In This Issue

VOL 39 NO 6 FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org JUNE 2014

ANNUAL MEETING SUPPLEMENT INSIDE

Table of Contents Partners 2 Welcome to Québec City Plenary Speakers 4

Symposia Student Activities 10 3 5 Contributed Oral Presentations Networking Events 11 Trade Show and Poster Session Spawning Run Location 12 7 Pub Crawl Hotel Accommodations 13 98 Top Attractions Continuing Education

9 Workshop 18 Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 13 Forms 1916 In this Issue: Do Anglers Target Fish Equally? Canadian Recreational Fisheries Trends Removing Alien Invasive Species in South Africa Monitoring: The Foundation of ScientificManagemen t Information Distortion in Management Agencies AFS Strategic Plan

03632415(2014)39(6) Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 Fisheries VOL 39 NO 6 JUNE 2014 Contents COLUMNS

President’s Commentary 243 Monitoring: Garbage In Yields Garbage Out Insufficient or inappropriate monitoring efforts are impairing our ability to answer questions about the status and trends of U.S. inland fisheries. Bob Hughes

Policy 245 Maybe It’s Not Just About the Fish Opportunities for partnerships with other disciplines offer wide ranging benefits. Thomas E. Bigford

Letter from the Executive Director 286 Behind the Scenes at Mazatlan This year’s Western Division meeting in Mazatlan was Melanie Duthie prepares to apply rotenone to the a remarkable accomplishment and full of interesting 270 Rondegat River using a drip can. Photo credit: Bruce presentations. Ellender. Doug Austen 270 Threatened Endemic Fishes in South Africa’s Cape ESSAYS AND FEATURES Floristic Region: A New Beginning for the Rondegat River An international collaboration between AFS and South African institutions removed non-native Smallmouth Bass 246 Information Flow in Fisheries Management: from a South African stream, resulting in a rapid increase in Systemic Distortion within Agency Hierarchies native fish diversity. How could an environmental catastrophe of this magnitude happen under the guardianship of a group of people who Olaf L. F. Weyl, Brian Finlayson, N. Dean Impson, Darragh J. cared deeply for the public trust they managed, and who were Woodford, and Jarle Steinkjer committed to using the best science available to properly manage these fish? IN MEMORIAM Kiira Siitari, Jim Martin, and William W. Taylor 280 Carlos M. Fetterolf, Jr. 251 Canadian Recreational Fisheries: 35 Years of Social, Biological, and Economic Dynamics from a National Survey UNIT NEWS Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 By synthesizing data from typically disparate disciplines, an important connection is formed between natural resources 281 Dam Impacts on Fishery Resources – Join Us in and their social and economic value. Québec Jacob W. Brownscombe, Shannon D. Bower, William Bowden, Margaret H. Murphy Liane Nowell, Jonathan D. Midwood, Neville Johnson, and Steven J. Cooke AFS STRATEGIC PLAN 2015–2019 261 Hide and Seek: Interplay of Fish and Anglers 282 Draft 1, May 2014 Influences Spatial Fisheries Management Insights into how anglers spatially target fish leads to new JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS avenues, and dilemmas for management of recreational fisheries. 284 Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, Volume 26, Issue Bryan G. Matthias, Micheal S. Allen, Robert N. M. Ahrens, 1, March 2014 T. Douglas Beard, Jr., and Janice A. Kerns CALENDAR

Cover: Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) angled in eastern Ontario. Photo 285 Fisheries Events credit: Karen Murchie.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 241 EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110•Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 (301) 897-8616 • fax (301) 897-8096 • [email protected] The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlightened management of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also FisheriesAmerican 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 2014 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 Kristen Anstead Deirdre M. Kimball Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription. Marilyn “Guppy” Blair Jeff Koch FIRST VICE PRESIDENT MANAGING EDITOR Jim Bowker Jim Long Nonmember and library subscription rates are Ron Essig Sarah Fox Mason Bryant Daniel McGarvey $182. Steven R. Chipps Jeremy Pritt SECOND VICE PRESIDENT CONTRIBUTING EDITOR Ken Currens Roar Sandodden Joe Margraf Beth Beard Andy Danylchuk Jesse Trushenski Michael R. Donaldson Usha Varanasi PAST PRESIDENT Andrew H. Fayram Jack E. Williams John Boreman Stephen Fried Jeffrey Williams Larry M. Gigliotti BOOK REVIEW EDITOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Madeleine Hall-Arbor Francis Juanes Doug Austen Alf Haukenes Jeffrey E. Hill ABSTRACT TRANSLATION 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 2014. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproduction of material in this publication is permitted only under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199.

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

2014 AFS MEMBERSHIP 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 Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 _____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 Aquaculture: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$45 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$54 OTHER PRINT Journal of Aquatic Animal Health: _____$25 ONLINE ONLY; _____$45 NORTH AMERICA PRINT; _____$54 OTHER PRINT Fisheries InfoBase: ____$25 ONLINE ONLY

242 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org COLUMN Monitoring: Garbage In Yields Garbage Out President’s Commentary Bob Hughes, AFS President

Recreational fishing in the United States has a $42–$56 bil- There are two good lion economic impact (National Marine Fisheries Service 2011; examples of national U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). Between 1987 and 2009, status and trend assess- Dingell-Johnson excise taxes yielded $50 to $400 million annu- ments for fish assem- ally to the states for fishery improvement projects (Andrew Lof- blages. The USEPA’s tus Consulting and Southwick Associates Incorporated 2011). National River and Given those sums, what are the status and trends in the nation’s Stream Assessment fisheries? And how effective have those fishery improvement uses a probability sur- projects been in rehabilitating or maintaining fisheries? I convey design and standard tend that we lack quantitative answers to those questions at a na- methods and indicators AFS President Bob Hughes tional scale because of insufficient or inappropriate monitoring. to assess the rivers and can be contacted at: streams of the conter- [email protected] The three types of monitoring pertinent to fisheries man- minous United States. agement are implementation, effectiveness, and status/trend Its latest survey determined that fish assemblages in 37% of assessment. Implementation monitoring determines whether stream and river length were in good condition and 36% were a planned and funded project was implemented as proposed. in poor condition (USEPA 2013). The chief factors associated Effectiveness monitoring determines whether a project had the with poor condition were excess phosphorus, sediments, and desired or planned effect. Status and trend monitoring deter- salinity. The U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Quality mines status and trend in a resource of interest (fish assemblage, Assessment employs a pressure-gradient design and standard fishery, species, population). methods and indicators. Its recent survey of selected urban areas indicated that fish assemblage condition was strongly related There are poor examples of the three types of monitoring to various urban stressors in some metropolitan areas but not at regional or landscape scales. Section 404 of the Clean Water others because of legacy landscape disturbances in the latter Act requires wetland mitigation by developers who destroy wet- (Brown et al. 2009). lands. However, in surveys of Oregon wetland permits from 1977 to 1987 and Washington permits for 1980–1986, Kentula I contend that we lack quantitative answers to those et al. (1992) found that only 47% of Oregon and 49% of Wash- questions at a national scale because of insufficient or ington proposed mitigation projects were evaluated, let alone inappropriate monitoring. implemented as proposed. Given the large amounts spent on rehabilitating surface water condition, it is disconcerting to realize how little has been spent on assessing the effects of those Several good examples exist of state/provincial status and projects. Only 370 of 37,000 U.S. projects (Bernhardt et al. trend assessments for fish assemblages or fish species. Yoder 2005) and 154 of 23,000 Pacific Northwest projects (Katz et al. et al. (2005) were able to document substantial improvement 2007) reported any type of monitoring. Even when assessments in river fish assemblages in Ohio between 1980 and 2010 be- have been conducted, there are often substantial disconnects because of the use of repeat sampling and standard methods and

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 tween management evaluations and the rigorous study designs indicators. The Maryland Biological Stream Survey employs and data needed to quantify project effectiveness (Shields et al. random site selection and standard methods and indicators. As 2003; Alexander and Allan 2006; Thompson 2006). Similarly, a result, Morgan and Cushman (2005) found that urbanization status and trend assessments often suffer from poor study de- negatively affected fish assemblages to a greater degree in Pied- signs, nonstandard methods, or inconsistent indicators (Hughes mont streams than in Coastal Plain streams. In addition, Stranko and Peck 2008; LaVigne et al. 2008). For example, Jacobs and et al. (2012) reported no significant difference in fish assem- Cooney (1995) reported that nonrandom survey sites overesti- blages between sets of urban rehabilitated and nonrehabilitated mated Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) population sizes streams, despite expenditures of $7.2 million on rehabilitation. by three to five times (Hughes et al. 2000). At the national scale, The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife uses a probability the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) National design and standard methods to document coastal Coho Salmon Lake Survey (USEPA 2009) and National Coastal Condition abundance and distribution by river basin in a statistically rig- Assessment (USEPA 2008) surveys fish physical, chemical, and orous manner (Jacobs and Cooney 1995; Larsen et al. 2001; biological habitat but not fish assemblages—despite the impor- Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2009). The data are tance of those ecosystems to fisheries and the importance of used in determining harvest limits, hatchery releases, and status fisheries to the U.S. economy. assessments. Ten different federal, state, and city monitoring programs used the same survey designs and methods at 451

Continued on page 287

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 243 Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014

244 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org COLUMN Maybe It’s Not Just About the Fish Policy Thomas E. Bigford, AFS Policy Director

Most of my previous columns focused on fish, fish habi- will also provide insights tat, fishing, fish agencies, fish communications, etc. Anything on how meeting size fishy was fair game. But my supposedly wide net may well have translates into success been naïve. The last month has been eye-opening and incredibly for the societies, their exciting. members, and the aquatic sciences. Will a larger With better hindsight than foresight, I now see what I conference yield stronger missed for decades. I knew that our fish work overlaps with oth- messages, perhaps direct ers and pride myself by applying my training as an ecologist to action from Congress, think about connections—but my best intentions didn’t prompt more media coverage, me to work routinely with groups or on issues that might hold or longer-term collabo- AFS Policy Director Thomas E. great promise for our favored fish. These opportunities relate rations with agencies or Bigford can be contacted at: to policy (so I can safely write about them in this column!), but sectors? Is a “summit” [email protected] they also span science, management, education, and everything of like-minded groups a else we do. logical expansion of the comfortable conferences and annual meetings? Just think of the possibilities. AFS business routinely inter- sects in time or space (or research or management) with partners A second partnership is the Restore America’s Estuaries we don’t often acknowledge—bird work by Ducks Unlimited, (RAE)–The Coastal Society (TCS) joint “Summit 2014: Inspir- livestock range work of the Dairy Farmers of America, wild ing Action, Creating Resilience” (Restore America’s Estuaries game interests in the Wildlife Management Institute, socioeco- –The Coastal Society 2014). RAE and TCS have established nomic implications studied by Resources for the Future, wet- “a new collaboration to present the first ever National Summit land and barrier protection work tracked by the Association that will bring together the restoration and coastal management of State Floodplain Managers, aquatic education priorities at communities for an integrated discussion to explore issues, so- the National Wildlife Federation, and many more. The same lutions and lessons learned.” As stated by the RAE and TCS also applies to our partners at all levels of government. Your presidents, on the Summit website (Restore America’s Estuaries American Fisheries Society has a 144-year history but we have –The Coastal Society 2014): only occasionally engaged with some promising partners. All indications are that our few place-based partnerships of the past The integration of our communities is long overdue. The col- will shepherd us toward robust cooperative efforts in our near laboration provides an opportunity to address many of the future. And while ecological connections are likely to be the issues we have in common in a more holistic way and offers basis for initial introductions, strong administrative and finan- a more cost-effective way to convene discussion. Through cial incentives will address the business challenges confronting this joint Summit, the interdisciplinary group of presenters successful interactions among so many nonprofit societies and and audience will be able to expand networks, develop re- associations. lationships, and leverage opportunities to find solutions for

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 common problems. This evolution is already underway. The Joint Aquatic Sci- ences Meeting assembled the Society for Freshwater Science, That quote captures both the flavor of the changes we’re Phycological Society of America, Association for the Sciences witnessing and the postevent scrutiny we’ll need as we deter- of Limnology and Oceanography, and Society of Wetland Sci- mine whether bigger and broader is better than before. entists (2014) for a “historic joint meeting of four of the leading aquatic scientific societies.” Their theme of “Bridging Genes to AFS is an active player in this shifting landscape. AFS at- Ecosystems: Aquatic Science at a Time of Rapid Change” be- tended the Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting in May with an eye lies the trend I’m attempting to understand. Those four societies toward joining the effort for a second joint meeting in 2015. We sought to build a bridge across disciplines with aquatic science also will have a presence at the RAE-TCS Summit in Novem- as one common thread. ber, both at the primary meeting and at an adjunct gathering of the National Fish Habitat Partnership’s (NFHP) Board of Direc- That Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting, which convened in tors meeting (National Fish Habitat Partnership 2014). Portland, Oregon while this column was in press, promises to be larger than the typical gathering of each of the four partners. Another opportunity associated with that Summit could That’s by design, but will the grander event convey its aquatic raise expectations another order of magnitude. The fall meeting messages to the intended audiences and will it generate sufficient revenue to support operations for four groups? Portland Continued on page 288 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 245 ESSAY

Information Flow in Fisheries Management: Systemic Distortion within Agency Hierarchies Kiira Siitari Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Department of Fisheries “Systemic distortion” of information can be defined as the and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 1405 S. Harrison Rd., Suite 115, process of altering information as it is communicated through East Lansing, MI 48823. E-mail: [email protected] the layers of a hierarchical system. In general, systemic dis- Jim Martin tortion is a function of organizational pressures (to be right) and people’s social tendencies (to be liked). These pressures Berkley Conservation Institute, Mulino, OR can cause perceived good news to travel quickly and unverified William W. Taylor upward through the hierarchy of an agency, whereas bad news is often late, misinterpreted, and understated; therefore, the Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI people at the top of the organization’s hierarchy tend to receive information that is favorably biased. Such favorably biased information supports the status quo within an organization (Bella INTRODUCTION 1996), reducing the ability of the system to adapt to change. In the worst of cases, outside intervention or system collapse is re- The early to mid-1970s provided some of the best Coho quired for institutional change to occur, clearly to the detriment Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) fishing of the last century in of fisheries resources and agency reputation. The goal of this ar- Oregon, in large part a function of productive ocean conditions ticle is to create awareness of systemic distortion of information and a booming hatchery system. However, wild Coho popula- within natural resource organizations and provide tools to coun- tions exhibited dramatic declines toward the end of the decade teract this phenomenon in the decision-making process. Distor- and harvest rates subsequently dropped by over 75% (Martin tion of information is well documented in hierarchical systems 2009). Even after the Oregon Department of Fish and Wild- (Rosen and Tesser 1970; Roberts and O’Reilly 1974; Liberti life (ODFW) implemented what was deemed at the time to be and Mian 2009) and it is therefore imperative that professionals scientifically defensible harvest reductions, fisheries biologists in our field understand that the effects influence the function, watched as the number of returning Coho fell into severe de- productivity, and sustainability of our fisheries and ecosystems. cline over the next several years. How could an environmental catastrophe of this magnitude happen under the guardianship Dave Bella, a professor of engineering at Oregon State Uni- of a group of people who cared deeply for the public trust they versity, began investigating systemic distortion of information managed and who were committed to using the best science preceding major engineering disasters of the late 20th century. available to properly manage these fish? His work focused on the disparity in risk perception between lower and higher levels of decision making in organizations How could an environmental catastrophe of this such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration magnitude happen under the guardianship of a group (NASA). Following the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion of people who cared deeply for the public trust they in 1986, a Presidential Commission Report found that NASA

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 managed and who were committed to using the best engineers familiar with the mechanics of the rocket identi- science available to properly manage these fish? fied significant risk in the solid rocket booster feature of the shuttle long before this disaster occurred (Feynman 1986). This information, however, was filtered and diluted, systematically The history of Oregon Coho provides a case study of man- minimizing the perception of risk as it moved up the chain of agement inaction due to barriers in information flow through command (Bella 1987). An independent study estimated that the hierarchy of a fisheries governance organization. Natural the upper level managers perceived the risk to be about one resource agencies are generally complex, multitiered institu- thousand times less than the risk perceived by on-the-ground, tions that depend on information flowing vertically through working engineers (Feynman 1986). From our historical view- the hierarchy of the organization to make decisions and imple- point, the system of reporting within NASA was clearly dys- ment management actions. As information moves between the functional, with top-level administrators somehow not receiving layers of an organization, there is always opportunity for the needed information to make rational decisions. Nonetheless, message to become distorted by the way in which individuals people within the system at the time perceived their actions to interpret and communicate information. Making decisions using be responsible, reasonable, and justified (Bella 1987); the rea- complete and accurate information becomes more difficult the son for this stems from how and why information was distorted higher up in the governance system one goes. as it moved from the field personnel to the upper levels of the administration within this highly respected organization.

246 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Good News Tends to Travel Quickly STEPS TO CORRECT FOR DISTORTION

People generally want to talk about their successes, and a Systemic distortion cannot be eliminated from hierarchi- positive attitude is valued in organizations. The majority of peo- cal social systems. Rather, people in an organization must be ple seek the approval of their peers and supervisors. Through prepared to recognize and mitigate its effects. Leaders at every both formal and informal communication channels, perceived level must acknowledge and account for distortion and not pun- good news tends to travels quickly and unquestioned up the ish the people who report bad news or question the status quo. hierarchy of an agency. Positive reinforcement is often granted The following are management recommendations that can help to the purveyors of good news, causing information to move agency professionals increase the accuracy and timeliness of through the system ever more quickly, unchecked and increas- information flowing through their organization for the effective ingly exaggerated. Competition for funding and recognition can management of our fisheries resources. cause project forecasting to be overly positive, as the proposals and actions that promise the most economic value to the orga- Be Aware nization are chosen for implementation (Lovallo and Kahneman 2003). Distortion of information is endemic to human communication systems. Therefore, the first step in minimizing these forces Hierarchies tend to inhibit open and honest relationships is for leaders to be aware that the information they receive has needed to communicate effectively at work due to an imbal- already been subject to some level of distortion. Be cautious ance of power between people within the decision-making chain when receiving only good news and seek out attrition errors— (Chaleff 2010). Both fear and love of an employer can cause realize that people want to take credit for positive outcomes people to distort information. Most people want to be supportive and attribute negative outcomes to others, especially factors of their leaders and the organizations they represent. What bet- outside the organization (Lovallo and Kahneman 2003). Stud- ter currency to pay back a good employer than by highlighting ies have found that managerial perceptions are often inaccurate the positive results of their decisions? Unfortunately, this blind (Mezias and Starbuck 2003). Know what bad news looks like devotion can encourage employees to seek out information that and question what the ramifications would be if you are only verifies that their leader’s decisions are right and to protect them seeing a piece of the whole problem. Numerous factors affect from complaints or negative feedback. At an extreme, supervi- how information is reported: contextual factors such as the ex- sors can build an insular layer around themselves through their tremity of the news, social factors such as hierarchical power hiring and firing practices, surrounding themselves with “yes- and distance, and individual factors such as personality and past men” people who will support their decisions no matter what. experiences (Lee 1993). Leaders should strive to build relation- This organizational ethos creates a barrier of gatekeepers who ships within an inclusive communication network so they know filter or minimize any bad news from ever reaching the decision what information is likely to be understated and who tends to maker and thus puts this person and the organization ultimately be overly positive or overly negative. Investigating every piece in jeopardy due to lack of complete and accurate information on of information hinders a leader’s ability to make timely deci- which to base decisions. sions; therefore, promoting an organizational culture aware of distortion will make day-to-day communication more effective Bad News Tends to Arrive Late and Understated and productive.

