This article was downloaded by: [Sarah Gilbert Fox]On: 25 June 2014, At: 06:01Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

FisheriesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20

Full Issue PDF Volume 39, Issue 6Published online: 16 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: (2014) Full Issue PDF Volume 39, Issue 6, Fisheries, 39:6, 241-288, DOI:10.1080/03632415.2014.931119

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2014.931119

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

03632415(2014)39(6)

FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

VOL 39 NO 6JUNE 2014

In this Issue:Do Anglers Target Fish Equally?

Canadian Recreational Fisheries TrendsRemoving Alien Invasive Species in South Africa

Monitoring: The Foundation of Scientific ManagementInformation Distortion in Management Agencies

AFS Strategic Plan

Partners

2

Welcome to Québec City

3

Plenary Speakers

4

Symposia

5

Contributed Oral Presentations 7

Trade Show and Poster Session 8

Location

9

Hotel Accommodations

9

Table of Contents

Student Activities

10

Networking Events

11

Spawning Run

12

Pub Crawl

13

Top Attractions

13

Continuing Education

16

Workshop

18

Forms

19

ANNUAL MEETINGSUPPLEMENT INSIDE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 241

270 Threatened Endemic Fishes in South Africa’s Cape Floristic Region: A New Beginning for the Rondegat RiverAn international collaboration between AFS and South African institutions removed non-native Smallmouth Bass from a South African stream, resulting in a rapid increase in native fish diversity.

Olaf L. F. Weyl, Brian Finlayson, N. Dean Impson, Darragh J. Woodford, and Jarle Steinkjer

Contents

Fisheries VOL 39 NO 6 JUNE 2014

282 Draft 1, May 2014

AFS STRATEGIC PLAN 2015–2019

President’s Commentary243 Monitoring: Garbage In Yields Garbage OutInsufficient or inappropriate monitoring efforts are impairing our ability to answer questions about the status and trends of U.S. inland fisheries.

Bob Hughes

Policy245 Maybe It’s Not Just About the FishOpportunities for partnerships with other disciplines offer wide ranging benefits.

Thomas E. Bigford

Letter from the Executive Director286 Behind the Scenes at MazatlanThis year’s Western Division meeting in Mazatlan was a remarkable accomplishment and full of interesting presentations.

Doug Austen

COLUMNS

246 Information Flow in Fisheries Management: Systemic Distortion within Agency HierarchiesHow could an environmental catastrophe of this magnitude happen under the guardianship of a group of people who cared deeply for the public trust they managed, and who were committed to using the best science available to properly manage these fish?

Kiira Siitari, Jim Martin, and William W. Taylor

251 Canadian Recreational Fisheries: 35 Years of Social, Biological, and Economic Dynamics from a National Survey By synthesizing data from typically disparate disciplines, an important connection is formed between natural resources and their social and economic value.

Jacob W. Brownscombe, Shannon D. Bower, William Bowden, Liane Nowell, Jonathan D. Midwood, Neville Johnson, and Steven J. Cooke

261 Hide and Seek: Interplay of Fish and Anglers Influences Spatial Fisheries ManagementInsights into how anglers spatially target fish leads to new avenues, and dilemmas for management of recreational fisheries.

Bryan G. Matthias, Micheal S. Allen, Robert N. M. Ahrens, T. Douglas Beard, Jr., and Janice A. Kerns

ESSAYS AND FEATURES

280 Carlos M. Fetterolf, Jr.

IN MEMORIAM

284 Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, Volume 26, Issue 1, March 2014

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS

281 Dam Impacts on Fishery Resources – Join Us in Québec

Margaret H. Murphy

UNIT NEWS

285 Fisheries Events

CALENDAR

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

270Melanie Duthie prepares to apply rotenone to the Rondegat River using a drip can. Photo credit: Bruce Ellender.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 242

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.

Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 © copyright 2014. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproduction of material in this publication is permitted only under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199. Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer recycled paper with soy-based printing inks.

2014 AFS MEMBERSHIP 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.

AFS OFFICERSPRESIDENTBob Hughes

PRESIDENT ELECTDonna L. Parrish

FIRST VICE PRESIDENTRon Essig

SECOND VICE PRESIDENTJoe Margraf

PAST PRESIDENTJohn Boreman

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORDoug Austen

FISHERIES STAFFSENIOR EDITORDoug Austen

DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONSAaron Lerner

MANAGING EDITORSarah Fox

CONTRIBUTING EDITORBeth Beard

EDITORSCHIEF SCIENCE EDITORJeff Schaeffer

SCIENCE EDITORSKristen AnsteadMarilyn “Guppy” Blair Jim BowkerMason BryantSteven R. ChippsKen CurrensAndy DanylchukMichael R. DonaldsonAndrew H. FayramStephen FriedLarry M. GigliottiMadeleine Hall-ArborAlf HaukenesJeffrey E. Hill

DUES AND FEES FOR 2014 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 $182.

Deirdre M. KimballJeff KochJim LongDaniel McGarveyJeremy PrittRoar SandoddenJesse TrushenskiUsha Varanasi Jack E. WilliamsJeffrey Williams

BOOK REVIEW EDITORFrancis Juanes

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONPablo del Monte-Luna

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 243

Recreational fishing in the United States has a $42–$56 bil-lion economic impact (National Marine Fisheries Service 2011; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). Between 1987 and 2009, Dingell-Johnson excise taxes yielded $50 to $400 million annu-ally to the states for fishery improvement projects (Andrew Lof-tus Consulting and Southwick Associates Incorporated 2011). Given those sums, what are the status and trends in the nation’s fisheries? And how effective have those fishery improvement projects been in rehabilitating or maintaining fisheries? I con-tend that we lack quantitative answers to those questions at a na-tional scale because of insufficient or inappropriate monitoring.

The three types of monitoring pertinent to fisheries man-agement are implementation, effectiveness, and status/trend assessment. Implementation monitoring determines whether a planned and funded project was implemented as proposed. Effectiveness monitoring determines whether a project had the desired or planned effect. Status and trend monitoring deter-mines status and trend in a resource of interest (fish assemblage, fishery, species, population).

There are poor examples of the three types of monitoring at regional or landscape scales. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires wetland mitigation by developers who destroy wet-lands. However, in surveys of Oregon wetland permits from 1977 to 1987 and Washington permits for 1980–1986, Kentula et al. (1992) found that only 47% of Oregon and 49% of Wash-ington proposed mitigation projects were evaluated, let alone implemented as proposed. Given the large amounts spent on rehabilitating surface water condition, it is disconcerting to re-alize how little has been spent on assessing the effects of those projects. Only 370 of 37,000 U.S. projects (Bernhardt et al. 2005) and 154 of 23,000 Pacific Northwest projects (Katz et al. 2007) reported any type of monitoring. Even when assessments have been conducted, there are often substantial disconnects be-tween management evaluations and the rigorous study designs and data needed to quantify project effectiveness (Shields et al. 2003; Alexander and Allan 2006; Thompson 2006). Similarly, status and trend assessments often suffer from poor study de-signs, nonstandard methods, or inconsistent indicators (Hughes and Peck 2008; LaVigne et al. 2008). For example, Jacobs and Cooney (1995) reported that nonrandom survey sites overesti-mated Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) population sizes by three to five times (Hughes et al. 2000). At the national scale, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) National Lake Survey (USEPA 2009) and National Coastal Condition Assessment (USEPA 2008) surveys fish physical, chemical, and biological habitat but not fish assemblages—despite the impor-tance of those ecosystems to fisheries and the importance of fisheries to the U.S. economy.

There are two good examples of national status and trend assess-ments for fish assem-blages. The USEPA’s National River and Stream Assessment uses a probability sur-vey design and standard methods and indicators to assess the rivers and streams of the conter-minous United States. Its latest survey determined that fish assemblages in 37% of stream and river length were in good condition and 36% were in poor condition (USEPA 2013). The chief factors associated with poor condition were excess phosphorus, sediments, and salinity. The U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Assessment employs a pressure-gradient design and standard methods and indicators. Its recent survey of selected urban areas indicated that fish assemblage condition was strongly related to various urban stressors in some metropolitan areas but not others because of legacy landscape disturbances in the latter (Brown et al. 2009).

Several good examples exist of state/provincial status and trend assessments for fish assemblages or fish species. Yoder et al. (2005) were able to document substantial improvement in river fish assemblages in Ohio between 1980 and 2010 be-cause of the use of repeat sampling and standard methods and indicators. The Maryland Biological Stream Survey employs random site selection and standard methods and indicators. As a result, Morgan and Cushman (2005) found that urbanization negatively affected fish assemblages to a greater degree in Pied-mont streams than in Coastal Plain streams. In addition, Stranko et al. (2012) reported no significant difference in fish assem-blages between sets of urban rehabilitated and nonrehabilitated streams, despite expenditures of $7.2 million on rehabilitation. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife uses a probability design and standard methods to document coastal Coho Salmon abundance and distribution by river basin in a statistically rig-orous manner (Jacobs and Cooney 1995; Larsen et al. 2001; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2009). The data are used in determining harvest limits, hatchery releases, and status assessments. Ten different federal, state, and city monitoring programs used the same survey designs and methods at 451

COLUMNPresident’s Commentary

AFS President Bob Hughes can be contacted at: hughes.bob@amnisopes.com

Monitoring: Garbage In Yields Garbage OutBob Hughes, AFS President

I contend that we lack quantitative answers to those questions at a national scale because of insufficient or inappropriate monitoring.

Continued on page 287

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 244

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 245

will also provide insights on how meeting size translates into success for the societies, their members, and the aquatic sciences. Will a larger conference yield stronger messages, perhaps direct action from Congress, more media coverage, or longer-term collabo-rations with agencies or sectors? Is a “summit” of like-minded groups a logical expansion of the comfortable conferences and annual meetings?

A second partnership is the Restore America’s Estuaries (RAE)–The Coastal Society (TCS) joint “Summit 2014: Inspir-ing Action, Creating Resilience” (Restore America’s Estuaries –The Coastal Society 2014). RAE and TCS have established “a new collaboration to present the first ever National Summit that will bring together the restoration and coastal management communities for an integrated discussion to explore issues, so-lutions and lessons learned.” As stated by the RAE and TCS presidents, on the Summit website (Restore America’s Estuaries –The Coastal Society 2014):

The integration of our communities is long overdue. The col-laboration provides an opportunity to address many of the issues we have in common in a more holistic way and offers a more cost-effective way to convene discussion. Through this joint Summit, the interdisciplinary group of presenters and audience will be able to expand networks, develop re-lationships, and leverage opportunities to find solutions for common problems.

That quote captures both the flavor of the changes we’re witnessing and the postevent scrutiny we’ll need as we deter-mine whether bigger and broader is better than before.

AFS is an active player in this shifting landscape. AFS at-tended the Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting in May with an eye toward joining the effort for a second joint meeting in 2015. We also will have a presence at the RAE-TCS Summit in Novem-ber, both at the primary meeting and at an adjunct gathering of the National Fish Habitat Partnership’s (NFHP) Board of Direc-tors meeting (National Fish Habitat Partnership 2014).

Another opportunity associated with that Summit could raise expectations another order of magnitude. The fall meeting

Most of my previous columns focused on fish, fish habi-tat, fishing, fish agencies, fish communications, etc. Anything fishy was fair game. But my supposedly wide net may well have been naïve. The last month has been eye-opening and incredibly exciting.

With better hindsight than foresight, I now see what I missed for decades. I knew that our fish work overlaps with oth-ers and pride myself by applying my training as an ecologist to think about connections—but my best intentions didn’t prompt me to work routinely with groups or on issues that might hold great promise for our favored fish. These opportunities relate to policy (so I can safely write about them in this column!), but they also span science, management, education, and everything else we do.

Just think of the possibilities. AFS business routinely inter-sects in time or space (or research or management) with partners we don’t often acknowledge—bird work by Ducks Unlimited, livestock range work of the Dairy Farmers of America, wild game interests in the Wildlife Management Institute, socioeco-nomic implications studied by Resources for the Future, wet-land and barrier protection work tracked by the Association of State Floodplain Managers, aquatic education priorities at the National Wildlife Federation, and many more. The same also applies to our partners at all levels of government. Your American Fisheries Society has a 144-year history but we have only occasionally engaged with some promising partners. All indications are that our few place-based partnerships of the past will shepherd us toward robust cooperative efforts in our near future. And while ecological connections are likely to be the basis for initial introductions, strong administrative and finan-cial incentives will address the business challenges confronting successful interactions among so many nonprofit societies and associations.

This evolution is already underway. The Joint Aquatic Sci-ences Meeting assembled the Society for Freshwater Science, Phycological Society of America, Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, and Society of Wetland Sci-entists (2014) for a “historic joint meeting of four of the leading aquatic scientific societies.” Their theme of “Bridging Genes to Ecosystems: Aquatic Science at a Time of Rapid Change” be-lies the trend I’m attempting to understand. Those four societies sought to build a bridge across disciplines with aquatic science as one common thread.

That Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting, which convened in Portland, Oregon while this column was in press, promises to be larger than the typical gathering of each of the four partners. That’s by design, but will the grander event convey its aquatic messages to the intended audiences and will it generate suf-ficient revenue to support operations for four groups? Portland

COLUMNPolicyMaybe It’s Not Just About the Fish

Thomas E. Bigford, AFS Policy Director

AFS Policy Director Thomas E. Bigford can be contacted at: tbigford@fisheries.org

Continued on page 288

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 246

ESSAY

Information Flow in Fisheries Management: Systemic Distortion within Agency HierarchiesKiira SiitariCenter for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 1405 S. Harrison Rd., Suite 115, East Lansing, MI 48823. E-mail: kirajoy@gmail.com

Jim MartinBerkley Conservation Institute, Mulino, OR

William W. TaylorCenter for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

INTRODUCTION

The early to mid-1970s provided some of the best Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) fishing of the last century in Oregon, in large part a function of productive ocean conditions and a booming hatchery system. However, wild Coho popula-tions exhibited dramatic declines toward the end of the decade and harvest rates subsequently dropped by over 75% (Martin 2009). Even after the Oregon Department of Fish and Wild-life (ODFW) implemented what was deemed at the time to be scientifically defensible harvest reductions, fisheries biologists watched as the number of returning Coho fell into severe de-cline over the next several years. How could an environmental catastrophe of this magnitude happen under the guardianship of a group of people who cared deeply for the public trust they managed and who were committed to using the best science available to properly manage these fish?

The history of Oregon Coho provides a case study of man-agement inaction due to barriers in information flow through the hierarchy of a fisheries governance organization. Natural resource agencies are generally complex, multitiered institu-tions that depend on information flowing vertically through the hierarchy of the organization to make decisions and imple-ment management actions. As information moves between the layers of an organization, there is always opportunity for the message to become distorted by the way in which individuals interpret and communicate information. Making decisions using complete and accurate information becomes more difficult the higher up in the governance system one goes.

“Systemic distortion” of information can be defined as the process of altering information as it is communicated through the layers of a hierarchical system. In general, systemic dis-tortion is a function of organizational pressures (to be right) and people’s social tendencies (to be liked). These pressures can cause perceived good news to travel quickly and unverified upward through the hierarchy of an agency, whereas bad news is often late, misinterpreted, and understated; therefore, the people at the top of the organization’s hierarchy tend to receive information that is favorably biased. Such favorably biased in-formation supports the status quo within an organization (Bella 1996), reducing the ability of the system to adapt to change. In the worst of cases, outside intervention or system collapse is re-quired for institutional change to occur, clearly to the detriment of fisheries resources and agency reputation. The goal of this ar-ticle is to create awareness of systemic distortion of information within natural resource organizations and provide tools to coun-teract this phenomenon in the decision-making process. Distor-tion of information is well documented in hierarchical systems (Rosen and Tesser 1970; Roberts and O’Reilly 1974; Liberti and Mian 2009) and it is therefore imperative that professionals in our field understand that the effects influence the function, productivity, and sustainability of our fisheries and ecosystems.

Dave Bella, a professor of engineering at Oregon State Uni-versity, began investigating systemic distortion of information preceding major engineering disasters of the late 20th century. His work focused on the disparity in risk perception between lower and higher levels of decision making in organizations such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Following the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1986, a Presidential Commission Report found that NASA engineers familiar with the mechanics of the rocket identi-fied significant risk in the solid rocket booster feature of the shuttle long before this disaster occurred (Feynman 1986). This information, however, was filtered and diluted, systematically minimizing the perception of risk as it moved up the chain of command (Bella 1987). An independent study estimated that the upper level managers perceived the risk to be about one thousand times less than the risk perceived by on-the-ground, working engineers (Feynman 1986). From our historical view-point, the system of reporting within NASA was clearly dys-functional, with top-level administrators somehow not receiving needed information to make rational decisions. Nonetheless, people within the system at the time perceived their actions to be responsible, reasonable, and justified (Bella 1987); the rea-son for this stems from how and why information was distorted as it moved from the field personnel to the upper levels of the administration within this highly respected organization.

How could an environmental catastrophe of this magnitude happen under the guardianship of a group of people who cared deeply for the public trust they managed and who were committed to using the best science available to properly manage these fish?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 247

Good News Tends to Travel Quickly

People generally want to talk about their successes, and a positive attitude is valued in organizations. The majority of peo-ple seek the approval of their peers and supervisors. Through both formal and informal communication channels, perceived good news tends to travels quickly and unquestioned up the hierarchy of an agency. Positive reinforcement is often granted to the purveyors of good news, causing information to move through the system ever more quickly, unchecked and increas-ingly exaggerated. Competition for funding and recognition can cause project forecasting to be overly positive, as the proposals and actions that promise the most economic value to the orga-nization are chosen for implementation (Lovallo and Kahneman 2003).

Hierarchies tend to inhibit open and honest relationships needed to communicate effectively at work due to an imbal-ance of power between people within the decision-making chain (Chaleff 2010). Both fear and love of an employer can cause people to distort information. Most people want to be supportive of their leaders and the organizations they represent. What bet-ter currency to pay back a good employer than by highlighting the positive results of their decisions? Unfortunately, this blind devotion can encourage employees to seek out information that verifies that their leader’s decisions are right and to protect them from complaints or negative feedback. At an extreme, supervi-sors can build an insular layer around themselves through their hiring and firing practices, surrounding themselves with “yes-men” people who will support their decisions no matter what. This organizational ethos creates a barrier of gatekeepers who filter or minimize any bad news from ever reaching the decision maker and thus puts this person and the organization ultimately in jeopardy due to lack of complete and accurate information on which to base decisions.

Bad News Tends to Arrive Late and Understated

Hierarchical social systems inherently do not support per-ceived bad news because bad news is viewed as disloyalty and challenges the functioning of the organization (Bella 1987). People who challenge the established protocols within an or-ganization are often ostracized for not being team players, es-pecially if they cut through the chain of command and report above their immediate supervisors. Team projects are often heavily laden with social pressure toward consensus and group-think (Whyte 1956): not many people want to relay bad news or challenge the decisions of their colleagues because dissent can be taken personally and weaken working relationships. Thus, information that reflects poorly on coworkers or the agency will be diluted and softened as it moves through the layers of an in-stitution. To do otherwise is to risk being tuned out, reorganized, or fired. Multitiered organizations under political or economic pressure tend to revert to a mentality of “keep the system going” (Bella 1997). Every level depends on the others and bad news has the potential to cause chaos throughout the organization, making the entire system impotent.

STEPS TO CORRECT FOR DISTORTION

Systemic distortion cannot be eliminated from hierarchi-cal social systems. Rather, people in an organization must be prepared to recognize and mitigate its effects. Leaders at every level must acknowledge and account for distortion and not pun-ish the people who report bad news or question the status quo. The following are management recommendations that can help agency professionals increase the accuracy and timeliness of information flowing through their organization for the effective management of our fisheries resources.

Be Aware

Distortion of information is endemic to human communica-tion systems. Therefore, the first step in minimizing these forces is for leaders to be aware that the information they receive has already been subject to some level of distortion. Be cautious when receiving only good news and seek out attrition errors—realize that people want to take credit for positive outcomes and attribute negative outcomes to others, especially factors outside the organization (Lovallo and Kahneman 2003). Stud-ies have found that managerial perceptions are often inaccurate (Mezias and Starbuck 2003). Know what bad news looks like and question what the ramifications would be if you are only seeing a piece of the whole problem. Numerous factors affect how information is reported: contextual factors such as the ex-tremity of the news, social factors such as hierarchical power and distance, and individual factors such as personality and past experiences (Lee 1993). Leaders should strive to build relation-ships within an inclusive communication network so they know what information is likely to be understated and who tends to be overly positive or overly negative. Investigating every piece of information hinders a leader’s ability to make timely deci-sions; therefore, promoting an organizational culture aware of distortion will make day-to-day communication more effective and productive.

Being aware of systemic distortion challenges people to examine their own biases. Past fisheries stock collapses have been linked to the unchallenged acceptance of scientific meth-ods (Finlayson 1994; Lichatowich 1999). In reaction to the Coho Salmon declines in the 1970s, ODFW fisheries research-ers implemented the best science available at the time to rees-tablish harvest quotas. Managers were confident that the new Ricker stock recruitment curves would give them the accurate predictions needed to conserve the fishery. Despite the politi-cal unpopularity of the initial decision to reduce harvest limits, managers were confident that the science was sound and cred-ible. For years, the salmon populations continued to decline; this bad news was attributed to ocean conditions or sampling error and sent back for reanalysis before it was ever passed on to the upper levels of the agency’s hierarchy. It took the dogged investigation and courageous dissent of a small group of ODFW employees to discover a major error in their methods concerning the spawning index streams used to parameterize the stock recruitment curves. Though believed to be unbiased, these streams were actually nonrandom and not representative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 248

of the spatial heterogeneity of natal Coho streams in Oregon (McGie 1981; Emlen et al. 1990). The index sites that were used in the scientific assessment of Coho stocks were in fact the most productive streams on the Oregon coast, chosen by highly respected agency employees, long retired from the orga-nization. These streams were never intended for evaluating the entire population. Thus, the productivity of the overall Oregon Coho stocks was overestimated year after year before the prob-lem was ever recognized. No one dared to question the way things were done or the integrity of earlier fisheries profession-als and, as a result, the scientific examination of the problem was delayed. Intense political and public pressure amplified the internal distortion, as employees defended the decisions of the agency, causing the organization to be even slower to recognize the problem and take the actions necessary to protect all but the most resilient stocks in Oregon.

