00 a.m–1:00 p.m. use of instream structures for habitat enhancement, and design and imple- Tuition: Student $25, Member $40, Non-member $60 mentation of instream structures within a Natural Channel Design Approach. Join this facilitated "discussion in the round" to tell your career experiences about, “. . . how did you get them to do that?” (implement conservation ac- Leadership at All Levels in AFS tions). We will video tape the session and create a DVD of your best advice. Instructors: Dirk Miller, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, That way other professionals can learn from your experiences. Come pre- [email protected] pared to tell case histories and then analyze these for the lessons you learned Date/time: Sunday, 30 August, 8:00 a.m–1:200 p.m. that will help other professionals create conservation successes. There are Tuition: FREE prerequisites for this course. For more information and the prerequisites see Are you currently an officer of an AFS unit, considering running for office www.ConservationProfessional.com and look under AFS 2009. or just interested in AFS leadership? Want to know more about how AFS works? Want to get some pointers on how to get the most out of your Effective Speaking When the Heat is On! volunteers? If so, this is the course for you. The workshop is targeting Instructors: Michael E. Fraidenburg, [email protected] leaders at all levels of the Society. The goal is to help you work effectively Date/time: Sunday, 30 August, 8:00 a.m–11:00 am. within the Society’s governance structure by helping you understand how Tuition: Student $25, Member $40, Non-member $60 things are supposed to work. Many times we’ve heard from people going Learn to design and deliver presentations that persuade, even when there out of office about the things they learned along the way. This workshop is is mistrust and anger in the meeting room. Bring and present a short seg- designed to get some of that information to you before your term of office ment of a presentation and receive real-time coaching. Come and learn six has ended. The workshop will review the structure of the Society and the speaking models you can use to persuade. For more information see www. programs that exist and suggest ways you can be more effective within the ConservationProfessional.com and look under AFS 2009. governance structure and within your unit (Chapter, Section, or Division). Issues to be addressed include: (1) Roles and responsibilities of the volun- Basic /Intermediate GIS for Fisheries Biologists teer leadership teams. What is the difference between the Elected Officers, Instructors: Joanna Whittier, Kansas State University, [email protected] the Management Committee and the Governing Board? How do they fit Date/time: Saturday, 29 August, 8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. together to lead the Society? If you serve in one or more of those capacities Tuition: Student $125, Member $220, Non-member $250 what are your duties and responsibilities? (2) Roles and responsibilities of This course will provide an overview of basic/intermediate GIS skills for fish- the Executive Director and AFS Staff. What do they do for you as a member eries biologists using ArcGIS, including use of existing data, creating your and volunteer leader? How can you interact effectively with them? (3) own data, and review of fundamental concepts for GIS. AFS programs relative to unit needs. How do those programs fit with your Chapter, Section or Division and how do you fit with them? (4) Effectively Advanced GIS for Fisheries Biologists leading your unit. How can you lead and inspire the volunteers in your unit? Instructors: Joanna Whittier, Kansas State University, [email protected] What does it take to run a good meeting? How do you keep from doing Date/time: Sunday, 30 August, 8:00 a.m–5:00 p.m. everything yourself (and why should you strive to delegate?) Tuition: Student $125, Member $220, Non-member $250 Building on the ‘Basic/Intermediate GIS for Fisheries Biologists’ course, An Introduction to R for Fisheries Scientists this course will focus on geoprocessing, interpolation, and spatial analysis Instructors: Elise Zipkin, USGS, [email protected], and Cheryl Murphy, methods to aid in fisheries monitoring and research. Michigan State University, [email protected] Date/time: Sunday, 30 August, 8:00 a.m–5:00 p.m. Natural Channel Design: Instream Structures for Habitat Enhancement Tuition: Student $75, Member $125, Non-member $175 Instructors: John Parish, Parish Geomorphic Ltd., This course will introduce the basics of program R (and using a command- [email protected], and Wolfgang Wolter, line interface) drawing from examples in fisheries research. Topics will TSH Engineers, [email protected] include: (1) interactive calculations, (2) importing/exporting data, built-in Date/time: Saturday, 29 August, 8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m. and user-defined functions, (3) graphing, and (4) statistical analyses (linear Tuition: Student $75, Member $125, Non-member $175 regression, t-test, randomization, ANOVA, basic nonlinear optimization). A case study will be presented that encompasses topics presented earlier in Program R is a powerful open-source mathematical and statistical software the session such as the physical, biological and technical aspects of structure program gaining popularity in the fisheries and ecological sciences. No prior design. Material will be presented in lecture format with encouragement of experience with R or programming is required or expected.

10 AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org How to Design Natural Channels Using Principles of Geomorphology Instructors: J. George Athanasakes, Stantec, George.Athanasakes@ Oral Presentation Format and A/V Check-In stantec.com All presentations should be in Microsoft PowerPoint or Adobe Acrobat. The Date/time: Sunday, 30 August, 8:00 a.m–5:00 p.m. computers provided in the meeting rooms will use the Windows XP operating Tuition: Student $75, Member $125, Non-member $175 system. Presentations created using other platforms should be converted to This course will provide an overview of stream restoration and will focus on run in Windows XP prior to the meeting. Please save your presentation using the procedures necessary to design a stream using Natural Channel Design the following name format conventions: techniques. It will focus on design elements that enhance the structural or Date_Room_PresentationTime_FirstName_Surname.ppt or, functional aspects of aquatic habitat. Date_Room_PresentationTime_FirstName_Surname.pdf, using 24-hour clock notation for the presentation time. Science, Tools and Information Resources on Upstream Fish Passage Example: September1_Ryman2_1445_Bobby_Wilson.ppt Instructors: Doug Dixon, AFS Bioengineering Section, [email protected] Presentation Loading Date/time: Sunday, 30 August, 8:00 a.m–5:30 p.m. All presentation files must be loaded in the AV Check-In Room. Loading in the Tuition: Student $75, Member $125, Non-member $175 meeting rooms and personal computers will not be allowed since it cuts down This course will focus on the basic and applied science of upstream fish pas- on the time available for speakers to give their talks. Speakers should bring sage, including the reasons for providing passage at dams and road culverts their presentation files to the AV Check-In Room on a USB flash drive prior to and crossings, the physics of water flow and fish biology relevant to fishway the day of their presentation. In general, morning presentations should be deliv- design and operation, fish way design and performance evaluation, and ered by 12:00 noon on the day before the presentation is scheduled. Afternoon criteria and processes for fishway implementation. presentations should be delivered by 6:00 p.m. on the day before the presenta- tion. Exceptions exist for presentations scheduled for Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning. Monday afternoon presentations may be delivered no later than Workshops 10:00 a.m. on Monday. Tuesday morning presentations may be delivered no later than 6:00 p.m. on Monday. Speakers will have the opportunity to review their pre- If you plan to attend either of these workshops, please check the appropriate sentations for compatibility after they have been loaded in the AV Check-In Room. box when you register for the Annual Meeting. Technical staff will be available to assist with any compatibility issues. AV Check-In Room Schedule VEMCO Acoustic Technology Workshop Sunday, 30 August, 12:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m. Instructors: Nancy Edwards, VEMCO Division and AMIRIX Systems Inc., Monday–Wednesday, 31 August–2 September, 7:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. [email protected] Thursday, 3 September, 7:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Date/time: Sunday, 30 August, 1:00 p.m–5:00 p.m. Tuition: FREE Other Important Information The development and popularity of VR2 (VR3 & VR4) automated acoustic Equipment Provided: Each room will be equipped with a laptop com- receiver technology designed and produced by VEMCO has significantly puter, a lectern microphone and sound system, one screen, a projector, and a increased over the last five years. This technology is currently being used laser pointer. by biologists worldwide to assess movement patterns, behavior, and site Special Fonts: Use standard fonts found in the Microsoft default library fidelity of fishes and invertebrates. VEMCO staff will discuss several detailed such as Arial or Times New Roman. Avoid any special fonts which may have technical issues related to this passive and active acoustic technology thus compatibility issues across different software versions or operating systems. Hyperlinks: providing the user with the necessary tools to use the equipment effectively. Do not use hyperlinks in your presentations. There will be no Topics will include Understanding Single Frequency Telemetry, Equipment Internet server connection on the meeting room computers. Images, Videos, and Animations: When creating a presentation, im- Overview and Representative Deployments, Code Maps & Worldwide Unique ages should be inserted within PowerPoint using the “Insert Image” command IDs, Data Rate and Collisions, Detection Performance & Range Limits, Fine to ensure that the presentation remains as close as possible to the original. Scale Positioning Systems, Vemco User Environment (VUE) Software, and Video files will need to be loaded on the presentation computer before they Future Product Directions. Users are encouraged to help us explore problems can be played, so be sure to bring any video and animation files to the AV regarding deployment methods, experimental design, identification of un- Check-In Room. known codes, data management, handling and analysis. Video Codecs: Codecs for compressed animation and video files should be generic codecs and not video or hardware-specific codecs. 57 Tips in 57 Minutes for Improving Your Conservation Success Mac Produced Presentations: Presentations created using the Mac plat- Instructors: Michael E. Fraidenburg, The Cooperation Company, form will not automatically run embedded videos on the Windows PC computers [email protected] at the meeting. These video files will need to be converted from .mov to .avi format Date/time: Thursday, 3 September, 8:00a.m.–10:00 a.m. or a link will need to be created within the presentation that links to an external Tuition: FREE .mov file. If a link is used, the video will play in a separate Quicktime window This rapid-fire listing of tips other professionals have found helpful in their outside the PowerPoint interface. Presenters using Mac are strongly encouraged career is based on the pamphlet "57 Tips for Creating a Natural Resource to test their presentations on a Window XP PC before the meeting. Career That Makes a Difference" and the pamphlet "57 Tips for Getting Them Presentation Preparation: Guidelines will be posted online at www. to say, 'yes' to Conservation." Think of this session as a sprint through the fisheries.org/afs09. Please check the site for further information and updates best ideas in these two pamphlets. as the meeting draws near.

AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 11 Plenary Session Causes, Correlates, and Consequences of Declining Marine Fish Biodiversity Freshwater Fishes: A Worldwide Crisis in Biodiversity Loss Jeff Hutchings, Dalhousie University Presenter: Peter B. Moyle, University of California, Davis, Co-author: Robert A. Leidy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The current state of marine fish biodiversity can be assessed by quantifying temporal variability in rate of population change, life history, There is growing evidence that freshwater ecosystems are in severe and demography concomitant with long-term reductions in abundance. trouble from human influences worldwide. Fish are good indicators of the Notwithstanding modest recoveries in some regions, commercially exploited status of aquatic ecosystems, in part because they are better sampled than marine fishes have been depleted to historically unprecedented levels other aquatic organisms. Freshwater fish are most threatened in highly throughout much of the world. Atlantic cod warrants particular scrutiny. industrialized regions, especially those with dry or Mediterranean climates. Once among the largest fish stocks in the world, providing annual catches Thus, in North America, 39% of fish species are in danger of extinction, as approaching 1 million metric tons, cod are currently at their lowest-ever level are 65% in California and 56% in the Mediterranean basin. The imperiled of abundance in Canadian waters and at least one stock may be facing fish include species of high value, such as salmon and sturgeon. Climate extirpation. The lack of meaningful population growth, concomitant with change will adversely affect many of the world’s large river ecosystems continuing declines in some areas and despite measures to reduce fishing through increased temperatures and decreased flow. Such changes will pressure, serve to illustrate that although a reduction in fishing mortality is likely further contribute to declines in freshwater fishes, particularly in necessary for recovery, it may not always be sufficient for recovery. areas where human competition for water is greatest (e.g., western North Two international commitments made under the auspices of the America, Europe, India, and China). In tropical countries, loss of rainforest, Convention on Biological Diversity loom. The first is to achieve, by 2010, with changes in stream flows and water quality, is no doubt imperiling many a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biodiversity. This objec- species but the loss is poorly documented. Current assessments of the tive, laudable in some respects but remiss in its exclusion of targets for status of the world’s fishes cover only 10% of all known fishes. Of the 3,481 population increase, may be insufficient to effect the recovery of marine fish freshwater fishes assessed by IUCN in 2008, 37% were found to be imper- biodiversity. The second is to restore by 2015 depleted stocks to levels that iled, a 43% increase from 1998. The accelerating loss of freshwater fishes will allow them to produce maximum sustainable yields. To achieve these is part of the global extinction crisis and is only likely to be reversed when goals in the first quarter of the twenty-first century, we must: (1) acknowl- human populations cease growing and better land and water management edge the limitations of fisheries science to predict stock recovery, (2) evalu- practices are instituted. A focused effort, funded by industrialized nations, is ate the merits of proscriptive rather than discretionary legislation to address recommended to assess the status of the Earth’s freshwater fishes and the overfishing, and (3) accept the fundamental utility of limit reference points development of both short and long term solutions. as tools for preventing overfishing and for guiding rebuilding plans. Biography Biography Peter B. Moyle has been Jeff Hutchings is currently professor of studying the ecology and conser- biology and Canada Research Chair in Marine vation of freshwater and estuarine Conservation and Biodiversity at Dalhousie fishes, including salmonids, since University. Since working on freshwater fishes 1969. In recent years, much of in acidified lakes in Ontario in the late 1970s, his research has centered around Hutchings’ field research interests have taken him developing conservation strate- from salmonid lakes and streams in Newfoundland gies for native fishes in California north to landlocked Atlantic cod (Baffin Island) and streams and estuaries. Recent Arctic char (Ellesmere Island) in the Canadian projects include evaluation of the Arctic. His interest in the factors that affect the recovery of depleted fish “health” of mountain meadow sys- populations began with the collapse of Newfoundland’s northern Atlantic tems, studying long-term trends in cod in the early 1990s. In a general sense, his research centers on ques- fish populations in Sierra streams, tions pertaining to the life history evolution, behavioral ecology, population examining fish population trends dynamics, and conservation biology of marine and anadromous fishes. in the San Francisco Estuary, and From an applied perspective, this work has bearing on questions pertaining evaluating environmental flows for to the collapse, recovery and sustainable harvesting of marine fishes; inter- the Okavango Delta, Botswana. He is helping to restore Chinook salmon actions between wild and farmed Atlantic salmon; population consequences runs to 150 miles of dry San Joaquin River, based on his work on restor- of fisheries-induced evolution; and the biodiversity of Arctic and sub-Arctic ing native fish to Putah Creek. He is author of Inland Fishes of California fishes. Among his current responsibilities, he is chair of the Committee (2002), Fishes: An Introduction to Ichthyology (with J. J. Cech, fifth edition, on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Canada’s 2002), and a co-author of Envisioning Futures for the Sacramento-San national science advisory body responsible for assessing the status of Joaquin Delta (2007) and California Salmonids: Status of an Emblematic species at risk and communicating that advice to the federal government. Fauna (2008). For his work, he was given the Award of Excellence by the He is incoming vice president (future president) of the Canadian Society for American Fisheries Society in 2007. He is professor of fish biology in the Ecology and Evolution and has served on the editorial boards of several Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology and the Center for fisheries and environmental science journals. Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis.

12 AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org Making a Difference with Habitat Requires More than Good Intentions: Human Diversity: The Challenge of Getting in the Game and Moving the Needle Sustaining Fisheries Science, and its Scientists Douglas J. Austen, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Ambrose Jearld, Jr., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Investment in habitat restoration and protection by fisheries managers Assessing the role diversity plays in increasing democratization and aquatic conservationists has been vital for addressing fisheries resource and excellence in both the fisheries workplace as well as in the larger needs. Fisheries professionals have certainly been instrumental in the devel- society is an important issue for AFS. Opportunities within AFS have opment and application of instream, reservoir, and lake habitat improvement expanded and parallel the growth of access in U.S. academies and practices. Further, fisheries managers have increasingly been engaged in the workforce. To properly assess the current status of diversity in large-scale efforts focused on watersheds or river basins. Yet despite these efforts and interest, our profession, as a whole, is lacking central involve- fisheries sciences—and to predict future successes—we must identify ment and focus in fundamental opportunities such as large-scale agricultural the practices that support effective access as well as those practices and land management programs, local and regional watershed and land use and beliefs that inhibit access. Promising practices must be refined, planning, and integrated monitoring and assessment at other than project- effective practices must be expanded, and practices that create barriers based scales. Certainly, exceptions do exist and these provide a model for must be eliminated. New paradigms and perspectives that draw from a how we should direct our activities in the future. For fisheries professionals to broad array of disciplines and sectors for examining and understanding be increasingly effective in playing a central and more relevant role in aquatic diversity as a value should be considered. Most vitally, we must habitat restoration, we will need to ensure our input into the various processes broaden our ideas about diversity to create genuine access at all levels leading to restoration. For example, fisheries professionals may be more ef- and stages within science, and especially within the marine and aquatic fective in pursuing a role that could be described as a “conservation business sciences. In so doing, we will strengthen AFS as a whole, as a member manager.” In this role, their biological restoration expertise is complemented of the wider fisheries community, and as a positive force in our larger by a set of skills that allows them to facilitate the interaction between local ef- global community. forts, funding agencies (i.e., local, state, federal and private), and assessment components. This model has been well-developed by many non-governmental Biography organizations, but has not been embraced by many agencies. This will require A strong advocate of pushing current field biologists into expanded roles where their expertise NOAA’s commitment to diversity and experience is more broadly utilized and leadership roles more frequently and equity in employment, employed. Ambrose Jearld, Jr. has devoted A second major challenge to our restoration efforts is the ability to much of his career to working focus those efforts sufficiently to achieve measurable successes. Restoration efforts are plagued by insufficient investment, minimal monitoring, a lack of with higher education institutions geographic focus, and unrealistic temporal expectations. Work on the develop- (especially historically black ment of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP) was motivated to more colleges and universities effectively focus habitat restoration efforts, provide a vehicle for identification of and other minority serving priorities, establishment of measurement criteria, and engagement of appropri- institutions) and other research ate entities at all levels. Yet this will be challenged by the politics of sharing the and education organizations wealth too broadly and the commensurate lack of impact. Both of these issues to make oceanography and will be addressed, and challenges for the future outlined, as we continue to marine biology more accessible consider how fisheries professionals can have a more direct and meaningful to a diverse body of students role for the benefit of our aquatic resources. and research faculty. In early 2009 he discussed sustainable Biography fisheries in “Ocean ChallengeLive!,” an Internet education program Douglas J. Austen is the ninth execu- linking middle and high school students and teachers to live learning tive director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat adventures. He earned a Ph.D. in zoology from Oklahoma State Commission (PFBC). In that role he has helped to obtain passage the first fishing license and boat University, and in 1978 became a fisheries biologist at NOAA’s registration funding increase for the PFBC since Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Woods Hole Laboratory. He is 1995 and to secure Growing Greener II special bond currently director of academic programs. He is a charter member and funds to reinvest in infrastructure that supports the former chair of the Woods Hole Black History Month Committee, and is aquatic environment and recreational fishing and chair of the Woods Hole Diversity Advisory Committee, a multi-institution boating. Under his guidance, PFBC created a new committee that advises six Woods Hole science organizations. He has Division of Habitat Management, adopted and imple- provided NOAA with leadership on national and international fisheries mented a new five-year strategic plan, created a new Fishing Access Program affairs, notably in South Africa and six West African countries around and Boating Infrastructure Grant Program, and expanded biological staffing the Gulf of Guinea. He is a member of the Board of Trustees at the and expertise on rivers and other important resources. His leadership at a na- Massachusetts Maritime Academy and the Sea Education Association, tional level includes serving as chairman of the core workgroup that developed and is a member of the National Association of Marine Laboratories the landmark National Fish Habitat Initiative, president of the Northeast Fish Education and Diversity Working Group. He is active in numerous and Wildlife Association, and president of the North Central Division and Illinois professional and technical scientific societies, including the research Chapter of AFS. Austen has nearly 30 years of fisheries and natural resource society, Sigma Xi. management experience in a variety of top-level positions.

AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 13 3. Pacific Cod: Biology, Population Structure, Stock Assessment, and Fisheries • Monday, 31 August • Alexei M. Orlov The Pacific cod is one of the major target species for commercial fleets in the North Pacific. Its range is between the Yellow Sea and California in the south, to the northern Bering Sea in the north. The area of its distribution is within the coastal waters of Canada, the United States, Russia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. In spite of the great signifi- cance of these fisheries, the population structure of Pacific cod is not entirely clear. In particular, the present stock condition and the causes of large fluctuations in abundance in different parts of the range have been studied insufficiently. In some regions cod stocks are at a low level, which makes it necessary to propose stock recovery measures. Meanwhile, most countries fishing for cod are applying different assessment tech- niques to explore its population structure. We will provide an overview of the current status of knowledge on the biology, population structure, role in ecosystems, stock assessments, and fisheries of Pacific cod in the North Pacific. Research needs and perspectives for further advancement in this field also shall be identified.

Symposia 4. Bycatch Reduction Developments • Monday, 31 August 1. Best Student Paper Symposium • Lee Benaka • Monday, 31 August and Tuesday, 1 September This symposium will share recent efforts by NOAA Fisheries researchers • Richard Fulford and Jim Peterson and managers to reduce bycatch in domestic and international fisher- For the third year in a row, a Student Symposium will showcase some of the ies. Specifically, this symposium will focus on bycatch estimation and best and brightest young talent in our Society, with awards going to the Best bio-economic modeling, international provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Oral Presentation and Best Poster. Student authors of 20 oral presentations Reauthorization Act, seabird bycatch, and fishing gear research projects and 7 posters will vie for top honors in this competition. In order to make the supported by NOAA Fisheries. This symposium will be valuable to AFS final cut and be invited to participate in this symposium, each student was members and participants who are interested in ecosystem-based marine required to submit a detailed abstract of their work to a panel of judges, along fisheries management, who have participated in or are interested in co- with a recommendation letter from their advisors. The judges then chose operative research, and who are involved with observer or other fisheries the best posters and talks and invited the students to participate. During the monitoring programs. Sponsored by the AFS Marine Fisheries Section. symposium and poster viewings, the same panel of judges will evaluate each student, thus eliminating problems in inconsistent judging from years past. Winners of the competition will be announced at the Business Meeting on 5. Headwater Streams III: Linkages, Function, and Diversity. Tuesday, 1 September. Sponsored by the AFS Education Section. • Monday, 31 August and Tuesday, 1 September • Kyle Hartman, Jon Niles, and Jered Studinski 2. The Use of Functional Genomics and Changes in Gene Expression The diversity of life contained in headwater streams (springs, intermittent, Assays in Aquaculture and Fisheries Research first and second-order streams) contributes to the overall biodiversity of • Monday, 31 August and Tuesday, 1 September a river system. Small streams differ widely in their physical, chemical, • Yniv Palti, Matthew L. Rise, and Ken Overturf and biotic attributes, and provide habitats for a range of unique species. The rapid development of genome databases and tools for fish genomics Headwater species include permanent residents as well as migrants research in recent years has enabled the increased application of transcrip- that travel to headwaters at particular seasons or life stages. Movement tome and proteome analysis in aquaculture and fisheries research. Functional by migrants and stream flow links headwater streams with downstream genomics tools (e.g., real time PCR, targeted cDNA libraries, cDNA and oli- rivers and the terrestrial ecosystem. Additionally, the exports of headwater gonucleotide microarrays) are now used routinely in discovering physiological streams (emergent and drifting insects, detritus, sediment, etc.) play a pathways involved in biological processes of importance to the health of wild key role in structuring downstream river ecology. Degradation and loss of and cultured fish. We will present examples of the application of these new headwaters and their connectivity to ecosystems downstream threaten technologies in aquaculture and fisheries research, and we will evaluate their the biological diversity of entire river networks. Across North America, potential and pitfalls. Three sub-sessions will discuss: (1) growth in response headwater streams have different functions and contributions to the eco- to changes in diet and feeding, (2) responses to immunogenic stimuli (e.g., logical framework. We will explore the diversity between headwater sys- pathogens, pathogen-associated molecular patterns), and (3) responses to tems across North America and how these unique systems interact with toxicants and environmental stressors. AFS members and participants will downstream rivers and their terrestrial ecosystems. To assist us, we have benefit from exposure to state-of-the-art genomic research technologies and gathered speakers across a wide range of geographies (Great Plains; acquire a better understanding of how to evaluate the data from these stud- Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts; Appalachians; and Rocky Mountains) ies. Sponsored by the AFS Physiology Section. and systems (deserts, forests, grasslands, urban, and coastal plains).

14 AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 6. Reframing the Argument for Sustainable Global Fisheries: Striped bass and hybrids of striped bass and white bass have provided some Resources, Policy, Governance, Business Strategies, and Management immensely successful sport fisheries in inland waters since landlocked, • Monday, 31 August and Tuesday, 1 September freshwater populations were initially established in the 1950s. Stripers and • William Taylor, Michael Schechter, Abigail Schroeder, their hybrids provided fisheries managers with large, charismatic trophy fish Abigail Lynch, and Doug Beard for anglers, as well as top predators to harvest overabundant shad, especially While the case for sustainable fisheries has been made effectively to most in Southeastern reservoirs. Hatchery practices for reproducing striped bass fisheries professionals, it has not been a significant priority for the major- and hybrids have been developed and stocking programs have proliferated. ity of policy makers and the public. The problem needs to be reframed to With extensive expansion of these fish in inland waters and several decades emphasize the importance of fish as a source of protein and essential fatty of management experience, many questions and critical management choices acids, the employment possibilities and economic opportunities available have arisen: Why are fisheries successful in some waters but not others? throughout the fisheries supply chain, the health and environmental dangers What habitat features are favorable or limiting? Can habitat be managed for of unsupervised aquaculture, and the inadequacy of the existing governance successful striper fisheries? What are optimal stocking rates for particular structures for sustaining global fisheries. To adequately address sustain- waters? What are the relationships between habitat, prey availability, and ability, policy makers and the public must be re-educated to understand that striper growth to trophy sizes? Which is better for anglers, a few trophy fish relying on “the market” to sustain fish or lead to technological fixes will not or many smaller and easily caught fish? Under what conditions does natural prevent the exhaustion of capture fisheries and that climate change, invasive reproduction occur, and is this good or bad for management? How can we species, and habitat destruction will have significant effects on fisheries best assess stocks? Do stocks stay where introduced or emigrate elsewhere? and fisheries ecosystems. This symposium will serve as a key directive for Under what conditions is it better to use hybrids than pure striped bass? How convening a United Nations Conference on Sustainable Fisheries in 2011. do managers handle user conflicts between striper and black bass anglers? One of the chief values of such UN conferences is to draw media and policy What new tools do managers have, such as telemetry, bioenergetics, and maker attention to key global problems that are not adequately addressed by population models, and how useful are they? Sponsored by the Striped Bass existing governance structures. The symposium will underscore the urgency Committee of the AFS Southern Division. of the sustainable fisheries issue and will highlight inadequacies of current institutional mechanisms to deal with this global concern. Expected outcomes 9. Promoting Innovation in Fish Passage and Protection include identification of and emphasis on areas for change, drafting of a tenta- • Monday, 31 August and Tuesday, 1 September tive agenda for the 2011 UN conference, and preliminary recommendations • Theodore Castro-Santos and Paul Kemp on the issues to be discussed and on the leadership for the UN conference. The year 2009 marks the 100th anniversary of the development of the Denil The revised symposium presentations will then be published in book format fishway. The past century has seen a dramatic increase in awareness of the by AFS for further dissemination to policy makers and the public. importance of fish passage as a management tool, yet fish passage and fish protection continue to pose serious challenges to the bioengineer. In recent 7. Lake Trout: Threats to Native Western Salmonids years, a number of studies have suggested that the performance of existing • Monday, 31 August structures and methods may not be as effective as managers had hoped. • Robert Gresswell, Molly Webb, Christopher Guy, Furthermore, an increasing appreciation for biodiversity and the need to and Jackson Gross protect a range of organisms (not just target species) has led to serious chal- Lake trout were first discovered in Yellowstone Lake in 1994, and since lenges to existing paradigms. This symposium will serve as a benchmark for then, this nonnative predator has significantly altered the demographics of establishing the current “state of the art” in fish passage and protection, but native Yellowstone cutthroat trout. The entire food web of the ecosystem more importantly will set the stage for future progress, with each author being has been modified as cutthroat trout abundance has dwindled. The National tasked to identify areas in need of improvement and identifying research Park Service has been actively attempting to reduce the effects of lake trout, needs and solutions for these problems. This symposium will be a series of primarily by capture with gill nets, and over 200,000 lake trout have been review papers with the aim of presenting a holistic perspective of the field. removed. Despite some signs of success, several negative factors are as- Careful attention will be paid to fundamental physical and biological principles, sociated with this technique, including expense of equipment and associated and the symposium will conclude with a series of talks focusing on basic work force. Research is currently focused on developing innovative methods research and what the fields of biomechanics, physiology, and behavior can for the destruction of lake trout at various life stages in natural settings, which offer to the bioengineering community. Sponsored by the AFS Bioengineering will have broad applicability to areas across the northern Rocky Mountains. Section and the Leverhulme International Network, an international fellowship Successful suppression could enhance efforts to protect bull trout in lacustrine of scientists studying fish responses to hydraulic phenomena. habitats, and it may be critical in attempts to preclude listing of Yellowstone cutthroat trout and westslope cutthroat trout under the Endangered Species 10. Incorporating Environmental Factors in Stock Assessments Act. Our objective is to exchange information on the status of lake trout inva- • Tuesday, 1 September sions and their impacts, allow for the development of collaborations among • Steve Cadrin and Douglas Vaughan universities and agencies, and learn about issues surrounding the invasion Stock assessment of fishery resources typically synthesizes information on of lake trout, multiagency approaches to invasive species eradication, and the life history of the target species, fishery information, and relative indices innovative techniques for destruction. of abundance. Although these traditional assessment models account for the major components of the system, they ignore environmental factors which 8. Striper 2009: Inland Striped Bass and Hybrid Striped Bass Management may also influence productivity. Stock assessment models have advanced in • Monday–Wednesday, 31 August–2 September several dimensions to integrate physical factors. The physical environment • Jim Bulak, Charles C. Coutant and James A. Rice has extensive impact on vital rates (e.g., growth, mortality, reproduction)

AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 15 of poikilotherms, and including physical factors can improve the predictive 13. Acipenseriformes in North America—Where Do We Stand in 2009? power of population models. Biological interactions, such as predation and • Tuesday–Thursday, 1–3 September competition, are also influential processes that can be accounted for in stock • Ron Bruch, Tim Haxton, Ken Sulak, Larry Hildebrand, assessments. Consideration of environmental conditions can help to frame Boyd Kynard, and Rob Colombo short-term and long-term productivity of fishery resources. Ironically, as we Sturgeon and paddlefish are an important part of aquatic biodiversity through- achieve single-species rebuilding and sustainability targets, the fishery should out their holarctic range but have been negatively impacted over the last 150 become a less dominant factor in determining population dynamics and the years by overharvest, habitat loss, and in some areas, the challenge of effec- influence of the physical environment and biological interactions will increase. tive inter-jurisdictional co-management of shared resources. In North America, Therefore, more integrated assessment models will be needed for ecosystem- Acipenseriformes research and management activities have increased based fishery management. This symposium includes case studies in which exponentially over the last 30 years and contributed to some restoration environmental factors have been incorporated in stock assessment models. successes and substantial increases in knowledge of sturgeon and paddlefish Sponsored by the American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists. life history, physiology, and behavior. This symposium will provide a review of where we stand with our understanding and management of various popula- 11. Mapping the Distributions of the Freshwater Fishes of North America: tions of North American sturgeon and paddlefish species. Papers presented Data and Tools in this symposium will be considered for inclusion in the proceedings of the 6th • Tuesday, 1 September International Symposium on Sturgeon to be held in Wuhan, China, October • Jeff Kopaska and Andrea Ostroff 2009. Sponsored by the North American Chapter of the World Sturgeon As our aquatic resources continue to decline, we need to develop new Conservation Society. tools to approach conservation actions from the landscape scale. Fisheries information needs to be compiled over large geographic areas to provide 14. Demographic Diversity in Natural Resource Science Professions: information to those who are making management and policy decisions. A Towards an inclusive Scientific Democracy diversity of approaches to fisheries research, management, and monitor- • Tuesday, 1 September and Wednesday, 2 September ing has led to challenges in synthesizing status and trends in regional fish • Larry A. Alade, Gwen White, Robin DeBruyne, Julie Claussen, species distributions. However, the increased need for this information has Ambrose Jearld Jr., Eric B. May, Andrea Johnson, catalyzed efforts to compile fish distributions at multistate, national, and North Todd Christenson, Jessica Mistak, and Elden Hawkes Jr. American scales. As fishes do not differentiate among political boundaries, The apparent lack of demographic diversity in the fisheries and natural neither should our understanding of their occurrence. To truly address this resource science community suggests these sciences have failed to tap into need, U.S., Canadian, and Mexican scientists are planning to develop an the broader talent pool available. This is due to: (1) a lack of understanding approach for compiling a North American fish distribution database. The intent of demographic trends, (2) weaknesses in current education and outreach is not to duplicate existing efforts, but to magnify the value of the information programs, and (3) barriers to participation. While efforts to increase demo- that has been collected by linking existing datasets, enabling them with map- graphic diversity have increased since the mid-1960s (particularly for women), ping capability, and providing web access to the information. Results of such significant challenges remain in attracting, educating, and retaining scientists an effort would provide the basis for fisheries management at the landscape from under-represented populations. AFS is revising its five-year strategic scale, and could open countless management, research, and collaboration plan to include elements designed to increase diversity among its member- opportunities. This symposium will assess the current status of freshwater fish ship, placing it in a unique position to provide leadership on this issue to the distribution data in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the strengths and scientific community. We will address some of the academic and educational weaknesses of current systems used to manage and spatially display these barriers faced by under-represented groups, to better understand why these data, and potential tools for linking these data that facilitate their web access communities are disconnected from the sciences and to foster a better and resulting distribution maps. Sponsored by the AFS Fisheries Information understanding of the daily importance of natural resource sciences (specifi- and Technology Section. cally fisheries) by communicating the science in a culturally-relevant context. We will examine challenges and successes of existing programs for students 12. Advances in Bass Culture with aptitudes for science who come from under-represented groups. We • Tuesday, 1 September will also explore the efforts currently in place to ensure that individuals from • Jesse Trushenski, Jim Tidwell, Shawn Coyle, under-represented groups are trained to effectively compete for positions in and Leigh-Anne Bright the federal government. Lastly, we will examine the roles of family, community As highlighted in the Call for Papers, Tennessee, host state for the 2009 structure, physical disabilities, and ethnic identity, etc., in encouraging and Annual Meeting, is home to some of the best sport-fishing opportunities defining educational and career pathways in fisheries and natural resource in the country. Tennessee and the surrounding states boast many fishing fields. The ultimate goal is to explore how the AFS can develop effective records and trophy fisheries, particularly for basses. Many of these fisheries strategic plans and initiatives that ensure a diverse scientific workforce for began and are maintained because of the ongoing efforts of fish culturists in the future. Sponsored by the AFS Equal Opportunity Section and the NOAA the region. The popularity of the sport fisheries has also supported growing Living Marine Resources Cooperative Science Center. private sector involvement in bass culture, for the purposes of stock enhance- ment and food-fish production. The 2009 meeting in Nashville represents an 15. Conservation of Genetic Diversity in Unexploited Populations opportune time to highlight the importance of bass culture in the region and • Wednesday, 2 September beyond. In our symposium, we will feature programs and research updates • Eric Hallerman, Jamie Roberts, Jess Jones, and Bill Templin related to the culture of temperate and black basses in the public and private Biological diversity can be considered on multiple scales, from genes to sectors. Sponsored by the AFS Fish Culture Section. populations to landscapes. While the population genetics of exploited species

16 AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org has been studied extensively at all scales, those of unexploited species has ranging from whole-lake poisoning to out-breeding via introduction of geneti- not. In the absence of directed human exploitation, it can be assumed that cally modified “daughterless” individuals. While no efficient and ecologically contemporary patterns of genetic diversity in unexploited species should sustainable control has yet been identified, this subject has surprisingly not be the consequence of natural history, upon which human impacts such as been rigorously reviewed. Additionally, little effort has been made to apply habitat fragmentation have been overlaid. Molecular genetic techniques have information learned from the biology of common carp in its native habitats to been applied with increasing frequency to the study of population genetic regions where it is invasive. For example, while some aspects of the spawn- variation in unexploited species. Some studies have led to recognition of the ing biology and development of carp were described in Eastern European effects of recolonization after deglaciation and historic patterns of connec- and Chinese literature several decades ago, very little of this information is tions of watersheds and isolation of populations. At a management level, key accessible to ecologists in North America and Australia. Finally, little work has issues include: (1) detecting, protecting, and managing cryptic biodiversity; (2) been presented on the basic biology and ecology of wild carp. The biology, balancing inbreeding and outbreeding depression and demographic consid- life history, ecology, and possible control means of the common carp will be erations; (3) developing evolutionarily defensible restoration strategies; (4) en- addressed by experts from across the globe. Lessons drawn from this effort suring adaptability to future conditions; and (5) making conservation decisions might pertain to other invasive fishes such as the Asian carps. Sponsored with limited data. We will provide a broad review of the state of knowledge of by the Columbia Environmental Research Center of the U.S. Geological population genetics of under-studied unexploited species, with special atten- Survey, Australia’s Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, and AFS tion to the interests of practical fisheries management. Sponsored by the AFS Introduced Fish Section. Genetics Section. 18. Linking Private Landowners with the Science for Effective 16. Collaborative Development of a North American Spatial Framework for Conservation Management of Aquatic Biodiversity Rivers Assessment and Classification • Wednesday, 2 September • Wednesday, 2 September • Jenny Adkins and Kathryn Boyer • Joseph E. Flotemersch and Paul Seelbach Opportunities for conservation of diverse aquatic fauna abound on private Recognition that river ecosystems function, and are threatened, at large working lands, especially farm and ranch land. Private lands encompass regional scales demands coordinated science and management planning over 72% of the U.S. landscape. While many natural resource professionals approaches across traditional geo-political boundaries. In response, powerful discount the importance of farmland streams, pasture streams and ponds, river GIS frameworks recently have been created in three regions (Great and ranchland streams and rivers, these waters comprise a high percent- Lakes states, Ontario, and Missouri River states), and new initiatives are age of the available habitats for many aquatic species. The 2008 Farm Bill developing in the Chesapeake, Northeastern, and Southeastern U.S. regions. provides landowner incentives and generous payments for conservation of Each of these is a consistent, ecologically-meaningful, spatially structured, aquatic habitats for native species. When leveraged with other funds available data system that ultimately frames conceptual understanding and communi- through partnerships such as the Southeast Aquatic Resource Partnership, cation, data collection and storage, analytical questions and approaches, and Eastern Native Brook Trout Joint Venture, and the Desert Fish Habitat reporting. The regional efforts share generally similar conceptual underpin- Partnership, projects on private lands can make a difference for myriad spe- nings and components, and collegial ties exist among their science leaders; cies. We will (1) introduce participants to the technical and financial resources however, some of their geographies overlap, their specific technical develop- available to private land managers with a desire to protect or improve aquatic ment processes are not coordinated, and significant differences in content habitats, (2) highlight conservation initiatives that are currently in progress or and utility are likely. Many opportunities for effective science, education, and recently completed, (3) introduce new approaches to aquatic species conser- management are being lost due to this lack of a geographically consistent vation suitable for agricultural landscapes, and (4) facilitate development of approach. This anticipated lack of compatibility among what otherwise will be conservation partnerships between private landowners and fishery profes- sophisticated and elegant information systems is unfortunate and will leave sionals with a common desire to halt the loss of aquatic biodiversity. The com- significant obstacles to technology transfer among North American river scien- plexities and advantages of working with private landowners to improve water tists and managers. To address this issue, a multidimensional workgroup has quality and quantity, enhance connectivity of habitats, and improve conditions formed and initiated efforts to draft a collective vision for a North American for fish, amphibians, mussels, crustaceans, and other aquatic flora and fauna spatial framework for rivers assessment and classification. The goal of these that comprise the natural heritage of North American streams, rivers, ponds, efforts is to create a vehicle for coordination among existing regional and na- wetlands, estuaries, and coastal waters will be discussed. Sponsored by the tional efforts towards common, trans-boundary, conceptual, spatial, analytical, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. and reporting frameworks for river science and assessment. 19. Monitoring, Characterizing and Managing Big River Fish Communities 17. Carp Biology and Control Across Continents and Hemispheres • Wednesday, 2 and Thursday, 3 September • Wednesday, 2 September • Doug Dixon and Jeff Thomas • Peter Sorensen, Przemek Bajer, and Duane Chapman Big rivers, namely the upper and lower Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, and Originally from the Caspian Sea region, the common carp has been intro- Ohio, have all been hydraulically modified since colonial times for many rea- duced across the globe and currently reaches extremely high abundances sons, including navigation, flood control, and power production among other in North America, Australia, and Africa, where it often causes extensive human needs. Along with these changes, current federal, state, and inter- habitat damage. The common carp was North America’s first invasive fish jurisdictional conservation management goals seek to optimize water quality and arguably still its most damaging, while in Asia it is the subject of a large and fishery resources for both recreational and ecological reasons. Attainment aquaculture industry and in Europe it is a prized and intensively managed of these goals assumes the ability to measure a baseline aquatic community sportfish. The common carp has been the subject of numerous control efforts and monitor it to measure management success. Big rivers, however, present

AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 17 unique challenges for monitoring and establishing indices for community quality measurement and fishery restoration while at the same time satisfying anthropogenic needs, which can and do conflict with management goals and Did you know that 2009 is regulatory requirements. We will convene practitioners of big river fishery management efforts to share experiences, techniques, lessons learned, and the Year of Science? The Year of Science 2009 (www.yearof- recommendations. Topical areas for presentation will include fishery sampling science2009.org) is a nationwide event to procedures, habitat assessment, indices of community condition, fishery improve public understanding of science regulations, invasive species control, restoration programs, long-term fish in response to widespread concerns about population trends, and effects of potential industry (including navigation) and national scientific literacy. The American water management impairments. Fisheries Society is a member of a coalition of

professional societies and institutions (www.co- 20. Water Scarcity and Fisheries Resources in Coastal Watersheds of pusproject.org) that will sponsor events in 2009 Western North America that engage the public in science and improve • Wednesday, 2 September public understanding about how science works • David Landsman and Leah Mahan and why it matters. To this end, the “Fisheries Scarcity of water in seasonally or perennially dry regions has created tensions Science in the Year of Science” symposium will amongst competing stakeholders throughout history. As human population be open to the public and will be held at the densities increased dramatically in western North America over the last sev- Nashville AFS’09 meeting on Wednesday, 2 eral hundred years—particularly in coastal areas—tensions over water usage September, at the Renaissance Hotel. arose anew. Increased density has created new demands (agricultural, drink- ing water, sewage, land use) on the limited water available, and has created new stresses to ecosystems in general, and fisheries resources in particular. 22. Fisheries Science in the Year of Science Illustrative of these stresses is that in the last 20 years, over 50 populations • Wednesday, 2 September of salmon, trout, shrimp, sturgeon, and other fish species that use rivers, • Charles R. Berry and Sheri Potter streams, and/or estuaries have been listed as threatened or endangered The Year of Science 2009 (www.yearofscience2009.org) is a nationwide event under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. We will explore, in great detail, the to improve public understanding of science, or “to better know how we know relationship between water usage and impacts on fisheries resources. In what we know.” The Year of Science is being held in response to concerns particular, presentations will focus on: (1) alterations to instream flow and about national scientific literacy. AFS is a member of a coalition of profes- impacts to fish habitat and populations in Western North America, anticipating sional societies, educational institutions, museums, and other entities (www. mitigating impacts of climate change; (2) legal frameworks for understanding copusproject.org) that will sponsor events that engage the public in science water rights, water consumption, and water transactions (water easements, and improve public understanding about how science works, why it matters, purchasing of water rights); (3) case studies of past, current, and future water and who scientists are. The objectives of the symposium are to: (1) define conservation actions and monitoring attempts; and (4) plans and models for “fisheries science,” (2) review reasons for public skepticism of science (with prioritizing future water conservation actions. emphasis on aquatic issues), (3) highlight fisheries science success stories, and (4) explore fisheries science contributions to general biological science 21. Catch Share Management: Science, Experience and issues (e.g., teaching of evolution, National Ecological Observatory Network, Performance in Addressing Overfishing Encyclopedia of Life, science and religion, human health and wellbeing). • Wednesday, 2 September This symposium will be open to the public and will be the centerpiece of AFS • Patty Debenham and Kate Bonzon activities during the Year of Science that will be reflected in numerous events Catch share management is used in hundreds of fisheries around the world. at AFS Division and Chapter meetings in 2009–2010. The symposium has Catch shares are a performance-based management system in which secure value to AFS members because it will strengthen fisheries science and it has shares of a scientifically-determined total catch are allocated to individuals, value to the general public because it will improve understanding of science communities, and cooperatives. Recent research in Science and Nature and its significance in all of our lives. shows that catch share fisheries are more than half as likely to be overfished than non-catch share fisheries, and catch share fisheries show increases in 23. Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis to Measure Condition, Body catch while remaining stable. This symposium will provide an overview of Composition and Energy Content in Fish catch shares from theory to practice. Presenters from all over the world will • Wednesday, 2 September discuss case studies on existing catch share fisheries, and the performance • Keith Cox, Ron Heintz, Joe Margraf, and Kyle Hartman of catch shares on key outcomes such as bycatch, overfishing, monitoring, We will bring together fisheries researchers that have been using the new economic profits, and communities. Speakers will focus on extracting lessons method/technology of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) in their fisher- from existing catch share fisheries as well as discussing opportunities for fu- ies research to discuss: (1) what BIA measures, (2) sources of error, (3) ture application of this important management system. Attendees will gain an standardizing protocols, and (4) future work. Although BIA has been utilized in-depth understanding of what catch shares are, how they have performed, for over 50 years in human and veterinary medicine, it has only recently and the myriad ways in which to design a catch share based on fishery- surfaced in the field of fisheries. It has been used to measure condition, body specific biological, economic, and social goals. Attendees will be encour- composition, and energy content in fish non-lethally, with varying results rang- aged to discuss and debate with the presenters throughout the symposium. ing from “needs more work” to “every captured fish should be measured with Sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund. BIA before release.” Non-lethal estimation of body composition in fish using

18 AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org BIA will permit increased precision in energy flow and proximate composition lead to significant declines. Almost any activity associated with energy production studies as well as permit study of community energetics and condition on spa- (renewable or nonrenewable) can cause impacts, even associated activities such tial and temporal scales not previously possible. This important new type of as shoreline stabilization structures, docks, and industrial development. At the research needs to be discussed among peers and shared with AFS members same time, energy production can have positive effects on fisheries, for example, and participants to clarify and bring forth ideas, problems, compliments, and the reef habitat functions of offshore oil platforms. We will present research along complaints concerning the use of BIA. Sponsored by the Sitka Sound Science with management and policy solutions that address, describe, or identify linkages Center and the NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center. between coastal energy production and impacts on coastal fisheries, with the ultimate goal of sustaining fish populations. We will share timely information about 24. Advances in Tagging and Surgical procedures current status, future trends, and combined stressor effects of energy production • Thursday, 3 September on coastal fisheries. Sponsored by the AFS Estuaries Section and AFS Marine • Richard S. Brown and Steven J. Cooke Fisheries Section. Monitoring the behavior and survival of fish and other aquatic organisms plays an essential role in advancing fish ecology. However, techniques used for 27. Inland Fisheries —The Hidden Crisis tagging and surgically implanting transmitters in fish vary considerable among • Thursday, 3 September researchers. Some researchers and telemetry practitioners are unaware of • Doug Beard, Steve Cooke, Ian Cowx, Chris Goddard, many advances that have been made in fish surgery. Reducing the negative and John Dettmers effects from tagging and surgical implantation is important for reducing the In the developed world, the destruction of aquatic habitat and invasive species, bias associated with research projects and for reducing the impact to popula- coupled with the activities of commercial and recreational fishers, have completely tions that are being studied. Moreover, with growing interest in fish welfare altered many inland aquatic ecosystems. In the developing world, the increasing and the application of veterinary science knowledge to fisheries science, there demand for animal protein is frequently being met primarily by fish, which leads is a need to discuss advances and opportunities in fish surgery and tagging. to conditions of overharvest and conversion of many waterways into aquaculture. This symposium will bring together researchers, practitioners, and veterinar- Our purpose is to focus attention on these inland fisheries issues. With the global ians to present and discuss advances in tagging fish and aquatic animals and emphasis on marine fisheries, we need a broad understanding of the importance surgical implantation of transmitters in fish. of inland fisheries and how aquatic ecosystems have been modified to accommo- date these fisheries. This symposium will emphasize the following elements: (1) 25. Society’s Role in Understanding and Protecting Instream Flows the impact of inland recreational fisheries, (2) inland local and artisanal fisheries, • Thursday, 3 September (3) inland aquaculture and its effects on aquatic ecosystems, (4) inland imperiled • Kimberly Elkin species, and (5) stressors affecting inland fisheries systems. An invited keynote The term “instream flow” is foreign to anyone other than a biologist, engineer, talk will set the current understanding of these five issues, and then each of the lawyer, or water manager that works with rivers and streams. Biologists need to topics will feature a series of invited papers, representing either case studies from communicate better to the general public and legislators about the importance different parts of the world or different topics nested underneath the main topic. of maintaining instream flows for humans and aquatic species. We will cover This symposium builds upon a similar symposium held at the 5th World Fisheries the topic of instream flows as it relates to our everyday lives as well as the Congress. Sponsored by the AFS International Fisheries Section, the Great Lakes biological, legal, and educational aspects of instream flows. AFS members work Fisheries Commission, and the U.S. Geological Survey. hard to maintain the diversity of aquatic species that this world has to offer, and maintaining adequate instream flow benefits human and aquatic species alike. 28. Enhancing Conservation of Freshwater Fishes through This interactive symposium will cover the scientific, legal, and public aspects of Diverse Partnerships instream flows. Societies around the world are being faced with water supply is- • Thursday, 3 September sues as human population growth continues. Instream flows are very important • Paul L. Angermeier and Anna L. George in maintaining species diversity. Humans need to maintain instream flows if Conserving a diverse North American fish fauna depends on forging and they want to continue to thrive and expand in this ever changing environment. maintaining diverse partnerships among scientists, managers, publics, com- Sponsored by the Instream Flow Committee and Instream Flow Program in the munities, businesses, educators, and others. History shows that successful Division of Environmental Services, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. conservation of fishes, including game and non-game species, requires not only solid science from ichthyologists, fish ecologists, and resource manag- 26. Energy Production and Fisheries in the Coastal Zone ers, but also broad partnerships that engage and educate many stakeholders • Thursday, 3 September in the stewardship of aquatic ecosystems. In some cases, the importance • Fred J. Genthner and Roger A. Rulifson of enduring, effective partnerships exceeds the importance of research in Human population densities are disproportionately higher in coastal watersheds achieving conservation goals. This symposium will call attention to the diversity of than in other habitable regions. Many energy facilities of various kinds, existing conservation partnerships, illustrate successful partnerships, and describe strengths and planned, are tied to coastal growth as a result of population centers and and difficulties of working with partners. We will highlight programs across North abundant water resources. These include nuclear and hydroelectric generating America that engage non-traditional partners in freshwater fish conservation, includ- plants, petroleum refineries, oil and gas platforms, and associated transmission, ing outreach and education through the media and public aquaria, fish ecotour- storage, treatment, and transfer stations. The rapidly expanding biofuels industry ism for non-anglers, and large-scale ecosystem restoration. We will also present can also be expected to play a large role in the future of the coastal zone through perspectives on conventional conservation approaches, as represented by federal changes in agriculture, refining, transportation, distribution, and environmental side and state policies, conservation easements and reserves, and captive propagation. effects. Fish and shellfish populations can be altered either directly or indirectly Finally, we will catalyze more engagement and collaboration between AFS and through cumulative and secondary impacts, which, when combined over time, can Society for Conservation Biology, which clearly share goals of producing sound

AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 19 science to inform fish conservation. This symposium will discuss: (1) diverse current and management implications for this important group of fishes. Sponsored by efforts and successes in fish conservation, (2) the breadth of partners engaged in the Southern Company and the North American Black Bass Coalition (Fisheries fish conservation, and (3) the complexities and rewards of doing fish conservation Conservation Foundation). with partners. Also, following the presentations, we will lead a 40-minute discus- 31. Fisheries in a Changing Climate: Guidance for Decision-Makers and sion to draft a plan for enriching the partnership between AFS and the Freshwater Resource Managers Working Group of Society of Conservation Biologists in order to more effectively • Thursday, 3 September apply our collective scientific expertise to fish conservation. • Tom Bigford, Jason Goldberg, and Robin Schrock 29. Fisheries Education in the 21st Century: Accommodating Change AFS has sponsored previous conference symposia focusing on fisheries and climate • Thursday, 3 September that have greatly contributed to the understanding of the challenges facing resource • Michael Brown, Steven Chipps, Brian Graeb, Tom Lauer, managers. However, the knowledge base about climate change data and pro- and Steve McMullin cesses, such as effects occurring at regional and local scales, has been insufficient The process of educating fisheries professionals has greatly changed over until now to provide specific recommendations for decision-makers and resource the last century and has occurred in response to a myriad of factors— managers to better protect and conserve species and their habitats. This symposium management philosophies, technologies, demographics, and socioeconomic, will address this challenge, building on previous symposia, especially the 2000 political, and cultural shifts—that have directly or indirectly influenced symposium “Fisheries in a Changing Climate” and the 2008 symposium “Sensitivity education trends. Adapting to these needs has been problematic from a of Fish and Fisheries to Climate Change—Response and Adaptation.” The current pedagological standpoint, with ever-increasing demands on undergraduate state of climate effects knowledge from a fisheries perspective will be addressed, natural resource curricula (credit limits), program limits (e.g., shrinking faculty along with the urgency of the problem, using examples from other fields (e.g., energy numbers and increased workloads), and funding cuts. Moreover, the mission use, public health, agriculture, etc.) as appropriate to show how climate data are of many academic departments has moved away from traditional fisheries being used and how they might be applied in a fisheries-specific context. Speakers and wildlife curricula by broadening coursework (e.g., conservation biology, will also describe significant overarching conclusions and recommendations, with a landscape ecology) to compensate for real or perceived changes attributed to specific goal of appealing to as wide an audience as possible. An opening plenary student and employer expectations. Unfortunately, these issues are too often talk will be followed by two technical sessions and a final panel discussion session. translated into the professional arena as students progress into the workforce. Plenary speakers will set the stage on current climate science issues including Recent advances in educational theory have improved our understanding downscaling global models, molding responses for different geographic scales, and of how to meet student learning needs in today’s environment. Specifically, encompassing both freshwater and marine habitats in an ecosystem context. this includes how to improve critical and creative thinking and communica- 32. Standard Methods for Sampling North American Freshwater Fishes: tion skills, and facilitate retention of science-based information. In addition, An All-Poster Symposium the concept of strategically linking curricula objectives with employer needs • Scott A. Bonar, Wayne A. Hubert, and David W. Willis requires movement away from traditional teaching methods and toward more Standardization in industry, medicine, and science has led to great advances. novel approaches. Lastly, when considering the student-teacher interaction, However, despite its benefits, freshwater fish sampling is generally unstandard- we must consider the diversity and evolution of students as well as genera- ized, or at most standardized locally. Standardization across regions would allow tional inequities between faculty and students. Thus, we will highlight relevant for measurement of large-scale effects of climate or geography on fish popula- fisheries educational techniques and approaches that will facilitate learning, in tions, larger sample sizes to evaluate management techniques, reliable means light of the expectations of academic programs and the education desired by to document rare species, easier communication, and simpler data sharing. natural resource employers. Sponsored by the AFS Education Section. With increased interaction among fisheries professionals worldwide, reasons for 30. Status, Conservation and Management of Endemic Black Bass Species wide-scale standardization are more compelling than ever. The AFS Fisheries in the Southern United States Management Section, in collaboration with seven state, university, and federal • Thursday, 3 September partners and two other AFS Sections, is developing a book of standard sampling • Jim Long, Joe Slaughter, and Wes Porak methods for North America. Almost 50 U.S., Canadian, and Mexican fish sampling The conservation need and diversity of black bass (genus Micropterus) endemic to experts are authors. Standard Methods for Sampling North American Freshwater southern North America will be highlighted by focusing on those species that exhibit Fishes describes standard methods to sample fish in specific environments a high degree of endemism and that have received much less research attention so population indices can be more easily compared across regions and time. than more widely distributed congeners. Keeping to the diversity theme of the Environments include ponds, reservoirs, natural lakes, streams, and rivers meeting, as well as its location in the South, we will examine a group of species that containing cold and warmwater fishes. This book provides rangewide and regional are not only important to sport fisheries, but also have a high conservation need in averages, calculated from over 4,000 data sets from 42 states and provinces, terms of preserving their diversity. Of the nine described species or subspecies of of size structure, CPUE, growth, and condition for common fishes collected black bass in North America, the southern United States is home to six that occur using methods discussed. Biologists can use these data to determine if fish from nowhere else: Guadalupe bass, shoal bass, redeye bass, Florida bass, Alabama their waterbody are below, above, or at average for an index. Final drafts were bass, and Suwannee bass. Three of these species were described in only the past reviewed by an additional 36 sampling experts. These procedures will be useful 10 years and more species possibly exist as undescribed species or subspecies to those hoping to benefit from standard sampling programs in their regions. This (e.g., Bartram’s bass and Cuatro Ciénegas bass). Of the North American black bass poster symposium will focus on the AFS standard sampling initiative, the methods species that have the greatest conservation needs, all are found in the southern suggested in this book, and the accompanying data averages. We will also United States and several species have conservation issues related to the loss of di- discuss via our posters statistical methods related to standard sampling, methods versity through hybridization along with habitat loss or degradation. This symposium to convert from nonstandard to standard data, and methods to prevent transfer of will consist of talks that discuss the ecology, diversity, conservation, propagation, nuisance species during standard sampling programs.

