Denise Spencer Commentary from New President Donna Parrish

VOL 39 NO 9 FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org SEPT 2014

In this Issue: Portland 2015 – Call for Papers Does Trapping Delay Salmon Migration? A Case for Open-Access Databases Recreational Charter Boat Shark Fisheries Guidelines for Use of Fishes in Research Meet AFS Staff: Denise Spencer Commentary from New President Donna Parrish

03632415(2014)39(9) How to Tag a Shrimp (Once) that Molts 30 Times

Faster growing strains of disease-resistant shrimp are providing a significant boost to the aquaculture industry. Developing and evaluating these strains is easier if different families can be tagged, then reared together under identical conditions.

Tagging crustaceans is complicated by an exoskeleton which can be shed up to 30 times as the animal grows to a marketable size. NMT’s Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE) is injected as a liquid under clear or translucent tissue, and it cures to a pliable solid that remains externally visible. The tags are available in 10 colors, of which six fluoresce for enhanced detection. VIE can be injected into the abdominal muscles of shrimp as small as 0.2 g with little effect on growth or survival1. High tag retention through molts and maturation mean that the animals can be identified for life. By varying tag locations and colors, VIE provides the many unique codes required to identify test groups.

Researchers around the world rely on VIE to evaluate the performance of various strains of shrimp2,3, but it is not limited to crustaceans. VIE is also widely used to tag fish, rays, cephalopods, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals. Please contact us if we can help with your project.

1Godin et al. 1996 Aquaculture Top: VIE Tags in a posterior abdominal 139:243-248. section of a pandalid shrimp. Center, 2Brown et al. 2003 Aquaculture bottom: VIE is injected with a fine needle Research 34:49-54. into the sixth abdominal segment of 3Dinh et al. 2012 Aquaculture juvenile white shrimp. (Photo courtesy of S. Research 43:1471-1479. Arce). Right: An NMT Air Driven Elastomer Injection System can be used to tag 500 shrimp per hour. Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. www.nmt.us Shaw Island, Washington, USA Corporate Office Biological Services 360.468.3375 [email protected] 360.596.9400 [email protected] Fisheries VOL 39 NO 9 SEPTEMBER 2014 Contents

UNIT NEWS

391 Units, Step Right Up: Get Your Free Website Jordan Allison COLUMNS

President’s Commentary 393 Revisiting the AFS Lexicon Donna Parrish

Policy 394 Effects of Industrial Water Intake Structures Thomas E. Bigford

Letter from the Executive Director 432 Fisheries Inside the Beltway Doug Austen ESSAYS AND FEATURES 427 AFS Annual Meeting 2015. Photo credit: Travel Portland. 395 An Assessment of the Scale, Practices, and Conservation Implications of Florida’s Charter Boat– Based Recreational Shark Fishery AFS ANNUAL MEETING 2015 David Samuel Shiffman and Neil Hammerschlag 427 145th Annual Meeting of the American 408 Trapping Effects and Fisheries Research: A Case Fisheries Society: First Call for Papers Study of Sockeye Salmon in the Wenatchee River, USA Joshua G. Murauskas, Jeffery K. Fryer, Bryan Nordlund, and INTERVIEW Joseph L. Miller 429 Q&A: Book Editors 415 Guidelines for Use of Fishes in Research— Future of Fisheries: Perspectives for Emerging Professionals. Revised and Expanded, 2014 William W. Taylor, Abigail J. Lynch, and Nancy J. Léonard Uses of Fishes in Research (UFR) Committee: Jill A. Jenkins, Henry L. Bart, Jr., James D. Bowker, Paul R. Bowser, J. Randy MEET THE STAFF MacMillan, John G. Nickum, Joseph W. Rachlin, James D. Rose, Peter W. Sorensen, Barbara E. Warkentine, and Greg 430 Denise Spencer W. Whitledge JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS 417 Open-Access Databases as Unprecedented Resources and Drivers of Cultural Change in Fisheries 433 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Science Volume 143, Number 4, July 2014 Ryan A. McManamay and Ryan M. Utz CALENDAR

FRESHWATER, FISH, AND THE FUTURE 435 Fisheries Events 426 Global Conference on Inland Fisheries: BACK PAGE Theme 4—Policy and Governance 436 The Things We Do for Science Milton Love

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

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 389 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 PRESIDENT SENIOR EDITOR CHIEF SCIENCE EDITORS DUES AND FEES FOR 2014 ARE: $80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for regular Donna L. Parrish Doug Austen Olaf P. Jensen members, $20 in North America ($30 elsewhere) Jeff Schaeffer for student members, and $40 ($50 elsewhere) PRESIDENT ELECT DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS for retired members. Ron Essig Aaron Lerner SCIENCE EDITORS Deirdre M. Kimball Kristen Anstead Jeff Koch Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription. FIRST VICE PRESIDENT MANAGING EDITOR Marilyn “Guppy” Blair Jim Long Joe Margraf Sarah Fox Jim Bowker Daniel McGarvey Nonmember and library subscription rates are Mason Bryant Jeremy Pritt $182. SECOND VICE PRESIDENT CONTRIBUTING EDITOR Steven R. Chipps Roar Sandodden Steve L. McMullin Beth Beard Ken Currens Jesse Trushenski Andy Danylchuk Usha Varanasi PAST PRESIDENT Michael R. Donaldson Jack E. Williams Bob Hughes Andrew H. Fayram Jeffrey Williams Stephen Fried BOOK REVIEW EDITOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Larry M. Gigliotti Francis Juanes Doug Austen Madeleine Hall-Arbor Alf Haukenes ABSTRACT TRANSLATION Jeffrey E. Hill Pablo del Monte-Luna

Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 © copyright 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 _____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

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

Units, Step Right Up: Get Your Free Website Jordan Allison The Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Fisheries Society

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

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

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

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

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 391 Foundations oF Fisheries science

Edited by Greg G. Sass and Micheal S. Allen

801 pages, hardcover List price: $89.00 AFS Member price: $62.00 Item Number: 550.72C Published May 2014

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

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

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

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

392 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org COLUMN Revisiting the AFS Lexicon President’s Commentary Foundations oF Fisheries science Donna Parrish, AFS President

Edited by One of the responsibilities of being president of AFS is • International Greg G. Sass and to submit a monthly commentary to Fisheries or find a guest NOT national writer to do so. Since I did not think far enough ahead to co- society—AFS is Micheal S. Allen erce a friend or colleague to help me complete my assignment, an international I have to step up and accept the challenge. Needless to say, I society. We have have struggled with coming up with an appropriate topic for members in 62 this first commentary. So, I decided to look back to 2011to countries. We have see what I wrote when I ran for AFS Second Vice President. meetings outside of The document in Fisheries had my background, AFS involve- the United States. 801 pages, hardcover ment, and a subheading entitled “Vision.” In the Vision section, List price: $89.00 I wrote that I would work on increasing educational opportu- • There is no “Par- AFS Member price: $62.00 nities for both students in fisheries programs and professional ent Society”— Item Number: 550.72C biologists through more continuing education opportunities. I AFS is the Society. AFS President Donna Parrish stated that we need to work on communications among AFS The Units within can be contacted at: Published May 2014 [email protected] members, especially for those who are unable to attend most the Society should Society meetings. I stated my support of the diversification of be designated by TO ORDER: our workforce in fisheries and increasing AFS involvement the name followed by Chapter, Division, Section, or Stu- Online: Fisheries.org/shop with other international fisheries societies to more effectively dent Subunit. American Fisheries Society address global fisheries issues. Finally, I submitted that I would c/o Books International work to increase the transparency of the Governing Board of • Society member vs. Chapter member—Some AFS Chap- P.O. Box 605 AFS so that all members could know the business of the Soci- ters allow for membership in their Chapter without those Herndon, VA 20172 ety, whether they want to know it or not! individuals being members of the Society. It needs to be Phone: 703-661-1570 clear to these individuals that they are not AFS members. I am somewhat relieved that I, and hopefully others, still Fax: 703-996-1010 consider these ideas to be important for AFS to address four • Annual Meeting themes—Sometimes conventions run years later. The officers and Governing Board discuss many their course and sometimes they just take a break. The 2015 topics. Yet communications, education, member diversity, col- Annual Meeting of AFS in Portland, Oregon, is a “theme- Foundations of Fisheries Science highlights the classic and critical works associ- laboration with international societies, and Society governance less” meeting. We want to ensure that this Annual Meeting ated with fisheries management. With input from fisheries professionals and stu- remain relevant for the 2014–2015 plan of work. Stay tuned for has the broadest possibilities for inclusion in the technical dents from around the world, the editors selected 43 full-text articles along with more on these topics throughout this year. program. Without a long theme that includes a colon, most attendees will be able to recall the theme after the meeting 30 “honorable mention” citations (with associated abstracts) that have helped to This first commentary is a great opportunity to air some is over. mold the discipline of fisheries science. The selected articles were represented by thoughts on what I hear members or nonmembers say about 21 journals, ranging in discipline from fisheries, ecology, human dimensions, and AFS. The first three have been written about by several previ- If you have suggestions for bullets for future columns, others. ous presidents. Despite the fact that these are not original, my please send them to me. hope is that these bullets will drive home the message one more time but this time in bold. I am honored to be president of the Society for this year. I The book is organized into five sections (1. Managing Fish Stocks, 2. Managing look forward to working on issues of importance for the better People, 3. Managing Fish Habitat, 4. Managing Fish Communities and Ecosystems, functioning of AFS. I hope you will join me and be involved at some level in AFS so you will receive the benefits of being an and 5. Managing Fisheries Enhancements), which represent the critical components engaged member. of fisheries (fish, humans, habitat) and the most common management approaches (regulations, stocking, habitat protection/restoration). Section editors provide in- sightful commentaries highlighting and summarizing the articles presented in each section.

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

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 393 COLUMN Policy Effects of Industrial Water Intake Structures Thomas E. Bigford, AFS Policy Director

Industrial water in- early life stages via impingement, whereby animals are pinned take structures include against screens on intake structures. A smaller percentage is en- facilities related to trained through the intakes and pass through the cooling system. power generation, manufacturing, irrigation, The EPA’s 539-page final regulation applied the best sci- snow making, desalina- ence in a very complex process dictated by litigation. The tion, drinking water, and action relates to facilities that pull millions of gallons of water more. That diverse suite per day from rivers, lakes, estuaries, and coastal ocean waters. AFS Policy Director Thomas E. of uses either removes The EPA estimates that the rule covers more than 1,000 existing Bigford can be contacted at: water from aquatic sys- facilities that each withdraw at least 2 million gallons of water [email protected] tems (temporarily or per day to cool machinery, about half at manufacturing plants permanently), returns it and half at power plants. The 2014 action was the last in a series at a different and usually higher temperature, and/or adds chem- of rules released from 2001 to 2006 in response to a lawsuit. icals specific to each use. What are the implications of these As designed by the EPA and accepted by all parties, the multi- uses? Many of you have probably been involved in these is- phased rulemaking first addressed new facilities, then offshore sues, but should we become more engaged now that discussions oil and gas exploration facilities, and lastly power-generating have moved to another stage, one where our knowledge about and manufacturing facilities. A portion of those earlier rulemak- natural and social science, resource management, and policy ings was remanded to the EPA for reconsideration, affording will help to identify decisions in this complex arena? For AFS, another opportunity to apply the best science. The new and ap- should we expand our existing Policy #9 on the “Effects of Al- parently final rule in the series (pending further legal action or tered Stream Flows on Fishery Resources” (policy approved in regulatory changes) describes a “holistic approach to protecting 1981 and revised in 1989) to include the full sweep of water aquatic life impacted by cooling water intakes.” Most of the withdrawals from all aquatic systems? other water uses mentioned in my opening paragraph, either smaller daily volumes or different uses, remain covered by the general NPDES requirements set by EPA or states. The EPA estimates that cooling waters entrain or impinge billions of aquatic eggs, larvae, and juvenile and The potential impacts of these facilities could be enormous. adult animals. A facility extracting millions of gallons of water each day, killing most of the organisms caught in the intake, could have an adverse effect on ecosystem health and fish populations. Most These are not new questions. However, the ramifications of the effects will be local, especially when the facility draws of large-scale water removals received renewed visibility when water from a confined system such as a lake, a river bounded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) released a locks or other barriers, or a narrow estuary. For example, some final rule in May 2014 on cooling waters for power plants and water withdrawals can have much more severe impacts on fish manufacturing facilities (USEPA 2014a). The EPA’s final stan- and ecosystems. In the Mount Hope Bay reaches of upper Nar- dards under its Clean Water Act (CWA) action were designed to ragansett Bay (bordered by Rhode Island and Massachusetts), reduce injury to fish and other aquatic life from existing water the Brayton Point coal-fired power plant used once-through intake structures and factories. Though not applicable to the full cooling until EPA required the facility to convert to closed loop. range of water uses and limited to existing units rather than new Loss of fish eggs and larvae was a determining factor in the facilities, the underlying science and related legal and policy EPA’s decision. applications are significant. This is a huge issue for fish and an opportunity for AFS. Withdrawals and associated impacts can even be significant in the open ocean, as was determined during licensing for Here’s how this regulatory action connects to AFS interests. the Gulf Landing liquefied natural gas facility with an open- The EPA’s jurisdiction is CWA section 316(b) that establishes loop, once-through design off Louisiana (U.S. Department of permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Transportation Maritime Administration 2014). That license, System (NPDES) to apply best technologies to water intake granted in 2005 but surrendered in 2009, provided a poignant structures. Each facility requiring an NPDES permit must mini- example of the effects of manufacturing water withdrawal. For- mize harmful impacts to fish and fisheries. The EPA estimates tunately, in recognition of the potential effects on fish, most of that cooling waters entrain or impinge billions of aquatic eggs, larvae, and juvenile and adult animals. Impacts are greatest to Continued on page 431 394 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org FEATURE An Assessment of the Scale, Practices, and Conservation Implications of Florida’s Charter Boat–Based Recreational Shark Fishery

David Samuel Shiffman Evaluación de la escala, prácticas e Leonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy, Uni- versity of Miami, P.O. Box 248202, Coral Gables, FL 33124, and RJ Dunlap implicaciones de conservación de la Marine Conservation Program, University of Miami, Causeway, Miami, pesquería recreativa de tiburón basada FL. E-mail [email protected] en botes de alquiler Neil Hammerschlag RESUMEN: actualmente, los esfuerzos de conservación Leonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy, Uni- han abogado por el ecoturismo mediante buceo SCUBA versity of Miami, Coral Gables, FL; RJ Dunlap Marine Conservation Pro- gram, University of Miami, Miami, FL; and Rosenstiel School of Marine como una alternativa no consumista en cuanto al uso de los and Atmospheric Sciences, Miami, FL tiburones. Algo que generalmente ha pasado desapercibido por los conservacionistas en cuanto al uso no extractivo de los tiburones es la pesca de captura y liberación, la cual continúa estando pobremente caracterizada para el caso ABSTRACT: Recent conservation efforts have advocated for de los tiburones. En este estudio se utiliza una combinación SCUBA diving ecotourism as a nonconsumptive alternative use de análisis de contenido de páginas web y sondeos a los of sharks. Although generally overlooked by conservation ad- capitanes de embarcaciones para evaluar la escala de la vocates, another nonextractive use is catch-and-release fishing, industria pesquera de Florida basada en botes de alquiler. which remains poorly characterized for shark fishing. In this Así mismo se examina el grado de conocimiento, actitudes study, we use a combination of website content analysis and y prácticas de los capitanes de botes de alquiler cuyos cli- surveys of charter boat captains to assess the scale of Flori- entes pescan tiburones en Florida. Se muestra que la pesca da’s charter boat shark fishing industry. We further examine recreativa de tiburones basada en botes de alquiler existe a the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of charter boat captains lo largo de todo el estado pero se concentra principalmente whose clients fish for sharks in Florida. We show that recre- en los cayos de Florida. La pesca de tiburón puede ser el ational charter boat shark fishing occurs throughout the state viaje de pesca más costoso que se ofrece, lo que sugiere but is heavily concentrated in the Florida Keys. Shark fishing que los tiburones son económicamente importantes para la is often the most expensive trip offered, suggesting that sharks industria pesquera basada en botes rentados. En Florida, are economically important to the charter boat fishing indus- aquellos pescadores que mostraron una mayor ética de try. Florida’s charter boat shark fishers who show a strong conservación hacia los tiburones, habitualmente practican conservation ethic toward sharks practice catch and release la pesca de captura y liberación. Los hallazgos sugieren commonly. Our results suggest that although some species are que si bien algunas especies son mejores candidatos para better candidates for catch-and-release fishing than others due la pesca de captura y liberación debido a su inherente vul- to inherent physiological vulnerabilities to postrelease mortal- nerabilidad fisiológica a la mortalidad que ocurre tras la ity, Florida’s charter boat shark fishery can augment the recent liberación, la pesquería de tiburones en Florida basada en “ecotourism conservation” argument that sharks may be worth botes rentados puede abonar al argumento de la conser- more alive than dead. vación ecoturística de que los tiburones valen más vivos que muertos. INTRODUCTION

Populations of many shark species are declining around scientists, policymakers, and environmentalists (Simpfendorfer the world, primarily due to overexploitation and bycatch by ex- et al. 2011). tractive commercial fisheries (Ferretti et al. 2010). Population declines in some species have exceeded 90% in recent decades Sharks are targeted by commercial fisheries worldwide (Baum et al. 2003). Seventeen percent of all known species of for meat and for their fins, which are traded internationally for chondrichthyans are considered at risk of extinction by the In- use in shark fin soup. A delicacy in traditional Chinese culture, ternational Union for Conservation of Nature Red List (Camhi shark fin soup can sell for hundreds of dollars a bowl, resulting et al. 2009), and species that use pelagic habitats are particularly in high economic incentives to exploit sharks solely for their threatened (Dulvy et al. 2008). Sharks can play important roles fins (Clarke et al. 2006). in structuring marine communities, and their loss is predicted to have negative ecological effects (Heithaus et al. 2008; Ruppert However, many nonextractive users depend on sharks for et al. 2013). These issues are raising mounting concerns about their businesses, raising additional concerns among stakehold- Continued on page 431 shark biodiversity and conservation among wildlife managers, ers about their conservation. In the Republic of Palau, sharks Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 395 Although often overlooked in the conservation advocacy community, another potential nonextractive use of sharks is catch-and-release fishing (Cowx 1999; Ditton and Holland 2002). Catch and release is growing in popularity in the recreational fishing community (Ar- linghaus and Cook 2007). Surveys demonstrate that some recreational fishers are more interested in the challenge or excitement associated with catching large fish than in eating their catch, and many fishers report that they enjoy their fishing experience just as much when their catch is released unharmed (Sutton and Ditton 2001). Babcock (2008) reported that most recreational shark fishing worldwide is catch and release, but despite growing popularity, frequency, economic impacts, and the motivations for this practice have not been studied previously. The catch-and-release shark fishing industry may represent additional support for ecotourism conservation advocacy by documenting additional situations where sharks may be more valuable alive than dead.

