See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262107535

Overview of Inland Recreational Fisheries in Brazil

Article  in  Fisheries · November 2012

DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2012.731867

CITATIONS READS
32 423

3 authors, including:

Katia Freire Michel Machado

Universidade Federal de Sergipe Brazilian Institute of Enviroment and Renewable Natural resources
50 PUBLICATIONS   384 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sea Around Us View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michel Machado on 10 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Fisheries
American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org
VOL 37 NO 11
NOV 2012

Identify This Fish!

Unveiling the Recreational Giant
Twin Cities Meeting Wrap-Up
Managing for the Ecosystem or Economics?
Rethinking Research on Catch and Release Mortality

03632415(2012)37(11)
 Know your octopus!
Octopuses are admirable creatures—they are
intelligent, remarkably good at camouflage and
predator avoidance, dexterous, and famously
able to get in and out of a tight spot. The North
Pacific Giant Octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini) is
not targeted in Alaskan fisheries, but managers
would like to limit octopus by-catch and develop
fisheries. However, octopus are very difficult to
tag, and 60 years of experiments have yielded
little about their movement, abundance, and
mortality. They can pull out external tags, disc
tags and brands cause necrosis, and chemical
tags quickly fade. A benign tagging method that
provides long-term individual identification is
essential for these population studies.

NMT’s Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE) Tags are

meeting the challenge of providing individual
and batch tagging for octopus. Liquid VIE is
injected under the skin, but remains externally
visible. Different colors and tag locations are
combined to generate unique codes. VIE Tags
are easy to use and can be applied across a wide
range of octopus sizes. They have no negative
effects on the octopus, and are retained at very
high rates. In a 2 year mark-recapture
experiment, University of Alaska researcher Reid
Brewer and his team used VIE to tag over 1730
octopuses. They recaptured an impressive 14%
of the released animals, of which a large
proportion had been at liberty for at least 60
days and for as long as 374 days, demonstrating
the effectiveness of VIE for long term studies Made in
(Brewer, R. & B. Norcross. Fisheries Research Washington USA

134-136).
VIE is widely used from Alaska to Antarctica, and
everywhere in between. Please contact us if we
can help with your research.
Top: Researcher Reid Brewer weighs an octopus during VIE tagging trials.
Bottom: VIE is injected under the skin, but remains externally visible, as in
this octopus which was recaptured after 186 days. The code is read as:
green—blue—blue—red—orange and identifies an individual octopus.
Photos courtesy of R. Brewer.

Northwest Marine Technology, Inc.

www.nmt.us Shaw Island, Washington, USA
Corporate Office Biological Services
360.468.3375 office@nmt.us 360.596.9400 biology@nmt.us
Fisheries
Contents
VOL 37 NO 11 NOV 2012

COLUMNS
President’s Hook
483 Is AFS Still Relevant?
Governance structure, empowerment of AFS staff, ­marketing
AFS products, and rationalizing AFS programs and services
were the discussion topics at the August Governing Board
retreat.
John Boreman — AFS President

Guest Director’s Line

516  Stoking the “Green Fire”: Bringing the Land Ethic
to the Water
Developing a stronger conservation ethic.
John J. Piccolo
FEATURES
Recreational Fisheries
484  Overview of Inland Recreational Fisheries in Brazil Speckled pavon (Cichla temensis) caught in the Negro River,
Getting better acquainted with recreational fisheries in Brazil 488 in Santa Isabel do rio Negro, state of Amazonas, Brazil
—and the challenges of gathering their data.
Kátia M. F. Freire, Michel L. Machado, and Daniel Crepaldi MAGAZINE ARTICLES
Fisheries Management A Member’s Story
495  Management of Alewife Using Pacific Salmon in the
514  The Untold Story of Bob Piper
Great Lakes: Whether to Manage for Economics or the A look back to how the newest Honorary Member of our
Ecosystem? ­society came to AFS.
Great Lakes fishery managers must manage fisheries valued
at $7 billion annually in the face of ecosystem changes Jim Bowker
driven by invasive species. Difficult management choices
may ensue when economically important fisheries decline Cool Fish
as a result of larger ecosystem processes. 515 Needlefish
What attains lengths of up to 1.5 m and weights of over 6 kg?
John M. Dettmers, Christopher I. Goddard, and Kelley D.
Smith Jeff Schaeffer

