This article was downloaded by: [Department Of ] On: 26 July 2015, At: 21:04 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Fisheries Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20 Full Issue PDF Volume 40, Issue 5 Published online: 21 May 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: (2015) Full Issue PDF Volume 40, Issue 5, Fisheries, 40:5, 189-240, DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2015.1050759 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2015.1050759

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions FisheriesVol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015

SEE INSERT Top 10 Policy Opportunities State of the Great Lakes Charter Industry Survey of the North Carolina Charter Boat Top of the line electrofishing products and unparalleled customer service Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015

Sales Manager TAMMY LUCAS shows o her impressive catch. She recently went in the field to increase her boat electrofishing and safe fish handling knowledge. It is part of our commitment to you: our partners in fish conservation.

[email protected] | (360) 573-0202 | Vancouver, WA USA | www.smith-root.com Top of the line electrofishing products and unparalleled customer service Fisheries Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015

COLUMNS PRESIDENT'S COMMENTARY 191 Highlighting the 2014 AFS Award of Excellence Recipient—Kenneth A. Rose Donna L. Parrish

POLICY 192 Top 10 Policy Issues for AFS 198 Liz Brooks at the AFS briefing on Capitol Hill. Photo credit: AFS. Thomas E. Bigford

JOURNAL SUMMARIES 194 AFS Journals Offer Insights into Conservation of Apex Predators • Why You Need Granders in a Blue Marlin Fishery • Thinking about Muskellunge at a Lakescape Scale Jeff Schaeffer

195 Whirling Disease Is Fortunately Not a Permanent Condition Jeff Schaeffer

195 A Novel and Efficient Way to Assess Net Pen Impacts Jeff Schaeffer

195 Sadly, Lionfish Are More Widespread than We Thought Jeff Schaeffer

STUDENT ANGLE 200 A nice catch of Great Lakes salmonids from Lake Michigan. Photo 196 How to Navigate Fisheries Education and credit: Michigan Sea Grant. Employment

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Andrew K. Carlson, Karen M. Dunmall, Ross E. Boucek, Nicholas W. Cole, Janice A. Kerns, Rebecca M. Krogman, M. Clint Lloyd, Vivian M. Nguyen, Tracy R. Sales Manager TAMMY LUCAS shows Wendt, Shannon L. White, and Kyle L. Wilson o her impressive catch. She recently went in the field to increase AFS NEWS her boat electrofishing and safe fish 198 AFS Hosts Capitol Hill Briefings on Marine handling knowledge. Thomas E. Bigford It is part of our commitment to you: our partners in fish conservation.

W.B. (“Bev”) Scott photographed in 2013 during the making 240 of Recollections. Photo credit: Vanessa Minke-Martin.

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 189 [email protected] | (360) 573-0202 | Vancouver, WA USA | www.smith-root.com FEATURES 200 The Great Lakes Charter Industry: ­ 2002 to 2011 Fisheries Frank Lichtkoppler, Daniel M. O’Keefe, Joseph American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org Lucente, and Tory Gabriel

EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES 214 Factors Influencing Charter Fishing Effort 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110•Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 Trends in Lake Huron (301) 897-8616 • fax (301) 897-8096 • [email protected] Daniel M. O’Keefe, Donna L. Wesander, and The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing fisheries Chi-Ok Oh scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlight- ened management of aquatic resources for optimum use and 222 The North Carolina Charter Boat Fishery enjoyment by the public. It also encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job Changing with the Times: A Comparative training. Analysis of the Catch Composition (1978 and 2007–2008) AFS OFFICERS EDITORS Andrea Dell’Apa, Evan Knight, Anthony S. Overton, Craig E. Landry, Christopher F. PRESIDENT CHIEF SCIENCE EDITORS Donna L. Parrish Jeff Schaeffer Dumas, John C. Whitehead, and James H. Olaf P. Jensen Herstine PRESIDENT-ELECT Ron Essig SCIENCE EDITORS Kristen Anstead 234 AFS ANNUAL MEETING 2015 FIRST VICE PRESIDENT Marilyn “Guppy” Blair Continuing Education Program Joe Margraf Jim Bowker Mason Bryant 236 AFS BOOTH REGISTRATION FORM SECOND VICE PRESIDENT Steven R. Chipps Steve L. McMullin Ken Currens Andy Danylchuk JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS PAST PRESIDENT Michael R. Donaldson Bob Hughes Andrew H. Fayram 237 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Stephen Fried Volume 144, Number 2, March 2015 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Larry M. Gigliotti Doug Austen Madeleine Hall-Arbor Alf Haukenes 237 CORRECTION Jeffrey E. Hill FISHERIES STAFF Deirdre M. Kimball 238 CALENDAR Jeff Koch SENIOR EDITOR Jim Long Doug Austen Daniel McGarvey BACK PAGE Jeremy Pritt DIRECTOR OF Roar Sandodden 240 Fishy Tales from Science Communicators in PUBLICATIONS Jesse Trushenski Aaron Lerner the Pacific Northwest Usha Varanasi Natalie Sopinka Jeffrey Williams

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 MANAGING EDITOR Sarah Fox BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Francis Juanes CONTRIBUTING EDITORS ABSTRACT TRANSLATION COVER Beth Beard Pablo del Monte-Luna Sarah Harrison ARCHIVE EDITOR A happy Lake Erie Smallmouth Bass angler. Photo credit: Mohammed Hossain CONTRIBUTING WRITER Ohio Sea Grant. Natalie Sopinka

DUES AND FEES FOR 2015 ARE: Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American ­Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 $80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for regular members, $20 in © copyright 2015. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and North America ($30 elsewhere) for student members, and $40 ($50 at an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is elsewhere) for retired members. available from the editor or the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If request- ing from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription. envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple repro- duction of material in this publication is permitted only under consent or Nonmember and library subscription rates are $191. 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.

190 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 COLUMN PRESIDENT'S COMMENTARY Highlighting the 2014

AFS Award of Excellence AFS President Donna L. Parrish [email protected] Recipient—Kenneth­ A. Rose Donna L. Parrish, AFS President

This month’s column is about an extraordinary American generous funding allowed me to fully explore the topic and even Fisheries Society (AFS) member—Kenneth A. Rose. Last year revisit near the end of the project some of my earlier not-so-suc- at the Annual Meeting in Québec, Rose received the AFS Award cessful attempts. Now, development and application of quantita- of Excellence, which is our highest award. Rose is the associate tive methods is very much in vogue and demand. dean of research at the Louisiana State University (LSU) School of the Coast and Environment and a professor in the Department What is the goal of your research? of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences. He received a bach- The goal of my research is to use mathematical and com- elor’s degree in biology and mathematics from the University puter simulation modeling to predict the responses of key upper at Albany-SUNY in New York and his master’s and doctorate trophic level—often fish—populations and food webs to various degrees in fisheries from the University of Washington. He factors, including harvest strategies, contaminant exposure, worked at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory before joining habitat loss, and restoration and climate change. LSU in 1998. He has published more than 150 papers and served on more than 30 national and international advisory committees You recently received the AFS Award of Excellence, the and editorial boards. ­Society’s highest award for scientific achievement. What Below are questions and (edited) answers from an interview does that mean to you? with Rose conducted by Tara Kistler, LSU Media Relations (No- I was both honored and humbled. The Society was started vember 2014): www.sce.lsu.edu/associate-dean-kenneth-rose- in 1870 with its mission being “to improve the conservation receives-american-fisheries-society-award-excellence. and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the How did you become involved in the field of mathematical development of fisheries professionals.” This organization and computer modeling of aquatic populations, communi- has been around for a long time and is the premier fisheries ties, food webs, and ecosystems? organization in the United States. This particular award has been My undergraduate training at the University at Albany-­ awarded annually since 1969, and when I looked at the names of SUNY was in biology and mathematics, and I grew up near the past recipients, I was humbled. The list included the really water and was interested in aquatic ecology. As sometimes big names in fisheries—the people whose papers and books I happens, three somewhat unplanned, or random, events occurred studied—names like Bill Ricker, , , that led me to simulation modeling of aquatic food web and Jim Kitchell, , , and . An Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 fisheries. expression that seems appropriate is “standing on the shoulders While an undergraduate student, I was invited to give a of giants.” Thus, receiving this award from my peers that viewed seminar whose theme that year happened to be on combining people on a national level was very meaningful for me. mathematical methods and biology. Remember, this was a long time ago in the 1970s, when this was a new idea. I went to the li- Was there a specific project or research focus ­submitted to brary and found an example of a population model from the tuna AFS for the award? fishery and gave that as my seminar. To this day, it remains a This award is more for lifetime achievement rather than mystery why they asked an undergraduate to give what I know is a specific project. Most of my work has been on modeling, a faculty seminar. The second event occurred when I was apply- especially a method that simulates the population and food web ing for graduate school and Gordon Swartzman at the University by representing each individual. This method had only been of Washington happened to see my letter, and he offered me a used rarely and little noticed in fish ecology and fisheries, and I research assistantship. Later, I found out how strong the fisheries had the pleasure of working with a team at Oak Ridge National and oceanography group at the University of Washington was Laboratory, and then continuing the work at LSU, who initiated in quantitative modeling. Finally, before joining LSU, I spent a swell of using individual-based modeling in fisheries and ecol- 12 years as a research scientist at Oak Ridge National Labora- ogy in general. Now, the technique is widely used. tory and worked with some of the top ecological modelers in A second major aspect of my research is its collaborative the world and collaborated with them on a 10-year project with and multidisciplinary nature. I was recognized for working with the simple goal of developing better fish population and food many people. An example of this is that I have written scientific web models. The opportunity of having more than a decade of Continued on page 239

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 191 COLUMN POLICY Top 10 Policy Issues ­

for AFS AFS Policy Director Thomas E. Bigford Thomas E. Bigford, AFS Policy Director [email protected]

In closing my last column, I promised to share the top 10 and work to protect it before we are forced into more expensive issues facing fisheries, an inclusive term defined here as the restoration. fish, the people who fish, and the recreational and commercial 9. Invasive species – Non-native species that take hold at the industries. This is my list, based largely on deep immersion in expense of indigenous species are definitely a concern. Control science, management, and policy issues during my 18 months or eradication is feasible if we act decisively. This huge issue on the AFS staff, supplemented with another 35 plus years in the would rank higher if it weren’t so pervasive. Still, we can do fish world. Rather than attempting to mimic David Letterman’s better at prevention, as with ballast water controls. That’s as well-oiled routine, I made a conscious effort to identify issues optimistic as I can be about a problem that will be complicated well within our Society’s reach and also to be optimistic. These as climate shifts and species distributions adjust. are the top opportunities, not the worst tragedies. So, here goes, 8. Protected areas – Some feel the jury is still deliberating, in ascending order to what I view as our top policy priorities. but I’m convinced protected areas can be a valuable tool for managing and fishing behavior. Marking some areas 10. Lost structure – I worry about coral reefs bleaching, “off limits” can serve multiple purposes. Imagine an area closed oyster reefs dying, worm rock eroding, freshwater mussels to fishing yet suitable for renewable energy that also might declining, and other physical habitats losing their battle for per- include a navigation buoy and host archeological resources. I manence. We can build our own replacements, but I foresee the sense these win-win-win-win situations abound, if we cooperate day when we better recognize the ecosystem values of structure and collaborate. Continued on page 239 Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015

192 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 JOURNAL SUMMARIES Jeff Schaeffer AFS Co-Chief Science Editor, E-mail: [email protected] AFS Journals Offer Insights into ­Conservation of Apex Predators Why You Need Granders in a Blue Marlin Fishery The capture of a marlin greater than 500 kg represents a major life achievement for billfish anglers, and fishers refer to marlin of that size using colloquial descriptors such as “Grander” or “Big Julie” depending on location and species. However, their presence in a fishery is valuable, not only for the excitement and interest they create, but because how often fishers encounter granders can tell resource managers about the status of the fishery. C. Phillip Goodyear modeled hypothetical Atlantic Blue Marlin Makaira nigricans populations under varying rates of fishing mortality and found that sample sizes required to detect large fish increased disproportionally with increased fishing. The number of observations required to detect a 350 cm individual increased by 43% when the population was depressed by only 25%, and the value rose 50-fold when the population was reduced below 10%. In contrast, mean lengths decreased by only 2 to 14%, and mean weights decreased by 5 to 45%. This suggests that frequency of trophy catches (individuals greater than a species-specific threshold) may be a good indicator of stock health and can be used as an early warning of or even a clear end point denoting stock recovery. That metric, defined by Goodyear as NZ50, seemed far more useful than traditional indicators, such as mean length or weight.And while his study focused on Blue Marlin, the idea may be transferable to other species. We urge readers to examine this article for pos- sible applications in other fisheries. REFERENCE Goodyear, C. Phillip. 2015. Understanding maximum size in the catch: Atlantic Blue Marlin as an example. Transactions of the American ­Fisheries Society 144:274-282. dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2014.986339

Thinking about Muskellunge at a Lakescape Scale Nearly all fisheries scientists think about spawning habitat, but too often we think about it only in terms of presence of the correct substrate. Joel Nohner and Jim Diana thought about it differently and used a GIS-based model to predict spawning site selection by Muskellunge Esox masquinongy in northern Wisconsin lakes. There, Muskellunge are popular and support trophy fisheries on many inland lakes, but managers are troubled by poor recruitment associated temporally with shoreline development. The trend has raised many questions about availability of spawning habitat and how it might be conserved. Nohner and Diana found that Muskellunge spawning site selection was complex and governed by larger-scale habitat features, such as shelter from fetch, shoreline direction, and local bathymetry, with east or west facing sheltered shore-

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 lines with moderate slopes being favored. Local conditions mattered, but spawning was influenced strongly by larger- Offering more than a Two Fold Approach scale factors. The resulting model predicted spawning site Providing equipment for Mark and Relocate your locations in novel lakes, and generates maps that can be Active and Passive tracking Underwater Equipment used in communicating with the public. But most impor- tantly, it helps managers focus conservation efforts on the specific areas within lakes that are the most important for recruitment. REFERENCE Nohner, J. K., and J. S. Diana. 2015. Muskellunge spawning site selection in northern Wisconsin lakes and a GIS-dased pre- dictive habitat model. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 35:141-157. dx.doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2014 .977471

“workingSonotronics together to make a difference in the world we share” www.sonotronics.com • (520) 746-3322

194 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 JOURNAL SUMMARIES

Whirling Disease Is Fortunately Not a ­Permanent Condition Whirling disease caused by Myxobolus cerebralis is a scourge for fish culturists and salmonid biologists, and rumors have circu- lated for decades that its myxospores remain viable for years. Nehring et al. (2015) used a carefully designed time-delay study that exposed susceptible oligochaetes to myxospores and then measured production of actinospores as evidence of myxospore viability. We might mention that the whirling disease organism has a complicated life cycle involving both a salmonid and an oligchaete Tubifex tubifex as well as life stages that are difficult to pronounce. They found that spore viability decreased by about 75% after 15 days and was negligible after 180 days. Continuing the experiment, no spores were viable after one year. Whirling disease is still an issue, but reinfections of salmonids are caused by current events and not by viable myxospores that have remained dormant for years or even decades. This is good news for culturists who have worried about this issue for years. REFERENCE Nehring, B. N., G. Schisler, L. Chiaramonte, A. Horton, and B. Poole. 2015. Assessment of the long-term viability of the myxospores of Myxo- bolus cerebralis as determined by production of the actinospores by Tubifex tubifex. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 27:50-56. dx.doi. org/10.1080/08997659.2014.976671 A Novel and Efficient Way to ­Assess Net Pen ­Impacts Net pen culture has become widespread, and there is growing concern about impacts to benthic communities below the facilities. Potential impacts are hard to assess because the ideal sites for net pen culture are deep, often have currents or cold temperatures, and have patchy substrates that can’t be grab-sampled. Hamoutene et al. (2015) overcame this problem by developing a video monitor- ing protocol that was able to identify benthic organisms below pens to a high taxonomic level and quantify their abundance. They found that net pen effects were more complex than thought previously, with some impacts occurring away from pens and not directly underneath. Impacts varied substantially and were not uniform, with some sites showing few effects. Surprisingly, fallow pen sites were largely barren, which was difficult to reconcile with obvious cessation of organic enrichment from rearing activities. While some of their findings are yet to be explained fully, the technique seems applicable to impact assessments anywhere that net pens are being used. REFERENCE Hamoutene, D., F. Salvo, T, Bungay, G. Mabrouk, C. Couturier, A. Ratsimandresy, and S. C. Dufour. 2015. Assessment of finfish ef- fect on Newfoundland epibenthic communities through video monitoring. North American Journal of Aquaculture 77:117-127. dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/15222055.2014.976681 Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Sadly, Lionfish Are More Widespread Than We Thought The invasion of Caribbean reef systems by lionfishPterois spp. is well documented, and they are now encountered commonly by anglers and sport divers in many areas. However, a trawl survey conducted by the authors found them to be even more widespread in deep (>30 m) low-relief habitats and abundance increased sharply during 2010–2013. This is problematic because it likely means that lionfish suppression or eradication at specific shallow sites will likely be temporary, as individuals invulnerable to capture would still be present in deeper waters. It also means that their potential impacts will extend beyond reef tracts into other habitats with potential interactions with the deepwater fish community. However, and fortunately for fisheries managers, the trawl survey was initiated just prior to lionfish establishment and will be able to track their future abundance and long-term consequences of invasion. REFERENCE Switzer, S. S., D. M. Tremain, S .F. Keenan, C. J. Stafford, S. L. Parks, and R. H. McMichael. 2015. Temporal and spatial dynamics of the lionfish invasion in the eastern Gulf of Mexico: perspectives from a broadscale trawl survey. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 7:10-17. dx.doi.org/10.1080/19425120.2014.987888

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 195 STUDENT ANGLE How to Navigate Fisheries Education­ and Employment

Andrew K. Carlson 1. Describes the process of undergraduate research and South Dakota State University, Department of Natural Resource emphasizes the importance of scientific experience for Management, NPBL 138, Box 2140B, Brookings, SD 57007. E-mail: graduate school; and [email protected] 2. Teaches undergraduate students how to brainstorm research Karen M. Dunmall ideas, develop questions and hypotheses, plan for research, University of Manitoba, Department of Biological Sciences, collect data, and complete additional steps of the scientific Winnipeg, MB, Canada method in the context of a fisheries investigation. Ross E. Boucek In the end, students are encouraged to reflect on their re- Florida International University, Department of Biology, Miami, FL search experiences to celebrate personal growth, identify areas Nicholas W. Cole for improvement, and apply acquired skills in new situations. University of Nebraska, School of Natural Resources, Fisheries and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit, Lincoln, NE HOW TO PREPARE FOR GRADUATE SCHOOL Janice A. Kerns Graduate school is an increasingly important component of Wisconsin Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, College of Natural fisheries education. A master’s of science (M.S.) degree is now Resources, University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI the norm for agency biologist positions, making graduate school Rebecca M. Krogman critical for attaining employment in a fisheries-related discipline. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Chariton, IA This “How to …” document: M. Clint Lloyd 1. Reviews and differentiates the processes of preparing for Mississippi State University, Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & M.S. and Ph.D. research, offering valuable insights for Aquaculture, Mississippi State, MS success; Vivian M. Nguyen 2. Explains the importance of developing a strong Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada undergraduate record to prepare for graduate school; 3. Offers undergraduate students a roadmap for the next Tracy R. Wendt University of Montana, Department of Ecosystem & Conservation destination in their educational path (e.g., identifying Science, Missoula, MT research interests, taking the GRE, locating M.S. positions, contacting faculty, and scheduling visits); and Shannon L. White Department of Ecosystem Science Management, The Pennsylvania 4. Gives important insights for doctoral success, including State University, University Park, PA strategies for streamlining the project search, securing independent funding, and refining written and oral Kyle L. Wilson communication skills. University of Calgary, Department of Biological Sciences, Calgary, AB, Canada HOW TO WRITE EFFECTIVE SCHOLARSHIP All authors are current or former members of the AFS Student APPLICATIONS Subsection of the Education Section Executive Committee. Authorship is alphabetical after the second author. Writing effective scholarship applications is an art. This “How to …” document: INTRODUCTION 1. Describes the process by condensing scholarship applications into comprehensible steps; The old joke is true: fish are smart because they travel in 2. Teaches readers how to locate scholarships that highlight

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 schools. Taking a cue from fish themselves, a group of Ameri- their strengths and future promise and thus establish their can Fisheries Society (AFS) students and young professionals credibility as worthy awardees; from the Student Subsection of the Education Section schooled 3. Discusses the importance of having personalized reference together to create a series of “How to …” documents to help our letters; cohorts navigate the many steps of professional development 4. Describes how to write effective research proposals and in fisheries. The complete series is available online at students. personal statements that highlight achievements within key fisheries.org. categories often reviewed by scholarship committees; and HOW TO CONDUCT UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH 5. Empowers students to effectively advertise their skills and abilities as they craft high-quality scholarship applications. Undergraduate research in fisheries can take many forms. For example, a student may assist a conservation agency in sam- HOW TO ANALYZE YOUR DATA pling sport fish in inland lakes, help a graduate student identify Data analysis is the formal process of deriving scientific small-bodied native fishes from prairie streams, or design an conclusions from quantitative and/or qualitative information col- angler survey instrument with a faculty member. Undergraduate lected during a study. In fisheries, proper data analysis is critical students commonly conduct research for course credit, gradu- for reliable research, high-quality publications, and science- ation with honors, professional experience, and/or intellectual based management. Students are often exposed to analytical enrichment. Research prepares undergraduate students for procedures in courses (e.g., statistics, biometrics, quantitative graduate school and future employment and is a valuable way to , and fisheries population analysis) that prepare contribute to fisheries science early in one’s career. This “How them for graduate research, for which statistical acumen is indis- to …” document: pensable. This “How to …” document:

196 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 1. Reviews the steps of data analysis and offers tips for CVs and craft cover letters that strategically highlight success; and achievements relevant to specific jobs. 2. Introduces readers to database management, statistical This document is beneficial for undergraduate and graduate software packages (e.g., R, SAS, and SPSS), types and students alike as they prepare and apply for careers in fisheries assumptions of analytical procedures, and options for data science. interpretation and visualization. HOW TO GET A JOB Finding a job is not always an easy task, especially in the HOW TO WRITE AND DEFEND YOUR THESIS fisheries field where employment can be limited. During each Writing and defending your thesis helps authenticate your re- step of the process, you must stand out among many (and search findings and establish yourself as an expert in your field. oftentimes very competitive) candidates. This “How to …” This “How to …” document: document: 1. Demystifies thesis writing and defense, providing valuable 1. Introduces a variety of job search tools available for insights for success during each stage of the process; aspiring fisheries professionals to locate the position of 2. Shows students how to select an organizational structure their dreams; and separate chapters as individual manuscripts for 2. Helps students tailor a cover letter and résumé/CV to fit publication; specific jobs; and 3. Encourages students to write early and often in graduate 3. Describes strategies for crafting applications, conquering school, using their best writing from scholarship interviews, and following up appropriately. applications, thesis proposals, or literature reviews in their Written by AFS members who have had recent success final theses; securing employment, this document is a must-read for aspiring 4. Offers tips for avoiding writer’s block (e.g., changing fisheries professionals. environments, brainstorming with colleagues, spending time away); and HOW TO BE A YOUNG PROFESSIONAL 5. Teaches students how to prepare for their thesis defense by Transitions can be exciting, scary, and rewarding. Becom- attending defenses of other students and researching the ing a young professional (YP) is no different. This “How to …” expertise of committee members to anticipate questions document: they may ask. 1. Explains the changes that occur during the progression Overall, this document describes valuable, applicable skills from student to full-fledged fisheries professional; for succeeding at two of the greatest challenges of graduate 2. Details what it means to be a YP member in AFS; and school. 3. Describes financial benefits (e.g., lower cost of membership and meeting registration) and professional enrichment HOW TO PUBLISH IN GRADUATE SCHOOL opportunities (e.g., awards, exchange programs, and new Publications are the currency of the sciences and one of the leadership and mentoring options) associated with being a best ways to increase your marketability for graduate assistant- YP. ships, scholarships, and jobs. Research suggests that the best Many students who were AFS members during their formal predictor of employment in biological sciences is the number of education find themselves overwhelmed and underfunded when publications a person produces before he or she finishes graduate they enter the professional world. Young professional member- school. Thus, publishing as a student may be one of the best ca- ship was developed by AFS to acknowledge the unique values reer investments you can make. However, publishing research is recent graduates offer the Society and to help support them dur- challenging. From writing to submitting a manuscript, the pub- ing this demanding time period. lishing process can seem somewhat daunting at first, especially CONCLUSION when considering the demands of other simultaneous academic obligations, such as teaching and assistantship assignments, There is safety in numbers, especially during risky times. studying for comprehensive exams, and writing proposals. This Thus, schooling behavior helps fish and those studying fish, Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 “How to …” document: both during school and beyond. This “How to …” series was 1. Provides a quick primer for publishing in graduate school crafted to clarify and explain the steps of fisheries education. that will smooth the process for young students; It is a “living” document online and thus can be updated with 2. Includes strategies, insights, and example documents to new topics and information as necessary. The collaborative, highlight the steps leading to an accepted publication; and international nature of its development is indicative of the broad 3. Describes how to write manuscript sections, select journals, opportunities available for students and professionals in AFS. write cover letters, and respond to reviewers. The AFS Student Subsection of the Education Section (Subsec- tion) facilitates interactions among students and professionals, HOW TO WRITE A RÉSUMÉ/CV making education less confusing and creating opportunities The first step in looking for a job or applying to graduate for networking and personal and professional growth. Students school is developing marketing materials. You need to sell po- and young professionals automatically become members of the tential employers and advisors on who you are. A strong résumé Subsection with membership in AFS. We encourage students to or curriculum vitae (CV), paired with a cover letter tailored to get involved in the Subsection by visiting our website (students. the opportunity at hand, is the key document that will get their fisheries.org), attending the Subsection Business Meeting (held attention. This “How to …” edition: annually at the AFS Annual Meeting), and emailing Subsection 1. Describes differences between a résumé and a curriculum officers with questions and ideas, including volunteering to write vitae, along with strategies for creating both types of new topics for the “How to …” series. As AFS students swim in documents; and their educational and professional directions, new perspectives 2. Shows how to format and write sections of résumés and broaden the stream. Welcome to the school.

