Fisheries VOL 36 NO 7 JULY 2011

Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. South Atlantic

Potential Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Commercial Fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico

Crossroad Blues: An Intersection of Rivers, Wetlands, and Public Policy

American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

03632415(2011)36(7)

COVER: Dead fish floating in the Gulf just days after the Gulf oil spill.CREDIT: Nicholas Stone Schearer / Red Bridge Productions (rebridgeproductions.org)

Contents

Fisheries VOL 36 NO 7JULY 2011

COLUMNS317 PRESIDENT’S HOOKNew Frontiers in Fisheries Management and Ecology: Affiliates of AFSWhat would it take for affiliates to become members of AFS?

Wayne A. Hubert and William Fisher

337 COMMENTARY: SCIENCE POLICYCrossroad Blues: An Intersection of Rivers, Wetlands,and Public PolicyWhere do we stand on riverine and wetland issues, and in which direction should we proceed?

Marlis R. Douglas, Yuriy V. Slyn’ko, Steven Kohl, Charles R. Lane, Elena E. Slyn’ko, Michael E. Douglas

355 GUEST DIRECTOR’S LINERelativity, Resiliency, and Response in the Wake of Environmental ChallengesWas the oil spill really an environmental disaster like so many people are saying, or was it another sort of reset event?

Donald C. Jackson

UPDATE318 LEGISLATION AND POLICYElden W. Hawkes, Jr.

FEATURE: FISHERIES STOCK ASSESSMENTS319 Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. South Atlantic: Data, Doubt, and DebateRed snapper stock assessments in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic are alike but different.

James H. Cowan, Jr.

FEATURE: FISHERIES RESEARCH332 Potential Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Commercial Fisheries in the Gulf of MexicoPotential impact of the Gulf oil spill on commercial fisheries.

A. McCrea-Strub, K. Kleisner, U. R. Sumaila, W. Swartz, R. Watson, D. Zeller, D. Pauly

Algae Culture Bags, Taylor Shellfish Hatchery, Seattle

344

NEWS346 Units

ANNOUNCEMENTS360 July 2011 Jobs

SEATTLE MEETING UPDATE343 Seattle Tours and Field Trips

340 NEW MEMBERS

INTERvIEW341 The Tackle Box — 15 Questions with Roar Sandodden

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS350 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, volume 140, Number 2

STUDENT ANGLES351 The Academic Road Less TraveledShould fisheries students/professionals go to graduate school or try to get a job? If they complete a Ph.D., should they teach, conduct research, or try to do both?

Daniel A. James

353 The Fenske FellowshipForging New Perspectives of Fisheries Science and Management

Abigail J. Lynch

CALENDAR358 Fisheries Events

MEMBERSHIP TYPE/DUES (Includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory)

Developing countries I (Includes online Fisheries only): N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$10 OTHERDeveloping countries II: N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$35 OTHERRegular: _____$80 NORTH AMERICA; _____$95 OTHERStudent (includes online journals): _____$20 NORTH AMERICA; _____$30 OTHERYoung professional (year graduated): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHERRetired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHERLife (Fisheries and 1 journal): _____$1, 737 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1737 OTHERLife (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years): _____$1,200 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,200 OTHER: $1,200Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year): _____ $1,000 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,000 OTHER

JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (Optional)

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

Recruited by an AFS member? yes noName

EMPLOYERIndustryAcademiaFederal gov’tState/provincial gov’tOther

FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110•Bethesda, MD 20814-2199(301) 897-8616 • fax (301 )897-8096 • main@fisheries.org

The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlightened management of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training.

AFS OFFICERSPRESIDENTWayne A. Hubert

PRESIDENT ELECTWilliam L. Fisher

FIRST VICE PRESIDENTJohn Boreman

SECOND VICE PRESIDENTRobert Hughes

PAST PRESIDENTDonald C. Jackson

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORGhassan “Gus” N. Rassam

FISHERIES STAFFSENIOR EDITORGhassan “Gus” N. Rassam

DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONSAaron Lerner

MANAGING EDITORSarah Fox

EDITORSSCIENCE EDITORSMadeleine Hall-ArberKen AshleyHoward I. BrowmanSteven CookeKen CurrensAndy DanylchukDeirdre M. KimballDennis LassuyDaniel McGarveyAllen RutherfordRoar SandoddenJeff SchaefferJack E. WilliamsJeffrey Williams

DUES AND FEES FOR 2011 ARE:$80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for regular members, $20 in North America ($30 elsewhere) for student members, and $40 ($50 elsewhere) for retired members.

Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription.

Nonmember and library subscription rates are $157 in North America ($199 elsewhere).

Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmem-ber.

Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 © copyright 2011. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproduction of material in this publication is permitted only under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199. Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer recycled paper with soy-based printing inks.

2011 AFS MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONAMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY • 5410 GROSVENOR LANE • SUITE 110 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2199

(301) 897-8616 x203 OR x224 • FAX (301) 897-8096 • WWW.FISHERIES .ORG

PAID:

NAME

Address

City

State/Province ZIP/Postal Code

CountryPlease provide (for AFS use only)Phone

Fax

E-mail

PAYMENTPlease make checks payable to American Fisheries Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank, or pay by VISA, MasterCard, or American Express.

_____Check

_____American Express

Account #______________________________________

Exp. Date _____________

Signature ______________________________________

_____VISA

_____MasterCard

All memberships are for a calendar year. New member applications received Janu-ary 1 through August 31 are processed for full membership that calendar year (back issues are sent). Applications received September 1 or later are processed for full membership beginning January 1 of the following year.

BOOK REVIEW EDITORSFrancis JuanesBen LetcherKeith Nislow

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONPablo del Monte Luna

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 317

For many professional fisheries scientists, face-to-face interactions occur primarily at American Fisheries Society (AFS) chapter meetings. That is when we renew acquaintanc-es, make new friends, and find out what is happening within our local sphere. It is fun and invigorating to chat about fish, listen to the latest research findings, and maybe even address some policy issues. Depending on the location, chapter meet-ings may have from a few dozen to a few hundred people in at-tendance. Almost everybody at a meeting will readily identify themselves as members of the chapter, but how many are also members of the society? Surprisingly, it appears that on average about two-thirds of those attending chapter meetings are ac-tual dues-paying members of the society, and in some chapters,

less than a third of chapter members are dues-paying members of the society.

We refer to folks who are members of an AFS unit but not the society as “affiliates.” There are “official” affiliate members who are professionals in a discipline associated with the fisher-ies sciences and members one of the sections of the society, such as the Fish Culture Section or Fish Health Section. There are also “unofficial” affiliate members who are professionals who join and participate in a chapter or students who are mem-bers of their university’s student subunit.

The AFS has a membership of about 9,000 people. That makes it the largest society of professional fisheries scientists in the world. However, if we include all of the affiliates with some kind of tie to AFS, the sphere of influence is much larger. Af-filiates obviously have some affinity to the mission of AFS and see value in credible scientific information, educational oppor-tunities, and services provided by the society.

So, we pose the questions—Why don’t affiliate members choose to join the society? Is it the cost? Regular AFS member-ship is $80 per year in North America and $95 per year outside of North America. For young professionals who graduated less

than 3 years beyond graduation, annual dues are $40 in North America and $50 outside North America. For students, mem-bership is a bargain at $20 per year in North America and $30 per year outside North America. Membership in all of these categories includes a subscription to Fisheries and a huge ar-ray of member services, including reduced registration fees at AFS meetings, the ability to subscribe to AFS journals, bargain prices on books, the ability to apply for certification as an asso-ciate or certified fisheries professional, access to the AFS mem-bership directory, and influence within the society in regard to policy issues. That seems like a lot of value for the price, but maybe it is not enough of the right kind of goods and services for many folks. We ask, what would entice affiliate members to join the society?

Social research indicates that society is changing. Young professionals are not joining professional societies, or any oth-er form of social group, as they once did. Young professionals tend to change jobs much more often than their predecessors. The education of young professionals tends to be more broadly based, with less focus on traditional disciplines. In contrast, young professionals depend on social networks for much of their social interactions, not meetings and traditional forms of correspondence. Are these societal trends contributing to the desire to be affiliates in lieu of actual members in AFS? We don’t know for sure, but we are interested in what the AFS can do to be more attractive to affiliate members.

The AFS governing board will hold a day-long retreat in association with its annual meeting in Seattle in September 2011. The focus of the retreat will be AFS affiliates. In order to prepare for the retreat, a survey is being conducted to obtain quantitative data on the number of affiliates associated with chapters and sections of the society. We hope that the retreat will provide ideas as to how to the society may better serve affiliate members and entice them to become members of the society. One suggestion is to create an official affiliate member-ship category with reduced dues and limited membership ser-vices. There may be other ideas. If you have insight or opinions regarding the issue of affiliates, we would like to hear from you. Our e-mails are above. Drop us a line.

Column: PRESIDENT’S HOOK

New Frontiers in Fisheries Management and Ecology: Affiliates of AFSWayne A. Hubert, President and William Fisher, President-Elect

Membership in all of these categories includes a sub-scription to Fisheries and a huge array of member ser-vices, including reduced registration fees at AFS meet-ings, the ability to subscribe to AFS journals, bargain prices on books, the ability to apply for certification as an associate or certified fisheries professional, access to the AFS membership directory, and influence within the society in regard to policy issues.

AFS President Hubert may be contacted at:

WHubert@uwyo.edu

AFS President-Elect Fisher may be contacted at:

wlf9@cornell.edu

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 318

Update: LEGISLATION & POLICY

Policy Coordinator Hawkes can be contacted at ehawkes@fisheries.org

Elden W. Hawkes, Jr.National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP) board’s

spring meeting, held on April 12-13, 2011 in Washington D.C., resulted not only in a productive board meeting, but was fol-lowed by the April 14, 2011 release of a first-of-its-kind status of fish habitats reports. The report titled Through a Fish’s Eye: The Status of Fish Habitats In The United States 2010 summarizes the results of the first nationwide assessment of the human ef-fects on fish habitats in the rivers and estuaries throughout the country.

The board’s two day agenda focused on numerous issues, such as: 1) the current state of the National Fish Habitat Con-servation Act (NFHCA), which is slated to be reintroduced sometime during the 112th Congress; 2) developing a coordi-nated strategy to obtain funding from national funding sources (both old and new) for Fish Habitat Partnerships (FHPs) and creating a strategy to obtain new funding sources for FHPs, FHPs projects, and board activities, such as science and data sources; and 3) how to increase tribal participation in NFHAP.

With regard to the NFHCA, the board was particularly concerned about the challenges of possibly passing or funding any new bills, especially at a time when federal agency bud-gets are barely funding (and in many cases defunding) already existing programs. Board members agreed, therefore, that it would benefit them to promote and present the NFHCA as an existing program, and not as a new program, since funding for NFHAP already exists within the budgets of the various agencies involved. Hence, the passage of the NFHCA would simply codify existing efforts into a national effort under law. As a means of promoting the passage and funding of NFHCA, the board will highlight the fact that jobs will also be created since new partnerships would be encouraged. The dialogue on funding also raised questions regarding the possibility of struc-tural changes to NFHAP in order to facilitate and coordinate fundraising activities, and concluded with future suggested ob-jectives:

• Biological resource conditions• Socioeconomic conditions• Organization development• Science and data deliverables• Communication and engagement

There was a consensus that these objectives should be in-cluded in a five year analysis of the entire program in order to make sure that the goals are understandable, sustainable, and obtainable. The full text of Through a Fish’s Eye: The Status of Fish Habitats In The United States 2010 can be found at www.fishhabitat.org.

National Fish Habitat Action Plan Board Meeting Culminates with the First-of-its-Kind Fish Habitat Status Report

The United States Office of Govern-ment Ethics Proposes New Rules on Employees’ Involvement in Nonprofit Organizations

The United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE) has issued a proposed rule amendment that would permit gov-ernment employees to participate in particular matters affect-ing the financial interests of nonprofit organizations in which they serve in an official capacity. This document also proposes an amendment that would clarify that the existing exemptions for interests in the holdings of sector mutual funds also apply to interests in the holdings of sector unit investment trusts.

If accepted, this proposed change would add an exemption to the OGE’s ethics regulations that interpret federal conflict of interest law to say that government employees’ participation in nonprofits is acceptable. The announcement of OGE’s pro-posed rule does note that agencies can still impose other limits on such service.

NOAA Proposes to Raise Catch Limits for Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery

NOAA has proposed raising the catch limit for Atlantic sea scallop vessels from the current level of 47 million pounds to 51 million pounds in 2011 and to 55 million pounds in 2012. NOAA has also proposed to continue the successful scallop rotational area management scheme, which limits access in certain areas to allow small scallops to grow and replenish stocks before they are caught. Additional measures have been proposed to protect sea turtles and yellowtail flounder, includ-ing limiting scallop fishing in portions of the Mid-Atlantic during June through October– when scallop fishing overlaps with movements of endangered and threatened sea turtles–and adjusting days-at-sea allocations for some scallop fishermen only when the yellowtail flounder catch limit is reached in the Georges Bank access areas. This measure will allow yellowtail flounder to continue rebuilding, while enabling scallop fisher-men to harvest their full scallop allocations.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 319

Feature: FISHERIES STOCK ASSESSMENTS

ABSTRACT: Stock assessments provide fisheries managers with information that is used in the regulation of a fish stock. Assess-ments often rely upon a wide array of biological and fisheries data of varying quantity and quality, making the assessment process data hungry, complex, and uncertain. Assessment scientists face the dif-ficulty of estimating numbers of individuals (among other biologi-cal benchmarks) of a population of widely distributed, often mobile, fishes for which direct measurement of almost everything is impossi-ble. Consequently, stock assessment scientists are forced to use tools designed to assemble a variety of indirect measures into a statistical model capable of producing predictions to inform fisheries manage-ment about stock status and the consequences of past, current and future fishing practices. Despite large differences in estimates of the status of red snapper stocks in the Gulf of Mexico (U.S.) and south Atlantic Ocean (U.S.), and the management conclusions and deci-sion drawn from these assessments, there are more similarities than differences in the basic data being used to inform assessment models, as well as in model outcomes concerning trends in biomass, catch-at-age and stock productivity. There are key differences in some of these data, and in how historical landings and uncertainty is handled in the assessment process, that result in large differences between the two management regions in beliefs about current and future produc-tivity of red snapper stocks, and regulatory measures necessary for reaching management goals.

IntroductionTwo axioms are frequently repeated around the table

when stock assessments are being discussed. The first is that “stock assessment is not rocket science; it is much more dif-ficult” (Adams 2001; Berkes et al. 2001), and secondly “count-ing fish is like counting trees, except that you can’t see them and they move” (JA Kitchell, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, pers. comm.). These tongue-in-cheek statements refer to the very real difficulty of estimating numbers of individuals (among other biological benchmarks) of a population of widely distrib-uted, often mobile, fishes for which direct measurement of almost everything is impossible. Consequently, stock assess-ment scientists are forced to use tools designed to assemble a variety of indirect measures into a statistical model capable of producing predictions to inform fisheries management about stock status and the consequences of past, current, and future fishing practices (National Research Council [NRC] 1998). So, though this clearly is not rocket science, what is a stock assessment, and why do the assessments of red snapper Lutja-nus campechanus in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and south

Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. South Atlantic: Data, Doubt, and DebateJames H. Cowan, Jr.Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana State Univer-sity, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70803-7503, USA E-mail: jhcowan@lsu.edu

El huachinango en el Golfo de México y sur Atlántico de los Estados Unidos: datos, dudas y debate

RESUMEN: Las evaluaciones proveen a los mane-jadores de pesquerías de información útil para regular a los stocks de peces. En ocasiones, dichas evaluacio-nes se basan en una amplia gama de datos biológicos y pesqueros de cantidad y calidad diversa, lo que las con-vierte en un proceso demandante, complejo e incierto. Los evaluadores enfrentan la dificultad de estimar (en-tre otros estándares biológicos) el número de individu-os que componen las poblaciones de peces, mismas que suelen tener una amplia distribución y gran capacidad de movimiento, por lo que casi cualquier medición di-recta es imposible. Consecuentemente, los evaluadores se ven forzados a utilizar herramientas diseñadas para integrar cantidad de medidas indirectas en modelos estadísticos capaces de generar predicciones que pos-teriormente utilizan los manejadores pesqueros para hacer inferencias acerca del estado de los stocks y las consecuencias que han tenido, tienen y tendrán las prácticas de pesca. A pesar de las enormes discrepan-cias en los estimados del estado que guardan los stocks de huachinango en el Golfo de México (EEUU) y la parte sur del Atlántico (EEUU) y de las conclusiones de manejo y decisiones derivadas de las evaluaciones, existen más similitudes que diferencias en los datos básicos empleados para alimentar los modelos así como también en las tendencias de la biomasa, captura a la edad y productividad de los stocks calculadas mediante tales modelos. Se han identificado diferencias críticas en algunos de estos datos y en cómo se maneja tanto la información de los desembarques históricos como la incertidumbre asociada durante el proceso de eval-uación. Lo anterior da como resultado un gran con-traste entre ambas regiones de manejo en cuanto a las posturas acerca de la productividad actual y futura de los stocks de huachinango y las medidas de regulación necesarias para alcanzar los objetivos de manejo.

Atlantic Ocean (SA) appear to be diverging in their estimates of stock status?

Stock assessments provide fisheries managers with infor-mation that is used in the regulation of a fish stock. Assess-ments rely upon biological and fisheries data to inform a pro-cess; a wide array of biological data may be collected for, and

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 320

produced by, an assessment. Ideally, these include details on age structure of the stock, age at first spawning, fecundity, ratio of males to females in the stock, natural mortality (M yr−1), fishing mortality (F yr−1), growth rates of fish, spawning behav-ior, critical habitats, migratory habits, food preferences, and an estimate of either total population numbers or total biomass of the stock. Data regarding fisheries activities also are collected; these include the kinds of fishermen in the fishery (e.g., com-mercial versus recreational) and the gear used (e.g., longline, rod and reel, nets), kilograms of fish caught by each type of fisher, the fishing effort that each kind of fisher expends, age structure of fish harvested by each fisher group and the location of these catches, the ratio of males to females captured, how fish are marketed, the value of fish to different fisher groups, and the time and geographic location of highest catches. Geo-graphical boundaries of different stocks or populations also are defined. From combined biological and fisheries data, current status and condition of the stock is defined and predictions are made to forecast how in the future stocks will respond to vary-ing levels of fishing pressure, and the age-specific fishing mor-tality (F; hereafter all Fs are per year) that results. Ultimately, managers seek to eliminate overfishing and restore overfished stocks (Wallace and Fletcher 2000; Haddon 2001; Cooper 2006). Those interested in additional detailed, technical in-

formation should see Gulland (1983), Gallucci et al. (1996), Hilborn and Walters (1992), Funk et al. (1998), Quinn (1999), and Walters and Martell (2004), among others.