Florida is a global recreational fishing destination, resulting in over $8 billion in sales generated in 2011 (National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] 2011). The United States has one of the largest recreational Photo credit: Neil Hammerschlag / www.SharkTagging.com shark fisheries in the world, and the state of Florida has one of the larg- The Internet contains data that out-of-state tourists use to select and hire charter est recreational shark fisheries in the boats and is useful for examining both the scope of the shark charter fishing United States (Schmied and Bur- industry and its relative economic value. gess 1987; Fisher and Ditton 1993; Figueira and Coleman 2010). This makes Florida an ideal location to are more valuable to the local SCUBA diving economy than to study the scale, practices, economic importance, attitudes, and local fishers (Vianna et al. 2012), and in French Polynesia, a sin- conservation policy implications of recreational shark fishing. gle sicklefin lemon shark (Negaprion acutidens) can be worth over $2 million in its lifetime (Clua et al. 2011). Gallagher and A major component of Florida’s recreational fishing sector Hammerschlag (2011) found 376 SCUBA diving ecotourism is charter boat fishing, where customers hire a boat and captain operations worldwide that offer shark diving encounters, and to take them fishing for a day, typically using rods and reels customers are often willing to pay more to dive with sharks than (Browder et al. 1981; Ditton et al. 1992; Leeworthy and Morris any other animal. Recent conservation advocacy, termed here 2010). Charter fishing can also have large indirect economic “ecotourism conservation,” has used the economic premise that impacts; because customers often travel from other states or many species of sharks can be worth more to local economies countries to fish, they benefit local economies by purchasing alive than dead as an argument for protecting them from extrac- hotel rooms and food in addition to paying the charter boat fee tive fishing. (Browder et al. 1981). Sharks have long been a target of charter boat fishing in Florida (Fisher and Ditton 1993; Figueira and Coleman 2010), but the motivations for recreational shark

396 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org fishing remain poorly understood. The goals of this study were Table 1. Questions included in the voluntary survey distributed to all identified charter boat captains. Multiple-choice questions are indi- to characterize the recreational shark fishery within the state cated by (MC); other questions are free response. of Florida using content analyses of websites and voluntary • Where is your charter boat business located within the state of Florida? (MC) surveys. Specifically, we focused on assessing the scale of the • Optional: provide the name of the city where your business is located. fishery, establishing whether catch and release was commonly • Does your charter boat business offer specialized shark fishing trips? (MC) • How does the cost of your shark fishing trips compare to other fishing trips practiced, determining which shark species are targeted, and you offer? (MC) ascertaining the knowledge and attitudes of charter boat fishers • If a shark trip is offered, how much do you charge (for a 1/2-day trip for six toward the ecosystem role and population status of sharks. people)? • Are shark fishing trips a large component of your business? (MC) • To the best of your knowledge, what aspects of shark fishing most appeal to METHODS your clients? Please select all that apply. (MC) • Which species of sharks do you catch most frequently? Please list any that you consider to be commonly caught. Tourism is a major component of online commerce, and • Which species of sharks (if any) do clients express a desire to catch in advance of the trip? (MC) the Internet is one of the primary sources that tourists use to • Of the species of sharks you catch, which (if any) are clients most excited plan vacations and excursions (Werthner and Ricci 2004; Mi- about catching? lano et al. 2011). Moreover, the Internet contains data that • Please indicate which of the following statements is true concerning your catch-and-release fishing practices with respect to sharks. (MC) out-of-state tourists use to select and hire charter boats and is • If you do not always practice catch-and-release when fishing for sharks, what useful for examining both the scope of the shark charter fishing factors into your decision? Please check all that apply. (MC) • If you practice catch-and-release when fishing for sharks, what motivates industry and its relative economic value. Accordingly, we used this decision? a leading Internet search engine (www.google.com) to identify • Please indicate which statement is most applicable concerning your client’s views on catch-and-release fishing for sharks. (MC) charter boat businesses for this study (search terms in Appendix • To the best of your knowledge, how healthy are shark populations in your I). To be included in our analysis, charter boat companies had local area? (MC) to explicitly mention the catching of sharks on their website. • To the best of your knowledge, how healthy are shark populations in the state of Florida? (MC) • To the best of your knowledge, how healthy are shark populations in the We performed a content analysis of each of identified char- United States? (MC) • To the best of your knowledge, how healthy are shark populations world- ter boat business website, focusing on several variables. The wide? (MC) first was whether charter boats offered special shark fishing • If you reported any shark population declines, to the best of your knowledge, what is the cause of these declines? trips (and if so, what such trips cost, reported in U.S. dollars) or • Is a healthy population of sharks important to you? (MC) whether they simply listed sharks as a type of fish sometimes • Why is a healthy population of sharks important, somewhat important, or caught during normal fishing operations. The shark species that not important to you? the charter boat websites identified that they catch most commonly was noted and also whether a charter boat advertised catch-and-release practices, catch-and-kill practices, or neither. The analysis also documented how shark fishing trips were promoted as a proxy for the charter boat captain’s attitude toward sharks. The location where charter boats was based was noted, and many results were analyzed both statewide and regionally.

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

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

MRFSS was utilized to determine the total number of trips taken by recreational anglers on charter boats throughout Florida in the year 2012. MRIP was utilized to determine the Photo credit: Neil Hammerschlag / www.SharkTagging.com

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 397 Figure 1. Locations of charter boat businesses in Florida whose websites reference catching sharks. Relative sizes of symbols represent the number of businesses in each location.

Table 2. Number of charter boat businesses and average cost of fish- total number of reported individual sharks that were caught ing by region. Cost is reported in U.S. dollars and standardized for a 1/2-day fishing trip for six people. (and the number released alive) by anglers fishing from charter Mean Min/max boats throughout Florida in the year 2012. Every shark species N N Region cost cost (websites) (survey) identified by charter boat captains (in survey responses or web- (survey) (survey) sites) as being commonly caught by the anglers was searched Northeast Florida 7 1 $400 N = 1 in MRIP. No Central (Atlantic) 5 0 No responses responses RESULTS Southeast Florida 16 3 $550 $450/$650 Location and Cost Florida Keys 58 13 $561 $400/$700 Southwest Florida 33 3 $600 $450/$750 We identified 137 charter boat companies that reference Central (Gulf) 5 2 $550 $500/$600 catching sharks on their website (Figure 1). These businesses $40 (3 people Panhandle 14 3 $213 are found throughout the state of Florida but are heavily con- max)/$350 centrated in the Florida Keys (Figure 1). Twenty-five of the identified charter boat captains completed the voluntary survey Table 3. Responses to the survey question “Are shark fishing trips a large component of your business?” There were 22 responses to this (Table 1). A query of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric question. Administration’s MRFSS database shows that in 2012, anglers Response Response Answer took 842,756 charter boat fishing trips throughout Florida, count percentage though this includes all trips and not just shark-focused trips. “I book a few shark fishing trips each year, and several other types of fishing trips are 9 40.9 Thirty-three websites (24%) advertised a specific, targeted more regularly requested.” shark fishing trip. Prices varied based on location, length of “Shark fishing trips are occasionally requested, though they are a minor component 6 27.3 trip, and number of people in the fishing party. Prices ranged of my total annual business.” from $300 to $2,800 with a median price of $775 (Table 2). In “Yes, customers often request shark fishing 29 cases (88%), the shark fishing trip was the most expensive trips, though a few other types of fishing trips 5 22.7 trip offered by that charter boat company. Fifty-one businesses are more regularly requested.” (37%) did not list prices or types of available trips on their web- “I almost never book shark fishing trips.” 2 9.1 sites. “Yes, the majority of trips I book are shark 0 0 fishing.”

398 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org The cost of shark fishing provided by survey respondents (a Table 4. Selected excerpts from website catch-and-release policies and responses to the survey question “If you practice catch and 1/2-day trip with six passengers was used as a standard; 53.6% release when fishing for sharks, what motivates this decision?” of all charter boat trips on the Atlantic coast of Florida are 1/2- Website catch-and-release policies day trips according to Holland et al. 2012) ranged from $250 Catch-and-release shark fishing is great for families seeking a fun, eco-friendly to $750, with a median cost of $550. Twenty of 25 respondents day on the water. (80%) indicated that shark fishing trips are “priced similarly All sharks are released unharmed. If a replica is desired we can get one done to most other trips,” one indicated that shark fishing is more for you without killing the shark. expensive, and four indicated that it is less expensive. Survey Times have changed. The “Jaws” craze is over, and with a greater public con- respondents also indicated that shark fishing is an important sciousness toward conservation, catch-and-release fishing has become the component of their business, though not the largest (Table 3). norm rather than the exception. Shark fishing is strictly catch and release. Catch and Release Most Florida Keys fishing guides all release sharks that are caught for sport so they can live to play again and handling them near the boat is done in the best interest of the shark. Fourteen websites (10%) included a clearly stated exclu- Sharks help maintain the balance of marine life in the shallow flats as well as sive catch-and-release policy, and 19 survey respondents (82% the open ocean. So when we catch these powerful fish we always practice catch of 23 responses to the multiple-choice question “Please indi- and release so they may continue to do their job. cate which of the following statements is true concerning your Catch and release is utmost important to keep up the survival of the species catch-and-release fishing practices with respect to sharks”) and our numbers here in Key West. indicated that they “always practice catch and release when We practice fishing conservation. We like to release all fish that are not being fishing for sharks.” Additionally, 13 survey responses (65% of eaten or mounted. 20 responses to the multiple-choice question “Please indicate Catch and release is promoted when shark fishing to preserve this incredible which statement is most applicable concerning your client’s rich fishery for many years to come. views on catch-and-release fishing for sharks”) indicate that Sharks are very hardy and can recover from a fight better than other species of fish that we release. “Most clients are happier to release the fish they catch,” and the remaining seven indicated that clients are “just as happy” to Game fish that are not very tasteful like shark are released. release the sharks. Selected excerpts from website catch-and- We release for the future. release policies and survey responses are provided in Table 4. The future of fishing in our area is the smart management of our resource. We recommend that our anglers who are lucky enough to catch a shark or Only two websites (1.4%) listed a catch-and-kill policy. billfish, and would like to have a trophy of their fish, choose to release their fish and have an exact replica built from a mold. Of these, one (located in the Panhandle) indicated that sharks The fish gets to survive this ordeal and go on to create more hammerheads for were killed for food, and the other (located in Miami) indicated all of our futures. that sharks were killed for sport. Two survey respondents (8.6% of 23 responses to this question) indicated that they “almost Survey responses always” practice catch and release, and two (8.6%) indicated “There’s simply no need to kill the sharks. When a client wants a wall mount, that’s easily done with a simple measurement of the shark.” that they “sometimes” practice catch and release (an additional two did not answer the question). When asked what factored “Why would I kill them???” into the decision not to practice catch and release, five survey “Respect for the sharks and conservation.” respondents indicated that shark species influences the decision “I know the importance of keeping every species of shark in the ocean. Man is already affecting natural selection enough by killing mostly large and desirable (55% of nine responses to this question), three (33%) indicated fish and leaving weak and undesirable fish.” that the clients’ wishes are important, and one (11%) indicated “This is a fun family trip … you are only allowed 2 per vessel and besides all they that seeking an International Game Fishing Association world really want is the picture and always happy to release them.” record requires landing the shark. The MRIP database shows “Declining or already declined shark population.” that, overall, only 68% of all sharks caught in Florida by these “No need to kill something you are not going to eat.” anglers were released alive, though Great Hammerhead (Sphyr- na mokarran) and Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) “Marina rule—no dead sharks on property except mako to avoid bad press.” sharks (these species are grouped as hammerhead in the MRIP database; Compagno et al. 2005), Lemon Sharks (Negaprion brevirostris), and Tiger Sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) had release for shark fishing. Many charter boat companies advertise shark rates of approximately 100% (Table 5). fishing on their websites using wording that suggests challenge and excitement (Table 7). Motivations Species Captured Based on survey responses, the aspects of shark fishing that most charter boat captains believed most appealed to their Fourteen websites (10%) list specific species of shark that clients were “the challenge and excitement of catching a large they commonly catch, and the remainder simply state “sharks.” fish”; “getting a photograph to show friends and family” was Of those 14, only 2 sites listed relative frequency of species the second most common choice (Table 6.) Moreover, “obtain- capture (both had “hammerhead” sharks listed among the more ing fish to eat” was the least common choice as a motivation commonly caught species), whereas others listed commonly

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 399 Figure 2. Frequency of a species being included on a list of commonly captured species either on a website or in a survey response. *There are multiple species of hammerhead, thresher, and mako. **This is not a scientifically recognized species. ***This species is not found in the Atlantic Ocean and has likely been misidentified. +Fishermen are legally required to release these animals if captured (for hammerheads S. lewiniand and S. mokaran, Tigers G. cuvier, Sandbar C. plumbeus, Lemon N. brevirostris, and Silky Sharks C. falciformis, this applies only to Florida waters).

Photo credit: Christine Shepard / www.SharkTagging.com

400 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org Table 5. Data from MRIP database showing approximately how many of each species of shark were caught in 2012 by charter boat anglers in Florida and how many were released alive. Search terms are “species,” “2012–2013,” “Florida,” “all regions combined,” “number of fish,” and “charter boat.” PSE is “proportional standard error,” and the MRIP website notes that PSE > 50 indicates an imprecise estimate. Species # Observed harvest # Release alive Total # caught % Released alive PSE Hammerhead 33,733 33,733 100 44.4 Lemon Shark 5,291 5,291 100 38.6 Atlantic Sharpnose Shark 19,214 110,827 130,041 85.22465991 22.2 Nurse Shark 483 37,470 37,953 98.72737333 22.2 Spinner Shark 1,438 10,000 11,438 87.42787201 78.9 Blacktip Shark 136,741 159,486 296,227 53.83911662 21.5 Silky Shark 232 162 394 41.11675127 77.7 Black-nose Shark 8,683 2,472 11,155 22.16046616 41.7 Sandbar Shark 32 904 936 96.58119658 102.4 Bull Shark 1,778 3,664 5,442 67.32818817 47.1 Tiger Shark 2,420 2,420 100 71.4 Thresher Shark 0 0 0 Reef Shark 0 0 0 Total 68.6%

Table 6. Results of the survey question “To the best of your knowledge, what aspects of shark fishing most appeal to your clients? Please select all that apply.” There were 23 survey respondents who answered this question. Response Response Answer count percentage Table 8. Selected responses to the question “Why is a healthy The challenge and sport of catching a large 22 95.7 population of sharks important to you?” fish Economic reasons Getting a photograph to show friends and 13 56.5 family Shark fishing is a huge part of my business. Experiencing new and different things 9 39.1 Brings more customers. Experiencing natural surroundings, being Quick and reliable fishing action makes for a better charter business. 7 30.4 outdoors Very important—so we can continue to fulfill our clients’ desires to fish for them. Trying to obtain a trophy fish 6 26.1 Ecological reasons Getting away from the demands of other 4 17.1 people “Indicates healthy fish stocks.” Obtaining fish to eat 2 8.7 “All part of the ecosystem.” “Balance of nature.” Table 7. Examples of wording evoking challenge and excitement used “They were created to be here and serve the purpose they were created for.” to advertise shark fishing on charter boat websites. “Because it’s natural to have an abundance, and because they are part of the The toothy beasts of the Florida Keys often surprise even seasoned anglers with ecosystem and food chain.” their fight and acrobatics. “I am for preserving all natural species. I do not want to see any species of It’s challenging. These creatures strike savagely, make long drag-scorching sharks disappear or decline. I would prefer to have the oceans as God intended runs, and in some cases, will explode from the water in a leap worthy of the them to be.” most highly touted gamefish. “To keep a natural balance in the marine ecosystem.” Shark fishing is just plain exciting. You’re targeting a powerful creature with an attitude … a fish that when provoked would just as soon bite you as look at you. “They were here before us, we do need to respect them, and it is my future.” A front row seat to raw naked aggression. “To keep the ocean in balance.” When it took the bait all aboard said it was a once in a fishing lifetime sight. “An indicator of the health of the marine world is the health of shark populations. Having large predators in the ocean as a part of natural selection has Imagine the thrill of fighting one of the most feared predators of the sea. made the oceans as fruitful as they were.” For the angler who would like to do battle with a prehistoric fish of unbeliev- “Keep the oceans clean.” able strength. “Not to upset the balance of predator vs. prey.” Bring your big boy pants for this fishing. Want to tangle with something really big? Shark fishing may be the way to go for your day on the water. Sharks are an amazing and unique apex predator. They rival Tarpon in the amount of adrenaline pumping excitement you can get.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 401 Photo credit: Christine Shepard / www.SharkTagging.com captured species without indicating relative frequency. Our to them, and five (22.7%) indicated that it was “somewhat impor- results revealed that several species whose harvest is legally tant.” Captains provided both ecological and economic reasons prohibited in Florida and in U.S. waters (due to concerns about for the perceived importance of sharks. Selected responses are declining population status) were included on this list of com- provided in Table 8. monly captured species (Figure 2). Additionally, several groups of related species were included together by charter boat cap- Captains perceive local shark populations as healthier than tains, and several species names not scientifically recognized the global average (Figure 3). The most commonly reported were mentioned (Figure 2). The most common responses to causes of the perceived population declines were “overfish- the survey question “Which species of sharks (if any) do cli- ing” (three responses), “commercial fishing” (three responses), ents express a desire to catch in advance of a trip” were Bull “bycatch” (three responses), “longlining” (two responses), and Sharks (Carcharhinus leucas, eight responses) and hammer- “shark fin soup/shark finning” (two responses). heads (seven). The most common responses to the question “Of the species of sharks you catch, which (if any) are clients most DISCUSSION excited about catching” were also Bull Sharks (eight) and hammerheads (10). As a global destination for recreational fishing, Florida is an ideal location to study the scale, practices, and conservation Data from the MRIP database indicated that recreational implications of the charter boat shark fishing industry, as well charter boat anglers in Florida throughout 2012 caught over as the knowledge and attitudes of participants. The search en- 550,000 sharks. According to the MRIP database, the four most gine methods used in this study resulted in the identification of common species reported as caught by anglers were Atlantic 137 charter boat businesses that interact with sharks in Florida; Sharpnose Sharks (Rhizoprionodon terranovae), Nurse Sharks they occurred throughout the state but were heavily concen- (Ginglymostoma cirratum), hammerhead sharks, and Blacktip trated in the Florida Keys. This is likely to be a conservative Sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus; Table 5). estimate, because there are over 3,500 charter boat business registered throughout the state (K. Maxwell, Florida Fish and The Importance of Sharks and Their Population Wildlife Conservation Commission, personal communication), Status though Holland et al. (2012) noted only 234 charter boats operating on the Atlantic Coast of Florida. Any Florida-based Seventeen of 22 captains (77%) who responded to the survey charter boat that fishes for sharks in federal waters requires an indicated that a healthy population of sharks was “very important” NMFS Highly Migratory Species Charterboat/Headboat (CHB)

402 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org Photo credit: Neil Hammerschlag / www.SharkTagging.com permit (K. Brewster-Geisz, National Marine Fisheries Service, the overall fishing. Holland et al. (2012) found that for charter personal communication). As of 2006 there were 673 CHB per- boats based on the Atlantic coast of Florida, between 43.3% and mits issued to charter boats based in the state of Florida, more 60% of trips targeted sharks, though often in addition to other than any other state, and more than 16% of all CHB permits species. Shark fishing is often the most expensive type of fish- issued for the eastern seaboard, Gulf Coast, and Caribbean ing offered, and the median cost of 1/2-day shark fishing trips combined (NMFS 2006). Charter boats that operate only within listed on websites ($775) is almost as expensive as the 2004 state waters need no special permit in addition to their charter average cost of full-day charter fishing ($894; NMFS 2006). boat license to interact with sharks (A. Pody, Florida Fish and This suggests that shark fishing is economically important to Wildlife Conservation Commission, personal communication), Florida’s charter boat fishing industry, though more thorough though Holland et al. (2012) noted that offshore fishing trips economic analysis would provide additional insight. (i.e., into federal waters) are the most common type of trip offered by charter boat captains on the Atlantic coast of Florida. It Captains surveyed in this study report that catch-and-re- is likely that there are charter boat businesses in Florida that in- lease fishing is commonly practiced when fishing for sharks, teract with sharks that were not identified by the search methods with few exceptions, but data derived from the MRIP database used in this study. Though a satisfactory percentage of captains (overall release rate of 68% for sharks in Florida) suggest that responded to our survey and all regions of Florida identified this may not be the case for all species. Additionally, in 2010, as shark fishing hotspots by the website content analysis were 85% of charter boat captains in the South Atlantic region of represented in survey responses, it is possible that captains who the United States stated that less than one-quarter of their trips do not practice catch and release systematically chose not to (targeting any species, not just sharks) were exclusively catch- respond to this survey. If this is the case, it would bias results re- and-release (Holland et al. 2012). Regardless, this represents lated to the frequency with which catch and release is practiced. a significant change in attitudes and practices, because large Regardless, the charter boat businesses identified by this study sharks were once commonly landed as trophies in this region can provide valuable insight into a poorly studied system, and (e.g., Figure 1a in McClenachan 2009). additional research focusing on more detailed questions can improve our understanding further. Charter boat captains included in this study have among the highest support for catch and release of any studied group Though no captains who responded to the survey report- of anglers. All charter boat captains interviewed in this study re- ed that shark fishing comprises the majority of their business, ported that their clients are either happier (65%) or just as happy responses suggest that sharks are an important component of (35%) to release the sharks they catch. Though it is important

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 403 Photo credit: Neil Hammerschlag / www.SharkTagging.com to note that this study surveyed charter captains, whereas other groups of anglers (Holland and Ditton 2011). In contrast, recre- studies surveyed the client anglers themselves, this is among the ational fishers who fish in on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, highest values ever recorded for angler willingness to release. consider experiencing natural surroundings to be the most In comparison, only 61% of Texas catfish anglers reported that significant motivation for fishing and regard excitement to be they were just as happy to release (Hunt and Hutt 2010). Agree- the least important (Sutton 2006). Trout fishers in Tennessee ment with the statement “I am just as happy if I don’t keep the consider the challenge to be important but far less important fish I catch” on a 1- to 5-point Likert scale varied, with a mean than experiencing natural surroundings and only slightly more of 2.45 for low-consumptive recreational fishermen (Fedler than obtaining fish to eat (Hutt and Bettoli 2007). Rock lobster and Ditton 1986), a mean of 3.24 for Texas-based tournament (Jasus edwardsii) divers in Tasmania valued catching lobsters anglers (Loomis and Ditton 2011), and mean of 4.7 for trout to eat more than the challenge or adventure of the catch (Fri- anglers in Tennessee (Hutt and Bettoli 2007). jlink and Lyle 2010). Loomis and Ditton (2011) found that sport fishers are more likely to value the relaxation and chance to be In this study, charter boat captains reported that the most common perceived outdoors associated with fishing, motivation of their clients for fishing sharks was the “challenge and sport of whereas competitive tournament catching a large fish,” and the least common was “obtaining fish to eat.” fishers are more likely to value the experience and challenge. Among Texas black bass (Micropterus spp.) fishers, tournament anglers ranked In this study, charter boat captains reported that the most “for the challenge or sport” and “to experience adventure and common perceived motivation of their clients for fishing sharks excitement” higher and ranked “to obtain fish for eating” lower was the “challenge and sport of catching a large fish,” and the than nontournament fishers. By this measure, recreational char- least common was “obtaining fish to eat.” Similarly, Fisher and ter boat fishers targeting sharks in Florida are more similar to Ditton (1993) found for non-charter boat anglers that “adven- competitive tournament fishers. Of the 22 saltwater fishing mo- ture and excitement” and “the experience of the catch” were tivations studies reviewed by Falk et al. (1989), recreational among the most significant motivations for shark fishing and shark fishers and some competitive tournament fishermen were that “obtaining fish to eat” ranked among the least signifi- the only ones for whom “sport/challenge” was ranked as the cant. These motivations are different from most other studied highest motivation for fishing.

