VOL 38 NO 10 FisheriesAmerican Society • www.fisheries.org OCT 2013

Sound Science and Future Trends An Imperative Change is Needed Scary Habitat Numbers Avoiding Bycatch Digitizing Applications for Diversity Smartphones and Digital Tablets in Fisheries -Induced Collapse of Invasive Asian Carp

03632415(2013)38(10)

Fisheries VOL 38 NO 10 OCTOBER 2013 Contents

COLUMNS President’s Commentary 431 We Must Do Better—We Have To Do Better The major reason I am writing this column was that I learned from one of our members who is a person of color that I was the first person to really engage him in meaningful conversation at an AFS annual meeting. Until then, he felt that he had been invisible, if not disliked, for his race. Bob Hughes, AFS President Oregon commercial salmon Kevin Bastien trying Fish Habitat Connections 455 out the at-sea SPT system developed by Lavrakas et al. (2012). 432 Scary Numbers Photo credit: John Lavrakas. We know the challenges and must now seize the opportunities to protect and restore habitats. 455 Smartphones and Digital Tablets: Emerging Tools Thomas E. Bigford for Fisheries Professionals Our handheld digital devices and fisheries. Digital Revolution Lee F. G. Gutowsky, Jenilee Gobin, Nicholas J. Burnett, 433 Hiring Tools ­Jacqueline M. Chapman, Lauren J. Stoot, and Shireen Bliss Finding diversity in applications for fisheries programs can be an easier fix than you may think. BOOK REVIEWS Jeff Kopaska 462 Conservation, Ecology, and Management of Director’s Line Catfish: The Second International Symposium, edited 469 Sound Science and Future Trends by P. H. Michaletz and V. H. Travnichek We need to question these and many other basic premises Reviewed by James M. Long of the Society, and ensure that we understand the challenges, identify the opportunities, and aggressively 463 Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries: A Global respond. ­Perspective, edited by Villy Christensen and Jay Maclean Doug Austen Reviewed by Jason S. Link 464 Ecosystem-Based Management for Marine FEATURES ­Fisheries: An Evolving Perspective, edited by Andrea 434 Forming a Partnership to Avoid Bycatch ­Belgrano and Charles W. Fowler Fleet communication is a cost-effective way to collect and Reviewed by John M. Emlen disseminate information to facilitate bycatch reduction, but requires high levels of fleet participation. IN MEMORIAM Catherine E. O’Keefe and Gregory R. DeCelles 465 Robert “Bob” L. Hunt

445 Prospects for Fishery-Induced Collapse of Invasive AFS ANNUAL MEETING 2014 Asian Carp in the Illinois River It may be possible to collapse the Bighead Carp and Silver 466 Second Call for Papers: Québec City 2014 Carp populations in the Illinois River if efforts to expand commercial of Asian Carp are combined with JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS ­economic incentives to capture a wider range of fish sizes, along with increased targeting of Silver Carp. 470 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Iyob Tsehaye, Matthew Catalano, Greg Sass, David Glover, Volume 142, Number 5, September 2013 and Brian Roth NEW AFS MEMBERS 471

Cover: Vessels leaving New Bedford Harbor. Photo credit: Catherine CALENDAR E. O’Keefe. 473 Fisheries Events

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 429 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 of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training.

AFS OFFICERS FISHERIES STAFF EDITORS DUES AND FEES FOR 2013 ARE: $80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for regular PRESIDENT SENIOR EDITOR CHIEF SCIENCE EDITOR members, $20 in North America ($30 elsewhere) Bob Hughes Doug Austen Jeff Schaeffer for student members, and $40 ($50 elsewhere) for retired members. PRESIDENT ELECT DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS SCIENCE EDITORS Donna L. Parrish Aaron Lerner Marilyn “Guppy” Blair Deirdre M. Kimball Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription. Jim Bowker Jeff Koch FIRST VICE PRESIDENT MANAGING EDITOR Mason Bryant Jim Long Nonmember and library subscription rates are Ron Essig Sarah Fox Steven R. Chipps Daniel McGarvey $174. Steven Cooke Roar Sandodden SECOND VICE PRESIDENT Ken Currens Jesse Trushenski Joe Margraf Andy Danylchuk Usha Varanasi Michael R. Donaldson Jack E. Williams PAST PRESIDENT Andrew H. Fayram Jeffrey Williams John Boreman Stephen Fried BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Larry M. Gigliotti Francis Juanes EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Madeleine Hall-Arbor Doug Austen Alf Haukenes ABSTRACT TRANSLATION Jeffrey E. Hill Pablo del Monte Luna

Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 © copyright 2013. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproduction of material in this publication is permitted only under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199.

Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer recycled paper with soy-based printing inks.

2013 AFS MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION PAID: AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY • 5410 GROSVENOR LANE • SUITE 110 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2199 (301) 897-8616 x203 OR x224 • FAX (301) 897-8096 • WWW.FISHERIES .ORG NAME Recruited by an AFS member? yes no Name Address EMPLOYER Industry Academia City Federal gov’t State/Province ZIP/Postal Code State/provincial gov’t Country Other Please provide (for AFS use only) All memberships are for a calendar year. PAYMENT Phone New member applications received Janu- Please make checks payable to American Fisheries ary 1 through August 31 are processed for Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank, or pay by Fax full membership that calendar year (back VISA, MasterCard, or American Express. issues are sent). Applications received E-mail September 1 or later are processed for _____Check _____VISA full membership beginning January 1 of _____MasterCard the following year. _____American Express Account #______MEMBERSHIP TYPE/DUES (Includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory) Developing countries I (Includes online Fisheries only): N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$10 OTHER Exp. Date ______Developing countries II: N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$35 OTHER Signature ______Regular: _____$80 NORTH AMERICA; _____$95 OTHER Student (includes online journals): _____$20 NORTH AMERICA; _____$30 OTHER Young professional (year graduated): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHER Retired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHER Life (Fisheries and 1 journal): _____$1, 737 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1737 OTHER Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years): _____$1,200 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,200 OTHER: $1,200 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year): _____ $1,000 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,000 OTHER

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

430 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org COLUMN We Must Do Better—We Have To Do President’s Commentary ­Better Bob Hughes, AFS President

I am writing this column two days after listening to Presi- Section in 1987 (to as- dent Obama’s speech on race in the United States and his call sist international infor- for increased civic discussions on the matter of what it feels mation exchange, now like to be a person of color in North America. First a bit of with 185 members), an my personal history: I grew up in a small, all-white northern Equal Opportunity Sec- Michigan town. The first black person I saw was at a Saginaw, tion in 1991 (to promote Michigan, department store lunch counter where I was enjoying information exchange a chocolate ice cream cone with my mom. I was 5 years old and among all persons inter- openly asked her if the other lady was chocolate. The lady at ested in fisheries, espe- AFS President Bob Hughes can be contacted at: ­ the counter laughed and my mother embarrassingly explained cially underrepresented [email protected] that some people have dark skin but are the same as the rest of groups, currently with us inside. My second embarrassing encounter was with a black 97 members), a Na- family that stopped at the service station where I was working tive Peoples Fisheries Section in 1994 (but it has been inactive in the summer of 1963. We were not busy, but the two other since 2009 and has only 27 members), the Hutton Junior Fisher- attendants refused to serve them (this was in the days when ies Biology Program in 2001 (to stimulate interest in fisheries we filled the tank, washed the windows, and checked oil, cool- careers among minorities and women, which has funded 279 ant, lights, and sometimes tire pressure—usually as a team and minority students), the Emmeline Moore Prize in 2009 (for the with a smile). I could not understand their behavior, and when I promotion of demographic diversity, five awardees to date), and asked my fellow attendants what was happening, they explained a Native Peoples Student Travel Award in 2011 (which has been that they did not like Negroes because “they stick together” and underfunded and little used). The Equal Opportunity Section were dangerous. Although this family was together (as is true of developed a program for aiding minority student travel to AFS most families in a car), they were very pleasant and did not look meetings, as did the Hutton Program, but both are underfunded. at all dangerous to me. My third embarrassing experience was In addition, we have become more inclusive of Latin Amer- when my father refused to let my black university roommate icans—adding a Mexico Chapter in 2005 and a Puerto Rico spend a weekend in our home in 1966. Dad explained that al- Chapter in 2013. The Mexico Chapter will be hosting the AFS though he lacked any personal objections, he felt that he would Western Division annual meeting April 7–11, 2014, in Mazat- be shunned by the rest of that town’s residents should he do so. lan. We have formal agreements with the Fisheries Society of However, I had previously been able to enjoy meals and music the British Isles, Japanese Society of , Korean with my roommate’s family in Detroit. Society of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, and Brazilian Soci- ety of Ichthyology to promote cooperation and information ex- As your president, I personally ask each of you to make change. a point of having a conversation with an AFS meeting at- tendee who appears to be of a different race than yours. However, we can do better in at least three ways: (1) Assess the degree to which the Hutton Program and minority travel awards are used versus their demand, as well as how the Hut- My most traumatic experience occurred the day after Mar- ton students progress in their careers; (2) fund and report on a tin Luther King was murdered in 1968. I was teaching high survey of our current 223 minority members to collect stories school biology in a small, all-white southern Michigan town, illustrating unequal treatment or a lack of inclusiveness within and several of my students stated that King deserved to die be- the AFS and suggest how this could be remedied; (3) develop cause he was a communist. Together, with a history teacher, we and fund a program to encourage minority student attendance circulated a petition that all but one teacher signed, requesting a at AFS annual meetings and link them with a meeting mentor. school assembly featuring a black professor of mine discussing For pertinent examples, see Cuker (2007), the Multiculturalism what it was like being black in the United States. The princi- in Aquatic Sciences Program of the American Society of Lim- pal refused, voicing community opposition, and told me that nology & Oceanography, the Instars Program of the Society for I would not be teaching there the following year. Racial rela- Freshwater Sciences, the Seeds Program of the Ecological So- tions have improved considerably in this country (including my ciety of America, and the Undergraduate Mentoring in Environ- hometown) since the 1960s, but we still have a long way to go. mental Biology programs of the Society of Wetlands Scientists and the Estuarine Research Federation. The American Fisheries Society (AFS) can do its part in welcoming underrepresented persons to our ranks. We have already done some. We established an International Fisheries Continued on page 472

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 431 COLUMN Fish Habitat Connections Scary Numbers Thomas E. Bigford Office of Habitat Conservation, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910. ­E-mail: [email protected]

Fish folk are al- • The “National Rivers and Streams Assessment” (U.S. En- ways counting—fin vironmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2013) offers a rays, acre-feet of this, glimpse at changes since the comparable “Wadeable Streams linear feet of that. It can Assessment” of 2004. National results were mixed. Habi- be clinical and precise tat quality decreased for some habitat types, usually due to for some in our field, reasons such as increased pollutant concentration. Stream but in the fish habitat lengths in good condition increased due to reduced nitrogen world the tabulations are often more qualitative than quantita- or reduced riparian disturbance. Overall, the report found tive. Still, hidden behind the cautions and caveats are habitat “more than half of our nation’s rivers and streams exhibit trends that demand our attention. Some of the numbers are dis- poor biological condition.” couraging and must be reversed. • The most recent national wetlands survey (Dahl 2011) de- scribed a net gain (number of acres) between 1998 and 2004 Without being an alarmist or confrontational, the topics (estimated at about 32,000 acres for that period) followed covered in this column have hopefully inspired serious conver- by a loss of about 62,300 for 2004 to 2009. Those quanti- sation about fish habitat. After an introductory column in May, tative losses probably underestimate the loss of functional the June column explained how habitat is the connective tissue values that would be reflected by habitat quality, not just shared by American Fisheries Society units and members, the acreage. The National Wetland Condition Assessment Study July column sounded a clarion call for urgent action, the August scheduled to be released later this year by the U.S. Fish and column implored an ecosystem-based approach, and last month Wildlife Service and USEPA should provide a more detailed I reminded all of the importance of education and awareness assessment of wetland condition, reflecting quantity and as we seek to engage with a broader swath of disciplines and quality. society. Now in this sixth column I will tug at your conscience • Even when the national trend leaned toward a net wetland by sharing some alarming numbers on habitat loss. Those places gain (Dahl 2011, for 1998 to 2004), coastal and marine we hold sacred are disappearing—slowly but steadily. Statistics wetland trends leaned toward a net loss. Pressures along might downplay annual changes, but over the course of decades the coast are greater than those for inland wetlands. For small losses escalate into ecosystem degradation. The problem that same 6-year period when our nation had a net gain (of of fish habitat loss requires a concerted effort that touches on about 5,400 acres/year), the net loss was about 59,000 acres/ the issues covered in earlier columns. Each American Fisheries year (Stedman and Dahl 2008). Those losses increased for Society member needs to bring her or his expertise to the table. the 5-year period 2004 to 2009 to about 80,160 acres/year Soon. (Dahl and Stedman, in press). Because those reporting peri- ods were for different durations, the total net loss was about We know the challenges and must now seize the 361,000 acres for each span. ­opportunities to protect and restore. • Nutrient inputs from upland sources often translate into an- nual cycles of anthropogenic hypoxia. In the Chesapeake Bay region, multi-billion-dollar investments have not re- “Fish habitat” is a sweeping term that could refer to a versed trends (Boesch et al. 2007). Habitat loss from hy- stream, lake, reservoir, estuary, or the ocean. For any aquatic poxia is also acute at the mouth of the Mississippi River. system, discrete habitats could include the water column, raging • Ocean changes are now predicted or evident. Climate change currents, mudflats, construction pilings, an engineered reef, or is expected to shift water temperature, salinity, and water submerged vegetation. And each habitat type could be threat- column structure, prompting some fish populations to move ened by total destruction (wetland fill), conversion to another to deeper waters or to shift latitudes (Fogarty et al. 2007). type of fish habitat (blocking a river to create a reservoir), or Sea surface temperature anomalies in the Atlantic Multi- temporary change (for instance, when a habitat recovers from a decadal Oscillation index have been correlated with distri- seasonal or short-term impact, such as when cultured shellfish butional shifts of marine species (Nye et al. 2009). Ocean and attached fauna are harvested, then followed by seed for the acidification from increased carbon dioxide could reduce pH next crop). For all of those reasons it is difficult to find a few and erode calcium-based shells and structures. metrics that tell the whole story of fish habitat trends. But that won’t keep me from trying! Those trends are deduced from numbers that reflect a multi- tude of complex variables, including economic factors that ­­ So, here are some primary trends by habitat categories, culled from the solid efforts of agencies and experts: Continued on page 472

432 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org COLUMN Hiring Tools Digital Revolution Jeff Kopaska Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 1436 255th St., Boone, IA 50036. ­ E-mail: [email protected]

Hello, and welcome to my attempt to inform and educate that would allow American Fisheries Society (AFS) members regarding technol- automatic scoring. ogy. Why me? A little of my background might explain that, All of the questions as I currently serve AFS as the chair of the Electronic Services were transformed Advisory Board, and have in the past served as the president to categorical re- of the Fisheries Information and Technology Section. I work sponses that had a for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Fisheries drop-down menu Bureau as the Natural Resources Biometrician; however, my job (e.g., Describe your level of boating experience—none; some; is tailored more toward technological endeavors than statistical familiar; skilled; expert) or required a numerical response (e.g., endeavors. I’m not a programmer or an “IT guy”. I’m a fish guy How many credit hours have you earned in fisheries courses?). who likes to leverage technology to solve problems or make my Next was to plug into the network of human resources staff in coworkers’ lives easier. DNR and DAS to find the right contact. I needed to know who programmed in the questions and if they would be willing to For this first article, I would like to go back a few years and add a number of new questions for these seasonal positions. share with you a problem encountered at work in Iowa and how Fortunately, that person had gone through a professional devel- technology solutions were brought to the table to help alleviate opment certification with one of my collaborators and was very the issue. The problem involved hiring our seasonal employees, willing to help us out! a task undertaken by a centralized hiring committee of field biologists. There were no longer enough students in the Fisher- After these big hurdles were overcome, the remaining steps ies and Wildlife curriculum at the local university to fill all of were easy. We worked with DAS staff to post these positions the positions we had available. Furthermore, the diversity of in the online system. Job boards and listservs were used to dis- the applicant pool was not acceptable to the oversight commit- seminate the information. However, the applications were again tee in Iowa’s hiring agency, the Department of Administrative being collected online, with the applicants entering all of their Services (DAS). In 2006, we had a total of 25 applicants, none own data. After the position application period closed, a spread- of whom were females. Looking toward 2007, we needed to fill sheet with the applicant response data was generated. Based on approximately 40 positions. The first step was to utilize avail- that data, a scoring system was programmed in the spreadsheet, able Internet venues, such as jobs boards and listservs, and to as well as a location/position preference guide. Each applicant provide a downloadable application form that could be filled out had an individual score, which was used to select the interview and submitted. Not exactly high-end technology utilization, but list for the available positions. just using some appropriate tools for the job at hand. The results came in: 96 applications, including 17 females—Success! How- The beauty of this system is that it does not eliminate ever, 96 paper applications are hard to sort and organize, and I “known commodities” from being hired at the local level. Any- really wanted the ability to query all the data without having to one can apply for any job, and the hiring committee always hand-enter it. Two of the initial issues had been addressed, but values suggestions from other field staff. However, this system the results had reduced the efficiency of the process. Back to opened the door to a broader applicant pool. The results reveal the drawing board. the success of the program. Over the last 6 years, the applicant pool has been much larger (x = 141, range 127–156), roughly I was aware of the mechanism that DAS used for accepting 20% of the applicants are females (x = 27, range 21–30), and applications for full-time positions—an online system that had around 20% of available positions are being filled by females. a variety of questions for users to complete. I also knew that A big plus is that all of the information is electronic, and after the issue with the size and diversity of the applicant pool for doing the initial programming, I can generate a scored list of fisheries positions was an issue for wildlife and parks positions, applicants in less than 30 minutes. I needed to have a little luck and that they might participate if they saw the value of col- at that time to get the right people to go along with this idea. laboration. After some informal discussions, everyone thought Today, a person could do all this outside the realm of a hiring that casting a wider net would be beneficial and were willing agency by utilizing free, easy-to-use online tools, such as Sur- to come aboard. vey Monkey. Technology—it can be a wonderful thing.