20 AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org Schedule-at-a-glance Please consult the AFS’09 meeting website at www.fisheries.org/afs09/ as the meeting approaches and the updated Schedule-at-a-Glance in your meeting program book when you arrive at the conference to make sure none of the event locations have changed. Time Event Location RH = Renaissance Hotel NCC = Nashville Convention Center Thursday 27 August 9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. AFS Officers Meeting TBD by Officers 12:00 p.m.– 5:00 p.m. AFS Business Office RH-Classical Room 1:00 p.m.– 5:00 p.m. AFS Management Committee Meeting RH-Rock and Roll Room Friday 28 August 8:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. AFS Governing Board Retreat Camp Marymount 12:00 p.m.– 5:00 p.m. AFS Business Office RH-Classical Room Saturday 29 August 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. AFS Business Office RH-Classical Room 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. AFS Governing Board Meeting RH-Music City Ballroom 12:00 p.m.– 6:00 p.m. Registration RH-Grand Ballroom Lobby 12:00 p.m.– 6:00 p.m. Internet Lounge RH-Gospel Room Section Meetings 8:00 a.m.– 5 p.m. Bioengineering Section RH-Rhythm and Blues Room Continuing Education Classes 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Natural Channel Design: Instream Structures for Habitat Enhancement RH-Belmont Three Room 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Intro to Instream Habitat Modeling using MesoHABISM (Part 1) RH-Belmont Two and offsite 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Basic/Intermediate GIS for Fisheries Biologists RH-Fisk One Room Sunday 30 August 8:00 a.m.– 8:00 p.m. Registration RH-Grand Ballroom Lobby 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. AFS Business Office RH-Classical Room 9:00 a.m.– 9:00 p.m. Internet Lounge RH-Gospel Room 12:00 p.m.– 8:00 p.m. Speaker audio-visual check-in RH-Bluegrass Room 12:00 p.m.– 2:30 p.m. Journal Editors Luncheon RH-Country Room 1:00 p.m.– 5:00 p.m. Time and Place Committee RH-Rock and Roll Room 2:00 p.m.– 6:00 p.m. Trade Show Exhibitor move-in NCC-West/Center Exhibit Hall 2:00 p.m.– 6:00 p.m. Poster Set-up NCC-West/Center Exhibit Hall 4:00 p.m.– 6:30 p.m. Student Worker training RH-Country Room 6:00 p.m.– 10:00 p.m. Welcome Social RH-Grand Ballroom Section Meetings 9:00 a.m.– 4:00 p.m. Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee RH-Jazz Room 1:00 p.m.– 3:00 p.m. Fisheries Administration Section RH-Belmont Three Room 3:00 p.m.– 5:00 p.m. Fisheries Management Section RH-Belmont Three Room 5:00 p.m.– 7:00 p.m. Education Section RH-Belmont Three Room 5:00 p.m.– 6:00 p.m. Fisheries History Section RH-Jazz Room 5:00 p.m.– 6:00 p.m. Fish Culture Section RH-Rhythm and Blues Room 5:00 p.m.– 6:00 p.m. Socioeconomic Section RH-Fisk One Room Continuing Education Classes 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Intro to Instream Habitat Modeling using MesoHABSIM (Part II) RH-Belmont Two Room 8:00 a.m.– 1:00 p.m. Mapping Aquatic Habitat of Inland Freshwater Systems using Side-Scan Sonar (new version) RH-Belmont One Room 8:00 a.m.– 11:00 a.m. Effective Speaking When the Heat is On! NCC 103 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Advanced GIS for Fisheries Biologists RH-Fisk One Room 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Leadership at All Levels in AFS NCC 105-106 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. An Introduction to Programming in R for Fisheries Scientists RH-Fisk Room Two 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Designing Natural Channels Using Principles of Geomorphology RH-Ryman One Room 8:00 a.m.– 5:30 p.m. Science, Tools and Information Resources on Upstream Fish Passage NCC 102 1:00 p.m.– 5:30 p.m. Street Smarts: Getting Them to Say “Yes” to Conservation NCC 103 1:00 p.m.– 5:00 p.m. VEMCO Acoustic Technology Workshop NCC 104 Monday 31 August 7:00 a.m.– 7:00 p.m. Registration RH-Grand Ballroom Lobby 7:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. AFS Business Office RH-Classical Room 7:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. Internet Lounge RH-Gospel Room 7:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. Speaker audio-visual check-in RH-Bluegrass Room 7:00 a.m.– 8:00 a.m. Plenary Speakers Breakfast RH-Country Room 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Plenary Session RH-Grand Ballroom 9:00 a.m.–11:00 a.m. Trade Show Exhibitor move-in NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 9:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. Poster Set-up NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 11:30 a.m.– 8:30 p.m. Trade Show open NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 12:30 p.m.– 2:30 p.m. Plenary Speakers and Awards Luncheon RH-Country Room 1:00 p.m.– 4:00 p.m. AFS Resource Policy Committee RH-Rock and Roll Room 1:20 p.m.– 5:00 p.m. Symposia and Contributed Papers Various-RH and NCC 3:00 p.m.– 5:30 p.m. Journal EditorialAFS Board 139th Meeting Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009NCC-Room • www. f207isherie s.org 21 4:00 p.m.– 5:00 p.m. Hutton Oversight Committee Meeting RH-Rhythm and Blues Room 6:00 p.m.– 8:30 p.m. Posters open for viewing NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 6:00 p.m.– 8:30 p.m. Trade Show and Poster Social NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 8:00 p.m.–10:00 p.m. USGS “All Hands” Social RH-Ryman Room 8:30 p.m.–11:00 p.m. North Carolina Social Flying Saucer, 111 10th Ave South Section Meetings 12:30 p.m.– 2:30 p.m. Equal Opportunities Section Lunch RH-Belmont Two and Three Room 1:00 p.m.– 3:00 p.m. Fisheries Information and Technology Section RH-Rhythm and Blues Room 2:00 p.m.– 4:00 p.m. Student Subsection of Education Section RH-Belmont One Room 5:00 p.m.– 6:00 p.m. Genetics Section RH-Ryman One and Two Rooms 4:30 p.m.– 6:30 p.m. Fish Habitat Section RH-Belmont One Room Tuesday 1 September 7:00 a.m.– 9:30 a.m. Fisheries Magazine Breakfast RH-Rock and Roll Room 7:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. AFS Business Office RH-Classical Room 7:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. Internet Lounge RH-Gospel Room 7:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. Speaker audio-visual check-in RH-Bluegrass Room 7:00 a.m.– 9:00 a.m. AFS Publications Overview Committee RH-Country Room 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Registration RH-Grand Ballroom Lobby 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Symposia and Contributed Papers Various-RH and NCC 9:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Poster Session open NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 9:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Trade Show and auction open NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 12:00 p.m.– 1:20 p.m. Award Recipients Luncheon RH-Rock and Roll Room 12:00 p.m.– 3:00 p.m. Best Student Paper Judges Lunch RH-Rhythm and Blues Room 12:00 p.m.– 1:20 p.m. Student/Mentor Lunch On Your Own 1:20 p.m.– 3:00 p.m. Symposia and Contributed Papers Various-RH and NCC 1:30 p.m.– 3:30 p.m. Marine Journal Editorial Board Meeting RH-Country Room 2:30 p.m.– 3:30 p.m. Book Editorial Advisory Board Meeting RH-Belmont One Room 3:30 p.m.– 5:30 p.m. AFS Business Meeting* RH-Grand Ballroom 5:00 p.m.– 6:30 p.m. Student Career Fair TBA 5:30 p.m.– 7:30 p.m. Electronic Services Committee Meeting RH-Rock and Roll Room 5:30 p.m.– 7:30 p.m. Tennessee Tech. Alumni Reception RH-Ryman 1 and 2 Rooms 6:30 p.m.– 8:30 p.m. Student Social Off-Site-Wildhorse Saloon 7:00 p.m.- 11:00 p.m. Sturgeon Conservation Society Reception RH-Belmont 1 and 2 Rooms 9:00 p.m.- 11:00 p.m. Agenda for Global Conf. on Fisheries Sustainability RH-Belmont Three Room Section Meetings 12:00 p.m.– 1:00 p.m. Bioengineering Section RH-Country Room 5:30 p.m.– 7:00 p.m. Introduced Fish Section RH-Country Room 6:00 p.m.– 9:00 p.m. International Fisheries Section RH-Rhythm and Blues Room Wednesday 2 September 6:00 a.m.– 9:00 a.m. Spawning Run Off Site-Centennial Park 7:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. AFS Business Office RH-Classical Room 7:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. Internet Lounge RH-Gospel Room 7:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. Speaker audio-visual check-in RH-Bluegrass Room 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Registration RH-Grand Ballroom Lobby 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Symposia and Contributed Papers Various-RH and NCC 9:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. Poster Session open NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 9:00 a.m.– 2:00 p.m. Trade Show and auction open NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 12:00 p.m.– 2:00 p.m. Past Presidents’ Luncheon RH-Country Room 12:00 p.m.– 2:00 p.m. Poster Session lunch-authors present NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 2:00 p.m. Silent Auction closes NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 2:00 p.m.– 5:00 p.m. Symposia and Contributed Papers Various-RH and NCC 2:00 p.m.– 5:00 p.m. Trade Show tear down NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 2:00 p.m.– 5:00 p.m. Poster tear down NCC West/Center Exhibit Hall 6:00 p.m.–10:00 p.m. Smiley Hollow “Get Southern” Social Off Site @ Smiley Hollow Section Meetings 4:00 p.m..– 6:00 p.m. Water Quality Section RH-Belmont One Room Thursday 3 September 7:00 a.m.– 8:30 a.m. AFS Incoming Governing Board Breakfast RH-Belmont Three Room 7:00 a.m.– 2:00 p.m. AFS Business Office RH-Classical Room 7:00 a.m.– 2:00 p.m. Internet Lounge RH-Gospel Room 7:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Speaker audio-visual check-in RH-Bluegrass Room 8:00 a.m.–10:00 a.m. 57 Tips in 57 Minutes Workshop NCC 105-106 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Registration RH-Grand Ballroom Lobby 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Symposia and Contributed Papers Various-RH and NCC 8:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. USGS RGE Panel NCC 211 12:00 p.m.– 4:00 p.m. Nashville/Pittsburgh Handoff Meeting RH-Belmont Three Room 12:00 p.m.– 1:20 p.m. World Fisheries Council Luncheon RH-Belmont Two Room 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m. National Fish Habitat Action Plan Team RH-Belmont One Room 1:20 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Symposia and Contributed Papers Various-RH and NCC 5:30 p.m.–7:30 p.m. “Goodbye Nashville-Hello Pittsburgh” Social RH-Grand Ballroom Center

22* Note:AFS AFS 139th Silver Annual and Gold Meeting Members Supplement are invited to• Fisheries receive their • v25- o l and34 n50-year o 6 • j umembership n e 2009 • www. pins fromfis heriethe AFSs .orgpresident at Tuesday's Business Meeting. Registration Form Register online at www.fisheries.org/afs09/reg.html

Registration materials and payment MUST be received by Friday, 31 July 2009, to receive the early bird rate. Registrations received after this date will be processed at the higher rate. Registrations after Friday, 21 August 2009, must be done in person at the conference. Student registra- tions must be accompanied by student ID. Full registration includes all plenary and technical sessions, symposia, breaks, socials, program, and digital abstracts. Daily registration include all activities for the day.

PERSONAL INFORMATION First name: ______MI: ______Last name: ______Suffix:______AFS member # (from mailing label on Fisheries): ______Address: ______City: ______State/Province:______Country: ______Zip/Postal code:______Phone:______Fax: ______Cell: ______Check if this is new address for all AFS membership mailings: ______E-mail address: ______

Circle all that apply: Employment: State/Province Federal Industry Academia Self Student Native Org. Other I am attending the Sunday Welcome Social: Yes No I am attending the Monday Trade Show Social: Yes No I am attending the Wednesday night Social: Yes No NAME BADGE INFORMATION—MEMBER I am attending the Thursday night social: Yes No Name: ______Affiliation: ______I am participating in the Student/Mentor Lunch:. Yes No Home City: ______I am participating as a: Student Mentor I am attending the Student Social (students only) Yes No

REGISTRATION Full registration includes plenary and technical sessions, all symposia, and socials. Guests may pay $120 for access to all socials. Name badges must be worn to all events except the Year of Science symposium. Registration Item Early Bird Rate Regular Rate Amount (Prior to 7/31/09) (After 7/31/09)

AFS Member $350 $470 $______Non-Member $420 $520 $______Student Member (need ID) $100 $125 $______Student Non-member (need ID) $125 $150 $______Retired $150 $175 $______Daily—Circle: M, T, W, Th $170 $220 $______Guest–includes all 4 socials and coffee breaks (excludes student social) $120 $140 $______Registration SUBTOTAL $______

AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org 23 CONTINUING EDUCATION For course description and information on continuing education credits visit www.fisheries.org/afs09. AFS reserves the right to cancel any course. Course Name Date Time Member Non-member Student/retired Total Instream Hab. Modeling Using MesoHABSIM Saturday, Aug. 29 and Sunday, Aug. 30 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. $250 $300 $150 $______Natural Channel Design: Instream Structures Saturday, Aug. 29 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. $125 $175 $75 $______Basic/Intermediate GIS Techniques Saturday, Aug. 29 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. $220 $250 $125 $______Advanced GIS Techniques Sunday, Aug. 30 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. $220 $270 $150 $______Leading at All Levels in AFS Sunday, Aug. 30 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Free Free Free $______Mapping Aquatic Habitat w/Side-Scan Sonar Sunday, Aug. 30 8:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. $100 $150 $75 $______Science and Tools for Upstream Fish Passage Sunday, Aug. 30 8:00 a.m.–5:30 p.m. $125 $175 $75 $______Natural Channel Design: Geomorphology Sunday, Aug. 30 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. $125 $175 $75 $______Introduction to Programming in R Sunday, Aug. 30 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. $125 $175 $75 $______Getting Them to Say “Yes” to Conservation Sunday, Aug. 30 1:00 p.m.–5:30 p.m. $40 $60 $25 $______Effective Speaking When the Heat Is On! Sunday, Aug. 30 8:00 a.m.–11:00 a.m. $40 $60 $25 $______Continuing Education SUBTOTAL $______

WORKSHOPS Please check if you plan to attend. For workshop descriptions and information visit www.fisheries.org/afs09. Workshop Name Date Time Attendance? VEMCO Acoustic Telemetry Sunday, Aug. 30 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m. FREE ______57 Tips in 57 Minutes Thursday, Sept. 3 8:00 a.m.–10:00 a.m.. FREE ______TOURS Registration for sightseeing tours is being handled directly by Gray Line of Nashville, the company providing the tours for the 2009 meeting. To register for tours, please go to www.grayline.com/afs or contact Susan Baldridge at [email protected] or by phone at 1-800/251-1864.

Spawning Run Spawning 5k Run/walk Wednesday, Sept. 9 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. $30 $______Includes T-shirt Please circle desired size: S M L XL

TOTAL REGISTRATION, EDUCATION, AND ACTIVITIES FEES TOTAL COST $______

PAYMENT Payment MUST accompany registration. ALL FEES MUST BE PAID IN U.S. CURRENCY. Make checks/money orders payable to "American Fisheries Society" (Federal Tax ID 54-0683803). Checks must be drawn on a U.S. bank.

TOTAL REMITTANCE $______Method of payment: Check*_____ Money Order_____ Mastercard _____ Visa _____ Credit Card No.:______Expiration Date: ______Name on Card (Please Print):______Signature: ______

Register online at www.fisheries.org/afs09/reg.html or send forms to: Jackie Machado, American Fisheries Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110, Bethesda, MD 20814; fax 301/897-8096; [email protected]. Questions? Contact Tia Hollis, [email protected]. Refund policy: 80% refund on cancellations received by Friday, 31 July 2009. No refunds on cancellations after Friday, 31 July 2009. Requests must be made in writing by fax, mail, or e-mail. Full refund will be issued on any workshop(s) cancelled by the instructor. *A $25 service charge will be added to all returned checks.

NAME BADGE INFORMATION—GUEST 1 NAME BADGE INFORMATION—GUEST 2 Name: ______Name: ______Affiliation: ______Affiliation: ______Home City: ______Home City: ______

24 AFS 139th Annual Meeting Supplement • Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • www.fisheries.org a monopolist). An industry is merely the sum of the firms in it, ies economists insist on maximizing this “resource rent” for an and economic theory regards a perfectly competitive industry entire fishery, then there is no good reason why the entirety of it as one in which each firm in that industry is making normal should not be taxed away. If effort is restricted to E1 in the hope profits. Talk of “maximizing industry profits” is incoherent. No of maximizing “resource rent” then the government should tax economist would talk of maximizing the profits of a group of away that excess profit and return it to the owner of the fish in farmers growing Granny Smith apples—increasing or decreas- the EEZ. Doing so would allow all fishing firms to capture their ing the number of apple producers until aggregate industry prof- full competitive return, and it would have no effects upon fish- its were somehow maximized. The only thing that matters is ing effort. whether or not each firm in an industry is earning a competi- There are no coherent reasons to maximize economic rent in tive return on its investment. The U.S. Forest Service, when it a fishery. The single policy innovation that will induce efficiency provides timber to the private sector, is certainly not motivated in the fishery is to require fishing firms to pay for the fish they by the mandate to maximize the aggregate profits of those firms catch. A market economy requires that all owners of factors of harvesting federal timber. The Minerals Management Service is production—and fish in the EEZ are a factor of production to under no obligation to lease oil and gas resources in the Outer fishing firms—must receive a payment for their relative contri- Continental Shelf in order to “maximize industry profits” for bution to the value of the total product of the firm using those the oil sector. factors. In this case, fish are the raw material (similar to gold, This brings us back to the persistent problem concern- silver, timber, and oil) gathered up by the private sector and ing resource rent. The confusion is about to get worse by the delivered to the market ready for further processing. Payment introduction of yet another rent—this one called Ricardian rent. for this raw material is correctly understood to be resource rent. Ricardian rent is the differential income earned by the most pro- Very few managed fisheries require firms to pay for the fish ductive fixed asset (land) in comparison to all other parcels of they extract from the ocean. Moreover, rationalization programs lesser quality in the same “local market.” He who owns superior to reduce effort from E3 to E1 do not require the remaining firms land in a particular market earns Ricardian rent. In fact there is to pay for what they catch and sell. They do not pay any resource a continuum of Ricardian rents from the very best land ranging rent. Starting again at effort E3, if firms were made to pay for the all the way down to a parcel that is just slightly better than the fish they catch, then the cost ray C in Figure 1 would rotate in worst. The worst parcel earns zero Ricardian rent, but each of a counter-clockwise direction and would then intersect R to the the other parcels earns “infra-marginal” (Ricardian) rent. Henry left of its current point (E3). This payment of resource rent is George suggested that all of this differential surplus (Ricardian necessary to establish both technical and price efficiency—and rent) could be taxed away without altering the uses to which it would result in a reduced level of aggregate effort. Effort would each parcel of land would be put. After all, Ricardian rent is a be reduced because when firms must pay for the fish they catch, species of economic rent in that it is a surplus over and above their average and marginal costs rise somewhat, leading to profit what is required by way of income in order to keep that par- maximization at a slightly reduced level of effort. cel of land in its current use. Since it is excess (infra-marginal) The standard fisheries story fails to grasp this point and insists income, why not tax it away? Why should an owner get to keep that aggregate effort must be reduced in a bogus and chimerical all of the surplus value created by the fortuitous gifts of nature quest to reach E1—at which point fishing firms who manage to (superior land), or the public’s investment in roads, busy inter- remain in the fishery get to keep all of the resource rent, plus sections, schools, and parks? they reap excess profits made possible by the exclusion of most Scott Gordon (1954) got fisheries economics off to a rather of their former competitors. We now see that avoiding “rent dis- bad start by speaking of two fishing “grounds” as if discussing sipation” is nothing but the creation of excess profits for the for- two agricultural parcels. He insisted that fishing firms will over- tunate firms not evicted under rationalization schemes. These fish the superior ground and underfish the inferior ground— extra-normal profits are then bolstered by using gifted IFQs as and Gordon called this the dissipation of “resource rent” (even leverage to acquire additional quota shares, thereby augment- though it is Ricardian rent). Gordon wanted an owner of the ing these excess profits into perpetuity. This flawed model—and fishing grounds so that effort would be optimally allocated across the conceptual and linguistic conjuring attendant to it—are grounds of differential quality. All of Gordon’s fish were seri- deployed to offer ersatz indictments concerning the lack of “effi- ously demersal and stayed close to home. ciency” in the fishery. Effort at E3 is said to produce a situation Gordon recognized the limiting nature of his model but few in which: fisheries economists seem to have noticed. He wrote: …the so-called economic rents (total revenue minus Other species, such as herring, mackerel, and similar pelagic total costs) from the fishery will equilibrate at zero, or surface dwellers migrate over very large distances, and resulting in minimal overall economic efficiency. it is necessary to treat the resource of an entire geographic (Beddington et al. 2007:1713) region as one. The conclusions arrived at below are applicable And, as we saw above: to such fisheries, but the method of analysis employed is not formally applicable. The same is true of species that New entrants will continue to enter an unrestricted fishery migrate to and from fresh water and the lake fishes proper. until E3 is reached and a profit can no longer be made. (Gordon 1954:129) (Sylvia et al. 2007) And so the underwater version of “Ricardian rent” soon lost These authors seem unaware that a competitive industry is its differential-quality component and became “resource rent” precisely one in which the difference between average revenue in any fishery of any size or species composition. Gordon wanted and average cost, both at the individual level of the firm, and to maximize this “wet” Ricardian rent. Interestingly, if fisher- aggregating across all firms, must be zero. A competitive indus-