404 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org Photo credit: Neil Hammerschlag / www.SharkTagging.com

Charter boat captains believe that local shark populations Both the website content analysis and survey responses re- are healthy, whereas globally shark populations are in decline. vealed that most of the charter boat captains included in this Though the United States in general and state of Florida specifi- study have a strong conservation ethic. Captains commonly cally do indeed have healthy shark populations relative to many practice catch and release, value sharks for their ecosystem other parts of the world (Fowler et al. 2005), this perception services and the challenge they represent, and are concerned among charter boat captains may be influenced by additional by declining shark populations. Charter boat captains and their factors. This includes potential failure to acknowledge that local clients may represent an as-yet untapped ally in shark conser- recreational fisheries can have a significant impact on popula- vation and management policy negotiations, and conservation tion declines (which can occur in other taxa; see Coleman et al. advocacy nongovernmental organizations would be wise to ex- 2004), as well as potential fear of restrictive regulations impact- plore this possibility. ing their business. Techniques such as focus group discussions could address this perception in more detail. The list of shark species reported as commonly caught by charter boat captains largely matches what is found by local sci- Though this study focused on a large and important group entific surveys (Torres et al. 2006; Heithaus et al. 2007; Wiley of the recreational shark fishing industry, many other anglers and Simpfendorfer 2007; Shiffman and Hammerschlag, unpub- fish for sharks. Charter boat captains’ clients are likely from dif- lished data), but there are noteworthy exceptions. Specifically, ferent socioeconomic groups than land-based shark fishers who nurse sharks appear to be significantly underrepresented by fish from beaches and bridges, and recreational shark fishers charter boat captains in the reported catch based on local abun- who use their own boats may differ from either of these groups. dance. We speculate that these species are likely caught but not Motivations, knowledge, attitudes, and practices of each group advertised because they may be considered to be relatively less should be assessed separately. Though the sample size of re- exciting due to their size and often sedentary, docile behavior. sponses to our survey was relatively low (25 respondents of 137 This is supported by the fact that unlike our survey and website identified charter boat operations), potentially impacting our re- content analysis of charter boat companies, the MRIP database sults and interpretation, all responses were consistent with our of surveyed anglers showed that nurse sharks are one of the website content analysis, suggesting that we were indeed able most common species captured by anglers on charter boats. to correctly characterize the nature of the charter boat shark Both websites and respondents listed hammerheads among the fishing industry. most commonly caught species of sharks. Although hammerheads are the third most common taxa reported (along with one

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 405 of the two species most commonly requested and the species and Suski 2005; Gallagher et al. 2014b). In order to more fully customers are most excited about catching), these sharks are evaluate the conservation benefit of this industry and whether rare in Florida state waters (Torres et al. 2006; Shiffman and it truly represents a nonconsumptive usage of sharks, future re- Hammerschlag, unpublished data). The discrepancy between search should continue to assess the species-specific postrelease natural abundance and catch rate suggests that charter fisher- shark survival after exposure to recreational fishery interactions men may be specifically targeting Great Hammerheads and (Cooke et al. 2005, 2012). Scalloped Hammerheads. Both local species are considered endangered by the International Union for the Conservation Given the economic benefits of catch-and-release shark of Nature Red List (www.iucnredlist.org), and concerns about fishing, our results suggest that under certain circumstances, population declines resulted in a 2012 harvest ban in Florida Florida’s charter boat shark catch-and-release fishing industry waters (www.myFWC.com). However, charter boat captains may help further the recent “ecotourism conservation” argument are likely highly advertising hammerheads because they are that sharks may be worth more alive in their natural environ- large and exciting, as well as one of the species most commonly ment than dead in a fish market (Gallagher and Hammerschlag requested by customers. 2011; Vianna et al. 2012). However, for this argument to be valid, the shark species commonly caught by these anglers must Assessments of how sharks respond physiologically to not suffer significant mortality or experience major losses in fishery interactions are becoming increasingly common (e.g., fitness after being released. By these criteria, many shark spe- Furshin and Szedlmayer 2004; Herberer et al. 2010). Brill et al. cies are good candidates for catch and release. However, due to (2008) noted that Sandbar Sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus) can their endangered status and extreme stress reaction, Great Ham- recover their blood oxygen transport ability rapidly postcap- merheads and Scalloped Hammerheads are not, which makes ture, and Atlantic Sharpnose Sharks had postrelease survival the potential targeting of these sharks by charter fishermen a of approximately 90% (Gurshin and Szedlmayer 2004). Using conservation concern. experimental catch-and-release methods throughout the Florida Keys, Gallagher et al. (2014a) documented a wide range in the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS physiological stress responses and postrelease survival of five coastal shark species, all of which are listed by the charter boat The authors thank Kenneth Broad, David Letson, Gina captains in this study as commonly caught by their anglers. The Maranto, Captain Curt Slonim, Austin Gallagher, Julia Wester, study found that Bull Sharks, Tiger Sharks, and Lemon Sharks and Catherine MacDonald for their assistance with this project. exhibit relatively low postcapture physiological stress levels

(low whole-blood lactate and PCO2 levels) and high postrelease FUNDING survival rates following fishing, suggesting that they have low vulnerability to fishing capture stress (Gallagher et al., in Funding was provided by the Guy Harvey Ocean Founda- press). Conversely, Blacktip Sharks and Great Hammerheads tion, the International Women’s Fishing Association, and the showed high physiological disruption and low survival follow- University of Miami’s RJ Dunlap Marine Conservation Pro- ing release (Gallagher et al., in press). gram. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. This research was covered under University of Miami Institutional In fact, Great Hammerheads showed some of the highest Review Board permit # 20120477. mortality rates reported in the literature for any shark even at low hooking durations (Gallagher et al., in press). Additionally, REFERENCES several studies have found that Great Hammerheads and Scal- loped Hammerheads have among the highest at-vessel mortality Anderson, D. 2005. Measuring angler attitudes toward the catch-related aspects of recreational fishing. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, rates of any species encountered in both pelagic and bottom Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. longline fisheries, likely due to pronounced capture stress re- Arlinghaus, R., and S. Cooke. 2007. Understanding the complexity of catch-and-release in recreational fishing: an integrative synthesis of global knowledge from historical, sponse (Morgan and Burgess 2007; Morgan and Carlson 2010). ethical, social, and biological. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15:75–167. Due to their abnormally severe reaction to capture stress as well Babcock, E. A. 2008. Recreational fishing for pelagic sharks worldwide. Pages 193–202 in M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch, and E. A. Babcock, editors. Sharks of the open ocean: as high mortality rates after being caught, Great and Scalloped biology, fisheries and conservation. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. Hammerheads are not good candidates for eco-friendly catch- Baum, J. K., R. Myers, D. G. Kehler, B.Worm, S. J. Harley, and P. Doherty. 2003. Collapse and-release fishing. Moreover, both Great Hammerheads and and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299:389– 392. Scalloped Hammerheads are being considered for listing under Brill, R., P. Bushnell, S. Schroff, R. Seifert, and M. Galvin. 2008. Effects of anaerobic exer- the U.S. Endangered Species Act, which, if successful, would cise accompanying catch-and-release fishing on blood-oxygen affinity of the sandbar shark. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 354:132–143. impact how charter boat fishermen interact with these animals. Browder, J., J. Davis, and E. Sullivan. 1981. Paying-passenger recreational fisheries of the Accordingly, we argue that Great Hammerheads and Scalloped Florida Gulf Coast and Keys. Marine Fisheries Review 43:12–20. Camhi, M. D., S. V. Valenti, S. V. Fordham, S. L. Fowler, and C. Gibson. 2007. The conser- Hammerheads (and all hammerhead species) should not be vation status of pelagic sharks and rays. Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group. targeted by anglers if the desired fishing outcome is survival. IUCN, Newbury, United Kingdom. Species-specific handling guidelines requiring the immediate Clarke, S. C., M. K. McAllister, E. J. Milner-Gulland, G. P. Kirkwood, C. G. Michielsens, D. J. Agnew, and E. K. Pikitch. 2006. Global estimates of shark catches using trade release of “hammerheads” (without first “fighting” them to records from commercial markets. Ecology Letters 9:1115–1126. bring them to the boat and without posing for a photograph) Clua, E., Buray, N., Legendre, P., Mourier, J., and S. Planes. 2011. Business partner or simple catch? The economic value of the sicklefin lemon shark in French Polynesia. may help reduce mortality of these endangered animals (Cooke Marine and Freshwater Research 62:764–770. 406 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org Coleman, F. C., W. F. Figueira, J. S. Ueland, and L. B. Crowder. 2004. The impact of United caught in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Gulf and Caribbean Research States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305:1958–1960. 19:123. Compagno, L., M. Dando, and S. Fowler. 2005. Sharks of the world. Princeton University Morgan, A. and J. K. Carlson. 2010. Capture time, size and hooking mortality of bottom Press, Princeton, New Jersey. longline-caught sharks. Fisheries Research 101:32–37. Cooke, S. J., M. R. Donaldson, C. M. O’Connor, G. D. Raby, R. Arlinghaus, A. J. Danyl- NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Mi- chuk, and K. C. Hanson. 2012. The physiological consequences of catch-and-release gratory Species Fishery Management Plan. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- angling: perspectives on experimental design, interpretation, extrapolation and rel- istration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly evance to stakeholders. Fisheries Management and Ecology 20:268–287. Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. Cooke, S. J., and C. D. Suski. 2005. Do we need species-specific guidelines for catch-and- Ruppert, J. L. W., M. J. Travers, L. L. Smith, M.-J. Forti, and M. G. Meeka. 2013. Caught in release recreational angling to effectively conserve diverse fishery resources? Biodi- the middle: combined impacts of shark removal and coral loss on the fish communities versity and Conservation 14:1195–1209. of coral reefs. PLoS ONE 8(9):e74648. Cowx, I. G. 1999. Are recreational fisheries sustainable in multiple aquatic resource user Schmied, R., and E. Burgess. 1987. Marine recreational fisheries in the southeastern United situations? Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vancouver, BC, Canada. States: an overview. Marine Fisheries Review 49:2–7. Ditton, R., and S. Holland. 2002. Recreational fishing as tourism. Fisheries 27(3):17–24. Simpfendorfer, C. A., M. R. Heupel, W. White, and N. K. Dulvy. 2011. The importance of Ditton, R., S. Holland, and D. Gill. 1992. The US Gulf of Mexico party boat industry: research and public opinion to conservation management of sharks and rays: a synthe- activity centers, species targeted, and fisheries management opinions. Marine Fisher- sis. Marine and Freshwater Research 62:518–527. ies Review 54:15–20. Sutton, S. G. 2006. An assessment of the social characteristics of Queensland’s recreational Dulvy, N. K., J. Baum, S. Clarke, L. Compagno, E. Cortes, A. Domingo, and S. Fordham. fishers. CRC Reef Research Centre, Queensland, Australia 2008. You can swim but you can’t hide: the global status and conservation of oceanic Sutton, S. G., and R. Ditton. 2010. Understanding catch-and-release behavior among U.S. pelagic sharks and rays. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems Atlantic Bluefin Tuna anglers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:37–41. 18:459–482. Torres, L. G., M. R. Heithaus, and B. Delius. 2006. Influence of teleost abundance on Falk, J., A. Graefe, and R. Ditton. 1989. Patterns of participation and motivation among the distribution and abundance of sharks in Florida Bay, USA. Hydrobiologia 569: saltwater tournament anglers. Fisheries 14(4):10–17. 449–455. Fedler, A., and R. Ditton. 1986. A framework for understanding the consumptive orientation Vianna, G. M. S., M. G. Meekan, D. J. Pannell, S. P. Marsh, and J. J. Meeuwig. 2012. of recreational fishermen. Environmental Management 10:221–227. Socio-economic value and community benefits from shark-diving tourism in Palau: Ferretti, F., B. Worm, G. L. Britten, M. R. Heithaus, and H. K. Lotze. 2010. Patterns and a sustainable use of reef shark populations. Biological Conservation 145:267–277. ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Letters 13:1055– Werthner, H., and F. Ricci. 2004. E-commerce and tourism. Communications of the ACM, 1071. 47:101–106. Figueira, W., and F. Coleman. 2010. Comparing landings of United States recreational Wiley, T. R., and C. A. Simpfendorfer. 2007. The ecology of elasmobranchs occurring in fishery sectors. Bulletin of Marine Science 86:499–514. the Everglades National Park, Florida: implications for conservation and management. Fisher, M., and R. Ditton. 1993. A social and economic characterization of the U.S. Gulf of Bulletin of Marine Science 80:171–189. Mexico recreational shark fishery. Marine Fisheries Review 55:21–27. Fowler, S. L., R. D. Cavanagh, M. Camhi, G. H. Burgess, G. M. Cailliet, S. V. Fordham, C. Appendix 1. Search terms used to identify charter boat fishing businesses A. Simpfendorfer and J. A. Musick. 2005. Sharks, rays and chimaeras: the status of the on Google.com. Every permutation of “fishing term” and “location term” was Chondrichthyan fishes: status survey. IUCN, Newbury, United Kingdom. searched. Frijlink, S., and J. Lyle. 2010. A socio-economic assessment of the Tasmanian recreational rock lobster fishery. Report of the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, Ho- Fishing term bart, Tasmania. Shark fishing Charter boat shark fishing Fish for sharks Gallagher, A. J., and N. Hammerschlag. 2011. Global shark currency: the distribution, Location term frequency, and economic value of shark ecotourism. Current Issues in Tourism 14:797–812. Florida South Florida Florida Keys Gallagher, A. J., J. E. Serafy, S. J. Cooke, and N. Hammerschlag. 2014a. Physiological Northwest Florida Northeast Florida North Florida stress response, reflex impairment, and survival of five sympatric shark species follow- Florida Panhandle Southwest Florida Southeast Florida ing experimental capture and release. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 496: 207–218. Gallagher, A. J., N. Hammerschlag, D. S. Shiffman, and S. T. Giery. 2014b. Evolved for Central Florida Gulf coast of Florida Jacksonville, Florida Extinction: The Cost and Conservation Implications of Specialization in Hammerhead St. Augustine, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida Sharks. BioScience. Vero Beach, Florida Jupiter, Florida Boca Raton, Florida Gurshin, C. W. D., and S. T. Szedlmayer. 2004. Short-term survival and movements of Atlantic sharpnose sharks captured by hook-and-line in the north-east Gulf of Mex- Miami, Florida Key Largo, Florida Islamorada, Florida ico. Journal of Fish Biology 65:973–986. Marathon, Florida Key West, Florida Marco Island, Florida Heberer, C., S. Aalbers, D. Bernal, S. Kohin, B. DiFiore, and C. A. Sepulveda. 2010. Naples, Florida Fort Myers, Florida Sarasota, Florida Insights into catch-and-release survivorship and stress-induced blood biochemistry Homosassa Springs, of common thresher sharks captured in the southern California recreational fishery. Tampa, Florida Clearwater, Florida Florida Fisheries Research 106:495–500. Heithaus, M. R., D. Burkholder, R. E. Hueter, L. I. Heithaus, H. W. Pratt, Jr., and J. C. Car- Panama City, Florida Destin, Florida rier. 2007. Spatial and temporal variation in shark communities of the lower Florida Keys and evidence for historical population declines. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:1302–1313. Heithaus, M. R., A. Frid, A. J. Wirsing, and B. Worm. 2008. Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23:202–210. Offering more than a Two Fold Approach Holland, S. M., and R. B. Ditton. 2011. Fishing trip satisfaction: a typology of anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:37–41. Providing equipment for Mark and Relocate your Holland, S. M., C. O. Oh, S. L. Larkin, and A. W. Hodges. 2012. The operations and eco- Active and Passive tracking Underwater Equipment nomics of the for-hire fishing fleets of the south Atlantic states and the Atlantic Coast of Florida. University of Florida contract report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Hunt, K., and C. Hutt. 2010. Characteristics of Texas Catfish anglers and their catch and management preferences. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas. Hutt, C. P., and P. W. Bettoli. 2007. Preferences, specialization, and management attitudes of Trout anglers fishing in Tennessee tailwaters. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:1257–1267. Leeworthy, V. R., and C. F. Morris. 2010. Linking the economy and the environment of Florida Keys/Key West: a socioeconomic analysis of the recreation activities of Mon- roe County residents. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. Loomis, D. K., and R. Ditton. 2011. Analysis of motive and participation differences between saltwater sport and tournament fishermen. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:37–41. McClenachan, L. 2009. Documenting the loss of large trophy fish from the Florida Keys with historical photographs. Conservation Biology 23:636–643. Milano, R., R. Baggio, and R. Piattelli. 2011. The effects of online social media on tourism Sonotronics websites. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2011:471–483. “working together to make a difference in the world we share” Morgan, A., and G. H. Burgess. 2007. At-vessel fishing mortality for six species of sharks www.sonotronics.com • (520) 746-3322

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 407 FEATURE Trapping Effects and Fisheries Research: A Case Study of Sockeye Salmon in the Wenatchee River, USA

