Dolly Varden, White-Spotted Char, and Bull Trout

Home , Lake trout, Salvelinus leucomaenis

Vol 33 no 11 November 2008

Fish News Legislative Update Fisheries Journal Highlights FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org Calendar Job Center

Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation of Dolly Varden, White-spotted Char, and Bull Trout

Cooperative Research Program Goals in New England: Perceptions of Active Commercial Fishermen Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 529 Redefining Species

To measure the effect of AVT on pupfish behavior, Dr. Lema tagged one group of Amargosa pupfish with NMT’s Visible Implant Elastomer (fish with red tags) and then administered either AVT or a saline solution to them. Fish treated with AVT were less aggressive than the control fish. Photos by S. Lema

Dr. Sean Lema (U. of North Carolina) is studying the development change in response to slight environmental desert pupfish (Cyprinodon sp.) in remote corners of shifts and contribute to the morphological and behavioral Death Valley where summer temperatures reach 49C differences he observes among fish in different habitats. and the average annual rainfall is just 5 cm. Seven taxa The hormone, arginine vasotocin (AVT) is a of pupfish occur in Death Valley, each uniquely adapted neurotransmitter that modulates behavior in some fish to its particular habitat, and all exhibiting remarkable species. Dr. Lema observed differences in neural AVT phenotypic plasticity—significant morphological and phenotype between populations of pupfish, and showed behavioral differences are evident within a couple of that AVT influences pupfish behavior. He then generations in response to small environmental changes demonstrated that the AVT system in pupfish is in their unique habitats. Included in the traits that influenced by temperature and salinity changes. change are those that may be used to define the species. Dr. Lema’s work demonstrates the necessity of Thus, when the habitat changes, a species’ phenotypic preserving habitat for these endangered fish, and characteristics may also change, suggesting that habitat questions the basic concepts of assigning species. restoration for recovery of highly plastic species must Northwest Marine Technology is proud to have a role in consider its affect on phenotype. this fascinating study—please contact us if we can help As well as looking at the patterns of plasticity among with yours. pupfishes, Dr. Lema searches for insights into the mechanisms of these phenotypic changes. His Lema, S. C. American Scientist 96(1):28-36. Lema, S. C. & G. A. Nevitt. Hormones and Behavior 46(5):628-637. experiments suggest that the pupfish’s physiology and Lema, S. C. & G. A. Nevitt. J. Experimental Biology 209:3499-3509.

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

Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. Corporate Office Biological Services 360.468.3375 [email protected] 360.596.9400 [email protected] 530 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g vol 33 no 11 FisheriesNovember 2008 537 American 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 • [email protected] The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlightened management of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training.

AFS FISHERIES Editors OFFICERS STAFF President Senior Editor Science Editors William G. Franzin Ghassan “Gus” N. Madeleine Contents President Elect Rassam Hall-Arber Donald C. Jackson Director of Ken Ashley COLUMN: Letters: First Publications Doug Beard Vice President Aaron Lerner Ken Currens 532 Guest PRESIDENT’S 560 To the Editor Wayne A. Hubert Managing William E. Kelso HOOK Freshwater Species Conservation Second Editor Deirdre M. Kimball A New Home for Habitat Status List Vice President Beth Beard Robert T. Lackey William L. Fisher Dennis Lassuy A potential new AFS Fish Habitat Section The Value of Information Production Past President Allen Rutherford could fill a gap and provide a unified source Editor Mary C. Fabrizio Book Review of information on increasingly important fish Cherie Worth Executive Editors habitat issues. AFS RESOLUTION: Director Francis Juanes Joe Margraf Ghassan “Gus” N. Ben Letcher 563 resOLUTION ON Rassam Keith Nislow THE DEVELOPMENT Dues and fees for 2008 are $76 in North America News: ($88 elsewhere) for regular members, $19 in North 533 Fisheries OF INSTREAM FLOW America ($22 elsewhere) for student members, and $38 ($44) retired members. Fees include $19 for Fisheries PROGRAMS subscription. Nonmember and library subscription rates Journal Highlights: are $106 ($127). Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 Column: nonmember. Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published 534 North American monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Journal of Aquaculture 564 Guest Director's line Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 Stream Restoration Workshop ©copyright 2008. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, 534 Journal of Aquatic Maryland, and at an additional mailing office. A copy of Animal Health Speakers at a Western Division stream Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from the editor or restoration workshop outlined both lessons the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed Update: learned as well as possible new interdisciplinary envelope with your request. Republication or systematic solutions. or multiple reproduction of material in this publication 536 lEGISlation and is permitted only under consent or license from the Policy Jude Wait American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address Elden Hawkes, Jr. changes to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199. Column: Feature: Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer 566 Students' Angle recycled paper with soy-based printing inks. 537 Fisheries Institution Representative Program: CONSERVATION A Program to Boost Student Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation of Participation in AFS Dolly Varden, White-spotted Char, and Bull Kristal N. Schneider and Robert Dodd Trout Advertising Index A review of the ecology, evolution, and CALENDAR: Advanced Telemetry Systems . . . . 579 conservation of native chars across the Pacific AFS Western Division ...... 570 Rim provides a synthesis of insights and issues 568 FISHERIES EVENTS Jason Dunham, Colden Baxter, Kurt Fausch, California Department of Fish and Game 577 Wade Fredenberg, Satoshi Kitano, Itsuro Obituary: Ecotrust 569 Koizumi, Kentaro Morita, Tomoyuki Nakamura, Emperor Aquatics, Inc...... 559 Bruce Rieman, Ksenia Savvaitova, Jack 570 Robert David Bishop Floy Tag 547 Stanford, Eric Taylor, and Shoichiro Yamamoto Father of Tennessee’s Striped Bass Halltech Aquatiac Research, Inc. 549 Program Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. . . . 580 Feature: Little River Research and Design 559 551 human Dimensions AFS Annual Meeting: Lotek Wireless 550 Cooperative Research Program Goals 572 3rd Call for Papers Myriax ...... 575 in New England: Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. . 530 Perceptions of Active Commercial Fishermen Publications: O. S. Systems ...... 559 Active commercial fishermen in New England 574 Book Review Sonotronics ...... 570 hold an array of perceptions about cooperative research that will impact the design and Sound Metrics Corp...... 541 Announcements: Texas Chapter of AFS ...... 568 effectiveness of cooperative research programs. Troy W. Hartley and Robert A. Robertson Vemco (A Division of Amirix) . . . . 543 576 Job Center Vemco (A Division of Amirix) . . . . 545 Cover: A pair of Miyabe char (Salvelinus malma miyabei), a subspecies of Dolly Varden Tell advertisers you found them through endemic to Lake Shikaribetsu, Hokkaido Island, Japan. Fisheries! Credit: Kentaro Morita.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 531 COLUMN: Joe Margraf Margraf is with the U.S. Geological Guest PRESIDENT’S HOOK Survey, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit in Fairbanks. He can be contacted at [email protected].

A New Home for Habitat

The American Fisheries Society is on the verge of creating nonetheless. I queried several of my colleagues and their a new Unit, the Fish Habitat Section. If all goes accord- consensus was, “This is a good idea—why don’t YOU put ing to plan, the new Section will be approved at the Annual one together, and we’ll join.” Fortunately, having spent six Meeting in Nashville next August. Until now, habitat issues years as the AFS Constitutional Consultant, I had a pretty have been a major thrust of several Sections, particularly good idea how to go about the process. First, you must the Water Quality and Fisheries Management Sections. draft a petition seeking to form the new Section and get the However, there has been no Section dedicated solely to the advancement of knowledge and exchange of information signatures of at least 100 active AFS members. The Annual on the broad scope of multidisciplinary marine, estuarine, Meeting is an obvious place to do this; plus, it doesn’t hurt and freshwater fish habitat issues. The nascent Fish Habitat to spend some time explaining your ideas and thoughts to Section will focus primarily on the physical aspects of habitat a large cross-section of the AFS leadership and Governing and will work closely with other Sections in advancing Board. habitat issues. The eventual direction and foci of the new The second order of business is to draft a set of bylaws Section will, of course, evolve over time as its membership for the new Section. Here I worked with Gwen White, the grows and participates in the building process. current AFS Constitutional Consultant, who will present Some questions that come immediately to mind are, the new bylaws to the Governing Board for approval at its You mean we didn’t have a habitat Section already? mid-year meeting in March 2009. Assuming the bylaws are Do we really need another Section, given that Section approved, the next step is to draft an AFS Rules amendment, memberships seem to be declining overall? again working with the Constitutional Consultant, to be How will this Section relate to other Sections? approved by the membership at the next Annual Meeting. How do we go about starting a new Section? Sections are listed by name with their objectives in the AFS In fact, I encountered all of these questions (and others like, Rules, which must be approved by the AFS membership “Are you nuts?”) while pitching the new Section concept at large. In addition to Governing Board and membership at the Annual Meeting in Ottawa. The answer to the first approvals, the new Section must obtain a minimum of 50 question should be obvious by now. Given the number of membership pledges from active AFS members. While all of enthusiastic responses I received while at Ottawa, I think the this is taking place, a slate of temporary officers for the new time has definitely come for a Section dedicated exclusively Section will have been identified to serve as leaders until the to habitat; both interest and need will be sufficient for a Section can hold formal elections. Once the Section bylaws vibrant and expanding membership. A key component of and AFS Rules amendment are approved and membership the overall mission of the habitat Section will be to work hand-in-glove with others that have habitat as an important pledges are received, the Section becomes official as soon as component of their interests. I will spend the remainder of its officers are notified by the AFS executive director. this column describing how one goes about establishing While this process may seem convoluted and perhaps a a new Section of AFS. And to answer the final question little daunting to some, it has served AFS well for decades. above, “obviously.” The process works; we will soon have a new home for fish The very first step in creating a new Section is for some- habitat. If you are interested in joining the Fish Habitat one or some group of AFS members to perceive a need. Section, please e-mail or send your pledges to Executive In this case, I have found myself doing more and more Director Gus Rassam, at AFS headquarters, and watch your habitat-based fisheries research and was looking for obvi- annual dues notice for the new Section appearing after the ous sources of information on habitat issues. It was time to 2009 Annual Meeting. renew my annual AFS membership, so I thought I would join the habitat Section, but discovered that there was no Officers, pro tem, for the new Fish Habitat Section are: habitat Section. I was familiar with the habitat efforts of the President Joe Margraf, [email protected]; Water Quality and Fisheries Management Sections, but saw President Elect Kyle Hartman, [email protected]; and no single place to go to learn more about physical habitat. Secretary Treasurer, Amanda Rosenberger, rosenberger@ Thus, I perceived a need, a selfish one perhaps, but a need sfos.uaf.edu.

532 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g News: Fisheries

UPDATES ON ROTENONE receive training on the use of piscicides. Coalition. From among the nomina- REREGISTRATION AFS is offering a week-long course tions submitted by partnerships and the On 31 March 2007, U.S. Environmental on planning and executing successful coalition, the NFHAP Board will select Protection Agency (EPA) issued the projects using rotenone and antimycin. several of the most meritorious for these Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), The course instructors have trained nationally recognized awards. Honorable authorizing the reregistration of rotenone over 140 biologists since development mentions may be made. Nominations (EPA 738-R-07-005). The AFS Fish of the training began in 2001. AFS, in are sought for the following catego- Management Chemicals Subcommittee conjunction with Arizona Game and ries: Exceptional Vision, Extraordinary (FMCS) has been working with the Fish Department and the University Action, Scientific Achievement, and three registrants (called the Rotenone of Arizona, is conducting this week- Outreach and Educational Achievement. Task Force) and EPA for the past several long course in Tucson from 12–16 Submissions deadline: 16 January years to secure the reregistration. The January 2009. There are still a few 2009. For nomination forms and FMCS, EPA, and Rotenone Task Force seats available for the Tucson class. instructions, please see www.fishhabi- meet in Washington, D.C., on 13 August Due to numerous inquiries for the need 2008 to discuss concerns related to for more training, AFS has scheduled tat.org. mitigation measures and label changes another class from 18–22 May 2009 in proposed by EPA to lessen risks to Logan, Utah, in conjunction with Utah Chesapeake blue crab disaster humans and the environment. EPA was State University. For more information funding open to considering alternatives to their on either class offering, contact Brian NOAA’s Fisheries Service today proposals. FMCS provided alternative Finlayson ([email protected]) or announced that the states of Maryland wording on key EPA mitigation issues of Don Skaar ([email protected]). Applications and Virginia will each be eligible for up applicator safety, application systems, are available through Shawn Johnston to $10 million to assist watermen who application rates, neutralization criteria, ([email protected]) at AFS have been economically hurt by the and public notification that were (301/897-8616 ext. 230) or online at commercial fishery failure in the soft believed either unfeasible or unnecessary. www.fisheries.org (click on AFS Task shell and peeler blue crab fishery in Although two issues remain, EPA Force on Fisheries Chemicals Course in Chesapeake Bay. has tentatively agreed to the FMCS the home page). “Watermen and their families have alternate proposals and FMCS agreed to —AFS Task Force on Fishery Chemicals, been hard hit by a 41% decline in the develop a Rotenone Standard Operating Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee soft shell and peeler crab fishery since Procedures (SOP) Manual provided the late 1990s,” said Jim Balsiger, that it is not considered labeling. FMCS Call for 2009 NFHAP award acting NOAA assistant administra- met in Reno, Nevada, during the last nominations tor for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. week of October 2008 to finalize the The National Fish Habitat Action Plan “We’re pleased the governors said outline of the Rotenone SOP Manual (NFHAP) Annual Awards honor excep- they would like to use federal aid to and assign teams to write the manual tional individuals or partner entities who restore important blue crab habitat narrative and individual SOPs. An initial have demonstrated a commitment to and to create more diverse economic draft is expected by June 2009 with the fish habitat conservation, science, or opportunities for watermen, possibly final peer-reviewed document available education. The awards celebrate those by November 2009. The Rotenone who have demonstrated extraordinary in aquaculture.” Balsinger added, “We SOP Manual will be available from the dedication, innovation, or excellence in applaud their idea to use some aid to registrants or on-line at www.fisheries. aquatic resource conservation. National employ crab fishermen to retrieve lost org/units/rotenone. Fish Habitat Awardees show how indi- or abandoned crab pots that continue viduals can and do make a difference. to capture fish and crabs, doing long- Training classes on piscicides Awards are made annually on the term damage to the fishery.” offered basis of nominations submitted by Fish The states will now submit plans to The EPA REDs for both rotenone and Habitat Partnerships and the hundreds of NOAA’s Fisheries Service outlining how antimycin recommend that applicators organizations that make up the Partners the funds will be used.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 533 Journal Highlights: to Increase Adult Survivals. Jack M. Tipping, North American pages 353-355. Field Collection, Handling, and Refrigerated Journal of Storage of Sperm of Red Snapper and Gray Snapper. Kenneth L. Riley, Edward J. Chesney, Aquaculture and Terrence R. Tiersch, pages 356-364. [Communication] Early Induction of Volume 70 Issue 3 Spawning of Tautogs and Comparison of July 2008 Growth Rates of Larvae from Early and Normally Spawned Broodstocks. Dean M. Perry, Grace Klein-MacPhee, and Aimee Keller, To subscribe to AFS journals go to www.fisheries.org pages 365-369. and click on Publications/Journals.

[Communication] Reproductive Ecology and by Flavobacterium columnare in Channel Spawning Substrate Preference of the Catfish. Ahmed M. Darwish, Andrew J. Journal of Northern Leatherside Chub. Eric J. Billman, Mitchell, and Melissa S. Hobbs, pages 314-322. Aquatic Animal Eric J. Wagner, and Ronney E. Arndt, pages Copper Sulfate Toxicity to Channel Catfish 273-280. Fry: Yolk Sac versus Swim-Up Fry. David L. Health [Technical Note] Preliminary Evaluation Straus, pages 323-327. of Gulf Sturgeon Production and Degree-Days as a Tool to Determine Volume 20 Issue 3 Sustainability of a Zero-Discharge Pond the Heating Requirement for Channel September 20 Water Recirculating Tank System. Andrew Catfish Spawning in Earthen Ponds. Patrice M. Lazur, Deborah B. Pouder, and Jeffrey E. Hill, Pawiroredjo, Jonathan Lamoureux, Steven G. pages 281-285. Hall, and Terrence R. Tiersch, pages 328-337. Effects of Dissolved Oxygen Concentration [Technical Note] Seasonally Adjusting Ration on Oxygen Consumption and Development Levels of Juvenile Hatchery Spring Chinook of Channel CatfishE ggs and Fry: Salmon and Coho Salmon Does Not Alter Implications for Hatchery Management. Les Adult Survivals. Jack M. Tipping, pages 338- Torrans and Jim Steeby, pages 286-295. 342. Water Budgets for a Rice–Crawfish Density and Shelter Influence the Aquaculture System. W. Ray McClain and Adaptation of Wild Juvenile Cauque Robert P. Romaire, pages 296-304. Prawns Macrobrachium americanum to Tolerance of Channel Catfish Fry toA brupt Culture Conditions. Marcelo U. García- pH Changes. Charles C. Mischke and David J. Guerrero and Juan Pablo Apun-Molina, pages Wise, pages 305-307. 343-346. New Nitrogen Growth and Feed Efficiency of Juvenile Fertilization Recommendations for Bluegill Channel CatfishR eared at Different Water Ponds in the Southeastern United States. Temperatures and Fed Diets Containing Christopher A. Boyd, Puan Penseng, and Claude Various Levels of Fish Meal. Menghe H. Li, E. Boyd, pages 308-313. Edwin H. Robinson, Brian C. Peterson, and Terry A Novel Henneguya Species from Channel D. Bates, pages 347-352. CatfishD escribed by Morphological, In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation of Potassium Histological, and Molecular Permanganate Treatment Efficacy for the [Technical Note] Using Directional Feeders to Characterization. M. J. Griffin, L. M. Pote, D. Control of Acute Experimental Infection Feed Juvenile Coho Salmon in an Attempt J. Wise, T. E. Greenway, M. J. Mauel, and A. C. Camus, pages 127-135. Potential for Dissemination of the Nonnative Salmonid Parasite Myxobolus cerebralis in Alaska. E. Leyla Arsan and Jerri L. Bartholomew, pages 136-149. American Fisheries Society —new journal— Detection of Salmonellae from Fish in a from the Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Natural River System. James Gaertner, Phil Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science E. Wheeler, Shola Obafemi, Jessica Valdez, Michael R. J. Forstner, Timothy H. Bonner, and Dittmar Hahn, pages 150-157. A Survey to Determine the Presence and Do you have multimedia files to Distribution of Largemouth Bass Virus accompany your article? in Wild Freshwater Bass in New York State. G. H. Groocock, S. G. Grimmett, R. G. Getchell, G. A. Wooster, and P. R. Bowser, Submit your paper to pages 158-164. In Vitro and In Vivo Studies of the Use Marine and Coastal Fisheries. of Some Medicinal Herbals against the Pathogen Aeromonas hydrophila in Goldfish. Ramasamy Harikrishnan and Chellam Balasundaram, pages 165-176. [Communication] ] Oxytetracycline www.fisheries.org/mcf Treatment Reduces Bacterial Diversity of Intestinal Microbiota of Atlantic Salmon. Paola Navarrete, Pamela Mardones, Rafael Opazo, Romilio Espejo, and Jaime Romero, pages 177-183.

534 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 535 Update: Elden Hawkes, Jr. Legislation and Policy AFS Policy Coordinator Hawkes can be contacted at [email protected].

European Union agrees to Planning for the Effects of Climate Mining Law reform bill that took into tougher protection of tuna Change on Land and Water account the public interest by imposing, stocks Resources for the first time, a production royalty EU fisheries ministers stopped short Climate change is altering our natural and established a clear and enforceable of calling for an all-out fishing ban, but landscape and affecting our water, land, set of environmental protections. The did call to step up protection of dwin- and biological resources. For example, House passed this legislation on a 244- dling European bluefin tuna stocks and changing precipitation patterns related 166 vote on 1 November 2007, and the fight illegal fishing in November. The to climate change affect the ability of committee will revisit this pressing issue ministers have called on the European our water delivery infrastructure to during the 111th Congress. Commission to push for a series of mea- capture and provide water in traditional sures at a key international meeting on ways. Further, both aquatic and ter- Protecting and Restoring our Oceans tuna, which are particularly threatened restrial species that rely on water for The synergistic effects of human activity, in the Mediterranean. They are also survival are adversely impacted by criti- including habitat destruction and over- ready to accept a shorter fishing season cally dry times. The distribution of these fishing (domestically and internation- as well as stepped-up controls all along species and their habitats is projected to ally), as well as the spread of invasive the process, from fishing to fattening in shift in response to changes in ecologi- species, climate change, and pollution cages to bringing the fish to market. cal processes. At the same time, coastal have initiated changes of untold magni- Both France and Italy opposed a and marine habitats and species will be tude. Science must inform the utilization mid-June decision by the European impacted by sea level rise and increased of ocean goods and services so that the Commission that ordered a halt to ocean acidification. Understanding how abundance healthy oceans provide can industrial fishing of bluefin tuna. This climate change will affect the hydrologic be enjoyed. Stewardship responsibili- decision was reached due to quotas for cycle as well as our water, land, and ties will include realizing federal and 2008 being reached two weeks early. biological resources and ensuring that regional ocean governance reforms, Both countries questioned the commis- federal agencies and states are prepar- reviving our traditional international sion’s figures and asserted that their ing to address how climate change leadership role, implementing improve- fishing industries had not reached even affects their programs and management ments in the management of fisheries half their quotas. Environmental group decisions is critical. The committee will and marine mammals, protecting special Greenpeace said the incident was proof continue its efforts to bring together sci- places in the marine environment as the that more needed to be done to protect entists and the managers of our water, inheritance of future generations, plan- the species, calling for a fishing ban to land, and biological resources to discuss ning for the effects of climate change allow stocks to recover. the federal role in identifying the effects and offshore energy development, and More than 50,000 tons of blue- of climate change and to promote providing the funding necessary to set a fin tuna are caught every year in the problem-solving strategies to sustain our meaningful pace of positive change. Mediterranean. To prevent stocks natural resources and the ecosystems from collapsing, that figure should upon which they depend. Recovering Endangered Species be limited to 15,000 tons in the short The Endangered Species Act (ESA) term, according to the International 1872 Mining Law— serves as the cornerstone of biodiver- Commission for the Conservation of Ending Corporate Welfare sity conservation in the United States. Atlantic Tunas. Multinational corporations are currently The committee will work with the allowed to mine valuable hardrock new Administration to explore innova- House Committee on Natural minerals, such as gold and silver, from tive measures to recover endangered Resources sets its agenda western federal lands without paying populations of fish, wildlife, and On 21 November 2008, the U.S. a royalty to the people of the United plants in an era of limited budgets. House Committee on Natural Resources States and to allow corporations to Using the findings of the Government th published its agenda for the 111 purchase these lands at 1872 prices. Accountability Office and promoting Congress. Items on the committee’s During the 110th Congress, the com- agenda include: mittee reported a comprehensive Continued on page 571

536 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Feature: Fisheries CONSERVATION

Evolution, Ecology, and Ke nt Conservation of Dolly Varden, aro Mor it

White-spotted Char, and Bull Trout White-spotted char a

Abstract: We review the ecology and conservation of three lesser- Jason Dunham, known chars (genus Salvelinus): Dolly Varden (S. malma), white-spotted Colden Baxter, char (S. leucomaenis), and bull trout (S. confluentus). Dolly Varden is Kurt Fausch, distributed across the northern Pacific Rim and co-occurs with bull trout and white-spotted char at the southern extremes of its range. In contrast, Wade Fredenberg, bull trout and white-spotted char are naturally isolated, with the former Satoshi Kitano, restricted to North America and the latter distributed in northeastern Itsuro Koizumi, Asia. Though the range of Dolly Varden overlaps with the two other Kentaro Morita, chars, it is most closely related to Arctic char (S. alpinus), whereas bull Tomoyuki Nakamura, trout and white-spotted char are sister taxa. Each species exhibits diverse Bruce Rieman, life histories with respect to demographic characteristics, trophic ecology, and movement. This diversity appears to be tied to environmental Ksenia Savvaitova, variability (e.g., temperature, habitat connectivity), resource availability Jack Stanford, (e.g., food), and species interactions. Increasingly, these interactions Eric Taylor, and involve nonnative species including nonnative salmonines and changes Shoichiro Yamamoto in food webs related to establishment of species such as Mysis shrimp in large lakes. As humans expand into the remote and pristine habitats that Dunham is a research scientist at the U.S. Geological support these three chars, we encourage proactive consideration of the Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon. lessons learned where chars have already declined and internationally- based research and conservation. Baxter is a professor at the Department of Biology, Idaho State University, Pocatello. Fausch is a professor at the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Evolución, ecología y conservación Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Fredenberg is the Montana bull trout coordinator at the de las truchas “Dolly Varden,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kalispell, Montana. Kitano is a research scientist at the Nagano Environmental “white-spotted” y toro Conservation Research Institute Kitago, Nagano, Japan. Resumen: Se revisa la ecología y conservación de tres truchas poco Koizumi is a postdoctoral researcher at the Division of conocidas del género Salvelinus: Dolly Varden (S. malma), “white- Environmental Science Development, Graduate School of spotted” (S. leucomaenis) y la trucha toro (S. confluentus). La primera se Environmental Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan. distribuye en el borde del Pacífico norte y co-ocurre con la trucha toro y la Morita is a research scientist at the Hokkaido National Fisheries “white-spotted” en el extremo sur de su ámbito geográfico. En contraste, Research Institute, Fisheries Research Agency, Kushiro, Japan. la trucha toro y la trucha “white-spotted” se encuentran naturalmente aisladas; la primera se restringe a Norte América y la segunda al noreste Nakamura is a research scientist at the National Research de Asia. A pesar de que el rango de Dolly Varden se sobrepone con el Institute of Fisheries Science, Fisheries Research Agency, de las otras especies, está más relacionada con la trucha del Artico (S. Nikko, Tochigi, Japan. alpinus) mientras que “white-spotted” y la trucha toro se consideran clados Rieman is a research scientist emeritus at the U.S. Forest hermanos. Cada especie presenta diferente historia de vida con respecto Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Seeley Lake, a sus características demográficas, ecología trófica y movimiento. Esta Montana. diversidad parece estar determinada por la variación del ambiente (p. ej. Savvaitova is a professor at the Moscow State University, temperatura y conectividad de hábitat) disponibilidad de recursos (i.e. Gori. , Moscow, Russia. alimento) e interacción con otras especies. Estas interacciones involucran cada vez más a especies no-nativas como algunos salmoninos y cambios en Stanford is a professor at the Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana, Polson. redes tróficas asociadas al establecimiento de ciertas especies como Mysis en los grandes lagos. En virtud de la expansión humana hacia hábitat más Taylor is a professor at the Department of Zoology, remotos y prístinos donde se distribuyen estas truchas, sugerimos que se Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. tomen en cuenta de forma proactiva las lecciones tanto de aquellos casos Yamamoto is a research scientist at the National Research en los que las poblaciones de truchas han declinado como del resultado de Institute of Fisheries Science, Fisheries Research Agency, las investigaciones y esfuerzos de conservación a nivel internacional. Nikko, Tochigi, Japan.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 537 Figure 1. Approximate known distributions of Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout around the North Pacific rim. Given the remoteness of many areas where these species may occur, distributions are not fully described (e.g., Reist et al. 2002).