Hierarchical social systems inherently do not support per- Being aware of systemic distortion challenges people to ceived bad news because bad news is viewed as disloyalty and examine their own biases. Past fisheries stock collapses have

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 challenges the functioning of the organization (Bella 1987). been linked to the unchallenged acceptance of scientific meth- People who challenge the established protocols within an or- ods (Finlayson 1994; Lichatowich 1999). In reaction to the ganization are often ostracized for not being team players, es- Coho Salmon declines in the 1970s, ODFW fisheries research- pecially if they cut through the chain of command and report ers implemented the best science available at the time to rees- above their immediate supervisors. Team projects are often tablish harvest quotas. Managers were confident that the new heavily laden with social pressure toward consensus and group- Ricker stock recruitment curves would give them the accurate think (Whyte 1956): not many people want to relay bad news or predictions needed to conserve the fishery. Despite the politi- challenge the decisions of their colleagues because dissent can cal unpopularity of the initial decision to reduce harvest limits, be taken personally and weaken working relationships. Thus, managers were confident that the science was sound and cred- information that reflects poorly on coworkers or the agency will ible. For years, the salmon populations continued to decline; be diluted and softened as it moves through the layers of an in- this bad news was attributed to ocean conditions or sampling stitution. To do otherwise is to risk being tuned out, reorganized, error and sent back for reanalysis before it was ever passed or fired. Multitiered organizations under political or economic on to the upper levels of the agency’s hierarchy. It took the pressure tend to revert to a mentality of “keep the system going” dogged investigation and courageous dissent of a small group (Bella 1997). Every level depends on the others and bad news of ODFW employees to discover a major error in their methods has the potential to cause chaos throughout the organization, concerning the spawning index streams used to parameterize making the entire system impotent. the stock recruitment curves. Though believed to be unbiased, these streams were actually nonrandom and not representative

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 247 of the spatial heterogeneity of natal Coho streams in Oregon Martin admits that ODFW fisheries biologists, himself in- (McGie 1981; Emlen et al. 1990). The index sites that were cluded, lacked this humility prior to the collapse of the Coho used in the scientific assessment of Coho stocks were in fact stocks. “We thought we had complete control over the salmon the most productive streams on the Oregon coast, chosen by fishery. With our cutting-edge science and our hatchery capaci- highly respected agency employees, long retired from the orga- ties, we believed we could adjust the population to whatever nization. These streams were never intended for evaluating the level the fishermen wanted. No wonder no one saw the crash entire population. Thus, the productivity of the overall Oregon coming.” This hubris was also observed in a postcollapse analy- Coho stocks was overestimated year after year before the prob- sis of Northern Cod (Gadus morhua) management by the Ca- lem was ever recognized. No one dared to question the way nadian government (Finlayson 1994). In 1977, the Department things were done or the integrity of earlier fisheries profession- of Fisheries and Oceans Canada developed a “science-based als and, as a result, the scientific examination of the problem system of fisheries management” that proceeded to create and was delayed. Intense political and public pressure amplified the defend seriously flawed stock assessments and catch limits, de- internal distortion, as employees defended the decisions of the spite concerns from nearshore fishers and academics, until a agency, causing the organization to be even slower to recognize fishing moratorium was enacted in 1992 (McCay and Finalyson the problem and take the actions necessary to protect all but the 1995). Agency personnel observed that the Department of Fish- most resilient stocks in Oregon. eries and Oceans Canada promoted work considered scientifically important while providing little incentive to contribute to Cut Through the Layers organizational function and communication with stakeholders (Finalyson 1994). Even following the collapse, fisheries sci- In order to evaluate the amount of distortion within a sys- entists blamed the cause of Northern Cod declines on ocean tem, it is necessary to tunnel through the multiple layers of a conditions, ineffective sampling, and marine mammal predation hierarchy. Known as “diagonal communication” (Wilson 1992), before questioning the total allowable catch limits generated by leaders are encouraged to seek out problems in their organiza- their models (McCay and Finalyson 1995). Problem identification from all levels of the hierarchy. Following the chaos of tion inherently questions the status quo; therefore, this step is the salmon declines, one of us (Martin) boosted diagonal com- both radical and critical for an institution to adapt to changing munication by scheduling one-on-one district tours with each social and biological conditions. regional fisheries biologist in the state during his time as chief of fisheries for ODFW. The breadth of knowledge he had from Identify Reverse Distortion Personalities the top of the agency met the depth of knowledge from the on-the-ground, field biologists. By cutting through the layers Within natural resource agencies, leaders should seek to within the organization, Martin felt better prepared to imple- build a culture of problem finders as well as problem solvers. ment the information he was receiving at the local and regional Too often, the problem solvers are touted as the most essential scale while employees had a better understanding of the forces components of an institution. In truth, the people who identify affecting statewide decisions. In a second example, an analysis problems are equally vital to an agency. In any team environ- of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that increasing ment, supervisors benefit from identifying what we call “reverse diagonal communication within the agency’s hierarchy would distortion personalities.” These are people who are not inter- enable employees to more effectively meet agency objectives ested in distorting information for the better and will even go (Danter et al. 2000). Communication and relationship-building as far as to amplify bad news. Reverse distortion personalities do require a time investment; efficiency must sometimes give have a psychology built around the identification of problems. way to inclusion and responsiveness in order for institutions to Unfortunately, these people are often negatively labeled as or-

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 process change (Yaffee 1997). ganizational malcontents, cynics, or simply not team players. Like a splinter in the human body, the organization will often Celebrate Problem Identification attempt to isolate and get rid of the irritant, usually by reorganizing these personalities to positions where they can be, at Systemic distortion is generally not malicious deception, best, tolerated or ignored. However, a good leader will recog- and problems can be ignored or distorted for many reasons. nize that reverse distortion personalities are key components to Therefore, employees should not fear reporting bad news nor a healthy system—they are not splinters to be removed. Because should they fear that a mistake has been made on their watch. they are not concerned about going against the groupthink cur- A problem must be identified and characterized before it can rent, reverse distortion personalities serve as an internal warning be solved. Therefore, rewards are equally due for both problem system that information might be getting distorted on the way identification and solution. The goal of this step is to show em- to the top. These individuals beg that the problem be addressed ployees that it is okay to make mistakes as long as the mistakes and there is generally value in this consideration. Minority input are found. This step requires humility and accountability across and respectful disagreement are important pieces of a healthy layers in an agency. When people trust that their leaders are decision-making process (Whyte 1956). As such, in any team concerned with ensuring that they receive the correct informa- environment, leaders should reinforce that “between the ex- tion and not the just favorable information, productive problem treme of rote compliance and counterproductive undermining of solving can move forward. leadership, there is an important place for thoughtful, divergent views” (Chaleff 2010, p. 15).

248 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Be Prepared to Act of responsibility” (p. 127). Effective leadership demands both individual and organizational accountability. Because ethical Once a problem is identified, the system must be flexible considerations are inherent to almost all management decisions enough to react to the information before negative impacts be- in natural resources (Decker et al. 1991), such decision mak- come irreversible. Too often, it takes sociopolitical or ecologi- ing requires a leader to see beyond his or her organizational cal catastrophes, such as the crash of Northern Cod or Oregon role to the role of responsible citizen. Professional societies can Coho stocks, for organizations to change their behavior (White support such courageous leadership by exposing distortions and 2001). Fisheries managers rely on empirical evidence to defend biases of organizations (Bella 1992): The American Fisheries decisions, yet lack of resources for monitoring is considered Society’s Standards of Professional Conduct speaks to mem- a major barrier to successful adaptive management in fisher- ber’s responsibility to aquatic resources and the public and fur- ies (Walters 2007). Recognizing problems before a catastrophe thermore establishes a process for situations when a member requires constant vigilance and evaluation, which includes cre- finds employment obligations incongruent with ethical stan- ating measureable objectives directly linked to desired impacts dards (American Fisheries Society 1997). Paradigm shifts in of management decisions (Riley et al. 2002). These objectives fisheries toward adaptive management require an organizational are red flags in the monitoring program, and when these flags culture that is prepared to embrace constantly changing, non- go up, the agency must be prepared to take action rather than linear processes that are outside the experience of many agency delay intervention due to incomplete, inconclusive, or distorted personnel (Danter et al. 2000). information. As stewards of the public trust, we are fighting huge battles Institutional flexibility is a critical component in the frame- against pollution, habitat loss, invasive species, climate change, work of adaptive management (Gunderson et al. 1995) that and competing stakeholder interests for fisheries resources. This monitors the impacts of fisheries management intervention in is precisely why leaders should strive to minimize the internal order to learn and change with the addition of new information distortive forces that counteract an organization’s best inten- (Walters 1986). Risk management strategies, such as decision tions to protect aquatic resources. Recognizing and correcting support tools, provide professionals with the means to make for systemic distortion keeps information flowing accurately decisions that account for the complex uncertainty of fishery through an organization, reducing bias in management decisions systems (Hillborn 1987). These strategies foster management and promoting more effective and sustainable conservation of plans prepared to deal with economic and biological surprises our fisheries and their ecosystems. (Sethi 2010). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CONCLUSION: DISTORTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY The authors extend a special note of thanks to Dr. Dave Bella, Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University, for his help- In Oregon, systemic distortion of information enabled ag- ful comments on this article and for developing the concept of gressive harvest rates to remain unchallenged as wild Coho systemic distortion of information and helping us understand stocks became severely depleted. It took complete closure of its application to natural resource management. We appreciated the fishery, coupled with 15 years of concentrated research ef- the honest and critical assessment of this article provided by our forts (e.g., Emlen et al. 1990), to begin to reverse the effects of anonymous reviewers. Additionally, thanks are due to S. Riley, management decisions based on distorted information. In the L. McLyman, D. Leete, and N. Clough for their insightful dis- end, the ODFW managed to avoid complete loss of the Oregon cussions, along with A. Lynch, K. Schlee, and S. Good for their

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 stocks. From our perspective, this chapter of Oregon Coho his- review of earlier drafts. tory is not a result of scientific failure but rather a failure to question the veracity of scientific information flowing into the REFERENCES

management process. The changes in management practices American Fisheries Society. 1997. Standards of Professional Conduct. Available: www. that were necessary to protect the fishery were fueled by cou- fisheries.org/afs/certification/cert_standardsofprofessionalconduct. (August 2011). rageous individuals who held themselves and the organization Bella, D. A. 1987. Organizations and systematic distortion of information. Journal of Pro- fessional Issues in Engineering 113:360–370. accountable for ensuring that information flowing to top agency ———. 1992. Ethics and the credibility of applied science. Pages 19–31 in G. H. Reeves, decision makers was accurate and timely. D. L. Bottom, and M. H. Brookes, editors. Ethical questions for resource managers. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW- GTR-288. Portland, Oregon. The steps we have outlined here are meant to facilitate ———. 1996. The pressures of organizations and the responsibilities of university profes- sors. BioScience 46:772–778. critical thinking and trust within fisheries management agen- ———. 1997. Organization systems and the burden of proof. Pages 617–638 in D. J. cies. Studies in organizational behavior have found that trust in Strouder, P. A. Bisson, R. Naiman, editors. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems. Chap- the supervisor facilitates a more productive work environment man and Hall, New York. Chaleff, I. 2010. Promoting the healthy flow of information to senior leaders. Leader to (Roberts and O’Reilly 1974; Scott 1980). However, the respon- Leader 56:12–16 sibility of correcting for distortion falls on all individuals in an Danter, K. J., D. L. Griest, G. W. Mullins, and E. Norland. 2000. Organizational change as a component of ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources 13:537–547. organization. Silver and Geller (1978) asserted that “an orga- Decker, D. J., R. E. Shanks, L. A. Nielsen, and G. R. Parsons. 1991. Ethical and scientific nization obscures an individual’s relationship to an end state, judgments in management: beware of blurred distinctions. Wildlife Society Bulletin thus permitting the individual to feel uninvolved and devoid 19:523–527.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 249 Emlen, J. M., R. R. Reisenbichler, A. M. McGie, and T. E. Nickelson. 1990. Density- dependence at sea for coho salmon (Oncorrhynchus kistuch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:1765–1772. Feynman, R. P. 1986. Personal observation on the reliability of the shuttle. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger accident. Appendix F. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Finlayson, A. C. 1994. Fishing for truth. Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memo- rial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada. Gunderson, L. H., C. S. Holling, and S. S. Light. 1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York. Hillborn, R. 1987. Living with uncertainty in resource management. North American Jour- nal of Fisheries Management 7:1–5. Lee, F. 1993. Being polite and keeping MUM: how bad news is communicated in organizational hierarchies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23:1124–1149. Liberti, J. M., and A. R. Mian 2009. Estimating the effect of hierarchies on information use. Review of Financial Studies 22:4057–4090. Lichatowich, J. 1999. Salmon without rivers. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Lovallo, D., and D. Kahneman. 2003. Delusions of success. Harvard Business Review OnPoint 4279:27–37. Martin, J. 2009. A perspective on Coho Salmon management in Oregon. American Fisher- ies Society Symposium 70:1047–1057. McCay, B. J., and A. C. Finlayson. 1995. The political ecology and crisis and institutional change: the case of the Northern Cod. Annual Meetings of American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. McGie, A. M. 1981. Trends in escapement and production of fall Chinook and Coho Salmon in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information Report Number 81-7, Portland. Mezias, J. M., and W. H. Starbuck. 2003. Studying the accuracy of managers’ perceptions: a research odyssey. British Journal of Management 14:3–17. Riley, S. J., D. J. Decker, L. H. Carpenter, J. T. Organ, W. F. Siemer, G. F. Mattfeld, and G. Parsons. 2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:585–593. Roberts, K. H., and C. A. O’Reilly III. 1974. Failures in upward communication in organizations: three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal 17:205–215. Rosen, S., and A. Tesser. 1970. On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: the MUM effect. Sociometry 33:253–263. Scott, D. 1980. The causal relationship between trust and the assessed value of management by objectives. Journal of Management 6(2):157–175. Sethi, S. 2010. Risk management for fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 11:341–365. Silver, M., and D. Geller. 1978. On the irrelevance of evil: the organization and individual action. Journal of Social Issues 34(4):125–136. Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan, New York. ———. 2007. Is adaptive management helping to solve fisheries problems? Ambio 36:304–307. White, G. C. 2001. Why take calculus? Rigor in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:380–386. Whyte, W. H. 1956. The organization man. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Wilson, D. O. 1992. Diagonal communication links within organizations. Journal of Busi- ness Communication 29(2):129–143. Yaffee, S. 1997. Why environmental policy nightmares recur. Conservation Biology 11:328–337. Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014

250 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org FEATURE Canadian Recreational Fisheries: 35 Years of Social, Biological, and Economic Dynamics from a National Survey

Jacob W. Brownscombe Pesca recreativa en Canadá: 35 años de Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, dinámica social, biológica y económica Canada. E-mail: [email protected] a partir de un sondeo a nivel nacional Shannon D. Bower, William Bowden, and Liane RESUMEN: la agencia de Pesquerías y Océanos de Ca- Nowell nadá ha recolectado una base de datos históricos de la Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of dinámica social, biológica y ecológica de las pesquerías Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada recreativas de Canadá. Esta información, que comienza en Jonathan D. Midwood 1975, fue compilada a través de sondeos por correo postal, realizados a intervalos de cinco años, dirigidos a pescado- Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Bi- res. Un análisis longitudinal reveló que existen en prome- ology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, and Institute of Environ- mental Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada dio 4.5 millones de pescadores con licencia, que capturan una media de 255 millones de peces. Las tasas de liber- Neville Johnson ación fueron relativamente altas (53% de peces liberados) Statistical Services, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada y los datos del sondeo más reciente (2010) indican que la tasa de liberación excede el 60%. Asimismo, los pescado- Steven J. Cooke res recreativos contribuyen, en promedio, con $8.8 mil mil- Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department lones anuales a la economía canadiense. Sin embargo, con of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, and Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada el tiempo, la pesca recreativa se ha vuelto cada vez menos popular y el promedio de la edad de los participantes se ha incrementado. Los datos también fueron útiles para car- Abstract: Fisheries and Oceans Canada has collected a acterizar las pesquerías de Canadá, incluyendo captura y unique, long-term data set on the social, biological, and eco- cosecha por especie. Canadá es uno de los pocos países nomic dynamics of Canada’s recreational fisheries. Starting in que recolectan datos de pesca recreativa de forma tan ex- 1975, these data were collected through mail surveys to rec- tensiva a nivel nacional y lo hace en intervalos regulares, reational anglers at 5-year intervals. A longitudinal analysis algo que pudiera ser imitado por otros países. revealed that there was an average of 4.5 million licensed anglers catching an annual average of 255 million fish. Release rates were relatively high (53% of fish released on average), ing economies where they provide employment security and with recent survey data (2010) suggesting that release rates had economic benefits through the development of tourism sectors exceeded 60%. Recreational anglers also contribute an average (Cowx 2002; Ditton et al. 2002). of $8.8 billion each year to the Canadian economy. However, recreational angling has become less popular over time, and the Compared to the commercial fishing sector, which is well average age of participants has increased. The data were also studied and monitored (particularly in marine waters; Pauly and

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 useful for characterizing Canada’s fisheries, including species- Palomares 2005; Welcomme et al. 2010), recreational fisher- specific catch and harvest. Canada is one of the few countries ies are poorly understood (Cooke and Cowx 2004). Currently to collect such extensive recreational fisheries data at a national the magnitude of recreational fishing and its quantitative at- scale and to do so at regular intervals, an approach that could tributes are largely unknown, chronically underreported, and be modeled by other countries. thus unappreciated (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2012). INTRODUCTION Quantitative statistical information is essential to monitor temporal trends related to exploitation, value the fishery, and iden- Recreational fishing is commonly defined as an activity tify emerging issues (e.g., shifts in angler demographics, target where fish are caught for leisure or personal consumption, and species, effort, etc.) or opportunities (e.g., increased fisheries the primary objective is not to produce food or generate income tourism). However, even basic information on participation is through the sale or trade of fishing products (Arlinghaus and lacking in most countries (Arlinghaus and Cooke 2009). Few Cooke 2009). Recreational fisheries represent the dominant use national-scale recreational fishing surveys exist, and those that of fish stocks in the inland waters of most developed countries do rarely consider social, biological, and economic data concur- (Arlinghaus et al. 2002) but are also increasingly prevalent in rently. coastal marine waters, which have been traditionally dominated by commercial fisheries (e.g., Coleman et al. 2004). In addi- Home to over 2 million lakes, thousands of kilometers tion, recreational fisheries are considered essential in emerg- of rivers, and three coasts (i.e., Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic),

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 251 Canada supports a popular recreational fishery in each province and territory and is one of the few countries in the world to collect relevant recreational fisheries data at a national scale (Fish- eries and Oceans Canada [DFO] 2012). Beginning in 1975, the then Department of Fisheries and Oceans (now Fisheries and Oceans Canada) in Canada instituted a voluntary mail survey of recreational anglers at 5-year intervals designed to provide a high-level overview of recreational fishing throughout the country (DFO 2012). Not only is the Canadian recreational angling survey process unique globally, it has yet to be analyzed in its entirety across sampling periods. By performing such a synthesis, this article will identify metrics of interest that may serve as an example for future studies, answer wide-ranging questions about the recreational fishing sector, and provide information pertaining to demographics, biological impacts, and economic patterns through time. Moreover, because these surveys collect diverse information (e.g., economic, ecological, and social), they may facilitate the integration of different aspects of recreational fisheries research and sound strategic policy (Haapasaari et al. 2012). This multifaceted approach may serve as a model for research and analysis that can be used to guide national and international recreational fisheries management in the future. Photo 1. Fisheries and Oceans Canada report on recreational fishing in METHODS Canada in 2010. Photo credit: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Canadian Recreational Fishing Surveys this angler type in those years. Generally, reports also collected more detailed information in later years, including more in- Data Collection depth information on species-specific catch and harvest, which were omitted in early surveys. Mail surveys were conducted by the DFO from 1975 to 2010 in 5-year intervals on a jurisdiction-specific basis (i.e., Data Analysis provinces and territories). Surveys had a set of core questions consistent across jurisdictions relating to angler demography In most jurisdictions, the data collected from angler mail (i.e., age, gender), angling activity (i.e., effort, catch, harvest), surveys were extrapolated to the total number of licensed an- and angling-related expenditures (i.e., gear, travel), as well as glers of each angler type (resident, nonresident and saltwater, questions unique to each jurisdiction. The results from the ma- freshwater) using an inverse weighting by stratum function jority of these surveys (from 1990 onwards) are available online (DFO 2012). However, due to the lack of standard provincial (www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/rec/canada-rec-eng.htm; Photo 1). In recreational angler licensing, the number of anglers in Québec most jurisdictions, surveys were sent to a random subset of li- and Newfoundland were estimated based on the ratio of anglers censed anglers in Canada. However, in Québec and Newfound- to nonanglers that responded to the prescreening surveys and the

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 land information from licensing bases were limited, so surveys population sizes from provincial census data (DFO 1975–2010). were mailed to households identified as angling households in Coefficients of variation (CV) are standard error measure- a randomized telephone survey. ments of the extrapolation estimates that were used by Statis- tics Canada to assess the statistical reliability of survey data Surveys were stratified into Canadian resident (fishing (as per Searls 1964) as a measure of reproducibility, where CV in their own jurisdiction) and nonresident anglers, as well as = (Standard error of the mean/mean) * 100. CV values greater fresh- and saltwater licensed anglers in coastal jurisdictions. than 33.5 reflect a high degree of dispersion around the estimate From 1990 forward, nonresident anglers were further stratified and were excluded from further analysis due to low reliability/ into Canadian nonresident (fishing in a jurisdiction outside of reproducibility (as per Statistics Canada guidelines [Statistics their own) and non-Canadian angler categories. Unless speci- Canada 2009]). The majority of values were lower than 16.5, fied, “nonresident” refers to both Canadian nonresident and which suggest low dispersion and, as such, are considered to non-Canadian anglers combined. The total number of respon- be highly reliable, with low probability of bias (Hendricks and dents nationwide ranged from 32,000 to 38,557. Prescreening Robey 1936; Maarof et al. 2012; DFO 2012). phone calls and postsurvey reminder cards were implemented in 1990 and 2000, respectively, to identify likely respondents Longitudinal Analysis and mitigate declining response rates. There were no data collected for nonresident anglers in Québec in 2005 or 2010, which Social (number of anglers, total days fished, age, gender, undoubtedly resulted in underestimated nationwide values for and catch per unit effort [CPUE]), biological (catch, harvest,

252 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org percentage caught and released), and economic (expenditures, Table 1 . A list of the nine selected species groups and the species included in each group according to common and scientific names. major purchases related to angling) recreational fishing vari- Note that in some cases species are grouped in ways that would be ables were compared on a national scale from 1975 to 2010 or expected of anglers (e.g., putting Centrarchid and Moronid Bass within time periods where data were available. Though species- together) rather than consistent with taxonomic standards.

specific catch and harvest data became more detailed in later Species group Common name(s) of included Scientific name(s) of years, species were combined into more general groups as they name species included species were in early survey years for longitudinal comparison from Northern Pike Northern Pike Esox lucius 1985 to 2010 (Table 1). In some instances, species from dis- Walleye Walleye Sander vitreus parate taxonomic groups had to be grouped together due to the Atlantic Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Pink Salmo salar, Oncorhynchus Salmon generality of angler reports in early years of the survey. For Salmon, Sockeye Salmon, spp. example, the bass category included both Centrarchid and Mo- Chum Salmon ronid bass. Catch per unit effort was calculated based on the Arctic Charr, Lake Trout, Brook Trout, Brown Trout, Salvelinus spp., Salmo total number of fish caught and the total number of angler days Trout and Rainbow Trout, Golden Trout, trutta, Oncorhynchus Charr fished. All economic values were converted to 2010 Canadian Bull Trout, Dolly Varden, Cut- mykiss, O. clarkii dollars as per Statistics Canada and Bank of Canada guidelines throat Trout, Splake Perca flavescens, Morone using the Consumer Price Index (Statistics Canada, Operations Perch Yellow Perch, White Perch and Integration Division 1996). The relationships between the americana Atlantic Cod, Tomcod, Ling- Gadus morhua, Microgadus number of recreational anglers in Canada and total fish catch Cod cod tomcod, Ophiodon elongatus and harvest were analyzed using linear regression analysis, as Hypomesus olidus, Osmerus Smelt Smelt were the relationships between angler effort (total days fished) mordax and fish catch and harvest. Assumptions of normality were Mountain, Lake and unspeci- Prosopium spp., Coregonus Whitefish tested prior to analysis. Analyses were conducted using R sta- fied Whitefish spp. tistical programming language (ver. 2.15, R Foundation for Sta- Muskellunge Muskellunge Esox masquinongy tistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Micropterus salmoides, Largemouth Bass, Small- Bass Micropterus dolomieu, mouth Bass, Striped Bass RESULTS Morone saxatilis Social catch and a 25% decline in nonresident catch. With all years From 1975 to 2010 there were on average of 4.5 million combined, Canadian residents accounted for 88% of catch and licensed anglers in Canada, of which 94% were active. After nonresidents 12%, where Canadian nonresidents represented peaking in 1985 at 5.2 million, the number of licensed anglers 2% of catch and non-Canadians represented 10% of catch. in Canada declined consistently to 3.5 million in 2005 then rose again to 3.6 million in 2010 (Figure 1a). Overall, licensed an- From 1975 to 2010, an average of 133 million fish were glers included 79% Canadian residents, 17% non-Canadians, harvested in Canada each year by recreational anglers. Harvest and 4% Canadian nonresidents. The average age of all anglers peaked in 1985 at over 228 million fish and declined by 75% to has increased over time from 41 in 1975 to 50 in 2010 (Figure 58 million in 2010, with similar levels of decline in both Cana- 1b) and nonresident anglers were an average of 4.4 years older dian residents and nonresidents (Figure 2b). The release rate of than Canadian residents. Recreational anglers were also pre- fish caught by anglers has increased by 37% from 1985 to 2010, dominately male for both Canadian residents (79%) and non- a consistent trend in both Canadian residents and nonresidents

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 residents (85%), with relatively stable gender ratios over time (Figure 2c). Nonresidents exhibited more catch-and-release ac- (Figure 1b). tivity than Canadian residents consistently over time, releasing an average of 23% more of their catch. There was a strong posi- Similar to the trend for licensed anglers, the total number tive relationship between the number of licensed anglers and the 2 of days fished by recreational anglers in Canada declined from number of fish caught (R = 0.92, F1,4 = 45.6, P = 0.003) and har- 2 74 million in 1980 to 43 million in 2005 and 2010 (Figure 1c). vested (R = 0.85, F1,4 = 22.5, P = 0.009; Figure 3). There was an For all survey years combined, the majority of angling effort oc- even stronger relationship between number of days fished and 2 curred in freshwater (93%). Angler CPUE remained stable over the number of fish caught (R = 0.98, F1,4 = 160.4, P < 0.001) 2 time (Figure 1d). Canadian residents and Canadian nonresidents and harvested (R = 0.95, F1,4 = 78.3, P < 0.001). had similar CPUE at 4.0 and 4.3 fish/day, respectively, whereas CPUE for non-Canadians was much higher at 10.4 fish/day. The group including all Trout and Charr species (Photo 2, Table 1) represented the highest number of caught and harvested Biological fishes in Canada from 1985 to 2010, and Walleye (Sander vitreus) was the most frequently caught and harvested individual An average of 255 million fish were caught in Canada by species (Figure 4). Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy; Photo 3) recreational anglers each year from 1985 to 2010. Over time, and Bass (Photo 4) fisheries were primarily catch-and-release, catch declined from over 330 million in 1985 to 193 million whereas Smelt, Cod, Trout, and Charr were harvest-dominated. in 2010 (Figure 2a), with a 44% decline in Canadian resident Perch, Northern Pike (Esox lucius), Salmon, and Whitefish were

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 253 subject to more intermediate levels of harvest, whereas Walleye Total expenditures directly related to angling (direct expendi- and Northern Pike became more catch-and-release dominated tures; DE) averaged $3.2 billion from 1975 to 2010, with Ca- due to declines in harvest and/or increases in catch over time. nadian residents responsible for 72% of DE (Figure 5b). Direct Longitudinal trends show general declines in harvest for all expenditures followed a similar longitudinal pattern to RMP, species/groups, with large declines in Smelt (−82%), Whitefish increasing to its maximum in 1985 at $4.6 billion and declining (−74%), Trout and Charr (−43%), and Cod (−27%) catch. Cod steadily to $2.5 billion in 2010. Overall, recreational angling catch dropped by 88% from 1990 to 1995 but increased mod- contributed an average of $8.8 billion in revenue per year to the erately by 2010. Canadian economy from 1975 to 2010 through RMP and DE.