Joshua G. Murauskas Anchor QEA, 23 S. Wenatchee Avenue, Suite 220, Wenatchee, WA 98801. Los efectos del entrampamiento y la Email: [email protected] investigación de pesquerías: el salmón Jeffery K. Fryer rojo del río Wenatchee, EE.UU., como caso de estudio Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, OR Bryan Nordlund RESUMEN: las instalaciones para el entrampamiento normalmente se utilizan en el cumplimiento de diversas National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Lacey, WA investigaciones pesqueras y objetivos de manejo. Mientras Joseph L. Miller que el cuidado de los organismos muestreados representa Anchor QEA, Wenatchee, WA uno de los temas centrales para la mayoría de las agencias, los efectos del entrampamiento en la conducta de los peces ABSTRACT: Trapping facilities are regularly used to achieve son raramente cuantificados. Se utilizó un transponedor a variety of fishery research and management goals. Though pasivo integrado para calcular el retraso y bloqueo du- care of sampled organisms is a central tenet of most agencies, rante el paso de salmones rojos adultos en instalaciones en the effects of trapping on fish behavior are seldom quantified. las que todos los peces migrantes de primavera fueron ase- We used passive integrated transponder technology to calcu- gurados para su posterior investigación entre 2008 y 2010. late passage delay and blockage of adult Sockeye Salmon at La mediana del retraso durante el paso varió de 0.4 a 8.7 a facility where all spring-migrating fishes were trapped for días y se impidió que entre 8% y 38% (2,387 a 21,090 adul- research between 2008 and 2010. Median passage delay ranged tos) de los individuos regresaran al hábitat de desove. Se from 0.4 to 8.7 days, and 8% to 38% of the return (2,387 to implementó un protocolo para limitar el entrampamiento 21,090 adults) was precluded from reaching upriver spawning a menos de 24 horas por semana y la mediana del retraso habitat. A protocol limiting trapping to less than 24 h per week disminuyó a 6 minutos, dando como resultado que casi was implemented in 2011 and median delay decreased to 6 min, todos los peces fueran capaces de ascender a las áreas de with the result being that nearly all fish were able to ascend to desove durante dos años consecutivos. La variación anual spawning grounds for two consecutive years. The annual varia- en el retraso del paso resultó ser independiente del tamaño tion in delay was unrelated to run size or river flow, indicating de la corrida y de la magnitud del flujo, indicando que las that research activities requiring intensive trapping operations actividades de investigación que requieren de operaciones had inadvertently blocked tens of thousands of adult salmon de entrampamiento han bloqueado de manera inadvertida from reaching spawning tributaries. We use this case study to el paso de decenas de miles de salmones adultos hacia sus advocate the adoption of a precautionary approach where trap- sitios de desove en los tributarios. Se utilizó este caso de ping of adult migratory fishes is proposed but the effects are estudio para abogar por la adopción de un enfoque prec- unknown. autorio en el que se propone el entrampamiento de peces migratorios adultos aunque su efecto se desconozca. INTRODUCTION

The use of traps has long been a common practice in fisheries research and management. Entanglement, entrapment, Though many efforts involving trapping have provided angling, and electrofishing gear are commonly used by biolo- important contributions to fisheries, negative effects are gists to gather data for characterizing fish populations around seldom considered in deference to the presumed benefit the globe (Murphy and Willis 1996; Kyle 2013). By the late of the related management action or research objective. 1900s, imperiled species such as American Shad (Alosa sapi- dissima), Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar), and Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) were regularly captured for research or research and management has expanded trapping efforts to re- propagation in the United States (Murray 1968; Moyer and move hatchery-origin adults from spawning grounds (Araki et Williams 2012). Likewise, management strategies of endan- al. 2007; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gered Salmon and Steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) populations 2012). Though many efforts involving trapping have provided in the Pacific Northwest are dependent on concerted trapping important contributions to fisheries, negative effects are seldom of returning adults and sizeable artificial production programs considered in deference to the presumed benefit of the related (Levin et al. 2001; Harmon 2003). More recently, genetics-based management action or research objective.

408 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org Figure 1. The Wenatchee River is a tributary to the Columbia River in central Washington State (map courtesy of Joe Nowinski, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission).

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 409 Figure 2. The Tumwater Dam fishway (top) includes 19 pools, PIT arrays are located at slot 15 and slot 18 (red lines), and a trap above the fishway (highlighted by red oval). The fishway is closed above slot 18 under trapping operations and all fish must ascend the steep pass to the trapping facility. An aerial picture (bottom) shows the relative size of the facility.

As a simple case study to quantify the effects of trapping activities for several agencies over the past two decades. The on fish behavior, we used passive integrated transponder (PIT) facility includes a vertical slot fish ladder, a count station, and technology to evaluate the upstream passage of Sockeye Salmon a 6.1-m-long Alaskan-style steep pass leading to an adult fish (O. nerka) in a tributary to the Columbia River. All spring-mi- trap. Two PIT arrays were installed in the fishway below the grating adult salmon were sampled for several years to conduct trapping facility (slot 15 and slot 18) in 2008 (Figure 2). After a reproductive success study on endangered spring-run Chinook ascending the fish ladder or the trapping facility, Sockeye Salm- Salmon (O. tshawytscha) and Steelhead (O. mykiss; Williamson on pass through the lake and spawn in the Little Wenatchee and et al. 2010). The study was implemented in 2004, and passage White rivers. Both spawning tributaries have passive PIT detec- delays were unnoticed until installation of PIT detection arrays tion capability as of the 2009 migration. at the trapping facility in 2008 (Fryer 2009; J. G. Murauskas, unpublished data). As a result of these observations, a limited Between 2004 and 2010, all spring-migrating salmon were trapping schedule and trap modifications to decrease handling trapped (up to ~40,000 adults annually) at Tumwater Dam in time were implemented in 2011. We subsequently examined order to conduct a reproductive success study on endangered passage efficiency of adult Sockeye Salmon under both trap- salmonids. Following independent observations of unusual ping scenarios—100% sampling and limited sampling—over passage delays of adult salmon in 2010, an operation limiting a 5-year period to quantify passage success under both opera- trapping to 3 or fewer days per week was implemented in 2011. tions. The two trapping scenarios available for analyses of PIT data therefore include 3 years of 100% trapping (2008 to 2010) and METHODS 2 years of limited trapping (2011 and 2012). The 100% trapping is referred to as 7D/W and limited trapping as 3D/W (i.e., 7 or Study Area 3 days per week) from here forward.

Wenatchee River Basin Sockeye Salmon—one of two pre- Analyses dominant stocks in the Columbia River Basin—migrate each summer to reach spawning tributaries above Lake Wenatchee PIT technology was used to quantify passage delays and in central Washington State (Figure 1). Adults pass Tumwater obstruction, including standard 12.5-mm, 134.2-kHz full-du- Dam during their ascent in the Wenatchee River, where trap- plex tags and pass-by antennas deployed in the fishway below ping activities have supported research and brood collection the trapping facility (Biomark Inc., Boise, Idaho). Detections of

410 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org PIT-tagged Sockeye Salmon were retrieved from the PIT Tag (Tables 1 and 2; P < 0.0001). Under 7D/W trapping operations, Information System for the Columbia River Basin, including median delays ranged from 10 to 209 h (8.7 days) and from fish tagged as adults at Bonneville Dam or juveniles released 8% to 38% of the run (2,387 to 21,090 adults) was blocked into Lake Wenatchee and the Wenatchee River consistent with from upstream access. Conversely, median delays under 3D/W regional tagging methodologies (Hillman et al. 2011; Pacific operations were 6 min and less than 1% of the run was blocked States Marine Fisheries Commission 2012). Delay was calcu- for two consecutive years. Tributary detections allowed calculated as the duration between the first and last PIT tag detection lation of detection probability in the uppermost fishway array in the fishway and should be considered conservative because (Table 1), though probability of detection in tributaries was not approach time is not included. Delay was also considered a di- consistently available and survival post-trapping was therefore rect measure of interaction with the project, such as fallback not estimable. A logistic regression further indicated that delay or repeated attempts at passage. Detection efficiency at slot 18 was significantly related to the probability of being last detected was calculated by dividing the number of fish missed at slot 18 on the downstream array (P < 0.0001). Though run size and by the total number of fish detected at instream detection sites river flow appeared to have positive relationships with delays located in spawning tributaries above Tumwater Dam (Figure under 7D/W trapping, this relationship was not evident across 1). The proportion of fish last detected on slot 15 was adjusted all years. The shortest median delay (6 min) and proportion by detection efficiency and multiplied by total adult returns to of blocked fish (0.5%) occurred in 2012 under a record Sock- estimate the total number of adults blocked in a given year. Sur- eye Salmon return and greatest summer flows observed over vival estimates to spawning tributaries are not readily available the 5-year study period. As such, fish abundance and river dis- in these circumstances given substantial recreational harvest charge was unrelated to any variation in median delay across all (e.g., 2010 and 2012) and a limited ability to collect postspawn years (R2 = 0.00 and R2 = 0.10). fish in tributaries (Hillman et al. 2011). Average daily stream flows measured upstream of Tumwater Dam (Plain, Washing- DISCUSSION ton) during the month of July, in addition to total adult counts at Tumwater Dam, were obtained from Columbia Basin Research These data demonstrate that intensive trapping can cause (Columbia Basin Research 2012) to detect any relationships be- severe passage delays and preclude a large proportion of anad- tween environment or run size and delays. romous fish from reaching spawning tributaries. Estimates of the direct effects in this study are troubling: the exclusion of Over a third of Wenatchee River Sockeye Salmon spent over 21,000 adults from spawning in 2010 alone may have more time negotiating the trapping facility (<25 m) in eliminated production of over 2,000,000 juveniles based on 2010 than traveling nearly 500 km of the Columbia escapement to spawning grounds and estimated egg-to-smolt River and seven mainstem hydroelectric projects (~26 survival rates reported by Hillman et al. (2011). To put this into days in 2010). another perspective, the total number of brood collected for artificial supplementation of the Wenatchee Sockeye Salmon population over a 22-year period totaled 5,985 adults (Hillman Platforms in JMP 8.0.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) were et al. 2011), or 28% of the total number of fish obstructed in used for descriptive and inferential statistics. Median values 2010 alone. Likewise, over a third of Wenatchee River Sockeye were used to characterize passage delay, and both delay and Salmon spent more time negotiating the trapping facility (<25 the proportion of fish blocked from passage were compared be- m) in 2010 than traveling nearly 500 km of the Columbia River tween 7D/W and 3D/W trapping scenarios during 2008–2010 and seven mainstem hydroelectric projects (~26 days in 2010). and 2011–2012. Median values were used for delays to limit The apparent positive relationship (n = 3 years, R2 = 0.89) the influence of outliers and consistency with passage evalu- between run size and median delay under 7D/W operations fur- ations conducted in the region (Keefer et al. 2004). Wilcoxon/ ther suggests that an increasing number of fish may explain the Kruskal-Wallis rank sums was used to test delays between trap- variation in delay across years under intensive trapping efforts. ping scenarios, a Pearson chi-square test was used to test the proportion of fish blocked between trapping scenarios, and a Less clear but equally concerning are the indirect effects of logistic regression and whole model test was used to evaluate passage delay. For example, stress experienced during the final the relationship between delay and the probability of being last stages of gonad development has been show to result in lower detected on the downstream array in the fishway (i.e., blocked) reproductive success (Patterson et al. 2004; Crossin et al. 2009; across all years. Simple linear regressions (i.e., least squares Roscoe et al. 2011). Additionally, arrival timing to spawning estimator with a single explanatory variable) and resulting tributaries has been linked to important aspects of reproductive coefficient of determination (R2) were used to detect any rela- success in Oncorhynchus spp. (Dickerson et al. 2002; Hruska et tionships between run size and river flows. al. 2011). In combination with the potential influence on ener- getic reserves (Nadeau et al. 2010), we suspect that the passage RESULTS delays ranging up to several weeks under 7D/W trapping significantly influenced the reproductive success of Wenatchee Median passage delays and the proportion of Sockeye Sockeye Salmon. We also hypothesize that the magnitude of Salmon blocked from upstream access were significantly great- delays we measured under 7D/W trapping—102 to 2,095 times er during 7D/W trap operations compared to 3D/W operations greater compared to 3D/W—would have similar effects on

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 411 Table 1. Median delays of Sockeye Salmon varied substantially with of obstruction and median delays orders of magnitude greater run size and average river flow in July (cubic feet per second) under 7D/W trapping compared to the significantly faster passage observed under 7D/W operations provide a weight of evidence that in- under the 3D/W trapping operation. tensive trapping efforts should be closely evaluated prior to and Trap Average July PIT-tagged Median during implementation. Year Run size* operation flow (cfs) sockeye delay 2008 7D/W 28,340 3,636 103 76:24 RECOMMENDATIONS 2009 7D/W 16,034 1,793 247 10:13 2010 7D/W 35,821 3,330 682 209:31 With increasing research activities and expanded emphasis on artificial supplementation and genetic management, weir and 2011 3D/W 18,622 5,506 359 0:06 trapping facilities are becoming an ever-increasingly used tool 2012 3D/W 66,622 5,586 426 0:06 to manage fisheries. In the interest of minimizing unintended *Run size is enumerated at the trapping site and therefore does not include fish consequences of such activities, we suggest that managers use obstructed from passing. the case study provided here as an instructive tool. We further advocate that trapping activities should reflect a precautionary Table 2. Proportion of Sockeye Salmon blocked from upstream access approach where the following considerations are made prior to ranged to nearly 38% under 7D/W trapping operations, whereas less than 1% have been blocked under 3D/W trapping since 2011. Detec- implementation. tion efficiency calculations were limited in 2008, 2009, and 2011 due to lack of upstream arrays or equipment limitations. • The need for trapping, along with risks and benefits, Estimated Fish Fish Slot 18 Fish last must be identified. Some scenarios, such as trap and haul blocked Trap detected missed detection detected Year adult passage over high-head dams, require trapping; otherwise, operation above on slot efficiency on slot Sockeye fishway 18 (%) 15 (%) trapping may be unnecessary to perpetuate populations. Salmon In the latter case, managers must consider whether risks 2008 7D/W 1 0 100.0 7.8 2,387 may compromise the perceived benefits of trapping. For 2009 7D/W 86 2 97.7 29.6 6,507 example, size-selective delays and blockage could unin- 2010 7D/W 235 3 98.7 37.5 21,090 tentionally bias results of research. Likewise, obstruction 2011 3D/W 157 0 100.0 0.6 104 of wild-origin adults in order to collect brood for hatch- 2012 3D/W 141 0 100.0 0.5 313 ery production could negate the intended benefits of supplementation. Research and management proposals that require intensive trapping should not compromise safe, the reproductive success of other imperiled anadromous fish- timely, and effective fish passage. es, such as alosines (e.g., Murauskas and Rulifson 2011) and Striped Bass (Rulifson and Dadswell 1995). • Trapping facilities should be designed or retrofitted to minimize effects. Before management strategies are imple- Negative effects of trapping on fish behavior have been mented that require fish trapping, facilities should be de- documented in other species and regions. For example, holding signed or retrofitted to minimize delays, provide safe fish of adult salmon at marking sites in the Yukon River was found handling facilities and conditions for operating personnel, to hinder their upriver migration and trapping was deemed and minimize impacts to the run at large. Facilities with more harmful to fish than previously believed (Bromaghin et the ability to target marked fish should receive priority for al. 2007). Research on wild Rainbow Trout in New Zealand management or research to avoid handling excessive num- found that trapping induces a severe and prolonged physiologi- bers of fish. Actions that require trapping and handling fish cal response. Trapping effects are likely a result of the multiple should be fully vetted with fish facility design engineers stressors encountered during trapping, including approach to the and biologists prior to implementation. barrier, frequent bursts to seek passage, confinement, crowding, handling, and recovery (Clements et al. 2002). Considering the • Trapping facilities should be properly maintained. In- drastic reduction in delays and blockage observed with limited sufficient maintenance or operation may magnify trapping trapping and the inability to account for effects with run size effects. For example, debris can occlude intakes to auxil- or environmental conditions, our results confirm previous find- iary water systems and compromise attraction flow to the ings and add convincing evidence that trapping effects can be facility. A high-velocity attraction jet may exceed or chal- greater than baseline conditions. lenge the swimming ability of a fish, whereas low-velocity attraction flows dissipate rapidly, making it more difficult The data used for our analysis are limited in two impor- for a fish to detect the facility. Inadequate or closed fishway tant aspects: how run sizes and environmental covariates may entrances, at the least, cause fish to seek other routes of affect passage delays and estimation of posttrapping survival. passage. This often leads to jumping and injury or mortality We cannot infer how many days of trapping lead to a signifi- at impassable routes and biological consequences as previ- cant increase in delays, what delays would be absent a trapping ously described (National Marine Fisheries Service 2011). facility, or how increasing delays may influence survival or reproductive success. These important questions remain un- • Operational protocols should be established to ensure answered based on our evaluation, though the significant rates that handling effects are minimized. Complete closure of

412 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org sage goal should be a safe, timely, and efficient fish passage with no or minimal increase in delay, rejection of the passage facility, or increase in injury or mortality compared to a nontrap operation. These parameters should be monitored and reported to stakeholders. Generally, median upstream passage time at Columbia and Snake river dams is expected to be 24 h or less for anadromous salmon and Steelhead, including the time required for a fish to locate the entrance, ascend the fishway, and exit into the forebay (B. Nordlund, unpublished data).