In preparation, the existing application forms were re- Do you have suggestions for topics or questions that need viewed to see whether the questions could be formatted in a way answering? Please write to Jeff at [email protected]

Continued on page 472

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 433 FEATURE

Forming a Partnership to Avoid Bycatch

Catherine E. O’Keefe Formación de asociaciones para evitar University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, School for Marine Science­­­ and Technology, 200 Mill Road, Suite 325, Fairhaven, MA 02719. E-mail: captura incidental [email protected] RESUMEN: En los EE.UU., la captura incidental de la Gregory R. DeCelles platija amarilla es una limitante para que la pesquería University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, School for Marine Science and de almeja alcance la captura óptima. Entre 2000 y 2009, Technology, Fairhaven, MA las vedas estacionales de captura incidental en las áreas de pesca de la almeja produjeron pérdidas económicas por encima de los 100 millones de dólares. Con el fin de ABSTRACT: Bycatch of Yellowtail Flounder in the U.S. Sea estudiar esta limitante, en 2010 se puso en marcha una Scallop Fishery is a constraint to achieving optimum yield of colaboración con la industria pesquera de almeja para scallops. Between 2000 and 2009, in-season bycatch closures of implementar un programa de evasión de la captura inci- prime scallop grounds resulted in economic losses over US$100 dental en la zona de pesca de Nantucket Lightship. Las em- million. To address this constraint, we collaborated with the barcaciones compartían, en tiempo real, la localización de scallop to implement a bycatch avoidance regiones y volúmenes de captura incidental obtenidos du- program in the Nantucket Lightship harvest area in 2010. Ves- rante las actividades de pesca. Se compiló la información, sels shared near real-time location information about bycatch se identificaron las zonas clave de captura incidental y se amounts during fishing activities. We compiled the informa- brindaron asesorías diarias a las embarcaciones en las tion, identified bycatch hotspots, and provided daily advisories áreas de pesca. Tanto la captura por arrastre de la platija to vessels on the fishing grounds. Catch per tow of Yellowtail como el esfuerzo pesquero en regiones de alta captura in- and fishing effort in high bycatch regions significantly declined cidental, se redujeron sustancialmente después de que las after the fleet received the advisories. The fleet harvested the embarcaciones recibieran la asesoría. La captura de alme- target scallop allocation worth US$40 million while catching jas en sitios selectos representó una ganancia de 40 mil- only 32% of the Yellowtail bycatch limit. This program contin- lones de dólares, a la vez que se alcanzaba sólo el 32% del ues as a collaborative, iterative approach to bycatch reduction límite de captura incidental de la platija. Este programa that balances fleet objectives with conservation constraints. continua como un enfoque colaborativo e iterativo para reducir la captura incidental de forma tal que se tienda a INTRODUCTION un balance entre los objetivos de la flota y las limitaciones que impone la conservación. Mitigation measures to reduce bycatch of nontarget spe- cies in commercial fisheries often focus on conservation goals (Alverson et al. 1994; Kelleher 2005) and may not incorporate information (Gauvin et al. 1996; Watson et al. 2003). Socioeco- socioeconomic incentives for the fishery. Socioeconomic im- nomic incentives to avoid fisheries bycatch must also exist in pacts related to bycatch mitigation include constraints on fish- order to influence changes in fishing behavior. ing operations, reduced landings of target species, and potential losses of employment and community structure (Pascoe 1997). Cooperative approaches to reducing bycatch that include Bycatch reduction strategies often limit economic yield and op- input from fishermen, scientists, and managers can be suc- portunity in fisheries that sustainably target a single species or cessful for harvesting valuable target species while conserving mixed-species fisheries, in which distributions of abundant spe- nontarget species. Within the cooperative context, fishing in- cies overlap with overfished or depleted stocks (Boyce 1996; dustry members play a role in defining objectives and desired Hall et al. 2000; Salomon et al. 2011). outcomes of harvest strategies (Pinto da Silva and Kitts 2006; Johnson and van Densen 2007). Often these goals differ from Various mitigation strategies, including gear modifications scientific and regulatory objectives that focus on biological and and restrictions, time/area closures, and quota systems can be ecological mandates. A cooperative approach to bycatch avoid- successful in meeting conservation goals (Alverson et al. 1994). ance can ensure that objectives of the fishery participants are However, these methods can impose increased operational costs acknowledged and prioritized. Though outcomes of bycatch on the fishing industry and increased administrative responsibil- avoidance programs can be ecologically beneficial, specific ity on managers and enforcement agencies (Catchpole and Gray aspects of program design can include measures that lead to 2010). An alternative or complementary approach to reducing socioeconomic benefits as well (Bethoney et al. 2013). bycatch is avoidance of nontarget species through fleet com- munications. This approach requires cooperation from fishing We employed a cooperative, iterative approach to reduc- industry participants to exchange spatial and temporal bycatch ing bycatch of Yellowtail Flounder (Limanda ferruginea) in the

434 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org U.S. Atlantic Sea Scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) fishery. stocks, with mixing of the stocks occurring across portions of Our objective was to assist the fleet in maximizing scallop yield Georges Bank (Cadrin 2010). The Georges Bank and Southern by avoiding bycatch of Yellowtail. Rather than focusing solely New England/Mid-Atlantic stock units have overlapping distri- on the ecological goal of reducing bycatch, we focused on the butions with scallops in Closed Area II and the Nantucket Light- socioeconomic goal identified by the scallop industry, which ship Closed Area, respectively. Both stocks of Yellowtail are was harvesting the entire scallop allocation by preventing an in rebuilding plans, and allocations of Yellowtail to the scallop in-season bycatch closure. Achieving optimum yield from each fishery are relatively low (Figure 1). The Yellowtail allocation fishery and developing practical measures that minimize by- to the scallop fleet in the access areas was limited to 10% of the catch are also policy goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery overall Yellowtail catch limit, and the areas were closed to all Conservation and Management Act (U.S. Department of Com- fishing during peak spawning times from February to mid-June merce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and (NEFMC 1999). National Marine Fisheries Service 2007). In recent years, the access area fisheries opened in June, BACKGROUND with a target scallop allocation managed through individual trip possession limits of 8.2 mt (18,000 lbs). The amount of exploit- Georges Bank supports the world’s largest single natu- able scallop observed in annual surveys determined ral Sea Scallop resource (Caddy 1989). Annual scallop land- which areas would open and the number of trips per vessel. The ings from this region averaged 8,500 mt since 2004, when the Yellowtail bycatch allocation was shared by the entire scallop New England Fishery Management Council implemented an fleet and monitored through the industry-funded observer pro- area-based management plan for scallops (Figure 1). Under gram at a target level of 10% coverage. The Yellowtail quota the area-based plan, access to defined regions of the resource was monitored weekly, and when the estimated Yellowtail by- was periodically restricted to increase overall yield by allow- catch reached the allocated quota, the access areas closed and ing scallops to grow, and to minimize impacts on finfish and no further fishing was allowed inside the areas. essential fish habitat (NEFMC 2004). Three areas on Georges Bank (Closed Area I, Closed Area II and the Nantucket Light- METHODS ship Closed Area) were closed to all mobile fishing gear in 1994 to reduce fishing mortality on depleted groundfish stocks. Re- Forming a Partnership gions within the closures, which contain high abundances and biomass of scallops, were opened for scallop harvest under the Prior to the opening of the Nantucket Lightship access area-based management plan in 1999 (Figure 2; NEFSC 1994; area fishery in June 2010, the School for Marine Science and NEFMC 2004). Technology (SMAST) Scallop Steering Committee identified an approach for maximizing scallop yield from the access areas The area-based scallop management plan included mea- on Georges Bank by avoiding areas with high abundance of sures to minimize bycatch of groundfish stocks, specifically Yellowtail Flounder. The Steering Committee was created in Yellowtail Flounder. Yellowtail are managed as three separate 1999 as a partnership between members of the scallop fishing

Figure 1. U.S. landings in metric tons of Georges Bank Sea Scallops (solid line) and Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder (dashed line) from 1965 to 2011.

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 435 Captain Chris Wright onboard the F/V Huntress e-mails fishing location, number of tows, and amount of Yellowtail caught through Boatracs vessel monitoring system (VMS) to the SMAST Yellowtail Flounder Bycatch Avoidance Program. Photo credit: Catherine E. O’Keefe. fleet and scientists from SMAST (O’Keefe and Stokesbury harvest from the area (2,672 mt; NEFMC 2010), a minimum 2009). The committee was formed to identify research topics, harvest rate of 58 mt of scallops to 1 mt of Yellowtail was needed discuss management strategies, and set cooperative objectives to avoid in-season closure. The Virginia Institute of Marine Sci- to achieve ecological and economic goals. ence (VIMS) conducted an industry-based dredge survey in the Nantucket Lightship access area in July 2009, collecting catch The Scallop Steering Committee identified several prob- ratio information for scallops and Yellowtail (DuPaul and Rud- lems associated with Yellowtail bycatch in the access areas on ders 2010). Results from this survey were compared with the Georges Bank, including a restrictive allocation of Yellowtail; scallop-to-Yellowtail catch ratio threshold of 58:1 mt to identify lack of knowledge of species’ distributions prior to the fishery regions where scallops could be harvested without exceeding opening; extrapolation of single bycatch events over large re- the Yellowtail bycatch limit (Figure 3). Additionally, a video gions based on small, highly variable at-sea observer samples; survey was conducted by SMAST (Stokesbury et al. 2004) in and time lags in access to at-sea observer data. We collaborated the Nantucket Lightship access area in May 2010, providing in- with the Steering Committee and scallop fishing industry mem- formation on scallop abundance and distribution. The combined bers to design a two-phase system to reduce Yellowtail bycatch survey information was sent to the 348 permitted scallop vessels in the Nantucket Lightship access area fishery. two weeks prior to the area opening with a letter encouraging the fleet to avoid regions where the catch ratio would cause a Phase 1: Survey Information premature closure of the fishery.

Phase 1 provided information on the distributions of scal- Phase 2: Real-Time Bycatch Avoidance lops and Yellowtail to the fleet prior to the area opening. We compiled information from industry-based surveys in the Nan- In Phase 2, a fleet communication system was developed tucket Lightship region and examined historic catch rates to to identify bycatch “hotspots” and facilitate vessel avoidance. inform the fleet about bycatch rates before they reached the fish- We held several meetings with fleet members to address con- ing grounds. The objective in providing this information was to cerns about data collection and data sharing, and the costs of educate the fleet about potential bycatch hotspots. Annual fed- implementing a bycatch avoidance program. These meetings eral resource surveys for scallops and Yellowtail were designed were designed as open discussions to identify a balance between to assess biomass and size–structure of the entire resource from data needs and industry incentives to facilitate an operational North Carolina to Maine, and sampling locations are random protocol that would meet the fleet objective of harvesting the within depth strata. This design produces a low number of sam- full scallop allocation. We attempted to minimize expenses to pling locations within the scallop access areas of Georges Bank industry members for the 2010 Nantucket Lightship fishery. We that do not provide fine-scale spatial information on scallop and collectively decided to use existing technology and to incorpo- Yellowtail distribution or bycatch rates. At-sea observer data are rate a user-friendly e-mail system to provide advice in a simple compiled on a weekly basis to inform the public on the level of format. In addition to the discussions and meetings with fleet Yellowtail bycatch taken from the access areas; however, spa- members, we used several media outlets to publicize the avoid- tially specific bycatch information within the access areas is not ance program and promote participation. publicly available. The Nantucket Lightship access area is approximately Based on the allocation of Yellowtail to the scallop fleet for 1,525 km2, with depths from 30 to 80 m. Yellowtail tend to ag- the Nantucket Lightship area (47 mt) and the target for scallop­ gregate between 50 and 70 m in the area during summer months

436 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org Figure 2. Georges Bank with closed areas outlined in black, scallop fishery access areas shaded in gray, and 50- to 70-m depth range where Yellowtail aggregate in the Nantucket Lightship region. Inset depicts U.S. East Coast with the 70-m isobath shown in gray.

Figure 3. Ratio of metric tons of scallops to metric tons of Yellowtail caught in the Nantucket Lightship access area during 15-min survey tows conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in 2009 with the SMAST Bycatch Avoidance Program reporting grid overlaid. Green circles indicate areas with low Yellowtail bycatch rates, and red circles indicate high Yellowtail bycatch rates. Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 437 (Figure 2; NEFMC 2012). In order to provide information on The cells were classified as low, medium, and high based a fine spatial scale, a grid was overlaid on the area to create on the amount of bycatch reported relative to bycatch thresh- uniquely identifiable cells. The size of the grid cells was con- olds. Fishing industry members agreed to share Yellowtail figured to be large enough to collect information from entire Flounder catch information only, so an assumed scallop catch dredge tows and mask individual fishing locations, but small rate of 0.27 mt/tow (600 lb/tow), estimated by industry mem- enough to identify small-scale aggregations of Yellowtail and bers from historical catch rates in the access area, was applied facilitate movement away from hotspots. Fishermen suggested for the duration of the fishery. Combining this assumed scallop using the 13000 and 43000 Loran C lines to create the report- catch rate with the allocated threshold rates (58 mt scallops to 1 ing grid. The grid contained 34 individual lettered cells, each mt Yellowtail) yielded a bycatch threshold of 10 lb of Yellowtail representing approximately 50 km2 (Figure 4). per tow. A low cell was an area with low bycatch amounts (cu- mulative weighted average of 0 to 5 lb per tow) where continued Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) with ship-to-shore e- fishing was expected to allow full harvest of the scallop target mail capability are required on all scallop vessels. An authorized without exceeding the Yellowtail bycatch allocation. A medium e-mail account was established with the VMS service provid- cell was an area with variable, intermediate, or high bycatch ers Boatracs and SkyMate, enabling communications between amounts (5 to 10 lb per tow) that could lead to a premature SMAST and participating vessels. Prior to the area opening, closure of the area from Yellowtail bycatch. A high cell was an vessels were provided with the grid map of lettered cells, data area with high bycatch amounts (10 or more pounds per tow) collection sheets, and instructions for how to record Yellowtail where continued fishing was expected to lead to a premature catch. During fishing trips, vessel captains recorded the letter closure of the access area due to exceeding the Yellowtail by- of the cell they were fishing in, the number of tows completed catch allocation. in each cell, and total pounds of Yellowtail caught in each cell. The recorded information was entered into a text-based e-mail Likelihood ratio G-tests (Sokal and Rohlf 1995) were used and sent to SMAST once every 24 h. The e-mails were compiled to test for significant differences in reported bycatch amounts each day at 8:00 a.m. EST and all reports from the previous 24 and the reported number of tows conducted in medium or high h were analyzed. As a quality control measure, two research- cells before (28 June–1 July) and after (2 July–15 July) the first ers separately entered, compiled, and analyzed the Yellowtail advisory was sent to the fleet. Similarly, G-tests were used to catch information. Yellowtail catch per tow for each cell was test for significant differences in Northeast Fisheries Observer calculated based on the number of tows and total pounds of Program–observed bycatch amounts and the number of tows in Yellowtail reported. Tow duration did not differ significantly medium and high cells before and after the first advisory. The during the reporting period (28 June–15 July) with a mean tow Northeast Fisheries Observer Program provided data from all time of 34 min (±16 min). A daily and cumulative (all days) observed scallop trips in the Nantucket Lightship for fishing weighted average bycatch amount in pounds (weighted by the year 2010. All at-sea observer data were analyzed on a vessel number of tows) was calculated to classify the status of bycatch and tow basis between 28 June and 15 July and then aggregated in each cell (Figure 4). by grid cell.

Figure 4. Grid map of the Nantucket Lightship access area with 34 lettered cells showing the Yellowtail bycatch advisory for 9 July 2010 with high (red), medium (yellow), and low (green) bycatch areas. The text depicts the e-mail message that was sent to the 122 participating vessels on 9 July 2010.

438 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org Results from the SMAST program and Northeast Fisher- Fisheries Observer Program matched closely with reports from ies Observer Program data sets were compared to determine vessels participating in the bycatch avoidance program and with whether the voluntary reported bycatch amounts and vessel VIMS and SMAST survey information that was disseminated movements were similar to at-sea observed bycatch amounts prior to the area opening. Following the first bycatch advisory, and vessel movements. The effectiveness of the program in data collected by at-sea observers showed that Yellowtail catch reducing bycatch could not be directly quantified because of per tow declined significantly (G = 42.70; P < 0.0001; Figure many uncontrolled factors that may have influenced the distri- 7), and the number of tows conducted in high and medium cells bution of scallops and Yellowtail, variability in fishing behavior also declined, though not significantly. Observed vessels gener- and gear configuration, and the voluntary nature of the program. ally moved from the central portion of the access area to the Instead, program effectiveness was evaluated by examining re- northern and eastern borders, where bycatch rates were lower. ported changes in fishing locations by vessels and performance of the fishery in the access area. By the end of the reporting period (15 July), the entire Nantucket Lightship access area scallop target (2,624 mt) was RESULTS harvested, and only 26% of the Yellowtail bycatch allocation had been caught, increasing to 32% (14.4 mt) by the end of the The Nantucket Lightship access area fishery opened on 28 fishery in February 2011 (Table 1). Following the first advisory, June 2010 and real-time reporting extended to 15 July, at which bycatch reports to SMAST indicated that Yellowtail catch was point 88% of the fleet had completed their trips in the area. reduced by an average of 57%. At-sea observer data showed The bycatch avoidance program had 122 vessels out of the 348 that Yellowtail catch was reduced by an average of 65% in the permitted vessels participating (35%), with 61 vessels sending period after the first advisory was sent, and the bycatch rate 3,397 tow reports. A Yellowtail bycatch hotspot was identified (mt Yellowtail/mt scallops) was reduced by an average of 50% within 32 h of the fishery opening and three additional medium (from 0.008 to 0.004). bycatch areas were identified over the next 72 h (Figure 4). Due to an initial malfunction in the VMS e-mail transmissions, ves- DISCUSSION sels did not receive information about the locations of bycatch hotspots for the first 3 days of the fishery. The first effective Fleet communication is a cost-effective way to collect advisory on Yellowtail bycatch hotspots was received by all and disseminate information to facilitate bycatch reduction but 122 participating vessels on 2 July. Following the first advisory, requires high levels of fleet participation (Gauvin et al. 1996; Yellowtail catch per tow significantly declined for the remain- O’Keefe et al. 2010; Bethoney et al. 2013). Time/area closures der of the reporting period (G = 5.10; P = 0.02; Figure 5). Re- for bycatch reduction tend to ignore the potential for increased ported fishing effort in cells that had been identified as high and bycatch in other areas due to effort shifts (Powell et al. 2004), medium also declined significantly (G = 106.64; P < 0.0001; density-dependent effects on nontarget species (Pastoors et al. Figure 6) All reported fishing effort from the high bycatch cell 2000), and increased operational costs to the fishing industry ceased within 3 days of the first advisory. (Murray et al. 2000). Gear modification can be a successful mitigation tool but can increase operational costs and lead to The spatial distributions of Yellowtail and scallops in the increased need for enforcement (Valdemarsen and Suuronen Nantucket Lightship access area observed by the Northeast 2003). Quota systems alone may not reduce bycatch and can

Figure 5. Distribution of SMAST-reported Yellowtail bycatch by date. The vertical dashed line separates the reporting period prior to and after the first bycatch advisory was received by participating vessels. The solid horizontal line at 10 lb/tow represents the threshold for classification as high bycatch. Box plots indicate the median, interquartile range, 1.5 times the interquartile range, and outliers. Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 439 Figure 6. Number of SMAST reported tows in cells classified as high (black) and medium (gray) each day. The vertical dashed line separates the reporting period prior to and after the first fleet advisory was received.

Figure 7. Distribution of Northeast Fisheries Observer Program–collected Yellowtail bycatch by date. The vertical dashed line separates the reporting period prior to and after the first bycatch advisory was received by participating vessels. The solid horizontal line at 10 lb/tow represents the threshold for classification as high bycatch. Box plots indicate the median, interquartile range, and 1.5 times the interquartile range.

Table 1. Results from the access area fisheries in the Nantucket Lightship (NLCA) and Closed Area II (CAII) between 2006 and 2010. Foregone revenue (in millions USD) was calculated using the unadjusted average price per pound of scallops in 2006, 2008, and 2009.

2006 2006 2008 2009 2010 Access area NLCA CAII NLCA CAII NLCA Opening date 15 June 2006 15 June 2006 15 June 2008 15 June 2009 28 June 2010 Expected fishery duration (days) 231 231 231 231 218 Actual fishery duration (days) 36 84 57 15 218 % Time fishery was open 16 36 25 6 100 Yellowtail total allowable catch (mt) 14.3 204 31.2 174.3 47 Actual Yellowtail catch (mt) 25.2 210 30.6 142 14.4 % Yellowtail total allowable catch harvested 176 103 98 81 31 Scallop target (mt) 5,235 7,459 2,841 2,503 2,672 Actual scallop catch (mt) 4,078 6,144 2,125 1,531 2,780 % Scallop target harvested 78 82 75 61 104 Forgone revenue (millions USD) 16.5 19 11 14 0

440 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org lead to increased regulatory requirements (Diamond 2004). the scallop fishery. An examination of measures that failed to When applied iteratively and used in combination, these tech- reduce Yellowtail bycatch indicates that industry collaboration niques can be effective to increase fleet incentives for bycatch was lacking and fleet incentives were not considered. The 2008 reduction (Croxall 2008). Additionally, programs that incorpo- scallop fishery conducted in the Nantucket Lightship access rate fishermen’s knowledge are likely to be more successful in area closed prematurely due to Yellowtail bycatch, resulting meeting fleet objectives (Kaplan and McKay 2004). in a loss of approximately US $11 million (Table 1; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2013). Projected es- Results from the 2010 Nantucket Lightship access area fish- timates of Yellowtail bycatch for this region were low (NEFMC ery indicate that the scallop fleet utilized information from the 2007), and fishing behavior was based on expectations that the bycatch avoidance system to avoid Yellowtail bycatch hotspots target scallop allocation would be harvested (M. Buron, Eastern in order to maximize scallop yield. Bycatch amounts dropped Fisheries, personal communication; D. Eilertsen, Nordic Fisher- significantly after the fleet received information about hotspot ies, personal commication; E. Hansen, Hansen Scalloping, per- locations as vessels moved to areas with lower bycatch levels. sonal communication). However, the area closed 57 days after This mitigation technique, in combination with the fleetwide opening when Yellowtail catch reached 98% of the limit, leav- bycatch quota and threat of in-season closure, may have been ing 25% of the scallop allocation unharvested. effective because of the collaborative nature of the program and the iterative approach employed to identify objectives and de- In May 2009, SMAST provided information on scallop sign the advisory. and Yellowtail distributions in advance of the Closed Area II access area fishery. Results from a Yellowtail tagging experi- Prior to the development of the SMAST Yellowtail Floun- ment (Melgey 2010) were combined with scallop distribution der Bycatch Avoidance Program, several mitigation approaches information from the SMAST video survey to identify areas were unsuccessful in reducing Yellowtail Flounder bycatch in of spatial separation between the two species in Closed Area

Figure 8. Map of Closed Area II scallop (red circles) and Yellowtail (blue circles) distribution sent to the scallop fleet in 2009 with areas to target for scallops (yellow polygon) and avoid for Yellowtail (gray polygon).

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 441 Crew members onboard the F/V Huntress sort through a pile of scallops, saving marketable scallops and discarding bycatch species, including Yellowtail Flounder. Photo credit: Catherine­ E. O’Keefe.