There are not enough data available to do complex assess-ments for all species, but for well-studied species like red snap-per, stock assessments are data hungry, complex, and uncertain. Modern methods used by the National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries attempt, where possible, to include data on all of the biological characteristics above, but the data available are not always of the same qual-ity (Goodyear 1995; NRC 1998, 2000; 2004; Southeast Data and Assessment Review [SEDAR] 7 2005; SEDAR 15 2008 and 2009 update). As such, no two red snapper assessments are identical, methods and models are frequently updated and im-proved, and they are not constrained to reproduce the results of previous predictions of stock status as new information be-comes available. This issue has been a source of debate among scientists and managers about Gulf red snapper because the pace of acquisition of new knowledge has been high in the last 15 years, and even the assessment models used have changed frequently in response. But, even when the same assessment model has been used multiple times, new information about important life history characteristics produces new outcomes, affecting both forward and backward estimates of stock status.

More importantly, variability in data availability, includ-ing new data and its quality, requires assessment scientists to make decisions and choices about which data to include, and these decisions can and do generate variability in estimates of biological benchmarks and conclusions concerning stock sta-tus. Red snapper assessments consider long and thorough time series of catch data obtained from both recreational and com-mercial fishers, including catches from all habitats in which fishing occurs (Goodyear 1995; SEDAR 7 2005 and SEDAR 7 assessment update in 2009 [hereafter SEDAR 7]; SEDAR 15 2008 and 2009 update [hereafter SEDAR 15]). These data are supplemented both in the Gulf and SA with surveys that pro-vide indices of abundance that are not derived directly from fishing; these surveys include abundance estimates of life stages ranging from larvae, to postsettlement juveniles, to large adults captured by longlines (SEDAR 7 2005; SEDAR 15). Modern assessments are forward looking and determine a suite of pos-sible outcomes about what the red snapper stock could be based upon the available data and the assumptions made in their ap-plication, rather than comparing the current stock to some hypothetical unfished virgin biomass. This allows the process to account for changes in the ecosystem to which the stock belongs. The results are now thoroughly vetted by an assess-ment process (i.e., SEDAR) that includes data reviews, assess-

Stock assessments are data hungry, complex, and uncertain.Investigating red snapper.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 321

ment workshops, and assessment reviews before they reach the regional management councils.

At this point it is important to note that in both the Gulf and SA, red snapper have recently been determined by the SE-DAR process to be overfished relative to a risk-averse biomass benchmark and to be experiencing overfishing (Fs are too high to ensure stock recovery), except perhaps in the western Gulf, where overfishing may no longer be occurring (SEDAR 7; SE-DAR 15). In contrast, many fishers believe that numbers of red snapper in the Gulf are high, perhaps historically so, and the stock there is no longer overfished (Shipp and Bortone 2009). The same is true of fishers in the SA (Fishing Rights Alliance, http://www.thefra.org/; Hester 2009, White Paper for South-eastern Fisheries Association, http://seafoodsustainability.us/Home_Page.html), and there is legislation pending before the U.S. Congress challenging assessment findings in both regions (H.R. 4914).

Differences in perception about red snapper stock status between the scientific, management, and fisher communities is not new, and red snapper management has been controver-sial for more than 20 years (Cowan et al. 2010). Although the issues are complex (Cowan et al. 2010), the main factors in assessments that are responsible for recent low recommended fishing levels are highly truncated age distributions in both the Gulf and SA and high Fs on ages 2 through 8 by the directed fisheries (Cowan et al. 2010). These are problematic because long-lived red snapper do not reach full reproductive potential until age 14–15, and high fishing mortalities earlier in life may not result in sufficient escapement to older ages to allow recov-ery of spawning biomass (Cowan et al. 2010). It is possible to learn more about why fishers do not agree with these findings in the material referenced at the end of the preceding paragraph, but recent reports of high numbers of fish in both areas are consistent with assessment results in both regions. Reasons for this apparent conundrum are discussed below, in particular in the section entitled History of Management.

Figure 1. Location map showing the Gulf of Mexico (tan) and South Atlantic (blue) and management zones. The red dashed line shows the division between the eastern and western Gulf subunits.

I will try to briefly describe the similarities and major dif-ferences between the Gulf and SA stock assessments, for which more information is needed, and how decisions made during the assessment process can influence results. Rather than re-drafting figures, I have chosen to pull them directly from the assessment documents to avoid casting aspersion on their au-thenticity. The assessment documents themselves are available online at http://www.gulfcouncil.org/ for the Gulf and at http://www.safmc.net/ for the SA.

Trends in Biomass and Fishing MortalityAssessment results in the Gulf and SA are more similar

than different. Trends in estimated biomass through time are comparable, although red snapper stocks are assessed separately for the eastern and western Gulf due to demographic differ-ences, with the Mississippi River delta dividing the two areas (Figure 1). Yet, red snapper in the Gulf is managed as a single stock, in part recombining information from the east and west to make management decisions such that the rebuilding tar-get is considerably lower in the eastern Gulf than in the west,

Obtaining a sample.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 322

where most of the biomass is believed to reside. The assessment is done only for U.S. waters of the Gulf, because red snapper landings data from Mexico are sparse.

Gulf red snapper spawning stock biomass (SSB) currently is estimated to be only a fraction of historical levels, but re-cruitment is predicted to have increased in recent years (Figure 2), though historical data prior to the mid-1980s are sparse, especially before the 1950s. Higher recruitment since 1971 has caused some to speculate that stock productivity in the Gulf is increasing. The estimated decline in biomass has been similarly dramatic in the SA (Figure 3), but the historical record is not as long.

Reductions in biomass are believed to be due primarily to overexploitation in both the Gulf and SA (SEDAR 7; SEDAR 15; Porch 2007; Porch et al. 2007b; Cowan et al. 2010). In the Gulf (Figure 4), age-specific estimates of fishing mortality peaked in the early 1980s and have remained above sustainable levels, perhaps until recently in the western Gulf. In the SA, estimated fully recruited Fs are also high (Figure 5), peaking in

the late 1970s and remaining high and at levels (>0.7 to 0.9 yr−1) similar to Fs in the Gulf (SEDAR 7). The ratio of esti-mated current fishing mortality rates (FCURR) to a rate required to end overfishing (FMSY) in both areas has been well above unity (>1) for many years, although there is some evidence that the ratio may now be approaching unity in the western Gulf. Estimates of this ratio for the SA stock are currently >7 and in general are much higher than in the Gulf. When the ratio of FCURR/FMSY is greater than 1, the pace of removals from

the fishery usually is not sustainable.

Spawner-Recruitment Relationships and Stock Productivity

Red snapper stocks in both areas are productive and strongly year-class dominated. Fishery-independent survey data (Gulf) and the assessment models (Gulf and SA) also show and predict, respectively, that recruitment is essentially indepen-dent of spawning stock size. The putative increase in recruit-ment in the Gulf has resulted in speculation about causes for the increase, especially given low SSB estimates. Porch (2007) offered several hypotheses about causes for increased produc-tivity, including improved oceanographic conditions for larvae, larval input from Mexican waters, postsettlement density-de-pendent mortality, reduced predator abundance (fewer preda-tors due to removal as bycatch by the shrimp fishery), increased habitat for juveniles (oil rigs and artificial reefs), and unde-tected increases in spawning potential (cryptic adult biomass). These hypotheses remain largely untested, although Cowan et al. (2010) argue against the juvenile habitat hypothesis (but see Shipp and Bortone 2009), and data from longline surveys collected by NOAA Fisheries beginning in 1995 to the present appear to discount the presence of cryptic adult biomass.

One additional factor promoting the assumption that pro-ductivity and stock size in the Gulf have increased in recent years is that red snapper are reappearing in the eastern Gulf in places from which they had been extirpated by overexploita-tion before and during the late 1980s and early 1990s. But an increase in range does not necessarily indicate an increase in productivity of the stock. Assessment outcomes in the SEDAR 7 update still show that fishing mortality in the eastern Gulf is high and likely not sustainable, and SSB there is still low.

I offer another hypothesis for the eastern Gulf increase that is inferred from empirical estimates of movement of tagged red snapper. Results of several studies show that fish released off Alabama and the Florida panhandle that are at large during the passage of tropical storms move more frequently from artificial reefs where they were tagged and released, generally move east and often move hundreds of kilometers. Several fish tagged off Alabama have been recaptured off Tampa (see Patterson 2007 for review). Given that the period from 1995 to the present has been the most active period on record for tropical storms in the Atlantic basin (NOAA, National Hurricane Center: http://

Figure 2. Age-0 recruits (red circles) and spawning stock biomass (blue lines) estimated for the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico subunits (model estimates from SEDAR 7).

Figure 3. Model-predicted biomass (B) and spawning stock biomass (SSB) of red snapper in the U.S. South Atlantic by year (SEDAR 15).

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 323

fisheries scientists and managers. In the Gulf, strong year-classes were produced in 1989, 1996, 1999 and most recently the period 2004–2006 (Figure 6). The correlation between age-0 and age-1 red snapper is relatively poor, a result long thought attributable to high vulner-ability of age-1 red snapper to capture by shrimp trawlers as bycatch. However, shrimping effort in the offshore Gulf has declined steadily since 2002 and is now about 15% of pre-2002 levels. The re-duction in bycatch has made it feasible to separate mortality due to bycatch from other of sources of mortality such as predation, and empirical estimates of natural mortality rates are high (0.54 to >2.0 yr−1; Wells et al. 2008; Gal-laway et al. 2009; SEDAR 7). These empirical estimates of non-bycatch-related mortality rates of age-0 and age-1 red snapper imply that bycatch may not have been playing as large a role in red snapper population regulation as

once thought and that high and variable natural mortality rates of age-0s may be responsible for the lack of correlation (Cowan et al. 2010).

In the SA, year-class success is also variable (Figure 7), with higher overall recruitment occurring before and until the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s (three strong years-classes were produced in a 10-year period). Relatively strong year-classes were produced in 1998, 1999, and 2000 but the overall trend in year class

success appears to be decreasing over time (SEDAR 15).

For species with life histories like red snapper, it is normal for populations to produce a strong year-class once every few years, which is sufficient (in the absence of exploitation) to maintain stability in the long term; in anyf given year most females do not produce a single survivor (Winemiller and Rose 1992; Cowan et al. 2010). Occasional strong year-classes make fisheries management more difficult because relative year-class success translates directly into fisher perceptions about stock status because they catch more fish as the strong year-classes become vulnerable to exploitation. Following strong year-classes, fishers begin to catch more red snapper about 2 years after the year-class is produced and surmise that recovery is occurring rapidly, thus putting significant pressure on fisher-ies governance to increase allowable catches (Cowan et al.

www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/mwre-views.html) including the Gulf, it is possible that increased movement may, in large part, explain the reappearance of red snapper in the eastern Gulf.

In the SA, the assessment model also predicts almost com-plete density independence in the number of recruits produced. The lack of relationship between the biomass of spawners and the number of recruits is atypical for long-lived, highly fecund bet-hedging species with similar life history strategies (Rose et al. 2001).

Life History Strategy and Year-Class Dominance

The presence of an occasional strong year-class is good for the fishery but creates analytical and perception problems for

Figure 4. Estimated apical Fs by age and year for red snapper in the U.S. Gulf derived from continuity model runs in the 2009 red snapper assessment update. Continuity runs use the same techniques as the model used in SEDAR 7 but with updated landings data and estimates of red snapper bycatch by the shrimp fishery.

Figure 5. Estimated full Fs (the majority of full F comprises commercial handline landings, general recreational landings, and general recreational discard mortalities) for red snapper in the U.S. SA by year (SEDAR 15). Filled symbols use corrected recreational landings from the saltwater angling reports in assessment model runs.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 324

2010). This scenario has played out often during the history of management and is especially problematic for a species like red snapper that do not reach full repro-ductive potential until long after they be-come vulnerable to fishing, thereby reduc-ing the chance that enough fish survive to older, more fecund, ages (Cowan et al. 2010). This scenario was evident in the SA in response to the strong year-classes during 1998–2000 and is occurring as of this writing (spring 2011) in the Gulf in response to the year-classes produced dur-ing 2004–2006. In both regions, catches, catch-per-unit effort (CPUE), fishery-independent indices of abundance, and pressure to increase catches have gone up in response to strong year-classes (SEDAR 7; SEDAR 15), but pressure to keep catch-es high fails to decline after strong year-classes move through the fisheries. The penchant to increase effort in response to high catches attributable to strong year-classes and the struggle to reduce catches (and fishing effort) in leans times is wide-ly recognized and is called the “ratchet ef-fect” in fisheries management (Ludwig et al. 1993; Botsford et al. 1997). If fisheries governance were to respond differently and protect strong year-classes, recovery rates could perhaps be accelerated, as evi-denced by examples such as striped bass in the mid-Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay (Richards and Deuel 1987; Secor 2000; Hartman and Margraf 2003) and haddock on Georges Bank (Rothschild 2000; Fog-arty et al. 2001; Sundermeyer et al. 2005), among others.

Catch-at-AgeCatch-at-age is well known in both

the Gulf and SA with respect to fishing sectors, gears, and locations where fishing occurs. Overall, catch-at-age frequency distributions are highly truncated, with relatively few older (>9 to 10 years) fish being harvested in either area (Gulf or SA; SEDAR 7, SEDAR 15). Age trun-cation in the SA is more dramatic, with fewer fish of ages 8 to 10 and older be-ing captured now in the SA than in past years. More about this topic follows in the section about selectivities.

In the Gulf, rebuilding targets are lower, and there were several decisions made during the most recent assessment update that are hard for some to reconcile in light of the recent requirement in the MSRA to use uncertainty in the assessment process to adjust recommended catch levels either up or down depending upon how much, or how little, respectively, is known about the species in question.

Figure 6. Relative abundance of age-0 and age-1 red snapper and total biomass of other species captured in the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) fall ground fish survey. Also shown is relative shrimping effort, which has been declining rapidly since 2002 (W. Ingram, NOAA Fisheries, Mississippi Laboratories, Pascagoula, MS).

Figure 7. Estimated recruitment in numbers of fish estimated for the SA red snapper population (SEDAR 15).

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 325

Why Do the Assessments for Red Snap-per in the Gulf and SA Differ in Their Predictions of Stock Status?

Now that similarities between red snapper assessments in the Gulf and SA have been described, we have arrived at a point where assessment results and fishers’ perceptions about the health of the red snapper stock diverge. We return to the question posed earlier in the article and try to explain why dra-conian cuts in harvest of red snapper have been recommended for the SA despite admonition by fishers that the stock is not depleted.

Rebuilding TargetsOne significant difference is the choice of biomass re-

building targets, which differ significantly for red snapper in the Gulf and SA. The South Atlantic Scientific and Statisti-cal Committee (SSC) and council have chosen higher (i.e., more risk-averse) biomass benchmarks (or their proxies) than have managers in the Gulf. For example, because of assumed uncertainties in the assessment process in the SA, the biomass at the overfishing limit (BMSY) proxy for rebuilding of the red snapper stock is F40%SPR, which is the fishing mortality rate ex-pected to achieve a 40% of the spawning potential ratio for the stock (Goodyear 1993) within a required time period. Because of higher rebuilding targets, compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA)requires higher reductions in catches and a more prolonged rebuilding sched-ule (target date for recovery is 2039 in the SA) than if lower targets had been selected. Though these higher targets are in part responsible for regulatory catch reductions in the short term, they have been shown to be less risky in the long term (Mace 1994; Myers et al. 1994; Mace and Sissenwine 2002; Piet and Rice 2004; Piet and Jennings 2005) and to provide a greater measure of security once the stock recovers.

In the Gulf, rebuilding targets are lower, and there were several decisions made during the most recent assessment update that are hard for some to reconcile in light of the recent require-ment in the MSRA to use uncertainty in the as-sessment process to adjust recommended catch levels either up or down depending upon how much, or how little, respectively, is known about the species in question. The first of these is the decision to assess red snapper populations east and west of the Mississippi River separately but to manage the two as a single unit. Because most of the red snapper biomass resides in the western Gulf, this approach puts most of the responsibil-ity of rebuilding the stock to recovery on the fish-eries off Louisiana and Texas. It will be necessary to rebuild the western portion of the stock to a

Figure 8. Relative vulnerabilities (selectivities) of red snapper to fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. HL E = handlines (vertical longlines) in the eastern Gulf, HL W = handlines in the west, LL E = longlines in the east, LL W = longlines in the west, REC E = recreational fishers in the east, REC W = recreational fishers in the west, Clsd E = commercial fish-ers in the east, Clsd W = commercial fishers in the west, Byc E = bycatch in the east, Byc W = bycatch in the west (SEDAR 7).

higher biomass proxy (F27%SPR) to compensate for lower levels in the east (biomass proxy = F18%SPR), which will be well below a risk-averse level even when the Gulf-wide stock is consid-ered recovered. In both cases, the assumption was made that shrimping effort and associated bycatch of age-0 and age-1 red snapper in the Gulf will never recover to levels higher than ~40% of 2008 levels, which again has the largest effect in the west because that is where most of the red snapper bycatch occurs.

In short, the rebuilding targets in the Gulf are lower, can be achieved in a shorter time period (2032), and are less risk averse, especially in the eastern Gulf. Lower rebuilding targets for the Gulf are justified by the finding that yield-per-recruit may be maximized at lower biomass and speculation that stock productivity has increased (SEADR 7).

SelectivitiesThe prosecution of a fishery by all participating sectors

and fishing gears used to harvest a species frequently fails to provide an unbiased sample of the age structure of the popula-tion. Catch-at-age bias in fisheries can be problematic because the assessed status of the stock is dependent upon the real age distribution relative to the observed distribution derived from the fisheries (Walters et al. 2008). The term “selectivity” refers to an estimation (selectivities are generated by the assessment model) of the relative vulnerability of each age class to a given fishery, which can differ by sector and gear and can change in response to regulations to manage the fishery. For example, the selectivity relationships for red snapper from all fisheries in the Gulf are shown in Figure 8 and, when averaged over all gears and sectors, is a dome-shaped function (SEDAR 7). Age-0 and age-1 fish are vulnerable mostly as bycatch in the

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 326

banned in 1990. Accounting for the decrease in removals by longlines is important now because one of the first checks made when an assessment model is being developed is to determine how well the model hindcasts through historical landings data. Because these Gulf data include landings before and after the longline ban, inclusion of past removals improves the fit of the model hindcast and affects the current estimates of selectivity and stock status. In truth, the longline ban was initially only assumed to be beneficial because of the size and age structure of longline catches, but empirical evidence in support of the assumption is now available from results of a longline survey that was begun by NOAA Fisheries in 1995 (SEDAR 7). The number of older, larger fishes has been increasing in the Gulf in areas on the shelf where relatively little directed fishing now occurs, because older fish are less thigmotactic than younger conspecifics that have higher affinity than older fish for struc-tured habitat with some vertical relief.