CONCLUSION

The case study described here provides an important example of the effects that intensive trapping operations may cause. Many anadromous fishes are endangered worldwide, partially due to their vulnerability through predictable runs in constricted estuarine and lotic environments (McDowall 1999). Trapping and weirs will ironically play an important role in Oncorhynchus nerka. Photo credit: Megan Stachura. conserving these fishes. Managers will therefore need to make decisions on how best to use the suite of existing facilities and plan for new traps where they are needed. However, it is im- ladders for extended periods of time to allow handling of perative that the consideration is given to effects on a holistic the entire run should be avoided. Examples of holding cri- basis as opposed to basing decisions solely on management ob- teria have been derived from hatchery practices (e.g., Senn jectives. The biological risks and rewards of trapping must be 1984), including trap flow rate and trap volume recommen- accurately identified, passage objectives established, and prog- dations. Increasing water temperatures may further limit ress carefully monitored. Ultimately, the value gained from the the mass of fish held, depending on species. Water-to-water trapping activity needs to provide a clear benefit to the health transport should be prioritized in particular cases. Proper and vitality of the fish populations in a basin. anesthetic techniques, recovery time, and postrelease location should ensure that fish are able to continue upstream ACKNOWLEDGMENTS migration with minimal effects, including fallback (Na- tional Marine Fisheries Service 2011). Trapping criteria The authors thank the many individuals who were able to should be based on well-established biological require- improve the trapping facility at Tumwater Dam, especially Jack ments that translate into hydraulic design criteria, though Brown, Justin Fletcher, Ian Adams, Alene Underwood, Todd best engineering judgment is often required to reflect a West, and Keith Truscott of Chelan County Public Utilities Dis- range of site conditions and overlap of species. trict and Mike Hughes and Nate Dietrich of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. We also appreciate the ex- • Nontarget species or life stages that may be affected by tensive PIT-tagging efforts of Chelan Public Utilities District trapping operations should be identified. Endangered (Dave Beardsley, Todd Jackson, and others) and Columbia spring-run Chinook Salmon and Steelhead were the target River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission staff that allowed species in the trapping efforts analyzed here, where up to biologists to identify and resolve passage issues involving 38% of Sockeye Salmon were inadvertently blocked from Sockeye Salmon. Steve Hemstrom of Chelan County Public reaching spawning tributaries during the study. Endangered Utilities District, Mike Schiewe of Anchor QEA, Tracy Hill- species, such as Steelhead and Bull Trout (Salvelinus con- man of BioAnalysts, Inc., Mark Nelson of the U.S. Fish and fluentus; Nelson et al. 2012), and species of concern, such Wildlife Service, and several anonymous reviewers provided as Coho Salmon (O. kisutch) and Pacific Lamprey (Ento- helpful suggestions to improve the intent of this article. Bio- sphenus tridentatus), are likely also affected by intensive mark Inc. has provided PIT equipment and excellent technical trapping operations. Resident fish, such as Cutthroat Trout support throughout monitoring activities in the mid-Columbia (O. clarkii), Mountain Whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), River Basin. cyprinids, and Catostomids should also be considered, because weirs and traps may affect the entire stream commu- REFERENCES nity. Araki, H., B. Cooper, and M. S. Blouin. 2007. Genetic effects of captive breeding cause a rapid, cumulative fitness decline in the wild. Science 318(5847):100–103. • Passage goals should be established to ensure that Bromaghin, J. F., T. J. Underwood, and R. F. Hander. 2007. Residual effects from fish wheel capture and handling of Yukon River fall Chum Salmon. North American Journal of trapping effects are within acceptable levels. Effective Fisheries Management 27:860–872. monitoring should be implemented to evaluate passage of Clements, S. P., B. J. Hicks, J. F. Carragher, and M. Dedual. 2002. The effect of a trapping target and nontarget species with statistical rigor. The pas- procedure on the stress response of wild Rainbow Trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:907–916. Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 413 Columbia Basin Research. 2012. Data access in real time. Available: www.cbr.washington. edu/dart. (December 2012). Crossin, G. T., S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, M. S. Cooperman, D. A. Patterson, D. W. Welch, K. The World Leader & Innovator in Fish Tags C. Hanson, I. Olsson, K. K. English, and A. P. Farrell. 2009. Mechanisms influencing the timing and success of reproductive migration in a capital breeding semelparous fish species, the Sockeye Salmon. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 82(6):635–652. Dickerson, B. R., T. P. Quinn, and M. F. Wilson. 2002. Body size, arrival date, and reproductive success of Pink Salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 14(1):29–44. Fryer, J. K. 2009. Use of PIT tags to determine upstream migratory timing and survival of Columbia Basin Sockeye Salmon in 2008. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commis- sion, CRITFC Technical Report 09-03, Portland, Oregon. Harmon, J. R. 2003. A trap for handling adult anadromous salmonids at Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23(3):989–992. Hillman, T., M. Miller, J. Miller, B. Keesee, T. Miller, M. Tonseth, M. Hughes, and A. Mur- doch. 2011. Monitoring and evaluation of the Chelan County PUD hatchery programs. Prepared for the HCP Hatchery Committee, Wenatchee, Washington. Hruska, K. A., S. G. Hinch, D. A. Patterson, and M. C. Healey. 2011. Egg retention in relation to arrival timing and reproductive longevity in female Sockeye Salmon (On- corhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences 68:250–259. Keefer, M. L., C. A. Peery, T. C. Bjornn, M. A. Jepson, and L. C. Stuehrenberg. 2004. Hy- drosystem, dam, and reservoir passage rates of adult Chinook Salmon and Steelhead in the Columbia and Snake rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133(6):1413–1439. Kyle, R. 2013. Thirty years of monitoring traditional fish trap catches at Kosi Bay, Kwa- • Call 800-843-1172 to discuss your Zulu-Natal, South Africa, and management implications. African Journal of Marine Science 35(1):67–78. custom tagging needs Levin, P. S., R. W. Zabel, and J. G. Williams. 2001. The road to extinction is paved with good intentions: negative association of fish hatcheries with threatened salmon. Pro- • Email us at [email protected] ceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268:1153–1158. McDowall, R. M. 1999. Different kinds of diadromy: different kinds of conservation problems. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 56(4):410–413. • View our website for our latest catalog Moyer, G. R. and A. S. Williams. 2012. Assessment of genetic diversity for American Shad in the Santee–Cooper River Basin of South Carolina prior to hatchery augmenta- www.floytag.com tion. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 4(1):312–326. Murauskas, J. G. and R. A. Rulifson. 2011. Reproductive development and related observations during the spawning migration of Hickory Shad. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 140:1035–1048. Murphy, B. R., and D. W. Willis, editors. 1996. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Murray, A. R. 1968. Estuarine net counting fence for trapping Atlantic Salmon. Transac- floy tag ad3.indd 1 1/24/2013 6:45:34 PM tions of the American Fisheries Society 97(3):282–286. Nadeau, P. S., S. G. Hinch, K. A. Hruska, L. B. Pon, and D. A. Patterson. 2010. The effects of experimental energy depletion on the physiological condition and survival of adult Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) during spawning migration. Environmental Biology of Fishes 88:241–251. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Anadromous salmonid passage facility design. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012. Hatchery and genetic management plans. Available: www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/Hatcheries/ HGMPs.cfm. (April 2012). Nelson, M. C., A. Johnsen, and R. D. Nelle. 2012. Seasonal movements of adult fluvial Bull Trout and redd surveys in Icicle Creek, 2010. Annual report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, Washington. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2012. PIT Tag Information System for the Columbia River Basin (PTAGIS). Available: www.ptagis.org/ptagis. (October 2012). Patterson, D. A., J. S. MacDonald, S. G. Hinch, M. C. Healy, and A. P. Farrell. 2004. The effect of exercise and captivity on energy partitioning, reproductive maturation and fertilization success in adult Sockeye Salmon. Journal of Fish Biology 64:1039–1059. Roscoe, D. W., S. G. Hinch, S. J. Cooke, and D. A. Patterson. 2011. Fishway passage and post-passage mortality of up-river migrating Sockeye Salmon in the Seton River, Brit- ish Columbia. River Research and Applications 27:693–705. Rulifson, R. A., and M. J. Dadswell. 1995. Life history and population characteristics of Striped Bass in Atlantic Canada. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124(4):477–507. Senn, H. G. 1984. Compendium of low-cost pacific salmon and steelhead trout production facilities and practices in the Pacific Northwest. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Williamson, K. S., A. R. Murdoch, T. N. Pearsons, E. J. Ward, and M. J. Ford. 2010. Factors influencing the relative fitness of hatchery and wild spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Wenatchee River, Washington, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67:1840–1851.

414 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org ESSAY Guidelines for Use of Fishes in Research—Revised and Expanded, 2014

Uses of Fishes in Research (UFR) Committee: Changes with time necessitate revisions to Jill A. Jenkins, Chair make the Guidelines Guidelines for the Use U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, 700 Cajun- consistent with con- of Fishes in Research dome Blvd., Lafayette, LA 70506. E-mail: [email protected] temporary practices and Henry L. Bart, Jr. scientific literature so

Tulane University, Biodiversity Research Institute, Belle Chasse, LA to remain relevant as a American Fisheries Society American Institute of Fishery technical resource. This Research Biologists James D. Bowker document provides not American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership only general principles Program, Bozeman, MT relevant for field and Paul R. Bowser laboratory research endeavors but includes AmericAn Fisheries society Cornell University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of specific requirements Microbiology and Immunology, Ithaca, NY for researchers work- J. Randy MacMillan ing within the United Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Buhl, ID States and outside of the country. Within the scope of their expertise, the 2014 Uses John G. Nickum of Fishes in Research (UFR) Committee members updated and Nickum and Nickum, Fountain Hills, AZ revised sections, resulting in a 90-page 2014 Guidelines hav- Joseph W. Rachlin ing undergone thorough peer review. As before, topical areas were addressed (see Table of Contents on page 416). Expanded Lehman College of the City University of New York, Department of Bio- coverage was provided on U.S. and international agencies and logical Sciences, Bronx, NY programs relevant to research with fishes. The Surgical Proce- James D. Rose dures and the Marking and Tagging sections were reworked, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY and the Animal Welfare Considerations section received special focus by a UFR Subcommittee. Feeds and Feeding and the Peter W. Sorensen Administration of Drugs, Biologics and Other Chemicals are University of Minnesota, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conserva- just some of the newly added topics. The 2014 Guidelines is tion Biology, St. Paul, MN user-friendly by way of hyperlinks to external Internet sites, Barbara E. Warkentine intradocument sections, and tables of acronyms with corre- sponding terms, low regulatory priority drugs, and Office of State University of New York, Maritime College, Bronx, NY International des Epizooties notifiable disease agents. Again, Greg W. Whitledge the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) Southern Illinois University, Center for Fisheries, Aquaculture, and role is explained, expectations for research are provided, and Aquatic Sciences, Carbondale, IL a brief checklist for IACUC readiness is included. Overall, the 2014 Guidelines is the taxon-specific resource for our professional societies and is a principal document for standards on the The Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research (2014; care and use of fish and aquatic vertebrates in research. 2014 Guidelines), now available through the American Fisher- ies Society (AFS) website and in print from the AFS bookstore, The Guidelines are frequently cited in protocols developed is a resource to aid researchers and regulatory authorities re- by fisheries researchers either competing for federal funding or garding responsible, scientifically valid research on fish and by virtue of their agency rules. These Guidelines are consistent aquatic wildlife. The Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Field with the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) policy on humane Research (American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpe- care and use of laboratory animals, which is compliant with the tologists [ASIH] et al. 1987, 1988) emphasized field research Animal Welfare Act (1970). Recognition by PHS of the 2014 and was followed by the 2004 Guidelines including labora- Guidelines and other taxon-specific guidelines (i.e., for mam- tory research topics. Each version of the Guidelines has been malogy and ornithology) as being the appropriate standards for jointly endorsed and/or published by the ASIH, the Ameri- wildlife research would alleviate some IACUC obstacles related can Institute of Fishery Research Biologists (AIFRB), and to the necessity of applying standards of the Guide for the Care AFS—each focusing on the scientific understanding, global and Use of Laboratory Animals (NRC Guide; National Research conservation, and sustainability of aquatic animals, fisheries, Council [NRC] 2011) to research involving free-ranging ter- and ecosystems. restrial and aquatic vertebrates (Sikes et al. 2012). Research

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 415 on live vertebrates that is funded by the PHS and some other REFERENCES federal agencies requires compliance with the NRC Guide, a ASIH (American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists), AFS (American Fisher- suitable standard for biomedical research yet less appropriate ies Society), and AIFRB (American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists). 1987. for research with wildlife, especially in a natural setting. Not- Guidelines for use of fishes in field research. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Lawrence, Kansas. withstanding, the newly revised 2014 Guidelines will be a valu- ———. 1988. Guidelines for use of fishes in field research. Fisheries 13:16–23. able resource for members of the AFS, AIFRB, and ASIH and NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Ani- fisheries and aquatic wildlife researchers at large. mals, 8th edition. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Public Law 91-579. 1970. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1970. United States Statutes at Large. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Library, Animal Wel- Suggested citation: Use of Fishes in Research Committee fare Information Center. Available: http://awic.nal.usda.gov/public-law-91-579-animal-welfare-act-amendments-1970. (August 2012). (joint committee of the American Fisheries Society, the Ameri- Sikes, R. S., E. Paul, and S. J. Beaupre. 2013. Standards for wildlife research: taxon-spe- can Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, and the American cific guidelines versus U.S. Public Health Service Policy. Bioscience 62:830–834. Use of Fishes in Research Committee (joint committee of the American Fisheries Society, Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists). 2014. Guidelines the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists, and the American Society of for the use of fishes in research. American Fisheries Society, Ichthyologists and Herpetologists). 2004. Guidelines for the use of fishes in research. Bethesda, Maryland. fisheries.org/guide-for-the-use-of-fishes- American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Available: http://fisheries.org/docs/ resources_useoffishes.pdf. (August 2014). in-research

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE 2014 GUIDELINES General Considerations Field Acclimation Approval of Research Plans by IACUCs Collection of Blood and Other Tissues Project Quality Assurance Plans and Standard Marking and Tagging Operating Procedures General Principles Statistical Design External Tags and Marks Mortality as an Experimental Endpoint Internal Tags and Marks, and Biotelemetry Fish Health Management: Control of Pathogens and Genetic Markers Parasites Stable Isotopes Statutory Requirements and Regulatory Bodies Fatty Acids International Regulations and Guidelines Laboratory Activities Biosecurity General Principles Federal, State, and Local Regulations Confinement, Isolation, Quarantine Permits and Certificates Acclimation to Laboratory Conditions Animal Welfare Considerations Facilities for Long-Term Housing of Fishes General Considerations Density of Animals Stress Feeds and Feeding Stages of Stress Water Quality Measuring and Avoiding Stress Water Recirculation Units Nociception and Pain Effluents and Permits Field Activities Dangerous Species and Specimens in Captivity Habitat and Population Considerations Restraint of Fishes: Sedatives and Related Chemicals Field Collections Surgical Procedures Permits Administration of Drugs, Biologics, and Other Chemicals Natural History Collections Drugs Representative Samples Biologics and Other Chemicals Collection of Imperiled Species Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) Museum Specimens and Other Preserved Final Disposition of Experimental Animals Specimens Euthanasia Live Capture Techniques and Equipment Storage or Return to Aquatic Habitat Field Restraint of Fishes: Sedatives Future Revisions Drugs Approved for Use on Fish Literature Cited Low Regulatory Priority (LRP) Drugs Appendix Investigational New Animal Drugs (INAD) Brief Checklist for IACUC Readiness Dangerous Species and Specimens List of Low Regulatory Priority Drugs and Consideration Handling and Transport for Their Use Facilities for Temporary Holding and Maintenance Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

416 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org FEATURE Open-Access Databases as Unprecedented Resources and Drivers of Cultural Change in Fisheries Science

Ryan A. McManamay Bases de datos de acceso abierto como Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN un recurso sin precedente y causante de cambio cultural en la ciencia pesquera Ryan M. Utz The National Ecological Observatory Network, 1685 38th St., Boulder, CO RESUMEN: en la última década, el número de bases de 80301. E-mail: [email protected] datos de acceso abierto con utilidad para la ciencia pesquera ha crecido exponencialmente en cantidad y alcance y su impacto ha sido considerado como muy importante en ABSTRACT: Open-access databases with utility in fisheries esta disciplina. El manejo, depuración e intercambio de science have grown exponentially in quantity and scope over the datos de acceso abierto representa retos fundamentales en past decade, with profound impacts to our discipline. The man- la ciencia pesquera. Muchos de los recursos actualmente agement, distillation, and sharing of an exponentially growing disponibles de acceso abierto pueden no ser conocidos por stream of open-access data represents several fundamental los científicos pesqueros. Por lo tanto, aquí se presentan challenges in fisheries science. Many of the currently available varias bases de datos a nivel nacional e internacional de open-access resources may not be universally known among libre acceso con aplicación en las ciencias pesqueras y se fisheries scientists. We therefore introduce many national- and da un ejemplo de cómo pueden ser aprovechadas para re- global-scale open-access databases with applications in fisher- alizar valiosos análisis sin hacer esfuerzos adicionales de ies science and provide an example of how they can be har- trabajo de campo. También se discute cómo el desarrollo, nessed to perform valuable analyses without additional field mantenimiento y uso de las base de datos de libre acceso efforts. We also discuss how the development, maintenance, and muy posiblemente representarán retos importantes para los utilization of open-access data are likely to pose technical, fi- científicos de la pesca en cuanto a las dimensiones técnica, nancial, and educational challenges to fisheries scientists. Such financiera y educativa. Tales implicaciones culturales, que cultural implications that will coincide with the rapidly increas- coincidirán con la disponibilidad cada vez mayor de datos ing availability of free data should compel the American Fisher- gratuitos, debieran servir de impulso a la Sociedad Ameri- ies Society to actively address these problems now to help ease cana de Pesquerías a que volcara activamente su atención the forthcoming cultural transition. sobre estos problemas con el fin de facilitar la transición cultural que se avecina. INTRODUCTION

The management, distillation, and sharing of an exponen- advanced technological skills that are beyond the capabilities of tially growing stream of data represents a fundamental chal- most fisheries scientists (Lynch 2008; Cukier 2010; Kolb et al. lenge to fisheries science. Data across all subdisciplines of 2013), because structuring databases, queries, and exploration ecology are becoming available in unprecedented volumes due capabilities requires very specialized training (Fox and Hendler to advancements in computational technology and the rapid 2011), adequate funding (Tenopir et al. 2011), and dedicated growth of resources with the explicit purpose of housing and staff (Kolb et al. 2013). In many cases, researchers may simply providing data to all scientists (open access). Yet despite such not know about data resources pertinent to their lines of inquiry. trends, a lack of needed information related to fisheries manage- Perhaps most critical, many are uncomfortable with the concept ment continues to be cited as a challenge (Pauly 1995; Crone of sharing data, even after projects are finished. Understandably, and Tolstoy 2010; Olascoaga and Haller 2012). How would the apprehension may exist due to fear of unacknowledged work, fisheries science culture benefit if data sets behind all published compromised intellectual property, or stolen research (Silver articles or publicly funded grants were archived and maintained 2003). Such unease about contributing to open-access data in- in accessible, online data warehouses? Such a theoretically at- herently limits legitimate findings that may be drawn from those tainable future would both benefit and pose challenges to our data sets. Ultimately, technological advancements and cultural field. evolution within the ecological sciences will substantially pro- pel data sharing. Fisheries science must adapt accordingly as Although many scientific problems benefit from additional well. data, the disparity between the growth in data availability and continued calls for more information could reflect several phe- Despite the increasing awareness of these needs and nomena that the culture of fisheries science needs to address. challenges arising from open-access databases (Silver 2003; Manipulating and managing large, complex databases requires Lynch 2008; Reichman et al. 2011), we have observed few

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 417 formal discussions on the matter among fisheries profession- (Froese and Pauly 2012). Likewise, open-access databases for als. Symposiums and data summits documenting the benefits freshwater fish have provided opportunities to assess large- and problems of open-access databases have occurred within scale (e.g., continental) patterns in fish ecology. For example, the fisheries science community as early as 1980 (Pacific Ma- open-access riverine fish assemblage data (e.g., U.S. Geological rine Fisheries Commission 1980), and reports have highlighted Survey [USGS] 2013) and geospatial landscape coverage (e.g., the need for continual development of these resources, along U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012; Multi-resolution with the associated challenges (Austen et al. 1998; Allen et al. Land Characteristics Consortium 2013) provided resources to 2006). Yet to our knowledge, a recently published article (Kolb establish relationships between landscape predictive frame- et al. 2013) is one of the only contemporary descriptions of works and fish communities (e.g., Frimpong and Angermeier database management, standards, maintenance, and documen- 2010). Similarly, Mims et al. (2010) mapped the frequency of tation in the fisheries-related peer-reviewed literature. During different fish life histories across North America using publicly the 2012 Annual American Fisheries Society (AFS) Meeting in disseminated fish distribution data (NatureServe 2004). Using St. Paul, Minnesota, we organized a symposium entitled “Free freely available information on aquatic resources, Loftus and Data: Opportunities in Open-Access Network Databases to Ad- Flather (2012) examined emerging trends in aquatic habitat, vance Spatiotemporal Scales of Inquiry in Fisheries Science.” fish populations, and both recreational and commercial fisheries The symposium attempted to provide a forum to acquaint the across the United States to isolate regions requiring more inten- fisheries science community with open-access data systems. sive natural resource management by the U.S. Forest Service. Presenters in the symposium exhibited programs offering unprecedented, nationwide fisheries data resources, many of Until recently, only individuals who possessed large data which have already produced novel scientific discoveries and sets could explicitly test such broad-scale questions. Modern nearly all of which are rapidly expanding (see Table 1). How- open-access data repositories provide the prospect of large- ever, as we have observed in the peer-reviewed literature, very spatial-scale, high-resolution research for everyone. Though little discussion involved the technical, financial, educational, extensive databases have provided the means to address big or cultural obstacles to open-access data. questions, they also have expanded the conceptual frameworks of scientific questions. Influxes of data can change (1) Open-access databases have and will continue to be devel- how scientists view natural phenomena (Nelson 2008), (2) the oped and maintained by multiple institutions within the fisheries analytical approaches and predictive output of research (Luo et science community (e.g., Beard et al. 1998; Seeb et al. 2007; al. 2011), and (3) the speed and nature of hypotheses genera- Frimpong and Angermeier 2009; Wang et al. 2011; Hamm tion and testing (Luo et al. 2011). In addition, scientists taking 2012). Many fisheries professions on the frontier of database advantage of open-access data need familiarity with statistical/ management have been well aware of these issues for some database programs that best handle larger data sets and increase time (Geoghegan 1996; Kolb et al. 2013). However, the cultural data mining efficacy (Reichman et al. 2011). Furthermore, problems associated with an increasingly open-access scientific big data, processes, and results are now being packaged as re- community should be more rigorously addressed through formal search products to promote future meta-analyses and support discussions within the community to ease the burden of cultural evidence-based research (Reichman et al. 2011). transition. Below we discuss how open-access databases have already changed fisheries science and how they may continue to Open-access databases are also facilitating scientific de- do so. We also provide examples of national- and international- bate through unprecedented means. Data transparency allows scale open-access databases that many may not be aware of de- findings to be validated or disputed repeatedly by different spite their ambitious scope and valuable data offered. Finally, researchers to eventually arrive at consensus. Global-scale ma- we present some principle cultural implications that arise with rine fisheries stock assessments offer a classic example of such the increasing availability of free data and challenge the AFS debate. Worm et al. (2006) famously derived quantitative mod- community to proactively address these problems. els to conclude that by 2048 marine fisheries resources would disappear. Because the authors applied open-access resources HOW HAVE OPEN-ACCESS DATABASES to arrive at this conclusion, others could access the same data CHANGED FISHERIES SCIENCE? sources but render different conclusions (Murawski et al. 2007). Some contend that the first assessment misapplied open-access Over the past two decades, open-access databases have resources through poor understanding of the data, but both already significantly changed fisheries science as a discipline. studies were peer-reviewed in top-tier journals. We argue that Because of publicly available data, global-scale marine stock scientific debates spurring from use of open-access resources is assessments are now commonplace (e.g., Costello et al. 2012; a positive trend, because the consensus of conclusions derived Ricard et al. 2012) thanks to open-access catch data (Sea Around from the same data source will be strongest when subjected to Us Project 2013) and published marine ecosystem models. validation by multiple researchers. Costello et al. (2012) developed a novel approach to discern declining trends in fisheries lacking any formal assessment us- The increasing prevalence and awareness of open-access ing publicly available data, including marine stock assessments data has also changed the roles of fisheries professionals. For (Ricard et al. 2012), trends in catch (Food and Agriculture Or- example, data repositories are increasingly developed and ganization of the United Nations 2011), and fish life histories maintained by universities and smaller agencies with varying

418 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org Table 1. Examples of open-access databases pertinent to fisheries science. Listed examples are limited to established regional-, national-, and international-scale efforts.