Figure 2. Photographs showing representatives of bull trout, Dolly Varden, and white-spotted char: upper left, the Miyabe char S. m. miyabei (Oshima), a subspecies of Dolly Varden from Hokkaido; upper right, white-spotted char from Russia; K. S avv i a lower left, K. Mor it

bull trout from Montana; t ova

lower right, a white-spotted charr from Hokkaido. K. Mor it K. Mor it a a

538 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Introduction Consequently, historical introgression may be responsible for the relationship between Dolly Varden and Arctic char mtDNA Most research on salmonine fishes has focused on the genera observed by Taylor et al. (2008). Historical and contemporary Oncorhynchus (e.g., Pacific salmon, cutthroat and rainbow trout) introgression has been reported between bull trout and Dolly and Salmo (e.g., Atlantic salmon and brown trout). Within chars, Varden in populations that have a natural zone of overlap in genus Salvelinus, work has focused mostly on Arctic char (S. alpi- North America (Taylor 2004), and between white-spotted char nus), lake trout (S. namaycush), and brook trout (S. fontinalis). and Dolly Varden in Asia (Radchenko 2004; Yamamoto et al. Though research on these species has provided a broad founda- 2006a). Evolutionary patterns within Dolly Varden, white-spot- tion for understanding the biology, ecology, and conservation ted char, and bull trout are unique for each species, both in terms biology of salmonines, even within this well-studied group gaps of described subspecies and morphological variability. in understanding and uncertainties pose significant management Across the North Pacific rim, four subspecies of Dolly Varden and conservation problems. are recognized: the northern Dolly Varden (S. malma malma Here we focus on the biology and conservation of three lesser- Walbaum), the southern Asian Dolly Varden (S. m. kraschenin- known chars: Dolly Varden (S. malma), white-spotted char (S. nikovi Taranetz), the southern American Dolly Varden (S. m. lordi leucomaenis), and bull trout (S. confluentus). We consider these Günther), and the Miyabe char (S. m. miyabei Oshima; Figure species together because they share a similar Pacific Rim geog- 2). Chromosome and mtDNA data identified three phylogenetic raphy and evolutionary history, and provide an instructive com- groups, whose geographic distributions correspond to three Dolly parison of the conservation problems and uncertainties associated Varden subspecies: S. m. malma, S. m. krascheninnikovi, and S. with management of native chars in North America and Asia. m. lordi (Phillips et al. 1999; Oleinik et al. 2005). Miyabe char Our specific objectives are to: (1) provide a brief and selective inhabits only Lake Shikaribetsu, Hokkaido, Japan, which has overview of major aspects of the evolution and ecology of these been isolated historically due to volcanic activity. Miyabe char three species, (2) compare and contrast conservation issues also has unique morphological characteristics in gill raker counts, within and among the species, and (3) suggest priorities for future pectoral fin length, the number of scales along the lateral line, research and conservation efforts. and the muscle color compared to other conspecific populations (Maekawa 1984). Biogeography and evolutionary history White-spotted char is presently separated into four subspecies based on zoogeographic patterns and morphological characteris- Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout are distrib- tics: S. leucomaenis leucomaenis (Pallas), S. l. japonicus (Oshima), uted across the North Pacific rim (Figure 1). Dolly Varden is the S. l. pluvius (Hilgendorf), and S. l. imbrius (Jordan & McGregor). most widespread of these species, occurring from Puget Sound in Populations north of Honshu Island, including Hokkaido Island, Washington state, U.S.A., north to the Alaska Peninsula, Yukon, Japan, and Sakhalin Island and Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, are and Northwest Territories to far eastern Asia, including northern classified asS. l. leucomaenis. They are characterized by large white Siberia and neighboring islands, south to Hokkaido, the northern- spots (Figure 2; Savvaitova et al. 2007). The other three subspe- most island of the Japanese archipelago (Armstrong and Morrow cies are endemic to Honshu Island, Japan, each with distinctive 1980; Reist et al. 1997; 2002). White-spotted char is distributed coloration. A recent phylogeographic study, however, has shown from Honshu (the main island of Japan) north to the Navarin that the current subspecies designations of white-spotted char are Cape, Russia (Savvaitova 1980; Kawanabe 1989), on the Asian not compatible with lineages identified with mtDNA markers side of the North Pacific coast. Bull trout occupy coastal and (Yamamoto et al. 2004). Consequently, the taxonomy within S. inland drainages of western North America on both sides of the leucomaenis remains in question. continental divide from Alaska and northern Canada to southern At present, no subspecies of bull trout has been proposed, but Oregon, but has been extirpated from the southernmost extent the species was not formally described until relatively recently of its historical range in northern California, U.S.A. (Cavender (Cavender 1978; Haas and McPhail 1991). Within bull trout, 1978; Haas and McPhail 1991; Reist et al. 2002). Both white- multiple lines of evidence suggest at least two major evolutionary spotted char and bull trout overlap with Dolly Varden in portions lineages in western North America: coastal and interior bull trout of their respective ranges. (e.g., Taylor et al. 1999; Taylor and Costello 2006), with further Recent evidence indicates that these three chars share a com- subdivision of these lineages proposed by other authors (Leary et plicated evolutionary history. Allozyme, nuclear DNA, and mito- al. 1993; Spruell et al. 2003; Costello et al. 2003). As with Dolly chondrial DNA (mtDNA) analyses all revealed sister groupings Varden, these evolutionary groups within bull trout are associated within Salvelinus that usually included one sister group compris- with patterns of historical hydrographic connectivity (i.e., by the ing white-spotted char and bull trout, and one comprising Dolly Coastal-Cascade Mountain Crest) across the geographic range of Varden and Arctic char (Crane et al. 1994; Phillips et al. 1999; S. confluentus (Haas and McPhail 1991). Patterns of phenotypic Crespi and Fulton 2003). A recent study based on mtDNA dem- variability among populations have not been rigorously analyzed, onstrated, however, suggested that Dolly Varden and Arctic char as with other salmonines within the range of bull trout (e.g., O. do not constitute reciprocally monophyletic clades, which casts mykiss; Keeley et al. 2005). some uncertainty as to the distinct taxonomic status of these two species (Brunner et al. 2001). By contrast, a multilocus micro- Diversity of life histories satellite (nuclear) DNA examination of sympatric populations of Dolly Varden and Arctic char in western Alaskan lake sys- Around the Pacific Rim, Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and tems showed that sympatric forms were reproductively isolated bull trout each inhabit a broad geography of habitats that present from one another and acted as valid species (Taylor et al. 2008). a range of physiological conditions and patterns of resource avail-

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 539 ability, as well as species interactions within distinct communities. ton (Takami and Kinoshita 1990). Evidence of trophic polymor- This heterogeneity likely influenced resource polymorphisms and phisms for bull trout is lacking. Though trophic polymorphisms life history variation at a variety of scales, as has been observed are not well documented for these species, considerable spatial in other species (e.g., Smith and Skúlason 1996). Here we use and temporal variation in diet and plasticity in foraging behavior the term “life history” in a broad sense to represent a broad range has been observed. Each species has achieved some notoriety for of phenotypic characters, including body morphology, age and their opportunistic and often piscivorous habits (Behnke 1980; growth, and feeding and movement behaviors. Within individual Takami and Aoyama 1997; Takami and Nagasawa 1996). Because river systems, key factors influencing life histories include: local of their proclivity to prey on salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), all three variability in temperature and flow patterns; the presence of lakes, chars were actively targeted for eradication in some early fishery reservoirs, and marine habitats in addition to widely varying riv- management campaigns. For example, Colpitts (1997), elaborat- erine habitats encompassed by small channels in headwaters to ing on trout conservation in southern Alberta between 1900 and expansive flood plains further downstream; and the strength of 1930, described an attitude he termed the “hierarchy of species” ecological connectivity among these different habitats (Ward and where “handsomeness, gaminess, and edibility” ranked high, and Stanford 1995). fish imported from the East were generally considered superior to native predators such as the bull trout. The “better classes of fish” Age, growth, and reproduction such as brook trout, cutthroat trout, and grayling (Thymallus arcti- cus) were coveted and reared in hatcheries to fill the void created Dolly Varden and white-spotted char reportedly first mature by eradicating undesirable species. As Colpitts (1997) opined: between 1 and 7 years of age whereas bull trout are believed to The bull trout’s failings—its image as a cowardly and lethargic mature later, generally between 5 and 7 years of age. Maximum sport fish, its flesh termed ‘insipid,’ and its character blighted by life spans of these species may exceed 10–15 years (Rieman a reputation for cannibalism—targeted it among other species, and McIntyre 1993; Savvaitova 1980; Yamamoto et al. 1999; for eradication by conservationists intent upon creating a perfect Savvaitova et al. 2007). Rapid growth is often associated with underwater world. movement into more productive environments, including the opportunity for piscivory. Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and In spite of these perceptions chars have diverse diets, vary- bull trout may reach maturity at sizes ranging from < 8 to > 80 cm ing from fish (including cannibalism) to invertebrates (e.g., (TL) depending on growth environments and differential selec- Beauchamp and Van Tassell 2001). Moreover, these char display tive pressure on reproduction by males and females (e.g., Jonsson flexibility in their mode of foraging. For instance, Dolly Varden and Jonsson 1993; Hendry et al. 2003). Migratory individuals that and bull trout have been observed to shift from drift-feeding on move from natal tributary streams into rivers, lakes, and the ocean aquatic and terrestrially-derived invertebrates to picking benthic occur in all three species; migratory individuals tend to mature at invertebrates from the benthos in response to diminished sup- larger sizes (> 30 cm TL) compared to non-migratory or resident ply of drifting prey or competition with other salmonines for this indivduals, which can mature at sizes down to 10 cm or less in resource (Nakano et al. 1992; Fausch et al. 1997; Nakano et al. small headwater streams (Koizumi et al. 2006a). 1999a). Likewise, all three species are known to opportunistically The timing and frequency of spawning can be highly variable. shift to scavenging of fish eggs, especially those of Pacific salmon, For example, in bull trout, spawning in inland habitats with colder but also those of conspecifics (Maekawa and Hino 1987). winters and warmer summers may be initiated by late August, whereas in systems with lower seasonal variability (e.g., coastal Movement environments; Brenkman et al. 2001) spawning may occur several weeks later. Spawning in white-spotted char and bull trout All three species commonly exhibit a great deal of variation is believed to be restricted entirely to stream environments, in migratory behavior and related population characteristics. but wholly lake resident Dolly Varden have been reported from Migration typically is related to availability of food resources that Alaska (Armstrong and Morrow 1980), Kamchatka peninsula are distant from natal habitat, and the relative benefits of migra- (Savvaitova 1973), and Kuril Onekotan (northern Kuril Islands; tion may vary between the sexes (e.g., Jonsson and Jonsson 1993; Savvaitova et al. 2000). All species are iteroparous, but patterns Hendry et al. 2003; Koizumi et al. 2006a). Anadromy is common of mortality during spawning have not been well quantified. in white-spotted char and Dolly Varden but is more prevalent at higher latitudes (Yamamoto et al. 1999; Savvaitova et al. 2007) Trophic ecology where freshwater food webs are less productive and marine waters provide alternative food resources (Maekawa and Nakano 2002). The striking trophic polymorphisms observed in Arctic Anadromy is also known in bull trout (Brenkman et al. 2007), char (e.g., Jonsson et al. 1988; Johnston 2002) have not been though apparently is less common, perhaps because the species’ reported in white-spotted char or bull trout, but Savvaitova and range is more inland in comparison to Dolly Varden and white- Kokhemenko (1971) reported discrete piscivorous and benthi- spotted char. Some variability in migratory behavior in chars may vorous morphs for Dolly Varden from large lakes in Kamchatka also relate to variability in thermal requirements of different life and the Kuril Islands (Savvaitova et al. 2000). It is not clear stages. Quinn (2005) suggested that juveniles may emigrate from whether these species have less capacity for the trophic special- cold natal areas to find relatively warmer habitats where they ization observed in Arctic char or whether there has simply been are able to grow faster. In accordance with this hypothesis, char too little work completed to recognize the full variability that require very cold water (< 10 oC) for successful egg incubation may exist. At least one study suggested that some white-spotted (e.g., McPhail and Murray 1979), yet these cold habitats are not char may develop dense gill rakers suited to foraging on plank- ideal for juvenile growth (Selong et al. 2001). Likely, both food

540 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g availability and temperature interact to influence movement and migratory behavior of these chars (e.g., Hughes and Grand 2000). All three chars use a wide range of habitats, from small streams to large rivers, lakes, and marine habitats. However, few studies DIDSON have been focused on their ecology during occupation of marine and large river habitats. Limited evidence suggests that within populations showing long-distance (> 20 km) migrations, larger datum (> 300 cm, TL) individuals tend to move quickly between natal habitats and migratory destinations, whereas behavior of smaller Monitoring Endangered (< 30 cm) migratory individuals is more diverse and less predictable (Muhlfield and Marotz 2005; Monnot et al. 2008). Thus, or Threatened Species ? there may be important age or life-stage dependent patterns of A new feature, the clustergram, migration, with variability in migratory behavior more complex than classic definitions based only on origins or destinations. In graphically indicates the presence many cases, the actual “destination” of migration is not clear, as of moving objects that exceed fish may use multiple habitats during migration (e.g., Brenkman intensity and size parameters. and Corbett 2005), or change destinations among years (O’Brien It allows analysts to sift through 2001). days of data at a rate of 800 frames/s Another less-studied factor influencing migratory behavior is sex. Small resident or so-called “precocious” males have been (200 times real-time if data noted in Dolly Varden (Koizumi et al. 2006a; Savvaitova 1960), are collected at 4 frames/s). white-spotted char (Morita and Morita 2002; Savvaitova et al. 2007), and bull trout (Kitano et al. 1994; Baxter 2000). Even in populations considered to be largely migratory, mature, non- migratory males that adopt “sneaking” mating tactics probably occur, as this strategy is commonly observed in many other closely related salmonines (e.g., Esteve 2005). The occurrence of such individuals could be important, since they are unlikely to be considered in typical counts of adults or spawning surveys. In summary, movement is a defining feature of these chars, but our understanding of their movements and migrations have been largely limited to descriptive studies and a focus on localized patterns. Only a few examples of process-based movement studies exist and clearly more work is needed to explicitly frame movement and migration in a broader ecological-evolutionary context (Jonsson and Jonsson 1993; Hendry et al. 2003).

Species interactions and ecosystem roles The fat, long mark indicates the presence of a Biotic interactions can be critically important in shaping the sturgeon among a number of small-mouthed local distribution and abundance of chars. Char distribution may bass in the forebay of the CJ Strike Dam on the be affected by the availability of prey species, competition for Snake River. The analyst can draw a box around these or other resources, regulation by predation or parasitism, or the mark and immediately get a “tape loop” of additional indirect interactions within their ecosystems (Fausch the source DIDSON data for verification and et al. 1994). Research on biotic interactions involving these chars has largely focused on their potential competition with sizing of the fish that formed the mark. other native and nonnative salmonines, whereas relatively little is known about interactions involving these char as predators or www.soundmetrics.com prey of native biota, or other roles they may play in ecosystems. DIDSON helps count abundance and determine behavior of fish where other Interspecific competition with native salmonines acoustic equipment has been ineffective. Visit www.soundmetrics.com for a large Though the geographic ranges of white-spotted char and bull collection of sonar films and information. trout overlap with Dolly Varden, they usually do not co-occur in Sound Metrics Corp. the same local habitats (e.g., within a stream network). In regions For demonstrations and sales information where the species overlap, Dolly Varden usually occurs in colder upstream segments whereas either of the other two species occurs see www.oceanmarineinc.com downstream, and there is typically a narrow zone of sympatry, 757.382.7616 [email protected] although there are exceptions. For example, in Hokkaido Island

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 541 this distribution pattern is observed for Dolly Varden and white- tat conditions and the spatial and temporal scales of observation spotted char, and is correlated with changes in temperature across (e.g., Nakano et al. 1998; Dunham and Rieman 1999; Rieman et the region (e.g., climatic gradients) and within river networks al. 2006; McMahon et al. 2007). Impacts of nonnative lake trout (e.g., localized water temperatures; Fausch et al. 1994; Nakano on bull trout appear to be more consistently negative, but mecha- et al. 1996). Presently, little is known about potential interac- nisms of the interaction are similarly unclear (Donald and Alger tions that may occur between bull trout and Dolly Varden (but 1993; Fredenberg 2002). see Hagen and Taylor 2001). Rainbow trout (O. mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) Interspecific competition with other native salmonines is are rapidly invading Hokkaido Island (Takami and Aoyama considered important in causing exclusion of these chars or 1999; Takami et al. 2002), and have been reported to exclude regulating coexistence with the other salmonines. For example, Dolly Varden and white-spotted char from foraging positions or in coastal British Columbia lakes native coastal cutthroat trout habitats in Hokkaido streams (Baxter et al. 2004; Morita et al. (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii) exclude Dolly Varden from the 2004; Hasegawa et al. 2004; Hasegawa and Maekawa 2006). In productive near-shore littoral zone during summer where food a field experiment, rainbow trout usurped terrestrial invertebrate resources are richest, causing them to shift to foraging in the open prey on which Dolly Varden depend, and reduced their growth waters or deep benthic zone (Henderson and Northcote 1985; by 35% in 6 weeks compared to control reaches (Baxter et al. Hindar et al. 1988). In streams, salmonines compete for positions 2007). Rainbow trout introduced in North America could also in mixed-species dominance hierarchies from which they can compete with bull trout, but this has not been thoroughly inves- ambush drifting invertebrate prey (Nakano 1995). Stream-living Dolly Varden shift, however, between drift and benthic foraging as tigated (Boag 1987). In addition, spring spawning rainbow trout availability of invertebrates varies (Fausch et al. 1997; Nakano et can reduce reproductive success of native fall-spawning char by al. 1999a). This may result in partitioning food resources between excavating their spawning redds before the fry emerge (termed Dolly Varden and white-spotted char in zones where they over- superimposition; Taniguchi et al. 2000). Superimposition by fall- lap in Hokkaido mountain streams, and promote species coexis- spawning kokanee salmon (O. nerka) on bull trout redds has also tence. At a larger scale, coexistence of these chars is regulated been documented, but at least in the latter case a study found by condition-specific interactions and physiological responses to that it was not harmful to bull trout due to the shallower depth at water temperature (Taniguchi and Nakano 2000). White-spotted which the smaller nonnative kokanee (a form of landlocked sock- char appear to dominate Dolly Varden behaviorally and grow eye salmon commonly introduced in lakes) excavated substrates relatively faster at warmer temperatures in downstream reaches, for spawning relative to larger bull trout (Weeber 2007). but Dolly Varden can persist where they are better adapted than Despite evidence for apparent displacement, there are cases white-spotted char to colder temperatures in upstream reaches. where several of these salmonines appear to coexist with chars Spatial patterns of segregation in other portions of the ranges of where their native ranges overlap. For example, Dolly Varden these two species may not parallel those observed in Hokkaido coexist with rainbow trout or steelhead in Alaska and Kamchatka streams, however (e.g, Kamchatka; J. Stanford, personal observa- rivers, probably by partitioning food resources via the foraging tion). Other than in their common role as piscivores, interac- mode shift described above (see Dolloff and Reeves 1990; Fausch tions between bull trout and other native fishes have received et al. 1997). Since bull trout are naturally sympatric with either less research attention than Dolly Varden and white-spotted char, rainbow trout or cutthroat trout across most of their range, inter- despite the potential for strong interactions with bull trout and actions with these species or with kokanee seem less likely to be co-occurring native species such as cutthroat trout (e.g., Nakano negative and may even be beneficial in providing high quality et al. 1992; Jakober et al. 2004). food resources for bull trout. Indeed, many of the largest speci- mens of bull trout come from lakes with populations of introduced Interactions with nonnative salmonines kokanee (Vidergar 2000; Beauchamp and Van Tassell 2001). Native lake trout and bull trout naturally coexist in certain drain- In contrast to interactions with native salmonines that shape ages east of the continental divide in western North America, but char distribution, the introduction and invasion of nonnative sal- when nonnative lake trout are established in lacustrine systems monines has threatened to extirpate these three chars from many with native bull trout the latter are typically severely reduced or habitats throughout broad regions of their distribution via hybrid- extirpated (Donald and Alger 1993). Examples of natural coexis- ization, competition, and disruption of spawning. Nonnative chars such as brook trout and lake trout have been most commonly tence of lake trout with other chars are rare in other studied loca- implicated in the declines of native char, although other spe- tions, and coexistence may be facilitated by natural geomorphic cies can be important. Hybridization with nonnative brook trout barriers (Hershey et al. 1999). has been reported for bull trout in northwestern North America An important hypothesis is that the native char can resist (Leary et al. 1993; Kanda 1998; Kanda et al. 2002) and for white- invasion and persist in watersheds where intact habitat allows spotted char in Honshu and Hokkaido Islands in Japan (Suzuki expression of the full range of life histories, including large, highly and Kato 1966; Kitano 2004; Kitano, unpublished data), and may fecund, migratory individuals. When these migratory individuals result in displacement of the native char through gamete wastage are lost (e.g., through habitat loss or fragmentation, or overfish- (Leary et al. 1993). Although introgression has been observed in ing), nonnative fishes may be better able to displace or replace bull trout (Kanda et al. 2002), limited viability in post-F1 crosses the native char (Nelson et al. 2002). We view understanding the may limit development of hybrid swarms (e.g., Allendorf et al. mechanisms that allow native chars to resist invasions by nonna- 2001). The reported ecological impacts of nonnative brook trout tive species, and the interactions of these mechanisms with habi- on bull trout are highly variable and likely dependent on habitat disruption, to be an important topic for future research.