Cut Through the Layers

In order to evaluate the amount of distortion within a sys-tem, it is necessary to tunnel through the multiple layers of a hierarchy. Known as “diagonal communication” (Wilson 1992), leaders are encouraged to seek out problems in their organiza-tion from all levels of the hierarchy. Following the chaos of the salmon declines, one of us (Martin) boosted diagonal com-munication by scheduling one-on-one district tours with each regional fisheries biologist in the state during his time as chief of fisheries for ODFW. The breadth of knowledge he had from the top of the agency met the depth of knowledge from the on-the-ground, field biologists. By cutting through the layers within the organization, Martin felt better prepared to imple-ment the information he was receiving at the local and regional scale while employees had a better understanding of the forces affecting statewide decisions. In a second example, an analysis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that increasing diagonal communication within the agency’s hierarchy would enable employees to more effectively meet agency objectives (Danter et al. 2000). Communication and relationship-building do require a time investment; efficiency must sometimes give way to inclusion and responsiveness in order for institutions to process change (Yaffee 1997).

Celebrate Problem Identification

Systemic distortion is generally not malicious deception, and problems can be ignored or distorted for many reasons. Therefore, employees should not fear reporting bad news nor should they fear that a mistake has been made on their watch. A problem must be identified and characterized before it can be solved. Therefore, rewards are equally due for both problem identification and solution. The goal of this step is to show em-ployees that it is okay to make mistakes as long as the mistakes are found. This step requires humility and accountability across layers in an agency. When people trust that their leaders are concerned with ensuring that they receive the correct informa-tion and not the just favorable information, productive problem solving can move forward.

Martin admits that ODFW fisheries biologists, himself in-cluded, lacked this humility prior to the collapse of the Coho stocks. “We thought we had complete control over the salmon fishery. With our cutting-edge science and our hatchery capaci-ties, we believed we could adjust the population to whatever level the fishermen wanted. No wonder no one saw the crash coming.” This hubris was also observed in a postcollapse analy-sis of Northern Cod (Gadus morhua) management by the Ca-nadian government (Finlayson 1994). In 1977, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada developed a “science-based system of fisheries management” that proceeded to create and defend seriously flawed stock assessments and catch limits, de-spite concerns from nearshore fishers and academics, until a fishing moratorium was enacted in 1992 (McCay and Finalyson 1995). Agency personnel observed that the Department of Fish-eries and Oceans Canada promoted work considered scientifi-cally important while providing little incentive to contribute to organizational function and communication with stakeholders (Finalyson 1994). Even following the collapse, fisheries sci-entists blamed the cause of Northern Cod declines on ocean conditions, ineffective sampling, and marine mammal predation before questioning the total allowable catch limits generated by their models (McCay and Finalyson 1995). Problem identifica-tion inherently questions the status quo; therefore, this step is both radical and critical for an institution to adapt to changing social and biological conditions.

Identify Reverse Distortion Personalities

Within natural resource agencies, leaders should seek to build a culture of problem finders as well as problem solvers. Too often, the problem solvers are touted as the most essential components of an institution. In truth, the people who identify problems are equally vital to an agency. In any team environ-ment, supervisors benefit from identifying what we call “reverse distortion personalities.” These are people who are not inter-ested in distorting information for the better and will even go as far as to amplify bad news. Reverse distortion personalities have a psychology built around the identification of problems. Unfortunately, these people are often negatively labeled as or-ganizational malcontents, cynics, or simply not team players. Like a splinter in the human body, the organization will often attempt to isolate and get rid of the irritant, usually by reor-ganizing these personalities to positions where they can be, at best, tolerated or ignored. However, a good leader will recog-nize that reverse distortion personalities are key components to a healthy system—they are not splinters to be removed. Because they are not concerned about going against the groupthink cur-rent, reverse distortion personalities serve as an internal warning system that information might be getting distorted on the way to the top. These individuals beg that the problem be addressed and there is generally value in this consideration. Minority input and respectful disagreement are important pieces of a healthy decision-making process (Whyte 1956). As such, in any team environment, leaders should reinforce that “between the ex-treme of rote compliance and counterproductive undermining of leadership, there is an important place for thoughtful, divergent views” (Chaleff 2010, p. 15).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 249

Be Prepared to Act

Once a problem is identified, the system must be flexible enough to react to the information before negative impacts be-come irreversible. Too often, it takes sociopolitical or ecologi-cal catastrophes, such as the crash of Northern Cod or Oregon Coho stocks, for organizations to change their behavior (White 2001). Fisheries managers rely on empirical evidence to defend decisions, yet lack of resources for monitoring is considered a major barrier to successful adaptive management in fisher-ies (Walters 2007). Recognizing problems before a catastrophe requires constant vigilance and evaluation, which includes cre-ating measureable objectives directly linked to desired impacts of management decisions (Riley et al. 2002). These objectives are red flags in the monitoring program, and when these flags go up, the agency must be prepared to take action rather than delay intervention due to incomplete, inconclusive, or distorted information.

Institutional flexibility is a critical component in the frame-work of adaptive management (Gunderson et al. 1995) that monitors the impacts of fisheries management intervention in order to learn and change with the addition of new information (Walters 1986). Risk management strategies, such as decision support tools, provide professionals with the means to make decisions that account for the complex uncertainty of fishery systems (Hillborn 1987). These strategies foster management plans prepared to deal with economic and biological surprises (Sethi 2010).

CONCLUSION: DISTORTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

In Oregon, systemic distortion of information enabled ag-gressive harvest rates to remain unchallenged as wild Coho stocks became severely depleted. It took complete closure of the fishery, coupled with 15 years of concentrated research ef-forts (e.g., Emlen et al. 1990), to begin to reverse the effects of management decisions based on distorted information. In the end, the ODFW managed to avoid complete loss of the Oregon stocks. From our perspective, this chapter of Oregon Coho his-tory is not a result of scientific failure but rather a failure to question the veracity of scientific information flowing into the management process. The changes in management practices that were necessary to protect the fishery were fueled by cou-rageous individuals who held themselves and the organization accountable for ensuring that information flowing to top agency decision makers was accurate and timely.

The steps we have outlined here are meant to facilitate critical thinking and trust within fisheries management agen-cies. Studies in organizational behavior have found that trust in the supervisor facilitates a more productive work environment (Roberts and O’Reilly 1974; Scott 1980). However, the respon-sibility of correcting for distortion falls on all individuals in an organization. Silver and Geller (1978) asserted that “an orga-nization obscures an individual’s relationship to an end state, thus permitting the individual to feel uninvolved and devoid

of responsibility” (p. 127). Effective leadership demands both individual and organizational accountability. Because ethical considerations are inherent to almost all management decisions in natural resources (Decker et al. 1991), such decision mak-ing requires a leader to see beyond his or her organizational role to the role of responsible citizen. Professional societies can support such courageous leadership by exposing distortions and biases of organizations (Bella 1992): The American Fisheries Society’s Standards of Professional Conduct speaks to mem-ber’s responsibility to aquatic resources and the public and fur-thermore establishes a process for situations when a member finds employment obligations incongruent with ethical stan-dards (American Fisheries Society 1997). Paradigm shifts in fisheries toward adaptive management require an organizational culture that is prepared to embrace constantly changing, non-linear processes that are outside the experience of many agency personnel (Danter et al. 2000).

As stewards of the public trust, we are fighting huge battles against pollution, habitat loss, invasive species, climate change, and competing stakeholder interests for fisheries resources. This is precisely why leaders should strive to minimize the internal distortive forces that counteract an organization’s best inten-tions to protect aquatic resources. Recognizing and correcting for systemic distortion keeps information flowing accurately through an organization, reducing bias in management decisions and promoting more effective and sustainable conservation of our fisheries and their ecosystems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors extend a special note of thanks to Dr. Dave Bella, Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University, for his help-ful comments on this article and for developing the concept of systemic distortion of information and helping us understand its application to natural resource management. We appreciated the honest and critical assessment of this article provided by our anonymous reviewers. Additionally, thanks are due to S. Riley, L. McLyman, D. Leete, and N. Clough for their insightful dis-cussions, along with A. Lynch, K. Schlee, and S. Good for their review of earlier drafts.

REFERENCESAmerican Fisheries Society. 1997. Standards of Professional Conduct. Available: www.

fisheries.org/afs/certification/cert_standardsofprofessionalconduct. (August 2011).Bella, D. A. 1987. Organizations and systematic distortion of information. Journal of Pro-

fessional Issues in Engineering 113:360–370.———. 1992. Ethics and the credibility of applied science. Pages 19–31 in G. H. Reeves,

D. L. Bottom, and M. H. Brookes, editors. Ethical questions for resource managers. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-288. Portland, Oregon.

———. 1996. The pressures of organizations and the responsibilities of university profes-sors. BioScience 46:772–778.

———. 1997. Organization systems and the burden of proof. Pages 617–638 in D. J. Strouder, P. A. Bisson, R. Naiman, editors. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems. Chap-man and Hall, New York.

Chaleff, I. 2010. Promoting the healthy flow of information to senior leaders. Leader to Leader 56:12–16

Danter, K. J., D. L. Griest, G. W. Mullins, and E. Norland. 2000. Organizational change as a component of ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources 13:537–547.

Decker, D. J., R. E. Shanks, L. A. Nielsen, and G. R. Parsons. 1991. Ethical and scientific judgments in management: beware of blurred distinctions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:523–527.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 250

Emlen, J. M., R. R. Reisenbichler, A. M. McGie, and T. E. Nickelson. 1990. Density-dependence at sea for coho salmon (Oncorrhynchus kistuch). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:1765–1772.

Feynman, R. P. 1986. Personal observation on the reliability of the shuttle. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger accident. Appendix F. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Finlayson, A. C. 1994. Fishing for truth. Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memo-rial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.

Gunderson, L. H., C. S. Holling, and S. S. Light. 1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York.

Hillborn, R. 1987. Living with uncertainty in resource management. North American Jour-nal of Fisheries Management 7:1–5.

Lee, F. 1993. Being polite and keeping MUM: how bad news is communicated in organiza-tional hierarchies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23:1124–1149.

Liberti, J. M., and A. R. Mian 2009. Estimating the effect of hierarchies on information use. Review of Financial Studies 22:4057–4090.

Lichatowich, J. 1999. Salmon without rivers. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Lovallo, D., and D. Kahneman. 2003. Delusions of success. Harvard Business Review

OnPoint 4279:27–37.Martin, J. 2009. A perspective on Coho Salmon management in Oregon. American Fisher-

ies Society Symposium 70:1047–1057.McCay, B. J., and A. C. Finlayson. 1995. The political ecology and crisis and institutional

change: the case of the Northern Cod. Annual Meetings of American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.

McGie, A. M. 1981. Trends in escapement and production of fall Chinook and Coho Salmon in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information Report Number 81-7, Portland.

Mezias, J. M., and W. H. Starbuck. 2003. Studying the accuracy of managers’ perceptions: a research odyssey. British Journal of Management 14:3–17.

Riley, S. J., D. J. Decker, L. H. Carpenter, J. T. Organ, W. F. Siemer, G. F. Mattfeld, and G. Parsons. 2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:585–593.

Roberts, K. H., and C. A. O’Reilly III. 1974. Failures in upward communication in organi-zations: three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal 17:205–215.

Rosen, S., and A. Tesser. 1970. On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: the MUM effect. Sociometry 33:253–263.

Scott, D. 1980. The causal relationship between trust and the assessed value of management by objectives. Journal of Management 6(2):157–175.

Sethi, S. 2010. Risk management for fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 11:341–365.Silver, M., and D. Geller. 1978. On the irrelevance of evil: the organization and individual

action. Journal of Social Issues 34(4):125–136.Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan, New York.———. 2007. Is adaptive management helping to solve fisheries problems? Ambio

36:304–307.White, G. C. 2001. Why take calculus? Rigor in wildlife management. Wildlife Society

Bulletin 29:380–386.Whyte, W. H. 1956. The organization man. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Wilson, D. O. 1992. Diagonal communication links within organizations. Journal of Busi-

ness Communication 29(2):129–143.Yaffee, S. 1997. Why environmental policy nightmares recur. Conservation Biology

11:328–337.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 251

FEATURE

Pesca recreativa en Canadá: 35 años de dinámica social, biológica y económica a partir de un sondeo a nivel nacionalRESUMEN: la agencia de Pesquerías y Océanos de Ca-nadá ha recolectado una base de datos históricos de la dinámica social, biológica y ecológica de las pesquerías recreativas de Canadá. Esta información, que comienza en 1975, fue compilada a través de sondeos por correo postal, realizados a intervalos de cinco años, dirigidos a pescado-res. Un análisis longitudinal reveló que existen en prome-dio 4.5 millones de pescadores con licencia, que capturan una media de 255 millones de peces. Las tasas de liber-ación fueron relativamente altas (53% de peces liberados) y los datos del sondeo más reciente (2010) indican que la tasa de liberación excede el 60%. Asimismo, los pescado-res recreativos contribuyen, en promedio, con $8.8 mil mil-lones anuales a la economía canadiense. Sin embargo, con el tiempo, la pesca recreativa se ha vuelto cada vez menos popular y el promedio de la edad de los participantes se ha incrementado. Los datos también fueron útiles para car-acterizar las pesquerías de Canadá, incluyendo captura y cosecha por especie. Canadá es uno de los pocos países que recolectan datos de pesca recreativa de forma tan ex-tensiva a nivel nacional y lo hace en intervalos regulares, algo que pudiera ser imitado por otros países.

Canadian Recreational Fisheries: 35 Years of Social, Biological, and Economic Dynamics from a National SurveyJacob W. BrownscombeFish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada. E-mail: jakebrownscombe@gmail.com

Shannon D. Bower, William Bowden, and Liane NowellFish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Jonathan D. MidwoodFish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Bi-ology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, and Institute of Environ-mental Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Neville JohnsonStatistical Services, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Steven J. CookeFish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, and Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

ABSTRACT: Fisheries and Oceans Canada has collected a unique, long-term data set on the social, biological, and eco-nomic dynamics of Canada’s recreational fisheries. Starting in 1975, these data were collected through mail surveys to rec-reational anglers at 5-year intervals. A longitudinal analysis revealed that there was an average of 4.5 million licensed an-glers catching an annual average of 255 million fish. Release rates were relatively high (53% of fish released on average), with recent survey data (2010) suggesting that release rates had exceeded 60%. Recreational anglers also contribute an average of $8.8 billion each year to the Canadian economy. However, recreational angling has become less popular over time, and the average age of participants has increased. The data were also useful for characterizing Canada’s fisheries, including species-specific catch and harvest. Canada is one of the few countries to collect such extensive recreational fisheries data at a national scale and to do so at regular intervals, an approach that could be modeled by other countries.

INTRODUCTION

Recreational fishing is commonly defined as an activity where fish are caught for leisure or personal consumption, and the primary objective is not to produce food or generate income through the sale or trade of fishing products (Arlinghaus and Cooke 2009). Recreational fisheries represent the dominant use of fish stocks in the inland waters of most developed countries (Arlinghaus et al. 2002) but are also increasingly prevalent in coastal marine waters, which have been traditionally dominated by commercial fisheries (e.g., Coleman et al. 2004). In addi-tion, recreational fisheries are considered essential in emerg-

ing economies where they provide employment security and economic benefits through the development of tourism sectors (Cowx 2002; Ditton et al. 2002).

Compared to the commercial fishing sector, which is well studied and monitored (particularly in marine waters; Pauly and Palomares 2005; Welcomme et al. 2010), recreational fisher-ies are poorly understood (Cooke and Cowx 2004). Currently the magnitude of recreational fishing and its quantitative at-tributes are largely unknown, chronically underreported, and thus unappreciated (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2012). Quantitative statistical information is essential to monitor tem-poral trends related to exploitation, value the fishery, and iden-tify emerging issues (e.g., shifts in angler demographics, target species, effort, etc.) or opportunities (e.g., increased fisheries tourism). However, even basic information on participation is lacking in most countries (Arlinghaus and Cooke 2009). Few national-scale recreational fishing surveys exist, and those that do rarely consider social, biological, and economic data concur-rently.

Home to over 2 million lakes, thousands of kilometers of rivers, and three coasts (i.e., Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 252

Canada supports a popular recreational fishery in each province and territory and is one of the few countries in the world to col-lect relevant recreational fisheries data at a national scale (Fish-eries and Oceans Canada [DFO] 2012). Beginning in 1975, the then Department of Fisheries and Oceans (now Fisheries and Oceans Canada) in Canada instituted a voluntary mail survey of recreational anglers at 5-year intervals designed to provide a high-level overview of recreational fishing throughout the coun-try (DFO 2012). Not only is the Canadian recreational angling survey process unique globally, it has yet to be analyzed in its entirety across sampling periods. By performing such a synthe-sis, this article will identify metrics of interest that may serve as an example for future studies, answer wide-ranging questions about the recreational fishing sector, and provide information pertaining to demographics, biological impacts, and economic patterns through time. Moreover, because these surveys collect diverse information (e.g., economic, ecological, and social), they may facilitate the integration of different aspects of recre-ational fisheries research and sound strategic policy (Haapasaari et al. 2012). This multifaceted approach may serve as a model for research and analysis that can be used to guide national and international recreational fisheries management in the future.

METHODS

Canadian Recreational Fishing Surveys

Data Collection

Mail surveys were conducted by the DFO from 1975 to 2010 in 5-year intervals on a jurisdiction-specific basis (i.e., provinces and territories). Surveys had a set of core questions consistent across jurisdictions relating to angler demography (i.e., age, gender), angling activity (i.e., effort, catch, harvest), and angling-related expenditures (i.e., gear, travel), as well as questions unique to each jurisdiction. The results from the ma-jority of these surveys (from 1990 onwards) are available online (www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/rec/canada-rec-eng.htm; Photo 1). In most jurisdictions, surveys were sent to a random subset of li-censed anglers in Canada. However, in Québec and Newfound-land information from licensing bases were limited, so surveys were mailed to households identified as angling households in a randomized telephone survey.

Surveys were stratified into Canadian resident (fishing in their own jurisdiction) and nonresident anglers, as well as fresh- and saltwater licensed anglers in coastal jurisdictions. From 1990 forward, nonresident anglers were further stratified into Canadian nonresident (fishing in a jurisdiction outside of their own) and non-Canadian angler categories. Unless speci-fied, “nonresident” refers to both Canadian nonresident and non-Canadian anglers combined. The total number of respon-dents nationwide ranged from 32,000 to 38,557. Prescreening phone calls and postsurvey reminder cards were implemented in 1990 and 2000, respectively, to identify likely respondents and mitigate declining response rates. There were no data col-lected for nonresident anglers in Québec in 2005 or 2010, which undoubtedly resulted in underestimated nationwide values for

this angler type in those years. Generally, reports also collected more detailed information in later years, including more in-depth information on species-specific catch and harvest, which were omitted in early surveys.

Data Analysis

In most jurisdictions, the data collected from angler mail surveys were extrapolated to the total number of licensed an-glers of each angler type (resident, nonresident and saltwater, freshwater) using an inverse weighting by stratum function (DFO 2012). However, due to the lack of standard provincial recreational angler licensing, the number of anglers in Québec and Newfoundland were estimated based on the ratio of anglers to nonanglers that responded to the prescreening surveys and the population sizes from provincial census data (DFO 1975–2010). Coefficients of variation (CV) are standard error measure-ments of the extrapolation estimates that were used by Statis-tics Canada to assess the statistical reliability of survey data (as per Searls 1964) as a measure of reproducibility, where CV = (Standard error of the mean/mean) * 100. CV values greater than 33.5 reflect a high degree of dispersion around the estimate and were excluded from further analysis due to low reliability/reproducibility (as per Statistics Canada guidelines [Statistics Canada 2009]). The majority of values were lower than 16.5, which suggest low dispersion and, as such, are considered to be highly reliable, with low probability of bias (Hendricks and Robey 1936; Maarof et al. 2012; DFO 2012).

Longitudinal Analysis

Social (number of anglers, total days fished, age, gender, and catch per unit effort [CPUE]), biological (catch, harvest,

Photo 1. Fisheries and Oceans Canada report on recreational fishing in Canada in 2010. Photo credit: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 253

percentage caught and released), and economic (expenditures, major purchases related to angling) recreational fishing vari-ables were compared on a national scale from 1975 to 2010 or within time periods where data were available. Though species-specific catch and harvest data became more detailed in later years, species were combined into more general groups as they were in early survey years for longitudinal comparison from 1985 to 2010 (Table 1). In some instances, species from dis-parate taxonomic groups had to be grouped together due to the generality of angler reports in early years of the survey. For example, the bass category included both Centrarchid and Mo-ronid bass. Catch per unit effort was calculated based on the total number of fish caught and the total number of angler days fished. All economic values were converted to 2010 Canadian dollars as per Statistics Canada and Bank of Canada guidelines using the Consumer Price Index (Statistics Canada, Operations and Integration Division 1996). The relationships between the number of recreational anglers in Canada and total fish catch and harvest were analyzed using linear regression analysis, as were the relationships between angler effort (total days fished) and fish catch and harvest. Assumptions of normality were tested prior to analysis. Analyses were conducted using R sta-tistical programming language (ver. 2.15, R Foundation for Sta-tistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

RESULTS

Social

From 1975 to 2010 there were on average of 4.5 million licensed anglers in Canada, of which 94% were active. After peaking in 1985 at 5.2 million, the number of licensed anglers in Canada declined consistently to 3.5 million in 2005 then rose again to 3.6 million in 2010 (Figure 1a). Overall, licensed an-glers included 79% Canadian residents, 17% non-Canadians, and 4% Canadian nonresidents. The average age of all anglers has increased over time from 41 in 1975 to 50 in 2010 (Figure 1b) and nonresident anglers were an average of 4.4 years older than Canadian residents. Recreational anglers were also pre-dominately male for both Canadian residents (79%) and non-residents (85%), with relatively stable gender ratios over time (Figure 1b).

Similar to the trend for licensed anglers, the total number of days fished by recreational anglers in Canada declined from 74 million in 1980 to 43 million in 2005 and 2010 (Figure 1c). For all survey years combined, the majority of angling effort oc-curred in freshwater (93%). Angler CPUE remained stable over time (Figure 1d). Canadian residents and Canadian nonresidents had similar CPUE at 4.0 and 4.3 fish/day, respectively, whereas CPUE for non-Canadians was much higher at 10.4 fish/day.