Database Description Website

Synthesized and permanent repository of biological occurrence data for the United Biodiversity Information Serving Our States from numerous distributed systems and formats. Supported by the Core bison.usgs.ornl.gov Nation (BISON) Science Analytics and Synthesis (CSAS) program within the USGS. Data Observation Network for Earth NSF-supported cyber infrastructure for the preservation, access, use and reuse of dataone.org (DataONE) multiscale, multidiscipline, and multinational environmental science data. International repository of data underlying peer-reviewed biosciences publications. Dryad datadryad.org Allows authors to upload data from their accepted work. Relational database of 28,500 marine and freshwater fish species, including distribution, phenological characteristics, habitat preferences, physiological at- FishBase fishbase.org tributes, International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List status, and taxo- nomic information. Trophic attributes, reproductive ecology, habitat associations, and salinity/tem- FishTraits fishtraits.info perature tolerances for 809 native and exotic North American freshwater fish taxa. Global Lake Ecological Observatory Physical, ecological, and biogeochemical data on a global network of lake ecosys- gleon.org Network (GLEON) tems supported by a grassroots network of scientists. NSF-supported network of long-term ecological studies, including sites and pro- Long Term Ecological Research grams in stream, lake, and marine ecosystems throughout North America and the lternet.org Network (LTER) South Pacific. Includes heterogeneous variables across sites. Population estimate, total catch, total weight, and water quality records collected Multistate Aquatic Resources by state agencies. Currently includes data for nearly 600 fish species collected marisdata.org Information System (MARIS) from >16,000 sites across 16 states. NSF-supported continental-scale observatory planning to collect 30 years of data National Ecological Observatory to gage the effects of climate change, land use change, and invasive species on neoninc.org Network (NEON) natural resources and biodiversity. Nationwide database of fish habitat quality delineated by National Hydrography National Fish Habitat Action Plan Data (NHD) plus catchments. Includes land use, dams, road crossings, and habitat fishhabitat.org (NFHAP) quality metrics. Data sets used to determine how much of an ecosystem type or a target species’ National Gap Analysis Program habitat is currently in conservation areas. Data include land cover, predicted distri- gapanalysis.usgs.gov butions of vertebrate species, and stewardship layers. Nonprofit conservation organization initiated to provide scientific resources for ef- NatureServe fective conservation. Hosts a freshwater fish distribution database linked to HUC-8 natureserve.org USGS watershed codes. Ocean Biogeographic Information Integrated marine species presence/absence data sets from around the world. iobis.org System (OBIS) Currently offers 33.6 million records. NSF-supported observation platform planning to collect climate variability, ocean Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) circulation, area-sea exchange, and seafloor process data in coastal and deep sea oceanobservatories.org ecosystems for 25–30 years. Provides detailed marine fisheries data, including trawl survey data, bycatch Pacific Fisheries Information Network estimates, and age structure of target species, from fisheries offshore of Oregon, pacfin.psmfc.org (PacFin) Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska. Supported by the National Marine Fish- eries Service. Dr. Ransom A. Myers (RAM) Legacy Compilation of stock assessment results for >200 commercially exploited popula- ramlegacy.marinebiodiversity.ca/ram- Stock Assessment Database tions of marine organisms from around the world. legacy-stock-assessment-database Standard Methods for Sampling Freshwater fish data collected using standardized sampling techniques. Allows fisheriesstandardsampling.org North American Freshwater Fishes users to compare their data with those collected using standardized methods. Provides a wealth of biological and physicochemical data related to fisheries man- StreamNet agement in the Pacific Northwest, with emphasis on the Columbia River basin. streamnet.org Maintained by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Provides access to USGS-collected aquatic bioassessment data. Includes fish, USGS BioData macroinvertebrate, and algal community data, as well as physical habitat survey aquatic.biodata.usgs.gov data from across the United States. degrees of multidisciplinary services (Lynch 2008; Kolb et publications has remained steady (Larsen and vonIns 2010). al. 2013). Databases, rather than analytical results and inter- However, one downside of increasing efficiency may be ele- pretation, are being funded as deliverables (Lynch 2008; Kolb vated expectations of institutions on research staff productivity. et al. 2013) that have the potential to move research into new Collaborations have been on the rise, with the mean number directions. The degree to which the availability of open-access of authors per paper in the sciences more than doubling be- databases has increased the efficiency and productivity of in- tween 1954 and 1998 (Larsen and von Ins 2010). Data sharing stitutions is unclear, because the annual global growth rate of very likely has provided collaborative opportunities within and among scientific disciplines.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 419 OPEN-ACCESS DATABASES IN FISHERIES information on highly endemic and/or not formally described SCIENCE species, we accessed NatureServe Explorer, FishBase, literature searches, and general searches to update missing traits Freely available databases applicable to fisheries science with new information or find the closest phylogenetic relative have grown exponentially in quantity and scope over the past as a substitute. Closest phylogenetic relatives were either the decade. Table 1 lists a number of regional-, national-, inter- nearest parental clade (subgenus), species of potential hybrid- national-scale open-access data resources and illustrates the ization, or species commonly misidentified as the species of diversity of accessible information. Many examples listed in interest (in that order of preference). Within a GIS, we summa- Table 1 provide site-specific collection information with vary- rized the number of potadromous/anadromous fish species and ing degrees of detail. For example, the Ocean Biogeographic the proportion of nest-guarders currently occurring within each Information System provides records on tens of thousands of HUC-8 and mapped the distribution of traits (Figure 2). marine species from around the world but is limited to presence/ absence data, and the Multistate Aquatic Resources Information Potadromous/anadromous fish were more numerous in the System (MARIS) posts state agency–derived data on freshwa- Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes Region, Ohio, and Tennessee ter fish collections, many of which include abundance, length, basins and several watersheds in the Northeast (Figure 2). The and weight (Figure 1). Similarly, USGS BioData provides data proportion of nest-guarding fishes per watershed was higher in on fish, invertebrate, and algal community collections and the Midwest and showed increasing prevalence with decreasing physical habitat surveys across the United States (Figure 1). latitude (Figure 2). Fish traits are advantageous in that they con- Other databases offer organism-specific information: FishTraits solidate information across many species into concise groups provides biological, ecological, and environmental tolerance that can be used to infer convergent adaptive strategies and parameters for more than 800 North American freshwater fish, common responses to disturbance (Frimpong and Angermeier whereas FishBase houses physiological, phenotypic, and dis- 2010). Maps of trait frequencies can provide a geographical tributional information on thousands of marine and freshwater base for prioritizing restoration or preventative management fishes. Many state agencies and educational entities have begun actions. For example, watersheds with many migratory fish to host state-specific data sharing portals as well. For instance, may be prioritized for fish passage enhancement, whereas the Fishes of Texas Project (supported by the University of Tex- those with higher nest-guarding frequencies should effectively as at Austin; fishesoftexas.org) hosts thousands of records from maintain sensitive populations by limiting anthropogenic flow throughout the state, some dating back to the mid-1800s, and fluctuations. Our brief analysis shows that the availability of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (iowadnr.gov) posts large databases can quickly and efficiently produce scientific databases on a wealth of aquatic ecosystems and assemblages. findings.

An Example of Open-Access Database Utility CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS

To illustrate how open-access data may facilitate novel Although open-access databases will continue to create un- approaches to detecting trends, we provide an example of map- precedented opportunities in fisheries science, challenges also ping fish traits using a combination of spatial (e.g., GIS) and life accompany their promulgation and use. Many researchers have history data derived entirely from open-access sources. Maps based their careers on relatively small spatiotemporal-scale of fish traits across watersheds can be useful for establishing projects constrained by the limitations of fieldwork. Conse- links between landscape properties and fish life histories (e.g., quently, the concept of open-access data remains foreign to see Olden and Kennard 2010), spatially predicting potential many and this can lead to multiple problems. For instance, re- ecological responses to landscape development, or prioritiz- searchers remain reluctant to share their own data, open-access ing conservation efforts. Digitized maps of 865 freshwater fish sources are often inadequately acknowledged or incorrectly distributions within eight-digit hydrologic catalog units (HUC- cited, and resources required to maintain these systems often 8) were assembled from NatureServe (NatureServe 2004). We proves scant (Allen et al. 2006). Yet to address the broad-scale compiled lists of all native fish species (n = 731) currently ex- environmental problems impacting contemporary aquatic and isting (within the last two decades of sampling) within each marine ecosystems, future researchers will inevitably rely on HUC-8. Fish trait information was accessed through the Fish- data that they did not collect. A cultural shift that includes cog- Traits database (Frimpong and Angermeier 2009). nizance of how open-access data systems should be ethically used, supported, and expanded must ensue. For the sake of brevity, we focused on only two traits: potadromy/anadromy and nest-guarding spawning behavior. Full Participation Potadromous and anadromous fish are species that migrate entirely within freshwater or migrate from saltwater, respectively, As researchers, we should recognize that the data we to complete their life history requirements (Moyle and Cech generate might prove valuable well beyond their originally 2004). Nest-guarding fishes construct a cavity or pit in which intended use. The ability to share data has grown along with eggs are laid, fertilized, and guarded until embryos hatch or the expanding scope and number of open-access networks. larval stages are reached (Balon 1975). Because trait informa- Several resources mentioned in the preceding section (such as tion for all species was incomplete due to insufficient biological Dryad and the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database) offer

420 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org Figure 1. Distribution of fish sampling locations provided in USGS BioData and Multistate Aquatic Resources Information System (MARIS) open-access databases.

opportunities to upload data. Others, such as MARIS, offer a lo- not owned by the immediate authors, and data not supported gistic framework for posting state agency–generated databases. by publication or documentation. However, for the most part, Although many fisheries professionals remain understandably anxiety about data sharing should be allayed based on various wary, the practice of data sharing should gain traction within reasons and awareness of incentives. Concerns that others may our society. Most important, additional data improve the scope benefit from data at the personal expense of those who collected and inference capability of nearly all scientific endeavors and it can be easily preempted by retaining raw data from open-ac- thus represent a substantial, fundamental value for the entire cess sources until all planned publications have been accepted community. Yet despite the benefits of data sharing and avenues or by placing data in repositories requiring appropriate permis- to help do so, an estimated 99% of ecological data remains in- sion (Reichman et al. 2011). Institutions such as the National accessible after publication (Reichman et al. 2011). Obviously, Science Foundation now expect greater data transparency as a there are many cases in which data cannot or should not be condition for awarding grants and an increasing number of high shared, as in the case of sensitive information, ancillary data impact publications (i.e., Nature and PLoS Biology) encourage

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 421 or require data sharing as a condition of manuscript acceptance. Finally, open-access data can facilitate novel means of professional dialog, such as online forums to debate findings. Such cultural evolution has been successfully implemented by several journals in the Public Library of Science (PLoS; plos.org) system.

Proper Citation, Acknowledgment, and Use

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

Ensuring data quality and accuracy rep- Figure 2. Example of the utility and opportunity provided by open-access data. Maps of fish resents a major challenge associated with all trait (potadromy/anadromy and nest guarding) frequencies in watersheds across the United open-access resources. Even if an investigator States were created using NatureServe fish distributions (NatureServe 2004), FishTraits downloads the highest quality data possible, (Frimpong and Angermeier 2009), and FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2012). methodological misunderstandings could easily lead to spurious conclusions if the data were not suitable to provide high-quality and standardized metadata, defined as to address a particular question. One hypothetical example of complementary information that describes all aspects of the data misuse could involve the MARIS data set (see Table 1). data at hand. Metadata has received extensive attention in the Though much of the data in the MARIS system are derived ecological sciences literature and a common structure has been from agency sampling efforts for entire fish assemblages, many standardized by the Ecological Society of America: ecological data sets within the system targeted select species, such as sur- metadata language (Fegraus et al. 2005). We will not delve into veys for a sport fish of interest. Catches of nontarget species the metadata issue except to state that fisheries science should collected during such surveys can be reported in the data, even adopt similar standardized practices and incorporate the con- if the equipment and methodology used were not ideal for the cept into educational programs. Every student graduating from nontarget species. An investigator interested in modeling the a fisheries science program, either undergraduate or graduate, abundance or distribution of the hypothetical nontarget species should be capable of understanding and applying metadata would need to carefully consider whether or not to include such from commonly accessed data resources and also know how to data. Analogous situations could be construed from any of the document and structure data to make sure that it is used as it is databases listed in Table 1. intended in the future.

Although it is the responsibility of investigators to un- As a society, AFS would benefit from a greater awareness derstand the limitations of the data and apply it appropriately, of deep ethical issues associated with proper data dissemina- the most commonly cited means to address the challenge is tion and use. Many fisheries scientists may never receive

422 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org personal acknowledgment for the data they helped generate. resources including federal and state programs, universities, Though many such individuals are paid from publicly derived and publications (Table 1). Frequent use of the same underlying funds (i.e., taxes), the majority of fisheries researchers, direct- resource may increase scientific rigor by standardizing method- ly or indirectly, also receive funding supported by the public. ology across many different investigations. However, common Many scientists possess and work with sensitive information resources may also result in considerable overlap in scientific (e.g., personally identifiable information) or data protected un- queries, increased competition among individuals and teams, der copyrights, which if shared would constitute a breach of and decreased likelihood of ethical give-and-take in a future security or ethical violation within their respective organiza- open-access society. Duplication in scientific efforts occurs not tions. Though many fisheries scientists are not placed in these only by utilizing the same resources but also in the race to create difficult situations, the majority of fisheries professionals will them. To our knowledge, at least three independent concurrent likely face decisions regarding whether or not to share or accept efforts were executed to link the National Inventory of Dams data or when to extend coauthorship to data generators. Institu- with the National Hydrography Dataset Plus version 1 (Martin tions or sponsors demanding open-access policies and 100% and Apse 2011; Hadjerioua et al. 2012; Ostroff et al. 2013). The transparency in methods may require all raw data, including technical and financial resources invested for each effort would ancillary information, to be open access. Though the dissemina- have likely benefited from shared resources or at least shared tion of final data products is typically encouraged, it is ethically knowledge. Though some duplication of effort is unavoidable problematic to pass along ancillary data owned by others, even due to research deadlines, disparate disciplines, or unwilling- if those data sets are open access. As another example, some ness to share recognition among multiple entities, open lines scientists do not consider sharing unpublished data as grounds of communication within and among members of our society for coauthorship; however, each scientist has a personal respon- are needed. Ultimately, such dialog will increase collaboration, sibility to consider whether those who have shared data have data creation efficiency, and more useful products that advance also contributed to the publication by sharing ideas, such as our science. methods for utilizing the data. Shifting Patterns of Professional Experience Resources for Databases Analyzing data without setting foot in the field carries nu- Open-access databases require financial and personnel merous potential consequences for fisheries scientists. Many support, a point often underappreciated by the communities of us entered fisheries driven by a fascination with aquatic that depend on them (Allen et al. 2006). To offer accessibil- environments resulting from experience outdoors. Given the ity, databases must establish cyber-infrastructural capabilities attractiveness of database management in terms of funding and host the system on a proficient server. Ensuring data qual- support and advantages of data sharing for collaboration, we ity requires some degree of direct review, systematic digital question how field-based studies and outreach in fisheries will checks, and creation of metadata, all of which involve dedica- be valued in the future. Publishing case studies is becoming tion of time from personnel (Kolb et al. 2013). Additionally, increasingly difficult despite the value of publishing all find- databases housing sensitive information, such as data related ings (Clapham 2005). We foresee the possibility of diminishing to endangered species or highly valuable exploited commercial incentives for field collections accompanied by heavier burdens stocks, must be adequately protected from malicious intent. As on those who continue field activities. If our profession con- databases proliferate in number and size, the need for commit- tinues to largely shift away from fieldwork toward time spent ted resources will grow (Allen et al. 2006). Key major funding in front of computers, will our profession remain attractive or agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), have even available to new scientists? In addition, as analyses har- begun to offer programs to fund database creation and upkeep. nessing open-access information continue to grow in scope and Additionally, several nonprofit initiatives, including the Global spatial scale, cognitive awareness and familiarity with local Earth Observation System of Systems (earthobservations.org) systems could potentially decline. Thus, we question whether and the Data Conservancy (dataconservancy.org) are designed the accumulation of information will be applicable to manage- to aid in the organization, integration, and distribution of com- ment at smaller scales. Will we be required to mandate field plex environmental databases. However, to effectively sustain components in theses or dissertations? open-access databases, our scientific community as a culture must fully recognize their value and need for resources to main- Promulgating data sharing also increases the potential for tain them (Lynch 2008). cross-disciplinary research, which is increasingly regarded as critical to address contemporary environmental challenges Duplication of Effort (Pennington et al. 2013). Perhaps because many ecological problems involve multiple physical and biological processes By providing common shared resources, open-access operating at widely varying scales that require diverse exper- data have the potential to eliminate unnecessary duplication in tise, interdisciplinary studies have often proven more impactful compiling and curating information. As one example, the Core (Porter et al. 2012). Specifically to fisheries, high-quality hy- Science Analytics and Synthesis program of the USGS devel- drologic, oceanographic, and atmospheric data will allow oped Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation, a repository scientists to investigate problems with resources they would synthesizing biological occurrence data from a multitude of never be capable of collecting within their own labs. Yet many

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 423 career assessment metrics within ecological and fisheries sci- data when publishing using such resources. The Electronic ence rely on the evidence of scientific productivity solely within Services Advisory Board (ESAB) of AFS has been actively ad- our discipline. For instance, interdisciplinary efforts may lead dressing these problems for over a decade and is well poised to to reduced citation rates for researchers within the biological advocate for the advancement of such concepts. Any number of sciences (Larivière and Gringras 2010), which may represent other actions could be employed by the larger society to further a problem for career advancement in some areas of the fisher- data access and transparency, such as conference workshops, ies profession, particularly academia. A full discussion on how educational initiatives, and amendments to societal missions. to correct this cultural problem would be beyond the scope of Whatever actions, if any, are taken, our science will continue to our commentary. But the role of open-access databases on the evolve toward an open-access data society and our community growth of interdisciplinary science represents another reason must adapt as well as it can. why the field of fisheries must proactively adapt. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Changing Climate of Scientific Publishing We thank P. Ruhl, J. Kennan, S. Hetrick, M. Davis, M. For an increasing proportion of scientists, participation in Bevelhimer, A. Loftus, S. Bonar, P. Neubauer, P Goldstein, open-access data provision is not optional but mandatory. In D. Okamoto, J. Parham, D. Wieferich, D. Hendrickson, E. February 2013, the executive branch of the U.S. federal gov- Frimpong, and J. Read for presenting their development and ernment released a memorandum requiring federal agencies research on open-access databases at the 2012 Annual Ameri- with greater than US$100 million in research and develop- can Fisheries Society Meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota. We thank ment to provide public access to publications and published Glen Cada, Jeff Schaeffer, and five anonymous reviewers for data generated by federally funded research (Holdren 2013). providing helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. Entirely open-access journals have experienced rapid growth, The authors contributed equally to this effort. and articles from these publications now comprise up to 12% of scientific work published annually (Laakso and Björk 2012). FUNDING Many researchers favor open-access journals because of the accessibility. However, the debate over open-access journal This research was sponsored by the United States De- policies remains equivocal. Widely varying publishing fees partment of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and cause many to question not only editorial quality of open-ac- Renewable Energy, Wind and Water Power Technologies Pro- cess publications but also the existence of academic publishing gram. This article has been authored by an employee of Oak in general (Van Noorden 2013). Other potential problems in- Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT Battelle, LLC, un- clude the increasing fragmentation of information sources and der contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department the changing role or decreased justification of academic librar- of Energy. R. Utz is supported by National Science Foundation ies (Monastersky 2013). cooperative agreement #EF1138160.

CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

Open-access databases will increasingly influence all Allen, S., D. Beard, W. Fisher, L. Hartsell, A. Iles, F. Janssen, A. Loftus, M. McGuire, D. Miller, A. Ostroff, S. Shipman, S.-M. Stedman, and J. Waldon. 2006. Proceedings of scientific disciplines in the coming decades, including fisher- the National Fisheries Data Summit. Focusing on applications to the National Fish ies science. In the face of such cultural evolution, expanding Habitat Initiative. Report from the Computer User Section of the American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Available: www.fishdata.org/content/reports. (Novem- the lines of communication addressing the creation, participa- ber 2013). tion, education, use, and maintenance of shared data resources Austen, D., D. Beard, H. Drewes, P. Haverland, D. Johnston, A. Loftus, D. Miller, S. So- baski, J. Waldon, and L. Borge-Willis. 1998. Proceedings of the National Freshwater among fisheries scientists is essential for our society to adapt Fisheries Database Summit. Report from the Computer User Section of the American accordingly. To ensure that our subdiscipline evolves in pace, Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Available: www.fishdata.org/content/reports. we contend that the American Fisheries Society should take (November 2013). Balon, E. K. 1975. Reproductive guilds in fishes: a proposal and definition. Journal of the actions to encourage the evolution of an informed and data- Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:821–864. transparent scientific community. The society could actively Beard, T. D., D. Austen, S. J. Brady, M. E. Costello, H. G. Drewes, C. H. Young-Dubovsky, C. H. Flather, T. W. Gengerke, C. Larson, A. J. Loftus, and M. J. Mac. 1998. The help realize this goal through several pathways. Open-access Multi-state Aquatic Resources Information System: an Internet system to access fish- databases could be hosted by the society website, or at the very eries information in the upper Midwestern United States. Fisheries 23(5):14–18. Clapham, P. 2005. Publish or perish. Bioscience 55:390–391. least dedicated web space could be provided to help scientists Costello, C., D. Ovando, R. Hilborn, S. D. Gaines, O. Deschenes, and S. E. Lester. 2012. locate data (i.e., an active, web-based version of Table 1). Soci- Status and solutions for the world’s unassessed fisheries. Science 338:517–520. ety journals could, and we argue that they should, (1) begin to Crone, T. J., and M. Tolstoy. 2010. Magnitude of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil leak. Sci- ence 330:634. offer the data used to generate articles if authors agree to have Cukier, K. 2010. Data, data everywhere. The Economist. Available: www.economist.com/ them posted; (2) strongly encourage or require data posting node/15557443?story_id=15557443. (February 2010). Fegraus, E. H., S. Andelman, M. B. Jones, and M. Schildhauer. 2005. Maximizing the value with accompanying metadata, similar to the PLoS ONE sys- of ecological data with structured metadata: an introduction to ecological metadata tem; (3) require explicit instructions on how to acquire replicate language (EML) and principles for metadata creation. Bulletin of the Ecological So- ciety of America 86:158–168. data sets when articles assess open-access data; and (4) require Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2011. FishStat Plus—universal authors to demonstrate steps made toward ensuring that they software for fishery statistical time series. Available: www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/ understand the structure of and have properly used open-access en. (March 2013).

424 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org Fox, P., and J. Hendler. 2011. Changing the equation on scientific data visualization. Sci- NatureServe. 2004. Downloadable animal datasets. NatureServe Central Databases. Avail- ence 331:705–708. able: www.natureserve.org/getData/dataSets/watershedHucs/index.jsp. (November Frimpong, E. A., and P. L. Angermeier. 2009. Fish Traits: a database of ecological and life 2011). history traits of freshwater fishes of the United States. Fisheries 34:487–495. Nelson, S. 2008. Big data: the Harvard computers. Nature 455:36–37. ———. 2010. Trait based approaches in the analysis of stream fish communities. Pages Olascoaga, M. J., and G. Haller. 2012. Forecasting sudden changes in environmental pol- 109–136 in K. B. Gido and D. A. Jackson, editors. Community ecology of stream lution patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:4738–4743. fishes: concepts, approaches, and techniques. American Fisheries Society, Symposium Olden, J. D., and M. J. Kennard. 2010. Intercontinental comparison of fish life history strat- 73, Bethesda, Maryland. egies along a gradient of hydrologic variability. Pages 109–136 in K. B. Gido and D. Froese, R., and D. Pauly, editors. 2012. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. A. Jackson, editors. Community ecology of stream fishes: concepts, approaches, and Available: www.fishbase.org. (February 2013). techniques. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 73, Bethesda, Maryland. Geoghegan, P. 1996. The management of quality control and quality assurance systems in Ostroff, A., D. Wieferich, A. Cooper, and D. Infante. 2013. 2012 National Anthropogenic fisheries science. Fisheries 21(8):14–18. Barrier Dataset (NABD). USGS Science Base Catalog. Available: www.sciencebase. Hadjerioua, B., Y. Wei, and S.-C. Kao. 2012. An assessment of energy potential at non- gov/catalog/item/512cf142e4b0855fde669828. (January 2014). powered dams in the United States. Department of Energy, GPO DOE/EE-0711, Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission. 1980. 33rd Annual report of the Pacific Marine Fish- Washington, D.C. Available: http://nhaap.ornl.gov/system/files/NHAAP_NPD_ eries Commission for the year 1980. Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, Portland, FY11_Final_Report.pdf. (January 2014). Oregon. Available: www.psmfc.org/resources/publications-maps-2/psmfc-annual- Hamm, D. E. 2012. Development and evaluation of a data dictionary to standardize salmo- reports. (November 2013). nid habitat assessments in the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 37:6–18. Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome in fisheries. Trends in Ecol- Holdren, J. 2013. Increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research. ogy and Evolution 10:430. Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Office of Sci- Pennington, D. D., G. L. Simpson, M. S. McConnell, J. M. Fair, and R. J. Baker. 2013. ence and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. Transdisciplinary research, transformative learning, and transformative science. Bio- Available: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_ac- science 63:564–573. cess_memo_2013.pdf. (August 2013). Porter, A. L., J. Garner, and T. Crowl. 2012. Research coordination networks: evidence of Kolb, T. L., E. A. Blukacz-Richards, A. M. Muir, R. M. Claramunt, M. A. Koops, W. W. the relationship between funded interdisciplinary networking and scholarly impact. Taylor, T. M. Sutton, M. T. Arts, and E. Bissel. 2013. How to manage data to enhance Bioscience 62:282–288. their potential for synthesis, preservation, sharing, and reuse—a Great Lakes case Reichman, O. J., M. B. Jones, and M. P. Schildhauer. 2011. Challenges and opportunities study. Fisheries 38:52–64. of open data in ecology. Science 331:703–705. Laakso, M., and B.-C. Björk. 2012. Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longi- Ricard, D., C. Minto, O. Jensen, and J. Baum. 2012. Examining the knowledge base and tudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine 10:1–9. status of commercially exploited marine species with the RAM Legacy Stock Assess- Lariviere, V., and Y. Gingras. 2010. On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and ment Database. Fish and Fisheries 13:380–398. scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Tech- Sea Around Us Project. 2013. Sea Around Us Project. Fisheries, Ecosystems and Biodiver- nology 61:126–131. sity. Available: www.seaaroundus.org/. (March 2013). Larsen, P. O., and M. von Ins. 2010. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the Seeb, L. W., A. Antonovich, M. A. Banks, T. D. Beacham, M. R. Bellinger, S. M. Blaken- decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 84:575–603. ship, M. R. Campbell, N. A. Decovich, J. C. Garza, C. M. Guthrie, T. A. Lundrigan, P. Loftus, A. J., and C. H. Flather. 2012. Fish and other aquatic resource trends in the United Moran, S. R. Narum, J. J. Stephenson, K. J. Supernault, D. J. Teel, W. D. Templin, J. States: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. K. Wenburg, S. F. Young, and C. T. Smith. 2007. Development of a standardized DNA U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, database for Chinook Salmon. Fisheries 32:540–552. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-283, Fort Collins, Colorado. Silver, S. 2003. A new slant on data access. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Luo, Y., K. Ogle, C. Tucker, S. Fei, C. Gao, S. Ladeau, J. S. Clark, and D. S. Schimel. 2011. 1:343. Ecological forecasting and data assimilation in a data-rich era. Ecological Applications Tenopir, C., S. Allard, K. Douglas, A. U. Aydinoglu, L. Wu, E. Read, M. Manoff, and M. 25:1429–1442. Frame. 2011. Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE 6:1–21. Lynch, C. 2008. How do your data grow? Nature 455:28–29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Ecoregions of North America. Available: Martin, E. H., and C. D. Apse. 2011. Northeast aquatic connectivity: an assessment of dams www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm. (January 2013). on Northeastern Rivers. The Nature Conservancy, Brunswick, ME. Available: http:// USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. BioData—aquatic bioassessment data for the na- static.rcngrants.org/sites/default/files/final_reports/NEAquaticConnectivity_Report. tion. Available: https://aquatic.biodata.usgs.gov/landing.action. (January 2013). pdf. (January 2014). Van Noorden, R. 2013. Open-access: the true cost of scientific publishing. Nature 495:426– Mims, M. C., J. D. Olden, Z. R. Shattuck, and N. L. Poff. 2010. Life history trait diversity 429. of native freshwater fishes in North America. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19:390–400. Wang, L., D. Infante, P. Esselman, A. Cooper, D. Wu, W. Taylor, D. Beard, G. Whelan, and Monastersky, R. 2013. Publishing frontiers: the library reboot. Nature 495:430–432. A. Ostroff. 2011. A hierarchical spatial framework and database for the National River Moyle, P. B., and J. J. Cech. 2004. Fishes. An introduction to ichthyology, 5th ed. Prentice Fish Habitat Condition Assessment. Fisheries 36:436–449. Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Worm, B., E. B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J. E. Duffy, C. Folke, B. S. Halpern, J. B. C. Jack- Multi-resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2013. National Land Cover Database. son, H. K. Lotze, F. Micheli, S. R. Palumbi, E. Sala, K. A. Selkoe, J. J. Stachowicz, Available: www.mrlc.gov/. (January 2013). and R. Watson. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Sci- Murawski, S., R. Methot, and G. Tromble. 2007. Biodiversity loss in the ocean: how bad ence 314:787–790. is it? Science 316:1281–1284.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 425 FRESHWATER, FISH, AND THE FUTURE

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

The global conference “Freshwater, Fish, and the Future” convening at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Orga- nization of the United Nations (FAO) in Rome in January 2015 includes four main themes: Biological Assessment, Economic and Social Assessment, Drivers and Synergies, and Policy and Governance. Each theme will conclude with a Future of Fisher- adaptive management, enhanced environmental justice, and ies discussion forecasting various scenarios, along with recom- enforceable regulations for more sustainable management of mendations for achieving the conference vision of a sustainable inland fisheries. The goal of this theme is to understand the fisheries future. This month’s column describes Theme 4. opportunities and constraints to cross-sectoral and cross-juris- dictional governance approaches and to develop methods to THEME 4: POLICY AND GOVERNANCE assure that governance decisions take into account the contribution inland fisheries make to food security, human well-being, The Policy and Governance panel chair is Devin Bartley and ecosystem productivity at the local, regional, national, and from FAO. Bill Taylor from Michigan State University and global levels. Nancy Leonard from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council are acting as panel facilitators. REGISTRATION NOW OPEN

How do we ensure that inland fisheries are fully integrated Registration is now open for the Global Conference on In- into decision frameworks? Though local-scale governance is land Fisheries. Some travel support for students and presenters largely responsible for management of production and harvest from developing countries may be available; see the website for of fish from inland systems, fisheries and other freshwater re- more information and updates. The proceedings will be copub- sources beyond local jurisdictions are governed by large-scale lished by AFS and FAO, and the conference is being organized decision-making structures and processes that may be inappro- by Michigan State University and FAO. priate or inadequate to address these resources. Policy may not be informed by science developed to understand inland fisheries Keep up with all of the conference news on Facebook (www. systems or policy makers may have other important priorities. facebook.com/inlandfisheries), LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/ Development of new approaches, including “footprints” or groups/Global-Inland-Fisheries-Conference-7402542), and “equivalents,” that link inland fisheries science directly with the Twitter (@inlandfisheries). needs of policy indicators will assist strategic decision making,

Photo credit: Antony Grossy.

426 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org AFS ANNUAL MEETING 2015

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

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

Start planning a trip to Portland from 16 to 20 August 2015 for CONTRIBUTED PAPERS AND POSTERS the 145th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, cohosted • Those who wish to present in Contributed Papers or Poster by the Society, the Western Division, and the Oregon Chapter in down- sessions at the 2015 AFS meeting are required to submit abstracts town Portland at the convention center. The Program Committee has by 13 February 2015. This includes Student Presentations. decided to go “theme-less” for the 2015 meeting, in hopes of encourag- • Confirmation of acceptance or refusal of abstracts will be ing a more diverse submission pool of symposia, contributed papers, communicated by 17 April 2015. (Student presentations will be and posters, with an aim to gather proposals covering multidisciplinary considered for a “best presentation” award if the student fills out and interdisciplinary topics—including aquatic resources—as well as additional application paperwork available at www.fisheries those interesting our international and regional audiences. society.org/education/BSP.htm.) SYMPOSIA FOR MORE INFORMATION: VISIT: FISHERIES.ORG > • Proposals for Symposia must be submitted by 16 January 2015. • The list of accepted Symposia proposals will be posted on 13 Feb- ANNOUNCEMENTS ruary 2015. AFS does not waive registration fees for presenters at symposia • If accepted, organizers must submit a complete list of confirmed or contributed papers sessions or workshops. Registration forms will presentations and titles by 6 March 2015. be available on the AFS website (http://fisheries.org/meetings) in May • Abstracts for Symposium oral presentations must be submitted 2015; register early for cost savings. by 13 March 2015.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 427 PROGRAM COMMITTEE CONTACTS Program Cochairs: Jim Bowker U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program Tel. 406-994-9910 E-mail: [email protected] Nancy Leonard Northwest Power and Conservation Council Tel. 503-222-5161 E-mail: [email protected]

Contributed Papers Subcommittee Chair: Peter Galbreath Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission Tel. 503-731-1250 E-mail: [email protected]

Symposia Subcommittee Chair: Craig Busack NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Tel. 503-230-5412 E-mail: [email protected]

Posters Subcommittee Chair: Tom Friesen Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis Research Lab Mt Hood. Tel. 541-757-4263 Photo credit: Travel Portland. E-mail: [email protected]

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

428 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org INTERVIEW Q&A: Book Editors Future of Fisheries: Perspectives for Emerging Professionals. William W. Taylor, Abigail J. Lynch, and Nancy J. Léonard 506 pages, paper. List price: $60.00. AFS Member price: $42.00. Published July 2014.

Learn the “what I know now that I wish I knew then!” les- like Rachel Carson, sons now rather than later! David Starr Jordan, Spencer Baird, and This book contains more than 70 short mentoring vignettes Theodore Roosevelt. on past experiences and visions for the future, authored by many • Creative nonfiction notable mentors from the fisheries field. The volume is intended popularized books to inspire and empower the next generation of fisheries profes- such as Beautiful sionals with advice from seasoned professionals by providing Swimmers and Distant personal “lessons learned” and insights from the topics that Waters by William most influenced their illustrious careers while also addressing Warner; Song for the the most urgent issues on the horizon for fisheries. We talked to Blue Ocean: Encoun- William W. Taylor about the book and how it developed. ters along the World’s Coasts and Beneath Why did you decide to write this book? the Seas by Carl Safina; and The Founding Fish by John Key to my professional success has been having a good McPhee. community of mentors who supported me in the things I could not do by myself, was scared to do by myself, or did not even What needed fisheries books do you feel haven’t know existed. With this book, I wanted to empower the next been written yet? generation of fisheries professionals as my mentors empowered Books need to be written about the role of fisheries in re- me. The American Fisheries Society has been crucial in my life, gard to human well-being. If society cannot look at water and both for knowledge enhancement and leadership development, see fish, then we have not made our point that fish are impor- not to mention providing me with lifelong friends. Helping tant; right now, they look at water and do rarely see or value the others get access to this extensive network and community of fish within. As such, choices that ultimately effect fish diversity mentors could provide information for a much broader range of and productivity are impacted by society using the water and future professionals than I, alone, could accomplish. This book the lands in ways that often reduce fisheries. is a way to have a collective record of the AFS wisdom that can be shared. Also, I think there could more books written on the role of technology, the magnitude and importance of our fisheries sup- What will the reader learn from this book? ply chain and business principles, and the role of the policies There are 73 mentoring vignettes—each one will enlighten and legal enforcement in fisheries and fisheries sustainability. and empower readers and show them that many things are possible, given a supportive mentoring network. The book shows What’s next on your plate? readers what others have been through and offers ways for them I am chairing the Global Conference on Inland Fisheries to be better prepared for the challenges they will face in life and (26–30 January 2015; FAO Headquarters; Rome, Italy). This is the profession. a groundbreaking conference that will, for the first time, address the challenges and opportunities for freshwater fisheries on a What other fisheries book has inspired you in global scale. Never before have scientists, policy makers, and your career and why? the international development community gathered together to Those of us in the fisheries and science fields read a variety discuss the food security, economic, and ecological issues as- of books and journal articles. Seminal literature for me can be sociated with inland fisheries around the world. Inland fisheries divided into the following broad categories: are critical food resources, especially in much of the developing world, yet agricultural, water management, and investment • Technical books: The Handbook of Computation for Biolog- policies are often at odds with maintaining their long-term sus- ical Statistics of Fish Populations by William (Bill) Ricker; tainability. A lack of reliable data and a local, rather than global, International Biological Programme (IBP) books on fish approach to inland fisheries issues has hampered international production and secondary production; The Biological Pro- monitoring and conservation programs. This conference seeks ductivity of Waters by Viktor Sergeevich Ivlev, translated by to tackle these issues head on. Bill Ricker; Feeding Ecology of Fish by Shelby D. Gerking; and Information Theory in Ecology by Ramon Margalef. For more information on how to join in William W. Taylor’s • Biographies: Biographies of famous scientists and statesmen efforts, please visit: http://inlandfisheries.org.