Fisheries Science A Bit of History

502  Importance of Assessing Population-Level Impact 520  The Night I Disrupted a Danish Airliner Schedule
of Catch-and-Release Mortality How a rare African fundulus and other killifishes held up a
Demonstrating the need for studies that evaluate the flight back to America.
­impacts of CR mortality on fish stocks. Mervin F. Roberts
Janice A. Kerns, Micheal S. Allen, and Julianne E. Harris
JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS
WRAP UP 519  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,
504  AFS 142nd Annual Meeting Volume 141, Number 5, September 2012
Fisheries Scientists and Professionals Aggregate at The Twin
Cities! CALENDAR
THIRD CALL FOR PAPERS 522  Fisheries Events

509  2013 Annual Meeting—Little Rock, Arkansas ANNOUNCEMENTS

IN MEMORIAM 523  November 2012 Jobs
512  James R. Sedell
Cover: Image of Gyotaku print by Harry S. Schaeffer.
Fisheries
EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES
5410 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
American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training.

AFS OFFICERS FISHERIES STAFF EDITORS DUES AND FEES FOR 2013 ARE:
$80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for
PRESIDENT SENIOR EDITOR SCIENCE EDITORS Jim Long regular members, $20 in North America ($30
John Boreman Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam Marilyn “Guppy” Blair Daniel McGarvey elsewhere) for student members, and $40
Jim Bowker Jeff Schaeffer ($50 elsewhere) for retired members.
PRESIDENT ELECT DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS Howard I. Browman Jesse Trushenski
Robert Hughes Aaron Lerner Mason Bryant Usha Varanasi Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription.
Steven R. Chipps Jack E. Williams
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT MANAGING EDITOR Ken Currens Nonmember and library subscription rates are
Jeffrey Williams
Donna L. Parrish Sarah Fox Andy Danylchuk $157 in North America ($199 elsewhere).
Michael R. Donaldson Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmem-
SECOND VICE PRESIDENT Andrew H. Fayram BOOK REVIEW EDITOR ber.
Ron Essig Stephen Fried Francis Juanes
Larry M. Gigliotti
PAST PRESIDENT Madeleine Hall-Arbor ABSTRACT TRANSLATION
William L. Fisher Alf Haukenes Pablo del Monte Luna
Jeffrey E. Hill
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Deirdre M. Kimball
Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam

Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 © copyright 2012. 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.

2013 AFS MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION PAID:

AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY • 5410 GROSVENOR LANE • SUITE 110 • BETHESDA, MD 20814-2199
(301) 897-8616 x203 OR x224 • FAX (301) 897-8096 • WWW.FISHERIES .ORG
NAME Recruited by an AFS member? yes no
Name
Address
EMPLOYER
Industry
Academia
City Federal gov’t
State/Province ZIP/Postal Code State/provincial gov’t
Country Other
Please provide (for AFS use only) All memberships are for a calendar year. PAYMENT
Phone New member applications received Janu- Please make checks payable to American Fisheries
ary 1 through August 31 are processed Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank, or pay by
Fax for full membership that calendar year VISA, MasterCard, or American Express.
(back issues are sent). Applications
received September 1 or later are _____VISA
E-mail processed for full membership beginning
_____Check
_____American Express _____MasterCard
January 1 of the following year.
Account #______________________________________
MEMBERSHIP TYPE/DUES (Includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory)
Developing countries I (Includes online Fisheries only): N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$10 OTHER Exp. Date _____________
Developing countries II: N/A NORTH AMERICA; _____$35 OTHER
Signature ______________________________________
Regular: _____$80 NORTH AMERICA; _____$95 OTHER
Student (includes online journals): _____$20 NORTH AMERICA; _____$30 OTHER
Young professional (year graduated): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHER
Retired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older): _____$40 NORTH AMERICA; _____$50 OTHER
Life (Fisheries and 1 journal): _____$1, 737 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1737 OTHER
Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years): _____$1,200 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,200 OTHER: $1,200
Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year): _____ $1,000 NORTH AMERICA; _____$1,000 OTHER

JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (Optional)