In contrast, the mean selectivity (vulnerability) function used in the SA makes all ages of red snapper after age 3 almost equally vulnerable to fishing, with no significant decrease for

red snapper older than age 10 (Figure 9). This difference has a big impact on assessment out-comes because of the obvious implications con-cerning reproductive potential and SSB for red snapper in the SA. The shape of this function in the SA implies that banning the SA longline fishery in 1992 did not result in similar protec-tion for older fishes. It is evident that catches at size and age are different in the Gulf and SA when fishers are using similar gear and that larger, older SA red snapper appear to be more vulnerable to both recreational and, in particu-lar, commercial fishers using handlines than they are in the Gulf (handlines are vertical longlines with multiple hooks, usually 50 or more, that are sometimes referred to as “bandit rigs” in the pop-ular press; see pages 39–44 in SEDAR 15 SAR 1, Section V). One can only speculate about the reasons for this difference, but the width of continental shelves (making trips to deepwater habitats much shorter in the SA), differences in sediment types, and the prevalence of natural habitats in the SA compared to more nearshore, artificial reefs in the Gulf come to mind. What is clear, however, is that the current biomass-at-age distribution of SA red snapper (Figure 10) is more truncated compared to the Gulf (Figure 11), and this difference is one of the most im-portant factors driving the call for closure of the SA to fishing for red snapper and, by association, other reefs fishes because of the potential for red snapper bycatch in other fisheries. The fisheries for other reef fishes are being closed because the

shrimp fishery. Ages 2 through 8 are fully vulnerable to the directed fisheries, but vulnerability differs depending upon how and where a fishery is prosecuted. Later in life, older Gulf red snapper are less than fully—that is, 50% or less—vulnerable to the fishery in the assessment model because of their tendency in nature to move off structured habitat, especially after they reach ~10 years and older. This reduction in selectivity is due to their relative infrequency in landings by the directed fisher-ies on structured habitats and the recognition that older fish became less vulnerable to fishing after longlining (green lines in Figure 8) was prohibited in waters shallower than ~90 m in the Gulf in 1990 (Hood et al. 2007). The decrease in selectiv-ity (vulnerability) of larger, older females in the Gulf assess-ment model effects estimates of stock productivity because of the large contribution that older females make to SSB and egg production (Jackson et al. 2007; Porch et al. 2007b).

It may not be intuitive to the reader why landings data from a long defunct longline fishery are still included in the Gulf assessment process. As can be seen in Figure 8, the larg-est, oldest fish were vulnerable to longline gear before it was

Figure 9. Relative vulnerabilities (selectivities) of red snapper to fisheries in the U.S. South Atlantic averaged over all sectors of the fishery (SEDAR 15).

Figure 10. Estimated standardized biomass at age at three points in the history of the SA red snapper population (SEDAR 15).

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 327

FCURR estimate in SEDAR 15 is so high that the red snapper caught as bycatch in fisheries for other species is itself expected to be too high to end overfishing on SA red snapper.

Because longline catches from the SA are not used in the SEDAR 15 assessment, it is impossible to speculate about the impacts these data would have on assessment outcomes. I have heard anecdotally from SA fishers who contend that older, larger fishes do escape to deeper, difficult to fish waters on the Blake Plateau in the SA, but a recently conducted fishery-in-dependent survey failed to locate a large cryptic biomass of red snapper in the region (NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL).

Fishery-Dependent and -Inde-pendent Indices of Abundance

Fishery-dependent and -independent indi-ces play an important role in stock assessments and are often used to “tune” assessment mod-els. This assumes that equilibrium projections made from models that hindcast well through both landings data and trends in abundance will produce better forecasts of the effects of management on the stock in question. Indices derived from landings data are useful for deter-mining long-term trends in stock status (Figure 12). Both catches and CPUE can increase in response to strong year-classes, as illustrated clearly by CPUEs that increased in response to the strong SA year-classes in 1998–2000, only to fall again rapidly as the year-classes are depleted or become less vulnerable to fishing. Catch-per-unit effort in the SA appears to have been declining since 2004 (Figure 12), which is consistent with the problems caused by strong year-classes.

There are several indices used in both the Gulf and SA, although these indices dif-fer in methods used to develop them and the life stages that are indexed. However, how the indices are interpreted and used in assessment models can have an effect on the estimates of stock status. For example, a decision was made during the SEDAR 7 assessment update for the Gulf (2009) to down-weight the most complete empirical data set available about the stock (catch-at-age) and to up-weight the fisheries-independent indices of abundance, some of which are very poorly behaved and contain little information in raw form (highly variable, very low R2, slopes not significantly different from 0). This was done by capping the number of otolith-aged fish used in the model to 200 per

Figure 11. Estimated red snapper age composition for eastern and western Gulf of Mexico subunits resulting from the preferred model run in the 2009 Red Snapper SEDAR 7 assessment update.

Figure 12. Estimates of catch-per-unit effort derived from different sectors of the red snapper fishery in the SA; note the increase in CPUE in response to the strong year-classes in 1998–2000.

year for each gear type, thus ignoring 1,000s of samples. This decreased the effective population size of known-aged fish in the model, which resulted in an artificial increase in the vari-ability of these data, mostly by increasing the number of fishes aged 6 to 10 years. In contrast, the influence of the Fishery-independent (FI) was exaggerated in the model because these data were artificially constrained to a coefficient of variation of 0.30, which decreased the variability in some of the indices by 400%. These two actions forced the model to hindcast the modified FI indices better, thus resulting in a suite of optimistic model outcomes, the second highest of which was used to set the allowable biological catch (ABC) in the Gulf for the next 2

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 328

years. These decisions resulted in a different perspective on the rate of stock rebuilding compared to the most recent (2005) and previous benchmark assessments.

The SA fisheries scientists (SEDAR 15) also consider and used FI indices in the assessment process, but the times series available are fewer and are exclusive to adult fishes, so ABCs were lowered in recognition of uncertainty in SA FI indices. However, in the following section, I describe an important decision concerning the use of historical landings data in the

SA assessment that also resulted in a change in management strategy.

History of ManagementThe management strategies used to constrain F in the

Gulf and SA have been quite different, with relatively little use of measures to constrain the magnitude of landings, catch-at-age, and regulatory discard rates in the SA relative to the Gulf. Selectivities are affected as much by regulatory actions as they are by differences in gears used to prosecute a fishery, and it is unclear why managers in the SA chose to impose a 51-cm size minimum on all sectors of the fishery, with a two-fish bag limit for recreational fishers, and leave these regulations in place and unchanged since 1992. In the Gulf, management has been more responsive, with many changes in ABCs (Hood et al. 2007), resulting in harvests of about 3.18 mt and in a minimum size allowed for commercial fishers of 33 cm (this size fish invites the highest prices), whereas the recreational sector is prohibited from landing red snapper less than 41 cm in a two-fish bag limit. This difference is important because lower size limits reduce discards by commercial fishers who tend to fish in deeper waters, thus reducing barotrauma in regulatory discards (Nieland et al. 2007; Campbell 2008). In addition, the com-mercial sector in the Gulf has been operating under a catch share program since 2007, eliminating a derby that gave fishers little time to prospect for the most valuable sized fish under a frantic season (only a few weeks per year) constrained by daily trip limits of 0.91 mt.

The relative lack of management, and its consequences, in the SA became very evident in the 2008–2009 assessment process, because the status of the SA stock had previously been formally assessed only once (Manooch et al. 1998) prior to 2008. When long time periods pass between management ac-tions without assessment of the effects, surprises can and do occur, often because new data are collected and/or older data sets are discovered. This is abundantly clear in SEDAR 15 and in the 2009 update documents. During the assessment work-shop phase, the panel was provided with a new set of historical landings data from 1945 to 1980 (from all sectors, collected by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]) that were deemed to be trustworthy by NOAA Fisheries and the SEDAR workshop panel. Much of the text from the workshop describes discussion about the quality of these old data and what to change in the assessment model to match the pattern in steeply declining his-torical landings after 1965, under the assumption that the data are correct (Figure 13). One of the first steps when construct-ing an assessment is to create a statistical model that repro-duces the trends in historical data by varying some parameters within reasonable ranges until the model adequately hindcasts through landings made by each sector of the fishery and the fishery-independent indices. In this example, after much dis-course, the panel concluded that the decline was real and more likely attributable to high Fs prior to and after 1965, rather

Figure 13. Comparison of SA red snapper recreational landings, including the original interpolated values provided by the Recreational Working Group (RWG) and the interpolation from historical reports by the assessment panel. Solid squares represent landings reported in saltwater angling surveys (Clark 1962; Deuel and Clark 1968; Deuel 1973; from SEDAR 15).

Studying red snapper.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 329

than a significant reduction in stock productivity and recruit-ment. Matching the high rate of decline after 1965 caused the model to generate the selectivity pattern and worrisome bio-logical benchmarks that are reflected in the SEDAR 15 find-ings. Simply put, the model assumed that trends in catches are real and then tried to determine the most parsimonious expla-nation for changes in trends. Once this point is reached in any assessment, forecast can be made with an equilibrium model that projects the future, assuming that all variables but F stay fixed at their long-term (past few years) average.

The decision to include the old landings data collected by the USFWS is, without question, the most controversial issue surrounding SEDAR 15—these data drastically changed the historical perspective of the SA red snapper stock along with current estimates of stock status, which now must considered relative to the MSRA. This decision, and all that entails, is the issue that SA fishers find most disagreeable, as well as the primary issue that has driven the call for closure by fisheries management and governance.

SummaryDespite large differences in estimates of the status of red

snapper stocks in the Gulf and SA and the management con-clusions and decisions drawn from these assessments, there are more similarities than differences in the basic data used to in-form assessment models, as well as in model outcomes concern-ing trends in biomass, SSB, catch-at-age, and stock productiv-ity.

There are key differences in some of the biological data and in how uncertainty is handled in the assessment process that result in large differences in beliefs about future produc-tivity of red snapper stocks and regulatory measures necessary

TABLE 1. Biological benchmarks (or their proxies) from the most re-cent red snapper stock assessments. Values in the Gulf of Mexico are contingent upon shrimp fishery bycatch of juvenile red snapper remaining below 40% of 2008 levels. The last row indicates whether or not the stocks are considered overfished (SSBCURR / SSBMSY) and whether overfishing (FCURR/FMSY) is occurring.

Gulf of Mexico South Atlantic

FMSY = F26%SPR Yr−1 FMSY / F40%SPR

Yr−1

FCURR / FMSY≥1.0 FCURR /

F40%SPR

>12

SSBCURR / SSBF26%SPR

0.15 SSBCURR / SSB40%SPR

0.025

Yield (mt) 2010

3,329 Yield (mt) 2010

0

Overfished Overfishing? Overfished Overfishing

for reaching management goals. These differences are, briefly, (1) the SA council’s decision to require higher rebuilding tar-gets for recovery of the stock than in the Gulf; (2) the ratio of FCURR/FMSY is very high in the SA compared to the Gulf; (3) recruitment of red snapper in the SA appears to be decreas-ing over time; (4) the model-derived selectivity functions that make SA red snapper ages 2 and above almost equally vulner-able to fishing, whereas in the Gulf, fish older than 10 years are assumed to be less vulnerable than fish aged 2 to 9; (5) the decision to include the USFWS landings data in the second of only two formal assessments of the SA red snapper stock; and (6) the decision in the Gulf to down-weight the effects of catch-at-age data and up-weight the effects of FI indices by artificially constraining variability in the indices under the un-tested hypothesis that productivity of the Gulf stock increased. The first five of these differences are largely responsible for the draconian measures proposed in the SA to reduce catches of red snapper, whereas the sixth produced a more optimistic pic-ture in the Gulf than the previous benchmark assessment, thus resulting in increased catches. Table 1 provides a brief summary of differences between the Gulf and SA in terms of biological benchmarks (or their proxies) and the recommended yield for the next 2 years based upon these differences. The SA situation is oddly similar to the 1999–2000 red grouper debate in the Gulf (Rose and Cowan 2003); it is often controversial when new data sets reporting historical landings are discovered and used in stock assessments, despite the recognized value of long time series, because of inevitable questions about data quality.

EpilogueSoon after I finished the final draft of the manuscript I

learned that the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Coun-cil reduced the rebuilding target for red snapper in the South Atlantic Bight to the biomass proxy (BMSY) of F30%SPR, which is the biomass corresponding to 30% of the spawning potential ratio. This target is similar to that used in the Gulf, but in mak-ing this adjustment other assumptions were revised downward in exchange. For example, FCURR/FMSY in the SA is ~7 rather than >12, and the expected compliance rate of fishers adhering to the boundaries of closed areas was lowered from 100% to somewhere around 80%, thus implying that the closure would result in less conservation of snapper biomass because of an in-crease in regulatory discards. This is also a reminder that fisher-ies management is a work in progress, and changes in both the Gulf and SA red snapper stock assessments and the manage-ment actions they trigger will inevitably occur.

AcknowledgmentsI thank the officers of AFS’s Marine Fisheries Section, as

well as AFS Past President Don Jackson, for encouraging me to write this article and for the comments of two anonymous reviewers that greatly improved the manuscript.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 330

ReferencesAdams, J. 2001. Risk management: it’s not rocket science … it’s much

more complicated. Risk Management Magazine. Available at http://www.rmmag.com

Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. McConney, R. Pollnac, and R. Pomeroy. 2001. Managing small-scale fisheries. Alternative directions and meth-ods. International Development Research Center. Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Botsford, L. W., J. C. Castilla, and C. H. Peterson. 1997. The manage-ment of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Science 277:509–515.

Campbell, M. 2008. Characterization of the stress response of red snap-per: connecting individual responses to population dynamics. Dis-sertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

Clark, J. 1962. The 1960 Salt-Water Angling Survey. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Circular 153

Cooper, A. B. 2006. A guide to fisheries stock assessment from data to recommendations. University of New Hampshire Sea Grant Pro-gram, Durham, New Hampshire. Available: http://www.seagrant.unh.edu/stockassessmentguide.pdf. Accessed January 2011.

Cowan, J. H., Jr., C. B. Grimes, W. F. Patterson III, C. J. Walters, A. C. Jones, W. J. Lindberg, D. J. Sheehy, W.E. Pine III, J. E. Powers, M. D. Campbell, K. C. Lindeman, S. L. Diamond, R. Hilborn, H. T. Gibson, and K. A. Rose. 2010. Red snapper management in the Gulf of Mexico: science- or faith-based? Fish Biology and Fisheries 21: 187–204.

Deuel, D. G. 1973. 1970 Salt-Water Angling Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion, Current Fishery Statistics No. 6200. Washington, D.C.

Deuel, D. G., and J. R. Clark. 1968. The 1965 Salt-Water Angling Sur-vey. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Resource Publication 67. Washington, D.C.

Fishing Rights Alliance. 2011. Available at http://www.thefra.org/.Fogarty, M. J., R. A. Myers, and K. G. Bowen. 2001. Recruitment of cod

and haddock in the North Atlantic: a comparative analysis. ICES Marine Science Symposia 58:952–961.

Funk, F., T. J. Quinn II, J. Heifetz, J. N. Ianelli, J. E. Powers, J. F. Schwei-gert, P. J. Sullivan, and C.-I. Zhang, editors. 1998. Fishery stock as-sessment models. University of Alaska, Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report No. AK-SG-98-01, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Gallaway, B. J., S. T. Szedlmayer, and W. J. Gazey. 2009. A life history review for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico with an evaluation of the importance of offshore petroleum platforms and other artificial reefs. Reviews in Fisheries Science 17:48–67.

Gallucci, V. F., S. B. Saila, D. J. Gustafson, and B. J. Rothschild, editors. 1996. Stock assessment. Quantitative methods and applications for small-scale fisheries. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Goodyear, C. P. 1993. Spawning stock biomass per recruit in fisheries management: foundation and current use. Pages 67–81 in S. J. Smith, J. J. Hunt, and D. Rivard, editors. Risk evaluation and bio-logical reference points for fisheries. National Research Council Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Goodyear, C. P. 1995. Red snapper in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami Laboratory, MIA-95/96-05, Miami, Florida.

Gulland, J. A. 1983. Fish stock assessment. A manual of basic methods. Wiley-Interscience, Chichester, UK.

Haddon, M. 2001. Modeling and quantitative methods in fisheries. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, FL.

Hartman, K. J., and F. J. Margraf. 2003. U.S. Atlantic coast striped bass: issues with a recovered population. Fisheries Management and Ecology 10:309–312.

Hilborn, R. A., and C. J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative fisheries stock as-sessment. Choice, dynamics and uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Hood, P. B., A. J. Strelcheck, and P. Steele. 2007. A history of red snap-per management in the Gulf of Mexico. Pages 267–284 in W. F. Patterson, J. H. Cowan, Jr., G. R. Fitzhugh, and D. L. Nieland, edi-tors. Red snapper ecology and fisheries in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 60, Bethesda, Maryland.

H.R. 4914. The Coastal Jobs Creation Act of 2010. Available: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_4914.html. Ac-cessed March 2011.

Jackson, M. W., J. H. Cowan, Jr., and D. L. Nieland. 2007. Demographic differences in northern Gulf of Mexico red snapper: implications for the unit stock hypothesis. Pages 217–228 in W. F. Patterson, J. H. Cowan, Jr., G. R. Fitzhugh, and D. L. Nieland, editors. Red snapper ecology and fisheries in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Ameri-can Fisheries Society, Symposium 60, Bethesda, Maryland.

Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters. 1993. Uncertainty, resource ex-ploitation, and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260:17, 36.

Mace, P. M. 1994. Relationships between common biological refer-ence points used as thresholds and targets of fisheries management strategies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:110–122.

Mace, P. M., and M. P. Sissenwine. 2002. Coping with uncertainty: evolution of the relationship between science and management. Pages 8–28 in J. M. Berkson, L. L. Kline, and D. J. Orth, editors. Incorporating uncertainty into fishery models. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

MSRA 2006. Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/. Accessed December 2010.

Manooch, C. S., III, J. C. Potts, D. S. Vaughan, and M. L. Burton. 1998. Population assessment of the red snapper from the southeastern United States. Fisheries Research 38:19–32.

Myers, R. A., A. A. Rosenberg, P. M. Mace, N. Barrowman, and V. R. Restrepo. 1994. In search of thresholds for recruitment overfishing. ICES Journal of Marine Science 51:191–206.

Nieland, D.L., Wilson, C.A., Fischer, A.J. 2007. Declining size at age among red snapper in the northern Gulf of Mexico: recovery or collapse? In: Patterson, W.F., Cowan, J.H. Jr., Fitzhugh, G.R., Nieland, D.L. (eds.), Red Snapper Ecology and Fisheries in the US Gulf of Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 60, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 329–336.

NOAA 2011. National Hurricane Center. Available at http:// www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/mwreviews.html)

NRC (National Research Council). 1998. Improving fish stock assess-ments. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

———. 2000. Improving the collection, management and use of ma-rine fisheries data. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

———. 2004. Improving the use of the “best scientific information available standard” standard in fisheries management. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Patterson, W. F., III. 2007. A review of movement in Gulf of Mexico red snapper: Implications for population structure. Pages 245–262 in W. F. Patterson, J. H. Cowan, Jr., G. R. Fitzhugh, and D. L. Nieland, editors. Red snapper ecology and fisheries in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 60, Bethesda, Maryland.