II (Figure 8). The information was disseminated to the scallop­ and fleet objective of maximizing scallop yield, which required fleet before the fishery opened but was not utilized by the entire substantial collaboration from the fleet. The preexisting rela- fleet. Although the ­species’ distributions proved accurate based tionship between the fleet and SMAST, based on a decade of on at-sea observer information, one third of the observed vessels collaborative efforts in resource surveys, habitat research, tag- chose to fish in areas where high bycatch rates were expected. ging studies, and policy analysis, was critical in defining expec- The Closed Area II access area closed to harvest after only 15 tations of the bycatch avoidance system. The scallop fleet was days due to reaching the bycatch limit. The resulting economic willing to address bycatch constraints but did not favor alterna- loss from unharvested scallops in this area was US$14 million tives that relied on static information or caused increased op- (Table 1; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration erational costs. The only cost to vessel owners to implement the 2013). program was additional VMS provider charges to facilitate the daily e-mails, estimated at approximately US$12 per vessel for The New England Fishery Management Council con- the duration of the reporting period. Costs associated with ves- sidered an option for rights-based fishing cooperatives in the sel movements included potential for foregone scallop yield and scallop fishery during the spring of 2010. They proposed a sys- increased fuel consumption. Because the high-density aggre- tem to transfer Yellowtail allocation between the scallop and gations of Yellowtail were relatively small, the longest move- Groundfish fleets as a mechanism to increase individual stew- ment needed to avoid a hotspot during the advisory period was ardship for the Yellowtail resource and attempt to maximize approximately 5 km (2.7 nautical miles). These short distance scallop yield. The proposal was rejected by the scallop industry, movements likely kept costs low in terms of foregone catch and and the rights-based management option was withdrawn from fuel (Abbot and Wilen 2010). further consideration. Despite reported benefits of quota man- agement systems (Beddington et al. 2007; Costello et al. 2008), The near real-time nature of information from the bycatch there are many uncertainties and concerns surrounding rights- avoidance program provided a context for individual vessel based management (Bromley 2009; Pinkerton and Edwards accountability. Prior to the 2010 bycatch avoidance program, 2009). The scallop industry voiced fear of fleet consolidation, fine-scale spatial information on bycatch rates was not avail- lost wages and employment, high costs of increased observer able while the fishery was occurring. Providing daily bycatch coverage, and changes in community structure in relation to the advisories alerted fishermen about hotspots in a time frame that rights-based bycatch options. Furthermore, the scallop industry allowed them to move to areas with lower bycatch. The daily disputed claims that a rights-based approach would incentivize advisories also promoted self-enforcement in the fleet. The bycatch reduction, and they anticipated lowered Yellowtail al- Nantucket Lightship access area is relatively small, allowing locations resulting from confounded individual catch histories. vessels to see where others are fishing. Vessel captains fishing in the area indicated that they discussed the advisories through The focus of the 2010 SMAST Yellowtail Flounder Bycatch radio communications and encouraged each other to follow the Avoidance Program was to meet the national policy ­objective advice about bycatch hotspots.

442 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org CONCLUSIONS Yellowtail was necessary prior to identifying a feasible solu- tion to reduce bycatch. The spatial separation of scallops and The SMAST Yellowtail Flounder Bycatch Avoidance Pro- Yellowtail facilitated the avoidance approach because vessels gram was an effective voluntary effort that relied on fleet incen- could move to areas with lower bycatch rates. The sessile nature tives to avoid Yellowtail bycatch. The benefits for the fleet of of scallops allowed us to provide useful information on spatial harvesting the full scallop allocation from the Nantucket Light- distribution prior to the fishery. In addition, we knew from sur- ship access area may have outweighed individual costs of shar- vey data that Yellowtail tend to form small-scale spatial aggre- ing data in near real-time. The program did not require additional gations. Previous economic losses and uncertainty associated regulations or include enforcement provisions, individual vessel with management provided the fleet with incentives to share data remained confidential, and the system was technologically catch data and attempt an alternative bycatch reduction method simple and inexpensive. Fishermen had little motivation to mis- to complement the area-based bycatch quotas and in-season report catch data to the program because bycatch advice relied closures. We specifically tailored the solution to the problem solely on fishery-dependent information, the program was vol- and, as a result, voluntary participation to reduce bycatch has untary, and no regulatory action was associated with individual grown to include over 70% of the scallop fleet since 2010. The reports. The ability to utilize fishermen-collected data to make iterative, adaptive, and collaborative nature of the program has decisions about fishing operations empowered the scallop fleet supported continued effectiveness in meeting fleet objectives. and encouraged increased participation in the program. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The bycatch avoidance program was continued in 2011 for the access area fisheries in Closed Areas I and II. The fleet We acknowledge the substantial contributions from Daniel agreed to report both scallop and Yellowtail catch, which fa- Georgianna, Steven Cadrin, and Kevin Stokesbury in designing cilitated calculations of bycatch rates and enabled us to better and implementing the bycatch avoidance program. We thank advise the fleet where bycatch hotspots were occurring. Partici- the owners, managers, captains, and crew members from the pation increased to include 211 vessels and the fleet-reported U.S. Sea Scallop Fleet who assisted in program design and vol- catch information from 8,363 tows. The fleet was again able to untarily participated in fleet communications and the Northeast catch the target scallop allocation, while catching only 30% of Fisheries Observer Program for providing data. Nikki Jacobson the Yellowtail bycatch allocation. Derby effects also decreased, provided programming and data analysis assistance. Mike Sis- and fishing effort was sustained over 3 months. Several factors, senwine, Jake Kritzer, and one anonymous reviewer provided including the bycatch avoidance program, may have influenced critical review of the article. Funding for the program was the reduced derby effects of the fishery in the access areas. In provided by donations from the Fisheries Survival Fund, the 2012, all three of the access areas (Nantucket Lightship, Closed American Scallop Association, scallop owners, Areas I and II) were open for fishing. Participation increased to and NOAA grant NA12NMF4540035. include 243 vessels (70% of the fleet), with 108 vessels report- ing scallop and Yellowtail catch information from over 20,000 REFERENCES tows. Objectives for the scallop fleet have changed to a lon- ger term focus of maintaining access to Georges Bank fishing Abbott, J. K., and J. E. Wilen. 2010. Voluntary cooperation in the com- grounds in the future and the 2013 bycatch avoidance program mons? Evaluating the Sea State Program with reduced form and structural models. Land Economics 86:131–154. expanded to all Georges Bank fishing grounds. Bycatch of Yel- Alverson, D. L., M. H. Freeberg, J. G. Pope, and S. A. Murawski. 1994. lowtail continues to constrain the fishery and could undermine A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fish- the area-based management system. eries Technical Paper No. 339, Food and Agriculture Organiza- tion, Rome. In 2012, the fleet began providing financial donations to Beddington, J. R., D. J. Agnew, and C. W. Clark. 2007. Current prob- support the bycatch avoidance program, including funding for lems in the management of marine fisheries. Science 316:1713– research staff to conduct the daily data analyses and bycatch 1716. advisories. Additional funding from the Sea Scallop Research Bethoney, N. D., B. P. Schondelmeier, K. D. E. Stokesbury, and W. S. Set-Aside Program (NEFMC 1999) supports staff to conduct Hoffman. 2013. Developing a fine scale system to address River Herring (Alosa pseudoharengus, A. aestivalis) and American Shad outreach efforts, coordinate with VMS providers, and present (A. sapidissima) bycatch in the U.S. northwest Atlantic mid-water research results at scientific and management meetings. Despite trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 141:79–87. its voluntary nature, the fleet has identified the program as a Boyce, J. R. 1996. An economic analysis of the fisheries bycatch funding priority in the near term. The bycatch avoidance pro- problem. Journal of Experimental Economics and Management gram continues to adapt to the changing objectives and manage- 31:314–336. ment environment, and future plans include expansion to all Bromley, D. W. 2009. Abdicating responsibility: the deceits of fisheries scallop fishing grounds and application to other bycatch species. policy. Fisheries 34(6):280–290. Caddy, J. F. 1989. A perspective on the population dynamics and as- The avoidance program has been a useful tool to reduce sessment of scallop fisheries, with special reference to the Sea Scallop, Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin). Pages 559–589 in bycatch in the scallop fishery, but it is not a universal solution J. F. Caddy, editor. Marine invertebrate fisheries: their assessment to bycatch problems in all fisheries. Understanding the manage- and management. John Wiley & Sons, New York. ment requirements as well as life history traits of scallops and

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 443 Cadrin, S. X. 2010. Interdisciplinary analysis of Yellowtail Floun- England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, Massachu- der stock structure off New England. Reviews in Fisheries Sci- setts. ence18:281–299. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 1994. Report of the 18th North- Catchpole, T. L., and T. S. Gray. 2010. Reducing discards of fish at east Regional Stock Assessment Workshop. U.S. Department of sea: a review of European pilot projects. Journal of Environmental Commerce, NEFSC Reference Document 94-22, Woods Hole, Management 91:717–723. Massachusetts. Costello, C., S. D. Gaines, and J. Lynham. 2008. Can catch shares ———. 2010. 50th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop prevent fisheries collapse? Science 321:1678–1681. (50th SAW) assessment summary report and assessment report. Croxall, J. P. 2008. The role of science and advocacy in the conser- U.S. Department of Commerce, NEFSC Reference Document vation of Southern Ocean albatrosses at sea. Bird Conservation 10-09 and 10-17, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. International 18:S13–S29. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northeast Regional Diamond, S. L. 2004. Bycatch quotas in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp Office. 2013. NOAA Fisheries Sea Scallop fishery monitoring. trawl fishery: can they work? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fish- Available: www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/scal.htm. (February 2013). eries 14:207–237. O’Keefe, C. E., G. R. DeCelles, D. Georgianna, K. D. E. Stokesbury, DuPaul, W. D., and D. B. Rudders. 2010. Abundance and distribution and S. X. Cadrin. 2010. Confronting the bycatch issue: an incen- of Sea Scallops and Yellowtail Flounder during the 2009 VIMS/ tive-led approach to maximizing yield in the US Sea Scallop fish- industry cooperative survey of the Nantucket Lightship Closed ery. Pages 1–9 in Proceedings of the 2010 ICES Annual Science Area (NLCA). Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Marine Re- Conference. ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. source Report No. 2010-2, Gloucester Point, Virginia. O’Keefe, C. E., and K. D. E. Stokesbury. 2009. From bust to boom: Gauvin, J. R., K. Haflinger, and M. Nerini. 1996. Implementation of a the success of industry collaboration in U.S. Sea Scallop research. voluntary bycatch avoidance program in the flatfish fisheries of Pages 1–12 in Proceedings of the 2009 ICES annual Science Con- the eastern Bering Sea. University of Alaska, Alaska Sea Grant ference. ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. Program, Sea Grant Program Report 96-03, Fairbanks. Pascoe, S. 1997. Bycatch management and the economics of discard- Hall, M. A., D. L. Alverson, and K. I. Metuzals. 2000. By-catch: prob- ing. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 370, Food and Agricul- lems and solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 41:204–219. ture Organization, Rome. Johnson, T. R., and W. L. T. van Densen. 2007. Benefits and organi- Pastoors, M. A., A. D. Rijnsdorp, and F. A. Van Beek. 2000. Effects of zation of cooperative research for fisheries management. ICES a partially closed area in the North Sea (“plaice box”) on stock Journal of Marine Science 64:834–840. development of plaice. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:1014– Kaplan, I. M., and B. J. McCay. 2004. Cooperative research, co-man- 1022. agement and the social dimension of fisheries science and man- Pinkerton, E., and D. N. Edwards. 2009. The elephant in the room: agement. Marine Policy 28:257–258. the hidden costs of leasing individual transferable fishing quota. Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: an update. Marine Policy 33:707–713. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 470, Food and Agriculture Pinto da Silva, P., and A. Kitts. 2006. Collaborative fisheries manage- Organization, Rome. ment in the Northeast U.S.: emerging initiatives and future direc- Melgey, J. H. 2010. A Petersen tagging experiment to estimate popula- tions. Marine Policy 30:832–841. tion size of Yellowtail Flounder in a closed area on Georges Bank. Powell, E. N., A. J. Bonner, B. Muller, and E. A. Bochenek. 2004. Master’s thesis. University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. Assessment of the effectiveness of scup bycatch-reduction regula- Murray, K. T., A. J. Read, and A. R. Solow. 2000. The use of time/ tions in the Loligo squid fishery. Journal of Environmental Man- area closures to reduce bycatches of harbour porpoises: lessons agement 71:155–167. from the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery. Journal of Cetacean Salomon, A. K., S. K. Gaichas, O. P. Jensen, V. N. Agostini, N. A. Research and Management 2(2):135–141. Sloan, J. Rice, T. R. McClanahan, M. H. Ruckelshaus, P. S. Levin, NEFMC (New England Fishery Management Council). 1999. Frame- N. K. Dulvy, and E. A. Babcock. 2011. Bridging the divide be- work Adjustment 11 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Man- tween fisheries and marine conservation science. Bulletin of Ma- agement Plan and Framework Adjustment 29 to the Northeast rine Science 87(2):251–274. Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. New England Fishery Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry, 3rd edition. W.H. Free- Management Council, Newburyport, Massachusetts. man and Company, New York. ———. 2004. Final Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fish- Stokesbury, K. D. E., B. P. Harris, M. C. Marino II, and J. I. Nogueira. ery Management Plan with a supplemental environmental impact 2004. Estimation of Sea Scallop abundance using a video survey statement, regulatory impact review and regulatory flexibility in off-shore USA waters. Journal of Shellfish Research 23:33–44. analysis. New England Fishery Management Council, Newbury- U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric port, Massachusetts. Administration, and National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. ———. 2007. Framework 19 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP includ- Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, ing an environmental assessment, and initial regulatory flexibility as amended through January 12, 2007. Public Law 94-265. analysis and stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE) re- Valdemarsen, J. W., and P. Suuronen. 2003. Modifying fishing gear port. New England Fishery Management Council, Newburyport, to achieve ecosystem objectives. Pages 321–341 in M. Sinclair Massachusetts. and G. Valdimarsson, editors. Responsible fisheries in the marine ———. 2010. Addendum to Framework Adjustment 44 to the North- ecosystem. FAO and CABI International Publishing, Wallingford, east Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and its environ- U.K. mental assessment. New England Fishery Management Council, Watson, J., D. Foster, S. Epperly, and A. Shah. 2003. Experiments in Newburyport, Massachusetts. the Western Atlantic northeast distant waters to evaluate sea turtle ———. 2012. DRAFT Framework 24 to the Scallop FMP and Frame- mitigation measures in the pelagic longline fishery. National Ma- work 49 to the Multispecies FMP including a draft environmen- rine Fisheries Service report on experiments conducted in 2001– tal assessment (EA), an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and 2003. National Marine Fisheries Service, Pascagoula, Mississippi. stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE Report). New

444 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org FEATURE

Prospects for Fishery-Induced Collapse of Invasive Asian Carp in the Illinois River

Iyob Tsehaye and Matthew Catalano Prospectos de un colapso inducido por Quantitative Fisheries Center, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, pesca en la carpa asiática del Río ­Illinois ­Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI RESUMEN: . La carpa asiática amenaza con invadir el Greg Sass Lago Michigan a través del sistema de vías acuáticas del Illinois River Biological Station, Illinois Natural History Survey, Havana, IL área de Chicago, lo cual podría acarrear serias consecuen- cias en las tramas tróficas de los grandes lagos. Además David Glover de los esfuerzos llevados a cabo para impedir el ingreso de Center for Fisheries, Aquaculture, & Aquatic Sciences, Southern Illinois estos peces al Lago Michigan mediante barreras eléctricas, University, ­Carbondale, IL el estado de Illinois ha iniciado un programa de pesca en Brian Roth el Río Illinois, cuya finalidad es reducir la densidad po- blacional a través de una pesca comercial intensiva. En Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 480 ­Wilson Road, Room 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI este estudio se exploran los prospectos de un colapso de 48824. E-mail: [email protected] la carpa asiática por medio de un régimen de pesca inten- siva. Sobre la base de un meta-análisis de datos demográfi- cos, se desarrolla un modelo de simulación dinámica para comparar el desempeño de estrategias de explotación tanto ABSTRACT: Invasive Asian Carp are threatening to enter reales como alternativas para el Río Illinois. Las proyec- Lake Michigan through the Chicago Area Waterway System, ciones del modelo sugieren que, de mantenerse las tasas with potentially serious consequences for Great Lakes food de captura por debajo de 0.7 o si la pesca continua siendo webs. Alongside efforts to keep these fishes from entering Lake selectiva a tallas (dirigiéndose a peces >500 mm o <500 Michigan with electric barriers, the state of Illinois initiated mm) o a especies (carpa cabezona), entonces es poco prob- a fishing program aimed at reducing their densities through able colapsar la carpa asiática en el Río Illinois, aunque intensive commercial exploitation on the Illinois River. In this la biomasa se puede reducir considerablemente. Se argu- study, we explore prospects for the “collapse” of Asian Carp menta que, pese a lo anterior, es posible lograr el nivel in the Illinois River through intensive fishing. Based on a de esfuerzo pesquero predicho por el modelo, necesario meta-analysis of demographic data, we developed a dynamic para colapsar las poblaciones de la carpa asiática, si la simulation model to compare the performance of existing and pesca comercial se expande y se combina con incentivos alternative removal strategies for the Illinois River. Our model económicos con tal de mejorar la selectividad a la talla y projections suggest that Asian Carp in the Illinois River are un- a las especies objetivo. likely to collapse if existing harvest rates are kept below 0.7 or fishing continues to be size selective (targeting only fish >500 mm or <500 mm) or species selective (targeting mostly Bighead to ­reduce abundance or limit spread of invasive species into Carp), although their biomasses could be greatly reduced. We new systems (Lodge et al. 2006; Keller et al. 2007, 2008). For argue that it would still be possible to achieve fishing effort example, the National Park Service has developed a Lake Trout targets predicted by our model to collapse the Asian Carp popu- (Salvelinus namaycush) suppression program in Yellowstone lations if efforts to expand are combined Lake with the aim to rehabilitate native Cutthroat Trout (On- with economic incentives to improve size selectivity and species corhynchus clarkii bouvieri; Syslo et al. 2011). Similarly, the targeting. Great Lakes Fishery Commission has implemented a binational integrated pest management program in the Great Lakes to con- INTRODUCTION trol invasive Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), thereby al- lowing recovery of native fishes impaired by their predation Invasive species have long been recognized as a major (Jones et al. 2009). Because future biological invasion rates are cause of decline of native freshwater species and loss of bio- predicted to increase (Lodge et al. 2006), similar large-scale re- diversity worldwide, with biological invasions and associated movals of invasive species are likely to be considered for many economic and ecological effects growing annually (Vitousek other ecosystems (Kolar and Lodge 2002). et al. 1997; Lodge et al. 2006; Jelks et al. 2008). At current invasion rates, nonnative species are predicted to have the most With many of its native populations already imperiled by adverse effects on biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems in the nonnative species, the Laurentian Great Lakes face a new threat next century (Sala et al. 2000). Given the serious threat that of invasion from Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) biological invasions pose to ecosystem structure and func- and Silver Carp (H. molitrix), highly efficient filter-feeding tion, management agencies have developed control programs species collectively known as Asian Carp (Chapman and Hoff