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 287 try is one in which total industry revenue is precisely exhausted finished, are “rough drafts,” my arguments then seem as perti- (used up) by total industry costs (when all factors of produc- nent today as they did back then. tion—including the fish from the EEZ—have been paid their Drawing on this ersatz picture, the inevitable impression competitive return). There can be—must be—no economic to arise from the phony claims for IFQs is that management is rent (excess profit) in a competitive industry. That is precisely no longer necessary—IFQs can be handed out as gifts to those the point of a competitive market. firms with a history in a particular fishery, and then the after- At effort level E3, each fishing firm is covering all necessary market can be relied upon to bring about “efficiency” in terms costs, and also realizing enough of a net return (profit) to make of who will remain in the fishery. Fishing effort will automati- fishing the preferred occupational choice. Also, as long as land- cally equilibrate at the efficient level, and resource rent will be ings are on the sustainable curve R it cannot be claimed that maximized. It all sounds too good to be true—and of course it the fish stock is in danger of overexploitation. Sustainability is is. Indeed, as Beddington et al. (2007) point out, the most thor- assured. The curious reader might therefore be justified in ask- oughly “privatized” fisheries—New Zealand and Iceland—have ing: “Please tell me again what is wrong with effort level E3?” some of the highest management costs in the industry. If IFQs The only honest answer to this pertinent question is that those accomplish so many desired results—enlightened stewardship, firms comprising aggregate effortE 3 are not required to pay any- economic efficiency, rent maximization—why are management thing for the fish—the owners of the fish are not receiving any costs so high? resource rent. If we can escape the extravagant claims for IFQs, is there We see that the advocacy for IFQs is based on this flawed a plausible path forward? Imagine fisheries policy motivated by understanding of efficiency and resource rent. When IFQs are the following objectives: gifted to those with a history in a particular fishery, there is an 1. assure sustainable fish stocks; after-market for quota as consolidation occurs. This after-mar- 2. Produce resource rent for return to the owners of the stocks; ket fails to produce any resource rent (payments for fish landed) 3. reduce racing (derbies); and for the owners of the resource (the U.S. Treasury acting as the 4. Offer entry opportunities for aspiring firms. repository for the government’s trust responsibility as manager of the fishery). Payments for additional quota shares by those who From these four central principles, other objectives—contribute wish to expand are received by others who were similarly gifted, to enhanced product quality, revitalize small fishing ports, offer but who now wish to cash out and do something besides fish for tourist attractions to coastal communities—can be appended a living. Commercial fishing firms stand to the fish they seek to where appropriate. catch in exactly the same relationship as those who seek to har- The first objective is met by honest science-based limits on vest timber from federal lands, or those who wish to extract oil total annual catch. While the science is indeed difficult at times, and gas from federal lands (or from the outer continental shelf). the principle of listening to the scientists is quite unimpeach- In the absence of payments to the owners of the fishery resource, able. Science-based TACs—assiduously enforced—are the nec- we see that the “rent-maximizing” level of effort in Figure 1 (E1) essary and sufficient condition for sustainability in fisheries. represents nothing but the creation and maintenance of excess The second objective is met by requiring fishing firms to pay profits accruing to those fortunate enough to remain in the fish- the owners of the fish they catch a royalty for the privilege of ery after all others have been excluded through consolidation of being able to make a living off of the public’s endowment of the initial free gifting of IFQs. And it means that the firms are fisheries wealth in the EEZ. The best way to accomplish this not paying for the fish they catch. The free gift of IFQs has an is to require those who seek to participate in a particular fish- added bonus—free fish. It is impossible to assert that efficiency ery to submit a royalty bid indicating what fraction (the royalty has been achieved when a fishery is being exploited at effort bid) of annual gross landings receipts they are willing to pay the E1. government in order to gain income and wealth from catching our fish. See Bromley (2005, 2008) and Bromley and Macinko Bringing Management Back In (2007) for a discussion of the royalty auction. The third objective is met by abandoning the practice of giv- The decades-long accretion of deceits, confusions, con- ing away catch shares (IFQs) into perpetuity—a practice that jurings, and contrivances conspire to yield up a conceptually restricts all future management options to the blunt instrument incoherent diagnosis of the “fisheries problem.” This bogus diag- of raising and lowering TACs. All permits must be for fixed time nosis then underwrites a plethora of counterfeit justifications periods—say 5 or 10 years—so that fisheries managers can also for the introduction of IFQs. Fisheries policy makers have been control the number of vessels participating in a particular fishery deceived to believe that IFQs are private property rights, that without having to devote the public’s money to buyback that private property is a reliable engine of stewardship, that fisher- which was recently given away to the industry for free. This will men cannot make money in the absence of IFQs, and that eco- solve the derby fishery, and it will enable accomplishment of the nomic efficiency will be realized if some fishing capacity can be fourth objective. New Zealand seems to have learned this lesson restricted in order to maximize the difference between total rev- the hard—and expensive—way (NRC 1999). enue and total cost in an industry. This is said to be consistent The fourth objective is achieved by virtue of having accom- with “maximizing resource rent” in the fishery. It is fantasy—all plished the second and third objectives. That is, the existence the way down. of limited-term permits assures everyone that at frequent inter- I was reminded to re-visit my Ph.D. dissertation, which was vals (perhaps annually, perhaps every five years, depending on published by the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries over 40 the design of the allotment-share program), some portion of the years ago (Bromley 1969). While all dissertations, even when existing permits in a fishery will come open for acquisition by

288 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g new entrants. Those firms holding permits could bid once again not allowed to gain control of a fishery.I have elsewhere spelled to retain them, but new entrants would also have an opportu- out a number of refinements to this basic model (Bromley 2005, nity to enter the fishery through submitting a higher qualifying 2008; Bromley and Macinko 2007]. bid. It is here that we find a profound difference between an allot- Summary ment-share fishery (ASF) and the standard IFQ fishery. In an IFQ fishery, quota shares are controlled by a closed class of ves- The manifold contrivances under discussion here have given sels who are able to block new entrants by trading shares among rise to a perception that management will be virtually unneces- themselves, but not selling to new entrants. With the entire sary in an IFQ fishery. The magic of IFQs is alleged to produce TAC obligated in perpetual gifts to the industry, the manage- a setting in which fishing firms will become exemplary stewards, ment agency loses the ability to offer fishing opportunities to they will become efficient, the fishery will become efficient, new entrants. Moreover, in an IFQ fishery, entry requires the resource rent will be maximized, there will be no more racing up-front purchase of quota from those who now hold it. Notice for fish, and society will be better off. that this cost represents an entry barrier that can be overcome The foregoing discussion reveals that those who offer this only through a contractual arrangement with the current holder utopian vision are themselves confused about the necessary con- of the IFQ (paying for the quota shares at the end of the season), cepts they deploy to support their optimistic allegories. Among or through entering the credit market in search of liquidity. the key concepts they have wrong are: Either route exposes the entrant to virtually all of the stochastic 1. efficiency; variation in the next year’s TAC, as well as to the endemic risks 2. economic rent; in a highly variable economic activity. 3. resource rent; The allotment-share fishery (ASF) requires no such ex ante 4. ricardian rent; financial maneuvers. If the aspiring fishing firm submits a win- 5. average costs and average revenue among firms and across ning royalty bid, there is no prior financial obligation required. an industry; The royalty is simply deducted from the proceeds due the fishing 5. extra-normal profits; firm upon sale of the product at dockside. No fish, no fee. 6. stewardship; Notice that I have left aside many of the possible refine- 7. Property; ments—two classes of permits (5-year, 10-year), staggered terms 8. rights; for permits so that a portion of them come up for renewal each 9. Privileges; and year, size-class permits so that small vessels are not bidding 10. Property rights. against large vessels, concentration caps so that a few firms are

Frigid Units

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 289 This is not auspicious ground on which to construct a coherent _____. 2006. Sufficient reason: volitional pragmatism and the case for anything at all. In the wake of this dismal account, the meaning of economic institutions. Princeton University Press, only possible reaction to their over-confident policy offerings Princeton, New Jersey. concerning IFQs is comprehensive incredulity. At a practical _____. 2008. The crisis in ocean governance: conceptual confusion, level, empirical evidence from New Zealand and Iceland reveals spurious economics, political indifference. MAST 6(2):7-22. the deceit that IFQs will bring us a self-regulating fishery. Bromley, D. W., and S. Macinko. 2007. Rethinking fisheries policy The world’s fisheries are in desperate condition precisely because fisheries management over the past several decades has in Alaska: options for the future. Report prepared for the Alaska been one of rather complete malfeasance on the part of national Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, October 31. governments and their fisheries management agencies. The Clark, C. W. 1973. Profit maximization and the extinction of ani- advocates of IFQs have managed to exploit this tragedy by offer- mal species. Journal of Political Economy 81:950-961. ing up the canard that if only their roseate policy instrument Cole, D., and P. Grossman. 2002. The meaning of property rights: could be introduced there would be no need for management law vs. economics. Land Economics 78(3):317-330. in the first place. Costello, C., S. D. Gaines, and J. Lynham. 2008. Can catch shares Adopting this spurious advice would compound the tragedies prevent fisheries collapse? Science 321:1678-1681. of past malfeasance by the foolish embrace of confusions, con- Gordon, H. S. 1954. The economic theory of a common property trivances, and deceits. resource: the fishery. Journal of Political Economy 62:124-42. Acknowledgements Grafton, R. Q., and 18 co-authors. 2006. Incentive-based approaches to sustainable fisheries. Canadian Journal ofF isheries An earlier version of this article was submitted as written and Aquatic Sciences 63:699-710. testimony to the PacificF isheries Management Council in con- Hannesson, R. 2004. The privatization of the oceans. MIT Press, junction with the planned introduction of an IFQs fishery for Cambridge, Massachusetts. West Coast Groundfish. I am grateful for helpful comments by Hilborn, R. 2007. Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in Seth Macinko and two anonymous reviewers. objectives. Marine Policy 31:153-58. Hohfeld, W. N. 1913. Some fundamental legal conceptions as References applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal 23:16-59. Anderson, L. G., and M. C. Holliday (editors) 2007. The design Leal, D. R. 2000. Homesteading the oceans: the case for property and use of limited access privilege programs, NOAA/NMFS, rights in U.S. fisheries. PERC Policy Series PS-19. Property and Washington, D.C. Environment Research Center, Bozeman, Montana. Árnason, R. 2000. Property rights as a means of economic orga- Macinko, S., and D. W. Bromley. 2002. Who owns America’s fish- nization. In Ross Shotton, ed. Use of property rights in fisher- eries? Island Press, Washington, D.C. ies management: proceedings of the FishRights99 Conference, _____. 2004. Property and fisheries for the twenty-first century: Freemantle, Western Australia, 11-19 November 1999. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 404/1. seeking coherence from legal and economic doctrine. Vermont Becker, L. C. 1977. Property rights. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Law Review 28(3):623-61. London. NRC (National Research Council). 1999. Sharing the fish: toward Beddington, J. R., D. J. Agnew, and C. W. Clark. 2007. Current a national policy on individual fishing quotas. Committee problems in the management of marine fisheries, Science to Review Individual Fishing Quotas, Ocean Studies Board. 316:1713-1716. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Branch, T. A., and R. Hilborn. 2008. Matching catches to quotas Okey, T. A. 2003. Membership of the eight regional fishery man- in a multi-species trawl fishery: targeting and avoidance behav- ior under individual transferable quotas. Canadian Journal of agement councils in the United States: are special interests Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65:1435-46. over-represented? Marine Policy 27:193-206. Brandom, R. 2000. Articulating reasons, Harvard University Press, Page, T. 1977. Conservation and economic efficiency. Johns Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Bromley, D. W. 1969. Economic efficiency in common property Scott, A. 1955. The fishery: the objectives of sole ownership. natural resource use: a case study of the ocean fishery. U.S. Journal of Political Economy 63:116-24. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Working Paper 28, Washington, D.C. Scott, A. 1989. Conceptual origins of rights based fishing. In P.A. _____. 1989. Economic interests and institutions: the conceptual Neher, R. Árnason, and N. Mollett, eds. Rights based fishing. foundations of public policy. Blackwell, Oxford. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. _____. 1990. The ideology of efficiency: searching for a theory Smith, V. L. 1969. On models of commercial fishing. The Journal of policy analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and of Political Economy 77(2):181-98. Management 19(1):86-107. Sylvia, G., M. Harte, and C. Cusack. 2008. Economic and policy _____. 1991. Environment and economy: property rights and pub- analysis of a fixed term auction-based individual fishing quotas lic policy. Blackwell, Oxford. _____. 2005. Purging the frontier from our mind: crafting a new proposal for the West Coast limited entry groundfish trawl fish- fisheries policy. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15:217- ery. Appendix F, Attachment B. Pacific Fishery Management 229. Council, Portland, Oregon.

290 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Floy Tag

HallTech

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 291 Letters: To The EDITOR

Comment on “Abdicating Responsibility: The Deceits of Fisheries Policy”

Bromley (2009) brings an “outside” sufficient for sustainable resource use. property rights. Cole and Grossman define perspective to the challenges of fisheries Even the authors of the paper Bromley property rights as: policy. His views about what he perceives cites repeatedly make it clear that private ...property relations between own- to be the prevailing zeitgeist of market ownership is not sufficient for socially ers and non-owners... “fundamentalism” in fisheries require a beneficial ownership. They state: response. Our intent is to correct errors of and more precisely as commission and omission that might oth- Exclusive property rights, however, …if one person holds a “right” to erwise leave readers with a mistaken view do not guarantee sustainability. something, at least one other per- of fisheries economics, the usefulness of In extreme cases, it may be son must have a corresponding duty individual fishing quotas (IFQs), and what economically rational to mine a not to interfere with her possession should be the desirable biomass levels in fishery (Clark 1973). and use... fisheries. We limit our response to: (Grafton et al. 2006:701) (Cole and Grossman 2002:318) 1. Defining an IFQ; Grafton et al. (2006a) further show that They further state that a property right 2. Bromley’s so-called five deceits of private ownership is not necessary for only arises contemporary fisheries policy that we sustainable resource use and describe how rephrase as questions; both individual and also group incentives …when it is socially or legally 3. His remarks on catch shares and (in the form of group and collective rights) recognized as such, signifying the collapse; can be successful at improving outcomes voluntary acceptance and enforce- 4. The concepts of resource rent and in fisheries. ment of concomitant duties or efficiency; and noninterference. Must IFQs be granted in perpetuity? 5. Fisheries policy. (Cole and Grossman 2002:325) And must they be transferrable to produce Bromley defines IFQs as harvest desired efficiency and stewardship? The definition of Cole and Grossman of a shares that require all of the following Durability and transferability are desirable property right, in our opinion, matches the characteristics: properties of harvesting rights in fisheries nature of IFQs in jurisdictions such as New 1. They are given away for free, (Devlin and Grafton 1998) but they are Zealand, Australia, and Iceland. 2. Granted in perpetuity, and not an absolute requirement to produce Are IFQs necessary and sufficient to 3. Involve no capture of rent. the desired efficiency and stewardship produce efficiency and maximize resource properties of IFQs. Many IFQ fisheries do rent? IFQs are neither necessary nor We contend that IFQs are much not have these “perfect” criteria, yet sufficient to maximize rent in a fishery. broader than his definition, and that there However, contrary to Bromley’s claim, it are individual transferable quotas that function well compared to traditional and so-called “command and control” is fisheries economists who have shown we would call IFQs that do not satisfy this result (see Boyce 1992; Costello and Bromley’s three characteristics. fisheries management. Further details are available in Scott (2008), who describes Deacon 2007). Fisheries economists have Can overfishing be blamed on missing also given the conditions under uncer- property rights? There is both theoretical the historical origins and different charac- teristics of property rights in fisheries, and tainty in which total effort control may be and empirical evidence that inappropriate preferred to total harvest control (Kompas incentives can lead to economic overfish- the outcomes they generate. There is also et al. 2008). We contend that no single ing. Thus, contrary to Bromley’s claim, a substantial and valuable literature devel- fisheries management policy or tool, economic overfishing can be blamed on oped by economists that documents and including Bromley’s allotment shares, will missing rights. Unfortunately, Bromley analyzes how changes in design criteria maximize economic efficiency or rent in goes a step too far by seeking to claim (property characteristics) affect incentives a fishery. This, however, is not the point. that fisheries economists believe that this for stewardship (see Costello and Kaffine Namely, is the only reason for overfishing. This is 2008). simply untrue. Are IFQs private property? We con- If IFQs do not, in general, lead to Is private ownership necessary and tend that IFQs are property. Bromley cites a first-best outcome they may be, sufficient for sustainable resource use? Cole and Grossman (2002) to show how nevertheless, a desirable manage- Private ownership is neither necessary nor economists confuse legal concepts as ment tool if they result in a superior

292 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g outcome to that arising from cur- fishing effort on the horizontal axis), for the maximum rent from fishing at E1 can rent practice a level of fishing effort at E3 where the and should be used to benefit society as a (Grafton 1996a:7) total revenue from fishing equals total whole by using this surplus for productive cost (the so-called bionomic equilibrium) public investments. Far from ignoring the Bromley contends that Costello et to be economically efficient. Indeed, any issues of rent capture, there is a substantial al. (2008) failed to test for the effects of level of effort on the downward sloping literature by fisheries economists on how IFQs separate from TAC limits on reduc- side of the sustained revenue curve in his this rent could be captured in the presence ing the probability of stock collapse. figure is technically inefficient because less of IFQs (see Grafton 1995, 1996b). However, in many fisheries, IFQs have effort can be applied to catch the same or Bromley’s confusion about resource been implemented subsequent to rather greater harvest (and revenues; Grafton et rent appears to arise from his insistence of than simultaneously with the introduc- al. 2006b). It is also true that at any level focusing on rent from the individual fisher tion of TAC limits. Indeed, it has been the of fishing effort greater than E1 (the effort perspective while for fisheries economists failure to adequately implement TAC limits that maximizes the rent in the fishery) that the unit of analysis is the fishery. In the in so-called “race to fish” fisheries, where the marginal cost of additional unit of absence of IFQs, where a market price for fishers have actively lobbied against lower effort is less than its marginal benefit from the right to harvest fish arises, or when a harvests, that has encouraged the intro- the perspective of the fishery. landings royalty or charge is imposed, the duction of IFQs by managers. The hypoth- A concern from a sustainability price of fish in the sea will not be priced by esis tested by Costello et al. (2008) was perspective is that Bromley appears to those harvesting fish to take into account that IFQs reduce the likelihood of stock advocate a high-effort, low-stock state the costs on others. Consequently, fishers collapse. They accounted for changes for of the world (given by E3). From an will continue to harvest if their expected differences both across time (before/after economic perspective, why would any IFQs) and across fisheries (those that have resource owner (the state) wish to produce individual return exceeds the expected adopted IFQs, and those that have not). a technically inefficient point given by E3 cost, or until the bioeconomic equilibrium Bromley’s understanding of efficiency such that the same revenue (harvest) is at E3. This is a market failure. is confused. The various concepts of generated with twice the level of fishing How can the market failure of fisher- efficiency (technical, allocative, scale, and effort? Bromley asks, “What is wrong with ies be corrected? It can be remedied by economic) are appropriately defined in a E3?” Apart from the fact that low stocks the imposition of a landings charge, as fisheries context in Grafton et al. (2006b). and high fishing effort are associated with proposed by Bromley and others (see A necessary condition for a firm (or fisher) lower resilience and greater risk of stock Clark 1985:157-171), but it can also be to be economically efficient is to be both collapse, the economic answer is that fish- corrected by IFQs where the fish in the sea allocative efficient and technically effi- ing inputs (labor and capital) that gener- have a price determined by the market cient. In a fishery context it cannot be ate fishing effort in excess of E1 could be price for IFQs. Whether IFQs are allocated the case, as shown in Bromley’s Figure 1 used for other productive activities (such gratis or auctioned, they are not “free” in (which has dollars on the vertical axis and as building hospitals or schools). Moreover, the sense they represent a cost (explicit or