A “lack of time” may reflect that fishing is becoming Direct expenditures averaged $786/angler for all angler less of a priority, especially for young people. With the types from 1990 to 2010 (Figure 5c). Direct expenditures/an- increasing popularity of technology and social media, gler remained stable for Canadian residents over this time pe- young people in particular are spending more of their riod but increased over time for both Canadian nonresidents and time interacting through virtual means, which has non-Canadians. However, Canadian nonresidents spent the least resulted in a general lack of participation in outdoor per angler in 2010 at $399/angler, down 62% from 2005. Non- activities and an overall lack of connectivity to nature, a Canadians generally spent the most per angler, with an increase phenomenon termed “nature deficit disorder.” from $643/angler in 1990 to $1,115/angler in 2010. Resident anglers exhibited a modest decrease in spending over the same time period, from $762/angler in 1990 to $696/angler in 2010. Economic

Major purchases wholly or partly related to recreational DISCUSSION angling (related major purchases; RMP) averaged $5.6 billion CAD per year from 1975 to 2010, with Canadian residents re- Recreational angling is a socially and economically impor- sponsible for 95% of RMP (Figure 5a). Related major purchases tant activity in Canada and a dominant use of its fish stocks in increased from $3.8 billion in 1975 to its maximum, $7.9 bil- inland waters. A longitudinal study of social, biological, and lion, in 1990 and subsequently declined to $5.8 billion in 2010. economic trends highlights important interactions between Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014

Figure 1. (a) Number of active Canadian resident (light grey) and nonresident (dark grey) anglers (millions) from 1975 to 2010. (b) Mean age of resident (light grey bars) and nonresident (dark grey bars) anglers; gender (% male) of resident (black line) and nonresident (hatched line) anglers from 1975 to 2010. (c) Total days fished by resident (light grey) and nonresident (dark grey) anglers from 1975 to 2010. (d) Catch per unit effort (number of fish per day) by Canadian resident (black line), Canadian nonresident (black hatched line), and non-Canadian (light grey hatched line) anglers in Canada from 1990 to 2010. 254 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Photo 2. Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) angled in British Columbia. Photo Credit: Andrew Lotto.

may reflect that fishing is becoming less of a priority, especially for young people. With the increasing popularity of technology and social media, young people in particular are spending more of their time interacting through virtual means, which has resulted in a general lack of participation in outdoor activities and an overall lack of connectivity to nature, a phenomenon termed “nature deficit disorder” (Louv 2006, 2012; Pergrams and Zaradic 2008). Additionally, though regulations are essential for the sustainable management and conservation of fish populations, their relative degree of complexity may be deter- ring people from participating (Lester et al. 2003; Arlinghaus et al. 2008).

Along with participation, catch and harvest rates by recreational anglers have also declined while CPUE has remained static, suggesting that overall angling quality has remained relatively consistent. This is surprising considering that fishing quality has apparently declined in many inland waters (Post Figure 2. (a) Total catch of all fish species by Canadian residents (light et al. 2002; Cooke and Cowx 2004, 2006). Furthermore, many grey) and nonresidents (dark grey), (b) total harvest of all fish species, fish populations have undergone recent declines due to habitat and (c) fish released (% of catch) by Canadian residents (black line) and loss and overexploitation by both commercial and recreational nonresidents (hatch line) from 1975 to 2010. No data available for (a) and fisheries in Canada (Christie 1974; Post et al. 2002; Lewin et al. (c) from 1975 to 1980. 2006). This was not reflected in our nationwide angler CPUE;

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 however, the measure of effort here, number of days fished, these dynamics that may inform related environmental and does not preclude the possibility that anglers are fishing longer socioeconomic policy. Recreational angling in Canada has days to catch the same number of fish. Catch of target species is certainly become less popular since 1985 (number of licensed also not considered, and abundance-related declines in fishing anglers declined 31%), though Canada’s population has grown success for some species or regions may be mediated by others. 30% during this time period (Statistics Canada 2013). Further, Indeed, observed increases in catch and release rates since 1985 the mean age of licensed anglers has increased by nearly 10 could reflect the fact that fewer target species or fish of harvest- years, indicating that decreased popularity is primarily due to able size are being caught. However, catch-and-release angling poor recruitment of young anglers. Recreational anglers are has been increasing in popularity in many developed countries, also predominantly male in Canada, which is consistent with which has been attributed to a combination of stricter harvest the majority of documented recreational fisheries worldwide regulations and voluntary release due to shifting conservation (Aas 1996; Fedler and Ditton 2001; Freire et al. 2012). A lack ethics of anglers (Cowx 2002; Arlinghaus et al. 2007). Catch- of female participation has been attributed to commitments to and-release angling is a conservation strategy that relies on the children and family, perceptions of traditional gender roles, or assumption that released fish survive and have limited fitness a general lack of experience (Anderson et al. 2004). Previous consequences (Wydoski 1977; Arlinghaus et al. 2007). The studies have found that the most common reasons people cite large increase in catch-and-release activity in Canada highlights for not fishing are their health, a lack of time, cost, or regu- the importance of exercising best angling practices to minimize lations (Aas 1996; Fedler and Ditton 2001). A “lack of time” the impacts of this activity (see Cooke and Schramm 2007).

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 255 Figure 3. Relationships between the number of licensed anglers and total fish catch (catch = −59.22 + 72.69 * number of anglers) and harvest (harvest = −220.0 + 78.9 * number of anglers), as well as the total number of days fished and total fish catch (catch = 33.4 + 4.0 * days fished) and harvest (harvest = −108.8 + 4.0 * days fished) including resident and nonresident anglers in Canada from 1975 or 1985 to 2010. Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014

Photo 3. Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) angled in eastern Ontario. Photo credit: Sean Landsman.

256 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Figure 4. Catch (white) and harvest (grey) of selected species, including Trout and Charr, Walleye, Perch, Bass, Northern Pike, Smelt, Salmon, Cod, Whitefish, and Muskellunge in Canada from 1985 to 2010. For species groupings, see Table 1. No data available for Muskellunge in 1985. Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014

Photo 4. Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) angled in eastern Ontario. Photo credit: Karen Murchie. Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 257 An examination of angler catch and harvest also provides useful information for managing fisheries. It is a notable trend that every species/group examined herein that has been sub- jected to relatively high levels of harvest has exhibited some decline in catch by recreational anglers since 1985, particularly those fisheries with very high levels of harvest (i.e., Trout and Charr, Smelt, Cod, Whitefish). In contrast, an increase in Bass and Walleye catch over time corresponded with decreased harvest. It is uncertain whether increased release rates are due to harvest regulations or conservation ethics of anglers, but catch- and-release angling can be an effective conservation strategy (Cooke and Schramm 2007), and healthy stocks are best maintained through well-regulated and closely monitored fisheries (Pauly and Palomares 2005; Welcomme et al. 2010). However, angler CPUE must be interpreted with caution when making inferences about fish population dynamics, especially on a national scale. Anglers have a tendency to become more effective over time and therefore catch rates may not reflect declines in fish abundance (Post et al. 2002).

Recreational angling is also an economically important activity in Canada and, over time, anglers have increased fishing-related spending on an individual basis, likely due in part to technological advancements in fishing gear and relative increases in commodity prices, such as gasoline. However, because participation rates have declined since 1985, so have total angler expenditures. This is particularly true for direct expenditures, whereas related major purchases have remained relatively static. The decline in direct expenditures has been primarily due to resident anglers, whereas non-Canadians contribute an increasingly higher proportion of angling-related revenue to Can- ada’s economy. In addition, nonresident anglers actually harvest a lower proportion of their catch and therefore may exert less pressure on fish populations. Angling-related tourism is clearly beneficial for Canada’s economy and may benefit from further promotion.

In examining these long-term social, biological, and eco- Figure 5. (a) Major purchases wholly or partly related to angling by Cana- nomic dynamics in Canadian recreational fisheries concur- dian resident (light grey) and nonresident (dark grey) anglers from 1975 to 2010, (b) expenditures directly related to angling by Canadian resident rently, the utility is clear. They reveal patterns in important (light grey) and nonresident (dark grey) anglers from 1975 to 2010, and

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 metrics such as species-specific catch, fishing participation, and (c) Canadian dollars spent per angler by Canadian resident (light grey), angler expenditures, which could contribute to management of Canadian nonresident (dark grey), and non-Canadian (black) anglers from 1990 to 2010. All data in 2010 Canadian currency values. natural resources and economies. For example, knowledge of socially and economically important fish species may inform habitat protection, stocking programs, and fishing regulations, Canada is a pioneer in its use of nationwide voluntary mail- and drastic declines in catch of a popular species may indicate a based angler surveys for collecting nationwide information on cause for concern. Similarly, knowledge of angling activity and the complex dynamics of its recreational fisheries, and much has expenditures by specific demographics may inform promotional been learned along the way. Generally, important considerations strategies for increasing tourism-related economic growth. De- for angler surveys include survey frequency, numbers, delivery, spite the high social and economic importance of recreational and design (questions), because every region has its own diverse angling in many countries worldwide (Cowx 2002; McPhee et culture of recreational anglers that may have variable response al. 2002; Radford et al. 2007), few countries have an under- rates, reliability, and biases (Ditton and Hunt 2001; Fedler and standing of the complex biological, demographic, and economic Ditton 2001). In Canadian recreational angler survey data, the dynamics of their fisheries. The collection of such data will not largest bias observed was a lack of data from nonresident an- only benefit individual nations; it can support development of a glers in Québec in 2005 and 2010 due to privacy laws enacted in global framework for management of recreational fisheries (see this jurisdiction. In attempting to collect data over large spatial Cooke and Cowx 2004). and temporal scales, such issues may be common. Fortunately, nonresident anglers in Québec only represented 1.3% of anglers

258 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org in Canada in the year 2000, so the dearth of this data likely re- FUNDING sulted in only a slight underestimation of participation, catch, harvest, and economic contributions in those years. S. J. Cooke is supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program and NSERC. J. Brownscombe is also funded by Future applications of nationwide mail surveys should en- NSERC. We thank the Recreational Fisheries group at DFO sure that sample size is large enough to avoid nonresponse bias and the provinces and territories, which financed the surveys. (Armstrong and Overton 1977), and survey delivery methods are an important consideration. For example, the demograph- REFERENCES ics of respondents may be very different between mail and Aas, Ø. 1996. Recreational fishing in Norway from 1970 to 1993: trends and geographical electronic surveys because younger demographics tend to use variation. Fisheries Management and Ecology 3:107–118. new technologies much more readily than older demographics Anderson, L. E., D. K. Loomis, and R. J. Salz. 2005. Constraints to recreational fishing: Concepts and questions to understand underrepresented angling groups. Pages 316– (Morris and Venkatesh 2006). By using solely mail surveys in 320 in K. Bricker and S. J. Millington, editors. Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Canada, responses from younger demographics may have been Recreational Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Sta- tion, Newtown Square, PA. underrepresented. Another potential bias in angler surveys is Arlinghaus, R., M. Bork, and E. Fladung. 2008. Understanding the heterogeneity of rec- that anglers often overestimate their catch (Pitcher and Holling- reational anglers across an urban–rural gradient in a metropolitan area (Berlin, Ger- worth 2002) and therefore the number of fish caught in Canada many), with implications for fisheries management. Fisheries Research 92:53–62. Arlinghaus, R., and S. J. Cooke. 2009. Recreational fisheries: socioeconomic importance, may have been overestimated using the above methods. For conservation issues and management challenges. Pages 39–58 in B. Dickson, J. Iut- future applications, the level of angler overestimation can be ton, and B. Adams, editors. Recreational hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods. Science and practice. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. quantified and a correction factor applied to the survey data Arlinghaus, R., S. J. Cooke, J. Lyman, D. Policansky, A. Schwab, C. Suski, S. G. Sutton, (see Connelly and Brown 1995; Connelly et al. 2000). An ex- and E. B. Thorstad. 2007. Understanding the complexity of catch-and-release in recreational fishing: an integrative synthesis of global knowledge from historical, ethical, amination of Canadian angler survey data also identified some social and biological perspectives. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15:75–167. potential metrics of interest. For example, future surveys could Arlinghaus, R., T. Mehner, and I. G. Cowx. 2002. Reconciling traditional inland fisheries aim to quantify finer scale angler effort and catch of actual tar- management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish and Fisheries 3:261–316. get species to better assess angling quality. There is also great Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. potential for further analysis of the Canadian angler survey data Journal of Marketing Research 14:396–402. Christie, W. J. 1974. Changes in fish species composition of the Great Lakes. Journal of set, particularly on finer spatial scales. Hogg et al. (2010) exam- Fisheries Research Board of Canada 31:827–854. ined these data to characterize Ontario’s recreational fisheries Coleman, F. C., W. F. Figueira, J. S. Ueland, and L. B. Crowder. 2004. The impact of United States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305:1958–1960. in 2005, revealing regional patterns in angler effort, catch, and Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 2000. Assessing the relative importance harvest, which are helping guide fisheries management in that of recall bias and nonresponse bias and adjusting for those biases in statewide angler province. surveys. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:19–29. Connelly, N. A., and T. L. Brown. 1995. Use of angler diaries to examine biases associated with 12-month recall on mail questionnaires. Transactions of the American Fisheries Nationwide angler surveys provided a high-level over- Society 124:413–422. Cooke, S. J., and I. Cowx. 2004. The role of recreational fishing in global fishing crises. view of the biological and socioeconomic dynamics of Cana- Bioscience 54:857–859. dian recreational fisheries over a large temporal scale. These Cooke, S. J., and I. Cowx. 2006. Contrasting recreational and commercial fishing: search- ing for common issues to promote unified conservation of fisheries resources and include exploitation rates of specific fish species or groups, the aquatic environments. Biological Conservation 128:93–108. demographics and number of anglers, and their contributions Cooke, S. J., and H. L. Schramm. 2007. Catch-and-release science and its application to to the Canadian economy. By synthesizing data from typically conservation and management of recreational fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14:73–79. disparate disciplines, an important connection is formed be- Cowx, I. G. 2002. Recreational fisheries. Pages 367–390 in P. B. J. Hart and J. D. Reyn- tween natural resources and their social and economic value. olds, editors. Handbook of fish biology and fisheries, volume 2. Blackwell Science, Oxford , UK. Recreational angling is a highly popular activity worldwide; it DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2012. Survey of recreational fishing in Canada, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Can- Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 is of high social and economic importance and has the potential ada, Ottawa, Ontario. to impact exploited fish populations. However, the biological Ditton, R. B., and K. M. Hunt. 2001. Combining creel intercept and mail survey methods to and socioeconomic dynamics of fisheries worldwide are poorly understand the human dimension of local freshwater fisheries. Fisheries Management understood (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United and Ecology 8:295–301. Ditton, R. B., S. M. Holland, and D. K. Anderson. 2002. Recreational fishing as tourism. Nations, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2012). Cana- Fisheries 27:17–24. dian recreational angler surveys should serve as a model for Fedler, A. J., and R. B. Ditton. 2001. Dropping out and dropping in: A study of factors for changing recreational fishing participation. North American Journal of Fisheries building a fisheries assessment framework that can be used to Management 21:283–292. guide national recreational fisheries management in the future. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries and Aquaculture De- partment. 2012. Technical guidelines for responsible recreational fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Freire, K. M., M. L. Machado, and D. Crepaldi. 2012. Overview of inland recreational fisheries in Brazil. Fisheries 37:484–494. Haapasaari, H., S. Kulmala, and S. Kuikka. 2012. Growing into interdisciplinarity: how to We thank the Recreational Fisheries group at DFO and the converge biology, economics, and social science in fisheries research? Ecology and provinces and territories, which provided us access to the data Society 17:139–146. Hendricks, W. A., and K. W. Robey. 1936. The sampling distribution of the coefficient of set. We acknowledge the tireless efforts of many DFO staff that variation. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 7:129–132. have contributed to the data collection as well as to the many Hogg, S. E., N. P. Lester, and H. Ball. 2010. 2005 Survey of recreational fishing in Canada: results for fisheries management zones of Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Re- hundreds of thousands of anglers that have responded to the sur- sources, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Peterborough, Ontario. vey over the past 35 years. In particular, we thank Kieth Brick- Lester, N. P., T. R. Marshall, K. Armstrong, W. I. Dunlop, and B. Ritchie. 2003. A broad- ley for his assistance in the preparation of this article. scale approach to management of Ontario’s recreational fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:1312–1328. Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 259 Lewin, W. C., R. Arlinghaus, T. Mehner. 2006. Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational angling: insights for conservation and management. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14:305–367. Louv, R. 2006. Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Louv, R. 2012. The nature principle. Algonquin Books, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Maarof, F., A. Athirah Ahmad, and S. Mohammed. 2012. Symmetricity of the sampling distribution of CV for exponential samples. World Applied Sciences Journal 17:60–65. McPhee, D. P., D. Leadbitter, and G. A. Skilleter. 2002. Swallowing the bait: is recreational fishing in Australia ecologically sustainable? Pacific Conservation Biology 8:40–51. Morris, M. G., and V. Vankatesh. 2006. Age differences in technology adoption decisions: implications for a changing workforce. Personnel Psychology 53:375–403. Pauly, D., and M. L. Palomares. 2005. Fishing down the food web: it is far more pervasive than we thought. Bulletin of Marine Sciences 76:197–211. Pergams, O. R. W., and P. A. Zaradic. 2008. Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:2295–2300. Pitcher, T. J., and C. Hollingworth. 2002. Recreational fisheries: ecological, economic and social evaluation. Blackwell Science Ltd., London. Post, J. R., K. Sullivan, S. Cox, N. P. Lester, C. J. Walters, E. A. Parkinson, A. J. Paul, L. Jackson, and B. J. Shuter. 2002. Canada’s recreational fisheries: the invisible collapse? Fisheries 27:6–17. Radford, A., G. Riddington, and H. Gibson. 2007. Economic evaluation of inland fisheries: the economic impact of freshwater angling in England and Wales. Environment Agency, Science Report SC050026/SR2, Bristol, UK. Searls, D. T. 1964. The utilization of a known coefficient of variation in the estimation procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association 59:1225–1226. Statistics Canada. 2009. Statistics Canada Quality Guidelines. Available: http://www.stat- can.gc.ca/pub/12-539-x/12-539-x2009001-eng.pdf. (May 2014). Statistics Canada. 2013. Estimated population size of Canada. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Statistics Canada, Operations and Integration Division. 1996. Your guide to the consumer price index. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Welcomme, R. L., I. G. Cowx, D. Coates, C. Béné, S. Funge-Smith, A. Halls, and K. Lo- renzen. 2010. Inland capture fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365:2881–2896. Wydoski, R. S. 1977. Relation of hooking mortality and sublethal hooking stress to quality fisheries management. Pages 43–87 in R. A. Bernhart and R. D. Roelofs, editors. Catch-and-release fishing as a management tool. California Cooperative Fishery Re- search Unit, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014

260 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org FEATURE

Hide and Seek: Interplay of Fish and Anglers Influences Spatial Fisheries Management