Biological

An average of 255 million fish were caught in Canada by recreational anglers each year from 1985 to 2010. Over time, catch declined from over 330 million in 1985 to 193 million in 2010 (Figure 2a), with a 44% decline in Canadian resident

catch and a 25% decline in nonresident catch. With all years combined, Canadian residents accounted for 88% of catch and nonresidents 12%, where Canadian nonresidents represented 2% of catch and non-Canadians represented 10% of catch.

From 1975 to 2010, an average of 133 million fish were harvested in Canada each year by recreational anglers. Harvest peaked in 1985 at over 228 million fish and declined by 75% to 58 million in 2010, with similar levels of decline in both Cana-dian residents and nonresidents (Figure 2b). The release rate of fish caught by anglers has increased by 37% from 1985 to 2010, a consistent trend in both Canadian residents and nonresidents (Figure 2c). Nonresidents exhibited more catch-and-release ac-tivity than Canadian residents consistently over time, releasing an average of 23% more of their catch. There was a strong posi-tive relationship between the number of licensed anglers and the number of fish caught (R2 = 0.92, F1,4 = 45.6, P = 0.003) and har-vested (R2 = 0.85, F1,4 = 22.5, P = 0.009; Figure 3). There was an even stronger relationship between number of days fished and the number of fish caught (R2 = 0.98, F1,4 = 160.4, P < 0.001) and harvested (R2 = 0.95, F1,4 = 78.3, P < 0.001).

The group including all Trout and Charr species (Photo 2, Table 1) represented the highest number of caught and harvested fishes in Canada from 1985 to 2010, and Walleye (Sander vit-reus) was the most frequently caught and harvested individual species (Figure 4). Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy; Photo 3) and Bass (Photo 4) fisheries were primarily catch-and-release, whereas Smelt, Cod, Trout, and Charr were harvest-dominated. Perch, Northern Pike (Esox lucius), Salmon, and Whitefish were

Table 1 . A list of the nine selected species groups and the species included in each group according to common and scientific names. Note that in some cases species are grouped in ways that would be expected of anglers (e.g., putting Centrarchid and Moronid Bass together) rather than consistent with taxonomic standards.

Species group name

Common name(s) of included species

Scientific name(s) of included species

Northern Pike Northern Pike Esox lucius

Walleye Walleye Sander vitreus

Salmon

Atlantic Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Pink Salmon, Sockeye Salmon, Chum Salmon

Salmo salar, Oncorhynchus spp.

Trout and Charr

Arctic Charr, Lake Trout, Brook Trout, Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout, Golden Trout, Bull Trout, Dolly Varden, Cut-throat Trout, Splake

Salvelinus spp., Salmo trutta, Oncorhynchus mykiss, O. clarkii

Perch Yellow Perch, White Perch Perca flavescens, Morone americana

Cod Atlantic Cod, Tomcod, Ling-cod

Gadus morhua, Microgadus tomcod, Ophiodon elongatus

Smelt Smelt Hypomesus olidus, Osmerus mordax

Whitefish Mountain, Lake and unspeci-fied Whitefish

Prosopium spp., Coregonus spp.

Muskellunge Muskellunge Esox masquinongy

Bass Largemouth Bass, Small-mouth Bass, Striped Bass

Micropterus salmoides, Micropterus dolomieu, Morone saxatilis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 254

subject to more intermediate levels of harvest, whereas Walleye and Northern Pike became more catch-and-release dominated due to declines in harvest and/or increases in catch over time. Longitudinal trends show general declines in harvest for all species/groups, with large declines in Smelt (−82%), Whitefish (−74%), Trout and Charr (−43%), and Cod (−27%) catch. Cod catch dropped by 88% from 1990 to 1995 but increased mod-erately by 2010.

Economic

Major purchases wholly or partly related to recreational angling (related major purchases; RMP) averaged $5.6 billion CAD per year from 1975 to 2010, with Canadian residents re-sponsible for 95% of RMP (Figure 5a). Related major purchases increased from $3.8 billion in 1975 to its maximum, $7.9 bil-lion, in 1990 and subsequently declined to $5.8 billion in 2010.

Total expenditures directly related to angling (direct expendi-tures; DE) averaged $3.2 billion from 1975 to 2010, with Ca-nadian residents responsible for 72% of DE (Figure 5b). Direct expenditures followed a similar longitudinal pattern to RMP, increasing to its maximum in 1985 at $4.6 billion and declining steadily to $2.5 billion in 2010. Overall, recreational angling contributed an average of $8.8 billion in revenue per year to the Canadian economy from 1975 to 2010 through RMP and DE.

Direct expenditures averaged $786/angler for all angler types from 1990 to 2010 (Figure 5c). Direct expenditures/an-gler remained stable for Canadian residents over this time pe-riod but increased over time for both Canadian nonresidents and non-Canadians. However, Canadian nonresidents spent the least per angler in 2010 at $399/angler, down 62% from 2005. Non-Canadians generally spent the most per angler, with an increase from $643/angler in 1990 to $1,115/angler in 2010. Resident anglers exhibited a modest decrease in spending over the same time period, from $762/angler in 1990 to $696/angler in 2010.

DISCUSSION

Recreational angling is a socially and economically impor-tant activity in Canada and a dominant use of its fish stocks in inland waters. A longitudinal study of social, biological, and economic trends highlights important interactions between

Figure 1. (a) Number of active Canadian resident (light grey) and nonresident (dark grey) anglers (millions) from 1975 to 2010. (b) Mean age of resident (light grey bars) and nonresident (dark grey bars) anglers; gender (% male) of resident (black line) and nonresident (hatched line) anglers from 1975 to 2010. (c) Total days fished by resident (light grey) and nonresident (dark grey) anglers from 1975 to 2010. (d) Catch per unit effort (number of fish per day) by Canadian resident (black line), Canadian nonresident (black hatched line), and non-Canadian (light grey hatched line) anglers in Canada from 1990 to 2010.

A “lack of time” may reflect that fishing is becoming less of a priority, especially for young people. With the increasing popularity of technology and social media, young people in particular are spending more of their time interacting through virtual means, which has resulted in a general lack of participation in outdoor activities and an overall lack of connectivity to nature, a phenomenon termed “nature deficit disorder.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 255

Figure 2. (a) Total catch of all fish species by Canadian residents (light grey) and nonresidents (dark grey), (b) total harvest of all fish species, and (c) fish released (% of catch) by Canadian residents (black line) and nonresidents (hatch line) from 1975 to 2010. No data available for (a) and (c) from 1975 to 1980.

Photo 2. Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) angled in British Columbia. Photo Credit: Andrew Lotto.

these dynamics that may inform related environmental and socioeconomic policy. Recreational angling in Canada has certainly become less popular since 1985 (number of licensed anglers declined 31%), though Canada’s population has grown 30% during this time period (Statistics Canada 2013). Further, the mean age of licensed anglers has increased by nearly 10 years, indicating that decreased popularity is primarily due to poor recruitment of young anglers. Recreational anglers are also predominantly male in Canada, which is consistent with the majority of documented recreational fisheries worldwide (Aas 1996; Fedler and Ditton 2001; Freire et al. 2012). A lack of female participation has been attributed to commitments to children and family, perceptions of traditional gender roles, or a general lack of experience (Anderson et al. 2004). Previous studies have found that the most common reasons people cite for not fishing are their health, a lack of time, cost, or regu-lations (Aas 1996; Fedler and Ditton 2001). A “lack of time”

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

Along with participation, catch and harvest rates by recre-ational anglers have also declined while CPUE has remained static, suggesting that overall angling quality has remained relatively consistent. This is surprising considering that fish-ing quality has apparently declined in many inland waters (Post et al. 2002; Cooke and Cowx 2004, 2006). Furthermore, many fish populations have undergone recent declines due to habitat loss and overexploitation by both commercial and recreational fisheries in Canada (Christie 1974; Post et al. 2002; Lewin et al. 2006). This was not reflected in our nationwide angler CPUE; however, the measure of effort here, number of days fished, does not preclude the possibility that anglers are fishing longer days to catch the same number of fish. Catch of target species is also not considered, and abundance-related declines in fishing success for some species or regions may be mediated by others. Indeed, observed increases in catch and release rates since 1985 could reflect the fact that fewer target species or fish of harvest-able size are being caught. However, catch-and-release angling has been increasing in popularity in many developed countries, which has been attributed to a combination of stricter harvest regulations and voluntary release due to shifting conservation ethics of anglers (Cowx 2002; Arlinghaus et al. 2007). Catch-and-release angling is a conservation strategy that relies on the assumption that released fish survive and have limited fitness consequences (Wydoski 1977; Arlinghaus et al. 2007). The large increase in catch-and-release activity in Canada highlights the importance of exercising best angling practices to minimize the impacts of this activity (see Cooke and Schramm 2007).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 256

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

Figure 3. Relationships between the number of licensed anglers and total fish catch (catch = −59.22 + 72.69 * number of anglers) and harvest (harvest = −220.0 + 78.9 * number of anglers), as well as the total number of days fished and total fish catch (catch = 33.4 + 4.0 * days fished) and harvest (harvest = −108.8 + 4.0 * days fished) including resident and nonresident anglers in Canada from 1975 or 1985 to 2010.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 257

Photo 4. Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) angled in eastern Ontario. Photo credit: Karen Murchie.

Figure 4. Catch (white) and harvest (grey) of selected species, including Trout and Charr, Walleye, Perch, Bass, Northern Pike, Smelt, Salmon, Cod, Whitefish, and Muskellunge in Canada from 1985 to 2010. For species groupings, see Table 1. No data available for Muskellunge in 1985.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 258

An examination of angler catch and harvest also provides useful information for managing fisheries. It is a notable trend that every species/group examined herein that has been sub-jected to relatively high levels of harvest has exhibited some decline in catch by recreational anglers since 1985, particularly those fisheries with very high levels of harvest (i.e., Trout and Charr, Smelt, Cod, Whitefish). In contrast, an increase in Bass and Walleye catch over time corresponded with decreased har-vest. It is uncertain whether increased release rates are due to harvest regulations or conservation ethics of anglers, but catch-and-release angling can be an effective conservation strategy (Cooke and Schramm 2007), and healthy stocks are best main-tained through well-regulated and closely monitored fisheries (Pauly and Palomares 2005; Welcomme et al. 2010). However, angler CPUE must be interpreted with caution when making inferences about fish population dynamics, especially on a na-tional scale. Anglers have a tendency to become more effective over time and therefore catch rates may not reflect declines in fish abundance (Post et al. 2002).

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

In examining these long-term social, biological, and eco-nomic dynamics in Canadian recreational fisheries concur-rently, the utility is clear. They reveal patterns in important metrics such as species-specific catch, fishing participation, and angler expenditures, which could contribute to management of natural resources and economies. For example, knowledge of socially and economically important fish species may inform habitat protection, stocking programs, and fishing regulations, and drastic declines in catch of a popular species may indicate a cause for concern. Similarly, knowledge of angling activity and expenditures by specific demographics may inform promotional strategies for increasing tourism-related economic growth. De-spite the high social and economic importance of recreational angling in many countries worldwide (Cowx 2002; McPhee et al. 2002; Radford et al. 2007), few countries have an under-standing of the complex biological, demographic, and economic dynamics of their fisheries. The collection of such data will not only benefit individual nations; it can support development of a global framework for management of recreational fisheries (see Cooke and Cowx 2004).

Canada is a pioneer in its use of nationwide voluntary mail-based angler surveys for collecting nationwide information on the complex dynamics of its recreational fisheries, and much has been learned along the way. Generally, important considerations for angler surveys include survey frequency, numbers, delivery, and design (questions), because every region has its own diverse culture of recreational anglers that may have variable response rates, reliability, and biases (Ditton and Hunt 2001; Fedler and Ditton 2001). In Canadian recreational angler survey data, the largest bias observed was a lack of data from nonresident an-glers in Québec in 2005 and 2010 due to privacy laws enacted in this jurisdiction. In attempting to collect data over large spatial and temporal scales, such issues may be common. Fortunately, nonresident anglers in Québec only represented 1.3% of anglers

Figure 5. (a) Major purchases wholly or partly related to angling by Cana-dian resident (light grey) and nonresident (dark grey) anglers from 1975 to 2010, (b) expenditures directly related to angling by Canadian resident (light grey) and nonresident (dark grey) anglers from 1975 to 2010, and (c) Canadian dollars spent per angler by Canadian resident (light grey), Canadian nonresident (dark grey), and non-Canadian (black) anglers from 1990 to 2010. All data in 2010 Canadian currency values.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 259

in Canada in the year 2000, so the dearth of this data likely re-sulted in only a slight underestimation of participation, catch, harvest, and economic contributions in those years.

Future applications of nationwide mail surveys should en-sure that sample size is large enough to avoid nonresponse bias (Armstrong and Overton 1977), and survey delivery methods are an important consideration. For example, the demograph-ics of respondents may be very different between mail and electronic surveys because younger demographics tend to use new technologies much more readily than older demographics (Morris and Venkatesh 2006). By using solely mail surveys in Canada, responses from younger demographics may have been underrepresented. Another potential bias in angler surveys is that anglers often overestimate their catch (Pitcher and Holling-worth 2002) and therefore the number of fish caught in Canada may have been overestimated using the above methods. For future applications, the level of angler overestimation can be quantified and a correction factor applied to the survey data (see Connelly and Brown 1995; Connelly et al. 2000). An ex-amination of Canadian angler survey data also identified some potential metrics of interest. For example, future surveys could aim to quantify finer scale angler effort and catch of actual tar-get species to better assess angling quality. There is also great potential for further analysis of the Canadian angler survey data set, particularly on finer spatial scales. Hogg et al. (2010) exam-ined these data to characterize Ontario’s recreational fisheries in 2005, revealing regional patterns in angler effort, catch, and harvest, which are helping guide fisheries management in that province.

Nationwide angler surveys provided a high-level over-view of the biological and socioeconomic dynamics of Cana-dian recreational fisheries over a large temporal scale. These include exploitation rates of specific fish species or groups, the demographics and number of anglers, and their contributions to the Canadian economy. By synthesizing data from typically disparate disciplines, an important connection is formed be-tween natural resources and their social and economic value. Recreational angling is a highly popular activity worldwide; it is of high social and economic importance and has the potential to impact exploited fish populations. However, the biological and socioeconomic dynamics of fisheries worldwide are poorly understood (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2012). Cana-dian recreational angler surveys should serve as a model for building a fisheries assessment framework that can be used to guide national recreational fisheries management in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Recreational Fisheries group at DFO and the provinces and territories, which provided us access to the data set. We acknowledge the tireless efforts of many DFO staff that have contributed to the data collection as well as to the many hundreds of thousands of anglers that have responded to the sur-vey over the past 35 years. In particular, we thank Kieth Brick-ley for his assistance in the preparation of this article.

FUNDING

S. J. Cooke is supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program and NSERC. J. Brownscombe is also funded by NSERC. We thank the Recreational Fisheries group at DFO and the provinces and territories, which financed the surveys.

REFERENCESAas, Ø. 1996. Recreational fishing in Norway from 1970 to 1993: trends and geographical

variation. Fisheries Management and Ecology 3:107–118.Anderson, L. E., D. K. Loomis, and R. J. Salz. 2005. Constraints to recreational fishing:

Concepts and questions to understand underrepresented angling groups. Pages 316–320 in K. Bricker and S. J. Millington, editors. Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreational Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Sta-tion, Newtown Square, PA.

Arlinghaus, R., M. Bork, and E. Fladung. 2008. Understanding the heterogeneity of rec-reational anglers across an urban–rural gradient in a metropolitan area (Berlin, Ger-many), with implications for fisheries management. Fisheries Research 92:53–62.

Arlinghaus, R., and S. J. Cooke. 2009. Recreational fisheries: socioeconomic importance, conservation issues and management challenges. Pages 39–58 in B. Dickson, J. Iut-ton, and B. Adams, editors. Recreational hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods. Science and practice. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Arlinghaus, R., S. J. Cooke, J. Lyman, D. Policansky, A. Schwab, C. Suski, S. G. Sutton, and E. B. Thorstad. 2007. Understanding the complexity of catch-and-release in rec-reational fishing: an integrative synthesis of global knowledge from historical, ethical, social and biological perspectives. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15:75–167.

Arlinghaus, R., T. Mehner, and I. G. Cowx. 2002. Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish and Fisheries 3:261–316.

Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14:396–402.

Christie, W. J. 1974. Changes in fish species composition of the Great Lakes. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 31:827–854.

Coleman, F. C., W. F. Figueira, J. S. Ueland, and L. B. Crowder. 2004. The impact of United States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305:1958–1960.

Connelly, N. A., T. L. Brown, and B. A. Knuth. 2000. Assessing the relative importance of recall bias and nonresponse bias and adjusting for those biases in statewide angler surveys. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:19–29.

Connelly, N. A., and T. L. Brown. 1995. Use of angler diaries to examine biases associated with 12-month recall on mail questionnaires. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:413–422.

Cooke, S. J., and I. Cowx. 2004. The role of recreational fishing in global fishing crises. Bioscience 54:857–859.

Cooke, S. J., and I. Cowx. 2006. Contrasting recreational and commercial fishing: search-ing for common issues to promote unified conservation of fisheries resources and aquatic environments. Biological Conservation 128:93–108.

Cooke, S. J., and H. L. Schramm. 2007. Catch-and-release science and its application to conservation and management of recreational fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14:73–79.

Cowx, I. G. 2002. Recreational fisheries. Pages 367–390 in P. B. J. Hart and J. D. Reyn-olds, editors. Handbook of fish biology and fisheries, volume 2. Blackwell Science, Oxford , UK.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2012. Survey of recreational fishing in Canada, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Can-ada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Ditton, R. B., and K. M. Hunt. 2001. Combining creel intercept and mail survey methods to understand the human dimension of local freshwater fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 8:295–301.

Ditton, R. B., S. M. Holland, and D. K. Anderson. 2002. Recreational fishing as tourism. Fisheries 27:17–24.

Fedler, A. J., and R. B. Ditton. 2001. Dropping out and dropping in: A study of factors for changing recreational fishing participation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:283–292.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries and Aquaculture De-partment. 2012. Technical guidelines for responsible recreational fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Freire, K. M., M. L. Machado, and D. Crepaldi. 2012. Overview of inland recreational fisheries in Brazil. Fisheries 37:484–494.

Haapasaari, H., S. Kulmala, and S. Kuikka. 2012. Growing into interdisciplinarity: how to converge biology, economics, and social science in fisheries research? Ecology and Society 17:139–146.

Hendricks, W. A., and K. W. Robey. 1936. The sampling distribution of the coefficient of variation. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 7:129–132.

Hogg, S. E., N. P. Lester, and H. Ball. 2010. 2005 Survey of recreational fishing in Canada: results for fisheries management zones of Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Re-sources, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Peterborough, Ontario.

Lester, N. P., T. R. Marshall, K. Armstrong, W. I. Dunlop, and B. Ritchie. 2003. A broad-scale approach to management of Ontario’s recreational fisheries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:1312–1328.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

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

Lewin, W. C., R. Arlinghaus, T. Mehner. 2006. Documented and potential biological im-pacts of recreational angling: insights for conservation and management. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14:305–367.

Louv, R. 2006. Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Louv, R. 2012. The nature principle. Algonquin Books, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.Maarof, F., A. Athirah Ahmad, and S. Mohammed. 2012. Symmetricity of the sampling

distribution of CV for exponential samples. World Applied Sciences Journal 17:60–65.McPhee, D. P., D. Leadbitter, and G. A. Skilleter. 2002. Swallowing the bait: is recreational

fishing in Australia ecologically sustainable? Pacific Conservation Biology 8:40–51.Morris, M. G., and V. Vankatesh. 2006. Age differences in technology adoption decisions:

implications for a changing workforce. Personnel Psychology 53:375–403.Pauly, D., and M. L. Palomares. 2005. Fishing down the food web: it is far more pervasive

than we thought. Bulletin of Marine Sciences 76:197–211. Pergams, O. R. W., and P. A. Zaradic. 2008. Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive

shift away from nature-based recreation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:2295–2300.

Pitcher, T. J., and C. Hollingworth. 2002. Recreational fisheries: ecological, economic and social evaluation. Blackwell Science Ltd., London.

Post, J. R., K. Sullivan, S. Cox, N. P. Lester, C. J. Walters, E. A. Parkinson, A. J. Paul, L. Jackson, and B. J. Shuter. 2002. Canada’s recreational fisheries: the invisible collapse? Fisheries 27:6–17.

Radford, A., G. Riddington, and H. Gibson. 2007. Economic evaluation of inland fisher-ies: the economic impact of freshwater angling in England and Wales. Environment Agency, Science Report SC050026/SR2, Bristol, UK.

Searls, D. T. 1964. The utilization of a known coefficient of variation in the estimation procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association 59:1225–1226.

Statistics Canada. 2009. Statistics Canada Quality Guidelines. Available: http://www.stat-can.gc.ca/pub/12-539-x/12-539-x2009001-eng.pdf. (May 2014).

Statistics Canada. 2013. Estimated population size of Canada. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Statistics Canada, Operations and Integration Division. 1996. Your guide to the consumer price index. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Welcomme, R. L., I. G. Cowx, D. Coates, C. Béné, S. Funge-Smith, A. Halls, and K. Lo-renzen. 2010. Inland capture fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365:2881–2896.