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 429 MEET THE STAFF Denise Spencer

This July 2014 insisted that Spencer see something in the area other than the marked four years since hotel lobby. She was grateful for the adventurous detour they the Society welcomed took to a place called the Old Grist Mill (featured in Gone with aboard Office Adminis- the Wind) on their way back from purchasing conference ma- tration Manager Denise terials. Spencer’s efforts are rewarded by these kind gestures Spencer. Her influence from AFS members. at AFS extends far be- “It’s not so much what I do for the members, it’s more so yond her job title. what the members do for me,” Spencer said. “I help make things For Spencer, five years down the road for the Society run smoothly, assuring means enhanced global awareness of AFS and all it has to of- everybody is doing what fer, an expected increase in terms of membership (especially they’re supposed to and from youth and minorities), as well as more involvement and that they’re responsive to the needs and questions of member- attendance at Annual Meetings. Under the new leadership of ship,” Spencer said. “If there are any issues, I’m the person that Austen, Spencer is optimistic for the future of AFS and what people come to and we figure out what to do.” her contributions will bring. Spencer is not only in charge of human resources and over- “Everything is a team effort with Doug,” Spencer said. seeing accounting and IT; she also manages meeting planning “Each section of the staff is involved with all the details and with Administrative Coordinator Shawn Johnston, handles is- enjoys working in such an open atmosphere.” sues involving office facilities, and engages with the Hutton The Society under Austen’s direction is focused on in- Junior Fisheries Biology Program and other continuing educa- creased communication between the AFS office and our tion programs. members. Spencer focuses her efforts at the Society with a sim- “From ensuring that we have ink cartridges for our print- ilar goal-set: To give members more reasons to stay members. ers, to working with other building tenants on a project to “I aim to increase AFS’ responsiveness, the connections replace the roof, Denise carries the responsibility of ensuring from the home office to the membership, as well as bring that our office is working smoothly,” Executive Director Doug continuing education and distance learning to our members,” Austen said. Spencer said. Initially hired as an intern, Jasmine Sewell, who now works Spencer’s efforts are recognized and admired throughout full time as the AFS Units Coordinator, said the staff seems to the AFS office, as she is one of the main gears that helps keep be much closer since Denise joined the team. “She’s extremely the Society operating efficiently. helpful and knows how to do everything, whom to contact and exactly when to have things done. Denise is amazing with time management,” Sewell said. Speaking of time management, Spencer has been married Support Stories for 40 years, is a mother of two sons, and is also a grandmother. Her hobbies include sailing, bird watching, horseback riding, Last year, the Governing Board asked me to take the notes and anything to do with wildlife. Spencer’s love of nature ex- for the Annual Meeting that are used to create their board tends into the woods where she likes to go camping. Every books every year. It’s a big responsibility and a lot of pres- October, her family plans a trip to Yogi Bear’s Jellystone Park in Hagerstown, Maryland, during Halloween, because the town sure. I had to sit in front, at a huge table with around 50 is known for their month-long spooky festivities. Spencer’s people and write down everything anyone said. As I typed campground decorating skills extend into the office, where she on the computer, whatever I wrote appeared on a screen brings the holiday spirit to her coworkers as well. behind me so everyone could see what I was writing. De- “One of the greatest things about Denise is her talent at planning and decorating for events such as our annual AFS nise put numbers on everyone’s place cards at the table holiday open house. [She] brings in boxes of decorations and so I knew who was speaking. This helped me out a lot turns our office into a little holiday wonderland,” Austen said. because, at that time, I didn’t know who everyone was! “Denise’s touch with these events helps to make AFS a wonder- It was very intimidating to have so many people in one ful place to work.” Spencer serves as one of the backbones of the Society, room, speaking fast and staring at the screen to see if what bringing life and cohesion into the office, all while lending her I wrote was correct. She even sat with me for part of the utmost dedication to each staff member. During Annual Meet- meeting so I’d be more comfortable. ings, Spencer rarely leaves the hotel because she is always circulating from one event to the next, making sure that everything is running as planned. During the 2013 Annual Meeting —Jasmine Sewell, Units Coordinator in Little Rock, Arkansas, AFS Past President Don Jackson

430 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org Denise Spencer Continued from page 394 (Policy)

the offshore liquefied natural gas facilities in the United States able. With our unparalleled skills related to fish, we can help are now closed loop and wouldn’t require up to hundreds of to set limits for water removals and fish kills, design monitor- millions of gallons of water for cooling each day. The Gulf ing protocols, evaluate success, and recommend other changes. Landing process and the industry’s shift to closed-loop designs You, with your local facilities and AFS as a society, could help offer insights into how manufacturing and power facilities can to design facility and cumulative caps to control aquatic im- be engineered to avoid entraining and impinging billions of or- pacts that have huge economic and ecological implications. ganisms daily. The courts have decreed. Plaintiffs accepted. Regulators Our opportunity flows from the EPA’s final regulations, have acted. Eyes are now focused back on the fish. This is a which require the application of “best technology available” good time for AFS to engage. Your ideas will help as we con- (USEPA 2014b, p. 117). That concept was described in CWA sider our options. Perhaps some of you work in this arena and section 101: “to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, could help to guide our Society. Your input will help us chart and biological integrity of the nation’s waters,” with the interim our course on behalf of those billions of eggs, larvae, and juve- goal of “water quality which provides for the protection and nile and adult fish that are killed each day. propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water.” Via President Obama’s Executive REFERENCES Order 13563 on improving regulatory efficiency (Presidential Documents 2011), all agencies are also required to pursue their Presidential Documents. 2011. Improving regulation and regulatory review. Federal Regis- ter 76(14):3821–3823. Available: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011- mandates with the most innovative and least burdensome tools 1385.pdf. (July 2014). available. Although not required by the legislative or executive U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration. 2014. Deepwater Port Licens- ing Program. Available: www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_page/deepwater_port_ branches, the challenge cascades to fisheries scientists, regula- licensing/dwp_current_ports/dwp_current_ports.htm, Gulf Landing tab. (July 2014). tors, and everyone in between. As an example, we would be USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014a. Cooling water intakes. Available: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/. (July 2014). a logical messenger for an ecosystem approach to conserving ———. 2014b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—final regulations to es- our nation’s waters. AFS as a society and its members are in a tablish requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities and amend perfect situation to add scientific depth to best technology avail- requirements at phase I facilities. 40 CFR Parts 122–125. Available: http://water.epa. gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/upload/316b-prepub-preamble.pdf. (July 2014).

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 431 COLUMN Letter from the Executive Fisheries Inside the Beltway Director Doug Austen, AFS Executive Director

Federal agen- insight into a possible career, Hutton engages students in the cies and their staff critical STEM activities (science, technology, engineering, and make up a substantial math) through working for 8 weeks during the summer with a share of AFS mem- host fisheries professional. It is an area that the federal agen- bership, averaging cies define as part of their core mission (four agencies currently about 20% in past contribute to the Hutton Program) and is also an AFS area of membership sur- strategic importance. We both benefit and, happily, it is an area veys. The only group where there is tremendous growth potential. of members more numerous than feds The AFS Annual Meeting is the most preeminent forum for are state biologists fisheries science offered anywhere. Reflecting this, many feder- and administrators, al agencies support the Annual Meeting and in many cases their AFS Executive Director Doug Austen can with their numbers staff are actively engaging in meeting organization, developing be contacted at: [email protected] running at slightly symposia, or contributing papers. The next possible step is to less than 30% in re- better involve federal fisheries leadership in proactively devel- cent years. Reflecting this membership population, it’s fair to oping focused sessions on key topics that will clarify or better say that AFS has been a critical partner for federal agency fish- define the state of knowledge on these issues. This could be at eries programs. That involvement has declined in recent years our Annual Meetings or through smaller, specific workshops on but it still is important and, with some additional attention, could such topics. We also don’t take advantage of the forum of the be an area of strength and value for the Society and the fed- Annual Meeting to convene panels of these fisheries leaders to eral partners. The math on this is pretty simple. Because of our discuss and provide insights on science and management needs Washington-area office location, the geography nearly demands and expose them to the value of these events for the profes- that we be engaged in federal agencies and the congressional sional development of their staff. activity that directs their work. We pay a premium for office space that provides this access to D.C., and without proportion- Taking this science and management insight to Congress ate federal agency and congressional involvement, we would has always been an activity of AFS but inconsistently provid- be far better off financially to move elsewhere. More important, ed and often without regard to the rhythms of Congress. Our AFS, like no other fisheries-focused organization, brings to the federal partners value this role and are encouraging AFS to ex- table a unique degree of science integrity, street credibility, and pand this activity area. By reengaging federal partners as well access to science, management, and administration that can as building more active dialogue with congressional staff, our help to solve important fisheries conservation problems, clarify goal is to make congressional briefings or other activities more situations, and advance the dialogue about key fisheries issues. frequent and more valuable. As with any relationship, there exists an important balance of providing value to each partner while maintaining respect and Finally, through our independence and balance of science integrity. AFS can advance its fisheries mission through coop- and management, AFS can provide programmatic reviews that erative work with federal partners. Likewise, the federal agency give federal partners the insight into their programs or facili- gains value. However, this relationship should in no way dimin- ties that is necessary to ensure that they maintain relevance and ish the ability or impose any reservation on AFS to offer science continue to adhere to high standards of excellence. This can be criticism to federal agencies or Congress when necessary. It is through technical reviews of field stations, provision of com- clearly possible to do both in a respectful manner. ments on policy or management documents, or involvement in panels and other means of engaging in dialogue. AFS currently has cooperative agreements or grants with several federal agencies and they focus on a few key areas: the There’s much more that AFS can do, including expanded Hutton Program, Annual Meeting support, science briefings to professional development through certification, distance learn- Congress, and technical reviews to science. We can do more ing, and continuing education programs; building awareness of with each of these and there are other potential areas of mutual unique federal facilities and programs; and supporting such ef- interest that need attention. forts such as the National Fish Habitat Plan, development of fisheries data standards, and others. What else should AFS be The Hutton Junior Fisheries Biology Program provides a doing or how can we do this better? Your input and sugges- small but important contribution in exposing high school stu- tions are always welcome. Contact me at [email protected] dents to fisheries management and science and is targeted at, or contact our AFS policy director, Tom Bigford, at tbigford@ but not restricted to, minority students. More than providing fisheries.org.

432 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Low-Temperature Tolerance of Juvenile Spotted Seatrout in Volume 143, Number 4, July 2014 South Carolina. Katie V. Anweiler, Stephen A. Arnott, and Michael R. Denson. 143:999–1010.

Sexual Segregation of Spiny Sampling Little Fish in Big Rivers: Larval Fish Detection Prob- Dogfish in Fishery-Dependent abilities in Two Lake Erie Tributaries and Implications for Surveys in Cape Cod, Mas- Sampling Effort and Abundance Indices. Jeremy J. Pritt, Mark sachusetts: Potential Manage- R. DuFour, Christine M. Mayer, Edward F. Roseman, and Robin L. ment Benefits. Andrea Dell’Apa, DeBruyne. 143:1011–1027. Jennifer Cudney-Burch, David G. Kimmel, and Roger A. Rulifson. Thermal Tolerance, Survival, and Recruitment of Cyprinids 143:833–844. Exposed to Competition and Chronic Heat Stress in Experimen- tal Streams. Matthew P. Dekar, Cagney McCauley, Jesse W. Ray, and Temperature, Hatch Date, and Ryan S. King. 143:1028–1036. Prey Availability Influence Age- 0 Yellow Perch Growth and Fish Assemblages of Shoal- and Shoreline-Associated Seagrass Survival. Mark A. Kaemingk, Beds in Eastern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. Jacquelyn A. De An- Brian D. S. Graeb, and David W. gelo, Philip W. Stevens, David A. Blewett, and Theodore S. Switzer. Willis. 143:845–855. 143:1028–1036.

A Field Test of Eugenol-Based Anesthesia versus Fish Restraint in [Note] Fishway Bottleneck Relief Models: a Case Study using Migrating Adult Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. Christopher C. Radio-Tagged Pacific Lampreys. Matthew L. Keefer, Christopher C. Caudill, Michael A. Jepson, Steven R. Lee, Travis L. Dick, George P. Caudill, and Mary L. Moser. 143:1049–1060. Naughton, and Matthew L. Keefer. 143:856–863. Spatial and Temporal Variation in Otolith Chemistry of Juvenile Potential Fitness Benefits of the Half-Pounder Life History in Atlantic Menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. Jason J. Schaffler, Klamath River Steelhead. Brian W. Hodge, Margaret A. Wilzbach, Thomas J. Miller, and Cynthia M. Jones. 143:1061–1071. and Walter G. Duffy. 143:864–875. High Diet Overlap between Native Small-Bodied Fishes and Non- Stock-Specific Size of Juvenile Sockeye Salmon in British Colum- native Fathead Minnow in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, bia Waters and the Gulf of Alaska. Terry D. Beacham, Richard J. Arizona. Sarah E. Zahn Seegert, Emma J. Rosi-Marshall, Colden V. Beamish, John R. Candy, Colin Wallace, Strahan Tucker, Jamal H. Baxter, Theodore A. Kennedy, Robert O. Hall Jr., and Wyatt F. Cross. Moss, and Marc Trudel. 143:876–888. 143:1072–1083.

Critical Habitats and Stock Assessment: Age-Specific Bias in the Prevalence of External Skin Lesions and Polycyclic Aromatic Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Population Survey. Gina M. Ralph Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Gulf of Mexico Fishes, Post- and Romuald N. Lipcius. 143:889–898. Deepwater Horizon. Steven A. Murawski, William T. Hogarth, Ernst B. Peebles, and Luiz Barbeiri. 143:1084–1097. Relationship between Juvenile Fish Condition and Survival to Adulthood in Steelhead. A. F. Evans, N. J. Hostetter, K. Collis, D. D. Is Mobility a Fixed Trait? Summer Movement Patterns of Roby, and F. J. Loge. 143:899–909. Catostomids using PIT Telemetry. Michael T. Booth, Alexander S. Flecker, and Nelson G. Hairston Jr. 143:1098–1111. Size-Selective Mortality of Steelhead during Freshwater and Marine Life Stages Related to Freshwater Growth in the Skagit River, Washington. Jamie N. Thompson and David A. Beauchamp. 143:910–925.

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

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

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

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

Fine-Scale Movements and Home Ranges of Red Snapper around Artificial Reefs in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Maria N. Piraino and Stephen T. Szedlmayer. 143:988–998. Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 433 Future of Fisheries: Perspectives for Emerging Professionals William W. Taylor, Abigail J. Lynch, and Nancy J. Léonard, editors

506 pages, paper List price: $60.00 AFS Member price: $42.00 Item number: 550.73P Available July 2014 TO ORDER: Online: www.fisheries.org/shop American Fisheries Society c/o Books International P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 Phone: 703-661-1570 Fax: 703-996-1010

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

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

434 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 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 September 28– ICHE 2014 — 11th International Conference on http://iche2014.baw.de/why/index. Hamburg, Germany October 2, 2014 Hydroscience & Engineering html EMSEA — The Second European Marine Science www.emsea.eu/conference-2014-goth- October 1–3, 2014 Gothenburg, Sweden Educators Association Conference enburg WCMB-2014 — 3rd World Conference on Marine http://wcmb2014.csp.escience.cn/dct/ October 12–16, 2014 Quingdao, China Biodiversity page/1 San Sebastian, October 14–17, 2014 Aquaculture Europe 2014 www.marevent.com Spain 41st Annual Meeting of the Alaska Chapter of www.afs-alaska.org/annual-meetings/ October 20–24, 2014 Juneau, Alaska the American Fisheries Society fall-2014 National Workshop on Large Landscape www.largelandscapenetwork.org/2014- October 23–24, 2014 Washington, DC Conservation national-workshop/ October 26–30, 2014 Aquatic Resources Education Association Conference Traverse City, MI www.areanet.org/conferences.htm

October 26–31, 2014 Ocean Optics XXII Portland, ME www.tos.org/oceanopticsconference/ AAGG 2014 — 27th Meeting of the Argentine Associa- November 10–14, 2014 San Juan, Argentina www.aaggreunion2014.org tion of Geophysicists and Geodesists November 17–21, 2014 2nd International Ocean Research Conference Barcelona, Spain www.tos.org/2nd_ocean_research.pdf http://nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/Milford/ December 3–4, 2014 14th Flatfish Biology Conference Westbrook, CT flatfishbiologyworkshop.html Texas Aquaculture Association–45th Annual Confer- January 21–23, 2015 Kemah, TX www.texasaquaculture.org ence & Trade Show January 26–30, 2015 Global Conference on Inland Fisheries Rome, Italy inlandfisheries.org 2015 Annual General Meeting, WA-BC Chapter Richmond, British February 16–19, 2015 wabc-afs.org/2014/06/3530/ of AFS Columbia February 19–22, 2015 Aquaculture America 2015 New Orleans, LA www.marevent.com

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

March 4–6, 2015 2015 Idaho Chapter Annual Meeting Boise, ID www.idahoafs.org/2015AnnualMeeting/ NPAFC International Symposium on Pacific Salmon May 17–19, 2015 and Steelhead Production in a Changing Climate: Kobe, Japan www.npafc.org Past, Present, and Future

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

Groningen, June 22–24, 2015 Fish Passage 2015 www.fishpassageconference.com Netherlands July 26–31, 2015 World of Trout Bozeman, MT

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

February 22–26, 2016 Aquaculture 2016 Las Vegas, NV www.marevent.com September 19–22, OCEANS 2016 Monterey, CA www.oceanicengineering.org 2016

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

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9• September 2014 • www.fisheries.org 435 BACK PAGE

The Things We Do for Science So, one of the ways you can tell the age of many shark figured that I could always share that I was a biologist, giving species is by looking at the rings in their vertebrae. And one me carte blanche to do almost any sketchy thing imaginable. of the things that you can do to validate that the rings are laid down yearly is to inject a live fish with tetracycline. The fish IS THAT AN ANGEL SHARK HANGING incorporate the antibiotic into their bones and that nice mark is FROM YOUR PANTS OR ARE YOU JUST then visible under ultraviolet light. One time I was validating HAPPY TO SEE ME? angel sharks’ vertebral rings. I would go out with commercial gillnetters and as the angels were brought up (nice and alive), Bobby Reid, just an excellent commercial fisherman out I would point to one, give the fisherman a $5 bill, take the fish, of Santa Barbara, tells this story about an angel shark’s ability, measure it, inject it with tetracycline, put a tag in it, and re- when captured, to bend backward and bite. The story concerns a lease it, hoping that someone would catch it again so that we not-too-popular crewman: “This guy was a whiner. So one day could look at one of its vertebra and find the antibiotic mark. we were pulling angel shark nets and even though I’d told him Naturally, if I wanted to inject lots of fish I would have to bring to be careful, he made a fatal mistake. He was holding a live with me lots of $5 bills. And that is the reason why, on several shark by the tail in front of him when it bent backward and bit occasions, I found myself walking through a darkened harbor him right in the crotch, just missing his vitals.” LAKE CREEK (the boats would leave at 2 a.m.), with a satchel containing (1) syringes (for the tetracycline), (2) vials of a liquid (the tetra- Excerpt from AFS member Milton Love’s book: Certainly cycline), and (3) maybe $300 in small bills. I used to kind of More Than You Want to Know About the Fishes of the Pacific worry how this might appear to an agent of the law, but then Coast.

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

OCEAN RIVER

ATS has reliable aquatic tracking systems for every environment. Live chat with a Consultant Squatina californica. Photo credit: Kelly Bracken. now at atstrack.com. 436 Fisheries • Vol 39 No 9 • September 2014 • www.fisheries.org LAKE CREEK

OCEAN RIVER

ATS has reliable aquatic tracking systems for every environment. Live chat with a Consultant Squatina californica. Photo credit: Kelly Bracken. now at atstrack.com. Seeing Through the Noise: Detecting Acoustic Tags at Electrical Barriers Images courtesy of Dave Ouellette

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

Unfiltered Filtered Tag Detection Tag Detection

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

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

Do you need to detect fish at an electrical barrier or noisy site? A Weatlh of Experience & Technology To find out if it’s feasible, connect with HTI’s fisheries scientists at Built on the Principles of Sound (206) 633-3383 or [email protected]. www.HTIsonar.com