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 197 AFS NEWS AFS Hosts Capitol Hill Briefings on Marine Fisheries Management Thomas E. Bigford AFS Policy Director

The American Fisheries Society (AFS) has been retained by based decision making and prioritizing responses to uncertainty. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/ Charlotte Hudson provided an ecosystem context, connecting National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to convene briefings fish stocks to the ecological, environmental, and geographic sys- for House and Senate staff working on fisheries and aquatic tems that affect sustainability. She mentioned a special Lenfest resources. Based on demand and the range of issues, what was task force convened on ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries envisioned as one seminar has morphed into three panels, each management, aiming toward a shift from traditional “fishery with four speakers. This unprecedented opportunity places AFS management plans” to “fishery ecosystem plans.”Jon Hare at the intersection of science, management, policy, and educa- closed the panel presentations by explaining how climate change tion, with a primary audience of Capitol Hill staff but also in- is affecting ocean conditions and fish stock health. Climate cluding partners from state and federal agencies plus non-profits change and variability are factors in changes to fish and shellfish representing industry and environmental interests. populations. Because of those shifts, resource management must The first briefing was March 19, 2015, with a focus on adjust. Fisheries experts from all disciplines need to integrate “Challenges Related to Managing Fish Stocks.” AFS Executive fisheries, cooperative, social, economic, ecological, ocean, and Director Doug Austen moderated a panel of four experts: climate sciences to improve management. Together, the four • Liz Brooks, population research analyst, NOAA/NMFS speakers provided an excellent introduction to the challenges of Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Wood Hole, Mas- managing fish stocks. sachusetts • Eric Schwaab, senior vice president and chief conserva- tion officer, National Aquarium, Baltimore, Maryland • Charlotte Hudson, director, Lenfest Ocean Program, Washington, DC • Jon Hare, supervisory research oceanographer, NOAA/ NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Narragan- sett, Rhode Island

The panel provided a quick tour through the complexities of managing oceanic stocks that often navigate through the waters of multiple nations, migrate between habitats with each life stage, and occupy waters from shallows to the deep continen- tal slope. Liz Brooks opened with “Stock Assessment 101,”

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 providing a glimpse of the mathematical and statistical tools used to measure stock health and detect change through care- ful manipulation of data and population models. Her insights provided valuable context for the challenges of understand- ing the health of individual stocks and how they interact in a complex ocean. Eric Schwaab focused on risk and uncertainty as key components of managing expectations. He summarized a 2014 National Aquarium report that identified sources of and treatments for uncertainty, shared best practices for reducing un- certainty, offered a special case in the context of environmental change, and offered specific recommendations to support risk-

198 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 The second briefing took place on Earth Day, April 22, 2015, with a focus on a second set of issues identified by Capitol Hill and NOAA/NMFS leaders, namely “Applying Fish Habitat Knowledge in Fisher- ies Management.” Moderator Tom Bigford, AFS Policy Director and a former NOAA/NMFS habitat program director, led the panel: • Rich Seagraves, senior scientist, Mid-­ Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dover, Delaware • Kara Meckley, chief, Habitat Protection Division, NOAA/NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland AFS Executive Director Doug • Thomas Miller, director, University of Mary- Austen opens the AFS Capitol land Center for Environmental Science’s Hill Briefing on “Marine Fisher- ies Issues – Challenges Related Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solo- to Managing Fish Stocks.” Photo mons, Maryland credit: AFS. • Steve Brown, chief, Assessment and Monitoring Division, NOAA/NMFS Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland The second panel delved into more detail on the ecosystem context mentioned by each speaker on the first panel.Rich Seagraves opened with “Fisher- ies Management 101,” offering a quick peak at the processes used by regional fisheries councils to man- age marine stocks with commercial and recreational value, with comments on how habitat and ecosystem aspects are becoming more relevant. Kara Meckley discussed the importance of habitat in managing habitat-dependent stocks/life stages. She explained how non-fishing mortality can affect the health of fish stocks and hence the number of fish caught and relat- ed economic implications. Her points were extended Liz Brooks discusses “Stock as- Jon Hare talks about “Climate to forage fish as an entrée into the food chains that sessment 101 – Explaining the chal- change – Addressing climate as a support marine ecosystems. Thomas Miller talked lenges of measuring the size and new challenge to fisheries manag- about ecological connections between nearshore/es- health of fish stocks” at the AFS ers” at the AFS briefing “Marine tuarine fish populations and offshore stocks. He used briefing “Marine Fisheries Issues Fisheries Issues – Challenges – Challenges Related to Managing Related to Managing Fish Stocks.” historical and ecological examples to make economic Fish Stocks.” Photo credit: AFS. Photo credit: AFS. points about how what happens to inland streams di- rectly affects fish stocks and fishing experiences well off shore. Steve Brown discussed habitat trends and the stressors that affect their production. The final panel is in the early planning stages, probably to be convened later this month (to get Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 the latest news, visit: news.fisheries.org/policy- invitations). The “Need for Knowledge in Fisheries Management” will highlight the continuous need for scientific study and observations, resulting data sets, and careful analysis to convert information into knowledge. An opening “101” talk will be followed by presentations on general monitoring, directed basic and applied research inquiries, and breadth across dif- ferent fields of study. Together, these panels promise to meet the col- lective need for House and Senate staff, and partners across disciplines and sectors, to familiarize them- selves with the issues that affect bipartisan interests, Charlotte Hudson discusses Eric Schwaab gives his presenta- agency budgets, and legislative debate. The AFS "Ecosystem context – Managing tion on "Managing uncertainty – is proud to facilitate those discussions in 2015 and broader geographic, environmen- Understanding environmental risk beyond. tal, and ecological considerations" and change; managing expecta- at the AFS briefing “Marine Fisher- tions” at the AFS briefing “Marine ies Issues – Challenges Related Fisheries Issues – Challenges to Managing Fish Stocks.” Photo Related to Managing Fish Stocks.” credit: AFS. Photo credit: AFS.

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 199 FEATURE

The Great Lakes Charter ­ : 2002 to 2011 Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015

200 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 The Great Lakes Charter ­ Fishing Industry: 2002 to 2011

We compare results of Great Lakes charter captain surveys from 2002 and 2011. Charter trips declined 27%, from over 103,000 in 2002 to less than 76,000 in 2011. Revenues between the two years fell 24%, from US$48.0 million to $36.4 million, after values were adjusted for inflation. An estimated 1,696 captains operated as small businesses in 2011: a decrease of over 12% from 2002. Fuel costs and age of the average charter vessel were significantly higher in 2011. Motivations for chartering were basically unchanged since 2002, and fishing continued to be a secondary income source for most captains. The economy and aquatic nuisance species were included among top concerns for the future of the industry in both years. Although the basic nature of the charter industry had not changed, captains were making management decisions to reduce costs and maintain the viability of their business. Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015

Frank Lichtkoppler The Ohio State University La industria pesquera de botes de alquiler en los grandes lagos: Extension and Ohio Sea Grant 2002 a 2012 College Program, 99 East Erie Se comparan los resultados de un sondeo realizado de 2002 a 2011 a los capitanes Street, Painesville, OH 44077. de embarcaciones alquiladas en los grandes lagos. Los viajes de pesca disminuyeron E-mail: [email protected] 27% de 103,000 en 2002 a menos de 76,000 en 2011. Los dividendos de la Daniel M. O’Keefe pesquería entre esos dos años, ajustando los valores por la inflación, se redujeron Michigan Sea Grant Extension, 24%, de $48 millones de dólares a $36.4 millones. Se estimó que en el año 2011, West Olive, MI 1,696 capitanes operaban en la forma de negocio pequeño: una reducción de 12% con respecto a 2002. Los costos del combustible y la edad de la embarcación Joseph Lucente promedio fueron significativamente mayores en el año 2011. Los motivos por los The Ohio State University cuales se utilizan barcos de alquiler no han cambiado desde 2002, y la pesca Extension and Ohio Sea Grant continúa siendo un insumo secundario para la mayor parte de los capitanes. En College Program, Toledo, OH ambos años, la economía y las especies acuáticas nocivas aparecieron dentro de las principales preocupaciones para el futuro de la industria. Si bien la naturaleza Tory Gabriel de la industria pesquera con botes de alquiler no ha cambiado, los capitanes están The Ohio State University­ tomando decisiones de manejo para reducir los costos y mantener la viabilidad de Extension and Ohio Sea Grant sus negocios. College Program, Oak Harbor, OH

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 201 INTRODUCTION and other interested parties may find useful. Our results provide an opportunity for new charter firms to compare business plans The development and status of the Great Lakes charter fish- with industry averages and allow for more informed decision ing industry has been well documented by Dawson et al. (1995) making among current operating firms. Additionally, fisher- and Kuehn et al. (2005). The charter fishing industry primar- ies professionals in other parts of the world may gain valuable ily evolved in the 1970s following the stocking of nonnative ideas and insight into the charter industry and use this work as a salmonids (predominantly Oncorhynchus spp.) in Lakes Huron, model for assisting other charter industries. Michigan, Ontario, and Superior, and rehabilitation of naturally reproducing Walleye Sander vitreus and Yellow Perch Perca METHODS flavescens stocks in Lake Erie (Dawson et al. 1989). The growth of the charter industry in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes We compared the results from the 2011 charter fishing has been enhanced by fishery management policies designed to survey to results of the survey conducted in 2002. Both surveys favor sportfishing over (Kuehn et al. 2005). focused on items that included numbers of trips by fish spe- Both sport- and commercial fishing are supported by ongoing ef- cies and by lake, revenues, business costs, issues of concern, forts of the interjurisdictional Great Lakes Fishery Commission and plans for the future. We developed the 2011 charter captain (2011) to control Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus, coordinate sample list in the same manner as in 2002 (Kuehn et al. 2005). fisheries research, and facilitate cooperative fisheries manage- We obtained lists of charter captains from state management ment. agencies except for New York. New York does not have a state The last region-wide survey of the Great Lakes charter license requirement. The New York captains list for both surveys fishing industry was conducted by the Great Lakes Sea Grant was developed via mailing lists from tourism promotion organi- Network in 2002. Since then, the Great Lakes region has expe- zations, chambers of commerce, and charter boat associations. rienced a deep economic recession, which may have contributed We used the same definition of an active captain in both surveys. to changes in regional sportfishing activity. New introductions of The typical charter captain is a person licensed by the U.S. aquatic nuisance species (ANS) and adverse weather may have Coast Guard to carry six passengers or less for hire (Kuehn et al. had negative impacts on the fishery (Rasmussen et al. 2011; 2005). Using a modified mail survey technique (Dillman 1978, ODW 2012). Congressional concern over movement of ANS 2000), we mailed the survey in May 2012 to a total of 1,200 into and out of the Great Lakes led to the inclusion of legislation charter captains. Nonresponding captains received up to four in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, directing the contacts by mail at approximately two-week intervals. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to conduct the Great We planned to deal with potential nonresponse error because Lakes–Mississippi River Interbasin Study (USACE 2014). we anticipated that not all captains who received a survey would In 2012, USACE economists asked the Ohio Sea Grant respond. Failure to address nonresponse error is an issue in College Program to lead a regional effort to develop socioeco- social science (Lindner et al. 2001), particularly when response nomic information on the Great Lakes charter fishing industry. rates are less than 85% (Lindner and Wingenbach 2002). Com- These data provide a baseline status of the industry in 2011 that paring early and late respondents is an acceptable method of ad- resource managers, researchers, charter industry associations, dressing nonresponse error (Miller and Smith 1983; Lindner et Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015

A typical six passenger Great Lakes charter boat rigged for . Photo credit: Ohio Sea Grant.

202 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 al. 2001; Lindner and Wingenbach 2002). Comparing early and RESULTS late respondents using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) Returns and Tests for Nonresponse allows for a comparison that serves as an indicator of differences Of the 1,200 mailed surveys, 28 were returned as unde- between respondents and nonrespondents. Late respondents liverable and 24 were returned indicating that the captains did were defined as those returns that came in after the third contact not charter in 2011. Thus, 1,148 Great Lakes charter captains by mail. Comparing the respondents received after the third mail received surveys. A total of 342 captains returned surveys with contact would allow a sufficient number of late responses for usable data, producing a response rate of approximately 30%. analysis. Lindner et al. (2001) recommend the minimum number This is lower than the 49% response rate of the 2002 regional of late respondents for comparison be at least 30 in order to be survey (Kuehn et al. 2005). The lower return rate may be due meaningful, both practically and statistically. in part to reporting deadlines that required the 2011 survey to We adjusted the 2002 economic data for inflation to 2011 be mailed during the busy spring/summer fishing season. In dollars by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price contrast, the 2002 survey mailing occurred during the charter Index Inflation Calculator (BLS 2014). Multiplying the 2002 industry’s relatively quiet late winter season. economic data by the derived inflation factor of 1.25 approxi- We tested for nonresponse error by using a one-way ANOVA mated the purchasing power of the 2002 data in terms of 2011 to compare the early (N = 231) versus late respondents (N = dollars. Inflation adjustments allow comparisons between the 111) on 22 attitudinal variables. We found a significant differ- two years. ence (P ≤ 0.05) for just two of these variables. Early respondents We generalized the 2011 and 2002 survey responses to the were more concerned about obtaining new clients than late entire Great Lakes charter industry for each year, after ac- respondents (F = 5.280, df = 331, P = 0.02). Early respondents counting for nonresponse error and inflation. We obtained our were also more concerned that ANS would impact their charter archived 2002 survey data set and merged like survey items with business than late respondents (F = 5.766, df = 307, P = 0.02). the 2011 survey data set using IBM SPSS statistical software. Of the 342 respondents, 304 captains operated their own charter We sorted the data set by lake and by business model. The business and provided some economic data on their business op- numbers of trips are extrapolations of respondent trip rates ap- erations. We compared early (N = 211) and late respondents (N plied to the estimated population of active Great Lakes charter = 93) and found that there were no significant differences (P ≤ businesses in 2011 and 2002 (Kuehn et al. 2005). Multiplying 0.05) for five demographic variables and 28 economic variables the total number of trips by the average price per trip resulted in tested. Given the lack of statistical differences between early revenue estimates by species. We repeated this process for each and late respondents, it appears that the sample is representative species for 2011 and 2002. Finally, we used a one-way ANOVA of the Great Lakes charter industry in 2011 (Miller and Smith to test for differences by lake or by business model between the 1983; Lindner et al. 2001; Lindner and Wingenbach 2002). two surveys using survey year as the independent variable. Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015

A nice catch of Great Lakes salmonids from Lake Michigan. Photo credit: Michigan Sea Grant.

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 203 There were some lake-by-lake differences in the percentage in such work. The differences in motivations among captains of respondents from 2011 and 2002. Of the responding captains may help explain the large standard deviations reported later in who indicated a home port in 2011 and 2002, respectively, ap- this article. proximately 6% and 5% were based on Lake Superior, 7% and The business organization of the charter industry in 2011 5% were based on Lake Huron, and 40% and 42% were based remained basically unchanged from 2002. Over 89% of respond- on Lake Erie. Respondents from Lake Michigan increased from ing captains in 2011 owned their boat and/or operated as a small 33% of the total in 2002 to 42% in 2011. Respondents from business, compared to 92% in 2002. More than 77% operated Lake Ontario declined from 16% of the total in 2002 to 6% in their business as a sole proprietorship in 2011 compared to 2011. almost 84% in 2002. Charter businesses that operated as a sole Captain Characteristics and Business Organization proprietorship decreased by nearly 7% and businesses operat- Almost 11% of respondents in 2011 did not operate as small ing as a corporation increased by 7% when comparing 2011 and businesses but rather identified themselves as freelance captains 2002 survey data (Kuehn et al. 2005). for hire on a temporary or seasonal basis. Multiplying 11% by the number of active captains resulted in 208 freelance captains Trips and Revenues in 2011, which was a 3% increase compared to 2002. Freelance Responding captains who operated their own business aver- non-boat-owning captains are paid for their labor. In 2011, the aged 24.6 full-day and 20.2 half-day paid charter trips in 2011. freelance captains reported gross earnings of $6,759 ± $13,507 The captains averaged 28.4 full-day and 25.1 half-day trips in (mean ± SD) compared to $6,088 ± $7,789 in 2002. Subtract- 2002. A full-day trip is defined as being seven hours long from ing 208 freelance captains from the list of 1,904 active captains dock to dock or a limit catch of the target species. A half-day trip tallied 1,696 charter businesses in 2011, a decline of over 12% is defined as being less than seven hours in duration. Most of compared to 2002. these trips targeted salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch, O. tshaw- Most of the 304 responding captains operating a small busi- ytscha, and O. mykiss) or Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush, ness in 2011 were licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard to carry no followed by Walleye, Yellow Perch, Smallmouth Bass Microp- more than six passengers. The typical Great Lakes charter fish- terus dolomieu, and other fish species. These results are found ing captain in 2011 had been licensed for 12.8 ± 10.5 years and in Table 1 along with the F statistic, degrees of freedom (df), P was not significantly different (F = 0.762, df = 1,152, P = 0.38) values, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for significant differ- from 2002 at 13.4 ± 8.6 years. Notably, very few captains (about ences between the two surveys. 11% in 2011 and less than 18% in 2002) relied on the charter Charter fees varied with target species, length of the charter, business as a primary source of income. In both surveys, the and services offered. The most popular trip in 2011 was the half- major motivations for being a charter captain included a desire day Lake Trout or salmon charter; its cost averaged $448 ± $95 to help people enjoy fishing and the satisfaction of participating per boat with an average of 4.4 ± 1.2 clients. Nominal charter Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015

A youthful angler with a Lake Huron Chinook Salmon. Photo credit: Michigan Sea Grant.

204 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 TABLE 1. Estimated number of trips, average charge per trip, revenues earned, and percentage of total revenues by the Great Lakes charter industry in 2002 and 2011 are listed by fish species and by trip length. The 2002 dollar values are adjusted for inflation to 2011 dollars. Number of respondents in 2002 was 689. Number of respondents in 2011 was 275. Revenues may not equal direct multiplication of number of trips by mean charge per trip due to rounding errors.

Fish species Trip length Estimated number Mean charge per tripa ($) Revenues earnedb ($) Percentage of total revenues of trips Trout or Full-day 2002 25,232 561c 14,153,001 29.5 salmon Full-day 2011 16,349 566 9,243,420 25.6 Half-day 2002 38,988 407cd 15,878,103 33.1 Half-day 2011 27,713 448d 12,405,290 34.4 Walleye Full-day 2002 20,866 502 10,464,292 21.8 Full-day 2011 18,792 484 9,103,450 25.3 Half-day 2002 5,854 386 2,255,417 4.7 Half-day 2011 4,155 365 1,513,137 4.2 Yellow Full-day 2002 3,536e 422 1,492,315f 3.1 Perch Full-day 2011 5,376e 419 2,248,862f 6.2 Half-day 2002 2,531 347 879,833 1.8 Half-day 2011 1,492 377 564,497 1.6 Smallmouth Full-day 2002 5,178g 475 2,455,823h 5.1 Bass Full-day 2011 1,679g 500 836,043h 2.3 Half-day 2002 1,101 336 373,204 0.8 Half-day 2011 373 331 122,417 0.3 Other fish Full-day 2002 NA NA NA NA species Full-day 2011 797 404 321,409 0.9 Half-day 2002 NA NA NA NA Half-day 2011 204 405 84,919 0.2 Subtotal Full-day 2002 54,803 Full-day 2011 41,799 Half-day 2002 48,488 Half-day 2011 34,184 Totals 2002 103,285i 47,951,989j 100.0 2011 75,913i 36,443,444j 100.0

aRounded to the nearest dollar. bThe numbers of trips are extrapolations of respondent trip rates applied to the estimated population of 1,932 and 1,696 active Great Lakes charter businesses in 2002 and 2011, respectively (excluding party and head boats). Revenues are extrapolated from the mean number of trips per firm multiplied by the mean charge Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 per trip and may not be exact due to rounding errors. Data for 2002 are from Lichtkoppler et al. (2003) and are adjusted for inflation to 2011 dollars. cIn the 2002 survey, Steelhead O. mykiss was reported separately from Lake Trout and salmon and the mean price is a weighted average. dSignificantly different, F = 11.974, df = 963, P < 0.01; 95% CI 2002 (2,859, 4,212), 95% CI 2011 (3,969, 6,784). eSignificantly different, F = 11.645, df = 963, P < 0.01; 95% CI 2002 (1,209,625, 1,775,025), 95% CI 2011 (1,660,130, 2,837,578). fSignificantly different, F = 8.099, df = 963, P < 0.01; 95% CI 2002 (3,825, 6,511), 95% CI 2011 (628, 2,714). gSignificantly different, F = 7.515, df = 963, P < 0.01; 95% CI 2002 (1,817,722, 3,093,924), 95% CI 2011 (316,694, 1,355,409). hSignificantly different, F = 7.003, df = 963, P < 0.01; 95% CI 2002 (96,330, 110,240), 95% CI 2011 (67,738, 84,088). iSignificantly different, F = 5.377, df = 963, P < 0.05; 95% CI 2002 (44,724,699, 51,179,279), 95% CI 2011 (32,086,641, 39,987,593).

prices increased from 2002 to 2011. However, when adjusted for cant (F = 7.003, df= 963, P < 0.01). Total estimated revenues inflation, only the price of the half-day Lake Trout and salmon for the Great Lakes charter industry was $47.9 million in 2002, trip increased significantly F( = 14.175, df = 500, P < 0.001). declining to $36.4 million in 2011. This overall 24% decline in Most revenues were generated from half-day Lake Trout or revenues from 2002 to 2011 was statistically significant F( = salmon trips, full-day Lake Trout or salmon trips, and full-day 5.377, df = 963, P < 0.05). The 2011 survey results reflect lower Walleye trips in both 2011 and 2002. The total population of level of charter activity and provide a conservative benchmark 1,696 active charter businesses in 2011 was estimated to have for future comparisons should conditions change dramatically. made 75,913 charter trips, of which 41,799 (55%) were full-day Respondents reported a significant F( = 7.003, df = 963, P < trips and 34,184 (45%) were half-day trips. Comparing 2011 0.01) 16% decline in the mean number of trips taken from 2011 to 2002, full-day trips declined about 24% and half-day trips to 2002 (Table 2). However, the 11% decline in revenues per declined 30%. The overall 27% decline in the total number of respondent was not statistically significant F( = 2.072, df = 916, charter trips in 2011 compared to 2002 was statistically signifi- P = 0.15). Mean charter trips per respondent for Lake Superior