Bryan G. Matthias Escondidas: la interacción entre University of Florida, 7922 NW 71st St., Gainesville, FL 32653. E-mail: [email protected] pescadores y peces influencia el manejo espacial de pesquerías Micheal S. Allen and Robert N. M. Ahrens University of Florida, Gainesville, FL RESUMEN: el manejo sustentable de recursos pesqueros requiere entender la interacción en tiempo y espacio entre T. Douglas Beard, Jr. las poblaciones de peces y los pescadores. Se llevó a cabo United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA un trabajo de campo para comparar los patrones espacia- Janice A. Kerns les del esfuerzo de pesca recreativa con la distribución de los peces en un lago de Florida. A lo largo de un año, se University of Florida, Gainesville, FL estudió la ubicación espacial tanto de los pescadores de lobina negra (Micropterus salmoides) como de la propia Abstract: Sustainable management of fisheries resources lobina. Más del 90% de los pescadores operaron dentro requires an understanding of spatial and temporal interplay de los primeros 50m de costa y un tercio de los peces se between targeted fish populations and anglers. We conducted ubicaron fuera de la costa en cualquier momento dado. Los a field study comparing spatial patterns in recreational an- patrones espaciales sugirieron que los peces que se encuen- gler effort to fish distribution in a Florida lake. Over one year, tran en áreas que no son frecuentadas por los pescadores spatial locations of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) fueron menos vulnerables a la pesca y, por consiguiente, anglers and Largemouth Bass were surveyed. Over 90% of an- los pescadores no se distribuyen de acuerdo a una distribu- glers were fishing within 50 m from shore and one-third of fish ción ideal libre. En contraste, datos de recaptura de peces were located offshore at any given time. This spatial pattern- mediante telemetría mostraron tendencias similares en la ing suggested that fish located in areas not targeted by anglers captura tanto en la zona costera como fuera de ésta, lo que were less vulnerable to angling and, thus, anglers were not dis- indica que todos los peces fueron igualmente vulnerables tributed according to the ideal free distribution. However, tag a la pesca y que los pescadores se distribuyen de acuerdo return data of telemetered fish showed similar catch trends in a una distribución ideal. El uso informado de las regula- both onshore and offshore habitats, indicating that all fish were ciones pesqueras espaciales y temporales deben tomar en equally vulnerable to angling and anglers were ideally distrib- cuenta el comportamiento tanto de los peces como de los uted. Informed use of spatial and/or temporal fishery regula- pescadores. tions should consider fish and angler behavior. How anglers choose to distribute themselves within a sys- INTRODUCTION tem can influence the proportion of a population vulnerable to angling. The ideal free distribution (IFD) predicts that fishing

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 Recent interest concerning spatial patterns in recreational effort will be attracted to areas with higher fish abundance, such fisheries has, for the most part, focused on landscape patterns of that at equilibrium no area will have greater than average catch angler effort (e.g., Parkinson et al. 2004; Post et al. 2008; Hunt rates (Gillis et al. 1993; Walters and Bonfil 1999; Post et al. et al. 2011). However, these studies largely ignore within-lake 2008). The IFD model was developed in ecology (Fretwell and spatial interactions between anglers and fish. Consequently, Lucas 1970; Fretwell 1972) and has been used to predict fishing small-scale spatial interactions between anglers and fish have effort dynamics in commercial (Gillis 2003), artisanal (Aber- been hypothesized to lead to areas where fish are “safe” from, nethy et al. 2007), and recreational fisheries (Parkinson et al. or invulnerable to, angling due to interactions between angler 2004). The IFD has worked well at predicting the distribution and fish behavior (Martin 1958; Cox and Walters 2002). Many of commercial effort where all participants have similar knowl- factors can lead to fish being less vulnerable or invulnerable edge of the fishery (Gillis 2003; Voges et al. 2005). However, to angling, including angler heterogeneity in skill, knowledge, for artisanal fisheries the IFD has not worked well because fish- and motivation (van Poorten and Post 2005; Hunt et al. 2011; ers did not have complete knowledge of fish distribution, which Seekell et al. 2011) and variations in fish behavior affecting prevented fishers from targeting locations with highest fish den- habitat selection and movement rates (Cox and Walters 2002; sities (Abernethy et al. 2007). In many recreational fisheries, Botsford et al. 2003; Grüss et al. 2011). However, there is a participants have disparate knowledge and skill levels resulting large knowledge gap in relating how angler spatial effort pat- in catch inequality, where a small portion of anglers catch a large terns and fish behavior interact over fine spatial scales to influ- fraction of the fish (van Poorten and Post 2005; Seekell et al. ence the vulnerability of fish to angling. 2011). This heterogeneity among anglers impacts individuals’

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 261 perceptions of the potential catch rate and may result in an ef- METHODS fort distribution that appears incongruent with the prediction of an IFD. Failure of IFD distribution to apply in recreational Study Area fisheries could result in a portion of a fish population not being targeted by anglers or for some subpopulation to be targeted Lake Santa Fe (27.74° N, 82.07° W) is located in north cen- disproportionately to their abundance. tral Florida. The lake is composed of two basins, a main basin of 1,873 ha (Florida Lakewatch 2005b) and a 577 ha northern A mismatch between the spatial distributions of anglers and basin (Florida Lakewatch 2005a), which is also known as Little fish may also be influenced by how individual anglers perceive Lake Santa Fe (29.77° N, 82.09° W). The main lake reaches a catch- and non-catch-related returns. Though it is common to maximum depth of 8.1 m and has an average depth of 4.9 m, and assume that fishing effort responds to changes in catch rates the northern basin has a maximum depth of 6.3 m and an aver- (Parkinson et al. 2004; Post et al. 2008) or a perceived economic age depth of 3.6 m (Figure 1). There are several relatively short return (Holland and Sutinen 1999), the perception of catch-re- residence canals around the lake, seven in the main basin and lated returns, such as total catch, trophy catch, or harvest (Post four in the northern basin. A thin band of emergent vegetation et al. 2008; Hunt et al. 2011), vary between anglers and their around the perimeter consists primarily of maidencane (Pani- target species (Arlinghaus et al. 2008). Non-catch-related re- cum hemitomon), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), spatter- turns, such as aesthetics or remoteness (Parkinson et al. 2004; dock (Nuphar luteum), and giant bulrush (Scirpus californicus). Post et al. 2008; Hunt et al. 2011), have been found to be more important to some anglers than catch-related returns (Ditton 2004; Arlinghaus 2006). This interplay between catch and non- catch-related returns adds to the complexity when evaluating motivations governing angler distribution and the potential for a proportion of the fish population to be invulnerable to angling.

Fish habitat selection and movement patterns also influence the vulnerability of fish to angling. Portions of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides; Mesing and Wicker 1986), Northern Pike (Esox lucius; Kobler et al. 2009), and Lake Trout (Salveli- nus namaycush; Morbey et al. 2006) populations were found to primarily utilize nearshore habitat, other portions used offshore habitat, while still others alternated between onshore and offshore habitats. This spatial arrangement can render a portion of the population less vulnerable or even invulnerable to angling when anglers predominantly target one habitat type. However, fish vulnerability to angling also hinges on how often fish move between areas targeted and not targeted by anglers (hereafter referred to as exchange rates). Previous work shows that fish exchange rates are negatively correlated with the effectiveness of spatial refuges such as marine protected areas (Walters and Bonfil 1999; Botsford et al. 2003; Grüss et al. 2011). Therefore,

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 high fish exchange rates between areas receiving high and low fishing effort could effectively make all fish vulnerable to angling.

The objectives of this study were to (1) test evidence for the Martin (1958) and Cox and Walters (2002) hypothesis that a portion of a fish population is spatially invulnerable to angling due to spatial patterns of angler or fish behavior and (2) determine whether anglers were distributed according to the IFD. In order to achieve these objectives, the spatial distributions of both anglers and fish were evaluated, exchange rates of fish between areas targeted and areas not targeted by anglers were quantified, and data from angler tag returns were used to Figure 1. Bathymetric map of Lake Santa Fe, Florida. The center of the empirically test whether a portion of the population remained lake is located at 27.74 °N and 82.07 °W. Contour lines represent depth invulnerable to angling. in meters.

262 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Angler Distribution cedures outlined in Dutka-Gianelli et al. (2011). Once the adhesive dried, the incision and surrounding area were covered with We sampled the locations of anglers to evaluate the spatial an antibiotic ointment. Fish were also tagged with an external distribution of fishing effort from November 2010 through Oc- reward tag ($200) to obtain angler catch data on the tagged fish. tober 2011. Surveys were generally conducted on two nonran- Fish were allowed to recover in an aerated holding tank before dom weekdays and one random weekend day every 2 weeks. being released near the capture location. Weekday surveys were usually conducted on the first Monday and following Wednesday every 2 weeks due to the fish te- A survey was conducted on Mondays once every 2 weeks lemetry schedule (see below). Weekend surveys were usually to track every fish. If a fish was not found during this tracking conducted on a random weekend day following the weekday event, a second survey, usually on the following Wednesday, survey. All angler surveys were conducted at random times was conducted by scanning throughout the lake to find the fish. between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. Random subsets of 30 fish were also tracked an additional time We chose specific sample times on each day using a stratified every 2 weeks on a random weekend day. Fish not found within random design by randomly selecting morning, afternoon, or the previous 30 days were not included in the weekend survey. evening with equal probability (P = 0.33). Within each time of Start locations for the general fish survey and the weekend sur- day stratum, specific angler count time was selected randomly vey were chosen at random to avoid finding fish at the same within that period. Starting locations for the angler survey were time during every tracking event. All tagged fish were tracked also randomly selected within the lake. Surveys were conducted using Advanced Telemetry Systems R410 receivers with hand- by driving around the perimeter of the lake to locate anglers held yagi antennae and locations of the fish were recorded using near shore. Offshore anglers were located by running transects Global Positioning System receivers. through the middle of the lake. Habitat Sampling Once a boat or person along the shoreline was found, we determined whether they were fishing by observing a fishing Habitat characteristics were measured to help predict the line in the water, tackle switching, or fish handling. Distance spatial distribution of Largemouth Bass anglers and Largemouth and bearing to anglers were obtained from a TruPulse 360B Bass. We surveyed Lake Santa Fe bathymetry using a Lowrance laser rangefinder (Laser Technology Inc.) and entered into a LCX 28cHD and mapped in ArcGIS 10 (Figure 1). The outside Trimble Recon (Trimble Navigation Limited) using Tripod Data edge of vegetation was mapped by taking waypoints every 10 Systems SOLO Field Software (Tripod Data Systems). All an- m along the outside edge of vegetation. Shoreline and vegetated glers on the same boat or dock were given the same location. areas were sampled every 50 to 500 m. At each of these sam- Anglers were classified as Largemouth Bass anglers or non- pling points, slope of the shoreline, width of the vegetated area, Bass anglers depending on observed fishing techniques. Start- presence of bald cypress, presence of spatterdock, presence of ing in March 2011, subsets of anglers were also interviewed to giant bulrush, rugosity of the vegetated area, and the presence determine the accuracy of visual estimation of the species they of manmade structure were recorded. Slope of the shoreline was were targeting. From November 2010 through May 2011, canals calculated using around the lake were sampled for angler distribution three times a month on two random weekdays and one random weekend (1) day. From June through October canals were not sampled due to lower water levels that precluded both angling and surveys. where depth of water was surveyed at approximately 40 m

from the edge of vegetation and DShore was the distance from the

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 Fish Sampling shoreline to the location where depth was surveyed. Width of the vegetated area was measured as the distance from the shoreline The spatial distribution of Largemouth Bass was assessed to the outside edge of vegetation. For vegetation not connected using radio telemetry. Fish were captured using electrofishing with the shoreline, we determined the width of vegetation using and angling in the fall of 2010. Electrofishing was conducted the average distance across the vegetated area. Rugosity, a qual- along the shoreline and angling was used to collect fish from itative measurement of the complexity of vegetated areas, was water greater than 3 m deep or at least 50 m from the edge of visually assessed on a scale of 1 to 10. Habitat with a rugosity vegetation. Fish located offshore were targeted in an attempt to score of 1 represented a straight line of vegetation and habitat obtain fish that were invulnerable to electrofishing during the with a rugosity score of 10 represented a complex mosaic of tagging process. Largemouth Bass > 350 mm in total length plants with many patches, channels, and undulations. were implanted with Advanced Telemetry Systems F1835 transmitters following the recommendations of Winter (1996). Spatial Vulnerability Analysis Transmitters had a 502-day life expectancy and weighed 14 g. Radio tags and surgery equipment were sterilized prior to sur- To test whether there were spatial differences in the vul- gery using isopropyl alcohol and implanted into the body cav- nerability of fish to angling based on the distribution of fishing ity through a ventral incision. Two or three sutures were used effort, we used generalized linear models (GLMs) to analyze the to close the incision, after which cyanoacrylate adhesive was distribution of Largemouth Bass anglers. Logistic GLMs were applied to the incision and exposed sutures following the pro- constructed to predict the probability that Largemouth Bass

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 263 anglers will target a given area using presence and absence of in areas where they were targeted by anglers. Fish locations Largemouth Bass anglers. Multiple Largemouth Bass anglers with vulnerabilities less than 0.5 were considered to be areas fishing from one platform (e.g., boat, dock, or section of shore- that were not targeted by anglers. The vulnerability score used line) were considered a single presence observation due to a lack to determine whether fish locations were vulnerable or invulner- of independence among individual angler observations. Addi- able to angling was arbitrarily selected post hoc. tionally, we generated pseudo-absence data points because we did not measure locations where Largemouth Bass anglers were Fish locations classified as vulnerable or invulnerable to not observed. One thousand pseudo-absence locations were ran- angling were used create individual location histories to rep- domly generated within Lake Santa Fe to represent locations resent a time series of where the fish was found during each where Largemouth Bass anglers were not found but could have sampling event. We used the biweekly location histories in mul- been observed. Generating pseudo-absence data is a typical ap- tistate models within the program MARK (version 6.1; White proach in species distribution modeling where presence-only and Burnham 1999) to estimate daily exchange rates and evalu- data are common (Warton and Shepherd 2010). Including ate factors influencing exchange rates. The model parameters pseudo-absence points enables presence-only data to be ana- included heterogeneous exchange rates (e.g., movements into lyzed using techniques developed to analyze presence–absence and out of vulnerable areas were not equal), seasonal effects, data (Pearce and Boyce 2006), such as logistic GLMs. Continu- and fish behavior types. All possible model combinations used

ous predictor variables used in the model were distance from to predict the exchange rates were tested and ranked using AICc. shore, distance from vegetation, depth, width of the vegetated The most parsimonious model was selected based on fewest

area, and slope of the shoreline. Categorical predictor variables parameters and ΔAICc values of less than 10. used in the model were rugosity of the vegetated areas, presence of manmade structure, presence of cypress trees, presence Fine-Scale Fish Movements of spatterdock, and presence of bulrush. Categorical variables were used to test whether there were differences in vulnerability More detailed temporal scale sampling was also conducted of fish to angling within the various vegetated habitat types. to assess within-day fish movements. Between 8 and 14 fish If Largemouth Bass anglers or pseudo-absence points were lo- were tracked once every 2 h during hours of safe light, approxi- cated within 50 m from the outside edge of vegetation, they mately one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset. A total were classified as being located in onshore habitat; otherwise, of three surveys were conducted in April, June, and August. anglers were classified as being in offshore habitat. Fifty meters Fish were not tracked at night due to low levels of angling ef- was chosen as the cutoff for targeting onshore habitat because fort at night. By tracking fish on a detailed temporal scale, we it was unlikely an angler would consistently cast farther than were able to evaluate how effective the biweekly surveys were 50 m to target an area. Presence and pseudo-absence points in at classifying fish habitat use, movement patterns, and vulner- offshore habitat were given values of zero for the width of veg- ability to angling. etated area, slope of the shoreline, and the rugosity score of the vegetated areas. Using Akaike Information Criteria corrected In order to account for possible bias in the estimation of

for small sample sizes (AICc), the full model was compared to exchange rates using the biweekly surveys, exchange rates were a variety of reduced models. Significant variables from the full also estimated in the program MARK using within-day surveys. model were used to create a set of reduced models. The best To compare estimates from the biweekly surveys and within- model was selected based on the fewest number of parameters day surveys, the best model characterizing biweekly exchange

and ΔAICc scores of less than 10. rates was used to assess within-day exchange patterns.

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 To determine the vulnerability of fish to angling, each fish Tag Returns location was classified using the same criteria to predict the distribution of Largemouth Bass anglers (e.g., distance from veg- We analyzed angler tag return data to test whether there etation, distance from shore, depth, etc.). The best GLM used was a portion of the population that was less vulnerable to an- to describe angler distribution was applied to each fish location gling. Anglers who caught tagged fish were instructed to re- to predict the likelihood that a Largemouth Bass was located move the external $200 reward tag and call the number on the in a location where fishing was likely to occur. The model did tag to receive the reward. Instructions were posted at the boat not provide the actual probability that Largemouth Bass anglers ramps and on the tag. When anglers called to claim the reward, target a location where fish were found because pseudo-absence they completed a short telephone survey to identify their tar- points were used instead of actual absence points (Pearce and get species, capture location, whether they were fishing near Boyce 2006). Within the logistic GLM model structure, the the shoreline or in open water, capture date, and whether the number of pseudo-absence points used in a model influences the fish was harvested. A Pearson’s chi-square test (equation 2) was probability that Largemouth Bass anglers will target a location. used to test whether there was a difference in the proportion of This technique provided a relative likelihood that Largemouth fish caught by anglers between fish habitat preference. Bass anglers will target a location (Pearce and Boyce 2006) and thus predicted vulnerabilities of the fish were scaled so the high- (2) est vulnerability was equal to one. Fish locations with a vulnerability score greater than or equal to 0.5 were considered to be

264 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 2 For the Pearson’s chi-square (χ ) test Oi was the observed Three models characterizing Largemouth Bass angler dis-

number of fish caught in fish habitat preference group i and Ei tribution had ΔAICc scores less than 10 (ΔAICc scores of 0, 8.2, was the expected number of fish caught in fish habitat prefer- and 9.7 with 9, 15, and 17 model parameters, respectively). The ence group i. The expected number of fish caught was calcu- most parsimonious model contained distance from vegetation

lated as and vegetation rugosity had a ΔAICc score of 0 and nine pa- (3) rameters. According to this model, all vegetated habitats had relative likelihood values greater than 0.65 and offshore habi-

where Ni was the number of fish in habitat preference group tats had relative likelihood values less than 0.20, indicating that i and p ¯ is the average portion of total tagged fish caught by Largemouth Bass anglers target vegetated areas substantially anglers. more than offshore areas. Additionally, Largemouth Bass anglers were more likely to target vegetated habitat with higher ru- RESULTS gosity scores than vegetated habitat with lower rugosity scores.

A total of 832 anglers were surveyed from November 2010 Eighty-one Largemouth Bass were tagged in October 2010. through October 2011. Of these, 313 were targeting Largemouth Sixty-four were tagged near onshore habitat and 17 in offshore Bass (Figure 2). Largemouth Bass anglers tended to congregate habitats. None of the fish suffered from mortality due to sur- around the littoral zone of the lake, whereas non-Bass anglers gery, so all fish were included in the analysis (Figure 3). Due to tended to be located offshore (Figure 2). Many non-Bass an- memory limitations in program MARK, only 61 of the tracking glers were targeting Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) events could be analyzed to predict the exchange rates. To com- offshore. A total of 44 anglers interviewed indicated that 91% of press the data set, tracking events having less than 10 found fish all anglers were correctly classified as fishing for Largemouth were combined with the preceding or following tracking event, Bass. Due to the large disparity between the spatial distribu- whichever was closer. During the study, 38 fish were harvested, tion of Largemouth Bass and non-Bass anglers, we chose not died from natural mortality, or were lost due to unreported har- to assess how this measurement error impacted the results of vest or tag failure. The remaining fish were searched for during our study. Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014

Figure 3. All Largemouth Bass locations from October 2010 through Oc- Figure 2. Distribution of Largemouth Bass anglers (yellow squares) and tober 2011 (yellow dots). Areas where Largemouth Bass anglers had a non-Bass anglers (light grey dots) on Lake Santa Fe from November 2010 high likelihood of targeting (black) and where they were not likely to tar- through October 2011. Green areas around the perimeter of the lake rep- get (light grey) based on logistic generalized linear model incorporating resent the vegetated areas and blue represents open water. Angler loca- distance from shore and rugosity of the shoreline habitat. Fish locations tions outside of the lake are located in canals. outside of the lake were found in canals.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 265 the entire study; however, the transmitters started to fail after (Figure 5). Similarly, the two orders of magnitude difference in day 300 and only 17 fish were tracked for the full 365 days. exchange rates of fish classified with the onshore behavior type indicated a general movement to areas likely targeted by anglers Nineteen tagged fish selected offshore habitats, 23 regularly (Figure 5). For fish classified as generalist behavior type, homo- moved between onshore and offshore habitats, and 39 selected geneity in the observed exchange rates indicated that these fish onshore habitats. A fish was classified as an offshore behav- moved equally between both areas (Figure 5). ior type if less than 30% of its total locations were onshore, a generalist behavior type if 30%–70% of its total locations were Fine-Scale Fish Movements onshore, or an onshore behavior type if greater than 70% of its total locations were onshore. The categories used to divide Exchange rates estimated from the within-day sampling indi- the fish into behavior groups were selected post hoc based on cated higher exchange rates than the biweekly observations. Esti- natural breaks in the data (Figure 4). Mean length of fish ranged mates of exchange rates from the within-day surveys ranged from from 428 to 477 mm for the three different behavior types, and 0.334 to 1.000 per day (Figure 6). Similar to trends in exchange length distributions overlapped substantially, indicating no fish rates from biweekly surveys, offshore behavior fish had the high- size differences with habitat use. On average, approximately est average exchange rates and onshore behavior fish had the low- one-third of the tagged fish were located in offshore habitat at est average exchange rates (Figure 6). However, exchange rates any given time (Figure 3). from within-day surveys were one to two orders of magnitude larger than estimates from the biweekly surveys (Figures 5 and The best model predicting exchange rates using biweekly 6). For example, exchange rates of offshore behavior fish ranged survey data included interactions between fish behavior type from 0.586 to 1.000 per day (Figure 6). These results showed

and heterogenic exchange. The next best model had a ΔAICc that fish classified as offshore behavior had a high probability of score greater than 20 points higher than the chosen model. Es- moving to areas targeted by anglers within a given day (0.586). timates of exchange rates from biweekly surveys ranged from An exchange rate of 1.000 indicates that a fish would transition 0.001 to 0.035 per day (corresponding to 0.030 to 0.657 per out of the habitat it was located in within a day. month), with highest average exchange rates for offshore behavior fish and lowest average for onshore behavior fish (Figure 5). Tag Returns The order of magnitude difference in observed exchange rates for fish classified with the offshore behavior type suggested a Results from the tag returns indicated that 58% of all radio- general movement toward areas not likely targeted by anglers tagged fish were caught at least once by anglers. Forty-seven Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014

Figure 4. Proportion of time spent onshore for each Largemouth Bass broken into fish behavior types. Fish behavior types consisted of offshore behavior types being located mainly in offshore habitats (light grey circles), generalist behavior types that frequently move between onshore and offshore habitat (grey squares), and onshore behavior types that were commonly found in onshore habitats (black tri- angles).

266 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org percent of the fish classified as offshore behavior, 65% of the generalist behavior fish, and 59% of the onshore behavior fish were caught. Fish were generally caught in the area where they spent the most time, with offshore behavior fish caught mostly where anglers did not likely target (30% vs. 17%), onshore behavior fish only caught where anglers were likely to target, and generalist behavior fish mainly caught where anglers target (60% vs. 5%). Results from the chi-square test showed there was not a significant difference between the portions of fish caught based on the fish behavior type (chi-square = 1.39, P = 0.45).