Sonotronics

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 293 IFQs and Responsible Fisheries Policy implicit) and can help correct the market References The article “Abdicating Responsibility: failure of economic overfishing. The Deceits of Fisheries Policy” published Boyce, J. R. 1992. Individual transferable in Fisheries does a three-fold disservice. Despite the differences we have with quotas and production externalities in Bromley, we have little to disagree with a fishery. Natural Resource Modeling 6: First, it overgeneralizes the arguments put in terms of his objectives for fisheries 385-408. forward in the economic and fisheries policy. Yet again, however, Bromley fails Bromley, D. W. 2009. Abdicating respon- management literature about the theory sibility: the deceits of fisheries policy. to recognize the fisheries economics and application of individual fishing quo- Fisheries 34(6):280-290, this issue. tas (IFQs). Second, it devalues the signifi- literature. For instance, an approach similar Clark, C. W. 1985. Bionomic modelling and cant achievements of fisheries managers to his allotment-share fishery has already fisheries management. John Wiley and around the world who have designed and been implemented in New South Wales Sons, New York. Cole, D. H., and P. Z. Grossman. 2002. implemented many types of IFQ pro- fisheries based on the advice of fisheries The meaning of property rights. Land grams. Third, without empirical evidence, economists (Young 1999). Hannesson Economics 78(3):317-330. it unfairly discredits an effective fisheries (2004:59) also describes how the fishing Costello, C., S. Gaines, and J. Lynham. management tool at a time when we rights system in Estonia was established 2008. Can catch shares prevent fisheries need to use a full range of management (late discontinued) whereby 10% of all collapse? Science 321:1678-1681. Costello, C., and R. Deacon. 2007. tools to achieve sustainable fisheries. fishing rights were auctioned off annually, Efficiency gains from fully delineating Some 36 years after Francis T. Christy, with the remaining shares allocated on the rights in an ITQ fishery. Marine Resource Jr., the intellectual parent of IFQs, pre- basis of recent catches. Economics 22:347-361. sented his seminal paper to the Law of the Far from confusing fisheries managers Costello, C., and D. Kaffine. 2008. Natural Sea Institute in 1972 (Christy 1973), fisher- resource use with limited tenure property ies management has moved beyond rhet- or perpetuating deceits or misinterpret- rights. Journal of Environmental Economics ing concepts, the advice offered by many and Management 55(1):20-36. oric about the theoretical disadvantages fisheries economists has proven to be Devlin, R. A., and R. Q. Grafton. 1998. and advantages of IFQ systems. More than helpful and, in some cases, instrumental, Economic rights and environmental 20 developed and developing countries wrongs: property rights for the com- in improving a whole range of fisheries have implemented some variation of an mon good. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, IFQ system for hundreds of individual outcomes. We summarize our viewpoint England. fisheries (Shotton 2000; Arnason 2002; by quoting from the last sentence of a Grafton, R. Q. 1995. Rent capture Costello et al. 2008; Branch 2009). IFQ paper much cited by Bromley: in a rights-based fishery. Journal of Environmental Economics and systems are to be found in many variations Evidence from more than a dozen Management 28(1): 48-67. because of the particular social, economic, natural experiments of commer- _____. 1996a. Individual transferable quotas: institutional, and biological context of the theory and practice. Reviews in Fish cial, developed fisheries supports fishery being managed. Common to all Biology and Fisheries 6:5-20. IFQ systems is the distribution of a share our conclusion: incentive-based _____. 1996b. Implications of taxing quota approaches that better specify indi- in an individual transferable quota fishery: of the total allowable catch (or effort) as quota. In most IFQ systems, participants vidual and group harvesting rights a comment. Marine Resource Economics are permitted to sell or lease this quota and (or) territorial rights, as well as 11:125-127. Grafton, R. Q., and 18 co-authors. 2006a. (Branch 2009). price ecosystem services, promote Incentive-based approaches to sustain- IFQs are a tool for improving economic both economic and ecological able fisheries. Canadian Journal of performance of commercial fisheries. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:699- sustainability. Economists have played an influential (Grafton et al. 2006:706). 710. Grafton, R. Q., J. E. Kirkley, T. Kompas, role in the design and implementation This is neither a utopian vision nor a and D. Squires. 2006b. Economics of IFQ systems around the world, from canard. for fisheries management. Ashgate, Iceland (Arnason 2008) to New Zealand Aldershot, England. (Batstone and Sharp 1999; Bess and Hannesson, R. 2004. The privatization Harte 2000) to the Falkland Islands (Harte —R. Quentin Grafton, of the oceans. MIT Press, Cambridge, and Barton 2007). As a component of a The Australian National University; Massachusetts. harvest quota-based system, IFQs establish David Campbell, Kompas, T., T. N. Che, and R. Q. Grafton. 2008. Fisheries instrument choice under market-based incentives that encourage Flinders University; uncertainty. Land Economics 84(4):652- participants to reduce fishing costs and Christopher Costello, 666. sustain fish stocks. The details concern- University of California Santa Barbara; Scott, A. 2008. The evolution of resource ing security, transferability, duration, and Ray Hilborn, property rights. Oxford University Press, exclusivity of IFQs vary widely among Oxford. University of Washington; Young, M. D. 1999. The design of fishing- various programs (see, for example, Scott Tom Kompas, right systems—the NSW experience. 2000 and Anderson 2005). Twenty-first The Australian National University Ecological Economics 31:305-316. century fisheries management profes-

294 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g sionals understand that clarity, appro- increased from a few days to all year- but they do not take the place of govern- priateness, and enforceability of fishing round and the value of the catch increased ment oversight of a public resource. To entitlements and responsibilities go hand dramatically (Sporer 2008). This pattern reduce externalities and achieve politically- in hand with overall harvest limits to has been repeated in many IFQ fisheries determined social objectives, governments reinforce public and private incentives for in North America including Pacific halibut need to choose an appropriate mix of sustainable fisheries. (Hilborn et al. 2005), British Columbia geo- management tools. These tools include That the immediate cause of overfish- duck (James 2008), and British Columbia command and control regulations (e.g., ing is the human-induced mortality on fish red sea urchin (Featherstone and Rogers season and gear restrictions), the establish- stocks is not disputed. To prevent over- 2008). Efficiency gains and benefits to ment of minimum performance standards fishing, however, it must also be viewed fisheries management may, however, (e.g., bycatch rates), and the creation of from a societal and economic perspec- come with social and cultural costs as collective management institutions (e.g., tive (Costello et al. 2008). Overfishing is fewer people and vessels are engaged in fishing cooperatives) as well as IFQs (Sylvia an example of Hardin’s (1968) famous fishing and IFQs become concentrated et al. 2006). “tragedy of the commons” principle in the hands of fewer fishing interests IFQ holders have an enhanced incentive that applies to common pool resources. (Pinkerton and Edwards 2009). These to take a long-term interest in fisher- Allocating individuals a specified share effects may have a detrimental impact ies. Conservation actions taken today of allowable catch or effort is one of at a local or regional level, even as the will directly benefit IFQ holders through several possible solutions to overfishing economy as a whole benefits. As McCay larger future harvests and the increased and excessive capital investment that (2000) notes, there are often no free value of catch shares (Hilborn et al. 2005; are characteristic of many common pool lunches in fisheries management. Anderson and Holliday 2007). In open fisheries (Wilen 2006). Branch (2009), a IFQs and other forms of rights-based and limited-access competitive fisheries, fisheries biologist, explored the effects of (or privilege-based) management are individual firms have no secure claim on IFQs on marine ecosystems and found that not a panacea for all that ails fisheries future catches. If future entitlements to aggregate catches in IFQ fisheries were management. Many challenges, includ- a share of a fishery are secure under an generally below the total allowable catch ing overfishing; the bycatch of non-target IFQ system, then harvesters can more (TAC) while, in the same fisheries pre-IFQ, fish stocks; the incidental mortality of confidently make long-term capital they were generally above the TAC. In the seabirds, marine mammals, and reptiles; investment decisions. Greater certainty 20 IFQ fisheries studied by Branch, fleet and the adverse impact of fishing gear also helps the processing sector make size declined in every fishery after the on benthic communities are examples of long-term investments that can improve introduction of IFQs. what economists term “negative externali- product quality and diversify market On the introduction of IFQs to the ties” (Hughey et al. 2000). The assignment channels (Larkin and Sylvia 1999, 2004.). British Columbia sablefish fishery, TAC of IFQ-type entitlements and responsi- In addition, Beddington et al. (2007) and overages disappeared and catches have bilities can promote a reduction in these Branch (2009) report examples of steward- been below the TAC since then (Sporer externalities (see, for example, Hughey et ship behavior in IFQ fisheries including the 2008). The length of the fishing season al. 2000; Holland 2007; Ning et al. 2009) recommendation of TAC reductions and

Lotek

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 295 development of environmental codes of growth characteristics, and duration of decision to be informed, but not decided, practice. Townsend and Shotton (2008) a harvest privilege all impact incentives by economics. Untangling resource rent note many examples from New Zealand, for resource stewardship and economic from normal profit and entrepreneurial Canada, and Europe where holders of IFQ efficiency. Modeling the abalone and spiny rents is often an accounting quagmire. type privileges have formed self-gover- lobster fisheries in Baja California, Mexico, Renewable resource rent is properly nance associations that have funded and the authors demonstrate how limited- viewed as a dynamic rather than a static actively carried out research and then have duration privileges could induce resource concept (Larkin et al. 2002). The issue is either voluntarily undertaken or advocated stewardship. However, for slower growing further complicated by non-economic for government to implement conserva- stocks, either a long tenure period or high social objectives, and the regulatory costs tion measures. Voluntary measures such as certainty of renewal is required to induce of science and management. While it quota shelving, where IFQs are temporar- stewardship. They also argue that a longer can be difficult to establish the extent to ily retired from the fishery, and increased tenure of harvest privileges will encour- which society should be paid for a right research and biological sampling can have age stewardship depending on the tenure to access a resource, there are a variety of significant short-term costs but long-term length, the probability of renewal (as a methods for allocating rent to the public benefits. Though clearly not exclusive to function of the probability of achieving a treasury. These range from ex-vessel taxes IFQ fisheries, stewardship activities appear predetermined “escapement” level), and to annual license fees to public auctions to occur more frequently in IFQ fisheries the economic and biological characteris- of IFQs (Grafton 1995; Huppert 2007). than in fisheries managed under alterna- tics of the fishery. Although carried out Each method has different administrative tive arrangements (Branch 2009). with high-value single species fisheries, and economic costs and benefits. The eco- IFQs do not operate in a social or this work demonstrates the context- nomic consequences also depend on the political vacuum. Government often seeks specific nature of the complex relationship amount of rent extracted from the fishery. a myriad of potentially conflicting social, between stock characteristics, duration Leaving some rents with industry enhances economic, and environmental objec- of fishing privileges, and the certainty of stewardship incentives, assists in generat- tives for fisheries management. For this privilege renewal. ing capital to invest in the fishery, and reason no IFQ fishery in place anywhere Unlike many other fisheries manage- encourages the generation of new wealth in the world has IFQs that are both of ment tools, IFQs can simultaneously through innovation. Total returns accru- infinite duration and are freely tradable. encourage harvest sustainability and ing to both the public (through general Restrictions are placed on who can own wealth. First, they encourage lower taxation and reinvestment in the economy) IFQs and how much can be owned. For harvests and higher fish stocks because and the private sector will then increase. If example, the Falkland Islands IFQ sys- economic returns in a sustainable fishery government attempts to extract all forms tem has quota eligibility registers and are often greater at larger stock levels. In of rent, then long-term incentives to invest there are various restrictions related to addition, reduced fishing effort associated in the fishery may be greatly reduced. local ownership, efficient use, and active with IFQ fisheries can induce “positive IFQs are only one, albeit successful, tool involvement (Harte and Barton 2007). externalities” by reducing habitat impacts, that can be used to combat our fisheries The proposed IFQ system for the U.S. lowering bycatch, and reducing inciden- crises. They are part of the management West Coast groundfish fishery places tal mortality of mammals, seabirds, and solution and are not a replacement for limits on IFQ ownership that, with a few marine reptiles. Second, IFQ-based systems government oversight of fisheries. Indeed exceptions, range from between 3% tend to create wealth through efficient IFQ systems as creations of public statute and 15% of the total available IFQ for harvesting practices and marketing require government involvement for their non-whiting groundfish stocks (PFMC efficiency (Asche et al. 2008; Wilen and effectiveness. They take on many forms to 2008). Most countries restrict the duration Richardson 2008). A study by Wilen (2005) address a variety of politically-determined of IFQs. For example, in the United States suggests that the world’s fisheries should management objectives. Together with and Australia, IFQ duration is tied to the be making $80 billion a year in resource science-based catch limits and effective length of the management plan in place rents rather than losing $30 billion per enforcement of regulations, IFQs can for the fishery, although IFQs are gener- year. This loss is due to the inefficiency of help achieve ecological sustainability and ally reallocated to existing holders upon fisheries management systems that work increase the economic performance of the establishment of a new fishery plan against rather than for the efficient use of fisheries. When fisheries are profitable and (Arnason 2002). Individual efficiency and resources and wealth creation. generate rents, government is able to use stewardship incentives can be undermined The public has a clear interest in the a range of financial mechanisms to help by the many conditions set on IFQ owner- wealth generated from the efficient use of ensure that both the public and industry ship, but benefits are still apparent in most a well-managed common pool resource benefit from wealth-generating fisheries. IFQ fisheries (Branch 2009; Beddington et (Grafton 1995; Anderson 2000; Anderson The recent reauthorization of the al. 2007; Costello et al. 2008). and Holliday 2007). Whether or not Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation Recent research by Costello and governments choose to recover rents, and and Management Act provides the Kaffine (2008) shows that the value, if so at what level and how, is a political Secretary of Commerce (and the fisher-

296 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g ies management councils) with the ability Miller and Jim Wilen for their ideas and in fisheries management. Science to establish a system of limited-access input to this letter. 316:1713-1716. privileges that include IFQs. The empirical Bess, R., and M. Harte. 2000. The role of property rights in the management of evidence from over 20 countries sug- References New Zealand’s fisheries. Marine Policy gest that IFQs in all their various forms 24:331–9. have improved economic efficiency and Anderson, J .L. 2005. Property rights, Branch, T. A. 2009. How do individual profitability, reduced discard, increased fisheries, aquaculture, and the future. transferable quotas affect marine safety, and perhaps helped prevent fishery Pages 239-257 in D.R. Leal, ed. Evolving ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries 10:39–57. property rights in marine fisheries. collapses. To sweep these benefits under Christy, F. T. Jr. 1973. Fishermen quotas: Rowman and Littlefield, Maryland. a threadbare rug of rhetoric would be a tentative suggestion for domestic Anderson L. G. 2000. Selection of a management. Occasional Paper 19. the biggest deceit of all. We challenge property rights management system. University of Rhode Island, Law of the Sea those who believe that IFQs are inherently Pages 26-38 in R. Shotton, ed. Use of Institute, Kingston. antithetical to good fisheries management property rights in fisheries management. Costello, C., and D. Kaffine. 2008. to roll up their sleeves and get to work FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 404/1. Natural resource use with limited-tenure providing rigorous empirical evidence for Anderson, L. G., and M.C. Holliday property rights. Journal of Environmental their case. (editors). 2007. The design and use of Economics and Management 55:20-36. limited access privilege programs. NOAA Costello, C., S.D. Gaines, and J. Lynham. Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-86. 2008. Can catch shares prevent fisheries —Michael Harte, Arnason, R. 2002. Review of international collapse. Science 321:1678-1681. Oregon State University experiences with ITQs: annex to future Featherstone, M., and J. Rogers. 2008. Sherry Larkin, University of Florida; options for UK fish quota management. The evolution of co-management in the Gil Sylvia, Report to the UK Department for the British Columbia red sea urchin fishery. Oregon State University; Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Pages 383-398 in R. Townsend, R. Dan Huppert, CEMARE, University of Portsmouth. Shotton and H. Uchida, eds. Case studies _____. 2008. Iceland’s ITQ system creates University of Washington; in fisheries self-governance. FAO Fisheries new wealth. The Electronic Journal of Technical Paper 504. George Kailis, Sustainable Development 1(2): 35-41. Grafton, R. Q. 1995. Rent capture University of Notre Dame—Australia; Asche, F., H. Eggert, E. Gudmundsson, in a rights based fishery. Journal Mike Arbuckle, A. Hoff, and S. Pascoe S. 2008. Fisher’s of Environmental Economics and World Bank; behavior with individual vessel quotas Management 28:48-67. Laura Jodice, —over-capacity and potential rent. Five Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the Clemson University case studies. Marine Policy 32:920-927. commons. Science 162:1243-1248. Batstone, C. J., and B.M.H. Sharp. 1999. Harte, M., and J. Barton. 2007. Balancing New Zealand’s quota management local ownership with foreign investment Acknowledgements system: the first ten years. Marine Policy in a small island fishery. Ocean and 23:177–90. Coastal Management 50:523-537. The authors would like to thank Chuck Beddington, J. R., D. J. Agnew, and Hilborn, R., J. M. Orensanz, and A.M. Adams, Lee Anderson, Ray Hilborn, Stacey C. W. Clark. 2007. Current problems Parma. 2005. Institutions, incentives

Oregon RFID

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 297 and the future of fisheries. Philosophical Florida spiny lobster trap certificate rights in fisheries management. FAO Transactions of the Royal Society B: program. Pages 145-156 in D. Letson Fisheries Technical Paper 404/1. 360:47–57. and J. W. Milon. eds. Florida coastal Sporer, C. 2008. Co-management of Holland, D. S. 2007. Managing environmental resources: a guide to Canada’s Pacific sablefish fishery. Pages environmental impacts of fishing: economic valuation and impact analysis. 407-414 in R. Townsend, R. Shotton, input controls versus outcome oriented Florida Sea Grant College Program, H. Uchida, eds. Case studies in fisheries approaches. International Journal of Gainesville. self-governance. FAO Fisheries Technical Global Environmental Issues 7:255-272. McCay, B. J. 2000. Resistance to change Paper 504. Hughey, K. F. D., R. Cullen, G. N. Kerr, in property rights or, why not ITQs in Sylvia, G., M. Harte, and B. Swart. 2006. P.A. Memon, and C. Robb. 2000. governance. Pages 39-44 in R. Shotton, Market based environmental standards Instruments for internalizing the ed. Use of property rights in fisheries for sustainable fisheries. Proceedings of environmental externalities in commercial management. FAO Fisheries Technical the Thirteenth Biennial Conferences of fisheries. AERU Research Report 242, Paper 404/1. the International Institute for Fisheries Lincoln University, New Zealand. Ning, F. T., C. Zhang, and R. Fujita. Economics and Trade. Rebuilding fisheries Huppert, D. D. 2007. Auctions of IFQs as 2009. Quantitative evaluation of the in an uncertain environment. Portsmouth, a means to share the rent. Pages 5-86 performance of a permit auction system United Kingdom. July 2006. in T. Bjorndal, D. V. Gordon, R. Arnason, in reducing bycatch of sea turtles in the Townsend, R., and R. Shotton. 2008. and R. Sumaila, eds. Advances in fishery Hawaii swordfish longline fishery. Marine Fisheries self-governance: new directions economics: Festschrift in honor of Policy 33:101-105. in fisheries management. Pages 1-20 Professor Gordon R. Munro. Blackwell PFMC (Pacific FisheriesM anagement in R. Townsend, R. Shotton, and H. Publishing. Council). 2008. Chapter 2. Description Uchida, eds. Case studies in fisheries James, M. 2008. Cooperative management of the alternatives including preliminary self-governance. FAO Fisheries Technical of the geoduck and horseclam fishery preferred option preliminary draft Paper 504. in British Columbia. Pages 397-406 environmental impact statement Wilen, J. 2005. Property rights and the in R. Townsend, R. Shotton, and H. including regulatory impact review and texture of rents in fisheries. Pages 49-68 Uchida, eds. Case studies in fisheries initial regulatory flexibility analysis. PFMC, in D. Leal, ed. Evolving property rights in self-governance. FAO Fisheries Technical Portland, Oregon. marine fisheries. Rowman and Littlefield, Paper 504. Pinkerton, E., and D. Edwards. 2009. The Larkin, S., and G. Sylvia. 1999. Intrinsic fish elephant in the room: the hidden costs Maryland. characteristics and intraseason production of leasing individual transferable fishing _____. 2006. Why fisheries management efficiency: a management-level quota. Marine Policy 33:707-713. fails: treating symptoms rather than the bioeconomic analysis of a commercial Scott, A. 2000. Moving through the cause. Bulletin of Marine Science 78: fishery. American Journal of Agricultural narrows: from open access to ITQs and 529-546. Economics 81: 29-43. self governance. Pages 105-117 in R. Wilen, J., and E. Richardson. 2008. _____. 2004. Generating enhanced fishery Shotton, ed. Use of property rights in Rent generation in the Alaskan pollock rents by internalizing product quality fisheries management. FAO Fisheries conservation cooperative. Pages 361- characteristics. Environmental and Technical Paper 404/1. 368 in R. Townsend, R. Shotton, and H. Resource Economics 281: 101-122. Shotton R. 2000. Current property right Uchida, eds. Case studies in fisheries Larkin, S., J. W. Milon, and N. Ehrhardt. systems in fisheries management. Pages self-governance. FAO Fisheries Technical 2002. Bioeconomic models and the 45-50 in R. Shotton, ed. Use of property Paper 504.