542 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Ecosystem roles

Relatively little is known about interactions involving these TrackTrack youryour fishfish withwith thethe three char species as predators or prey in broader ecological com- mostmost advancedadvanced acousticacoustic munities, or other roles they may play in ecosystems. Bull trout are predators on other salmonines, especially Oncorhynchus spp. trackingtracking receiverreceiver (O. nerka, O. clarkii, and O. mykiss) in lakes in the inland western United States, where they become more piscivorous with availableavailable today.today. increasing size (Ricker 1941; Beauchamp and Van Tassell 2001). During periods when Pacific salmon are concentrated, such as spawning or the out-migration of smolts, salmon eggs or juveniles may become a temporarily important food for anadromous populations of Dolly Varden and white-spotted char (Armstrong and Morrow 1980; Kawanabe and Mizuno 1989). In turn, these chars may become prey for conspecifics and other piscivorous fishes and a host of semi-aquatic and terrestrial predators such as otters, bears, birds, or snakes. Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout likely have important effects on the structure of communities and the flow of energy and nutrients in the ecosystems they inhabit, though there have been few apparent investigations of these topics. Through their roles as predators on invertebrates and other fishes, these chars have the capacity to indirectly regulate organisms at lower trophic levels. For instance, two studies conducted in northern Japan (Nakano et al. 1999b; Baxter et al. 2004) showed that when terrestrial invertebrate prey were not available, Dolly Varden intensified their foraging on benthic invertebrates, which triggered an increase in the growth of algae but also reduced the emergence of adult aquatic insects and the abundance of spiders VEMCO’s VR100 Acoustic in the riparian forest. Studies like these have not been conducted Tracking Receiver is the for bull trout or white-spotted char, but similar indirect effects on algae have been described for brook trout in a Canadian stream ultimate fish tracking solution. (Bechara et al. 1992). If predation by these chars can regulate prey fish populations in lakes, they could indirectly control phy- hether you are actively tracking large pelagic fish toplankton dynamics, as has been described for many other pis- Wor conducting presence/absence studies, the civorous fishes, including lake trout and Arctic char (Carpenter VR100 will get the job done. The VR100 has a flexible and Kitchell 1993). Moreover, these chars, through their migra- systems architecture with 8MB of non-volatile internal tory life histories, can play roles yet to be described to link the memory, GPS positioning and precise timing, USB link food webs of multiple habitats, and they may also transport energy to PC or laptop, and field installable software upgrades. and nutrients as has been found for other migratory fishes (e.g., Other features include: Gende et al. 2002). In sum, there is good evidence that chars play  Simultaneous, multi-frequency reception and important ecosystem roles, and local extirpations or declines in detection tracking algorithms these species may have much wider impacts than is commonly  Wide dynamic range allowing multi-tag reception recognized. without gain adjustment  Splash proof case with marine grade connectors Challenges for conservation  Operates with coded and continuous tags (sold separately) Many of the conservation problems for Dolly Varden, white-  Operation frequency 10-100kHz spotted char, and bull trout have been elaborated using the tools of contemporary conservation biology. Population viability analy- VEMCO (a division of AMIRIX Systems Inc.) sis has been applied to assess long-term persistence of bull trout Tel: 902-450-1700 Fax: 902-450-1704 and white-spotted char (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Morita and Yokota 2002; Post et al. 2003; Staples et al. 2005). In both species, www.vemco.com sensitivity analyses have pointed to the importance of survival of older age classes to population persistence. Post et al. (2003) found that populations of migratory bull trout may be highly sus- ceptible to declines from increased mortality of larger, older fish Making Waves in due to angling. Bull trout (especially females) in such systems do Acoustic Telemetry not attain first maturity until at least 5 years of age. Morita and Yokota (2002) similarly found that survival of adults was impor- Vemco (A Division of Amirix) Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 543 tant for population persistence of white-spotted char in highly the status of populations, with increasing imperilment near the fragmented river systems. In their study system, however, white- southern margins of their ranges. For example, in the United spotted char matured at much smaller sizes and ages (e.g., most States and Japan in particular, protected areas that support cur- females were mature by age 2). Thus in both migratory bull trout rent strongholds of native chars are only small relicts of the range and non-migratory white-spotted char, survival of older juveniles of habitats that were occupied in recent history. In the United and adults appears to be a critical factor influencing population States, many strongholds for bull trout are now located in higher persistence. elevation wilderness areas, whereas historically occupied areas Population viability analysis has provided important perspec- were likely more expansive (Rieman et al. 1997). Distribution of tives on the dynamics of individual populations of native char, bull trout has been consistently associated with unmanaged land- but in most cases these local populations are embedded within a scapes with low human population influence as exemplified by network of habitats and other populations. Within the context the density of roads (e.g., Rieman et al. 1997; Baxter et al. 1999; of a stream network, connectivity among populations (dispersal) Dunham and Rieman 1999; Ripley et al. 2005). Lower elevation and migrations among complementary habitats used for feeding, habitats such as floodplains and riparian corridors of large rivers breeding, or refuge (Schlosser 1991) are relevant. Aggregations are critical to many salmonines, but they are also most likely to be of local salmonine populations likely exhibit complex dynamics highly altered by humans (Ward and Stanford 1995; Beechie et and structuring that represent a composite of different metapopu- al. 2003). In Japan, a large number of hatchery-reared white-spot- lation, landscape, and historical processes (Costello et al. 2003; ted char have been stocked into lower elevation rivers and lakes. Koizumi et al. 2006b; Whiteley et al. 2006). Because many of these Consequently, populations of wild chars are often restricted to processes can operate on large (> 10 km) spatial and long (> 10 the upper reaches of rivers above natural waterfalls and human- year) temporal scales, they are very difficult to study with conven- constructed barriers that prevent the stocked fish from migrating tional ecological methods. Single “snapshot” studies of large scale upstream (Nakamura 2001). A focus on protecting only existing patterns of habitat or “patch” occupancy by bull trout (Dunham populations of native chars may therefore risk ignoring locations and Rieman 1999), white-spotted char (Morita and Yamamoto and/or habitats that are important for long-term viability. 2002), and Dolly Varden (Koizumi and Maekawa 2004) show that Even though past changes are often clearly evident and impor- local population persistence in stream networks is strongly tied to tant to Dolly Varden, white-spotted charr, and bull trout, possible patch size (stream or watershed size), connectivity, and quality future changes in populations and habitat are likely to pose even (e.g., human influences, flow regime). The importance of habitat greater challenges. It appears likely that conditions will change size and connectivity to persistence of chars documented by these substantially across landscapes in response to cycles of natural dis- studies is supported by several lines of evidence that examine turbance and succession processes (Reeves et al. 1995; Dunham et temporal processes (e.g., dispersal, demographic variation, and al. 2003). These natural processes will interact with human influ- environmental variability) driving these patterns. This includes ences, such as climate change (Nakano et al. 1996; Rieman et al. evidence from models of population dynamics (e.g., Rieman and 2007; Rahel and Olden 2008), human land and water use (e.g., Allendorf 2001; Morita and Yokota 2002) and empirical applica- habitat conditions), fishing (harvest and indirect impacts), and tions of molecular genetic markers. Results from the latter show impacts of nonnative species. Many case studies suggest that even that disruption of connectivity can lead to lower effective size of large populations can become highly vulnerable if present condi- local populations by simultaneously reducing dispersal and local tions change. For example, bull trout were once very abundant adult population sizes of native chars (Griswold 2002; Costello et and thought to be secure in Flathead Lake and the Flathead River al. 2003; Yamamoto et al. 2004; Whiteley et al. 2006; Koizumi et system in northwest Montana, but populations quickly crashed in al. 2006b; Taylor and Costello 2006; Yamamoto et al. 2006b). the early 1990s, due to major ecosystem changes and cascading Although many ideas from contemporary conservation biol- food web interactions as a result of the introduction of a single ogy have played an important role in our understanding of native nonnative invertebrate species, the opossum shrimp (Mysis rel- chars, several fundamental challenges remain to be addressed for icta). This introduction disrupted trophic relationships between the conservation of these species. As with most fishes, threats to native (bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout) and nonnative Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout are associated fishes (lake trout, kokanee, and lake whitefishCoregonus [ clupea- with past and present human influences on water resources that formis]) that had been relatively stable for nearly half a century lead to habitat loss and degradation, loss of connectivity, invasion prior to the Mysis introduction (Spencer et al. 1991). We view of nonnative species, and excessive harvest (legal, poaching, and analysis of these threats and planning for long-term persistence of incidental mortality; Post et al. 2003). As described above, many chars (e.g., reserve design; Groves 2003) to be among the highest of these influences have driven populations to extinction in just priority information needs for understanding long-term conserva- a few decades (see Interactions with nonnative salmonines, above). tion of the native chars considered here. On a more positive note, Our experience parallels that of many biologists working with there are some examples of native char expanding rapidly once chars (e.g., Al-Chokhachy et al. 2008) in that it can be extremely threats are mitigated, such as the rapid increase in populations of difficult to quantify the influences of specific threats and interac- bull trout in the Metolius River basin of Oregon (Ratliff 1992) tions among them, for example, evaluating the tradeoff between and in Lake Kananskis in Alberta, Canada (Johnston et al. 2007) isolating char populations with barriers to prevent invasions by following decreased harvest mortality. nonnative salmonines versus restoring connectivity to allow native chars the ability to move throughout networks (Fausch Conclusions et al. 2006). Overall, the status of Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and Our review suggests a number of fruitful areas of future inves- bull trout appears to show a general north to south trend in tigation for learning more about the basic evolutionary biology

544 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g and ecology of Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout. Given the uncertain future for these species, we argue that these basic questions are directly relevant to applied conservation. For VEMCO’s VR2W delivers example, if we do not fully understand processes that contrib- VEMCO’s VR2W delivers ute to the development of evolutionary and ecological diversity within and among chars, how can we develop long-term plans thethe bestbest resultsresults inin freshwaterfreshwater to conserve this diversity? How can these chars coexist with other fishes in some locations, yet apparently not in other loca- andand marinemarine environmentsenvironments tions? This question has direct relevance for managing invasive salmonines that may threaten native chars. What is the role of chars in aquatic ecosystems and how do food web interactions Over 10,000 units deployed worldwide influence chars and ecosystems? In effect, the broad distribution provides opportunities for researchers of these species across both ecological and human geographies creates major challenges to addressing these critical questions to collaborate and share data! about chars. More often our knowledge is based on a fragmented The VR2W Single Channel Receiver was designed us- collection of isolated studies focused on narrowly framed issues of ing the same proven technology as the VR2. Affordable, local interest. With this ad-hoc approach it can be very difficult compact, easy to use, long-lasting and flexible, the VR2W to understand a species, and many of the questions we pose here is ideal for any freshwater and marine research project. With are simply too broad to be adequately addressed in any particular the VR2W, VEMCO has made the VR2 even better! locality. Accordingly, we encourage a stronger dialogue among biologists working across the ranges of these species and hope  Significantly faster upload this synthesis represents an initial step in that direction. speed - retrieve data 20 times faster than the VR2 Acknowledgments and from up to 7 receivers simultaneously Support for the September 2005 workshop leading to this arti-  Increased data storage cle was provided by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain capability enables users to Research Station, Boise Aquatic Sciences Laboratory and the collect substantial amounts American Fisheries Society, Western Division. Facilities for the of field data - 8 MBytes workshop were provided by the Flathead Lake Biological Station (1-million detections), 4 of The University of Montana. We appreciated comments from times that of the VR2 David L. G. Noakes, Xanthippe Augerot, two anonymous review-  Field upgradable design ers, and editorial assistance from R. Hoffman. All improved the allows the VR2W to be manuscript significantly. upgraded in the field

References  All detections are retained in non-volatile memory so data is saved even if the unit unexpectedly fails Al-Chokhachy, R. L., W. Fredenberg, and S. Spalding. 2008.  Fully compatible with various size coded transmitters Surveying professional opinion to inform bull trout recovery and and sensor tags management decisions. Fisheries 33(1):18-28. Allendorf, F. W., R. F. Leary, P. Spruell, and J. K. Wenburg. 2001. The VR2W also uses enhanced PC Software. The new The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. VEMCO User Environment (VUE) PC Software for Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:613-622. initialization, configuration and data Armstrong, R. H., and J. E. Morrow. 1980. The Dolly Varden upload from VEMCO receivers allows charr, Salvelinus malma. Pages 99-140 in E. K. Balon, ed. Charrs: users to combine data from multiple salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, receivers of varying types into a single The Hague, Netherlands. integrated database. Baxter, C. V., K. D. Fausch, M. Murakami, and P. L. Chapman. 2004. Fish invasion restructures stream and forest food webs by Contact us about affordable options for upgrading interrupting reciprocal prey subsidies. Ecology 85:2656-2663. your VR1s and VR2s to VR2W receivers. _____ 2007. Invading rainbow trout usurp a terrestrial prey subsidy VEMCO (a division of AMIRIX Systems Inc.) to native charr and alter their behavior, growth, and abundance. Tel: 902-450-1700 Fax: 902-450-1704 Oecologia 153:461-470. Baxter, C. V., C. A. Frissell, and R. F. Hauer. 1999. Geomorphology, www.vemco.com logging roads, and the distribution of bull trout spawning in a forested river basin: implications for management and conservation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:854-867. Baxter, J. S. 2000. Aspects of the reproductive ecology of bull trout Making Waves in (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Chowade River, British Columbia. Acoustic Telemetry Vemco (A Division of Amirix) M.S. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 545 Beauchamp, D. A., and J. J. Van Tassell. 2001. Modeling sea- Donald, D. B., and D. J. Alger. 1993. Geographic distribution, spe- sonal trophic interactions of adfluvial bull trout in Lake Billy cies displacement, and niche overlap for lake trout and bull trout Chinook, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries in mountain lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:238-247. Society 130:204-216. Dunham, J. B., and B. E. Rieman. 1999. Metapopulation structure Bechara, J. A., G. Moreau, and D. Planas. 1992. Top-down effects of bull trout: influences of physical, biotic, and geometrical land- of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a boreal forest stream. scape characteristics. Ecological Applications 9:642-655 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:2093- Dunham, J. B., M. K. Young, R. E. Gresswell, and B. E. Rieman. 2103. 2003. Effects of fire on fish populations: landscape perspectives Beechie, T. J., P. Roni, E.A. Steel, and E. Quimby (editors). 2003. on persistence of native fishes and non-native fish invasions. Ecosystem recovery planning for listed salmon: an integrated Forest Ecology and Management 178:183-196. assessment approach for salmon habitat. U.S. Department of Esteve, M. 2005. Observations of spawning behaviour in Salmoninae: Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Salmo, Oncorhynchus and Salvelinus. Reviews in Fish Biology and Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-58, Seattle, Fisheries 15:1-21. Washington. Fausch, K. D., S. Nakano, and K. Ishigaki. 1994. Distribution Behnke, R. J. 1980. A systematic review of the genus Salvelinus. of two congeneric charrs in streams of Hokkaido Island, Japan: Pages 441-480 in E. K. Balon, ed.. Charrs: salmonid fishes of the considering multiple factors across scales. Oecologia 100:1-12. genus Salvelinus, W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands. Fausch, K. D., S. Nakano, and S. Kitano. 1997. Experimentally Boag, T. D. 1987. Food habits of bull char, Salvelinus confluentus, and induced foraging mode shift by sympatric charrs in a Japanese rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, coexisting in a foothills stream in mountain stream. Behavioral Ecology 8:414-420. northern Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 101:56-62. Fausch, K. D., B. E. Rieman, M. Young, and J. B. Dunham. Brenkman, S. J., and S. C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of anadromy in 2006. Strategies for conserving native salmonid populations at bull trout and implications for conservation of a threatened spe- risk from nonnative fish invasions—tradeoffs in using barriers cies. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1073- to upstream movement. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 1081. Research Station RMRS-GTR-174. and 2007. Use of Brenkman, S. J., S. C. Corbett, E. C. Volk. Fredenberg, W. 2002. Further evidence that lake trout displace otolith chemistry and radiotelemetry to determine age-specific bull trout in Montana lakes. Intermountain Journal of Sciences migratory patterns of anadromous bull trout in the Hoh River, 8:143-152. Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Gende, S. M., E. D. Edwards, M. F. Willson, and M. S. Wipfli. 136:1-11. 2002. Pacific salmon in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Brenkman, S. J., G. L. Larson, and R. E. Gresswell. 2001. BioScience 52:917-928. Spawning migration of lacustrine-adfluvial bull trout in a natural Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout Salvelinus confluentus: a area. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:981- literature review. Willamette National Forest, Eugene, Oregon. 987. Griswold, K. E. 2002. Genetic diversity in coastal cutthroat trout Brunner, P. C., M. R. Douglas, A. Osinov, C. C. Wilson, and and Dolly Varden in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Doctoral L. Bernatchez. 2001. Holarctic phylogeography of arctic dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis. charr (Salvelinus alpinus L.) inferred from mitochondrial DNA Groves, C. 2003. Drafting a conservation blueprint. Island Press, sequences. Evolution 55:573-586. Covelo, California. Carpenter, S. R., and J. F. Kitchell. 1993. The trophic cascade in lakes. Cambridge University Press, New York. Haas, G. R., and J. D. McPhail. 1991. Systematics and distribu- Cavender, T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, tion of Dolly Varden and bull trout in North America. Canadian Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley), from the American Northwest. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:2191-2211. California Fish and Game 3:139-174. Hagen, J., and E. B. Taylor. 2001. Resource partitioning as a factor Colpitts, G. 1997. Science, streams, and sport: trout conservation limiting gene flow in hybridizing populations of Dolly Varden in southern Alberta 1900-1930. M.A. thesis, Department of char (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) History, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:2037- Costello, A. B., T. E. Down, S. M. Pollard, C. J. Pacas, and E. B. 2047. Taylor. 2003. The influence of history and contemporary stream Hasegawa, K., and K. Maekawa. 2006. Effect of introduced salmo- hydrology on the evolution of genetic diversity within species: nids on two native stream-dwelling salmonids through interspe- an examination of microsatellite DNA variation in bull trout, cific competition. Journal of Fish Biology 68:1123-1132. Salvelinus confluentus (Pisces: Salmonidae). Evolution 57:328- Hasegawa, K., T. Yamamoto, M. Murakami, and K. Maekawa. 344. 2004. Comparison of competitive ability between native Crane P. A., L. W. Seeb, and J. E. Seeb. 1994. Genetic relation- and introduced salmonids: evidence from pairwise contests. ships among Salvelinus species inferred from allozyme data. Ichthyological Research 51:191-194. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51 (Suppl. Henderson, M. A., and T. G. Northcote. 1985. Visual prey detec- 1):182-197. tion and foraging in sympatric cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki Crespi, B. J., and M. J. Fulton. 2003. Molecular systematics of clarki) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Canadian Journal of salmonidae: combined nuclear data yields a robust phylogeny. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:785 Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:658-679. Hendry, A. P., T. Bohlin, B. Jonsson, and O. K. Berg. 2003. To Dolloff, C. A., and G. H. Reeves. 1990. Microhabitat partition- sea or not to sea? Anadromy versus non-anadromy in salmonids. ing among stream-dwelling juvenile coho salmon, Oncorhynchus Pages 92-125 in A. P. Hendry and S. C. Stearns, eds. Evolution kisutch, and Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma. Journal of the illuminated: salmon and their relatives. Oxford University Press, Fisheries Research Board of Canada 47:2297-2306. New York.

546 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Hershey, A. E., G. M. Gettel, M. E. McDonald, M. C. Miller, H. ers and hybridization with brook trout. Doctoral dissertation. Mooers, W. J. O’Brien, J. Pastor, C. Richards, and J. A. Schuldt. University of Montana, Missoula. 1999. A geomorphic-trophic model for landscape control of arctic Kanda, N., R. F. Leary, and F. W. Allendorf. 2002. Evidence of lake food webs. BioScience 49:887-897. introgressive hybridization between bull trout and brook trout. Hindar, K., B. Jonsson, J. H. Andrew, and T. G. Northcote. 1988. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:772-782. Resource utilization of sympatric and experimentally allopatric Kawanabe, H. 1989. Japanese char(r(r))s and masu-salmon problems: cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden charr. Oecologia 74:481-491. a review. Physiology and Ecology Japan, Special volume 1:13-24. Hughes, N. F., and T. C. Grand. 2000. Physiological ecology meets Kawanabe, H., and N. Mizuno (editors). 1989. Freshwater fishes of the ideal free distribution: predicting the distribution of size-struc- Japan. Yamakei Publishers, Tokyo (In Japanese). tured fish populations across temperature gradients. Environmental Keeley, E. R., Parkinson, E. A., and Taylor, E. B. 2005. Ecotypic Biology of Fish 59:285-298. differentiation of native rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Jakober, M. L., T. E. McMahon, R. F. Thurow, and C. G. Clancy. populations from British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 2004. Diel habitat partitioning by bull charr and cutthroat trout and Aquatic Sciences 62:1523-1539. 2004. Ecological impacts of rainbow, brown and brook during fall and winter in Rocky Mountain streams. Environmental Kitano, S. trout in Japanese inland waters. Global Environmental Research Biology of Fishes 59:79-89. 8:41-50. Johnston, F. D., J. R. Post, C. J. Mushens, J. D. Stelfox, A. J. Paul Kitano, S., K. Maekawa, S. Nakano, and K. D. Fausch. 1994. and B. Lajeunesse. 2007. The demography of recovery of an over- Spawning behavior of bull trout in the upper Flathead River exploited bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, population. Canadian drainage, Montana, with special reference to hybridization with Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 64:113-126. brook trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Johnston, G. 2002. Arctic charr aquaculture. Fishing News Books, a 123:988-992. division of Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, United Kingdom. Koizumi, I., and K. Maekawa. 2004. Metapopulation structure Jonsson, B., and N. Jonsson. 1993. Partial migration—niche shift of stream-dwelling Dolly Varden charr inferred from patterns versus sexual-maturation in fishes. Reviews in Fish Biology and of occurrence in the Sorachi River basin, Hokkaido, Japan. Fisheries 3:348-365. Freshwater Biology 49:973-981. Jonsson, B, S. Skulason, Snorrason, O. T. Sandlund, H. J. Koizumi, I., S. Yamamoto, and K. Maekawa. 2006a. Female-biased Malmquist, P. M. Jonasson, R. Gydemo, and T. Lindem. 1988. migration in stream-dwelling Dolly Varden in the Shiisorapuchi Life history variation of polymorphic arctic charr (Salvelinus alpi- River, Japan. Journal of Fish Biology 68:1513-1529. nus) in Thinvallavatin, Iceland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries _____. 2006b. Decomposed pairwise regression analysis of genetic and Aquatic Sciences 45:1537-1547. and geographic distances reveals a metapopulation structure of Kanda, N. 1998. Genetics and conservation of bull trout: compari- stream-dwelling Dolly Varden charr. Molecular Ecology 15:3175- son of population genetic structure among different genetic mark- 3189.