DISCUSSION Apparent Spatial Mismatch

Differences in the distributions of Largemouth Bass anglers and Largemouth Bass lend support to Martin’s (1958) and Cox and Walters’ (2002) hypothesis that a population is Figure 5. Daily exchange rates (how often fish move between areas composed of fish vulnerable to angling and invulnerable to an- targeted and not targeted by anglers) and 95% confidence intervals (in gling. However, tag return data indicated these apparently in- parentheses) for Largemouth Bass estimated from the program MARK vulnerable offshore behavior individuals were just as likely to using the biweekly surveys. Estimates are broken up into fish behavior be captured as onshore behavior fish, signifying no difference types, where offshore fish (blue) select for areas not targeted by anglers, onshore fish (green) select for areas targeted by anglers, and generalist in vulnerability to angling. There are a few potentially inclusive fish (red) equally move between the two areas. Solid arrows represent hypotheses to explain the observed catches. First, it appeared directional movement from areas targeted by anglers and dashed arrows that the exchange rates of Largemouth Bass were sufficiently represent directional movement to areas targeted by anglers. high to effectively negate the spatial separation from the majority of anglers. Second, spatial differences in angler and/or fish behavior could have resulted in the offshore behavior fish being more vulnerable to angling than those that selected for onshore habitat. Gaining insight into the credibility of these potentially interacting hypotheses will provide valuable insight into spatial management options for recreational fisheries.

Understanding the exchange rates between areas targeted and not targeted by anglers is needed in recreational fisheries (Cox and Walters 2002). Studies analyzing the effectiveness of marine protected areas indicate that fish with high exchange rates into and out of protected areas were not protected from fishing (Walters and Bonfil 1999; Botsford et al. 2003; Grüss et

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 al. 2011). Consequently, out of the nine offshore behavior fish caught by anglers, 38% were caught in areas commonly targeted by anglers. This suggested that exchange rates were high enough that this subpopulation was not fully protected from the bulk of angling effort. Furthermore, exchange rates estimated from biweekly surveys were likely biased low because of large Figure 6. Daily exchange rates (how often fish move between areas time intervals between tracking events. Studies have found that targeted and not targeted by anglers) and 95% confidence intervals (in large time intervals between tracking events may miss the ma- parentheses) for Largemouth Bass estimated from the program MARK jority of fish movements (Løkkeberg et al. 2002; Hanson et al. using the within-day surveys. Estimates are broken up into fish behavior types where, offshore fish (blue) select for areas not targeted by anglers, 2007). Exchange rates estimated from the within-day surveys onshore fish (green) select for areas targeted by anglers, and generalist were less biased and likely resulted in the whole population fish (red) equally move between the two areas. Solid arrows represent being essentially vulnerable to angling. However, unlike spatial directional movement from areas targeted by anglers and dashed arrows closures there was still effort directed at Largemouth Bass in represent directional movement to areas targeted by anglers. offshore areas of the lake and, consequently, the majority of offshore behavior fish were caught in these habitats that were One explanation for observing similar fish catches between not likely targeted by anglers. Therefore, the exchange rates of the two areas despite substantially less offshore fishing effort the fish were not the only factor influencing the vulnerability of is that anglers operating offshore were more effective at catch- fish to angling in this study. ing offshore behavior fish. The observed catches of offshore

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 267 behavior fish by offshore anglers were estimated near 30%. In of individual fish. Our results showed that spatial segregation contrast, catches by onshore anglers on onshore behavior fish between onshore and offshore fishing effort would apparently were around 60%. Thus, 10% of the angling effort (i.e., the pro- provide a refuge for fish, but in fact fish movement rates (and portion of fishing effort offshore) produced half of the catches possible differences in catchability) precluded such protection. despite 90% of the effort being onshore. This suggests that in Development of area closures for fishery conservation should fact offshore anglers had higher catchability for Largemouth explicitly consider behavior of the fish and the fishers, and Bass classified as offshore behavior than onshore anglers for failure to evaluate these factors could cause regulations to be onshore behavior fish. This is not to imply that these anglers ineffective. There is clear evidence that recruitment overfish- were not effective at catching fish in inshore areas, but they had ing can occur via recreational fisheries (Post et al. 2002; Lewin a skill set and knowledge allowing them to maintain higher than et al. 2006), but previous work has seldom considered angler average catches in offshore areas. Further, offshore behavior and fish behavior simultaneously. Even at low levels of effort, fish may simply be more susceptible to angling due to certain differences in fish vulnerability could lead to overexploitation genetic traits or behaviors learned in response to angling. Many of individuals with certain behaviors and/or life history traits studies have evaluated impacts of genetic behaviors on fish without overfishing the entire population. An understanding of vulnerability to angling (see Cooke et al. 2007; Philipp et al. recreational angler dynamics in relation to fish behavior and 2009; Sutter et al. 2012); however, it is unknown whether these fish population dynamics is imperative for improving the sus- behaviors correspond with certain habitat selection patterns or tainability and quality of recreational fisheries. prey selection in fish. Askey et al. (2006) showed that Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) learned to avoid capture when ACKNOWLEDGMENTS exposed to angling, and it is possible that fish spending time in offshore areas were exposed to less fishing and thus were more We thank B. Swett for help with spatial sampling of an- vulnerable to capture when they were exposed to offshore anglers. Conversations with C. Walters and W. Porak helped us glers. Further research concerning spatial differences in angler when conceptualizing this problem. and fish behavior leading to differences in fish vulnerability is necessary to determine how these behaviors interact to influ- FUNDING ence fish vulnerability. Funding for this project was provided by the Florida Fish Testing the IFD and Wildlife Conservation Commission through the Sport Fish Restoration Program. One of the most striking observations made in this study was the similarity in catches regardless of fish behavior, sug- REFERENCES gesting that bass anglers were distributed according to IFD predictions. The IFD predicts that catch rates within a system Abernethy, K. E., E. H. Allison, P. P. Molloy, and I. M. Cote. 2007. Why do fishers fish where they fish? Using the ideal free distribution to understand behaviour of artisanal reef fish- should be similar between habitats (Gillis et al. 1993; Walters ers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:1595–1604. and Bonfil 1999; Post et al. 2008), if success rate is the primary Arlinghaus, R. 2006. On the apparently striking disconnect between motivation and satisfaction in recreational fishing: the case of catch orientation of German anglers. North determinant of angler distribution. Assuming that all fish are American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:592–605. equally vulnerable to angling and all anglers have similar skill Arlinghaus, R., M. Bork, and E. Fladung. 2008. Understanding the heterogeneity of recreational anglers across an urban–rural gradient in a metropolitan area (Berlin, Germany), levels, one would expect one-third of the angling effort to be with implications for fisheries management. Fisheries Research 92:53–62. distributed in offshore areas. This was not the case for Lake Askey, P. J., S. A. Richards, J. R. Post, and E. A. Parkinson. 2006. Linking angling catch Santa Fe; a spatial mismatch in angler and fish distributions rates and fish learning under catch-and-release regulations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:1020–1029.

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 was evident, which resulted in about one-third of the tagged Botsford, L. W., M. Fiorenza, and A. Hastings. 2003. Principles for the design of marine fish being targeted by 10% of the angling effort. This disparity reserves. Ecological Applications 13:25–31. Cooke, S. J., C. D. Suski, K. G. Ostrand, D. P. Philipp, and D. H. Wahl. 2007. Physiological between fish and angler distributions suggests that angler dis- and behavioral consequences of long-term artificial selection for vulnerability to recre- tribution is influenced by angler skill, resulting in a distribution ational angling in a teleost fish. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 80:480–490. Cox, S. P., and C. Walters. 2002. Modeling exploitation in recreational fisheries and implica- following predictions of an IFD amongst unequal competitors tions for effort management on British Columbia Rainbow Trout lakes. North American (Parker and Southerland 1986; Milinski and Parker 1991) as Journal of Fisheries Management 22:21–34. opposed to the traditional IFD with equal competitors. Fishery Ditton, R. B. 2004. Human dimensions of fisheries. Pages 199–208 in M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, B. L. Bruyere, D. R. Field, and P. J. Brown, editors. Society and natural resources: managers should consider how unequal angler skill levels can a summary of knowledge prepared for the 10th International Symposium on Society and influence fish vulnerability to fishing, possibly reducing the Resource Management. Modern Litho, Jefferson City, Missouri. Dutka-Gianelli, J., R. Taylor, E. Nagid, J. Whittington, K. Johnson, W. Strong, T. Tuten, A. conservation benefits of any apparent spatial refugia. Trotter, J. Young, A. Berry, B. Yeiser, and K. Nault. 2011. Habitat utilization and resource partitioning of apex predators in coastal rivers of southern Florida. FWRI Library No. Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grant No. F-127-R-3. FFWCC no. F2771- Spatial Management Implications 07-11-F, St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida Lakewatch. 2005a. Little Santa Fe (Alachua County) Florida Lakewatch bathymetric With recreational anglers being a major component in many map. Florida Lakewatch, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. of today’s fisheries, it is important to understand the dynamics ———. 2005b. Santa Fe (Alachua County) Florida Lakewatch bathymetric map. Florida of angler behavior. The spatial distribution of effort can sig- Lakewatch, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. nificantly impact both the fish population and the vulnerability

268 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Fretwell, S. D. 1972. Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Fretwell, S. D., and H. L. Lucas, Jr. 1970. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. ACTA Biotheoretica 19:16–36. Gillis, D. M. 2003. Ideal free distribution in fleet dynamics: a behavioral perspective on vessel movement in fisheries analysis. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:177–187. Gillis, D. M., R. M. Peterman, and A. V. Tyler. 1993. Movement dynamics in a fishery: application of the ideal free distribution to spatial allocation of effort. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:323–333. Grüss, A., D. M. Kaplan, S. Guénette, C. M. Roberts, and L. W. Botsford. 2011. Conse- quences of adult and juvenile movement for marine protected areas. Biological Con- servation 144:692–702. Hanson, K. C., S. J. Cooke, C. D. Suski, G. Niezgoda, F. J. S. Phelan, R. Tinline, and D. P. Philipp. 2007. Assessment of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) behaviour and activity at multiple spatial and temporal scales using a whole-lake telemetry array. Hydrobiologia 582:243–256. Holland, D. S., and J. G. Sutinen. 1999. An empirical model of fleet dynamics in New Eng- land trawl fisheries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:253–264. Hunt, L. M., R. Arlinghaus, N. Lester, and R. Kushneriuk. 2011. The effects of regional angling effort, angler behavior, and harvesting efficiency on landscape patterns of overfishing. Ecological Applications 21:2555–2575. Kobler, A., T. Klefoth, T. Mehner, and R. Arlinghaus. 2009. Coexistence of behavioral types in an aquatic top predator: a response to resource limitation? Oecolgia 161:837–847. Lewin, W., R. Arlinghaus, and T. Mehner. 2006. Documented and potential impacts of recreational fishing: insights for management and conservation. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14:305–367. Løkkeberg, S., A. Fernö, and T. Jørgensen. 2002. Effect of position-fixing interval on estimated swimming speed and movement pattern of fish tracked with a stationary positioning system. Hydrobiologia 483:259–264. Martin, R. G. 1958. Influence of fishing pressure on bass fishing success. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of the Game and Fish Commis- sioners 11:76–82. Mesing, C. L., and A. M. Wicker. 1986. Home range, spawning migrations, and homing of radio-tagged Florida Largemouth Bass in two central Florida lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:286–295. Milinski, M., and G. A. Parker. 1991. Competition for resources. Pages 137–168 in J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, editors. Behavioral ecology, an evolutionary approach, 3rd edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK. Morbey, Y. E., P. Addison, B. J. Shuter, and K. Vascotto. 2006. Within-population heterogeneity of habitat use by Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush. Journal of Fish Biology 69:1675–1696. Parker, G. A., and W. J. Southerland. 1986. Ideal free distributions when individuals differ in competitive ability: phenotype-limited ideal free models. Animal Behavior 34:1222– 1242. Parkinson, E. A., J. R. Post, and S. P. Cox. 2004. Linking the dynamics of harvest effort to the recruitment dynamics in a multistock, spatially structured fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:1658–1670. Pearce, J. L., and M. S. Boyce. 2006. Modeling distribution and abundance with presence- only data. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:405–412. Philipp, D. P., S. J. Cooke, J. E. Claussen, J. B. Koppelman, C. D. Suski, and D. P. Burkett. 2009. Selection for vulnerability to angling in Largemouth Bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:189–199. Post, J. R., L. Persson, E. A. Parkinson, and T. vanKooten. 2008. Angler numerical response across landscapes and the collapse of freshwater fisheries. Ecological Applications 18:1038–1049. Post, J. R., M. Sullivan, S. Cox, N. P. Lester, C. J. Walters, E. A. Parkinson, A. J. Paul, L. Jackson, and B. J. Shuter. 2002. Canada’s recreational fisheries: the invisible collapse? Fisheries 27(1):6–17. Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 Seekell, D. A., C. J. Brosseau, T. J. Cline, R. J. Winchcombe, and L. J. Zinn. 2011. Long-term changes in recreational catch inequality in a trout stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31:1100–1105. Sutter, D. A. H., C. D. Suski, D. P. Philipp, T. Klefoth, D. H. Wahl, P. Kersten, S. J. Cooke, and R. Arlinghaus. 2012. Recreational fishing selectively captures individuals with the highest fitness potential. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 51:20960–20965. van Poorten, B. T., and J. R. Post. 2005. Seasonal fishery dynamics of a previously unex- ploited Rainbow Trout population with contrasts to established fisheries. North Ameri- can Journal of Fisheries Management 25:329–345. Voges, E., A. Gordoa, and J. G. Field. 2005. Dynamics of Namibian hake fleet and management connotations: application of the ideal free distribution. Scientia Marina 69:285– 293. Walters, C. J., and R. Bonfil. 1999. Multispecies spatial assessment models for the British Columbia groundfish trawl fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:601–628. Warton, D. I., and L. C. Shepherd. 2010. Poisson point process models solve the “pseudo- absence problem” for presence-only data in ecology. The Annals of Applied Statistics 4:1383–1402. White, G. C., and K. P. Burnham. 1999. Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:120–139. Winter, J. D. 1996. Advances in underwater biotelemetry. Pages 555–590 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 269 FEATURE

Threatened Endemic Fishes in South Africa’s Cape Floristic Region: A New Beginning for the Rondegat River

Olaf L. F. Weyl Peces endémicos amenazados en la South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB), Private Bag 1015, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa. E-mail: [email protected] región florística de Cabo en Sudáfrica: un nuevo comienzo en el Río Rondegat Brian Finlayson California Department of Fish and Game (retired), Camino, CA RESUMEN: en muchos ríos a lo largo del mundo, las co- munidades ícticas nativas se ven amenazadas por peces N. Dean Impson foráneos. En la región florística de Cabo, en Sudáfrica, CapeNature, Stellenbosch, South Africa la depredación ejercida por peces foráneos ha impactado Darragh J. Woodford severamente las poblaciones nativas de peces y más de 17 especies endémicas de peces están amenazadas. Con el fin Center for Invasion Biology, South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiver- de preservar la fauna íctica endémica, se le dio prioridad a sity (SAIAB), Grahamstown, South Africa la remoción de especies foráneas en las áreas de conserva- Jarle Steinkjer ción en esta región. En febrero de 2012, la primera erradi- Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, Sluppen, Trondheim, cación de peces no nativos mediante el uso de rotenona, se Norway dio lugar en el Río Rondegat, un pequeño cuerpo de agua que ha sido invadido por la lobina boca chica (Micropterus dolomieu). El tratamiento fue exitoso y culminó después Abstract: Nonnative fishes threaten native fish communi- de un proceso de diez años facilitado por la colaboración ties in many rivers of the world. In South Africa’s Cape Floris- de las autoridades de conservación de Sudáfrica (CapeNa- tic Region, predation by nonnative fishes has severely impacted ture), el Instituto Sudafricano de Biodiversidad Acuática y native fish populations and more than half of the 17 endemic el subcomité de Manejo de Químicos de La Sociedad Amer- fish species are endangered. To preserve the unique endemic icana de Pesquerías. Se anticipa que el incremento casi fish fauna, removal of nonnative fish from conservation areas instantáneo de la biodiversidad tras la remoción efectiva is a priority in this region. In February 2012, South Africa’s de peces foráneos invite a tomar nuevos esfuerzos para res- first nonnative fish eradication using rotenone took place in taurar más poblaciones de peces endémicos en Sudáfrica. the Rondegat River, a small headwater stream that had been invaded by Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu). The successful treatment culminated from a decade-long process that Intentional and unintentional introductions have made fish was facilitated through collaboration among a South African one of the world’s most introduced groups of aquatic animals nature conservation authority (CapeNature), the South African (Gozlan et al. 2010). Worldwide, intentional fish introductions Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, and the American Fisheries have occurred to establish food fishes, create new fisheries, Society Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee. The suc- restore depleted fish stocks, and control plants, invertebrates,

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 cessful removal of alien fish and almost instantaneous increase and other fishes (Kolar et al. 2010; van Rensburg et al. 2011). in biodiversity is anticipated to encourage more endemic fish Although such introductions have often resulted in the desired restorations in South Africa. outcome, nonnative fish introductions have had impacts on genetic, individual, population, community, and ecosystem lev- INTRODUCTION els in recipient environments (Cucherousset and Olden 2011) through competition, predation, habitat alteration, disease, and The Cape Floristic Region (CFR) of South Africa has 24 na- hybridization interactions (Moyle 2002; Clarkson et al. 2005). tive freshwater fish species (Table 1). Geographic isolation has resulted in high endemism in individual river systems (Linder Sport fish enhancement has been a major reason for non- et al. 2010) and CFR fish species are often restricted to a single native fish introductions (Cambray 2003), particularly in areas river or tributary within a river system (Figure 1), making them with predator-poor fish faunas (Dill and Cordone 1997; Clark- particularly vulnerable to nonnative fish introductions, habitat son et al. 2005). Humans living in areas with species-poor fish destruction, and pollution (Tweddle et al. 2009). Of the 17 cur- communities were often unable to resist the temptation to estab- rently recognized endemic species, 10 are listed as endangered lish nonnative sport fishes, and in many regions nonnative fishes and another three are listed as vulnerable by the International outnumber native species. Nowhere is this more evident than in Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN; Tweddle et al. 2009). the freshwater environments in Mediterranean climate regions Hence, CFR rivers are key areas for conservation of biodiversity including California, central Chile, southwestern Australia, the (Impson et al. 2002). Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal), and the CFR of South

270 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Table 1 . Native freshwater fishes, maximum length, IUCN Red list status.a

Maximum IUCN Species Main threat length (cm SL) status Anguillidae African Mottled Eel (Anguilla ben- 145 LC 0 galensis labiata) Shortfin Eel (Anguilla bicolor 80 LC 0 bicolor) Marbled Eel (Anguilla marmo- 185 LC 0 rata) Longfin Eel (Anguilla mossam- 120 LC 0 bica) Austroglaniidae Barnard's Rock Catfish (Austro- 8 EN 1, 2 glanis barnardi)b Clanwilliam Rock Catfish (Austro- 13 VU 1, 2 glanis gilli)b Photo 1. A school of Fiery Redfin (Pseudobarbus phlegethon) in the Rondegat Cyprinidae River; it had been extirpated from the lower reaches of the river by Small- mouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu). Photo credit: SAIAB/O. Weyl. Berg-Breede River Whitefish (Bar- 60 EN 1, 2, 4, 5 bus andrewi)b Chubbyhead Barb (Barbus ano- Africa (Marr et al. 2009). The introduction history, number of 12 LC 0 plus) fishes introduced, and impacts on native fishes are remarkably Clanwilliam Redfin (Barbus 8 VU 1, 2 similar between California and the CFR. Government-funded calidus)b hatcheries were used to produce the nonnative fishes that were Twee River Redfin (Barbus eru- 10 CR 1, 2, 3 distributed through government-funded stocking programs and bescens)b by angling organizations (Dill and Cordone 1997; McCafferty Goldie Barb (Barbus pallidus) 7 LC 0 et al. 2012). The number of successfully introduced fishes in b Sawfin (Barbus serra) 50 EN 1, 2, 4 each region approximates the number of native fishes (44 vs. Clanwilliam Sandfish (Labeo 36 EN 1, 2 45 in California and 20 vs. 24 in the CFR; Marr et al. 2009). seeberi)b The introduction of nonnative sunfishes (Centrarchidae) in Cali- Moggel (Labeo umbratus) 50 LC 5 fornia and throughout the western United States has had major Clanwilliam Yellowfish (Labeobar- 100 VU 1, 2, 4 bus capensis)b impacts largely through predation on native minnow (Cyprini- Eastern Cape Redfin (Pseudobar- dae) populations (Moyle 2002; Clarkson et al. 2005; UCREFRP 11 EN 1 bus afer)b 2012a, 2012b). Native CFR minnows have experienced similar Smallscale Redfin (Pseudobar- impacts from sunfish and trout (Salmonidae) introductions (van 8 EN 1, 2 bus asper)b Rensburg et al. 2011). As evidence from other countries and Burchell's Redfin (Pseudobarbus local environmental impacts began to accumulate, South Africa b 14 CR 1, 2, 3 burchelli) began to severely restrict introductions of nonnative fish. The Berg River Redfin (Pseudobarbus 12 EN 1, 2, 5 burgi)b control of nonnative fishes and the rehabilitation of native fish habitats through the removal of the former are now conservation Fiery Redfin (Pseudobarbus 7 EN 1, 2 phlegethon)b priorities (Marr et al. 2012).

