Fisheries · declines in coastal fisheries have sparked a resurgence in hatchery-based marine stock enhancement. New aquaculture and tagging technologies, along with demands for accountability

Fisheries Fish NewsLegislative UpdateJournal HighlightsCalendarJob Center

American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

JANUARY 2007VOL 32 NO 1

The Role of Fish Biologists in Helping Society Build Ecological Sustainability

Evaluating Localized vs. Large-scale Management: The Example of Tautog in Virginia

A Responsible Approach

A half century ago, efforts to supplement marine fishstocks in the United States were abandoned for lack ofevidence of their success. Since then, worldwidedeclines in coastal fisheries have sparked a resurgencein hatchery-based marine stock enhancement. Newaquaculture and tagging technologies, along with demands for accountability in fisheries management, have resulted in a quantitative approach to marine stock enhancement1.

For example, Dr. Ken Leber at Mote Marine Laboratory (www.mote.org) in Florida conductsresearch that addresses critical uncertainties about stockenhancement of important coastal commercial and recreational species. In a recent publication2, Dr. Leber used Coded Wire Tags to estimate the postreleasemortality of striped mullet Mugil cephalus released atdifferent sizes. He found that size-dependent

postrelease mortality had a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness of stocking strategies. Dr. Leber hasalso used Coded Wire Tags in his research evaluatingthe effectiveness of stocking snook, Pacific threadfin,and red snapper.

This research, and many other programs examiningmarine stock enhancement around the world rely onCoded Wire Tags to identify and track hatchery reared fish and crustaceans after release. Please contact us ifwe can help with your program.

1Blankenship H. L. and K. M. Leber, 1995. A responsible approachto marine stock enhancement. American Fisheries SocietySymposium 15: 167-175.2Leber, K. M., R. N. Cantrell and P. Leung. 2005. Optimizing cost-effectiveness of size at release in stock enhancement programs.North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 25:1596–1608.

Juvenile mullet can be tagged with Coded Wire Tags (above) which can thenbe recovered from adults (right) to evaluate hatchery programs.

Actual size: 1.1 mm x 0.25 mm

Corporate Office360.468.3375 [email protected]

Biological Services 360.596.9400 [email protected]

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

PERSPECTIVE 9 PROFESSIONAL ISSUES

The Role of Fish Biologists in Helping Society Build EcologicalSustainabilityUnsustainable use of ecosystems causespervasive loss of aquatic biodiversity andecosystem services. Fish biologists can helpbuild ecological sustainability by investingmore in conservation education.

Paul Angermeier

FEATURE 21 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Evaluating Localized vs. Large-scale Management: The Example of Tautog in VirginiaSimple models used for localized assessmentscan have advantages over sophisticatedmodels applied to an entire stock complexwhen multiple stocks exist.

Troy Tuckey, Noëlle Yochum, John HoenigJon Lucy, and Joseph Cimino

OPINION 30 FISHERIES FORUM

A Perspective on the Decision toEstablish an AFS Marine JournalConstitutional protocol was not followed inmaking the decision to create another AFSjournal.

Dennis R. DeVries, Gary G. Grossman, David H.Wahl, Jennifer A. Stone, Fred M. Utter, Cecil A.Jennings, and Deirdre M. Kimball

COLUMNS4 PRESIDENT’S HOOK

Sharing the Table and the SourceThe formation of the Mexico Chapterillustrates the increasingly international focusof AFS.

Jennifer L. Nielsen

29 DIRECTOR’S LINE

Developing the New Marine and Coastal FisheriesJournalDespite some early miscommunications,the new marine and coastal fisheriesjournal should be a major step forwardfor the Society.

Gus Rassam

DEPARTMENTS6 FISHERIES NEWS

7 UPDATE:LEGISLATION AND POLICY

8 JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS:JAAH AND NAJA

31 FIRST CALL FOR AFS 2007AWARD NOMINATINOS

34 CALENDAR: 2007 FISHERIES EVENTS

36 GUIDELINES:2007 GUIDE FOR AUTHORS

39 CALENDAR:2007 UNITS MEETINGS

40 COLUMN:STUDENTS’ ANGLE

42 REPORT:STUDENT PAPER JUDGING

44 OBITUARIES: GENNADY MANCHENKOAND YURI ALTUKHOV

45 UPDATE:AFS 2007 ANNUAL MEETING

49 JOB CENTER

51 ADVERTISING INDEX

COVER: Effective conservation education involves not onlythe presentation of objective facts, but also the inculcation ofa land/water ethic that is largely absent in modern culture.CREDIT: Michelle Adcock

AFS OFFICERS PRESIDENT Jennifer L. NielsenPRESIDENT ELECT Mary C. FabrizioFIRST VICE PRESIDENT William G. FranzinSECOND VICE PRESIDENT Donald C. JacksonPAST PRESIDENT Christopher C. KohlerEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam

FISHERIES STAFFSENIOR EDITORGhassan “Gus” N. RassamDIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONSAaron LernerMANAGING EDITORBeth BeardPRODUCTION EDITOR Cherie Worth

SCIENCE EDITORS Madeleine Hall-ArberDoug BeardKen CurrensWilliam E. KelsoDeirdre M. KimballRobert T. LackeyDennis LassuyAllen RutherfordRuss Short

BOOK REVIEW EDITORSFrancis JuanesBen LetcherKeith Nislow

Amer i can F i she r i e s Soc ie ty • www.f i she r ie s .o rg

ED I TOR IAL / SUBSCR I PT ION / C I RCULAT ION OFF ICES5410 GROSVENOR LANE, SUITE 110 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2199301/897-8616 • FAX 301/897-8096 • [email protected]

THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY (AFS), founded in 1870, is theoldest and largest professional society representing fisheriesscientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlightenedmanagement of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoymentby the public. It also encourages comprehensive education offisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training.

Fisheries Dues and fees for 2007 are $76 in North America ($88 elsewhere) forregular members; $38 in North America ($44 elsewhere) for studentand retired members. Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription.Nonmember and library subscription rates are $112 ($134). Price percopy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmember. Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) ispublished monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 GrosvenorLane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 ©copyright 2007. Periodicalspostage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at an additional mailingoffice. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from theeditor or the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If requesting from themanaging editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelopewith your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproductionof material in this publication is permitted only under consent orlicense from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send addresschanges to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane,Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199.

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

JANUARY 2007VOL 32 NO 1

219

45

4 Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 1 • JANUARY 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG

One activity that has changed signifi-cantly over the last four years during mytenure as an officer of AFS is our interna-tional involvement. We have established anew, affordable dues structure for interna-tional members outside Canada and theUnited States. We sponsored the 4thWorld Fisheries Congress in Vancouver,British Columbia, and are actively partici-pating in the October 2008 5th WorldCongress in Yokohama, Japan. Startingthis month, all Fisheries abstracts will bepublished in Spanish as well as English.AFS has joined and plays a leading role inthe new World Council of FisheriesSocieties, along with a dozen other inter-national fisheries organizations fromaround the world. The Japanese Society ofFisheries Science (JSFB) and the FisheriesSociety of the British Isles both have activeexchange programs with AFS. JSFB is hold-

ing a joint symposium at our 2007 AnnualMeeting in San Francisco on“Conservation and Bioremediation ofCoastal Ecosystems and Restoration ofFisheries Resources.” AFS is collaboratingwith the Australian Society for FishBiology and the New Zealand MarineSciences Society to produce the“International Symposium of Tagging andMarking Technologies for FisheriesManagement and Research” in Auckland,New Zealand, 24–28 February 2008.

One successful international AFS activ-ity was the development of the MexicoChapter of the American Fisheries Society.This new unit has spread the AFS banneracross the southern U.S. border to add toour ranks as fisheries professionals a trulyNorth American fisheries focus. As anintroduction to activities sponsored by AFSin Mexico, I am dedicating this President’s

Hook to an overview of that country andtheir fisheries organizations.

Mexico has some 11,500 km of Pacific,Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean coastline,and its inland waters cover more than 2.9million hectares (U.S. Library of Congress).During the past decade, fishery science inMexico has been confronted by regionalimperatives to achieve rational and inte-grated exploitation of present andpotential marine resources within theframework of responsible and sustainablefisheries. The entire country of Mexico iswithin the geographic boundaries of theWestern Division of the American FisheriesSociety but, until recently, there had beenrelatively minor AFS activity in Mexico. Overthe years, several strategic meetings haveindicated a strong interest by Mexican fish-eries professionals in increasing theiropportunities by participating within andthrough collaboration with AFS.

Our goal was to create a unique partner-ship where those interested in Mexicanfisheries can come together to exchangeideas and approaches to fisheries researchand management, discuss current condi-tions of Mexican freshwater and marineresources, and collaborate on future actionplans. Through AFS, fisheries professionalshave been able to bridge political, cultural,

Sharing the Table and the Source

COLUMN:PRESIDENT’S HOOK

Jennifer L. NielsenAFS President Nielsen

can be contacted [email protected].

AFS leaders gather with Mexico Chapterrepresentatives at a symposium in La Paz, Mexico,in 2005. From top left: Gus Rassam, Barb Knuth,Mauricio Ramirez-Rodriguez (the Mexico Chapter’sfirst president), Bern Megrey, Chuck Knutson,Oscar Sosa Nishizaki (Chapter secretary-treasurer),Lourdes Rugge, Salvador Lluch-Cota (Chapterpresident elect), and Lynn Starnes.

Continued on page 46

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Lourdes Rugge provided guidance andassistance for this column.


ROTENONE REREGISTRATION

In April 2006, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) indicated thatthe reregistration of rotenone would becompleted in May 2006. The AFS FishManagement Chemicals Subcommittee(FMCS) has been working with the regis-trants (called the Rotenone Task Force)and EPA in addressing the data needs.Due to changing priorities with other pes-ticides, the reregistration of rotenone hasbeen delayed. EPA completed its toler-ance in September 2006 followingagreement by all registrants that terres-trial (i.e., garden and agricultural) useswould be canceled. EPA will have addi-tional technical conversations with theregistrants and FMCS shortly on mitiga-tion measures necessary to protectapplicators, and these will factor in thedevelopment of the draft RegistrationEligibility Decision (RED). EPA hopes tohave a draft RED in the next two to threemonths, but it could be up to six monthsdepending on priorities. The risks of con-cern center on applicator safety, primarilyassociated with the powdered formula-tions. The liquid formulations of rotenoneare not affected. The registrants andFMCS have indicated that the requiredsafety gear worn by fisheries professionalsand recent advancements in powderapplication technology mitigate theseconcerns.

FMCS also worked with EPA in gainingfederal registration of an alternativerotenone liquid formulation, CFTLegumine®. CFT Legumine® does not usethe conventional petroleum hydrocarbonsolvent system, is believed to be moreenvironmentally friendly, and is in usethroughout Europe. CFT Legumine® isavailable through Prentiss Incorporated. Areview of the toxicity data for this formu-lation indicates that the respiratorrequirement will likely be dropped forhandling the concentrated liquid.

ANTIMYCIN REREGISTRATION

EPA officials have indicated that theschedule for reregistration of antimycin issometime in 2007. There are a number ofremaining data gaps, and EPA is ready topublish the public health and environ-mental risk assessments within the nextmonth. The assessments will speak to theuncertainties in the data. A StandardOperations Procedure (SOP) manual thatwill be a condition of reregistration is inprogress and should be available withinthe next few months. The SOP manual isbased on the one developed for lampri-cide applications in the Great Lakes andthe stream and lake monographs devel-oped by FMCS. The U.S. National ParkService is working on its own manual thatmay be appended to the registrant’s SOPmanual. EPA understands that the com-mercial catfish use in aquaculture willlikely be included in the same documentfor lake and stream use. The existing datamay be adequate for reregistration undera limited use scenario defined as a lack ofhuman exposure in dietary drinking wateror recreational activities and the lack ofhazard to the environment. Because mostuse by public agencies occurs in remoteareas where there is little potential humancontact with antimycin, public agency usemay fall within the definition for a lack ofhuman exposure. EPA waived a numberof environmental and other data require-ments based on this limited use (seeFisheries 27[6]:10-18).

TRAINING ON PISCICIDESOFFERED

AFS, in conjunction with Utah StateUniversity at Logan, is offering a week-long training course for planning andexecuting successful fish sampling/con-trol/eradication projects using the fishmanagement chemicals rotenone andantimycin. The course instructors havetrained 60 biologists to date. The course

is scheduled for 21–25 May 2007 inLogan, Utah. For more information con-tact Brian Finlayson([email protected]) or Don Skaar([email protected]). Applications are avail-able through Joseph Melvin([email protected]) at AFS(301/897-8616 x 207).

NEED FOR NPDES PERMITS

On 20 November 2006, the EPAadministrator signed a final rule on thelack of applicability of National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES)permits for application of aquatic pesti-cides, including rotenone and antimycin.The rule revises NPDES permit regulationsand adds a paragraph to the list of dis-charges listed in 40 CFR 122.3.Specifically, application of pesticides towaters of the United States to controlpests consistent with all relevant require-ments under Federal Insecticide, Fungicideand Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) are excludedfrom NPDES permit requirements. TheEPA has concluded that pesticides likerotenone and antimycin applied underthese circumstances are not pollutantsand therefore are not subject to NPDESpermitting requirements.

PISCICIDE APPLICATION INNATIONAL FORESTS

Piscicides are integral to successfulrestoration of 13 species and subspeciesof native trout populations on U.S. ForestService (USFS) lands. However, piscicideuse by state and federal agencies innational forests has become encumberedby redundant processes, uneven andirregular application of policies and regu-lations, and overlapping authorities.Central to the issue is whether piscicideapplications by states require a permitfrom USFS; those that require a permitusually invoke a redundant, federal

FISHERIES NEWS

Update on Reregistration and Use ofPiscicides Rotenone and Antimycin


Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 1 • JANUARY 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 7

Congress approves Magnuson-Stevens reauthorizationCongress approved the reauthorization of the Magnuson-

Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act on 9 December 2006. The act,under development since early 2005, took until now to bringtogether all the different interests to reach a final bill. The act makesa number of significant changes to the fisheries management sys-tem in the United States.

The bill places limits on the creation of no-fishing zones, requir-ing that they be based on sound science and that a review processbe set to determine when and if they are no longer needed. The billalso requires the federal fishery management councils to recognizethe economic contributions of sport fishing when setting allocations.Important conservation measures include: a time frame to end over-fishing, new requirements for reducing bycatch, and provisions forbuyouts of overcapitalized commercial fleets. The bill also containsextensive provisions on individual fishing quotas for commercialfleets and strengthened enforcement to fight illegal internationalfishing.

This bill reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) through2013. The law retains the conservation improvements enacted bythe 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, and makes some modestimprovements to existing law. The bill excludes some provisions,however, that would have significantly advanced ocean fisheriesmanagement.

Key Improvements to Existing Law • Science and Statistical Committees (SSCs): The bill requires SSCs

to provide regional fishery management councils with scientificrecommendations for fishing levels. SSC members are alsorequired to disclose financial conflicts of interest.

• Catch limits: The bill requires the regional councils to developannual catch limits for all fisheries that are based on scientific rec-ommendations and at a level that prevents overfishing.

• Overfishing: Within two years of a stock being declared over-fished, councils are required to development and implement arebuilding plan that ends overfishing immediately.

• Limited Access Privilege Programs: The bill enacts new standardsthat include periodic reviews of the programs and a term limit of10 years on quota shares.

• Fisheries Conservation and Management Trust Fund: The billestablishes a trust fund for, among other things, improving fish-ery data, broadening observer coverage on vessels to monitor forwasteful fishing practices, and providing financial assistance tofishermen to help them comply with the MSA.

• Cooperative Research: The bill requires the Secretary ofCommerce to establish a nationwide, regionally-based coopera-tive research and monitoring program.

The 109th Congress reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act (MSA) as one of its finalactions. The MSA was originally passed in 1976 to establish the200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the United States coast

line. The MSA was publicly supported then as a means of prevent-ing large foreign fishing vessels from pillaging U.S. fish stocks and toensure mineral rights along the Continental Shelf. Over time, theMSA took on an increasing role in managing federal fisheries.

The MSA should be reauthorized every 5 years, but it happenson average every 10 years. The most recent reauthorization was theSustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 which prohibited overfishing inUnited States fisheries. Another important addition with the reau-thorization is the introduction of a national fishery trust. A fisherytrust was originally proposed by the Pew Oceans Commission andthe U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The trust would fund neces-sary fishery research, stock assessments, enforcement, management,and development of more selective and environmentally-friendlytypes of fishing gear.

While the reauthorization of MSA is welcomed as a step forwardin fisheries management and conservation, a large portion of the billwas cut at the final stages. The bill does not include language per-taining to national health care for fishermen.

UPDATE:LEGISLATION AND POLICY

Jessica GeubtnerAFS Policy coordinatorGeubtner can be [email protected].


To subscribe to AFS journals, go to www.fisheries.organd click on Publications/Journals.

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS:Journal of Aquatic Animal Health

Volume 18Number 4

December 2006

Laboratory and Hatchery-Scale Evaluationof Sand Filters and Their Efficacy atControlling Whirling Disease Infection.Ronney E. Arndt, Eric J. Wagner, Charles Bobo,and Thomas St. John, pages 215-222.

Disease Susceptibility of Hatchery SnakeRiver Spring–Summer Chinook Salmonwith Different Juvenile Migration Historiesin the Columbia River. Mary R. Arkoosh,Anna N. Kagley, Bernadita F. Anulacion,Deborah A. Boylen, Benjamin P. Sandford,

Frank J. Loge, Lyndal L. Johnson, and Tracy K.Collier, pages 223-231.

Virulence Comparisons of InfectiousHematopoietic Necrosis Virus U and MGenogroups in Sockeye Salmon andRainbow Trout. Kyle A. Garver, William N.Batts, and Gael Kurath, pages 232-243.

Tumor Prevalence in Mummichogs fromthe Delaware Estuary Watershed. Alfred E.Pinkney and John C. Harshbarger, pages 244-251.

[Communication] An Isolate of Piscirickettsia

salmonis from White Seabass Is Fully

Virulent for Coho Salmon. M. L. House, R. P.

Hedrick, J. R. Winton, and J. L. Fryer, pages

252-256.

Histopathological Examination of Wild

American Eels Infected with Anguillicola

crassus. Mark S. Sokolowski and Alistair D. M.

Dove, pages 257-262.

To subscribe to AFS journals, go to www.fisheries.organd click on Publications/Journals.

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS:North American Journal of Aquaculture

Volume 68Number 4

October 2006

[Technical Note] Using Portable Lactate andGlucose Meters for Catfish Research:Acceptable Alternatives to EstablishedLaboratory Methods? Rachel Venn Beecham,Brian C. Small, and C. Douglas Minchew,pages 291-295.

Developing Methods for Harvesting RosyRed Fathead Minnow Eggs. Ignacio Masson,Nathan Stone, and Yong-Woo Lee, pages 296-305.

Evaluation of Substrate Type and Densityas Factors in Optimizing Growth of LeastChub. Eric J. Wagner, Eric J. Billman, andRonney Arndt, pages 306-312.

Effects of Increased Feeding Frequency onGrowth of Hybrid Bluegill in Ponds. CliftonR. Sager and Dana L. Winkelman, pages 313-316.

The Effects of Stock and Prerelease MarineNet-Pen Culture on Survival to Adulthood,

Age at Maturity, and FisheriesContribution for Three Stocks of ChinookSalmon in Southeast Alaska. Frank Throwerand John E. Joyce, pages 317-323.

[Communication] Effect of Reduction inWater Salinity on Osmoregulation andSurvival of Large Atlantic Salmon Held atHigh Water Temperature. J. Gonçalves, S.Carraça, A. Damasceno-Oliveira, B. Fernández-Durán, J. Diaz, J. Wilson, and J. Coimbra, pages324-329.

Effect of Feeding Strategies on ProductionCharacteristics and Body Composition ofFlorida Pompano Reared in MarineRecirculating Systems. Charles R. Weirich,Derek R. Groat, Robert C. Reigh, Edward J.Chesney, and Ronald F. Malone, pages 330-338.

A Comparison of Black Carp, RedearSunfish, and Blue Catfish as Biological

Controls of Snail Populations. Jonathan J.Ledford and Anita M. Kelly, pages 339-347.

Safety of Fish Therapeutants to Glochidiaof the Plain Pocketbook Mussel duringEncystment on Largemouth Bass. Jeff J.Rach, Tony Brady, Theresa M. Schreier, andDoug Aloisi, pages 348-354.

[Communication] Population Thinning toControl Furunculosis in Steelhead. RichardA. Glenn and Peter W. Taylor, pages 355-358.

[Communication] Solid and LiquidFormulations of Copper Sulfate: Efficacy atHigh and Low Alkalinities. Andrew E.Goodwin and David L. Straus, pages 359-363.

Uniform Application of Copper Sulfate as aPotential Treatment for Controlling SnailPopulations in Channel Catfish ProductionPonds. David J. Wise, Charles C. Mischke, TerryGreenway, Todd S. Byars, and Andrew J.Mitchell, pages 364-368.


ABSTRACT: Biodiversity and ecosystem functions are discounted in most environmental decisions and market trans-actions. The ongoing pervasive losses of aquatic biodiversity reflect unsustainable uses of the biosphere but society isprofoundly ignorant and apathetic regarding this degradation. Conserving aquatic biodiversity will require fundamen-tal changes in the human economy, which fish biologists can help catalyze by re-configuring their role in conservation.Biologists concerned about biodiversity loss could become more engaged in assessing sustainability, in understandingrelations among biodiversity, ecosystem function, and sustainability, and in promoting sustainable uses of ecosystems.Fish biologists can most effectively help build ecological sustainability by educating policymakers and publics about howbiodiversity loss diminishes the quality of human lives. Via education, fish biologists should seek to influence people’svalues and ecological behavior, especially consumption patterns. The societal literacy needed for sustainability includesunderstanding how humans affect biota, dispelling the misconception that quality-of-life depends on consumption, andrecognizing how intact ecosystems contribute to aesthetic, emotional, intellectual, physical, social, and spiritual dimen-sions of human lives. I advocate a more proactive, interdisciplinary commitment to conservation that elevatesconservation education to equal importance with scientific research in the collective activities of fish biologists. Theseshifts will be difficult and require serious dialogue to reach consensus regarding fish biologists’ role in building ecologi-cal sustainability.

The problem is how to bring about a striving for harmony with land amonga people many of whom have forgottenthere is such a thing as land.