Wydoski, R. S. 1977. Relation of hooking mortality and sublethal hooking stress to qual-ity fisheries management. Pages 43–87 in R. A. Bernhart and R. D. Roelofs, editors. Catch-and-release fishing as a management tool. California Cooperative Fishery Re-search Unit, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 261

FEATURE

Escondidas: la interacción entre pescadores y peces influencia el manejo espacial de pesqueríasRESUMEN: el manejo sustentable de recursos pesqueros requiere entender la interacción en tiempo y espacio entre las poblaciones de peces y los pescadores. Se llevó a cabo un trabajo de campo para comparar los patrones espacia-les del esfuerzo de pesca recreativa con la distribución de los peces en un lago de Florida. A lo largo de un año, se estudió la ubicación espacial tanto de los pescadores de lobina negra (Micropterus salmoides) como de la propia lobina. Más del 90% de los pescadores operaron dentro de los primeros 50m de costa y un tercio de los peces se ubicaron fuera de la costa en cualquier momento dado. Los patrones espaciales sugirieron que los peces que se encuen-tran en áreas que no son frecuentadas por los pescadores fueron menos vulnerables a la pesca y, por consiguiente, los pescadores no se distribuyen de acuerdo a una distribu-ción ideal libre. En contraste, datos de recaptura de peces mediante telemetría mostraron tendencias similares en la captura tanto en la zona costera como fuera de ésta, lo que indica que todos los peces fueron igualmente vulnerables a la pesca y que los pescadores se distribuyen de acuerdo a una distribución ideal. El uso informado de las regula-ciones pesqueras espaciales y temporales deben tomar en cuenta el comportamiento tanto de los peces como de los pescadores.

Hide and Seek: Interplay of Fish and Anglers Influences Spatial Fisheries ManagementBryan G. MatthiasUniversity of Florida, 7922 NW 71st St., Gainesville, FL 32653. E-mail: bmatthias@ufl.edu

Micheal S. Allen and Robert N. M. AhrensUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL

T. Douglas Beard, Jr.United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA

Janice A. KernsUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL

ABSTRACT: Sustainable management of fisheries resources requires an understanding of spatial and temporal interplay between targeted fish populations and anglers. We conducted a field study comparing spatial patterns in recreational an-gler effort to fish distribution in a Florida lake. Over one year, spatial locations of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) anglers and Largemouth Bass were surveyed. Over 90% of an-glers were fishing within 50 m from shore and one-third of fish were located offshore at any given time. This spatial pattern-ing suggested that fish located in areas not targeted by anglers were less vulnerable to angling and, thus, anglers were not dis-tributed according to the ideal free distribution. However, tag return data of telemetered fish showed similar catch trends in both onshore and offshore habitats, indicating that all fish were equally vulnerable to angling and anglers were ideally distrib-uted. Informed use of spatial and/or temporal fishery regula-tions should consider fish and angler behavior.

INTRODUCTION

Recent interest concerning spatial patterns in recreational fisheries has, for the most part, focused on landscape patterns of angler effort (e.g., Parkinson et al. 2004; Post et al. 2008; Hunt et al. 2011). However, these studies largely ignore within-lake spatial interactions between anglers and fish. Consequently, small-scale spatial interactions between anglers and fish have been hypothesized to lead to areas where fish are “safe” from, or invulnerable to, angling due to interactions between angler and fish behavior (Martin 1958; Cox and Walters 2002). Many factors can lead to fish being less vulnerable or invulnerable to angling, including angler heterogeneity in skill, knowledge, and motivation (van Poorten and Post 2005; Hunt et al. 2011; Seekell et al. 2011) and variations in fish behavior affecting habitat selection and movement rates (Cox and Walters 2002; Botsford et al. 2003; Grüss et al. 2011). However, there is a large knowledge gap in relating how angler spatial effort pat-terns and fish behavior interact over fine spatial scales to influ-ence the vulnerability of fish to angling.

How anglers choose to distribute themselves within a sys-tem can influence the proportion of a population vulnerable to angling. The ideal free distribution (IFD) predicts that fishing effort will be attracted to areas with higher fish abundance, such that at equilibrium no area will have greater than average catch rates (Gillis et al. 1993; Walters and Bonfil 1999; Post et al. 2008). The IFD model was developed in ecology (Fretwell and Lucas 1970; Fretwell 1972) and has been used to predict fishing effort dynamics in commercial (Gillis 2003), artisanal (Aber-nethy et al. 2007), and recreational fisheries (Parkinson et al. 2004). The IFD has worked well at predicting the distribution of commercial effort where all participants have similar knowl-edge of the fishery (Gillis 2003; Voges et al. 2005). However, for artisanal fisheries the IFD has not worked well because fish-ers did not have complete knowledge of fish distribution, which prevented fishers from targeting locations with highest fish den-sities (Abernethy et al. 2007). In many recreational fisheries, participants have disparate knowledge and skill levels resulting in catch inequality, where a small portion of anglers catch a large fraction of the fish (van Poorten and Post 2005; Seekell et al. 2011). This heterogeneity among anglers impacts individuals’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 262

perceptions of the potential catch rate and may result in an ef-fort distribution that appears incongruent with the prediction of an IFD. Failure of IFD distribution to apply in recreational fisheries could result in a portion of a fish population not being targeted by anglers or for some subpopulation to be targeted disproportionately to their abundance.

A mismatch between the spatial distributions of anglers and fish may also be influenced by how individual anglers perceive catch- and non-catch-related returns. Though it is common to assume that fishing effort responds to changes in catch rates (Parkinson et al. 2004; Post et al. 2008) or a perceived economic return (Holland and Sutinen 1999), the perception of catch-re-lated returns, such as total catch, trophy catch, or harvest (Post et al. 2008; Hunt et al. 2011), vary between anglers and their target species (Arlinghaus et al. 2008). Non-catch-related re-turns, such as aesthetics or remoteness (Parkinson et al. 2004; Post et al. 2008; Hunt et al. 2011), have been found to be more important to some anglers than catch-related returns (Ditton 2004; Arlinghaus 2006). This interplay between catch and non-catch-related returns adds to the complexity when evaluating motivations governing angler distribution and the potential for a proportion of the fish population to be invulnerable to angling.

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

The objectives of this study were to (1) test evidence for the Martin (1958) and Cox and Walters (2002) hypothesis that a portion of a fish population is spatially invulnerable to an-gling due to spatial patterns of angler or fish behavior and (2) determine whether anglers were distributed according to the IFD. In order to achieve these objectives, the spatial distribu-tions of both anglers and fish were evaluated, exchange rates of fish between areas targeted and areas not targeted by anglers were quantified, and data from angler tag returns were used to empirically test whether a portion of the population remained invulnerable to angling.

METHODS

Study Area

Lake Santa Fe (27.74° N, 82.07° W) is located in north cen-tral Florida. The lake is composed of two basins, a main basin of 1,873 ha (Florida Lakewatch 2005b) and a 577 ha northern basin (Florida Lakewatch 2005a), which is also known as Little Lake Santa Fe (29.77° N, 82.09° W). The main lake reaches a maximum depth of 8.1 m and has an average depth of 4.9 m, and the northern basin has a maximum depth of 6.3 m and an aver-age depth of 3.6 m (Figure 1). There are several relatively short residence canals around the lake, seven in the main basin and four in the northern basin. A thin band of emergent vegetation around the perimeter consists primarily of maidencane (Pani-cum hemitomon), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), spatter-dock (Nuphar luteum), and giant bulrush (Scirpus californicus).

Figure 1. Bathymetric map of Lake Santa Fe, Florida. The center of the lake is located at 27.74 °N and 82.07 °W. Contour lines represent depth in meters.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 263

Angler Distribution

We sampled the locations of anglers to evaluate the spatial distribution of fishing effort from November 2010 through Oc-tober 2011. Surveys were generally conducted on two nonran-dom weekdays and one random weekend day every 2 weeks. Weekday surveys were usually conducted on the first Monday and following Wednesday every 2 weeks due to the fish te-lemetry schedule (see below). Weekend surveys were usually conducted on a random weekend day following the weekday survey. All angler surveys were conducted at random times between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. We chose specific sample times on each day using a stratified random design by randomly selecting morning, afternoon, or evening with equal probability (P = 0.33). Within each time of day stratum, specific angler count time was selected randomly within that period. Starting locations for the angler survey were also randomly selected within the lake. Surveys were conducted by driving around the perimeter of the lake to locate anglers near shore. Offshore anglers were located by running transects through the middle of the lake.

Once a boat or person along the shoreline was found, we determined whether they were fishing by observing a fishing line in the water, tackle switching, or fish handling. Distance and bearing to anglers were obtained from a TruPulse 360B laser rangefinder (Laser Technology Inc.) and entered into a Trimble Recon (Trimble Navigation Limited) using Tripod Data Systems SOLO Field Software (Tripod Data Systems). All an-glers on the same boat or dock were given the same location. Anglers were classified as Largemouth Bass anglers or non-Bass anglers depending on observed fishing techniques. Start-ing in March 2011, subsets of anglers were also interviewed to determine the accuracy of visual estimation of the species they were targeting. From November 2010 through May 2011, canals around the lake were sampled for angler distribution three times a month on two random weekdays and one random weekend day. From June through October canals were not sampled due to lower water levels that precluded both angling and surveys.

Fish Sampling

The spatial distribution of Largemouth Bass was assessed using radio telemetry. Fish were captured using electrofishing and angling in the fall of 2010. Electrofishing was conducted along the shoreline and angling was used to collect fish from water greater than 3 m deep or at least 50 m from the edge of vegetation. Fish located offshore were targeted in an attempt to obtain fish that were invulnerable to electrofishing during the tagging process. Largemouth Bass > 350 mm in total length were implanted with Advanced Telemetry Systems F1835 transmitters following the recommendations of Winter (1996). Transmitters had a 502-day life expectancy and weighed 14 g. Radio tags and surgery equipment were sterilized prior to sur-gery using isopropyl alcohol and implanted into the body cav-ity through a ventral incision. Two or three sutures were used to close the incision, after which cyanoacrylate adhesive was applied to the incision and exposed sutures following the pro-

cedures outlined in Dutka-Gianelli et al. (2011). Once the adhe-sive dried, the incision and surrounding area were covered with an antibiotic ointment. Fish were also tagged with an external reward tag ($200) to obtain angler catch data on the tagged fish. Fish were allowed to recover in an aerated holding tank before being released near the capture location.

A survey was conducted on Mondays once every 2 weeks to track every fish. If a fish was not found during this tracking event, a second survey, usually on the following Wednesday, was conducted by scanning throughout the lake to find the fish. Random subsets of 30 fish were also tracked an additional time every 2 weeks on a random weekend day. Fish not found within the previous 30 days were not included in the weekend survey. Start locations for the general fish survey and the weekend sur-vey were chosen at random to avoid finding fish at the same time during every tracking event. All tagged fish were tracked using Advanced Telemetry Systems R410 receivers with hand-held yagi antennae and locations of the fish were recorded using Global Positioning System receivers.

Habitat Sampling

Habitat characteristics were measured to help predict the spatial distribution of Largemouth Bass anglers and Largemouth Bass. We surveyed Lake Santa Fe bathymetry using a Lowrance LCX 28cHD and mapped in ArcGIS 10 (Figure 1). The outside edge of vegetation was mapped by taking waypoints every 10 m along the outside edge of vegetation. Shoreline and vegetated areas were sampled every 50 to 500 m. At each of these sam-pling points, slope of the shoreline, width of the vegetated area, presence of bald cypress, presence of spatterdock, presence of giant bulrush, rugosity of the vegetated area, and the presence of manmade structure were recorded. Slope of the shoreline was calculated using

(1)

where depth of water was surveyed at approximately 40 m from the edge of vegetation and DShore was the distance from the shoreline to the location where depth was surveyed. Width of the vegetated area was measured as the distance from the shoreline to the outside edge of vegetation. For vegetation not connected with the shoreline, we determined the width of vegetation using the average distance across the vegetated area. Rugosity, a qual-itative measurement of the complexity of vegetated areas, was visually assessed on a scale of 1 to 10. Habitat with a rugosity score of 1 represented a straight line of vegetation and habitat with a rugosity score of 10 represented a complex mosaic of plants with many patches, channels, and undulations.

Spatial Vulnerability Analysis

To test whether there were spatial differences in the vul-nerability of fish to angling based on the distribution of fishing effort, we used generalized linear models (GLMs) to analyze the distribution of Largemouth Bass anglers. Logistic GLMs were constructed to predict the probability that Largemouth Bass

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 264

anglers will target a given area using presence and absence of Largemouth Bass anglers. Multiple Largemouth Bass anglers fishing from one platform (e.g., boat, dock, or section of shore-line) were considered a single presence observation due to a lack of independence among individual angler observations. Addi-tionally, we generated pseudo-absence data points because we did not measure locations where Largemouth Bass anglers were not observed. One thousand pseudo-absence locations were ran-domly generated within Lake Santa Fe to represent locations where Largemouth Bass anglers were not found but could have been observed. Generating pseudo-absence data is a typical ap-proach in species distribution modeling where presence-only data are common (Warton and Shepherd 2010). Including pseudo-absence points enables presence-only data to be ana-lyzed using techniques developed to analyze presence–absence data (Pearce and Boyce 2006), such as logistic GLMs. Continu-ous predictor variables used in the model were distance from shore, distance from vegetation, depth, width of the vegetated area, and slope of the shoreline. Categorical predictor variables used in the model were rugosity of the vegetated areas, pres-ence of manmade structure, presence of cypress trees, presence of spatterdock, and presence of bulrush. Categorical variables were used to test whether there were differences in vulnerability of fish to angling within the various vegetated habitat types. If Largemouth Bass anglers or pseudo-absence points were lo-cated within 50 m from the outside edge of vegetation, they were classified as being located in onshore habitat; otherwise, anglers were classified as being in offshore habitat. Fifty meters was chosen as the cutoff for targeting onshore habitat because it was unlikely an angler would consistently cast farther than 50 m to target an area. Presence and pseudo-absence points in offshore habitat were given values of zero for the width of veg-etated area, slope of the shoreline, and the rugosity score of the vegetated areas. Using Akaike Information Criteria corrected for small sample sizes (AICc), the full model was compared to a variety of reduced models. Significant variables from the full model were used to create a set of reduced models. The best model was selected based on the fewest number of parameters and ΔAICc scores of less than 10.

To determine the vulnerability of fish to angling, each fish location was classified using the same criteria to predict the dis-tribution of Largemouth Bass anglers (e.g., distance from veg-etation, distance from shore, depth, etc.). The best GLM used to describe angler distribution was applied to each fish location to predict the likelihood that a Largemouth Bass was located in a location where fishing was likely to occur. The model did not provide the actual probability that Largemouth Bass anglers target a location where fish were found because pseudo-absence points were used instead of actual absence points (Pearce and Boyce 2006). Within the logistic GLM model structure, the number of pseudo-absence points used in a model influences the probability that Largemouth Bass anglers will target a location. This technique provided a relative likelihood that Largemouth Bass anglers will target a location (Pearce and Boyce 2006) and thus predicted vulnerabilities of the fish were scaled so the high-est vulnerability was equal to one. Fish locations with a vulner-ability score greater than or equal to 0.5 were considered to be

in areas where they were targeted by anglers. Fish locations with vulnerabilities less than 0.5 were considered to be areas that were not targeted by anglers. The vulnerability score used to determine whether fish locations were vulnerable or invulner-able to angling was arbitrarily selected post hoc.

Fish locations classified as vulnerable or invulnerable to angling were used create individual location histories to rep-resent a time series of where the fish was found during each sampling event. We used the biweekly location histories in mul-tistate models within the program MARK (version 6.1; White and Burnham 1999) to estimate daily exchange rates and evalu-ate factors influencing exchange rates. The model parameters included heterogeneous exchange rates (e.g., movements into and out of vulnerable areas were not equal), seasonal effects, and fish behavior types. All possible model combinations used to predict the exchange rates were tested and ranked using AICc. The most parsimonious model was selected based on fewest parameters and ΔAICc values of less than 10.

Fine-Scale Fish Movements

More detailed temporal scale sampling was also conducted to assess within-day fish movements. Between 8 and 14 fish were tracked once every 2 h during hours of safe light, approxi-mately one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset. A total of three surveys were conducted in April, June, and August. Fish were not tracked at night due to low levels of angling ef-fort at night. By tracking fish on a detailed temporal scale, we were able to evaluate how effective the biweekly surveys were at classifying fish habitat use, movement patterns, and vulner-ability to angling.

In order to account for possible bias in the estimation of exchange rates using the biweekly surveys, exchange rates were also estimated in the program MARK using within-day surveys. To compare estimates from the biweekly surveys and within-day surveys, the best model characterizing biweekly exchange rates was used to assess within-day exchange patterns.

Tag Returns

We analyzed angler tag return data to test whether there was a portion of the population that was less vulnerable to an-gling. Anglers who caught tagged fish were instructed to re-move the external $200 reward tag and call the number on the tag to receive the reward. Instructions were posted at the boat ramps and on the tag. When anglers called to claim the reward, they completed a short telephone survey to identify their tar-get species, capture location, whether they were fishing near the shoreline or in open water, capture date, and whether the fish was harvested. A Pearson’s chi-square test (equation 2) was used to test whether there was a difference in the proportion of fish caught by anglers between fish habitat preference.

(2)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 265

For the Pearson’s chi-square (χ2) test Oi was the observed number of fish caught in fish habitat preference group i and Ei was the expected number of fish caught in fish habitat prefer-ence group i. The expected number of fish caught was calcu-lated as (3)

where Ni was the number of fish in habitat preference group i and p is the average portion of total tagged fish caught by anglers.

RESULTS

A total of 832 anglers were surveyed from November 2010 through October 2011. Of these, 313 were targeting Largemouth Bass (Figure 2). Largemouth Bass anglers tended to congregate around the littoral zone of the lake, whereas non-Bass anglers tended to be located offshore (Figure 2). Many non-Bass an-glers were targeting Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) offshore. A total of 44 anglers interviewed indicated that 91% of all anglers were correctly classified as fishing for Largemouth Bass. Due to the large disparity between the spatial distribu-tion of Largemouth Bass and non-Bass anglers, we chose not to assess how this measurement error impacted the results of our study.

¯

Three models characterizing Largemouth Bass angler dis-tribution had ΔAICc scores less than 10 (ΔAICc scores of 0, 8.2, and 9.7 with 9, 15, and 17 model parameters, respectively). The most parsimonious model contained distance from vegetation and vegetation rugosity had a ΔAICc score of 0 and nine pa-rameters. According to this model, all vegetated habitats had relative likelihood values greater than 0.65 and offshore habi-tats had relative likelihood values less than 0.20, indicating that Largemouth Bass anglers target vegetated areas substantially more than offshore areas. Additionally, Largemouth Bass an-glers were more likely to target vegetated habitat with higher ru-gosity scores than vegetated habitat with lower rugosity scores.

Eighty-one Largemouth Bass were tagged in October 2010. Sixty-four were tagged near onshore habitat and 17 in offshore habitats. None of the fish suffered from mortality due to sur-gery, so all fish were included in the analysis (Figure 3). Due to memory limitations in program MARK, only 61 of the tracking events could be analyzed to predict the exchange rates. To com-press the data set, tracking events having less than 10 found fish were combined with the preceding or following tracking event, whichever was closer. During the study, 38 fish were harvested, died from natural mortality, or were lost due to unreported har-vest or tag failure. The remaining fish were searched for during

Figure 2. Distribution of Largemouth Bass anglers (yellow squares) and non-Bass anglers (light grey dots) on Lake Santa Fe from November 2010 through October 2011. Green areas around the perimeter of the lake rep-resent the vegetated areas and blue represents open water. Angler loca-tions outside of the lake are located in canals.

Figure 3. All Largemouth Bass locations from October 2010 through Oc-tober 2011 (yellow dots). Areas where Largemouth Bass anglers had a high likelihood of targeting (black) and where they were not likely to tar-get (light grey) based on logistic generalized linear model incorporating distance from shore and rugosity of the shoreline habitat. Fish locations outside of the lake were found in canals.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 266

the entire study; however, the transmitters started to fail after day 300 and only 17 fish were tracked for the full 365 days.

Nineteen tagged fish selected offshore habitats, 23 regularly moved between onshore and offshore habitats, and 39 selected onshore habitats. A fish was classified as an offshore behav-ior type if less than 30% of its total locations were onshore, a generalist behavior type if 30%–70% of its total locations were onshore, or an onshore behavior type if greater than 70% of its total locations were onshore. The categories used to divide the fish into behavior groups were selected post hoc based on natural breaks in the data (Figure 4). Mean length of fish ranged from 428 to 477 mm for the three different behavior types, and length distributions overlapped substantially, indicating no fish size differences with habitat use. On average, approximately one-third of the tagged fish were located in offshore habitat at any given time (Figure 3).

The best model predicting exchange rates using biweekly survey data included interactions between fish behavior type and heterogenic exchange. The next best model had a ΔAICc score greater than 20 points higher than the chosen model. Es-timates of exchange rates from biweekly surveys ranged from 0.001 to 0.035 per day (corresponding to 0.030 to 0.657 per month), with highest average exchange rates for offshore behav-ior fish and lowest average for onshore behavior fish (Figure 5). The order of magnitude difference in observed exchange rates for fish classified with the offshore behavior type suggested a general movement toward areas not likely targeted by anglers

(Figure 5). Similarly, the two orders of magnitude difference in exchange rates of fish classified with the onshore behavior type indicated a general movement to areas likely targeted by anglers (Figure 5). For fish classified as generalist behavior type, homo-geneity in the observed exchange rates indicated that these fish moved equally between both areas (Figure 5).

Fine-Scale Fish Movements

Exchange rates estimated from the within-day sampling indi-cated higher exchange rates than the biweekly observations. Esti-mates of exchange rates from the within-day surveys ranged from 0.334 to 1.000 per day (Figure 6). Similar to trends in exchange rates from biweekly surveys, offshore behavior fish had the high-est average exchange rates and onshore behavior fish had the low-est average exchange rates (Figure 6). However, exchange rates from within-day surveys were one to two orders of magnitude larger than estimates from the biweekly surveys (Figures 5 and 6). For example, exchange rates of offshore behavior fish ranged from 0.586 to 1.000 per day (Figure 6). These results showed that fish classified as offshore behavior had a high probability of moving to areas targeted by anglers within a given day (0.586). An exchange rate of 1.000 indicates that a fish would transition out of the habitat it was located in within a day.

Tag Returns

Results from the tag returns indicated that 58% of all radio-tagged fish were caught at least once by anglers. Forty-seven

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 267

percent of the fish classified as offshore behavior, 65% of the generalist behavior fish, and 59% of the onshore behavior fish were caught. Fish were generally caught in the area where they spent the most time, with offshore behavior fish caught mostly where anglers did not likely target (30% vs. 17%), onshore behavior fish only caught where anglers were likely to target, and generalist behavior fish mainly caught where anglers target (60% vs. 5%). Results from the chi-square test showed there was not a significant difference between the portions of fish caught based on the fish behavior type (chi-square = 1.39, P = 0.45).