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 Giant Redfin (Pseudobarbus 17 NA 1, 2 skeltoni)b,c In the CFR, management actions were implemented to re- Slender Redfin (Pseudobarbus 8 NT 1, 2 habilitate some of the affected rivers by eradicating populations tenuis)b of nonnative fish (Marr et al. 2012). Eradication of nonnative Galaxiidae fishes can be costly and controversial (Finlayson et al. 2005), Cape Galaxias (Galaxias zebra- and success often decreases with increasing range of the invad- b 8 DD 1, 2, 5 tus) ing species, as well as size and complexity of the affected envi- Anabantidae ronment (Finlayson et al. 2010; Kolar et al. 2010). Knowing that Cape Kurper (Sandelia capensis)b 20 DD 1, 2, 5 eradication would likely be a difficult task and borrowing on a SL = standard length, LC = least concern, EN = endangered, VU = vulnerable, CR previous experiences in the United States and Europe, South Af- = critically endangered, NA = not assessed, NT = near threatened, DD = data de- ficient. Main threats (0 = no dominant threat identified; 1 = alien fish; 2 = habitat rica began a process over a decade ago to assess various options destruction; 3 = pollution; 4 = utilization; 5 = genetic integrity) in the Cape Floris- and began planning for eradicating nonnative fish from rivers. tic Region South Africa (after Skelton 2001; Tweddle et al. 2009). b Endemic. This article reviews the historical context of the eradication c The recently described Giant Redfin has not been formally assessed but is con- program and examines the partnerships and processes that ulti- sidered endangered (Chakona and Swartz 2013). mately resulted in the successful removal of alien fish and the almost instantaneous increase in fish diversity in the Rondegat River in the CFR.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 271 HISTORY AND IMPACTS Nonnative Fish Introductions

In South Africa, as elsewhere, most fish were introduced as game fish or as prey species in order to develop sport fisheries. Legislation encouraging the importation of sport fishes and government support for fisheries development (McCafferty et al. 2012) resulted in the successful establishment of 20 nonnative fish species in the CFR (Table 2). Most of these can be traced back to the government-funded Jonkershoek Hatchery, located in the CFR (van Rensburg et al. 2011). At Jonker- shoek, introduced fishes were first propagated and then distributed to other government hatcheries and stocked either directly or with the help of piscatorial societies. Alien fishes were granted special protection Figure 1. Eight river basins in Cape Floristic Region and their endemic fishes. River basins: 1 = Olifants, through the formation of the Inland 2 = Berg, 3 = Breede, 4 = Gouritz, 5 = Gamtoos, 6 = Sundays, 7 = Coastal drainages, 8 = Baakens. Fisheries Division in the Cape Prov- Fish: A = Smallscale Redfin (Pseudobarbus asper), B = Eastern Cape Redfin (P. afer), C = Slender Red- ince in 1943 (a precursor to CapeNa- fin (P. tenuis), D = Burchell’s Redfin (P. burchelli), E = Berg River Redfin (P. burgi), F = Fiery Redfin (P. phlegethon), G = Clanwilliam Redfin (Barbus calidus), H = Twee River Redfin (B. erubescens), I = Cape ture), which enacted measures for the Kurper (Sandelia capensis), J = Barnard’s Rock Catfish (Austroglanis barnardi), K = Clanwilliam Rock protection of game fishes including Catfish (A. gilli), L = Cape Galaxias (Galaxias zebratus), M = Clanwilliam Sandfish (Labeo seeberi), N = fishing licences, closed seasons, and Whitefish (Barbus andrewi), O = Sawfin (B. serra), P = Clanwillian Yellowfish (Labeobarbus capensis). bag limits (McCafferty et al. 2012). Note: The Giant Redfin (P. skeltoni) recently described from the Breede River is not included. (Fish il- lustrations courtesy of SAIAB.) Late 19th-century introductions of both Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Brown Impacts of Nonnative on Native Fishes Trout (Salmo trutta) resulted in the development of a thriving sport fishery for these species in the cooler, high-altitude re- Native fishes in the CFR are threatened by a variety of an- gions of the CFR (McCafferty et al. 2012). To develop similar thropogenic impacts including water extraction for agriculture, angling opportunities in warmer, low-lying areas, five sunfishes increasing sedimentation rates, habitat modification (e.g., ca- (i.e., Largemouth Bass, Micropterus salmoides; Smallmouth nalization and dam building), and predation by and competition

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 Bass, M. dolomieu; Spotted Bass, M. punctulatus; Florida Bass, with alien invasive fishes (Tweddle et al. 2009). Though the M. floridanus; and Bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus) were intro- individual impacts are difficult to determine, their combined ef- duced between 1928 and 1980. With the assistance of informal fects have resulted in severe declines of mainstream populations stocking by anglers, alien game fishes spread rapidly, and on a of the large native cyprinids—Clanwilliam Yellowfish, Sawfin regional scale most river basins now contain at least four alien (Barbus serra), Whitefish (Barbus andrewi), and Clanwilliam fish species and few headwater tributaries remain noninvaded Sandfish (Labeo seeberi)—and the disappearance of most en- (Figure 2). demic small minnow species in the lower reaches of CFR rivers. In more pristine environments such a headwater streams, Although larger native species such as Clanwilliam Yellow- however, the primary threat to native fishes is nonnative fish fish (Labeobarbus capensis, Cyprinidae) are of interest to some introductions (Tweddle et al. 2009). anglers, it is recognized that the development of the large and economically important recreational fishery was the direct re- Though initial introductions of nonnative fishes are fairly sult of nonnative fish introductions (van Rensburg et al. 2011). well documented, there are few published assessments of their Anglers that support these fisheries in the CFR are highly orga- impacts on South African aquatic ecosystems. This can be as- nized; the Federation of South African Flyfishers and the South cribed to the small number of scientists working in the field African Bass Anglers Association, an organization affiliated to of fish invasion biology and the lack of research focus on the the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society in the United States, are ecological impacts of fish introductions until the 1980s (Mc- strong proponents of trout and sunfish fisheries, respectively. Cafferty et al. 2012). The research that has been conducted in

272 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Table 2 . Currently established nonnative freshwater fishes in South Africa (e.g., Woodford and Impson 2004; Lowe et al. Cape Floristic Region with maximum length, date, and purpose of 2008; Weyl et al. 2010; Ellender et al. 2011) mirrors results introduction.a from studies conducted elsewhere; alien game fishes’ overt im- Maximum pact on native aquatic ecosystems is through predation (Moyle Species length (cm Date Purpose Impact SL) 2002; Cucherousset and Olden 2011; UCREFRP 2012a, 2012b). Predation has resulted in several local extirpations and small Centrarchidae native fishes are typically restricted to headwater reaches of Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) 20 1938 PR, AN 1 CFR streams where alien fish invasions have been impeded by Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus barriers such as waterfalls and dams (Woodford et al. 2005; El- 55 1937 AN 2 dolomieu) lender et al. 2011). As a result, the historical distribution ranges Florida Bass (Micropterus flori- 70 1980 AN 2 of most native CFR fish species are now severely constricted, danus) fragmented, and genetically isolated (Swartz et al. 2004). This Spotted Bass (Micropterus punct- 60 1939 AN 2 ulatus) was similar to the situation in the western United States, where introduced sunfishes have often locally extirpated native cypri- Largemouth Bass (Micropterus 60 1928 AN 2 salmoides) nid species (UCREFRP 2012a, 2012b).

Cichlidae

Israeli Tilapia (Oreochromis au- PLANNING FOR NATIVE FISH 30 1915 AQ 1 reus) CONSERVATION Mozambique Tilapia (Oreo- PR, AN, 40 1936 1 chromis mossambicus) AQ Changing Attitudes and Management Southern Mouthbrooder (Pseu- 13 1980 PR 1 docrenilabrus philander) South Africa lacks a national inland fisheries policy and Banded Tilapia (Tilapia spar- 23 1941 PR 1 rmanii) the management of inland fisheries is the responsibility of provincial nature conservation departments. This is similar to the Clariidae United States where inland fisheries are still largely managed by individual state fish and wildlife departments. Until the African Sharptooth Catfish (Clar- AQ, AN, 130 1975 2 ias gariepinus) IB 1980s, South African conservation departments actively managed inland fisheries through enforcement of regulations and Cyprinidae by enhancing fisheries through stocking programs. An increas- Goldfish (Carassius auratus) 25 1726 OR 3 ing awareness of the impacts of nonnative fishes resulted in a Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon change of attitude by conservation authorities, and nonnative 100 1980 BI 3 idella) fish production by government hatcheries stopped in the early Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) 75 1859 AN 3 1990s (McCafferty et al. 2012). Orange River Mudfish (Labeo 50 1975 IB 4 capensis) Alien invasive species management is now a legislated Smallmouth Yellowfish (Labeo- 50 1953 AN 1 priority in South Africa. The National Environmental Manage- barbus aeneus) ment: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004; NEMBA), for ex- Tench (Tinca tinca) 64 1896 PR, AN 1 ample, lists alien invasive species as a threat to biodiversity and Percidae includes legislation intended to prevent their unauthorized intro-

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 Yellow Perch (Perca fluviatilis) 60 1915 AN 1 duction and spread. To support the NEMBA, Alien and Invasive Species Regulations were published in July 2013. These regu- Poecilidae lations include prohibited species lists that prohibit the import, Western Mosquitofish (Gambu- possession, movement, and release of more than 100 listed fish 6 1936 PR, BI 1 sia affinis) taxa and require an Invasive Species Management Program for

Salmonidae nonnative game fish species (e.g., Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout, Common Carp, Largemouth Bass, and Smallmouth Bass). The Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus 75 1897 AQ, AN 2 Invasive Species Management Programs are expected to reg- mykiss) ulate these fish species through a zoning scheme on national Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) 75 1892 AQ, AN 2 maps, which include permitted and prohibited zones. All gov- a SL = standard length, PR = prey species for predatory game fishes, AN = ernment departments and management authorities of protected introduced for angling, AQ = aquaculture, IB = inter-basin water transfers, OR = ornamental/pet trade, BI = biocontrol. Documented impacts (1 = not assessed in areas are also obligated to develop monitoring, control, and South Africa; 2 = predation on and competition with native fishes; 3 = parasite/ eradication plans. Private land owners have to report the pres- disease vector; 4 = hybridization with native fishes) in South Africa (after van ence of listed invasive species and take steps to manage, eradi- Rensburg et al. 2011; Marr et al. 2012). cate, or prevent them from spreading.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 273 Though conservation authorities considered the NEMBA as one of the most important pieces of conservation legislation for South African inland waters (Roux et al. 2006), some anglers and angling organizations saw this legislation as a direct attack on their sport and directly opposed NEMBA through public and political lobbying (McCaf- ferty et al. 2012).

CapeNature, South African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity, and the American Fisheries Society Collaboration

In 2000, the Cape Action for Peo- ple and the Environment (CAPE) Pro- gram was started to more effectively Figure 2. Location of the four rivers selected for rotenone treatment (Rondegat, Krom-Cederberg, conserve the CFR (Lochner et al. 2003). Suurvlei, and Krom-Eastern Cape) within the eight Cape Floristic Region river basins indicating the Recognizing the increasing impacts of number of alien fish species present: 1 = Olifants, 2 = Berg, 3 = Breede, 4 = Gouritz, 5 = Gamtoos, 6 = nonnative fishes on native biodiversity, Sundays, 7 = Coastal drainages, 8 = Baakens. Note: 2 and 7 incorporate smaller river basins and have been combined for illustration purposes. (Adapted from Marr et al. 2012.) CapeNature, as part of the CAPE Pro- gram, developed conservation plans for aquatic ecosystems (Impson et al. 2002). CapeNature subsequently consulted with key conser- Operating Procedures Manual (Rotenone SOP Manual) to guide vation stakeholders, including the South African Institute of safe and effective use has been recently published by AFS (Fin- Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) and the American Fisheries So- layson et al. 2010). Rotenone, a phosphorylation inhibitor, is a ciety’s (AFS) Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee, to botanical material produced by various members of the bean determine realistic fish eradication strategies and priorities. family Leguminosae (McClay 2000). The substance has been widely used as a piscicide over the past 50-plus years in North A series of workshops were held at SAIAB in 2003 and America, Europe, New Zealand, and Australia for fisheries 2004 that focused on identifying criteria for evaluating riv- management and conservation purposes (McClay 2000; Brit- ers for alien fish control. The criteria used were (1) severity ton and Brazier 2006; Rayner and Creese 2006; Pham et al. of threat to native fishes, (2) current land use, (3) presence of 2013). Rotenone is an unstable compound in nature and dis- geographic or man-made barriers that would prevent reinvasion sipates quickly from water through hydrolysis and photolysis, after successful eradication, (4) logistic feasibility, and (5) de- resulting in aquatic half-life values of 0.6 to 7.7 days (Finlayson gree of recreational angling affected (Marr et al. 2012). These et al. 2001, 2010).

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 criteria resulted in a list of four priority rivers where eradication was considered feasible (Figure 2). Environmental Impact Assessment

Control of alien fish to benefit native fish is often recog- A key component of the CAPE Program was an Environ- nized as difficult. Direct intervention through the use of pi- mental Impact Assessment (EIA), which assessed whether the scicides was chosen as the most appropriate method because preferred method of alien fish eradication was ecologically and complete removal of nonnative fish from a particular area is socially acceptable and whether the four chosen rivers were usually required to recover the ecosystem’s ability to support good candidates for restoration (Enviro-Fish Africa [EFA] native species. Typically, if all fish are not removed from an iso- 2009). Funding for the EIA was provided by the Global Envi- lated area, they are able to reproduce and the problem continues ronment Facility of the World Bank through a project admin- (Finlayson et al. 2010; Kolar et al. 2010). Discussions around istered by CapeNature. Although the use of piscicides is not the most appropriate method for fish removal were guided by a “Listed Activity” in South Africa’s National Environmental experiences throughout the world. The use of piscicides or com- Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) and did not require plete dewatering has the highest success rate in eliminating fish a mandatory risk assessment, environmental safeguards of the populations from isolated areas. Of the two available general World Bank required that the project be subject to a rigorous, piscicides rotenone and antimycin, rotenone was chosen be- independent environmental analysis. The EIA recommended the cause it had recently been approved for reregistration (U.S. En- Rondegat River as the first pilot project for removal of alien vironmental Protection Agency 2007), and a Rotenone Standard fishes using the piscicide rotenone (EFA 2009).

274 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Figure 3. Rondegat River treatment area.

the impoundment; (2) a 2-m-high weir 0.4 km upstream of the RONDEGAT RIVER PILOT PROJECT bedrock cascade, and (3) the 1.3-m-high Rooidraai waterfall located 4 km upstream of the weir (Weyl et al. 2013). We thought Study Site this treatment area of the Rondegat River was ideal for native fish recovery because, like many small headwater streams in the The Rondegat River (Figure 3) is typical of many invaded Western United States, it was protected from reinvasion by fish CFR streams. The 28-km-long single-channel river is shallow barriers and thus had a high chance of success (Finlayson et al. (<1 m deep) and relatively narrow (2–4 m wide). The river re- 2005). Pretreatment electrofishing and snorkel surveys demon- ceives most of its flow in winter and early spring (May to Sep- strated that Smallmouth Bass had invaded to the Rooidraai wa- tember), and the groundwater-dependent summer discharge is terfall (Woodford et al. 2005; Weyl et al. 2013). In the invaded 3

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 very low (0.07–0.08 m /s). The geology of the catchment is pri- reach, Clanwilliam Yellowfish were the only native fish able to marily sandstone resulting in river water of great clarity (sum- coexist with Smallmouth Bass but native Fiery Redfin, Clan- mer turbidity 0.5–2.8 NTU), moderate acidity (pH 5.4–6.3), and william Redfin, and juvenile Yellowfish were abundant above relatively low conductivity (14–120 µS/cm). Water temperature Rooidraai. The project was implemented based on the assump- varies from about 8°C in winter (June–August) to 27°C in sum- tion that the removal of Smallmouth Bass from the bounded mer (December–February). These physical characteristics are section of river (i.e., between the weir and Rooidraai) would very similar to those of many small headwater streams in the result in the recovery of the native fish. This assumption was Western United States where rotenone has been used in the suc- supported by previous examples of native fish recovery follow- cessful eradication of introduced species, allowing for the re- ing alien fish removal in other countries (e.g., Demarais et al. coveries of native trout (Oncorhynchus) and char (Salvelinus) 1993; Lintermans 2000; Finlayson et al. 2005). species (e.g., Finlayson et al. 2005). Rotenone Application The river flows into a 1,124-ha warmwater impoundment, Clanwilliam Dam, where alien Largemouth, Smallmouth, and The Rondegat River was first treated on 29 February 2012, Spotted Bass populations have been established since 1948 when water temperatures were between 23°C and 27°C and (Weyl et al. 2013). The lower river has three barriers to fish stream discharge (0.07 m3/s) and velocity (0.5 km/h) were low. invasions from the impoundment: (1) a 1-m-high waterfall and Treatment was conducted according to the guidelines in the bedrock cascade located 0.6 km above the high water mark of AFS Rotenone SOP Manual (Finlayson et al. 2010). Rotenone

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 275 was applied to the river using a series of drip cans sited at seven locations spaced approximately at 1-h water travel time intervals to maintain the recommended treatment concentration of 1 mg/L CFT Legumine (Jordaan and Weyl 2013) during a 6-h treatment. Six backpack sprayers were used to treat the backwater, seep, and spring areas with a 1% v/v CFT Legumine solution. To minimize off-target effects, deactivation of rotenone downstream of the water diversion weir was accom- plished using a 2.5% w/v solution of potassium per-

manganate (KMnO4). Deactivation began at the same time as the rotenone treatment and lasted until 2 March 2012. To monitor the effectiveness of the treatment and deactivation, sentinel Smallmouth Bass were placed in net enclosures upstream of the emitters and at the 30- min travel time location downstream of the deactivation point. A second treatment was conducted one year after the first treatment on 13 March 2013.

Fish Response

The response of the fish community to rotenone treatment was assessed during two pre-rotenone surveys (February 2011, February 2012) and three post-rotenone (March 2012, October 2012, and February 2013) surveys. The first three surveys utilized multiple methods including underwater video analysis, electrofishing, and snorkel surveys and are described in detail in Weyl et al. (2013). During subsequent surveys (October 2012 and February 2013) only snorkel surveys were conducted. These snorkel surveys included both qualitative assessments of snorkeling through the entire 4-km treatment zone as well as quantitative two-pass fish counts in 20 monitoring sites (Weyl et al. 2013). The entire 4-km treatment area was patrolled during and immediately after the two rotenone treatments and all dead fish were collected, identified, counted, and measured. Figure 4. Fish density in invaded and noninvaded survey sites of the Rondegat River Pretreatment snorkel survey fish density esti- determined from snorkel surveys conducted in (a) February 2012 immediately before the rotenone treatment and (b) February 2013 one year after the first treat- mates (mean ± SE) in the treatment area were 0.68 ± ment. Potential barriers to upstream migration of Smallmouth Bass are the lower 2

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 0.33 fish/100 m and Smallmouth Bass densities were waterfall, weir, and the Rooidraai waterfall. N = native; NN = nonnative. 2.29 ± 0.56 fish/100 m2 (Weyl et al. 2013). During the first rotenone treatment, 470 Smallmouth Bass and 139 surveys estimated native fish densities at 38.7 ± 7.0 fish/100 Clanwilliam Yellowfish were removed from the river (Weyl et m2. These native fish densities were significantly higher than al. 2013). The total biomass of fish removed from the 4-km those observed in the treatment area prior to rotenone applica- treatment section was 63 kg, of which 27.2% (17.2 kg) were tion (Mann-Whitney U test: U = 17.0; N = 16, 20; P < 0.0001). Smallmouth Bass and 72.8% (45.8 kg) were Clanwilliam Yel- Native fishes were now present at most survey sites in the treat- lowfish. All sentinel bass in the treatment area were killed, indi- ment area but were still absent in downstream invaded zones cating an efficacious treatment, and the sentinel bass below the (Figure 4). These findings were validated by comparing the treatment area survived, indicating an effective deactivation of numbers of fish recovered after the second treatment. Whereas

rotenone with KMnO4. There was no evidence of treatment ef- the only native fish recovered during the first treatment were fects downstream and posttreatment surveys conducted one day 139 Clanwilliam Yellowfish (mostly adult), 2,425 Clanwilliam after treatment detected no fish in the treatment area (Weyl et al. Yellowfish (mostly juveniles), 349 Clanwilliam Redfin, 190 2013). No Smallmouth Bass were detected in the treatment area Fiery Redfin, and 11 Clanwilliam Rock Catfish were recovered during subsequent snorkel surveys but native fish densities were during the second treatment (Figure 5). The almost instanta- observed to respond positively. By October 2012, native fish neous increase of fish diversity following Smallmouth Bass density (mean ± SE) in the treatment area had increased to 9.6 eradication from the Rondegat River not only exemplifies the ± 7.0 fish/100 m2, and one year after the first treatment snorkel impact that Smallmouth Bass have on native fish communities

276 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Photo 2. Melanie Duthie prepares to apply rotenone to the Rondegat River using a drip can. Photo credit: Bruce Ellender. Figure 5. Length frequency histograms of native fishes recovered from the treatment zone during the (a) 2012 and (b) 2013 rotenone treatments. MOVING FORWARD TO A NEW BEGINNING FOR NATIVE FISH

but also demonstrates that recovery is likely to be rapid follow- In South Africa, the responses of angling sectors to con- ing the second treatment. servation projects that involve the control of alien fish species have varied. The South African Bass Anglers Association, Impacts on Nontarget Biota whose members fish primarily on impoundments from boats for established populations of bass, do not formally object to Monitoring of aquatic invertebrates within the treated conservation efforts in streams because these are not greatly reach, which had detected 50 taxa in the week prior to treatment, utilized by their members. This differs considerably from found that 18 (36%) of these taxa were missing in the week fol- the interests of the fly fishers who target alien trout in small

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 lowing treatment. Follow-up surveys in May 2012 found 9 of mountainous streams. There are prime waters for trout fishing these missing taxa back in the treatment zone, indicating a 50% within protected areas of the CFR, and because many of these recovery rate within 2 months of treatment. This rapid recov- streams are considered a high conservation priority, rehabilita- ery was consistent with the expectation that the low level (≈ 1 tion projects were considered a direct threat to the fly angling mg/L formulation for less than 18 h) rotenone exposure would community. For this reason the fly angling community took the not have significant long-term effects on the macroinvertebrate lead in challenging CapeNature’s river rehabilitation projects assemblage (Finlayson et al. 2009). Of the 18 species initially in newspapers, popular magazines, and the Internet (Marr et lost following treatment, 5 were endemic to the mountain range al. 2012). To improve awareness on the impacts of alien fishes drained by the Rondegat River, and all of these were present and gain public support, CapeNature has written popular ar- upstream of the treated reach, from where they could recolonize ticles in local angling magazines promoting native fishes and (Woodford et al. 2013). Amphibian diversity was not a conser- associated conservation issues. In response, the general public vation concern for the operation, as no frog taxa present in the and stakeholders from local communities expressed concerns catchment were restricted to the treated stream channel. The about the necessity of removing alien game fish and the risks species present in the stream are widespread and common (e.g., of using rotenone on nontarget taxa such as aquatic insects, na- Clicking Stream Frog, Strongylopus grayii; and Cape River tive fishes, amphibians, and humans. The EIA addressed those Frog, Amietia fuscigula), also occurring upstream and in a va- concerns and included an independent scientific assessment of riety of nearby wetland habitats that were not affected by the the proposed program including the rotenone treatment of the treatment (EFA 2009). Rondegat River (Marr et al. 2012). This was a crucial first step