—Aldo Leopold, 1948

ABSTRACTO: La biodiversidad y las funciones de los ecosistemas son ignoradas en la mayoría de las decisiones deeconomía y mercadeo relacionadas con el ambiente. Las pérdidas persistentes de biodiversidad acuática reflejan la faltade utilización sostenible de la biosfera y la ignorancia y apatía de la sociedad en relación a esta degradación. La conser-vación de la biodiversidad acuática require cambios fundamentales de la economía y la participación de los biólogospesqueros como agentes catalizadores en la conservación de estos recursos. Los biólogos preocupados con la conservaciónde la biodiversidad y alarmados por la pérdida acelerada de especies, se sentiran comprometidos durante el proceso deevaluación del uso sostenible de estos recursos especialmente, con el estudio de las relaciones entre la biodiversidad y sufunción en los ecosistemas. Estos elementos facilitarían la promoción del uso sostenible de estos recursos. Los biólogospesqueros tienen la capacidad de fortalecer el uso sostenible de los recursos acuáticos; mediante la educación de legis-ladores y administradores de recursos naturales y del público en general acerca de como las pérdidas de biodiversidaddisminuyen la calidad de vida de los seres humanos. A través de la educación del público los biólogos pesqueros podríaninfluenciar los valores de las personas en relación a patrones de consumo y su actitud de conservación ecológica. La edu-cación social necesaria para el uso sostenible de los recursos acuáticos incluye el conocimiento del impacto que los sereshumanos ejercen en la biota especialmente la idea de que la calidad de vida depende de los hábitos de consumo.Adicionalmente debemos reconocer que los ecosistemas vírgenes contribuyen en la vida de los humanos en aspectos físi-cos, espirituales, intelectuales y estéticos. La educación de conservación se eleva al mismo nivel de importancia que lainvestigación científica en las actividades desempeñadas por los biólogos pequeros. Esta serie de cambios serán difícilesde implementar y requeriran un diálogo profundo de todas las partes interesadas para alcanzar un acuerdo en el nuevo rolque los biólogos pequeros desempeñan en el uso ecológico sostenible de los recursos acuáticos.

The Role of Fish Biologists in Helping Society Build Ecological Sustainability

La Función Social del Biólogo Pesquero en el Uso Ecológico Sostenible de los Recursos Acuáticos

Paul L. Angermeier Angermeier is a research scientist at the U.S. Geological

Survey, Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unitat the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, in

Blacksburg, Virginia. The Unit is jointly sponsored by the U.S.Geological Survey, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries,and Wildlife Management Institute. He can be contacted at

[email protected].

PERSPECTIVE:PROFESSIONAL ISSUES


INTRODUCTION

Sustainability is a timely topic for fishbiologists (e.g., the 2005 EconomicGrowth Forum in Fisheries), ecologists(e.g., the February 2005 issue of Frontiersin Ecology and the Environment), andinformed citizens (e.g., the September2005 issue of Scientific American).Sustainability is also devilishly complexin terms of what it is, how society mightpursue it, and which environmental con-ditions would prevail if we actuallyachieved it. Consequently, sustainabilityis like the weather in that there are many(sometimes contradictory) discussions butfew effective actions, at least among sci-entists. Herein, I suggest what fishbiologists should do to be most influentialin society’s attempt to construct sustain-ability.

Sustainability discourse has threebroad, interactive dimensions: ecological,economic, and social (Goodland 1995).

Ecological sustainability, the dimensionmost familiar to fish biologists, addressesthe maintenance of biodiversity andecosystem functions in the face of ahumanized biosphere (e.g., Chapin et al.2000; Rosenzweig 2003). Economic sus-tainability focuses on maintaining theflow of wealth and desired goods and ser-vices to society, as controlled byhouseholds, markets, and governments(e.g., Hahn 2000; Daly and Farley 2004).Social sustainability is concerned withpromoting human well-being and justicein the expanding human enterprise(Dobson 1998; Dasgupta 2001).

Adding to the complexity of sustain-ability issues is the fact that the currenciesused to assess status and trends differmarkedly among the three thematicdimensions. Ecological, economic, andsocial sustainability are typically assessedon the basis of so-called natural, manufac-tured, and human capital, respectively,where a policy or practice is sustainable if

it does not deplete capital. A devil in thisdetail is that because the three forms ofcapital are somewhat interchangeable,everyone sees the balances differently.Those of us in modern capitalistic soci-eties readily comprehend the monetaryworth of manufactured capital (e.g., boatson a lake) but are less familiar with valu-ing natural capital (e .g., lake biota) andhuman capital (e.g., sense of communityamong lake users). Moreover, there prob-ably are minimum thresholds of naturalcapital—for example, those needed tosupport life—below which other forms ofcapital collapse. Most of us lack explicitformulae for conversions between formsof capital, but it is precisely such formulaethat are the basis for environmental deci-sions at personal, community, andnational scales and for distinguishing sus-tainable from unsustainable practices.Although all three dimensions are inter-woven in proposals for achievingsustainability, the relative values assigned

Aquatic biologists from Virginia's natural resource agencies and Virginia Tech educate local stakeholders about the biota and value of a river ecosystem.

LYN

N D

AV

IS, VIRG

INIA

TECH


to the attendant forms of capital varygreatly among individuals. Much of thedebate on sustainability issues stems fromdeep-seated disagreement on properexchange rates among competing curren-cies (e.g., loss of a particular bioticcommunity may be viewed by some as anunacceptable trade for a given gain intechnological infrastructure). Fish biolo-gists seem unlikely to develop a unifyingcurrency for sustainability quandaries, butI believe we can influence how peoplenegotiate their exchange rates amongnatural, manufactured, and human capi-tals and help people realize that naturalcapital is a prerequisite to other forms ofcapital.

I do not speak for all fish biologists butI assume their collective concern relatedto the sustainable management of ecosys-tems is founded more on the erosion ofnatural capital than on the erosion ofmanufactured or human capital. I suspectthat most fish biologists see humaneconomies as operating within ecosystemsrather than vice versa. In striking con-trast, the prevailing view of conventionalor “neoclassical” economics is that natureis just another economic sector, like agri-culture or industry (Daly and Townsend1993). Further, I think our willingness totrade additional loss of natural capital forgains in manufactured or human capital istypically a decreasing function of howmuch natural capital remains. Moreover,we probably weight natural capital more,compared to other forms of capital, thansociety at large. If so, our perceivedthreshold for when erosion of natural cap-ital becomes unsustainable (i.e., furthertrades are unacceptable) is higher than formost people. Thus, our vision for thefuture probably includes more intact biotaand functional ecosystems than thatshared by society at large. Many sociolo-gists and biologists are concerned aboutthe current global and regional depletionof natural capital (Jansson et al. 1994;Arrow et al. 2004; Daly 2005). Theextent to which fish biologists recognizedifferences in perceived thresholds of sus-tainability, and the consequences fornatural capital, as real and importantlargely determines how we define our pro-fessional role in building sustainability.

My purpose in this essay is to con-tribute to the dialogue among fishbiologists regarding ecological sustain-ability. Herein, I use “fish biologist” to

encompass any biologist involved in thestudy of fishes or the management ofaquatic biota or ecosystems. Our dialogueshould address questions such as “Is cur-rent use of aquatic ecosystemssustainable?”, “How important is biodi-versity as an indicator of ecologicalsustainability?”, “Which factors governsustainable use of aquatic ecosystems?”,and “What should fish biologists do toenhance sustainable use of aquatic ecosys-tems?” Addressing the last questionrequires us to articulate our collectivevision of the future of aquatic biodiversityand fishery resources, which presumablyguides our professional actions. My ownposition is that current uses of aquaticecosystems are mostly unsustainable andthat achieving an ecological sustainabilitythat conserves aquatic biodiversity willrequire fundamental change in how theincreasingly dominant human economyinteracts with the economy of the bio-sphere. I want to see fish biologists andothers move beyond spirited debate aboutsustainability and effect real change inhow society writ large uses aquatic ecosys-tems. Further, I expect such change to beimmensely challenging, given the com-plexities of socioeconomic policy-making.

Use of ecosystems is regulated primar-ily by governments and economicmarkets. Because biologists have rela-tively little political clout, we mustinterface with these social institutions tochange sustainability policy. Furthermore,prevailing discourses on environmentalmanagement use a highly anthropocen-tric calculus to assess progess (Dryzek2005). Biodiversity conservation and eco-logical sustainability are relevant to thesediscourses only to the extent that theycontribute measurably to human qualityof life – contributions that are largelyoverlooked in prevailing socioeconomicpolicy. Thus, one of fish biologists’ mostimportant and challenging roles is toensure that non-biologists at the environ-mental policy table, includingeconomists, planners, and elected offi-cials, care enough about aquatic biota andecosystems to give conservation a signifi-cant voice. In part, this means educatingpolicymakers about the primacy of naturalcapital and the trade-offs occurringbetween natural and other forms of capi-tal.

These challenges are surmountable ifwe approach them collaboratively and

strategically. Below, I advocate a particu-lar strategy for building ecologicalsustainability, one that focuses on anappropriate, effective role for fish biolo-gists. First, I point out key relationsamong the human enterprise, fish conser-vation, human quality of life, andecological sustainability. Then, I discussthe professional role, especially as educa-tors, that fish biologists play in changingsociety’s ecological behavior, therebyenhancing conservation effectiveness.

FACING FACTS

There is much we do not (and willnever) understand about processes con-trolling the distribution and abundance ofaquatic biota and how human actions fig-ure into the mix. However, severalundesirable aspects of the relationbetween humans and aquatic biota are sowell documented that they are practicallyindisputable. Below, I describe three ofthese harsh realities, which provide impe-tus for fish biologists to re-examine theirrole as conservationists.

Harsh reality 1: Aquatic biota are inrapid decline worldwide. The ledger foraquatic natural capital shows dismayingdeclines in the viability of biota and thefunctionality of ecosystems. For example,in North American freshwaters about25% of the fishes, 33% of the crayfishes,and 50% of the mussels are threatened orendangered, including some taxa thatwere once widespread and abundant(Williams et al. 1989; Williams et al.1993; Warren and Burr 1994; Taylor et al.1996; Stein and Flack 1997). Worse still,<10% of the taxa under federal “protec-tion” because of their tenuous status arerecovering, and losers outnumber gainersnearly fourfold (USFWS 1994). Notably,some taxa (e.g., Pacific salmon) fail torecover despite large conservation invest-ments (Lackey 2005). The oceans,thought by many to be too vast to sufferhuman impacts, are also ecologicallystressed. Anthropogenic disturbanceshave dramatically altered the biologicaland physical structure of large areas, suchas Georges Bank (Fogarty and Murawski1998). Many (25-30%) major fish stocksare overfished or being harvested unsus-tainably (FAO 2000; Pew OceansCommission 2003). This group includes74% of the U.S. Caribbean reef stocks(U.S. Coral Reef Task Force 2002). Non-native species are widely established


(Fuller et al. 1999) and expanding theirranges in estuaries and freshwaters at theexpense of native biota. Each summer,nutrient pollution kills an area the size ofMassachusetts in the Gulf of Mexico.Although mechanisms of biotic declineand recovery are often cryptic, the netoutcome of widespread decline is crystalclear.

Harsh reality 2: Humans are responsi-ble for current declines in aquatic biota. Acrucial point here is that ongoing declinesin aquatic biota are not natural fluctua-tions, but reflect human economicactivities in or near aquatic ecosystems(Richter et al. 1997; Czech et al. 2000;Sala et al. 2000). Worldwide, speciesextinction rates are now 100–1,000 timesgreater than during pre-human periods(Pimm et al. 1995; Riccardi andRasmussen 1999). The trend for fishendangerment in the United States istightly correlated with the trend for thegross domestic product, not coinciden-tally but because the economic activitiesencompassed by the gross domestic prod-uct imperil fishes (Reed and Czech 2005).Some studies suggest that the globalhuman economy, including fishing, mayhave overshot its long-term ecologicalcarrying capacity decades ago(Wackernagel et al. 2002). Humanactions dominate many production path-ways and hydrological processes. Forexample, most N-fixing is now induced byhumans, most historical wetlands havebeen destroyed, most accessible freshwa-ter is impounded or diverted, and mostshallow-water coral reefs are severelydegraded (Postel et al. 1996; Vitousek etal. 1997). More than 90% of the water inU.S. rivers is strongly affected by dams,diversions, or irrigation (Jackson et al.2001), which adversely affect aquaticbiota in myriad ways.

Harsh reality 3: Our current manage-ment of ecosystems is failing to protectaquatic biodiversity. The observed anthro-pogenic impacts on aquatic biota wouldnot be so worrisome if they were new or ifpolicies were not yet in place to reversethem. But in the United States for exam-ple, national and state policies enabled bylaws such as the Clean Water Act of1972, the Endangered Species Act of1973 (ESA), and state versions of thesehave been operating for decades to con-serve biological integrity and diversity inaquatic ecosystems. Implementation of

these laws has evolved to enhance con-servation effectiveness since the latterhalf of the twentieth century, althoughprogress on that front has slowed recently(e.g., neither federal law has been reau-thorized in more than 15 years). Muchvaluable work has been and is being done,but the billions of dollars spent on aquaticconservation cannot keep pace with theadverse impacts on biota, funded by manymore billions of dollars, and I see no evi-dence that current implementation isimproving that trend. In short, conserva-tionists are “walking north on a fastsouthbound train” of human impacts (Orr2003). Regardless of the policy causes, thedeteriorating status of aquatic biota andecosystems points to the reality that man-agement regimes are not meetingconservation goals.

The upshot of our reality check is thatbiotic decline and ineffective conserva-tion will persist into the foreseeablefuture. As troublesome as the situationseems now, the inertia of expandinghuman numbers and resource consump-tion (i.e., economic growth) is certain tomake it worse. Although the growth rateof the human population is falling(Cohen 2005), there is no sign thathuman domination of the biosphere orloss of biodiversity is slowing. In fact,nearly all the serious environmental prob-lems identified at the United NationsEarth Summit in 1992, such as watershortage, land degradation, deforestation,overfishing, biodiversity loss, and chemi-cal pollution, are steadily worsening, inpart due to globalization of the economy(Brown 2000). Economic globalizationalso interferes with conservation byobscuring the global environmental costsof local consumption (Berlik et al. 2002).Tragically, over a billion people still lacksafe drinking water and 2.8 billion stilllack basic sanitation (Jackson et al.2001). Developing technology-intensivemeans to provide these services has prior-ity over biological conservation and couldfurther tax the resilience of ecosystems.As relatively natural ecosystems are trans-formed into increasingly humanizedecosystems, fewer resources remain tosupport nonhuman biota (Czech et al.2000), ensuring further biotic decline.Hope for more conservation-minded pol-icy is further dimmed by a society that isbecoming increasingly urban, electronic,and detached from actual ecosystems, and

less supportive of strong environmentalregulations.

Fortunately, our future reality neednot be so harsh because fish biologistscan help make conservation more effec-tive. The economic activities thatinfluence aquatic biota reflect behav-ioral choices, which in turn reflecthuman value systems. For biologists tofoster a more biologically conserving,ecologically sustainable society, we mustcatalyze fundamental change in modernvalue systems, or at least in how thosevalues manifest in ecological behavior.Herein, I define “ecological behavior”broadly. In modern urban society, wherethe vast majority of goods and servicesconsumed are purchased rather thanproduced personally, one’s ecologicalimpact is largely determined by one’spurchases (i.e., economic behavior).Thus, ecological behavior encompassesnot only one’s personal interactionswith ecosystems (e.g., commutinghabits, lawn management, number ofchildren, outdoor recreation), but alsothe full suite of ecological consequencesof all one’s purchases. Similarly, “con-sumption” refers not only to personaluse of goods (e.g., water, cars), but alsoto any activities, including purchases,associated with conversion of naturalecosystems (e.g., wetlands, forests) intohumanized ecosystems (e.g., housingdevelopments, cattle pastures). One wayto effect change in ecological behavioris to realign the way people relateresource consumption, which largelydrives economic activity, to humanquality of life.

RESOURCE CONSUMPTIONVERSUS QUALITY OF LIFE

Most people support the continuedhumanization of the biosphere becausethey believe it improves their lives.Much of the ecological change weimpose, such as extracting potablewater, controlling insect-borne diseases,and creating food-producing landscapes,clearly does improve human lives. But ina crowded, finite world where thehuman economy impinges on the bio-sphere’s operation, more economicgrowth yields a shrinking (and some-times negative) return on our quality oflife. In the United States, where con-sumerism is a cultural centerpiece, weare told since birth that our quality of


life is directly and positively related toresource consumption. This axiom ofinsatiability—that people are alwayshappier consuming more—is a basicassumption of neoclassical economics(Costanza et al. 2002; Daly 2005), butmay be invalid under many circum-stances (Figure 1). For example,although people in wealthy nations aremore satisfied with their lives than thosein poor nations, changes in real percapita income (and its attendant con-sumption) in wealthy nations typicallyshow no relation to changes in per-ceived well-being (Easterlin 1995). Infact, psychologists increasingly recog-nize that pre-occupation withconsumption and acquisition of materialgoods (i.e., personal manufactured capi-tal) seriously undermines one’s feelingsof well-being (i.e., personal human cap-ital), including inter-personalrelationships and perceptions of self-worth (Kasser 2002). Thus, absoluteconsumption generally enhances qualityof life only to the point where basicneeds are met, which occurs at low afflu-ence (Costanza et al. 2002; Daly 2005).Quality of life is limited by non-marketfactors at moderate and high affluence.The overall quality of life for most citi-zens of wealthy nations probably wouldnot be diminished measurably bymarkedly reducing theirconsumption of goods andservices.

The quality of one’s lifecannot be assessed preciselyand specific contributing fac-tors vary greatly amongindividuals. Nevertheless,many environmental scien-tists, including ecologists andeconomists, are seeking toidentify the major determi-nants of human well-being andhow it is linked to ecosystemoperation (e.g., Alcamo et al.2003). Understanding thedeterminants of quality of lifeis useful in a conservation con-text because they provide amuch broader basis for valuingbiota than do conventional,narrowly-defined measures ofeconomic worth. Some sociol-ogists recognize six majordimensions of quality of life:aesthetic, emotional, intellec-

tual, physical, social, and spiritual(Costanza et al. 2002). Intuitively, it seemslikely that physical health and comfort arestrongly related to resource consumption,whereas emotional, intellectual, and spiri-tual needs seem less likely to be met viaconsumption. In any case, intact ecosys-tems and biota contribute substantially toeach dimension. The roles that aquaticbiota play in enhancing the quality ofhuman lives are a crucial nexus for conser-vation between the natural and socialsciences, and warrant more attention fromfish biologists interested in promoting eco-logical sustainability.

If not to enhance quality of life appre-ciably, why does the United Statesconsume resources so unsustainably?There are many cultural, social, and emo-tional reasons but an especially relevantreason is that we collectively do notunderstand the long-term consequencesof consumption and economic growth.This poor understanding is rooted in eco-logical illiteracy and reflected in publicattitudes. U.S. residents are profoundlyignorant of how ecosystems andeconomies operate and interact. Forexample, 75% of U.S. residents do notknow the source of their tap water(NEETF 1999) and 72% do not knowthat surface runoff is the most commonsource of water pollution (Coyle 2005).

About 90% do not know that pollutedwater is the leading cause of childhooddeath worldwide or that abandoned fish-ing line is the main cause of wildlifeentanglement (Coyle 2005). Over two-thirds have not heard of biodiversity loss(The Biodiversity Project 2002). MostU.S. residents think that endangeredspecies can be preserved simply by notkilling them, thereby failing to recognizethe importance of habitat conservation(Kempton et al. 1995). Barely half (53%)of the residents of the Chesapeake Baywatershed realize that their actions con-tribute to water pollution (McClafferty2002). Moreover, most U.S. residentsbelieve that environmental problems,including biodiversity loss, can be solvedwithout reducing economic growth orresource consumption (Kempton et al.1995; Ladd and Bowman 1995; Czech andKrausman 1999).

Ecological ignorance fosters apathy andenables complacency. The lack of concernin the United States for environmentalissues is striking and increasing. Less than2% of U.S. residents belong to an environ-mental group (Wilson 2002). Less than 1%rank environmental problems as mostimportant (Ladd and Bowman 1995). Theproportion of U.S. residents who think thatenvironmental regulations “do not go farenough” has declined substantially since

the early 1990s (Coyle 2005);only 39% now think protectionof endangered species is inade-quate. Gallup’s 2004 Earth Daypoll found that a record-low pro-portion of U.S. residents believethat environmental protectionshould take precedence overeconomic growth when the twoconflict (The NatureConservancy 2004). U.S. resi-dents commonly overestimategovernment protection of publichealth and safety (Coyle 2005).Coincidentally, the environ-ment has been a non-issue in thelast three U.S. presidential elec-tions; voters have tacitlyapproved the current environ-mental policies that aggressivelyundermine conservation. This isconsistent with most U.S. resi-dents’ unwillingness to reducetheir standard of living (i.e.,resource consumption) or spendadditional money or time to

Figure 1. Relations between human quality of life and consumption ofecological resources (Costanza et al. 2002). Consumption (or affluence)represents liquidation of natural capital, such as when naturalecosystems are transformed into intensive agriculture. The diagonal linerepresents the relation presumed under free-market capitalism; theasymptotic curve represents the actual relation in which non-marketcomponents such as beauty, intellectual stimulation, emotional stability,and spiritual fulfillment limit one’s quality of life more than simpleconsumption.


support environmental causes (Ladd andBowman 1995). Two-thirds of U.S. resi-dents believe scientists and engineers willfind technological solutions to environ-mental problems (Coyle 2005), therebyabsolving themselves of personal obliga-tions to change behavior or restrainconsumption.

Americans’ lack of environmental con-cern is also enigmatic and difficult todescribe definitively, at least through thelens of questionnaires. Despite their lack ofenvironmental engagement, most U.S.residents consider themselves “environ-mentalists,” think that environmentalprotection is inadequate, want to maintaina strong ESA, and believe that maintainingbiodiversity is important to their personallives (Kempton et al. 1995; Ladd andBowman 1995; The Biodiversity Project2002). These contradictions can beexplained by the fact that although U.S.residents view environmental issues as seri-ous, other more urgent concerns (e.g.,terrorism, crime, inflation, and financialsecurity) commonly divert our attentionand support (Ladd and Bowman 1995;Coyle 2005).

DEFINING A ROLE FOR FISHBIOLOGISTS

Public attitudes toward resource con-sumption, economic growth, quality ofhuman life, and biological conservationrepresent major challenges and opportu-nities for fish biologists. Withoutfundamental changes in attitudes, conser-vation will remain ineffective and aquaticbiota will continue to decline rapidly.Fortunately, attitudes and behavior ofmost people are malleable—to a degree.Outcome assessments of environmentaleducation consistently show that envi-ronmentally knowledgeable people aremore likely to behave in pro-environmen-tal ways, such as conserving water andrecycling (Coyle 2005). Considering thestate of Americans’ knowledge and atti-tudes germane to conservation, there ismuch ground to be gained if biologistscollectively ply their educational skills toshow people how their lives are improvedmore by sharing resources with aquaticbiota than by consuming those resources.To that end, I propose that we develop amore proactive, comprehensive strategyto focus our professional efforts on help-ing society use aquatic ecosystemssustainably.

Conservation is a central charge of fishbiologists. Our commitment to conserva-tion has many sources, including personalconvictions, the informal contractbetween scientists and society(Lubchenco 1998), and the missions ofparticular disciplines. For example, mem-bers of the American Fisheries Society(AFS) profess their concern for conserva-tion in the first objective of the firstarticle of the AFS Constitution, where wepledge to “promote the conservation,development, and wise use of the fish-eries.” Although each of us makespersonal choices regarding how to pro-mote conservation, substantive dialoguewithin the AFS can help galvanize ourthinking on how our commitment to con-servation is translated into our daily work.

Traditionally, fish biologists have pro-moted conservation primarily bygenerating new scientific knowledge andapplying it to conservation objectivessuch as preservation, mitigation, regula-tion, and restoration. These activitiesinclude collection, analysis, and interpre-tation of data; dissemination of findings;and service on advisory panels and edito-rial boards, and the like. Promotingconservation as educators per se, whereinwe seek to influence how non-expertssuch as policymakers and the public thinkand behave (and purchase) in relation toaquatic biota and ecosystems, has beensecondary. Although we vary individuallyin how we divide our time and energyamong these actions, we collectively haveinvested far less in education than in sci-entific study and application.