DISCUSSION

Apparent Spatial Mismatch

Differences in the distributions of Largemouth Bass an-glers and Largemouth Bass lend support to Martin’s (1958) and Cox and Walters’ (2002) hypothesis that a population is composed of fish vulnerable to angling and invulnerable to an-gling. However, tag return data indicated these apparently in-vulnerable offshore behavior individuals were just as likely to be captured as onshore behavior fish, signifying no difference in vulnerability to angling. There are a few potentially inclusive hypotheses to explain the observed catches. First, it appeared that the exchange rates of Largemouth Bass were sufficiently high to effectively negate the spatial separation from the major-ity of anglers. Second, spatial differences in angler and/or fish behavior could have resulted in the offshore behavior fish being more vulnerable to angling than those that selected for onshore habitat. Gaining insight into the credibility of these potentially interacting hypotheses will provide valuable insight into spatial management options for recreational fisheries.

Understanding the exchange rates between areas targeted and not targeted by anglers is needed in recreational fisheries (Cox and Walters 2002). Studies analyzing the effectiveness of marine protected areas indicate that fish with high exchange rates into and out of protected areas were not protected from fishing (Walters and Bonfil 1999; Botsford et al. 2003; Grüss et al. 2011). Consequently, out of the nine offshore behavior fish caught by anglers, 38% were caught in areas commonly tar-geted by anglers. This suggested that exchange rates were high enough that this subpopulation was not fully protected from the bulk of angling effort. Furthermore, exchange rates estimated from biweekly surveys were likely biased low because of large time intervals between tracking events. Studies have found that large time intervals between tracking events may miss the ma-jority of fish movements (Løkkeberg et al. 2002; Hanson et al. 2007). Exchange rates estimated from the within-day surveys were less biased and likely resulted in the whole population being essentially vulnerable to angling. However, unlike spatial closures there was still effort directed at Largemouth Bass in offshore areas of the lake and, consequently, the majority of offshore behavior fish were caught in these habitats that were not likely targeted by anglers. Therefore, the exchange rates of the fish were not the only factor influencing the vulnerability of fish to angling in this study.

Figure 6. Daily exchange rates (how often fish move between areas targeted and not targeted by anglers) and 95% confidence intervals (in parentheses) for Largemouth Bass estimated from the program MARK using the within-day surveys. Estimates are broken up into fish behavior types where, offshore fish (blue) select for areas not targeted by anglers, onshore fish (green) select for areas targeted by anglers, and generalist fish (red) equally move between the two areas. Solid arrows represent directional movement from areas targeted by anglers and dashed arrows represent directional movement to areas targeted by anglers.

Figure 5. Daily exchange rates (how often fish move between areas targeted and not targeted by anglers) and 95% confidence intervals (in parentheses) for Largemouth Bass estimated from the program MARK using the biweekly surveys. Estimates are broken up into fish behavior types, where offshore fish (blue) select for areas not targeted by anglers, onshore fish (green) select for areas targeted by anglers, and generalist fish (red) equally move between the two areas. Solid arrows represent directional movement from areas targeted by anglers and dashed arrows represent directional movement to areas targeted by anglers.

One explanation for observing similar fish catches between the two areas despite substantially less offshore fishing effort is that anglers operating offshore were more effective at catch-ing offshore behavior fish. The observed catches of offshore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 268

behavior fish by offshore anglers were estimated near 30%. In contrast, catches by onshore anglers on onshore behavior fish were around 60%. Thus, 10% of the angling effort (i.e., the pro-portion of fishing effort offshore) produced half of the catches despite 90% of the effort being onshore. This suggests that in fact offshore anglers had higher catchability for Largemouth Bass classified as offshore behavior than onshore anglers for onshore behavior fish. This is not to imply that these anglers were not effective at catching fish in inshore areas, but they had a skill set and knowledge allowing them to maintain higher than average catches in offshore areas. Further, offshore behavior fish may simply be more susceptible to angling due to certain genetic traits or behaviors learned in response to angling. Many studies have evaluated impacts of genetic behaviors on fish vulnerability to angling (see Cooke et al. 2007; Philipp et al. 2009; Sutter et al. 2012); however, it is unknown whether these behaviors correspond with certain habitat selection patterns or prey selection in fish. Askey et al. (2006) showed that Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) learned to avoid capture when exposed to angling, and it is possible that fish spending time in offshore areas were exposed to less fishing and thus were more vulnerable to capture when they were exposed to offshore an-glers. Further research concerning spatial differences in angler and fish behavior leading to differences in fish vulnerability is necessary to determine how these behaviors interact to influ-ence fish vulnerability.

Testing the IFD

One of the most striking observations made in this study was the similarity in catches regardless of fish behavior, sug-gesting that bass anglers were distributed according to IFD predictions. The IFD predicts that catch rates within a system should be similar between habitats (Gillis et al. 1993; Walters and Bonfil 1999; Post et al. 2008), if success rate is the primary determinant of angler distribution. Assuming that all fish are equally vulnerable to angling and all anglers have similar skill levels, one would expect one-third of the angling effort to be distributed in offshore areas. This was not the case for Lake Santa Fe; a spatial mismatch in angler and fish distributions was evident, which resulted in about one-third of the tagged fish being targeted by 10% of the angling effort. This disparity between fish and angler distributions suggests that angler dis-tribution is influenced by angler skill, resulting in a distribution following predictions of an IFD amongst unequal competitors (Parker and Southerland 1986; Milinski and Parker 1991) as opposed to the traditional IFD with equal competitors. Fishery managers should consider how unequal angler skill levels can influence fish vulnerability to fishing, possibly reducing the conservation benefits of any apparent spatial refugia.

Spatial Management Implications

With recreational anglers being a major component in many of today’s fisheries, it is important to understand the dynamics of angler behavior. The spatial distribution of effort can sig-nificantly impact both the fish population and the vulnerability

of individual fish. Our results showed that spatial segregation between onshore and offshore fishing effort would apparently provide a refuge for fish, but in fact fish movement rates (and possible differences in catchability) precluded such protection. Development of area closures for fishery conservation should explicitly consider behavior of the fish and the fishers, and failure to evaluate these factors could cause regulations to be ineffective. There is clear evidence that recruitment overfish-ing can occur via recreational fisheries (Post et al. 2002; Lewin et al. 2006), but previous work has seldom considered angler and fish behavior simultaneously. Even at low levels of effort, differences in fish vulnerability could lead to overexploitation of individuals with certain behaviors and/or life history traits without overfishing the entire population. An understanding of recreational angler dynamics in relation to fish behavior and fish population dynamics is imperative for improving the sus-tainability and quality of recreational fisheries.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank B. Swett for help with spatial sampling of an-glers. Conversations with C. Walters and W. Porak helped us when conceptualizing this problem.

FUNDING

Funding for this project was provided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission through the Sport Fish Restoration Program.

REFERENCES

Abernethy, K. E., E. H. Allison, P. P. Molloy, and I. M. Cote. 2007. Why do fishers fish where they fish? Using the ideal free distribution to understand behaviour of artisanal reef fish-ers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:1595–1604.

Arlinghaus, R. 2006. On the apparently striking disconnect between motivation and satis-faction in recreational fishing: the case of catch orientation of German anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:592–605.

Arlinghaus, R., M. Bork, and E. Fladung. 2008. Understanding the heterogeneity of recre-ational anglers across an urban–rural gradient in a metropolitan area (Berlin, Germany), with implications for fisheries management. Fisheries Research 92:53–62.

Askey, P. J., S. A. Richards, J. R. Post, and E. A. Parkinson. 2006. Linking angling catch rates and fish learning under catch-and-release regulations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:1020–1029.

Botsford, L. W., M. Fiorenza, and A. Hastings. 2003. Principles for the design of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13:25–31.

Cooke, S. J., C. D. Suski, K. G. Ostrand, D. P. Philipp, and D. H. Wahl. 2007. Physiological and behavioral consequences of long-term artificial selection for vulnerability to recre-ational angling in a teleost fish. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 80:480–490.

Cox, S. P., and C. Walters. 2002. Modeling exploitation in recreational fisheries and implica-tions for effort management on British Columbia Rainbow Trout lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:21–34.

Ditton, R. B. 2004. Human dimensions of fisheries. Pages 199–208 in M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, B. L. Bruyere, D. R. Field, and P. J. Brown, editors. Society and natural resources: a summary of knowledge prepared for the 10th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Modern Litho, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Dutka-Gianelli, J., R. Taylor, E. Nagid, J. Whittington, K. Johnson, W. Strong, T. Tuten, A. Trotter, J. Young, A. Berry, B. Yeiser, and K. Nault. 2011. Habitat utilization and resource partitioning of apex predators in coastal rivers of southern Florida. FWRI Library No. Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grant No. F-127-R-3. FFWCC no. F2771-07-11-F, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Florida Lakewatch. 2005a. Little Santa Fe (Alachua County) Florida Lakewatch bathymetric map. Florida Lakewatch, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

———. 2005b. Santa Fe (Alachua County) Florida Lakewatch bathymetric map. Florida Lakewatch, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

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

Fretwell, S. D. 1972. Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Fretwell, S. D., and H. L. Lucas, Jr. 1970. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. ACTA Biotheoretica 19:16–36.

Gillis, D. M. 2003. Ideal free distribution in fleet dynamics: a behavioral perspective on vessel movement in fisheries analysis. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:177–187.

Gillis, D. M., R. M. Peterman, and A. V. Tyler. 1993. Movement dynamics in a fishery: ap-plication of the ideal free distribution to spatial allocation of effort. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:323–333.

Grüss, A., D. M. Kaplan, S. Guénette, C. M. Roberts, and L. W. Botsford. 2011. Conse-quences of adult and juvenile movement for marine protected areas. Biological Con-servation 144:692–702.

Hanson, K. C., S. J. Cooke, C. D. Suski, G. Niezgoda, F. J. S. Phelan, R. Tinline, and D. P. Philipp. 2007. Assessment of Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) behaviour and activity at multiple spatial and temporal scales using a whole-lake telemetry array. Hydrobiologia 582:243–256.

Holland, D. S., and J. G. Sutinen. 1999. An empirical model of fleet dynamics in New Eng-land trawl fisheries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:253–264.

Hunt, L. M., R. Arlinghaus, N. Lester, and R. Kushneriuk. 2011. The effects of regional angling effort, angler behavior, and harvesting efficiency on landscape patterns of over-fishing. Ecological Applications 21:2555–2575.

Kobler, A., T. Klefoth, T. Mehner, and R. Arlinghaus. 2009. Coexistence of behavioral types in an aquatic top predator: a response to resource limitation? Oecolgia 161:837–847.

Lewin, W., R. Arlinghaus, and T. Mehner. 2006. Documented and potential impacts of recre-ational fishing: insights for management and conservation. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14:305–367.

Løkkeberg, S., A. Fernö, and T. Jørgensen. 2002. Effect of position-fixing interval on esti-mated swimming speed and movement pattern of fish tracked with a stationary position-ing system. Hydrobiologia 483:259–264.

Martin, R. G. 1958. Influence of fishing pressure on bass fishing success. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of the Game and Fish Commis-sioners 11:76–82.

Mesing, C. L., and A. M. Wicker. 1986. Home range, spawning migrations, and homing of radio-tagged Florida Largemouth Bass in two central Florida lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:286–295.

Milinski, M., and G. A. Parker. 1991. Competition for resources. Pages 137–168 in J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, editors. Behavioral ecology, an evolutionary approach, 3rd edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.

Morbey, Y. E., P. Addison, B. J. Shuter, and K. Vascotto. 2006. Within-population hetero-geneity of habitat use by Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush. Journal of Fish Biology 69:1675–1696.

Parker, G. A., and W. J. Southerland. 1986. Ideal free distributions when individuals differ in competitive ability: phenotype-limited ideal free models. Animal Behavior 34:1222–1242.

Parkinson, E. A., J. R. Post, and S. P. Cox. 2004. Linking the dynamics of harvest effort to the recruitment dynamics in a multistock, spatially structured fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:1658–1670.

Pearce, J. L., and M. S. Boyce. 2006. Modeling distribution and abundance with presence-only data. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:405–412.

Philipp, D. P., S. J. Cooke, J. E. Claussen, J. B. Koppelman, C. D. Suski, and D. P. Burkett. 2009. Selection for vulnerability to angling in Largemouth Bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:189–199.

Post, J. R., L. Persson, E. A. Parkinson, and T. vanKooten. 2008. Angler numerical response across landscapes and the collapse of freshwater fisheries. Ecological Applications 18:1038–1049.

Post, J. R., M. Sullivan, S. Cox, N. P. Lester, C. J. Walters, E. A. Parkinson, A. J. Paul, L. Jackson, and B. J. Shuter. 2002. Canada’s recreational fisheries: the invisible collapse? Fisheries 27(1):6–17.

Seekell, D. A., C. J. Brosseau, T. J. Cline, R. J. Winchcombe, and L. J. Zinn. 2011. Long-term changes in recreational catch inequality in a trout stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31:1100–1105.

Sutter, D. A. H., C. D. Suski, D. P. Philipp, T. Klefoth, D. H. Wahl, P. Kersten, S. J. Cooke, and R. Arlinghaus. 2012. Recreational fishing selectively captures individuals with the high-est fitness potential. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 51:20960–20965.

van Poorten, B. T., and J. R. Post. 2005. Seasonal fishery dynamics of a previously unex-ploited Rainbow Trout population with contrasts to established fisheries. North Ameri-can Journal of Fisheries Management 25:329–345.

Voges, E., A. Gordoa, and J. G. Field. 2005. Dynamics of Namibian hake fleet and manage-ment connotations: application of the ideal free distribution. Scientia Marina 69:285–293.

Walters, C. J., and R. Bonfil. 1999. Multispecies spatial assessment models for the British Columbia groundfish trawl fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:601–628.

Warton, D. I., and L. C. Shepherd. 2010. Poisson point process models solve the “pseudo-absence problem” for presence-only data in ecology. The Annals of Applied Statistics 4:1383–1402.

White, G. C., and K. P. Burnham. 1999. Program MARK: survival estimation from popula-tions of marked animals. Bird Study 46:120–139.

Winter, J. D. 1996. Advances in underwater biotelemetry. Pages 555–590 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 270

FEATURE

Peces endémicos amenazados en la región florística de Cabo en Sudáfrica: un nuevo comienzo en el Río RondegatRESUMEN: en muchos ríos a lo largo del mundo, las co-munidades ícticas nativas se ven amenazadas por peces foráneos. En la región florística de Cabo, en Sudáfrica, la depredación ejercida por peces foráneos ha impactado severamente las poblaciones nativas de peces y más de 17 especies endémicas de peces están amenazadas. Con el fin de preservar la fauna íctica endémica, se le dio prioridad a la remoción de especies foráneas en las áreas de conserva-ción en esta región. En febrero de 2012, la primera erradi-cación de peces no nativos mediante el uso de rotenona, se dio lugar en el Río Rondegat, un pequeño cuerpo de agua que ha sido invadido por la lobina boca chica (Micropterus dolomieu). El tratamiento fue exitoso y culminó después de un proceso de diez años facilitado por la colaboración de las autoridades de conservación de Sudáfrica (CapeNa-ture), el Instituto Sudafricano de Biodiversidad Acuática y el subcomité de Manejo de Químicos de La Sociedad Amer-icana de Pesquerías. Se anticipa que el incremento casi instantáneo de la biodiversidad tras la remoción efectiva de peces foráneos invite a tomar nuevos esfuerzos para res-taurar más poblaciones de peces endémicos en Sudáfrica.

Threatened Endemic Fishes in South Africa’s Cape Floristic Region: A New Beginning for the Rondegat RiverOlaf L. F. Weyl South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB), Private Bag 1015, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa. E-mail: o.weyl@saiab.ac.za

Brian FinlaysonCalifornia Department of Fish and Game (retired), Camino, CA

N. Dean ImpsonCapeNature, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Darragh J. WoodfordCenter for Invasion Biology, South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiver-sity (SAIAB), Grahamstown, South Africa

Jarle SteinkjerNorwegian Directorate for Nature Management, Sluppen, Trondheim, Norway

ABSTRACT: Nonnative fishes threaten native fish communi-ties in many rivers of the world. In South Africa’s Cape Floris-tic Region, predation by nonnative fishes has severely impacted native fish populations and more than half of the 17 endemic fish species are endangered. To preserve the unique endemic fish fauna, removal of nonnative fish from conservation areas is a priority in this region. In February 2012, South Africa’s first nonnative fish eradication using rotenone took place in the Rondegat River, a small headwater stream that had been invaded by Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu). The suc-cessful treatment culminated from a decade-long process that was facilitated through collaboration among a South African nature conservation authority (CapeNature), the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, and the American Fisheries Society Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee. The suc-cessful removal of alien fish and almost instantaneous increase in biodiversity is anticipated to encourage more endemic fish restorations in South Africa.

INTRODUCTION

The Cape Floristic Region (CFR) of South Africa has 24 na-tive freshwater fish species (Table 1). Geographic isolation has resulted in high endemism in individual river systems (Linder et al. 2010) and CFR fish species are often restricted to a single river or tributary within a river system (Figure 1), making them particularly vulnerable to nonnative fish introductions, habitat destruction, and pollution (Tweddle et al. 2009). Of the 17 cur-rently recognized endemic species, 10 are listed as endangered and another three are listed as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN; Tweddle et al. 2009). Hence, CFR rivers are key areas for conservation of biodiversity (Impson et al. 2002).

Intentional and unintentional introductions have made fish one of the world’s most introduced groups of aquatic animals (Gozlan et al. 2010). Worldwide, intentional fish introductions have occurred to establish food fishes, create new fisheries, restore depleted fish stocks, and control plants, invertebrates, and other fishes (Kolar et al. 2010; van Rensburg et al. 2011). Although such introductions have often resulted in the desired outcome, nonnative fish introductions have had impacts on ge-netic, individual, population, community, and ecosystem lev-els in recipient environments (Cucherousset and Olden 2011) through competition, predation, habitat alteration, disease, and hybridization interactions (Moyle 2002; Clarkson et al. 2005).

Sport fish enhancement has been a major reason for non-native fish introductions (Cambray 2003), particularly in areas with predator-poor fish faunas (Dill and Cordone 1997; Clark-son et al. 2005). Humans living in areas with species-poor fish communities were often unable to resist the temptation to estab-lish nonnative sport fishes, and in many regions nonnative fishes outnumber native species. Nowhere is this more evident than in the freshwater environments in Mediterranean climate regions including California, central Chile, southwestern Australia, the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal), and the CFR of South

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 271

Africa (Marr et al. 2009). The introduction history, number of fishes introduced, and impacts on native fishes are remarkably similar between California and the CFR. Government-funded hatcheries were used to produce the nonnative fishes that were distributed through government-funded stocking programs and by angling organizations (Dill and Cordone 1997; McCafferty et al. 2012). The number of successfully introduced fishes in each region approximates the number of native fishes (44 vs. 45 in California and 20 vs. 24 in the CFR; Marr et al. 2009). The introduction of nonnative sunfishes (Centrarchidae) in Cali-fornia and throughout the western United States has had major impacts largely through predation on native minnow (Cyprini-dae) populations (Moyle 2002; Clarkson et al. 2005; UCREFRP 2012a, 2012b). Native CFR minnows have experienced similar impacts from sunfish and trout (Salmonidae) introductions (van Rensburg et al. 2011). As evidence from other countries and local environmental impacts began to accumulate, South Africa began to severely restrict introductions of nonnative fish. The control of nonnative fishes and the rehabilitation of native fish habitats through the removal of the former are now conservation priorities (Marr et al. 2012).

In the CFR, management actions were implemented to re-habilitate some of the affected rivers by eradicating populations of nonnative fish (Marr et al. 2012). Eradication of nonnative fishes can be costly and controversial (Finlayson et al. 2005), and success often decreases with increasing range of the invad-ing species, as well as size and complexity of the affected envi-ronment (Finlayson et al. 2010; Kolar et al. 2010). Knowing that eradication would likely be a difficult task and borrowing on previous experiences in the United States and Europe, South Af-rica began a process over a decade ago to assess various options and began planning for eradicating nonnative fish from rivers.

This article reviews the historical context of the eradication program and examines the partnerships and processes that ulti-mately resulted in the successful removal of alien fish and the almost instantaneous increase in fish diversity in the Rondegat River in the CFR.

Table 1 . Native freshwater fishes, maximum length, IUCN Red list status.a

Species Maximum length (cm SL)

IUCN status Main threat

Anguillidae

African Mottled Eel (Anguilla ben-galensis labiata) 145 LC 0

Shortfin Eel (Anguilla bicolor bicolor) 80 LC 0

Marbled Eel (Anguilla marmo-rata) 185 LC 0

Longfin Eel (Anguilla mossam-bica) 120 LC 0

Austroglaniidae

Barnard's Rock Catfish (Austro-glanis barnardi)b 8 EN 1, 2

Clanwilliam Rock Catfish (Austro-glanis gilli)b 13 VU 1, 2

Cyprinidae

Berg-Breede River Whitefish (Bar-bus andrewi)b 60 EN 1, 2, 4, 5

Chubbyhead Barb (Barbus ano-plus) 12 LC 0

Clanwilliam Redfin (Barbus calidus)b 8 VU 1, 2

Twee River Redfin (Barbus eru-bescens)b 10 CR 1, 2, 3

Goldie Barb (Barbus pallidus) 7 LC 0

Sawfin (Barbus serra)b 50 EN 1, 2, 4

Clanwilliam Sandfish (Labeo seeberi)b 36 EN 1, 2

Moggel (Labeo umbratus) 50 LC 5

Clanwilliam Yellowfish (Labeobar-bus capensis)b 100 VU 1, 2, 4

Eastern Cape Redfin (Pseudobar-bus afer)b 11 EN 1

Smallscale Redfin (Pseudobar-bus asper)b 8 EN 1, 2

Burchell's Redfin (Pseudobarbus burchelli)b 14 CR 1, 2, 3

Berg River Redfin (Pseudobarbus burgi)b 12 EN 1, 2, 5

Fiery Redfin (Pseudobarbus phlegethon)b 7 EN 1, 2

Giant Redfin (Pseudobarbus skeltoni)b,c 17 NA 1, 2

Slender Redfin (Pseudobarbus tenuis)b 8 NT 1, 2

Galaxiidae

Cape Galaxias (Galaxias zebra-tus)b 8 DD 1, 2, 5

Anabantidae

Cape Kurper (Sandelia capensis)b 20 DD 1, 2, 5

a SL = standard length, LC = least concern, EN = endangered, VU = vulnerable, CR = critically endangered, NA = not assessed, NT = near threatened, DD = data de-ficient. Main threats (0 = no dominant threat identified; 1 = alien fish; 2 = habitat destruction; 3 = pollution; 4 = utilization; 5 = genetic integrity) in the Cape Floris-tic Region South Africa (after Skelton 2001; Tweddle et al. 2009).

b Endemic.

c The recently described Giant Redfin has not been formally assessed but is con-sidered endangered (Chakona and Swartz 2013).