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 205 in 2011 declined 16%, and mean charter revenues per respond- analyzed each business model with a separate one-way ANOVA ent declined over 37% from 2002. Mean trips per respondent for with the survey year as the independent variable. These different Lake Michigan declined 22%, and mean charter revenues per business models illustrate that costs may vary by how a business respondent decreased by less than 9%. The number of trips per is managed. respondent for Lake Michigan was significantly lower in 2011 Overall operating costs for Great Lakes charter boat busi- (F = 6.035, df = 331, P < 0.05) compared to 2002, but reported nesses in 2011 was not significantly different than in 2002 F( revenues were not (F= 0.627, df =325, P = 0.429). = 0.164, df = 929, P = 0.685; 2002 CI, 12,383 to 14,043; 2011 Mean charter trips for Lake Huron respondents declined CI, 11,992 to 15,152). The cost to fuel a charter boat in 2011 ac- 52%, and mean revenues decreased by 55%. The number of counted for 31% of operating costs and was significantly higher trips and revenues per respondent for Lake Erie were lower by compared to 2002 (F = 29.908, df = 869, P < 0.001). Boat-own- 12% and 13%, respectively, in 2011 compared to 2002 but not ing captains operating their own business reported boat fuel and significantly (trips:F = 1.220, df = 380, P = 0.270; revenues: F dockage as the largest annual operating expenses in both years. = 0.924, df = 355, P = 0.337). Respondents from Lake Ontario Notably, overall fuel costs increased over 47% ($1,349) from actually increased the mean number of trips by 23%, and their 2002 to 2011. mean revenues increased by 78%. However, there was a large Businesses with a boat loan cost $616 less to operate than standard error (±13.4 for trips and ±$8,034 for revenues) for the in 2002, and businesses with depreciation cost $1,355 less to Lake Ontario respondents. The low number of respondents in operate in 2002. However, businesses with either boat loans or 2011 for Lakes Superior, Huron, and Ontario should be consid- depreciation cost more to operate than the overall mean operat- ered when interpreting individual lake results in Table 2. ing cost in both 2011 and 2002. Businesses with no boat loan Total revenue for the captains who operated their own and no depreciation cost $503 more to operate in 2011 than they business and provided their gross sales figures was $19,478 ± did in 2002. $20,776. Reported revenues for 2002 were $21,797 ± $22,380. The average cash requirement to operate a charter business is An explanation for the large standard deviations and ranges may the sum of operating expenses plus boat loan payments. The an- be that most captains view their charter business as a secondary nual payment was $5,064 ± $3,406 for 72 responding captains in enterprise, but it is the primary income source for some. Thus, 2011 who had a boat loan (Table 4). The 232 captains reporting the incentive to promote, book, and make charter trips varies a boat loan in 2002 made annual payments of $5,857 ± $4,660. widely. A wide variation in earned revenues, costs, and returns By summing the average operating costs and the boat loan pay- was expected and was consistently large in both surveys. ments, we calculated the total cash needed to operate the charter business. The total cash necessary was estimated to be $15,300 Costs and Returns in 2011 and $18,264 in 2002. The typical charter business that Each charter firm is an independent small business that owned and operated a single vessel would have to generate sales may operate under a variety of business models as illustrated of $15,300 in 2011 and $18,264 in 2002 just to have a positive in Table 3. Charter firm averages vary depending upon whether cash flow. or not the firm is paying off a boat loan or depreciating the cost Except for businesses with a boat loan in 2011, overall net of the charter vessel. Some firms do both, and thus the number cash flow in both years was positive for the business models of respondents does not sum across the rows in Table 3. We presented in Table 4. All businesses in 2011 reported a 9% de-

TABLE 2. Mean trips per captain and mean revenues per captain by Great Lake for 2002 and 2011. Significant differences are noted by alphabetical superscripts, and the statistics are reported below the table. Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Huron Lake Erie Lake Ontario All Year N Trips N Trips N Trips N Trips N Trips N Trips 2002 42 43.9 216 62.8a 39 51.6b 276 45.8 106 60.9 689 53.5c Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 SD (35.6) (53.0) (34.0) (42.2) (56.8) (48.1) SE (5.5) (3.6) (5.5) (2.5) (5.5) (1.8) 2011 18 37.0 116 48.9a 18 24.8b 105 40.5 15 74.7 275 44.8c SD (27.1) (40.8) (18.1) (41.1) (51.9) (40.6) SE (6.4) (3.8) (4.3) (4.0) (13.4) (2.5) Year N Revenues ($) N Revenues ($) N Revenues ($) N Revenues ($) N Revenues ($) N Revenues ($) 2002 39 20,286 216 23,878 35 21,783d 259 19,795 101 23,990e 659 21,797 SD (18,447) (21,940) (16,446) (23,982) (21,969) (22,380) SE (2,953.8) (1,492.8) (2,779.9) (1,490.2) (2,186.0) (871.8) 2011 19 12,688 110 21,781 18 9,704d 97 17,258 12 42,754e 258 19,478 SD (13,352) (23,894) (8,614) (16,274) (27,831) (20,776) SE (3,063.5) (2,278.2) (2,030.3) (1,652.4) (8,034.3) (1,293.5)

aSignificantly different, F = 6.035, df = 331, P < 0.05; 95% CI 2002 (55.7, 69.9), 95% CI 2011 (41.4, 56.4). bSignificantly different, F = 9.779, df = 55, P < 0.01; 95% CI 2002 (40.5, 62.6), 95% CI 2011 (15.8, 33.8). cSignificantly different, F = 7.003, df = 963, P < 0.01; 95% CI 2002 (49.9, 57.1), 95% CI 2011 (39.9, 49.6). dSignificantly different, F = 8.458, df = 52, P < 0.01; 95% CI 2002 (16,133, 27,432), 95% CI 2011 (5,420, 13,987). eSignificantly different, F = 7.382, df = 112, P < 0.01; 95% CI 2002 (19,653, 28,327), 95% CI 2011 (25,071, 60,438).

206 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 crease in revenues ($19,478 ± $20,776) compared to revenues of P < 0.001) by over four years (20.2 years ± 10.0 vs. 15.9 years ± all businesses in 2002 ($21,797 ± $22,380). The only significant 8.3) than it was in 2002 (Kuehn et al. 2005). difference between the two survey years was in the average rev- Reported depreciation was $3,864 ± $6,275 in 2011 and enues reported for firms with a boat loan (Table 4). Businesses $6,086 ± $7,359 in 2002. We estimated interest costs at 5% of with a positive annual cash flow could pay the day-to-day bills the value of the capital equipment, and we considered capi- to operate the charter business. Charter firms with negative cash tal equipment to be the charter boat and all business-related flow would need resources outside the charter business to meet onboard equipment. A total of 26 captains provided estimates for the cash needs of the firm. both the replacement cost of their primary charter boat and all Total economic costs of operating a charter firm include all onboard equipment. The total economic cost of operating a typi- costs of operating the charter business, plus capital costs (Table cal Great Lakes charter business in 2011 was $23,394 compared 5). The analysis in Table 5 is by business model. The three to $24,717 in 2002. Any revenue in excess of the total economic models are not summative. Each business model is independent cost is the return to owner for his or her time and labor. Charter of the others, and each should be seen as a different manage- businesses operated at a negative net return of $3,916 in 2011 ment situation. Capital costs include boat depreciation and the and negative $2,920 in 2002. opportunity cost of owning a boat instead of investing in stocks, Charter fishing is an enterprise that may help subsidize the bonds, or some other enterprise. Boat loan costs are a cash costs of owning and operating a Great Lakes seaworthy boat. On requirement if a loan exists but are not part of the total economic average, only charter firms with no boat loan and no deprecia- costs of operating a business. tion costs actually made money for the business owner in 2011 Mean estimated replacement costs for the charter boat and 2002. Some captains subsidize their business with their own and all business-related onboard equipment in 2011 were not personal funds or in-kind labor and/or management. There is significantly different from 2002 (boat:F = 2.509, df= 1,006, no net return to the business for the owner on average. How- P = 0.113; equipment: F = 0.065, df= 947, P = 0.799). Average ever, every charter business is a unique enterprise, and some do charter boat length was higher in 2011 at 8.96 m ± 1.6 (29.4 make money. At an average cost of $481 per trip in 2011 and feet) than 2002 at 8.78 m ± 1.23 (28.8 feet). The age of the char- $464 in 2002, it would take over 32 paid charter trips in 2011 ter fleet in 2011 was significantly olderF ( = 57.018, df= 1,074, and 40 paid charter trips in 2002 to meet cash flow needs of the

TABLE 3. Average annual operating costs for all reporting boat-owning captains and for three business models (cap- tains reporting boat loans, captains reporting depreciation, and captains not reporting a boat loan or depreciation) are presented. Responses include only six-pack charter businesses that own, lease, or have other boat arrangements. N = number of respondents. The number of businesses reporting boat loans, depreciation, and no boat loans or depreciation exceeds the total number of all businesses reporting due to the fact that a number of respondents reported both a boat loan and depreciation. The 2002 dollar values are adjusted for inflation to 2011 dollars. All businesses Businesses with boat loan Businesses with depreciation Businesses without boat loan or depreciation Item Expense N Expense N Expense N Expense N ($) ($) ($) ($) Boat fuel 2002 2,852a 635 3,483 232 3,831 130 2,398b 335 2011 4,201a 235 4,136 67 4,867 50 4,058b 133 Boat dockage 2002 1,771 637 2,037 232 1,912 130 1,599 337 2011 1,764 241 1,782 71 1,565 49 1,775 136 Equipment repair

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 2002 1,354 636 1,395 232 1,464 130 1,344 336 2011 1,418 242 1,402 72 1,772 48 1,239 137 Boat maintenance and repair 2002 965c 635 1,059 232 1,115 130 892 335 2011 1,236c 247 1,350 71 1,537 49 1,189 142 Miscellaneous 2002 1,029 632 1,299d 231 1,300 129 835 334

2011 821 224 862d 66 1,161 47 703 125 Advertising 2002 1,121 627 1,519 231 1,508 129 842 329 2011 1,124 235 1,060 69 1,406 48 1,078 132 Insurance 2002 982 637 1,076 232 1,168 130 915 337 2011 909 249 919 72 978 50 893 142 Boat storage fees 2002 775e 636 918 232 946 130 670f 336 2011 974 e 236 982 71 984 50 965f 130

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 207 TABLE 3. (continued) Office and communications 2002 785 626 1,136 230 1,320 129 540 329 2011 687 227 690 69 773 49 644 124 Labor (hired) 2002 1,610 624 2,049 230 2,108 129 1,415 327 2011 1,192 211 1,204 67 843 46 1,261 112 Boat repair not covered by insurance 2002 444 636 530 232 619 130 317 336 2011 479 211 415 68 519 44 463 112 License fees 2002 203g 632 224 230 251h 129 185i 335

2011 296g 230 297 70 366h 49 265i 126 Drug testing/professional dues 2002 157 638 191 231 156 129 135 340 2011 125 230 121 67 163 46 113 131 Boat launch fees 2002 66 635 50 231 40 130 82 336 2011 51 217 52 69 45 46 50 117

Total operating costsj

2002 13,213 714 15,485 230 16,260 130 12,009 416

SD ±11,296 ±13,273 ±15,657 ±10,236

2011 13,572 216 14,869 61 14,905 40 12,512 128

SD ±11,779 ±12,905 ±8,044 ±11,741

aSignificantly different, F = 29.908, df = 869, P < 0.001. 2002 SD = 2,974, SE = 118.0, 95% CI (2,620, 3,084); 2011 SD = 3,839, SE = 250.5, 95% CI (3,708, 4,694). bSignificantly different, F = 26.081, df = 467, P < 0.001. 2002 SD = 2,572.8, SE = 140.6, 95% CI (2,122, 2,675); 2011 SD = 4,330.1, SE = 375.5, CI (3,315, 4,801). cSignificantly different, F = 5.666, df = 881, P < 0.05. 2002 SD = 205.8, SE = 47.9, 95% CI (872, 1,059); 2011 SD = 2,110.4, SE = 34.3, 95% CI (971, 1,500). dSignificantly different, F = 4.371, df = 296, P < 0.05. 2002 SD = 1,602.4, SE = 105.4 95% CI (1,091, 1,506); 2011 SD = 1,030.8, SE = 126.9, 95% CI (609, 1,116). eSignificantly different, F = 8.014, df = 871, P < 0.01. 2002 SD = 823.6, SE = 32.7, 95% CI (711, 839); 2011 SD = 1,144.9, SE = 74.5, 95% CI (827 to 1,121). fSignificantly different, F = 9.040, df = 465, P < 0.01. 2002 SD = 763.3, SE = 41.6, 95% CI (579, 752); 2011 SD = 1,314.5, SE = 115.3, 95% CI (736, 1,193). gSignificantly different, F = 18.288, df = 861, P < 0.001. 2002 SD = 219.8, SE = 8.7, 95% CI (186, 220); 2011 SD = 410.7, SE = 27.1, 95% CI (243, 350). hSignificantly different, F = 5.274, df = 177, P < 0.05. 2002 SD = 247.0, SE = 21.8, 95% CI (208, 294); 2011 SD = 404.0, SE = 57.7, 95% CI (250 to 482). iSignificantly different, F = 8.123, df = 460, P < 0.01. 2002 SD = 211.3, SE = 11.5, 95% CI (163, 209); 2011 SD = 381.1, SE = 34.0, 95% CI (198, 332). jEstimated by taking the mean of the sum of the individual operating costs (where all individual operating costs were given) and the estimated total operating costs (where all operating costs were not given and an estimate of the total operating costs were given). If both were provided, we used the sum of the individual operating costs for the estimate of the total cost.

business. In 2011 it would take 49 trips and 54 trips in 2002 the 2011 and 2002 surveys (22% vs. 25%, respectively). In to provide a net return to the business owner. In 2011, 52% of 2011, over one-fifth (22%) planned to leave the charter business, captains had a positive cash flow and 34% made enough trips and 18% of the responding captains planned to quit in 2002. The to have a positive net return to their charter business. In 2002, actual decline in the number of Great Lakes charter firms from these figures were 47% and 36%, respectively. 2002 to 2011 was 12.2%. Although we expect that some new captains will enter the industry, the percentage of captains plan-

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Industry Issues and the Future ning to quit the business in 2011 will likely lead to a decline in Captains in both the 2011 and 2002 surveys were asked to the number of charter firms in the future. identify the most important problems facing the charter industry. The final 2011 survey item asked captains to provide ad- A direct comparison of responses between the two surveys ditional comments on the impact of ANS regarding their charter is not possible because survey issue items were different and fishing business. Over 80% of 122 captains who provided com- were asked in a different way in each survey. The top concerns ments were concerned about current or future impacts that ANS in 2011 were cost of fuel, followed by ANS, the economy, and have on the Great Lakes and their charter business. Over 20% of fisheries management out of a list of 16 items (Table 6). In 2002, the respondents highlighted concerns with three common inva- top concerns were the economy, lack of fish/reduced abundance, sive species found in the Great Lakes: zebra and quagga mussels impacts of exotic species such as zebra mussels Dreissena Dreissena spp., and the Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus. polymorpha, and boating equipment and operating costs (Kuehn Over 20% of respondents reiterated their concerns regarding the et al. 2005). Notably, most concerns are not within control of in- potential arrival of Asian carps (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, dividual charter captains and have more to do with the economy, H. nobilis, Ctenopharyngodon idella, and Mylopharyngodon state and federal management decisions, fish abundance, and piceus) in the Great Lakes. About 12% of captains who provided impacts of nonnative invasive species. comments felt that if Asian carps enter the Great Lakes, the fish- We asked captains in 2011 and 2002 to respond to a series ery would be devastated. Charter captains were concerned for of items about their plans for the coming five years (Table 7). their businesses and client satisfaction. Concerns also existed for The majority of charter captains stated that they plan to increase the Great Lakes ecosystem health as a whole, including issues their number of trips and increase prices in both years. Captains such as water quality, fish consumption safety, and local tourism. indicating no business changes were nearly the same between

208 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 TABLE 4. Average revenue, cash flow needs, and net cash flow to the business for Great Lakes charter boat businesses in 2002 and 2011 estimated by all businesses and for three business models (businesses reporting boat loan payments, businesses reporting depreciation, and businesses not reporting boat loan payments and/or depreciation). Negative numbers are indicated in parentheses. N is the number of actual respondents. The N of businesses reporting boat loans, depreciation, and no boat loans or depreciation exceeds the total N of all businesses reporting due to the fact that a number of respondents reported both a boat loan and depreciation. Responses include only six-pack charter businesses that own, lease, or have other boat arrangements. The 2002 dollar values are adjusted for inflation to 2011 dollars. Income/­ All Businesses reporting Businesses reporting Businesses not reporting boat loan pay- expenses businesses boat loan depreciation ments or depreciation Amount N Amount N Amount N Amount N ($) ($) ($) ($) Average revenue 2002 21,797 659 27,635 a 215 28,461 126 18,773 379 2011 19,478 258 19,872a 68 20,958 48 19,142 157 Cash flow needs Average operating costs 2002 13,213 714 15,485 230 16,260 130 12,009 416 2011 13,572 216 14,869 61 14,905 40 12,512 128 Boat loan payments

2002 5,051b 269 5,857 232 6,600c 69 NA NA 2011 1,728b 211 5,064 72 1,970c 45 NA NA Cash neededd 2002 18,264 21,342 22,860 12,009 2011 15,300 19,933 16,875 12,512 Net cash flowe 2002 3,533 6,293 5,601 6,764 2011 4,177 (−61) 4,083 6,630

aSignificantly different, F = 4.619, df = 282, P < 0.05. 2002 SD = 27,449.3, SE = 1,872.0, 95% CI (23,945, 31,325); 2011 SD = 20,506.4, SE = 2,486.8, 95% CI (14,909, 24,836). bSignificantly different, F = 76.587, df = 479, P < 0.001. 2002 SD = 4,775.0, SE = 291.1, 95% CI (4,478, 5,625); 2011 SD = 3,116.9 SE = 214.6, 95% CI (1,305, 2,151). cSignificantly different, F = 32.753, df = 113, P < 0.001. 2002 SD = 4,545.2, SE = 547.2, 95% CI (5,508, 7,692); 2011 SD = 3,665.7, SE = 546.5, 95% CI (869, 3,072). dSum of average operating costs and average boat loan payments. eAverage revenue minus the cash needed to operate the business.

CONCLUSION cancellations than in other years. Increased frequency of harmful We have provided a considerable amount of detail on the algal blooms, new ANS introductions, fish habitat loss due to business operations of a large freshwater charter industry. development or pollution, and declining sportfish populations Our research may assist those interested in the charter fishing may all have a negative influence on the industry. Additionally, industry to make more informed decisions. A better understand- in unsettled economic times, households might choose to focus

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 ing of the economic and social dimensions of the Great Lakes on personal finances rather than recreation, which may decrease charter industry may be helpful to fishery professionals and the number of anglers utilizing the charter industry. resource managers in making management decisions. Addition- Captains have management options when attempting to keep ally, our work with the Great Lakes charter industry may be a their businesses viable. Factors within the individual captain’s useful model for others interested in the development of charter control such as marketing, people skills, fishing expertise, industries in other parts of the world. and the quality of customer service can impact their success. With almost 76,000 paid charter trips taken in 2011, ac- Captains may be cutting costs where possible to offset price counting for an estimated $36.4 million in revenues, the charter increases. Some businesses may reduce or eliminate boat loan fishing industry is a significant presence in the Great Lakes. payments and reduce cash flow needs by holding onto their The industry offers many anglers the opportunity to safely and boats longer. Captains may also reduce or eliminate depreciation successfully fish open waters of the Great Lakes. However, we costs by relying on older boats, thus lowering the total economic document a decline in the number of charter businesses (12%), cost of running a charter business. These savings could help number of trips (27%), and total revenues generated (24%) in offset significant increases in boat fuel, storage, maintenance, 2011 compared to 2002. and license fees seen in 2011 compared to 2002. Multiple factors can impact angler decisions to participate The nature of the charter industry has not changed signifi- in charter fishing, and some of these are not dependent on the cantly over the time period we examined. Declining numbers of professionalism or aptitude of captains (Oh et al. 2005, 2012). paid trips and declining revenues are a concern, and 2011 may For example, weather was a major factor in 2011 as some of the provide a conservative benchmark for future comparisons. How- Great Lakes experienced a stormy spring and summer. Some ever, the attraction of being in the charter industry remains fairly captains indicated that the poor weather may have caused more constant. Captains want to help people enjoy fishing and like the

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 209 TABLE 5. Economic cost components, total economic cost, and net return to the operator for Great Lakes charter boat businesses in 2002 and 2011 estimated by all businesses and for three business models (businesses reporting boat loan payments, businesses reporting depreciation, and businesses not reporting boat loan payments and/or depreciation). Negative numbers are indicated in parentheses. N is the number of actual respondents. The N of businesses reporting boat loans, depreciation, and no boat loans or depreciation exceeds the total N of all businesses reporting due to the fact that a number of respondents reported both a boat loan and depreciation. Responses include only six-pack charter businesses that own, lease, or have other boat arrangements. The 2002 dollar values are adjusted for inflation to 2011 dollars. Item All Businesses reporting Businesses reporting Businesses not reporting businesses boat loan depreciation loan or depreciation Amount ($) N Amount ($) N Amount ($) N Amount ($) N Average revenue 2002 21,797 659 27,635 a 215 28,461 126 18,773 379 2011 19,478 258 19,872a 68 20,958 48 19,142 157 Economic cost Average operating costs 2002 13,213 714 15,485 230 16,260 130 12,009 416 2011 13,572 216 14,869 61 14,905 40 12,512 128 Capital costs Opportunity costsb 2002 5,418 677 5,827 210 6,773 123 5,035 405 2011 5,958 265 6,171 64 6,521 48 5,769 166 Depreciation 2002 6,086c 138 7,526 62 6,460 130 NA NA 2011 3,864c 87 7,355 18 6,723 50 NA NA Total capital costs 2002 11,504 13,353 13,233 5,035 2011 9,822 13,526 13,244 5,769 Total economic costd 2002 24,717 28,838 29,493 17,044 2011 23,394 28,395 28,149 18,281 Net return to operatore 2002 (−2,920) (−1,203) (−1,032) 1,729 2011 (−3,916) (−8,523) (−7,191) 861

aSignificantly different, F = 4.619, df = 282, P < 0.05. 2002 SD = 27,449.3, SE = 1,872.0 95% CI (23,945, 31,325); 2011 SD = 20,506.4, SE = 2,486.8, 95% CI (14,909, 24,836). b Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Opportunity costs are estimated at 5% of the average estimated replacement cost of the boat and onboard equipment. cSignificantly different, F = 5.435, df = 224, P < 0.05. 2002 SD = 7,359.0, SE = 626.4 95% CI (4,847, 7,324); 2011 SD = 6,275.2, SE = 672.8, 95% CI (2,527, 5,202). dTotal economic cost equals average operating costs plus total capital costs (opportunity cost plus depreciation). eNet return is equal to the average revenue minus the total economic cost of running the charter business.

work. The opportunity to make additional income is a secondary each Great Lake separately in order to discover why changes in reason for being a charter captain. Captains are concerned about the charter fishery occur. The accompanying article by O’Keefe external factors such as ANS and the economy that could impact et al. (this issue) does just that, by documenting efforts to iden- success. Captains appear to have made management decisions, tify existing data that may explain why the Lake Huron change such as keeping boats that are paid off and/or fully depreciated, was so dramatic. as a way to improve the economic viability of their business. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Not all of the Great Lakes experienced the same changes in revenues and number of trips per charter captain between 2002 The authors thank Carmina Chiappone, Dena Abou-el- and 2011. O’Keefe et al. (this issue) note that Lake Huron ex- Seoud, and Lorraine Cordova for their assistance with this study. perienced what could be described as a crash in charter fishing, We thank our Great Lakes Sea Grant Network coworkers Jeff whereas other Great Lakes saw less drastic changes. Knowing Gunderson, Karla Kaczmarek, Dave MacNeill, Phil Moy, why changes occurred is a necessary step if we are to further Kathleen Schmitt-Klein, and Sarah Zack for their contribu- assist fishery managers and the industry. Identifying possible tions to the project . Thanks to Eugene Braig, Justin Chaf- causes of why changes in the industry occur is an open field for fin, Kristin Stanford, Thomas Blaine, and two anonymous future research. Our data suggest that one would need to look at reviewers for their helpful reviews of manuscript drafts.

210 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 A successful Lake Erie Walleye angler. Photo credit: Ohio Sea Grant.