Professional scientific societies,including the AFS, can do much more topromote conservation by fully embracingtheir educational missions. The conven-tional research-heavy distribution ofprofessional activity is unlikely to con-tribute much to constructing aconservation-minded, ecologically sus-tainable society. Stakeholder intentionand motivation, not scientific knowledge,typically constrains effectiveness of con-servation policy (Anderson 1996;Shellenberger and Nordhaus 2005). Forexample, although non-native species arewidely recognized as major causes ofaquatic species imperilment (Richter etal. 1997; Clavero and Garcia-Berthou2005), little policy has been implementedto protect native biota from further non-native introductions. If fish biologists

truly seek to shift the attitudes and behav-iors of an apathetic, complacent publictoward conservation, we must re-priori-tize our professional efforts and redoubleour participation in education. A centraltheme of our professional activity shouldbe to disseminate scientific knowl-edge—old and new—that will effectchanges in how individual people andsociety at large behave ecologically. Inparticular, we need to persistently showpeople how aquatic biota and functionalecosystems enrich human lives. For exam-ple, people displaced by HurricaneKatrina are probably keenly interested inscientific knowledge about relationsbetween intact wetlands and flood ame-lioration.

Energizing our educational efforts suf-ficiently to advance ecologicalsustainability will require fundamentalchange in the activities of individual fishbiologists as well as their professionalsocieties. This might mean that the AFSadvocates for parity between educationand all other conservation actions com-bined (research and application), asmeasured across its membership(Angermeier 2005). Ecologists increas-ingly recognize that a central componentof doing good science is informing thepublic about the importance of monitor-ing and protecting environmental quality(Bazzaz et al. 1998). More pronouncedefforts to educate policymakers about sus-tainability might include developingpolicy positions, such as the AFS’s pend-ing position on the conflict betweeneconomic growth and fish conservation(Mead et al. 2005). Before re-configuringthe AFS mission, though, we need to ini-tiate serious dialogue among fishbiologists regarding our perceived role inbuilding ecological sustainability so thatwe, as a profession, can craft credible mes-sages for policymakers, the public, andother scientists.

FOCUS ON ECOSYSTEMSERVICES

Education about sustainability encom-passes many biological and sociologicalaspects of ecosystems, but an especiallycompelling focal point is the goods andservices provided to society by functionalecosystems (Daily 1997). People accrue awide array of benefits from healthywaters, including highly tangible foods,medicines, and water for drinking and


bathing, as well as less tangible beauty,spirituality, and recreational pleasure.People also benefit from biota-mediatedprocesses that detoxify wastes and cyclenutrients. The relative importance of var-ious ecosystem services can be inferredfrom how frequently resource managersinvoke them to justify managementactions. For example, most river restora-tion efforts are initiated to improve waterquality, fishery productivity, or availabil-ity of edible (non-toxic) biota (Wohl etal. 2005), thereby indicating the greatimportance of those services to the pub-lic. Because all ecosystem goods andservices contribute to one or more of thequality-of-life dimensions describedabove, they are excellent springboards fordeveloping educational cases for conser-vation. No particular ecosystem amenitywill compel everyone to be a conserva-tionist, but everyone should find at leastone amenity to make her/him passionateabout conserving freshwater biota.

Ecosystem amenities have huge, buttypically discounted, economic value.Costanza et al. (1997) conservatively esti-mated that goods and services derivedfrom global freshwaters were annuallyworth ~9.5% of the gross global product.This represents >5% of the biosphere’sservices even though freshwater covers<1% of the earth’s surface. Recent studiesof the monetary value of ecosystems (e.g.,Balmford et al. 2002; Daily and Ellison2002) indicate that converting the natu-ral capital of ecosystems intomanufactured capital often is not sensibleeven in strictly economic terms, but con-version continues because markets andgovernments externalize much of the realworth of ecosystems and fail to recognizethe importance of ecological sustainabil-ity. In other words, the true economicvalue of biota and ecosystems is rarelyreflected in market transactions, the mainmechanisms for aligning individual costsand benefits with societal costs and bene-fits. Worth associated with ecosystemamenities and their contributions tohuman quality of life is especially vulner-able to being externalized because pricingmechanisms commonly include disincen-tives for private users of public resourcesto account for the social impacts of theiractions (Arrow et al. 1995). When actualecological costs are externalized frommarket prices, consumers are presented adistorted cost-benefit basis for making

economic choices. Such distortions pro-foundly affect consumption rates andpatterns, and should be a major concernfor conservationists. Fish biologists canenhance the effectiveness of economicarguments for conservation by workingmore closely with economists and deci-sion-makers to develop accuratevaluations of aquatic ecosystem services,which could be used to minimize marketdistortions.

Ecosystem goods and services are alsomajor contributors to human capital,especially through their role in buildingpeople’s sense of place. A person’s orgroup’s sense of place is their collection ofsymbolic meanings, psychological attach-ments, and perceived satisfactions heldfor a spatial setting (Stedman 2002).Sense of place is formed through personalexperience with the landscape, often viathe positive feedback of the aesthetic,recreational, or social interactionsenjoyed there (Brandenburg and Carroll1995; Kim and Kaplan 2004). Theseexperiences play a key role in buildingcommunity, which ultimately influencepeople’s willingness to engage in behav-iors that maintain or protect theecosystems in which they live (Stedman2002). Community-based, participatoryeducation, such as restoration projectsthat engage local teachers and media, isespecially effective at creating humancapital (e.g., Higgs 1991).

Merely knowing that biota and ecosys-tem amenities are valuable is unlikely tochange society’s ecological behavior, butknowing that ongoing losses of thoseamenities are diminishing the quality oflife for society’s current and future mem-bers should be more compelling. Inaddition to the extensive biotic imperil-ment and overfishing described above,there are many other signals of deteriorat-ing ecosystem amenities. Worldwide,~43% of vegetated land is so degradedthat its capacity to produce food/fiber isdiminished (Daily 1995). In the UnitedStates, ~40% of our estuaries, lakes, andrivers fail to meet fishable/swimmablegoals for water quality, and > 14% of ourriver-miles support fish too toxic to eatwithout risk to human health (USEPA2000). Given the tremendous contribu-tion of functional aquatic ecosystems tothe quality of human lives, I believe wefish biologists should do much more torectify the public attitudes that allow

these undesirable trends to be politicallyacceptable.

Making the case for a more ecologi-cally sustainable lifestyle, includingconservation of biota and ecosystemamenities, is conceptually straightfor-ward. Ecosystem goods such as breathableair, drinkable water, and productive soilsare absolutely essential to sustain humanlife, even at minimal quality. Otherecosystem services contribute to our qual-ity of life in myriad ways. Humaningenuity notwithstanding, many ecosys-tem amenities, especially those related tolife support, cannot be replaced by cur-rent technology. Thus, ongoinghuman-induced losses of ecosystemamenities are manifest as real erosion inhuman quality of life, which stems frombillions of incremental human choicesabout ecological behavior. I submit thatmost people do not recognize these rela-tions between ecosystem operation andhuman lives, a condition that enablesunsustainable ecological and economicchoices. Fish biologists have the educa-tional tools to fill these knowledge gaps.Furthermore, we are obligated profession-ally to do what we can to establish, notmerely proffer, that knowledge through-out society.

Given the immensity of the task athand, we must work selectively to beeffective at enhancing conservation. Isuggest focusing first on those linksbetween quality of life and healthyecosystems with which we are most famil-iar. For example, we can use people’spassion for aquatic foods as a basis for edu-cating them about the ecologicalprocesses that produce wild foods andhow certain human activities limit thequantity and quality of those foods. Manypeople also love to catch fish; emphasiz-ing the benefits of fishing for nativespecies is another avenue to getting peo-ple to be advocates for healthyecosystems. Of course, we also need toemphasize fishing responsibly, includingtaking care not to spread exotic species.Finally, people are often moved deeply bythe beauty of natural places and wild crea-tures but, in my experience, are typicallyunfamiliar with their own regionalaquatic biota. Biologists can help peopleconnect with the aesthetic, novel, andspiritual aspects of local ecosystems. Bycollectively taking advantage of and cre-ating opportunities to influence society’s


attitudes toward aquatic biota, we canincrementally instill the will to forgemore sustainable ecological behaviors andeconomies.

INVESTING IN ECOLOGICALLITERACY

What are appropriate goals for fishbiologists as educators? Can we reallyexpect conservation education to effectthe radical changes in social values andconsumption patterns necessary toachieve ecological sustainability? On onehand, we have no choice: education is theprimary social lever we biologists canreach; it is incumbent on us to pull it withall our resolve to advance our vision forthe future. Not resolving to change soci-ety’s ecological behavior is tacit approvalof a future with few intact biota and func-tional ecosystems. Surely our vision is animprovement! On the other hand, theefficacy of education has important con-straints. The simplistic learning model ofmore factual knowledge (awareness) lead-ing to adjustments in attitude, then tomore responsible behavior is no longeraccepted by environmental educators.Rather, we now know that ecologicalbehavior is a complex outcome of theinteractions of a broad array of personalfactors, such as emotions, empowerment,goals, knowledge, morals, resources, andskills, as well as external factors, such asavailable technology, cultural context,laws and regulations, macroeconomic pol-icy, market prices, and social norms(Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Schneiderand Cheslock 2003). The complexity ofhuman behavior makes goal-orientededucation somewhat inefficient.Nevertheless, if conservation education isto really help build ecological sustainabil-ity, educators (including fish biologists)must go well beyond merely providingmore ecological facts.

Education can be a powerful tool formanipulating the exchange rates peopleuse to convert among natural, manufac-tured, and human capitals. Raisingecological awareness and connecting peo-ple emotionally with biota inflates theirperceived value of natural capital.Environmental literacy, including histori-cal perspectives, builds human capital andsense of place and provides commonground for landscape-level planning andconservation (Spirn 2005). Moreover,perceptions of natural and human capital

figure prominently in personal economicchoices. People do not typically makeeconomic decisions based on straightfor-ward, rational estimates of monetary costsand benefits (charitable donations aregood examples of common economicchoices for which non-monetary factorspredominate). Rather, emotional (mostlyirrational) underpinnings such as aes-thetic sensibilities, ethical convictions,and religious beliefs strongly influenceeconomic behavior. Helping people buildnon-monetary rationales for behavingsustainably will advance conservation ofbiodiversity.

Progress toward sustainability hingeson enhancing ecological and economicliteracy among all resource consumers andpolicymakers. By clarifying the linksamong natural, manufactured, and humancapitals, environmental education canpromote ecological sustainability in atleast three major ways. First, by familiariz-ing people with the ecosystems andecological context in which they live,education can cast personal ecologicaland economic behavior in a more com-prehensive light. Second, bydemonstrating environmental connected-ness among people, education cangalvanize public demand for economicpolicies, including pricing mechanisms,that slow the rate of natural capital lossand efficiently allocate resources. Third,by raising awareness of ecological values,especially among children, education cancultivate a culture of respect and steward-ship for native biota and natural heritage.Conversely, our current environmentalcrises, including declines in biodiversityand losses of ecosystem amenities, largelyreflect prevailing educational approachesthat emphasize technological dominationof nature (Orr 1992). These crises haveless to do with insufficient bodies ofknowledge held by scientists than withinappropriate senses of ecological pru-dence, moral responsibility, and humanpurpose held by society at large. Theunfortunate consequence, as describedabove, is that our citizenry neither knowsnor cares very much about their ecologi-cal places in the world or the biota thatshare those places.

Fish biologists’ response to this perva-sive apathy should be to use education tochange people’s exchange rates amongnatural, manufactured, and human capi-tals so that perceived net benefits of

behavior favor conservation. I believethat well-designed education efforts caninfluence how individual costs and bene-fits, as well as societal costs and benefits,are assessed. Over the short term, educa-tion can shift an individual’s economicbehavior toward sustainability (e.g.,reduce fossil-fuel emissions to enhancewater quality). Over the long term, edu-cated citizens can pressure theirgovernments to implement sustainability-based market controls (e.g., tax andsubsidy structures that promote develop-ment and use of non-fossil-fuel energysources) so that ecological and social costsof consumption are internalized in marketprices. Such long-term effects, althoughmore difficult to achieve, probably havethe greater potential to conserve biotabecause of their eventual consequencesfor the behavior of more people.Couching the costs and benefits of indi-viduals’ economic choices in aesthetic,ecological, ethical, and spiritualterms—the coinage of natural and humancapital—may often be as compelling asfocusing on monetary costs and benefits.

Conservation education encompassesa wide range of objectives (e.g., enhanceawareness versus change behavior) andapproaches (e.g., passively present infor-mation versus engage people inon-the-ground management). A key roleof fish biologists is to convey existing eco-logical knowledge to policymakers andthe public to reduce ecological ignorance.In the context of building sustainability,however, what we do to enhance people’ssense of obligation, compassion, andrespect for aquatic biota is probably moreimportant than the factual informationwe disseminate. If fish biologists are toeducate in ways that promote conserva-tion, as affirmed in the AFS Constitution,we must recognize that teaching (liketeachers) and knowledge (like knowers)are not value-free or dispassionate.Effective conservation education involvesnot only the presentation of objectivefacts, but also the inculcation of aland/water ethic that is largely absent inmodern America’s urban, consumeristic,technocratic culture. Central tenets ofthis ethic include the notions of aestheticvalue, ecological connectivity, limits togrowth, respect for nature, and even cer-tain rights of nonhuman biota.

If an ecologically literate and sympa-thetic public is crucial to a sustainable

society—as I believe it is—fish biologists and other environ-mental scientists should commit to more fully engaging peoplealong the aesthetic, emotional, intellectual, moral, and spiritualdimensions that drive human behavior. In part, this means thateducation needs to become more interdisciplinary than most ofus have imagined it. Ecological literacy based on a land/waterethic draws knowledge from several disciplines, including natu-ral history, ecology, geography, moral philosophy, economics,and behavioral psychology. An ecologically literate societywould understand important ecological processes, as well as howthose processes influence human lives and vice versa. An eco-logically literate society could distinguish healthy fromunhealthy ecosystems, and appreciate the dependence of humanhealth on ecosystem health. An ecologically literate societywould be familiar with how its consumption of goods and ser-vices is likely to influence other people’s quality of life. Anecologically literate society would recognize the links amonghuman perceptions and attitudes, social institutions (e.g.,economies, government bureaucracies), and its own ecologicalbehavior. Finally, an ecologically literate society could distin-guish sound science (reviewed in Sullivan et al. 2006),conducted in pursuit of better understanding, from pseudo-sci-ence, asserted to support a pre-conceived political agenda.

Fish biologists can enhance public literacy in all these waysregarding aquatic ecosystems, but they may need to partner withother experts to be most effective. For example, they might col-laborate with economists to convey information about thebenefits and costs of aquatic conservation, the strengths andweaknesses of the market as a conservation tool, and the con-flicts between economic growth and conservation. Fishbiologists might collaborate with trained educators to sharpentheir messages based on pedagogical principles, behavioral psy-chology, and learning dynamics. And biologists mightcollaborate with religious leaders to develop compelling educa-tional cases based on value systems, environmental justice, andspiritual growth. All these efforts would be more complicatedand time-consuming than most of our current conservation edu-cation.

Ecological literacy is clearly not monolithic. My personalviews of what ecosystem attributes should be conserved, what isecologically sustainable, or even what ecological literacy is, maybe rejected by many. Opinions about what is natural, ecologi-cally healthy, and/or worth conserving vary greatly among bothexperts and non-experts because of differences in individualexperience and value systems (Lele and Norgaard 1996;Angermeier 2000, 2001; Hull et al. 2001). As purveyors of eco-logical literacy, biologists should not so much impose theirvalues on the educated as explicate the values and selectedknowledge that underpins various positions, so that the educatedbecome literate enough to understand their ecological place inthe world, make informed decisions, and facilitate discourse ontheir own. This does not mean, however, that all worldviews ofnature warrant equal time. Promoting conservation based on lit-eracy in a Leopoldian land/water ethic presumes acceptance ofcertain scientific conceptions of ecosystem operation and cer-tain moral imperatives, which are absent from the prevailinganthropocentric approaches to environmental management(reviewed in Dryzek 2005).

��

��

�� !��"�#$��%�&�� !��#��

��

��

��

�� !�� !� ��

��"� �� #�� $%�� &''�'''� �� (��#�� )� �� #�� #�� !� �� $%� �� *��+

� ,� �� -�� (�� .��/�� 0� �� 1 ��* ��/�1*0 �� ,�� ,��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��



REFERENCES

Alcamo, J. and 50 coauthors. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Anderson, E. N. 1996. Ecologies of the heart: emotion, belief, andthe environment. Oxford University Press, New York.

Angermeier, P. L. 2000. The natural imperative for biologicalconservation. Conservation Biology 14:373-381.

_____. 2001. Reply to Povilitis: another conservation conundrum.Conservation Biology 15: 536-538.

_____. 2005. Fish biologists as conservation educators regardingeconomic growth. Fisheries 30(12):37-39.

Arrow, K. and 10 coauthors. 1995. Economic growth, carryingcapacity, and the environment. Science 268:520-521.

Arrow, K. and 10 coauthors. 2004. Are we consuming too much?Journal of Economic Perspectives 18 (3):147-172.

Balmford, A., and 18 coauthors. 2002. Economic reasons forconserving wild nature. Science 297:950-953.

Bazzaz, F. and 19 coauthors. 1998. Ecological science and thehuman predicament. Science 282:879.

Berlik, M. M., B. D. Kittredge, and D. R. Foster. 2002. Theillusion of preservation: a global environmental argument for thelocal production of natural resources. Journal of Biogeography29:1557-1568.

Brandenburg, A. M., and M. S. Carroll. 1995. Your place or mine?The effect of place creation on environmental values andlandscape meanings. Society and Natural Resources 8:381-398.

Brown, D. 2000. The state of the planet at the five-year review ofRio and the prospects for protecting worldwide ecologicalintegrity. Pages 369-382 in D. Pimentel, L. Westra, and R. F. Noss,eds. Ecological integrity: integrating environment, conservation,and health. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Chapin, F. S. III, E. S. Zavaleta, V. T. Eviner, R. L. Naylor, P. M.Vitousek, H. L. Reynolds, D. U. Hooper, S. Lavorel, O. E.Sala, S. E. Hobbie, M. Mack, and S. Diaz. 2000. Consequencesof changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234-242.

Clavero, M., and E. Garcia-Berthou. 2005. Invasive species are aleading cause of animal extinctions. Trends in Ecology andEvolution 20(3):110.

Cohen, J. E. 2005. Human population grows up. ScientificAmerican (September): 48-55.

Cortner, H. J. 2000. Making science relevant to environmentalpolicy. Environmental Science and Policy 3: 21-30.

Costanza, R., and 12 coauthors. 1997. The value of the world’secosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.

Costanza, R., J. Farley, and P. Templet. 2002. Quality of life and thedistribution of wealth and resources. Pages 221-258 in R.Costanza and S.E. Jorgensen, eds. Understanding and solvingenvironmental problems in the 21st century: toward a new,integrated hard problem science. Elsevier, Oxford, UnitedKingdom.

Coyle, K. 2005. Environmental literacy in America: what ten yearsof NEETF/Roper research and related studies say aboutenvironmental literacy in the U.S. The National EnvironmentalEducation and Training Foundation, Washington, DC.

Czech, B., and P. R. Krausman. 1999. Public opinion onendangered species conservation and policy. Society and NaturalResources 12:469-479.

CONCLUSIONS

Sustainability is essentially about the balance that societychooses between long-term environmental quality and short-term material prosperity. Intact aquatic biota and ecosystemsmay or may not be part of that balance, depending on how peo-ple choose to live. Ongoing, pervasive declines in aquaticbiodiversity and delivery of ecosystem amenities are attributableto domination of the biosphere by human economies, whichreflect human goals, attitudes, and beliefs. The most crucial ele-ment of an ecologically sustainable society is a majority whocare deeply about intact biota and functional ecosystems. Fishbiologists can help create such a majority by catalyzing a trans-formation in the aesthetic, emotional, intellectual, moral, andspiritual determinants of human resource consumption. Theycan also contribute to a coherent national dialogue on the rela-tions among ecological, economic, and social sustainability.

Accepting this immense challenge will require fish biologiststo first redefine their role as conservation educators so that theprofession’s efforts to show people how aquatic biota and ecosys-tems enrich human lives attain parity with all our otherconservation actions combined. Then, we will need to retrainourselves to become interdisciplinary teachers who can engagepolicymakers and the public in ways that effect more sustainableecological and economic behaviors. Making sustainability a real-ity will require us to practice a more holistic, civic-minded,policy-engaged science that integrates the many social and bio-physical dimensions of environmental management (Cortner2000). In building ecological sustainability, the most urgent andimportant task of fish biologists is to connect people physically,economically, emotionally, and spiritually with ecosystems sothat societal attitudes and policies embrace conservation. Thereare at least three major knowledge gaps that biologists can helpbridge: (1) the gap between what biologists know about biotaand ecosystems and what non-experts know, (2) the gap betweenthe worth of ecosystem amenities in quality-of-life currencies andthe price of ecosystem products in market currency, and (3) thegap between how ecosystems are managed under the prevailinggoal of economic growth and how they would be managed pur-suant to a sustainable or “steady state” economy. Bridging thesegaps means establishing an ecologically literate public who (a)understands the interactive relations among ecosystem opera-tion, human quality of life, and human resource consumption,(b) appreciates the dependence of human health on ecosystemhealth, and (c) recognizes the links between human attitudesand societal behavior.

This transformation in public attitudes and literacy will notoccur without fundamental shifts in our professional time/energypriorities. In particular, we need to de-emphasize the develop-ment of new technical information for experts and re-emphasizethe dissemination of ecological wisdom to non-experts. Notably,time is working against us: the human economy is growing irre-vocably, largely oblivious to ecological consequences. Inaction istantamount to accepting a biologically and ecologically impov-erished future. Which vision will we help build?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Bruce Hull and three anonymous reviewers for manyhelpful comments on the manuscript. I also thank Bruce Hull forgetting me to think critically about ecological sustainability.


Czech, B., P. R. Krausman, and P. K. Devers. 2000. Economicassociations among causes of species endangerment in the UnitedStates. BioScience 50:593-601.

Daily, G. C. 1995. Restoring value to the world’s degraded lands.Science 269:350-354.

Daily, G. C., editor. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence onnatural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Daily, G. C., and K. Ellison. 2002. The new economy of nature: thequest to make conservation profitable. Island Press, Washington,DC.

Daly, H. E. 2005. Economics in a full world. Scientific American(September):100-107.

Daly, H. E., and J. Farley. 2004. Ecological economics: principlesand applications. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Daly, H. E., and K. N. Townsend. 1993. Valuing the Earth. MITPress, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Dasgupta, P. 2001. Human well-being and the natural environment.Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Dobson, A. 1998. Justice and the environment: conceptions ofenvironmental sustainability and social justice. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Dryzek, J. S. 2005. The politics of the earth: environmentaldiscourses (2nd edition). Oxford University Press, New York.

Easterlin, R. A. 1995. Will raising the incomes of all increase thehappiness of all? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization27:35-47.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).2000. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO, Rome,Italy.