Photo 1. A school of Fiery Redfin (Pseudobarbus phlegethon) in the Rondegat River; it had been extirpated from the lower reaches of the river by Small-mouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu). Photo credit: SAIAB/O. Weyl.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 272

HISTORY AND IMPACTS

Nonnative Fish Introductions

In South Africa, as elsewhere, most fish were introduced as game fish or as prey species in order to develop sport fisheries. Legislation encouraging the importation of sport fishes and government support for fisheries development (McCafferty et al. 2012) resulted in the success-ful establishment of 20 nonnative fish species in the CFR (Table 2). Most of these can be traced back to the government-funded Jonkershoek Hatchery, located in the CFR (van Rensburg et al. 2011). At Jonker-shoek, introduced fishes were first propagated and then distributed to other government hatcheries and stocked either directly or with the help of piscatorial societies. Alien fishes were granted special protection through the formation of the Inland Fisheries Division in the Cape Prov-ince in 1943 (a precursor to CapeNa-ture), which enacted measures for the protection of game fishes including fishing licences, closed seasons, and bag limits (McCafferty et al. 2012).

Late 19th-century introductions of both Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) resulted in the development of a thriving sport fishery for these species in the cooler, high-altitude re-gions of the CFR (McCafferty et al. 2012). To develop similar angling opportunities in warmer, low-lying areas, five sunfishes (i.e., Largemouth Bass, Micropterus salmoides; Smallmouth Bass, M. dolomieu; Spotted Bass, M. punctulatus; Florida Bass, M. floridanus; and Bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus) were intro-duced between 1928 and 1980. With the assistance of informal stocking by anglers, alien game fishes spread rapidly, and on a regional scale most river basins now contain at least four alien fish species and few headwater tributaries remain noninvaded (Figure 2).

Although larger native species such as Clanwilliam Yellow-fish (Labeobarbus capensis, Cyprinidae) are of interest to some anglers, it is recognized that the development of the large and economically important recreational fishery was the direct re-sult of nonnative fish introductions (van Rensburg et al. 2011). Anglers that support these fisheries in the CFR are highly orga-nized; the Federation of South African Flyfishers and the South African Bass Anglers Association, an organization affiliated to the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society in the United States, are strong proponents of trout and sunfish fisheries, respectively.

Impacts of Nonnative on Native Fishes

Native fishes in the CFR are threatened by a variety of an-thropogenic impacts including water extraction for agriculture, increasing sedimentation rates, habitat modification (e.g., ca-nalization and dam building), and predation by and competition with alien invasive fishes (Tweddle et al. 2009). Though the individual impacts are difficult to determine, their combined ef-fects have resulted in severe declines of mainstream populations of the large native cyprinids—Clanwilliam Yellowfish, Sawfin (Barbus serra), Whitefish (Barbus andrewi), and Clanwilliam Sandfish (Labeo seeberi)—and the disappearance of most en-demic small minnow species in the lower reaches of CFR riv-ers. In more pristine environments such a headwater streams, however, the primary threat to native fishes is nonnative fish introductions (Tweddle et al. 2009).

Though initial introductions of nonnative fishes are fairly well documented, there are few published assessments of their impacts on South African aquatic ecosystems. This can be as-cribed to the small number of scientists working in the field of fish invasion biology and the lack of research focus on the ecological impacts of fish introductions until the 1980s (Mc-Cafferty et al. 2012). The research that has been conducted in

Figure 1. Eight river basins in Cape Floristic Region and their endemic fishes. River basins: 1 = Olifants, 2 = Berg, 3 = Breede, 4 = Gouritz, 5 = Gamtoos, 6 = Sundays, 7 = Coastal drainages, 8 = Baakens. Fish: A = Smallscale Redfin (Pseudobarbus asper), B = Eastern Cape Redfin (P. afer), C = Slender Red-fin (P. tenuis), D = Burchell’s Redfin (P. burchelli), E = Berg River Redfin (P. burgi), F = Fiery Redfin (P. phlegethon), G = Clanwilliam Redfin (Barbus calidus), H = Twee River Redfin (B. erubescens), I = Cape Kurper (Sandelia capensis), J = Barnard’s Rock Catfish (Austroglanis barnardi), K = Clanwilliam Rock Catfish (A. gilli), L = Cape Galaxias (Galaxias zebratus), M = Clanwilliam Sandfish (Labeo seeberi), N = Whitefish (Barbus andrewi), O = Sawfin (B. serra), P = Clanwillian Yellowfish (Labeobarbus capensis). Note: The Giant Redfin (P. skeltoni) recently described from the Breede River is not included. (Fish il-lustrations courtesy of SAIAB.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 273

South Africa (e.g., Woodford and Impson 2004; Lowe et al. 2008; Weyl et al. 2010; Ellender et al. 2011) mirrors results from studies conducted elsewhere; alien game fishes’ overt im-pact on native aquatic ecosystems is through predation (Moyle 2002; Cucherousset and Olden 2011; UCREFRP 2012a, 2012b). Predation has resulted in several local extirpations and small native fishes are typically restricted to headwater reaches of CFR streams where alien fish invasions have been impeded by barriers such as waterfalls and dams (Woodford et al. 2005; El-lender et al. 2011). As a result, the historical distribution ranges of most native CFR fish species are now severely constricted, fragmented, and genetically isolated (Swartz et al. 2004). This was similar to the situation in the western United States, where introduced sunfishes have often locally extirpated native cypri-nid species (UCREFRP 2012a, 2012b).

PLANNING FOR NATIVE FISH CONSERVATION

Changing Attitudes and Management

South Africa lacks a national inland fisheries policy and the management of inland fisheries is the responsibility of pro-vincial nature conservation departments. This is similar to the United States where inland fisheries are still largely managed by individual state fish and wildlife departments. Until the 1980s, South African conservation departments actively man-aged inland fisheries through enforcement of regulations and by enhancing fisheries through stocking programs. An increas-ing awareness of the impacts of nonnative fishes resulted in a change of attitude by conservation authorities, and nonnative fish production by government hatcheries stopped in the early 1990s (McCafferty et al. 2012).

Alien invasive species management is now a legislated priority in South Africa. The National Environmental Manage-ment: Biodiversity Act (Act No. 10 of 2004; NEMBA), for ex-ample, lists alien invasive species as a threat to biodiversity and includes legislation intended to prevent their unauthorized intro-duction and spread. To support the NEMBA, Alien and Invasive Species Regulations were published in July 2013. These regu-lations include prohibited species lists that prohibit the import, possession, movement, and release of more than 100 listed fish taxa and require an Invasive Species Management Program for nonnative game fish species (e.g., Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout, Common Carp, Largemouth Bass, and Smallmouth Bass). The Invasive Species Management Programs are expected to reg-ulate these fish species through a zoning scheme on national maps, which include permitted and prohibited zones. All gov-ernment departments and management authorities of protected areas are also obligated to develop monitoring, control, and eradication plans. Private land owners have to report the pres-ence of listed invasive species and take steps to manage, eradi-cate, or prevent them from spreading.

Table 2 . Currently established nonnative freshwater fishes in Cape Floristic Region with maximum length, date, and purpose of introduction.a

SpeciesMaximum length (cm SL)

Date Purpose Impact

Centrarchidae

Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) 20 1938 PR, AN 1

Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) 55 1937 AN 2

Florida Bass (Micropterus flori-danus) 70 1980 AN 2

Spotted Bass (Micropterus punct-ulatus) 60 1939 AN 2

Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) 60 1928 AN 2

Cichlidae

Israeli Tilapia (Oreochromis au-reus) 30 1915 AQ 1

Mozambique Tilapia (Oreo-chromis mossambicus) 40 1936 PR, AN,

AQ 1

Southern Mouthbrooder (Pseu-docrenilabrus philander) 13 1980 PR 1

Banded Tilapia (Tilapia spar-rmanii) 23 1941 PR 1

Clariidae

African Sharptooth Catfish (Clar-ias gariepinus) 130 1975 AQ, AN,

IB 2

Cyprinidae

Goldfish (Carassius auratus) 25 1726 OR 3

Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) 100 1980 BI 3

Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) 75 1859 AN 3

Orange River Mudfish (Labeo capensis) 50 1975 IB 4

Smallmouth Yellowfish (Labeo-barbus aeneus) 50 1953 AN 1

Tench (Tinca tinca) 64 1896 PR, AN 1

Percidae

Yellow Perch (Perca fluviatilis) 60 1915 AN 1

Poecilidae

Western Mosquitofish (Gambu-sia affinis) 6 1936 PR, BI 1

Salmonidae

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 75 1897 AQ, AN 2

Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) 75 1892 AQ, AN 2

a SL = standard length, PR = prey species for predatory game fishes, AN = introduced for angling, AQ = aquaculture, IB = inter-basin water transfers, OR = ornamental/pet trade, BI = biocontrol. Documented impacts (1 = not assessed in South Africa; 2 = predation on and competition with native fishes; 3 = parasite/disease vector; 4 = hybridization with native fishes) in South Africa (after van Rensburg et al. 2011; Marr et al. 2012).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 274

Though conservation authorities considered the NEMBA as one of the most important pieces of conservation legislation for South African inland wa-ters (Roux et al. 2006), some anglers and angling organizations saw this leg-islation as a direct attack on their sport and directly opposed NEMBA through public and political lobbying (McCaf-ferty et al. 2012).

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

In 2000, the Cape Action for Peo-ple and the Environment (CAPE) Pro-gram was started to more effectively conserve the CFR (Lochner et al. 2003). Recognizing the increasing impacts of nonnative fishes on native biodiversity, CapeNature, as part of the CAPE Pro-gram, developed conservation plans for aquatic ecosystems (Impson et al. 2002). CapeNature subsequently consulted with key conser-vation stakeholders, including the South African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) and the American Fisheries So-ciety’s (AFS) Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee, to determine realistic fish eradication strategies and priorities.

A series of workshops were held at SAIAB in 2003 and 2004 that focused on identifying criteria for evaluating riv-ers for alien fish control. The criteria used were (1) severity of threat to native fishes, (2) current land use, (3) presence of geographic or man-made barriers that would prevent reinvasion after successful eradication, (4) logistic feasibility, and (5) de-gree of recreational angling affected (Marr et al. 2012). These criteria resulted in a list of four priority rivers where eradication was considered feasible (Figure 2).

Control of alien fish to benefit native fish is often recog-nized as difficult. Direct intervention through the use of pi-scicides was chosen as the most appropriate method because complete removal of nonnative fish from a particular area is usually required to recover the ecosystem’s ability to support native species. Typically, if all fish are not removed from an iso-lated area, they are able to reproduce and the problem continues (Finlayson et al. 2010; Kolar et al. 2010). Discussions around the most appropriate method for fish removal were guided by experiences throughout the world. The use of piscicides or com-plete dewatering has the highest success rate in eliminating fish populations from isolated areas. Of the two available general piscicides rotenone and antimycin, rotenone was chosen be-cause it had recently been approved for reregistration (U.S. En-vironmental Protection Agency 2007), and a Rotenone Standard

Operating Procedures Manual (Rotenone SOP Manual) to guide safe and effective use has been recently published by AFS (Fin-layson et al. 2010). Rotenone, a phosphorylation inhibitor, is a botanical material produced by various members of the bean family Leguminosae (McClay 2000). The substance has been widely used as a piscicide over the past 50-plus years in North America, Europe, New Zealand, and Australia for fisheries management and conservation purposes (McClay 2000; Brit-ton and Brazier 2006; Rayner and Creese 2006; Pham et al. 2013). Rotenone is an unstable compound in nature and dis-sipates quickly from water through hydrolysis and photolysis, resulting in aquatic half-life values of 0.6 to 7.7 days (Finlayson et al. 2001, 2010).

Environmental Impact Assessment

A key component of the CAPE Program was an Environ-mental Impact Assessment (EIA), which assessed whether the preferred method of alien fish eradication was ecologically and socially acceptable and whether the four chosen rivers were good candidates for restoration (Enviro-Fish Africa [EFA] 2009). Funding for the EIA was provided by the Global Envi-ronment Facility of the World Bank through a project admin-istered by CapeNature. Although the use of piscicides is not a “Listed Activity” in South Africa’s National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) and did not require a mandatory risk assessment, environmental safeguards of the World Bank required that the project be subject to a rigorous, independent environmental analysis. The EIA recommended the Rondegat River as the first pilot project for removal of alien fishes using the piscicide rotenone (EFA 2009).

Figure 2. Location of the four rivers selected for rotenone treatment (Rondegat, Krom-Cederberg, Suurvlei, and Krom-Eastern Cape) within the eight Cape Floristic Region river basins indicating the number of alien fish species present: 1 = Olifants, 2 = Berg, 3 = Breede, 4 = Gouritz, 5 = Gamtoos, 6 = Sundays, 7 = Coastal drainages, 8 = Baakens. Note: 2 and 7 incorporate smaller river basins and have been combined for illustration purposes. (Adapted from Marr et al. 2012.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 275

RONDEGAT RIVER PILOT PROJECT

Study Site

The Rondegat River (Figure 3) is typical of many invaded CFR streams. The 28-km-long single-channel river is shallow (<1 m deep) and relatively narrow (2–4 m wide). The river re-ceives most of its flow in winter and early spring (May to Sep-tember), and the groundwater-dependent summer discharge is very low (0.07–0.08 m3/s). The geology of the catchment is pri-marily sandstone resulting in river water of great clarity (sum-mer turbidity 0.5–2.8 NTU), moderate acidity (pH 5.4–6.3), and relatively low conductivity (14–120 µS/cm). Water temperature varies from about 8°C in winter (June–August) to 27°C in sum-mer (December–February). These physical characteristics are very similar to those of many small headwater streams in the Western United States where rotenone has been used in the suc-cessful eradication of introduced species, allowing for the re-coveries of native trout (Oncorhynchus) and char (Salvelinus) species (e.g., Finlayson et al. 2005).

The river flows into a 1,124-ha warmwater impoundment, Clanwilliam Dam, where alien Largemouth, Smallmouth, and Spotted Bass populations have been established since 1948 (Weyl et al. 2013). The lower river has three barriers to fish invasions from the impoundment: (1) a 1-m-high waterfall and bedrock cascade located 0.6 km above the high water mark of

the impoundment; (2) a 2-m-high weir 0.4 km upstream of the bedrock cascade, and (3) the 1.3-m-high Rooidraai waterfall lo-cated 4 km upstream of the weir (Weyl et al. 2013). We thought this treatment area of the Rondegat River was ideal for native fish recovery because, like many small headwater streams in the Western United States, it was protected from reinvasion by fish barriers and thus had a high chance of success (Finlayson et al. 2005). Pretreatment electrofishing and snorkel surveys demon-strated that Smallmouth Bass had invaded to the Rooidraai wa-terfall (Woodford et al. 2005; Weyl et al. 2013). In the invaded reach, Clanwilliam Yellowfish were the only native fish able to coexist with Smallmouth Bass but native Fiery Redfin, Clan-william Redfin, and juvenile Yellowfish were abundant above Rooidraai. The project was implemented based on the assump-tion that the removal of Smallmouth Bass from the bounded section of river (i.e., between the weir and Rooidraai) would result in the recovery of the native fish. This assumption was supported by previous examples of native fish recovery follow-ing alien fish removal in other countries (e.g., Demarais et al. 1993; Lintermans 2000; Finlayson et al. 2005).

Rotenone Application

The Rondegat River was first treated on 29 February 2012, when water temperatures were between 23°C and 27°C and stream discharge (0.07 m3/s) and velocity (0.5 km/h) were low. Treatment was conducted according to the guidelines in the AFS Rotenone SOP Manual (Finlayson et al. 2010). Rotenone

Figure 3. Rondegat River treatment area.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 276

was applied to the river using a series of drip cans sited at seven locations spaced approximately at 1-h water travel time intervals to maintain the recommended treat-ment concentration of 1 mg/L CFT Legumine (Jordaan and Weyl 2013) during a 6-h treatment. Six backpack sprayers were used to treat the backwater, seep, and spring areas with a 1% v/v CFT Legumine solution. To minimize off-target effects, deactivation of rotenone downstream of the water diversion weir was accom-plished using a 2.5% w/v solution of potassium per-manganate (KMnO4). Deactivation began at the same time as the rotenone treatment and lasted until 2 March 2012. To monitor the effectiveness of the treatment and deactivation, sentinel Smallmouth Bass were placed in net enclosures upstream of the emitters and at the 30-min travel time location downstream of the deactivation point. A second treatment was conducted one year after the first treatment on 13 March 2013.

Fish Response

The response of the fish community to rotenone treatment was assessed during two pre-rotenone surveys (February 2011, February 2012) and three post-rotenone (March 2012, October 2012, and February 2013) sur-veys. The first three surveys utilized multiple methods including underwater video analysis, electrofishing, and snorkel surveys and are described in detail in Weyl et al. (2013). During subsequent surveys (October 2012 and February 2013) only snorkel surveys were conducted. These snorkel surveys included both qualitative assess-ments of snorkeling through the entire 4-km treatment zone as well as quantitative two-pass fish counts in 20 monitoring sites (Weyl et al. 2013). The entire 4-km treatment area was patrolled during and immediately after the two rotenone treatments and all dead fish were collected, identified, counted, and measured.

Pretreatment snorkel survey fish density esti-mates (mean ± SE) in the treatment area were 0.68 ± 0.33 fish/100 m2 and Smallmouth Bass densities were 2.29 ± 0.56 fish/100 m2 (Weyl et al. 2013). During the first rotenone treatment, 470 Smallmouth Bass and 139 Clanwilliam Yellowfish were removed from the river (Weyl et al. 2013). The total biomass of fish removed from the 4-km treatment section was 63 kg, of which 27.2% (17.2 kg) were Smallmouth Bass and 72.8% (45.8 kg) were Clanwilliam Yel-lowfish. All sentinel bass in the treatment area were killed, indi-cating an efficacious treatment, and the sentinel bass below the treatment area survived, indicating an effective deactivation of rotenone with KMnO4. There was no evidence of treatment ef-fects downstream and posttreatment surveys conducted one day after treatment detected no fish in the treatment area (Weyl et al. 2013). No Smallmouth Bass were detected in the treatment area during subsequent snorkel surveys but native fish densities were observed to respond positively. By October 2012, native fish density (mean ± SE) in the treatment area had increased to 9.6 ± 7.0 fish/100 m2, and one year after the first treatment snorkel

surveys estimated native fish densities at 38.7 ± 7.0 fish/100 m2. These native fish densities were significantly higher than those observed in the treatment area prior to rotenone applica-tion (Mann-Whitney U test: U = 17.0; N = 16, 20; P < 0.0001). Native fishes were now present at most survey sites in the treat-ment area but were still absent in downstream invaded zones (Figure 4). These findings were validated by comparing the numbers of fish recovered after the second treatment. Whereas the only native fish recovered during the first treatment were 139 Clanwilliam Yellowfish (mostly adult), 2,425 Clanwilliam Yellowfish (mostly juveniles), 349 Clanwilliam Redfin, 190 Fiery Redfin, and 11 Clanwilliam Rock Catfish were recovered during the second treatment (Figure 5). The almost instanta-neous increase of fish diversity following Smallmouth Bass eradication from the Rondegat River not only exemplifies the impact that Smallmouth Bass have on native fish communities

Figure 4. Fish density in invaded and noninvaded survey sites of the Rondegat River determined from snorkel surveys conducted in (a) February 2012 immediately be-fore the rotenone treatment and (b) February 2013 one year after the first treat-ment. Potential barriers to upstream migration of Smallmouth Bass are the lower waterfall, weir, and the Rooidraai waterfall. N = native; NN = nonnative.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 277

but also demonstrates that recovery is likely to be rapid follow-ing the second treatment.

Impacts on Nontarget Biota

Monitoring of aquatic invertebrates within the treated reach, which had detected 50 taxa in the week prior to treatment, found that 18 (36%) of these taxa were missing in the week fol-lowing treatment. Follow-up surveys in May 2012 found 9 of these missing taxa back in the treatment zone, indicating a 50% recovery rate within 2 months of treatment. This rapid recov-ery was consistent with the expectation that the low level (≈ 1 mg/L formulation for less than 18 h) rotenone exposure would not have significant long-term effects on the macroinvertebrate assemblage (Finlayson et al. 2009). Of the 18 species initially lost following treatment, 5 were endemic to the mountain range drained by the Rondegat River, and all of these were present upstream of the treated reach, from where they could recolonize (Woodford et al. 2013). Amphibian diversity was not a conser-vation concern for the operation, as no frog taxa present in the catchment were restricted to the treated stream channel. The species present in the stream are widespread and common (e.g., Clicking Stream Frog, Strongylopus grayii; and Cape River Frog, Amietia fuscigula), also occurring upstream and in a va-riety of nearby wetland habitats that were not affected by the treatment (EFA 2009).

MOVING FORWARD TO A NEW BEGINNING FOR NATIVE FISH

In South Africa, the responses of angling sectors to con-servation projects that involve the control of alien fish spe-cies have varied. The South African Bass Anglers Association, whose members fish primarily on impoundments from boats for established populations of bass, do not formally object to conservation efforts in streams because these are not greatly utilized by their members. This differs considerably from the interests of the fly fishers who target alien trout in small mountainous streams. There are prime waters for trout fishing within protected areas of the CFR, and because many of these streams are considered a high conservation priority, rehabilita-tion projects were considered a direct threat to the fly angling community. For this reason the fly angling community took the lead in challenging CapeNature’s river rehabilitation projects in newspapers, popular magazines, and the Internet (Marr et al. 2012). To improve awareness on the impacts of alien fishes and gain public support, CapeNature has written popular ar-ticles in local angling magazines promoting native fishes and associated conservation issues. In response, the general public and stakeholders from local communities expressed concerns about the necessity of removing alien game fish and the risks of using rotenone on nontarget taxa such as aquatic insects, na-tive fishes, amphibians, and humans. The EIA addressed those concerns and included an independent scientific assessment of the proposed program including the rotenone treatment of the Rondegat River (Marr et al. 2012). This was a crucial first step

Figure 5. Length frequency histograms of native fishes recovered from the treatment zone during the (a) 2012 and (b) 2013 rotenone treatments.