Floy Tag

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 547 Leary, R. F., F. W. Allendorf, and S. H. Forbes. 1993. Conservation Nakano, S., K. D. Fausch, and S. Kitano. 1999a. Flexible niche genetics of bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath river drain- partitioning via a foraging mode shift: a proposed mechanism for ages. Conservation Biology 7:856-865. coexistence in stream-dwelling charrs. Journal of Animal Ecology Maekawa, K. 1984. Life history patterns of the Miyabe charr in 68:1079-1092. Shikaribetsu Lake, Japan. Pages 233-250 in L. Johnson, and Nakano, S., H. Miyasaka and N. Kuhara. 1999b. Terrestrial-aquatic B. L. Burns, eds. Biology of the Arctic charr, Proceedings of linkages: riparian arthropod inputs alter trophic cascades in a the International Symposium on Arctic Charr. University of stream food web. Ecology 80:2435-2441. Manitoba Press, Winnipeg. Nelson, M. L., T. E. McMahon, and R. F. Thurow. 2002. Decline Maekawa, K., and T. Hino. 1987. Effect of cannibalism on alterna- of the migratory form in bull charr, Salvelinus confluentus, and tive life histories in charr. Evolution 41:1120-1123. implications for conservation. Environmental Biology of Fishes Maekawa, K., and S. Nakano. 2002. To sea or not to sea: a brief 64:321-332. review of salmon migration evolution. Fisheries Science 68:27- O’Brien, D. S. 2001. Bull trout spawning migrations in the Duncan 32. River: insights from telemetry and DNA. M.S. thesis, University McMahon, T. E., A. V. Zale, F. T. Barrows, J. H. Selong, and R. of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. J. Danehy. 2007. Temperature and competition between bull Oleinik, A. G., L. A. Skurikhina, VI. A. Brykov, P. A. Crane, trout and brook trout: a test of the elevation refuge hypothesis. and J. K. Wenburg. 2005. Differentiation of Dolly Varden char Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1313-1326. Salvelinus malma from Asia and North America inferred from McPhail, J. D., and C. B. Murray. 1979. The early life history PCR-RFLP analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Russian Journal of and ecology of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in the Upper Genetics 41:501-508. Arrow Lakes. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and Phillips, R. B., L. I. Gudex, K. M. Westrich, and A. L. DeCicco. Kootenay Region Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver. 1999. Combined phylogenetic analysis of ribosomal ITS1 Monnot, L., J. B. Dunham, T. Salow, and P. Koetsier. 2008. sequences and new chromosome data supports three subgroups Influences of body size and environmental factors on autumn of Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma). Canadian Journal of downstream migration of bull trout in the Boise River, Idaho. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:1504-1511. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:231-240. Post, J. R., C. J. Mushens, A. J. Paul, and M. Sullivan. 2003. Assessment of alternative management strategies for sustaining Morita, K., and S. H. Morita. 2002. Rule of age and size at maturity: recreational fisheries: model development and application to bull individual variation in the maturation history of resident white- trout, Salvelinus confluentus. North American Journal of Fisheries spotted charr. Journal of Fish Biology 61: 1230-1238. Management 23:22-34. Morita, K., and S. Yamamoto. 2002. Effect of habitat fragmentation Quinn, T. P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and by damming on the persistence of stream dwelling charr popula- trout. University of Washington Press, Seattle. tions. Conservation Biology 16:1318-1323. Radchenko, O. A. 2004. Introgressive hybridization of chars of the Morita, K., and A. Yokota. 2002. Population viability of stream- genus Salvelinus as inferred from mitochondrial DNA variation. resident salmonids after habitat fragmentation: a case study with Russian Journal of Genetics 40:1678-1685. white-spotted charr (Salvelinus leucomaenis) by an individual- Rahel, F. J., and J. D. Olden. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate based model. Ecological Modelling 155:85-94. change on aquatic invasive species. Conservation Biology 22:521- Morita K., J. I. Tsuboi, and H. Matsuda. 2004. The impact of exotic 533. trout on native charr in a Japanese stream. Journal of Applied Ratliff, D. E. 1992. Bull trout investigations in the Metolius River- Ecology 41:962-997. Lake Billy Chinook system. Pages 37-44 in P. J. Howell and D. V. Muhlfeld, C. C., and B. Marotz. 2005. Seasonal movement and Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout habitat use by subadult bull trout in the upper Flathead River sys- workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, tem, Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management Corvallis. 25:797-810. Reeves, G. H., L. E. Benda, K. M. Burnett, P. A. Bisson, and J. R. Nakamura, T. 2001. Estimation of the distribution of genetically Sedell. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem approach to main- pure populations of the Japanese charr by inquiring survey. Journal taining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily sig- of the Japan Society of Erosion Control Engineering 53:3-9 (in nificant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. Japanese with English abstract). Pages 334-349 in J. L. Nielsen, ed. Evolution and the aquatic Nakano, S. 1995. Competitive interactions for foraging microhabi- ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. tats in a size-structured interspecific dominance hierarchy of two American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, Bethesda, Maryland. sympatric stream salmonids in a natural habitat. Canadian Journal Reist, J. D., J. D. Johnson, and T. J. Carmichael. 1997. Variation of Zoology 73:1845-1854. and specific identity of char from northwestern Arctic Canada Nakano, S., K. D. Fausch, T. Furukawa-Tanaka, K. Maekawa, and and Alaska. American Fisheries Society Symposium 19:250-261. H. Kawanabe. 1992. Resource utilization by bull char and cut- Reist, J. D., G. Low, J. D. Johnson, and D. McDowell. 2002. throat trout in a mountain stream in Montana, U.S.A. Japanese Range extension of bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, to the central Journal of Ichthyology 39:211-216. Northwest Territories, with notes on identification and distribu- Nakano, S., F. Kitano, and K. Maekawa. 1996. Potential fragmentation of Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma, in the western Canadian tion and loss of thermal habitats for charrs in the Japanese archi- Arctic. Arctic 55:70-76. pelago due to climatic warming. Freshwater Biology 36:711-722. Ricker, W. E. 1941. The consumption of young sockeye salmon by Nakano, S., S. Kitano, K. Nakai, and K. D. Fausch. 1998. predaceous fish. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada Competitive interactions for foraging microhabitat among intro- 5:293-313. duced brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, and native S. confluentus, Rieman, B. E., and F. W. Allendorf. 2001. Effective population size and westslope cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi, in a and genetic conservation criteria for bull trout. North American Montana stream. Environmental Biology of Fishes 52:345-355. Journal of Fisheries Management 21:756-764.

548 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Rieman, B. E., D. Isaak, S. Adams, D. Horan, D. Nagel, C. Luce, fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, and D. Myers. 2007. Anticipated climate warming effects on bull Netherlands. trout habitats and populations across the Interior Columbia River Savvaitova K. A., O. F. Gritsenko, M. A. Gruzdeva, and K. V. Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1552- Kuzischchin. 2000. Life strategy and phenetic diversity of the 1565. chars from the genus Salvelinus in Chernoe Lake, Onekatan Rieman, B. E., D.C. Lee, and R. F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, Island. Journal of Ichthyology 40:704-723. status, and likely future trends of bull trout within the Columbia Savvaitova K. A., and L. V. Kokhmenko. 1971. Some peculiarities River and Klamath basins. North American Journal of Fisheries of biology in sympatric charrs from Azabatch Lake basin. Vestnik Management 17: 1111-1125. MGU 3:37-42 (in Russian). Rieman, B. E., and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habi- Savvaitova, K. A., K. V. Kuzischchin, M. Yu. Pichugin, M. A. tat requirements for the conservation of bull trout Salvelinus con- Gruzdeva, and D. S. Pavlov. 2007. Systematic and biology of the fluentus. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, East Siberian Char Salvelinus leucomaenis. Journal of Ichthyology General Technical Report INT-302, Ogden, Utah. 47:53-66. Rieman, B. E., J. T. Peterson, and D. L. Myers. 2006. Have brook Schlosser, I. J. 1991. Stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective. trout displaced bull trout along longitudinal gradients in cen- BioScience 41:704-712. tral Idaho streams? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Selong, J. H., T. E. McMahon, A. V. Zale and F. T. Barrows. 2001. Sciences 63:63-78. Effect of temperature on growth and survival of bull trout, with Ripley, T., G. Scrimgeour, and M.S. Boyce. 2005. Bull trout application of an improved method for determining thermal tol- (Salvelinus confluentus) occurrence and abundance influenced by erance in fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society cumulative industrial developments in a Canadian boreal forest 130:1026-1037. watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science Smith, T. B., and S. Skúlason. 1996. Evolutionary significance of 62:2431-2442. resource polymorphisms in fishes, amphibians, and birds. Annual Savvaitova, K. A. 1960. On the dwarf males of genus Salvelinus Review of Ecology and Systematics 27:111-133. (Salmonidae). Dokl. AN SSSR 136:217-220. (In Russian.) Spencer, C. N., B. R. McClelland, and J. A. Stanford. 1991. _____. 1973. Ecology and taxonomy of the freshwater charrs genus Shrimp stocking, salmon collapse, and eagle displacement: cas- Salvelinus (Nilson) Richardson from some water bodies of cading interactions in the food web of a large aquatic ecosystem. Kamchatka. Voprosy Ichtiologii 13:67-78. (in Russian) BioScience 41:14-21. _____. 1980. Taxonomy and biogeography of charrs in the Spruell, P., A. R. Hemmingsen, P. J. Howell, N. Kanda, and F. W. Palearctic. Pages 281-294 in E. K. Balon, ed. Charrs: salmonid Allendorf. 2003. Conservation genetics of bull trout: geographic

Halltech Aquatiac Research, Inc.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 549 distribution of variation at microsatellite loci. Conservation application to recreational fishery management. Canadian Journal Genetics 4:17-29. of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:1157-1171. Staples, D. F., M. L. Taper, and B. B. Shepard. 2005. Risk-based Taylor, E. B., S. Pollard, and D. Louie. 1999. Mitochondrial DNA viable population monitoring. Conservation Biology 19:1908- variation in bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) from northwestern 1916. North America: implications for zoogeography and conservation. Suzuki, R., and T. Kato. 1966. Hybridization in nature between sal- Molecular Ecology 8:1155-1170. monid fishes, Salvelinus pluvius x Salvelinus fontinalis. Bulletin of Taylor, E. B., E. Lowery, A. Lilliestrale, A. Elz, and T. P. Quinn. the Freshwater Fisheries Research Laboratory 17: 83-90. 2008. Genetic analysis of sympatric char populations in Western Takami, T., and T. Aoyama. 1997. White-spotted charr predation Alaska: Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and Dolly Varden (S. on juvenile chum salmon in coastal waters in northern Japan. malma) are not two sides of the same coin. Journal of Evolutionary Scientific Reports of the Hokkaido Fish Hatchery 51:57-61. Biology 21: In press. _____. 1999. Distributions of rainbow trout and brown trouts in Vidergar, D. T. 2000. Population estimates, food habits and estimates Hokkaido, northern Japan. Wildlife Conservation Japan 4:41-48. of consumption of selected predatory fishes in Lake Pend Oreille, (In Japanese with English abstract) Idaho. M.S. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. Takami, T., and T. Kinoshita. 1990. Morphological comparisons of Ward, J. V., and J. A. Stanford. 1995. Ecological connectivity in charr, Salvelinus leucomaenis (Pallas), obtained from Lake Shikotsu alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. and Moheji River in Hokkaido, Japan. Bulletin of the Faculty of Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11:105-119. Fisheries, Hokkaido University 44:121-130. Weeber, M. A. 2007. Effects of kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) redd Takami, T., and K. Nagasawa. 1996. Predation on chum salmon superimposition on bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) reproductive (Oncorhynchus keta) fry and masu salmon (O. masou) juveniles by success in the Deschutes River basin, Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon white-spotted charr (Salvelinus leucomaenis) in a river in northern State University, Corvallis. Japan. Scientific Reports of the Hokkaido Fish Hatchery 50:45- Whiteley, A. R., P. Spruell, B. E. Rieman, and F. W. Allendorf. 47. 2006. Fine-scale genetic structure of bull trout at the southern Takami, T., T. Yoshihara, Y. Miyakoshi, and R. Kuwabara. 2002. limit of their distribution. Transactions of the American Fisheries Replacement of the white-spotted charr Salvelinus leucomaenis Society 135:1238-1253. by brown trout Salmo trutta in a branch of the Chitose River, Yamamoto, S., S. Kitano, K. Maekawa, I. Koizumi, and K. Hokkaido. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 68: 24-28. (In Japanese with Morita. 2006a. Introgressive hybridization between Dolly Varden English abstract.) Salvelinus malma and white-spotted charr Salvelinus leucomaenis on Taniguchi, Y., and S. Nakano. 2000. Condition-specific competi- Hokkaido Island, Japan. Journal of Fish Biology 68 (Supplement tion: implications for the altitudinal distribution of stream fishes. A): 68-85. Ecology 81:2027-2039. Yamamoto, S., K. Maekawa, T. Tamate, I. Koizumi, K. Hasegawa, Taniguchi, Y., Y. Miyake, T. Saito, H. Urabe, and S. Nakano. 2000. and H. Kubota. 2006b. Genetic evaluation of translocation in Redd superimposition by introduced rainbow trout on native artificially isolated populations of white-spotted charr Salvelinus( charrs in a Japanese stream. Ichthyological Research 47:149-156. leucomaenis). Fisheries Research 78: 352-358. Taylor, E. B. 2004. Evolution in mixed company: evolutionary infer- Yamamoto, S., K. Morita, and A. Goto. 1999. Geographic variations ences from studies of natural hybridization in salmonidae. Pages in life-history characteristics of white-spotted charr (Salvelinus 232-263 in A. P. Hendry and S. C. Stearns, eds. Evolution illu- leucomaenis). Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:871-878. minated: salmon and their relatives. Oxford University Press, Yamamoto, S., K. Morita, S. Kitano, K. Watanabe, I. Koizumi, K. Oxford. Taylor, E. B., and A. B. Costello 2006. Microsatellite Maekawa, and K. Takamura. 2004. Phylogeography of white- DNA analysis of coastal populations of bull trout (Salvelinus con- spotted charr (Salvelinus leucomaenis) inferred from mitochondrial fluentus) in British Columbia: zoogeographic implications and its DNA sequences. Zoological Science 21:229-240.

Lotek Wireless

550 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Feature: Human Dimensions

Cooperative Research Program Goals Troy W. Hartley and Robert A. Robertson in New England: Hartley is Virginia Sea Grant director and is a research associate professor at Perceptions of Active Commercial Fishermen the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point. He may be contacted at thartley@ Abstract: Cooperative fisheries research will continue to expand throughout vims.edu. Robertson is an associate the United States with the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, professor in the Department of Resource which called for the development of regionally-based cooperative research programs Economics and Development, University nationwide. We report on a survey of individuals actively engaged in commercial of New Hampshire, Durham. fishing in New EnglandN ( = 295) that asked how important and achievable cooperative research programmatic goals are and why. One goal, “the promotion of partnerships between fishermen and scientists,” was particularly important to fishermen because partnerships are believed to be in everyone’s interests, enhance the quality of the science, lead to better management decisions, improve Introduction the professional relationships between fishermen and scientists, and speak toa fishermen’s sense of professional duty. However, fewer respondents considered the Cooperative research is being con- partnership goal achievable because of a wide range of obstacles. Based upon the ducted in many fields of research and findings and published studies on the perceptions of scientists and mangers, we development (e.g., education, physics, discuss recommendations for cooperative research managers. space science, materials research, computer science, clinical medicine) to lever- age the resources and expertise of multiple researchers from many institutions, promote efficient use of labor, and enhance credibility (Maieschein 1993; Chompalov Objetivos del Programa Cooperativo de and Shrum 1999; Crossley and Holmes 2001). Since the late 1990s, coopera- Investigación en Nueva Inglaterra: tive research in fisheries science has been expanding in the United States (U.S. percepciones de los Pescadores Commission on Ocean Policy 2004; NRC 2004) and particularly in New England comerciales activos (Hartley and Robertson 2006a), although recent federal funding constraints are ResumeN: A partir de la re-autorización de la declaratoria Magnuson-Stevens threatening past gains. Cooperative en 2007, las sociedades cooperativas de producción pesquera han continuado research programs seek to directly involve expandiéndose a lo largo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. La declaratoria the fishing industry and organizations in es un llamado para el desarrollo de programas cooperativos de investigación a nivel the design, planning, data gathering and regional. En este trabajo se reporta un sondeo realizado a todos aquellos individuos analysis, and/or dissemination of findings comprometidos activamente en la pesca comercial de Nueva Inglaterra (N = 295). from fisheries research. Further expan- En el sondeo se preguntó cuán importantes y asequibles son los objetivos de los sion is possible in spite of funding con- programas cooperativos y por qué. El objetivo de “promover la sociedad entre straints—the 2007 reauthorization of the pescadores y científicos” resultó ser de particular interés para los pescadores ya que tal asociación se asume de interés común, mejora la calidad de la ciencia, da como primary U.S. federal fisheries management resultado mejores decisiones de manejo, enriquece las relaciones profesionales entre statute, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery ambas partes y transmite el deber profesional al sentido común del pescador. Sin Conservation and Management Act, embargo, debido a un amplio rango de obstáculos, pocos encuestados consideraron added a section that establishes region- que este objetivo fuera asequible. Sobre la base de estos resultados y otros estudios ally-based cooperative research and man- publicados acerca de la percepción de tienen científicos y manejadores, se discuten y agement programs nationwide (see U.S. dirigen recomendaciones a los directivos de investigaciones cooperativas. Public Law 109-479, Title II, §318).

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 551 In general, cooperative fisheries research projects (nearly 90 projects were Human, Social and research is defined as fishermen-scientist complete), involving over 355 fishing ves- Institutional Dimensions of partnerships that are classified along a sels captains/owners, 33 fishing industry Cooperative Research spectrum from lower levels of engagement organizations or businesses, and over 221 and cooperation with fishermen (e.g., scientists from 55 research institutions or To date, there has been limited but log books, chartered vessels) to full “col- agencies on a wide array of fisheries, gear, growing empirical research on the human, laborative” research, with fishermen and ocean process, and socioeconomic topics social, and/or institutional dimensions of scientists working closely in all aspects of within the Gulf of Maine and Georges cooperative research. However, a body of the research process (NRC 2004; Taylor Bank. The Northeast Consortium’s goals literature provides testimonies and case Singer 2006). Partnerships are central to are to: stories about cooperative research and cooperative research, although the degree perceptions about its human and social of engagement of partners and integration 1. Develop partnerships between com- dimensions. For example, during the 1990s of their knowledge and skills can vary. For mercial fishermen and scientists, edu- a fisheries resource crisis in Nova Scotia the purpose of this article, we use the term cators, and coastal managers; led to the creation of the Fishermen and “cooperative research” to mean all forms 2. Enable commercial fishermen and com- Scientists Research Society (see www.fsrs. along the continuum from cooperative to mercial fishing vessels to participate in ns.ca/), which emerged from a context of collaborative. cooperative research and develop selec- distrust among fishermen and scientists Several models of cooperative research and limited use of fishermen’s knowledge tive gear technologies; can be found in New England, including or human resource capability in fisher- industry sectors setting aside a portion of 3. Help bring fishermen’s information, ies science (King 1999). Program lead- their profits for research, competitively- experience, and expertise into the sci- ers identified the building of trust among awarded federal resources dedicated to entific framework needed for fisheries parties and the enhanced credibility of cooperative fisheries research (both uni- management; and the scientific findings as outcomes of versity and National Marine Fisheries 4. Equip and utilize commercial fishing cooperative research, and particularly Service [NMFS] administered programs), vessels as research and monitoring the frequent, joint activities leading to a and non-profit community development platforms. “common language and…better under- loans with cooperative research contract standing of each other” (King 1999:10). conditions. Nationwide, certain areas These four goals were established through While maintaining frequent, direct com- of the United States are more active in discussions of a 30-person multi-stake- munication, including feedback to fisher- cooperative fisheries research than oth- holder Advisory Committee (Hartley and men about research results, the program ers. Early ground-breaking cooperative Robertson 2006a). Further, the Northeast still experienced a drop in motivation and research, particularly in the late 1980s on Consortium has been recognized nation- participation among industry over time. turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in shrimp ally and internationally as a model for Science managers in NMFS have trawling gear, emerged out of the south- effective cooperative research program- reported that they believe fishermen are eastern United States through Sea Grant ming (Gallant 2005). interested in focused cooperative research and a NMFS science center (NRC 2004; This article briefly reviews the current on immediate concerns in fisheries Graham 2006). However, since 2000, literature on the human, social, and insti- resource management, and that coopera- better funded and more institutional- tutional dimensions of cooperative fisher- tive research builds mutual understand- ized cooperative research programs have ies research, followed by the presentation ing and respect between scientists and been established in the Northeast, Pacific of a particular study in New England. We fishermen (Sissenwine 2001). Michael Northwest, and Alaska (Karp et al. 2001; report on a survey of individuals actively Sissenwine stated in Congressional testi- Harms and Sylvia 2000; Pautzke 2006). engaged in commercial fishing in New mony, “Our overwhelming experience has These regions have become the leaders in England that examined the perceptions been that people working together learn to understand each other’s perspectives, advancing cooperative research program of this important set of industry leaders designs (Read and Hartley 2006). regardless of personal backgrounds. Owing regarding how important and achievable One example of a university-based, to this, I believe those who participate in the cooperative research programmatic regional program is the Northeast cooperative research will be more respon- goals of the Northeast Consortium are Consortium, created in 1999. Four sible in fisheries and fisheries management and why. Further, while research on fish- research institutions (Universities of New for the rest of their careers, regardless of Hampshire and Maine, Massachusetts eries scientists and managers was beyond their roles” (2001:5). Institute of Technology, and Woods Hole the scope and funding of this study, past Fishing gear research aimed at reduc- Oceanographic Institution) work with research and other data are presented from ing bycatch of species of concern has a multi-stakeholder advisory panel to multiple sources to discuss fisheries scien- expanded tremendously over the last few administer cooperative research outreach, tists and managers’ attitudes toward the decades and it is a particularly active area education, competitive grant-making, and cooperative research goals. We conclude for fishermen-scientist partnerships. Early science and data management (www.north- with a discussion of these findings relative bycatch research in Australia in the 1990s eastconsortium.org; Hartley and Robertson to cooperative natural resource manage- demonstrated that cooperative research 2006a). The Northeast Consortium is a $5 ment and science and some recommen- strategies led to substantial bycatch reduc- million annual program and as of January dations for cooperative fisheries research tions in prawn trawl fisheries. Reductions 2008 had underwritten 171 collaborative managers. were achieved in large part because the

552 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g cooperative research placed industry in a but improvements arose through coop- examined their beliefs in the importance publicly visible leadership role in solving erative research. Specifically, NRC heard and achievability of particular cooperative the problem, and integrated fishermen’s examples of cooperative research leading research goals, especially the perceived knowledge into the design of feasible to greater confidence in data, analysis of opportunities and challenges of promot- gear technology designs (Kennelly and the data, and the resulting management ing fishermen-scientist partnerships. We Broadhurst 1996). As a result, the research recommendations. asked individuals engaged in commercial findings were more acceptable to the indus- Hartley and Robertson (2006a) linked fishing how important and achievable try and adopted voluntarily (Kennelly and the emergence of cooperative fisheries specific cooperative research objectives Broadhurst 1996). research in New England to the mid-to- were and why. A follow-up open-ended In one of the early empirical reports late 1990s climate of socioeconomic hard- “why” question provided qualitative data on the human dimensions of cooperative ship in fishing communities, depressed fish insightful in assessing the perceived barri- research, Conway and Pomeroy (2006) stocks, and intense distrust and debate ers to achieving these cooperative research surveyed 15 scientists, fishermen, and between scientists and fishermen over fish- objectives in New England, which in Sea Grant extension agents involved in eries science. In New England, a general turn has informed and guided Northeast a collaborative fisheries habitat research lack of trust and respect remains between Consortium programming. project. They identified four interests and fishermen and scientists, although -fisher motivations among participants: interest men participating in cooperative research Methods in the research topic, opportunity to learn reported forming better partnerships with from others, facilitation of the connection more trust in scientists and creating more The survey was designed and adminis- and communication between fishermen credible science than they had expected tered using standard data collection pro- and scientists, and the importance of bring- (Hartley and Robertson 2006b). Both cedures and quality controls detailed in ing fishermen’s knowledge into scientific fishermen and scientists participating in Dillman’s Tailored Design Method (1999). research. While there were specific chal- cooperative research in New England Addresses were obtained via a mailing list lenges posed by the research project (time, report greater mutual understanding, trust, provided by the New England Fishery funding, weather and seasonal conditions, and likelihood of long-lasting partner- Management Council in 2001, which and the communication challenges arising ships; nonetheless, both remain skeptical had originally come from the NMFS fish- from limited face-to-face time), specific that cooperative research findings will ing permit holders list. To ensure that benefits were identified as well. The ben- impact fisheries management (Hartley and the researchers and the research instru- efits included mutual learning, improve- Robertson 2006b). ment did not bias the survey response, ments in data collection methods, and the In sum, past research has clearly dem- drafts were reviewed and pre-tested with generation of high interest in continuing to onstrated that the social context underly- an industry and scientist advisory group. collaborate on research. Further, Conway ing the professional relationships between The survey was administered to individu- and Pomeroy reported the improve- scientists and fishermen in cooperative als who were actively engaged in feder- ment of professional relationships among research is multifaceted and presents sub- ally-managed commercial fishing in New three partners, although one respondent stantial challenges to effective coopera- England in 2002–2003. reported a worsened relationship with a tive research. It is not yet clear if and how The first questionnaire mailing was scientist. Bernstein and Iudicello (2000) these factors differ between “cooperative” sent to 1,204 individuals in fall 2002 and, also found complex social dynamics and “collaborative” forms of cooperative after removing undeliverable addresses among partners in a review of seven cases research. Nonetheless, it could be hypoth- and returned surveys, there were four in the U.S. fisheries. Specifically, they esized that more collaborative forms follow-up mailings of two different survey reported that the effective motivations to require even greater attention to the fac- lengths until summer 2003. Respondent participate in cooperative research depend tors underlying the partnerships. The ben- occupations for each returned survey were upon the culture of the individual fishery efits discussed in the literature appear to examined and questionnaires from non- and the personal relationships that existed directly counter many obstacles—in other commercial fishermen were eliminated among participants. words, while distrust, lack of credibility, from this analysis, leaving 295 respondents The challenges of cooperative research and misperception inhibit cooperative out of 420 commercial fishermen N ( = have been well reported (NRC 2004; research, at the same time, cooperative 295, 70% response rate). The mean age for Conway and Pomeroy 2006; Read and research seems to improve levels of trust, respondents was 52 years old with 27 years Hartley 2006; Jones et al. 2007) and credibility of science, and degree of mutual of fishing experience. Most owned or oper- include, time, resources, staff capacity, understanding and communication. Thus, ated more than one vessel (1.45 mean) information and data management, over- understanding the human dimension of and employed a small crew (5.36 mean coming mistrust, and inadequate com- scientist-fishermen partnerships will very and 3 median). Fifty-five percent (55%) munication and coordination. The 2004 likely improve the design and implemen- of respondents earned over three-quarters National Research Council (NRC) assess- tation of cooperative research programs. of their income from commercial fishing ment of cooperative research in NMFS The research reported here focused and the average respondent participated included a discussion of the social con- on actively engaged commercial fish- in nearly four (3.98) different fisheries text of cooperative research. The NRC ermen (i.e., currently fishing and not (i.e., target species, gear types, inshore/off- reported that the fishing industry had latent permit holders), a very important shore). Overall, the respondents were quite little confidence in science and used the stakeholder group in New England’s fish- engaged in fisheries management activi- political process to oppose regulations, ing industry. More specifically, the study ties: 72% attended fisheries management