TABLE 6. Concerns of the Great Lakes charter fishing TABLE 7. Five-year plans of Great Lakes charter captains industry in 2011. Respondents were asked to rate each in 2002 and 2011 (number of respondents is 868 in 2002 of the listed issues on a scale of 1 = least important to and 335 in 2011). Respondents were asked to select all of 5 = most important. Means and standard deviations are the plans that applied to them. rounded to the nearest tenth. Percentage of respondents Concern Mean Standard Number of selecting a change planned score deviation respondents for their charter activities in the next 5 years Cost of fuel 4.4 ±0.9 338 Activity 2002a 2011 Aquatic nuisance species 4.4 ±0.9 334 Increase number of annual trips 58.5 57.9 Economy 4.2 ±0.9 335 Increase prices of charter 41.0 49.3 Fisheries management 4.0 ±1.1 330 services­ Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Decrease in the forage fish 4.0 ±1.1 329 No major changes 21.8 25.4 population Quit the charter business 17.7 21.5 Low sportfish populations 4.0 ±1.2 332 Buy/operate a newer boat 19.2 17.0 Harmful algal blooms 3.8 ±1.4 328 Buy/operate a bigger boat 14.1 14.3 Obtaining new clients 3.7 ±1.2 332 Branch out into other fishing- 9.6 12.5 Habitat loss 3.6 ±1.3 325 related businesses Sportfish catch limits 3.2 ±1.3 327 Decrease number of annual trips 6.5 11.3 Illegal fishing practices 3.2 ±1.4 327 Hire additional first mate(s) 7.7 11.3 Poor weather 3.1 ±1.3 331 Expand into multi-activity and/or 8.5 11.0 Fish consumption adviso- 2.7 ±1.2 329 nonfishing charters ries Hire additional charter captain(s) 5.8 10.1 Overcrowding of the fishery 2.6 ±1.1 326 Buy/operate an additional boat 4.8 8.7 Interstate licensing 2.4 ±1.2 328 Other 7.8 7.2 Other 4.7 ±0.8 58 Buy your own charter boat 2.2 3.3 Decrease prices 0.7 0.7

a2002 data from Kuehn et al. (2005).

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 211 Charter boats docked and ready to go at Grand River, Ohio. Photo credit: Ohio Sea Grant.

Finally, we thank all of the captains who responded to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 2011. Strategic vision of the Great 2011 Great Lakes Charter Captains survey. Lakes Fishery Commission 2011–2020. Available: www.glfc.org/ pubs/SpecialPubs/StrategicVision2012.pdf. (December 2013). Kuehn, D., F. Lichtkoppler, and C. Pistis. 2005. The Great Lakes char- FUNDING ter fishing industry; 1973 to 2002. Fisheries 30(3):10–17. Lichtkoppler, F., C. Pistis, and D. Kuehn. 2003. The Great Lakes This work was supported, in part, by grants from the U.S. charter fishing industry in 2002. Ohio Sea Grant, OHSU- Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric TS-039, Columbus. Administration (NOAA grant NA12OAR4170059 and NOAA Lindner, J. R., T. H. Murphy, and G. E. Briers. 2001. Handling nonre- grant NA10OAR4170074) to the Ohio Sea Grant College sponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Educa- tion 42(4):43–53. Program. The NOAA grant NA12OAR4170059 was made pos- Lindner, J. R., and G. J. Wingenbach. 2002. Communicating the han- sible by an interagency pass through of funds from the USACE dling of nonresponse error in Journal of Extension Research in as part of the Great Lakes Mississippi River Interbasin Study Brief articles. Journal of Extension 40(6). Available: www.joe. org/joe/2002december/rb1.php. (December 2013). (GLMRIS) authorized by Section 3061(d) of Water Resources Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Miller, L., and K. Smith. 1983. Handling nonresponse issues. Journal Development Act of 2007. Support was also provided by the of Extension 21(5):45–50. Ohio Board of Regents, the Ohio State University, and Ohio ODW (Ohio Division of Wildlife). 2012. Ohio’s Lake Erie Fisheries, State University Extension. 2011. Annual status report. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Pro- ject F-69-P. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Lake Erie Fisheries Units, Fairport and Sandusky. REFERENCES Oh, Chi-Ok, R. Ditton, B. Gentner, and R. Riechers. 2005. A stated BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2014. Consumer price index infla- preference approach to understanding angler preferences for tion calculator. Available: www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator. management decisions. Human Dimensions in Wildlife: An Inter- htm. (January 2014). national Journal 10(3):173–186. Dawson, C. P., F. R. Lichtkoppler, D. Kuehn, and C. Pistis. 1995. Great Oh, Chi-Ok, S. Lyu, and S. Holand. 2012. Understanding tourists’ pref- Lakes charter fishing industry: 1973–1994. Pages 573–576 in J. erences for boat fishing trips. Tourism Economics 18(2):413–429. L. Thompson, D. W. Lime, B. Gartner, and W. M. Sames, editors. Rasmussen, J. L., H. A. Regier, R. E. Sparks, and W. W. Taylor. 2011. Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Dividing the waters: the case for hydrologic separation of the Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995 National Recreation North American Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins. Jour- Resource Planning Conference. University of Minnesota, College nal of Great Lakes Research 37:588–592. of Natural Resources and Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul. USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). GLMRIS Team. Dawson, C. P., F. R. Lichtkoppler, and C. Pistis. 1989. The charter fish- 2013. Great Lakes charter fishing industry—baseline economic ing industry in the Great Lakes. North American Journal of Fish- assessment. Appendix D: Economic assessment; Attachment 3: eries Management 9:493–499. Charter fishing; D-443-D484. Available: glmris.anl.gov/glmris- Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design report. (January 2014). method. John Wiley & Sons, New York. ———. 2014. Summary of the GLMRIS report—Great Lakes and Mis- ———. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method, sissippi River Interbasin Study. Available: glmris.anl.gov/docu- 2nd edition. John Wiley, New York. ments/docs/glmrisreport/GLMRISSummaryReport.pdf. (Janu- ary 2014).

212 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 FROM THE ARCHIVES “Westward the Star of Empire Takes Its Way.”-Berkeley The World Leader & Innovator in Fish Tags When the poet wrote the above line, he little recked how soon they would come true, especially in fishery matters. First the Atlantic Coast of North America wrested the fishery preeminence from the old world, and for many years our fishing vessels, manned by the hardiest and most daring fishermen the world has seen up to that time, plowed the seas from the ice- bound fastnesses of the Arctic to the even more difficult ones of the Antarctic. As time went on, and the shore of the Pacific gradually became peopled with the • Call 800-843-1172 to discuss your hardy pioneers of the East and Middle custom tagging needs West, including also some of those who • Email us at [email protected] had participated in the later stages of the wonderful development of the Atlantic • View our website for our latest catalog fisheries, and the descendants of others, www.floytag.com the infant fisheries of the Pacific began to attract attention.

John N. Cobb (1923): The Future of the Fisheries of the Pacific, Transactions of the American Fish- eries Society, 53:1, 65.

floy tag ad3.indd 1 1/24/2013 6:45:34 PM

A GRADER THAT MAKES YOUR JOB EASIER Now you can adjust grading sizes without juggling Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 multiple baskets. Our graders float, adjust quickly and have larger bars so fish pass through with little chance of gill damage. Perfect for fresh or salt water, choose either the 30 or 50 settings model.

15” x 17” x 11.5” Larger size Check out our aerators also available. and feeder too!

Visit www.freshflo.com for more details. Wisconsin • USA • 920-208-1500

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 213 FEATURE Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015

214 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 Factors Influencing Charter Fishing Effort Trends in Lake Huron

From 2002 to 2011, the number of charter fishing trips in Michigan waters of Lake Huron declined by 51%. Declines in catch rates, rising gasoline prices, and the economic downturn have been suggested as possible reasons for this decline. To better understand the relative importance of these factors, five catch-based and six economic variables were evaluated using multiple regression, with charter effort from 1992 to 2011 as the response variable. Declining catch rate of introduced Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha was more closely linked to declining effort than catch rate of native Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush or Walleye Sander vitreus. The price of gasoline was a better predictor of effort than other economic variables. Although Chinook Salmon catch rate explained more variation in charter effort than any other variable, factors beyond the influence of fisheries management also influenced effort. Ecosystem changes that led to declines in salmon abundance created favorable conditions for Walleye, leading to some localized increases in charter effort. Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Factores que influencian las tendencias del esfuerzo pesquero con embarcaciones de alquiler en el Lago Hurón En aguas del Lago Hurón, en Michigan, de 2002 a 2011, el número de días de pesca realizados con embarcaciones de alquiler disminuyó 51%. La reducción de las tasas de captura, el alza de los precios de la gasolina y la recesión económica, se sugieren como las razones de esta caída. Con el fin de conocer la importancia relativa de estos factores, se evaluaron seis variables basadas en la captura y cinco variables Daniel M. O’Keefe económicas mediante una regresión múltiple; el esfuerzo de pesca de 1992 a 2011 Michigan Sea Grant, Michigan se utilizó como variable de respuesta. La reducción en la tasa de captura del salmón State University Extension, 12220 Fillmore Street, Stuite introducido Oncorhynchus tshawytscha fue la variable que mejor se relacionó 122, West Olive, MI 49460. con la disminución del esfuerzo, más que la tasa de captura de la trucha nativa E-mail:­ [email protected] Salvelinus namaycush o la de la lucioperca americana Sander vitreus. El precio de la gasolina fue un mejor predictor del esfuerzo en comparación a cualquier otra Donna L. Wesander variable económica. De todas las variables, la tasa de captura del salmón real Michigan Department of Natural explicó una mayor variación del esfuerzo de pesca con embarcaciones alquiladas, Resources, Charlevoix Fisheries Research Station, Charlevoix, MI no obstante existen factores independientes al manejo pesquero que tienen influencia en el esfuerzo. Los cambios en el ecosistema que provocan modifican la Chi-Ok Oh­ abundancia de salmón crearon condiciones favorables para la lucioperca, lo que Graduate School of Culture, provocó condiciones favorables localizadas para que se incrementara el esfuerzo de Chonnam National University, embarcaciones alquiladas. Kwangju, South Korea

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 215 INTRODUCTION 2007; Johnson et al. 2010). Although the decline of Alewife in the early 2000s was perhaps the most dramatic example of Lake Great Lakes charter fishing expanded rapidly following the Huron’s changing forage base, changes in the lake’s demersal stocking of Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and fish community began in the mid-1990s (Figure 3) and oc- Coho Salmon O. kisutch in the late 1960s (Dawson et al. 1989). curred at a time when the quagga mussel Dreissena rostriformis These introduced piscivores preyed heavily on abundant exotic bugensis was expanding within the Lake Huron basin (Nalepa et Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus. Abundant prey, along with al. 2007). development of an effective Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus Though ecological changes have influenced catch rates and control program and a shift in fisheries management philoso- catch composition, charter captains also cite the difficult eco- phy, led to the development of recreational and charter fisheries nomic climate and high gasoline prices as reasons for declining and a decline in commercial fisheries (Bence and Smith 1999; business. The Great Global Recession of 2009 was particularly Brown et al. 1999). Steelhead O. mykiss, Brown Trout Salmo problematic for the automobile manufacturing industry. Lake trutta, and Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush are now caught Huron captains may historically have been more dependent upon along with Chinook and Coho salmon by charter anglers using automobile industry employees from the metropolitan areas of fishing methods that successfully target a variety of salmonine Flint and Detroit, Michigan, than captains on other lakes closer species (Bence and Smith 1999). Walleye Sander vitreus and to more diversified economies (Michigan Sea Grant 2009). Yellow Perch Perca flavescens support charter fishing opportuni- While the customer base from southeast Michigan was declin- ties that have more limited overlap with salmonines (Bence and ing (O’Keefe and Miller 2011), the price of gasoline more than Smith 1999) due to thermal and physical habitat differences and doubled. The cost of fuel was at the top of the list of Great Lakes vulnerability to different fishing methods. charter operators’ concerns in a 2011 survey (Lichtkoppler et al., Since 2002, the fish community of Lake Huron (Figure this issue). 1) has undergone drastic changes. During this time period, Understanding the relative importance of economic vs. Lake Huron experienced a severe decline in Chinook Salmon catch-based factors may help fisheries managers determine abundance following a period of increasing natural reproduction whether ecological changes have been driving charter effort and the collapse of Alewife (Roseman and Riley 2009; Johnson trends or whether economic factors beyond their influence are et al. 2010). The decline of Alewife in turn led to a substantial likely responsible for the recent decline. Our first objective was increase in recruitment of Walleye (Fielder et al. 2007). These to identify the catch-based variable most strongly related to changes have been particularly important for Saginaw Bay (Fig- charter fishing effort in Michigan waters of Lake Huron. Our ure 1), where shallow water and warmer temperatures are more second objective was to identify the most important economic suitable for Walleye than salmonines. As the species composi- variable in a similar manner. We then sought to incorporate pos- tion of charter catches changed (Figure 2), charter fishing effort sible lag-time effects and investigate the relative importance of in Michigan waters of Lake Huron dropped from 2,880 trips in the best-performing economic and catch-based variable. 2002 to 1,399 in 2011 (Wesander and Clapp 2013). Several studies have documented lower food web changes METHODS caused by exotic species in Lake Huron (Nalepa et al. 2007; Bunnel et al. 2011), the collapse of the Lake Huron demersal Charter Catch and Effort Reporting fish community (Riley et al. 2008), and resulting changes in Reporting of fishing effort and harvest by the charter fishing piscivorous fish populations (Fielder et al. 2007; Riley et al. industry is required under Michigan’s Public Act 451 (Part 445) of 1994. The law stipulates that charter operators keep an up-to- date daily log of their fishing activity onboard their vessel at all times. Charter fishing catch and effort have been reported to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) by each charter operator on a monthly basis since 1990. For purposes of charter effort reporting, “Lake Huron” in- Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 cludes the lake proper from its outlet at the St. Clair River north through the St. Marys River to its source at Lake Superior and west through the Straits of Mackinaw at St. Ignace and Mack- inaw City. Charter reporting for Michigan waters of Lake Huron also includes Saginaw Bay and tributaries such as the AuSable and Saginaw rivers. For the remainder of this article, Lake Hu- ron will be used to refer to state of Michigan waters of the lake proper in addition to the above-mentioned connecting waters.

Regression Methods Time series data refer to sequentially observed data points collected at consistent time intervals. Regression techniques are often used to analyze time series data that include catch and ef- fort (Hubert and Fabrizio 2007), and the inclusion of a lag-time variable in multiple regression modeling is one approach to ac- count for the possibility of autocorrelation. Our use of a 20-year annual data series limits the number of predictor variables that Figure 1. The Lake Huron watershed straddles the border between can be included in multiple regression models to three based on the United States and Canada. Saginaw Bay is shallower and more the recommendation of Hair et al. (2010) to keep the ratio of ob- productive than offshore waters. Image credit: Todd Marsee. servations to variables above 5:1. Given this limitation, the com- plexity of Great Lakes fisheries, and the large number of factors 216 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 Model Selection The best predictor variable for each of the three classes noted above was selected for inclusion in all- subsets regression based on its perfor- mance relative to other variables in its class (Table 1). Performance criteria included statistical significance F( test; α = 0.05 with Bonferroni cor- rection for 13 variables) and greater R2 value than other variables in the same class. Log transformation was necessary to meet the assumption of linearity for most variables and was applied to all independent variables. Assumptions of residual normality, homoscedasticity, and linearity were met for all variables with the excep- tion of salmonine catch per unit effort Figure 2. The number of charter fishing trips taken in Michigan waters of Lake Huron declined in the 2000s as catch composition changed dramatically. Data provided by Michigan Department of (CPUE), Lake Trout CPUE, and U.S. Natural Resources. gross domestic product (GDP). Salmonine and Lake Trout CPUE residuals did not appear to follow a normal distribution when using the conservative Anderson-Darling test (null hypotheses were rejected at α = 0.05), but the less conserva- tive Jarque-Berra test failed to detect deviation from normality (failed to reject null hypotheses at α = 0.05). Linear regression is not particularly sensitive to minor violations of the normality assumption (Kleinbaum et al. 2007), and the differing results of the two normality tests suggest that any deviation of salmonine and Lake Trout CPUE residuals from normality was not severe. Although both tests found that U.S. GDP residuals followed a normal distribution (Anderson-Darling test and Jarque Berra test failed to reject null hypothesis at α = 0.05), the

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Figure 3. Biomass estimates based on bottom trawl surveys conducted from 1976 to 2013 illus- trate declines in Trout-perch Percopsis omiscomaycus, Ninespine Stickleback Pungitius pungitius, relationship between U.S. GDP and Deepwater Sculpin Myoxocephalus thomsonii, Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus, Bloater Coregonus charter effort was nonlinear. Low hoyi, Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax, and Alewife in Lake Huron from 1994 to 2005 along with effort occurred at both high and low the arrival of Round Goby Neogobius melanostomus. Figure credit and data source: U.S. Geologi- values of U.S. GDP with high effort cal Survey (reprinted from Riley et al. 2014). occurring at intermediate U.S. GDP. that could influence charter fishing effort, we chose a multiple Late in the time series, U.S. GDP reached its highest point while regression approach that balanced the strengths and weaknesses effort declined, suggesting that the Lake Huron charter fishery of both sequential search and combinatory approaches. did not benefit from improving national economic trends. The sequential search phase (forward inclusion) was used to Limiting the number of variables included in all-subsets re- select the best single predictor variable from a suite of vari- gression to one from each class reduced the potential for multi- ables within a given class (catch-based, economic, and effort collinearity, which would have been severe if multiple variables time lag), and the combinatory phase (all-subsets regression) within a given class had been included. This approach was also subsequently incorporated these forward-included variables in a parsimonious and appropriately limited the number of independ- full model that was compared with all possible subsets contain- ent variables given the limited time series available. Multicol- ing one or more of these included variables (Hair et al. 2010). linearity among top variables from each class was evaluated This two-phase approach allowed for the possible inclusion of using variance inflation factors (VIFs), with VIF values above all variable classes relevant to our objectives while limiting the 5 considered indicative of multicollinearity (Rahel and Jackson maximum number of full-model predictor variables to three 2007). Two quality-of-fit measures were calculated for compet- ing models: second-order Akaike’s information criterion (AIC ) (Hair et al. 2010). c

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 217 and adjusted R2 (Rahel and Jackson 2007). We calculated Akaike evant scales potentially include national, statewide, and within-

weights (wi) to provide the probability of each model being cor- state regional. Although it would have been ideal to include rect in the context of all models being considered (Burnham and variables that addressed all spatial scales for each economic Anderson 2002; Rook et al. 2012). indicator, certain variables such as Michigan GDP and Detroit- area gross regional product were not available for the entire time Catch-Based Variables series. We considered five catch-based variables for forward inclu- We considered Detroit-area unemployment rate, Detroit- sion during the sequential search phase of analysis. We calculat- area total nonfarm employment, Michigan unemployment rate, ed catch rates (number of fish harvested per angler hour) on an Michigan nonfarm employment, and national (U.S.) GDP in annual basis from 1992 to 2011 using recreational angler catch the sequential search phase along with gasoline price. The U.S. and effort data from the MDNR creel census program (see Ra- Department of Labor (USDOL; 2012) provided unemployment koczy and Svoboda [1997] for detailed methods). These CPUE rates (percentage of the labor force that is jobless, looking for values did not include charter angler data, which would have employment, and available to work as determined by the current compromised the independence of the charter effort response population survey) and nonfarm employment figures. Nonfarm variable. We excluded pier and shore angler catch and effort employment was determined by the Current Employment Sta- from CPUE calculations; therefore, calculations only included tistics program, which excludes the agricultural sector from this recreational anglers fishing from boats and using methods widely used indicator of employment trends due to the seasonal similar to those employed by charter anglers. Total effort for all nature of many agricultural jobs (USDOL 2012). species was used to calculate catch rates because recording of The U.S. Department of Commerce (2012) provided U.S. targeted effort did not begin until 1997. GDP in chained 2005 U.S. dollars. We calculated gasoline price Recreational angler CPUE was calculated for Walleye, per 3.785 L (1 gallon) during the fishing season using a USDOL Chinook Salmon, Chinook and Coho salmon combined, and all (2012) consumer price index on all formulations of gasoline. salmonines (Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, steelhead, Lake We adjusted monthly index values for inflation and used these Trout, and Brown Trout combined). The ability of each of these values to calculate annual means for the period of peak fishing CPUE variables to predict charter effort in a given year was activity (May through September). Charter boat fees were not evaluated using linear regression. The CPUE for the species or included because a complete time series for the Great Lakes was combination of species that best predicted charter effort was not available and the effect of fees is often inconsequential as a subsequently included in all-subsets regression. result of minimal changes in inflation-adjusted charter boat fees (Ditton et al. 2001). Economic Variables Indicators of economic climate include total employment, Effort Lag Time Variables unemployment rate, and GDP or gross regional product. Rel- Charter fishing effort trends are potentially influenced by recent fishing participation trends. Lake Huron charter fishing TABLE 1. Linear regressions were used to select the top- effort (number of trips) in the previous year and mean effort performing independent variable within each of three over the past two years were included as independent variables classes (catch-based, economic, and effort lag time); each in regression analysis. Noncharter angler effort in the previous independent variable was log-transformed. The annual year was also included. number of charter fishing trips taken from 1992 to 2011 in Michigan waters of Lake Huron served as the response variable. RESULTS Class and variable β R2 P valuea The current analysis suggests that both economic and catch- based factors had significant relationships to charter fishing Catch-based (CPUE) effort in Michigan waters of Lake Huron from 1992 to 2012 All salmonines 0.887 0.786 <0.001 (Table 1). The catch-based variable that explained the highest Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Chinook and Coho salmon 0.926 0.858 <0.001 amount of variation in trip numbers was log-transformed CPUE Lake Trout 0.392 0.154 0.088 of Chinook Salmon, and log-transformed gasoline price ex- plained more variation than other economic variables (Table 1). Chinook Salmon 0.933 0.870 <0.001 The log-transformed number of charter fishing trips in the previ- Walleye −0.909 0.827 <0.001 ous year was the best-performing lag-time variable (Table 1). Economic When we included these three variables in all-subsets regres-

Michigan unemployment rate −0.784 0.614 <0.001 sion, the full model (wi = 0.713) had a much higher likelihood of being correct than did models including one or two variables Detroit-area unemployment rate −0.793 0.628 <0.001 (wi ≤ 0.133; Table 2). Though Chinook Salmon CPUE, gasoline Michigan nonfarm employment 0.724 0.524 <0.001 price, and one-year charter effort lag-time were all important in Detroit-area nonfarm employment 0.831 0.691 <0.001 predicting charter effort trends, the influence of Chinook Salmon Gasoline price −0.875 0.765 <0.001 CPUE (standardized β = 0.459) was greater than gasoline price (standardized β = −0.282) or lag time (standardized β = 0.296). U.S. gross domestic product −0.585 0.342 0.007 Effort lag time DISCUSSION Charter trips in past year 0.889 0.790 <0.001 We found that charter fishing effort in Michigan waters of Mean charter trips in past 2 years 0.821 0.674 <0.001 Lake Huron was best predicted using the full model, which included Chinook Salmon CPUE, gasoline price, and a lag-time aP < 0.004 indicates significance atα = 0.05 with Bonferroni factor to account for delayed response of anglers to changes in correction.­