Fogarty, M. J., and S. A. Murawski. 1998. Large-scale disturbanceand the structure of marine systems: fishery impacts on GeorgesBank. Ecological Applications 8(supplement):S6-S22.

Fuller, P. L., L. G. Nico, and J. D. Williams. 1999. Nonindigenousfishes introduced into inland waters of the United States. SpecialPublication 27, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Goodland, R. 1995. The concept of environmental sustainability.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:1-24.

Hahn, R. 2000. The impact of economics on environmental policy.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39:375-399.

Higgs, E. S. 1991. A quantity of engaging work to be done:ecological restoration and morality in a technological culture.Restoration & Management Notes 9(2):97-104.

Hull, R. B., D. P. Robertson, and A. Kendra. 2001. Publicunderstandings of nature: a case study of local knowledge about“natural” forest conditions. Society and Natural Resources14:325-340.

Jackson, R. B., S. R. Carpenter, C. N. Dahm, D. M. McKnight,R. J. Naiman, S. L. Postel, and S. W. Running. 2001. Water ina changing world. Ecological Applications 11:1027-1045.

Jansson, A., M. Hammer, C. Folke, and R. Costanza, editors.1994. Investing in natural capital: the ecological economicsapproach to sustainability. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Kasser, T. 2002. The high price of materialism. MIT Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Kempton, W., J. S. Boster, and J. A. Hartley. 1995. Environmentalvalues in American culture. MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Kim, J., and R. Kaplan. 2004. Physical and psychological factors insense of community: new urbanist Kentlands and nearby Orchard

�� !��"�#$��%�&�� !��#��

��

�� !��"��#$%��& ��"�"��'()��"��*)%��(+�� ,��-

� )�"�� "��&��.�� "�

� /��"�� "��&��"��

� )��"�� +�� ,��.��&��01

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


Village. Environment and Behavior36:313-340.

Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mindthe gap: why do people actenvironmentally and what are thebarriers to pro-environmental behavior?Environmental Education Research8(3):239-260.

Ladd, E. C., and K. H. Bowman. 1995.Attitudes toward the environment:twenty-five years after Earth Day.American Enterprise Institute,Washington, DC.

Lackey, R. T. 2005. Economic growth andsalmon recovery: an irreconcilableconflict? Fisheries 30(3):30-32.

Lele, S., and R. B. Norgaard. 1996.Sustainability and the scientist’s burden.Conservation Biology 10:354-365.

Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century ofthe environment: a new social contractfor science. Science 279:491-497.

McClafferty, J. A. 2002. A survey ofChesapeake Bay watershed residents:knowledge, attitudes and behaviorstowards Chesapeake Bay watershed waterquality issues. ConservationManagement Institute, Blacksburg, VA.

Mead, J. V., S. M. Coghlan, Jr., and P. F.Thompson. 2005. Symposium sparksdebate: should the American FisheriesSociety adopt a position on economicgrowth? Fisheries 30(11):37-40.

NEETF (National EnvironmentalEducation and Training Foundation).1999. The national report card on safedrinking water knowledge, attitudes andbehavior: a survey of adult Americans.NEETF, Washington, DC.

Orr, D. W. 1992. Ecological literacy:education and the transition to apostmodern world. State University ofNew York Press, Albany.

_____. 2003. Walking north on asouthbound train. Conservation Biology17:348-351.

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America'sliving oceans: charting a course for seachange. The Pew Charitable Trusts,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Pimm, S. L., G. J. Russell, J. L. Gittleman,and T. M. Brooks. 1995. The future ofbiodiversity. Science 269: 347-350.

Postel, S. L., G. C. Daily, and P. R.Ehrlich. 1996. Human appropriation ofrenewable fresh water. Science 271:785-788.

Reed, K. M. and B. Czech. 2005. Causes offish endangerment in the United States,

or the structure of the Americaneconomy. Fisheries 30(7):36-38.

Riccardi A. and J. B. Rasmussen. 1999.Extinction rates of North Americanfreshwater fauna. Conservation Biology13:1220-1222.

Richter, B. D., D. P. Braun, M. A.Mendelson, and L. L. Master. 1997.Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna.Conservation Biology 11:1081-1093.

Rosezweig, M. 2003. Win-win ecology: howthe earth’s species can survive in themidst of human enterprise. OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

Sala, O. E. and 18 coauthors. 2000. Globalbiodiversity scenarios for the year 2100.Science 287:1770-1774.

Schneider, B., and N. Cheslock. 2003.Measuring results: gaining insight onbehavior change strategies andevaluation methods for environmentaleducation, museum, health, and socialmarketing programs. CoEvolutionInstitute, San Francisco, California.

Shellenberger, M., and T. Nordhaus. 2005.The death of environmentalism: globalwarming politics in a post-environmental world. Available at:www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/.

Spirn, A. W. 2005. Restoring Mill Creek:landscape literacy, environmental justiceand city planning and design. LandscapeResearch 30:395-413.

Stedman, R. C. 2002. Toward a socialpsychology of place: predicting behaviorfrom place-based cognitions, attitude,and identity. Environment and Behavior34:561-581.

Stein, B. A. and S. R. Flack. 1997. 1997species report card: the state of U.S.plants and animals. The NatureConservancy, Arlington, VA.

Sullivan, P. J., J. M. Acheson, P. L.Angermeier, T. Faast, J. Flemma, C. M.Jones, E. E. Knudsen, T. J. Minello. D.H. Secor, R. Wunderlich, and B. A.Zanetell. 2006. Defining andimplementing best available science forfisheries and environmental science,policy, and management. Fisheries31:(9)460-465.

Taylor, C. A., M. L. Warren, Jr., J. F.Fitzpatrick, Jr., H. H. Hobbs, III, R. F.Jezerinac, W. L. Pflieger, and H. W.Robison. 1996. Conservation status ofcrayfishes of the United States andCanada. Fisheries 21(4):25-38.

The Biodiversity Project. 2002. Americansand biodiversity: new perspectives in

2002. The Biodiversity Project, Madison,Wisconsin. Available at:www.biodiversityproject.org/02toplines.PDF.

The Nature Conservancy. 2004. Surveysays: Americans care about conservation.Nature Conservancy 54(3):19.

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. 2002. Thestate of coral reef ecosystems of theUnited States and Pacific freelyassociated states. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration,Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency). 2000. The quality of ournation’s waters. Office of Water,EPA/841-5-00-001. USEPA,Washington, DC.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).1994. Report to Congress: recoveryprogram, endangered and threatenedspecies. USFWS, Washington, DC.

Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J.Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. 1997.Human domination of Earth’secosystems. Science 277:494-499.

Wackernagel, M., and 10 coauthors. 2002.Tracking the ecological overshoot of thehuman economy. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Science, USA99:9266-9271.

Warren, M. L., Jr., and B.M. Burr. 1994.Status of freshwater fishes of the UnitedStates: overview of an imperiled fauna.Fisheries 19(1):6-18.

Williams, J. E., J. E. Johnson, D. A.Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J. E. Deacon. 1989.Fishes of North America endangered,threatened, or of special concern: 1989.Fisheries 14(6):2-20.

Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, Jr., K. S.Cummings, J. L. Harris, and R. J.Neves. 1993. Conservation status offreshwater mussels of the United Statesand Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.

Wilson, E.O. 2002. The future of life. A.A.Knopf, New York.

Wohl, E., P. L. Angermeier, B. Bledsoe, G.M. Kondolf, L. MacDonnell, D. M.Merritt, M. A. Palmer, N. L. Poff, andD. Tarboton. 2005. River restoration.Water Resources Research 41:W10301,doi:10.1029/2005WR003985.


ABSTRACT: Choice of management spatial scale is a critical step of any stock assessment, but deciding on a conservative cri-terion is difficult because of risks associated with any choice. For example, if one large unit is selected when distinct sub-stocksexist, then some population components may disappear over time. Alternatively, choosing several small management units whenone well-mixed stock exists may lead to costly and ineffective management. We consider the example of tautog (Tautoga onitis).Mortality estimated for a single stock using virtual population analysis has exceeded the target and resulted in mandated reduc-tions in fishing. In Virginia, tag returns and catch curve analyses are consistent with a localized mortality rate that is less thanthe target. Therefore, reductions of fishing effort in Virginia may not alleviate overfishing elsewhere and might not be conser-vative. Thus, simple models used for localized assessment can have advantages over sophisticated models applied to an entirestock complex when multiple stocks exist.

Evaluación Local vs. Manejo a Larga Escala: El Caso de la especie (Tautoga onitis) en Virginia

ABSTRACTO: La selección de la escala espacial es uno de los puntos críticos en toda evaluación de “stocks” pero ladefinición de criterios de conservación es mucho más difícil considerando los riesgos asociados con este tipo de decisión.Por ejemplo si elegimos una unidad de larga escala cuando distintos sub “stocks” existen, algunos de los componentes deuna población podrían desaparecer a través del tiempo. Alternativamente si consideramos la selección de pequeñasunidades de manejo cuando solo existe un “stock” muy mezclado; esto puede conducirnos a un manejo costoso y pocoefectivo. Nosotro examinamos el ejemplo de la especie (Tautoga onitis) determinando que cuando la mortalidad estimadapara un solo “stock” es aplicada a un análisis virtual de la población que ha excedido su quota de explotación esto resul-taría en recomendaciones de medidas de regulación para reducir la pesca. En Virginia los resultados del marcado y lasgráficas de capturas son consistentes con los análisis de que la mortalidad localizada es menor que la quota de captura.Consecuentemente reducciones en la pesca de esta especie en Virginia no serían una medida conservativa que aliviariala sobre-pesca en otras localidades. En este caso los modelos simples de evaluación localizada podrían ser mas efectivosque los modelos sofisticados que se aplican a un “stock” complejo formado de unidades múltiples.

Evaluating Localized vs. Large-scale Management: The Example of Tautog in Virginia

Troy TuckeyNoëlle Yochum

John HoenigJon Lucy

Joseph Cimino Tuckey is a Ph.D. student, Yochum is a M.S. student, and Hoenig is

a professor at the School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute ofMarine Science, Gloucester Point. Tuckey can be contacted at

[email protected]. Lucy is a marine recreation specialist with theVirginia Sea Grant College Program, Marine Advisory Services,

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point. Cimino is anatural resources specialist in Fisheries Management, Virginia

Marine Resources Commission, Newport News.

FEATURE:FISHERIESMANAGEMENT


INTRODUCTION

The choice of management spatial scale isa critical step of any stock assessment. Thatdecision depends upon the biology andbehavior of the species and the operationalconsiderations of the management policy.There are advantages and disadvantages ofany choice of management unit that arestrongly affected by the movement patternsof the species. We begin by reviewing thetradeoffs associated with few, large manage-ment units (large-scale management)compared with a greater number of smallmanagement units (localized management).We then discuss a case history of the tautog(Tautoga onitis) resource in Virginia, showingthe application of a localized managementdesign that contrasts with the establishedlarge-scale management practice.

TRADE-OFFS ASSOCIATEDWITH LARGE-SCALE VS.LOCALIZED ASSESSMENT ANDMANAGEMENT

There can be clear advantages to assess-ing a stock on a large-scale basis, i.e., treatinga stock complex as a single unit for assess-ment and management (Table 1). Whenthere is no significant spatial variability inpopulation characteristics due to the factthat the stock is well mixed, large-scale anal-ysis is appropriate and possibly requires lesswork since data compilation and analysisonly need to be done once. A single stockmanagement unit, when appropriate, alsoenables data from subunits to be used for esti-mating parameters for the whole stockcomplex. For example, to tune a VirtualPopulation Analysis (VPA) to obtain fishingmortality (F), it is appropriate to use a surveyindex of abundance from a portion of thespecies’ range provided the index is represen-tative of the entire stock complex.

Additional advantages of defining a singlestock unit arise from the aggregation of datafrom subunits within the management areathat results in potentially lower costs togather data and possibly more precise param-eter estimates.

If the stock-complex is managed as a sin-gle unit, but is comprised of sub-stocks thathave real biological differences in terms ofpopulation parameters, potential problemsarise. The aggregation of data from the entirestock-complex results in estimated parametervalues that represent averages spread acrossthe spatial scale used in the analysis. Ifmangers use the average obtained from acoast-wide assessment and apply it to all sub-stocks, then for some sub-stocks restrictionswill be too stringent, while in others restric-tions will not be sufficient to meetmanagement goals. This results in a loss ofyield in both cases. Also, management regu-lations lacking spatial detail can potentiallylead to localized serial depletion, lowerrecruitment, and instability in the fishery.

One way to address the risks of large-scale, single-stock analysis is to partition themanagement area into smaller spatial scalesthat reflect biologically meaningful units orsub-stocks (local populations that experiencedifferent mortality rates, have spatial or tem-poral isolation of spawning groups, showmicroevolution of morphological or geneticcharacteristics, or have abundances that areaffected by local processes; Waldman 2005).Stephenson (1999) argued that spatially dis-tinct spawning groups should be treated assub-stocks under a “precautionary approach”until there is information to demonstrateotherwise. While data requirements increaseas stocks are separated into smaller spatialscales, the potential of localized serial deple-tion is reduced. Localized management mayalso result in stability of the fishery and helpto maintain genetic diversity and productiv-

ity in sub-stocks. However, if the spatial scaleis too small, external forces (immigration andemigration) may overwhelm any manage-ment effort. For example, if unlimited fishingof a highly mobile species were allowed in asmall management area, immigration intothe area may dominate over depletion due tofishing, resulting in a constant catch rate andleading to the incorrect conclusion that fish-ing has little effect on the population. Anadditional consideration is that parameterestimates from smaller spatial scales mayhave more variance and the reduction indata availability could make localized man-agement unwarranted.

A CASE STUDY OFLARGE-SCALE VS. LOCALIZED MANAGEMENT:TAUTOG IN VIRGINIA

Tautog, a member of the wrasse family(Labridae), is found from Nova Scotia toGeorgia, with the greatest abundance foundbetween Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and theChesapeake Bay, Virginia. Tautog is a long-lived species (up to 30 years; Cooper 1967)that tends to inhabit structure such as wrecksand reefs, making it susceptible to overfishing(Briggs 1977). Springtime spawning typicallyoccurs at or in the mouths of estuaries andbays and in nearshore waters, and juvenilessettle in shallow estuarine habitats (Sogard etal. 1992).

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the coast-wide tautog stock began to decrease due tofishing pressure. The majority of Virginialandings (greater than 90%) result from arecreational fishery (ASMFC 2002). Tofacilitate management of the coast-widestock, the Atlantic States Marine FisheriesCommission (ASMFC) adopted a FisheryManagement Plan (FMP) for tautog in 1996to rebuild spawning stock biomass by reduc-ing fishing mortality. The ASMFC split the

Table 1.


management region into two zones: a north-ern zone (Massachusetts, Rhode Island,Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey)and a southern zone (Delaware, Maryland,Virginia, and North Carolina). Since 1996,three addenda have been added to the FMPto reduce fishing mortality and rebuildspawning stock biomass by creating mini-mum size and possession limits, gearrestrictions, and closed seasons.

The ASMFC uses a VPA to examine tau-tog stocks on a coast-wide basis (Table 2).Fisheries dependent data from Massachusettsto Virginia (and fisheries independent datafrom Massachusetts to New Jersey only) areaggregated and the entire stock is assessedresulting in annual estimates of abundanceand fishing mortality by age and in annualestimates of recruitment (ASMFC 2002). Iftautog are well mixed throughout the rangeand if the assumption that natural mortality(M) is constant throughout the stock is war-ranted, then extending the results of theVPA to include the southern zone is appro-priate. However, if sub-stocks exist, thenVPA may mask real localized differences inpopulation parameters. For example, VPAwill average F across the entire stock and notappropriately allocate mortality rates amongsub-stocks. The result would be an overesti-mate of F in one area and an underestimatein another area that could lead to ineffectivemanagement decisions and potentially tosub-stock collapse. The F calculated for theentire stock complex is a potentially biasedestimate of the stock average because theestimate depends on which sub-stocks supplytuning indices and how those indices areweighted.

The VPA conducted in 2001 using catch-at-age data from 1981 to 2000 showed thatthe fishing mortality rate declined from

0.71/y to 0.41/y between 1993 and 2000.Despite the decrease, the estimated fishingmortality rate remained above the ASMFCtarget of F = 0.29/y (= F40%SSB) establishedby the Tautog Plan Review Team (ASMFC2002). As a result, the ASMFC mandated areduction in fishing effort for all states in2003. However, the age composition dataused in the analysis were from the northernzone and a lack of sufficient data from statessouth of New Jersey prevented a regionalassessment based on VPA for this zone. In asubsequent VPA (2005), the estimated fish-ing mortality rate decreased to 0.30/y, but wasstill above the target value.

The Virginia Marine ResourcesCommission (VMRC) believed that tautogin Virginia experienced a lower fishing mor-tality rate compared with northernpopulations (White et al. 1997). Catchcurves were constructed using samples col-lected primarily from the commercial fisheryin Virginia to derive an age-length key thatwas applied to landings data obtained by theMarine Recreational Fisheries StatisticsSurvey (MRFSS) and the VMRC. The esti-mated total instantaneous mortality rate (Z)from the catch curves varied between 0.26and 0.58/y from 1985 to 1996 and were lowerthan the coast-wide average of Z = 0.73/y atthat time (Figure 1).

To examine the possibility of sub-stockstructure in tautog, tagging studies conductedby the Virginia Saltwater Gamefish TaggingProgram since 1995 were reviewed. Theseshowed that 3 out of 1,410 tag returns(0.21%) from tautog tagged in Virginia werecaught outside of the state of Virginia: onefrom Ocean City, Maryland, one fromDelaware Bay, and the other from OregonInlet, North Carolina (Hoenig and Lucy2004; Lucy, unpublished data). A variety of

sizes were tagged both inshore and offshorethroughout much of the year. The majority oftagged fish were caught near the tagginglocation although there was some inshore-offshore migration as well. Acoustictelemetry data also suggest limited move-ments for Virginia tautog (Arendt et al.2001). Similar migration patterns for tautoghave been found in Rhode Island (Cooper1966) and New York (Olla et al. 1974).Investigations into stock structure based ongenetics have shown a low level of geneticdiversity between samples taken fromVirginia, Rhode Island, and Delaware, whichcould be related to low effective populationsize, a historical bottleneck from previousglacial events, or larval transport processes(Orbacz and Gaffney 2000). The complica-tion for basing stock structure on geneticcriteria is that tautog release pelagic larvaethat persist for up to three weeks in nearshorewaters where there is the potential for along-shelf transport. The dispersal of early stageswould not only result in reduced genetic vari-ation, but may also explain the lack ofobserved differences in biological parameterssuch as age, growth, and reproductionthroughout their range (Hostetter andMunroe 1993). The supporting evidencefrom the tagging data that Virginia tautogremain in Virginia waters or offshore ofVirginia and show little along-shelf move-ment provides a mechanism to justify usinglocalized fishing mortality rates and thus wehave restricted our analysis to tautog landedin Virginia territorial waters and seaward tothe outer edge of the Exclusive EconomicZone (324.2 km).

Table 2.


NON-EQUILIBRIUM CATCHCURVES

Opercle and otolith samples obtained pri-marily from the commercial fishery wereexamined to continue to monitor Virginiatautog mortality rates following the study byWhite et al. (1997). Additional samples werecollected from recreational catches oppor-tunistically. Ages were determined by OldDominion University. The resulting agedsamples were used to derive cross-sectionalcatch curves for each year from 1997 through2004. Cross-sectional catch curve analysiswas used because it provides an estimate oftotal instantaneous mortality rate and onlyrequires information on relative abundanceof cohorts from a single year (Table 2). Twoassumptions of cross-sectional catch curvesare: catchability of the cohorts is constantacross age, and recruitment shows no trendover time for the cohorts being examined,but recruitment may fluctuate randomlyabout a stationary mean. Another possibilityfor examining localized mortality rates is theuse of a longitudinal catch curve, whichassumes that catchability of the fishing gearremains constant from year to year, thatcatchability of the cohort remains constantas the fish grow larger, and that the catchcurve is based on known catch-per-unit-effort. Because longitudinal catch curvesfollow a single cohort through time, the anal-ysis requires catch rates over multiple years.On the other hand, cross-sectional catchcurves can be examined using a single year ofcatch composition data. An assumption ofboth longitudinal and cross-sectional catchcurves is that the stock and fishery are atequilibrium. When there is equilibrium (nochange in fishing or natural mortality rates

and no trend in recruitment over time), thedescending limb of the catch curve is astraight line whose slope reflects the totalinstantaneous mortality rate. However, fortautog, a stock undergoing rebuilding efforts,changing fishing mortality rates result innon-equilibrium conditions and departuresfrom linearity (resulting in a bend in thecatch curve). Interpretation of the non-equi-librium catch curve can provide insight intochanges in stock dynamics, although addi-tional years of data are required. If the bendin a cross-sectional catch curve always occursat the same point every year, then eithercatchability changes with age or mortalitychanges with age, but distinguishing betweenthe two is not possible (Figure 2). On theother hand, if the bend in the curve movesone time step to the right each subsequentyear, then either there has been a change inmortality with time or a change in recruit-ment with time (Figures 3 and 4). A fixedpercentage change in recruitment every yearresults in a series of catch curves over timethat consists of two linear segments (Figure4), whereas a one-time permanent change inrecruitment results in a complicated patternevolving in the catch curve over time (Figure5). Distinguishing between the differentexplanations for bent catch curves is not pos-sible without further information, but catchcurves do provide a tool for examining non-equilibrium conditions using limited data.

CROSS-SECTIONAL CATCHCURVES FOR VIRGINIATAUTOG

Ordinary (equilibrium) cross-sectionalcatch curve analysis was used first for tautogin Virginia because available data includedage composition of the catch. Results of the

analyses suggest a slight reduction in totalmortality in recent years relative to the 1980sand early 1990s (average Z estimate = 0.38/yfrom 1985 to 1996, average Z estimate =0.30/y from 1997 and 1999 to 2004) withvalues that are below the target Z of 0.44/yestablished by the ASMFC (Figures 1 and 6).To check for the possibility that mortalitymay have changed over time, we then con-structed non-equilibrium catch curves for1997 and for 1999 to 2004. Total instanta-neous mortality rate estimates for youngerfish that only experienced the recent mortal-ity rate ranged from 0.18/y in 2000 to 0.41/yin 2004, while the mortality rate for older fishthat experienced both old and recent mortal-ity rates ranged from 0.24/y in 2003 to 0.51/yin 1999 (Table 3; Figure 6). An importantpoint is that the recent total mortality rate isbelow the ASMFC target Z = 0.44 (assumingM = 0.15). If the entire age range is used inthe catch curve analysis (assuming there isno bend in the catch curve), then the esti-mated total instantaneous mortality rate fortautog ranged between 0.26/y in 2000 and0.42/y in 1997 (Table 3; Figure 6). A possiblecriticism of catch curve analysis is that theage of full recruitment may not be the peak asused in this analysis, but may occur at anolder age. If the age at full recruitment isassumed to be age 5 in all years based on theoldest observed peak (2001), then the esti-mated total instantaneous mortality rate fortautog changes, but still remains below thetarget value (Table 3). Thus, the conclusionthat the mortality rate in Virginia is belowthe ASMFC target is robust to the interpre-tation of the shape of the catch curves andthe age at full recruitment. In addition, theincrease in MRFSS catch and effort esti-mates observed during 2003 and 2004

Figure 1. Estimates of the total instantaneous mortality rate obtained usingcross-sectional catch curves for Virginia tautog by White et al. (1997,columns 2 and 6 of Figure V.7) and this study.