Piet, G. J., and J. C. Rice. 2004. Performance of precautionary reference points in providing management advice on North Sea fish stocks.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 331

ICES Journal of Marine Science 61:1305–1312.Piet, G. J., and S. Jennings. 2005. Response of potential fish community

indicators to fishing. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:214–225.Porch, C. E. 2007. An assessment of the red snapper fishery in the U.S.

Gulf of Mexico using a spatially-explicit age-structured model. Pages 355–384 in W. F. Patterson, J. H. Cowan, Jr., G. R. Fitzhugh, and D. L. Nieland, editors. Red snapper ecology and fisheries in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 60, Bethesda, Maryland.

Porch, C. E., G. R. Fitzhugh, M. S. Duncan, L. A. Collins, and M. W. Jackson. 2007a. Modeling the dependence of batch fecundity on size and age for use in stock assessments of red snapper in U.S. Gulf of Mexico waters. Pages 229–244 in W. F. Patterson, J. H. Cowan, Jr., G. R. Fitzhugh, and D. L. Nieland, editors. Red snapper ecol-ogy and fisheries in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 60, Bethesda, Maryland.

Porch, C. E., S. C. Turner, and M. J. Schirripa. 2007b. Reconstructing the commercial landings of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico from 1872–1963. Pages 337–354 in W. F. Patterson, J. H. Cowan, Jr., G. R. Fitzhugh, and D. L. Nieland, editors. Red snapper ecology and fisheries in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 60, Bethesda, Maryland.

Quinn, T. J., II, and R. B. Deriso. 1999. Quantitative fish dynamics. Oxford University Press, New York.

Richards, R. A., and D. G. Deuel. 1987. Atlantic striped bass: stock sta-tus and the recreational fishery. Marine Fisheries Review 49:58–66.

Rose, K. A., and J. H. Cowan, Jr. 2003. Data, models, and decisions in U.S. marine fisheries management: lessons for ecologists. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 34:127–151.

Rose, K. A., J. H. Cowan, Jr., K. Winemiller, and R. Hilborn. 2001. Compensatory density dependence in fish populations: impor-tance, controversy, understanding and prognosis. Fish and Fisher-ies 2:293–327.

Rothschild, B. J. 2000. “Fish stocks and recruitment”: the past thirty years. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:191–201.

Secor, D. H. 2000. Longevity and resilience of Chesapeake Bay striped bass. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:808–815.

Shipp, R. L., and S. A. Bortone. 2009. A prospective of the importance of artificial habitat on the management of red snapper in the Gulf

of Mexico. Reviews in Fisheries Science 17:41–47.Southeast Data and Assessment Review 7. 2005. Southeast data, as-

sessment, and review: stock assessment report of SEDAR 7: Gulf of Mexico red snapper. Charleston, South Carolina. Available at http://www.gulfcouncil.org/about/ftp.php. Accessed December 2010.

Southeast Data and Assessment Review 7 Update. 2009. Stock assess-ment of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico—SEDAR update as-sessment—Report of the Update Assessment Workshop, Miami, Florida. Available at http://www.gulfcouncil.org/about/ftp.php. Accessed December 2010.

Southeast Data and Assessment Review 15. 2008 and 2009 update. Stock Assessment Report 1 (SAR 1) South Atlantic red snapper. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, North Charleston, SC. http://www.safmc.net/SEDAR/tabid/423/Default.aspx. Ac-cessed January 2011.

Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc. 2011. Available at http://sea-foodsustainability.us/uploads/red_snapper_fishermen_deserve_re-lief.pdf

Sundermeyer, M. A., B. J. Rothschild, and A. R. Robinson. 2005. Us-ing commercial landings data to identify environmental correlates with distributions of fish stocks. Fisheries Oceanography 14:47–63.

Wallace, R. K., and K. M. Fletcher. 2000. Understanding fisheries man-agement: a manual for understanding the federal fisheries manage-ment process, including analysis of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, 2nd edition.

Walters, C. J., R. Hilborn, and V. Christensen. 2008. Surplus produc-tion dynamics in declining and recovering fish populations. Ca-nadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65:2536–2551.

Walters, C. J., and S. J. Martell. 2004. Fisheries ecology and manage-ment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Wells, R. J. D., J. H. Cowan, Jr., W. F. Patterson, and C. J. Walters. 2008. Effect of trawling on juvenile red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) habitat selection and life history parameters. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65:2399–2411.

Winemiller, K. O., and K. A. Rose. 1992. Patterns of life-history diver-sification in North American fishes: implications for population regulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:2196–2220.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 332

Potential Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Commercial Fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico

Feature: FISHERIES RESEARCH

Impacto potencial del derrame petrolero Deepwater Horizon en las pesquerías comerciales del Golfo de México

RESUMEN: En virtud de la gran importancia económi-ca y social que tiene la actividad pesquera en el gran ecosistema marino (GEM) del Golfo de México, es in-dispensable cuantificar los potenciales impactos del der-rame petrolero Deepwater Horizon. Con la finalidad de tener una perspectiva preliminar de las consecuencias de este siniestro, se investigaron datos espaciales anualiza-dos de la captura comercial y valor desembarcado antes del derrame en relación a la localización de las vedas espaciales durante julio de 2010. Las tendencias actu-ales que se ilustran en este trabajo sugieren que más del 20% de la captura comercial anual promedio en la parte del golfo correspondiente a los EEUU, ha sido afectada por vedas establecidas después del derrame, lo que in-dica una pérdida mínima en valor de desembarque de $247 millones de dólares. Las pesquerías más rentables como el camarón, cangrejo, sábalo y ostión pueden estar en riesgo de sufrir pérdidas económicas. En general, se vuelve evidente que el derrame ha impactado un área al-tamente productiva de primera importancia económica dentro del GEM del Golfo de México. La presente con-tribución llama la atención en la necesidad de desarrol-lar investigaciones vigentes y profundas sobre los impac-tos económicos del derrame petrolero en las pesquerías del golfo.

A. McCrea-StrubPostdoctoral Fellow, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada E-mail: a.strub@fisheries.ubc.ca

K. KleisnerPostdoctoral Fellow, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

U. R. SumailaAssociate Professor, Director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

W. SwartzPh.D. Student, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

R. WatsonSenior Research Fellow, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, Univer-sity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

D. ZellerSenior Research Fellow, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, Univer-sity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

D. PaulyProfessor, Principal Investigator, Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

ABSTRACT: Given the economic and social importance of fisher-ies in the Gulf of Mexico large marine ecosystem (LME), it is im-perative to quantify the potential impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. To provide a preliminary perspective of the consequences of this disaster, spatial databases of annual reported commercial catch and landed value prior to the spill were investigated relative to the location of the fisheries closures during July 2010. Recent trends illustrated by this study suggest that more than 20% of the aver-age annual U.S. commercial catch in the Gulf has been affected by postspill fisheries closures, indicating a potential minimum loss in an-nual landed value of US$247 million. Lucrative shrimp, blue crab, menhaden, and oyster fisheries may be at greatest risk of economic losses. Overall, it is evident that the oil spill has impacted a highly productive area of crucial economic significance within the Gulf of Mexico LME. This study draws attention to the need for ongoing and thorough investigations into the economic impacts of the oil spill on Gulf fisheries.

IntroductionThe explosion of the Deepwater Horizon offshore drill-

ing rig on April 20, 2010, initiated the world’s largest known

accidental oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Eco-system (LME), a region valued for its high productivity and lucrative fisheries (Adams et al. 2004; Sherman and Hempel 2008). Estimates of the quantity of oil, natural gas and associ-ated methane, and chemical dispersants released as a result of this calamity have been plagued by uncertainty. The U.S. Gov-ernment–appointed team of scientists—the Flow Rate Techni-cal Group—estimated that a total of 4.9 million barrels of oil was released from the Macondo well,1 though an independent study suggested that the amount was between 4.16 and 6.24 million barrels (Crone and Tolstoy 2010). According to British Petroleum’s (BP) records, approximately 1.8 million gallons2 1 “U.S. Scientific Teams Refine Estimates of Oil Flow from BPs Well Prior to Capping”, August 2, 2010, http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/08/02/us-scientific-teamsrefine-estimates-oil-flow-bps-well-prior-capping

2 “One Year Later Press Pack”, April 4, 2011,http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2011/04/10/one-year-later-press-pack

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 333

of dispersant was applied at the site of the leak, as well as the sea surface, though the validity of this amount has been ques-tioned. Complex oceanographic processes have made it diffi-cult to determine the current and future distribution of these substances from the surface to the sea floor and the duration of their persistence in the marine environment. With no clear picture yet, there is no immediate answer to questions concern-ing short- and long-term impacts on habitats and marine or-ganisms in the path of this disaster.

Uncertainty regarding the extent of damage to the Gulf of Mexico and the capacity for species and associated markets to recover is particularly troubling for commercial fisheries. Though it is difficult to predict the impacts of an oil spill of this magnitude on the future of fisheries in the region, we can infer possible effects by investigating broader patterns. This study presents an analysis of the prespill spatial distribution of com-mercial fisheries catch and landed value in the Gulf of Mexico LME relative to the postspill fisheries closure in an effort to evaluate potential economic losses.

MethodsTo understand the ecological and economic implications

of fisheries on a global scale, the Sea Around Us Project in the Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia has developed and maintains databases of spatially allocated fisher-ies data (Watson et al. 2004; Pauly 2007; Sumaila et al. 2007). These global databases of catch and corresponding landed val-ue were utilized in this study. Commercial landings statistics, reported to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organi-zation (FAO) by national (e.g., National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration [NOAA]) fisheries management enti-ties, include the taxonomic identity of the catch, the reporting year, the country reporting the catch, as well as the FAO sta-tistical area from which the catch was taken. Compiled catch data extending from 1950 to 2005 have been allocated by the Sea Around Us Project to a system of rectangular spatial cells measuring 0.5° latitude by 0.5° longitude according to a rule-based procedure. Information regarding the biological distri-bution of the reported taxa (including depth and latitudinal limits, proximity to critical habitat, and primary productivity), as well as fishing patterns and access agreements of the report-ing country were used to restrict and prioritize those cells from which the catch was most likely to have originated. This pro-cess enables the production of maps illustrating the catch rate (tons per square kilometer per year) by taxonomic group and region (e.g., exclusive economic zone [EEZ], LME, high seas area) from 1950 to 2005.

Ex-vessel price information (i.e., the price that fishers re-

ceive when they sell their catch) has been compiled accord-ing to taxa, year, and country and assigned to all landings re-cords in the global catch database. To allow comparisons across countries, prices were converted to U.S. dollars for all years

using official currency exchange rates and converted to real values using consumer price index (CPI) data. Prices were then multiplied by spatially allocated landings data to facilitate the visualization of spatial and temporal trends in landed value.

For the purpose of this study, the catch and landed value databases were queried to investigate recent patterns in the Gulf of Mexico LME. For each of the 606 spatial cells within this LME, average annual taxon-specific total catch and land-ed value was computed for the period extending from 2000 to 2005. The location of the fisheries closure (as of July 22, 2010) in relation to georeferenced average annual catch and landed value was investigated to provide clues regarding potential eco-nomic losses to commercial fisheries in the region (Figure 1). Spatial cells were proportionally allocated to six zones (i.e., the commercial fisheries closure within the United States EEZ, the remaining portion of the U.S. EEZ open to commercial fish-ing, the Mexican EEZ, the Cuban EEZ, and two high seas ar-eas), and total catch and landed value statistics were computed for each. Additionally, the average annual catch and landed value of the five most valuable species in the U.S. EEZ dur-ing 2000–2005 (i.e., brown shrimp [Farfantepenaeus aztecus], white shrimp [Litopenaeus setiferus], blue crab [Callinectes sapi-dus], Gulf menhaden [Brevoortia patronus], and Eastern oyster [Crassostrea virginica]) were calculated for each zone (Table 1). Detailed data for each spatial cell used in this analysis are avail-able on the Sea Around Us Project website.3 Discrepancies be-tween annual catch and landed value statistics reported here and those reported by national fisheries management entities likely result from over- or underallocation to spatial cells as well as differences in pricing methodologies.

Results and DiscussionOver 100 species of fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and oth-

er invertebrates, primarily inhabiting the highly productive continental shelf area, are commercially fished in the Gulf of Mexico. During 2000 to 2005, total annual reported commer-cial landings within the entire LME averaged approximately 850,000 tons, producing approximately US$1.38 billion in annual landed value (Table 1). The largest proportion of this catch and landed value (77% and 74%, respectively) originat-ed within the 200 nautical mile limit of the U.S. EEZ, followed by landings and associated landed value within Mexican wa-ters (22% and 26%, respectively; Figure 1). The composition of the total annual catch within the LME was dominated by Gulf menhaden (52%), and the remaining annual catch came from Eastern oysters (13%), brown shrimp (5%), white shrimp (4%), and blue crab (4%). Due to high consumer demand and associated prices, landings of brown and white shrimp generat-ed the greatest landed value (17% and 16% of the annual total within the LME, respectively), followed by blue crab (15%), Gulf menhaden (12%), and Eastern oysters (8%; Table 1).

3 http://www.seaaroundus.org

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 334

On May 2, 2010, twelve days following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as the states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, began to declare portions of federal and state waters closed to commercial fish-ing in an effort to protect seafood safety and ensure consumer confidence.4 As of July 22, 2010, over 10% of the total surface area of the Gulf of Mexico LME and approximately 24% of the U.S. Gulf EEZ and territorial state waters were closed to commercial fishing operations. During 2000 to 2005, habitats located within the boundaries of the closed area yielded com-mercial catches comprising approximately 17% of the total an-nual tonnage and 18% of the total annual value of reported landings within the Gulf of Mexico LME (Figure 1).

The visible extent of the oil spill and resultant closures indicates that consequences will be greatest for U.S. fisheries. On average, 22% of the annual U.S. commercial catch in the 4 http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/deepwater_horizon_oil_spill.htm

Gulf and 24% of the corresponding annual landed value were derived from the area closed to fishing, representing a poten-tial minimum annual loss of $247 million. Though the major-ity of U.S. catch within the boundaries of the fisheries closure was composed of Gulf menhaden, landings of brown and white shrimp generated the greatest value (12% of the annual U.S. total in the Gulf), followed by blue crabs (4%), Gulf menha-den (3%), and eastern oysters (1%; Table 1). Economically valuable invertebrate fisheries may be most at risk due to the fact that relatively sessile, benthic organisms are likely to suffer higher initial rates of mortality and exhibit long recovery times as a result of exposure to oil-saturated habitats compared to more mobile fish species (Teal and Howarth 1984; Carls et al. 2001; Culbertson et al. 2007, 2008a).

This study does not pretend to address the full range of biological and economic consequences of the Deepwater Ho-rizon oil spill on fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. It is assumed here that the effects of the spill will be confined spatially to

Figure 1. Spatial distribution of the average (2000–2005) annual landed value of reported commercial fisheries catches in the Gulf of Mexico LME. The area closed to commercial fishing (including both federal and state within the U.S. EEZ as of July 22, 2010) accounts for approximately 18% of the total value of landings within the LME. The remainder of the U.S. EEZ still open to fishing accounts for 56%, and Mexican waters account for 26% of total landed value. Less than 0.1% of the annual landed value is derived from the two high seas areas and Cuban waters.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 335

the extent of the fisheries closures within U.S. waters and will only last one year. However, the Gulf of Mexico LME is a hy-drographically dynamic system, and the existence of a large subsurface oil plume provides evidence that impacts are likely to extend beyond the visible surface boundaries (Camilli et al. 2010). Most marine organisms, including those mentioned here, exhibit daily and seasonal, small- and large-scale migrations both laterally and vertically. Species may be directly impacted by physical contact with contaminants, as well as indirectly af-fected via the fouling of important nursery and spawning habi-tats and trophic interactions (Jackson et al. 1989; Peterson et al. 2003). The ability of critical coastal habitats, including salt marshes and mangroves, to act as long-term reservoirs of oil due to buried hydrocarbon deposits can extend exposure and subse-quent biological recovery times by up to 40 years (Culbertson et al. 2007, 2008a, 2008b). The capacity of habitats and species to recover from the effects of oil, methane, and dispersants may have already been compromised due to preexisting sources of stress, including nutrient-laden freshwater discharge from the Mississippi River resulting in periodic oxygen-depleted “dead zones” (O’Connor and Whitall 2007; Rabalais et al. 2007), as well as bycatch and habitat destruction due to extensive trawl-ing (Vidal-Hernandez and Pauly 2004; Wells et al. 2004). Ad-ditionally, impacts on ecosystems and reductions in the quantity and quality of fisheries resources translate to a variety of eco-nomic impacts, including losses in revenue, profit, wages, and jobs. Therefore, the possible future loss to commercial fisheries in the United States is suggested as a minimum estimate and provides a preliminary perspective given pre–oil spill trends. This analysis includes only reported commercial landings; ille-gal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing as well as lucra-tive recreational fishing is not considered.

Despite limitations associated with the spatial resolution of the databases, this study indicates that the oil spill is clearly impacting an area of crucial economic importance within the Gulf of Mexico. Continued analyses such as those presented here should shed light on an uncertain future.

AcknowledgementsThis contribution is part of the Sea Around Us Project, a collabo-

ration between the Pew Environmental Group and the University of British Columbia.

ReferencesAdams, C. M., E. Hernandez, and J. C. Cato. 2004. The economic

significance of the Gulf of Mexico related to population, income, employment, minerals, fisheries and shipping. Ocean & Coastal Management 47:565–580.

Camilli, R., C. M. Reddy, D. R. Yoerger, B. A. S. Van Mooy, M. V. Jakuba, J. C. Kinsey, C. P. McIntyre, S. P. Sylva, and J. V. Malo-ney. 2010. Tracking hydrocarbon plume transport and biodegra-dation at Deepwater Horizon. Science Express 330:201–204

Carls, M. G., M. M. Babcock, P. M. Harris, G. V. Irvine, J. A. Cu-sick, and S. D. Rice. 2001. Persistence of oiling in mussel beds after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Marine Environmental Research 51:167–190.

Crone, T. J., and M. Tolstoy. 2010. Magnitude of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil leak. Science 330:634.

Culbertson, J. B., I. Valiela, Y. S. Olsen, and C. M. Reddy. 2008a. Effect of field exposure to 38-year-old residual petroleum hy-drocarbons on growth, condition index, and filtration rate of the ribbed mussel, Geukensia demissa. Environmental Pollution 154:312–319.