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 553 council meetings, 69% contributed money one of the largest sample sizes of commer- Results to fishing causes, 67% called government cial fishermen in the published literature. officials, and 63% had commented ona Further, the survey included open- Overall, active commercial fishermen fishery management plan. The commercial ended questions asking why the fisher- respondents considered the cooperative fishing industry in the Gulf of Maine and research objectives to be very important, man answered the scaled (not, somewhat, Georges Bank is a relatively small, self- although not very achievable (see Table very) importance and achievability ques- selected population with only a few thou- 1). The goal of integrating fishermen’s sand participants and it is getting smaller tions for each Northeast Consortium goal knowledge into the scientific framework through attrition and increasingly restric- the way they did. We present here an was considered the most important among tive regulations (Hall Arber et al. 2001). It analysis of the comments made by 164 the four goals. The most exact, yet narrow is generally difficult to obtain large sample respondents regarding the importance goal, i.e., equipping and utilizing com- sizes from this population. and achievability of one of the Northeast mercial fishing vessels in research, was Follow-up contacts were made with Consortium’s objectives, i.e., promoting considered the most achievable among questionnaire non-respondents in order to partnerships. This reflects all answers from the goals, although it was also considered better understand the response bias in this the 295 total respondents. No differences less important than the other objectives. study. There were no significant differences Meanwhile, the broader partnership goal were observed in responses to quantita- across size or format of questionnaires, i.e., was considered less achievable than other tive measures of partnership importance long versus shorter versions. There were goals. Nonetheless, overall the respon- significant differences across the states, and achievability among respondents of dents remained somewhat optimistic, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, different fishing practices or behaviors or with between 88% and 93.5% believing Rhode Island, and Connecticut (chi- other demographic variables. We elected that goals were either somewhat or very square 13.73 – sig., 0.008). Specifically, to present qualitative data on this single achievable. Massachusetts fishermen were the most goal because partnerships are central to A mix of chi-square and one-way anal- likely to be non-respondents. There were all forms of cooperative research, and the ysis of variance was used to examine the no significant response rate differences partnership goal exhibited one of the larg- relationship between demographic and across all the fishing practices or behaviors est discrepancies between importance and attitude and opinion variables associated (i.e., level of engagement, fishing sector, with the sample of commercial fishermen achievability ratings. The qualitative data and attitudes towards and support for coop- included in this study. A few significant underwent standard content analysis and erative research) and demographic vari- differences were observed, although differ- ables. Nonetheless, while we concluded quality control protocols that identified ent demographic groups were more alike that there is a potential for response bias themes and patterns in segments of text than different. For example, fishermen between states and the sample list is biased comments (Lofland and Lofland 1995 were significantly more likely to believe toward more actively engaged commercial Miles and Huberman 1994). Two investi- that the goal of integrating fishermen’s fishermen in northern New England, the gators independently coded samples of text information, experience, and expertise focus of this article was not impacted by responses for attributes of importance and into the scientific framework was impor- the non-response bias because we were achievability and then consulted on final tant if they had contributed money to more interested in the views of the engaged coding protocols, before one investigator fishing causes p( = .002), served on a plan sub-sample than the broader population of development team (p = .005), contacted a completed the coding. Subsequent cod- commercial fishermen. The response bias government official p( = .007), or spoken and the study’s focus on engaged fisheries ing and recoding was confirmed with the at a fisheries management council meeting leaders make it inappropriate to general- second investigator after approximately (p = .07). Fishermen who participated on ize about the broader commercial fish- one-quarter, half, and three-quarters of the a plan development team were also more ing industry in New England or beyond. data coded. All 164 comments were coded likely to believe that the developing part- Nonetheless, the 295 respondents reflects and clustered into overarching themes. nerships goal was important (p = .005).

Table 1. Importance and achievability of cooperative research goals in New England (N = 295).

Northeast Consortium Goal Statement How important? how achievable? Develop partnerships between commercial fishermen and scientists, educators, and coastal managers Very: 83.2% Very: 31.6% Somewhat: 14.8% Somewhat: 58.6% Not: 2.0% Not: 9.8% Enable commercial fishermen and commercial fishing vessels to participate in cooperative research Very: 84.5% Very: 47.6% and development of selective gear technologies Somewhat: 12.7% Somewhat: 44.7% Not: 2.8% Not: 7.7% Help bring fishermen’s information, experience, and expertise into the scientific framework needed Very: 91.6% Very: 38.7% for fisheries management Somewhat: 7.6% Somewhat: 49.4% Not: 0.8% Not: 11.9% Equip and utilize commercial fishing vessels as research and monitoring platforms Very: 78.1% Very: 54.5% Somewhat: 20.7% Somewhat: 39.0% Not: 1.2% Not: 6.5%

554 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Other demographic characteristics (e.g., from research and they can learn from us.” that cooperation would not be in their gear type, home port, etc.) did not show Further, fishermen expressed an expecta- best interests. statistical significance. tion or sense of professional duty that they Negative stereotypes about scientists A content analysis of the qualita- should be partnering and participating in were observed in the qualitative data, tive data regarding why active fishermen cooperative research; fishermen noted, e.g., perceptions of arrogance and disre- respondents considered particular goals “Fishermen need to participate in all lev- spect among scientists toward fishermen. important revealed several motives and els of the recovery,” and “[Cooperative Fishermen wrote, “No one respects fish- opportunities for cooperative research in research partnerships] will become neces- ermen,” and, “Scientists view fishermen New England, while the responses to why sary in time.” as the enemy.” Other fishermen noted, fishermen considered particular goals less In explaining why achieving the part- “NMFS scientists think they are better than achievable identified potential barriers nership goal may be more challenging, fish- fishermen. They look down on us.” Still a (see Table 2 for a summary of themes). ermen identified many obstacles, including fourth fisherman added, “Scientists think The themes do not reflect completely the fishermen’s mistrust and suspicion of they have all the answers.” Finally, fisher- independent ideas, as there is overlap scientists and managers (see Table 2). For men acknowledged poor communication and a continuum of social factors at play. example, fishermen noted that “trust has and little mutual understanding between Rather, the themes identify underlying been broken too many times,” referring fishermen and scientists. One fisherman social phenomenon that influence beliefs, to the perception that fishermen have stated, “Academia and managers do not attitudes, and opinions about the partner- been harmed by partnerships in the past. listen!” Another added, “No one listens to ship objective. Another wrote, “Fishermen distrust sci- fishermen,” and a third said, “Researchers Many fishermen perceived that it is never listen to fishermen.” At the same entists.” The level of mistrust may extend in everyone’s interest to participate as time, one fisherman acknowledged “fisher- to active suspicion among some, as one a partner in cooperative research. The men lack fisheries education.” fishermen wrote, “NMFS wants us out of majority of qualitative responses to the The twenty-three quotes reported business,” and another added, “Fisheries “why partnership is important” question above were from different respondents and managers have preconceived answers, related to the perceived common interest represents a small fraction (14%) of the which they hire researchers to prove; if the in a healthy stock and its relationship to total 164 qualitative responses coded and information they gather is contrary, they a healthy, viable fishing industry. Sample clustered into the motivation and obstacle discard it.” responses coded as this common interest themes summarized in Table 2. in a healthy fish stock theme included, While active commercial fishermen “Everyone wants to save the resource,” and, from New England reported that a com- Discussion “In order to survive, we'll all need to work mon interest between fishermen and sci- together.” Further, the second most often entists was a reason that partnerships were Based upon the quantitative analysis mentioned opinion was that partnerships important, fishermen also reported that a alone, there was clearly substantial sup- are important because they enhanced the lack of common interest with scientists port for cooperative research objectives quality of the science and the resulting fish- inhibited partnerships and made partner- among active New England commercial eries management decision. For example, ships less achievable. Fishermen wrote, for fishermen, with > 97% rating the goals fishermen wrote, “Better science = more example, “Never the two shall meet!” and as very important and > 88% rating them effective management,” and “Fisheries sci- “Lines have been drawn, walls have been as somewhat or very achievable. While a ence and data [are] not always accurate.” built.” Another fisherman summed up ele- strong belief in the importance and the Active commercial fishermen in New ments of mistrust, suspicion of the man- somewhat less strongly held belief in the England also mentioned that partnerships agers' motives, and the lack of common achievability of goals was universally held are important because they may improve ground by writing, “We give information across the active commercial fishing indus- the professional trust and mutual under- on our business; they make a living with try respondents in New England, fishermen standing among fishermen and scientists, this and we get restricted!” Active com- who participated on plan development e.g., “to build trust,” and “we can learn mercial fishermen in New England feared teams were among the most adamant in

Table 2. Motivations and obstacles to scientists-fishermen partnerships in New England.

Why it is important to form partnerships? Why it is hard to achieve partnership goal? Address common interest among fishermen, scientists, and Mistrust of scientists. Suspicious of scientists' and managers' managers. opinions and interests.

Best interest of commercial fishing industry. No common ground or interest with scientists. Not in the best interest of the commercial fishing industry.

Enhance the quality of science and the management decisions. Negative attitude among scientists toward fishermen. Scientists do Improve the professional trust and mutual understanding among not respect fishermen. Arrogance of scientists. fishermen, scientists, and managers. Address desire, duty, and expectation to participate as a member of Poor communication and mutual understanding with scientists. the fishing profession.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 555 their belief in the importance of partner- frequently mentioned reason among active of cooperative research. Further, Hartley ships and integrating knowledge. This New England fishermen for the importance and Read (2006) reported that inconsis- group, along with participants on other of forming cooperative fisheries research tent funding can undermine the ability management committees (e.g., advisory partnerships; however, it also proved to be of cooperative research programs to dem- panels, technical panels, council research an obstacle. On one hand, there was a per- onstrate the pattern of commitment nec- steering committees, etc.), likely may be ception that “everyone wants to save the essary to build trust. Consequently, the strong advocates for cooperative research. resource,” as one fishermen stated; while funding shortfall emerging in cooperative Further, they are better positioned to influ- on the other, there was fear that another research today could seriously set back the ence policy and management than the fishermen articulated as “whenever fisher- trust built since 2000 in New England. other respondents who stood out among men help with data, it slaps them in the the sample (i.e., fishermen who contrib- face.” Fishermen thought there ought to Scientists and Managers uted money to fishing causes, contacted be a common interest among fishermen government officials, and/or spoke at a and scientists (particularly an interest in The findings reported here provide fisheries management council meeting). In healthy, viable ecosystems, fish stocks and insights into the beliefs of a critical stake- fact, the level of management engagement fishing communities), although in practice holder in cooperative research and fish- was a better predictor of strong support for they did not often see common ground eries managers, i.e., the actively engaged integrating fishermen and scientific knowl- (see Dobbs 2000; Hartley and Robertson commercial fishermen, particularly in edge and importance of partnerships than 2006a). This scale difference between gen- New England. At the same time, the gear type, sector, fishery, home state, or eral, broad common interests in a resource, attitudes of participating scientists and other fishing industry demographic. These and more narrow interests in specific fish- managers, particularly toward the impor- management-active fishermen may be eries or fishermen is substantial and the tance and achievability of cooperative benefiting more directly from additional divide between fishermen and scientist research goals, is an important question cooperative research-derived information on this issue remains wide. The phenom- too, although beyond the scope of this and could be in a position to advance the enon of the same individual holding dif- research project and funding. Do sci- science-to-management impacts of coop- ferent attitudes toward the same interest entists and managers share the views of erative research. Consequently, tailoring when applied at different scales (public fishermen or are their attitudes, opinions, programmatic communication and out- good versus individual interests) has been and perceptions different? reach activities to this important sub-set seen in other resource and environmen- Past research has provided some of commercial fishermen could enhance tal management contexts, e.g., water indication of the substantial differences impact and program effectiveness. resource management (Bruvold 1988), between fishermen and scientists. For Fishermen mentioned that a sense of land use planning (Schively 2007), and example, the Kennelly and Broadhurst professional duty contributed to why it is waste management (Rabe 1994; Sjöberg (1996) case examples discussed above important to form cooperative research and Drottz-Sjöberg 2001). Nonetheless, include insights on stakeholder differ- partnerships. In a nationwide review, interest in participating in cooperative ences in the diffusion process of cooper- Read and Hartley (2006) reported that research in New England continues to atively-derived gear technologies. While cooperative research promotes a sense grow (Northeast Consortium 2007), in scientists and engineers were convinced of stewardship among the fishing indus- spite of the perceived risk among fisher- of the effectiveness of the gear designs by try. This suggests that there may be an men. Cooperative research managers can- the data analysis and graphical interpre- emerging professional norm among com- not deny that the fishermen’s perceived tations, fishermen who did not directly mercial fishermen—an expectation that risk from partnerships is real. participate were more convinced by pho- to be a fisherman, they should participate Last, given that mistrust, as an obstacle tographs, videos, and meetings with the in research and monitor the health of the to achieving partnerships goals, is so strong scientists and fishermen who did partici- ecosystem and the fish stocks. Research on among fishermen that some suspect that pate in the research. These participating common property resources has suggested scientists and managers are out to harm fishermen helped other fishermen make that it is critical to have the resource users them, NMFS and cooperative research and use the gear modifications and the actively involved in monitoring the health program managers should not expect that grapevine among fishermen lead to adop- of the resource in order to achieve sustain- simply denying the perceived vengeful tion of the gear in other ports through- ability (Ostrom 1990). Future research interest will eliminate this concern among out eastern Australia. So scientists and could examine whether the sense of pro- fishermen. Trust is earned and not granted fishermen may find very different types of fessional duty reflects the beginning of the (Lewicki and Bunker 1995); thus, over- information and data convincing and may integration of research into a stewardship coming this suspicion will take time and disseminate their knowledge differently. ethic among fishermen. If this human a consistent pattern of constructive scien- For their part, scientists are gener- dimension of cooperative research is real, tist-fishermen partnerships. Much of the ally unfamiliar with collaborative pro- the institutional integration of coopera- previous literature on the human dimen- cesses and can be reluctant to participate tive research into management regimes, sion of cooperative research identifies the (Hinkey et al. 2005; NAS 1995). Conway including co-management, ecosystem- importance of trust; it can be needed to and Pomeroy (2006) reported that scien- based management, etc., could be critical permit cooperation and at the same time, tists, fishermen, and university extension to achieve sustainability of the resource. trust can grow with cooperation. However, staff perceived their involvement on the A belief in a common interest among trust is a large, complex, social construct same cooperative research project dif- fishermen, scientists, and managers was a that needs further research in the context ferently. Scientists viewed the project as

556 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g more cooperative (joint activities and provides some insights into the percep- scientists; however, additional commu- tasks) versus collaborative (more intel- tions of scientists, they do not answer nication opportunities should be sought. lectually integrated) than fishermen and the question about scientist’s perceived Cooperative research managers should extension partners, as defined by Conway importance and achievability of partner- design and host safe, secure places for and Pomeroy. Extension staff considered ships discussed in this article. Further, communication between fishermen, sci- the same project as more collaborative data on manager’s perceptions are lacking entists, and managers (e.g., regular project than cooperative, when compared to in the literature. These remain important participant meetings, symposia and panels participating scientists and fishermen. future research questions. at scientific conferences and professional Hinkey et al. (2005) reported that sci- trade shows, cooperative research work- entists struggle to understand and accept Conclusions shops, and community celebrations). a collaborative process. Thus, scientists Finally, effective cooperative research and fishermen likely experience the same New England cooperative research programs need to be tailored to the event differently. program managers need to work to over- regional context (Read and Hartley Nonetheless, Hartley and Robertson come mistrust and suspicion, a lack of 2006). At the same time, lessons learned (2006b) have reported some similar mutual understanding about each oth- and experiences from active regions (e.g., outcomes among 60 fishermen and 37 er’s interests, misperceptions and nega- New England, Alaska and the Pacific scientists from their act of participation tive attitudes, and poor communication. Northwest), such as those reported here, in cooperative research. Fishermen and Cooperative research provides a venue should also be shared with other regional scientists both claim that they are more for communication, addressing these initiatives so that programs can be suc- likely to enter long-lasting partnerships underlying human dimensions of coop- cessful and meet high expectations as as a result of cooperative research; a erative research and management. quickly as possible. A network of regional similar finding was reported by Conway These data also suggest very high initiatives and dialogue within profes- and Pomeroy. Fishermen and scientists expectations among active New England sional associations, such as the American (to a lesser extent) are more engaged in fishermen for what should be achieved Fisheries Society, could more rapidly fisheries management after participating from cooperative research. Since high share, advance, and coordinate the suc- in cooperative research, although they expectations may decline significantly if cesses and best practices of cooperative both remain skeptical about coopera- results are not clearly demonstrated in a research. The U.S. Commission on Ocean tive research’s impact on management. reasonable amount of time, it could be Policy (2004) recommended a network of Finally, fishermen and scientists both critical for cooperative research program regional initiatives; however, given the report achieving greater mutual under- managers to understand what the moti- need to balance local- and region-specific standing and trust than expected from vations, opportunities, and obstacles are effectiveness with communication and participating in cooperative research. to achieving program goals. New England information sharing nationally, Glass Further, Hartley and Robertson (in fishermen who are actively fishing today (2006) suggested a network of regionally- press) also examined whether knowledge seem to think cooperative research is tailored, university-based initiatives. The integration was important and achiev- important, but they are less convinced re-authorized Magnuson-Stevens Act able and whether and how fishermen and it will make a difference. This fact, in states that the federal government “shall scientists learned about the scientific pro- part, contributed to a set of Northeast establish a cooperative research and cess or fishing practices, respectively from Consortium adaptations that expanded management program… implemented on participating in cooperative research. science-to-management activities— a regional basis and shall be developed They found that active commercial specifically, Northeast Consortium staff and conducted through partnerships fishermen believed that scientists did administer scientific peer reviews of each among federal, state, and tribal manag- not respect or value their information. cooperative research project’s final reports ers and scientists (including interstate Nonetheless, scientists who participated and data. Project final reports and accom- fishery commissions), fishing industry in cooperative research reported learning panying peer-review reports are then pre- participants (including use of commercial from fishermen and did not express the sented by Northeast Consortium staff, charter or recreational vessels for gather- level of distrust and disrespect for fisher- sometimes in conjunction with the proj- ing data) and educational institutions”— men or fishermen’s knowledge that the ect’s principal investigators, to the New see U.S. Public Law 109-479, Title II, active commercial fishermen perceived. England Fisheries Management Council §318(a). However, for the regionally- While this could be due in part to those through its Research Steering Committee. tailored, national network to be most electing to participate being pre-disposed Further, the Northeast Consortium spon- effective, it should be an active learn- to collaboration and learning about oth- sors a web page with a map-based inter- ing organizational network that shares er’s perspectives, knowledge integration face that serves all peer-reviewed data information and lessons learned, and resulting from the act of participating in from Northeast Consortium-funded proj- systematically monitors the effectiveness cooperative research also appeared to be ects. Additional research on the science- of cooperative research programming. occurring in participating fishermen and to-management process would provide Understanding the perceptions of active scientists. further insights into helpful program- commercial fishermen and their attitudes While this past research and the matic adaptations. toward cooperative research, along with forthcoming publication of data from It has already been noted that coop- other human dimensions of cooperative participating scientists in Northeast erative research provides important new research, will be critical to achieve these Consortium-funded cooperative research communication venues for fishermen and national goals.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 557 References New England’s fishing communi- Kennelly, S. J., and M. K. Broadhurst. ties. Marine Fisheries Initiative 1996. Fishermen and scientists solv- Bernstein, B. B., and S. Iudicello. 2000. (MARFIN) Technical Report. MIT Sea ing by-catch problems: examples from National evaluation of cooperative data Grant College Program, Cambridge, Australia and possibilities for New gathering efforts in fisheries: a report Massachusetts. England. Pages 121-128 in Solving submitted to the National Marine Harms, J., and B G. Sylvia. 2000. The bycatch: considerations for today and Fisheries Service. National Fisheries economics of cooperative fishery tomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant College Conservation Center, Ojai, California. research: a survey of U.S. West Coast Program Report 96-03. University of Bruvold, W. H. 1988. Public opinion groundfish industry and scientists. In Alaska, Fairbanks. on water reuse options. Journal of the Proceedings of the tenth biennial con- King, P. 1999. Practitioner’s profile: the Water Pollution Control Federation ference of the international institute fishermen and scientists research soci- 60(1):45-50. of fisheries economics and trade: mac- ety. Common Property Resource Digest Chompalov, I., and W. Shrum. 1999. robehavior and macroresults. 10-14 49(1999):9-11. Institutional collaboration in science: July 2000. International Institute for Lewicki, R., and B. B. Bunker. 1995. a typology of technological practice. Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET), Trust in relationships: a model of Science, Technology and Human Values Corvallis, Oregon. Available at: www. development and decline. Pages 133- 24(3):338. st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/documents/ 173 in B. B. Bunker and J. Z. Rubin, Conway, F. D. L., and C. Pomeroy. 2006. The_economics_of_cooperative_ eds. Conflict, cooperation and justice. Evaluate the human—as well as the fishery_research.pdf. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, biological—objectives of cooperative Hartley, T. W., and A. N. Read. 2006. California. fisheries research. Fisheries 31(9):447- Testimonies from fisheries manag- Lofland, J., and L. H. Lofland. 1994. 454. ers, scientists, and industry: achieve- Analyzing social settings: a guide to Crossley, M., and K. Holmes. 2001. ments, lessons, and advice. Pages 11-29 qualitative observations and analysis, Challenges for educational research: in A. N. Read and T. W. Hartley, eds. third edition. Wadsworth Publishing international development, partner- Partnerships for a common purpose: Company, Belmont, California. ships and capacity building in small cooperative fisheries research and man- Maienschein, J. 1993. Why collabo- states. Oxford Review of Education agement. American Fisheries Society rate? Journal of the History of Biology 27(3):395-409. Symposium 52, Bethesda, Maryland. 26(1993):167-183. Dillman, D. A. 1999. Mail and Internet Hartley, T. W., and R. A. Robertson. Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. surveys: the tailored design method. 2006a. Emergence of multi-stakeholder 1994. Qualitative data analysis, second John Wiley and Sons, New York. driven cooperative research in the edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Dobbs, D. 2000. The great gulf: fishermen, Northwest Atlantic: the case of the Oaks, California. scientists and the struggle to revive the Northeast Consortium. Marine Policy NAS (National Academy of Science). world’s greatest fishery. Island Press, 30(5):580-592 1995. Science, policy, and the coast: Washington, DC. _____. 2006b. Stakeholder engagement, improving decision-making. The Gallant, R. M. 2005. Northeast cooperative fisheries research, and National Academies Press, Washington, Consortium: fishermen and scien- democratic science: the case of the DC. tists taking stock. Presentation at Northeast Consortium. Human Ecology NRC (National Research Council). 2004. the International Council for the Review 13(2):161-171 Cooperative research in the National Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Annual _____. In press. Stakeholder collaboration Marine Fisheries Service. The National Science Conference. September 20-25, in fisheries research: integrating knowl- Academies Press, Washington, DC. 2005. ICES, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. edge among fishing leaders and scien- Northeast Consortium. 2007. 2000- Available at: www.ices.dk/iceswork/ tific partners in northern New England. 2006 Cooperative research partici- asc/2005/Abstracts/Y/Y-list.pdf. Society and Natural Resources. pants summary. Northeast Consortium, Glass, C. W. 2006. Linking cooperative Hinkey, L. M., K. T. Ellenberg, and B. Durham, New Hampshire. Available research and management: partner’s Kessler. 2005. Strategies for engaging at: www.northeastconsortium.org/ needs and interests. Pages 185-188 scientists in collaborative processes. docs/2007/NEC_participants.pdf. in A. N. Read and T. W. Hartley, eds. Journal of Extension 43(1):1FEA3. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the com- Partnerships for a common purpose: Available at: www.joe.org/ mons: the evolution of institutions for cooperative fisheries research and man- joe/2005february/a3.shtml. collective action. Cambridge University agement. American Fisheries Society Jones, A., S. J. Slade, A. J. Williams, Press, New York. Symposium 52, Bethesda, Maryland. B. D. Mapstone, and K. J. Kane. Pautzke, C. 2006. Cooperative research: Graham, G. L. 2006. Opportunities for 2007. Pitfalls and benefits of involv- needs and interests. Pages 175-178 in linking cooperative research and man- ing industry in fisheries research: a A. N. Read and T. W. Hartley, eds. agement: partners’ needs and interests. case study of the live reef fish industry Partnerships for a common purpose: Pages 189-191 in A. N. Read and T. W. in Queensland, Australia. Ocean and cooperative fisheries research and Hartley, eds. Partnerships for a common Coastal Management 50(5-6):428-442. management. American Fisheries purpose: cooperative fisheries research Karp, W. A., C. S. Rose, J. R. Gauvin, Society Symposium 52, Bethesda, and management. American Fisheries S. K. Gaichas, M. W. Dorn, and G. D. Maryland. Society Symposium 52, Bethesda, Stauffer. 2001. Government-industry Rabe, B. G. 1994. Beyond NIMBY: haz- Maryland. cooperative fisheries research in the ardous waste siting in Canada and Hall-Arber, M., C. Dyer, J. Poggie, North Pacific under the MSFCMA. the United States. The Brookings J. McNally, and R. Gagne. 2001. Marine Fisheries Review 63(1):40-46. Institution, Washington, DC.