Figure 2. Non-equilibrium cross-sectional catch curves for three years of datashowing a consistent bend in the curve at age 8. Such a pattern is consistentwith mortality increasing with age or catchability decreasing with age.


(Figure 7) correspond to a steepening of thecatch curve at the extreme left of thedescending limb, suggesting that the non-equilibrium catch curves may be tracking arecent change in the mortality rate (Figure 6,data for 2004). Additional years of data couldverify this trend.

In theory, another possible explanationfor the bend in the catch curve is a violationof the assumption of no trend in recruitment.If recruitment continuously decreased at aconstant percentage rate with time, theresult would be to pull the left side of thecatch curve downward and appear as a reduc-tion in total mortality estimates for youngerages, i.e., for recent years (Figure 4).Observing a constant decrease in recruit-ment over time, such as 20% per year, ispossible but not likely. Unfortunately, datafor recruitment of Virginia tautog are notavailable and we are currently unable todefinitively exclude this possibility. However,recruitment estimates from the VPA do notshow any decreasing trend over timethroughout the northern management areaand actually show an increase in biomass andrecruitment in recent years (ASMFC 2002).Inasmuch as recruitment is influenced byregional factors, such as climate (Myers et al.1997), the results from the VPA concerningrecruitment are consistent with the idea thatrecruitment in Virginia has not declined.Additionally, the MRFSS data showinglower fishing effort in recent years relative tothe early 1990s (with a notable increase inonly the last two years) support the conclu-sion that fishing mortality has decreased inrecent years. Finally, the implementation ofminimum size restrictions, closed seasons

(commercial fishery), and possession limits(recreational fishery) for tautog in Virginiathat began in 1997 would reduce fishingmortality of young tautog and tend toincrease recruitment.

DISCUSSION

The management spatial scale that ischosen for a particular species may be basedupon known biological criteria of the speciesor for convenience in terms of identifiableand enforceable management units. Becausethe true nature of the stock is unknowable, itis good practice to use a variety of assessmentmodels, assess if the data are appropriate, andcompare results. When model results varythe logical questionto ask is “Why?” Theargument for using across-sectional catchcurve analysis doesnot negate the ideaof using a VPA but,rather, suggests thatdifferent assessmenttools may be com-plementary andshow insight intostock dynamics thata single methodol-ogy may not reveal.For example, whileVPA is superior inproviding mortalityrates and absoluteabundance by ageand year, it is inferiorin that the parame-ters are averaged

over the entire management unit. If sub-stocks are not well-mixed, as appears to bethe case for tautog, then mortality rates maynot be accurate for any jurisdiction and man-agement decisions may be less effective.Virginia’s fishing mortality rate may be belowthe value obtained using a VPA for the entirestock complex. If so, then cutting back fish-ing effort in Virginia results in unnecessaryregulations and loss of yield. Furthermore,there must be higher values of F in anotherarea (or areas) within the management unitthat balances the below average value inVirginia. Therefore, the reduction in effortthat is averaged across the management sub-stocks may not be sufficient to decrease F to

Figure 4. Non-equilibrium cross-sectional catch curves over a series of years showinga consistent 20% decrease in recruitment every year. Here total mortality (Z) isconstant over all ages and all years and the departure from linearity is due to changing recruitment. The slope to the right of the bend reflects the true mortalityrate. For clarity, each successive year’s catch curve is displaced below the previous yearscurve. In practice, the height of the curve is determined in part by sampling effort.

Figure 5. Effect of a permanent decrease in recruitment from one constantlevel to another on a non-equilibrium cross-sectional catch curve starting inyear two. For clarity, each successive year’s catch curve is displaced below theprevious year’s curve. In practice, the height of the curve is determined bysampling effort.

Figure 3. Non-equilibrium cross-sectional catch curve for three years of datashowing a migration of the bend to the right. This is consistent with adecrease in mortality with time or a decreasing trend in recruitment. Theslope of the line to the left of the bend shows the recent mortality rate if themortality rate has changed.


Figure 6. Cross-sectional catch curves (left) and non-equilibrium cross-sectional catch curves (right) for1997 and for 1999 through 2004. Operculum age wasderived from tautog obtained primarily fromcommercial landings with some opportunistic dataobtained from recreational catch. Ages represented byless than five fish were not used in the regression andonly the descending limb is shown.

Opercle age (years)


Table 3.

Opercle age (years)

,


the target value established by the ASMFCin all areas and the regulations may not beconservative. On the other hand, if Virginia’smortality rates are the same as valuesobtained through VPA, then not reducingeffort in Virginia may result in sub-stockdepletion. Managers are faced with thechoice between results and risks from adetailed stock analysis (VPA) that may notbe applicable in all areas and a less detailedanalysis (non-equilibrium cross-sectionalcatch curve) that leaves some uncertaintywith respect to the cause of the resulting esti-mated parameters. This uncertainty isminimized by considering additional infor-mation such as effort data and tag returns.Our contention is that if real biological dif-ferences exist between sub-stocks, thenapplying results obtained from the moresophisticated model may not achieve man-agement goals, but that the less detailedanalysis may provide additional informationand help clarify management options. Fortautog, the evidence supports local popula-tions of adult tautog throughout their rangeand suggests mixing only during the pelagic,larval stage. If the local fishing mortality rateis high and recruitment is low, then localdepletion is possible. Recovery is probablegiven the lack of genetic and biological dif-ferences observed, however it may take anumber of years. The example of using cross-sectional catch curve analysis to evaluatetautog in Virginia provides a real-worldapplication of two methodologies that havedifferent data requirements and assumptionsand demonstrates the risks associated withassessment and management decisions. In

the case of tautog,where spatial scaleappears to matter,the simple, yet spa-tially explicit model(catch curve analy-sis) provided detailsthat were obscuredby the more sophis-ticated model(VPA).

POSTSCRIPT

The latest assess-ment of the stockcomplex includesresults of VPA,catch curve analysisand other methodsbecause it was recog-nized that spatialscale may be impor-tant. For example,

Rhode Island used a biomass dynamic model,Connecticut investigated trends using har-vest values and survey indices, New Yorkexamined harvest trends, while New Jerseyand Delaware conducted cross-sectional andlongitudinal catch curve analyses (ASMFC2006). The Tautog Review Panel encouragesstates to develop local stock assessmentsusing appropriate models, with caution dueto the lack of data in some cases, to comple-ment the coast-wide assessment because ofthe potential for sub-stock structure in thisspecies (ASMFC 2006).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Virginia RecreationalFishery Advisory Board for financial supportand Robert O’Reilly (VMRC) for providingdata and historical information. We alsothank the Virginia Game Fish TaggingProgram, an ongoing project jointly spon-sored by VIMS and VMRC, the volunteercorps of trained anglers whose efforts con-tribute to the tagging database and DanHepworth for his work with this program.We thank the anonymous reviewers forinsightful comments and helping to improvethe manuscript. Also, a special thank yougoes to the hundreds of anglers and commer-cial fishers reporting tagged tautog. Thisarticle is Contribution No. 2797 of theVirginia Institute of Marine Science, TheCollege of Willliam and Mary.

REFERENCES

Arendt, M. D., J.A. Lucy, and T.A. Munroe. 2001.Seasonal occurrence and site-utilizationpatterns of adult tautog, Tautoga onitis

(Labridae), at manmade and natural structuresin lower Chesapeake Bay. Fishery Bulletin 99:519-527.

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine FisheriesCommission). 2002. Review of the AtlanticStates Marine Fisheries Commission fisherymanagement plan for tautog (Tautoga onitis).Report prepared by H. Stirratt (ASMFC) andthe Tautog Plan Review Team (P. Caruso, D.Simpson, F. Steimle, and N. Lazar). ASMFC,Washington, D.C.

_____. 2006. Stock assessment report 06-02(supplement) of the Atlantic States MarineFisheries Commission. Tautog stockassessment report for peer review. ASFMC,Washington, D.C.

Briggs, P. T. 1977. Status of tautog populations atartificial reefs in New York waters and effectsof fishing. New York Fish Game Journal24(2):154-167.

Cooper, R. A. 1966. Migration and populationestimation of the tautog, Tautoga onitis(Linnaeus), from Rhode Island. Transactionsof the American Fisheries Society 95: 239-247.

_____. 1967. Age and growth of the tautog,Tautoga onitis (Linnaeus), from Rhode Island.Transactions of the American FisheriesSociety 96: 134-142.

Hoenig, J. M., and J. Lucy. 2004. Project RF03-15: Determining stock status of tautog inVirginia waters using data from Virginia’sfishery. Final Report to the Virginia MarineResources Commission, Project RF03-15.Newport News, Virginia.

Hostetter, E. B., and T. A. Munroe. 1993. Age,growth, and reproduction of tautog Tautogaonitis (Labridae: Perciformes) from coastalwaters of Virginia. Fishery Bulletin 91:45-64.

Myers, R. A., G. Mertz, and J. Bridson. 1997.Spatial scales of interannual recruitmentvariations of marine, anadromous, andfreshwater fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheriesand Aquatic Sciences 54: 1400-1407.

Olla, B. L., A. J. Bejda, and A. D. Martin. 1974.Daily activity, movements, feeding, andseasonal occurrence in the tautog, Tautogaonitis. Fishery Bulletin 72:27-35.

Orbacz, E. A. and P. M. Gaffney. 2000. Geneticstructure of tautog (Tautoga onitis) populationsassayed by RFLP and DGGE analysis ofmitochondrial and nuclear genes. FisheryBulletin 98:336-344.

Stephenson, R. L. 1999. Stock complexity infisheries management: a perspective ofemerging issues related to population sub-units. Fisheries Research 43:247-249.

Sogard, S. M., K. W. Able, and M. P. Fahay.1992. Early life history of the tautog, Tautogaonitis, in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. FisheryBulletin 90:529-539.

Waldman, J. R. 2005. Definition of stocks: anevolving concept. Pages 7-16 in S. X. Cadrin,K. D. Friedland, and J. R. Waldman eds. Stockidentification methods. Elsevier AcademicPress, Burlington, MA.

White, G. G., J. E. Kirkley, and J. A. Lucy.1997. Quantitative assessment of fishingmortality for tautog (Tautoga onitis) in Virginia(Preliminary Report). Final Contract ReportRF-96-11 to Virginia Marine ResourcesCommission. Newport News, Virginia.

Figure 7. Combined effort and landings data for Virginia tautog fromcommercial and recreational catch from 1981 through 2004. MarineRecreational Fisheries Statistics Survey data include an assumed 2.5% post-release mortality. “Old F” refers to the mortality rate experienced by Virginiatautog under greater fishing pressure prior to rule changes in 1998, whereas“New F” refers to current estimates of fishing mortality associated withlower fishing effort.


Developing the New Marine and Coastal Fisheries Journal

COLUMN: DIRECTOR’S LINECOLUMN: DIRECTOR’S LINE

Gus RassamAFS Executive Director

Gus Rassam can be reachedat [email protected].

As the Forum column in this issue ofFisheries indicates, the launch of a newjournal in today’s environment is neverfree of controversy. With the multiplechallenges of declining or steady-statelibrary budgets, big investments in sci-ence publishing made by internationalcommercial publishers, expanding open-access movements, and the generalInternet/web emphasis on blogs andinstantaneous information, it is no won-der that some scientific societies hesitatea lot before starting a new journal.

AFS in that sense is no exception. Andagain, the contribution published hereexpresses some of the hesitation anddoubts. But the authors of that piecedwell at length on the “constitutionality”of the process that led to the unanimousdecision by the AFS Governing Board tostart the new journal.

To remind the reader of this process, ajoint special committee of the MarineFisheries and Estuaries Sections wasformed by then President Kohler toexamine the idea of publishing such ajournal at AFS. That committee includedrepresentatives of the PublicationsOverview Committee (POC) in an effortto keep the POC informed of this workand gain their involvement in the discus-sions. This special committee containedparticipants from both Sections they feltwere best qualified to judge: (1) the needfor such a journal in those fields, (2) thenew journal’s niche in the market, and(3) the possible mission, contents, andeditorial policy of the journal.Unfortunately, the communicationsbetween this special committee and thePOC were less than ideal and these mis-communications persisted despiteattempts by both chairs to reach a betterunderstanding of each other.

Later, after that special committeereported to Governing Board mid-yearmeeting in March 2006, staff was

directed by the Governing Board to pro-vide the Board with different businessplans and models for such a publicationby the time of the 2006 Annual Meeting,in an effort to assess the financial andproduction implications for AFS fromsuch development. These business planswere produced and then discussed at theLake Placid meeting, where theGoverning Board voted to launch thisjournal in the all-electronic, open-accessmode of production.

During all of this, several members ofthe POC at that time, including above allthe chair, objected primarily on thegrounds that the effort was led by a spe-cial committee, not by the POC. Theseobjections culminated in the resignationof some POC members, including thechair, from POC membership. New mem-bers of the POC have been selected byPresident Nielsen. Several of those resign-ing after Lake Placid returned to continuetheir appointments and a fully function-ing POC is currently chaired by StevenCooke.

I am no constitutional authority noram I a lawyer, nevertheless I believe thatthe process followed, while possiblynovel for AFS, was not unusual in thesense that subject experts and experi-enced staff combined to presentinformation to the highest authority inthe Society, the Governing Board. Thespecial committee’s recommendation wasto launch such a journal, while the POC’sadvice was to delay until the POC gavefurther consideration to the proposal.After both opinions were expressed, theGoverning Board voted to take theadvice of the first group. The ambiguitiesin such a course are many and if therewere lapses in judgment along the pathtaken, the onus must fall on the execu-tive director.

After all, the volunteers in any society,whether the presidential chain or com-

mittee members, are responsible only forperforming their duties to the best oftheir ability and in the way they under-stand the requirements of office. Theexecutive director, however, is responsiblefor making sure that communicationsamong the various Units and membersinvolved in any given project are smoothand that consensus is achieved. In that Ifailed. I may have also over-interpretedthe constitutional duties of the ED tolaunch new projects with the agreementof the ruling body elected by the mem-bership (the Governing Board) to meanthat while the advice of committees isuseful and sometimes crucial, theGoverning Board is the final arbiter fordecisions made at AFS.

My excuse is that of enthusiasm for aproject whose time has clearly come.Several other scientific societies are con-sidering or have implemented newelectronic journal opportunities, such asthe American Institute of FisheriesResearch Biologists, Ecological Society ofAmerica, and the American Institute ofBiological Sciences, for example. The AFShas been in existence for 135 years andthrough most of that existence it hasbeen known as a “freshwater fisheries”society, despite the fact that a substantialnumber of members work in the marineand coastal areas. To launch a new jour-nal has some risks but these risks areminimal financially and the Society ishealthy enough to take them on. And, inmy opinion, it is time for scientific soci-eties to take back some of the turf cededto commercial publishers who have nomembers to care about or objectivesbeyond the need for profitability.

I feel confident that we will overcomethe controversy and that those whoauthored the Forum piece will contributetheir knowledge and expertise as thenew journal takes shape with the guid-ance of the POC.

A Perspective on the Decision to Establish an AFS Marine Journal

OOPPIINNIIOONN::FFIISSHHEERRIIEESS FFOORRUUMM


The scientific literature has seen aproliferation of peer-reviewed journalsin the past few decades. The increasednumber of journals has provided moreoutlets for publication, but also hasmade it more difficult to keep up-to-date with the literature, and likely hasdiluted journal quality. In fact, in asearch of the Web of Science, we foundthat papers including the word "fish" inthe topic were published in 616 jour-nals in 1984–1985 and in 2,355journals in 2004–2005. In addition, amore restrictive search for the topicwords "fish" and "marine" found suchpapers published in 38 journals in1984–1985, but in 531 journals in2004–2005. Given this abundance ofexisting journals, the initiation of anynew American Fisheries Society (AFS)journal must be carefully considered. Atpresent, AFS currently publishes fourjournals in addition toFisheries—Transactions of the AmericanFisheries Society, North AmericanJournal of Fisheries Management, NorthAmerican Journal of Aquaculture, andthe Journal of Aquatic Animal Health.Submissions to two of these journalshave increased in recent years, whilesubmissions for the other two haveremained stable. Although AFS does

not have an explicit policy for the for-mation of a new scientific journal, theAFS Constitution does mandate mem-bership input on publication issues viathe member-driven PublicationsOverview Committee (POC). The AFSConstitution states that if a new journalis proposed for publication by AFS, theAFS POC will evaluate that proposaland make a final recommendation tothe AFS Governing Board, executivedirector, and publications manager.Although other bodies can certainlyapproach the AFS Governing Boardand/or AFS officers with requests that anew journal be considered for publica-tion, a final recommendation to theGoverning Board must come from thePOC.

Unfortunately, this was not the pro-cess that was followed in 2005–2006,which ultimately culminated in the AFSGoverning Board's unanimous decisionto initiate a new marine and coastaljournal prior to hearing input from thePOC. In fact, the POC was unanimous inrecommending to the AFS GoverningBoard that further study of the marineand coastal journal was needed. In gen-eral, the POC wanted to fully evaluatethe need for a new journal as well asexplore whether more could be done to

encourage marine scientists to publish inexisting AFS journals and to strengthenthe quality and impact factors of exist-ing AFS journals before deciding to addanother journal. We will not belabor theevents concerning this issue that tookplace over the past 12 months, but sev-eral important points do bear mentionhere. First, an ad hoc committee wasappointed to investigate the marine andcoastal journal proposal without priordiscussion with the POC, bringing intoquestion the role and responsibilities ofthe POC. Second, the Governing Boardcharged the AFS executive director withformulating a business plan for the pro-posed journal without any contacthaving been made with the POC. Finally,the Governing Board voted unanimouslyto establish the new journal before thePOC report was even presented, andthus before the POC motion to delayany decision (allowing a thorough anddeliberate discussion) could even beconsidered. Because the POC’s motionwas never made, no further deliberationcould take place, and no additionalinformation could be obtained.

We the undersigned are concernedthat such a breach of constitutionally-mandated protocol undermines themember-driven approach that has madeAFS a strong organization. In protest ofthis breach, most of the membership ofthe POC resigned after the Lake PlacidAFS Annual Meeting. We hope that ourpresent message to Governing Boardmembers is clear—that protocols articu-lated in the AFS Constitution should befollowed, and the AFS membershipshould always be heard before crucialdecisions are made. Ultimately, webelieve that at this point a broader,membership-driven debate should guidedecisions about additions to the suite ofjournals produced by AFS.

Dennis R. DeVriesGary G. Grossman

David H. WahlJennifer A. Stone

Fred M. UtterCecil A. Jennings

Deirdre M. KimballThe authors were members of the2005–2006 Publications Overview

Committee. DeVries can becontacted at [email protected].


Award of ExcellencePresented to an AFS member for original andoutstanding contributions to fisheries andaquatic biology.Nomination deadline: 1 May 2007Contact: Paola Ferreri School Forestry ResourcesPenn State University207 Ferguson BuildingUniversity Park, PA 16802Phone: 814/863-2095Fax: 814/865-3725E-mail: [email protected]

Carl R. Sullivan Fishery ConservationAwardPresented to an individual or organization foroutstanding contributions to the conservationof fishery resources. Eligibility is not restrictedto AFS members, and accomplishments caninclude political, legal, educational, scientific,and managerial successes. Nominations shouldinclude a synopsis of fishery conservationcontributions; a description of the influence ofthose contributions on improvedunderstanding, management, or use of fisheryresources; and at least one additionalsupporting letter. Nomination deadline: 16 April 2007Contact: Mary C. FabrizioDepartment of Fisheries ScienceVirginia Institute of Marine ScienceP.O. Box 1346Gloucester Point, VA 23062

(For UPS or FedEx use: Route 1208 Greate Road)Phone: 804/684-7308Fax: 804/684-7327E-mail: [email protected]

Distinguished Service AwardRecognizes outstanding contributions of timeand energy for special projects or activities by

AFS members. The number of recipients mayvary. Nomination deadline: 9 February 2007Contact: Mary C. FabrizioDepartmentof Fisheries ScienceVirginia Institute of Marine ScienceP.O. Box 1346Gloucester Point, VA 23062

(For UPS or FedEx use: Route 1208 Greate Road)Phone: 804/684-7308Fax: 804/684-7327E-mail: [email protected]

Excellence in Public OutreachPresented to an AFS member who goes the“extra mile” in sharing the value of fisheriesscience/research with the general publicthrough the popular media and othercommunication channels. Visitwww.fisheres.org and click on “Awards” tosee criteria and call for nominations.Nomination deadline: 4 May 2007Contact: Kevin Pope University of Nebraska Lincoln103 Miller HallLincoln, NE 68583-0711Phone: 402/472-7028Fax: 402/472-2722E-mail: [email protected]

Honorary MembershipPresented to individuals who have achievedoutstanding professional accomplishments orhave given outstanding service to the Society.Honorary Members must be nominated by atleast 100 active members and elected by a 2/3majority of active members online. Nomination deadline: TBAContact: Gail GoldbergAmerican Fisheries Society5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110

Bethesda, MD 20815Phone: 301/897-8616 x201E-mail: [email protected]

Meritorious Service AwardPresented to an individual for loyalty,dedication, and meritorious service to theSociety throughout the years; and forexceptional commitment to AFS’s programs,objectives, and goals.Nomination deadline: 1 May 2007Contact: Carolyn GriswoldNational Marine Fisheries Service28 Tarzwell DriveNarragansett, RI 02882Phone: 401/782-3273Fax: 401/782-3201E-mail: [email protected]

Outstanding Chapter AwardRecognizes outstanding professionalism, activeresource protection, and enhancementprograms, as well as a strong commitment tothe mission of the Society. Two awards aregiven, one for small chapters and one for largechapters. Chapters should submit anapplication to their Division presidents to beconsidered. Division presidents must nominatetwo best Chapters from their Divisions, onewith less than 100 members and another with100 members or more. Obtain appllications atwww.fisheries.org, click on “Awards.” Nomination deadline: TBAContact: Co-chairs, Bob Curry or MargaretMurphy

Bob Curry 1721 Mail Service Ctr.Raleigh, NC 27699-1721Phone: 919/707-0221Fax: 919/707-0028E-mail: [email protected]

Margaret MurphyQEA LLC290 Elwood Davis Rd.Liverpool, NY 13088Phone: 315/453-9009Fax: 315/435-9010E-mail: [email protected]

FIRST CALL FOR AFS 2007 AWARD NOMINATIONS FIRST CALL FOR AFS 2007 AWARD NOMINATIONS

The American Fisheries Society is seeking nominations and applications forseveral 2007 awards. Award recipients will be honored at the Annual Meetingin San Francisco, California, in September 2007. Nominations typically requirea candidate’s name, full contact information, biographical information, and/orhistory of service to the Society. Some awards require additional nominationmaterials. For more information on how to nominate an individual, ororganization, see descriptions below or contact the award chair. For moreinformation you may also contact AFS Awards Coordinator Gail Goldberg [email protected], or 301/897-8616 x201.