218 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 fishing success. Although trends in Great Lakes charter fishing expansion of exotic dreissenid mussels and resulting declines revenues, charter fleet vessel characteristics, customer expendi- in benthic macroinvertebrate abundance and pelagic productiv- tures, charter business promotion, and charter fishing effort have ity (Nalepa et al. 2007; Riley et al. 2008). The cold winter of been studied (Dawson et al. 1989; Kuehn et al. 2005; Lichtkop- 2002–2003 was likely the catalyst for the Alewife collapse, but pler et al., this issue), the factors driving charter fishing effort recent food web changes were instrumental in preventing their trends have remained obscure. The Great Lakes are complex recovery (Dunlop and Riley 2013). ecosystems, and charter effort is likely affected by a wide suite Lake Trout CPUE did not have a significant relationship of factors operating on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. to charter fishing effort (Table 1, Figure 3). This result sug- The predictor variables analyzed in this article were chosen for gests that Lake Trout are mostly taken incidentally to other their possible relevance to Lake Huron on an annual basis, but salmonines or targeted during years or seasons when Chinook many others factors undoubtedly influence charter effort simul- Salmon are unavailable. The short-lived peak in Lake Trout taneously and collectively. CPUE in 2004 is likely reflective of a similar tendency among At short time intervals, factors such as wind speed and noncharter boat anglers who increasingly targeted Lake Trout as direction, wave height, surface water temperature, presence and Chinook Salmon catch rates were falling but eventually switched location of thermoclines, and other weather-related variables to targeting Walleye instead of salmonines or abandoned the can influence fishing success and in some cases restrict access to fishery altogether (Figure 2). Lake Trout are sometimes referred offshore waters entirely. Cancellation of trips due to high winds to as a “bread-and-butter” fish by charter captains who rely on is a common occurrence, and in years when peak fishing periods Lake Trout as a consistently available game fish that sustains coincide with dangerous conditions, it is conceivable that annual customers during periods of poor fishing for more desirable and effort could drop as a result. Seasonal trends in water tempera- less predictable species including Chinook Salmon. Although ture and forage availability have dramatic effects on catch rates Lake Trout are an important component of the fishery and the over the course of a year and influence predictable patterns of lake’s biodiversity, the current analysis suggests that Lake Trout charter catch rates and effort (e.g., inner Saginaw Bay is best do not drive charter fishing effort trends in Lake Huron. for Walleye early in the year before water warms and fish move Regardless of the reason behind the decline of Chinook offshore). Salmon, the impact of this decline on charter fishing is clear. At longer time intervals, dreissenid mussel filtration and Ports that historically relied on salmon fishing have seen dra- other ecological changes linked to invasive species influence matic declines in fishing effort and resulting economic impact, fish population dynamics (Riley et al. 2008; Roseman and Riley whereas Saginaw Bay ports have fared better (O’Keefe and 2009), catchability of target species (Kocovsky and Stapanian Miller 2011) due to the increase in successful Walleye reproduc- 2011), and possibly charter fishing effort. Great Lakes fishing tion that followed the decline of Alewife (Fielder et al. 2007). tactics have evolved over time in order to adapt to changing When considered in aggregate, all Lake Huron ports exhibit a water clarity, forage species availability, and changes in location strong inverse relationship between Walleye harvest rate and and timing of productive fishing. The increased use of planer charter fishing effort (Table 1, Figure 2). However, charter effort boards and focus on low-light periods are two anecdotal examples offered by charter captains as adap- TABLE 2. All-subsets regression was used to describe charter fishing effort trends tations to clear water fishing. The in Lake Huron and connecting waters 1992–2011. Only the best-performing variables from each class were included in all-subsets regression. These were log-transformed aging of the population Chinook Salmon CPUE (CHS), log-transformed mean gasoline price (GAS), and log- and reduced recruitment of young transformed charter trips taken in the past year (CTP). anglers (Dann et al. 2008) might Model Variable β 95% CI 95% CI VIF Adj. AIC w also influence charter fishing effort, c i Lower Upper R2 but trends such as this would be expected to influence effort across CHS CHS 0.933 0.745 1.111 279.716 0.012

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 the Great Lakes basin and would GAS GAS −0.875 −1.115 −0.635 291.518 0.000 not account for the disproportional CTP CTP 0.889 0.661 1.116 289.342 0.000 decline noted in Lake Huron. CHS × GAS 0.902 274.973 0.133 Influence of Fishing Success CHS 0.650 0.394 0.907 2.877 Chinook Salmon CPUE was GAS −0.350 −0.606 −0.093 2.877 the single best predictor of charter CHS × CTP 0.902 275.037 0.129 fishing effort in Lake Huron (Table 1, Figure 2). The abundance of CHS 0.627 0.356 0.899 3.211 Lake Huron Chinook Salmon CTP 0.368 0.096 0.640 3.211 declined precipitously following GAS × CTP 0.876 279.666 0.013 the Alewife population collapse in GAS −0.477 −0.734 −0.220 2.280 2003 (Johnson et al. 2010). Factors leading to the decline of Alewife CTP 0.531 0.274 0.788 2.280 in Lake Huron may have included CHS × GAS × 0.927 271.611 0.713 top-down effects exacerbated by CTP increasing natural reproduction CHS 0.459 0.186 0.732 4.300 of Chinook Salmon in Ontario GAS −0.282 −0.512 −0.052 3.053 tributaries (Johnson et al. 2010) and bottom-up effects due to rapid CTP 0.296 0.053 0.540 3.408

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 219 at Saginaw Bay ports rose from 380 trips in 2002 to 526 in 2011 large enough to be licensed to carry six passengers (Kuehn et as Walleye harvest rate increased from 8 to 43 fish per hundred al. 2005), individual charter businesses could experience either hours of angler effort in Saginaw Bay. Successful reproduc- negative or positive effects on their customers’ willingness to tion in Saginaw Bay tributaries has now eliminated the need travel in response to rising travel costs. for Walleye stocking, and natural reproduction of Lake Trout Some charter fishing businesses could be positively af- in Lake Huron has also increased in recent years (Riley et al. fected by high gasoline price if, for example, the charter fishing 2007). location is closer to home for customers than other activity or One might expect that noncharter boat angler effort would location substitutes (Oh and Hammitt 2011). Despite this pos- follow the same trends as charter angler effort and that similar sible mitigating benefit for individual charter operators, the net factors influence both fisheries. However, there are important effect of rising gasoline price on charter effort in Lake Huron differences that suggest that a separate analysis would be needed was negative. For the average Great Lakes charter business, fuel to adequately explore effort trends. On one and oil accounted for 20% of operating costs in 2002 and 28% hand, recreational boat angler hours in Michigan waters of Lake in 2011 (Lichtkoppler et al., this issue). Given that the average Huron fell by 47% from 2002 to 2011, which is very similar to Great Lakes charter business in 2002 was already losing money the drop in charter effort. Salmonid-targeted recreational angler on an annual basis (Kuehn et al. 2005), it is possible that rising hours declined by 86% over this time period, which suggests gasoline prices drove some captains out of business in addition that the decline of Chinook Salmon had a dramatic effect on to accounting for some of the estimated 17% decline in basin the noncharter fishery. Walleye-targeted recreational effort wide charter fishing effort (Lichtkoppler et al., this issue). trends are more difficult to interpret. Walleye-targeted angler The economic importance of charter fishing provides a high- hours doubled following the decline of salmon but subsequently profile example of the role that fishing plays in attracting tourists relapsed despite high catch rates. to Great Lakes ports, many of which are small towns that rely Yellow Perch add another dimension to the recreational heavily on tourism. Lichtkoppler et al. (this issue) documented a fishery and account for 20%–32% of targeted recreational boat 15% decline in revenues among Great Lakes charter businesses effort annually in Michigan waters of Lake Huron. Trends in from 2002 to 2011, but the full impact to coastal communi- Yellow Perch catch rate may be particularly important in de- ties goes beyond the earnings of charter operators to affect termining Saginaw Bay recreational effort (D. Fielder, MDNR, hotels, restaurants, convenience stores, and other local busi- personal communication), but Yellow Perch have not histori- nesses. Input–output modeling estimated that the full economic cally been of great importance to the Lake Huron charter fishery. impact of Lake Huron's declining charter effort included a loss In 2010, only 21 charter trips on Lake Huron and connecting of US$1.45 million in annual economic output (in 2009) and waters targeted Yellow Perch despite high catch rates. Perch- 51,531 employment hours in Michigan’s coastal communities targeted charter effort was not recorded prior to 2010, which (O’Keefe and Miller 2011). complicates the interpretation of recreational versus charter effort for the entire 1992–2011 time period. Implications for the Future The same catch-based factors that predict charter fishing Though there is little that fisheries professionals can do to effort on Lake Huron may influence charter effort on other mitigate a decline in charter fishing effort due to the rising cost Great Lakes to some extent. However, preferred species vary of fuel, the example of Lake Huron suggests that management somewhat from lake to lake, and trends in catch rates are not actions might increase effort through increasing Chinook Salm- consistent among lakes. For example, in Michigan waters of on abundance and catch rates. However, increasing Chinook Lake Michigan catch rates for Chinook Salmon reached an Salmon abundance is likely impossible given the current status all-time high in 2007. Charter fishing effort on Lake Michigan of Lake Huron’s forage base. Fisheries managers, stakeholder remained at around 12,000 trips in Michigan waters from 2002 groups, extension educators, and tourism professionals instead to 2007 before dropping by over 20% by 2009 and subsequently have pursued a variety of strategies and tactics to mitigate for recovering to over 12,000 trips in 2012. Lake Huron’s recent the loss of fishing-induced tourism in coastal Michigan that fol-

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 changes have served as an ominous example to Lake Michigan’s lowed the decline of Chinook Salmon. charter captains, who have been very supportive of Chinook These actions have included attempts to increase stocking of Salmon stocking reductions aimed at preventing a similar col- an another popular nonnative salmonid (Atlantic Salmon Salmo lapse (O’Keefe 2012). salmo), increase survival of Brown Trout and steelhead at cur- The example of Lake Huron may not be as applicable to rent stocking sites, and restore and enhance historic nearshore other Great Lakes charter fisheries that rely heavily on other spe- spawning reefs for Lake Trout. Several stakeholder groups cies. Lake Erie’s charter fleet primarily targets Walleye, whereas voiced support for rehabilitation of native Cisco Coregonus Lake Superior’s captains rely heavily on Lake Trout. Lessons artedi in the wake of the Alewife collapse, and a Cisco rehabili- from this examination of factors that influence charter effort in tation strategy has been adopted by the Lake Huron Committee Lake Huron may therefore be more relevant to Lake Michigan of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (Lake Huron Technical and Lake Ontario, where Chinook Salmon serve as the corner- Committee 2007). Stakeholder groups have also been supportive stone of mixed-bag salmonid fisheries. of reductions in Chinook Salmon stocking that were implement- ed due to concern for top-down effects on forage fish, increased Economic Considerations natural reproduction, and low creel return rates. The price of gasoline was the economic factor most closely Beyond these traditional fisheries management actions, there related to Lake Huron’s declining charter fishing effort. Fuel has been a coordinated effort to help communities to capitalize cost may influence the number of charter trips due to either its on other forms of nature-based and cultural tourism to fill the influence on operating costs or the willingness of customers void (Michigan Sea Grant 2009). This process included rebrand- to travel. Though the impact of high gasoline price on operat- ing of Lake Huron’s existing angling opportunities as diverse, ing costs is likely to be substantial for all operators of vessels mixed-bag fisheries and cross-promotion of charter fishing and

220 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 other types of angling within the broader tourism portfolio of Hubert, W., and M. C. Fabrizio. 2007. Relative abundance and catch/ coastal communities (B. Schroeder, Michigan Sea Grant, person- effort relationships. Pages 279–325 in M. L. Brown and C. S. Guy, editors. Analysis and interpretation of freshwater fisheries data. al communication). Though the decline of charter effort on Lake American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Huron is often seen as an ill omen for other charter fisheries, the Johnson, J. E., S. P. DeWitt, and D. J. A. Gonder. 2010. Mass-marking success of some individual businesses and increasingly positive reveals emerging self-regulation of the Chinook Salmon popula- tion in Lake Huron. North American Journal of Fisheries Man- attitudes among those charter captains who have continued to agement 30:518–529. engage with fisheries professionals provide a more optimistic Kleinbaum, D. G., L. L. Kupper, A. Nizam, and K. E. Muller. 2007. Ap- counterpoint. plied regression analysis and other multivariable methods, 4th edition. Thompson Brooks/Cole, Belmont, California. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Kocovsky, P. M., and M. A. Stapanian. 2011. Influence of dreissenid mussels on catchability of benthic fishes in bottom trawls. Trans- We are grateful for the assistance of David Clapp and Tracy actions of the American Fisheries Society 140:1565–1573. Kuehn, D., F. L. Lichtkoppler, and C. Pistis. 2005. The Great Lakes Kolb of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Reneé charter fishing industry: 1973–2002. Fisheries 30(3):10–17. Reilly of the Quantitative Fisheries Center at Michigan State Lake Huron Technical Committee. 2007. Strategy and options for University, Brandon Schroeder and Lynn Vaccaro of Michigan promoting the rehabilitation of Cisco in Lake Huron. Great Lakes Sea Grant, Ed Roseman of the U.S. Geological Survey, and Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Lichtkoppler, F., O’Keefe, D., Lucente, J., and T. Gabriel. 2015.The Frank Lichtkoppler of Ohio Sea Grant for their contributions to Great Lakes Charter Fishing Industry: 2002 to 2011. Fisheries the development of this article. 40(5):200-212. Michigan Sea Grant. 2009. Northeast Michigan integrated assess- FUNDING ment. Michigan Sea Grant, Final Report MICHU-09-207, Ann Ar- bor, Michigan. This project was funded through Michigan Sea Grant under Nalepa, T. F., D. L. Fanslow, S. A. Pothoven, A. J. Foley III, and G. Coastal Community Development grant R/CCD-17, with sup- A. Lang. 2007. Long-term trends in benthic macroinvertebrate populations in Lake Huron over the past four decades. Journal port from Michigan State University’s Center for Economic of Great Lakes Research 33:421–436. Analysis and Ludington Area Charter Boat Association. This is Oh, C., and W. E. Hammitt. 2011. Impact of increasing gasoline prices publication number MICHU-15-301 of the National Sea Grant on tourism travel patterns to a state park. Tourism Economics 17:1311–1324. Library. O’Keefe, D. M. 2012. 2012 Lake Michigan stocking survey results. REFERENCES Michigan Sea Grant, fact sheet MICHU-12-716, Ann Arbor, Michi- Bence, J. R., and K. D. Smith. 1999. An overview of recreational fish- gan. eries of the Great Lakes. Pages 259–306 in W. W. Taylor and C. O’Keefe, D. M., and S. R. Miller. 2011. 2009 Michigan charter fishing P. Ferreri, editors. Great Lakes fisheries policy and management: study. Michigan Sea Grant, Final Report MICHU-11-200, Ann Ar- a binational perspective. Michigan State University Press, East bor, Michigan. Lansing, Michigan. Rahel, F. J., and D. A. Jackson. 2007. Watershed level approaches. Brown, R. W., M. Ebener, and T. Gorenflo. 1999. Great Lakes commer- Pages 887–946 in C. S. Guy and M. L. Brown, editors. Analysis cial fisheries: historical overview and prognosis for the future. and interpretation of freshwater fisheries data. American Fisher- Pages 307–354 in W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri, editors. Great ies Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Lakes fisheries policy and management: a binational perspec- Rakoczy, G. P., and R. F. Svoboda. 1997. Sportfishing catch and ef- tive. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan. fort from the Michigan waters of lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, Bunnel, D. B., B. M. Davis, D. M. Warner, M. A. Chriscinske, and E. and Superior, April 1, 1994–March 31, 1995. Michigan Department F. Roseman. 2011. Planktivory in the changing Lake Huron zoo- of Natural Resources, Fisheries Technical Report 97-4, Lansing, plankton community: Bythotrephes consumption exceeds that Michigan. of Mysis and fish. Freshwater Biology 56:1281–1296. Riley, S. C., J. X. He, J. E. Johnson, T. P. O’Brien, and J. S. Schaef- Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and mul- fer. 2007. Evidence of widespread natural reproduction by Lake timodal inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, Trout Salvelinus namaycush in the Michigan waters of Lake Hu- 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, New York. ron. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:917–921. Dann, S. L., A. Alvarado, D. Palmer, B. Schroeder, and M. Stephens. Riley, S. C., E. F. Roseman, M. A. Chriscinske, T. R. Tucker, J. Ross, P. 2008. Angler participation, recruitment, and retention in Michi- Armenio, N. Watson, and W. Woelmer. 2014. Status and trends gan, 1995–2004: using data-mining techniques for customer of the Lake Huron offshore demersal fish community, 1976–2013. relationship management. Michigan Department of Natural Re- U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center, annual re-

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 sources, Fisheries Research Report 2088, Ann Arbor, Michigan. port to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michi- Dawson, C. P., F. L. Lichtkoppler, and C. Pistis. 1989. The charter fish- gan. ing industry in the Great Lakes. North American Journal of Fish- Riley, S. C., E. F. Roseman, S. J. Nichols, T. P. O’Brien, C. S. Kiley, eries Management 9:493–499. and J. S. Schaeffer. 2008. Deepwater demersal fish community Ditton, R. B., S. G. Sutton, S. M. Holland, J. R. Stoll, and J. W. Milon. collapse in Lake Huron. Transactions of the American Fisheries 2001. A longitudinal perspective on the social and economic Society 137:1879–1890. characteristics of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico charter and party boat Rook, B. J., M. J. Hansen, and O. T. Gorman. 2012. The spatial scale for industry. Pages 372–384 in R. L. Cresswell, editor. Proceedings of cisco recruitment dynamics in Lake Superior during 1978–2007. the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries In- North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32:499–514. stitute. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Ft. Pierce, Florida. Roseman, E. F., and S. C. Riley. 2009. Biomass of deepwater demer- Dunlop, E. S., and S. C. Riley. 2013. The contribution of cold winter sal forage fishes in Lake Huron, 1994–2007: implications for off- temperatures to the 2003 alewife population collapse in Lake shore predators. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management Huron. Journal of Great Lakes Research 39:682–689. 12:29–36. Fielder, D. G., J. S. Schaeffer, and M. V. Thomas. 2007. Environmental U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2012. and ecological conditions surrounding the production of large Online databases. Available: www.bls.gov. (July 2012). year classes of Walleye (Sander vitreus) in Saginaw Bay, Lake USDOL (U.S. Department of Labor), Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Huron. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33(Suppl. 1):118–132. Online databases. Available: www.bls.gov. (July 2012). Hair, J. F., Jr., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2010. Wesander, D. L., and D. F. Clapp. 2013. Charter boat catch and ­effort Multivariate data analysis, 7th edition. Prentice Hall, New York. from the Michigan waters of the Great Lakes, 2012. Michigan ­Department of Natural Resources, Charlevoix, Michigan.

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 221 FEATURE

The North Carolina Charter Boat Fishery Changing with the Times: ­ A Comparative Analysis of the Catch Composition (1978 and 2007–2008) Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015

222 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 The North Carolina charter boat fishery was surveyed in 1978 and provided a comprehensive assessment of the species catch composition and economic impacts. This fishery was surveyed again in 2007–2008 to provide a more recent representation of the effects and impacts on tourism and coastal fish populations. We analyzed and compared the species catch composition, type of fishing trips (inshore vs. offshore), and anglers’ residency (in state vs. out of state) between these two surveys. Overall, in 2007–2008 the northern district was mainly characterized by offshore fishing trips by out-of-state anglers during summer and fall months, whereas the central and southern districts were primarily characterized by in-state anglers making inshore (southern district) and offshore (central district) trips occurring mainly during summer (southern district) and fall (central district). Since 1978, the fishery in the northern and central districts has expanded further offshore, mainly targeting larger pelagic species. The fishing effort in the southern district, although expanding further offshore, has concentrated on reef species and on coastal pelagic as secondary target species. Larger, technologically more advanced boats may explain the observed patterns. This result may also be attributed to the adoption of species-specific fishing regulations after 1978.

Cambios en el tiempo de la pesquería con botes de alquiler Andrea Dell’Apa Institute for Coastal Science and Policy, en Carolina del Norte: un análisis comparativo de la Flanagan 250, East Carolina University, composición de la captura (1978 y 2007-2008) Greenville, NC 27858. E-mail: [email protected] En 1978 realizaron un estudio de la pesquería de botes de alquiler en Carolina del Norte, en el que se brinda una evaluación sistemática de la Evan Knight composición por especies de la captura y sus impactos económicos. Esta Department of Biology, East Carolina pesquería fue estudiada nuevamente en 2007-2008 con el fin de tener una ­University, Greenville, NC representación más reciente de los efectos e impactos en el turismo y las Anthony S. Overton poblaciones ícticas costeras. Entre ambos estudios, se analizó y comparó la Department of Biological and Environ- composición por especies de la captura, tipo de viajes de pesca (costeros mental Sciences, Alabama Agricultural and vs. fuera de la costa) y la residencia de los pescadores (del estado vs. fuera Mechanical University, Normal, AL del estado). En 2007-2008 el distrito norte se caracterizó por presentar, durante el verano y otoño, viajes de pesca hacia fuera de la costa realizados Craig E. Landry por pescadores de fuera del estado; mientras que los distritos centro y sur Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, se caracterizaron por los viajes costeros (distrito sur) y fuera de la costa GA (distrito central) efectuados por pescadores del estado durante el verano (distrito sur) y el otoño (distrito central). Desde 1978, la pesquería en los Christopher F. Dumas distritos norte y central se ha expandido hacia fuera de la costa, dirigiendo Department of Economics and Finance, el esfuerzo principalmente a especies pelágicas más grandes. El esfuerzo University of North Carolina Wilmington, de pesca en el distrito sur, aunque también se ha expandido hacia fuera Wilmington, NC de la costa, se ha concentrado en especies arrecifales y, como especies objetivo secundarias, en pelágicos costeros. Los patrones observados John C. Whitehead Department of Economics, Appalachian pueden explicarse por el uso de barcos más grandes y tecnológicamente State University, Boone, NC más avanzados. Este resultado también puede atribuírsele a las regulaciones pesqueras especie-específicas adoptadas después de 1978.provocó James H. Herstine condiciones favorables localizadas para que se incrementara el esfuerzo de Department of Parks and Recreation, embarcaciones alquiladas. University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015

INTRODUCTION diverse assemblage of sport fishes found in North Carolina wa- ters (Chester et al. 1984). The unique dynamics of the Hatteras The charter fishing fleet in North Carolina targets a wide Bight offers recreational anglers the opportunity to experience variety of fish species along the coast. Major differences in spe- a diverse variety of sportfishing. Despite this variety in species cies catch composition are primarily because North Carolina is composition, the majority of the recreational catch is composed on a dividing line at the Cape Hatteras Bight (Love and Chase of five species: Dolphinfish (or Dolphin)Coryphaena hippurus, 2007). In particular, Cape Hatteras represents an important Striped Bass Morone saxatilis, Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix, natural divide between the Middle Atlantic Bight (MAB) and the Yellowfin Tuna Thunnus albacares, and Spanish Mackerel South Atlantic Bight (SAB). High productivity in the MAB is Scomberomorus maculatus. These ranked as the top five species a consequence of an oceanic front forming a boundary between in the recreational fishery in North Carolina in 2011, represent- continental shelf water and oceanic slope water (Lohrenz et al. ing about 59.4% in weight of the total recreational landings in 2002). High primary production occurs in the SAB because of 2011 (NCDMF 2012). upwelling associated with baroclinic instabilities of the Gulf The charter fishing industry in North Carolina is an impor- Stream and its proximity to the continental shelf, which gener- tant part of the economy of local coastal communities. They ates eddies and meanders (Lohrenz et al. 2002). Moreover, the offer people who would otherwise find it unaffordable a chance Labrador Current and the Gulf Stream are two major currents to experience deep-sea fishing without having to invest in a that can influence species presence. The confluence of the boat and fishing gear or incur all of the necessary expenditures Labrador Current and the Gulf Stream off the coast of North for maintenance and storage (Abbas 1978). The North Carolina Carolina can influence species presence and contribute to the

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 223 charter fishing industry was estimated to support 540 jobs and to Each boat was then provided with forms that were completed by generate a total statewide economic impact of US$53.2 million captains or boat mates, eliciting detailed information on daily in 2012 (Holland et al. 2012). Out-of-state fishermen accounted catch. Data collected for each boat included both information for the majority of charter and headboat passengers in 1997, sug- about trips (number of trips, type of trip, date, and location of gesting that a large proportion of the economic impacts of these fishing activity), species caught (number and estimated weight fishing activities was “new money” flowing into the economy of of each species caught), and vessel characteristics (estimated the coastal regions (Holland et al. 1999; Dumas et al. 2009). value, length, and age of the boat). Data forms were collected Despite the importance of the recreational fishery for both by researchers weekly from January to December 1978 from a species exploitation and contribution to local coastal economies total of 135 charter boats (each with capacity for less than seven along the North Carolina coastline, only a paucity of studies passengers excluding captains and crew members) to represent have focused on the detailed catch composition of the charter the total North Carolina charter fishing fleet in 1978 (Manooch fishing and angler demographics. Perhaps the best available et al. 1981). study was conducted in 1978 by Manooch et al. (1981), for For the 2007–2008 study, a list of charter boat captains was which a census of charter boat captains in North Carolina was drawn from the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries completed, providing a detailed assessment on species catch (NCDMF) registry of For-Hire and Blanket For-Hire Fisheries composition and passengers’ residency. The aim of the present permitted vessels (Dumas et al. 2009) to provide the preliminary study is twofold. The primary objective is to characterize the sampling frame. A captain survey was sent by mail to all for-hire species catch composition, type of fishing trips (inshore vs. captains either (1) holding National Oceanic and Atmospheric offshore), and anglers’ residency (in state vs. out of state) of the Administration (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries Service North Carolina charter fishing fleet in 2007–2008. The second- (NMFS) Open-Access Permits for Dolphin/Wahoo, pelagic fish, ary objective is to compare the results of 2007–2008 with those or snapper/grouper, (2) identified by field surveyors interviewing obtained in 1978 by Manooch et al. (1981), to identify major passengers at marinas, (3) listed on regional charter/headboat pattern changes in species catch per unit of effort (CPUE) be- fishing websites, or (4) identified by a website search for indi- tween the two periods, and to discuss potential causes for these vidual North Carolina charter and headboat websites. For-hire differences. captain surveys collected detailed information about monthly trips (number of trips, average distance from shore in miles, list MATERIAL AND METHODS of the top three species targeted, and list of the top three species Data Collection actually caught) and vessel characteristics (estimated market Data on catch for the North Carolina charter boat fleet in value, length, and combined horsepower of the boat). Data 1978 (Manooch and Laws 1979; Manooch et al. 1981) were were collected by means of three surveys implemented between collected by means of paper surveys distributed to charter boat July 2007 and December 2008. We used data from the for-hire ports located between Oregon Inlet (the northern most inlet in captain surveys to compare the characteristics (average market North Carolina) and the edge of the North Carolina–South Caro- value and length of the boat) of the charter fishing fleets between lina border (Figure 1). Boat captains were contacted by research- 1978 and 2007–2008. ers and informed of the purpose and objectives of the project. In addition, data were collected by means of dockside interviews of charter boat passengers at the end of for-hire fishing trips, obtaining detailed information about passengers (age, ethnicity, and permanent residence), trip characteristics (number of passengers and type of trip), and the species caught (targeted species, number of species caught and kept, and number of species caught and released). These dockside interviews

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 were conducted at the primary marinas and fish- ing centers located between Dare County and Brunswick County, North Carolina, between July 2007 and December 2008. The dockside inter- views for each port area were a randomized sur- vey effort noted by month, day of the week, and time of day. When more passengers were present at a dock/port on a given day/time than could be surveyed, a systematic sample of those present was utilized. To characterize catch species com- position, the passenger survey was chosen over the charter captain survey because the former contained detailed quantities for each species caught by each survey respondent, whereas the latter contained information about species caught in a ranking format (only the top three species targeted were included), which hampered further comparison with quantitative data from 1978. Figure 1. Map of the study area with North Carolina state borders and division lines for the sampling districts (N = northern district, C = central district, S = southern district) following the same area partitioning of Manooch et al. (1981).