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

482 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org


Is AFS Still Relevant?
John Boreman, President
In his opening remarks at the most recent American Fish-
eries Society (AFS) governing board retreat, “Re-imagining
AFS,” President Bill Fisher noted that professional societies
are currently experiencing many changes that are affecting their
ability to serve members. Tighter budgets, more attractive al-
ternatives, and changing expectations are leading to a greater
demand by members for a return on their investment. Our so-
ciety is no different. As with other professional societies, our
society is facing a decline in membership, loss of revenue, and
growing irrelevance to the younger (and even older) genera-
tions.
The stimulus for the theme of the retreat was a book en-
titled Race for Relevance: 5 Radical Changes for Associations
(Coerver and Byers 2011). We were fortunate to have one of the
book’s authors, Mary Byers, lead us through the six issues that
professional societies are currently facing and five changes rec-
ommended by the authors to help societies survive. According
to the book’s authors, the six issues facing today’s professional
societies are (1) increased competition for the members’ time
that can be devoted to society-related activities; (2) increased
scrutiny by members into the return on their membership in-
vestment; (3) increased specialization and consolidation of
professional societies; (4) generational differences in member
values; (5) competition with for-profit associations; and (6)
technological changes. These issues are impacting membership
in professional societies that will require changes in operations
and services. The five changes they propose in their book to
address these issues are as follows: (1) overhauling the gov-
ernance model and committee operations; (2) empowering the
executive director and enhancing staff expertise; (3) thoroughly
defining the membership market; (4) rationalizing programs
and services; and (5) building a robust technology framework.
At the end of the morning’s discussion, the governing board de-
cided to spend the remainder of the retreat discussing how AFS
should move forward with the first four changes. The retreat at-
tendees felt that the society was already on the path to building
a robust technology framework. Dale Burkett, a former mem-
ber of the governing board, facilitated the afternoon discussion.
The topic that received the most attention by the governing
board members during the afternoon discussion was the chal-
lenge of overhauling the society’s governance structure. The
retreat attendees agreed that the governing board is spending an
inordinate amount of resources making few decisions at great
expense, in terms of both time and money. The current gover-
nance structure is unwieldy and there is redundancy between
the governing board and the Management Committee. The elec-
tion processes leading to membership on the governing board
result in members representing factions and being recruited
to the board by default rather than intent. Finally, the attend-
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 483
COLUMN
President’s Hook
ees agreed that resources
required to support the cur-
rent governance structure
are not sustainable and are
inefficient. The governing
board identified five key
questions related to AFS
governance that need to be
answered: AFS President Boreman may
be contacted at: ­
John.Boreman@ncsu.edu
1. Should the govern-
ing body maintain the
current representation by geography and area of inter-
est or have more of a competency-based membership
based on skill and needs and have members serving
longer terms?
2. Are the governing board and Management Committee
redundant?
3. If we eliminate some governing board members (Co-
erver and Byers [2011] recommended that governing
boards should have no more than five individuals),
how do we maintain diversity and leadership develop-
ment opportunities?
4. How do we change the structure without making
subunits (AFS officers, divisions, and sections) feel
disenfranchised?
5. Does the board really need to meet face-to-face twice
per year, and is it possible to hold meetings via some
form of virtual attendance platform?
The retreat attendees decided that a special AFS commit-
tee should be formed to begin addressing these questions with
the goal of developing alternatives to the status quo that can
be reviewed and discussed by the governing board at a future
meeting.
In discussing the second radical change, empowering the
AFS executive director and staff, the governing board noted
that the expertise and capabilities of professional AFS staff
should encompass fisheries science and policy, association
operations, financial management, membership services, devel-
opment, publications, technological and database development,
and management to meet the needs of the society membership.
The retreat attendees offered several solutions to this chal-
lenge, including investigating the feasibility of adding a chief
operating officer position to AFS staff who reports directly to
the executive director, enhancing communications feedback
throughout the AFS organization, identifying professionally
delivered services that staff can provide directly to AFS units,
Continued on page 521
FEATURE
Recreational Fisheries
Overview of Inland Recreational Fisheries in Brazil
Kátia M. F. Freire
Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde,
Núcleo de Engenharia de Pesca, Cidade Universitária Prof. José Aloísio de
Campos, Rua Mal. Rondon S/N, Jardim Rosa Elze, São Cristóvão, Sergipe,
Brazil, CEP 49100-000. E-mail: kfreire2006@yahoo.com.br
Michel L. Machado
Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura, Coordenação Geral de Registro e Li-
cenças de Pesca Amadora, SBS Quadra 02 Bloco J, Térreo, Edifício Carl-
ton Tower, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil, CEP 70070-120
Daniel Crepaldi