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 445 2011). In light of evidence of global Asian Carp introductions ­populations and examined how size- and species-selective har- leading to decreased fish diversity and abundances, an Asian vesting may affect efficacy of these removals. Carp invasion of the Great Lakes is feared to adversely affect native populations, with potentially serious consequences for METHODS aquatic food webs and a fishing industry valued at $7 billion annually (Schrank et al. 2003; Irons et al. 2007; Southwick As- Population Dynamics sociates, Inc. 2008; Sampson et al. 2009). Asian Carp were first introduced into North America in the early 1970s to control We assessed the population dynamics of Silver (SC) and algae in aquaculture and municipal wastewater treatment facili- Bighead Carp (BC) using hierarchical Bayesian meta-analyses ties (Kelly et al. 2011). Shortly thereafter, they escaped confine- of life history data collected from the Illinois and middle Missis- ment and established naturally reproducing populations in the sippi rivers. The data were obtained from all known published Mississippi River (Chick and Pegg 2001). Since that time, their and unpublished studies of SC and BC population dynamics in abundance has increased exponentially, and both species have these systems (Table 1). The life history characteristics exam- migrated up the Mississippi River and its tributaries (Sass et ined were longevity, natural mortality, growth, maturity, and the al. 2010; Chapman and Hoff 2011; Irons et al. 2011). There are strength of compensatory density dependence in recruitment. now dense populations of both species throughout the Illinois River, threatening to enter Lake Michigan through the Chicago Longevity was assumed to be the age of the oldest indi- Area Waterway System (Cooke and Hill 2010; Sass et al. 2010; vidual in our data, which were derived from pectoral fin spine Cudmore and Mandrak 2011). readings. Natural mortality (M) rates were estimated using four methods, including catch curve analysis (Chapman and Robson Given political resistance to closure of navigation locks on 1960) and three empirical methods relating natural mortality the Chicago Area Waterway System, management agencies are to demographic and/or environmental parameters (Pauly 1980; 2 trying to prevent invasion of the Great Lakes by Asian Carp Hoenig 1983; Jensen 1996). Growth parameters (L∞, K, t0, σ ) with electric barriers built on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship were estimated by fitting hierarchical Bayesian von Bertalanffy Canal (Moy et al. 2011). However, these barriers may not be growth models to individual length–age data from eight studies 100% effective at repelling Asian Carp; traces of environmental for each species, with study treated as a random effect: DNA have been detected in Lake Michigan, and a live Bighead Carp was captured beyond the barriers in June 2010 (Jerde et −K (a −t ) = − i i 0,i ε , (1) al. 2011; Mahon et al. 2011). Along with the use of electric La,i L∞,i (1 e ) a,i ­barriers, the state of Illinois has recently developed a fishing program aimed at reducing Asian Carp densities through in- where L∞,i is the asymptotic length (mm) for study i, with each tensive commercial exploitation on the Illinois River, with the study representing a unique combination of investigator, year, ultimate goal being to minimize propagule pressure on the elec- and location; Ki is the growth coefficient, t0,i is the time at zero tric barriers (Garvey et al. 2012). Pursuant to this program, the length; and εa,i are age- and study-specific random errors rep- Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity resenting individual variation in length at age. We assumed signed an agreement in 2010 to export 13.6–22.7 million kg of that L∞,i and Ki were independent and log-normally distributed Asian Carp annually to the People’s Republic of China, where across studies. For both parameters, we assumed uninforma- they have more commercial value than in North America (Gar- tive log-normal priors (mean = 0; σ2 = 1.0 × 106). The data sets vey et al. 2012). Although commercial exploitation is expected we used were uninformative on t0 because few observations of to lead to a substantial reduction in Asian Carp biomass, the age-1 fish existed, and Asian Carp grow rapidly in their first fishing program was developed without adequate understand- year. This lack of information resulted in unrealistically high ing of Asian Carp population dynamics, which is essentially a L∞ and unrealistically low K estimates. Thus, we allowed an prerequisite for the development of an effective fishing policy. informative prior on t0,i. The prior was based on the mean and variance of estimates found on .org (SC: n = 6, mean = Garvey et al. (2006) performed a yield-per-recruit analysis −0.067 years, σ = 0.027; BC: n = 5, mean = 0.042, σ = 0.049), for Asian Carp in the upper Mississippi River and found that which were mostly from studies within the native range of these high exploitation rates targeting small (<200 mm) individu- species. Probability of maturity (mi) was estimated as a func- als would be required to reduce abundance by 50%. However, tion of fish length by fitting Bayesian binomial logit models their analysis did not account for density-dependent effects on to pooled female SC and BC maturity data from three studies recruitment and uncertainty in demographic parameters, such conducted in the Illinois River: as growth and natural mortality. In this study, we obtained im- proved estimates of demographic parameters with reduced un- logit(mi ) = C0 + C1Li , (2) certainties using a meta-analysis of multiple data sets on key life history characteristics of Asian Carp in the Illinois and middle where Li is the observed total length (mm) of a female fish i,

Mississippi rivers. We then developed a dynamic simulation C0 is the intercept, and C1 is the slope. Length at 50% maturity model to compare the effectiveness of various harvest policies was determined as −C0/C1. Observed maturity (1 = mature, 0 = at reducing Asian Carp biomass in the Illinois River. Finally, immature) was determined from macroscopic visual inspection we explored exploitation rates necessary to “collapse” these and the gonadosomatic index (100 × Ovary weight/Ovary-free

446 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org Table 1. Summary of data sets used for analyses of Silver and Bighead Carp life history parameters. Each data set represents a unique combi- nation of investigator, year, and river reach. River abbreviations are as follows: IR = Illinois River, MMR = Middle Mississippi River. The sample size (N; number of fish examined) is indicated for each study. Species Analyses Investigator Year River (reach) N SC Growth and natural mortality 1 2004 IR (Alton) 26 1 2005 IR (Alton) 49

2 2010 IR (Alton) 102

2 2010 IR (La Grange) 287 2 2010 IR (Peoria) 233 2 2010 IR (Starved Rock) 14

4 2007 IR (La Grange) 145

5 2003 MMR (Pool 27) 147 Maturity 3 2008 IR (La Grange) 187 1 2004 IR (Alton) 31 1 2005 IR (Alton) 20 BC Growth and natural mortality 1 2004 IR (Alton) 78 1 2005 IR (Alton) 78 6 1998 MMR (Pool 27) 32 6 1999 MMR (Pool 27) 4 2 2010 IR (Peoria) 2 1 2004 MMR (Pool 27) 2 6 1998 MMR (Pool 26) 12 6 1999 MMR (Pool 26) 8 Maturity 3 2008 IR (La Grange) 80 1 2004 IR (Alton) 81 1 2005 IR (Alton) 33 Investigators: 1. K. Baerwaldt, unpublished, Southern Illinois University; 2. D. Glover and J. Garvey, unpublished, Southern Illinois University (Garvey et al. 2012); 3. E. Trone, unpublished, Illinois River Biological Station, Illinois Natural History Survey; 4. LTRMP, Illinois River Biological Station, Illinois Natural History Survey (USGS 2012); 5. C. Williamson and D. Garvey (Williamson and Garvey 2005); 6. M. Nuevo, R. J. Sheehan and P. S. Wills (Nuevo et al. 2004). fish weight). Females were assumed mature if the gonadoso- commercially exploited fish stocks (Myers et al. 1999). More matic index exceeded 1%, a cutoff consistent with macroscopic ­specifically, stock–recruitment parameters for SC and BC were observations on a subset of individuals. Our analysis was based calculated using empirical relationships that predict Ricker on data collected from May to August because BC gonads be- stock–recruitment parameters from maximum lifetime repro- come very small in winter and hence are difficult to detect. ductive rate (α ˆ ) adjusted for the expected lifetime spawner bio- Pooled data were used for maturity analysis because only three mass per recruit of a population at carrying capacity (unfished) studies were available and few observations of immature fish equilibrium (Walters and Martell 2004). Probability distribu- existed for two of the data sets. All Bayesian models (growth, tions of stock–recruitment parameters were obtained by calcu- maturity, and catch curve) were fit using Markov chain Monte lating Ricker’s α and β for each of the maximum reproductive Carlo simulation using a Gibbs sampler as implemented in rates drawn by sampling with replacement (i.e., bootstrapping) WinBUGS (Spiegelhalter et al. 2004). Posterior distributions of from the meta-analysis estimates of α ˆ for the 208 species. A σ2 parameters were assessed after 500,000 Markov chain Monte measure of interannual recruitment variation ( R ) and associ- Carlo samples and a burn-in period of 20,000, with a thinning ated uncertainty was obtained by resampling with replacement 2 interval of 100 samples. Convergence was assessed with the from meta-analysis estimates of σ R for 54 commercially ex- Gelman-Rubin statistic and by inspecting trace plots. ploited marine fish stocks (Goodwin­ et al. 2006).

The strength of compensatory density dependence in re- Simulation Model cruitment is typically assessed by fitting stock–recruitment relationships to recruit and spawner abundance data. How- To evaluate the performance of alternative exploitation ever, data on BC and SC in the Illinois and Mississippi rivers rates at achieving removal targets, we constructed an age-struc- were not sufficient to estimate stock–recruitment relationships. tured dynamic simulation model that forecasted biomass and Therefore, we obtained estimates of Ricker’s stock–recruitment harvest of SC and BC over a 25-year time horizon in the Illinois (Ricker 1954) parameters for SC and BC based on the strength River under different fishing scenarios. We used 10% of un- of compensatory density dependence in recruitment drawn fished biomass as a removal target, below which the population from a published meta-analysis of stock–recruit data from 208 was considered to have collapsed (Worm et al. 2009). At 10%

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 447 of unfished biomass, recruitment is presumed to be severely vest strategies by repeating the 25-year simulations for 1,000 reduced, and a population would no longer play a substantial combinations of (a) stock–recruitment parameters, (b) maturity, ecological role (Worm et al. 2009). (c) natural mortality, and (d) growth parameters, which were taken from the Bayesian posterior distributions or bootstrapped Numerical recruitment to the first age-class was generated samples of parameters from the demographic analyses and lit- separately for each species from a Ricker stock–recruitment re- erature values. For each of the 1,000 simulated time series, we lationship, which included stochasticity to allow for interannual computed proportional change in biomass by dividing initial recruitment variation. The average unfished recruitment was set biomass (i.e., year 1) by the final biomass (i.e., year 25). The at an arbitrary value of 1.0 because (1) the absolute magnitude distribution of proportional biomass change across the 1,000 of abundance for these species was unknown for the Illinois simulations was evaluated for each fishing scenario. The prob- River and (2) population scaling was not relevant to our analysis ability of collapse was then computed as the percentage of because we evaluated the effects of proportional removals on simulations in which final biomass was less than 10% of the relative changes in biomass. For each species, numbers at age initial. For each fishing scenario, we visually inspected time after recruitment were calculated over time using an accounting series plots of biomass to determine the number of years needed equation of the form: to cause population collapse.

−M N a+1,t+1 = N a,t e (1− vaU ) , (3) Data from LTRMP suggest that SC constitute a larger pro- portion of Asian Carp biomass in the Illinois River (Sass et al. −M where e is survival in the absence of fishing mortality, va is 2010). Therefore, in the absence of species-selective fishing, age-specific vulnerability to fishing, and U is time-invariant the response to fishing of the aggregate Asian Carp population ­annual exploitation rate. Biomass at age was obtained by mul- is expected to more closely resemble the SC response to fishing. tiplying abundances by an estimate of mean individual mass at However, harvest data from the Illinois Department of Natu- age, which was calculated as a power function of length at age ral Resources suggest that existing fish targeting strategies are obtained from the literature (Irons et al. 2007). more selective toward BC than SC, with BC catches compris- ing nearly 90% of current commercial harvest of Asian Carp

By incorporating U and va into the accounting equation, the (Irons et al. 2007). The preference for BC may be due to their simulation model allowed us to evaluate changes to the Asian larger size, easier capture (i.e., trammel netting and gill netting), Carp populations under different combinations of (a) exploita- or perhaps a higher value. Thus, to mimic existing fisheries, tion rates (0.5 to 0.9 in 0.1 increments) and (b) vulnerability we ran an additional set of simulations assuming that BC of a schedules (all size classes fully targeted by the fishery, only fish given age were twice as vulnerable to existing fishing methods >500 mm targeted or only fish <500 mm targeted). We assumed compared to SC. These scenarios allowed for an evaluation of that vulnerability of each species to harvest was determined the efficacy of commercial removals if current species targeting solely by their respective length at age relative to the target size practices persisted into the future. threshold (i.e., 500 mm) and not by any other inherent charac- teristic of the species (e.g., locations relative to fishing areas, RESULTS commercial value). Populations of both species were modeled separately over time and aggregate Asian Carp biomass was cal- Population Dynamics culated by summation. Initial species composition was assumed to be 82% SC and 18% BC based on their relative biomasses in Maximum age (longevity) estimates of wild SC and BC the 2006–2010 collections of the Long Term Resource Monitor- from outside of North America suggest that these species can ing Program (LTRMP; U.S. Geological Survey 2012) from the reach ages of 7 to 16 years (Johal et al. 2001; Kolar et al. 2007). La Grange Reach of the Illinois River and Pool 26 of the Missis- Despite sufficient time since colonization (late 1980s–early sippi River. Finally, because no data existed to inform whether 1990s), the oldest fish observed in our data set were 7 years current population size has reached equilibrium or what current old for both species, which is close to the maximum observed Asian Carp population size is relative to system carrying capac- age from the Mississippi River basin (Schrank and Guy 2002; ity, we evaluated population responses to fishing assuming that Nuevo et al. 2004; Williamson and Garvey 2005). Although initial (i.e., current; 2012) Asian Carp biomass was (a) already pectoral fin spine readings may have underestimated maximum at carrying capacity equilibrium; (b) 75% of carrying capac- age, this would have a minimal effect on our estimates of popu- ity equilibrium; and (c) 50% of carrying capacity equilibrium. lation dynamics parameters. Other life history parameter esti- The most recent biomass estimates from the three lower reaches mates differed between the two species (Table 2). SC reached a (Peoria, La Grange, and Alton) of the Illinois River were 1,075 smaller asymptotic length than BC, but both species approached MT (95% confidence interval = 950–1,200 MT) for SC and 338 asymptotic length at nearly the same rate (Table 2). BC reached MT (95% confidence interval = 298–377 MT) for BC based on maturity at a larger size than SC, with their length at 50% matu- over 3,423 km of hydroacoustics transects, which represented rity much higher than that for SC (Table 2). Differences in size about 0.39% of total river volume (Garvey et al. 2012). at maturity and length at age resulted in substantial differences in maturity at age between the two species. We estimated that We accounted for uncertainty in Asian Carp population 38% (±20%) of age-2 and 61% (±20%) of age-3 SC were ma- dynamics when evaluating the performance of alternative har- ture, whereas 3% (±4%) of age-2 and 21% (±15%) of age-3 BC

448 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org Table 2. Growth and maturity parameter and natural mortality estimates (and associated uncertainties) from meta-analyses of Bighead and Sil- ver Carp population dynamics in the Illinois and Middle Mississippi Rivers.

Species Analysis Variable Expected value Median Lower 95% confidence interval Upper 95% confidence interval SE

SC Growth L 802.826 793.700 628.663 1,020.050 98.150 ∞ K 0.445 0.435 0.255 0.702 0.109

t0 −0.230 −0.232 −0.351 −0.115 0.062

σl 0.103 0.103 0.098 0.107 0.002

Maturity C0 −6.226 −6.104 −9.158 −3.734 1.410

C1 0.011 0.011 0.008 0.016 0.002

L50% 545.341 548.399 483.881 590.915 27.452

Natural mortality M 0.684 0.654 0.298 1.258 0.255

Pauly 0.363 0.310 0.093 0.930 0.226

Hoenig 0.733 0.652 0.243 1.642 0.402

Jensen 0.667 0.652 0.383 1.053 0.164

CC 0.984 0.975 0.778 1.241 0.121

Length–weight a* 5.082 × 10−6 NA NA NA NA

b* 3.122 NA NA NA NA

Stock–recruitment α 19.152 6.716 0.605 128.51 45.940

β 2.829 1.313 0.181 17.205 5.582

BC Growth L∞ 982.938 983.250 890.170 1,086.025 49.071

K 0.433 0.418 0.304 0.668 0.087

t0 −0.015 −0.012 −0.202 0.178 0.097

σl 0.104 0.103 0.094 0.115 0.005

Maturity C0 −15.859 −15.770 −21.762 −10.290 2.902

C1 0.020 0.020 0.013 0.028 0.004

L50% 784.562 785.749 762.082 802.780 10.454

Natural mortality M 0.654 0.631 0.293 1.244 0.239

Pauly 0.333 0.281 0.093 0.868 0.203

Hoenig 0.723 0.632 0.236 1.653 0.396

Jensen 0.650 0.626 0.456 1.001 0.131

CC 0.885 0.875 0.680 1.110 0.114

Length–weight a* 1.452 × 10−5 NA NA NA NA

b* 2.952 NA NA NA NA

Stock–recruitment α 21.476 6.035 0.538 121.422 119.224

β 3.272 1.333 0.190 14.897 16.797

† Both Recruitment σR 0.542 0.500 0.230 1.240 0.233

Parameter symbols: L∞ = asymptotic length; K = growth coefficient; t0 = time at zero length; σl = standard deviation in length at age (log scale); C0 = maturity inter- cept; C1 = maturity slope; L50% = length at 50% maturity (−C0/C1); M = instantaneous natural mortality rate (average of four methods); a = length–weight coefficient;

b = length–weight exponent; α = initial slope of Ricker stock–recruitment relationship; β = density-dependent parameter of stock–recruitment relationship; σR = standard deviation of recruitment variability (log scale). *Irons et al. (2007) †Goodwin et al. (2006)

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 449 were mature. Instantaneous natural mortality rate, given as an their earlier maturity and smaller length at age, resulting in average of estimates from the four methods, did not vary much lower overall vulnerability to fishing in the size-selective sce- between the two species (Table 2). Given these estimates of narios (Figure 1). When all age classes were assumed to be fully mortality, maturity, and von Bertalanffy growth parameters for vulnerable to harvest, the SC and BC populations had a 60% each species, median Ricker parameters were estimated at α = and 68% probability of collapse at exploitation rates of 0.7 and 6.716 and β = 1.313 for SC and α = 6.035 and β = 1.333 for BC. 0.6, respectively (Figure 1), and the aggregate population had a 65% probability of being reduced to 10% or less of its ini- Population Response to Fishing tial biomass at an exploitation rate of 0.7. Under size-selective harvesting that targeted either small (<500 mm) or large (>500 Although population responses to fishing were predicted mm) Asian Carp, both populations were less likely to collapse to be highly variable due to high uncertainty in life history pa- at an exploitation rate of 0.7, with the probability of collapse rameters for both species (especially in stock–recruitment pa- for the aggregate population estimated at 25% (Figure 1). Given rameters), underlying trends were evident. In general, model the relative body sizes of SC and BC, targeting smaller fish was predictions indicated that exploitation rates must be maintained predicted to have stronger effects on SC than BC. With initial at considerably high levels to collapse the aggregate Asian Carp biomasses below carrying capacity, both SC and BC popula- population. However, higher exploitation rates are required to tions would continue to increase if subjected to low levels of cause the SC population to collapse, which is attributable to exploitation targeting only small or large fish (e.g., when only

Figure 1. Proportions (median, first, and third quartiles) of initial biomass remaining at year 25 for Silver Carp, Bighead Carp, and the aggregate Asian Carp population in the Illinois River as a function of exploitation rate under different vulnerability schedules (all size classes fully targeted, only fish ­>500 mm targeted and only fish <500 mm targeted) and assumptions of current population size relative to population size at carrying capacity (popu- lation at carrying capacity equilibrium, eql; population at 75% of carrying capacity equilibrium, 75% of eql; and population at 50% of carrying capacity equilibrium, 50% of eql).

450 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org Figure 2. Proportions (median, first, and third quartiles) of initial biomass remaining at year 25 for Silver Carp, Bighead Carp, and the aggregate Asian Carp population in the Illinois River as a function of exploitation rate, assuming all size classes were equally targeted, but Bighead Carp are twice as vulnerable to existing fishing methods as Silver Carp, and under different assumptions of current population size relative to population size at carrying capacity equilibrium (population at carrying capacity equilibrium, eql; population at 75% of carrying capacity equilibrium, 75% of eql; and population at 50% of carrying capacity equilibrium, 50% of eql). (Note that all exploitation rates are in relation to aggregate population size, not individual population size; initial species composition was 82% Silver Carp and 18% Bighead Carp.)