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 277 to moving forward in changing the public’s perception of na- phase. The Water Research Commission (K8/922; K5/2261) is tive fish restoration projects that are scheduled in South Africa. thanked for funding biological monitoring surveys. Following the conclusion to the EIA, CapeNature convened a meeting with all stakeholders in August 2009 with no formal REFERENCES opposition to the project. Britton, J. R., and M. Brazier. 2006. Eradicating the invasive topmouth gudgeon, Pseudo- rasbora parva, from a recreational fishery in northern England. Fisheries Management The almost instantaneous increase in biodiversity following and Ecology 13:329–335. the first treatment of the Rondegat River will likely encour- Cambray, J. A. 2003. Impact on indigenous species biodiversity caused by the globalisation of alien recreational freshwater fishes. Hydrobiologia 500:217–230. age more native fish recovery programs in South African riv- Chakona, A., and E. R. Swartz. 2013. A new redfin species, Pseudobarbus skeltoni (Cyprin- ers. Apart from the four rivers mentioned, CapeNature recently idae, Teleosti) from the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Zootaxa 3686:565–575. Clarkson, R., P. Marsh, S. Stefferud, and J. Stefferud. 2005. Conflicts between native fish held a stakeholder workshop that concluded that a further 14 and nonnative sport fish management in the Southwestern United States. Fisheries CFR rivers were priorities for alien fish control. Fish and in- 30:20–27. vertebrate responses in treated rivers will therefore continue to Cucherousset, J., and J. D. Olden. 2011. Ecological impacts of non-native freshwater fishes. Fisheries 36:215–230. be monitored for the foreseeable future. An initially skeptical Demarais, B. D., T. E. Dowling, and W. L. Minckley. 1993. Post-perturbation genetic public, especially anglers, are likely to be more receptive to changes in populations of endangered Virgin River Chubs. Conservation Biology 7:334–341. these projects if their angling needs are addressed and if proj- Dill, W. A., and A. J. Cordone. 1997. History and status of introduced fishes in California, ects yield biodiversity recovery. There is now a much greater 1871–1996: conclusions. Fisheries 22:15–18. EFA (Enviro-Fish Africa). 2009. Environmental impact assessment of the proposed eradi- public awareness of the plight of native CFR fishes and impacts cation of invasive alien fishes from four river sections in the Cape Floristic Region. of alien fishes in South Africa. The interaction among angling Available: www.capenature.co.za/docs/1962/EIA%20exec%20summary.pdf. (October associations, local landowners, and CapeNature that occurred 2013). Ellender, B. R., O. L. F. Weyl, and E. R. Swartz. 2011. Invasion of a headwater stream during this project resulted in a mechanism of better commu- by non-native fishes in the Swartkops River system, South Africa. African Zoology nication and understanding that is useful as a model for future 46:39–46. Finlayson, B., R. Schnick, D. Skaar, J. Anderson, L. DeMong, D. Duffield, W. Horton, and treatments. Technical guidance from the AFS Rotenone SOP J. Steinkjer. 2010. Planning and standard operating procedures for the use of rotenone Manual (Finlayson et al. 2010) and on-site support from AFS in fish management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Finlayson, B., W. Somer, D. Duffield, D. Propst, C. Mellison, T. Pettengill, H. Sexauer, and SAIAB were instrumental in the planning and successful T. Nesler, S. Gurtin, J. Elliot, F. Partridge, and D. Skaar. 2005. Native inland trout eradication of Smallmouth Bass from the Rondegat River up- restoration on National Forests in the Western United States: time for Improvement. stream of Clanwilliam Dam. This information has been trans- Fisheries 30:10–19. Finlayson, B., W. Somer, and M. R. Vinson. 2009. Rotenone toxicity to rainbow trout and ferred to CapeNature for use in future rotenone projects. several mountain stream insects. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:102–111. Finlayson, B., J. Trumbo, and S. Siepmann. 2001. Chemical residues in surface and ground We are all aware that it is much easier to introduce un- waters following rotenone application to California lakes and streams. Pages 37–53 wanted fish into new environments than it is to remove these in R. Cailteux, L. DeMong, F. Finlayson, W. Horton, W. McClay, R. Schnick, and C. Thompson, editors. Rotenone in fisheries: are rewards worth the risks? American fish because of biological, social, political, and physical impedi- Fisheries Society, Trends in Fisheries Science and Management I, Bethesda, Maryland. ments. To prevent new infestations and ensure success of the Gozlan, R. E., J. R. Britton, I. G. Cowx, and G. H. Copp. 2010. Current knowledge on non- alien fish eradication pilot program, CapeNature and SAIAB native fish introductions. Journal of Fish Biology 76:751–786. Impson, N. D., I. R. Bills, and J. A. Cambray. 2002. A conservation plan for the unique and will continue to raise public awareness of the impacts of alien highly threatened freshwater fishes of the Cape Floristic Kingdom. Pages 432–440 fish on CFR native fishes through information transfer at public in M. J. Collares-Pereira, I. G. Cowx, and M. M. Coelho, editors. Conservation of freshwater fishes: options for the future. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, meetings, websites, and news media productions. After comple- Oxford, England. tion of the four pilot projects now scheduled, the experiences Jordaan, M. S., and O. L. F. Weyl. 2013. Determining the minimum effective dose of rotenone for the eradication of alien Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) from a will hopefully dictate a clear path forward and a new beginning South African river. African Journal of Aquatic Science [online serial]. 38(sup1):91– for native fishes in South Africa. 95. Kolar, C. S., W. R. Courtenay, and L. G. Nico. 2010. Managing undesired or invading spe- Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 cies. Pages 213–259 in W. A. Hubert and M. C. Quist, editors. Inland Fisheries Man- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS agement in North America, 3rd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Linder, H. P., S. D. Johnson, M. Kuhlmann, C. A. Matthee, R. Nyffeler, and E. R. Swartz. 2010. Biotic diversity in the southern African winter rainfall region. Current Opinion The authors also wish to thank CapeNature, SAIAB, AFS, in Environmental Sustainability 2:109–116. the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, and the Na- Lintermans, M. 2000. Recolonization by the mountain galaxias Galaxias olidus of a mon- tane stream after the eradication of Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Marine and tional Research Foundation of South Africa for facilitating this Freshwater Research 51:799–804. collaboration. Finally, colleagues and volunteers who assisted Lochner, P., A. Weaver, C. Gelderblom, R. Peart, T. Sandwith, and S. Fowkes. 2003. Align- in all aspects of the project over the last 10 years are thanked ing the diverse: the development of a biodiversity conservation strategy for the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservation 112:29–43. for their participation. Lowe, S. R., D. J. Woodford, N. D. Impson, and J. A. Day. 2008. The impact of invasive fish and invasive riparian plants on the invertebrate fauna of the Rondegat River, Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 33:51–62. FUNDING Marr, S. M., N. D. Impson, and D. Tweddle. 2012. An assessment of a proposal to eradicate non-native fish from priority rivers in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 37:131–142. We thank the Global Environmental Facility of the World Marr, S. M., M. P. Marchetti, J. D. Olden, E. García-Berthou, D. L. Morgan, I. Arismendi, Bank for funding the initial stages of the project and the Table J. A. Day, C. L. Griffiths, and P. H. Skelton. 2009. Freshwater fish introductions in Mountain Fund for funding the participation of CapeNature Mediterranean-climate regions: are there commonalities in the conservation problem? Diversity and Distributions 16:606–619. staff at the rotenone training course in the United States. The McCafferty, J. R., O. L. F. Weyl, B. R. Ellender, and P. Britz. 2012. The use of water re- Natural Resource Management Program of the Department of sources for inland fisheries in South Africa. Water SA 38:327–343. Environmental Affairs funded the final planning and treatment McClay, W. 2000. Rotenone use in North America (1988–1997). Fisheries 20(5):15–21.

278 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Moyle, P. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Pham, L., D. West, and G. P. Closs. 2013. Reintroduction of a native galaxiid (Galaxias fasciatus) following piscicide treatment in two streams: response and recovery of the fish population. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 22:361–373. Rayner, T., and R. Creese. 2006. Review of rotenone use for the control of non-indigenous fish in Australian fresh waters, and an attempted eradication of the noxious fish, Phal- loceros caudimaculatus. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40:477–486. Roux, D. J., J. L. Nel, H. M. MacKay, and P. J. Ashton. 2006. Cross-sector policy objectives for conserving South Africa’s inland water biodiversity. Report No. TT 276/06. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa. Skelton, P. H. 2001. A complete guide to the freshwater fishes of southern Africa. Struik Publishing, Cape Town. Swartz, E. R., A. F. Flemming, and P. F. N. Mouton. 2004. Contrasting genetic patterns and population histories in three threatened redfin species (Cyprinidae) from the Olifants River system, western South Africa. Journal of Fish Biology 64:1153–1167. Tweddle, D., R. Bills, E. Swartz, W. Coetzer, L. Da Costa, J. Engelbrecht, J. Cambray, B. Marshall, D. Impson, P. Skelton, W. R. T. Darwall, and K. G. Smith. 2009. The status and distribution of freshwater fishes. Pages 21–37 in W. R. T. Darwall, K. G. Smith, D. Tweddle, and P. Skelton, editors. The status and distribution of freshwater biodiversity in Southern Africa. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, and South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Grahamstown, South Africa. UCREFRP (Upper Colorado River Endagered Fish Recovery Program). 2012a. Nonnative fish management questions and answers—2012 (Colorado). Available: www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/events-news/news/NNF-Q&A-CO-2012.pdf. (October 2013). ———. 2012b. Nonnative fish management questions and answers—2012 (Utah). Avail- able: www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/events-news/news/NNF-Q&A-UT-2012.pdf. (October 2013). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Reregistration eligibility decision for rotenone. 738-R-07-005. USEPA, Washington, D.C. van Rensburg, B. J., O. L. F. Weyl, S. J. Davies, L. J. van Wilgen, D. S. Peacock, D. Spear, and C. T. Chimimba. 2011. Invasive vertebrates of South Africa. Pages 326–378 in D. Pimentel, editor. Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of alien plant, animal, and microbe species, 2nd editon. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Weyl, P. S. R., F. C. DeMoor, M. P. Hill, and O. L. F. Weyl. 2010. The effect of largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides on aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in the Wit River, Eastern Cape, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 35:273–282. Weyl, O. L. F., B. R. Ellender, D. J. Woodford, and M. S. Jordaan. 2013. Fish distributions in the Rondegat River, Cape Floristic Region, South Africa, and the immediate impact of rotenone treatment in an invaded reach. African Journal of Aquatic Science 28:201–209. DOI: 10.2989/16085914.2012.753401. Woodford, D. J., H. M. Barber-James, T. A. Bellingan, J. A. Day, F. C. de Moor, J. Gouws, and O. L. F. Weyl. 2013. Immediate impact of piscicide operations on a Cape Floristic Region aquatic insect assemblage: a lesser of two evils? Journal of Insect Conserva- tion 17:959–973. Woodford, D. J., and N. D. Impson. 2004. A preliminary assessment of the impact of alien Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) on indigenous fishes of the upper Berg River, Western Cape Province, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 29:109–113. Woodford, D. J., N. D. Impson, J. A. Day, and I. R. Bills. 2005. The predatory impact of invasive alien Smallmouth Bass, Micropterus dolomieu (Teleostei: Centrarchidae), on indigenous fishes in a Cape Floristic Kingdom mountain stream. African Journal of Aquatic Science 30:167–173. Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 279 IN MEMORIAM

Carlos Fetterolf, Jr., a past president of the American Fisheries Society, died on 22 March 2014, from complications due to a fall in Chelsea, Michigan. He had a long, distinguished career during which his good health and high spirits kept him active in fisheries and environmental causes to the end. His last years were devoted to protecting local streams and lakes.

After serving in the military during the waning days of World War II, Fetterolf entered the University of Connecticut where he earned a B.S. degree, but not before becoming a 3-year All-American and captain-elect of its soccer team, which won a national cham- pionship in 1948. Next, in 1952, he received an M.S. in fisheries from Michigan State University under the tutelage of two elders of our tribe, Peter Tack and Robert Ball. While at Michigan State he became a member of AFS.

Prepared now to move mountains and brimming with enthusiasm, two traits that did not diminish with his age, Fetterolf worked on reservoirs for the state of Tennessee, where he was successful in negotiating water levels and discharges that benefited Black Bass and tailwater trout. While in Tennessee he became active in the Southern Division of AFS, including service as president (1952–1957). Accepting employment in 1958 with Carlos M. Fetterolf, Jr. the Michigan Water Resources Commission to lead a large, professional staff conducting water quality appraisals, Fetterolf shifted his focus from fisheries and soon found himself 1926–2014 in the vanguard of governmental efforts to restore the nation’s waterways.

His efforts in Michigan resulted in acceptance of an invitation from the Environmental Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences to serve a 2-year term in Washington, D.C., as science coordinator for establishing the water quality criteria that were to become the basis for Water Quality Criteria 1972, popularly known as the “Blue Book.” Release of the Blue Book was a milestone in setting national standards for wastewater treatment and was certainly one of his proudest accomplishments. Returning to Michigan in 1972, Fetterolf became the chief environmental scientist for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. No longer leading a field team, he devoted his time to counseling agency staff, including policy makers, on environmental issues and to representing the state’s Bureau of Water Management on interagency committees and groups dealing with water management.

The year 1975 brought about yet another new career focus as Fetterolf became executive secretary of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, headquartered in Ann Arbor. During his tenure with the commission, which lasted until 1992, its program of fishery research expanded greatly; it supported several international symposia, the proceedings of which are still foundational; it invigorated collaboration with the International Joint Commission, where he was already a member of its Water Quality Board (renamed the Science Advisory Board); and it produced A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, a seminal document that formalized working arrangements among fishery agencies, including tribal organizations, with responsibilities for the Great Lakes. While executive secretary, the commission’s program of research aimed at improved control of the Sea Lamprey expanded considerably, and control operations shifted more to an integrated pest management approach. Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 Fetterolf’s involvement with professional societies was extensive and included service as president of the Michigan Associa- tion of Conservation Ecologists (ca. 1965), the Midwest Benthological Society (1966), the International Association of Great Lakes Research (1976–1977), the Water Quality Section of AFS (1983), and AFS (1991). Among the honors bestowed on him were memberships in Pi Alpha Sigma and Sigma Xi. The honor he most likely cherished, however, was induction in 2013 into the National Freshwater Fisheries Hall of Fame because, among other things, it put him in the company of Izaak Walton, Earnest Hemingway, and Ole Evinrude.

Fetterolf was preceded in death by his loving wife, Norma, after 54 years of a marriage that produced four children. He was a remarkable person who would have been successful in any endeavor that he undertook. We are grateful that he chose our profession as his passion.

Randy Eshenroder Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI. E-mail: [email protected]

280 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org UNIT NEWS Dam Impacts on Fishery Resources – Join Us in Québec Margaret H. Murphy, AFS Water Quality Section President ANCHOR QEA, LLC, Glens Falls, NY. E-mail: [email protected]

The Water Quality Section, together with the Fish Habi- This symposium includes speakers documenting the effects tat Section, Bioengineering Section, and International Fisher- of both construction of new dams and dam removal on fishery ies Section has developed an international symposium on the resources, including social and environmental impacts, and will impacts of dams on fisheries for this year’s Annual Meeting in help foster a greater understanding during the planning stages of Québec City. Dams provide many benefits to society, including the need for open dialogue regarding the value of fisheries and irrigation, domestic and industrial use, electricity generation, water resources to all stakeholders. We have over 30 speakers drought management, recreation, and flood control. The effects confirmed from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, of dams on fishery resources have been studied and debated Europe, Brazil, and China to present on a wide range of top- for years, because these social benefits come at a cost. Impacts ics, including (1) the impacts of dam removal on ecological, from dams result in modifications of river channels and natural physical, and economic factors; (2) responses to fish passage flows that result in water quality changes, habitat alterations, following dam removal; (3) habitat conservation plans; (4) post- loss of migratory routes for diadromous fishes, and loss of land construction impacts and fishery management, (5) current dam for local owners. Recent news stories on both dam removals construction on the Yangtze River; and (6) use of new construc- (e.g., Elwha River, Penobscot River) and construction (e.g., tion to control flooding and provide habitat enhancements for upper Yangtze River in China) and the decisions and science threatened and endangered species. We expect that this sympo- surrounding those efforts have stimulated more open debate on sium will foster a greater appreciation and understanding of the the need for and value of dams. science and many social issues surrounding dam construction and removal. We look forward to constructive and lively discussion on dams and hope you will join us in Québec! Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 281 AFS Strategic Plan for 2015–2019 The mission of the American Fisheries Society is to improve the Draft 1, May 2014 conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. AFS Strategic Plan Revision The actions of the American Fisheries Society during the next 5 Committee years will be guided by the Strategic Plan for 2015–2019. For the 2015–2019 Strategic Plan, the previous plan was refined by The Strategic Plan Revision Committee includes: Chair Marga- reorganizing the goals and objectives, making the plan more us- ret H. Murphy, Timothy Birdsong, Jim Bowker, Steven Cooke, able as a planning document, and as a framework for reporting Patrick Cooney, Mary Fabrizio, Lourdes Gonzalez-Peralta, Am- accomplishments. As with previous plans, the current Strategic brose Jearld, and Christina Swanson. Plan does not include specific actions. Rather, it is suggested that the annual operational plans of the Society, and each of its Margaret H. Murphy can be contacted at [email protected] Units, include development of specific actions or work plans to implement this Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan Revision Committee developed the draft 2015–2019 Strategic Plan with the goal of making it a more Fisheries science and management, like other scientific and usable document for AFS unit leadership for planning and re- technical disciplines, face new challenges: porting Society, Section, or Chapter activities as they relate to the Society mission and goals. The Committee believes that the • Globalization of trade and transportation will require Goals and Strategies included in this draft plan will address the greater cross-border understanding of the opportunities, current and projected needs of AFS through the next 5 years. threats, and cultural perspectives affecting international Substantial changes were made to this Plan relative to the previ- stock management, invasive species, and disease introduc- ous Plan. First, it is much shorter, with a focus on a vision for tions. the next 5 years. The Committee avoided inclusion of redun- • Climate change will drive decision-making for aquatic dant information and information that was more suitable for habitat protection and rehabilitation because of impacts on an operational plan. Second, this Plan focuses on Goals and migration, invasive species, disease epidemiology, water Strategies, with recommendations for reporting metrics. It is supplies, water quality, food production, and energy re- envisioned that annual operational plans developed at the Soci- sources. ety and Unit levels will define the specific actions necessary to • Economic pressure, volatile markets, a transient and retir- accomplish the intentions of the Goals and Strategies. Finally, ing workforce, and demands from rising economies will re- the Goals and Strategies have been reformatted, recognizing quire organizations to do more with fewer resources, modify that a single Strategy may encompass more than one Goal. their training and hiring practices, and dramatically restructure some commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as The draft Plan has been reviewed by the Governing Board and restructure use of and access to aquatic resources. found to be acceptable for review by Society membership. The • Ecosystem-based management coupled with social and document is available for review and comment in this issue of economic concerns will continue to drive research and man- Fisheries (see below) and on the AFS web site. If you have agement agendas that will, by necessity, be shared among comments about this Plan, please submit them to jsewell@fish- agencies. eries.org by 20 July 2014. After the comment period, the Plan • Nature-deficit syndrome brought about by increasing ur-

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 will be updated and presented to the Governing Board for its banization and electronic media use will present challenges final approval. If approved by the Governing Board, the Plan with constituents who have minimal exposure to and appre- will be presented for approval by the full membership at the An- ciation for the scientific principles that control fisheries and nual AFS Business meeting in Québec City, on Wednesday, 20 ecosystem function. August 2014. Acceptance of this Plan requires at least 50 active members voting (to achieve a quorum) and the vote will be de- Similarly, the Society, in order to meet our members’ needs and termined by simple majority. If approved by the membership, thrive, recognizes that our operations and business model must this Strategic Plan will guide Society operations through 2019. evolve to adapt to changes in technology and communications.

• Electronic communication, virtual meetings, and social AFS Strategic Plan for 2015–2019 networking are important means of interacting, particularly among young professionals, international colleagues, and dis- The American Fisheries Society, established in 1870, is the persed organizations. Incorporation of these tools in tradition- world’s oldest and largest professional fisheries organization ally structured meetings and development within established representing 9,000 members worldwide. online venues will enhance participation and provide valuable experiences. Professional societies will be expected to serve as information intermediaries that provide timely quality as- surance and technical insight on these ventures.

282 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org • The proliferation and increased use of open-access publica- 2. Provide continuing education opportunities with an empha- tions by professionals will continue to present a competitive sis on training and courses that are not commonly offered by challenge to traditional print journals and books and move academic institutions and/or that will be essential tools in the us away from a subscription-based approach to an author- future. pay approach. (Possible metrics: (1) Number of courses; (2) Number of • The position of the Society as an authoritative and timely students; (3) Types of courses offered: quantitative skills, source of information on fisheries, aquaculture, and aquatic regulatory, social science/human dimensions of fisheries science will require increased visibility and engagement at management, field and lab safety certification, field and/ regional, national, and international levels with educational or laboratory methods, new and emerging topics, fisheries institutions, other professional societies, government agen- management; (4) Post-training reporting) cies, non-governmental organizations, tribal groups, private industry, decision makers, and the public. 3. Develop communication products and publicly accessible in- • As an intelligent, adaptive, knowledge-based organization, formation to promote the value of fisheries, aquatic habitat, the Society’s business and governance models will shift to and fisheries sciences. respond to: greater demand for services that benefit mem- (Possible metrics: (1) Descriptions of information developed bers; changes in the Society’s revenue streams and expenses; and how that information was communicated, (2) Potential and more direct participatory decision-making in collective number of people who received the information) actions. • The Society will increase the disciplinary, gender, ethnic, 4. Develop relationships, partnerships, and collaborations with and cultural diversity and engagement of its members as a other professional societies, conservation organizations, de- vital means to maintain relevancy and respond to the chal- cision makers, and stakeholders to establish and promote lenges facing fisheries science and management. mutual goals of fisheries science, education, and steward- ship. Within this context, the American Fisheries Society envisions (Possible metrics: (1) Descriptions of relationships/col- that world-wide fisheries production will be optimized and laborations developed and how those contributed to the sustained while structural and functional conditions of marine, advancement of Society priorities and shared interests of freshwater, and estuarine ecosystems are maintained. The mis- partner organizations) sion of the Society will be carried out effectively, and our vision will be attained, if each of the Goals described below is met. 5. Publish high quality scientific journals, books, and proceedings that present recent advances, reviews and syntheses of Goals fisheries and aquatic science and management. (Possible metrics: (1) Number of manuscripts published, Science Goal: Advance and promote fisheries, aquaculture, and (2) Number of books published, (3) Number of papers pub- aquatic sciences. lished in symposia proceedings, (4) Editorial contributions, Education Goal: Support education and professional develop- (5) Impact factor, (6) Number of citations) ment in fisheries, aquaculture, and aquatic sciences. Communication Goal: Disseminate fisheries science informa- 6. Develop and disseminate scientifically-based communication. tion materials that represent and reflect the mission of the Networking Goal: Provide forums and networks to promote Society to political leaders, decision makers, stakeholders, interaction among fisheries professionals and students. and the public.