Superintendência do IBAMA em Minas Gerais. Núcleo de Ecossistemas
Aquáticos, Av. Contorno 8121, 3° andar, sala 304, Cidade Jardim, Belo
Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, CEP 30110-051.
ABSTRACT: This article presents a general overview of rec-
reational fisheries in Brazil, with emphasis on inland fisheries;
reports their current needs; and provides directions for future
work considering that there is an apparent increase in recre-
ational fishing in emerging economies around the globe. Even
though there is no nationwide survey to identify the profile of
all Brazilian recreational fishers, some insights can be obtained
from competitive fishing events and from the questionnaire
printed on the back of fishing licenses. The number of fishing
licenses issued in 2010 was approximately 220,000, represent-
ing an increase of 220% compared to 2000. Some estimates
suggest that the number of recreational fishers in Brazil may
be around 10 million. Information on fishing expenses, catch-
and-release activities, fishing guides, lodging, fishing areas,
target species, management control, and fishing clubs and as-
sociations is presented. Data for basic estimates such as total
number of recreational fishers, total catch and species compo-
sition, and total economic value are unavailable, but the results
presented here are nevertheless essential for a long-term plan-
ning of the development of recreational fishing in Brazil. Other
requirements are presented and suggestions are made toward
improved management of recreational fisheries in Brazil and
other emerging economies.
INTRODUCTION
The diversity of freshwater fishes in Brazil is the great-
est in the world, with 3,046 species accounted for at the time
of this article (Froese and Pauly 2012). Many of these species
are targeted by both Brazilian and foreign anglers. In some
regions, such as in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, catches
from recreational fisheries surpass those from commercial
fisheries (Catella 2006). In terms of commercial fisheries
(fishes and invertebrates), about 30% of Brazilian catch origi-
nated from freshwaters in 2009, representing 239,500 tonnes
(Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura [MPA] 2010). Curimatã
(Prochilodus spp.), Piramutaba (Brachyplatystoma vaillantii),
484 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
Panorama de la pesca recreativa en
aguas continentales en Brasil
RESUMEN: Este trabajo presenta un panorama de las
pesquerías recreativas de Brasil, con énfasis en las pes-
querías continentales; se muestran las tendencias actuales
y se ofrecen directrices para investigaciones futuras, con-
siderando que aparentemente hay un incremento de las
pesquerías recreativas en las economías emergentes al-
rededor del mundo. A pesar de que no existe un sondeo
del perfil de todas las pesquerías recreativas en Brasil, es
posible obtener información a partir de torneos de pesca
y cuestionarios impresos en el reverso de los permisos de
pesca. El número de permisos de pesca emitidos en 2010
fue de aproximadamente 220,000, lo que representa un
incremento del 220% con respecto al año 2000. Algunas
estimaciones indican que el número de pescadores recre-
ativos en Brasil está por los diez millones. Así mismo, se
presenta información concerniente a los gastos de la pesca,
actividades de captura-liberación, guías de pesca, áreas de
pesca, especies objetivos, aspectos de manejo y clubes y
asociaciones de pesca. Pese a que los datos para estimar el
número de pescadores recreativos, la captura total, la com-
posición de especies y su valor total no están disponibles,
los resultados que aquí se presentan son esenciales para la
planeación y el desarrollo en el largo plazo de la pesquería
recreativa en Brasil. Se presentan además, otros requisitos
y sugerencias para mejorar el manejo de las pesquerías rec-
reativas en Brasil y en otras economías emergentes.
Jaraqui (Semaprochilodus spp.), Dourada (Brachyplatystoma
rousseauxii), and Pescada (Plagioscion spp.) were the most
important species and accounted for 38% of total freshwater
catch. However, there are no national statistics for total catch or
catch composition by recreational fishers.
Competitive fishing is one distinct sector of recreational
fishing and is perceived as having both positive and negative
effects on the sector as a whole. In Australia, Canada, most Eu-
ropean countries, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States,
competitive fishing events are very important (Schramm
and Harrison 2008). However, for developing and emerging
countries (including Brazil), not much is known about the im-
portance of these events and how they affect fish resources and
the recreational fishing community. The objective of this article
is to provide an overview of recreational fisheries in Brazil,
with emphasis on inland fisheries, indicating current needs and
giving directions for future work toward their sustainable man-
agement. Given that there is an apparent increase in recreational
fishing in emerging economies around the globe, it is hoped that
the experience in Brazil will be relevant to other countries.
NUMBER OF RECREATIONAL FISHERS
No national survey was conducted in Brazil to estimate the
total number of recreational fishers and thus their number is un-
known. Since August 2009, all recreational fishers are required
to have a license issued, for an annual fee ranging from US$10
to US$30 (see Management Control section), by the MPA to go
fishing in either marine or freshwaters. Previously, the license
was issued by the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and
Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA). Recreational fishers
younger than 18 years of age are not required to have a license
unless taking part in competitive fishing or keeping their catch.
Retired recreational fishers and/or those older than 60 years (for
women) or 65 years (for men) are also exempted from having
to purchase a license, and hence their participation in the sec-