Culbertson, J. B., I. Valiela, E. E. Peacock, C. M. Reddy, A. Carter, and R. VanderKruik. 2007. Long-term biological effects of petro-leum residues on fiddler crabs in salt marshes. Marine Pollution

TABLE 1. Average (2000–2005) annual commercial fisheries catch and landed value by zone within the Gulf of Mexico LME, including total and taxa-specific estimates (BS = brown shrimp, WS = white shrimp, BC = blue crab, GM = Gulf menhaden, EC = Eastern oyster).

Catch (1,000 tons) Landed value (US$1,000,000)

Zone Area (1,000 km2)

Total BS WS BC GM EO Total BS WS BC GM EO

U.S., open

550 513 29 25 20 343 51 767 175 152 134 126 47

U.S., closed

167 147 10 10 6 93 16 247 57 64 39 34 15

Mexico 741 191 1 1 6 9 45 358 5 3 29 3 45

Cuba 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

High Seas

36 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Total LME

1,550 852 40 35 32 445 111 1,376 219 219 202 163 106

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 336

Bulletin 54:955–962. Culbertson, J. B., I. Valiela, M. Pickart, E. E. Peacock, and C. M. Red-

dy. 2008b. Long-term consequences of residual petroleum on salt marsh grass. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1284–1292.

Jackson, J. B. C., J. D. Cubit, B. D. Keller, V. Batista, K. Burns, H. M. Caffey, R. L. Caldwell, S. D. Garrity, C. D. Getter, C. Gonzalez, H. M. Guzman, K. W. Kaufman, A. H. Knap, S. C. Levings, M. J. Marshall, R. Steger, R. C. Thompson, and E. Weil. 1989. Eco-logical effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian coastal marine communities. Science 243:37–44.

Pauly, D. 2007. The Sea Around Us Project: Documenting and com-municating global fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems. Am-bio 34:290–295.

Peterson, C. H., S. D. Rice, J. W. Short, D. Esler, J. L. Bodkin, B. E. Ballachey, and D. B. Irons. 2003. Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302:2082–2086.

Sherman, K., and G. Hempel, editors. 2008. The UNEP Large Ma-rine Ecosystem Report: a perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the world’s regional seas. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 182, United Nations Environment Programme,

Nairobi, Kenya.Sumaila, R., A. D. Marsden, R. Watson, and D. Pauly. 2007. A global

ex-vessel fish price database: construction and applications. Jour-nal of Bioeconomics 9:39–51.

Teal, J. M., and R. W. Howarth. 1984. Oil spill studies: a review of ecological effects. Environmental Management 8:27–44.

Vidal-Hernandez, L., and D. Pauly. 2004. Integration of subsystem models as a tool toward describing feeding interactions and fish-eries impacts in a large marine ecosystem, the Gulf of Mexico. Ocean and Coastal Management 47:709–725.

Watson, R., A. Kitchingman, A. Gelchu, and D. Pauly. 2004. Map-ping global fisheries: sharpening our focus. Fish and Fisheries 5:168–177.

Wells, R. J. D., J. H. Cowan, and W. F. Patterson. 2008. Habitat use and the effect of shrimp trawling on fish and invertebrate com-munities over the northern Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65:1610–1619.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 337

Crossroad Blues: An Intersection of Rivers, Wetlands, and Public Policy

Column: COMMENTARY: SCIENCE POLICY

Marlis R. DouglasIllinois Natural History Survey, Institute for Natural Resource Sustainabil-ity, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois, 61820, USA

Yuriy V. Slyn’koLaboratory of Evolutionary Ecology, I.D. Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, Russia

Steven KohlU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, International Conservation Division, Russia/East Asia Branch, Arlington, Virginia, 22203, USA

Charles R. LaneU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Develop-ment, Ecosystems Research Branch, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268, USA

Elena E. Slyn’koLaboratory of Evolutionary Ecology, I.D. Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, Russia

Michael E. DouglasIllinois Natural History Survey, Institute for Natural Resource Sustainabil-ity, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA, and Labora-tory of Evolutionary Ecology, I.D. Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, Russia

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly designated 2010 as the“International Year of Biodiversity” (IYB; http://www.cbd.int/2010),during which conservation biologists, re-source managers, and policy makers would gauge global prog-ress toward the “2010 Biodiversity Target” (http://www.cbd.int/2010-target). These results will, it is hoped, promote in-novative global regulations to slow biodiversity declines, espe-cially within freshwater ecosystems (Vörösmarty et al. 2010). The IYB concluded with the Biodiversity Summit (Nagoya, Japan), where approximately 200 countries agreed to protect genes, species, habitats, and ecosystem services (http://www.cbd.int/cop10/doc/).However, translating the 20 identified “Aichi targets” into lingua franca for policymakers, much less funding them by 2020, may be difficult to achieve. A detailed funding plan, for instance, will be derived in 2012 at the next convention summit (New Delhi, India). Yet, considerable eco-nomic turmoil has occurred since the close of the Biodiversity Summit, particularly in Japan, a country that initially pledged $2 billion in support of these endeavors (Normile 2010). Also, participating countries agreed in 2002 to alleviate poverty and benefit life on Earth by significantly reducing national, regional, and global biodiversity losses in the coming decade. These goals were never met(http://gbo3.cbd.int/), a situation that does not bode well for the 2020 targets, which include key provisions such as recognition of genetic resources, as well as

traditional biodiversity targets such as species or their habitats (Normile 2010).

The protection of genes, species, habitats, and ecosystems was highlighted recently at the Third International Sympo-sium on Ecology and Biodiversity in Large Rivers of North-east Asia and North America (http://yosemite.epa.gov/nerl/nerlreg.nsf/EventInfo!OpenForm), sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Protec-tion Agency (USEPA), Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee (LMRCC), and Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association (MICRA). It convened Chinese, Russian, and North Ameri-can aquatic biologists, wetland managers, and hydraulic engi-neers to discuss conservation and management of large rivers and their associated natural resources and to absorb the unique riverine culture of the Memphis region. The conference built upon two previous international symposia conducted over an 8-year span: Khabarovsk, Russia (2002), and Harbin, People’s Republic of China (2006).

At the close of the symposium, conveners posed the fol-lowing: Given nearly a decade of international engagement, where do we stand on riverine and wetland issues, and in which direction should we proceed? Here, we analogize that perspec-tives from the international symposium should mirror those of the International Biodiversity Summit, particularly given the congruent temporal span of each, their broad international constituency, and a focus on water as an ecosystem service.

Perspectives offered by symposium participants were de-cidedly varied. Most applauded the current trajectory regarding broader linkages among disparate cultures. This was particularly germane with Russian–Chinese relationships along rivers and wetlands dissected by a historically contentious border. Many also praised the blueprint of the conference (i.e., functional

Yet, before pessimistic interpretations are sustained, it may be worthwhile to examine other hypotheses. For example: Are we, as scientists, fixing upon—and then sufficiently translating to the lay public—the most cru-cial of our aquatic conservation issues? Or do we bury them instead within complicated problems, each seri-ous enough to demand correction but none identifying the top five global environmental challenges? Does our incessant (and inherent) overcomplication of issues fa-cilitate the paralysis reflected by global administrators and policy makers?

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 338

characterization of river, riparian, and wetland habitats; their monitoring, remote sensing, and restoration; and management of their unique resources and endangered species).

Consensus with regard to more synthetic issues and future directions was less apparent and served to presage the delibera-tions in Nagoya. There, a lack of resolution on global issues may simply underscore a deficit in political courage or flex-ibility, one that reflects a tapestry whose warp and woof are declining economies, inherent nationalism, and time-tested exploitative ideologies linked with readily obtainable natural resources (particularly as they relate to water).

Yet, before pessimistic interpretations are sustained, it may be worthwhile to examine other hypotheses. For example: Are we, as scientists, fixing upon—and then sufficiently translating to the lay public—the most crucial of our aquatic conserva-tion issues? Or do we bury them instead within complicated problems, each serious enough to demand correction but none identifying the top five global environmental challenges? Does our incessant (and inherent) overcomplication of issues facili-tate the paralysis reflected by global administrators and policy makers? Indeed, we recognize that environmental solutions of-ten pivot upon ideology and economy, but our chronic inabil-ity to adequately condense these in layman’s language merely reinforces the informational disconnect among stakeholders (Aronson et al. 2010).

A good example is “ecosystem services” (ES), defined as the human benefits obtained from ecosystems but with con-sequences stemming from continued ecological degradation (http://islandpress.org/assets/library/27_matoolkit.pdf). Here, water and wetlands provide quintessential ES, but values at-tributed to these vary greatly by nation and culture (Sutherland et al. 2009),to the extent that determining which are integral to global ES is difficult (Aronson et al. 2010). Some (Kremen 2005) have argued that water resources are best managed where resolution is greatest, that is, at local/ regional levels, whereas others (Vörösmarty et al. 2010) suggest a global perspective. Regardless, policy makers are now tasked with converting this natural capital into human economic considerations, despite contemporary but equally inconsistent guidelines (Spangen-berg and Settele 2010).Given these complications, can a glob-al ES policy indeed be implemented? Indeed, serious attempts are made (Perrings et al. 2010).

Other issues also compound translation of science to pol-icy. Evidence-based approaches are essential to address global biodiversity threats, yet it is unclear whether consensus has been reached regarding those most informative. Scientists often speak independently and at length on these issues, but the message remains complicated despite intense collaboration (Sutherland et al. 2009). Anthropogenic drivers (and their solutions) generally involve multiple activities, each of which

impact highly complex biological systems,with consequences that extend beyond a human generation (Underdal 2010). They are inherently difficult to synopsize, yet the scientific community feels obligated to present them in their entirety. By so doing, the target audience(s) and their capacity for as-similation are overestimated. Global climate change is a prime example.

Possibly a more succinct approach should be applied, one that confers for politicians and lay public a series of science-based solutions that are both meaningful and feasible (Olden et al. 2005). Here, achievability is of the essence. For example, three biodiversity conservation priorities have been proposed (Rands et al. 2010): (1) manage biodiversity as a public good, (2) integrate it into decision making at all levels, and (3) pro-mote conditions for its implementation into policy. These are clearly important, yet their facilitation by and large would re-quire a system of global governance not as yet achieved.

The United States (a signatory of the 1993 Kyoto Protocol that failed to ratify it) was an observer rather than bona fide participant at Nagoya. However, aquatic scientists and man-agers could participate but with a mandate to conceptualize pressing issues. International conferences (such as the Third International Symposium on Ecology and Biodiversity in Large Rivers of Northeast Asia and North America) are important, in that they can sharpen perspectives on riverine and wetlands conservation. Concerted efforts must be made to acquire a broad international consensus on those issues impacting aquat-ic ecosystems and to synthesize or abridge these points in (say) a white paper. Alliances that link disparate scientific interest groups—such as the Coalition of Natural Resource Societies (CNRS), of which the American Fisheries Society (AFS) is a part—are quite valuable in this regard but with an eye to-ward unanimity and simplicity that build global consensus and juxtapose well with policymakers. This must be accomplished because the future of humankind will be shaped by policy deci-sions made before the “sun sets at the crossroads.” (This is a ref-erence to the Memphis blues song “Crossroad Blues,” written by Delta Blues singer Robert Johnson. It relates a failed attempt to hitch a ride from an intersection at dusk—its undercurrent for African Americans in the Delta region was the potential for being lynched when in unknown territory after dark. Lyrics are available at: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~music/blues/crb.html.)

ReferencesAronson, J.,J.N. Blignaut, R.S. de Groot, A. Clewell, P.P. Lowry II,

P. Woodworth, R.M. Cowling, D. Renison, J. Farley, C. Fon-taine, D. Tongway, S. Levy, S.J. Milton, O. Rangel, B. Debrincat, and C. Birkinshaw.2010. The road to sustainability must bridge three great divides. Annals of the New York Academy of Sci-ences1185:225–236.

Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8:468–479.

Normile, D. 2010. U.N. biodiversity summit yields welcome and un-

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 339

expected progress. Science 330:742–743. Olden, J.D.,M.R. Douglas, and M.E. Douglas.2005. The human di-

mensions of biotic homogenization. Conservation Biology 19:2036–2038.

Perrings, C., S. Naeem, F. Ahrestani, et al. 2010. Ecosystem services for 2020. Science 330:323–324.

Rands, M.R.W.,W.M. Adams, L. Bennun, S.H.M. Butchart, A. Cle-ments, D. Coomes, A. Entwistle, I. Hodge, V. Kapos, J. P. W. Scharlemann, W.J. Sutherland, and B. Vira.2010. Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329:1298–1303.

Spangenberg, J.H., and J. Settele. 2010. Precisely incorrect? Mon-etising the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Complexity 7:327–337.

Sutherland, W.J.,W.M. Adams, R.B. Aronson, R. Aveling, T.M. Black-burn, S. Broad, G. Ceballos, M. Côté, R.M. Cowling, G.A.B. Da Fonseca, E. Dinerstein, P.J. Ferraro, E. Fleishman, C. Gascon, M. Hunter, Jr., J. Hutton, P. Kareiva, A. Kuria, D.W. MacDonald, K. MacKinnon, F.J. Madgwick, M.B. Mascia, J. McNeely, E.J. Milner-Gulland, S. Moon, C.G. Morley, S. Nelson, D. Osborn, M. Pai, E.C.M. Parsons, L.S. Peck, H. Possingham, V. Prior, A.S. Pullin, M.R.W. Rand, J. Ranganathan, K.H. Redford, J.P. Rodri-guez, F. Seymour, J. Sobel, N. Sodhi, A. Stott, K. Vance-Borland, and A.R. Watkinson.2009.One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. Conservation Biology 23:557–567.

Underdal, A. 2010. Complexity and challenges of long-term environ-mental governance. Global Environmental Change 20:386–393.

Vörösmarty, C. J., P. B. McIntyre, M. O. Gessner, D. Dudgeon, A. Pru-sevich, P. Green, S. Glidden, S. E. Bunn, C. A. Sullivan, C. R. Liermann,and P. M. Davies. 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467:555–561.

From the ArchivesJacobi was a man of commanding stature and fine personal appearance. He died, aged seventy-five years, on the 22nd of April, 1774, his widow surviving until 1805. He left twelve children, the eldest of whom, Gerlach Ferdinand Jacobi, inherited the estate, and, up to his death, in 1825, continued the fish-breeding industries which had been established by his father. The “Fa-ther of Fish Culture” was, in the opinion of Dr. Hapke, one of the most important scientific investigators of the age in which he lived. A pupil of the renowned Christian Wolf, the disciple of Leibnitz, the predecessor of Kant, he was trained in the best methods of the mathematicians and natural philosophers of his day and nation. He was unfortunate in being ahead of his time. He was a citizen of one of the smallest of the, at that time, infinitesimally small German provinces, and was in his prime of life with the Seven Years’ War occurred [1756-1763], and when the social and scientific development of Germany was re-tarded by internal dissensions. He appreciated the full scientific and practical import of his discovery and lost no opportunity to make it public and to introduce it into general usefulness. He himself published papers in various periodicals, and was in constant correspondence with the chief naturalist of Germany and France, like Buffon, Lacepede, Fourcroy and Gleditsch, while also encouraging others to give publicity through the press to the methods and results of his labors. A contemporary biographer wrote: ‘By reason of his discovery of the method of artificially fertilizing the eggs of fish, as well as many useful discoveries in physics and mechanics, he was well known to the academies of Berlin and St. Petersburgh, as well as within the narrower limits of his own fatherland.” He was so well known throughout the country that a letter sent to him from the American Colonies sometime between 1760 and 1770, and addressed to The Trout Culturists Jacobi, Germany, passed safely to his address.

Prof. G. Brown Goode, Tenth Annual Meeting, American Fish Cultural Association, 1881

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 340

New AFS Members

Morgan BancroftJennifer BlairJohn BratteyMatt BrownLewis BrownJason BuehlerMark CapelliAndrea CareyKristina Cervantes-YoshidaEthan CrawfordKendyl CrawfordMarcos De JesusChristoff FurinSteven GambickiIngrid HofmasterChad KetchamCarly KnoellBenjamin KochSarah KoskeMaurice Langlois

Troy LaughlinWai Lam LeungSean LewandoskiMichelle LoquineJames LoseeBrandon MarionChristopher MooreAlexander NagrodskiPilar NelsonDarold PerryJohn RansomJudith RatcliffeJames SimonsTracy SzelaKathryn VallisTerry VelazquezChristopher WalkerMichael WertKazuki YokouchiOswald Zachariah

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 341

Interview: ROAR SANDODDEN

The Tackle Box—15 Questions with Roar Sandodden

Roar Sandodden is a new member of the American Fisher-ies Society (AFS), as well as one of the newest science editors for Fisheries. Based 45 km north of Norway’s city of Trondheim (the first capital of Norway and where he was born and raised), Sandodden is a biologist with the National Veterinary Insti-tute in the Section for Environmental and Biosecurity Mea-sures (Veterinærinstituttet-Seksjon for miljø-og smittetiltak, http://www.vetinst.no). The area most important to his work is in the fisheries industry.

Fisheries:What’s your biggest focus right now concerning fisheries?

Sandodden:Much of my work is in the field doing planning and per-

forming and leading the eradication of Gyrodactylus salaris–infected Atlantic salmon and other introduced species, such as the signal crayfish, the rudd, the northern pike, and differ-ent kinds of carp, and some of the same species that are used in aquariums. Some of them we have naturally, but they are moved to other places in the country that aren’t naturalized to them. Others come from central Europe. Argument for do-ing eradication is that in almost every instance, these species either destroy the native populations or the water quality or they carry diseases.

Fisheries:What’s the biggest priority when trying to pass legislation?

Sandodden:We have a huge problem with the parasite G. salaris. Ro-

tenone is somewhat controversial here because it is a chemical. When we apply it to a river, all the fish die. But the parasite kills the wild stock of salmon, too. We’re looking at survival rates of 2 to 5% here. So we feel that even though the chemical is very controversial to use, it’s worth it.

Fisheries:Norway is known for being such an ecologically minded

country. Doesn’t this pose problems for you where chemicals are concerned?

Sandodden:In Norway, we do a lot of eradications and to explain that

to our environmental organizations and as to why we do it, and that it’s needed to conserve biodiversity—it can be difficult to pass along that message. Working within the ecological com-ponents, the hearing, the bureaucracy, etc., some of our legisla-tion is quite time consuming. In the end, of course, a focus on ecology is beneficial.

Fisheries:Are G. salaris your biggest parasitic problem?

Sandodden:Yes, but just within the past few years signal crayfish have

be introduced into our waters. They’ve been getting into al-most all European waters, but only four years ago, Estonia and Norway didn’t have them. Now they are everywhere and the noble stock are severely endangered. Eighty percent of noble stock in Sweden has been eradicated because the signal has taken over. Some of the ways they got there were from people putting them in the ponds around the golf course. There are several cabins around the golf courses and people like to stock them with crayfish. They used signal crayfish, because that was easy. They could have crayfish with their wine. They didn’t do it with bad purpose. They didn’t know.

Fisheries:And this is where you began to use—and have great suc-

cess with—Betamax VET?