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 Advocacy Goal: Promote the fisheries profession and support (Possible Metrics: (1) Number and frequency of commu- evidence-based decision making for the conservation, develop- niques; (2) Number of invitations to speak with decision ment, and wise use of fisheries resources and aquatic ecosys- makers, stakeholders, and the public; (3) Number of letters, tems. briefings, reviews, testimonies, workshops) Governance Goal: Practice good governance of the Society and its member units. 7. Provide online resources of value and interest to members and non-members to be the leading source of online fisher- The Society uses a number of Strategies to accomplish these ies science. goals; each strategy may address multiple goals. (Possible metrics: (1) Number of unique visits to website, (2) Engagement of visitors on the website, (3) Time spent 1. Organize and sponsor forums to present new findings and per visitor on the website;(4) Number of scientifically based exchange ideas. tweets generated and number of Twitter followers) (Possible metrics: (1) Number of meetings, workshops, conferences, and symposia organized, (2) Number of informal 8. Support, manage, and promote a fisheries professional certi- gatherings or other networking opportunities organized, (3) fication program that is recognized as a distinguished mark Results of member satisfaction surveys, (4) Number of at- of scientific excellence and expertise within and outside the tendees) Society.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 283 (Possible metrics: (1) Number of certified scientists, (2) 12. Promote ethnic, socio-economic, generational, and disci- Number of agencies or institutions that give credit for certi- plinary diversity within the Society and the fisheries profes- fication in hiring and promotion, (3) Number of re-certifica- sion. tions) (Possible metrics: (1) Group membership statistics; (2) Group membership survey results; (3) Group annual meet- 9. Use innovative techniques such as surveys, focus groups, ing participation; (4) Number of plenary speakers who are social media, and other means, to determine and respond to female or members of underrepresented groups; (5) Number the needs, interests, and opinions of Society members. of specific groups, teams, or individuals contacted for par- (Possible metrics: (1) Blog entries, (2) Opinion surveys via ticipation) website or social media, (3) Formal or informal focus group meetings; (4) Number of scientifically based tweets gener- 13. Recognize and acknowledge the achievements and contri- ated and number of Twitter followers) butions of members and partners through awards, special conference sessions, and other activities. 10. Embrace and adopt new technologies to enhance and expand (Possible metrics: (1) Number and types of awards, (2) the Society’s education, communications, networking, and Number of awardees) advocacy activities. (Possible metrics: (1) Types and numbers of technology 14. Hold elections and convene regular meetings of elected used) officers to plan activities that advance the mission of the Society and provide sound financial management of assets, 11. Enhance participation of students and professionals at all revenue, and expenses. levels of the Society to assure member recruitment, reten- (Possible metrics: (1) Financial status, (2) Elections held, tion, and leadership development into the future. (3) Number of leadership meetings, (4) Audit report results, (Possible metrics: (1) Number of emerging leaders mentor- (5) Diversity and sizes of income streams, (6) Accuracy of ship awardees, (2) Number of student awards, (3) Number approved budget estimates) of members in each membership category, (4) Proportion of student members that become young professionals, (5) 15. Periodically review constitution, bylaws, and procedures Proportion of young professionals that become regular manual and revise using appropriate procedures as neces- members, (6) Number and proportion of Chapter members sary. who are Society members, (7) Development of membership (Possible metrics: (1) Number and substance of new amend- database to support analysis) ments passed, (2) Number of periodic reviews of documents)

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS Journal of Aquatic Animal Health

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 Volume 26, Issue 1, March 2014

[Communication] Lactococ- Susceptibility to Myxobolus cerebralis among Tubifex tubifex cosis in Silver Carp. Lester H. Populations from Ten Major Drainage Basins in Colorado Where Khoo, Frank W. Austin, Sylvie M. Cutthroat Trout Are Endemic. R. Barry Nehring, P. M. Lukacs, D. A. Quiniou, Patricia S. Gaunt, V. Baxa, M. E. T. Stinson, L. Chiaramonte, S. K. Wise, B. Poole, and Dennis K. Riecke, Alicia M. A. Horton. 26:19–32. Jacobs, Keith O. Meals, Arthur W. Dunn, and Matt J. Griffin. Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) Virus: Infectivity in Seawater 26:1–8. under Different Physical Conditions. Siri Vike, Karin Oelckers, Henrik Duesund, Svein Rune Erga, Javier Gonzalez, Børge Hamre, Genetic Variation in Bacte- Øyvind Frette, and Are Nylund. 26:33–42. rial Kidney Disease (BKD) Susceptibility in Lake Michi- Molecular Characterization of the VP2 Gene of Infectious gan Chinook Salmon and Its Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) Isolates from Mexico. Celene Progenitor Population from Salgado-Miranda, Edith Rojas-Anaya, Gary García-Espinosa, and the Puget Sound. Maureen K. Elizabeth Loza-Rubio. 26:43–51. Purcell, Jeffrey J. Hard, Kathleen G. Neely, Linda K. Park, James R. Winton, and Diane G. Elliott. 26:9–18.

284 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • 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 Fisheries Society of the British Isles Meeting- July 7–10, 2014 Hull, England fsbi.org.uk Integrated Perspectives on Fish Stock Enhancement American Society of Ichthyologists and July 30–August 3, 2014 Chattanooga, TN asih.org/meetings Herpetologists Annual Conference Edinburgh, United August 3–7, 2014 International Congress on the Biology of Fish icbf2014.sls.hw.ac.uk Kingdom August 14–15, 2014 International Muskellunge Symposium Ottawa, Canada www.muskiescanada.ca/whats_new/ symposium.php

August 16–20, 2014 AFS Annual Meeting 2014 Québec City, Canada afs2014.org

38th Annual Larval Fish Conference (AFS Early August 16–20, 2014 Québec City, Canada larvalfishcon.org Life History Section) August 31– AFS-FHS – International Symposium on Aquatic Portland, OR afs-fhs.org/meetings/meetings.php September 4, 2014 Animal Health (ISAAH) September 15–19, ices.dk/news-and-events/asc/ASC- ICES Annual Science Conference 2014 A Coruña, Spain 2014 2014/Pages/default.aspx September 26–30, Aquatic Resources Education Association www.areanet.org/conferences.htm Traverse City, MI 2014 Conference National Workshop on Large Landscape Washington, DC http://www.largelandscapenetwork. October 23–24, 2014 Conservation org/2014-national-workshop/ Westbrook, CT http://nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/Milford/ December 3–4, 2014 14th Flatfish Biology Conference flatfishbiologyworkshop.html January 26–30, 2015 Global Inland Fisheries Conference Rome, Italy inlandfisheries.org February 19–22, 2015 Aquaculture America 2015 New Orleans, LA Jeju Island, Korea http://nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/Milford/ May 26–30, 2015 World Aquaculture 2015 flatfishbiologyworkshop.html ; renee. [email protected] July 26–31, 2015 World of Trout Bozeman, MT

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

February 22–26, 2016 Aquaculture 2016 Las Vegas, NV February 19–22, 2017 Aquaculture America 2017 San Antonio, TX Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 285 COLUMN Letter from the Executive Behind the Scenes at Mazatlan Director Doug Austen, AFS Executive Director

Most of us did the meeting planners. When one version is used to display never have any idea a presentation developed in the other version it causes a number of what’s going on of design-changing problems that simply made the presentation behind the curtain unworkable. The result was that each presentation room had to at the conferences have two computers, one for each software installation, which that we attend. For just doubles an already complicated challenge. the most part, we take in the talks, There was far too much to summarize in this short col- enjoy the socials or umn but some of the most insightful and fascinating discussions networking events, were: participate in some working meetings, • Eric Carey, executive director of the Bahamas National AFS Executive Director Doug Austen can and, if time allows, Trust, pinch-hitting a keynote presentation on conservation be contacted at: [email protected] get out and see some challenges in the Bahamas and Caribbean. In a direct and of what the host city highly relevant plea for the integration of science and policy has to offer. A wonderful example of how blissfully naïve we to make more informed decisions, he was able to clearly frequently are was the incredible work of the team that led and articulate the unique issues of conservation, development, managed the recent AFS Western Division meeting in Mazatlan, money, and societal needs into a compelling story. We hope Mexico. This was a joint effort of the energetic and growing to get Eric to share some of his thoughts in a future article in Mexico Chapter and the Western Division. Despite a number Fisheries. of challenges, some unique to the location and others typical of meeting craziness, the event was a clear success. AFS has met • A group of presentations describing work on fisheries in the in Mexico before, but it’s been a while. The last Annual Meet- Gulf of California by staff and partners of CEDO, the Inter- ing was in Mexico City in 1937 and had barely 100 people. The cultural Center for the Study of Deserts and Oceans (www. recent April event had 441 registrants from 19 countries. Of cedointercultural.org). This work focuses on small fisheries, those registrants, nearly 200 were students representing 8 dif- sometimes described as artisanal, that flourish in the small ferent countries. The several hundred presentations, in Spanish towns along the coast throughout the Gulf of Mexico in the and English, covered an amazing array of topics ranging from states of Sonora and Sinaloa on the east of the Gulf and Baja mangrove ecology and management, shark and ray ecology and California Norte and Baja California Sur, on the Baja pen- management, western trout, fish passage, Gulf of California insula of California. Little is known about the magnitude fisheries, and many excellent presentations on the fascinating of the harvest, value, and cultural history of these primarily work done with the thousands of critically important small fam- family-based fisheries. To learn about this rich and fascinat- ily-based fisheries on both coasts of Mexico. Like many AFS ing work was exciting. events, this one also included a spawning run, four socials with one being a dinner in downtown Mazatlan, a full-day student • A special symposium on sharks and rays was held in con-

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 mentoring workshop and trade show, and a number of other junction with the meeting. I was introduced to this by my associated activities. It was a stunning event for a Division driver from the airport to the hotel. Claire Coiratonis, a doc- meeting, and the organizers did an exceptional job. toral student of Felipe Amezcua, utilized micro-chemistry techniques of shark cartilaginous structures and linked water Actually, to get the full story, which may never come out in chemistry characteristics to better understand the life history a single telling, you’d have to interview a number of the plan- of these fascinating and poorly understood animals. ners. However, there were some bizarre surprises that would make any meeting manager cringe rather than applaud in how • A full-day tour led by Francisco Flores, Universidad Na- well they were handled. For example, the van transporting all cional Autónoma de México, of a mangrove system at the of the laptops and projectors borrowed for PowerPoint presen- upper end of the bay and harbor in Mazatlan was one of the tations was hit by a drunk driver, destroying all the borrowed highlights of the three-day mangrove symposium. Devel- electronics, and setting off a frenzied, last-minute search for re- oped by Dave Phillips, Eric Knudsen, and John Tiedermann, placements by AV Chair Travis Neebling. By the way, did you this second international symposium focused on the critical know that the version of PowerPoint used in Mexico is not en- ecological role, conservation efforts, and protection of man- tirely compatible with the U.S. version? Likely not, and neither groves throughout the world. Continued on page 288

286 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Continued from page 243 (President’s Commentary) Brown, L. R., M. B. Gregory, and J. T. May. 2009. Relation of urbanization to stream fish assemblages and species traits in nine metropolitan areas of the United States. Urban Eco- systems 12:391–416. Willamette Basin river and stream sites (Mulvey et al. 2009). Hughes, R. M., S. G. Paulsen, and J. L. Stoddard. 2000. EMAP-surface waters: a national, mul- Therefore, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality tiassemblage, probability survey of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia 422/423:429–443. Hughes, R. M., and D. V. Peck. 2008. Acquiring data for large aquatic resource surveys: the was able to infer that aquatic vertebrate assemblages in 62% and art of compromise among science, logistics, and reality. Journal of the North American 30% of the basin’s stream/river length were impaired by agri- Benthological Society 27:837–859. Jacobs, S. E., and C. X. Cooney. 1965. Improvement of methods used to estimate the spawn- culture and urbanization, respectively. Using a random survey ing escapement of Oregon coastal natural coho salmon. Oregon Department of Fish and design and standard methods and indicators, Stanfield (2012) Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. Katz, S. L., K. Barnas, R. Hicks, J. Cowen, and R. Jenkinson. 2007. Freshwater habitat res- determined with high to medium confidence levels that the fish toration action in the Pacific Northwest: a decade’s investment in habitat improvement. assemblages in 56%–74% of Lake Ontario’s Canadian tribu- Restoration Ecology15:494–505. tary segments were impaired or likely impaired. The Minnesota Kaufmann, P. R., R. M. Hughes, J. Van Sickle, T. R. Whittier, C. W. Seeliger, and S. G. Paulsen. 2014. Lake shore and littoral habitat structure: a field survey method and its precision. Lake Fisheries Section surveys 650 lakes per year employing stan- & Reservoir Management 30:157–176. dard sampling methods and has surveyed a total of nearly 4,000 Kentula, M. E., J. C. Sifneos, J. W. Good, M. Rylko, and K. Kunz. 1992. Trends and patterns in section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, lakes (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2014). USA. Environmental Management 16:109–119. The data are used for assessing population status and trends Larsen, D. P., T. M. Kincaid, S. E. Jacobs, and N. S. Urquhart. 2001. Designs for evaluating local and regional scale trends. BioScience 51:1069–1078. and management action effectiveness. The Ontario Ministry of LaVigne, H. R., R. M. Hughes, R. C. Wildman, S. V. Gregory, and A. T. Herlihy. 2008. Summer Natural Resources (2014) employs standard methods in its lake distribution and diversity of non-native fishes in the main-stem Willamette River, Oregon, survey, to date sampling nearly 700 lakes to assess fish popula- 1944–2006. Northwest Science 82:83–93. Macedo, D. R., R. M. Hughes, R. Ligeiro, W. R. Ferreira, M. Castro, N. T. Junqueira, D. R. O. tions, water quality, and nonnative species invasions. Silva, K. R. Firmiano, P. R. Kauffman, P. S. Pompeu, and M. Callisto. In Press. The relative influence of multiple spatial-scale environmental predictors on fish and macroinvertebrate assemblage richness in cerrado ecoregion streams, Brazil. Landscape Ecology. A rigorous monitoring program must employ at least six Marzin, A. P., Verdonschot, P., and Pont, D. 2012. The relative influence of catchment, riparian characteristics: (1) a clearly stated set of objectives or questions corridor and local anthropogenic pressures on fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages in French rivers. Hydrobiologia 704:375–388. (Hughes and Peck 2008) so that we know what we want to know, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2014. Fisheries lake surveys. Available: www.dnr. (2) a statistical study design sufficient for answering those ques- state.mn.us/lakefind/surveys.html. (April 2014). tions at multiple spatial scales (Sály et al. 2011; Marzin et al. Morgan, R. P., and S. E. Cushman. 2005. Urbanization effects on stream fish assemblages in Maryland, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:643–655. 2012; Macedo et al., in press) because of the hierarchical nature Mulvey, M., R. Leferink, and A. Borisenko. 2009. Willamette Basin rivers and stream assess- of pressures and stressors, (3) an appropriate geographic frame- ment. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Hillsboro, Oregon. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Angler expenditures and economic impact assess- work (i.e., not hydrologic units because only half of them are ments. Available: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/fisheries/recreational/angler- true watersheds; Omernik 2003), (4) standard sampling meth- expenditures-economic-impacts/index. (April 2014). Omernik, J. M. 2003. The misuse of hydrologic unit maps for extrapolation, reporting and eco- ods so that observed differences are not confounded by meth- system management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39:563−573. odological differences (Bonar and Hubert 2002; Hughes and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2014. Fact sheet: lake surveys will help manage fisher- Peck 2008), (5) quantitative indicators with known precision to ies. Available: www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/STDPROD_096523.html. (April 2014). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Comments: Oregon coast coho ESU. NOAA maximize explanatory power (Larsen et al. 2001; Kaufmann et Fisheries Status Review. Available: www.oregon.gov/OPSW/cohoproject/PDFs/odfw_ al., 2014), and (6) public reporting of survey results. comment_coho_esu.pdf?ga=t. (April 2014). Sály, P., P. Takács, I. Kiss, P. Bíró, and T. Erós. 2011. The relative influence of spatial context and catchment- and site-scale environmental factors on stream fish assemblages in a human- In summary, rigorous monitoring programs can be expen- modified landscape. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 20:251–262. Shields, F. D., C. M. Cooper, Jr., S. S. Knight, and M. T. Moore. 2003. Stream corridor restora- sive, but inadequate monitoring has expensive repercussions tion research: a long and winding road. Ecological Engineering 20:441–454. regarding ignorance of the fishery, ignorance of costly rehabili- Stanfield, L. W. 2012. Reporting on the condition of stream fish communities in the Canadian tation effectiveness, and fishery depletion or loss. Endangered tributaries of Lake Ontario, at various spatial scales. Journal of Great Lakes Research 38:196–205. species listings and depleted fish populations typically result in Stranko, S. A., R. H. Hilderbrand, and M. A. Palmer. 2012. Comparing the fish and macroinvertebrate diversity of restored urban streams to reference streams. Restoration Ecology Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 greater management costs, reduced recreational and commercial 20:747–755. values, and restricted human actions. In general (and similar to Thompson, D. M. 2006. Did the pre-1980 use of in-stream structures improve streams? A re- protecting and rehabilitating human health), protecting fisher- analysis of historical data. Ecological Applications 16:784–796. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Factsheet: the National Coastal Con- ies costs less than attempted (and often unsuccessful) efforts to dition report III. Available: water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/upload/NCCR3_ rehabilitate those fisheries. Considering these costs and their Factsheet_20081209.pdf. (April 2014). values, can we afford not to monitor the nation’s fisheries rigor- ———. 2009. National Lakes Assessment: a collaborative survey of the nation’s lakes. Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, EPA 841/R-09/001, Washington, D.C. ously? ———. 2013. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008–2009: a collaborative survey. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and Office of Research and Development, EPA/841/D-13/001, Washington, D.C. REFERENCES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. 2011 National survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife- associated recreation: national overview. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. Andrew Loftus Consulting and Southwick Associates Incorporated. 2011. Financial returns to Available: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/FWS-National-Preliminary- businesses from the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program. Association of Fish Report-2011.pdf. (April 2014). and Wildlife Agencies and Sport Fish Restoration, Washington, D.C. Yoder, C. O., E. T. Rankin, M. A. Smith, B. C. Alsdorf, D. J. Altfater, C. E. Boucher, R. J. Milt- Alexander, G. G., and J. D. Allan. 2006. Stream restoration in the upper Midwest, U.S.A. Res- ner, D. E. Mishne, R. E. Sanders, and R. F. Thoma. 2005. Changes in fish assemblage status toration Ecology 14:595–604. in Ohio’s nonwadeable rivers and streams over two decades. Pages 399–429 in J. N. Rinne, Bernhardt, E. S., M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. R. M. Hughes, and B. Calamusso, editors. Historical changes in large river fish assem- Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D. Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, blages of the Americas. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 45, Bethesda, Maryland. R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G. M. Kondolf, P. S. Lake, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, B. Powell, and E. Sudduth. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Continued on page 288 Science 308:636–637. Bonar, S., and W. A. Hubert. 2002. Standard sampling of inland fish: benefits, challenges, and a call for action. Fisheries 27:10–16.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 287 Continued from page 245 (Policy) REFERENCES of the NFHP Board at the Summit will also serve as the annual Council on Environmental Quality. 2013. National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. gathering of the 19 regional fish habitat partnerships that lead Available: www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oceans/policy. (May 2014). efforts to protect and restore fish habitat on a large geographic National Fish Habitat Partnership. 2014. NFHP Board Members. Available: www.fishhabi- tat.org/contacts/board. (May 2014). scale. Reflecting the enthusiasm surrounding these opportuni- Restore America’s Estuaries. 2014. Board members. Available: www.estuaries.org/board- ties, conversations may expand participation to a much greater of-directors.html. (April 2014). swath of aquatic and natural resource interests. Consider these Restore America’s Estuaries–The Coastal Society. 2014. Summit 2014: Inspiring Action, Creating Resilience. Available: www.estuaries.org/about-2014. (May 2014). groups as potential partners—the 22 individual Landscape Con- Society for Freshwater Science, Phycological Society of America, Association for the servation Cooperatives in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, and Society of Wetland Sciences. 2014. Bridging Genes to Ecosystems: Aquatic Science at a Time of Rapid Change. Available: Strategic Habitat Conservation vision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife www.sgmeet.com/jasm2014. (May 2014). Service 2014a), the 11 regional member organizations of Re- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014a. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Available: www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/lcc.html. (April 2014). store America’s Estuaries Board of Directors (Restore Ameri- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014b. Migratory Bird Joint Ventures. Available: www.fws. ca’s Estuaries 2014), the ocean partnerships and planning bodies gov/birdhabitat/Jointventures/index.shtm. (April 2014). representing the 9 regions in the National Ocean Policy (Coun- cil on Environmental Quality 2013), and the 18 joint ventures Continued from page 286 (Letter from the Executive focusing on migratory bird corridors (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director) Service 2014b).

Many thanks to Dr. Amezcua, who not only advises phe- There are other incentives for collaboration beyond joint nomenal students, but was meeting general chair and co-orga- conferences. The Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting and RAE- nizer along with Pam Sponholtz. The fantastic program was TCS Summits are based on shared interests in aquatic science developed by Hilda Sexauer, Felipe, Jim Bowker, and Diana or our coasts. Besides the financial aspects that accrue from Miller, along with what I’m sure was a group of others who administrative efficiency, there is another more individual or worked tirelessly to craft the many symposia and sessions. personal benefit—broadening our networks by connecting with Undoubtedly, there was a large army of others who devoted people from similar disciplines but different groups. For ex- a substantial amount of time and energy to bring this meeting ample, The Wildlife Society and AFS both have units at the state together. My utmost respect and admiration goes out to all of level and sections or working groups organized around fields of them for a job well done. interest like disease or education.

Another suite of approaches is more ad hoc—a joint effort to arrange a briefing for decision makers at any level; a partnership to develop a webinar on field research techniques or professional development; articles for publications normally read by our new colleagues; mentoring programs to alert young professionals to career opportunities; or an integrated intern program such as The Coastal Society working with AFS to identify an aspiring member who wishes to work on a coastal fish topic.

Still another example of these new partnerships is just ris-

Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 ing over the horizon. As this column was being written, AFS was deep in discussions with The Wildlife Society about a potential joint meeting of the two societies, perhaps as early as 2017 in Tampa. Details are still being negotiated but it seems likely that the first joint meeting will occur in 2017 or shortly thereafter. And there are related discussions about interim steps to bring our societies together before the joint meeting.

These changes are exciting. Several years ago it became apparent that the usual approach to annual meetings and member services was not working for all societies. Some associations restructured to reduce costs; some time-honored events like the biennial coastal conferences disappeared from our schedules; and the idea of joint events gained traction. Though I hope new approaches provide financial surety, I hope even more that new partnerships will help us do more for the fish—and dairy farms, waterfowl, mines, estuaries, timber, and other shared interests we’re uncovering.

288 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014 Downloaded by [American Fisheries Society] at 05:17 26 June 2014