558 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Read, A. N., and T. W. Hartley (editors). 2006. Partnerships for a common purpose: cooperative fisheries research and management. American Fisheries Society Symposium 52, Bethesda, Maryland. Schively, C. 2007. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phe- nomena: reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature 21(3):255-266. Sissenwine, M. 2001. Fisheries cooperative research: testimony of Dr. Michael Sissenwine, director of Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce before the Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, U.S. House of Representatives, Ocean City, Maryland. Sjöberg, L., and B. M. Drottz-Sjöberg. 2001. Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. Journal of Risk Research 4(1):75-101. Taylor Singer, L. 2006. Scope of cooperative research in the United States. Pages 3-6 in A. N. Read and T. W. Hartley, eds. Partnerships for a common purpose: cooperative fisheries research and management. American Fisheries Society Symposium 52, Bethesda, Maryland. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC. U.S. Public Law 109-479. 109th Congress. Magnuson-Stevens Little River Research and Design Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. Signed into law 12 January 2007. Available at: http://frwe- bgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_ cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ479.109.pdf.

O. S. Systems

Emperor Aquatics, Inc.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 559 Letters: To the Editor

The Value of Information

Hansen and Jones (2008) perpetuate to undetected biases, leading to man- assessments. We ought to be investing the naive perception that “failures” in agement decisions that jeopardize the to reduce uncertainty in stock status, fisheries management are all or in sub- long-term sustainability of fish stocks and expanding the numbers of species for stantial part due to uncertainty in results ecosystem integrity. which information is available, and mak- from traditional fishery stock assessments, The dashed line in Figure 1 of the ing implementation of regulations more and that increasing the investments in Hansen-Jones article depicts their predictable, not using “uncertainty” as data gathering and stock assessments questionable assumptions that funding a red herring diversion to undermine the may not improve the management of for the totality of the fishery manage- foundation upon which science-based commercial fisheries in the future. In fact, ment process is fungible but fixed, and fishery decision making is built. the overwhelming evidence (e.g., Mace implies that increasing the risk of bad —Steven A. Murawski, 2004; Hilborn 2004, 2006) indicates that, decision making does not have financial John Boreman, and Stephen K. Brown, where overfishing and resource deple- consequences. It seems more likely that National Marine Fisheries Service, tion have occurred, it is overcapitaliza- higher levels of funding for information Silver Spring, Maryland tion and intransigence to implementing gathering will lead to more stocks being controversial but necessary short-term assessed, with lower levels of uncertainty, The authors respond: conservation measures—often in the face thereby increasing yields and the overall of clear scientific evidence from fisheries sustainability of fisheries. This success We wholeheartedly agree with stock assessments—that has led to such would likely increase the amount of Murawski et al. that funding and support declines. We submit that the clearer the resources available for fishery manage- for fisheries management are much too scientific evidence is for such measures, ment. Moreover, improving the scientific low relative to the economic and social the more likely it is that they will be basis for fisheries management could importance of the resource. We also adopted. reduce some other cost components of agree that fishery management would The steady decline in the proportion of fisheries management, such as litigation be improved by allocating more resources federally-managed U.S. fisheries subject and compensation provided when fishery to effective stock assessments. Of par- to overfishing (17% as of the second failures occur. ticular concern is the fact that nearly half quarter of 2008; NOAA 2008a) is due to The federal marine fisheries man- of the commercially important stocks in the incorporation of traditional stock sta- agement system in the United States the United States do not have adequate tus research into the fishery management is substantially underfunded to run the population assessments, as pointed out by council process. Over the next 18 months, processes defined in the Magnuson- Murawski et al. An even smaller percent- regional fishery management councils, Stevens Act and reauthorized in 2007. age of important stocks are assessed in acting on traditional stock assessment For example, all investments in fisheries developing countries, making this problem information, will propose measures to science (both traditional and ecosystem- even more pervasive on the global scale eliminate overfishing in this country. oriented) total approximately $400 than in the United States (Johannes 1998). Draft guidelines issued for the fishery million per year (including all marine However, we do not see our article as management process further emphasize states’ investments). This level of support being at odds with this line of reasoning. the importance of incorporating uncer- is measured against a $4 billion annual Our argument was that precisely tainty in the establishment of fishery fishery (first sale value) contributing over because the overall funds available for targets that will prevent thresholds from $60 billion annually to the U.S. economy management are relatively scarce, there being exceeded (NOAA 2008b). A more (NOAA 2008c). Fisheries management is are difficult trade-offs to face concern- problematic issue than the uncertainty of inherently information-intensive, and the ing the use of these resources. We wish existing assessments is the fact that only nature of questions being asked now and that adequate funds were available to do 56% of the 230 most important fishery in the future will require even more timely high-quality assessments on all important stocks in the United States currently have and more spatially-explicit information to stocks, but are not optimistic that this adequate population assessments. Doing answer. The President and Congress have will be case, at least in the near term. If “cheap and dirty” assessments under- called for substantially greater fisheries all commercially important stocks in the mines the credibility of science support- investments in their 2009 budgets to United States cannot be regularly assessed ing management and promotes costly address these gaps, including additional using state-of-the-art methods, is it better litigation. Such assessments will be prone support for single-species fishery stock to conduct more expensive assessments

560 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g on few stocks, or less expensive assessments on all stocks? How do you decide? In our view, the letter from Murawski et al. fails to address these points. They do not argue that stock assessments are Freshwater Species more important than other management activities, but rather that stock assessments Conservation Status List are underfunded. We do not disagree. We simply add that given budget constraints, First, I commend Jelks et al. (2008) for ogy, soil, vegetation, climate, land use, the value of stock assessments should be writing a very timely and critically impor- hydrology, and occasionally fauna (Wiken measured relative to the value of other tant article that shows a very disturbing 1986). Because they are drainage based means of increasing the likelihood of pattern in the status of fish species since and large scale, the HUs depicted in Jelks successful fisheries management. Often Miller et al. (1989) and Williams et al. et al. (2008) merge mountain and plains times, the funding of stock assessments (1989). Given the actions and inactions of ichthyofaunas wherever the HUs head will be the most important use of manage- the responsible North American federal in mountains. For example, in Jelks et al. ment resources. Other times, it may not and state/provincial agencies over the past (2008), region 7 includes fish faunas of the be. We urge managers and researchers to eight years, I encourage the AFS leader- Cascades, northern Rockies, Willamette consider the potential tradeoffs that exist ship to forward Jelks et al. (2008) to the Valley, and Northern Basin and Range. in their systems, and encourage continued responsible agencies in Canada, the United Regions 58 and 62 include the fish faunas dialogue on the subject. of the southern Appalachians, Piedmont, —Gretchen J. A. Hansen, States, and Mexico. A letter should be and Coastal Plains. Landscape classifica- Center for Limnology, included urging formal quantitative fish tions have limited capacity to explain pat- University of Wisconsin, Madison and status evaluations and proactive conserva- terns in fish species distributions (Hawkins Michael L. Jones, tion measures beginning in 2009, and et al. 2000; Herlihy et al. 2006). However, Michigan State University, East Lansing offering the assistance of AFS in doing so. Nonetheless, I have two concerns with individual zones (upper, middle, lower) predicted fish species richness better than References: Jelks et al. (2008): (1) the use of hydrologic units as ecoregions, and (2) the omission of complete basins in both the northwest Hansen, G. J. A., and M. L. Jones. 2008. economic and population growth as root (McGarvey and Hughes 2008) and south- The value of information in fishery causes of fish imperilments. east (McGarvey and Ward 2008) United management. Fisheries 33(7):340-348. There is growing evidence that eco- States. Therefore, I recommend that future Hilborn, R. 2004. Ecosystem-based fisheries nomic and population growth are major syntheses of this sort incorporate basin, management: The carrot or the stick? drivers of fish and fisheries imperilment ecoregion, and river size information to Pages 275-278 in H. I. Browman and K. I. (Miller and Czech 2005; Rose 2005; Hyatt better clarify geographic patterns and aid Stergiou, eds. Perspectives on ecosystem- resource managers. based approaches to the management of et al. 2007; Leprieur et al. 2008). I encour- marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress age all authors concerned with landscape- —Robert M. Hughes Series 274: 269–303. scale species imperilment patterns to relate Oregon State University, Corvallis _____. 2006. Faith-based fisheries. Fisheries changes in species status to landscape- The authors respond: 31 (11):554-555. scale changes in gross domestic product Johannes, R. E. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource management: examples and human population growth. It is high Hughes makes several valid points from tropical nearshore finfisheries. Trends time that we aid policy makers in seeing about our article (Jelks et al. 2008). The in Ecology and Evolution 13: 243-246. the associations of our growth policies with primary objective of the article was to Mace, P. M. 2004. In defence of fisheries habitat alteration, alien invasive species, update the list of imperiled freshwater scientists, single species models and and fish species extirpations. If we ignore and diadromous fishes following criteria other scapegoats: confronting the the root causes of fish and fishery losses real problems. Pages 285-291 in H. established by previous endangered species I. Browman and K. I. Stergiou, eds. (as well as climate change), we cannot take committees (Deacon et al. 1979; Williams Perspectives on ecosystem-based steps to correct them, and instead we will et al. 1989), and secondly to analyze approaches to the management of only be recording those declines. changes since the 1989 list. We focused on marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Hydrological units (HUs) are not ecore- presenting data using natural boundaries, Series 274: 269–303. gions, despite the contention of Jelks et unlike previous lists, which used political NOAA (National Oceanic and al. (2008), Abell et al. (2000, 2008), and boundaries. Atmospheric Administration). 2008a. Maxwell et al. (1995). HUs are simply Status of U.S. Fisheries. Available at: The authors agree that the use (and www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/ similar-sized map polygons that are river abuse) of land and water resources by SOSmain.htm. basins or catchments less than half the humans is the primary cause of fish and _____. 2008b. Federal Register notice: time (Omernik 2003). Ecoregions (ecologi- fisheries imperilment. Of the five criteria Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; cal regions) are distinctive areas resulting used for listing in the article, four are Annual Catch Limits; National Standard from combined similarities in the mosaic directly attributed to human actions. It is Guidelines. Available at: www.nmfs. of terrestrial, aquatic, abiotic, and biotic noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/NS1_proposed_ plausible that a positive correlation exists revisions.pdf. ecosystem components with humans between density of humans and fish _____. 2008c. Fisheries of the United States being considered as part of the biota. imperilment. Although many of the listed -2007. Available at: www.st.nmfs.noaa. Characteristics typically used to define taxa live in rural areas with low numbers of gov/st1/fus/fus07/fus_2007.pdf. these regions include physiography, geol- humans, changes in habitats and introduc-

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 561 tions of nonindigenous species can and do based on geopolitical boundaries (hence freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, occur there. Human population growth and our website http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/afs/ pro- New York. economic development are not mutually vides state and province data). Hyatt, K., T. Bigford, T. Dobson, B. McCay, V. Poage, B. Hughes, L. Reynolds, and exclusive with the protection or even recov- For our purposes of analysis and B. Czech. 2007. Economic growth and ery of imperiled species. Indeed, humans graphical display of imperilment across this fish conservation. Fisheries 32(5):252-254. are key to conserving imperiled biotas. large area, the 80 units termed freshwa- Jelks, H. J., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, Unfortunately, the pervasive trend for fishes ter ecoregions were quite adequate. We S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Diaz-Pardo, in North America and globally is toward did not need a finer scale of resolution to D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. increasing imperilment which may lead to analyze the status of fishes, and patterns of Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, future extinctions. Clearly an evaluation endemism were largely captured using the S. P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, drainages or groups of drainages. We hope of how population growth and economic and M. L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation policies promote risk for imperiled species our article will encourage the development status of imperiled North American is needed. However, that was not an objec- and sharing of data sets relevant to fishes freshwater and diadromous fishes. tive of our research and is far beyond the so that further analyses of basin, ecoregions Fisheries 33(8):372-405. scope or intent of this study. of various definitions, river morphology, Leprieur, F., O. Beauchard, S. Blanchet, The suggestion that hydrologic units human population, resource use patterns, T. Oberdorff, and S. Brosse. 2008. Fish invasions in the world’s river systems: are discrete from ecoregions is a matter of and other variables are possible. We are when natural processes are blurred semantics, scale, and preference. There are pleased by Hughes’ interest, and that of by human activities. Public Library of many different categorization schemes used many others, and hope our article height- Science—Biology 6(2): e28. doi:10.1371/ to divide the biosphere into units, and each ens interest in conservation of aquatic journal.pbio.0060028. has advantages and disadvantages. Our use biodiversity and responsible use of natural Maxwell, J. R., C. J. Edwards, M. E. of the term “freshwater ecoregion” follows resources. Jensen, S. J. Paustain, H. Parrott, and D. the definition from the World Wildlife Fund —H. L. Jelks, S. J. Walsh, and N. M. Burkhead M. Hill. 1995. A hierarchical framework of on behalf of AFS Endangered aquatic ecological units in North America and The Nature Conservancy as “…a large (Nearctic). General Technical Report 176. area encompassing one or more freshwater Species Committee U.S. Forest Service, St. Paul, Minnesota. systems that contains a distinct assemblage McGarvey, D. J., and R. M. Hughes. 2008. of natural freshwater communities and spe- References Longitudinal zonation of Pacific Northwest (U.S.A.) fish assemblages and the species- cies. The freshwater species, dynamics, and Abell, R. A., D. M. Olsen, E. Dinerstein, discharge relationship. Copeia 2008:311- environmental conditions within a given P. T. Hurley, J. T. Diggs, W. Eichbaum, 321. ecoregion are more similar to each other S. Walters, W. Wettengel, T. Allnutt, McGarvey, D. J., and G. M. Ward. 2008. C. J. Loucks, and P. Hedao. 2000. than to those of surrounding ecoregions Scale dependence in the species-discharge Freshwater ecoregions of North America: and together form a conservation unit” relationship for fishes of the southeastern a conservation assessment. Island Press, (Abell et al. 2008; see www.worldwildlife. Washington, D.C. U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 53:2206-2219. org/science/ecoregions/freshwater.html and Abell, R.A., and 26 co-authors. 2008. Miller, K., and B. Czech. 2005. Causes of fish www.feow.org). Freshwater ecoregions of the world: a new endangerment in the U.S., or the structure The 80 freshwater ecoregions across map of biogeographic units for freshwater of the American economy. Fisheries biodiversity conservation. BioScience 30(7):36-38. North America used in our article are Miller, R. R., J. D. Williams, and J. E. part of a larger network of 426 ecore- 58:406-414. Deacon, J. E., G. Kobetich, J. D. Williams, Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North gions worldwide “…whose boundaries and S. Contreras. 1979. Fishes of North American fishes during the past century. generally—though not always—correspond America endangered, threatened, or of Fisheries 14(6):22-30. with those of watersheds” (also occasion- special concern: 1979. Fisheries 4 (2):29- Olson, D. M., and E. Dinerstein. 2002. The ally termed “drainage basins” or “catch- 44. global 200: priority ecoregions for global ments”; Abell et al. 2008). Ecoregions Hawkins, C. P., R. H. Norris, J. Gerritsen, conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89(2):199-224. typically consist of a single river drainage R. M. Hughes, S. K. Jackson, R. K. Johnson, and R. J. Stevenson. 2000. Omernik, J. M. 2003. The misuse of or groups of adjacent ones, or sub-com- Evaluation of the use of landscape hydrologic unit maps for extrapolation, ponents, and therefore reflect intrinsic classifications for the prediction reporting, and ecosystem management. zoogeographic patterns of faunal similarity of freshwater biota: synthesis and Journal of the American Water Resources and endemism (Hocutt and Wiley 1986). recommendations. Journal of the North Association 39:563-573. Within individual ecoregions there usually American Benthological Society 19:541- Rose, A. 2005. Economic growth as a threat to fish conservation in Canada. Fisheries are fish assemblage differences between 556. Herlihy, A. T., R. M. Hughes, and J. C. 30(8):36-38. upstream and downstream areas. In part, Sifneos. 2006. National clusters of fish Wiken, E. B. 1986. Terrestrial ecozones of the freshwater ecoregion concept was species assemblages in the conterminous Canada. Ecological Land Classification developed because patterns of freshwater United States and their relationship to Series No. 19. Environment Canada, biodiversity are divergent from terrestrial existing landscape classification schemes. Ottawa, Ontario. patterns (Olsen and Dinerstein 2002). In R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, and P. W. Williams, J. E., J. E. Johnson, D. A. Conservation assessments and priorities for Seelbach eds.. Landscape influences on Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, stream habitat and biological assemblages. J. D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, implementing protection and recovery strat- American Fisheries Society, Symposium D. E. McAllister, and J. E. Deacon. egies should appropriately be directed at 48:87-112. 1989. Fishes of North America endan- relevant ecological and hydrological scales. Hocutt, C. H., and E. 0. Wiley, editors. 1986. gered, threatened, or of special con- In practice, most conservation efforts are The zoogeography of North American cern: 1989. Fisheries 14 (6):2-20.

562 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g The following resolution was passed by the AFS RESOLUTION: membership at the AFS Business Meeting on 19 August 2008 in Ottawa, Ontario. RESOLUTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF INSTREAM FLOW PROGRAMS

WHEREAS, the mission of local governing fish and wildlife agencies is to conserve, protect, restore, enhance and manage fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for current and future use, benefit, and enjoyment by state residents and visitors, and; WHEREAS, the mission of local governing environmental protection agencies is to conserve, manage and provide for maximum public benefit of the natural resources, and; WHEREAS, these mission statements are consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine, which requires that navigable waters, tide lands, and fish and wildlife resources be managed for the benefit of the citizens to ensure long-term sustainability so as to prevent or minimize harm to these resources, whenever possible, and; WHEREAS, in some cases the local governing fish and wildlife agency does not have the regulatory authority to issue water use permits nor the ability to coordinate with and effectively influence the permitting decisions of the local governing environmental agency regarding water use, and; WHEREAS, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient instream flow remains for fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreational pursuits, and; WHEREAS, the natural flow regime of streams and rivers is inherently variable and this variability is critical to natural ecosystem function and native biodiversity in streams and their associated riparian areas and floodplains, and;

WHEREAS, since some local governing resource agencies currently recommend instream flows that are a single flow value (e.g., 7Q10) to accommodate instream habitat needs for aquatic life, which is scientifically unjustifiable and which is typically less than the average natural flow of the stream, and fails to reflect flow variability and cannot meet the habitat needs for all species nor maintain healthy fisheries, WHEREAS, the American Fisheries Society has adopted and published Policy Statement #9—Effects of Altered Stream Flows on Fishery Resources (Revised)—which states “The concept of ‘minimum flows’ and other low flow standards based on statistical records instead of biology (whereby it is assumed that needs of stream fishes can be met as long as some water remains) are seriously outdated,” therefore be it

RESOLVED, the American Fisheries Society, assembled at its Annual Meeting on this 19th day of August in the year 2008 at Ottawa, Ontario, urges the local governing and provincial fish and wildlife and the local governing and provincial environmental protection agencies in North America to commit the necessary staff and financial resources to the development of instream flow protection programs that contain all the elements listed below: • Use an interdisciplinary approach to conduct instream flow studies that evaluate and prescribe instream flow needs in terms of hydrology, biology, geomorphology, water quality and connectivity. The spatial scope of instream flow studies should encompass the river channel, the riparian corridor and floodplain systems including connected groundwater. • Use a coordinated, interagency, interdisciplinary team approach with adequate staff, training and funding to address all instream flow issues that exist under each agency’s responsibilities. • With respect and in conformity to all existing state, federal and provincial laws, mandates and regulations, the local governing fish and wildlife agency should exercise the primary authority for determining the appropriate instream flow necessary to restore, manage, protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources and habitats either directly—if it has that authority—or through a formalized process to coordinate such recommendations with and effectively influence the permitting decisions of the appropriate governing environmental agency which has the final authority for setting instream flows. • Commit appropriate fiscal and human resources to maintain or restore flows that reflect the natural seasonal flow pattern in terms of intra-annual factors (magnitude, duration, timing, and rate of change) and inter-annual variability (frequency) to maintain or restore the natural ecological function of riverine resources. Instream flow programs and actions should focus on preserving or restoring intact functioning ecosystems rather than on single species or isolated stream segments. • Incorporate public input into the decision-making process through direct efforts to inform the public regarding (a) how instream flows are administered and the benefits they provide, (b) the opportunities and limitations afforded by local governing and federal laws and policies for each, and (c) ways they can effectively participate in instream flow decision-making processes and issues. • Monitor riverine pre-project conditions and post-project responses of habitat and populations to instream flow recommendations to document the utility of the recommendation and assess the need for modification of recommendations and where appropriate use a formal adaptive management process, to address uncertainty and modify instream flow recommendations in the event goals are not achieved.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 563 Column: guest Director's line

Stream Restoration Workshop Jude Wait Wait is a freelance consultant for Jude Wait natural resources organizations Wait is a freelance consultant for naturaland canresources be contacted organizations at and can be contacted at [email protected].