tor cannot be properly accounted for either, at least based on
licenses.
Data on the number of fishing licenses are available only for
the periods 1978–1981 and 1984, when the number of licenses
varied between 119,000 and 244,000 (SUDEPE 1978a, 1978b,
1980, 1981, 1984); then, numbers are again available from
1996 onwards, when the National Plan for the Development of
Recreational Fisheries (PNDPA) was established. There is no
explanation for the decrease in the number of licenses observed
from 1996 to 1999 (Figure 1), except for changes in the quality
of the database and probably a dissatisfaction of anglers with
the management agency (IBAMA by then). During the period
2000–2010, an increase in the number of licenses issued was
observed, with an even higher annual increase rate after 2006
of approximately 25,000 licenses. The number issued in 2010
was about 220,000.
In many countries, the number of licenses issued may serve
as a proxy to estimate the number of recreational fishers. How-
ever, this does not work for Brazil where the overwhelming
majority of recreational fishers lack fishing licenses due to poor
compliance: 89% in southern Bahia (K. M. F. Freire, unpub-
lished data), 96% in southern São Paulo (Ramires and Barrella
2003), 86% in Espírito Santo (Chiappani 2006), and 75% in
northern Santa Catarina (Schork et al. 2010). In addition, re-
gional studies have shown that recreational fishers older than
65 (and thus not required to have fishing licenses) comprised
about 15–32% of recreational fishers in some regions, such as
São Paulo (Peixer and Petrere 2009).
Figure 1. Number of national fishing licenses issued for anglers in Brazil
for the period 1996–2010.
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 485
If we use a mean proportion of license holders in relation
to the total number of anglers (13.5%, based on interviews in
the states of Bahia, São Paulo, Espírito Santo, and Santa Cata-
rina, as stated above), the total number of recreational fishers in
Brazil could be around 1.6 million. That would correspond to
approximately 0.9% of the total Brazilian population of about
191 million in 2010 (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Es-
tatística 2010). This participation rate would be smaller than any
other presented by Ditton (2008), who reviewed recreational
fisheries in nine other countries in the world. On the other hand,
IPAAM (2001) estimated the number of recreational fishers in
Brazil at 6 million, and da Costa et al. (2006) even suggested
a value of 25 million. In view of these various considerations,
a figure of 10 million recreational fishers in Brazil would thus
appear reasonable.
PROFILE OF RECREATIONAL FISHERS
Although there is no nationwide survey of Brazilian
recreational fishers, some insight can be obtained from a ques-
tionnaire printed on the back of the fishing license. IBAMA
used to issue the license in two ways: (1) via an electronic form
available through the Internet and (2) as a printed form. Since
2010, the license has been issued only by the MPA and through
the Internet. The information from the printed form was never
encoded. Hence, the profile presented in the next section corre-
sponds only to those recreational fishers who obtained a license
via the Internet from 2003 to 2009 and is thus biased. The na-
ture of the bias will remain unknown until all of the printed
licenses are encoded.
Socioeconomic Profile
Brazilian recreational fishers are mainly males (96%) and
middle aged, between 40 and 55 years old (46.5%; mean age
= 43 in 2009). Those younger than 18 years or older than 65
years do not have to carry a license, although some did pur-
chase licenses (0.6% and 1.8% of all licenses issued in 2009,
respectively). These licenses probably reflect the need to carry
a license if planning to take fish home or to enable participation
in competitive fishing events, because in both cases a license
was required.
A total of 3.3–3.8% of the respondents were not wage
earners (which includes students, housewives, and the unem-
ployed). Only 26.6% of these anglers had a monthly wage of
more than R$3,000 in 2009 (R$1.00 = US$0.49 for that year).
Participation from individuals in this income bracket decreased
between 2005 and 2009 and increased for those who earn up to
R$1,000. Even though inflation was under control during this
period, this change may imply a loss in buying power. For ex-
ample, a wage of R$3,000 represented 10 times the minimum
wage in 2005 but only 6.5 times the minimum wage in 2009.
Fishing Behavior
In 2009, most of the recreational fishers who bought their
licenses via the Internet were in category B (70.3%), those who
 Table 1: Fishing destination of recreational anglers in 2009 (first row) in relation to the state of residence (first column) (%). Last column
presents the number of licenses issued by state plus the Federal District. Gray cells indicate cases where more than 50% of the respondents go
TABLE 1. Fishing destination of recreational anglers in 2009 (first row) in relation to the state of residence (first column) (%). The last column presents the number of licenses issued by the state
fishing
plus mainly
the Federal on the
District. Graystate of residence.
cells indicate Squares
cases where represent
more than cases
50% of the wheregothe
respondents statemainly
fishing of residence isofstill
in their state the most
residence. preferred
Squares representfishing statethe(but
cases where state<of50%).
residence is
still the most preferred fishing state (but <50%).
STATE SP MG PR RS MS SC GO RJ FD MT RO ES BA AM TO PE PA CE RN PB SE RR PI MA AC AL AP TOTAL
São Paulo 58 7 2 0 16 1 2 0 0 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,526
Minas Gerais 1 82 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 6 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,753
Paraná 3 1 62 1 13 5 1 0 1 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,057
Rio Grande do Sul 1 0 2 78 8 2 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,271