Figure 3. Silver and Bighead Carp biomass trajectories (median, first, and third quartiles) under different levels of exploitation rate (U; 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9), assuming all sizes were fully vulnerable to fishing. fish >500 mm were targeted and U = 0.5; Figure 1). If all sizes initial harvesting), with biomass stabilizing in subsequent years were assumed fully targeted, both populations would decrease (Figure 3). from their initial biomasses irrespective of assumptions of ini- tial population size relative to carrying capacity. DISCUSSION

Our results indicated that even at an exploitation rate that Previous studies based on the LTRMP and fishery-depen- would collapse the BC population with a probability of almost dent data suggest that both Asian Carp populations in the Il- 100%, the aggregate Asian Carp biomass could on average be linois River have increased considerably in recent years (Chick reduced to at most 50% of the initial biomass, with probability and Pegg 2001; Sass et al. 2010; Irons et al. 2011). The SC pop- of collapse less than 25% (Figure 2). Although predicted popu- ulation has experienced exponential growth since 2000, with lation responses to fishing varied between the two species, bio- the subadult and adult population size in the La Grange Reach mass projections indicated that the largest population responses of the Illinois River estimated at 2,500 fish per kilometer river to fishing occurred during the first few years (1–5 years after length in the late 2000s (Sass et al. 2010). Although information­

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 451 on population growth of BC is limited, Illinois commercial har- Due to their higher reproductive rate and larger population vest of this species suggests exponential population growth size, a higher exploitation rate would be required to achieve de- since the 1990s (Irons et al. 2007). With the exception of infor- sired removal targets for SC than for BC. Thus, continued con- mation on body condition of adult Asian Carp (mass at length) centration of fishing effort on BC (for their market value or ease being lower than historically reported (Garvey et al. 2012), no of capture) will undermine the prospects for achieving desired data existed to inform what current Asian Carp population size removal targets. Therefore, just as for improving size selectivity might be relative to system carrying capacity. Thus, unless an of fishing, the stronger economic incentive to target BC needs effective control program is put in place, it is possible that Asian to be reversed to achieve the level of fishing effort needed to Carp densities in the Illinois River will continue to increase and collapse the aggregate Asian Carp population, possibly through raise the threat of invasions of the Great Lakes. offering incentives to harvest more SC. Overall, the species- and size-selective nature of existing Asian Carp fisheries highlights Although operating models have been used for several ex- the need to realign economic incentives with fishery manage- ploited fish stocks to develop policies that objectively account ment goals to improve the prospects for the collapse of Asian for uncertainty in key fishery parameters (Walters and Martell Carp in the Illinois River. 2004), few invasive species control programs have followed a model-based evaluation of alternative removal strategies. In Though our Asian Carp simulation model could serve as this study, we developed a simulation model for SC and BC a valuable management tool for simulating the consequences that explicitly accounted for uncertainty in key demographic of management decisions for SC and BC removals from the parameters when comparing the performance of alternative Illinois River, the process of evaluating population responses harvest polices at reducing Asian Carp biomass in the Illinois to fishing could also help identify areas of critical uncertainty River. Based on our model predictions and evidence of Asian in the population dynamics and/or fisheries of Asian Carp. For Carp collapse elsewhere, including in their native Yangtze River example, our analysis showed that recruitment dynamics were (Li et al. 1990), we argue that it may be possible to collapse a critical source of uncertainty in predicting Asian Carp popula- the SC and BC populations in the Illinois River if efforts to tion responses to fishing. Only one study to date has published a expand commercial fishing of Asian Carp are combined with stock–recruitment relationship for Asian Carp (Hoff et al. 2011). economic incentives to capture a wider range of fish sizes and However, the Hoff et al. (2011) study was based entirely on increase targeting of SC. Our predictions showed that targeting catch-per-effort data, which cannot be used directly for assess- all size classes of Asian Carp was the most effective strategy ing recruitment dynamics without knowledge of differences in at achieving removal targets, which is consistent with results catchability among adults and recruits. It was for this reason that from the equilibrium yield-per-recruit analysis by Garvey et al. we employed a literature-based approach to obtain estimates of (2006). Although our simulation results suggested that target- Ricker stock–recruitment parameters. Unsurprisingly, our ap- ing only small or large individuals would decrease the prob- proach resulted in a high degree of uncertainty, which appro- ability of achieving removal targets, size-selective fishing is priately reflected our level of understanding of the recruitment the strategy that is most likely to be implemented in practice; dynamics of these species in the Mississippi River basin. indeed, targeting larger-sized Asian Carp is the strategy that has been proposed by the commercial fishing industry (Garvey et Finally, though our population model could already be used al. 2012). Small Asian Carp are less desirable because of their to develop effective removal policies for the Illinois River, it lower commercial value under current market conditions. In could also be readily adapted to allow for the development of addition, harvest of smaller individuals could be economically temporally or spatially explicit fishing policies by incorporating less viable due to higher rates of bycatch and fouling in the information on temporal and spatial distribution of Asian Carp smaller-mesh gears used to catch these sizes. Thus, to improve in the river. While information on spatial distribution of Asian the effectiveness of existing fishing practices, strong economic Carp could allow managers to improve the efficacy of existing incentives will be required to encourage less size-selective fish- removal strategies by directing fishing and other control efforts ing. Economic incentives to target small fish may come from toward areas of fish aggregations, data on interannual variabil- increased use of Asian Carp for fish meal, liquid fertilizer, and/ ity in fish abundance could be used to vary fishing effort sea- or fish oil products. To test the effectiveness of such a strategy, sonally in order to improve removal impacts. Indeed, there are Southern Illinois University actually initiated a pilot fishing ongoing studies to gather information on the spatial and tem- program encouraging fishers by providing monetary incentives poral distributions of Asian Carp in the Illinois River, includ- to harvest up to 1.36 million kg of Asian Carp of all sizes to be ing hydroacoustic and telemetry studies to quantify Asian Carp converted to fish meal (Garvey et al. 2012). Similar to our sug- movement from the adjacent Mississippi River into the Illinois gestions for improving Asian Carp removals from the Illinois River and reconstruct their interannual patterns of distribution River, changing the size selectivity of fishing was also recom- (DeGrandchamp et al. 2008; Garvey et al. 2012). By allowing mended to increase the efficacy of Lake Trout suppression strat- us to evaluate the effectiveness of various harvest location and egies in Yellowstone Lake, where targeting mature Lake Trout timing scenarios, such additional information from recent and or undeveloped embryos was predicted to yield better outcomes ongoing studies could be used to develop more refined removal (Syslo et al. 2011). policies, thereby improving the prospects for the collapse of Asian Carp in the Illinois River.

452 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Irons, K. S., G. G. Sass, M. A. McClelland, and J. D. Stafford. 2007. Reduced condition factor of two native fish species coincident This study was supported by funding through Cooperative with invasion of non-native Asian carps in the Illinois River, Agreement No. 30181AJ071 between the U.S. Fish and Wild- U.S.A. Is this evidence for competition and reduced fitness? Jour- nal of Fish Biology 71:258–273. life Service and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. We acknowledge additional financial support from the Fisheries Diaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. Mc- and Illinois Aquaculture Center, Southern Illinois University, Cormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Ren- Carbondale, through J. Garvey and from the Quantitative Fish- aud, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M. L. Warren. 2008. eries Center, Michigan State University, through M. Jones and Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and J. Bence. We are grateful to K. Baerwaldt, J. Garvey, and E. diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33:372–407. Trone for making available their Asian Carp life history data Jensen, A. L. 1996. Beverton and Holt life history invariants result from the Illinois and Middle Mississippi rivers. This is manu- from optimal trade-off of reproduction and survival. Canadian script 2013-09 of the Quantitative Fisheries Center at Michigan Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:820–822. Jerde, C. L., A. R. Mahon, W. L. Chadderton, and D. M. Lodge. 2011. State University. “Sight-unseen” detection of rare aquatic species using environ- mental DNA. Conservation Letters 4:150–157. REFERENCES Johal, M. S., H. R. Esmaeili, and K. K. Tandon. 2001. A comparison of back-calculated lengths of Silver Carp derived from bony struc- Chapman, D. G., and M. H. Hoff. 2011. Invasive Asian Carps in North tures. Journal of Fish Biology 59:1483–1493. America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Jones, M. L., B. J. Irwin, G. J. A. Hansen, H. A. Dawson, A. J. Treble, Chapman, D. G., and D. S. Robson. 1960. The analysis of a catch W. Liu, W. Dai, and J. R. Bence. 2009. An operating model for the curve. Biometrics 16:354–368. integrated pest management of Great Lakes Sea Lampreys. The Chick, J. H., and M. Pegg. 2001. Invasive Carp in the Mississippi River Open Fish Science Journal 2:59–73. Basin. Science 292:2250–2251. Keller, R. P., K. Frang, and D. M. Lodge. 2008. Preventing the spread Cooke, S. L., and W. R. Hill. 2010. Can filter-feeding Asian Carp in- of invasive species: economic benefits of intervention guided by vade the Laurentian Great Lakes? A bioenergetic modeling exer- ecological predictions. Conservation Biology 22:80–88. cise. Freshwater Biology 55:2138–2152. Keller, R. P., D. M. Lodge, and D. C. Finnoff. 2007. Risk assessment Cudmore, B., and N. E. Mandrak. 2011. Assessing the biological risk of for invasive species produces net bioeconomic benefits. Proceed- Asian Carps to Canada. Pages 15–30 in D. C. Chapman and M. H. ings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:203–207. Hoff, editors. Invasive Asian Carps in North America. American Kelly, A. M., C. R. Engle, M. L. Armstrong, M. Freeze, and A. J. Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Mitchell. 2011. History of introductions and governmental in- DeGrandchamp, K., J. Garvey, and R. Colombo. 2008. Movement and volvement in promoting the use of Grass, Silver, and Bighead habitat selection by invasive Asian Carps in a large river. Transac- carps. Pages 163–174 in D. C. Chapman and M. H. Hoff, editors. tions of the American Fisheries Society 137:45–56. Invasive Asian Carps in North America. American Fisheries So- Garvey, J. E., K. L. DeGrandchamp, and C. J. Williamson. 2006. ciety, Bethesda, Maryland. Growth, fecundity, and diets of Asian Carps in the Upper Missis- Kolar, C. S., D. C. Chapman, W. R. Courtenay, Jr., C. M. Housel, J. D. sippi River system. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Research and Williams, and D. P. Jennings. 2007. Bigheaded Carps: a biological Development Center, ANSRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC/ synopsis and environmental risk assessment. American Fisheries EL ANSRP-06), Vicksburg, Mississippi. Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Garvey, J. E., G. G. Sass, J. Trushenski, D. Glover, P. M. Charlebois, J. Kolar, C. S., and D. M. Lodge. 2002. Ecological predictions and risk Levengood, B. Roth, G. Whitledge, B. C. Small, S .J. Tripp, and assessment for alien fishes in North America. Science 298:1233– S. Secchi. 2012. Fishing down the Bighead and Silver carps: re- 1236. ducing the risk of invasion to the Great Lakes. Project completion Li, S. F., W. Lu, B. Zhou, M. Xu, and M. Ren. 1990. Status of fisher- report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Illinois Department of ies resources of Silver, Bighead, and Grass carp in the Yangtze Natural Resources. River, Pearl River, and Heilongjiang River. Freshwater Fisheries Goodwin, N. B., A. Grant, A. L. Perry, N. K. Dulvy, and J. D. Reyn- 6:15–20. olds. 2006. Life history correlates of density-dependent recruit- Lodge, D. M., S. Williams, H. J. MacIsaac, K. R. Hayes, B. Leung, S. ment in marine fishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Reichard, R. N. Mack, P. B. Moyle, M. Smith, D. A. Andow, J. T. Sciences 63:494–509. Carlton, and A. McMichael. 2006. Biological invasions: recom- Hoenig, J. M. 1983. Empirical use of longevity data to estimate mortal- mendations for U.S. policy and management. Ecological Applica- ity rates. Fishery Bulletin 82:898–903. tions 16:2035–2054. Hoff, M. H., M. A. Pegg, and K. S. Irons. 2011. Management implica- Mahon, A. R., C. L. Jerde, W. L. Chadderton, and D. M. Lodge. 2011. tions from a stock–recruit model for the Bighead Carp in por- Using environmental DNA to elucidate the Asian Carp (genus Hy- tions of the Illinois and Mississippi rivers. Pages 5–14 in D. C. pophthalmichthys) invasion front in the Chicago Area Waterway Chapman and M. H. Hoff, editors. Invasive Asian Carps in North System. Integrative and Comparative Biology 51:e1–e157. America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Moy, P. B., I. Polls, and J. M. Dettmers. 2011. The Chicago Sanitary Irons, K. S., G. G. Sass, M. A. McClelland, and T. M. O’Hara. 2011. and Ship Canal aquatic nuisance species dispersal barrier. Pages Bighead Carp invasion of the La Grange Reach of the Illinois 127–137 in D. C. Chapman and M. H. Hoff, editors. Invasive River: insight from the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. Asian Carps in North America. American Fisheries Society, Pages 31–50 in D. C. Chapman and M. H. Hoff, editors. Inva- Bethesda, Maryland. sive Asian Carps in North America. American Fisheries Society, Myers, R. A., K. G. Bowen, and N. J. Barrowman. 1999. Maximum Bethesda, Maryland. reproductive rate of fish at low population sizes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:2404–2419.

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 453 Nuevo, M., R. J. Sheehan, and P. S. Wills. 2004. Age and growth of the Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis in the middle Missis- sippi River. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 160:215–230. Pauly, D. 1980. On the interrelationships between natural mortality, growth parameters, and mean environmental temperature in 175 fish stocks. Journal du Conseil 39:175–192. Ricker, W. E. 1954. Stock and recruitment. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 11:559–623. Sala, O. E., F. S. Chapin, J. J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L. F. Huenneke, R. B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D. M. Lodge, H. A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N. L. Poff, M. T. Sykes, B. H. Walker, M. Walker, and D. H. Wall. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774. Sampson, S., J. Chick, and M. Pegg. 2009. Diet overlap among two Asian Carp and three native fishes in backwater lakes on the Il- linois and Mississippi rivers. Biological Invasions 11:483–496. Sass, G., T. Cook, K. Irons, M. McClelland, N. Michaels, T. M. O’Hara, and M. Stroub. 2010. A mark–recapture population estimate for invasive Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) in the La Grange Reach, Illinois River. Biological Invasions 12:433–436. Schrank, S. J., and C. S. Guy. 2002. Age, growth, and gonadal char- acteristics of adult Bighead Carp, Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, in the Lower Missouri River. Environmental Biology of Fishes 64:443–450. Schrank, S. J., C. S. Guy, and J. F. Fairchild. 2003. Competitive interac- tions between age-0 Bighead Carp and Paddlefish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:1222–1228. Southwick Associates, Inc. 2008. Today’s angler. American Sportfish- ing Association, Alexandria, Virginia. Spiegelhalter, D. J., A. Thomas, N. Best, and D. Lunn. 2004. Win- BUGS User Manual (version 1.4.1). MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK. Syslo, J. M., C. S. Guy, P. E. Bigelow, P. D. From the Archives Doepke, B. D. Ertel, and T. M. Koel. 2011. Response of non-na- I have stated enough to show the prospects tive Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) to 15 years of harvest in before us in the way of increasing, to Yellowstone Lake, Yellowstone National Park. Canadian Journal an almost unlimited degree, the food re- of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:2132–2145. sources of our country, and in rendering Syslo, J. M., C. S. Guy, P. E. Bigelow, P. D. Doepke, B. D. Ertel, and the productiveness of our waters, in this T. M. Koel. 2011. Response of non-native lake trout (Salvelinus respect, superior, acre to acre, to that namaycush) to 15 years of harvest in Yellowstone Lake, Yellow- of land. Of course, time and expenditure stone National Park. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic of money will be required, but the larger Sciences 68:2132–2145. the scale of operations the sooner and U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. Long Term Resource Monitoring Pro- more effectually the result will be ac- gram–Environmental Management Program (LTRMP-EMP). Available: http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/ltrmp.html. (September complished. There is also something still 2012). to be done by the United States in the Vitousek, P. M., C. M. D’Antonio, L. L. Loope, M. Rejmanek, and R. way of extending the area of cultivation Westbrooks. 1997. Introduced species: a significant component of of lobsters, crabs, oysters, etc., if not human-caused global environmental change. New Zealand Jour- by actual planting on a larger scale, yet nal of Ecology 21:1–16. by making the necessary experiments and Walters, C. J., and S. J. D. Martell. 2004. Fisheries ecology and man- supplying detailed instruction for the agement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. work. It is not impossible, indeed, that Williamson, C. J., and J. E. Garvey. 2005. Growth, fecundity, and diets the great Salt Lake and other interior of newly established silver carp in the Middle Mississippi River. bodies of saline waters may be made the Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:1423–1430. nurseries of objects such as those men- Worm, B., R. Hilborn, J. K. Baum, T. A. Branch, J. S. Collie, C. tioned above. Costello, M. J. Fogarty, E. A. Fulton, J. A. Hutchings, S. Jen- nings, O. P. Jensen, H. K. Lotze, P. M. Mace, T. R. McClanahan, Spencer F. Baird (1873): National Fish C. Minto, S. R. Palumbi, A. M. Parma, D. Ricard, A. A. Rosen- Culture, Transactions of the American berg, R. Watson, and D. Zeller. 2009. Rebuilding global fisheries. Fisheries Society, 2:1, 25-32. Science 325:578–585

454 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org FEATURE

Smartphones and Digital Tablets: Emerging Tools for ­Fisheries Professionals

Lee F. G. Gutowsky Teléfonos inteligentes y tabletas digi- Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of tales: herramientas emergentes para ­Biology, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, profesionales de las pesquerías K1S 5B6. E-mail: [email protected] RESUMEN: Los teléfonos inteligentes y las tabletas digi- Jenilee Gobin tales se utilizan para colectar datos geográficos, de agri- Environmental and Life Sciences Graduate Program, Trent University, cultura y de investigaciones médicas. Los profesionales de ­Peterborough, ON, Canada la ciencia encuentran atractivos estos dispositivos porque Nicholas J. Burnett, Jacqueline M. Chapman, contienen accesorios útiles de hardware (p.e. cámaras, Lauren J. Stoot, and Shireen Bliss sistemas de posicionamiento geográfico –GPS-, aceleró- metros, etc.) y además son capaces de brindar acceso y Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of configurar aplicaciones de software (apps). Con el fin de ­Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada mejorar el aprendizaje de los estudiantes, algunos educado- ABSTRACT: Smartphones and digital tablets are used to col- res están integrando las tabletas digitales en las matrículas lect data for agricultural, geographical, and medical research. tanto dentro como fuera de los salones de clases. Reciente- Science professionals find these devices attractive because mente, los profesionales de las pesquerías han comenzado they contain many useful hardware accessories (e.g., camera, a usar estos dispositivos para colectar datos, para difusión Global Positioning System [GPS], accelerometer) and the ca- y concientización. Con nueva tecnología submarina, cubi- pacity to access and customize software applications (apps). To ertas y adaptadores periféricos, los teléfonos inteligentes y enhance student learning, some educators are also integrating las tabletas digitales están volviéndose cada vez más rele- tablets into curricula for both indoor and outdoor course work. vantes para educación y para colectar datos pesqueros. En Recently, fisheries professionals have begun using these devices este estudio se resume parte de la información disponible for data collection and public outreach and awareness. With en lo tocante al uso de teléfonos inteligentes y tabletas digi- new waterproofing technology, cases, and peripheral adapters, tales con fines educativos y de recolecta de datos. También smartphones and digital tablets are continually becoming more se exploran algunos usos actuales y oportunidades futuras relevant for data collection and education in fisheries. Here, we que guardan estos dispositivos para la ciencia pesquera. synthesize some of the available information on smartphone and El principal objetivo es demostrar que los teléfonos inteli- tablet use for data collection and education and explore some gentes y las tabletas digitales son herramientas útiles para current uses and future opportunities for these devices in fisher- los profesionales de las pesquerías, incluyendo técnicos, ies. Overall, our objective is to demonstrate that smartphones manejadores y educadores. and digital tablets are useful tools for fisheries professionals, including technicians, managers, and educators. Quick Response [QR] codes, where an SPT is used as a scan- ner to convert a bar code into a website URL), and electronic INTRODUCTION commerce transactions (i.e., digital wallet). In addition to these more popular functions, SPTs are used as teaching tools (Rieger Touchscreen technology was first introduced publicly with and Gay 2002; Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler 2005; Stewart et the Palm Pilot in 2001 (Varshney and Vetter 2001). A decade al. 2011) or a means to collect data (Kwok 2009; Raento et later, Internet-capable smartphones (i.e., phones with advanced al. 2009; Dufau et al. 2011). For instance, teachers, social sci- computing capability compared with traditional mobile phones) entists, and health professionals are taking advantage of SPT and digital tablets outsold personal computers (Al-Hadithy et al. popularity and their ability to immediately retrieve information 2012). In 2009, roughly half of the developed world owned a (Kwok 2009; Benedict and Pence 2012; Chang et al. 2012). traditional mobile phone (Kwok 2009), and smartphone owner- Given the combined functionality of a camera/video recorder, ship has been projected to exceed one billion by 2013 (Dufau accelerometer, notepad, Global Positioning System (GPS), et al. 2011). Smartphones have also been predicted to possess high-capacity memory storage (>8 GB), powerful processors, 30% of the mobile market share by 2014 (Cochrane and Bate- and native and web-based software apps, SPTs are an attractive man 2010) and will undoubtedly continue to play a key role in alternative to carrying multiple devices. It is not surprising that global connectivity and communications. today these devices are being used by professionals who teach and work outdoors in fields such as geology (Weng et al. 2012), Smartphones and digital tablets (herein referred together agriculture (Mesas-Carrascosa et al. 2012), and fisheries (Nie- as SPTs) are probably best known as devices for web surfing, renburg et al. 2011). e-mail, instant messaging, two-dimensional bar codes (i.e.,