President’s Fishery ConservationAwardPresented in two categories: (1) an AFSindividual or unit, or (2) a non-AFS individualor entity, for singular accomplishments orlong-term contributions that advance aquaticresource conservation at a regional or locallevel. The award is administered by the PastPresident’s Advisory Council. A nominationpackage should include a strong and detailedletter describing the nominee’s contributionand the evidence for accomplishment at aregional or local level. If the nomination is foran individual, include a CV if possible.Nominations may be supported by multipleindividuals by signing one nomination letter, orby submitting supporting letters in addition tothe main nomination letter. Include thenominee’s title and full contact information(address, e-mail, phone).Nomination deadline: 14 May 2007Contact: Chris KohlerFisheries Illinois Aquaculture CenterSouthern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-6511 Phone: 618/453-2890 Fax: 618/453-6095 E-mail: [email protected]

William E. Ricker ResourceConservation AwardPresented to any entity (individual, group,agency, or company) for accomplishment oractivity that advances aquatic resourceconservation that is significant at a national orinternational level. The award is administeredby the Past President’s Advisory Council. Anomination package should include a strongand detailed letter describing the nominee’saccomplishments and the evidence for being“significant at a national or internationallevel.” If the nomination is for an individual,include a CV if possible. Nominations may besupported by multiple individuals by signingone letter, or by submitting supporting lettersin addition to the main nomination letter.Include the nominee’s title and full contactinformation (address, e-mail, phone).Nomination deadline: 14 May 2007Contact: Chris KohlerFisheries Illinois Aquaculture Ctr. Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-6511 Phone: 618/453-2890 Fax: 618/453-6095E-mail: [email protected]

Retired Members Travel Award forthe AFS Annual MeetingThe American Fisheries Society has establishedthis travel award to encourage and enablemembers of the Society to attend AnnualMeetings, particularly those members whomight play a more active role in the meeting.The Society recognizes that some retiredmembers who desire to participate in theAnnual Meeting might be inhibited for

financial reasons. Retired members may nothave funds for travel to meetings that wereavailable to them while employed. Therefore,this award is meant for those members whotruly have a need for financial assistance. TheSociety has neither means nor desire to verifyfinancial need, so that your request forsupport is based on an honor system.However, you must be a dues-paying retiredmember of the American Fisheries Society toapply. You may request up to $1,500 forreimbursable expenses. See www.fisheries.org,and click on “Awards” to get an application.Nomination deadline: 18 June 2007Contact: Chris Kohler Fisheries Illinois Aquaculture CenterSouthern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-6511 Phone: 618/453-2890 Fax: 618/453-6095 E-mail: [email protected]

Student Writing ContestRecognizes students for excellence in thecommunication of fisheries research to thegeneral public. Undergraduate and graduatestudents are asked to submit a 500 to 700word article explaining their own research or aresearch project in their lab or school. Thearticle must be written in languageunderstandable to the general public (i.e.,journalistic style). The winning article will bepublished in Fisheries. See www.fisheries.organd click on “Awards” for student writingcontest rules and further description.Submission deadline: 4 May 2007Contact: Kevin Pope University of Nebraska Lincoln103 Miller HallLincoln, NE 68583-0711Phone: 402-472-7028Fax: 402-472-2722E-mail: [email protected]

Awards Administered by Sections

Education SectionExcellence in Fisheries EducationAwardThe American Fisheries Society (AFS) Excellencein Fisheries Education Award was establishedin 1988. The award is administered by theEducation Section and is presented to anindividual to recognize excellence in organizedteaching and advising in some aspect offisheries education. Nominees may be involvedin extension or continuing education, as wellas traditional college and university instruction.Nominees must be AFS members, have beenactively engaged in fisheries education withinthe last 5 years, and have had at least 10 yearsof professional employment experience infisheries education. Two or more people mayact as nominators, but at least one nominatormust be an AFS member. The nominator(s) isresponsible for compiling supporting materialand submitting the application. The suggested

format for applications can be found atwww.fisheries.org; click on “Awards.”Application materials should be sent toMichael Quist ([email protected]) in digitalform.Nomination deadline: 31 May 2007 Contact: Michael QuistDept. of Natural Resource Ecology and

ManagementIowa State University339 Science IIAmes, IA 50011Phone: 515/294-9682Fax: 515/294-2995E-mail: [email protected]

John E. Skinner Memorial FundAwardThe John E. Skinner Memorial Fund wasestablished in memory of John Skinner, formerCalifornia-Nevada Chapter and WesternDivision AFS president. The fund providesmonetary travel awards for deserving graduatestudents or exceptional undergraduatestudents to attend the 2007 AFS AnnualMeeting in San Francisco, California, 2-6September. Any student who is active infisheries or related aquatic disciplines is eligibleto apply. Awardees are chosen by a committeeof the AFS Education Section. Selection isbased on academic qualifications, professionalservice, and reasons for attending themeeting. Travel support (final amount is yet tobe determined, but at least up to $600 peraward) will be made available to successfulapplicants. Award winners will also receive aone year paid membership to the AmericanFisheries Society. Limit all answers to the spaceprovided. Additional material will not beconsidered in evaluating applicants. Nomination deadline: 11 May 2007Contact: Craig Paukert205 Leasure Hall, Division of BiologyKansas State UniversityManhattan, Kansas 66506Phone: 785/532-6522 Fax: 785/532-7159E-mail: [email protected]

Equal Opportunities SectionJ. Frances Allen Scholarship AwardThe American Fisheries Society (AFS) is pleasedto announce that applications are beingaccepted until 12 March 2007 (postmarkdate), for the J. Frances Allen Scholarship for afemale doctoral fisheries student. The AllenScholarship was established in 1986 to honorAllen, who pioneered women’s involvement inthe AFS and in the field of fisheries. Thescholarship fund was established with theintent of encouraging women to becomefisheries professionals. Eligibility: The qualified applicant must be afemale Ph.D. student who was an AFSmember as of 31 December 2006. Theapplicant must be conducting aquatic researchin line with AFS objectives, which include “all


branches of fisheries science, including but not limited to aquaticbiology, engineering, fish culture, limnology, oceanography, andsociology.” To apply: Submit items A through D in the same package:A. Resume (10 copies) with information in the following format

• educational history: degrees, grade point average for eachdegree (overall and in major), relevant courses taken;

• professional experience: positions held, level of position, years ofexperience at each level;

• publications: separated into refereed and other;• presentations: “first author” implies you presented it, “second

author” assumes you did not, specify if otherwise; and• AFS participation: year joined, meeting attendance and

participation, committee involvement, presentations at AFSmeetings.

B. Transcripts (10 copies) from all institutions of higher educationattended; include enrollment in Ph.D. program. High qualityphotocopies are acceptable. Please include transcripts. Do not havethem sent separately.

C. Dissertation research proposal (10 copies), not to exceed 4 single-spaced pages (excluding separate title page, abstract, andreferences). The proposal must be submitted in the following single-spaced format with headings:• Title page with project title, area of research (e.g., genetics,

ecology, modeling), applicant’s name, university, and department• Abstract, not to exceed one half-page, describing research

proposed• Introduction of project with background and project justification• Problem statement with specific objectives or hypotheses• Summary of procedures and methods with justification for

choices, including preliminary testing, literature references• Expected and preliminary results• Significance of research or anticipated application of findings • Literature cited (follow format for Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society).D. Three letters of recommendation, one of which must be from the

applicant’s major advisor. One letter must be from an AFS member.Each letter should address: 1. applicant’s promise as a fisheries scientist2. potential of applicant to complete their proposed work3. significance of the applicant’s proposed research to the

advancement of fisheries science.Send applications and recommendations (in one mailing), postmarked by 12 March 2007 to:J. Francis Allen ScholarshipAmerican Fisheries Society5410 Grosvenor Lane Ste. 110Bethesda, MD 20814-2199

An application will not be reviewed if any part is missing, or if it isreceived after the deadline. Criteria for Selection: Selection will be made by the J. Frances AllenScholarship Committee of the AFS Equal Opportunities Section. Proposalreviews by scientists in appropriate fields will be solicited by thecommittee. Awardees will be selected on a competitive basis withemphasis placed on research promise, scientific merit, and academicachievement. Submission of an application acknowledges the applicant’sacceptance of the committee’s decision as final. Public Announcement and Notification: Public announcement of therecipient of the J. Frances Allen Scholarship will be made at the 2007AFS Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California. In addition a writtenannouncement will appear in Fisheries and the recipient will receive anofficial letter of award. The recipient is encouraged to present theresults of her research at an Annual Meeting of the Society. It isexpected that the research findings will be published in an appropriatefisheries journal upon project completion, at which time the supportfrom this scholarship and AFS will be acknowledged.



Feb 4-9—ASLO Aquatic Sciences Meeting, Santa Fe, NM. Seeaslo.org/meetings/santafe2007/. Contact Helen Lemay [email protected].

Feb 7-9—Biennial Congress of the Indian Society ofFisheries Professionals, (CIFE), Mumbai.

Feb 7-11—Southern Division of the AmericanFisheries Society and Tennessee Chapter of AFS,

Memphis, TN. See www.sdafs.org/meetings/2006.

Feb 8-10—Evolutionary Change in Human-alteredEnvironments: An International Summit to TranslateScience into Policy, Los Angeles, CA. Seewww.ioe.ucla.edu/ctr/ioesymposium.html.

Feb 11-14—Arabian Seas International Conference onScience and Technology of Aquaculture, Fisheries, andOceanography, Kuwait. See www.stafo.edu.kw (underconstruction). Contact Suliman Almattar, (+965) 5711293.

Feb 15-17—Catfish Farmers of America Annual Conventionand Fish Farming Trade Show, Orange Beach, AL. Seewww.perdidobeachresort.com. Contact 1-800/634-7263.

Feb 15-19—Annual Meeting of the American Associationor the Advancement Science: Science and Technology forSustainable Well-Being. Seewww.aaas.org/meetings/annual_Meeting/.

Feb 18-23—Sixth International Symposium onEcohydraulics, Christchurch, New Zealand. Seewww.conference.co.nz/ecohydraulics2007. (AFS membersreceive a 10% registration discount.) Contact Rachel Cook,[email protected].

Feb 26-Mar—Aquaculture 2007 Meeting, San Antonio,TX. See

www.was.org/meetings/ConferenceInfo.asp?MeetingCode-AQ2007.

Feb 27—Ecosystem Service Markets: Everybody's Business,Houston, TX. See http://tfsweb.tamu.edu/ecoserv/.

Mar 7-10—AFS Midyear Governing Board Meeting,Atlanta, GA. Contact Sharon Smith, [email protected],

301/897-8616 x230.

Mar 7-10—25th Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference,Santa Rosa, CA. Contact 707/923-7501.

Mar 11-13—25th Annual International Boston SeafoodShow and Third Annual Seafood Processing America,Boston, MA. See www.bostonseafood.com, 972-620-3040.

Mar 12-13—Smith-Root Electrofishing Course, Vancouver,WA. Contact [email protected], 360/573-0202l.

Mar 12-15—International Symposium on Tuna and PelagicFish Stock Assessments and Management, Shanghai, China.See www.marine.maine.edu. contact Yong Chen,[email protected], 207/581-4303.

Mar 15-18—National Hydropower Association—Hydropower: The Power of Moving Water, Washington,DC.

Apr 3-5—Pathways to Resilience: Sustaining Pacific Salmonin a Changing World. Portland, Oregon. Seewww.Oregonstate.edu/conferences/resilience/. [email protected].

Apr 15-17—18th Northeastern Recreation ResearchSymposium, Lake George, NY. See www.esf.edu/nerr/.

Apr 22-25—63rd Northeast Fish and WildlifeConference, Groton, CT. See www.neafwa.org.

Apr 17—Annual Pacific Northwest Freshwater MusselResearch Syposium, Vancouver, WA. Contact Molly Hallock,[email protected].

May 9-11—HDR Fish Meeting on Water Access: WorkingWaterways and Waterfronts, Norfolk, VA. Seewww.wateraccess2007.com. Contact Tom Murray,[email protected], 804/684-7190.

May 14-15—AIBS Annual Meeting: Evolutionary Biologyand Human Health and Annual Meeting of the NaturalScience Collections Alliance, Washington, DC. Seewww.aibs.org/annual-meeting.

May 14-16—New Strategies for Urban Natural Resources:Integrating Wildlife, Fisheries, Forestry, and PlanningConference, Chicago, IL. Seewww.informalearning.com/wildlife.

May 20-23—Center for Natural Resource Economics andPolicy Meeting: Challenges of Natural Resource Economicsand Policy, the Second National Forum on SocioeconomicResearch in Coastal Systems, New Orleans, LA. Seewww.cnrep.lsu.edu/pdfs/CNEP.

May 24-27—Aquarama 2007: Tenth InternationalAquarium Fish and Accessories Exhibition and Conference,Singapore. See www.aquarama.com.sg.

May 28-Jun 1—Human and Climate Forcing of ZooplanktonPopulations, Hiroshima, Japan. Seewww.pices.int/meetings/international_symposia/2007_symposia/4th_Zooplankton/4th_Zoopla.aspx.

Jun 6-9—Fourth North American ReservoirSymposium, Atlanta, GA. See www.sdafs.org.

CALENDAR:2007 FISHERIES EVENTSCALENDAR:2007 FISHERIES EVENTS

To submit an event,send event name, dates,city, state/province, and contact informationto [email protected].

To submit an event,send event name, dates,city, state/province, and contact informationto [email protected].


Jun 7-9—15th International Conference on EnvironmentalBioindicators, Hong Kong. See www.InformaLearning.com/EBI. Contact Jana Johnsen, [email protected].

Jun 11-14—International Symposium on the Science andConservation of Horseshoe Crabs, Oakdale, NY. Seewww.horseshoecrab.org/isschc/.

Jun 17-21—Seventh Conference on Fish Telemetry,Silkeborg, Denmark. See www.fishtelemetry.eu/.

Jun 17-21—13th International Symposium on Society andResource Management, Park City, UT. Seewww.issrm2007.org.

Jun 17-23—Seventh Symposium on Fish Immunology,Stirling, Scotland. See www.noffi.org/sotland2007.

Jun 18-21—Second International Symposium onDiadromus Fishes: Challenges for Diadromous Fishes

in a Dynamic Global Environment, Halifax, Nova Scotia,Canada. See www.anacat.ca. Contact Alex Haro,[email protected].

Jun 26-29—ICES/PICES Conference for Early CareerScientists: New Frontiers in Marine Science, Baltimore, MD.See www.pices.int/newfrontiers.aspx .

Jul 4-7—Conserv-Vision conference, Hamilton, New Zeland.See www.waikato.ac.nz/wfass/Conserv-Vision/.

Jul 11-16—Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists andHerpetologists, St. Louis, Missouri. Seewww.dce.ksu.edu/jointmeeting/.

Jul 17-21—First International SclerochronologyConference, St. Petersburg, FL. Seehttp://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/sclerochronology/.

Jul 22-26—Coastal Zone '07, Portland, OR. Seewww.csc.noaa.gov/cz/.

Jul-27—National Marine Educators AssociationConference, Portland, ME. [email protected].

Sep 2-6—American Fisheries Society 137th AnnualMeeting, San Francisco. CA. See www.fisheries.org/sf/.

Oct 9-12—International Symposium: Wild Trout IX, WestYellowstone, MT. www.wildtroutsymposium.com/. Contact DirkMiller, [email protected], 307/777-4556.

Oct 24-27—Aquaculture Europe: European AquacultureSociety and Eurasia Trade Fairs, Istanbul, Turkey. Seewww.easonline.org/agenda/en/AquaEuro 2007/Aqua2007.asp.

2008

Feb 28-Mar 2—Southern Division of the AmericanFisheries Society and West Virginia Chapter of AFS,

Wheeling, WV. See www.sdafs/org/meetings.

Aug 17-21—American Fisheries Society 138thAnnual Meeting, Ottawa, Ontario.

Oct 5-9—Pathways to Success 2008 Conference:Integrating Human Dimensions into Fisheis and Wildlife,Estes Park, CO. Seewww.warnercnr.colostate.edu/nrt/hdfw/partners.html. [email protected].

2009

Aug 30-Sep 3—American Fisheries Society 139thAnnual Meeting, Nashville, TN.

MISSION STATEMENT

Fisheries is the monthly membershipmagazine of the American FisheriesSociety. Its goal is to provide timely,useful, and accurate information onfisheries science, management, and thefisheries profession for AFS members.

Although peer-reviewed and frequentlycited, Fisheries is not considered an AFSjournal. Lengthy, specialized, or highlytechnical research articles should besubmitted to one of the four AFSjournals. Some types of articles which aresuitable for Fisheries include fishery casehistories, review or synthesis articlescovering a specific issue, policy articles,perspective or opinion pieces, essays, andcurrent events or news features. Shortresearch articles may be considered if theresearch has broad implications orapplications and the article can be readilyunderstood by professionals of a varietyof backgrounds. We also encouragearticles that will expose our members tonew or different fields and recognize thevaried interests of our readers. PotentialFisheries articles do not need to appeal toall of our members, but should be ofinterest to at least a substantial portion.

REVIEWED ARTICLES

Features and Perspectives

We encourage submission of topicalmanuscripts of broad interest to ourreadership that address contemporaryissues and problems in all aspects offisheries science, management, andpolicy. Articles on fisheries management;aquatic resources; economics;educational/administrative concepts,controversies, techniques, philosophies,and developments; and other general-interest, fisheries-oriented subjects will beconsidered. Policy and issue papers arewelcome. Papers are judged on scientificand professional merit, relevance, andinterest to fisheries professionals. Featuresand perspectives should not exceed4,500 words (excluding references andtables) and should not cite more than 40

references. Please consult the senior ormanaging editor PRIOR to submission fora length or reference limit exemption forarticles of Society-wide significance.

Please submit your manuscript onlineusing our manuscript tracking website at http://fisheries.allentrack.net. If youcannot submit your manuscript online,please e-mail or phone the managingeditor for instructions([email protected] or 301/897-8616x220).

What to Submit

• Assemble manuscript in this order:title page, abstract page, text,references, tables, figure captions.Tables may included at the end of thearticle file or may be submitted asseparate files. Figures should not beembedded in the article file andshould be submitted separately.

• Authors are strongly encouraged tosubmit a word processing file in eitherWord, Word Perfect, or Text formats.Figures/images should be in TIF or EPSformats and tables should be in Excelor Word formats.

• The cover letter should explain howyour paper is innovative, provocative,timely, and of interest to a broadaudience. It should also include a listof colleagues who have seen themanuscript in draft. The cover lettercan also be used to provide furtherexplanation if part of the informationhas been published or presentedpreviously.

General Instructions

• Consult current issues for additionalguidance on format.

• Manuscripts should be double-spaced,including tables, references, and figurecaptions.

• Leave at least a 1-in margin on allsides. Indent all paragraphs. Numberpages sequentially.

• Please number lines for use asreference points by the reviewers. InWord, this feature is found in the Filemenu under Page Setup.

• Use dictionary preference forhyphenation. Do not hyphenate aword at the end of a line. Use ChicagoManual of Style, 14th edition, toanswer grammar or usage questions.

• The first mention of a common nameshould be followed by the scientificname in parentheses. Our standard isCommon and Scientific Names ofFishes from the United States, Canada,and Mexico, 6th edition.

• Cite each figure and table in the text.Organize text so each is cited innumerical order.

• Use metric units of measure. Imperialequivalents may be given inparentheses.

• Define abbreviations the first timethey are used in the text.

• Spell out one-digit numbers unlessthey are units of measure (e.g., fourfishes, 3 mm, 35 sites). Use 1,000instead of 1000; 0.13 instead of .13;% instead of percent.

• Use the name-and-year system forreferences in the text as follows: 1. One author: Jones (1995) or (Jones

1995); 2. Two authors: Jones and Jackson

(1995) or (Jones and Jackson1995);

3. Several authors: Jones et al. (1995)or (Jones et al. 1995). But includeauthor names in references.

4. Manuscripts accepted forpublication but not yet published:Jones and Smith (in press) or (Jonesand Smith in press).

5. Personal communications: (J. Jones,Institute for Aquatics, pers.comm.).

6. Within parentheses, use asemicolon to separate differenttypes of citations (Figure 4; Table2), (Jones and Smith 1989; Felixand Anderson 1998). Arrange listsof citations chronologically (oldestfirst) in a text sentence.

• DO NOT cite more than threereferences for a specific point.

• For quotations include page number(Jones 1996:301).

GUIDELINES:Fisheries 2007 GUIDE FOR AUTHORSSee the Guide at http://web.fisheries.org/main/images/stories/afs/authguide.pdf


• Institutional authors may be cited asacronyms in the text but must bedefined in the reference list.

Title Page

• Type the title near the middle of thepage, centered, in caps and lowercase.

• Keep the title short, preferably lessthan seven words; it should accuratelyreflect the paper's content. Usecommon names.

• Below title, include author(s) name(s)and title(s). In multi-authored works,indicate which author is responsiblefor correspondence.

Abstract Page

• Type the abstract as one paragraph.You can copy and paste this into theonline form.

• Do not cite references or useabbreviations in the abstract.

• Ensure that the abstract conciselystates (150 words maximum) why youdid the study, what you did, what youfound, and what your results mean.

Text

• See “General Instructions.” • Set all type at left. Boldface primary

subheads and italicize secondarysubheads.

• Insert tabs—not spaces—forparagraph indents.

• Italicize any words that should appearin italics.

• Avoid footnotes by including theinformation in the text.

References

• Double-space between each referenceentry but do not indent text.References will be formatted duringthe production process.

• Alphabetize entries first by thesurnames of senior authors and thefirst word or acronym of corporateauthors; second, by the initials of thesenior authors with the samesurname; and third, by the surnamesof junior authors. References by asingle author precede multi-authoredworks by the same senior author,regardless of date.

• List multiple works by the sameauthor(s) chronologically, beginningwith earliest date of publication.

• Distinguish papers by the sameauthor(s) in the same year by puttinglowercase letters after the date(1995a, 1995b).

• Use a long dash when the author(s)is/are the same as in the immediatelypreceding citation.

• “In press” citations must have beenaccepted for publication, and thename of the journal or publisher mustbe included.

• Insert a period and space after eachinitial of an author's name.

• Do not abbreviate journal names.Verify all entries against originalsources, especially journal titles,accents, diacritical marks, and spellingin languages other than English.

Tables

• Tables may be included with the articleor submitted as separate files.

• Double-space everything, includingthe table title and column headings.

• Use single horizontal lines to separatecolumn heads and to indicate the endof the table—other horizontal linesare not needed. Never use verticallines.

• Use sentence-style captions for tables,not fragments.

• Capitalize only the first letter of thefirst word in each column and rowentry (except initial caps for propernouns).

• Tab between column items—DO NOT“space” between columns.

• Type “NA” (not applicable) where noentry applies in the table body. Do notadd filler dashes.

• Label footnotes with lowercase,superscript letters, starting from thebeginning of the alphabet (a, b, c).

• Redefine, in the table's caption or in afootnote, any acronyms that are usedin the table but are mentioned onlyinfrequently in the text.

Illustrations

Illustrations are photographs, drawings,or figures. All illustrations will print inblack-and-white unless an extra paymentis made for color. Consult the editorabout color costs if interested. Prepareillustrations using professional standards,and consult issues of Fisheries forexamples.

• For review on the manuscript trackingsystem, we prefer digital photos (orscans). However, original film photosand slides will provide betterresolution for final production. Themanaging editor or production editorwill contact you after acceptance andlet you know when to send originalphotos.