Sandodden:Yes. We thought about using rotenone. However, the cray-

fish are so intolerant that we have to use large amounts. Also, rotenone has a very specific use to kill G. salaris. Very specific and very well documented. Plus, you don’t have to use a lot. Betamax is the better choice when killing crayfish, whilst rote-none is a superior piscicide.

Fisheries:Switching the subject—How is the idea of catch and re-

lease catching on in your country?

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 342

Sandodden:I wouldn’t say it is big yet—not like in the States. Al-

though it is practiced in more and more rivers, it’s very diffi-cult to explain to the old traditional Norwegian fisherman that when you catch the salmon, you have to put it back and not eat it.

Fisheries:What do you think American fisheries could do better that

Norway already does?

Sandodden:I don’t know American fisheries well. I have been to the

AFS conference. I attended the one in San Francisco. I was very impressed with this conference. The talks were very in-teresting and there was a wide variety of topics. Obviously, America is a large country with lot of different species of fish. It’s impressive to see the quality and variety of fish. When it comes to the use of rotenone, I guess there are a lot of different legislations in different states. Some states can use it with no problem, but in other states—for example, California—there are a lot of problems associated with it, even if the meaning is very good.

Fisheries:Why did you become a member of AFS?

Sandodden:The quality of the journals. They cover a lot of the topics

we work with in my office. To get access to the journals was very important for me, for us.

Fisheries:What’s your preference for fishing spots?

Sandodden:I like to fish in the mountains when I’m home, in small

streams and small waters, lakes. I’m more and more concerned about the trip and being in the woods and mountains. I enjoy the silence and tranquility in the mountains.

Fisheries:Where is the best place to fish in Norway?

Sandodden:If you want to catch salmon, two places: the Trondheims-

fjord and the Alta River. Ice fishing—you have to go to either the mountains in Trøndelag County or Troms County, where you can ice fish large Arctic chars and also trout.

Fisheries:What’s your dream catch?

Sandodden:To go to Russia and catch a large sturgeon—to be realistic,

100 kilos.

Fisheries:If you could fish anywhere in the world you have not yet

visited, where would you go and what would you catch?

Sandodden:Sea-run Arctic char in Iceland. I don’t fish a lot any more.

I fish mostly with the chemicals.

Fisheries:What do you do when you aren’t fishing with chemicals?

Sandodden:I hunt moose and roe deer and seals and mountain hares

and capercaillie and goose and—well, I spend the most of my time hunting for hares. I have a dog which I use to hunt moun-tain hares. The dog’s name is Ante, named after a famous Lap-pish boy, a reindeer herder that was on TV when I was younger.

Fisheries:I understand you’re married with two kids. Do your kids go

with you to hunt and fish?

Sandodden:I have a daughter who is five and a boy who is two. And

yes, they do. My daughter was joining me when she was under 1 year old. I dragged her along in a ski pulk, and she was sleeping tight while I was hunting and fishing.

Fisheries:What’s in your tackle box?

Sandodden:I don’t fly-fish a lot, but my favorite way of fishing is like

the old-timers do. I use a worm and a sink. I can sit on the bank, relax, and watch the tip on my rod. I often have my drink with me—black coffee with moonshine. Moonshine that’s made from sugar and yeast and just distilled. Actually, it’s not allowed, but all around Norway, people are still doing it. And, no, I don’t make it myself. Some bad friends make it for me!

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 343

Seattle Meeting UpdateAMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY 141ST ANNUAL MEETING Seattle, Washington • September 4–8, 2011

American Fisheries Society (AFS) 2011 meeting participants can sign up for one or more field trips that will showcase the diverse fisheries research and conservation efforts that are currently underway in the region. Eight unique tours lasting 3 to 11 hours each will feature an eclectic mix of innovative projects and facilities that support regional efforts to protect and man-age our fisheries and aquatic resources. The tours will be led by knowledgeable local biologists and managers who are directly involved in the featured projects. As an added bonus, tour participants will enjoy some of the beautiful natural scenery for which the Pacific Northwest is justifiably famous.

Please note that registration for the 2011 AFS tours is on a first come, first served basis; you will need to follow the link on the registration page (http://tours.afs2011.org/) to sign up and pay for the tour(s) in which you want to participate. Guests are welcome! Tours are scheduled on the weekend (September 3–4) prior to the meeting and on the Friday (September 9) following the meeting. This is a great way to enjoy your extended trip to Seattle! Tour costs cover bus transportation and, for the longer trips, a box lunch. The number of seats available for each tour is limited, so don’t delay in making your reservation.

The available tours include the following:

Seattle Tours and Field Trips You Won’t Want to Missby Carl Ostberg and Jeff Duda

Nisqually River Estuary Restora-tion Project and Wildlife Refuge Date: Saturday, September 3, 2011Trip time: 7.0 hoursMaximum number of participants: 50Location: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, out-side of Olympia, WACost: $40

Come see the rebirth of a large estuary in southern Puget Sound. In October 2009, 5 miles of dikes were removed and 762 acres of the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge was reconnected to the tidal influence of Puget Sound. This field trip will provide an overview of the Nisqually River estuary restoration project, a top priority for the re-covery of federally threatened Chinook salmon within the Nisqually watershed. Additional time will be built into the tour for your discovery of the refuge, a regional hotspot for bird watching and nature hikes.

Issaquah Salmon Hatchery and Stream Restoration Projects Date: Sunday, September 4, 2011Trip time: 5.5 hoursMaximum number of participants: 50Location: Issaquah, WA Cost: $35

Serving as a public educational facility, the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery and its Watershed Science Center is a popular destination. The Watershed Science Center hosts over 400,000 visitors annually, educating visitors on na-tive salmon and steelhead. Guests can experience salmon up close through two large adult salmon viewing platforms and viewing windows along with interactive exhibits. We will also visit two restoration sites on Issaquah Creek that highlight restoration of salmon habitat within an urban-ized setting.

Taylor Shellfish Farms Hatchery on Hood Canal TourDate: Sunday, September 4, 2011Trip time: 7.0 hoursMaximum number of participants: 45Location: Dabob Bay Hatchery, Quilcene, WACost: $60

On this tour, you’ll visit Taylor Shellfish Farms hatchery and tidelands in beautiful Dabob Bay on Hood Canal, one of the largest and most productive hatcheries on the West Coast. At this facility, the focus is on oyster, mussel, and clam production, in partnership with other Taylor nursery and production facilities in south Puget Sound, California, and Hawaii. The hatchery manager will cover conditioning broodstock, larval spawning and rearing, and extensive water quality monitoring activities. Operating a hatchery on the West Coast has many challenges, including mortality from Vibrio bacteria and increasing chal-lenges related to ocean acidification.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 344

Title: Salmon Recovery in the Upper Yakima BasinDate: Friday, September 9, 2011Trip time: 9 hoursMaximum number of participants: 25Location: Cle Elum, WA Cost: $15

Head over to the east side of the Cascade Mountain range to learn about new approaches for salmon restora-tion. This field trip will focus on many facets of salmon re-covery in the Yakima Basin, including visits to the Yakama Nation’s Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Facil-ity, two restoration projects designed to improve spawning and rearing opportunities for juvenile salmon, and the Cle Elum Dam. Viewing of salmon spawning in the Yakima River and discussions with project biologists and engineers about providing passage for sockeye salmon on the Cle Elum Dam will be highlighted.

Title: Physical Hydraulic Modeling Laboratory Date: Friday, September 9, 2011Trip time: 3 hoursMaximum number of participants: 35Location: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), Seattle Physical Modeling Laboratory, SeaTac, WACost: $20

Physical hydraulic modeling provides an effective means to evaluate and refine complex hydraulic designs. NHC operates a 12,000 ft2 physical hydraulic modeling laboratory where scale models of diversions, screening facilities, tailrace barriers, spillways, upstream and down-stream fish passage structures, and other outlet works are tested and their designs are refined. The laboratory pro-vides hands-on experience for biologists and engineers to evaluate fisheries projects before they are implemented in the field. The lab tour will include demonstrations of a variety of ongoing model studies in the laboratory.

Algae culture bags, Taylor Shellfish Hatchery, Seattle

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 345

Title: Cedar River Municipal Water-shed: Bull Trout Ecology Refuge, Fish Passage, and Habitat Restora-tion

Date: Friday, September 9, 2011Trip time: approximately 8 hoursMaximum number of participants: 30Location: Cedar River Municipal Watershed, Cedar Falls to Landsburg, WA Cost: $65

Tour the source of the water you will drink while at-tending the AFS conference in Seattle. The Cedar River Municipal Watershed, a major source of Seattle’s high-quality drinking water supply, is closed to unsupervised public access. The trip will be led by Seattle Public Utili-ties ecologists and will focus on bull trout ecology in the reservoir/tributary system, habitat restoration, and the recent recolonization of the upper Cedar River by anadro-mous salmonids after passage over Landsburg Dam. Come and hear about the challenges of salmonid conservation in an altered and restricted ecosystem.

Title: Baker River Hydro Project: Fish Passage & Propagation Facili-ties Date: Friday, September 9, 2011Trip time: 11.5 hoursMaximum number of participants: 90Location: Baker Dam, WA Cost: $50

Puget Sound Energy has long been at the forefront of deep-reservoir fish passage development with its Baker River Hydroelectric Project, work that has earned the utility national awards for technological innovation and resource stewardship. Native sockeye salmon, on the brink of extinction in the mid-1980s, now return to the river in record numbers. The tour will visit a floating surface collector, a recently renovated upstream passage facil-ity below Lower Baker Dam, and newly constructed fish propagation facilities. Tour participants will also follow a half-mile boardwalk on the Shadow of the Sentinels Interpretive Trail through an ancient grove that boasts 700-year-old evergreens. This tour is being coordinated by the AFS BioEngineering section and is associated with various bioengineering-related symposia.

Title: Elwha River Dam Removal Date: Friday, September 9, 2011Trip time: 10 hoursMaximum number of participants: 45Location: Olympic National Park Cost: $65

Come and see the final days of the Elwha River dams! On September 17, 2011, the long-awaited deconstruction of the Elwha River dams will begin. Billed as the largest dam removal project in the nation’s history, the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams have been in place since 1912 and 1923, respectively. Dam removal will provide anadromous fish access to nearly pristine wilderness habitat inside of Olympic National Park. The tour will include discussions with scientists working on various ecological and fisheries studies. Multiple stops are planned, including river access inside Olympic National Park, the Elwha Dam, the larg-est resistance board floating weir on the West Coast, and the mouth of the river where it enters the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

From the ArchivesThis problem is one of great interest, both to the biolo-gist, and the fish culturist -- it is in fact this one disputed point still remaining to be unsolved. Upon its solution appear to depend the final decision of the question still so warmly debated both in Europe and America. “Do eels breed in fresh water only, in salt water only, or in both fresh and salt water.” As has already been stated, the theory for a long time generally accepted, is that the eels are “catadromous” descending to the sea to spawn. This theory is, however, sharply contested by many ob-servers, chief among whom on this side of the Atlantic is the Hon. Robert B. Roosevelt, President of the Ameri-can Fish Cultural Association. It appears probably to the writer that the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes, and that it will be hereafter ascertained that the eel, like a majority of other animals, has flexible hab-its, sometimes deviating from its ordinary custom, which appears to be to spawn in salt or brachial water.

Prof. G. Brown Goode, Tenth Annual Meeting, American Fish Cultural Association

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 346

News: UNITS

Idaho Chapter Holds Annual Meeting in BoiseDmitri Vidergar

The Idaho chapter of the American Fisheries Society held its annual meeting in Boise, Idaho, from March 1 to 4. The Aquaculture Committee organized a well-attended premeet-ing workshop focusing on hatchery bio-security. The plenary session was titled “Native Peoples Fisheries: Perspectives on Past, Present and Future” and was organized by the chapter’s President Elect Jason Vogel. Over 300 fisheries professionals and students enjoyed a range of talks and posters from sessions including anadromous fish management; chinook salmon ecol-ogy and management; steelhead ecology and management; na-tive fish ecology; and management, education, and methods. The third annual “spawning run” enticed 50 participants and the Fundraising Committee broke new records at the banquet, raising funds to support the chapter’s many projects.

The Idaho chapter is strengthened by strong involvement of two student subunits and eight committees. Individuals rec-ognized for their contributions toward the fisheries profession included Jack Siple: Excellence in Aquaculture; Bryan Grant, Tarah Johnson, and Vaughn Paragamian: Distinguished Ser-vice Award; Paddy Murphy and Jim Gregory: Outstanding Professional Award; Mick Hoover and Ernest Keeley: Award of Merit; Kevin Meyer: Outstanding Mentor of the Year; and Sue Ireland: R.L. Wallace Native Fish Conservation Award. Others were awarded scholarships, including Kendra Graber, Katie McBaine, Matt Green, and Amy Long. Recipients of top presentation awards included Joe Chapman, Alex Urquhart, Kelly Stockton, and June Johnson.

The chapter’s Executive Committee welcomes its newest members, Joe Dupont, vice president; Bill Horton, secretary/treasurer; and Mary Faurot, nominations chair.

Please join us for next year’s meeting in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, March 7–9. The meeting will begin with workshops on March 5–6.

Artwork from the Idaho chapter 2011 annual meeting.

Presentation of Susan B. Martin Scholarship to Amy Long from Don Martin and Lauri Monnot.

Past President Jim Fredericks and President Ernest Keeley.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 347

Presenting Paddy Murphy with one of the Outstanding Professional Awards.

Presenting Jack Siple with the Excellence in Aquaculture Award.

The poster session featuring 28 posters.

New Idaho chapter EXCOM members (from left) Bill Horton, secretary/treasurer; Mary Faurot, nominations chair; and Joe Dupont, vice presi-dent.

From the ArchivesAs a rule, all large cod caught in harbors in shoal water are sick. On the 24th of June, 1880, one was taken in Port Mulgrave, Yakutat Bay, that measured 34 ¼ inches in length, and was stout and heavy, but sick and unfit for food. The gills were not bright red as in a healthy fish, but dull and faded; the colors of the body were also dull. Numerous parasites were present externally, and the abdominal viscera were infested with worms. A very unpleasant odor came from the belly when it was opened. On the 2nd of July, in Chugachik Bay, Cook’s Inlet, three large cod were caught from the vessel, all of which were sick, their abdominal viscera being lined with worms and giving off a bad odor, yet the fish were quite heavy. On the 5th of July a healthy cod 28 2-5 inches long, and blind in both eyes, was caught on a hook in Porth Chatham near the entrance to Cook’s Inlet. The fish was en-tirely free from parasites. Its stomach contained only the herring with which the hook was bait-ed. Instead of the transparent aqueous humor in the anterior chamber of the eye, there was an opaque white substance, the result, doubtless, of an old injury.Dr. Tarleton H. Bean, Tenth Annual Meeting, American

Fish Cultural Association, 1881

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 348

The 2010 North Central Division Annual MeetingRandall Schultz, NCD President

The North Central Division (NCD) held its annual meet-ing December 12–15, 2010, at the Hyatt Regency, Minne-apolis, Minnesota, in conjunction with the 71st Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference. The meeting was well attended and successful, despite record snowfall of up to 21.5 inches that collapsed the Metrodome roof and delayed travel. This year’s theme, “Cascading Effects from Earth to Sky” was highlighted by plenary speakers Dr. L. David Mech, who discussed his re-search on the varying effects of wolves, and Dr. Lee Frelich, who detailed how European earthworms create a cascade of changes in ecosystems that affect plants, deer, water quality, and even climate change.

A standing room–only crowd of 50 NCD members attend-ed the business meeting, where American Fisheries Society (AFS) President Wayne Hubert detailed his initiatives for the upcoming year and updated members on the switch from Allen Press to Taylor & Francis for journal publishing, the annual meeting in Seattle, AFS certification, and the two current Pol-icy Statements on climate change and lead in sportfish tackle. The NCD’s award ceremony recognized the Indiana chapter for two awards, Most Active Small Chapter and Best Com-munications, and Lake Superior State University for the most active student subunit. The NCD’s Joan Duffy Student Travel Award was awarded to seven students this year: Justin VanDe-Hey (Dakota chapter); Stephen Jacquemin (Indiana chapter); Weston Fleming (Kansas chapter), Brianne Dunn and Justin Hanisch (mid-Canada chapter), Brenda Pracheil (Nebraska chapter), and Matt Faust (Wisconsin chapter). Twenty-five NCD students were selected as finalists for the Janice Lee Fen-ske Memorial Award, with the Fisheries Award going to Bri-anne Lunn (University of Alberta); Alexander Galt (Ft. Hays State University, Kansas) received the Wildlife Award. A $500 scholarship accompanied each award.

The NCD was very pleased to recognize the contribu-tions of Marion Conover with the 2010 Fisheries Excellence Award for contributions to the AFS, NCD, and fisheries pro-fession throughout his 38-year career. As Iowa fisheries chief from 1992 to retirement in 2008, Marion led efforts to develop the lake restoration program, serving small pond fisheries, sup-porting interstate cooperation on the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, and supervising the formation of Iowa’s Aquatic Inva-sive Species Program. Outside Iowa’s borders, he represented the Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on the National Fish Habitat Partnership Board, providing staff par-ticipation in four habitat partnerships affecting Iowa. Marion served on the American Sportfishing Association’s Future Fish-ermen Foundation Board and maintained a relationship with the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, which has

proven invaluable to the Iowa Department of Natural Re-sources marketing strategy to increase fishing license sales. In addition, he was actively involved in the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, serving on the Angler and Boating Par-ticipation Committee, Fisheries and Water Resources Policy Committee, and Drug Approval Working Group. Additional accomplishments during Marion’s career include participating in the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee; serv-ing as president of the American Fisheries Society Fisheries Administration Section (FAS) from 1995 to 1996; receiving recognition from the FAS for outstanding sport fish to restora-tion projects in research, aquatic education, and development as chief of the Fisheries Bureau; and the Meritorious Service Award for outstanding dedication to interjurisdictional river fisheries issues as chair of the Mississippi Interstate Coopera-tive Resource Association. In retirement Marion continues as a senior fisheries biologist for Allflex USA, Inc., whom he represents in marketing radio-frequency identification devices (PIT tags) for fish and wildlife. Perhaps one of Marion’s great-est legacies will be involvement with Iowa’s Water and Land Legacy Amendment to establish a dedicated trust fund for the purposes of protecting and enhancing water quality and natural areas in the state through a dedicated three-eighths of one per-cent increase in the state sales tax. In short, Marion is a leader in the sustainability of fisheries and natural resources both in spirit and through his actions.

(From left to right) Tim Cross, MN AFS; Brianne Lunn, Fisheries Award Winner; John Loegering, Midwest Student Events Chair; Geoff Steinhart, MI AFS.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 349

2010 Joan Duffy Student Travel Award winners (from left to right): Matt Faust (WI), Weston Fleming (KS), Justin VanDeHey (Dakota chapter), Brenda Pracheil (NE), and Stephen Jacquemin (IN). Not pictured, Brianne Lunn and Justin Hanisch (mid-Canada chapter).