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org

Mato Grosso do Sul 0 1 0 0 90 0 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,001
Santa Catarina 2 1 3 4 9 69 1 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,418
Goiás 0 4 0 0 3 0 68 0 1 14 1 0 0 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,363
Rio de Janeiro 2 8 1 1 3 1 1 74 0 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,301
Federal District 1 13 1 0 3 1 62 1 6 6 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,162
Mato Grosso 1 2 0 0 9 0 2 0 1 82 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,123
Rondônia 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 653
Espírito Santo 1 10 1 0 4 1 2 1 0 11 4 57 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358
Bahia 3 8 1 0 3 1 3 0 1 3 2 1 67 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 205
Amazonas 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 5 0 0 84 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 191
Tocantins 23 6 4 3 8 2 3 0 1 4 2 1 0 1 41 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
Pernambuco 3 6 2 2 9 1 4 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 1 56 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 160
Pará 2 9 1 0 6 0 2 0 1 5 3 2 0 6 4 0 56 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 155
Ceará 3 4 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 69 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 142
Rio Grande do Norte 3 2 2 1 7 1 7 6 0 2 6 0 0 6 0 2 0 1 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88
Paraíba 1 11 1 0 10 0 6 4 3 5 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 46 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 80
Sergipe 9 3 4 7 7 5 1 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 53 0 0 0 0 1 0 76
Roraima 2 0 18 4 11 5 4 2 0 7 4 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 56
Piauí 2 12 4 0 0 0 12 0 0 13 6 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 38 6 0 0 0 52
Maranhão 4 13 0 0 2 0 22 2 0 4 4 2 0 2 15 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 13 0 0 0 46
Acre 4 9 9 2 9 7 0 2 0 13 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 45
Alagoas 3 29 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 34
Amapá 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 10
1 
 

486
are permitted to fish from boats. These were followed by cate-
gory A, those who are not permitted to fish from boats (23.8%),
and by category C, spearfishers (5.9%). This does not necessar-
ily reflect the behaviors of all recreational fishers but may be
associated with the relationship between access to the Internet
and wealthier recreational anglers who are able to afford their
own boats.