Hallprint

298 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g The author replies—

In contemplating the above comments—11 authors, 6 theoretical and empirical evidence that inappropriate incen- acknowledgements gratefully extended, over 50 citations tives can lead to economic overfishing” (emphasis added). Of encompassing hundreds (?) of authors (allowing for some course, but notice the artful slip from incentives to property repetition)—I am put in mind of Odysseus returning home rights—“…contrary to Bromley’s claim, economic overfishing after 20 years, only to face hordes of unpleasant suitors pursu- can be blamed on missing rights.” What are we to make of ing good Queen Penelope. Scholarship by gathering signatures the term “blamed on?” The point of science is to provide solid has much the same feel to it. The difference is that Odysseus support for causal assertions. One can readily agree that over- had the help of grey-eyed Athena to dispatch the hordes. fishing arises from “inappropriate incentives” without then Grafton et al. observe that I have brought an “outside” agreeing that “missing rights” provide the pertinent incentive perspective to the role of economic theory in fisheries policy. structure. I was clear that overfishing—economic or biologi- Usually an “outside” view might be thought to bring freshness cal—is indeed the result of inappropriate incentives. However, to an old debate. But in this case the epithet “outside” is not the incentives I have in mind arise when fisheries managers intended to be welcoming. I am branded an outsider to alert (and the regional councils) fail to provide incentives for fishers the reader that I cannot possibly understand the received cate- to abide by a hard TAC. Or the incentives on regional fisher- chism of the church into which I have—at evident peril—wan- ies management councils are strongly weighted in favor of dered. The allusion to doctrinal hegemony is not accidental. There is serious vested interest in the catechism. Indeed, our ignoring science-based TACs in favor of aggressive harvesting disagreements concern nothing else. Fisheries economists— regimes. Property rights must not be confused with incentives. insiders—have crafted their own idiosyncratic bag of legal and economic tricks that are then invoked to rationalize their favored policy prescriptions. From Grafton et al., we see that I am confused. The reader should understand this to mean that, as an outsider, I have the inconvenient habit of drawing on legal and economic concepts that have not suffered artful mongrelization at the hands of fisheries economists. Let us now dig into their conjurer’s bag of tricks. Grafton et al. first claim that IFQs are “much broader” than my three characteristics—­­­ 1. Free gifting, 2. In perpetuity, and 3. No capture of rent. They note that there are “individual transferable quotas that we would call IFQs that do not satisfy Bromley’s three char- acteristics.” This is fine, but I should like to know something of the properties (instrumental attributes) of those things they wish to call IFQs. Those who are so sure that IFQs hold salutary effects for fisheries management need to let the rest of us in on which specific traits are responsible for the alleged good effects. Notice that something called an “IFQ” cannot explain—account for—anything at all. It is the properties of what we (or Grafton et al.) call “IFQs” that will do the work of rectifying what is wrong with fisheries that now lack IFQs. Scholarship demands conceptual clarity. If unknown or variable attributes of something called “IFQs” are alleged to produce Quantitative Fisheries Center good effects, we need to know what those traits are. In a section entitled “Can overfishing be blamed on miss- ing property rights?” Grafton et al. allege that there is “both

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 299 Sadly, the fisheries literature has long been obsessed, indeed at hand. There is this minor inconvenience known as legal crippled, by this fetish. jurisdiction. In their discussion of whether private ownership is neces- Turning to my challenge of the attribution of stewardship sary or sufficient for sustainability, I am happy to see that to IFQs, the authors observe that: Grafton et al. have now come over to my side. They agree that …in many fisheries, IFQs have been implemented property rights are not decisive in explaining overfishing. But subsequent to rather than simultaneously with the they prevaricate. In the previous paragraph they blame prop- introduction of TAC limits. Indeed, it has been the failure erty rights. One is entitled to know what they really believe. to adequately implement TAC limits in so-called ‘race to Having secured their agreement here, I am not inclined to fish’ fisheries where fishers have actively lobbied against let them off the hook. Perhaps we have finally expunged the lower harvests that has encouraged the introduction of flawed “property rights” arguments associated with Gordon, IFQs by managers. Scott, Hardin, and many others. Perhaps now that Grafton et al. accept the point, they will help to spread the word. I raised precisely this point in my discussion of the Costello Attention then turns to the “durability and transferabil- et al. (2008) paper. The point in raising this sordid history is ity of harvesting rights.” Grafton et al. claim that durability that catch shares were touted in Costello et al. —and in all of and transferability are desirable but that “… they are not an the breathless press coverage—as the explanation for averting absolute requirement to produce the desired efficiency and fisheries collapse. Grafton et al. do nothing to contradict my stewardship properties of IFQs.” This is welcome news indeed basic point: a properly enforced TAC gets to carry the explana- since most of the literature celebrating the stewardship prop- tory burden, not catch shares. Once a TAC is introduced, allot- erties of IFQs seems to insist that permits (IFQs) must be given ted catch shares designated as limited-term permits issued via out (for free I might note) into perpetuity, and these permits rent-capturing auctions will bring compliance with catch limits must be transferable. Perhaps Grafton et al. will help to dispel (TAC) without giving away all that wealth to the private sector. that myth as well. Management agencies retain control of limited-term permits— Turning to the discussion of IFQs as property rights, we see all of which revert to the agency when they expire. Renewals Grafton et al. offer the alarming legal opinion: “We contend can give existing holders a chance to re-bid for a permit, or that IFQs are property” (emphasis added). We contend? On some permits can be set aside for new entrants. Auctions will whose authority do they contend? It cannot be theirs, for bring forth the necessary (and efficient level of) resource rent. in this legal matter they have none. We must understand, Why are fisheries economists so afraid of this policy? Why therefore, that what is meant by their contention is simply that do fisheries economists defend the free gifting of enormous their prescription of how to fix fisheries requires that IFQs be income and wealth under IFQs? Most economists believe that thought of as property (because they want fishers to be able efficiency is served by having people pay for what it is they to buy and sell quota share once it has been given to them for wish to acquire. free by the government). This artful wish is the sine qua non Grafton et al. continue to show confusion over the matter of their story. Their contention is instrumental—purposefully of firms and industries. They persist in their curiosity of a sole opportunistic. I should think that legal assertions pertinent owner deciding how many vessels (firms) would be “optimal” to fisheries policy would be informed by reference to the in a fishery. We are told that a sole owner would never allow Magnuson-Stevens Act, and to recent case law. too many firms when it could evict most of them—thereby I should further imagine a lawyer, approached by a liberating workers to build “hospitals and schools.” Would fishing firm seeking compensation for a reduction in TAC, this bizarre policy be as charming if the evicted labor were would start her legal work not by consulting the vacu- engaged in building taverns, massage parlors, and pool halls? ous contentions of fisheries economists, but by scrutinizing This ersatz economic strategy is justified on the grounds that the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as well as by consulting recent fisheries economists treat the entire fishery as “their unit of jurisprudence. Were she to do so, she would then report back analysis.” Since this violates all we teach undergraduates to her aggrieved client that fishing permits cannot be prop- about the virtues of a competitive market, they owe us an erty because they are not compensable. That is, they are not explanation as to why this makes economic sense. protected under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Most egregiously, it allows fisheries economists to hide (the “property clause”). A recent ruling seems apposite behind the deceit that having got efficiency right in the fishery, (Palmyra Pac. Seafoods, LLC v. United States, 2009, U.S. App. they can then disregard the ensuing social and cultural prob- LEXIS 7447 [Fed. Cir., 9 April 2009]). The lawyer might further lems as “not economic” and thus best left to others. Perhaps add that perhaps such permits are covered under contract sociologists and anthropologists can be brought into the law and due process. Elaborating their legal grip on things, conversation. In the jargon of our craft, the displaced labor is a Grafton et al. appear reassured by citing what seems to be the mere distributional matter on which hard-nosed (“objective”) case in New Zealand, Australia, and Iceland. A lawyer of even economists must remain silent. average acuity would readily point out that New Zealand—or There cannot be a serious economist—a non-fisheries Australian or Icelandic—law is not exactly pertinent to the case economist, I must add—who could, without smiling, sug-

300 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g gest that maximizing economic rent (not resource rent) in an officials deserve and expect that they will be given theoretically industry is a defensible policy goal. The opportunity for new correct concepts—and honest empirical claims—that under- entrants brings about the dissipation of economic rents— write particular policy prescriptions. They must know who is excess returns—in an industry. That is what competition being advantaged and disadvantaged—and why. They deserve means. Economic rent in a competitive industry is and must not to be misled. They must have intellectually honest reasons be, by definition, zero. for the policy advice they receive. The reigning catechism leads Grafton et al. do not have a disagreement with me. fisheries economists to violate that trust. Instead, they have alarming disregard for economic theory. Public policy is often subjected to scathing attacks because If they wish to argue that managing the fishery as a rent- there is no economic rationale for much of it. Those well maximizing quasi monopoly is a desirable social goal then they served by these strange policies marshal facile rationalizations owe it to the rest of us to justify that surprising break with to solidify their current advantage. Few scholars can be found economic theory. Their excuse seems to amount to nothing to endorse those self-serving claims. When it comes to fisher- more than: ies, things work differently. Here, fisheries economists have their own idiomatic theory that celebrates a few winners for …the maximum rent from fishing at E1 can, and should, bringing “efficiency” to the fishery, and then informs everyone be used to benefit society as a whole by using this sur- else that they are better off building schools and hospitals. plus for productive public investments Reading through the litany of good effects adduced by It seems we are back to schools and hospitals. Harte et al., one is struck by the conditional nature of it all— I now turn to Harte et al. who complain that it is unfair of favorite qualifiers seem to be can, could, possible, generally, me to criticize all of the dedicated fisheries managers who are are not a panacea, etc. This is not the normal caution of doing a marvelous job. They offer endless citations claiming, scientists averse to certitude. These authors wish to have it once again, that IFQs “are successful.” It is surprising to see both ways—IFQs will bring marvelous policy outcomes, except that the authors did not bother to discuss the flawed concep- when they fail to. tual models that underwrite fisheries policies. In Figure 1, I Two of the most egregious notions advanced by Harte et al. called attention to a mythical account of a fishery said to be in warrant comment. The authors note that: need of “rent maximization” because “a profit can no longer be made.” This model was not presented in some obscure academic journal. Rather, it is the core of a consultant’s report prepared for the Pacific Fisheries Management Council to justify the introduction of IFQs into the West Coast groundfish fishery. Do the authors acknowledge the profound deceptions in this model? Do they defend the model by showing that I am mistaken in my indictment of it? Neither. My article concerns the flawed and incoherent legal and economic arguments—that IFQs (catch shares) are property rights, that ownership is necessary and sufficient for steward- ship, that quota shares must be gifted to the industry for free (and into perpetuity), that these quota shares must be freely transferable once handed out, that quota shares prevent fish- ery collapse, and that efficiency arises when “resource rent” is maximized. None of these claims is true. I was motivated in this work not by the desire to pick a fight with this enormous community now arrayed in an elaborate defensive crouch— some of whom I still count as friends (let them now argue over whom is implicated). Rather, I was moved by a particular vision of economic science in the service of public policy. Taxpayers provide financial support to members of scientific communi- ties—professors, researchers on the federal payroll—because there is, from time to time, a need to hear what the experts believe to be the case. Public policy is driven by the need to O. S. Systems solve problems, and in the course of doing so, the new insti- tutional arrangements that are the empirical manifestations of public policy will necessarily advantage some members of the community and disadvantage others. That is what public policy does. Because of these differential entailments of policy, public

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 301 Efficiency gains and benefits to fisheries management away from other food consumption expenditures and thus may, however, come with social and cultural costs as claims of large benefits to the economy as a whole cannot be fewer people and vessels are engaged in fishing and believed. IFQs become concentrated in the hands of fewer fishing Finally, we come once again, to the recovery of resource interests. These effects may have a detrimental impact at rent. Here exquisite obscurantism is the tactic of choice: a local or regional level, even as the economy as a whole benefits. As McCay (2000) notes, there are often no free Whether or not governments choose to recover rents, lunches in fisheries management. and if so at what level and how, is a political decision to be informed, but not decided, by economics. Untangling The reader is invited to wonder if there are “free lunches” resource rent from normal profit and entrepreneurial elsewhere in the economy. The answer is no. So what is the rents is often an accounting quagmire. Renewable point of saying that there are no free lunches in fisheries man- resource rent is properly viewed as a dynamic rather than agement? It is to suggest that the losers of fisheries “ratio- a static concept. nalization” programs get over it and move on to other lines of work. Harte et al. dismiss the reality of “social and cultural So rent recovery is informed but not decided by econo- costs,” and the concentration of fishing in the hands of fewer mists. Rent recovery cannot be informed by economists if they fishing interests, as the necessary price to be paid for gaining are confused about the concept. What they erroneously call “efficiency.” They seem not to understand that the efficiency “resource rent” is nothing but excess economic return to those gains they celebrate are deceits. Even the much-touted claim fortunate enough to remain in a fishery. Fisheries economists of higher prices for improved fresh product when derby fisher- seem unable to grasp this fundamental economic point—and ies are eliminated is tendentious. It is true that eliminating they show little interest in figuring it out. So it is a bit jarring derby fishing can bring gains in product quality, thus lead- to see talk of informing policy makers and managers. A better ing to higher prices for fresh (as opposed to frozen) product. characterization is misinforming. However, higher prices for fresh product—what fisheries In order to emphasize just how difficult this matter is, we economists wish to call “efficiency gains”—is a mere transfer are told that it is “dynamic” in nature as opposed to “static.” More seriously, we see that “untangling resource rent from normal profit and entrepreneurial rents is often an accounting Fine Scale Positioning Achieved quagmire.” This is yet more deceit. An auction, in which firms are asked to reveal their willingness to pay to have access to Using Affordable VR2W Receivers the wealth of ocean fisheries, is the proper revelation mecha- nism that would cut through the alleged “accounting quag- VR2W Positioning System (VPS) can cover mire.” Firms would bid their value for fish, and this is precisely any size area in oceans, lakes and estuaries the payment due to the owner of the resource (us). It is the VPS is an underwater acoustic fine-scale posi- proper resource rent. tioning system, scalable to any geographic size, Harte et al. close by accusing me of having swept all of the using the same off-the-shelf equipment deployed in beneficial effects of IFQs under a “threadbare rug of rhetoric.” conventional VR2W-based studies. Studies to date This is rather precious. I challenge the advocates for IFQs to have shown accuracy in the 4 to 15 meter range justify their use of bogus rationalizations. I make the nature (95% confidence level). of that necessary justification explicit, and I demonstrate how To guarantee best results, your VPS needs to economic theory has been routinely distorted to serve the be set up properly and VEMCO will work with you to deploy an effective system. Complete receiver policy agenda of this incestuous community. Public policies data processing services with prompt with respect to fisheries would be the clear winner if there turnaround are provided by VEMCO. could be a serious discussion of these foundational conceptual VPS also works with our new V9AP issues. Unfortunately, the reader is not treated to such a dis- accelerometer and V6-180kHz tags. cussion. One attack is that as an outsider I could not possibly Visit our booth at the AFS AGM in understand. The other is that I have employed a rhetorical rug. Nashville to learn more about VPS and other new products from VEMCO. Both are yet more deceits. Contrary to appearances, I am enormously grateful to both groups of protagonists. They have, unwittingly I must assume, reinforced my point that fisheries economics is in the grip of comprehensively bogus concepts and policy recommendations. Vemco Making Waves in Acoustic Telemetry It has been since Scott Gordon’s dubious contrivance in 1954.

(902) 450-1700 www.vemco.com —Daniel W. Bromley

302 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Salmonid Spawning Habitat in Rivers: Physical Controls, Biological Responses, and Approaches to Remediation

Edited by David Sear and Paul DeVries

This timely volume pres- ents recent research on the interactions between physical habitat and the ecology of salmon. Salmon habitats have been under increasing pressure from catchment management and river management activity, resulting in a decline in available habitat.

North American and Eu- ropean scientists review the processes that control habitat availability, explore the issues impacting the quality of this habitat, and assess the biological factors affecting habitat use and the interaction between habitat quality and salmon reproduc- tive success.

376 pages List price: $69.00 AFS Member price: $48.00 Item Number: 540.65P Published October 2008

TO ORDER: Online: www.afsbooks.org

American Fisheries Society c/o Books International P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 Phone: 703-661-1570 Fax: 703-996-1010

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 303 Column: Edward J. Peters Peters is retired from the University Guest Director's line of Nebraska—Lincoln, School of Natural Resources where he taught fisheries and natural resources courses for 30 years. He currently lives in Loretta/Draper (the mini-twin cities) in northwest Wisconsin and can be contacted at [email protected].

Field Biologists and Fighter Pilots, Unite!