(From left to right) Greg Hoch, MN TWS; Alexander Galt, Wildlife Award Winner; John Loegering, Midwest Student Events Chair.

NCD President Randall Schultz and the Lake Superior State University student subunit members, winners of the 2010 Most Active Student Subunit.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 350

Canadian-Origin Chinook Salmon Rearing in Nonnatal U.S. Tributary Streams of the Yukon River, Alaska. David W. Daum and Blair G. Flannery. 140: 207–220.

Predation and Food Limita-tion Influence Fitness Traits of Growth-Enhanced Transgenic and Wild-Type Fish. Kelly M. Pennington and Anne R. Kapuscin-ski. 140: 220–234.

Using a Genetic Mixture Model to Study Phenotypic Traits: Differential Fecundity among Yukon River Chinook Salmon.

Jeffrey F. Bromaghin, Danielle F. Evenson, Thomas H. McLain, and Blair G. Flannery. 140: 235–249.

[Note] Observation of Atlantic Sturgeon Predation by a Flathead Catfish. H. Jared Flowers, Timothy F. Bonvechio, and Douglas L. Peter-son. 140: 250–252.

Coho Salmon Population Structure in North America Determined from Microsatellites. Terry D. Beacham, Michael Wetklo, Langtuo Deng, and Cathy MacConnachie. 140: 253–270.

Determinants of Fish Assemblage Structure in Northwestern Great Plains Streams. Jason A. Mullen, Robert G. Bramblett, Christopher S. Guy, Alexander V. Zale, and David W. Roberts. 140: 271–281.

Influences of Habitat and Hybridization on the Genetic Structure of Redband Trout in the Upper Snake River Basin, Idaho. Christine C. Kozfkay, Matthew R. Campbell, Kevin A. Meyer, and Daniel J. Schill. 140: 282–295.

[Note] Microsatellite Identification of Canadian Sockeye Salmon Rearing in the Bering Sea. Terry D. Beacham, John R. Candy, Erin Porszt, Shunpei Sato, and Shigehiko Urawa. 140: 296–306.

Neutral and Nonneutral Genetic Markers Revealed the Presence of Inshore and Offshore Stock Components of Atlantic Cod in Green-land Waters. Christophe Pampoulie, Anna Kristín Daníelsdóttir, Marie Storr-Paulsen, Holger Hovgård, Einar Hjörleifsson, and Björn Ævarr Steinarsson. 140: 307–319.

A Multistate Capture–Recapture Modeling Strategy to Separate True Survival from Permanent Emigration for a Passive Integrated Transponder Tagged Population of Stream Fish. Gregg E. Horton, Benjamin H. Letcher, and William L. Kendall. 140: 320–333.

[Note] Growth, Morphology, and Developmental Instability of Rainbow Trout, Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout, and Four Hybrid Generations. C. O. Ostberg, J. J. Duda, J. H. Graham, S. Zhang, K. P. Haywood III, B. Miller, and T. L. Lerud. 140: 334–344.

Estimating Proportional Contributions of Migratory Bull Trout from Hierarchical Populations to Mixed-Stock Recreational Fish-eries Using Genetic and Trapping Data. Will G. Warnock, Jason K. Blackburn, and Joseph B. Rasmussen. 140: 345–355.

Journal Highlights:Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Volume 140, Number 2

Better Catch Curves: Incorporating Age-Specific Natural Mortal-ity and Logistic Selectivity. James T. Thorson and Michael H. Prager. 140: 356–366.

Increasing Regional Temperatures Associated with Delays in At-lantic Salmon Sea-Run Timing at the Southern Edge of the Euro-pean Distribution. A. G. Valiente, F. Juanes, and E. Garcia-Vazquez. 140: 367–373.

The Response to Forced Decompression in Six Species of Pacific Rockfish. Alena L. Pribyl, Michael L. Kent, Steven J. Parker, and Carl B. Schreck. 140: 374–383.

Indications of Continued Overexploitation of Speckled Hind Along the Atlantic Coast of the Southeastern United States. Gabriel L. Ziskin, Patrick J. Harris, David M. Wyanski, and Marcel J. M. Reichert. 140: 384–398.

Quantifying the Extent of and Factors Associated with the Tem-poral Variability of Physical Stream Habitat in Headwater Streams in the Interior Columbia River Basin. Robert Al-Chokhachy, Brett B. Roper, Eric K. Archer, and Scott Miller. 140: 399–414.

Response of Rainbow Trout to Different Food Web Structures in Northern Patagonia: Implications for Growth, Bioenergetics, and Invasiveness. Romina Juncos, Daniela Milano, Patricio J. Macchi, Mar-celo F. Alonso, and Pablo H. Vigliano. 140: 415–428.

Movements of Yearling Chinook Salmon during the First Summer in Marine Waters of Hood Canal, Washington. Joshua W. Cham-berlin, Anna N. Kagley, Kurt L. Fresh, and Thomas P. Quinn. 140: 429–439.

Landscape Models of Adult Coho Salmon Density Examined at Four Spatial Extents. Julie C. Firman, E. Ashley Steel, David W. Jen-sen, Kelly M. Burnett, Kelly Christiansen, Blake E. Feist, David P. Lars-en, and Kara Anlauf. 140: 440–455.

Nonnative Fish Control in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: An Effective Program or Serendipitous Timing? Lewis G. Coggins Jr., Michael D. Yard, and William E. Pine III. 140: 456–470.

Trout Piscivory in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon: Effects of Turbidity, Temperature, and Fish Prey Availability. Michael D. Yard, Lewis G. Coggins Jr., Colden V. Baxter, Glenn E. Bennett, and Josh Kor-man. 140: 471–486.

Effects of Fluctuating Flows and a Controlled Flood on Incubation Success and Early Survival Rates and Growth of Age-0 Rainbow Trout in a Large Regulated River. Josh Korman, Matthew Kaplinski, and Theodore S. Melis. 140: 487–505.

Genetic Structure, Evolutionary History, and Conservation Units of Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States. William R. Ardren, Patrick W. DeHaan, Christian T. Smith, Eric B. Taylor, Robb Leary, Christine C. Kozfkay, Lindsay Godfrey, Matthew Diggs, Wade Freden-berg, Jeffrey Chan, C.William Kilpatrick, Maureen P. Small, and Denise K. Hawkins. 140: 506–525.

[Book Review] Eels at the Edge: Science, Status, and Conservation Concerns, edited by John M. Casselman and David K. Cairns. Gayle Barbin Zydlewski. 140: 526–527.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 351

Student Angle:The Academic Road Less Traveled

Daniel A. JamesGraduate Research Assistant (Ph.D.)South Dakota State UniversityDepartment of Wildlife and Fisheries SciencesUSGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitDaniel.James@sdstate.edu

Fisheries students and professionals have to make impor-tant decisions about their careers from the time they begin higher education until retirement. After high school, decisions are made about which university to attend and, once there, what career path to pursue. If a person decides that a career in fisheries is right for him, choices about how to gain fisheries experience during undergraduate school must be made. Who should a person work for? What kind of experience should a person try to get? Then, after obtaining an undergraduate de-gree, another big decision follows—should a person go to grad-uate school (master’s, Ph.D., or both?) or try to get a job? If a person completes a Ph.D., should he teach, conduct research, or try to do both? For some, these decisions are determined be-fore stepping foot on a college campus. For most of us, though, uncertainty surrounds decisions at each crossroad in our ca-reers.

The Past…Personally, I “knew” my career path about halfway through

my undergraduate years. My plan was to work during the aca-demic year in a fisheries lab for a fisheries professor, gain ex-perience with a state agency as a seasonal technician during the summer, and, after finishing my bachelor’s degree, pursue a master’s degree. After graduate school, my plan was to find a job I enjoyed and make a career of it.

My plan worked. As an undergraduate, I found a fisheries technician job working with graduate students, all the while gaining valuable experience. I found seasonal positions work-ing with coldwater fisheries, which is what I eventually wanted to do. After completing a bachelor’s degree, I found a graduate project researching trout. I was challenged, I learned a lot, and I received a master’s degree. For me, this was the last step of my education before finding a fulfilling job. Well, I found that job working with coldwater fisheries and enjoyed it for 5 years, all the while thinking that my college years were over. I was wrong.

I, like many, had never considered a Ph.D. in high school or during my undergraduate and master’s program. I especial-ly did not consider it after I got the job I always wanted. But somewhere along the road, things changed. I started wanting more out of my job; to understand how things worked or what drove fish production in the systems I worked in. The problem was that I didn’t have a lot of time to work on these things. I

was too busy in my job doing all the fun stuff I liked to do (e.g., electrofishing, stock assessments, writing management plans, public relations). As time passed, that itch to know more grew and eventually led me to another crossroad in my career and another big decision. After working so hard to get where I was, I resigned from my job.

I decided to return to school to pursue a Ph.D. This was not a decision I made lightly, and I knew I would have give up much of what I was used to. I could not work with the coldwa-ter fish in the location I loved anymore. I had to move to a new town and move away from my friends, family, and coworkers. I had to give up my first house and sell it. During a time when several states had hiring freezes and money problems (when I already had a job doing what I loved), I decided to quit, lose my health insurance, end my retirement contributions, and make much less money. Chances were zero that I could get my old job back if I changed my mind.

The AFS Support GroupThe transition from a professional job back to school was

not always smooth. I was concerned about being a little older than the other students and how to adapt to academia after being gone for numerous years. I was afraid of being a little behind in the latest fisheries research and techniques and won-dered how I would catch up. And, quite frankly, the thought of taking classes again just seemed strange. Thankfully, help was just around the corner.

Soon after beginning my graduate program, I joined the American Fisheries Society (AFS) student subunit at my uni-

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 352

versity. The next year, I was elected treasurer and, a year later, president. Because of the involvement in my university’s sub-unit, I developed many relationships with the other students and faculty. These relationships alleviated many of the con-cerns I had by creating a network of support and collaboration at the university. Connections with the subunit led to meeting others at the chapter level of AFS. As president of my subunit, I participated in EXCOM meetings and played a part in the decision-making processes of our AFS chapter. Again, involve-ment in AFS led to an expansion of my professional network. Attending AFS chapter and national meetings also facilitated my meeting other students and professionals as well as learning about new research from all over the world.

Many other types of opportunities are available in the AFS to become involved. Recent “Students’ Angle” articles have discussed ways for students to be involved in various AFS sec-tions such as the student subsection of the Education section (Wuellner and Schneider 2009), the Fisheries Information and Technology section (Colvin and Kopaska 2009), the Equal Opportunities section (DeBruyne 2009), the Genetics section (Duong and Roberts 2010), and the Education section (Har-ris 2009; Chipps 2010). We all know that involvement in the various sections and levels of the AFS has made the transition from student to professional easier for many people in fisheries. What we may not be aware of is that the transition from profes-sional back to student can be smoother because of involvement in AFS.

The Present and Beyond …Some of you might consider leaving a perfectly good job a

bad decision or simply crazy-talk! It turns out that it was not crazy-talk at all. After 2 years into my Ph.D. program, the deci-sion to give up the job I always wanted turned out to be one of the best decisions I have ever made. Most of the things I thought I would have to give up did not disappear. My Ph.D. project involves coldwater fisheries, and now I have the oppor-tunity to research some of those questions I kept asking myself. Those years as a fisheries biologist provided me with insight and experience that makes my Ph.D. pursuit even more satisfy-

ing than if I had went straight through school from an under-graduate or master’s to a doctorate degree. For me, personally, I would not be the same at this point in my professional career if I had missed my biologist years.

We all progress, at one time or another, along various paths during our careers. At each crossroad, we are faced with decisions. Perhaps some of you reading this have considered pursuing a master’s or a Ph.D. but are having trouble finding the courage to make that decision. Should you do it? Nobody can answer that question but you. The decision I made turned out to be an excellent addition to my life. Knowing what I know now, I would have been disappointed if I had not risked a big change just because I was comfortable with where I was at. Robert Frost wrote in his classic poem, “The Road Not Taken,” “… Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— / I took the one less traveled by / And that has made all the difference.” When faced with crossroads in your career, ask yourself what the dif-ference might be if you take the road less traveled.

AcknowledgmentsI thank S. Chipps, M. Colvin, J. Fischer, B. Graeb, and C.

Hayer for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.

ReferencesChipps, S. R. 2010. Greetings from the education section. Fisheries

35(6):292, 295.Colvin, M. E., and J. Kopaska. 2009. The role of the student member

in the AFS fisheries information and technology section. Fisher-ies 34(6):305–306.

DeBruyne, R. L. 2009. Student opportunities within the equal oppor-tunities section. Fisheries 34(10):512–513.

Duong, Y., and J. Roberts. 2010. Reflections on student involvement in the genetics section, the parent society, and beyond. Fisheries 35(4):188–189.

Harris, J. E. 2009. Join the education section: a great way to become involved in AFS! Fisheries 34(4):190–191.

Wuellner, M. R., and K. N. Schneider. 2009. The student subsection of the education section of AFS. Fisheries 34(1):44–45.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 353

Abigail J. LynchPh.D. student, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MichiganE-mail: lynchabi@msu.edu

Climate change is often the subject of scathing headlines and vicious debates, and is unquestionably a highly politicized topic. As a result, discussion of climate management and its relationship to fisheries and aquatic ecosystems is a contentious topic that can often be overwhelming, particularly for a gradu-ate student. When I began my doctoral research at Michigan State University (MSU) on climate change effects to Great Lakes fisheries, the concept of fisheries management was also still quite theoretical and foreign to my way of thinking. I understood that fisheries science could be used to inform and design conservation objectives; but how fisheries management achieved those objectives was a large, black box to me. It re-mained that way for me until I became the 2009-2010 Janice Lee Fenske Excellence in Fisheries Management Fellow.

Jan Fenske was the first female Fisheries Biologist and Dis-trict Fisheries Biologist in the history of the Michigan Depart-ment of Natural Resources (MDNR) Fisheries Division. She is often credited by her mentees and colleagues with changing the workplace culture in this groundbreaking role. Her strong character, confidence, and commitment to aquatic resource management allowed her to overcome internal obstacles with-in MDNR. Jan also overcame external prejudices from stake-holders and partners to become one of the most successful and appreciated fisheries biologists within the agency. “Jan was a trailblazer in fisheries, highly capable in both theory and appli-cation,” according to Dr. William Taylor, my graduate advisor at MSU and a Fenske Fellowship committee member. By shar-ing what she learned from her own career, Jan was a selfless and

Forging New Perspectives of Fisheries Science and Management

passionate mentor to future generations of female fisheries pro-fessionals, including Jessica Mistak, a MDNR Fisheries Super-visor and Fenske Fellowship committee member. From experi-ence, Mistak knows that Jan “was a natural mentor, someone you could trust immediately and someone who always had your best interests at heart. She was always, even when she was ill, thinking about helping others.”

The Fenske Fellowship honors Jan’s legacy each year by awarding funding for an agency linked mentorship opportunity to an incoming graduate student in the MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife through an endowment established in the Department with additional support related to leadership programs from the MSU Graduate School. Over the course of the year-long mentorship, the Fellow works with a natural re-source agency mentor on a project that is beneficial to the stu-dent’s research and is a high priority for the agency involved. As such, the Fenske Fellowship provides graduate students the opportunity to conduct research that is intended to directly in-form fisheries management decisions. According to Dr. Dana Infante, a professor at MSU and Chair of the Fenske Fellow-ship committee, the Fellowship “puts students in the arena where decisions are being made – that’s not a regular compo-nent of many graduate programs.” This exposure was, however, the experience I needed to find a window into the workings of that management “black box.”

What I have discovered from my Fellowship interactions are that other issues than science affect fisheries management decision-making. For example, fisheries managers must con-sider the potential and often unavoidable political, financial, and social consequences when making fisheries management decisions. Frequently, the academic structure and tradition of fisheries and aquatic science graduate programs make it diffi-cult to convey these additional management considerations to students through theoretical discussions and management case studies. Speaking from her own Fellowship experience, Dr.

One of the methods used to harvest Lake whitefish commercial (Core-gonus clupeaformis) in the Great Lakes is a trap net, a passive form of entrapment gear. Photo: Eric MacMillan

Student Angle:The Fenske Fellowship

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 354

Amy Schueller, the first Fenske Fellow, recognizes “the com-plexity of decisions is not evident to students until they ven-ture into the management realm.” Fisheries science students can, to modify an old cliché, often miss the “school” for the “fish” because their education is often limited to specific disci-plines and experiences.

I did not fully appreciate the role of fisheries science in deci-sion-making before I received the Fenske Fellowship. Through my Fellowship, Dr. Kelley Smith, Chief of MDNR Fisheries Di-vision and my Fenske mentor, taught me that “science is a ser-vice to management. It provides information to management; but management still drives the bus.” This awareness is par-ticularly important for issues like climate change. According to Infante, “If we’re going to solve large problems like climate change that operate in a global context, it’s absolutely critical to have people who can link science and management.” I could not agree more. For this reason, I designed my Fellowship proj-ect to supply MDNR Fisheries Division, the general public, and targeted constituents with information on potential changes to select Michigan’s fisheries as a result of climate change. My re-search will result in a chapter of the MDNR Fisheries Division manual of fisheries survey methods on climate change. Specifi-cally, the product of this research will evaluate the long-term data needs for understanding the impact of climate change on Great Lakes fishes and provide managers with a framework to monitor fish populations and habitats under changing climatic conditions. This guidance should help the MDNR Fisheries Division focus their efforts toward mitigating and adapting re-gional and global environmental change impacts on local fish populations, their habitat and the people that depend on these fisheries resources for their livelihood and enjoyment.

The issue of climate change has shifted managers’ efforts to ecosystem-based and landscape-level perspectives and ac-tions. As such, climate change will force managers to be more

adaptive as the likely impacts of climate change are uncovered. Taylor believes that training managers to be more adaptive is a clear benefit of a program like the Fenske Fellowship. “As the Fellows broaden their thinking because of this experience,” he says, “they develop skill sets that will broaden their per-spectives and approach to solving the fisheries management problems they will encounter during their career.” One major fallacy he finds rampant in agency and university bureaucracies is their reluctance to change. “We don’t know how to deal with dynamic change,” he says. “All of our institutions are set up for stability and for maintaining the success of the past.”

However, there are individuals within the management system that “swim upstream” (pun intended) and thrive on dy-namic change within fisheries management. Jan Fenske was one such individual. While she understood that management bureaucracies create systems that resist change, Jan recognized that conservation needs clear objectives and an adaptive ap-proach to achieve them. “Things won’t be fixed overnight,” Smith warned me. “Don’t ever break your principles or lose sight of your objectives, but recognize that compromise, flex-ibility, and perspective will be necessary to reach your goals in the long run.” One of the most important lessons I’ve learned from Jan’s story and my Fenske Fellowship experience is that, with persistence and adaptive approaches, the dynamic, com-plex process that constitutes fishery management will allow us to maintain, and hopefully improve, our aquatic resources. I thank Jan Fenske and the Janice Lee Fenske Excellence in Fisheries Management Fellowship for the opportunity to learn this.