• Identify all people who appear inphotographs, and identifyphotographer or agency responsiblefor photo. Captions must be insentence, not fragment, form. Photosare not considered figures and do notneed to be referenced in the text.

• Electronic photos should have goodcontrast, a size of at least 4 x 6inches, at least 350 dots per inch (dpi)resolution, and be saved in EPS or TIFformats. For black-and-white figuresand graphs, please use a resolution of1,200 dpi. We cannot acceptPowerPoint files. Camera-ready copyalso must be submitted for productionpurposes after acceptance.

Page Proofs and Reprints

The corresponding author will receivepage proofs of the laid-out article (usuallysent as a PDF file via e-mail)approximately four to six weeks prior topublication. Check carefully fortypographical errors and possibleproblems with the placement or captionsof illustrations. Extensive revision is notallowed at this stage. Indicate anychanges and return page proofs within48 hours to Production Editor; AFS; 5410Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD20814-2199; 301/897-8616; fax301/897-8097; [email protected] order forms will be provided tothe corresponding author with pageproofs. Orders should be placed withAllen Press, Inc. (fax 785/843-7251,phone 785/843-6343,[email protected]) no later thantwo weeks prior to publication.

Conditions for Publication

Charges are US$85 per published pageand are billed to the author within twomonths of publication. AFS members mayrequest full or partial subsidy of theirpapers if they lack institutional or grantfunds to cover page charges. Technical

Fisheries 2007 GUIDE FOR AUTHORS



Fisheries 2007 GUIDE FOR AUTHORSreviews and acceptability of manuscriptsare independent of the need for subsidy.All manuscripts will be reviewed by twoor more outside experts in the subject ofthe manuscript and evaluated forpublication by the science editors andeditor. Authors may request anonymityduring the review process and shouldstructure their manuscripts accordingly.Papers are accepted for publication onthe condition that they are submittedsolely to Fisheries and that they will notbe reprinted or translated without thepublisher's permission. See “DualPublication of Scientific Information,”Transactions 110:573-574 (1981). TheAFS requires an assignment of copyrightfrom all authors, except for articleswritten on government time or for thegovernment that cannot be copyrighted.Authors must obtain written permissionto reprint any copyrighted material thathas been published elsewhere, includingtables and figures. Copies of thepermission letter must be enclosed withthe manuscript and credit given to thesource.

ESSAYS

Essays are thought-provoking or opinionarticles based upon sound science. Essaysmay cover a wide range of topics,including professional, conservation,research, American Fisheries Society(AFS), political, management, and otherissues. Essays may be submitted inconjunction with a full feature article onthe same topic. Essays range from1,200–1,400 words, may includephotographs or illustrations, and shouldnot cite more than eight references.However, essays should provide scientificdocumentation, unlike unreviewededitorials (below).

Essays are peer-reviewed based on thefollowing criteria: contribution to theongoing debate, logical opinion based ongood science, persuasiveness, and clarityof writing. Reviewer agreement with theopinion of the views expressed is not acriterion. Essays do not have pagecharges or abstracts. Essays shouldformatted and submitted online asabove.

UNREVIEWED ARTICLES

Unit News and OtherDepartments

AFS members are encouraged to submititems for the Unit News, MemberHappenings, Obituaries, Letters to theEditor, and Calendar departments. Datedmaterial (calls for papers, meetingannouncements, nominations for awards)should be submitted as early as possible,but at least eight weeks before therequested month of publication. AFS UnitNews and Letters should be kept under400 words and may be edited for lengthor content. Obituaries for former orcurrent AFS members may be up 600words long. Do NOT use the onlinemanuscript tracking system to submitthese items—the text and 300 dpielectronic photos for all departmentsexcept the Calendar should be e-mailedto the managing editor [email protected] or mailed to theaddress below. Calendar items shouldinclude the date, event title, location, andcontact information, and should be sentto the production editor [email protected]. For informationabout submitting a Students’ Anglecolumn, please contact StudentSubsection President Justin Davis,[email protected].

Fisheries News

Brief items for the fisheries news section are encouraged. Typical itemsinclude conservation news, sciencenews, new programs ofsignificance, major policy orregulatory initiatives, and otheritems that would be of interest toFisheries readers. News items forthe section should be no morethan a few paragraphs; pleaseconsult the managing editor aboutsubmitting longer news articles.

Fisheries Forum (formerlyGuest Editorials)

Authors are encouraged to submitmost opinion pieces about fisheriesscience or management as essaysfor peer review. Occasionally,editorials about professional orpolicy issues may be inherentlyunsuitable for a scientific review.

Sometimes these pieces are submitted by

a committee, agency, or organization.

Editorials should be 750–1,500 words,

may be edited for length or content, and

referred for outside review or rebuttal if

necessary. A disclaimer will accompany all

Fisheries Forum editorials.

Book Reviews

Please contact Book Review Editor Francis

Juanes at, [email protected] if

you want to be added to the list of

potential book reviewers. New books

(preferably two copies) submitted for

review should be sent to Francis Juanes,

Department of Natural Resources

Conservation, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-

4210.

QUESTIONS?

Contact Managing Editor Beth Beard;

AFS; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110;

Bethesda, MD 20814-2199; 301/897-

8616, ext. 220; [email protected].

Detailed instructions for using the online

manuscript tracking system are available

at http://fisheries.allentrack.net.

Also see the Fisheries Guidelines for

Reviewers and the Guidelines for Case

Studies at www.fisheries.org.


UNIT DATES LOCATION FOR MORE INFORMATIONAlabama TBA TBA TBAAlaska TBA TBA TBAArizona-New Mexico Feb 6-8 Albuquerque, NM Pete David, 505/449-7018, [email protected] Arkansas Jan 31–Feb 2 Mountain View Jim Wise, [email protected] International Sep 2007 TBA Steve Shepard, [email protected], 207/989-5056Auburn University TBA TBA TBABonneville Mar 19-21 Logan, Utah www.fisheries.org/units/Bonneville/2007AnnualMeeting.htmCalifornia-Nevada (with Parent Society) Sep 2-6 San Francisco, CA www.fisheries.org/sf/College Environmental Science TBA TBA TBA

and Forestry—SUNYColorado-Wyoming Feb 26-Mar1 Fort Collins, CO www.fisheries.org/units/co-wy/Dakota Feb 26-28 Bismarck, ND Jason Lee, [email protected], 701/328-6688 Florida Feb 20-22 Ocala www.sdafs.org/flafs/Georgia (with South Carolina) Jan 23-25 Tybee Island www.scafs.orgIdaho Feb 21-23 Boise www.idahoafs.orgIllinois Feb 27-Mar 1 Shelbyville James Garvey, [email protected] Indiana (with Michigan and Ohio) Feb 14-15 Angola, IN Angela Grier, [email protected], 260/244-6805Iowa (with Kansas and Nebraska) Jan 18-20 Council Bluffs Mark Flammang, [email protected] (with Iowa and Nebraska) Jan 18-20 Council Bluffs, IA Mark Flammang, [email protected] TBA TBA TBALouisiana Feb 1-2 Thibodaux Quenton Fontenot, [email protected], 985/449-7062,

www.sdafs.org/laafsMexico May 2-4 La Paz TBAMichigan (with Ohio and Indiana) Feb 14-15 Angola Angela Grier, [email protected], 260/244-6805Mid-Atlantic (with Tidewater) Feb 1-3 Lewes, DE www.sdafs.org/tidewater/Mid-Canada TBA TBA TBAMinnesota Mar 19-21 St. Cloud Daniel Isermann, 218/833-8638, [email protected] Feb 14-16 Vicksburg https://hdclel.cfr.msstate.edu/msafs/meetinginfo_2007.htmlMissouri Feb 1 Lake of the Ozarks TBAMontana Feb 13-17 Missoula David Schmetterling, [email protected] (with Iowa and Kansas) Jan 18-20 Council Bluffs, IA Mark Flammang, [email protected] York Feb 8-9 West Point www.newyorkafs.org/Northeastern Division Apr 22-25 Mystic, CT Rod Wentworth, [email protected], 802/241-3709 North Carolina (with Virginia) Feb 26-28 Danville, VA http://faculty.virginia.edu/vcafs/North Central Division Dec 9-12 Madison, WI http://midwest.ncd-afs.org/index.aspNorth Pacific International TBA TBA TBAOhio (with Michigan and Indiana) Feb 14-15 Angola, IN Angela Grier, [email protected], 260/244-6805Oklahoma Feb 21-23 Tulsa Cliff Sager, [email protected], 908-683-1031 Ontario Mar 1-3 Orillia Jack Imhof, [email protected], www.afs-oc.orgOregon Feb 27-Mar 2 Eugene www.orafs.orgPennsylvania (with West Virginia) Mar 9 Morgantown, WV www.sdafs.org/wvafs/Meetings.htmPotomac TBA TBA TBASouth Carolina (with Georgia) Jan 23-25 Tybee Island, GA www.scafs.orgSouthern Division (with Tennessee) Feb 8-12 Memphis, TN www.sdafs.org/meetings/2007Southern New England Jan 10 New London, CT David Taylor, [email protected] (with Southern Division) Feb 8-12 Memphis www.sdafs.org/meetings/2007Texas Feb 9 - 11 Lake Jackson Art Morris, [email protected] Texas A & M TBA TBA TBATidewater (with Mid Atlantic) Feb 1-3 Lewes, DE www.sdafs.org/tidewater/Virginia (with North Carolina) Feb 26-28 Danville, VA http://faculty.virginia.edu/vcafs/Virginia Tech May Blacksburg Joanne Davis, [email protected] Virginia (with Pennsylvania) Mar 9 Morgantown www.sdafs.org/wvafs/Meetings.htmWestern Division (with Parent Society) Sep 2-6 San Francisco, CA Bob Hughes, [email protected] Jan 9-11 Milwaukee Tom Slawski, [email protected]

Chapter Officers:Please send updates to Gail Goldberg, [email protected], fax: 301/897-8096, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110, Bethesda, MD 20814

CALENDAR:AFS 2007 UNITS MEETINGSMEMBERS: Be sure to mark your calendars now, so you don't miss these important local events!


Students are the future of the fish-eries profession and our experiencesand attitudes vary when we enter theprofession (Kohler 2005). Studentexperiences and opinions regardingpublishing are highly variable, whichmay lead to increased anxiety becauseof the importance placed on this topic.Publishing is positively linked to theability to secure gainful employmentand career advancement. As such, stu-dents feel pressure to publish, but areoften uncertain about the correctapproach to contribute to science, aswell as benefit their future. In an effortto characterize students’ experienceand opinions of the publishing process,we informally surveyed several Ph.D.students throughout the United Statesregarding their attitudes toward thereviewing and writing process. Ourfindings were originally presented aspart of a symposium entitled “WrittenCommunications: Writing andReviewing Papers for FisheriesJournals,” held at the AmericanFisheries Society 135th Annual Meetingin Anchorage, Alaska, in September2005.

We distributed 49 surveys andreceived 20 (41%) completed surveys.Respondents represented 13 universi-ties in 13 states. The majority ofstudents had experience conductingpeer review (95%) and had at leastone article published in fisheries oraquatic sciences journals (79%). Allstudents indicated that they hadreceived some training in peer review,and the types of training they pre-ferred were largely in agreement withthe training they received (Table 1).The types of training were mentoring,experience through preparing personalmanuscripts, hands-on participationwith an experienced reviewer, course-work, and through peer groups. It was

suggested by several respondents thata workshop through a professionalsociety (e.g., AFS) may be beneficial.

Students also had the opportunityto define components of a “good”publishable manuscript and a “poor”nonpublishable manuscript in the con-text of reviewing. The majority ofstudents indicated that a manuscriptshould be well-written, contribute toscience, and have a good study design.Conversely, components of a “poor”manuscript included improper design,poor writing, no justification, inconclu-sive results or unsupportedconclusions, inappropriate analyticaltechniques, and limited contribution tothe body of existing knowledge (Table1). Students indicated that a poormanuscript is hard to define, as anycombination of these shortcomingscould lead to a label of a “poor.”Common challenges for students in thepeer review process were inadequatequalifications, lack of confidence orexperience, and time constraints.

We also surveyed students asmanuscript contributors. The averagehistory for respondents was 2.5 pub-lished manuscripts, 0.5 manuscripts inpress, 1 manuscript in review, and 2.5manuscripts in preparation. Studentswere authors on manuscripts repre-senting all stages of the publicationprocess. One student, for example,indicated the number of manuscripts inpreparation as “infinite.” That studentno doubt is referring to the boundlesspotential for our ideas and we inter-pret this comment as a measure ofenthusiasm. Finally, many students alsoexperienced manuscript rejections(mean = 0.75 articles rejected).

Students learned to write for publi-cation in a variety of ways. Learning bydoing or revising one’s work, extensivereading, reviewing others’ work, and

coursework were the primary ways inwhich students indicated that theylearned the writing process (Table 1).Guides for authors and participating inpeer groups also were noted as usefulin the process.

The majority of students describedthe manuscript submission process aspositive (Table 1). Many of the reviewsreceived were considered clear, con-cise, and constructive. However,challenges in receiving manuscriptreviews included vague instructions,non-constructive comments, a seeminglack of qualifications by the reviewer,and unrealistic suggestions.Respondents also indicated that qualityof feedback was variable depending onthe manuscript reviewer. Neff andOlden (2006) also indicated that thepeer-review process can contain astrong “lottery” component, indepen-dent of the editor and referee integrity,and likely influenced the variability inresponses. This lottery component isthe result of a limited number of jour-nal referees that occasionally leads tocertain unsuitable manuscripts beingpublished and other suitablemanuscripts being rejected. Althoughstudents indicated some negativeaspects to the review process, theynoted many good overall impressions.Of the student manuscripts that werereviewed, students generally agreedwith suggested changes 80% of thetime, while 50% of the time they dis-agreed. This disparity likely resultedbecause of a combination of agree-ments and disagreements within thesame manuscript. Finally, 100% ofrespondents indicated that theyresolved disagreements with reviewersthrough the editor by providing justifi-cation for their argument.

Although the publication processwas viewed as generally positive by

Writing, Publishing, and Reviewing: The Students’ Perspective

COLUMN:STUDENTS’ ANGLE

Jeffrey C. JolleyBrian D.S. GraebJolley is a Ph.D. studentof fisheries science andGraeb is a recent Ph.D.graduate and post-doctoral researcher atSouth Dakota StateUniversity. Jolley can becontacted [email protected].


students, some significant challengeswere identified. These included timeconstraints, high turnaround time,working with coauthors, and synthe-sizing established information onresearch topics (Table 1). Overall, stu-dents indicated that writing andsubmitting manuscripts was a difficultand sometimes painful endeavor.Great writing is the product of tortur-ous editing, pride-swallowing reviews,and lots of hard work.

The high level of importance ofpublishing for students was also evi-dent in our survey. Most students(95%) indicated that publishing wasextremely important to their research.Students identified a variety of reasonsof why publishing was important: pub-lishing completes the research cycle, iscritical for gaining employment,demonstrates competency, is involvedin personal satisfaction, and upholdsstandards of research (Table 1). Norespondent indicated that publishingwas not important to their research.

Students were also asked theiropinions regarding publications of nar-row or broad scope. Publications ofnarrow scope are often referred to as“least publishable units” (LPU).Although this term generates variedopinions, we defined it for the surveyas a well-prepared manuscript with anarrow scope or limited contributionto the field. Some students stronglyfelt the LPU was negative, while othersstrongly supported them. However,most respondents indicated that bothtypes were appropriate, depending onthe journal, scope of the project, andcomplexity of the project. Studentsalso indicated that having a variety ofpublications was valuable for futureemployment. Many students indicatedthat absolute numbers were the bestfor gaining employment but also thatit depended on their desired positionor career goals. The LPU has advan-tages and disadvantages that likelycontributed to the variability in stu-dent opinions.

There is much debate about theLPU within scientific circles. Least pub-lishable units are easier to organize,promote rapid dissemination of knowl-edge, and make available scrutiny ofdifferent aspects of a larger work in

Table 1. Selected abbreviated survey questions and percentage of student responses.Question ResponseType of peer review training experienced

Mentoring—80%Experience through personal manuscripts—70%Hands-on with experienced reviewer—65%Coursework—40%Peer group—55%

Type of preferred peer review trainingMentoring—80%Coursework—40%Professional society (e.g., AFS workshop)—25%Other (e.g., hands-on, peer group)—<15%

Components of “good” publishable manuscriptWell written (e.g., clear and concise)—100%Contribution to science—100%Good study design—90%Practical application—75%

Components of “poor” nonpublishable manuscriptImproper design—90%Poorly written—85%No justification—75%Inconclusive results and unsupported conclusions—65%Inappropriate statistics—65%Limited contribution—60%Inadequate sample size—35%No application—25%Other—<15%

Ways you learned how to writeRevising own work—90%Reading—80%Reviewing others’ work—65%Coursework—55%Training—30%Other—30%

Quality of reviews receivedPositive (e.g., clear, concise, and constructive)—80%Vague instructions—40%Non-constructive comments—45%Incorrect suggestions by reviewers—30%Other—20%

Why publishing is importantCompletes research cycle—85%Critical for job—85%Demonstrates competency—75%Personal satisfaction—75%Upholds standards of research—60%Other—30%

Desired future positionAcademia—80%Research—45%Management—15%Private sector—5%Other—5%

Publication approach to be most competitive for jobNumber of publications—65%Prestige of journal—55%Focus of journal in relation to career—20%Other—25%

Challenges in preparing and submitting manuscriptsTime—75%Turnaround time—40%Working with coauthors—25%Synthesizing existing body of knowledge—25%Focus—20%Initiating process—20%Other—20%


42 Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 1 • JANUARY 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG42 Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 1 • JANUARY 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG

The number of student presenta-tions given at the Annual Meeting ofthe American Fisheries Society (AFS)has increased steadily each year from17 (1989) to 336 (2006). The increasehas created challenges in determiningthe Best Student Paper and BestStudent Poster Awards. For example,securing enough judges to evaluatethe presentations in a consistent man-ner is an ongoing challenge. For the2006 Annual Meeting, there were 256papers and 80 posters presented bystudents. With a target of three judgesper paper and four judges per poster, atotal of 251 different judges wererequired to cover the 1,088 judgingevents. Even though this target num-ber was secured prior to the meeting,130 of the 1,088 judging events (12%)were not evaluated during the meet-ing. As a result, some students onlyreceived feedback from one or twojudges and could not be considered forone of the awards. Variability in judg-ing consistency was also high, withsome students receiving scores thatranged as broadly as 40 points (e.g.,54 to 94 out of 100) or as narrowly as3 points (e.g., 71 to 74 out of 100). Asa consequence, this variability morethan likely plays as large a role in theoutcome of the judging process as thequality of the presentations them-selves. The Education Section createdthe ad hoc Paper and Poster JudgingChanges Committee to develop a solu-tion to alleviate problems inpresentation judging. Respondents toan Education Section newsletter surveyechoed the problems observed in 2006and identified obtaining and schedul-ing judges, inconsistency of evaluationsacross judges, and a lack of timely anduseful feedback to students as the pri-mary problems with the currentjudging system. Given these concerns,

how does the Education Section fix theproblems?

During fall 2006, members of thePaper and Poster Judging ChangesCommittee and the Education SectionExecutive Committee developed amore manageable and equitable pro-cess for determining studentpresentation award winners. Thesechanges will be implemented for the2007 Annual Meeting in San Francisco,California, as a trial for the new pro-cess. The steps in this process areoutlined below, but student presenterswill need to consult the EducationSection website or the Annual Meetingsection on the AFS webpage fordetails.

ABSTRACT SUBMISSION

Students will be required to submitan abstract that follows the guidelinesdescribed in the Call for Papers inFisheries. On their abstract, the studentmust indicate if they wish theirabstract to be considered for competi-tion for a best presentation (i.e., paperor poster, but not both) award. If theyrespond “no,” the presentation will beconsidered for inclusion in the AnnualMeeting by the Program Committeebut will not receive further considera-tion by the Judging Committee. Ifstudents indicate “yes,” they will berequired to submit an applicationdirectly to the Judging Committee.Components of the application willinclude an extended abstract and acheck-off from their mentor indicatingthat the study is at a stage appropriatefor consideration for an award. Anexample of the extended abstract isposted on the Education Section andAFS web sites and will include the fol-lowing: title, authors and affiliations,background, methods, results (includ-ing up to five figures and/or tables),

discussion, and references. The discus-sion should include how the researchadvances knowledge of fisheries theoryand/or management and what themost significant finding is and why.Extended abstracts will be limited to 3pages in length and must be written in12-point Times New Roman font with1-inch page margins. The deadline forsubmission is 23 February 2007; appli-cations that do not follow the formatguidelines will not be considered foran award.

APPLICATION REVIEW

The Judging Committee will reviewsubmitted applications and evaluatethem in terms of scientific merit, writ-ing style, and mechanics. By 2 March2007, the top 20 papers and top 20posters will be selected for inclusion inspecial symposia to be held at theAnnual Meeting. Finalists will be noti-fied and given the option ofparticipating in one of these symposiaor remaining in an invited or con-tributed session. Students not selectedfor one of these symposia or thosethat decline inclusion will be assignedto an appropriate symposium by theProgram Committee.

SYMPOSIA

A symposium of oral presentationsselected as finalists for the Best PaperAward will be hosted by the EducationSection over 2 half days (10 presenta-tions each day). Posters will be given

Trent M. SuttonDonna L. ParrishJames R. Jackson Sutton is an associate professor infisheries biology in the Department ofForestry and Natural Resources atPurdue University, West Lafayette,Indiana, and can be reached [email protected]. Parrish is theunit leader for the U.S. GeologicalSurvey Vermont Cooperative Fish andWildlife Research Unit and is aresearch associate professor in theRubenstein School of Environmentand Natural Resources at theUniversity of Vermont, Burlington.Jackson is a senior research associateat the Cornell Biological Field Station,Bridgeport, New York.

Timefor a Change:

Revision of the Process for Judging Student Presentations

REPORT:EDUCATION SECTION

Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 1 • JANUARY 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 43Fisheries • VOL 32 NO 1 • JANUARY 2007 • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 43

during the regular poster symposium;however, finalists will be groupedtogether in one area and identifiedappropriately. Judging will be con-ducted by a panel of judges using astandardized grading rubric. Judgingpanels will be consistent for eachaward category in order to ensureequity in scoring. Student papers willalso be videotaped and copies of thepresentations will be provided to thejudges for additional review followingthe session. Similarly, judges will beprovided with copies of studentposters for similar post-presentationreview. Because each presentation will

be evaluated by the same judges, therewill be greater consistency in the judg-ing process and feedback will be morerapid. The Best Student Paper andPoster Awards will be announced laterthat fall and the winners will receivetheir awards at the following year’sAFS Annual Meeting.

FEEDBACK

Students in regular invited or con-tributed paper and poster sessions willalso have an opportunity to receivefeedback. Evaluation forms will be dis-tributed to willing evaluators, and theforms will be collected and provided to

the student following his/her presenta-tion or symposium.