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 455 FEATURE Given the increasing use of SPTs in data collection and to upload data forms into a manager-defined project. As with education, we explore the opportunities that these devices pres- the previously described apps, EpiCollect data are geotagged ent to fisheries professionals and synthesize this information (with an error estimate and elevation) and may also include a in a descriptive mini review (Donaldson et al. 2011). Because photograph (Table 1). With an Internet connection, data can be many fisheries professionals are often directly involved with instantly uploaded to an online database (Aanensen et al. 2009). research and education (e.g., mentoring, delivering university In addition to data collection software, inexpensive (~US$5) courses, outreach, and public awareness), we investigate where geographic information system (GIS)-based mapping software SPT technology is currently applied in these two areas outside is available to provide geospatial information about a study site of fisheries. We then discuss how SPTs are being used specifi- (e.g., ArcGIS by Esri, iPhone GIS by Integrity Logic). cally in fisheries. Finally, we discuss some possible opportuni- ties for fisheries professionals who are interested in SPTs. Although water damage, impact, and battery life are thought to be limitations to using SPTs in the outdoors, there are SPTs for Data Acquisition and Research Outside of options that address these potential issues. At the 2013 World Fisheries Mobile Congress in Barcelona, several manufacturers exhibited waterproofing technology and waterproof devices. For example, Recent developments in hardware and software have Liquipel offers an inexpensive (~US$70) nanotechnology that transformed SPTs into powerful research tools (Aanensen et effectively waterproofs the inside and outside of SPTs (Table al. 2009; Dufau et al. 2011). New technologies allow SPTs to 1). Several other companies have developed devices that are collect a wide variety of data types. For example, some smart- manufactured waterproof; for example, the Panasonic Eluga, phones are equipped with numerous hardware devices, includ- Samsung Galaxy S4 Active, and Sony Xperia Z. To avoid physi- ing a digital barometer, altimeter, magnetometer, ambient light cal damage to devices, tough tablets (e.g., Armour tablets) or sensor, accelerometer, and gyroscope (e.g., Motorola Xoom and specialized cases can be purchased (Table 1). In remote areas, Samsung Galaxy Nexus). There are also external hardware ac- low batteries can be recharged with solar power chargers that cessories that could be used for collecting environmental data, are available for practically all SPTs (e.g., solio.com/chargers). such an infrared thermometer that measures ambient tempera- Data can also be backed up by software (e.g., EpiCollect), micro ture to one decimal place (Medisina ThermoDock, Medisina/ SD cards, or manually through cloud computing online stor- Neuss, Germany; Table 1). High-resolution SPT cameras are age systems such as Dropbox, SugarSync, SkyDrive, or Google already used for geotagging (Welsh et al. 2012) and, with the aid Drive. Together, these safeguards reduce the chance of device of a mounted peripheral camera and biosensors, SPTs have even damage and data loss. To address screen glare in bright outdoor been used to collect data on moving objects (e.g., eye move- conditions, some manufacturers install antireflective technol- ment to assess driver alertness; B. Lee and Chung 2012). In ad- ogy directly into their products (e.g., ClearBlack display in the dition, the camera, GPS, accelerometer, and notepad functions Nokia Lumina 900); however, matte screen protectors and vi- in a single smartphone have been used to collect geology data sors are inexpensive alternatives to counter screen glare on any (Weng et al. 2012) or land use data for agricultural subsidies SPT. (Mesas-Carrascosa et al. 2012). SPTs for Education Outside of Fisheries SPTs offer a variety of stand-alone and web-based (online only) applications (apps) designed for data collection, informa- SPTs have become popular tools among professional edu- tion sharing, or education. Whereas stand-alone apps are tai- cators (Busis 2010; Cochrane and Bateman 2010; Benedict and lored specifically to a particular operating system and machine Pence 2012). To introduce students to the some of the newest firmware, web-based apps download software each time they information management tools, iPads are being integrated into are run and can be accessed on any web-capable SPT (Luo curricula at Briar Cliff University (2011) and Boreal College 2010). Today, web-based apps have access to device hardware (2012; Thompson 2011). Libraries are also beginning to pro- (e.g., accelerometers and gyroscopes) and long-term evolu- vide digital tablets to enhance student learning. For example, tion networks that provide fast Internet browsing (up to 100 Wake Forest University, University of West Florida, Virginia mbps). Despite the increasing utility of web-based apps, current Tech University, and Concordia University have begun loaning data collection on SPTs is often accomplished by combining iPads at their libraries (Thompson 2011). In addition, there are the performance of stand-alone apps with an Internet connec- several education programs where SPTs are implemented for tion so that geolocated data can be accessed by third parties in student learning. Biology and chemistry educators are engaging near real-time. For example, with a geotagged photograph and students by incorporating SPTs into their course curricula (J. some optional typed details, individuals can voluntarily report Lee et al. 2011; Benedict and Pence 2012). Specifically, biol- observations of invasive species (whatsinvasive.com), report ogy students explore a field site, photograph flora and fauna, an oil spill (oilreporter.org), or document wildlife (projectnoah. and acquire more information by using their smartphone to org). These kinds of apps promote citizen science that is educa- scan QR codes on field sheets (J. Lee et al. 2001). Chemistry tional (e.g., Project Noah) and informative to managers who can students share videos and photo blogs of their experiments via evaluate observations in an online database (e.g., What’s Inva- QR codes that allow their classmates to view the experiments sive; WA PestWatch; Table 1). For project managers, the web- online (Benedict and Pence 2012). Medical educators also take based program called EpiCollect allows users (e.g., technicians) advantage of SPTs. For example, at the University of Manitoba,

456 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org Table 1. A summary of selected SPT hardware and software technologies relevant to fisheries.*

Technologies and Current uses Benefits Links or references applications Field-based software availability Hands on education experi- Smartphones and digi- Built-in camera, GPS, and sensors ence in field courses tal tablets for education Quick data entry drsarmor.com or data collection Field and lab data collection

Measure ambient tempera- Quickly and accurately (10th/mm) medisana.com/en/Health+control/Thermometer/ Medisina ThermoDock ture ­measure ambient temperature ThermoDock+Infrared+Thermometer+Module.html

Accurate to 100th/mm First industrial and con- Compact and user-friendly vtt.fi/news/2012/02152012_Finnish_research_­ Pocket microscope sumer models available Photos can be taken and 3D images can organisation_VTT_combines_mobile_phone_technology_ ­accessory March 2012 be created and_microscopy.jsp?lang=en

goballisticcase.com Available as a consumer otterbox.com Protective cases and Helps protect SPTs from cracks, scratches, product and can be used by photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-scuba-suit waterproofing or water anyone liquipel.com p2i.com

Users define their own project (specify the Collect multiple data entries data to be collected) EpiCollect from a mobile phone and up- Data can be monitored and verified in epicollect.net load to a central database real time

Increases angler knowledge of regulation Used by anglers to ID fish, itunes.apple.com/au/app/fishing/id493874267?mt=8 Improves user fish ID accuracy Fishing check regulations, and lo- Creates easy link to regulation hotlines cate vendors and police

Anglers can share their catches with fam- Used by anglers to keep ily and friends and monitor their catch itunes.apple.com/ca/app/mfp-fishing-log-catch-reports/ MFP Fishing Log track of fishing trips and re- successes id523631349?mt=8 cord catch information Simple and easy to use

Used by marine recreational The website archive is password protected fisherman and charter cap- More current information is collected rectext.org tains to update real-time Rectext by various people for several areas of information on catch and ncseagrant.org/home/coastwatch/coastwatch-articles?task ­research, such as fishing pressures fishing effort via text mes- =showArticle&id=7014 saging

For smartphones that allow a GPS location and sample whatsinvasive.com observations to be sent to The general public can help to generate a What’s Invasive, WA a server database of specific biotic sightings, such projectnoah.org/mobile PestWatch, and Project as invasive or at-risk species Noah Mainly used by research- Simple and easy to use itunes.apple.com/au/app/wa-pestwatch/id610940171?mt=8 ers, naturalists, and citizen scientists

Current consumer information on sustain- Ocean Wise Guide to eating oceanwise.ca/iphone-app able seafood

Identify a number of fresh- Identify fish species with illustrations and Freshwater Fish ID water fishes in the Southern descriptions quikiphoneproducts.com South United States No Internet connection required

Fish Culture Section Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Calculate DO solubility and Solubility Calcula- sites.google.com/site/fishculturesection/resources/android- drug treatments at aquacul- Perform on-the-spot calculations tor and Fish Culture apps ture facilities ­Section Drug Treatment ­Calculator

*This list is not exhaustive or meant to endorse any particular brands or products.

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 457 nurse educators use Android operating system–based SPTs to bathymetry maps, aerial survey maps, net sampling locations, teach students how to digitally document patient wounds (as an and fish tallies into digital folders that can be uploaded (pro- alternative to paper-based documentation; Vivanco et al. 2011). vided Internet accessibility) immediately to a server for instant In Botswana, residents are using smartphone-based mobile access by managers (e.g., Aanensen et al. 2009). By minimiz- learning to provide immediate access to information, which has ing time spent reentering data, there is less potential for human important implications for physicians in remote areas (Chang error. Among the cons are the initial purchase cost, tablet du- et al. 2012). rability, employee training, and battery life while in remote lo- cations (J. Write, Northwest Science and Information Branch, SPTs can be used for outdoor learning, as shown by univer- personal communication). sities that offer field courses that incorporate SPTs into exercises to collect course-related data (Rieger and Gay 2002; Stewart et In addition to using SPTs for data collection by government al. 2011). In the Introduction to Environmental Science course employees, some state- and federally run natural resource agen- at Lawrence University (Appleton, Wisconsin) course instruc- cies have begun using this technology to disseminate fishing tors provide students with digital tablets that contain remote regulation (e.g., Texas Hunt and Fish, Colorado Hunting and GPS receivers. Using the tablet’s GPS system in combination Fishing) and gather data from anglers in the United States (Han- with GIS and aerial photographs, students are able to enter cock 2012). According to Hancock (2012), there are currently temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and water conductivity at more than 100 Android and iOS apps designed for recreational their geospatial coordinates. From this information, students anglers, with several of these apps (stand-alone and web-based) then immediately analyze data, observe trends, and ask ques- designed specifically to allow government agencies to gather tions that relate directly to the surrounding geography (Stewart data that have been recorded by anglers using their smart- et al. 2011). In a field course through the University of Chester, phones. SPT technology is also being employed by government UK, geography students use smartphones to collect data from agencies outside of the United States. For instance, today the geotagged photographs (time and geospatial coordinate; Welsh Alberta and British Columbia (BC) governments maintain apps et al. 2012). Students who have taken the courses at either Law- to disseminate fishing information to resident and nonresident rence University or the University of Chester have reported an resource users (Alberta Outdoor Adventure Guide iPhone app increased ability to interpret results and geospatial data, prepare and BC Fishing). lab reports, create conceptual models (Stewart et al. 2011), and recount an overall positive experience with the use of geotag- There are few examples where SPTs are used to collect ging (with smartphones) to collect field data (Welsh et al. 2012). commercial fisheries data. In 2011, the American Fisheries So- ciety annual meeting in Seattle hosted a workshop that explored SPTs in Fisheries electronic fisheries information systems (Steinberg et al. 2012). The participants found that existing systems were ill suited to Although still relatively uncommon, there are several pub- small fishing vessels and were typically restricted to dry condi- lished examples where SPTs were used to acquire data and con- tions. Despite these challenges, an SPT system has been devel- duct research in fisheries (e.g., Nierenburg et al. 2011). In a oped for at-sea, on-the-deck use by small-vessel commercial recent issue of Fisheries, Bowker (2012) briefly mentioned a salmon fishers (Lavrakas et al. 2012). Specifically, a system smartphone app designed to calculate drug treatment rates and comprised of a Nook tablet reader, an Android smartphone, dissolved oxygen solubilities in aquaculture. This Android op- Bluetooth and wireless technology, and various SPT embed- erating system app, designed by Fish Culture Past President and ded sensors is being tested for the collection of near real-time President-Elect Jesse Trushenski, can be found at the newly de- salmon harvest data, oceanographic conditions, and vessel signed Fish Culture Section website (sites.google.com/site/fish- movement and altitude (Lavrakas et al. 2012; Figures 1 and 2). culturesection). In France, a field ID book is under development If successful, this system could be employed to collect data in a to help field specialists identify native and nonnative crayfish number of commercial fisheries, including those in freshwater. (De Vaugelas et al. 2011). This project was originally developed by students and is now in the final stages of completion (De We were unable to find any examples where SPTs are being Vaugelas et al. 2011; J. De Vaugelas, Université de Nice-Sophia used for formal fisheries education; however, SPTs are currently Antipolis, personal communication). used for outreach, public awareness programs, and citizen sci- ence in fisheries, e.g., the Ocean Wise guide to eating sustain- There are government fisheries agencies that enlist SPTs able seafood (Table 1). In Australia, the Department of Primary for collecting and visualizing data for the purposes of research Industries has recently designed a free guide and management. In Ontario, the Ministry of Natural Resources application called Fishing for Victoria’s Waterways (Table 1). Northwest Science and Information Branch recently (2012) Alongside color illustrations of resident species for identifica- began a pilot project to capture fisheries data with digital tab- tion, the app lists size and catch limits, fishing seasons, and lets. The agency is trying these devices because they combine legal fishing equipment. The app called Fishing also offers a data recording, GPS, and a camera in a single unit, thus elimi- direct link to both the illegal fishing report line and water police nating the need to carry multiple electronic devices (J. Wright, in Victoria, which raises awareness of illegal fishing and simpli- Northwest Science and Information Branch, personal commu- fies the reporting process. The application is free and available nication). Digital tablets allow the user to organize files such as online for both Android and iOS devices (Table 1). Although

458 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org Figure 1. Components of the three-device, at-sea SPT system for small-vessel commercial salmon fishers: Barnes and Noble Nook tablet, MiFi Hotspot, and Samsung Precedent smart- phone (Lavrakas et al. 2012). Photo credit: John Lavrakas.

Figure 2. Oregon commercial salmon fisherman Kevin Bastien trying out the at-sea SPT system developed by Lavrakas et al. (2012). Photo credit: John Lavrakas.

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 459 Figure 3. A Blackberry smartphone used for collecting data and reporting red tides in Florida. Photo credit: Kate Kohler. not exclusive to smartphones and digital tablets, Baker and Oe- quickly “key out” unknown species captured during sampling. schger (2009) developed a catch reporting program (RecText; A similar application called Freshwater Fish ID South is cur- Table 1) through which recreational fishers and charter captains rently available for iOS devices (Table 1), and although the full in southeastern North Carolina can send texts of their daily version could be useful, the app still only covers species found catches to managers who then upload the information to an in the Southern United States. As described at the 2012 Ameri- online database via Twitter—an online social networking and can Fisheries Society annual meeting (Loftus et al. 2012), fish microblogging service that enables its users to send and read ID eBooks could also include visual recognition software that text-based messages. Constructed as user-friendly software, the automatically keys out the specimen (at least to family) based RecText system is intended to bridge the gap between anglers on a photograph. Such technology has already been developed and scientists while providing managers with a more complete by researchers from Columbia University, the University of picture of fishing pressure and catch rates (Baker and Oeschger Maryland, and the Smithsonian Institute and integrated into the 2009). During a trial study in 2010, angler participation was free app called Leafsnap (leafsnap.com). Finally, fish ID apps 14.8% of tournament entrants, a number that is expected to in- could have uses in formal education, where SPTs already offer crease with mobile phone use among resource users (P. Smith a great way to access and annotate eBooks and PDF copies of 2011). This type of two-way information sharing system be- papers that are recommended for reading in courses on fish and tween anglers and managers will continue to evolve with tech- fisheries related topics. nologies such as SPTs (Dresler 2012). In Florida, Nierenburg et al. (2012) described the progression of an outreach and public CONCLUSION awareness campaign about red tides (caused by dinoflagellate algae), which have direct negative consequences to human and SPTs are becoming increasingly popular among the general fish health. The program began in 2000 with press releases, TV public, researchers, and educators (e.g., Dufua et al. 2011; A. media coverage, and educational materials, such as shirts, pam- Smith 2012). The technologies embedded in SPTs have made phlets, and signs. The program evolved rapidly, and by 2006 them ideal for collecting a variety of data types and waterproof- full-time lifeguards and biologists began using smartphones to ing technologies and shock-absorbent cases provide damage provide real-time geotagged photos and information about red resistance. SPTs may not offer a replacement for all of the so- tides (Mote Marine Laboratory’s Environmental Health Pro- phisticated tools available to fisheries professionals; however, gram 2013; Figure 3). as demonstrated in other professions, SPTs do provide a means for data collection and student learning. With advances in tech- STP Opportunities for Fisheries Professionals nology and ever increasing global connectivity, SPTs certainly present opportunities for creative and innovative fisheries pro- SPTs can already be used for the collection of environ- fessionals. mental data (temperature, barometric pressure, light levels) and for data visualization. With respect to the latter, Hydroacoustic ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Technology Inc. now offers a way to use a smartphone to moni- tor the tracks of tagged fish (htisonar.com/acoustic_tags.htm). Thanks to Steven Cooke, Nick Lapointe, and Sarah Additionally, it may be possible to develop apps for field iden- Gutowsky for commenting on early versions of our article. tification of fishes, such as fish ID eBooks that allow users to We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive

460 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org f­eedback. The idea for this article may have never been imag- Lee, B., and W. Chung. 2012. Driver alertness monitoring using fu- ined among the authors if not for productive conversations at sion of facial features and bio-signals. IEEE Sensors Journal the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Ontario Chapter of the Ameri- 12:2416–2422. can Fisheries Society. Lee, J., S. Yong, and J. Kwon. 2011. Scan & learn! Use of quick re- sponse codes & smartphones in a biology field study. American Biology Teacher 73:485–492. REFERENCES Loftus, A., J. Schratwieser, and P. Belhumeur. 2012. Development of an iPhone application for collecting fisheries data with visual rec- Aanensen, D. M., D. M. Huntley, E. J. Feil, F. al-Own, and B. G. Spratt. ognition component. American Fisheries Society Annual General 2009. EpiCollect: linking smartphones to web applications for ep- Meeting, St. Paul, Minnesota. idemiology, ecology and community data collection. PLoS ONE Luo, L. 2010. Native or web application? How best to deliver content 4:e6968. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006968. and services to your audiences over the mobile phone. Global Al-Hadithy, N., P. D. Gikas, and S. S. Al-Nammari. 2012. Smartphones Intelligence Alliance, Helsinki, Finland.. in orthopaedics. International Orthopaedics 36:1543–1547. Mesas-Carroscosa, F. J., I. L. Castillejo-Gonzalez, and M. S. de la Baker, M. S., Jr., and I. Oeschger. 2009. Description and initial evalu- Orden. 2012. Real-time mobile phone application to support land ation of a text message based reporting method for marine rec- policy. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 85:109–111. reational anglers. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Mote Marine Laboratory’s Environmental Health Program. 2013. Management, and Ecosystem Science 1:143–154. Available: http://coolgate.mote.org/beachconditions/. (Septem- Benedict, L., and H. E. Pence. 2012. Teaching chemistry using stu- ber 2013). dent-created videos and photo blogs accessed with smartphones Nierenberg, K., J. Hollenbeck, L. E. Fleming, W. Stephan, A. Reich, and two-dimensional barcodes. Journal of Chemical Education L. C. Backer, R. Currier, and B. Kirkpatrick. 2011. Frontiers in 89:492–496. outreach and education: the Florida red tide experience. Harmful Bowker, J. 2012. The new fish culture section website. Fisheries Algae 10:374–380. 37:123. Raento, M., A. Oulasvirta, and N. Eagle. 2009. Smartphones: an Busis, N. 2010. Mobile phones to improve the practice of neurology. emerging tool for social scientists. Sociological Methods Re- Neurological Clinics. 28:395–410. search 37:426–454. Chang, A. Y., S. Ghose, R. Littman-Quinn, R. B. Anolik, A. Kyer, L. Rieger, R., and G. Gay. 2002. Using mobile computing to enhance field Mazhani, A. K. Seymour, and C. L. Kovarik. 2012. Use of mobile study. Interactive Media Group, Department of Communication, learning by resident physicians in Botswana. Telemedicine and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. E-Health 18:11–13. Smith, P. 2011. Counting kings: text reporting catches on. Available: Cochrane, T., and R. Bateman. 2010. Smartphones gives you wings: http://www.ncseagrant.org/home/coastwatch/coastwatch-articles? pedagogical affordances of mobile web 2.0. Australian Journal of task=showArticle&id=701. (August 2012). Educational Technology 26:1–14. Smith, A. 2012. Smartphone users now outnumber users of more De Vaugelas, J., V. Leyendecker, H. Leca, P. Luc, P. Noel, J.-C. Riva, basic mobile phones within the national adult population. Pew A. Sabatier, and C. Souty-Grosset. 2011. Use of smartphones Research Center, Washington, D.C. Available: http://pewinternet. TM TM (iPhone , Android , etc.) for the field identification of Euro- org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-Update-2012/Findings.aspx. (Au- pean crayfish. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosys- gust 2012). tems 401:1–6. Steinberg, N., S. Gil, and J. Dresler. 2012. Development of electronic Donaldson, M. R., D. D. Aday, and S. J. Cooke. 2011. A call for mini- fishery information systems for West Coast and national fisher- reviews: an effective but underutilized method of synthesizing ies: proceedings of two workshops. eFIS Proceedings: Portland, knowledge to inform and direct fisheries management, policy, and Oregon; Seattle, Washington. research. Fisheries 36:123–129. Stewart, M., J. Clark, J. Donald, and K. VanCamp. 2011. The education Dresler, J. 2012. Visions for future management scenarios: marine rec- potential of mobile computing in the field. Educause Quarterly reational fisheries management. American Fisheries Society An- 34. Available: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/educational- nual General Meeting, St. Paul, Minnesota. potential-mobile-computing-field. (Accessed August 2012). Dufau, S., J. A. Duñabeitia, C. Moret-Tatay, A. McGonigal, D. Peeters, Thompson, S. Q. 2011. Setting up a library iPad program: guidelines F.-X. Alario, D. A. Balota, M. Brysbaert, M. Carreiras, L. Ferrand, for success. College & Research Libraries News 72:212–236. M. Ktori, M. Perea, K. Rastle, O. Sasburg, M. J. Yap, J. C. Ziegler, Varshney, U., and R. Vetter. 2001. A framework for the emerging mo- and J. Grainger. 2011. Smart phone, smart science: how the use bile commerce applications. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii of smartphones can revolutionize research in cognitive science. International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer PLoS ONE 6:e24974. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024974 Society Press, Maui, Hawaii. Hancock, H. 2012. There’s an app for that: using apps for scientific Vivanco, J., B. Demianyk, R. D. McLeod, and M. R. Friesen. 2011. data collection. Fisheries Information and Technology Section. Work in progress—a smartphone application as a teaching tool Kukulska-Hulme, A., and J. Traxler. 2005. Mobile learning: a hand- in undergraduate nursing education. 2011 Frontiers in Education book for educators and trainers. Taylor & Francis, New York. Conference, Rapid City, South Dakota. Kwok, R. 2009. Phoning in data. Nature 458:959–961. Welsh, K. E., D. France, W. B. Whalley, and J. R. Park. 2012. Geotag- Lavrakas, J., W. Black, and A. Lawson. 2012. At-sea electronic data ging photographs in student fieldwork. Journal of Geography in logging and data entry for salmon fisheries. Advanced Research Higher Education 36:469–480. Corp. Report No. PSC-2012-002. Advanced Research Corpora- Weng, Y., F. Sun, and J. D. Grigsby. 2012. GeoTools: an Android™ tion, Newport, OR. phone application in geology. Computers and Geosciences 44:24– 30.