Jan Fenske (1954-2005) was the first female Fisheries Biologist and District Fisheries Biologist in the history of the Fisheries Division of the Michigan De-partment of Natural Resources (DNR). The Janice Lee Fenske Excellence in Fisheries Manage-ment Fellowship honors Jan’s legacy by providing underserved graduate students within the De-partment of Fisheries and Wild-life at Michigan State Univer-sity (MSU) with a management agency experience to assist in developing successful careers in fisheries management.

Photo courtesy of Dr. Kelley Smith

Lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) support the most economi-cally valuable commercial fishery in the upper Laurentian Great Lakes. Photo: Eric MacMillan

The Janice Lee Fenske Excellence in Fisheries Management Fellowship is a recruitment Fellowship for incoming students in the Michigan State De-partment of Fisheries and Wildlife interested in integrating a management experience into their graduate studies. For more information on the Fel-lowship, search for it on Facebook and please visit fenskefellow.wordpress.com. For more information on applying, please contact Dr. Dana Infante (infanted@msu.edu).

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 355

Column: GUEST DIRECTOR’S LINE

Donald C. Jackson, AFS Past President

These past couple of years have been reality checks for our species. We have witnessed the ravages of earthquakes, tsu-namis, volcanoes, widespread and persistent drought, record floods, violent storms, nuclear emergencies, and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. What’s next? Locusts? Frogs?

During one of the recent outbreaks of storms in Mississippi this spring, I stood out in my yard, looked up into the sky, and realized that I was directly below the vortex of a newly forming tornado. I felt very small indeed and realized (once again) that life on the crust of this planet is very fragile. But as a biologist I also know that life is amazingly resilient. It is hard-wired to fight for continuance. Hunters, anglers, and soldiers, each in their own ways, clearly understand and plan accordingly. So do evolutionary ecologists and geneticists. So do managers of renewable natural resources.

As students of biology, one of the first things we learn is that life is very much defined by irritability. Put pressure on life and it will push back. Set the hook on a marlin out in the blue water of the Gulf of Mexico, or hand-grabble a big catfish from its lair in the dark and mysterious depths of a southern stream, and buddy hold on. They’re determined to win the contest and get on with their lives. Rip up a coastline with a hurricane or scour a river channel with flooding and ultimately it seems as if all that’s happened is that a big reset button has been pushed.

Open up opportunity and life will take advantage of it. It might not be the sort of life we’d prefer, but something is going to be there using the resources at hand. You can count on it. Amazingly, however, the life that comes in the aftermath of an environmental challenge oftentimes is what we want. For example, following Hurricane Katrina, the catfish fishery in the Pascagoula River was devastated (broke my heart as a river biologist), but the blue crab fishery in the marshes was incred-ible (thrilling to a father who likes to handline crabs with his teenaged daughter). By the way, the catfish stocks are well on their way to recovery now and the blue crab stocks have settled down a bit.

On different scales we push reset buttons intentionally in management of renewable natural resources. Many of our fish-eries models are founded on the principle of generating distur-bance in order to stimulate production. We crop fish stocks to enhance yield. We count on residuals in the stocks responding by increased reproduction, growth, and recruitment. We inten-tionally disturb environments, setting them back to early suc-cessional stages, knowing that quasi-ecotones can be extremely productive fish and wildlife habitats. We manipulate faunal as-semblages, adjusting relationships among functional groups of organisms, to nudge nature in ways that address our goals.

On my Mississippi farm, wild turkey, rabbit, and quail populations rebound following an outbreak of distemper that

reduces populations of small predators like raccoons, foxes, and coyotes. In the absence of this dis-ease, I can accom-plish much the same effect by engaging in a moderate level of trapping, adjusting the predator–prey ra-tios. I apply the same principles to managing the pond that I have on the farm. I manipulate the largemouth bass population in the pond in order to address my goals for the bluegill fishery: a catch dominated by one-pound bluegill—and a lot of them.

The same sort of mindset and approach applies to envi-ronmental manipulation. I only have quail on my farm when I get on my tractor and disk the ground around the periphery of pastures, creating bare ground and stimulating resurgence of native annual vegetation and insects. I seasonally manipu-late water levels in my pond to enhance predatory efficiency of largemouth bass and to establish terrestrial vegetation in shal-low areas—areas that I later flood so that aquatic invertebrates can process the organic material and flourish as forage items for recruiting fishes (primarily bluegill). Wild ducks also take advantage of this program.

But, what happens to a system like the Gulf of Mexico when there’s an event like last year’s oil spill? We know that there was acute toxicity to an incredible amount and diversity of flora and fauna. But what about long-term effects? We are aware that there are natural oil seeps in the Gulf of Mexico and that there are microbes out there that eat oil. We’re told that these microbes flourished following the spill and that they helped and are still helping to clean up the mess. We’re also told that there are mats of oil on the bottom of the Gulf and that these mats have apparently killed lots of stuff. Are the microbes also working on these oil mats? Perhaps, but I haven’t heard much about it. The oil has been found in early life his-tory stages of some fishes and invertebrates. What is it doing to them? Are there impacts? Are they significant in terms of the future of fisheries? There also seems to be about as much concern regarding the dispersant used to get the oil out of sight as there is about the oil itself. But did the dispersant increase surface-to-biomass ratios of oil droplets, thereby enhancing microbial processing? Or did the dispersant kill the microbes? I’ve heard both sides. Is it possible that we humans somehow stumbled into a correct way of partnering with nature to ad-dress the problem? Or should we steel ourselves in anticipation of long-term impacts to the integrated Gulf of Mexico ecosys-tem? Was the oil spill really an environmental disaster like so many people are saying, or was it another sort of reset event?

Relativity, Resiliency, and Response in the Wake of Environmental Challenges

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 356

I tend to think that it was absolutely an environmental disaster but that it quite possibly was also a reset event. The scenes of death and destruction were awesome, sickening, and heartbreaking. And the fisheries took incredibly hard licks. But I guess I also have to look at events like an oil spill from a perspective of relativity and respect for the resiliency of life. In a relative sense, I suppose that intentional and prescriptive application of liquid rotenone (with its petroleum carrier and diluted to 1.0% active ingredient) to littoral zones along half of the shoreline in my one-acre farm pond could be considered an environmental disaster in that pond. It sure did kill a lot of fish (particularly smaller ones), macroinvertebrates, and zoo-plankton. But, that was my goal. I’m now catching very fine bluegill and largemouth bass from my pond and the fish are growing like gangbusters. And one year after the massive oil spill, fishing in the Gulf of Mexico seems to be pretty good—at least those are the reports I’m receiving. Accordingly, I’m not canceling my trip to south Louisiana this summer to fish for red drum. We are told by state natural resources agencies in Louisiana and Mississippi and by the National Marine Fisher-ies Service that Gulf of Mexico seafood is safe to eat. These folks are our professional colleagues. I trust them. I eat Gulf of Mexico seafood. I eat the fish from my farm pond.

Time will tell whether or not the oil that was spilled into the Gulf of Mexico will have a persistent negative influence on that ecosystem. In that regard, there’s already been, and con-tinues to be, significant investment in looking closely at the oil spill through the lens of science. Additionally, there have been assurances that there’s a commitment to long-term stud-ies. That’s heartening.

Constant vigilance is, however, required. The science ad-dressing the oil spill must be very, very good because so much is as stake. There are extremely important questions that must be answered. My interactions with what’s going on in this re-gard have so far given me a strong sense of hope. I can tell you that very cool and objective minds are carefully framing and re-viewing the science. I have had the opportunity to participate in discussions with some who are and will be decision makers regarding the science. From those discussions it seems to me that we are moving more or less in the right direction with the ongoing and proposed science. I’d like to see more focus on fish stock assessments and the human interfaces with those stocks, but I understand that we also need to put a lot of work into addressing the environmental foundations supporting those stocks and their fisheries. Regardless, it is critical that we now move forward aggressively and expeditiously with the work, and that we do so with courage. As scientists we cannot, we must not, blink. We absolutely must have good Y-intercepts. This year in particular, as well as the next 2 or 3 years, will probably tell much of the tale in terms of impacts. Then it will be vital that we track, with good science, how life in the Gulf pushes back and how this relates to the fisheries in the region.

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 357

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 358

Calendar: FISHERIES EVENTS

To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS web site calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/province, web address, and contact information to sgilbertfox@fisheries.org.

(If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.)

More events listed at www.fisheries.org

DATE EVENT LOCATION WEBSITEJul 6–11, 2011 Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists

and HerpetologistsMinneapolis, Minnesota http://www.dce.ksu.edu/conf/jointmeeting/

future.shtml

Jul 11–14, 2011 4th Annual North AmericanSturgeon Conference

Nanaimo, British Columbia http://www.viu.ca/wscs-nac

Jul 11–15, 2011 IMO Marine Environment Protec-tion Committee Meeting

London, UK http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/imomepc.asp

Jul 11–15, 2011 3rd Joint Meeting of the Tuna RFMOs (Kobe 3)

La Jolla, California http://www.tuna-org.org/meetings2011.htm

Aug 1–4, 2011 Sixth World Recreational Fishing Conference

Berlin, Germany http://www.worldrecfish.org

Sep 4–8, 2011 AFS American Fisheries Society 141st Annual Meeting

Seattle, Washington http://www.afs2011.org

Sep 19-23, 2011 ICES Annual Science Conference 2011

Gdańsk Music and Congress Centre, Gdańsk, Poland

http://www.ices.dk/iceswork/asc/2011/index.asp

Sep 22–24, 2011 Icelandic Fisheries Exhibition 2011

Smarinn, Kopavogur, Iceland ttp://www.icefish.is

Oct 4-6, 2011 CONXEMAR - XIII International Exhibition

Vigo, Spain http://www.conxemar.com/ingles/feria.htm

Oct 18-20, 2011 IFM Institute of Fisheries Manage-ment 2011 42nd Conference

Oxford, UK http://www.ifm.org.uk/events/

Oct 26-27, 2011 The Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)

Erie, Pennsylvania http://ec.gc.ca

Oct 30-31, 2011 NPAFC International Workshop on Explanations for the High Abundance of Pink and Chum Salmon and Future Trends

Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada

http://www.npafc.org/new/index.html

Nov 5-10, 2011 The Wildilfe Society 18th Annual Conference

Waikoloa, Hawaii http: www.wildlifesociety.org

Nov 14-18, 2011 Annual Alaska Chapter Conference

Girdwood, Alaska htpp://www.fisheriessociety.org/afs-ak/

Dec 4-7, 2011 72nd Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference

Des Moines, Iowa http://www.midwest2011.org

From the Archives“Look at the facts. The natural beds in the Chesapeake like the natural beds in the Northern States, are no longer capable of returning an adequate supply. What has been done to remedy the evil? An increase of the police force! In other words, a more perfect restriction of the fishery – a more extensive diminu-tion of the supply. Surely, that is not what we want! We do not care to have a valuable food product diminished. That is no real remedy. What should be done is to follow the course of the Northern States and endeavor, by artificial means, to cultivate the oyster and increase the productive area and supply.”

Lieut. Francis Winslow, U.S.N., Tenth Annual Meeting, American Fish Cultural Association, 1884

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 359

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 360

July 2011: JOBS

Employers: to list a job opening on the AFS online job center submit a position description, job title, agency/company, city, state, responsibilities, qualifications, salary, closing date, and contact information (maxi-mum 150 words) to jobs@fisheries.org. Online job announcements will be billed at $350 for 150 word increments. Please send billing information. Listings are free (150 words or less) for organizations with as-sociate, official, and sustaining memberships, and for individual members, who are faculty members, hiring graduate assistants. if space is available, jobs may also be printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge.

Post-Masters Researcher | Pacific Northwest National Labratory, WA | permanentSalary: Starting $35,600, plus benefits. Possible relocation allowance.

Closing: Until filled

Responsibilities: Assist with research using acoustic and radio telemetry to determine behavior and survival of salmonids. Assist with laboratory investigations on the influence of surgically implanting transmitters into fish. Responsibilities include field and lab work handling fish, conducting in-depth necropsies, maintaining fish popula-tions and aquaculture facilities, data processing and analy-sis, field deployment of telemetry gear and assisting with surgical implantation of transmitters in fish.

Qualifications: Masters degree in biology or a fisheries re-lated field. Knowledge of fish physiology, anatomy, aqua-culture and telemetry techniques are desirable. Experience handling fish, surgical implantation of transmitters, man-aging data MS Excel and writing desirable. The ability to work well in a team setting is necessary.

Contact: Apply: Please visit below link and reference job posting 300817

Web Link: http://www.jobs.pnl.gov

Fisheries Policy Analyst | Environmental Defense Fund | permanentSalary: TBD

Closing: Until filled

Responsibilities: Location is Negotiable for the right candidate. Environmental Defense Fund is searching for a Fisheries Policy Specialist for our Oceans Program. Under the overall direction of the Gulf and Southeast Oceans Program Regional Director, and direct supervi-sion of the Southeast Senior Conservation Manager, this position is responsible for implementation of area specific tactics, associated with strategies on commer-cial catch shares and other related commercial pro-grams, which will bring these strategies to fruition. The Fisheries Policy Specialist will work with other Oceans team members to ensure the Gulf and Southeast Re-gions goals and objectives are met. Full-time, Permanent

Qualifications: For full job description and application instructions please follow the link provided below.

Web Link: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagid=371&jobID=655

Contact Email address: jobs@edf.org

Makah Watershed Scientist | Makah Tribe, WA | permanentSalary: Competitive Salary

Closing: Until Filled

Responsibilities: This position is responsible for develop-ing, coordinating, and implementing habitat research, monitoring, and protection efforts associated with the implementation of the Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda throughout the Makah U A. It will also focus on the implementation of the Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan priority restoration projects while maintaining and im-proving the existing streamflow and water quality monitor-ing network in the Lake Ozette Watershed.

Qualifications: M.S. degree in fisheries biology, aquatic ecology, aquatic biology, or closely related field. General knowledge of anadromous species. Strong quantitative and writing skills. Physical experience/ability to collect field data e.g., fisheries, water quality, surveying, hydraulics/ hydrology. Ability to work closely with resource agencies, tribes, and other interested parties in meeting recovery goals and objectives.

Contact: The Makah Tribe is an Equal Opportunity Em-ployer. Web Link below Contact for specific questions email or 360-645-3155 or 360-645-3200

Web Link: http://www.makah.com

Contact Email Address: mtcpersonnel@centurytel.net

Ecological Restoration Specialist | Stratus Consulting, CO. and D.C. | permanentSalary: Stratus Consulting offers a competitive compen-sation and benefits package that includes medical, dental, vision, and life insurance, 401 k and profit-sharing plans, medical and dependent care, flexible spending accounts, paid time off, business casual dress, and more.

Closing: Until filled

Responsibilities: Stratus Consulting provides innovation and excellence in environmental research and consult-ing. It offers comprehensive, multidisciplinary expertise in

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 361

Assistant Professor Marine Biology | Univ of West Florida UWF | phdSalary: Salary commensurate with experience.

Closing: 11/19/2011

Responsibilities: Position in Marine Biology The Depart-ment of Biology at the University of West Florida, a com-prehensive/regional institution, invites applications for a 9-month, tenure-track position 104010 at the Assistant Professor level starting January 1, 2012. Applicants must have a Ph.D. in an appropriate field. Postdoctoral expe-rience is preferred. Responsibilities include the standard teaching load at the undergraduate and graduate levels including, for example, Marine Vertebrate Zoology, Ich-thyology, and General Zoology, serving on graduate com-mittees and directing theses. Applicants are expected to establish an active research program that involves gradu-ate and undergraduate students and that is supported by external funding.

Qualifications: Applicants are to apply online at below link the website of Human Resources at the University of West Florida. Be prepared to attach your curriculum vi-tae, letter of application/interest, statement of teaching philosophy, statement of research interests/plans, and a list of three professional references. The applicant should also arrange for three letters of professional reference to be

environmental sciences and natural resources, environ-mental economics, information management, and climate change management. Stratus Consulting serves federal, state, tribal, and international government agencies, as well as utilities, industries, and law firms. Responsibili-ties include: Developing ecological restoration plans for a broad range of natural resources, including fauna, flora, and habitats Coordinating ecological restoration planning initiatives with natural resource injury assessments Prepar-ing technical documents Project management and Client communications.

Qualifications: Qualified applicants will possess MS/PhD in relevant field and a minimum of 5 or more years of di-rectly relevant experience

Contact: For immediate consideration, please apply via the Careers Section of the Stratus Consulting website be-low. If you are unable to apply via our website, please mail or fax a cover letter reference job code Eco-Sci , salary expectations and current resume to below email. fax: 303-381-8200 mail: PO Box 4059 Boulder, CO 80306-4059 Calls will not be accepted. EEO/M/F/D/V

Web Link: http://www.stratusconsulting.com

Contact Email Address: hr@stratusconsulting.com

sent to: Marine Biology Search Committee, Department of Biology, University of West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514. Full review of applications will begin September 2, 2011, but applications will be ac-cepted until the position is filled. This position requires a criminal background screening. UWF is an Equal Oppor-tunity/Access/Affirmative Action Employer. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to respond is requested to advise UWF by contacting the UWF ADA Office at 850 473-7469 voice or 850-857-6114 TTY .

Contact: Apply online at below link. For more informa-tion, please contact the Search Committee Chair, Dr. Wayne Bennett wbennett@uwf.edu or Dr. Christopher Pomory cpomory@uwf.edu at 850-474-2014, or the De-partment Chair, Dr. George Stewart gstewart@uwf.edu at 850-473-7226.

Web Link: https://jobs.uwf.edu

Sr Fisheries Biologist/Aquatic Scientist | Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C. NY | permanentSalary: Commensurate with Experience

Closing: Until Filled

Responsibilities: Describe life history requirements and habitat needs for freshwater and diadromous fish Inter-act and coordinate with client, professionals from other resource disciplines and coordinate with subconsultants Analyze and interpret study results to develop defensible conclusions Prepare written scientific reports and other visual presentations of study results Use your knowledge and skills to determine actual and potential impacts of various resource uses on fisheries and aquatic life Interact with agency and non-governmental organizations on study planning and reporting Manage and participate in field ef-forts to collect scientific data.

Qualifications: 10 years experience in the design of aquat-ic resources studies and analysis of the results, as well as specific experience with the design and analysis of radio-telemetry, hydroacoustic, and PIT tag studies. Experience with FERC processes, effectiveness evaluation of fish pas-sage facilities at hydroelectric projects as well as statisti-cal analysis of fisheries data is a plus. Must have excellent verbal and written communication skills.

Contact: Please contact Tom Sullivan at the email address below.

Web Link: http://www.gomezandsullivan.com/index.php?page=careers

Contact Email Address: tsullivan@gomezandsullivan.com

Fisheries • vol 36 no 7 • july 2011 • www.fisheries.org 362