Montgomery, University of Washington impact development, and preventing author of the books King of Fish and further impacts on valuable habitat. Dirt. The other major categories of Farmers, ranchers, and woodland impacts on salmon he described are the owners can also contribute to protect- 4 Hs: harvest, hydropower, hatcheries, ing and restoring aquatic habitat. Dave and habitat, the latter being the factor Buchanan shared the practices and most widely addressed by restoration principles that led to him obtaining professionals. Mapping the habitat of Salmon Safe certification (a free ser- the Puget Sound area demonstrates that vice) for Tyee Cellars Wine. He received The workshop was organized by Bianca Streif the 90% decline in fish populations is U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Janine Castro, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. associated with an accumulated habitat Wetland Reserve Program cost-share reduction of the same degree, including funding from the Natural Resources widespread loss of side channels and Conservation Service for riparian tree Following the Western Division/ valley bottom wetlands. Montgomery planting, along with advice and minimal Oregon Chapter annual meeting in contends that ignoring future devel- paperwork. May 2008, restoration practitioners and opment and associated storm water Climate change implies that baseline fisheries biologists were treated to a impacts, in the context of restoration conditions are no longer the static, “no workshop packed with presentations plans, is inconsistent with ecosystem action” alternative. According to Colin by leading experts in the field of stream goals and salmon survival. Instead, Thorne, University of Nottingham, restoration. Titled “Integrating Practical he offers strategies for accommodat- UK, the past is no longer the key to Approaches,” the workshop empha- ing human population growth while the future, meaning that the concept sized the need to restore connectivity giving salmon a chance. To address the of a reference reach may no longer and enhance natural processes in order basic problems, people can recreate be usable—ecological surprises are to to accelerate recovery of dwindling fish forested river corridors that reconnect be expected. Responses are uncertain resources and ensure long-term benefits. lowland and upland streams. To reduce and unpredictable, making monitoring Sessions featured new and emerging impacts of urbanization, low impact all the more essential. To account for scientific perspectives, as well as specific development can promote recharge and climate change, Thorne advised that design recommendations for large wood minimize impervious surfaces through more room is needed for stream channel and fish passage projects. design, bio-swale catchment basins, and adjustments and higher peak flows. Expensive lessons learned from the installation of pervious pavement. This would include measures to widen past are critically important to share— The challenges of urban stream riparian corridors, remove artificial con- these include failure of in-stream struc- rehabilitation also include the expan- straints, and design culverts for larger tures, monitoring of poorly designed sion of subdivisions and Derek Booth, flows. projects, death of riparian vegetation, Stillwater Sciences Inc. and University Rebuilding watershed resilience and unanticipated offsite flooding, or fish of Washington, predicts that there is restoring stream process were themes kills in spite of stream habitat improve- an urban stream “coming to a logging common throughout the workshop. ments. Collecting baseline data provides area near you.” In the new science of Understanding which landscape, an understanding of the processes eco-hydrology, biological changes are climate, and watershed and stream- dominating the landscape, enabling linked to the responses of streams to scale variables are dominating a system, appropriate design, and also allowing urbanization. The changes in stream over space and time, guides the basis for follow-up monitoring, which informs flow have a huge impact and are hard for projects that will be self-sustaining. restoration science and stream system to address without long-term watershed Janine Castro, U.S. Fish and Wildlife modeling. scale efforts. However, Booth noted that Service and Portland State University, Workshop participants learned community stewardship can help guar- warned that projects designed outside about the evolution of salmon and the antee maintenance and raise awareness. the natural range of stream process long history of poorly enforced stream Short-term local actions can contribute variables can lead to habitat degrada- protection policies. History is the fifth to overall efforts, including riparian tion. “It is imperative that designers of “H” described by Professor David planting, water quality protection, low- stream restoration projects understand

564 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g the dominant stream processes, and the as the probability of location-based stream profile—including weirs, con- relative magnitude between processes, species occurrence. He presented the structed riffles, ramps, and step-pools. before they settle on a particular channel concept of “patches” as improving on His goal is to establish a stable geom- form.” Several case studies reinforced less informative and more homogeneous etry that addresses the discontinuity. this message, indicating that a signifi- frameworks for understanding water- He learns from natural “knick point” cant number of restoration projects have sheds (hydrologic units). Landscape- hydraulics and his review of failing failed. Stream processes are affected by scale wildfires were the examples of projects revealed that they were often many factors, including flow, sediment disturbance used for Dunham’s research designed “ignoring the laws of physics.” delivery, vegetation dynamics, and where he found that resilience depends Depending on the width and slope of urbanization. on the existence of certain factors prior a stream, different types of structures A thorough understanding of the to the catastrophic fires. are needed. For example, “ramps” may watershed system being rehabilitated Brian Bair, USDA Forest Service, be appropriate for low-gradient, wide reveals the various influences on the Washington state, described how his streams, while step-pool structures are factors one might measure. Based interdisciplinary team strives to provide more appropriate in high-gradient, nar- on an extensive survey, Leslie Reid, complex habitat for multiple species row channels. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest and life stages, and a full range of flows Phillip Williams and Associates Range and Experiment Station, Arcata, within a flow regime. This group of (PWA) examine the whole system in California, outlined the top 10 reasons scientists design remediation projects designing tidal restoration projects. Dr. monitoring projects go wrong, and pro- so they mimic native aquatic species Williams reiterated that rigorous plan- vided suggestions on how to avoid the adaptation to natural flow regimes. They ning and design is essential, including a pitfalls. A well-thought out study design consider using the full extent of available sediment budget, evaluation of vegeta- and an analysis plan can also improve habitat, and where resources are limited, tion dynamics, monitoring and adaptive the cost-effectiveness of project moni- he recommended treating floodplains management, and simulation models based on empirical hydrologic data. He toring. Reid promoted a common rec- first. indicated that marshes are relatively ommendation—that a multidisciplinary In the quest to restore natural stream resilient ecosystems when it comes to team of experts review the project—and processes and habitats, the use of pollution (e.g., oil spills), but that exotic for monitoring, a statistician is essential. large wood structure placement has species, which change the morphology She demonstrated the use of flow charts increased in restoration projects over the of marsh interface areas and sediment to help monitoring design and plan- last 15 years. Engineer Scott Wright, dynamics, have a larger and more long- ning. Several presentations displayed the River Design Group, Inc., illustrated the term effect. Williams also favors restor- complexities of stream restoration topics drawbacks of many of these projects, ing natural processes and connectivity, with flow charts, which help illustrate the engineering design parameters to rather than extensive, and expensive, the intricacies and interconnectedness of consider, as well as essential limiting grading—but the recovery time for natu- the physical, biological, cultural, social, factors for fish habitat. He highlighted ral evolution can take decades. and political components comprising the need to understand the natural Aquatic nuisance species are the restoration. occurrence and different functions of focus of Paul Heimowitz, U.S. Fish and “Thinking like a network” is how large wood in river processes, in order to Wildlife Service, Region 1, because they Jason Dunham, U.S. Geological Survey, ensure sustainable large wood place- are a very significant threat to native Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science ment that provides long-term benefit to ecosystems. He advocates that anyone Center, Corvallis, Oregon, frames the aquatic resources. working in aquatic restoration help with current science of river ecosystems and Engineer Rob Sampson, USDA awareness-building, early detection, how stream network dynamics affect Natural Resources Conservation Service, and spread-prevention advocacy. He the resilience of fish. An interdisciplin- Idaho, presented fish passage proj- shared the stories of invasive freshwater ary team can integrate perspectives ect design configurations, modeling mussels that highlight the problems of of physical processes and biological techniques, and hydraulic parameters. these “habitat snatchers”: they arrive responses. Dunham emphasized the He cited several examples of natural need to address multiple scales, as well and human-made discontinuities in Continued on page 571

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 565 Kristal N. Schneider and Robert Dodd Column: Schneider is a M.Sc. student in the Conservation Biology Program at the Students' Angle University of Minnesota and serves as president of the Student Subsection of the AFS Education Section. She can be contacted at ewell002@umn. edu. Dodd is a M.Sc. student in the Conservation Biology Program at the University of Minnesota, serves as the Minnesota Chapter Student Committee Chair, and is the creator of the Institution Representative Program. He can be contacted at [email protected]. Institution Representative Program: A Program to Boost Student Participation in AFS

Introduction also encourages meeting attendance, wildlife may also be considered. The promotes knowledge and awareness sole responsibility of the faculty contact Student involvement in the of fisheries-related issues and research, is to serve as an ambassador of AFS for Minnesota Chapter (MNAFS) has been and provides an informative and sup- students, enticing and enrolling inter- decreasing since 2004 (Figure 1). The portive social network (Figure 2). The ested students into the Society. MNAFS Long Range Plan calls for objectives of this article are to describe The second step of the process increased student participation in both this unique program in detail, explain involves recruiting a Student Committee the Chapter and the parent Society. how this program benefits students and institution representative (SCIR). This responsibility is listed specifi- AFS, and discuss the successes of this There are two methods suggested for cally under the duties of the Student program thus far and how success will recruiting SCIRs: (1) enrolling students Committee chair of the Chapter. be measured in the future. through the faculty contact at each Participation of undergraduate students university or college, and (2) directly How does the IRP work? is of particular interest, as there was contacting interested students (e.g., only one oral presentation by an under- The IRP program is headed by the during a state Chapter AFS meeting). graduate at the 2008 MNAFS annual Student Committee chair (SCC) of the Students interested in becoming SCIRs meeting. Furthermore, beginning MNAFS. The SCC is an active member then submit applications to the current one’s AFS membership as an under- of the Executive Committee (EXCOM) SCC. The most qualified applicant from graduate can increase preparedness of MNAFS and is well acquainted with each college or university is selected to for future graduate school or career “hot topics” and issues of the MNAFS represent his or her institution on the opportunities. and the parent Society. The SCC is also MNAFS Student Committee. In an effort to increase undergradu- responsible for establishing a faculty The selection process for SCIRs is ate student participation in MNAFS, contact at each college or university fairly rigorous. Numerous categories are the Chapter initiated the Institution that offers degrees or classes in fisher- considered during the selection process. Representative Program (IRP). The IRP ies and aquatic sciences. Institutions The application asks undergrads to list connects MNAFS to Minnesota univer- with social science programs that cover their GPA, major and minor, and related sity and college faculty and students. It human dimensions in fisheries and coursework. Space is provided for

Figure 1. Minnesota Chapter AFS undergraduate student membership Figure 2. Institution Representative Program Social/Profession Network size over time. Outline

Number of Students Number of 20

0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year

566 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g discussing any other relevant accom- is highly recommended, and each SCIR annual meeting in March 2008, the plishments. Finally, a one-page paper is is encouraged to present any research Scholarship Committee announced requested to determine the applicants’ they have completed while attending. they had received a record number of writing skills and to provide applicants Finally, each SCIR should assist in the applicants for Chapter scholarships. an opportunity to express their level of recruitment of their replacement; this Further, female participation among the interest in aquatic sciences. Preference facilitates smooth transitions between membership of the Student Committee is given to students taking coursework representatives and ensures the proof MNAFS had also increased. Thus far, or seeking a degree in fisheries or gram continues at each institution. the IRP program appears to be off to a another aquatic science. Students with Benefits of the IRP strong start. social science majors who are interested Future success of the IRP will be in working with natural resources issues The establishment of the IRP measured by six metrics. The first mea- are also eligible. All applicants are benefits students and AFS. First and sure of success will be the size of the highly encouraged to join MNAFS and foremost, students selected as SCIRs Chapter’s Student Committee. Student the parent Society. will strengthen their graduate school membership is an obvious, yet impor- Once selected to join, SCIRs are applications and resumes. Only one tant measure of success. As of the provided regular and current informa- student per institution will be selected last MNAFS Annual Meeting, student tion on issues within AFS. Currently, for this position, which is a distinguish- membership stands at 27 individu- training packages for SCIRs include ing honor. Secondly, SCIRs have the als. The count after the next annual articles that cover “hot topics” and opportunity to learn more about the meeting will reflect the effect of the IRP background information discussed by impact professional societies such as on student membership. Three other the MNAFS EXCOM. Some articles pro- AFS may have on their educational and measures of success will also take time vide good examples of how opinions of professional careers. Finally, all students to analyze. The number of applications various constituent groups vary on the become more aware of fisheries issues for student scholarships and travel same issue. The primary responsibility either by serving as a SCIR or interact- scholarships will be recorded over time. of each SCIR is to initiate discussions ing with their local SCIR. Increases in the number of students on their own campus that focus on There are no monetary costs associ- registering and in the number of oral similar topics. Existing MNAFS SCIRs are ated with beginning this program. Time and poster presentations by students at utilizing student organizations as the investments by the SCC, the EXCOM primary means of facilitating important of MNAFS, and other willing members the annual meeting will also be mea- discussions. Discussions should have of AFS are all that is required to initiate sures of success. three important results: (1) stimulate and more importantly sustain this pro- Conclusion critical thinking, (2) increase aware- gram. The IRP was originally created to ness of issues in fisheries and aquatic increase undergraduate participation at The new IRP implemented by the sciences, and (3) develop leadership the state level; however, students may MNAFS Student Committee is a way skills. Through these types of discus- be more likely to participate in AFS at to get undergraduate students more sions, SCIRs will be better equipped to the Division and Society levels as well. involved in AFS at all levels. We believe tackle potential problems by familiariz- The parent Society’s outreach mission this program could be established ing themselves with fisheries issues they can be accomplished through imple- and successfully implemented for all may address throughout their academic menting IRPs or similar programs. Chapters to promote increased mem- and professional careers. bership, enhance member involve- Measures of Success Several other responsibilities ment, and increased visibility among accompany acceptance into the IRP. Although the IRP is fairly new, the general public and fisheries-related Membership in MNAFS is required. some measures of its effectiveness professionals alike. We believe that this Membership in MNAFS is free for have already been demonstrated. top-down approach is a first step to all students, but the SCIRs are also The Minnesota Chapter’s Student achieving a greater unity between AFS encouraged to join the parent Society. Committee has experienced a 600% Subunits that is needed to pursue the Attending the MNAFS annual meeting increase in size. At the MNAFS Society’s overall goals.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 567 CALENDAR: FISHERIES EVENTS

More events listed at www.fisheries.org click "Who We Are" click "Calendar"

Date eVent Name and location CONTACT INFORMATION

Dec 14-17 midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference Columbus, Ohio www.2008MWFWC.com

2 0 0 9

Jan 13-14 Lake Mead Science Symposium Las Vegas, Nevada www.lakemeadsymposium.org

Jan 15-18 spring Meeting of the Southern Division and Louisiana Chapter of the AFS New Orleans, Louisiana www.sdafs.org/meetings

Jan 22-23 great Lakes Urban Habitat Restoration Symposium Chicago, Illinois www.glfc.org/urbanrestore

Jan 27-31 texas Chapter of AFS and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department—Fisheries and Harmful Algae: Can They Co-Exist? Fort Worth, Texas [email protected]

The Texas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society is hosting its annual meeting in Fort Worth, Texas January 27–31, 2009. A symposium of national, international and Texas researchers have been invited to speak on the harmful alga, Prymnesium parvum. The program is also open for posters and talks on harmful algae and general fisheries issues. For more information: www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/water/environconcerns/hab/

Texas Chapter of AFS Or contact: Brian VanZee at [email protected]

568 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS Web site Calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/province, web address, and contact information to cworth@ fisheries.org. (If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.)

Feb 2-5 state of the Salmon Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada www.stateofthe salmon.org/conference2009

Feb 5-6 Using Acoustic Tags to Track Fish Seattle, Washington www.htisonar.com/at_short_course.htm

Feb 12-13 Using Hydroacoustics for Fisheries Assessment Seattle, Washington www.htisonar.com/at_short_course.htm

Feb 15-18 aquaculture America 2009 seattle, Washington www.was.org

March 10-13 25th Wakefield FisheriesS ymposium: Biology and Management of Exploited Crab Populations under Climate Change Anchorage, Alaska http://seagrant.uaf.edu/conferences/2009/wakefield-crab/ index.html

Mar 30-Apr 3 improving the Ecological Status of Fish Communities in Inland Waters: International Symposium and EFI+ Workshop, Hull, United Kingdom www.hull.ac.uk/hifi/events/index.html

Ecotrust

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 569 Obituary: Robert David Bishop

Father of Tennessee’s Striped Bass Program

Robert David “Dave” Bishop, 74, father of Tennessee’s striped 1958 and 1959 he worked as a part-time aide for the Tennessee bass program, passed away in September 2008 after a coura- Game and Fish Commission. He was hired as a fisheries biologist geous battle with cancer. As a youth he loved to hunt and fish, in 1960. spending many hours and days in the field. He was a member During his early career he worked with population stud- of the last graduating class of the old Knoxville High School ies and the muskellunge program. He became interested in and enjoyed attending their weekly reunion breakfasts after his the newly developing freshwater striped bass program which retirement. began in South Carolina. He is now recognized as the father From 1951–1955 he served in the U.S. Navy as a member of Tennessee’s striped bass program and successfully crossed of the Blimp Service out of Jacksonville, Florida. He became striped bass and white bass in 1964–1965, becoming the infatuated with the fish he saw in the ocean while patrolling. father of the hybrid along with Bob Stevens of South Carolina. He later told his wife Sue that this was the first time in his life The scientific papers on the hybridization of striped bass x that he had all he wanted to eat. After the Navy, Bishop entered white bass that Bishop presented in 1966–1967 are still being the University of Tennessee. He began his academic career as an used today. engineering student but later changed his major to biology. In In 1972, he spawned the first striped bass in Tennessee and in 1974 discovered and developed the tank spawning method for striped bass which is used by several states today. In Tennessee alone, over 375 million striped bass have been spawned using his techniques. Also in 1974 he was promoted to assistant regional manager in Region IV for the newly created Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. In 1988, Bishop was instrumental in procuring a long-term lease with the Tennessee Valley Authority to use Doakes Pond Sonotronics to rear fish for Norris Lake. This pond was built by the Civilian Conservation Corp and had much historic value. Bishop designed and developed a harvest system which put the pond back into operation and saved it from destruction. As a result, thousands of fish have been stocked into Norris Lake. In 1996, Bishop was honored by being enshrined into the National Fish Culture Hall of Fame in Spearfish, South Dakota for his work with striped bass and hybrids. This honor placed him among the elite fisheries scientists of the last century. In 1997, Bishop retired from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency after 43 years of service. After retirement, he enjoyed farming and spending time with friends and family. The sportsmen of the state of Tennessee owe Bishop a great deal of gratitude for his pioneering work done with striped bass and hybrids. He truly was the sportsman’s friend. AFS Western Division He will be missed dearly but never forgotten. —Mike Smith

570 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Continued from page 536 the use of the best available science, tion, invasive species, inadequate water environmental, air and atmospheric, the committee will seek collaborative quality and availability, and the illegal water resource, and archeological solutions to improve the management trade in wildlife and wildlife products values; that, where appropriate, will of the endangered species programs at threaten our wildlife legacy, not only preserve and protect certain public the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and in the United States but also around lands in their natural condition; that National Marine Fisheries Service. By the globe. Energies must be directed will provide food and habitat for fish encouraging the issuance of appropri- to develop and implement new poli- and wildlife and domestic animals; and ate guidance, regulations, and federal/ cies and programs that improve the that will provide for outdoor recreation non-federal partnerships, the commit- management of our fish and wildlife and human occupancy and use. tee will play a leadership role in endan- species, provide habitat protections A new dedication to realizing the goals gered species conservation. they will need to adapt and thrive in of this multiple-use mandate is required the midst of a changing climate, pro- because the promise of FLPMA has Ensuring a Legacy of Abundant Fish tect against illegal trade, and promote never been fully realized. Public lands and Wildlife international conservation efforts. are diverse enough to accommodate The U.S. public inherited from our the development of plentiful energy forebears an abundance of diverse and Achieving the True Promise of resources, where appropriate, along healthy populations of fish and wildlife. Multiple Use with wilderness designations, conser- According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife In outlining the mission for vation of habitat for wild horses and Service’s “2006 National Survey of the Bureau of Land Management burros, grazing, archeological preserva- Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Related (BLM), the Federal Land Policy and tion, and the many other goals set out Recreation,” an estimated 71 million Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) in FLPMA. Enactment of the National Americans spent over $45 billion on stated the following: Landscape Conservation System within some form of fish and wildlife recre- The public lands [shall] be managed in BLM is an important first step in the ation in that year. Yet, several factors, a manner that will protect the quality of process of achieving these long-delayed notably habitat loss and fragmenta- scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, goals.

Continued from page 565 without their natural predators, out- Gordon Grant, USDA Forest Service, fisheries monitoring and research projects compete and sometimes smother native Pacific Northwest Research Station, underway. Understanding existing condi- species, reproduce extremely well, and and Oregon State University, described tions will enable successful fish rescue are associated with human develop- this unmatched research opportunity plans during dam removal. Evaluating ment and related transport vectors. on the Sandy River watershed draining future responses of Pacific salmonids Heimowitz does not see eradication as from Mount Hood. A video produced after removal is important, as the interac- a realistic option except when detected by Oregon Public Broadcasting, “A River tions among multiple species will vary early, and he discussed how biologi- Runs Free,” can be found at www.opb. throughout the watershed, and natural cal controls can backfire. While some org/programs/ofg/videos/view/73-Mar- migration barriers will limit the extent of regions have not yet been affected by mot-Dam. Numerical and physical mod- recolonization in tributaries. invasive mussel species, expansion is els helped to predict sediment release, Restoring natural process integrity, inevitable, with invasions of additional but there were unexpected effects. The connectivity, and channel configurations species on the horizon. Practical steps actual event, along with ongoing moni- that can withstand responses to climate that can be taken include: education toring, provides valuable information for change are important to enhancing the and outreach, using identification cards future dam removal projects designed to resilience of stream systems. Stream that Heimowitz distributed, instituting restore endangered fish runs. restoration is complex; the intricacies more check points and cleaning stations On the Elwha River, two dam removal and interconnectedness of the physical, for boats and other vectors, enforcing projects are planned for 2012, which will biological, cultural, social, and political existing laws, and instituting stronger be the largest dams ever removed. All components comprising restoration make laws. seven anadromous Pacific salmonid spe- it all the more challenging to practice Removing barriers to habitat is also cies have been isolated from their habitat effectively. Self-sustaining projects are a priority fish recovery strategy. Instead for 95 years. Their pending access to 130 likely those planned by an interdisci- of Portland General Electric provid- kilometers (80 miles) of nearly pristine plinary team with a whole-watershed, ing expensive fish passage facilities at habitat is complicated by the presence all-species perspective. One participant the Marmot Dam in order to re-license of dominant coho salmon hatchery fish suggested that the workshop curricu- the hydropower operation, “fluvial and an anticipated increase in competi- lum be required reading for all stream opportunists” from many agencies tion with the recovery of native fish. restoration stakeholders. This was the collaborated to amass the necessary Sam Brenkman, Olympic National Park, fourth workshop of its kind sponsored in resources to remove the Marmot Dam. Washington, provided an overview of Oregon by AFS since 1993.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 571 AFS Annual Meeting:

3rd CALL FOR PAPERS

TROPHY FISHING

Tennessee offers diverse fishing opportunities, but most people don’t know that Tennessee also boasts the world record walleye (25 lbs.) and smallmouth bass (11.9 lbs.). Tennessee also claims the world records for bighead carp (90 lbs.), yellow bass (2.6 lbs.), and freshwater drum (54.5 lbs.). Tennessee’s state record striped bass (a whopping 65.4 pounder) is the second largest inland striped bass ever caught! (ABOVE) World-class brown trout tisheries exist in several Tennessee tailwaters. Student Symposium (BELOW) D. L. Hayes in 2005 with a mount of the world record The AFS Education section will once again be smallmouth bass he caught in Dale Hollow Lake, Tennessee- sponsoring a Student Symposium. Students interested Kentucky, in the 1950s. in being chosen to participate and compete for Best Student Paper and Best Student Poster will have the opportunity to indicate that during the abstract submission process. We urge interested students to read about the process before going online to submit an abstract: Sutton, T. M., D. L. Parrish, and J. R. Jackson. 2007. Time for a change: revision of the process for judging student presentations at the annual meeting. Fisheries 32(1):42- 43. Please contact Jim Peterson (chair, Best Student Paper Committee; [email protected]) or Richard Fulford (Chair, Best Student Poster Committee; Richard. [email protected]) for additional information. Students not participating in the Student Symposium will have the opportunity during the abstract submission process to indicate that they would like to receive written feedback on their presentations and posters. Feedback will be provided by volunteers and the process will also be directed by the AFS Education Section. Volunteers will have the opportunity to pick-up blank forms and drop-off completed forms at several locations around the meeting site. A copy of the evaluation form can be found on the Education Section webpage (July 2008 newsletter) at http://www.fisheries.org/ 30 august–3 September units/education/newsletters/edsecnews_v29_1.pdf 2009

General Information Symposium The Program Committee invites proposals for symposia. Topics must be Aquatic resource professionals are invited to submit symposia proposals of general interest to AFS members. Topics related to the meeting theme will and abstracts for papers in a range of topics and disciplines. Participation by receive priority. Symposium organizers are responsible for recruiting presenters, scientists at all levels and backgrounds, especially students, is encouraged. The scientific program includes two types of sessions: Symposia (oral and soliciting their abstracts, and directing them to submit their abstracts through the poster presentations that focus on a single topic) and Contributed Papers (oral AFS online abstract submission form. A symposium should include a minimum of and poster presentations on any relevant topic). 10 presentations and we encourage organizers to limit their requests to one-day Oral presentations are limited to 20 minutes (15 minutes for presentation symposia (about 20 oral presentations). Regular oral presentations are limited plus 5 minutes for speaker introduction and questions). All oral presenters to 20 minutes, but double time slots (i.e., 40 minutes) may be offered to keynote are expected to deliver PowerPoint presentations. Presenters must bring their speakers. Symposia with less than 15 or more than 20 presentations are strongly PowerPoint file to the meeting on CD or USB flash memory stick by 7 p.m. the discouraged. evening before their presentation. Laptop computers and LCD projectors will be provided and technicians will be available to help. Symposium proposals must be submitted by 9 January Traditionally, symposia have been dominated by oral presentations and 2009 via e-mail to Mark Bevelhimer ([email protected]) with the sometimes supplemented by posters. The Nashville ‘09 Program Committee is proposal attached in the correct format in MS Word or WordPerfect; please considering following the example set at the Ottawa ‘08 meeting and allowing contact Mark Bevelhimer if you do not receive confirmation by January 16. The “Speed Presentations” coupled with posters to shorten the time required for Program Committee will review all symposium proposals and notify organizers of symposia. This new format elevates the profile of symposium posters through acceptance or refusal by 6 February 2009. If accepted, organizers must submit a “speed presentation subsession” that provides a time slot for short (i.e., 3 minute) oral presentations, followed by dedicated viewing of symposium posters. a complete list of all confirmed presentations and titles by 27 February 2009. Look for more details in upcoming Calls for Papers on this exciting new way to Symposium abstracts (in the same format as contributed abstracts; see next transfer information and foster communication among symposia participants. page) are due by 6 March 2009.