224 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 We note that though the survey from 1978 collected information district increased consistently during June and July, representing from a census (with input from all charter captains), our results 33.9% of all trips in this district. The central district was mainly for 2007–2008 were obtained by interviewing a random sample characterized by offshore trips conducted between August and of charter boat passengers and captains (as noted above) to rep- October, which represented 65.9% of all sampled trips in this resent the initial survey and allowed for comparisons of species district. A majority (80.9%) of the anglers in the northern district catch composition for each district investigated between 1978 were out-of-state residents (Figure 2). In contrast, the southern and 2007–2008. We refer the interested reader to Manooch et district is marginally characterized (54.7%) by in-state recrea- al. (1981) and Dumas et al. (2009) for further information about tional anglers. For the central district, the majority (90.2%) of data collection. respondents were from North Carolina. Overall, estimated average market values (constant year Data Analysis U.S. dollars) of charter boats in North Carolina were higher in The coastline was partitioned following the geographic 2007–2008 than 1978 for each district, with the central and the subdivision originally used by Manooch et al. (1981). The study southern districts reporting the highest and lowest values for area was divided into three districts: the northern district, from 2007–2008, respectively (Table 1). Among the three districts, the Virginia–North Carolina border to Ocracoke, North Carolina; the southern district had, on average, the shortest charter boats the central district, from Harker’s Island/Morehead City–At- in both 1978 and 2007–2008 and the least powerful engines in lantic Beach to Sneads Ferry, North Carolina; and the southern 2007–2008. district, from south of Sneads Ferry, North Carolina, to the North Carolina–South Carolina border. Species Catch Composition Data were further divided into inshore fisheries (less than The patterns in the CPUE (mean number of fish caught/trips) three miles from shore) and offshore fisheries (more than three differ between 1978 and 2007–2008 for most of the species and miles from shore), with the latter type of fishery requiring a fed- areas (Table 2). “Other species” always represented one of the eral fishing permit, which is consistent with the distinction used top three species caught in 2007–2008, whereas in 1978 it was by Manooch et al. (1981; C. S. Manooch, per- sonal communication). We used CPUE (mean catch per trip) to compare fishing effort used by Manooch et al. (1981). In case of multiple surveys by passengers onboard the same ves- sel on the same trip, a single survey response was selected randomly, and the informa- tion was extrapolated to the entire vessel by multiplying by the number of passengers. We focused primarily on total catch (sum of fish caught and kept), and we also provided information on total fish released (sum of fish caught and released) separately.

RESULTS Fishing Trips, Anglers, and Fishing Fleet Characteristics The dockside interviews of passengers produced 865 usable surveys providing de- tailed information about trips and the species

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 caught in 2007–2008 in the charter fishery in coastal North Carolina. Figure 2 provides a summary of the monthly trips during 2007–2008 by all surveyed passengers (each completed survey was considered as one trip). Overall, effort was greatest in summer (June to August), with 61.0% of the fishing trips and the peak occurring in June, followed by spring (March to May) with 21.2% of the trips, fall (September to November) with 16.4%, and then winter (December to February) with 1.4% of the trips (Figure 2). The type of fishing trips varied between districts and season, with a preponderance of offshore trips in the northern districts (84.3% of all sampled trips in this district) between spring and late fall compared to the Figure 2. Summary of trips by month, sampling district, type of fishing trip (inshore vs. southern district, which is characterized by offshore) and passengers’ residency (in state vs. out of state) for 2007–2008. The total includes number of trips with no information available to be classified as inshore vs. more inshore trips within the same period offshore and in-state vs. out-of-state trips. (Figure 2). Offshore trips in the southern

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 225 TABLE 1. Charter boat characteristics in North Carolina by district and time (*1 missing data, NA = data not available). Numbers in parentheses for 2007–2008 represent the number of boats surveyed (each boat representing a vessel trip) included in the analysis. The information for 1978 was originally partitioned by the average number of trips (68 and 133; Manooch et al. 1981). All values in US$ are converted to the 2012 Consumer Price Index (www.bls.gov/cpi). Northern district Central district Southern district 2007- 2007- 2007- 2008 1978 2008 1978 2008 1978 (105) (46) (67) 68 133 68 133 68 133 Mean market value of boat ($) 297,302* 72,483 172,511 315,857* 106,077 128,608 88,614 96,831 118,453 SD 250,896 85,701 139,558 332,549 99,320 79,293 78,417 81,180 69,846 Range (min-max) 489 - 7,042 - 52,815 - 12,489 - 21,126 - 14,084 - 10,860 - 10,563 - 42,252 - 1,303,200 316,890 528,150 1,375,500 316,890 352,100 434,400 211,260 228,865 Mean length of boat (feet) 44.9 37.0 45.0 40.4 42.0 44.0 29.6 38.0 45.0 SD 10.1 6.9 5.6 12.6 5.4 5.4 7.6 5.4 5.0 Range (min-max) 22 - 65 31 - 53 36 - 53 22 - 61 35 - 52 30 - 50 18 - 85 29 - 44 38 - 52 Mean combined horsepower 823.6 NA NA 835.4 NA NA 445.0 NA NA of boat SD 462.7 NA NA 612.3 NA NA 289.3 NA NA Range (min-max) 115 - 3,300 NA NA 140 - NA NA 90 - 1,300 NA NA 2,700

TABLE 2. Summary of species catch composition and mean CPUE (number of individuals caught/number of trips) by district area for 2007–2008 (this study) and 1978 (Source: Manooch et al. 1981). Numbers in parentheses represent the number of trips (numbers of trips in 1978 were higher than 2007–2008 as they originated from a census of the 135 char- ter vessels fleet). Bold numbers represent the catch for the top three species. Northern district Central district Southern district Species 2007–2008 (508) 1978 (5,114) 2007–2008 (41) 1978 (2,069) 2007–2008 (325) 1978 (1,265) Billfish 0.92 0.76 1.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 Bluefin Tuna 0.53 0.01 2.41 0 0 0.01 Yellowfin Tuna 1.38 0.81 1.66 0.02 0.01 0.03

Bigeye Tuna 0.92 0.01 0.10 0 0 0 Other Tuna 3.14 0.93 0.83 0.10 0.15 0.10 King Mackerel 0.94 2.90 3.37 9.94 2.77 11.0 Spanish Mackerel 4.55 0.03 4.98 2.59 12.60 2.17 Wahoo 1.90 0.44 7.46 0.18 0.26 0.05 Dolphin 22.84 9.55 10.63 1.33 2.00 0.68 Grouper 0.31 — 3.80 — 3.00 — Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Snapper 0.29 — 2.34 — 6.40 — Cobia 0.28 0.01 0.29 0.02 0.01 0.01 Striped Bass 0.18 — 0.15 — 0.07 — Drum 0.08 — 0.15 — 0.05 — Bluefish 6.80 11.68 5.41 6.20 0.78 5.66 Other species 9.66 0.55 9.17 2.49 6.47 2.44

a top three species only in the southern district. In the north- however, these two species groups were a larger contribution to ern district the catch was dominated mostly by Dolphin and the catch of fishermen in 2007–2008. Bluefish, which represented the top two species in 2007–2008 and 1978. King Mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla had the third Released Species Composition highest catch in 1978. The southern district was mainly charac- The top species released (only available for 2007–2008) terized by catches of King and Spanish mackerel and Bluefish in in the northern district were Bluefish (3.54), Dolphin (3.48), 1978. The catch composition has shifted to Spanish Mackerel, Spanish Mackerel (2.10), and other species (1.19; Table 3). In snapper, and other species as the dominant catch in 2007–2008. the central district, fewer species were released compared to There were no reported catches of snapper and grouper in 1978; the other two districts, mainly Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri (10.20), Dolphin (2.34), grouper, and King Mackerel (2.20). In

226 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 TABLE 3. Summary of catch composition effort (number TABLE 4. Summary of species catch composition and of individuals released/number of trips) for released fish effort (number of individuals caught/number of trips) by by district area for 2007–2008. Numbers in parentheses district area and type of fishing trip (inshore vs. offshore) represent the number of trips. Bold numbers represent for 2007-2008. Numbers in parenthesis representing the the catch for the top three species. number of trips. Bold numbers represent the catch for the top three species. Northern Central Southern Species district Northern Southern district (41) district (325) Central district (508) district district Billfish 0.91 0.66 0.01 Species In- Off- In- Off- In- Off- Bluefin Tuna 0.23 0.15 0 shore shore shore shore shore shore (59) (431) (6) (33) (148) (168) Yellowfin Tuna 0.04 0.12 0 Billfish 0 1.03 1.00 0.82 0.03 0 Bigeye Tuna 0.02 0 0 Bluefin 0.10 0.60 1.00 2.82 0 0 Other Tuna 0.14 0 0.06 Tuna King Mackerel 0.05 2.20 1.63 Yellowfin 0.25 1.51 0 2.06 0 0.02 Spanish Mackerel 2.10 1.02 3.91 Tuna Wahoo 0.26 10.2 0.09 Bigeye 0 1.08 0 0.12 0 0 Tuna Dolphin 3.48 2.34 0.77 Other 0 3.70 0 1.03 0.03 0.27 Grouper 0.05 0.44 1.02 Tuna Snapper 0.04 0 1.52 King 0.41 1.02 4.00 2.91 0.58 4.78 Cobia 0.11 0.44 0 Mackerel Striped Bass 0.15 0.15 0.02 Spanish 26.31 1.66 10.00 4.36 19.37 6.07 Mackerel Drum 0 0 0.38 Wahoo 0 2.15 4.33 7.76 0.16 0.36 Bluefish 3.54 0 0.18 Dolphin 1.42 26.24 1.00 12.30 0.29 3.46 Other species 1.19 0.83 1.76 Grouper 0.14 0.33 0 4.73 0.28 5.54 the southern district, Spanish Mackerel were the major spe- Snapper 0.27 0.31 0 2.91 0.30 12.11 cies released (3.91), followed by other species (1.76) and King Cobia 0.53 0.26 0 0.36 0 0.02 Mackerel (1.63). Striped 0.31 0.14 0 0.18 0.14 0.13 Bass Inshore vs. Offshore Catch Composition In 2007–2008, Bluefish was the primary inshore species Drum 0 0.09 0 4.00 0.11 0 caught by anglers in the northern (33.78) and central (15.00) Bluefish 33.78 3.17 15.00 10.91 1.38 0.26

districts and Spanish Mackerel was overwhelmingly the primary Other 16.90 8.73 2.67 4.91 3.28 9.51 species caught in the southern (19.37) district (Table 4). Spanish species Mackerel was the second most common species caught in the northern (26.31) and central (10.00) districts. Other species completed the top three species caught in the northern (16.90) the central district. The release fishery in the southern district, and southern (3.28) districts. Interestingly, Wahoo (4.33), which however, is distinctly different from the other districts, because is generally considered an offshore species, was the third most it is characterized by snapper (2.94), King Mackerel (2.73), and

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 caught inshore species in the central district. The offshore trips other species (2.26) as the primary species. For the inshore trips, were characterized primarily by Dolphin in the northern (26.24) Bluefish (18.85) and Spanish Mackerel (13.58) were the major and central (12.30) districts. Other species (8.73) and “other species released in the northern district, and Wahoo (12.00) and tuna” (3.70) were included in the top three species (excluding King Mackerel (4.67) were released primarily in the central Dolphin) in the northern district, which was followed closely by district. The southern district inshore release fishery consists Bluefish (3.17), Dolphin (12.30), Bluefish (10.91), and Wahoo mostly of Spanish Mackerel (7.09), other species (1.29), and (7.76) were listed as the top three species caught offshore by drum species (0.83). anglers in the central district. The offshore catch in the southern district differed from the other districts. Snapper (12.11), other Monthly Species Catch Composition between 1978 and species (9.51), and Spanish Mackerel (6.07) were the major spe- 2007–2008 cies caught by anglers. Grouper (5.54) and King Mackerel (4.78) Monthly catch composition between 1978 and 2007–2008 were also commonly caught in the southern district (Table 4). (comparison available only for 11 species between April and November) differed between the two time periods and among Inshore vs. Offshore Caught and Released Species species (Table 6). In general, most of the fishing trips occurred Composition­ from May to October. Bluefish was the most caught species There were more offshore than inshore species released for from April to August in 1978, and Dolphin was the most caught all districts (Table 5). Dolphin (3.96), Bluefish (1.10), and other species from April to August in 2007–2008. Although Bluefish species (1.10) were the major offshore species released in the was very common in 1978, Dolphin was also among the top northern district, whereas Wahoo (8.12), King Mackerel (1.33), three species caught. Another difference in catch between the and Spanish Mackerel (1.27) were the major species released in two studies is that King Mackerel was a major component of the

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 227 TABLE 5. Summary of released species composition and October relative to other months. The catch was also higher in effort (number of individuals released/number of trips) by April for Bluefin and Yellowfin tuna and Wahoo, although these district area and type of fishing trip (inshore vs. offshore) for 2007–2008. Numbers in parentheses represent the results are based on only six trips. Monthly catch of Dolphin number of trips. Bold numbers represent the catch for the were higher during the spring in the southern district (Table 9). top three species. Most of the catch of inshore species, however, occurred mainly Northern Southern in the summer, with grouper and snapper consistently targeted Central district district district­ between May and July. During this same period, King and In- Off- In- Off- In- Off- Spanish mackerel were commonly caught by anglers all the way shore shore shore shore shore shore through October. (59) (431) (6) (33) (148) (168) Billfish 0 1.01 1.00 0.45 0.03 0 DISCUSSION Bluefin 0 0.28 0 0.18 0 0 Results for 2007–2008 indicate that the fishing effort of the Tuna North Carolina charter boat fleet was greatest during summer, Yellowfin 0 0.04 0 0.15 0 0 and it was concentrated in the northern and southern districts, Tuna with fewer trips in the central district (Figure 2). However, each Bigeye 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 district has specific characteristics in regard to its own charter Tuna boat fleet. In the northern district, the majority of anglers were Other 0 0.16 0 0 0.03 0.08 from out of state and targeted primarily offshore pelagic species Tuna between spring and fall (Figure 2; Tables 3, 4, 7). This is likely King 0 0.06 4.67 1.33 0.45 2.73 the result of the proximity of the northern district to large popu- Mackerel lation centers in the northeast corridor (i.e., Washington, D.C., Spanish 13.58 0.57 0 1.27 7.09 1.10 Baltimore, Maryland, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and New Mackerel York, New York), which provide an abundant supply of recre- Wahoo 0 0.30 12.00 8.12 0.04 0.14 ational out-of-state anglers in summer months (Abbas 1978; Dit- Dolphin 0 3.96 1.00 2.00 0.22 1.27 ton et al. 2002), and coastal proximity to the Gulf Stream, which allows the charter fishing fleet to reach deep warm waters in a Grouper 0 0.06 0 0.55 0.16 1.83 shorter time (~17 nm), compared to the central district (~35 nm) Snapper 0 0.04 0 0 0 2.94 and southern district (~43 nm). Our results were similar to the Cobia 0.41 0.07 0 0.55 0 0 patterns observed in 1978, where the charter fishing industry in Striped 0.61 0.10 0 0.18 0 0.36 the northern district made approximately 54% of the total trips Bass of the North Carolina fleet and had the highest average and total Drum 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 revenue by district (Manooch et al. 1981). The changes in CPUE in the central district reflect a shift Bluefish 18.85 1.38 0 0 0.35 0.04 toward offshore waters of the charter fleet over time, further Other 2.24 1.10 0 1.03 1.29 2.26 contributing to the exploitation of offshore pelagic species along species with the recreational fishing fleet in the northern district (Table 2). In fact, the northern and central portions of the North Caro- catch throughout the year 1978 but was only a major catch dur- lina coastline are closer to the Gulf Stream than the southern ing November in 2007–2008. Bigeye Tuna Thunnus obesus was portion. Over time, increases in recreational fishing technolo- nearly absent from the catches in 1978 but were recorded for gies have allowed for the continuous offshore expansion of the every month in 2007–2008. Bluefin Tuna T. thynnus was caught northern and central charter fishery in North Carolina. Within from April to October, and there were no reported catches in the last several decades, technological advancements of fishing boats have led to worldwide expansion of fishing efforts further Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 November. offshore (Pauly and Froese 2001; Valdemarsen 2001). Compared Monthly Species Catch Composition for 2007–2008 to the past, recreational fishers now have access to more efficient The monthly species catch composition by district for 2007– motors (two-stroke versus four-stroke), which allows them to 2008 (data not available for 1978) shows that in the northern travel longer distances with greater fuel efficiency. Today, recre- district (Table 7) offshore species—particularly Dolphin—were ational fishers also have access to the use of many commercial mainly caught in the spring and summer, with a peak of 32.72 in fishers’ tools, including global positioning systems, depth finder May. Other pelagic offshore species, including Yellowfin, Blue- technologies, and abrasion-resistant , resulting in fin, and other tuna species, were mainly caught in spring and be- the catch of more and bigger fish (Cooke and Cowx 2006); tween October and December. King Mackerel were also caught because of this, they have more convenient access to offshore mainly between October and December, and Spanish Mackerel areas with different weather and sea conditions (see Rutgers were mainly caught in the summer. Finally, the highest CPUE University Sea Surface Temperature Data; marine.rutgers.edu/ for Bluefish occurred during spring and peaked at 19.14 in July. mrs/sat_data/?nothumbs=0&product=sst), which is conducive Effort in the central district was relatively higher in the fall and to a larger fish catch. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that directed more toward pelagic offshore species, such as Dolphin, the use of boats with more efficient and bigger engines and Bluefin and Yellowfin tuna, and Wahoo (Table 8). Wahoo was more sophisticated fishing sonars and technologies have allowed very popular in April (7.33) and August (12.00). The catch in anglers in the central district, who are mainly in-state residents, September shifted to Dolphin, Bluefish, and King Mackerel and to target offshore pelagic species more than in the past (Tables 1, then was directed toward Wahoo, Dolphin, and other species 2; Figure 2). Consequently, an increased CPUE for offshore pe- in October. The catch for snapper and grouper was highest in lagic species, such as Wahoo, Bluefin and other tuna, and Cobia

228 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 representing a greater proportion of the catch. In 1978, the majority of fishing trips in the 1978 (430) 0 0 0 0 0.02 7.11 0 >0.01 0 0 21.03 central (79.4%) and southern (92.6%) districts were made inshore, and authors predicted

November that inshore trips in these two districts should (20) 2008 2007- 0 0 6.05 2.00 12.00 4.05 0 1.75 1.10 0 0.25 have remained the primary trend, because of reduced populations of large pelagic species (Manooch et al. 1981). However, our results

1978 for 2007–2008 indicate that, contrary to this (1,203.5) 0.02 0 0.23 0 0.15 15.92 0.11 0.10 0.26 >0.01 3.64 prediction, fishing effort in the central district

October expanded offshore (Figure 2; Table 4) and, spe- cifically for the southern district, offshore trips (54) 2008 2007- 0.94 0.94 0.52 1.19 3.80 4.67 6.31 5.98 10.91 0.44 5.06 have increased in importance mainly during summer (Tables 4, 9). However, the offshore expansion did not result in an increase in the 1978 (1,191) 1.24 0 0.20 0 0.89 2.82 2.00 0.79 4.34 >0.01 2.30 market values and average length of the charter fishing fleets in the southern district over time September

(68) (Table 1). For example, in 1978, offshore 2008 2007- 0.62 0.57 1.06 0.35 2.81 0.49 8.01 2.87 23.12 0.09 7.28 fishermen targeting large tuna and billfishes were limited to Penn International reels, which

1978 were expensive. Now there are more affordable (1,442) 0.81 0 0.16 0 0.49 0.74 2.91 0.64 7.27 >0.01 15.37 and competitive brands on the market. Because

August of advancements in safety and comfort, anglers can now travel further distances offshore, (139) 2008 2007- 1.06 0.22 0 0.23 1.37 1.01 12.30 1.76 11.90 0.12 7.35 with a variety of companies that can provide assistance to anglers who are experiencing

1978 boat problems. Additionally, most boats are (1,330) 0.67 0 2.03 0.01 0.52 1.21 0.32 0.31 8.93 0.01 12.81 now equipped with an EPIRB (Emergency July Position-Indicating Radio Beacon) that can be (180) 2008 activated to alert search and rescue services in 2007- 0.32 0.02 0.36 1.04 0.30 1.57 9.79 0.47 6.93 0.36 8.41 the event of an emergency. Many boat captains now carry satellite phones, which connect to satellites instead of terrestrial cellular towers— 1978 (1,485.5) 0.18 0.02 0.29 0 0.77 4.14 0.73 0.11 14.53 0.02 7.62 something not available in 1978. June The smaller engine power of vessels in the southern district indicates that, on aver- 2008 (209) 2007- 0.68 0.53 0.85 0.21 0.11 1.82 9.11 0.38 18.26 0.15 2.38 age, the charter fishing fleet in the southern district likely cannot reach the same offshore distances made by vessels in the northern 1978 (1,032) 0.07 >0.01 0.27 >0.01 1.12 2.11 0.07 0.13 2.78 >0.01 7.06 and central districts (Table 1). Nevertheless, May temporal comparison in species catch composi- tion in the southern district suggests that reef (130) 2008 2007- 0.38 0.15 0.78 0.13 3.85 1.30 2.22 1.50 21.32 0.08 0.56 species, such as snapper, grouper, and drum