Photo 2. Melanie Duthie prepares to apply rotenone to the Rondegat River using a drip can. Photo credit: Bruce Ellender.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 278

to moving forward in changing the public’s perception of na-tive fish restoration projects that are scheduled in South Africa. Following the conclusion to the EIA, CapeNature convened a meeting with all stakeholders in August 2009 with no formal opposition to the project.

The almost instantaneous increase in biodiversity following the first treatment of the Rondegat River will likely encour-age more native fish recovery programs in South African riv-ers. Apart from the four rivers mentioned, CapeNature recently held a stakeholder workshop that concluded that a further 14 CFR rivers were priorities for alien fish control. Fish and in-vertebrate responses in treated rivers will therefore continue to be monitored for the foreseeable future. An initially skeptical public, especially anglers, are likely to be more receptive to these projects if their angling needs are addressed and if proj-ects yield biodiversity recovery. There is now a much greater public awareness of the plight of native CFR fishes and impacts of alien fishes in South Africa. The interaction among angling associations, local landowners, and CapeNature that occurred during this project resulted in a mechanism of better commu-nication and understanding that is useful as a model for future treatments. Technical guidance from the AFS Rotenone SOP Manual (Finlayson et al. 2010) and on-site support from AFS and SAIAB were instrumental in the planning and successful eradication of Smallmouth Bass from the Rondegat River up-stream of Clanwilliam Dam. This information has been trans-ferred to CapeNature for use in future rotenone projects.

We are all aware that it is much easier to introduce un-wanted fish into new environments than it is to remove these fish because of biological, social, political, and physical impedi-ments. To prevent new infestations and ensure success of the alien fish eradication pilot program, CapeNature and SAIAB will continue to raise public awareness of the impacts of alien fish on CFR native fishes through information transfer at public meetings, websites, and news media productions. After comple-tion of the four pilot projects now scheduled, the experiences will hopefully dictate a clear path forward and a new beginning for native fishes in South Africa.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors also wish to thank CapeNature, SAIAB, AFS, the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, and the Na-tional Research Foundation of South Africa for facilitating this collaboration. Finally, colleagues and volunteers who assisted in all aspects of the project over the last 10 years are thanked for their participation.

FUNDING

We thank the Global Environmental Facility of the World Bank for funding the initial stages of the project and the Table Mountain Fund for funding the participation of CapeNature staff at the rotenone training course in the United States. The Natural Resource Management Program of the Department of Environmental Affairs funded the final planning and treatment

phase. The Water Research Commission (K8/922; K5/2261) is thanked for funding biological monitoring surveys.

REFERENCES

Britton, J. R., and M. Brazier. 2006. Eradicating the invasive topmouth gudgeon, Pseudo-rasbora parva, from a recreational fishery in northern England. Fisheries Management and Ecology 13:329–335.

Cambray, J. A. 2003. Impact on indigenous species biodiversity caused by the globalisation of alien recreational freshwater fishes. Hydrobiologia 500:217–230.

Chakona, A., and E. R. Swartz. 2013. A new redfin species, Pseudobarbus skeltoni (Cyprin-idae, Teleosti) from the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Zootaxa 3686:565–575.

Clarkson, R., P. Marsh, S. Stefferud, and J. Stefferud. 2005. Conflicts between native fish and nonnative sport fish management in the Southwestern United States. Fisheries 30:20–27.

Cucherousset, J., and J. D. Olden. 2011. Ecological impacts of non-native freshwater fishes. Fisheries 36:215–230.

Demarais, B. D., T. E. Dowling, and W. L. Minckley. 1993. Post-perturbation genetic changes in populations of endangered Virgin River Chubs. Conservation Biology 7:334–341.

Dill, W. A., and A. J. Cordone. 1997. History and status of introduced fishes in California, 1871–1996: conclusions. Fisheries 22:15–18.

EFA (Enviro-Fish Africa). 2009. Environmental impact assessment of the proposed eradi-cation of invasive alien fishes from four river sections in the Cape Floristic Region. Available: www.capenature.co.za/docs/1962/EIA%20exec%20summary.pdf. (October 2013).

Ellender, B. R., O. L. F. Weyl, and E. R. Swartz. 2011. Invasion of a headwater stream by non-native fishes in the Swartkops River system, South Africa. African Zoology 46:39–46.

Finlayson, B., R. Schnick, D. Skaar, J. Anderson, L. DeMong, D. Duffield, W. Horton, and J. Steinkjer. 2010. Planning and standard operating procedures for the use of rotenone in fish management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Finlayson, B., W. Somer, D. Duffield, D. Propst, C. Mellison, T. Pettengill, H. Sexauer, T. Nesler, S. Gurtin, J. Elliot, F. Partridge, and D. Skaar. 2005. Native inland trout restoration on National Forests in the Western United States: time for Improvement. Fisheries 30:10–19.

Finlayson, B., W. Somer, and M. R. Vinson. 2009. Rotenone toxicity to rainbow trout and several mountain stream insects. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:102–111.

Finlayson, B., J. Trumbo, and S. Siepmann. 2001. Chemical residues in surface and ground waters following rotenone application to California lakes and streams. Pages 37–53 in R. Cailteux, L. DeMong, F. Finlayson, W. Horton, W. McClay, R. Schnick, and C. Thompson, editors. Rotenone in fisheries: are rewards worth the risks? American Fisheries Society, Trends in Fisheries Science and Management I, Bethesda, Maryland.

Gozlan, R. E., J. R. Britton, I. G. Cowx, and G. H. Copp. 2010. Current knowledge on non-native fish introductions. Journal of Fish Biology 76:751–786.

Impson, N. D., I. R. Bills, and J. A. Cambray. 2002. A conservation plan for the unique and highly threatened freshwater fishes of the Cape Floristic Kingdom. Pages 432–440 in M. J. Collares-Pereira, I. G. Cowx, and M. M. Coelho, editors. Conservation of freshwater fishes: options for the future. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, England.

Jordaan, M. S., and O. L. F. Weyl. 2013. Determining the minimum effective dose of rotenone for the eradication of alien Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) from a South African river. African Journal of Aquatic Science [online serial]. 38(sup1):91–95.

Kolar, C. S., W. R. Courtenay, and L. G. Nico. 2010. Managing undesired or invading spe-cies. Pages 213–259 in W. A. Hubert and M. C. Quist, editors. Inland Fisheries Man-agement in North America, 3rd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Linder, H. P., S. D. Johnson, M. Kuhlmann, C. A. Matthee, R. Nyffeler, and E. R. Swartz. 2010. Biotic diversity in the southern African winter rainfall region. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2:109–116.

Lintermans, M. 2000. Recolonization by the mountain galaxias Galaxias olidus of a mon-tane stream after the eradication of Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Marine and Freshwater Research 51:799–804.

Lochner, P., A. Weaver, C. Gelderblom, R. Peart, T. Sandwith, and S. Fowkes. 2003. Align-ing the diverse: the development of a biodiversity conservation strategy for the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservation 112:29–43.

Lowe, S. R., D. J. Woodford, N. D. Impson, and J. A. Day. 2008. The impact of invasive fish and invasive riparian plants on the invertebrate fauna of the Rondegat River, Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 33:51–62.

Marr, S. M., N. D. Impson, and D. Tweddle. 2012. An assessment of a proposal to eradicate non-native fish from priority rivers in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 37:131–142.

Marr, S. M., M. P. Marchetti, J. D. Olden, E. García-Berthou, D. L. Morgan, I. Arismendi, J. A. Day, C. L. Griffiths, and P. H. Skelton. 2009. Freshwater fish introductions in Mediterranean-climate regions: are there commonalities in the conservation problem? Diversity and Distributions 16:606–619.

McCafferty, J. R., O. L. F. Weyl, B. R. Ellender, and P. Britz. 2012. The use of water re-sources for inland fisheries in South Africa. Water SA 38:327–343.

McClay, W. 2000. Rotenone use in North America (1988–1997). Fisheries 20(5):15–21.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

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

Moyle, P. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.Pham, L., D. West, and G. P. Closs. 2013. Reintroduction of a native galaxiid (Galaxias

fasciatus) following piscicide treatment in two streams: response and recovery of the fish population. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 22:361–373.

Rayner, T., and R. Creese. 2006. Review of rotenone use for the control of non-indigenous fish in Australian fresh waters, and an attempted eradication of the noxious fish, Phal-loceros caudimaculatus. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40:477–486.

Roux, D. J., J. L. Nel, H. M. MacKay, and P. J. Ashton. 2006. Cross-sector policy objectives for conserving South Africa’s inland water biodiversity. Report No. TT 276/06. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.

Skelton, P. H. 2001. A complete guide to the freshwater fishes of southern Africa. Struik Publishing, Cape Town.

Swartz, E. R., A. F. Flemming, and P. F. N. Mouton. 2004. Contrasting genetic patterns and population histories in three threatened redfin species (Cyprinidae) from the Olifants River system, western South Africa. Journal of Fish Biology 64:1153–1167.

Tweddle, D., R. Bills, E. Swartz, W. Coetzer, L. Da Costa, J. Engelbrecht, J. Cambray, B. Marshall, D. Impson, P. Skelton, W. R. T. Darwall, and K. G. Smith. 2009. The status and distribution of freshwater fishes. Pages 21–37 in W. R. T. Darwall, K. G. Smith, D. Tweddle, and P. Skelton, editors. The status and distribution of freshwater biodi-versity in Southern Africa. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, and South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Grahamstown, South Africa.

UCREFRP (Upper Colorado River Endagered Fish Recovery Program). 2012a. Nonnative fish management questions and answers—2012 (Colorado). Available: www.colora-doriverrecovery.org/events-news/news/NNF-Q&A-CO-2012.pdf. (October 2013).

———. 2012b. Nonnative fish management questions and answers—2012 (Utah). Avail-able: www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/events-news/news/NNF-Q&A-UT-2012.pdf. (October 2013).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Reregistration eligibility decision for rote-none. 738-R-07-005. USEPA, Washington, D.C.

van Rensburg, B. J., O. L. F. Weyl, S. J. Davies, L. J. van Wilgen, D. S. Peacock, D. Spear, and C. T. Chimimba. 2011. Invasive vertebrates of South Africa. Pages 326–378 in D. Pimentel, editor. Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of alien plant, animal, and microbe species, 2nd editon. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Weyl, P. S. R., F. C. DeMoor, M. P. Hill, and O. L. F. Weyl. 2010. The effect of largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides on aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in the Wit River, Eastern Cape, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 35:273–282.

Weyl, O. L. F., B. R. Ellender, D. J. Woodford, and M. S. Jordaan. 2013. Fish distribu-tions in the Rondegat River, Cape Floristic Region, South Africa, and the immediate impact of rotenone treatment in an invaded reach. African Journal of Aquatic Science 28:201–209. DOI: 10.2989/16085914.2012.753401.

Woodford, D. J., H. M. Barber-James, T. A. Bellingan, J. A. Day, F. C. de Moor, J. Gouws, and O. L. F. Weyl. 2013. Immediate impact of piscicide operations on a Cape Floristic Region aquatic insect assemblage: a lesser of two evils? Journal of Insect Conserva-tion 17:959–973.

Woodford, D. J., and N. D. Impson. 2004. A preliminary assessment of the impact of alien Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) on indigenous fishes of the upper Berg River, Western Cape Province, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 29:109–113.

Woodford, D. J., N. D. Impson, J. A. Day, and I. R. Bills. 2005. The predatory impact of invasive alien Smallmouth Bass, Micropterus dolomieu (Teleostei: Centrarchidae), on indigenous fishes in a Cape Floristic Kingdom mountain stream. African Journal of Aquatic Science 30:167–173.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 280

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

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

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

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

The year 1975 brought about yet another new career focus as Fetterolf became executive secretary of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, headquartered in Ann Arbor. During his tenure with the commission, which lasted until 1992, its program of fishery research expanded greatly; it supported several international symposia, the proceedings of which are still foundational; it invigorated collaboration with the International Joint Commission, where he was already a member of its Water Quality Board (renamed the Science Advisory Board); and it produced A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, a seminal document that formalized working arrangements among fishery agencies, including tribal organizations, with responsibilities for the Great Lakes. While executive secretary, the commission’s program of research aimed at improved control of the Sea Lamprey expanded considerably, and control operations shifted more to an integrated pest management approach.

Fetterolf’s involvement with professional societies was extensive and included service as president of the Michigan Associa-tion of Conservation Ecologists (ca. 1965), the Midwest Benthological Society (1966), the International Association of Great Lakes Research (1976–1977), the Water Quality Section of AFS (1983), and AFS (1991). Among the honors bestowed on him were mem-berships in Pi Alpha Sigma and Sigma Xi. The honor he most likely cherished, however, was induction in 2013 into the National Freshwater Fisheries Hall of Fame because, among other things, it put him in the company of Izaak Walton, Earnest Hemingway, and Ole Evinrude.

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

Randy EshenroderGreat Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI. E-mail: randye@glfc.org

IN MEMORIAM

Carlos M. Fetterolf, Jr.1926–2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 281

UNIT NEWS

The Water Quality Section, together with the Fish Habi-tat Section, Bioengineering Section, and International Fisher-ies Section has developed an international symposium on the impacts of dams on fisheries for this year’s Annual Meeting in Québec City. Dams provide many benefits to society, including irrigation, domestic and industrial use, electricity generation, drought management, recreation, and flood control. The effects of dams on fishery resources have been studied and debated for years, because these social benefits come at a cost. Impacts from dams result in modifications of river channels and natural flows that result in water quality changes, habitat alterations, loss of migratory routes for diadromous fishes, and loss of land for local owners. Recent news stories on both dam removals (e.g., Elwha River, Penobscot River) and construction (e.g., upper Yangtze River in China) and the decisions and science surrounding those efforts have stimulated more open debate on the need for and value of dams.

This symposium includes speakers documenting the effects of both construction of new dams and dam removal on fishery resources, including social and environmental impacts, and will help foster a greater understanding during the planning stages of the need for open dialogue regarding the value of fisheries and water resources to all stakeholders. We have over 30 speakers confirmed from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Europe, Brazil, and China to present on a wide range of top-ics, including (1) the impacts of dam removal on ecological, physical, and economic factors; (2) responses to fish passage following dam removal; (3) habitat conservation plans; (4) post-construction impacts and fishery management, (5) current dam construction on the Yangtze River; and (6) use of new construc-tion to control flooding and provide habitat enhancements for threatened and endangered species. We expect that this sympo-sium will foster a greater appreciation and understanding of the science and many social issues surrounding dam construction and removal. We look forward to constructive and lively discus-sion on dams and hope you will join us in Québec!

Dam Impacts on Fishery Resources – Join Us in QuébecMargaret H. Murphy, AFS Water Quality Section PresidentANCHOR QEA, LLC, Glens Falls, NY. E-mail: mmurphy@anchorqea.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 282

The Strategic Plan Revision Committee includes: Chair Marga-ret H. Murphy, Timothy Birdsong, Jim Bowker, Steven Cooke, Patrick Cooney, Mary Fabrizio, Lourdes Gonzalez-Peralta, Am-brose Jearld, and Christina Swanson.

Margaret H. Murphy can be contacted at mmurphy@anchorqea.com

The Strategic Plan Revision Committee developed the draft 2015–2019 Strategic Plan with the goal of making it a more usable document for AFS unit leadership for planning and re-porting Society, Section, or Chapter activities as they relate to the Society mission and goals. The Committee believes that the Goals and Strategies included in this draft plan will address the current and projected needs of AFS through the next 5 years. Substantial changes were made to this Plan relative to the previ-ous Plan. First, it is much shorter, with a focus on a vision for the next 5 years. The Committee avoided inclusion of redun-dant information and information that was more suitable for an operational plan. Second, this Plan focuses on Goals and Strategies, with recommendations for reporting metrics. It is envisioned that annual operational plans developed at the Soci-ety and Unit levels will define the specific actions necessary to accomplish the intentions of the Goals and Strategies. Finally, the Goals and Strategies have been reformatted, recognizing that a single Strategy may encompass more than one Goal.

The draft Plan has been reviewed by the Governing Board and found to be acceptable for review by Society membership. The document is available for review and comment in this issue of Fisheries (see below) and on the AFS web site. If you have comments about this Plan, please submit them to jsewell@fish-eries.org by 20 July 2014. After the comment period, the Plan will be updated and presented to the Governing Board for its final approval. If approved by the Governing Board, the Plan will be presented for approval by the full membership at the An-nual AFS Business meeting in Québec City, on Wednesday, 20 August 2014. Acceptance of this Plan requires at least 50 active members voting (to achieve a quorum) and the vote will be de-termined by simple majority. If approved by the membership, this Strategic Plan will guide Society operations through 2019.

AFS Strategic Plan for 2015–2019The American Fisheries Society, established in 1870, is the world’s oldest and largest professional fisheries organization representing 9,000 members worldwide.

AFS Strategic Plan Revision Committee

AFS Strategic Plan for 2015–2019Draft 1, May 2014

The mission of the American Fisheries Society is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and pro-moting the development of fisheries professionals.

The actions of the American Fisheries Society during the next 5 years will be guided by the Strategic Plan for 2015–2019. For the 2015–2019 Strategic Plan, the previous plan was refined by reorganizing the goals and objectives, making the plan more us-able as a planning document, and as a framework for reporting accomplishments. As with previous plans, the current Strategic Plan does not include specific actions. Rather, it is suggested that the annual operational plans of the Society, and each of its Units, include development of specific actions or work plans to implement this Strategic Plan.

Fisheries science and management, like other scientific and technical disciplines, face new challenges:

• Globalization of trade and transportation will require greater cross-border understanding of the opportunities, threats, and cultural perspectives affecting international stock management, invasive species, and disease introduc-tions.• Climate change will drive decision-making for aquatic habitat protection and rehabilitation because of impacts on migration, invasive species, disease epidemiology, water supplies, water quality, food production, and energy re-sources.• Economic pressure, volatile markets, a transient and retir-ing workforce, and demands from rising economies will re-quire organizations to do more with fewer resources, modify their training and hiring practices, and dramatically restruc-ture some commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as restructure use of and access to aquatic resources.• Ecosystem-based management coupled with social and economic concerns will continue to drive research and man-agement agendas that will, by necessity, be shared among agencies.• Nature-deficit syndrome brought about by increasing ur-banization and electronic media use will present challenges with constituents who have minimal exposure to and appre-ciation for the scientific principles that control fisheries and ecosystem function.

Similarly, the Society, in order to meet our members’ needs and thrive, recognizes that our operations and business model must evolve to adapt to changes in technology and communications.

• Electronic communication, virtual meetings, and social networking are important means of interacting, particularly among young professionals, international colleagues, and dis-persed organizations. Incorporation of these tools in tradition-ally structured meetings and development within established online venues will enhance participation and provide valuable experiences. Professional societies will be expected to serve as information intermediaries that provide timely quality as-surance and technical insight on these ventures.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 283

• The proliferation and increased use of open-access publica-tions by professionals will continue to present a competitive challenge to traditional print journals and books and move us away from a subscription-based approach to an author-pay approach.• The position of the Society as an authoritative and timely source of information on fisheries, aquaculture, and aquatic science will require increased visibility and engagement at regional, national, and international levels with educational institutions, other professional societies, government agen-cies, non-governmental organizations, tribal groups, private industry, decision makers, and the public.• As an intelligent, adaptive, knowledge-based organization, the Society’s business and governance models will shift to respond to: greater demand for services that benefit mem-bers; changes in the Society’s revenue streams and expenses; and more direct participatory decision-making in collective actions. • The Society will increase the disciplinary, gender, ethnic, and cultural diversity and engagement of its members as a vital means to maintain relevancy and respond to the chal-lenges facing fisheries science and management.

Within this context, the American Fisheries Society envisions that world-wide fisheries production will be optimized and sustained while structural and functional conditions of marine, freshwater, and estuarine ecosystems are maintained. The mis-sion of the Society will be carried out effectively, and our vision will be attained, if each of the Goals described below is met. GOALS

Science Goal: Advance and promote fisheries, aquaculture, and aquatic sciences. Education Goal: Support education and professional develop-ment in fisheries, aquaculture, and aquatic sciences. Communication Goal: Disseminate fisheries science informa-tion. Networking Goal: Provide forums and networks to promote interaction among fisheries professionals and students. Advocacy Goal: Promote the fisheries profession and support evidence-based decision making for the conservation, develop-ment, and wise use of fisheries resources and aquatic ecosys-tems. Governance Goal: Practice good governance of the Society and its member units.

The Society uses a number of Strategies to accomplish these goals; each strategy may address multiple goals.

1. Organize and sponsor forums to present new findings and exchange ideas.

(Possible metrics: (1) Number of meetings, workshops, con-ferences, and symposia organized, (2) Number of informal gatherings or other networking opportunities organized, (3) Results of member satisfaction surveys, (4) Number of at-tendees)

2. Provide continuing education opportunities with an empha-sis on training and courses that are not commonly offered by academic institutions and/or that will be essential tools in the future.

(Possible metrics: (1) Number of courses; (2) Number of students; (3) Types of courses offered: quantitative skills, regulatory, social science/human dimensions of fisheries management, field and lab safety certification, field and/or laboratory methods, new and emerging topics, fisheries management; (4) Post-training reporting)

3. Develop communication products and publicly accessible in-formation to promote the value of fisheries, aquatic habitat, and fisheries sciences.

(Possible metrics: (1) Descriptions of information developed and how that information was communicated, (2) Potential number of people who received the information)

4. Develop relationships, partnerships, and collaborations with other professional societies, conservation organizations, de-cision makers, and stakeholders to establish and promote mutual goals of fisheries science, education, and steward-ship.