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 461 BOOK REVIEWS Conservation, Ecology, and ­Management of Catfish: The Second International ­Symposium

Edited by P. H. Michaletz and V. H. Travnichek. American Fisheries So- ciety. Bethesda, MD. 2011. 800 pages. US$79.00 (hardcover)

This is the sec- (11 ­studies using tandem hoop nets, gill nets, electrofishing, ond publication in a isotopic analyses, and even soap-on-a-rope), habitat use and series published by the movement (seven field-based studies in lotic systems and one American Fisheries So- laboratory-based study on interstice size selection), and impacts ciety devoted to catfish due to introductions outside of their native range (particularly research, biology, and how some species tolerate and invade saltwater habitats). It is management, which for this group in particular that this book should become an was organized as a sym- indispensable resource. posium held in St. Louis, Missouri, in 2010 and builds upon the first symposium that was held in Davenport, Iowa, in 1998 In a review of the first catfish symposium, Ney (2001) not- (Irwin et al. 1999). The organizers of the second symposium ed that the title had a “tenuous claim to being ‘international’” stated that this was to “serve as an addendum to Catfish 2000” (p. 66) because the vast majority of papers were focused on por- and “to cover the four corners of catfish science: catfish biol- tions of the United States. And, except for one paper on Channel ogy, ecology, management, and conservation” (p. xi). The book Catfish in the country of Georgia, even the seven papers in the meets this standard easily. With 64 papers organized into nine nonnative section of this second symposium contained informa- sections (plenary, catfishes as sport fish, nongame catfishes, tion on only the “big three” (i.e., Blue, Channel, and Flathead nonnative catfishes, movement and habitat use, sampling and catfish) where they were nonnative to portions of the United population assessment, age and growth, behavior, and future States. Although the publication from this second symposium directions), this publication covers these four corners and more. has improved on its international claim, room still seems to remain for improvement. The last paper, by Tom Kwak and oth- The first section of the book covering the plenary session of ers, acknowledges these issues, stating, “the majority of work the symposium consists of an introduction and three well-writ- on catfish taxonomy, genetics, behavior, and paleontology has ten, broad-based discussions of catfish ecology. Steve Quinn’s been conducted outside of North America” (p. 764). If there is paper on human interactions goes beyond traditional hook-and- to be a third symposium and organizers heed the “international” bullet views of catfish and even touches on mythology and lore shortcomings of the previous two, greater global representation of catfish in a variety of cultures. Jonathan Armbruster then dis- should occur, which would benefit a wider array of scientists. cusses the global diversity of catfishes (37 families and over Until then, this book, which is well organized and well edited, 3,400 species!) and his work on the National Science Founda- is still an excellent resource for those studying catfish in North tion–funded All Catfish Species Inventory Project. Zeb Hogan America. concludes this section with an excellent discourse on large- bodied freshwater catfish and the alarming downward trend observed for many of these species. It is this section that I think James M. Long will have the most broad-based appeal; the remainder of the U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research book generally contains more specific information on a limited Unit, 007 Agriculture Hall, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078 number of species. REFERENCES Except for the plenary section and the section on nongame catfishes (eight papers covering mostly Madtoms and Bull- Irwin, E. R., W. A. Hubert, C. F. Rabeni, H. L. Schramm, Jr., and T. heads but also the lone paper on a marine species), the book Coon, editors. 1999. Catfish 2000: Proceedings of the Interna- is largely a tome related to the biology and management of tional Ictalurid Symposium. American Fisheries Society, Sympo- only three freshwater species in North America: Blue Catfish, sium 24, Bethesda, Maryland. Channel Catfish, and Flathead Catfish. Researchers working Ney, J. J. 2001. Book review: Catfish 2000: Proceedings of the In- with one of these species will find valuable information on ternational Ictalurid Symposium. Journal of Lake and Reservoir sampling techniques and tools for assessing population metrics Management 17:66.

462 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries: A Global Perspective Villy Christensen and Jay Maclean, editors. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. 2011. 342 pages. US$120.00 (hardcover), US$59.00 (paperback)

Ecosystem approach- Ruddle provides an especially intriguing view of (and in some es to fisheries (EAF) is cases refreshingly frank opinions on) coral reef or coastal fish- clearly a current topic of eries management in the broader context of the supporting high interest, with this watersheds surrounding such fisheries; this watershed approach book being one of several is a common concept to many North American fisheries, but produced in the past few here the concept is presented within a very distinct cultural and years germane to EAF dis- ecological milieu. cussions. It provides another set of views on the broad range of considerations that influence the production, sustainable use, The fifth and final section, “Impacting Policy,” has five and broader context of how fisheries are executed around the relatively short chapters that explore how past science has im- world—views that are apt to be refreshing or novel to North pacted (or not) the policies of how fisheries are managed. The American readers because the focus of this book is largely on theme of “the role of scientist as advocate” is central to many of tropical and developing-nation perspectives. Yet it should also these chapters, which will surely foster continued debate. be noted that the topics cover much more ground than solely an emphasis on EAF. This book is also a Festschrift for Daniel Some of the materials presented are more developed than Pauly. As the editors explicitly note—and many chapter authors others; such diversity is to be expected due to the breadth of reiterate—a reader should see the influence of Pauly in several topics covered. Some chapters read as simple summaries or re- areas of fisheries science and management. Hence, this book ports of other work and some are straight opinion pieces. Still will be of great interest to most American Fisheries Society others explored in detail the history of a specific theme and members. Pauly’s involvement therein (all had merit, but the latter were especially informative). Several authors herein directly list The book is organized into five sections. The first section, the suite of topics that involved or were influenced by Pauly. entitled “Life in the Oceans,” has three chapters, one of which A partial list of such themes includes the oxygen constraint, (by Bakun) delightfully discusses the oxygen constraint–gill developing global databases readily available of common life raker area/volume hypothesis; the other two chapters are a history parameters (e.g., FishBase), advocating for fish as food, compendium on the FishBase and SeaLifeBase databases. The developing aquaculture and the technical basis for improving second section is “Evaluating Impact on Marine Life.” Under- it, ramping up readily available catch and economics databases, standably, the chapters of a book such as this do not necessarily cleaning up said databases (e.g., Sea Around Us), conducting need to (nor do they) form a cohesive story, but as a whole global fisheries meta-analyses, posing the Fishing Down the they demonstrate the broad array of topics with which Pauly Food Web and Primary Production Required for Fisheries hy- has been involved. potheses, developing and distributing a commonly available (e.g., EwE), Malthusian , better The third section, entitled “Managing Living Resources,” public communication of scientific results, developing assess- contains the history of adapting stock assessment methods to ment methods (e.g., ELEFAN) for data-poor situations, the tropical (and hence data-poor) situations, the effects of climate shifting baseline syndrome, etc.—it is an impressive list. As change, and the use of models. There is also a chapter Ruddle notes, the idea was “to get others to think and contribute by Munro on the history of assessments in the tropics, with a to it” (p. 266), and in that regard Pauly’s career has been clearly focus on North American ecosystems, that is well worth read- more successful than most, the details of which are captured ing for this broader context. nicely in this book.

The fourth section, entitled “The Human Side,” has chap- ters on capacity building, small-scale fisheries, integrated Jason S. Link coastal management, and a potpourri of economics, all cover- National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, ing an array of socioeconomic considerations. The chapter by Woods Hole, MA 02543

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 463 Ecosystem-Based Management for Marine Fisheries: An Evolving Perspective Andrea Belgrano and Charles W. Fowler, editors. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. 2011. 384 pages. US$115.00 (hardcover)

The challenges of reliably manage only our own behavior—and second, we must managing human interac- do so with an aim to fitting “normal” patterns in nature—those tions with, and influences observed patterns that arguably reflect the integration of geo- on, other species, ecosys- logic, evolutionary, and ecological processes through time. We tems, and the biosphere should, for example, adjust our harvest of biomass to be in line are fraught with diffi- with that of biologically similar species (same taxonomic class, culty. Particular among similar body mass). Currently human harvest rates are roughly these challenges is the 10- to a 100-fold what they ought to be by such criteria. complexity involved; not only is each species and ecosystem What I continually wanted to hear throughout this book unimaginably complex but so is the human system that we are was some suggestion as to how human stakeholders might be attempting to manage. Where and how do we find an approach brought around to such a policy. Though the arguments make to management that can account for such complexity? How do good sense to an ecologist, the consequences of such manage- we go about setting quantitative goals for such management so ment practices are still far from quantitatively predictable. It that our political and economic institutions and belief systems is hard to imagine that the average fisherman will likely be are taken into account objectively and evenhandedly? The ho- swayed by an argument that states that by sacrificing, say, 50% lism required to achieve such ends is clearly foremost in the of his catch, now he will continue to harvest a (possibly simi- minds of these editors. lar) catch in the (undefined and unknown) future, whereas, if he doesn’t there will (likely) be a crash sometime in the future. The book guides the reader toward holism through a pro- Will the local politician who needs this person’s vote force such gression of realized changes in our approach to management. a sacrifice on him? The real breakthrough in management sci- Part 1 is a collection of chapters exemplifying the kind of sci- ence, it seems to me, will be when the manager scientists come ence behind management as it being practiced today—what the up with a cogent argument that the “future” is sometime beyond editors refer to as conventional management. As described in tomorrow afternoon. the editors’ overview (Chapter 12), these presentations con- tribute invaluable insight, substantiate essential principles, and Keith Brander’s “Afterword” is a refreshing jolt to the identify problems worthy of serious attention by managers. reader who, upon finishing this book, may be pleased to feel that the practical questions in management might finally have Part 2 serves up a diverse array of topics and opinions, dis- answers with real solutions. Cultural and attitudinal questions cussing the problems for stock recovery posed by philopatry remain. Should we be aiming to preserve the natural balance in (important information for the establishment of marine re- nature? Or, if our aim is primarily to feed the human popula- serves), arguing both for the critical roles of single-population tion—or play to its culturally varied sense of the aesthetics of dynamics models and the need for multispecies models and em- beauty or power—shouldn’t we then be trying something en- phasizing the importance of interdisciplinary approaches and tirely different? social collaboration among stakeholders. The writing is occasionally a bit shaky and repetitive— The chapters in Part 3 take a leap into quite a higher or- weaknesses often seen in multi-author, far-ranging books, but it der of holism. It is argued that if we are to harvest the ocean detracts from a message that needs to be made strongly. Section sustainably we must do so in a manner that protects the entire 3, however, is offered with real conviction, and it is because of species complex and ecosystem from deterioration. Unfortu- such certitude that this book is important. nately, this can’t be done without complete knowledge of all ecological interactions, knowledge we can never hope to have. John M. Emlen How, then, to manage? First, we must acknowledge that we can 31117 44th Ave. SW, Federal Way, WA 98023

464 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org IN MEMORIAM Robert “Bob” L. Hunt Robert “Bob” L. Hunt passed away in April 2013 at the age of 79 from complications due to Lyme disease and Parkinson’s disease. Bob played a ma- jor role in conserving and enhancing the coldwater resources of Wisconsin by contributing much to the understanding of Brook and Brown Trout life histo- ries and their habitat requirements, leading to innovative management actions (habitat enhancement techniques, regulations, and land stewardship). More than anyone else, he contributed to the knowledge about Wisconsin’s 10,000 miles of trout streams and advanced their stewardship. His pioneering research on wild trout and management recommendations has helped to im- prove conservation and angling throughout North America’s trout-producing regions.

Following high school in McFarland, Wisconsin, Bob joined the Army, serving in Germany and being discharged with honors. He attended the Uni- versity of Wisconsin (UW), receiving bachelor’s and master’s degrees in zoology, and then began his professional career in 1959 with the Wisconsin Conservation Department as leader of the Lawrence Creek Trout Research Project. This was a long-term study to test the effects of angling restrictions on Wild Brook Trout populations and later included the evaluation of their habitats and habitat improvement needs (mentored by Dr. Ray White). This work led to a landmark publication on Brook Trout life history and habitat requirements, “A Long-Term Evaluation of Trout Habitat Development and Its Relation to Improving Management-Related Research” (AFS Transactions, 1976). This is still one of the most widely cited publications on trout stream restoration.

In 1974, Bob became Wisconsin’s Coldwater Research Leader and, with fellow biologists Robert Carline and Ed Avery, con- ducted studies on trout populations throughout Wisconsin. Over his 33-year career he is credited with 45 professional publications, hundreds of popular articles, and numerous oral presentations. One of Bob’s greatest accomplishments was his book, Trout Stream Therapy (University Wisconsin Press, 1993), which is widely utilized by scientists, fisheries managers, and the angling public. Bob was highly respected due to his superb research and concern with detail yet was able to make results known in ways that guided public management direction at state and national levels. Most of Bob’s studies and publications illustrated the importance of good habitat to trout populations. In 1975, Bob cochaired the first international workshop on the Management of Brook Trout held in Stevens Point, Wisconsin. In 1977, his influence led to the adoption of the Wisconsin Trout Stamp, with anglers’ money being spe- cifically earmarked for trout habitat improvement. Since that time, hundreds of miles of Wisconsin trout streams have been restored or enhanced and no longer require stocking. Bob has guided several graduate students from UW Madison or UW Stevens Point and mentored many young fisheries biologists on the virtues of a quality trout resource. In 1978, Bob organized the second Brook Trout Workshop in North Carolina. Bob was a major contributor to the 1988 Workshop on Brown Trout Management, presenting papers and serving on discussion panels.

Bob was a founding member of the Wisconsin AFS Chapter and served as its second president. He was a certified fisheries scientist, presenting papers at many state and national AFS meetings.

In retirement Bob remained involved with trout and the coldwater resource by becoming an active member of Trout Unlimited (TU). Bob enjoyed fly-fishing for trout and relished the opportunity to teach others the art of fly-fishing. He initiated a TU project to promote anglers’ unharmed release of trout, called CPR (Consider Proper Release—five steps to reduce postrelease mortality). Thousands of released trout have had their lives extended by anglers who follow these simple practices, and Bob considered this project one of his more important accomplishments. Bob served as scientific advisor to the Wisconsin TU Council and participated in the national TU Wild Trout Management symposiums.

In 2012, Robert L. Hunt was inducted into the Wisconsin Conservation Hall of Fame, which includes other distinguished con- servationists, including Aldo Leopold and John Muir. Bob was a humble man of few spoken words, which he chose well, stating scientific findings and management implications effectively. Bob left trout habitat resources much improved.

Farewell “Mr. Trout.” Submitted by Lee Meyers With input from Dr. Robert Carline

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 465 AFS ANNUAL MEETING 2014 Second Call for Papers: Québec City 2014

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Atlan- cepts into regional assessment and 2014 at the Québec City Convention tic International Chapter, and the North- management actions; Centre, next to the historic Old City. This east Division of the American Fisheries fortified city on the banks of the Saint Society (AFS) are pleased to announce • Research on and management of Lawrence River is a UNESCO World the second call for papers for the 144th transboundary stocks; Heritage Treasure. Come experience the Annual Meeting of the American Fish- “Joie de Vivre” and hospitality of Québec eries Society in Québec City, Canada! • Shifting source–sink dynamics in City’s people and prepare yourself to be The meeting’s theme—“From fisheries metapopulations under climate change amazed! research to management: Think and act and their implications for conserva- locally and globally”—should foster pre- tion; General Information sentations and discussions that consider The scientific program consists of three topics such as: • Eel and salmon biology, ecology, and types of sessions: Symposia (oral presen- • Growing evidence for meaningful management; tations organized by individuals or groups local adaptation despite the lack of with a common interest), Contributed neutral genetic differentiation; • Any other topic relevant to the theme. Oral Presentations (grouped into sessions • Incorporating metapopulation con- AFS 2014 will be held on 17–21 August

466 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org by topic), and Contributed Poster Presen- list server to contact additional potential discussion with seating for 10 panel tations (organized to coincide with either speakers, especially students and young members will be needed”). symposia or contributed oral presentation professionals with whom they may not topics). Fisheries professionals are in- be familiar, to broaden participation by 9) List of presentations: Please supply vited to submit symposia proposals and the membership. If accepted, symposium information on potential presenters, tenta- abstracts for oral or poster presentations organizers must submit a complete list of tive titles, and oral or poster designations. that address the meeting’s theme or that all confirmed presentations and titles by are relevant to fisheries. We encourage 7 March 2014. Symposium abstracts (in 10) Sponsors: If applicable, indicate participation of fisheries professionals the same format as contributed oral and sponsorship. Please note that a sponsor is from academia (professors and especially poster abstracts; see below) are due by 14 not required. students), from all levels of government, March 2014. from First Nations, and from the private Contributed Oral and sector. We are hoping that topics related Format for Symposium Poster ­Presentations to marine systems and invertebrate re- ­Proposals sources will be well represented at the The Program Committee invites abstracts meeting. (Submit using AFS online for sessions of contributed oral and poster symposium submission form) presentations. Authors must indicate their Symposia preferred presentation format: When submitting your abstract, include The Program Committee invites propos- the following: 1. Contributed oral presentation only; als for symposia. Symposia related to the meeting theme will receive priority, and 1) Symposium title: Brief but descrip- 2. Contributed poster presentation only; those not addressing the meeting theme tive. should be of general interest to AFS 3. Contributed oral presentation preferred, members. The Program Committee also 2) Organizer(s): Provide name, affilia- but poster presentation acceptable. strongly encourages integrative symposia tion, telephone number, e-mail address that span freshwater and marine systems of each organizer. The first name entered Only one contributed oral presentation will (e.g., freshwater and marine phases of eel will be the main contact person. be accepted for each senior author. Con- and Atlantic Salmon, stock assessment tributed oral presentations will be orga- methods, etc.). 3) Chairs: Supply name(s) of nized by 20-minute time slots (14 minutes individual(s) who will chair the sympo- for presentation, 3 minutes for questions, Symposium organizers are responsible sium. and 3 minutes for room change or further for recruiting presenters, soliciting their questions). All oral presenters are ex- abstracts, and directing them to submit 4) Description: In 300 words or less, pected to deliver PowerPoint presenta- their abstracts and presentations through describe the topic addressed by the pro- tions. the AFS online submission forms. The posed symposium, the objective of the Program Committee will work with symposium, and the value of the sympo- We encourage poster submissions be- symposium organizers to incorporate ap- sium to AFS members and participants. cause of the limited time available for oral propriate presentations that were submit- presentations. The program will include ted as contributed papers. A symposium 5) Format: Indicate whether the sympo- a dedicated poster session to encourage should include a minimum of 10 presen- sium format is for oral presentations only discussion between poster authors and at- tations. Time slots for oral presentations or a mix of oral and poster presentations. tendees. Presenters are currently expected are limited to 20 minutes, but multiple to have hard copies of their poster, but the time slots (i.e., 40 or 60 minutes) may be 6) Presentation requirements: Speakers Program Committee is exploring the pos- offered to keynote symposia speakers. should use PowerPoint for presentations. sibility of incorporating electronic post- ers. Further details will be provided in Symposium proposals must be submitted 7) Audiovisual requirements: LCD subsequent calls for papers. by 10 January 2014. All symposium projectors and laptops will be available proposal submissions must be made in every room. Other audiovisual equip- Student Presenters using the AFS online symposium ment needed for the symposium will be Student presenters must indicate whether proposal submission form available on considered, but computer projection is they wish their contribution to be consid- the AFS website (www.fisheries.org). strongly encouraged. Please list special ered for competition for a best presenta- The Program Committee will review audiovisual requirements. all symposium proposals and notify tion (paper or poster, but not both) award. If the response is “no,” the presentation organizers of acceptance or refusal by 8) Special seating requests: Standard will be considered for inclusion in the An- 31 January 2014. Please note that once rooms will be arranged theater style. nual Meeting by the Program Committee the core speakers of a symposium are Please indicate special seating requests but will not receive further consideration confirmed, organizers will use the AFS (for example, “After the break, a panel