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 (Black Drum Pogonias cromis and Red Drum 1978 (335) 0.01 0 0.12 0 0.39 7.20 0.01 0.05 0.54 0 17.27 Sciaenops ocellatus), represent an important component of the recreational catch in this April coastal area, mainly offshore (Tables 4, 9). In (51) 2008 2007- addition, other coastal pelagic species (e.g., 0.38 1.81 3.40 1.13 3.32 0.89 0 3.26 15.66 0.11 0.75 King Mackerel, Spanish mackerel, Bluefish, and Dolphin) likely represent primary target species. These results are in accordance with Species Billfish Bluefin Tuna Yellowfin Yellowfin Tuna Bigeye Bigeye Tuna Other Tuna King Mackerel Spanish Mackerel Wahoo Dolphin Cobia Cobia Bluefish those of 1978, for which a combination of TABLE 6. Monthly catch composition and CPUE (number of individuals caught/number of trips) for 2007–2008 (this study) and 1978 and 1978 (this study) 2007–2008 for of trips) and CPUE (number of individuals caught/number composition 6. Monthly catch TABLE higher than in was the number of trips (the in 1978 represent Manooch et al. 1981). Numbers in parentheses (Source: from was back-calculated for 1978 composition fleet). Catch vessels charter of the 135 a census from originated because they 2007–2008, species. three the top for the catch the original paper (Manooch et al. 1981). Bold numbers represent environmental (e.g., temperature and currents) and physical factors (e.g., bottom topography) Rachycentron canadum was reported in 2007–2008 compared to were suggested to attract more oceanic pelagic spe- 1978 (Table 2). cies in the northern districts (Manooch et al. 1981). In the southern district, fishing trips were conducted by a In addition, results by monthly catch indicate majority of in-state anglers, mainly inshore, although a ma- that other coastal pelagic species (i.e., King and jor offshore fishery occurs between June and July (Figure 2). Spanish mackerel and Bluefish) and larger pelagic Overall, these results were similar to those reported by Manooch species, such as Dolphin, were a common target et al. (1981), but there are some differences between the two in the southern district between spring and fall in studies. It is clear that there has been a shift toward offshore 2007–2008 (Table 9). Of these species, King Mack- species since 1978. This is supported by Dolphin and Wahoo erel was mainly caught between May, July, and

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 229 TABLE 7. Summary of monthly species catch composition and effort (number of individuals caught/number of trips) in the northern district for 2007–2008. Numbers in parentheses represent the number of trips. Bold numbers represent the catch for the top three species. April May June July August Septem- October November December Species (44) (80) (115) (74) (91) ber (52) (22) (19) (11) Billfish 0.34 0.63 1.27 0.78 1.51 0.69 1.05 0 0 Bluefin Tuna 1.02 0.24 1.00 0.05 0.33 0.35 1.09 0 1.36 Yellowfin Tuna 3.36 1.28 1.60 0.86 0 1.04 0.27 6.37 1.82

Bigeye Tuna 1.36 0.21 0.40 2.53 0.35 0.46 2.73 2.11 0 Other tuna 3.81 6.01 0.16 0.54 2.09 3.67 7.77 12.63 8.55 King Mackerel 0.70 0.46 0.47 0.56 0.40 0.35 4.23 4.26 8.27 Spanish 0 0 2.27 11.31 8.80 6.50 3.41 0 0 Mackerel­ Wahoo 2.93 2.00 0.60 1.14 2.36 2.90 5.05 1.84 1.18 Dolphin 18.14 32.72 32.28 14.84 17.81 24.81 20.09 1.16 0 Grouper 0.14 0.61 0.16 0.24 0.53 0.15 0.55 0 0 Snapper 0.55 0 0 0.22 0 2.08 0 0 0 Cobia 0.14 0.13 0.28 0.86 0.13 0.12 0.55 0 0 Striped Bass 0 0.23 0 0.41 0.30 0 0 0.95 0 Drum 0 0 0.04 0 0.30 0.04 0.27 0 0 Bluefish 0.91 0.08 3.83 19.14 11.01 6.75 8.86 0 0 Other species 9.86 4.39 4.90 31.97 8.60 3.06 9.18 0 4.36

TABLE 8. Summary of monthly species catch composition in October, and Spanish Mackerel was a target species during effort (number of individuals caught/number of trips) in summer and fall (Table 9). the central district for 2007–2008. Numbers in parenthe- The CPUEs reported in this article should not be interpreted ses represent the number of trips. Bold numbers repre- to represent the relative abundance of specific fish stocks. We sent the catch for the top three species. explicitly made sure not to compare CPUE data between 1978 April August September October Species and 2007–2008 studies. We simply present the data from both (6) (1) (9) (25) surveys to characterize and describe patterns in catches. We do Billfish 0.83 6.00 0.67 1.12 note that the CPUEs are different between the two studies. There Bluefin Tuna 8.50 0 2.33 1.08 are a multitude of factors that may be responsible for these differences in CPUEs between the studies beyond the relative Yellowfin Tuna 4.67 0 2.00 0.88 abundance of the fish species, including the targeted species by the angler; angler perception, attitude, and skill level; boat Bigeye Tuna 0 0 0 0.16 size and capacity; differences in the trip lengths and durations Other tuna 0 0 0 1.36

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 between the two study periods; and the captain and deck hand King Mackerel 2.67 0 0.67 4.64 skill level. Additionally, the differences in sampling methods Spanish 0 0 12.00 3.84 likely account for some of the differences in CPUE between Mackerel the studies. Because our data were collected onsite, there are a Wahoo 7.33 12.00 4.22 8.48 number of biases we can expect. For example, the proportions Dolphin 2.00 0 31.33 5.68 across regions that are more likely to reflect the distribution of sampling efforts and sampling strategies (i.e., systematic when Grouper 3.00 0 7.33 2.88 there were lots of subjects) are likely not accurate. We were also Snapper 0 0 0 3.84 more likely to sample avid fishermen, who may be more skilled Cobia 0 0 0 0.48 in catching fish. Regardless, we feel that the sampling bias does Striped Bass 0 0 0 0.24 not strongly affect the general patterns in the species caught by Drum 0 0 0 0.24 fishermen. In 1978, the recreational fishery was not subject to regula- Bluefish 0 0 16.00 3.12 tions or restrictions (catch or size limits) on any of the species Other species 1.67 0 10.00 11.04 caught, whereas in 2007–2008, several regulations on minimum length and bag limits were in force for the majority of species caught both inshore and offshore (see Online Supplemental Ap- pendix). There is some evidence that fishing regulations may be the cause for differences in the catches between the two studies. For example, the Bluefish catch (harvest only) was always the

230 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 TABLE 9. Summary of monthly species catch composition and effort (number of individuals caught/number of trips) in the southern district for 2007–2008. Numbers in parentheses represent the number of trips. Bold numbers represent the catch for the top three species. January March April May June July August September October November Species (1) (2) (3) (51) (101) (105) (47) (7) (7) (1) Billfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 Bluefin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuna Yellowfin 0 0 1.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuna Bigeye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tuna Other 0 0 2.67 0.45 0.06 0.12 0 0 0 0 tuna King 4.00 9.00 0 2.61 3.37 2.35 2.23 1.29 6.14 0 Mackerel Spanish 4.00 0 0 5.71 16.90 8.70 19.34 14.14 24.29 0 Mackerel Wahoo 0 6.00 0 0.73 0.12 0 0.38 0.86 0 0 Dolphin 0 21.00 6.67 3.43 2.29 1.36 0.70 0 0.71 0 Grouper 0 6.00 0 7.41 2.70 2.25 0.81 5.14 0 0 Snapper 0 3.00 0 10.41 6.06 7.98 1.53 0 2.86 0 Cobia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 Striped 0 0 0 0.24 0 0.09 0.04 0 0 0 Bass Drum 0 0 1.00 0.22 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 Bluefish 0 0 0 1.31 0.72 0.85 0.43 0 0 5.00 Other 0 0 0 7.63 9.43 5.12 3.87 0.29 5.71 0 species

highest in 1978 (Table 6). But by 2007–2008, the Bluefish catch capriscus, White Grunt Haemulon plumieri, and Black Sea Bass was rarely the highest, which may be more likely a direct result Centropristis striata, are part of the snapper–grouper complex. of the adoption of a bag limit of 15 Bluefish per person per day Regardless, these species are highly valued as food and game or 60 Bluefish per vessel per day (regardless of the total number fishes and are heavily exploited by commercial and recreational of people onboard; see Online Supplemental Appendix). fishermen throughout their range (Coleman et al. 1999). The snapper and grouper species were mostly caught in the The other species category has clearly become more impor- southern district, but the categories in our study probably rep- tant to anglers because it always represented one of the top three resent only a small number of species. The grouper species cat- species in the 2007–2008 survey. We did not ask the anglers to egory is probably mostly represented by Gag Grouper Mycter- identify all of the different species. The increase in the other spe-

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 operca microlepis, Scamp Grouper Mycteroperca phenax, and cies suggests that the recreational fishery industry has become Red Grouper Epinephelus mono. The snapper category is most more diversified and warrants investigation. The other species likely represented by Red Snapper Lutjanus campechanus, Red group probably also included species from the snapper–grouper Porgy Pagrus pagrus, and Vermillion Snapper Rhomboplites complex not identified by anglers as snapper or grouper, and aurorubens. These are the most common snapper and grouper Greater Amberjack Serbia dumerili. It is also likely that the species off the North Carolina coast. The snapper–grouper other species category includes a number of shark species. The complex actually consists of 73 species that include snappers shark fishery has become vibrant and is an established sport (family Lutjanidae), groupers and sea basses (family Serrani- fishery in North Carolina. In 2004, there were less than 200 dae), porgies (family Sparidae), grunts (family Pomadasyidae), recreational trips targeting sharks annually. By 2012, there were tilefishes (family Malacanthidae), triggerfishes (family Balisti- over 15,000 trips targeting sharks annually, now worth $1.6 dae), wrasses (family Labridae), and jacks (family Carangidae; million to the state of North Carolina (John Hadley, NCDMF, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 1983). Of the snap- personal communication). per–grouper species common to the coastal and offshore waters Regarding the species preferences for North Carolina of North Carolina, only a few (10–14) contribute substantially to anglers, a study by Johnson et al. (1987) provided information recreational and commercial landings. We believe that most of on anglers’ perceptions of target and nontarget fish species for the snapper and grouper species are not reflected in the snapper– Texas, North Carolina, and Florida. Anglers from the three study grouper categories. The remaining snapper–grouper species are areas preferred species based on two main criteria: edibility represented mostly in the other species category. Many recrea- (good-eating fish) and sportfish (fish that are most fun to catch tional anglers whom we surveyed probably do not recognize because they fight). Interestingly, for North Carolina anglers in- that other common species, such as Gray Triggerfish Balistes terviewed (all in-state residents), this distinction was less clear;

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 231 the results suggest that other criteria influenced preferences, Billfish, particularly White MarlinKajikia albidus and Blue such as the size, shape, and habitats of the fish (Johnson et al. Marlin Makaira nigricans, never really represented a top-three 1987). The authors identified species in the grouper–snapper catch in either survey. These are currently considered as caught- complex as their primary target, high table fare, whereas coastal and-released species that are mainly targeted for sportfishing. pelagic species, including Dolphin, King Mackerel, Spanish Accordingly, many billfish tournaments in the U.S. Atlantic Mackerel, Bluefish, and Wahoo were targeted primarily as sport- are now encouraging catch-and-release as an answer to support fish. These results suggest that, at least in the southern district, billfish conservation (Ditton and Stoll 2003). According to the in-state anglers target grouper/snapper species because they are offshore characteristics of the charter fishery in the northern considered the most delectable, whereas other medium and large district, this conclusion is mainly evidenced in this district size coastal and offshore pelagic species are targeted because of (Table 5). In fact, 99% and 100% of billfish were captured in the their fighting behavior. These results, combined with changes northern district in 1978 (Manooch et al. 1981) and in 2007– in regulations between 1978 and 2007–2008, may suggest that 2008, respectively. In 2007–2008, 104 billfish were caught and recreational anglers in the southern district are somehow forced released, whereas only 17 fish were kept and not released. This to concentrate their effort on coastal pelagic, sportfish species, result is clear evidence that changes in CPUE for billfish are not namely, Dolphin, King Mackerel, Spanish Mackerel, Bluefish, a result of decreased species abundance over time. and Wahoo, especially after opportunities to catch more edible In conclusion, temporal changes in species catch composi- species, such as grouper/snapper, were limited by the adoption tion of the charter fishing fleet in North Carolina most likely of more severe species-specific regulations (see Online Supple- point to changes in fishing regulations, particularly in the south- mental Appendix). ern district, rather than decreases in species abundance. This These conclusions seem not to apply to the northern and result most likely reflects fishing regulations that were adopted central districts, which over time have become more similar (i.e., in 1990 by the NCDMF in state waters and the NMFS in federal more offshore trips) compared to the southern district, although waters. Moreover, the northern and central districts have similar the central district fishing ground is still exploited more by characteristics (i.e., mainly offshore trips) that suggest a need for in-state recreational anglers than the northern district. Overall, eventual joint management actions. Our data provide evidence the adoption of more stringent fishery management regulations of a differential exploitation based on anglers’ residency, with on the majority of species over time has led to similar results more in-state residents in the southern and central districts than in these two districts, with a higher CPUE for Bluefin Tuna in the northern district. (Table 2). In addition, increased effort directed toward Wahoo and Yellowfin Tuna in the central district and toward Spanish ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Mackerel and Cobia in the northern district was reported over We thank all of the dedicated field surveyors who helped time (Table 2). These results are in accordance with an increase collect the data in marinas. Special thanks go to Sara Mirabilio, in fishing effort toward pelagic offshore species. Despite this North Carolina Sea Grant, who helped coordinate surveyors in increase in CPUE, our results are just a snapshot of catch and ef- Dare County and helped promote and publicize the study among fort for 1978 and 2007–2008 and thus cannot account for natural vessel captains. Thanks go to Jess Hawkins for special help fluctuations of species abundance in North Carolina waters. surveying in the Morehead City/Atlantic Beach area and Tiago Therefore, the increase in Bluefin Tuna CPUE may likely not be Summacal, who collected passenger survey data throughout interpreted as an increase in abundance of the species per se in Pender, New Hanover, and Brunswick counties. The project the northern and central districts. The northern district, however, could not have been completed without the many for-hire was already characterized by the presence of a consistently captains and passengers who took time to complete the surveys productive recreational fishery for Bluefin Tuna in Hatteras, necessary for this project. We are particularly thankful to Kari North Carolina, particularly during winter months (Bohnsack et Maclauchlin, SAFMC, and Charles Manooch, NMFS-NOAA, al. 2002). This implies that the increase in Bluefin Tuna CPUE for participating in useful discussions for this article. Finally, we over time in this district, and perhaps even in the central district, are grateful for comments provided by two anonymous review- Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 should not be considered a surprising result. ers. The results for King and Spanish Mackerel show that they remain a targeted species in North Carolina. These two species FUNDING were very popular also in 1978. The King Mackerel landings The data collection for 2007–2008 was part of a project since 1995 have been highly variable, as a consequence of the funded by the North Carolina Sea Grant Office (Project # 07- stock naturally moving up and down the coast in response to FEG-05). temperature changes and food availability. A late cold front can delay the migration north in some cases. Our results are limited SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL to two time periods, and our data are not sufficient for integrat- ing specific environmental data for each district that would be A supplemental table [Appendix] for this article is available required to produce compelling findings of a species decline. online. This can be accessed on the publisher's website at http:// However, according to the most recent stock assessment for dx.doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2015.1026332 King Mackerel in the South Atlantic, the stock was not con- REFERENCES sidered overfished and overfishing is not occurring (SEDAR 2014). It is clear that recreational anglers are targeting Spanish Abbas, L. E. 1978. The North Carolina charter boat industry. Marine Recreational Fisheries 3:89–95. Mackerel more than in 1978. The stock is not considered to be Bohnsack, B. L., R. B. Ditton, J. R. Stoll, R. J. Chen, R. Novak, and L. S. overfished, and the abundance is not a matter of concern for the Smutko. 2002. The economic impacts of the recreational Bluefin stock conservation status, according to the last available stock Tuna fishery in Hatteras, North Carolina. North American Journal assessment (SEDAR 2012). of Fisheries Management 22:165–176.

232 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 Chester, A. J., G. R. Hunstman, P. A. Tester, and C. S. Manooch III. 1984. South Atlantic Bight reef fish communities as represented in hook-and-line catches. Bulletin of Marine Sciences 34(2):267– 279. Coleman, F. C., C. C. Koenig, A. M. Eklund, and C. B. Grimes. 1999. Management and conservation of temperate reef species in the grouper–snapper complex of the southeastern United States. Pages 233–242 in J. A. Musick, editor. Life in the slow lane: ecol- ogy and conservation of long-lived marine animals. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 32, Bethesda, Maryland. Cooke, S. J., and I. G. Cowx. 2006. Contrasting recreational and com- mercial fishing: searching for common issues to promote unified conservation of fisheries resources and aquatic environments. Biological Conservation 128:93–108. Ditton, R. B., S. M. Holland, and D. K. Anderson. 2002. Recreational fishing as tourism. Fisheries 27:17–24. Ditton, R. B., and J. R. Stoll. 2003. Social and economic perspec- tive on recreational billfish fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Re- search 54:545–554. Dumas, C. F., J. C. Whitehead, C. E. Landry, and J. E. Herstine. 2009. Economic impacts and recreation value of the North Carolina for-hire fishing fleet. North Carolina Sea Grant Fishery Resource Grant, Final Report 07-FEG-05, Raleigh, North Carolina. Holland, S. M., A. J. Fedler, and J. W. Milon. 1999. The operations and economics of the charter and head boat fleets of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic coasts. Department of Rec- reation, Parks and Tourism, and Department of Food and Re- source Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville. Holland, S., C. Oh, S. Larkin, and A. Hodges. 2012. The operations and economics of the for-hire fishing fleets of the South Atlantic States and the Atlantic Coast of Florida. Available: efti.hhp.ufl. edu/wp-content/uploads/Operations-and-Economics-For-Hire- Fishing-Fleets2.pdf. (May 2013). Johnson, J. C., D. C. Griffith, and J. D. Murray. 1987. Encouraging the use of underutilized marine fishes by southeastern U.S. anglers, Part I: the research. Marine Fisheries Review 49:122–137. Lohrenz, S. E., D. G. Redalje, P. G. Verity, C. N. Flagg, and K. V. Mat- ulewski. 2002. Primary production on the continental shelf of Northwest Marine Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Deep-Sea Research II 49:4479– 4509. Love, J. W., and P. D. Chase. 2007. Marine fish diversity and composi- tion in the mid-Atlantic and south Atlantic bights. Southeastern Naturalist 6(4):705–714. Technology, Inc Manooch, C. S., III, L. E. Abbas, and J. L. Ross. 1981. A biological and economic analysis of the North Carolina charter boat fishery. Marine Fisheries Review 43:1–11. Tagging Systems & Methods Manooch, C. S., III, and S. T. Laws. 1979. Survey of the charter boat troll fishery in North Carolina, 1977. Marine Fisheries Review for the Research & 41:15–27. NCDMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2007. North Management of Fish and Carolina fisheries rules for coastal waters, 2007. Morehead City, North Carolina. other Aquatic Resources ———. 2012. 2011 Commercial and recreational statistics. Available: portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2c845e5b- 8767-4430-916e-2cf02428bfa6&groupId=38337. (May 2013).

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Pauly, D., and R. Froese. 2001. Fish stocks. Pages 801–814 in S. Levin, editor. Encyclopedia of biodiversity, volume 2. Academic Press, TM San Diego, California.  Coded Wire Tags SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1983. Fishery TM management plan, regulatory impact review, and final environ-  Visible Implant Alpha Tags mental impact statement for the Snapper–Grouper Fishery of TM the South Atlantic region. SAFMC, Charleston, South Carolina.  Visible Implant Elastomer Tags Available: safmc.net/Library/pdf/SnapGroupFMP.pdf. (February  AutoFish SystemTM 2015). SEDAR (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review). 2012. SEDAR  Juvenile & Adult Fish Counters 28—South Atlantic Spanish Mackerel stock assessment report. SEDAR, North Charleston, South Carolina. Available: www.sefsc. noaa.gov/sedar/download/S28_SAR_SASpMack_Final_1.3.2013. pdf?id=DOCUMENT. (May 2013). ———.2014. SEDAR 38—Stock assessment report: South Atlantic King www.nmt.us Mackerel. SEDAR, North Charleston, South Carolina. Available: sedarweb.org/docs/sar/SEDAR_38_SA_SAR.pdf. (April 2015).

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 233 AFS ANNUAL MEETING 2015 CONTINUING EDUCATION American Fisheries Society 145th Annual PROGRAM Meeting, Portland, OR | August 15–16, 2015

Register for CE classes online at 2015.fisheries.org/events/workshops-and-continuing-education by June 26, 2015 to avoid class cancellations due to low enrollment.

NEW! A Brief and Gentle Introduction to Program NEW! Analyzing Fish Diets and Tissue Composition MARK for Fisheries Biologists to Assess Trophic Status Saturday, August 15, 2015, 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Saturday, August 15, 2015, 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Jim Peterson, USGS Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Jim Garvey, Southern Illinois University; Research Unit, Oregon State University; ­ [email protected] [email protected] Marybeth Brey, Southern Illinois University; Kimberly Millers, Oregon State University [email protected] The goal of this introductory short course is to familiar- Fishes occupy multiple trophic levels, with their manage- ize fishery biologists (professionals and students) with the ment and conservation depending on knowledge of feed- most widely used closed and open population capture- ing behavior, energy intake, and ultimately, growth, survival, recapture estimators for fish population parameters using and reproduction. This workshop will explore the relative program MARK (available for free download). Participants pros and cons of collecting data spanning short-term (e.g., will be provided with an overview of the general concepts diet contents, foraging experiments) and long-term (e.g., and assumptions and example datasets for running analyses tissue samples, elemental composition) approaches to tro- with program MARK. These hands-on examples will be used phic ecology. Data from these collection techniques will be to illustrate basic concepts in estimation. analyzed using a variety of statistical approaches including Participants are required to bring laptops to the course and parametric and non-parametric hypothesis testing, Bayes- download MARK and the example data sets from the course ian modeling, multivariate statistics, and ordination. Partici- website (sites.google.com/site/caprecapafs2015/home) pants will leave the workshop with a grasp of techniques prior to the workshop. including gut collection, experimental design, bioenergetics, stable isotope analysis, understanding how to tackle result- Student member: $107 ing complex, and multivariate data to understand the tro- Student non-member: $132 phic relationships of fishes. A rudimentary understanding Young professional member: $132 of statistical packages such as R, SAS, and PRIMER would Member: $161 be helpful but not required. Non-member: $246 Student member: $107 NEW! Introduction to Hard-Part Microchemistry of Student non-member: $132 Fishes Young professional member: $132 Member: $161 Saturday, August 15, 2015, 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Non-member: $246 Brenda Pracheil, Oak Ridge National Laboratory;

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 [email protected] NEW! Bayesian I: Introduction to Bayesian Robert Humston, Washington and Lee University; Inference Using Gibbs Sampling (BUGS) for Fish [email protected] Biologists This course is designed to provide the necessary back- Saturday, August 15, 2015, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. ground and introduction to techniques for designing and Dan Rawding, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; implementing a study that uses hard-part microchemistry. [email protected] Topics covered will include how and when hard-part micro- chemistry techniques can be used and how and when they This beginner-level course will provide a brief overview of cannot, study design considerations, laboratory consider- Bayesian statistics as well as an introduction to application ations and specimen preparation techniques, and data re- of BUGS language for Bayesian inference. Participants will duction and analysis techniques. learn to estimate parameters from a sample of statistical distributions available in BUGS as well as conduct regres- Student member: $107 sion analysis using salmon datasets. No previous experi- Student non-member: $132 ence with BUGS software or Bayesian statistics is required. Young professional member: $132 A basic knowledge of statistical methods including regres- Member: $161 sion models is required. An understanding of capture-mark- Non-member: $246 recapture models is desirable. Student member: $107 Student non-member: $132 Young professional member: $132 Member: $161 Non-member: $246

234 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 NEW! Bayesian II: Intermediate Bayesian Inference NEW FIELD WORKSHOP! Large Wood, Using Gibbs Sampling (BUGS) for Fish Biologists Partnerships, and Lessons Learned Sunday, August 16, 2015, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Saturday, August 15, 2015, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Dan Rawding, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Bruce Zoellick, Bureau of Land Management; [email protected] [email protected] In this intermediate-level course, participants will learn to Greg Wanner, Forest Service; [email protected] use BUGS language to conduct more advanced analyses, Jeff Uebel, Forest Service; [email protected] such as random effects/hierarchical models, assessing con- vergence and the sensitivity of the prior, as well as model Through site visits to areas of the Salmon River as well as selection and checking. Previous experience with BUGS Still Creek, participants will be able to visually see the ef- software, Bayesian statistics, and generalized linear models fects of long-term restoration over multiple flow events. As is required. An understanding of capture-mark-recapture a result, they will be able to identify appropriate large wood models is desirable. designs that are effective in meeting aquatic habitat res- toration objectives. Participants will have the opportunity Student member: $107 to see the development of restoration designs spanning 20 Student non-member: $132 years. Learning from experienced aquatic specialists, they Young professional member: $132 will be able to describe what projects have worked and Member: $161 what did not meet the desired outcomes and why. Non-member: $246 *Members can register for Bayesian I & II as a package Student member: $175 at a discounted price: Student non-member: $200 Student member: $164 Young professional member: $200 Young professional member: $222 Member: $225 Members: $272 Non-member: $310

Beginning/Intermediate GIS for Fisheries Scientists NEW! Age and Growth Analyses with R Saturday, August 15, 2015, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Sunday, August 16, 2015, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Nick Sievert, University of Missouri Cooperative Fish and Derek H. Ogle, Northland College; Wildlife Research Unit; [email protected] [email protected] Jacob Schwoerer, University of Missouri; This one-day course is for fisheries professionals interested [email protected] in expanding their R skills to include analysis of age and growth data. Through a sequence of demonstrations and This course will provide an overview of beginning/interme- hands-on application exercises, participants will use R to diate GIS skills for fisheries biologists using ArcGIS, includ- construct appropriate metrics and graphics for compar- ing use of existing data, creating your own data, and review ing precision (APE, CV) and bias (age agreement table, of fundamental concepts for GIS. tests of symmetry, and age-bias plots) between two sets Student member: $134 of estimated ages, construct and apply an age-length key Student non-member: $166 to estimate ages of individual fish from their lengths, sum- Young professional member: $166 marize mean length-at-age with a von Bertalanffy growth Member: $236 model, and statistically compare von Bertalanffy growth Non-member: $321 model parameters between two or more groups of fish. Participants should be familiar with the fundamentals of R, including basic applications. NEW! Decision Support Tools for Adaptive Management Student member: $140 Student non-member: $165 Saturday, August 15, 2015, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Young professional member: $165 Elise Irwin, USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Member: $207 Non-member: $292

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 Unit, Auburn University; [email protected] This course will be an overview of the principles of adap- FREE! Leadership at All Levels in AFS tive management and decision support tools to assist with the framework. The course will be a combination Sunday, August 16, 2015, 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. of lecture and hands-on exercises with some commonly Steve McMullin, Virginia Tech University; used software. Decision tools will range from simple linear [email protected] programming on graph paper to Bayesian belief networks. Participants will also be introduced to decision-making This workshop is designed for new and emerging leaders tools for setting up monitoring programs that are needed in AFS. It addresses the need for new and emerging lead- for effective adaptive management programs. ers to better understand how AFS functions, the roles of Unit leaders in AFS, and how to be an effective leader in Student member: $140 an all-volunteer organization such as AFS. Student non-member: $165 Young professional member: $165 Member: $207 Non-member: $292

Registration Deadline: Please register online at 2015.fisheries.org/events/workshops-and-continuing-education by Friday, June 26, 2015 to help prevent class cancellations due to low enrollment. Note: Registration prices may increase after June 26, 2015 for classes not cancelled by this date.