Proposed changes to judging stu-dent presentations should help toalleviate the problems that haveplagued the process in recent years.However, the ad hoc Paper and PosterJudging Changes Committee will care-fully monitor the new process andmake changes as experience isaccrued. Because feedback is critical,the Education Section strongly encour-ages comments and suggestions toensure that the judging format meetsthe needs of both the student presen-ters and the AFS membership.

progress that may lead to identification of flaws and oppor-tunities for remediation (Refinetti 1990). In contrast, somesuggest LPUs unnecessarily clutter the scientific literatureand should be completely avoided (Harley et al. 2004).Students also exhibited disagreements regarding the LPU,but many students remained uncertain about the bestapproach to publishing.

Academia was indicated most often as the respondents’desired position. Research and management positions werealso indicated as desired positions (Table 1). Students indi-cated that the number of publications made them mostcompetitive for their future positions. Prestige of the journalwhere they published and focus of the journal in relation totheir career path also were cited as important criteria to becompetitive for jobs (Table 1). The influence of publicationrecord on job competitiveness resulted in a range ofresponses. Some students perceived that it was “sad buttrue” that some employers valued quantity over quality ofpublications. Others indicated that the best approach wasto have a strong number, with selected publications in pres-tigious journals. Finally, many students were unsure of whatultimately made them most competitive.

Overall, students felt anxiety and uncertainty regardingpublishing. Respondents had the opportunity to commentopenly at the conclusion of the survey. We present somecomments that best characterized opinions and attitudes ofstudents. Some students “wished that every manuscript wassuccessful” (don’t we all!). When the time comes to decidebetween several smaller manuscripts versus one largermanuscript, “Do what makes you most happy!” We addthat it is important to consider the sage advice of moreexperienced coauthors and consider the positives and nega-tives to choosing any one direction. Finally, when it comesto writing and publishing, our best advice is summarizedsuccinctly by one student: “Work hard, grow thick skin, dowhat it takes to get it published.”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the South Dakota State University EcologyDiscussion group for helpful review of earlier drafts of thesurvey. We also thank all students who participated by com-pleting a survey. D. Parrish, T. Selch, and K. Schulerprovided valuable comments on an earlier version of thisdraft. Finally, we thank symposium organizers DonnaParrish, Martha Mather, and Katie Bertrand for guidance.

REFERENCES

Harley, C. D.G., M. A. Hixon, and L. A. Levin. 2004.Scientific writing and publishing: a guide for students.Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 85:74-78.

Kohler, C. C. 2005. Student AFS members: lifeblood andlifeline. Fisheries 30(10):4.

Neff, B. D. and J. D. Olden. 2006. Is peer review a game ofchance? BioScience 56:333-340.

Refinetti, R. 1990. In defense of the least publishable unit.The FASEB journal: official publication of the Federation ofAmerican Societies for Experimental Biology 4:128-129.

Continued from page 41


Gennady Petrovich Manchenko, 62,died 13 July 2006, following 15 years ofsuffering from severe diabetes. He had justcelebrated his 62nd birthday, when heenthusiastically entertained his manyfriends, and then faded away.

Manchenko was a "maestro" isozymegeneticist. He published about 100 paperson allozyme variation in very differentgroups of organisms, both plants and ani-mals. But his main contributions were his 3books: Genetics of Isozymes (in Russian,Moscow, 1977, co-authored with 6 otherauthors), and 2 editions of Detection ofEnzymes on Electrophoretic Gels: aHandbook (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.1994 and 2002). Both books have beenwidely read and cited, the first mostly byRussian authors and the second worldwide.

Manchenko was born in 1944 in a vil-lage on the Kuban River (NorthernCaucasus). After finishing school he entereda technical college in Rostov-on-Don, thenwas drafted into the army, where he servedfor four years. He graduated fromNovosibirsk State University in 1973, whenhe was 29. The same year he joined theInstitute of Marine Biology (Far EasternBranch of the Academy of Sciences of theUSSR; now the Russian Academy ofSciences) in Vladivostok, where he contin-ued working until his death.

Manchenko was a person of many tal-ents: he sang well, carved wood and ivory,cooked well and was a most charming com-pany. He was always filled with life andinitiative. His many friends and colleagueswill always remember his hospitability,friendliness and warmth, his good humorand cheerfulness. He lives on through theserich memories.

—Alexander Pudovkin

Academician Yuri Petrovich Altukhov,70, director of the Vavilov Institute ofGeneral Genetics in Moscow, Russia’s princi-pal centre of genetics research, died fromcancer on 27 October 2006. Altukhov was

known internationally to fish biologistschiefly through his work on Pacific salmon.However, this was but one aspect of hiscomprehensive grasp of population andevolutionary genetics of animals and plants(he had worked on Karakul sheep, chickens,silkworms, spruce trees, cotton, barley,wheat, and people), especially conservationand rational management of genetic diver-sity. He was born in the Voronezh region ofthe former USSR, and gained his first degreefrom the Department of Physiology at theFishery Technological Institute in Moscow in1959. After three years of research at theKaradag Biological Station of the UkrainianAcademy of Sciences, he moved to MoscowState University, obtaining his Ph.D. in 1964.He became a senior researcher there, receiv-ing a State Science and Technology Prize in1966. In 1967, he became head of theGenetics Laboratory at the Institute ofMarine Biology in Vladivostok, moving backto Moscow in 1972 to take charge of thePopulation Genetics Laboratory at theInstitute of General Genetics. He was pro-moted to professor at Moscow StateUniversity in 1976, and to the directorshipof the institute in 1992. He was electedAcademician at the Russian Academy ofSciences in 1997. He was the founder andleader of the Russian school of populationgenetics, and authored many books, his first

on fish in 1974. Subsequently, his bookshave been published in English, includingSalmonid Fishes: Population Biology,Genetics and Management, by Blackwell in2000, and his most recent book onIntraspecific Genetic Diversity: Monitoring,Conservation and Management, by Springerin 2006. He will be remembered principallyfor his original contributions to populationgenetics, especially his concept that adaptiveevolution results in an optimum geneticdiversity ensuring population genetic stabil-ity, and his argument that sustainable use ofnatural resources depends critically on main-tenance of that genetic stability. He also willbe remembered as a leading communicatorof Russian genetic work and ideas to thewestern world, and of western work toRussia, which he achieved through his ownwork, through numerous international con-ferences and scientific collaborations, andnow vicariously through his students holdingacademic posts in the United States, UnitedKingdom, Israel, and Korea. We had knownYuri for almost 30 years, a giant intellectand a restless but genial friend, liable to getembarrassingly bored at meetings listeningto less than accomplished speakers, and toburst into song at dinner parties. We havelost a generous, colorful, challenging col-league.

—Gary Carvalho and John Thorpe

Gennady Manchenko and Yuri Altukhov

OBITUARIES:PROMINENT RUSSIAN GENETICISTS

Gennady Petrovich Manchenko

TToo mmaaxxiimmiizzee nneettwwoorrkkiinnggopportunities and celebrate our society’saccomplishments, the 2007Planning Committee will hostfive exciting socials in SanFrancisco. The exhilaratingrhythms of Taiko Dojo(traditional Japanesedrumming) willwelcome us to thePacific on Sundayevening September 2at the downtownMarriott. The Marriott’simpressive Yerba Buenaballroom is also thescene of Monday’s TradeShow and Poster Social.See the latest innovations andinteract with authors but cleara path for the Kei LunMartial ArtsPerformers!!

SSttuuddeennttss aanndd aallllmembers who supporttheir professionaldevelopment willenjoy a job fair andsocial on Tuesday eveningSeptember 4 at the Aquariumof the Bay.

OOnn WWeeddnneessddaayy,,September 5, everyone willenjoy breathtaking views of the Golden Gate,

Alcatraz, andFisherman’sWharf from theSan FranciscoMaritimeNationalHistoric Park’sHyde StreetPier. We have

secured exclusive access tothe Pier and its historic vesselsfor this showcase event.

YYoouu’’llll hhaavvee oonnee llaasstt cchhaanncceeto bid farewell to colleaguesat the closing reception onThursday evening September6 before leaving your heart inSan Francisco. Please checkthe meeting websitewwwwww..ff iisshheerriieess..oorrgg//ssff//for the latest planningupdates.


UUPPDDAATTEE:: SSAANN FFRRAANNCCIISSCCOO MMEEEETTIINNGG SSOOCCIIAALLSS


and geographic barriers to enable discussionand reflection on scientific, management,and environmental issues of common con-cern. A petition was signed by 75participants and sent to the parent Societyto create the official certification for theMexico Chapter within the Western Divisionof AFS in 2006. Mauricio Ramirez-Rodriguez(researcher from the Interdisciplinary Centerfor Marine Sciences, CICIMAR) is theChapter’s first president; Salvador E. Lluch-Cota (researcher from the Northwest Centerfor Biological Research, CIBNOR) is the presi-dent elect, and Oscar Sosa Nishizaki(researcher from the Center of ScientificResearch and Graduate Education ofEnsenada, CICESE) is the secretary-treasurer.

The Mexican Chapter’s main objectivesare to increase communication of fish-eries interest both within Mexico andbetween Mexican and other internationalprofessionals, investigate the mostpromising approaches for maintainingmembership in AFS by Mexican fisheries

professionals and students, assist withthe organization and promotion of AFS-sponsored professional fisheries meetingsin Mexico, and identify Mexican fisheriesconservation issues of concern to AFSand the Mexican Fisheries Society.

Mexican scientists have long desired aformal voice for fisheries science withintheir country. To this end the MexicanFisheries Society (Sociedad Mexicana dePesquerias; MFS) was also officially estab-lished in 2006, with the goal to facilitatecommunication among members andencourage the development of profes-sional activities related to fisheries and fishconservation in Mexico. The specific objec-tives of the MFS are to promote andevaluate the development and progress ofall branches of fisheries and related sci-ences, and their application throughoutMexico; to compile and distribute, amongmembers and other interested people,technical and other relevant informationrelated to fisheries and fisheries science

through meetingsand publications; todevelop teachingand fisheries train-ing programs to beimplemented incolleges, universi-ties, andprofessional institu-tions; and toprovide continuoustraining to thosewho work in theareas of fisheriesand related activi-ties. The MFS hasjoined as a fullmember of theWorld Council ofFisheries Societies.

Both organiza-tions support NorthAmerican profes-sionals doingresearch in naturaland managedaquatic systems tosupport the deci-sion-makingprocess for sustain-

able management and responsible fish-

eries. Both organizations also encourage

membership by professionals involved in

socioeconomic development and produc-

tive activities in the marine, coastal, and

freshwater systems in and around Mexico.

In celebration of the formation of the

Mexican Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society and the Mexican Fisheries Society,

the first biannual meeting entitled

“Challenges of the Marine and Fisheries

Sciences in Mexico” will take place in La

Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico, on 2-4

May 2007. The main idea for this confer-

ence is to facilitate communication among

scientists interested in Mexican fisheries

and provide an opportunity to promote

understanding among regional and federal

research and educational institutions, non-

governmental organizations, and state

policy makers on conservation and fish-

eries issues in Mexico. The conference will

be hosted by CIBNOR with the collabora-

tion of the CICIMAR-IPN, CICESE, the

National Fisheries Institute (INP), and the

American Fisheries Society. The Mexico

Chapter is also organizing a proposal to

bid for the 2011 AFS Annual Meeting to

be held in Mazatlan.

The establishment of the Mexican AFS

Chapter along with the broader concept

of the Mexican Fisheries Society makes a

new dynamic for fisheries conservation,

policy, and management in Mexico and for

our shared aquatic resources. The scientific

collaborations and communication net-

works that develop from these important

relationships will serve to fulfill many

hopes and dreams from Mexico, Canada,

the United States, and our other interna-

tional partners for integrated, sustainable

management of aquatic resources across

traditional boundaries and jurisdictional

barriers, providing a focused and creative

approach to “looking downstream and

downcurrent”—the theme of my 2007

AFS Plan of Work.

COLUMN: PRESIDENT’S HOOKContinued from page 4


HUTTON JUNIOR FISHERIES

BIOLOGY PROGRAM2007 Applications now being accepted!

DEADLINE: 15 FEBRUARY 2007Recruit students now for the Hutton Class of 2007!

Applications are available online atwww.fisheries.org.

For more information, e-mail [email protected].

AFS Professional Certification

Widely recognized by government agencies,

academic institutions, and private industry,

AFS Certification is both a professional credential and a mark of accomplishment. It can help individuals get

a job, a raise or a promotion.

For information on how you can apply, see the AFS website,

www.fisheries.org.

environmental review process that precipitates projectdelays (see Fisheries 30[5]:10-19). To improve the process,USFS published proposed amendments to Title 36 Codeof Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 241, 251 and 261 (seeFederal Register 71[221]:66715-66720). Relevant sectionsof the USFS Manual would also be revised to reflect thechanges. The proposed amendments would establish cri-teria for state piscicide use on National Forest Systemlands, outside designated Wild and Scenic Rivers orCongressionally-designated Wilderness and WildernessStudy Areas. A provision that state piscicide applicationsoutside designated Wilderness and Wilderness StudyAreas are not ‘‘special uses,’’ requiring special use autho-rization, would be added along with provisions forclosure of an area, if necessary under specific circum-stances, to prohibit piscicide applications. Comments on the proposed changes were due, in writing, by 16 January 2007.

—AFS Task Force on Fishery ChemicalsFish Management Chemicals Subcommittee

FISHERIES NEWSContinued from page 6


Postdoctoral Research Associate inFish Genetics, Hubbs-SeaWorldResearch Institute (HSWRI), San Diegoand NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA.Responsibilities: Conduct geneticstudies that will allow HSWRI toevaluate and if necessary refinebreeding protocols for white seabass(Atractoscion nobilis) to ensure that thestockable fish produced forenhancement match the geneticdiversity of the wild population.Specifically, apply genetic techniques to(1) understand spawning patterns, (2)identify parent-offspring relationshipsamong fish that are released, (3) studythe possibility of culture-induced

selection in the hatchery environment,and (4) compare genetic diversity ofreleased fish to that of the wild stock.Qualifications: Ph.D. in a relevant fieldgranted within the past 5 years. Salary: $31,000–38,000 per year plusbenefits.Closing date: 1 March 2007.Contact: [email protected].

Postdoctorial Scientist, Department ofFish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology,Colorado State University.Responsibilities: Investigate effects ofnon-native brook trout invasion onlinked stream-riparian food webs.

Qualifications: Earned Ph.D. in aquaticor fisheries ecology, substantial fieldexperience sampling aquatic biota instreams or other aquatic systems, abilityto manage field projects, skills instatistics and computers, and refereedpublications. Willingness to conductback-country research and travel duringsummers. Expertise in food web ecologyand stable isotopes also desirable. Salary: Commensurate withqualifications. Closing date: For full consideration,apply by 20 January 2007, but positionopen until filled. Starting date: April 2007 preferred.

See more job listings at:www.fisheries.org/jobs.shtml

JOB CENTER EMPLOYERS: To list a job opening on the AFS Online Job Centersubmit a position description, job title, agency/company, city, state,responsibilities, qualifications, salary, closing date, and contactinformation (maximum 150 words) to [email protected]. Onlinejob announcements will be billed at $350 for 150 wordincrements. Please send billing information. Listings are free forAssociate, Official, and Sustaining organizations, and for Individualmembers hiring personal assistants. If space is available, jobs mayalso be printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge.

2006 Membership ApplicationAmerican Fisheries Society • 5410 Grosvenor Lane • Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199

301/897-8616 x203 or 218 • fax 301/897-8096 • www.fisheries.org

Name _____________________________________________ PLEASE PROVIDE (for AFS use only) ___ EMPLOYERAddress ___________________________________________ Phone _____________________________ Industry ___________________________________________________ Fax _______________________________ Academia ___________________________________________________ E-mail______________________________ Federal government City _____________________ State/province ____________ Recruited by an AFS member?yes no State/provincial governmentZip/postal code ___________ Country __________________ Name _____________________________ Other _________________

MEMBERSHIP TYPE (includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory)NORTH AMERICA/DUES OTHER DUESDeveloping countries I (includes online Fisheries only) N/A $ 5 Developing countries II N/A $25 Regular $76 $88 Student (includes online journals) $19 $22 Young professional, _______ (year graduated) $38 $44 Retired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older) $38 $44 Life (Fisheries and 1 journal) $1,737 $1,737 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years) $1,200 $1,200 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year) $1,000 $1,000 JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (optional) NORTH AMERICA OTHERJournal name Print Online Print OnlineTransactions of the American Fisheries Society $43 $25 $48 $25 North American Journal of Fisheries Management $43 $25 $48 $25 North American Journal of Aquaculture $38 $25 $41 $25 Journal of Aquatic Animal Health $38 $25 $41 $25 Fisheries InfoBase $25 $25

PAYMENT Please make checks payable to American Fisheries Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank or pay by VISA or MasterCard. Check P.O. number _________________________VISA MasterCard Account #_______________________ Exp. date ________ Signature ________________________________________All memberships are for a calendar year. New member applications received January 1 through August 31 are processed for full membershipthat calendar year (back issues are sent). Those received September 1 or later are processed for full membership beginning January 1 of thefollowing year. Fisheries, January 2007

PAID:


Contact: Send letter, resume (with fourreferences), and copies of transcriptsand publications to Kurt Fausch;[email protected];Department of Fish, Wildlife, andConservation Biology, Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, CO 80523.

Dean, Daniel B. Warnell School ofForestry and Natural Resources,University of Georgia.Responsibilities: Manage the 740-acreWhitehall Forest and a four-buildingcomplex, and more than 23,500 acresacross the state for research, teaching,and service activities.

Closing date: Screening begins 15

January 2007. Applications received by

that date are assured full consideration.

Start date: July 2007.

Contact: See http://jobs.forestry.uga.edu/

showme/show/813. Confidential

requests for information, written

nominations, questions, and application

materials should be directed to Search

Committee, Dean, Warnell School of

Forestry and Natural Resources,

University of Georgia, C/o Executive and

Faculty Search Group, 215 S. Jackson

Street, Athens, GA 30602;

[email protected]. EO, AA.

Internship, Cook Inlet AquacultureAssociation, Kenai, Alaska.Responsibilities: Participate in severalsockeye salmon population studiesthroughout the Cook Inlet drainage.Activities include enumerating sockeyesalmon smolts and adults, collectingscales and otoliths samples, andrecording simple environmentalconditions. Qualifications: Full-time collegestudent with a major in fisheriesmanagement, biology, aquaculture, orother natural resource programs. Salary: Non-paid internship. However,travel to Alaska will be reimbursed. In

Description• fellowships for highly qualified Ph.D.-level graduate students

interested in careers in: (1) population dynamics of living marineresources and development and implementation of quantitativemethods for assessing their status, and (2) economics ofconservation and management of living marine resources

• support for up to three years for Population Dynamics fellowships,and up to two years for Marine Resource Economics fellowships

• approximately two fellowships awarded each year in eachdiscipline, with overall maximum of 12 Fellows at any time

• fellows work closely with mentors from NMFS Science Centers orLaboratories and may intern at NMFS facility on thesis research orrelated problem

Program goals• encourage qualified applicants to pursue careers in and increase

available expertise related to: (a) population dynamics andassessment of status of stocks of living marine resources, or (b) economic analysis of living marine resource conservation and management decisions

• foster closer relationships between academic scientistsand NMFS

• provide real-world experience to graduate students and accelerate their career development

Eligibility• must be United States citizen• prospective Population Dynamics Fellows must be

admitted to Ph.D. program in population dynamics orrelated field (applied mathematics, statistics, orquantitative ecology) at academic institution in

United States or its territories• prospective Marine Resource Economics Fellows must be in

process of completing at least two years of course work in Ph.D.program in natural resource, marine resource, or environmentaleconomics or related field

Award• grant or cooperative agreement of $38,000 per year awarded to

local Sea Grant program/host university• 50% of funds provided by NMFS, 33 1/3% provided by National

Sea Grant Office (NSGO), and 16 2/3% provided by university asrequired match of NSGO funds

• disbursement of award for salary, living expenses, tuition, healthinsurance, other fees, and travel determined by university

Relevant dates• application deadline—early February 2007 (see Sea Grant website

for details—www.seagrant.noaa.gov/funding/rfp2006.html)• fellowship start date: 1 June 2007

Contact• Dr. Terry Smith

National Sea Grant College Program1315 East-West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910301/[email protected]

• any state Sea Grant program—www.nsgo.seagrant.org/SGDirectors.html

• any participating NMFS facility—www.nmfs.noaa.gov/science.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) / Sea Grant Joint Graduate Fellowship Program in Population Dynamics and Marine Resource Economics


addition, food, housing, and equipmentwill be provided. Closing date: 12 February 2007. Contact: See www.ciaanet.org. Directquestions to Trenten T. Dodson, SeniorBiologist, [email protected],907/283-5761.

Director, Bureau of Fisheries,Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission,Bellefonte.Responsibilities: Performadministrative and advancedprofessional work in planning anddirecting statewide fisheries biology andfish culture programs. Requirements: Two years of experienceas a Fisheries Biologist 4; or six years ofprogressively responsible professionalexperience in fisheries biology, aquaticbiology, aquatic ecology, or equivalentfields, two of which must have been inan administrative or supervisorycapacity; and a master's degree inaquatic biology, aquatic ecology,fisheries biology, or equivalent fields. Adoctoral degree in aquatic biology,aquatic ecology, fisheries biology, orequivalent fields may be substituted forthree years of the required professionalexperience. Salary: $67,580–102,729, dependingon experience.Closing date: 9 February 2007.Contact: Applications must be receivedor postmarked by 9 February 2007,after which the announcement will besuspended. See www.scsc.state.pa.us.

Cutthroat Trout Conservation Intern,National Park Service, YellowstoneNational Park, Wyoming. Responsibilities: Assistance withcutthroat trout preservation andrestoration; removal of nonnative fish;lake and stream monitoring for fish,macroinvertebrates, and/or water

quality; applied research aimed atconservation of cutthroat trout; andassistance with lab processing ofsamples, data entry, and verification. Qualifications: Show evidence ofcollege coursework and/or workexperience in an area of aquatic ecologyand/or fisheries. Must demonstrate astrong professional interest in theseareas.Salary: Student Conservation Program(SCA) Internships include paid housingand a biweekly living stipend. Seewww.thesca.org/internships/ for moreinformation about position benefits. Closing date: Apply by 15 February2007. Announcements for position code4541 (mid-May–early Aug) and 4543

(early Aug–late Oct) will appear on theSCA website by mid-December. Contact: To apply for these positions,you must use the SCA website atwww.thesca.org/internships/ and eitherregister and submit an onlineapplication or download an applicationand mail it in to SCA. THIS ISIMPORTANT—You must selectYellowstone National Park, Fish-Fisheriesas your preferred work area andposition type, respectively. Yourapplication should include a detailedresume, cover letter, and the names andcontact information for threeprofessional references. Todd M. Koel,Supervisory Fisheries Biologist,Yellowstone Center for Resources.

Advertising IndexCOMPANY PHONE PAGE

Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc. 763/444-9267 cover 3

Bellamare 858/578-8108 43

EcoAnalysts 208/882-2588 46

HTI (Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc.) 206/633-3383 5

Miller Net Company 30

Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. 360/468-3375 cover 2

O. S. Systems, Inc. 503/543-3126 7

Sea Grant 45

Smith-Root, Inc. 360/573-0202 cover 4

Sound Metrics 33

VEMCO, Ltd. 902/852-3047 17, 19

Tell advertisers you found them through Fisheries!

Documents

Fisheries · declines in coastal fisheries have sparked a resurgence in hatchery-based marine stock enhancement. New aquaculture and tagging technologies, along with demands for accountability