The other morning on National I recognized to be turtle eggs. These During summer sampling we often Public Radio (NPR), I heard an eggs had apparently not hatched last waded with old sneakers, but on interesting report on the growing summer and were, in effect, in cold this particular trip I had forgotten conflict between jet fighter pilots storage over the winter. A raccoon to bring mine and ended up wading and drone aircraft. Although it had discovered this site, probably by barefoot. Now, over the years I was seems hard to believe that fighter smell (a sensory input for which we well aware of the fact that salmonids pilots are becoming obsolete, it is have limited appreciation) and had use upwellings in riffles as areas to just a fact of life that the cheaper consumed some of the eggs. construct their redds. In fact, I had drones are replacing the Top Guns. This observation reemphasized to told students about this on many No longer is this science fiction; it is me that being out in nature (field occasions. However, on this day, as I actually happening. One reason for biology) cannot be fully replaced waded to collect a substrate sample, this is that there are (thankfully) no by all the telemetry and remote I was suddenly aware that noticeably current air-to-air encounters of the sensing data that we can bring to cooler water was welling up between kind that began almost a century bear on our studies. Now, let me be my toes! This was exciting because ago during World War I, matured perfectly clear that remote sensing it gave me some degree of insight during World War II, and grew and telemetry are extremely valuable on how a trout could know where hotter during the Cold War. Another tools which we can use to give to build a redd that would allow its reason, according to the NPR report, context to our personal observations eggs to develop and hatch! I never is that modern fighter technology and have vastly expanded our thought that I could gain anything is quickly moving past the limits studies of animal behavior. In fact, this significant just because I forgot of human tolerance for G-forces. my students and I used telemetry my boots. Do you think a drone That may be true, but human pilots and remotely-sensed data to gain could make this connection (or flying these mechanical marvels still valuable understanding of the forget its shoes in the first place)? have the ability to respond much habitats used by fish in the Platte So, even though a field biologist more rapidly than drones, which are River and other locales for many wading in a stream or walking dependent on satellite connections years. Furthermore, with more recent for their instructions. Think of it this advances in tag technology, there are along a trail may not have the way—a drone that is being “piloted” avenues to collect information that mystique of a Top Gun pilot, both from a room thousands of miles we could almost never have obtained have the ability to take in far more away is something like, but obviously by direct observation. However, information than a mechanical more deadly than, a “kid” playing a interpretation of this information drone, computer simulation, or even computer game. still requires us to understand its a person in front of a screen many Around the time I heard this significance and place in science and miles away. Our mutual challenge NPR story, I had taken a walk in the world. is to interpret all these data we down a county road in northwest Let me share one personal are receiving so that our shots are Wisconsin where I have lived since example that I think will clearly on target and appropriately timed. my retirement (as if any fisheries illustrate how unexpected events Therefore, my recommendation professor ever really retires). On can give us insight as to why to everyone in fisheries, biology, this walk I didn’t see any fish, but I the animals we are studying and ecology, and wildlife programs (or for did come upon a hole in the gravel trying to manage do what they do. that matter, all students) is to take along the edge of the pavement. During a study on Nine Mile Creek every opportunity possible to actually In that neatly dug hole was some in western Nebraska, we collected get into the field to experience the yellowish material and a number of data at several sites where trout natural context of where your data ping-pong ball shaped objects, which from Lake McConaughy spawned. were measured.

304 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Column: Students’ Angle

The Role of the Student Member in the AFS Fisheries Information and Technology Section

Michael E. Colvin and temperature logger can then record numerous measurements Jeff Kopaska of temperature over time and be downloaded to a computer. With these automated data logging technologies, collect- Colvin is a Ph.D. student at Iowa State University and ing and downloading data is relatively easy and can result in can be contacted at [email protected]. Kopaska thousands or millions of data points. In addition, software has is a fisheries research biologist for the Iowa Department evolved to allow rapid processing, synthesis, and distillation of Natural Resources and president of the AFS Fisheries of these large datasets that can be used to guide manage- Information and Technology Section. He can be contacted at ment decisions and promote information exchange between [email protected]. colleagues.

The changing landscape of information and technology What is the Fisheries Information and in fisheries is reflected in the technical capabilities of fisheries Technology Section of the AFS? students. In the past, it was common practice to estimate a best fit curve to data by “eyeballing” a best fit line using graph The AFS Fisheries Information and Technology Section paper. However, the invention of the computer by Vincent (AFSFITS) was established in 1985 by fisheries professionals Atanasoff and Clifford Berry at Iowa State University (Figure 1) to foster communications among fisheries computer users has made parameter estimation and analyses more accurate (AFSFITS 2009). The objectives provided in the Section bylaws and efficient. Some of your advisors may still refer to the days are to: of punch cards and having to wait for time on the campus mainframe to run analyses. With rapidly increasing fields of • Develop and maintain an association of persons interested information and and involved in promoting an understanding of the interre- technology, old lationship between information, electronic technology, and mainframes have fisheries. been replaced by • Provide an opportunity for exchange of data, information, powerful desktop techniques, and public domain software for electronic computers that equipment. can handle sophis- ticated analyses and numerous computations in a fraction of the time required in the past. Figure 1. The world’s first computer was Advances in constructed at Iowa State University by John computational Vincent Atanasoff and Clifford Berry. power have facili- tated the rapid development of instruments that gather data in aquatic systems (e.g., PIT tags, hydroacoustics). The amount and resolution of data collected has also been changing and evolving with technology. In the past, a tem- perature profile of an aquatic system was created by repeat- edly measuring the temperature with a thermometer. Now we Enperor Aquatics, Inc. can program an automatic temperature logger in the comfort of our office and place it in a stream or lake. The automatic

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 305 • Provide a forum for fisheries scien- the student an outlet for applying and of: integration of diverse data, creative tists, fish culturists, management developing technological and informa- solution of computational problems, biologists, fisheries biometricians, tional advances through Section interac- analytical innovations, and contribution administrators, and educators to tions (e.g., meetings, newsletters) with to the goals of the ADMB Foundation. communicate with other electronic practicing fisheries and aquatic science More specific information regard- equipment users. professionals. The Section offers several ing both awards can be found on the • Coordinate and develop programs technical resources of potential interest AFSFITS website (www.fishdata.org/ to disseminate current information to students. The newsletter contains PosterAward.htm). on the use of electronic and digital useful tidbits on advances in computing, Student members of AFSFITS contrib- equipment in fisheries. information, and technology that we as ute insight on emerging technologies students are likely to encounter and use • Provide a source of consulting advice and assist in the creative application of on a day-to-day basis. For example, the existing newer technologies to fisher- or names of qualified individuals who newsletter gives several brief summaries ies problems. The unique contribution can provide information on the use, and reviews of new and upgraded tech- of students to AFSFITS does not go techniques, and available fisheries nologies (e.g., FishBC, Fishery Analysis unrecognized by its leaders, who provide software. and Simulation Tools [FAST]) and the support for students in the form of the • Promote consumer analysis of digital software’s compatibility with newer poster and travel awards, and a waiver equipment, software, or related operating systems (e.g., Windows Vista). equipment for use in fisheries. The Section also hosts a listserv which of Section dues. Student members of AFSFITS can expand their professional • Develop and provide training in the members can use to find advice on network and visibility to potential use of electronic equipment and computing issues and to inform others employers by attending and interacting associated programming. about emerging technologies and job opportunities. A software library can also with professionals at Annual Meetings The Section promotes the novel be found on the AFSFITS website, with or volunteering to serve as a Section application of technologies that are links to download software that perform officer (e.g., newsletter editor, software potentially useful for fisheries profes- a number of fishery tasks likely to be librarian, secretary). More information sionals. One example is the use of side encountered by students (e.g., age and can be found on the AFSFITS website scan sonar for enumeration of large growth, fish population assessment). (www.fishdata.org) and by attending woody debris (Kaiser and Litts 2008). Two student awards are adminis- the Section meeting in Nashville. Additionally, the Section has promoted tered each year by AFSFITS: the Best the use of specific hardware and Poster Award and the AD Model Builder Acknowledgments software for fisheries applications, such (ADMB) Award. The Best Poster Award as personal data assistants (PDA) and represents the poster that encourages We would like to thank Kristal tablet personal computers. Continuing the dissemination of knowledge gained Schneider for helpful comments on education courses on contemporary from using cutting-edge technology in earlier drafts of this article. information and technology topics are fisheries management and science at also facilitated by the Section, such as the AFS Annual Meeting. A $100 cash References the recent workshop on the use of the R prize accompanies the recognition of the Program in fisheries. Best Poster Award. The ADMB Award is AFSFITS (AFS Fisheries Information a new award that will be given for the and Technology Section). 2009. Why students should first time at the 2009 Annual Meeting Fisheries Information and Technology join AFSFITS in Nashville to recognize outstanding Section homepage. www.fishdata.org. student achievement in the application Accessed 10 Feb. 2009. Students are great candidates for of statistical modeling in fisheries. The Kaiser, A. J., and T. L. Litts. 2009. An membership in AFSFITS because they award may value up to $600 to assist assessment of deadhead logs and large typically find themselves on the fore- with travel expenses to participate in woody debris using side scan sonar and front of technological advancements. the AFS Annual Meeting. Outstanding field surveys in streams of southwest Student membership in AFSFITS offers achievement will be judged on the basis Georgia. Fisheries 20(12): 589-597.

306 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Obituary: Nicholas F. Hughes

Authority on Salmonid Behavior

Despite the love and support of tion “Why do fish prefer one position many, Nicholas F. Hughes, 47, suc- over the multitude of alternatives?” cumbed to depression by taking his With this question, he distilled the pio- life on 16 March 2009, at his home in neering work of previous researchers, Fairbanks, Alaska. Hughes was a gifted and launched a new way of thinking scientist, focusing his great intellect about the ecology and management and unbounded curiosity on fishes, of stream fishes. Hughes returned to particularly the behavior of drift-feeding SFU in 1993–1994 as a post-doctoral salmonids. fellow and worked on modeling salmon Born in England to parents Sylvia feeding maneuvers in running water. Plath and Ted Hughes, he completed In developing this model he mastered B.A. and M.A. degrees at Oxford everything from the physics of motion University, where he participated in and genetic algorithms to 3-D photo- expeditions to Kenya to study Nile perch grammetry and computer animation. Arctic Biology working with colleague in Lake Victoria. That work provided Although he gave several conference Mark Wipfli. At the time of his death, early indication of his scientific potential: presentations on this work, it was never they were working with a UAF-ADFG he authored three articles on Nile perch published; it just never seemed to be team investigating the environmental in prestigious journals soon after leaving “finished” to Hughes’ satisfaction. In factors regulating salmon populations on Oxford. subsequent years, Hughes made many the Chena River, a tributary of the Yukon Earlier fishing trips to Alaska with his visits to BC, where he had made lifelong River. Hughes also remained involved in father prompted him to study fisheries at friends with faculty, staff, post-docs, and numerous graduate student projects, the University of Alaska Fairbanks start- graduate students alike. serving as a committee member. He ing in 1984. When he began at UAF, he It was during the mid-1990s that loved working with students, and they was faced with earning another master’s Hughes began collaboration with John degree on a project that had little appeal Hayes at the Cawthron Institute, Nelson, viewed him as an outstanding mentor. for him. True to form, he challenged the New Zealand. Hughes was excited about As his role changed from student to system, saying that he wished to pursue conducting research on trout foraging faculty member, he continued his close a Ph.D. degree straight away while behavior in New Zealand backcoun- relationship with ADFG by working studying the behavior of Arctic grayling. try rivers because most are gin-clear, closely with staff biologists and sponsor- The system pushed back; it was unusual allowing the large trout to be easily ing student research to address ques- for biology students to bypass the observed from the bank or underwa- tions important for the management master’s degree at UAF in those days. ter. Using 3-D videography techniques of Alaska’s fishery resources. Hughes’ Undaunted, Hughes proposed to prove developed with his close friend Lon Kelly, contributions and unique insights into himself by passing a comprehensive the Hughes-Hayes-Kelly team began fishery research will have a lasting influ- exam and preparing a Ph.D. research testing the Hughes-Dill drift foraging ence on ADFG, its staff, and programs. proposal. His performance at these model on brown trout in the Travers It is difficult for those who knew him hurdles was outstanding. River, Nelson Lakes National Park. Their to put Nick Hughes’ life into words. During the early 1990s, he took last project was an ambitious one, Perhaps his former student John Piccolo a graduate internship with Alaska developing and testing a process-based said it best: “In addition to being the Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) modelling approach for predicting how best of scientists, Nick was the kind- during which he worked on numer- change in flow affects drift density, net est and most thoughtful of individuals. ous studies of Arctic grayling and other rate of energy intake, and numbers of He brought an enthusiasm to his work species; this work would later lead to drift-feeding salmonids. The produc- that is rarely seen, and he never tired of a productive relationship with ADFG tive collaboration and friendship with discussing it.” biologists. the people at Cawthron continued until We all miss you, Nick. Contributions While still a student at UAF, Hughes Hughes’ death. to the Nick Hughes Memorial arranged a visit to Simon Fraser Hughes joined the faculty of the UAF Scholarship at UAF may be made at University (SFU) in British Columbia to School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences www.uaf.edu/giving/gift/. work with Larry Dill at the Evolutionary in 1998, and received tenure five years and Behavioural Ecology Research later. He resigned from his UAF School — Fred DeCicco, Lawrence Dill, Group. This collaboration led to a land- of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences position Matt Evenson, John Hayes, mark paper on drift feeding, in which in 2006 but remained active in science Lon and Nora Kelly, Hughes posed the simple, elegant ques- as affiliate faculty with the Institute of Jim Reynolds, and Mark Wipfli

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 307 to submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS web site calendar, send CaLeNDar: event name, dates, city, state/province, web address, and contact information FISHERIES EVENTS to cworth@fi sheries.org. (if space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.)

More events listed at www.fi sheries.org, click "Who We Are," click "calendar"

Jun 23-26 international paleolimnology Symposium Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico www.paleolim.org Jun 29 marine technology for offshore wind power workshop Arlington, Virginia www.mtsociety.org/conferences/windworkshop.aspx Jul 20-24 Sixth international Fisheries observer and monitoring conference Portland, Maine www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/iformc209 Jul 22-27 early Life history Section's 33rd Annual Larval Fish conference and American Society of ichthyologists and herpetologists conference Portland, Oregon www.dce.k-state.edu/conf/jointmeeting Jul 27-30 waterpower Xvi Spokane, Washington www.waterpowerconference.com Aug 24-28 4th international otolith Symposium Monterey, California [email protected] Aug 30-Sep 3 American Fisheries Society 139th Annual meeting Nashville, Tennessee www.fi sheries.org/afs09 Sep 16-19 world Fishing exhibition 2009 Vigo, Spain www.worldfi shingexhibition.com Sep 21-25 international council for the exploration of the Sea Annual Science conference Berlin, Germany www.ices.dk Sep 25-28 combined Australian entomological Society’s 40th Agm & Scientifi c conference / Society of Australian Systematic biologists / 9th invertebrate biodiversity and conservation / Australian coral reef Society conference Darwin, Australia www.evolutionbiodiversity2009.org Sep 28-oct 2 Australian Society for Limnology congress: water in a dry Land: Sustaining Arid Zone rivers and wetlands Alice Springs, Northern Territory www.asl.org.au oct 15-17 cANSee eighth biennial conference—ecological economics: prosperity for a Sustainable Society Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada www.cansee.org oct 25-30 Sixth international Symposium on Sturgeon Wuhan, Hubei Province, China www.iss6.org Nov 2-4 international Symposium on integrating offshore renewable energy System and Aquaculture Newport, Rhode Island http://seaagrant.gso.uri.edu/baird/2009 dec 9-12 Fourth Shanghai international Fisheries and Seafood expo Shanghai, China www.gehuaexpo.com 2010 mar 1-5 Aquaculture 2010 San Diego, California www.was.org Jun 20-22 Second international catfi sh Symposium sponsored by AFS North central and Southern divisions St. Louis, Missouri wwwcatfi sh2010.org Jul 7-12 Joint meeting of ichthyologists and herpetologists Providence, Rhode Island www.dce.ksu.edu/conf/jointmeeting/future.shtml Jul 25-30 Fisheries Society of the british isles conference: climate change and Fish Belfast, Northern Ireland www.fsbi.org.uk/events.htm. Sep 12-16 American Fisheries Society 140th Annual meeting Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania www.fi sheries.org Sep 27-30 wild trout Symposium West Yellowstone, Montana www.montana.edu/cs/images/wild_tout/fi s.jpg 2011 Jul 6-11 Joint meeting of ichthyologists and herpetologists, Minneapolis, Minnesota www.dce.ksu.edu/conf/jointmeeting/future.shtml Sep 4-8 American Fisheries Society 141th Annual meeting Seattle, Washington www.fi sheries.org

308 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g EMPLOYERS: To list a job opening on the AFS Online Job Center submit a position Announcements: description, job title, agency/company, city, state, responsibilities, qualifications, salary, closing date, and contact information (maximum 150 words) to jobs@fisheries. Job Center org. Online job announcements will be billed at $350 for 150 word increments. Please send billing information. Listings are free (150 words or less) for organizations with Associate, Official, and Sustaining memberships, and forI ndividual members, who are faculty members, hiring graduate assistants. If space is available, jobs may also be printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge.

Fish and Wildlife Division Director II, Kentucky collaboration in applied research, and involvement in Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, youth fishing programs. Kentucky. Qualifications: Completion of graduate core program Salary: $56,756.88–75,190.08. Grade 19. Non-merit. in fisheries science and 6 months training or 6 Closing: 15 June 2009. months experience in management or coordination of fisheries projects, completion of graduate core Responsibilities: Direct public relations, human program in biological sciences to include 6 courses dimension surveys, economic analysis, marketing, in fisheries science and 2 courses in statistics, e.g., and planning. Develop outreach efforts. Provide fisheries management, fishery techniques, limnology, management oversight to division personnel and ichthyology, fish biology, fish ecology, aquatic budget. Develop division policy and all regulations. entomology, 6 months training or 6 months experience Implement department’s strategic plan. in management and coordination of fisheries projects or Qualifications: B.S. in biological science, public completion of undergraduate core program in fisheries relations, communications, education, recreation science with 24 months of training or 24 months administration, marketing, business, or related field. experience in management and coordination of fisheries Five years of fish and wildlife-related professional projects. experience in public relations, conservation education, Contact: Rich Carter, Fisheries Management Supervisor, marketing, or human dimensions. Prefer minimum of Wildlife District 1, [email protected] See two years in administrative or supervisory capacity. www.dnr.state.oh.us/jobs/ for an application and job Contact: Submit copy of online application (http:// description. personnel.ky.gov/employment), transcript and resume Contact: [email protected]. to Darin K. Moore, 1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky, [email protected], 502/564-3400. Applicants and employees may be required to submit Assistant Director for Research, Virginia Sea Grant, to a drug screening test and background check. EOE Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Gloucester m/f/d, http://personnel.ky.gov/employment/, darin. Point. [email protected] Salary: Competitive benefits package, salary commensurate with experience Fisheries Biologist II, Ohio Department of Natural Closing: Review begins 22 June 2009, until filled. Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus. Responsibilities: Assist director in all aspects of Salary: Starting salary $41,350 with step increases, planning, management and administration of the longevity pay, and full benefits. VASG program, with a primary administrative role Closing: 12 June 2009. for managing the research and graduate fellowship funding processes, program evaluation, monitoring and Responsibilities: Collect, collate, analyze, and apply reporting activities, and working with the director on fisheries, habitat, watershed, and other aquatic strategic planning and targeted initiatives. Assistant resource data to manage inland fisheries including reservoirs, rivers, and streams in central Ohio. Potential Director will have a research faculty appointment at responsibilities range widely and include participation VIMS, College of William Mary. For further information in teams to apply fisheries management techniques, and a detailed job description see www.vims.edu/ manage creel surveys, field sampling, and develop seagrant/. AA/EEO Employer. and implement tactical and operational plans to Qualifications: Academic qualifications equivalent meet fisheries management objectives. Additional to an assistant professor in an academic department. responsibilities may include the development of Experience and interest closely related to Sea Grant presentations for sportsmen and technical audiences, mission. Ph.D. in marine, natural, or social science.

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 309 Experience in research, research administration, or fish. Must live in close proximity to the pen located at related areas. Program management experience. Two Harbors on Santa Catalina Island. On-site housing Contact: Troy Hartley, ww.vims.edu/seagrant, thartley@ watercraft may be provided and the daily care and vims.edu. upkeep of the watercraft is mandatory. Qualifications: Ability to work independently with nominal direct supervision. Communicate with Lead Technician, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, coworkers, supervisors, and the public as part of a Catalina Growout Facility, San Diego, California. team. SCUBA certification with boat handling and seamanship skills. Must be in good health, and $24,000–35,000 with benefits. Salary: physically able to work alone on floating platforms, use Closing: 30 June 2009 or until filled. tools, power equipment, and have the ability to safely Responsibilities: Husbandry of fish held in netpens lift 50 pounds. including providing daily feed, removal of dead or Contact: Please send resume to Michael Shane, moribund fish, assessing fish health and measuring [email protected]. See www.hswri.org.

6 JUNE

310 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Advanced Telemetriy Systems

Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 311 Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc.

312 Fisheries • v o l 34 n o 6 • j u n e 2009 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g