AFS Cancellation and Refund Policy: AFS reserves the right to cancel any course. A full refund will be issued only if the CE course or work- shop is cancelled by AFS or by the instructor. AFS staff will notify all registrants of class cancellations. Questions? Contact Beverly Pike at [email protected].

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 235

AFS 2015 Portland BOOTH RESERVATION August 16th- 20th, 2015 Please complete this application in its entirety. Please print or type all information.

Company Name ______

Address______

City ______State ______Zip ______

Phone ______Fax ______

Company Contact______Email ______

*Please email your company’s description, (Approximately 75 words) as you would like it to appear in the meeting program guide. Please also include your address, phone, and web-address and forward to [email protected] prior to June 1, 2015. Due to printing deadlines, descriptions received after this date will not appear in the program guide.

BOOTH FEES PAYMENT -AFS member firm*: $1,800.00 per 10 x 10 booth Please send reservation request with full payment, or 50% -AFS nonmember firm: $1,1950.00 per 10 x 10 booth deposit of the full payment payable to American Fisheries -Crafters $450.00 per 10 x 10 booth Society. The balance will be due by July 1, 2015. Applications -Govt Approved Non Profit $650.00 submitted after July 1, 2015 must be accompanied by full -Boat Display: $500.00 w/Booth Rental payment.

* To qualify for member rate, the exhibiting company Cancellations received on or after April 15, 2015 and prior to must hold a sustaining, official, or associate July 1, 2015 will be assessed a cancellation fee equal to 50% membership with AFS. Please include your verifiable of the total exhibit space rental fee. Cancellations received membership number: #______. after July 1, 2015 will be assessed a cancellation fee equal to 100% of the total exhibit space rental fee. Number of Booths Total Cost CHECK: –––––––– –––--––––– Amount enclosed: $______We would like to be located near ______CREDIT CARD (Circle One): Visa Amex MasterCard We would rather not be located near

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 ______Name as it appears on card AFS reserves the right to assign an alternative choice based on ______availability. Card Number We agree to abide by the AFS 2015 Annual Meeting Booth Reservation Terms ______Exp. Date 3-digit Security Code ______

Signature ______Signature

RETURN COMPLETED FORM WITH DEPOSIT TO American Fisheries Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110, Bethesda, MD 20814, Attn: Shawn Johnston Questions about the Trade Show or Advertising? Please contact Shawn Johnston, AFS Trade Show Coordinator, 301-897-8616 x 230 [email protected] Fax 301-897-8096

236 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 4 • April 2015

AFS 2015 Portland BOOTH RESERVATION August 16th- 20th, 2015 Journal Highlights Please complete this application in its entirety. Please print or type all information. TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Volume 144, Number 2, March 2015 Company Name ______[Note] Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis to Estimate Lipid Evaluating Effects of Exploitation on Annual Apparent Address______Content in Atlantic Salmon Parr as Influenced by Tempera- Mortality Rates of Paddlefish Using Mark–Recapture Data. ture, PIT Tags, and Instrument Precision and Application Landon L. Pierce, Brian D. S. Graeb, David W. Willis, and City ______State ______Zip ______in Field Studies. Sherr Vue, Kurt M. Samways, and Richard A. Jason S. Sorensen. 144:337-344. Cunjak. 144:235-245. Phone ______Fax ______Effects of Suspended Sediment on Early-Life Stage Survival Growth, Female Size, and Sex Ratio Variability in American of Yaqui Chub, an Endangered USA–Mexico Borderlands Company Contact______Email ______Eel of Different Origins in Both Controlled Conditions and Cyprinid. Stephani L. Clark Barkalow and Scott A. Bonar. the Wild: Implications for Stocking Programs. Caroline L. 144:345-351. *Please email your company’s description, (Approximately 75 words) as you would like it to appear in the Côté, Scott A. Pavey, Joshua A. Stacey, Thomas C. Pratt, Martin­ meeting program guide. Please also include your address, phone, and web-address and forward to [email protected] Castonguay, Céline Audet, and Louis Bernatchez. 144:246-257. Coastal Wetland Support of Great Lakes Fisheries: Progress prior to June 1, 2015. Due to printing deadlines, descriptions received after this date will not appear in the program guide. from Concept to Quantification. Anett S. Trebitz and Joel C.

Thermal Potential for Steelhead Life History Expression in a Hoffman. 144:352-372. Southern California Alluvial River. David A. Boughton, Lee R. Harrison, Andrew S. Pike, Juan L. Arriaza, and Marc Mangel. Environmental Factors Affecting Brook Trout Occurrence BOOTH FEES PAYMENT 144:258-273. in Headwater Stream Segments. Yoichiro Kanno, Benjamin -AFS member firm*: $1,800.00 per 10 x 10 booth Please send reservation request with full payment, or 50% H. Letcher, Ana L. Rosner, Kyle P. O’Neil, and Keith H. Nislow. -AFS nonmember firm: $1,1950.00 per 10 x 10 booth deposit of the full payment payable to American Fisheries Understanding Maximum Size in the Catch: Atlantic Blue 144:373-382. -Crafters $450.00 per 10 x 10 booth Society. The balance will be due by July 1, 2015. Applications Marlin as an Example. C. Phillip Goodyear. 144:274-282. -Govt Approved Non Profit $650.00 submitted after July 1, 2015 must be accompanied by full Reproductive Complexity in a Long-Lived Deepwater Fish, -Boat Display: $500.00 w/Booth Rental payment. The Potential for Less Invasive Inference of Resource Use: the Blackgill Rockfish. Lyndsey S. Lefebvre and John C. Field. Covariation in Stable Isotope Composition between Females 144:383-399. * To qualify for member rate, the exhibiting company Cancellations received on or after April 15, 2015 and prior to and Their Eggs in Bluegill. Scott F. Colborne, Timothy J. A. must hold a sustaining, official, or associate July 1, 2015 will be assessed a cancellation fee equal to 50% Hain, Fred J. Longstaffe, and Bryan D. Neff. 144:283-291. Does Catch-and-Release Angling Alter the Behavior and membership with AFS. Please include your verifiable of the total exhibit space rental fee. Cancellations received Fate of Adult Atlantic Salmon During Upriver Migration? membership number: #______. after July 1, 2015 will be assessed a cancellation fee equal to Spawning Distribution of Bering Ciscoes in the Yukon River. Robert J. Lennox, Ingebrigt Uglem, Steven J. Cooke, Tor F. 100% of the total exhibit space rental fee. Randy J. Brown and David W. Daum. 144:292-299. Næsje, Frederick G. Whoriskey, Torgeir B. Havn, Eva M. Ulvan, Number of Booths Total Cost CHECK: Øyvind Solem, and Eva B. Thorstad. 144:400-409. Habitat Use by Juvenile Red Snapper in the Northern –––––––– –––--––––– Amount enclosed: $______Gulf of Mexico: Ontogeny, Seasonality, and the Effects of Quantifying Avian Predation on Fish Populations: Inte- We would like to be located near ­Hypoxia. Theodore S. Switzer, Edward J. Chesney, and Donald grating Predator-Specific Deposition Probabilities in Tag M. Baltz. 144:300-314. Recovery Studies. Nathan J. Hostetter, Allen F. Evans, Bradley ______CREDIT CARD (Circle One): Visa Amex MasterCard M. Cramer, Ken Collis, Donald E. Lyons, and Daniel D. Roby. We would rather not be located near [Note] Detectability of Pacific Lamprey Occupancy in

______Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 144:410-422. ______Name as it appears on card Western Drainages: Implications for Distribution Surveys. Stewart B. Reid and Damon H. Goodman. 144:315-322. A Sex-Determining Gene (sdY) Assay Shows Discordance AFS reserves the right to assign an alternative choice based on ______between Phenotypic and Genotypic Sex in Wild Populations availability. Card Number [Note] Re-Estimating Temperature-Dependent Consumption We agree to abide by the AFS 2015 Annual Meeting of Chinook Salmon. Timothy D. Cavileer, Samuel S. Hunter, Parameters in Bioenergetics Models for Juvenile Chinook Booth Reservation Terms ______­Jeffery Olsen, John Wenburg, and James J. Nagler. 144:423- Exp. Date 3-digit Security Code Salmon. John M. Plumb and Christine M. Moffitt. 144:323-330. 430. ______[Note] Using a Laboratory-Based Growth Model to Estimate Signature ______Morphometric Contribution to the Detection of Introgres- Mass- and Temperature-Dependent Growth Parameters Signature sive Hybridization in the Endangered Owens Tui Chub in across Populations of Juvenile Chinook Salmon. Russell W. California. David Galicia, Pedro M. Leunda, Rafael Miranda, Perry, John M. Plumb, and Charles W. Huntington. 144:331- Javier Madoz, and Steve Parmenter. 144:431-442. RETURN COMPLETED FORM WITH DEPOSIT TO 336. American Fisheries Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110, Bethesda, MD 20814, Attn: Shawn Johnston Book Review Questions about the Trade Show or Advertising? Please contact Shawn Johnston, AFS Trade Show Coordinator, 301-897-8616 x 230 [email protected] Fax 301-897-8096 CORRECTION

On page 153 in the April 2015 issue of Fisheries, a photo of a fish has the description “Vermilion Snapper” attached to it. However, make no mistake. That's a wrasse (Halichoeres spp.)!

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 237

To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS website calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/­ province, web address, and contact information to [email protected]. (If space is available, events CALENDAR will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.) More events listed at www.fisheries.org

May 17–19, 2015 NPAFC International Symposium on Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Production in a Changing Climate: Past, Present, and Future | Kobe, Japan | npafc.org

May 18–22, 2015 AFS 2015 Piscicide Class | USU, Logan, Utah | fisheries.org

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

May 28–29, 2015 2015 Louisiana Chapter Meeting | Baton Rouge, Louisiana | sdafs.org

June 21–27, 2015 The International Symposium on Genetics in Aquaculture | Santiago de Compostela, Spain | isga2015.com

June 22–24, 2015 Fish Passage 2015 | Groningen, Netherlands | fishpassageconference.com

July 12–17, 2015 39th Annual Larval Fish Conference | Vienna, Austria | larvalfishcon.org

July 26–31, 2015 World of Trout | Bozeman, Montana | Facebook > The World of Trout - 1st International Congress

August 16–20, 2015 145th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society | Portland, Oregon | 2015.fisheries.org

October 21–23, 2015 6th International Oyster Symposium | Falmouth, Massachusetts | oystersymposium.org

October 25–30, 2015 The Second Mississippi-Yangtze River Basins Symposium | Wuhan, China | news.fisheries.org/the-second-mississippi-yangtze-river-basins-­ symposium Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 October 27–29, 2015 The 4th International Conference on members of the genus Flavobacterium | Auburn, Alabama | flavobacterium.com

May 21, 2016 2nd World Fish Migration Day | www.worldfishmigrationday.com

238 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 COLUMN COLUMN PRESIDENT'S COMMENTARY: CONTINUED INTERVIEW POLICY (continued from p. 192) WITH KENNETH A. ROSE (continued from p. 191) 7. Flow regimes – With shifting climate, more people, and papers with more than 350 different co-authors. I also have had competing interests, every water molecule is oversubscribed. the pleasure of doing work from locally in coastal Louisiana to I sense Western water wars are about to trend nationally. The large-scale international team efforts. stress of new disputes will be a challenge for fisheries but an Finally, aquatic ecology and fisheries has become quite con- opportunity if we play well together (see #4). I envision smarter troversial in many places with competing demands for freshwa- decisions on hydropower licenses, greater attention to inter- ter in coastal systems and scientific disputes about U.S. fisheries management. I have gotten involved with many of these and, at basin transfers, and fewer water withdrawals for recreational/ last to date and as far as I know, am considered a voice of reason personal use, among others. for using science in the difficult decision making that accompa- 6. Human-generated stress – Much on this list owes to hu- nies controversial situations. man actions, but here I’m focusing directly on harvest-related impacts from overfishing, disruptive gears, mortality from , targeting larger fish, bycatch, and incidental take. We have the wherewithal to advance in each arena. Let’s do it! Reducing lead in and limiting bottom trawls have FROM THE ARCHIVES been steps forward. We need more steps, giant steps! 5. Climate change – This is perhaps the top issue facing us today. Undoubtedly, shifting environmental conditions are projected to change everything associated with fish. The suite of issues included in “climate change” will get our attention but perhaps more so in the narrower fields where progress awaits. 4. Silos – No, not vertical farm buildings but rather those attitudinal barriers to cooperative, interdisciplinary analysis and shared decision making. Inclusiveness across horizontal boundaries will yield better decisions with less acrimony. What could be better? I argued with myself about ranking this higher but decided to hide in my own silo. 3. Aquaculture – We cannot continue to act like hunter- gatherers from another epoch. We must continue our shift toward more efficient and effective methods to grow foods for a burgeoning global population. Aquaculture, both closed systems and open water, holds great promise if done wisely. Culturists are natural allies of those fighting for water quality and overall environmental health as their business will plummet if the public loses trust in their product. Persons who are unfamiliar with the develop- 2. Wetland loss – Continued, even increasing, wetland loss ment of animals during their embryonic state is a travesty with a silver lining. I hope national and coastal wet- often ask, when viewing young fish just from the land loss numbers from the past decade will finally snap plan- egg, “When does the sac drop off?” This question ners, regulators, resource managers, and citizens into reality. We have the knowledge to avoid these losses and to restore those has often been put to me, as no doubt it has to losses that cannot be avoided. Besides being great fish habitat,

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 other fish-culturists, and an explanation of how wetlands have a newfound value, as explained in #1. it is absorbed usually follows. I have believed 1. Blue carbon – Aquatic habitats, especially wetlands of heretofore that every portion of the sac was neces- all sorts (mudflats, marshes, mangroves, peat bogs, etc.) are sary to the complete development of the fish; and the most efficient carbon sinks on Earth. Their value to fish has have been rather amused at the innocent question been documented, but we’ve learned in the past few years that their ability to sequester carbon may be an even more valuable given above. All fish-culturists have noted the fact service to humanity. We now have our strongest scientific basis that an embryo with a small coagulation in its to document the economic value of wet places and protect them sac, caused by an injury while in the egg, or after from despoliation. hatching, will die near the time that the injured portion is about to be taken up by the absorbent That’s my list of primary opportunities. If I sliced our op- vessels; but, to my surprise, I have seen portions tions a different way, I may have added fire, given its growing prevalence and societal costs. Or maybe I’d go in a different of the sac thrown off this winter, and the fish have direction and select shifting baselines. After all, perception is the lived and taken food afterward. basis of all lists. But, I’m optimistic about these 10 opportuni- ties. Fred Mather (1882): Remarkable Development of Embryo Salmon, Transactions of the American Fish- Go forth and do good things! eries Society, 11:1, 7-9.

Fisheries | www.fisheries.org 239 BACK PAGE Fishy Tales from ­Science Communicators in the Pacific Northwest The following is a summary of the Science Communication Symposium held at the Annual Meeting ­ of the Washington-British Columbia (WA-BC) Chapter.

Natalie Sopinka AFS Contributing Writer E-mail: [email protected]

A timeworn image of a dam on Toronto’s Don River appears on the projector screen. Vanessa Minke-Martin’s voice fills the room. “The Atlantic Salmon of Lake On- tario were an anomaly, when we think about the arche- typal anadromous life cycle.” With a single photograph and a handful of words, Minke-Martin, a M.Sc. student at the University of British Columbia, brought the unique life history and swift extirpation of this Lauren- tian Great Lakes salmonid to life for the audience. The decline of Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar can be described with statistics, technical reports, and detailed maps, but addressing WA-BC members, Minke-Martin presented the extirpation with a captivating story. Storytelling when communicating science is gaining traction across W.B. (“Bev”) Scott photographed in 2013 during the making of Recollec- disciplines (Dahlstrom 2014). tions, a short video on the history of Royal Ontario Museum’s ichthyol- Minke-Martin chronicled the human impacts on ogy collection. Video available at: vimeo.com/78223115. Photo credit: Atlantic Salmon in Ontario. “As cities grew, pollution Vanessa Minke-Martin. poisoned rearing areas and hundreds of mills and dams were Presenters from organizations including the International built across tributaries, blocking spawning migrations,” she said. Pacific Halibut Commission, Fraser River Sturgeon Conserva-

Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 “In 1898, the last known fish was caught.” Eventually, one of tion Society, Pacific Salmon Foundation, Coastal Connection these last Atlantic Salmon would be added to the ichthyology Vancouver, COAStNet, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric collection at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in Toronto. Administration highlighted the importance of knowing that one More than a century later, this lone specimen would be used in science communication tool does not fit all. Different audiences the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources project to restore At- and publics will use different platforms—media, social media, lantic Salmon to Lake Ontario. The story of the Atlantic Salmon or face-to-face talks—to get information. Understanding these was just one of many that Minke-Martin learned while creating platforms is important for optimizing communication efforts. a documentary, Recollections, about the history of the ROM’s Integrating storytelling and narratives into communication expansive ichthyology collection. platforms can extend the reach and influence of the message. As As Ami Kingdon, associate editor at Hakai Magazine (www. Kingdon concluded, “People care about stories.” hakaimagazine.com) and speaker at the meeting said, “Stories Want to develop your storymaking and storytelling skills? Be are ancient. The power of a narrative about other human beings sure to read “Connection: Hollywood Storytelling Meets Critical is incredible.” Storytelling and fishes marry well. Symbolic and Thinking” by Randy Olson, Dorie Barton, and Brian Palermo, enchanting legends are passed generation to generation among and download the accompanying smartphone app, Connection First Nations communities. Comrades share tales after fishing Storymaker. trips to the cottage. Why not present your fisheries research as a story? Turn bullet points on opening slides into narratives. De- REFERENCE velop the story’s plot with methods and results. End your story Dahlstrom, M. F. 2014. Using narratives and storytelling to communi- with study conclusions, reminding listeners of the narrative that cate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the Na- motivated the scientific inquiry. tional Academy of Sciences 111(4):13614-13620.

240 Fisheries | Vol. 40 • No. 5 • May 2015 349 AFS Fisheries 1C STEP UP TO THE PROS. The YSI ProDSS is a portable multiparameter instrument that measures up to 17 parameters! Designed for surface water, groundwater, coastal/estuarine and aquaculture applications, the ProDSS uses smart, user-replaceable digital sensors that connect to any port and are automatically recognized by the unit. Built to provide years of sampling in the harshest conditions, the ProDSS features military spec connectors, IP67 waterproof rating, and a sure-grip case. The ProDSS is just one of the thousands of professional quality products we sell, each backed with our 100% Satisfaction Guarantee. See for yourself. Scan the code, go online, or call 800-360-7788 to order your FREE catalog today. FREE CATALOG!

Sales 800-647-5368 www.forestry-suppliers.com Scan the code to get your copy today.      ©2015 Forestry Suppliers, Inc. All rights reserved.

AllMedia_2015.indd 10 12/31/14 2:49 PM Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 R/V Kittiwake (A.Drake)

Seattle’s Portage Bay on Lake Union. (L.Rudolph)

Setting up for the survey. (A.Drake) Hands-On Mobile Surveys Using Hydroacoustic Echo Sounders, Seattle-Style

Real-Time Mobile Survey Data Every February, students from HTI’s samples allowing the data from our Without FM Slide Chirp intensive hydroacoustic short course evening survey to be saved and used Shows More Acoustic Noise, get an opportunity to “get out on the in the next day’s coursework. The Lower Resolution & Range water” on Seattle’s Lake Union to following day, data processing conduct a hands-on hydroacoustic methods for an assortment of results mobile survey instructed by HTI and are covered (e.g., horizontal and co-hosted by the University of Wash- vertical fish distributions, temporal ington Student Chapter of the Ameri- distribution in diel and seasonal, target can Fisheries Society (AFS). The 2-day strength fish size estimation, velocity, course covers mobile and fixed- and trajectory). location survey techniques. Subjects Real-Time Mobile Survey Data include basic hydroacoustic theory, With summary data available every 6 With FM Slide Chirp deployment logistics, data collection seconds and a ping rate of up to 50 Significantly Reduces Noise and processing, and typical results. pings/seconds, high resolution data is Increases Resolution & Range Split-beam, dual-beam, and single- produced in real-time with range strata beam techniques are discussed in as small as 10 cm. To take it further, detail; with examples illustrating what students learn how to employ the FM other researchers have accomplished slide-chirp signals to provide up to a 15 to-date. dB gain in signal-to-noise ratio, reducing bias and variability in In the hands-on mobile survey, resulting fish target strength and students head out on the R/V Kittiwake biomass estimates. This increases for an evening of mobile survey both resolution and range at the same hydroacoustic techniques. With a time. hydroacoustic system sampling with two transducers at a frequency of 200 Of course, this is Seattle, so there is Downloaded by [Department Of Fisheries] at 21:05 26 July 2015 kHz one at 6 degrees and the other at usually coffee onboard, and we’re out 15 degrees (other available frequencies to learn and have fun. To see how are 120 kHz and 420 kHz), HTI much productive fun we had at the instructors share best practices for hands-on mobile survey last February, fisheries assessment. These include check out www.HTIsonar.com/mobile. hands-on training in system deploy- And to find out what a difference an ment, transect allocations, as well as FM slide/chirp can make for a mobile how to produce real-time results. hydroacoustic survey, check out www.HTIsonar.com/FMslide. The mobile systems record the Tracey Steig’s Intro (L.Rudolph) Kristi Geris, Anchor QEA (A.Drake) complete, unthresholded digital

A great exercise in practical use of active acoustics… See the Project Pics specific instruction provided the best insights into how the acoustic theory we learned earlier in the week works in action.

Get the - 2015 Short Course Student FM Slide Pub

(L.Rudoplh) www.HTIsonar.com/mobile