(Possible metrics: (1) Descriptions of relationships/col-laborations developed and how those contributed to the advancement of Society priorities and shared interests of partner organizations)

5. Publish high quality scientific journals, books, and proceed-ings that present recent advances, reviews and syntheses of fisheries and aquatic science and management.

(Possible metrics: (1) Number of manuscripts published, (2) Number of books published, (3) Number of papers pub-lished in symposia proceedings, (4) Editorial contributions, (5) Impact factor, (6) Number of citations)

6. Develop and disseminate scientifically-based communica-tion materials that represent and reflect the mission of the Society to political leaders, decision makers, stakeholders, and the public.

(Possible Metrics: (1) Number and frequency of commu-niques; (2) Number of invitations to speak with decision makers, stakeholders, and the public; (3) Number of letters, briefings, reviews, testimonies, workshops)

7. Provide online resources of value and interest to members and non-members to be the leading source of online fisher-ies science.

(Possible metrics: (1) Number of unique visits to website, (2) Engagement of visitors on the website, (3) Time spent per visitor on the website;(4) Number of scientifically based tweets generated and number of Twitter followers)

8. Support, manage, and promote a fisheries professional certi-fication program that is recognized as a distinguished mark of scientific excellence and expertise within and outside the Society.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 284

Susceptibility to Myxobolus cerebralis among Tubifex tubifex Populations from Ten Major Drainage Basins in Colorado Where Cutthroat Trout Are Endemic. R. Barry Nehring, P. M. Lukacs, D. V. Baxa, M. E. T. Stinson, L. Chiaramonte, S. K. Wise, B. Poole, and A. Horton. 26:19–32.

Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) Virus: Infectivity in Seawater under Different Physical Conditions. Siri Vike, Karin Oelckers, Henrik Duesund, Svein Rune Erga, Javier Gonzalez, Børge Hamre, Øyvind Frette, and Are Nylund. 26:33–42.

Molecular Characterization of the VP2 Gene of Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus (IPNV) Isolates from Mexico. Celene Salgado-Miranda, Edith Rojas-Anaya, Gary García-Espinosa, and Elizabeth Loza-Rubio. 26:43–51.

[Communication] Lactococ-cosis in Silver Carp. Lester H. Khoo, Frank W. Austin, Sylvie M. A. Quiniou, Patricia S. Gaunt, Dennis K. Riecke, Alicia M. Jacobs, Keith O. Meals, Arthur W. Dunn, and Matt J. Griffin. 26:1–8.

Genetic Variation in Bacte-rial Kidney Disease (BKD) Susceptibility in Lake Michi-gan Chinook Salmon and Its Progenitor Population from the Puget Sound. Maureen K.

Purcell, Jeffrey J. Hard, Kathleen G. Neely, Linda K. Park, James R. Winton, and Diane G. Elliott. 26:9–18.

JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTSJournal of Aquatic Animal HealthVolume 26, Issue 1, March 2014

(Possible metrics: (1) Number of certified scientists, (2) Number of agencies or institutions that give credit for certi-fication in hiring and promotion, (3) Number of re-certifica-tions)

9. Use innovative techniques such as surveys, focus groups, social media, and other means, to determine and respond to the needs, interests, and opinions of Society members.

(Possible metrics: (1) Blog entries, (2) Opinion surveys via website or social media, (3) Formal or informal focus group meetings; (4) Number of scientifically based tweets gener-ated and number of Twitter followers)

10. Embrace and adopt new technologies to enhance and expand the Society’s education, communications, networking, and advocacy activities.

(Possible metrics: (1) Types and numbers of technology used)

11. Enhance participation of students and professionals at all levels of the Society to assure member recruitment, reten-tion, and leadership development into the future.

(Possible metrics: (1) Number of emerging leaders mentor-ship awardees, (2) Number of student awards, (3) Number of members in each membership category, (4) Proportion of student members that become young professionals, (5) Proportion of young professionals that become regular members, (6) Number and proportion of Chapter members who are Society members, (7) Development of membership database to support analysis)

12. Promote ethnic, socio-economic, generational, and disci-plinary diversity within the Society and the fisheries profes-sion.

(Possible metrics: (1) Group membership statistics; (2) Group membership survey results; (3) Group annual meet-ing participation; (4) Number of plenary speakers who are female or members of underrepresented groups; (5) Number of specific groups, teams, or individuals contacted for par-ticipation)

13. Recognize and acknowledge the achievements and contri-butions of members and partners through awards, special conference sessions, and other activities.

(Possible metrics: (1) Number and types of awards, (2) Number of awardees)

14. Hold elections and convene regular meetings of elected officers to plan activities that advance the mission of the Society and provide sound financial management of assets, revenue, and expenses.

(Possible metrics: (1) Financial status, (2) Elections held, (3) Number of leadership meetings, (4) Audit report results, (5) Diversity and sizes of income streams, (6) Accuracy of approved budget estimates)

15. Periodically review constitution, bylaws, and procedures manual and revise using appropriate procedures as neces-sary.

(Possible metrics: (1) Number and substance of new amend-ments passed, (2) Number of periodic reviews of documents)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 285

DATE EVENT LOCATION WEBSITE

July 7–10, 2014 Fisheries Society of the British Isles Meeting-Integrated Perspectives on Fish Stock Enhancement Hull, England fsbi.org.uk

July 30–August 3, 2014 American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Annual Conference Chattanooga, TN asih.org/meetings

August 3–7, 2014 International Congress on the Biology of Fish Edinburgh, United Kingdom icbf2014.sls.hw.ac.uk

August 14–15, 2014 International Muskellunge Symposium Ottawa, Canada www.muskiescanada.ca/whats_new/symposium.php

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

August 16–20, 2014 38th Annual Larval Fish Conference (AFS Early Life History Section) Québec City, Canada larvalfishcon.org

August 31–September 4, 2014

AFS-FHS – International Symposium on Aquatic Animal Health (ISAAH)

Portland, OR afs-fhs.org/meetings/meetings.php

September 15–19, 2014 ICES Annual Science Conference 2014 A Coruña, Spain ices.dk/news-and-events/asc/ASC-

2014/Pages/default.aspx

September 26–30, 2014

Aquatic Resources Education Association Conference Traverse City, MI

www.areanet.org/conferences.htm

October 23–24, 2014 National Workshop on Large Landscape Conservation

Washington, DC http://www.largelandscapenetwork.org/2014-national-workshop/

December 3–4, 2014 14th Flatfish Biology Conference Westbrook, CT http://nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/Milford/flatfishbiologyworkshop.html

January 26–30, 2015 Global Inland Fisheries Conference Rome, Italy inlandfisheries.org

February 19–22, 2015 Aquaculture America 2015 New Orleans, LA

May 26–30, 2015 World Aquaculture 2015Jeju Island, Korea http://nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/Milford/

flatfishbiologyworkshop.html ; renee.mercaldo-allen@noaa.gov

July 26–31, 2015 World of Trout Bozeman, MT

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

February 22–26, 2016 Aquaculture 2016 Las Vegas, NV

February 19–22, 2017 Aquaculture America 2017 San Antonio, TX

CALENDARFisheries 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 286

did the meeting planners. When one version is used to display a presentation developed in the other version it causes a number of design-changing problems that simply made the presentation unworkable. The result was that each presentation room had to have two computers, one for each software installation, which just doubles an already complicated challenge.

There was far too much to summarize in this short col-umn but some of the most insightful and fascinating discussions were:

• Eric Carey, executive director of the Bahamas National Trust, pinch-hitting a keynote presentation on conservation challenges in the Bahamas and Caribbean. In a direct and highly relevant plea for the integration of science and policy to make more informed decisions, he was able to clearly articulate the unique issues of conservation, development, money, and societal needs into a compelling story. We hope to get Eric to share some of his thoughts in a future article in Fisheries.

• A group of presentations describing work on fisheries in the Gulf of California by staff and partners of CEDO, the Inter-cultural Center for the Study of Deserts and Oceans (www.cedointercultural.org). This work focuses on small fisheries, sometimes described as artisanal, that flourish in the small towns along the coast throughout the Gulf of Mexico in the states of Sonora and Sinaloa on the east of the Gulf and Baja California Norte and Baja California Sur, on the Baja pen-insula of California. Little is known about the magnitude of the harvest, value, and cultural history of these primarily family-based fisheries. To learn about this rich and fascinat-ing work was exciting.

• A special symposium on sharks and rays was held in con-junction with the meeting. I was introduced to this by my driver from the airport to the hotel. Claire Coiratonis, a doc-toral student of Felipe Amezcua, utilized micro-chemistry techniques of shark cartilaginous structures and linked water chemistry characteristics to better understand the life history of these fascinating and poorly understood animals.

• A full-day tour led by Francisco Flores, Universidad Na-cional Autónoma de México, of a mangrove system at the upper end of the bay and harbor in Mazatlan was one of the highlights of the three-day mangrove symposium. Devel-oped by Dave Phillips, Eric Knudsen, and John Tiedermann, this second international symposium focused on the critical ecological role, conservation efforts, and protection of man-groves throughout the world.

Most of us never have any idea of what’s going on behind the curtain at the conferences that we attend. For the most part, we take in the talks, enjoy the socials or networking events, participate in some working meetings, and, if time allows, get out and see some of what the host city

has to offer. A wonderful example of how blissfully naïve we frequently are was the incredible work of the team that led and managed the recent AFS Western Division meeting in Mazatlan, Mexico. This was a joint effort of the energetic and growing Mexico Chapter and the Western Division. Despite a number of challenges, some unique to the location and others typical of meeting craziness, the event was a clear success. AFS has met in Mexico before, but it’s been a while. The last Annual Meet-ing was in Mexico City in 1937 and had barely 100 people. The recent April event had 441 registrants from 19 countries. Of those registrants, nearly 200 were students representing 8 dif-ferent countries. The several hundred presentations, in Spanish and English, covered an amazing array of topics ranging from mangrove ecology and management, shark and ray ecology and management, western trout, fish passage, Gulf of California fisheries, and many excellent presentations on the fascinating work done with the thousands of critically important small fam-ily-based fisheries on both coasts of Mexico. Like many AFS events, this one also included a spawning run, four socials with one being a dinner in downtown Mazatlan, a full-day student mentoring workshop and trade show, and a number of other associated activities. It was a stunning event for a Division meeting, and the organizers did an exceptional job.

Actually, to get the full story, which may never come out in a single telling, you’d have to interview a number of the plan-ners. However, there were some bizarre surprises that would make any meeting manager cringe rather than applaud in how well they were handled. For example, the van transporting all of the laptops and projectors borrowed for PowerPoint presen-tations was hit by a drunk driver, destroying all the borrowed electronics, and setting off a frenzied, last-minute search for re-placements by AV Chair Travis Neebling. By the way, did you know that the version of PowerPoint used in Mexico is not en-tirely compatible with the U.S. version? Likely not, and neither

Behind the Scenes at MazatlanDoug Austen, AFS Executive Director

AFS Executive Director Doug Austen can be contacted at: dausten@fisheries.org

COLUMNLetter from the Executive Director

Continued on page 288

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6• June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 287

Continued on page 288

Willamette Basin river and stream sites (Mulvey et al. 2009). Therefore, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality was able to infer that aquatic vertebrate assemblages in 62% and 30% of the basin’s stream/river length were impaired by agri-culture and urbanization, respectively. Using a random survey design and standard methods and indicators, Stanfield (2012) determined with high to medium confidence levels that the fish assemblages in 56%–74% of Lake Ontario’s Canadian tribu-tary segments were impaired or likely impaired. The Minnesota Fisheries Section surveys 650 lakes per year employing stan-dard sampling methods and has surveyed a total of nearly 4,000 lakes (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2014). The data are used for assessing population status and trends and management action effectiveness. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2014) employs standard methods in its lake survey, to date sampling nearly 700 lakes to assess fish popula-tions, water quality, and nonnative species invasions.

A rigorous monitoring program must employ at least six characteristics: (1) a clearly stated set of objectives or questions (Hughes and Peck 2008) so that we know what we want to know, (2) a statistical study design sufficient for answering those ques-tions at multiple spatial scales (Sály et al. 2011; Marzin et al. 2012; Macedo et al., in press) because of the hierarchical nature of pressures and stressors, (3) an appropriate geographic frame-work (i.e., not hydrologic units because only half of them are true watersheds; Omernik 2003), (4) standard sampling meth-ods so that observed differences are not confounded by meth-odological differences (Bonar and Hubert 2002; Hughes and Peck 2008), (5) quantitative indicators with known precision to maximize explanatory power (Larsen et al. 2001; Kaufmann et al., 2014), and (6) public reporting of survey results.

In summary, rigorous monitoring programs can be expen-sive, but inadequate monitoring has expensive repercussions regarding ignorance of the fishery, ignorance of costly rehabili-tation effectiveness, and fishery depletion or loss. Endangered species listings and depleted fish populations typically result in greater management costs, reduced recreational and commercial values, and restricted human actions. In general (and similar to protecting and rehabilitating human health), protecting fisher-ies costs less than attempted (and often unsuccessful) efforts to rehabilitate those fisheries. Considering these costs and their values, can we afford not to monitor the nation’s fisheries rigor-ously?

REFERENCESAndrew Loftus Consulting and Southwick Associates Incorporated. 2011. Financial returns to

businesses from the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Sport Fish Restoration, Washington, D.C.

Alexander, G. G., and J. D. Allan. 2006. Stream restoration in the upper Midwest, U.S.A. Res-toration Ecology 14:595–604.

Bernhardt, E. S., M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D. Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G. M. Kondolf, P. S. Lake, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, B. Powell, and E. Sudduth. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637.

Bonar, S., and W. A. Hubert. 2002. Standard sampling of inland fish: benefits, challenges, and a call for action. Fisheries 27:10–16.

Continued from page 243 (President’s Commentary) Brown, L. R., M. B. Gregory, and J. T. May. 2009. Relation of urbanization to stream fish assemblages and species traits in nine metropolitan areas of the United States. Urban Eco-systems 12:391–416.

Hughes, R. M., S. G. Paulsen, and J. L. Stoddard. 2000. EMAP-surface waters: a national, mul-tiassemblage, probability survey of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia 422/423:429–443.

Hughes, R. M., and D. V. Peck. 2008. Acquiring data for large aquatic resource surveys: the art of compromise among science, logistics, and reality. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27:837–859.

Jacobs, S. E., and C. X. Cooney. 1965. Improvement of methods used to estimate the spawn-ing escapement of Oregon coastal natural coho salmon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Katz, S. L., K. Barnas, R. Hicks, J. Cowen, and R. Jenkinson. 2007. Freshwater habitat res-toration action in the Pacific Northwest: a decade’s investment in habitat improvement. Restoration Ecology15:494–505.

Kaufmann, P. R., R. M. Hughes, J. Van Sickle, T. R. Whittier, C. W. Seeliger, and S. G. Paulsen. 2014. Lake shore and littoral habitat structure: a field survey method and its precision. Lake & Reservoir Management 30:157–176.

Kentula, M. E., J. C. Sifneos, J. W. Good, M. Rylko, and K. Kunz. 1992. Trends and patterns in section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington, USA. Environmental Management 16:109–119.

Larsen, D. P., T. M. Kincaid, S. E. Jacobs, and N. S. Urquhart. 2001. Designs for evaluating local and regional scale trends. BioScience 51:1069–1078.

LaVigne, H. R., R. M. Hughes, R. C. Wildman, S. V. Gregory, and A. T. Herlihy. 2008. Summer distribution and diversity of non-native fishes in the main-stem Willamette River, Oregon, 1944–2006. Northwest Science 82:83–93.

Macedo, D. R., R. M. Hughes, R. Ligeiro, W. R. Ferreira, M. Castro, N. T. Junqueira, D. R. O. Silva, K. R. Firmiano, P. R. Kauffman, P. S. Pompeu, and M. Callisto. In Press. The relative influence of multiple spatial-scale environmental predictors on fish and macroinvertebrate assemblage richness in cerrado ecoregion streams, Brazil. Landscape Ecology.

Marzin, A. P., Verdonschot, P., and Pont, D. 2012. The relative influence of catchment, riparian corridor and local anthropogenic pressures on fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages in French rivers. Hydrobiologia 704:375–388.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2014. Fisheries lake surveys. Available: www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/surveys.html. (April 2014).

Morgan, R. P., and S. E. Cushman. 2005. Urbanization effects on stream fish assemblages in Maryland, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:643–655.

Mulvey, M., R. Leferink, and A. Borisenko. 2009. Willamette Basin rivers and stream assess-ment. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Hillsboro, Oregon.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Angler expenditures and economic impact assess-ments. Available: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/fisheries/recreational/angler-expenditures-economic-impacts/index. (April 2014).

Omernik, J. M. 2003. The misuse of hydrologic unit maps for extrapolation, reporting and eco-system management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39:563−573.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2014. Fact sheet: lake surveys will help manage fisher-ies. Available: www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/STDPROD_096523.html. (April 2014).

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Comments: Oregon coast coho ESU. NOAA Fisheries Status Review. Available: www.oregon.gov/OPSW/cohoproject/PDFs/odfw_comment_coho_esu.pdf?ga=t. (April 2014).

Sály, P., P. Takács, I. Kiss, P. Bíró, and T. Erós. 2011. The relative influence of spatial context and catchment- and site-scale environmental factors on stream fish assemblages in a human-modified landscape. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 20:251–262.

Shields, F. D., C. M. Cooper, Jr., S. S. Knight, and M. T. Moore. 2003. Stream corridor restora-tion research: a long and winding road. Ecological Engineering 20:441–454.

Stanfield, L. W. 2012. Reporting on the condition of stream fish communities in the Canadian tributaries of Lake Ontario, at various spatial scales. Journal of Great Lakes Research 38:196–205.

Stranko, S. A., R. H. Hilderbrand, and M. A. Palmer. 2012. Comparing the fish and macroin-vertebrate diversity of restored urban streams to reference streams. Restoration Ecology 20:747–755.

Thompson, D. M. 2006. Did the pre-1980 use of in-stream structures improve streams? A re-analysis of historical data. Ecological Applications 16:784–796.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Factsheet: the National Coastal Con-dition report III. Available: water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/upload/NCCR3_Factsheet_20081209.pdf. (April 2014).

———. 2009. National Lakes Assessment: a collaborative survey of the nation’s lakes. Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, EPA 841/R-09/001, Washington, D.C.

———. 2013. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008–2009: a collaborative survey. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and Office of Research and Development, EPA/841/D-13/001, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. 2011 National survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation: national overview. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. Available: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/upload/FWS-National-Preliminary-Report-2011.pdf. (April 2014).

Yoder, C. O., E. T. Rankin, M. A. Smith, B. C. Alsdorf, D. J. Altfater, C. E. Boucher, R. J. Milt-ner, D. E. Mishne, R. E. Sanders, and R. F. Thoma. 2005. Changes in fish assemblage status in Ohio’s nonwadeable rivers and streams over two decades. Pages 399–429 in J. N. Rinne, R. M. Hughes, and B. Calamusso, editors. Historical changes in large river fish assem-blages of the Americas. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 45, Bethesda, Maryland.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Fisheries • Vol 39 No 6 • June 2014 • www.fisheries.org 288

of the NFHP Board at the Summit will also serve as the annual gathering of the 19 regional fish habitat partnerships that lead efforts to protect and restore fish habitat on a large geographic scale. Reflecting the enthusiasm surrounding these opportuni-ties, conversations may expand participation to a much greater swath of aquatic and natural resource interests. Consider these groups as potential partners—the 22 individual Landscape Con-servation Cooperatives in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Strategic Habitat Conservation vision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014a), the 11 regional member organizations of Re-store America’s Estuaries Board of Directors (Restore Ameri-ca’s Estuaries 2014), the ocean partnerships and planning bodies representing the 9 regions in the National Ocean Policy (Coun-cil on Environmental Quality 2013), and the 18 joint ventures focusing on migratory bird corridors (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014b).

There are other incentives for collaboration beyond joint conferences. The Joint Aquatic Sciences Meeting and RAE-TCS Summits are based on shared interests in aquatic science or our coasts. Besides the financial aspects that accrue from administrative efficiency, there is another more individual or personal benefit—broadening our networks by connecting with people from similar disciplines but different groups. For ex-ample, The Wildlife Society and AFS both have units at the state level and sections or working groups organized around fields of interest like disease or education.

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

Still another example of these new partnerships is just ris-ing over the horizon. As this column was being written, AFS was deep in discussions with The Wildlife Society about a po-tential joint meeting of the two societies, perhaps as early as 2017 in Tampa. Details are still being negotiated but it seems likely that the first joint meeting will occur in 2017 or shortly thereafter. And there are related discussions about interim steps to bring our societies together before the joint meeting.

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

Continued from page 245 (Policy)

Many thanks to Dr. Amezcua, who not only advises phe-

nomenal students, but was meeting general chair and co-orga-nizer along with Pam Sponholtz. The fantastic program was developed by Hilda Sexauer, Felipe, Jim Bowker, and Diana Miller, along with what I’m sure was a group of others who worked tirelessly to craft the many symposia and sessions. Undoubtedly, there was a large army of others who devoted a substantial amount of time and energy to bring this meeting together. My utmost respect and admiration goes out to all of them for a job well done.

REFERENCES

Council on Environmental Quality. 2013. National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. Available: www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oceans/policy. (May 2014).

National Fish Habitat Partnership. 2014. NFHP Board Members. Available: www.fishhabi-tat.org/contacts/board. (May 2014).

Restore America’s Estuaries. 2014. Board members. Available: www.estuaries.org/board-of-directors.html. (April 2014).

Restore America’s Estuaries –The Coastal Society. 2014. Summit 2014: Inspiring Action, Creating Resilience. Available: www.estuaries.org/about-2014. (May 2014).

Society for Freshwater Science, Phycological Society of America, Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography, and Society of Wetland Sciences. 2014. Bridging Genes to Ecosystems: Aquatic Science at a Time of Rapid Change. Available: www.sgmeet.com/jasm2014. (May 2014).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014a. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. Available: www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/lcc.html. (April 2014).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014b. Migratory Bird Joint Ventures. Available: www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Jointventures/index.shtm. (April 2014).

Continued from page 286 (Letter from the Executive Director)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sara

h G

ilber

t Fox

] at

06:

01 2

5 Ju

ne 2

014