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 467 by the Student Judging Committee. If the ­designated time and place of their presen- Abstract: Abstracts are used by the Pro- response is “yes,” the student will be re- tation by 18 April 2014. gram Committee to evaluate and select quired to submit an application to the Stu- papers for inclusion in the scientific and dent Judging Committee. Components of The Program Committee will group con- technical sessions of the 2014 AFS An- the application will include an extended tributed papers by topic based on the title nual Meeting. An informative abstract abstract and a check-off from the stu- and the two prioritized keywords. contains a statement of the problem and dent’s mentor indicating that the study is its significance, study objectives, prin- at a stage appropriate for consideration Late submissions will not be accepted. cipal findings, and applications. The ab- for an award. The AFS does not waive registration fees stract conforms to the prescribed format for presenters at symposia, workshops, and must be no more than 200 words in Abstract Submission or contributed oral or poster presentation length. sessions. All presenters and meeting at- Abstracts for contributed papers and tendees must pay registration fees. Reg- Student presenter: No. poster papers must be received by 14 istration forms will be available on the February 2014. All submissions must be AFS website (www.fisheries.org) begin- made using the AFS online abstract sub- Program Committee ning May 2014. Register early for cost mission form, available at www.fisheries. Contacts savings. org. When submitting your abstract: Program Co-Chairs:

• Provide a brief but descriptive title, Format for abstracts Martin Castonguay avoiding acronyms or scientific names Title: An Example Abstract for the AFS Pêches et Océans Canada / Fisheries and in the title unless the common name is 2014 Annual Meeting Oceans Canada not widely known; [email protected] Format: Oral 418-775-0634 • List all authors, their affiliations, ad- dresses, telephone numbers, and e- Authors: Castonguay, Martin. Fisheries Bernard Sainte-Marie mail addresses; and Oceans Canada, Maurice Lamon- Pêches et Océans Canada / Fisheries and tagne Institute, 850 route de la Mer, C.P. Oceans Canada • Provide a summary of your find- 1000 Mont-Joli, QC G5H 3Z4; 418-775- [email protected] ings and restrict your abstract to 200 0634; [email protected] 418-775-0617 words; Sainte-Marie, Bernard. Pêches et Océans Canada, Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, General information: • Provide two prioritized keywords. 850 route de la Mer, C.P. 1000 Mont-Joli, Questions regarding the AFS 2014 QC G5H 3Z4; 418-775-0617; bernard. meeting and Québec City, please contact All presenters will receive an e-mail con- [email protected] [email protected] or visit firmation of their abstract submission www.afs2014.org and will be notified of acceptance and the Presenter: Martin Castonguay

468 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org COLUMN Director’s Line Sound Science and Future Trends Doug Austen Fisheries Senior Editor

Recently, Jeff Bezos, owner of Google, purchased the become reacquainted Washington Post. Typical of newspapers nationwide, the Post with the councils and has been losing subscribers and is now printing about half of their efforts to fulfill what it did just 10 years ago. Questions have been rampant the roles specified about the potential demise of the paper that broke Watergate in the Magnuson- and has won 58 Pulitzer prizes. Already, newsroom staff have Stevens Act. Here the been reduced from over 1,000 to 600. The question frequently management challeng- asked is, “Does the model of a printed newspaper still make es of immense fishery sense?” One can easily extend this to an examination of the resources, constantly shifting environmental stresses, always value that we place upon the high-quality journalism that the tight research budgets, and the uncertainty associated with Post supported. Does the lack of support for the morning pa- these factors have created a rich opportunity for cooperative per that so many of us consider a staple of life also underlie a science efforts between the fishing community (commercial diminished support for insightful and compelling journalism? and recreational) and scientists and managers. Increasingly, the Probably the most telling assessment that I have seen of this exploration of science policy is encouraging coproduction of is that the model of delivery may be antiquated, but the devo- science and other models that both challenge us and provide tion to journalism has not diminished; it simply may need to be new opportunities for growth. Clearly, the old models on many repackaged, sold, distributed, and supported in new ways. In a fronts are being challenged. somewhat comparable situation, similar questions can be asked of many types of professional, trade, and scientific associations, So what does all this mean for the AFS? The AFS carefully the American Fisheries Society (AFS) among them. managed the fiscal resources to ensure that the society is cur- rently in a solid financial position. Yet we need to be concerned Many of our peer group scientific associations have been about future trends, which are not working in our favor. Clearly, undergoing dramatic, often life-threatening, challenges to their our old sources of revenue (conferences, membership, journals, existence. A quick survey of the financial health of several of and books) are far from a certain source of future funds. Where them has shown that they may simply not be able to continue as are the new opportunities and how should the society be posi- currently conceived; to survive, they will need to undergo sub- tioning itself to best exploit these opportunities. Second, if we stantial changes or restructuring. Membership is stagnant, the are to fully engage in our mission, “to improve the conservation traditional printing of journals has been dramatically altered by and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems all forms of electronic media, the ability of members to attend by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the conferences will be increasingly challenged, and the rate and development of fisheries professionals,” we need to ensure that forms of information dissemination and access have expand- we are effectively addressing the role of science in the reality ed immensely. Furthermore, in a direct challenge to the very of society as it exists, not how we hope or wish it would exist. foundation of the professional and scientific associations, we We need to question these and many other basic premises of find conflicting values that society places on science. Though the society and ensure that we understand the challenges, iden- committed to producing and providing the best available sci- tify the opportunities, and aggressively respond. The officers, ence to support management and policy decisions, the AFS and governing board, and others have initiated this dialogue and it others are increasingly seeing science questioned, undermined, was a major source of discussion at the Little Rock meeting. or simply ignored. The public has routinely been confused with As this process moves forward, we will be actively pursuing conflicting, poor, or abused science on so many issues that they, your thoughts, insights, and guidance on how to ensure that naturally, are suspicious of all science. In an intriguing com- the American Fisheries Society can best fulfill its mission in mentary on this issue, Bob Lackey (Oregon State University) a world where an institution as storied as the Washington Post challenged the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission to carefully is weathering a storm as violent and turbulent as Sandy yet consider how to position science in a decision arena where it hopes to still be true to its journalistic foundation that altered is increasingly questioned. In another forum, I recently attend- the course of history. ed the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council meeting to

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 469 JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS Water Body Type Influences Climate–Growth Relationships of Freshwater Drum. Jordan C. Richard and Andrew L. Rypel. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142:1308–1320. Volume 142, Number 5, September 2013 Relative Vulnerability of PIT-Tagged Subyearling Fall Chi- nook Salmon to Predation by Caspian Terns and Double- Comparison of Two Life ­History Crested Cormorants in the Columbia River Estuary. Scott H. Strategies after Impoundment Sebring, Melissa C. Carper, Richard D. Ledgerwood, Benjamin of a Historically Anadromous P. Sandford, Gene M. Matthews, and Allen F. Evans. 142:1321– Stock of Columbia River Red- 1334. band Trout. Dean E. Holecek and Dennis L. Scarnecchia. The Effects of Pulse Pressure from Seismic Water Gun Tech- 142:1157–1166. nology on Northern Pike. Jackson A. Gross, Kathryn M. Irvine, Siri Wilmoth, Tristany L. Wagner, Patrick A. Shields, and Jeffrey Fall and Early Winter Move- R. Fox. 142:1335–1346. ment and Habitat Use of Wild Brook Trout. Robert Mollenhau- Contemporary Population Structure in Klamath River Basin er, Tyler Wagner, Megan V. Kepler, Chinook Salmon Revealed by Analysis of Microsatellite Ge- and John A. Sweka. 142:1167– netic Data. Andrew P. Kinziger, Michael Hellmair, David G. Han- 1178. kin, and John Carlos Garza. 142:1347–1357. Spatiotemporal Variation of Impacts of Diet on Thiamine Status of Lake Ontario Ameri- ­Juvenile Common Carp Foraging Patterns as Inferred from can Eels. John D. Fitzsimons, Scott B. Brown, Lisa R. Brown, Stable Isotope Analysis. Michael J. Weber and Michael L. Brown. Guy Verreault, Rémi Tardif, Ken G. Drouillard, Scott A. Rush, and 142:1179–1191. Jana R. Lantry. 142:1358–1369. Population Structure of a Neotropical Migratory Fish: Contrast- Species and Life History Affect the Utility of Otolith Chemical ing Perspectives from Genetics and Otolith Microchemistry. Sarah Composition for Determining Natal Stream of Origin for Pa- M. Collins, Nate Bickford, Peter B. McIntyre, Aurélie Coulon, Amber cific Salmon. Christian E. Zimmerman, Heidi K. Swanson, Eric J. Ulseth, Donald C. Taphorn, and Alexander S. Flecker. 142:1192– C. Volk, and Adam J. R. Kent. 142:1370–1380. 1201. Anadromous Sea Lampreys Recolonize a Maine Coastal Consequences of Incidental Otter Trawl Capture on Survival and River Tributary after Dam Removal. Robert Hogg, Stephen M. Physiological Condition of Threatened Atlantic Sturgeon. Jeffrey Coghlan Jr., and Joseph Zydlewski. 142:1381–1394. W. Beardsall, Montana F. McLean, Steven J. Cooke, Brian C. Wilson, Michael J. Dadswell, Anna M. Redden, and Michael J. W. Stokesbury. Upper Thermal Tolerances of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout 142:1202–1214. under Constant and Fluctuating Temperatures. Matthew P. Zeigler, Stephen F. Brinkman, Colleen A. Caldwell, Andrew S. Coding Gene Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Population Genet- Todd, Matthew S. Recsetar, and Scott A. Bonar. 142:1395–1405. ics of Nonnative Brook Trout: The Ghost of Introductions Past. H.­ M. Neville and L. Bernatchez. 142:1215–1231. Body Size and Growth Rate Influence Emigration Timing of Oncorhynchus mykiss. Ian A. Tattam, James R. Ruzycki, Hiram [Note] Microscale Environments along the Seaward Migration W. Li, and Guillermo R. Giannico. 142:1406–1414. Route of Stocked Chum Salmon Fry. Koh Hasegawa and Satoru Takahashi. 142:1232–1237. Using Seasonal Variation in Otolith Microchemical Compo- sition to Indicate Largemouth Bass and Southern Flounder Individual-Based Modeling of Delta Smelt Population Dynamics Residency Patterns across an Estuarine Salinity Gradient. in the Upper San Francisco Estuary: I. Model Description and Troy M. Farmer, Dennis R. DeVries, Russell A. Wright, and Joel Baseline Results. Kenneth A. Rose, Wim J. Kimmerer, Karen P. Ed- E. Gagnon. 142:1415–1429. wards, and William A. Bennett. 142:1238–1259. Conservation of the Owens Pupfish: Genetic Effects of Mul- Individual-Based Modeling of Delta Smelt Population Dynamics tiple Translocations and Extirpations. Amanda J. Finger, Steve in the Upper San Francisco Estuary: II. Alternative Baselines and Parmenter, and Bernie P. May. 142:1430–1443. Good versus Bad Years. Kenneth A. Rose, Wim J. Kimmerer, Karen P. Edwards, and William A. Bennett. 142:1260–1272. Abundance and Size Structure of Shortnose Sturgeon in the Altamaha River, Georgia. Douglas L. Peterson and Michael S. Patterns of Population Structure Vary Across the Range of the Bednarski. 142:1444–1452. White Sturgeon. A. Drauch Schreier, B. Mahardja, and B. May. 142:1273–1286. Evidence for Density-Dependent Changes in Growth, Down- stream Movement, and Size of Chinook Salmon Subyearlings Fragmentation and Drought Legacy Correlate with Distribution in a Large-River Landscape. William P. Connor, Kenneth F. Tif- of Burrhead Chub in Subtropical Streams of North America. Josh- fan, John M. Plumb, and Christine M. Moffitt. 142:1453–1468. uah S. Perkin, Zachary R. Shattuck, Joseph E. Gerken, and Timothy H. Bonner. 142:1287–1298. [Note] The Effects of Ethanol Preservation on Fish Fin Stable Isotopes: Does Variation in C:N Ratio and Body Size Matter? [Note] The Effects of Semichronic Thermal Stress on Physiological Carmella Vizza, Beth L. Sanderson, Douglas G. Burrows, and Indicators in Steelhead. Brittany D. Kammerer and Scott A. Heppell. Holly J. Coe. 142:1469–1476. 142:1299–1307. 470 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org NEW AFS MEMBERS

David Abrego Chris Middaugh Kyle Bales Seiji Miyazono Gregory Barker Clinton Morgeson Christina Bolton Adam Musto Gary Byrne Anna Neuheimer Andrew Deines Bryan Norris Lucas Driver Sandi Parten Ed Eisch Thomas Pate Sally Entrekin Casey Pennock Nicholas Feltz Tyler Reeves Adam Fox Jordan Richard Chris Fuller Anthony Rieth Rodney Gamez Alex Rosburg Kristin Garabedian Cody Salzmann Zachary Gillum Timothy Sesterhenn Molly Good Marian Shaffer Danielle Grunzke Evan Shields David Higginbotham June Shrestha Courtney Holden Meredith Smylie Christopher Hollenbeck Stephen Stowell Kathy Hoverman Mark Syphus Amanda Kelly Thor Tackett Christopher Kemp John Taylor Carl Klimah Jamie Thompson Bret Ladago Jason Throneberry Michael Lancaster Sara Tripp Jacqueline Leidig Joe Tyburczy Jean Leitner Manna Warburton Paul Lenos Kevin Weng Sean Lynott Karen Wilson Hector Malagon Rodrigue Yossa Nouaga Ralph Manns Sean Zeiger Andrew Marbury Yingming Zhao

Celebrating 42 years “working together to make a difference in the world we share”

...Looking back over Acoustic 42 years providing Submersible Equipment for Tracking Receiver Marine (early 80’s) Animals.

Tag used for Turtle Tracking

Tortuguero, Costa Rica (early 70’s) www.sonotronics.com • (520) 746-3322

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 471 Continued from page 431 “A lake is the landscape’s most beautiful and expressive feature. My fifth embarrassing moment, and the major reason It is earth’s eye; looking into which the beholder measures the I am writing this column, was that I learned from one of our depth of his own nature.”—Henry David Thoreau members who is a person of color that I was the first person to really ­engage him in meaningful conversation at an AFS annual REFERENCES meeting. Until then, he felt that he had been invisible, if not disliked, for his race. So, during a social or a break at your next Boesch, D. F., V. J. Coles, D. G. Kimmel, and W. D. Miller. 2007. AFS meetings, as your president, I personally ask each of you Coastal dead zones and global climate change—ramifications of to make a point of having a conversation with an AFS meeting climate change for Chesapeake Bay hypoxia. Pages 57–70 in Re- gional impacts of climate change: four case studies in the United attendee who appears to be of a different race than yours. I stress States. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, that this goes both ways; we both can learn something about Arlington, Virginia. what it is like to walk in the other’s shoes. If mutual interests Dahl, T. E. 2011. Status and trends of wetlands in the coterminous are sufficient, they might even lead to research and travel United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish opportunities in markedly different ecosystems and cultures and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Available: www.fws.gov/ that will further one’s professional growth. They certainly wetlands/Status-And-Trends-2009/index.html. (August 2013). have for me. Regardless of the possible professional rewards, Dahl, T. E. and S. M. Stedman. In press. Status and trends of wetlands we need to make the AFS even more personally welcoming in coastal watersheds of the United States 2004 to 2009. National than it is already—especially for people who feel a history of Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fish- eries Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild- discrimination in North America that stems largely from fear life Service. and insufficient knowledge of others. Fogarty, M., L. Incze, R. Wahle, D. Mountain, A. Robinson, A. Per- shing, K. Hayhoe, A. Richards, and J. Manning. 2007. Potential REFERENCE climate change impacts on marine resources of the Northeastern United States. In Northeast climate change impacts assessment. Cuker, B. E. 2007. Programs for building ethnic diversity in Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Avail- the aquatic sciences. Bulletin of the American Society of Lim- able: www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/pdf/confronting-climate- nology and Oceanography 16:42–45. change-in-the-u-s-northeast.pdf. (August 2013). National Fish Habitat Board. 2010. Through a fish’s eye: the status of fish habitats in the United States 2010. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C. Available: www.fishhabitat. Continued from page 432 org/content/through-fish%E2%80%99s-eye-status-fish-habitats- affect land use, environmental issues such as rainfall, regulatory united-states-2010. (August 2013). and enforcement measures, and climatic changes. Still, even Nye, J. A., J. S. Link, J. A. Hare, and W. J. Overholtz. 2009. Chang- with dueling variables, the general trend is toward more fish ing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate and habitat loss than should be acceptable, whether you’re a fish or population size on the Northeast United States Continental Shelf. a fish lover. Our nation adopted a national goal of “no net loss” Marine Ecology Progress Series 393:111–129. Available: www. of all wetlands in 1988 (under President George H.W. Bush), int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v393/p111-129. (August 2013). but we’re not there yet. Stedman, S. M., and T. E. Dahl. 2008. Status and trends of wetlands in coastal watersheds of the Eastern United States 1998 to 2004. Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Though perhaps not as dire as they were decades ago (when Fisheries Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and rivers caught fire and when we built amusement parks in wet- Wildlife Service. Available: www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/ lands), these trends still demand attention. As the National Fish Status-and-Trends-of-Wetlands-in-the-Coastal-Watersheds-of- Habitat Board (2010) reported in the first national assessment of the-Eastern-United-States-1998-to-2004.pdf. (August 2013). fish habitat, we know the challenges and must now seize the op- Stroud, R. H., editor. 1992. Stemming the tide of coastal fish habitat portunities to protect and restore. Our concern, and our actions, loss. Marine Recreational Fisheries 14, Proceedings of a sympo- must reflect not just the beauty of these habitats (see Thoreau’s sium on conservation of coastal fish habitat. National Coalition quote accompanying this column) but the societal benefits of for Marine Conservation, Savannah, Georgia. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. National riv- their existence. One of the earliest reports on coastal fish habitat ers and streams assessment 2008–2009: a collaborative survey. loss (Stroud 1992) offered a strong call to arms but did little to Available: http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/riverssurvey/ vulcanize action. Decades later, agency reports such as those upload/NRSA0809_Report_Final_508Compliant_130228.pdf. cited above are once again tugging at our hearts. We need to (August 2013). sculpt appropriate action for each habitat, for the primary threats to those waters, and based on reasonable budgets and schedules.

Now grab your gear and head to the front lines. For me, that’s a conference room down the hall where I must fight for much-needed research dollars. For others, it will hopefully be a trip to a watering hole that needs our help. Together we must reverse these trends—for our children’s children and their chil- dren and on and on.

472 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS web site calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/­ CALENDAR province, web address, and contact information to [email protected]. Fisheries Events (If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.) More events listed at www.fisheries.org

DATE EVENT LOCATION WEBSITE

October 21–27, 2013 3rd International Marine Protected Areas Marseille, France impac3.org ­Congress December 4–7, 2013 Ball State Chapter – Midwest Fish and Des Moines, IA bsuafs.iweb.bsu.edu Wildlife Conference January 22–26, 2014 Southern Division Spring Meeting Charleston, SC sdafs.org/meeting2014

January 26–29, 2014 K-State Student Subunit of AFS / Midwest Kansas City, MO k-state.edu/ksuafs/events.shtml Fish and Wildlife Conference February 5–7, 2014 Annual Meeting of the New York Chapter Geneva, NY newyorkafs.org

February 11–13, 2014 GA-AFS Annual Meeting Athens, GA gaafs.org

February 18–20, 2014 Florida Chapter Meeting Ocala, FL sdafs.org/flafs

February 25–27, 2014 Wisconsin Chapter Meeting Green Bay, WI wi-afs.org

April 7–12, 2014 The Western Division Meeting’s 2nd Mazatlan, Mexico fishconserve.org/email_messages/­ International Mangroves as Fish Habitat Mangrove_Symposium.html Symposium August 3–7, 2014 International Congress on the Biology of Fish Edinburgh, United icbf2014.sls.hw.ac.uk Kingdom August 17–21, 2014 AFS Annual Meeting 2014 Québec City, afs2014.org Canada August 31– AFS-FSH – International Symposium on Portland, OR afs-fhs.org/meetings/meetings.php September 4, 2014 Aquatic Animal Health (ISAAH)

Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 473 474 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013 • www.fisheries.org 475 476 Fisheries • Vol 38 No 10 • October 2013• www.fisheries.org

HTI’s engineers gave us two thumbs up to share three new fisheries technologies currently in prototype beta testing. So we thought we’d drop a few hints...

HTI’s Predation Tag Autonomous Data Logger & smaller Longer Life, Acoustic Tags

Very cool, indeed. The secret is out. ‘‘ - Attendee, American Fisheries Society ’’ Annual Meeting 2013 www.HTIsonar.com/2014-fisheries-tech