572 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g AFS 2009 Annual Meeting 1st CALL FOR PAPERS • Nashville, TENNESSEE

Format for Contributed Oral Symposium Proposals and Poster Papers

1. Symposium title: Brief but descriptive The Program Committee invites abstracts for 2. Organizer(s): Provide name, address, presentations (oral and poster) at contributed paper telephone number, fax number, and e-mail sessions. Authors must indicate their preferred address of each organizer. Indicate by an presentation format: (1) oral only, (2) poster only, (3) asterisk the name of the main contact person. oral preferred, but poster acceptable. Only one oral 3. Description: In 300 words or less, describe the presentation will be accepted for each senior author. topic addressed by the proposed symposium, the Poster submissions are encouraged because of the objective of the symposium, and the value of the limited time available for oral presentations. The program symposium to AFS members and participants. will include a dedicated poster session to encourage The Marriott Renaissance Hotel and 4. Format and time requirement: Indicate the discussion between poster authors and attendees. adjoining Nashville Convention Center mix of formats you are considering (oral, speed Abstracts for contributed oral and offer spacious facilities to host the presentation, poster). State the time required poster papers must be received by 6 Nashville '09 AFS meeting. for regular oral presentations (i.e., 20 minutes February 2009. All submissions must be made per speaker) and the time required for speed using the AFS online abstract submission form, presentations (if any) and poster viewing which is available on the AFS website (www. Format for (3 minutes per speaker plus time for poster fisheries.org). When submitting your abstract: submitted abstracts viewing). • Use a brief but descriptive title, avoiding 5. Chairs: Supply name(s) of individual(s) who will acronyms or scientific names in the title unless For abstracts submitted to a chair the symposium. the common name is not widely known; Symposium: 6. Presentation requirements: We encourage Enter Symposium title: ______speakers to use PowerPoint for presentations. • List all authors, their affiliations, addresses, Specify format: 1. Oral All Mac-based presentations must be converted telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses; 2. Speed presentation to PC format prior to the meeting. Presentations • Provide a summary of your findings and restrict (accompanied by poster) in other software programs must be approved your abstract to 200 words. For abstracts submitted as a prior to acceptance. All presenters will receive a prompt e-mail Contributed Paper: 7. Audiovisual requirements: LCD projectors confirmation of their abstract submission and will be Enter 2 choices for topic: ______and laptops will be available in every room. notified of acceptance and the designated time and ______Other audiovisual equipment needed for the place of their presentation by 30 April 2009. Specify format: 1. Oral symposium will be considered, but computer For contributed papers, you will have the 2. Poster projection is strongly encouraged. opportunity during the abstract submission 3. Oral preferred, 8. Special seating requests: Standard rooms process to indicate which two general topics best but poster acceptable will be arranged theatre-style. Please indicate fit the concept of your abstract. Topics include: For all abstracts: special seating requests (for example, “after the Bioengineering, Communities and Ecosystems, Title: An example abstract for the AFS 2009 break, a panel discussion with seating for 10 Contaminants and Toxicology, Education, Fish Annual Meeting panel members will be needed”). Culture, Fish Health, Fish Conservation, Freshwater Authors: 9. List of presentations: Fish Ecology, Freshwater Fisheries Management, Bettoli, Phillip. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Please supply information in the following format: Genetics, Habitat and Water Quality, Human Research Unit, 205 Pennebaker Hall, Tennessee Presenter’s name 1. ______Dimensions, Marine Fish Ecology, Marine Fisheries Tech University, Cookeville, Tennessee 38505; 2. ______Management, Native Fishes, Physiology, Policy, 931/372-3086; [email protected] Tentative title of presentation 1. ______Population Dynamics, Statistics and Modeling, Bevelhimer, Mark. Environmental Sciences 2. ______Species Specific (specify) and Other (specify). Division—ORNL, BLDG 1505, P.O. Box 2008, Confirmed (yes/no) 1. ______Including this information in your submission will Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831; 865/576-0266; 2. ______help the Program Committee assign your talk, if [email protected] Presentation format accepted, to the most appropriate session. Fiss, Frank. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, (regular or speed) 1. ______Late submissions will not be accepted. AFS P.O. Box 40747, Nashville, Tennessee 37204; 2. ______does not waive registration fees for presenters 615/781-6519; [email protected] 10. Sponsors: If applicable, indicate sponsorship. at symposia, workshops, or contributed paper Presenter: Phillip Bettoli Please note that a sponsor is not required. sessions. All presenters and meeting attendees Abstract: Abstracts are used by the Program must pay registration fees. Registration forms will be Committee to evaluate and select papers for For abstracts submitted to a Symposium: available on the AFS website (www.fisheries.org) in inclusion in the scientific and technical sessions If you are invited to participate in a particular May 2009; register early for cost savings. of the 2009 AFS Annual Meeting. An informative symposium, you will have the opportunity to choose For information on how to construct a great abstract contains a statement of the problem and its the symposium title during the online abstract poster, please take a moment to consult Carline 2007. significance, study objectives, principal findings and submission process for “Invited Symposium Papers” (Guidelines to designing posters. Fisheries 32:306- application, and it conforms to the prescribed format. (which will occur after the 6 February 2009 deadline 307). The maximum allowable poster size will be 91 cm Student presenter? (Work being reported was for contributed paper abstracts). X 112 cm (36" x 44") in a landscape or portrait format. completed while a student): No

Contacts Contributed Papers Posters Chair Chair Frank Fiss Local Arrangements Phil Bettoli Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Chair U.S. Geological Survey/ [email protected] General Meeting Chair 615/781-6519 Dave Rizzuto Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Bobby Wilson Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Research Unit Organizing a [email protected] Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency [email protected] continuing education 931/372-3086 [email protected] 731/225-4422 course or workshop? 615/781-6578 Tim Churchill Symposia Chair Please check future Calls for Papers for Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Mark Bevelhimer information on who to contact. [email protected] Oak Ridge National Laboratory If you seek immediate assistance, please 931/781-6645 [email protected] contact Contributed Papers Chair 865/576-0266 Phil Bettoli.

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 573 Publications: Book Review

Bluegills: Biology and Behavior. By S. Spotte. to near incomprehensibility. A paragraph on blue- AFS, Bethesda, Maryland. 2007. 214 pp.; $35 ($24.50 gill movement begins, “The hydrodynamic vortices for AFS members) (paper); store.afsbooks.org/55054p. around a swimming fish resemble the dipole field html. of a submerged vibrating sphere in which pressure With Bluegills: Biology and Behavior, Stephen gradients cause fluid particles to fall off and acceler- Spotte offers up a treatise on everything one might ate away from the sides, disengaging with the cube want to know about this popular, nearly ubiquitous of the distance and proportional to the volume of freshwater sunfish. Because the protagonist is a crit- the moving object”—a sentence sure to cause collec- ter already near and dear to my heart, I really wanted tive head scratching among most fishery scientists. to like this book. So, when it arrived in my mailbox, The problem is most of the book is presented at that I grabbed my pen and a coffee and, with much depth of detail. Indeed, just seven lines into the first anticipation, sat down to read. At first glance, one chapter I read, “The starting vortex, or detached can’t help but be impressed with the comprehensive eddy, has a counter clockwise rotation (+K). The coverage and level of bound vortex, or bound detail this book provides circulation, which has a about an interesting and clockwise (-K) rotation, unique little Lepomid. remains attached until Through eight chapters, the starting vortex has Spotte touches on all been shed.” Suddenly aspects of bluegill life doubting the quality of history and ecology, my public education, beginning with move- I handed the book to ment, sensory percep- a colleague and asked tion, and foraging him to read the first (chapters 1–3), continu- chapter. In 30 seconds, ing through competition he was back with raised and predation (chapters eyebrows, having read 4–5), and finishing off only the first page. His with reproduction (chap- response: “Wow.” Truth ter 6), development, be told, information this growth, and mortality detailed would likely (chapter 7), and man- take a separate expert agement (chapter 8). In to review each chapter; sum, the book covers even with broad and 150 pages and refer- reasonably comprehen- ences more than 500 sive training in ecology citations (via 1,327 and physiology, I felt footnotes). unqualified to review at Therein, unfortu- least three of the eight nately, lies the first of chapters in the book. many challenges. By In addition to depth the middle of the first of detail, the sheer chapter it becomes clear volume of informa- that the text is detailed tion presented cre-

574 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g ates additional issues. The first is that Spotte often so overwhelms the reader with specific details that general patterns are obscured. For example, so many site- and state-specific data on bluegill spawning periods are presented that I suspect the uninformed reader would miss the simple point that bluegill typically exhibit a protracted spawning season that stretches through much of the spring and summer. Ironically, 4D Environmental this problem works against him in just the opposite Data Analysis ...with Vision! way; Spotte often presents extremely site-specific information as generalizable to the species as a whole. In his introduction to the final chapter, Spotte notes, “What we know is never certain because each lake is dynamic and possessed of unique vulnerabilities.” Unfortunately, he mostly fails to apply that admoni- tion to the previous seven chapters. The book would have benefited from more informed interpretation, to provide the reader with a clear picture of which studies are valid, supported, and generally applicable, and which are specific and anecdotal. Instead, it reads as a series of “facts” collected from a vast body of published literature (some widely cited and generally accepted, some not) and offered in boxcar fashion, one following the next. Some topics are covered com- > Manipulate and visualize pletely and competently, others really miss the mark time-varying spatial data (foraging and stunting are two, in particular, that come to mind). This leads to problems with organization > Streamline the integration of large and repetition, which are exacerbated by the construct and diverse data sets of the chapters; much of the information is repeated > Explore and analyze relationships within and among chapters, and necessary contextual- among multiple variables ization is often missing. Perhaps the biggest obstacle for this book, however, > Easily communicate complex results is the lack of a clear audience. In his introduction, in an engaging way Spotte indicates that, “The text you are about to read is unconventional in both organization and content.... Readers must be willing to undertake an intellectual Find out more challenge....” In this case, he’s right on the mark. The web www.eonfusion.myriax.com problem is, it’s just not clear to me who’s going to be email [email protected] up for that undertaking. —D. Derek Aday Department of Zoology www.myriax.com North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-7617 Myriax Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 575 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 for Individual members, who are faculty members, hiring graduate assistants. If space is available, jobs may also be printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge. To see more job listings, go to www.fisheries.org and click Job Postings.

Assistant Professor, Vertebrate emphasizing aquatic species or Qualifications: Experience Physiological Ecology, Universisty systems, and ability to obtain demonstrating ability to perform of California, Davis, Department of extramural support for research the work of the position or one Wildlife, Fish, Conservation Biology. activities. Interest in developing year of education above the high Responsibilities: Develop a vigorous, a research program relevant to school level that included scientific or extramurally-funded research program vertebrate physiological ecology in technical courses. Previous experience that addresses questions relevant to aquatic ecosystems of California. working in and operating fish tagging the physiological ecology of vertebrates Evidence of potential for excellence trailers, knowledge of fishery biology, in the diverse aquatic ecosystems of in teaching, e.g., experience, awards, knowledge of fish husbandry, and California and the region. Collaborate course reviews, letters from colleagues. knowledge of personal computer in research on themes such as climate Demonstrated oral and written applications. change and water resource and communication skills, including the Closing date: 31 December 2008. management, and threatened and ability to present information to Contact: Apply at www.psmfc.org/ endangered species, in concert with non-scientific and public audiences. Employment_Careers. faculty in the Center for Watershed Evidence of collegiality and professional Science, Center for Aquatic Biology service consistent with departmental, Tagging Trailer Operator, Pacific and Aquaculture, Tahoe Environmental campus, and professional citizenship. States Marine Fisheries Commission, Research Center, Bodega Marine Interest in training/mentoring Idaho. Laboratory, and elsewhere. Teaching graduate students and in advising Responsibilities: Maintain and responsibilities will be determined undergraduate students. operate manual marking trailers and/ in consultation with the department Contact: Committee Chair Deborah or mobile autofish tagging trailers, chair, but will include an upper Elliott-Fisk, Department of Wildlife, including setup and tear down at division undergraduate course that Fish, Conservation Biology, One hatchery sites. Conduct marking integrates physiological ecology Shields Avenue, Davis, California and tagging operations including PIT across vertebrate groups from fish to 95616; 530/574-5256; 530/752-4154; tagging and Coded-wire tagging. mammals, and other undergraduate [email protected]. Operate computers and software and graduate courses that reflect the programs associated with the trailers. candidate's expertise and contribute Pacific Supervise tagging assistants. Assist to the department's mission, as well Tagging Trailer Assistant, as participate in departmental team- States Marine Fisheries Commission, with other duties as needed. State- taught courses. Collegiality and good Idaho. wide travel during the tagging season teaching are valued highly in the Responsibilities: Maintain and is required. department, and the appointee will be operate manual tagging trailers and/ Qualifications: B.S. with a major in expected to participate in committee or mobile autofish tagging trailers, biological sciences. Previous experience work, administration, undergraduate including setting up and tearing operating and maintaining tagging and graduate advising, and other down at hatchery sites, conducting trailers in a hatchery setting is highly tasks that are shared by department marking/ tagging operations, and desirable. Knowledge of fishery faculty. Tenure-track assistant professor operating computers and software biology, fish husbandry, computer level, nine-month position, with the programs associated with the applications, and the ability to possibility of an appointment in the trailers. Assist with maintenance of communicate with others effectively California Agricultural Experiment fish including feeding fish, cleaning both orally and in writing. Station. tanks, establishing feeding schedules, Closing date: 31 December 2008. Qualifications: Ph.D. in a biological assessing growth, monitoring fish Contact: Apply at www.psmfc.org/ discipline relevant to vertebrate health, and maintaining data records Employment_Careers. physiological ecology. Evidence of and performing routine analysis. Travel research excellence in the discipline to hatcheries throughout Idaho will Tagging Coordinator, Pacific States of vertebrate physiological ecology, require extended overnight stays. Marine Fisheries Commission, Idaho.

576 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Responsibilities: Travel state-wide information for three references to Qualifications: Student enrolled at during the tagging season. Tomas Hook, [email protected], a college or university majoring in Qualification: Successful supervisory 765/496-6799. See www.fnr.purdue. an aquatic biology related field and skills. B.S. with a major in biological edu/faculty/hook/index.shtml. be in good academic standing with sciences. Experience operating and at least one college level course of maintaining a manual marking M.S. and Ph.D. Research ichthyology, chemistry, and math. and tagging trailer in a hatchery Fellowships, Utah State University, Ability to lift at least 50 pounds. setting. Experience operating and College of Natural Resources. Valid driver's license. Ability to maintaining a mobile autofish Responsibilities: Research any work outdoors in varying weather tagging trailer is desirable. aspects of natural resources science conditions. Knowledge of fishery biology, and management. Salary: $8.25-$13.50 plus expenses management methods, tagging Salary: M.S—$15,000 per year for 2 while away from main work station. techniques, and the ability to years. PhD—$20,000 per year for 4 Closing date: 1 February 2008. manage and analyze data. years. Both include tuition waiver and Contact: Paul Schadewald, 100 North Closing date: 31 December 2008. student insurance. Bismarck Expressway, Bismarck, North Contact: Apply at www.psmfc.org/ Qualifications: See cnr.usu.edu Dakota 58501. See applications at Employment_Careers. Quick Links S.J. and Jessie E. Quinney www.nd.gov/hrms/jobs/appforms. Graduate Fellowships. html. Graduate Assistantships, Fish and Closing date: 15 January 2008. Aquatic Ecology, Purdue University, Contact: Associate Dean Nancy M.S. and Ph.D. Assistantships, Department of Forestry and Natural Mesner, Utah State University, Division of Biology, Kansas State Resources. College of Natural Resources, 5200 University. Responsibilities: Participate in Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322- research projects exploring ecological 5200; 435/797-1693 See brochure dynamics of fish in Lake Michigan at cnr.usu.edu Quick Links S.J. and inland lakes in Indiana. Projects and Jessie E. Quinney Graduate REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS involve an integration of field studies, Fellowships. Apply at www.usu.edu/ laboratory analyses, and quantitative graduateschool/apply/. fellowships@ CA Department of Fish and Game modeling analyses. Specific research cnr.usu.edu.

topics include: Early life stage and To gain a better understanding of fish recruitment dynamics, intra-specific life Seasonal (Temporary) Fisheries species population dynamics in response to history trait variation, and ecological Aide, Game and Fish Department, Delta inflow and hydrodynamics in the San effects of eutrophication. North Dakota. Francisco Bay-Delta estuary, the Ecosystem Qualifications: Minimum Responsibilities: Assist fisheries Restoration Program is looking for experts qualifications include a B.S. for M.S. personnel with reproduction and with modeling experience to provide technical position or M.S. for Ph.D. position population test netting, trap and support that will assist policy makers in the in related field, GPA of 3.2, and transport of different fish species, California Department of Fish and Game to competitive GRE scores at least limnological sampling, spawning make management decisions. Individuals with 50th percentile for quantitative and and data compilation, includes technical experience in the use of water verbal 4.0 for analytical writing. loading and unloading boats, operations models including CalSIM and Assistantships include 12-month nets, and other equipment. Assist DSM2, as well as performing evaluations of stipend, full tuition coverage, and with the construction of fisheries fish population responses to changing environmental conditions, are encouraged to insurance. development projects. Maintain submit a Statement of Qualification Closing date: 19 December 2008. equipment of various types of by December 15, 2008. The RFQ can be Contact: Submit cover letter, CV, GRE gear including net repair. Vehicles downloaded at www.cscr.dgs.ca.gov. California Department of Fish and Game scores (unofficial are fine), transcript provided for required overnight Direct all inquiries to Scott Cantrell at (unofficial is fine), and contact travel. 916-445-1272, or [email protected].

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 577 Responsibilities: Work on Contact: Send letters of interest, CV, of largemouth bass; or population conservation and management of river GRE scores and contact information ecology of muskellunge are prefered. and stream fishes or applied fisheries for two references to Craig Paukert, Starting dates: June through August management (www.k-state.edu/ [email protected]; or Keith Gido kgido@ 2009. fisheries/) with Craig Paukert or work ksu.edu; Division of Biology, 116 Ackert Qualifications: B.S. or M.S. in fisheries/ on effects of land use, hydrology, and Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, aquatic ecology. nonnative fishes on stream fishes or Kansas 66506. Use e-mail for questions. Salary: $17,000 per year, includes tuition ecosystem effects of species on streams See www.k-state.edu/fisheries/. waiver. (www.ksu.edu/fishecology/) with Keith Closing date: 1 January 2009. Gido. M.S. or Ph.D. Assistantship in Qualifications: Interested in Fisheries/Aquatic Ecology, University of Contact: Send cover letter, resume, conservation/management of fishes. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign. copies of transcripts, GRE scores, and B.S. or M.S. degree in fisheries or related Responsibilities: Research topics are three letters of reference to David H. field, competitive GPA and GRE scores. varied and flexible, but individuals with Wahl, University of Illinois, 1816 S. Oak Salary: Includes tuition waiver. interests related to recruitment, behavior, Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820 217 Closing date: 15 January 2009. reproductive strategies, and management 728 4400; d-wahl @uiuc.edu.

2009 Membership Application PAID: American Fisheries Society • 5410 Grosvenor Lane • Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 301/897-8616 x203 or 218 • fax 301/897-8096 • www.fisheries.org Name Please provide (for AFS use only) Employer Address Phone Industry Fax Academia E-mail Federal gov't. City State/province Recruited by an AFS member? yes__ no__ State/provincial gov't. Zip/postal code Country Name other MEMBERSHIP TYPE (includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory) North America/Dues Other Dues Developing countries I (includes online Fisheries only) N/A $ 5 Developing countries II N/A $25 Regular $76 $88 Student (includes online journals) $19 $22 Young professional (year graduated) $38 $44 Retired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older) $38 $44 Life (Fisheries and 1 journal) $1,737 $1,737 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years) $1,200 $1,200 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year) $1,000 $1,000 JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (optional) North America Other Journal name Print Online Print Online Transactions of the American Fisheries Society $43 $25 $48 $25 North American Journal of Fisheries Management $43 $25 $48 $25 North American Journal of Aquaculture $38 $25 $41 $25 Journal of Aquatic Animal Health $38 $25 $41 $25 Fisheries InfoBase $25 $25 Payment Please make checks payable to American Fisheries Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank or pay by VISA or MasterCard. Check P.O. number Visa MasterCard Account # Exp. date Signature

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

Fisheries, Vol. 33 No. 11, November 2008

578 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g Finding Solutions. Delivering Results. FIELD STUDY

ATS takes Fish stock assessment and fisheries research to new depths and movement patterns detection ranges. To determine movement patterns and conduct stock assessment of Chinook Salmon on the Yukon and other Alaskan Rivers, researchers turned to ATS. Very sensitive receiver/datalog- gers, in combination with uniquely coded fish transmitters, were designed by ATS to accurately detect fish movement and run timing in the deep and remote reaches of the rivers. Hourly data was re- layed via satellite to researchers and participating agencies. On one project, researchers captured 1,000 salmon at the mouth of the river and implanted a uniquely coded transmitter. The fish were then tracked as they pro- gressed upriver using 39 fixed data collection sites with satellite data transmission capability. The study also used ATS receivers equipped with on-board GPS for aerial survey work. With data capture rates as high as 98 percent, ATS coded transmitters and R4500 Receiver/Datalog- gers resulted in increased detection ranges of up to 100 percent. Tracking systems designed by ATS play a key role in aiding fisheries professionals conducting important research worldwide. To learn more about how our systems will benefit your next project, contact an ATS representative today.

TRANSMITTERS RECEIVERS GPS SYSTEMS ANTENNA SYSTEMS RECEIVING TOWERS CONSULTING Advanced Telemetry Systems WWW.ATSTRACK.COM MINNESOTA. 763-444-9267 [email protected]

Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g 579 Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc.

580 Fisheries • v o l 33 n o 11 • n o v e m b e r 2008 • w w w .f i s h e r i e s .o r g