Most of the licenses were issued in the state of São Paulo

(30%), followed by Minas Gerais, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul,
and Mato Grosso do Sul (Table 1). Each of the remaining 21
states accounted for less than 5% of the licenses issued. The
preferred destinations followed the same pattern of license
sales, with the addition of the states of Mato Grosso and Goiás.
The increasing percentage of recreational fishers going fish-
ing in Minas Gerais’ waters was a notable finding: from 6% in
Figure 2. Fishing hotel boat in Padauari River, a tributary of the Middle
2005 to 20% in 2009, becoming the most important attraction Negro River. This boat is based in Barcelos, in the state of Amazonas,
in Brazil (at least as documented for fishers who obtained their Brazil. (photo: Michel L. Machado)
licenses from the Internet). The second important pattern was a
decrease in São Paulo as an important fishing destination. For
2009, a cross-analysis indicated that most recreational fishers
fish in their states of residence (Table 1.)

The majority of recreational fishers licensed through the

Internet fish in rivers/lakes and fish-and-pay (about 85% and
31%, respectively, during the period 2006–2009). In the marine
realm, sandy beaches/rocky shores were the most cited (17%),
followed by offshore areas (10%; Figure 3). A slight increase in
the percentage of recreational fishers operating in all freshwater
habitats was observed along with a slight decrease in those go-
ing offshore.

A total of 62% of recreational fishers stated in 2009 that Figure 3. Fishing habitats stated by respondents in answer to a multiple-
they fish between 3 and 12 times a year (Figure 4). It is worth choice question on fishing habitats, 2006 to 2009.
noting that the proportion of those avid anglers who go fish-
ing every week to once a month has been increasing. On the
other hand, the number of those who rarely go fishing (once a
year) has decreased, reaching less than 10% in 2009. The use
of natural bait in connection with a rod and reel was the most
popular among recreational fishers in 2005–2009 (64–87% and
84–93% of the respondents, respectively). Fly- and spearfishing
gear were the least cited during the same period, with less than
4% of the respondents acknowledging their use. During the pe-
riod from 2005 to 2009, there was a decrease in the percentage
of recreational anglers using only rod and line from 14% to 5%,
probably due to their awareness that there is no need for a fish-
ing license when using this gear.

Catch-and-release fishing is a concept that has spread

among Brazilian recreational fishers since the 1990s (Freire
2005) as a voluntary conservation tool. However, many fish-
ers historically released nontarget species with no consumptive
value and specimens that were too small. For the past 5 years,
there was no change in the releasing habits: 70% stated that
they sometimes release the fish caught, 20% always release,
and 10% never release. Considering that minimum size and bag
limit are control measurements used in Brazil, recreational fish-
ers are in fact required to release fish in many cases.
Figure 4. Fishing frequency for recreational fishers according to the li-
censes issued via the Internet from 2005 (white columns) to 2009 (black
columns).
Studies on post release mortality have just begun in Brazil.
Preliminary results for the region of Pantanal (state of Mato
Grosso do Sul) have demonstrated very different post release
mortality rates: 70% for Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum, 46% for
Pseudoplatystoma corruscans, and 0% for Piaractus mesopo-

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 487

tamicus (Capistrano-Santana et al. 2007; data presented only
for n > 20). In an Amazonian Reserve, preliminary results for
Cichla spp. indicate a low mean mortality rate of 4.2% after
release (Lopes 2011). As previously pointed out by Cooke and
Suski (2005), these differences indicate that catch-and-release
cannot be seen as a panacea and is not equally applicable for all
species and habitats in Brazil.

When analyzing the economic importance of recreational

fisheries in Brazil, one should consider the following aspects
(for 2009 only):

• Most (75%) recreational fishers do not own boats.

• The percentage of respondents who use fishing guides
sometimes, never, and always was 42, 37, and 20%, re-
spectively.
• During their fishing trips, they prefer staying with friends
or relatives (44%), in campsites (40%), and fishing ho-
tels or hostels specialized in fishing (38%). They rarely
go to standard hotels (5%) or boat hotels (11%).

An analysis of expenses indicated that 50% of the respon-

dents spent up to R$300 per fishing trip in 2005. This percentage
increased to 62% in 2009. In general, the other categories (R$
301–1,000; R$ 1,001–2,000; > R$ 2,000) represented less than Figure 5. Basins identified by the Brazilian Water Agency (ANA) and used
as management units by the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and
30% of the respondents, and a decreasing trend through time Renewable Resources (IBAMA)/National Plan for the Development of
was observed. We should point out that these expenses per- Recreational Fisheries (PNDPA) (modified from PNDPA 2009).
tain to residents and exclude expenses by foreign recreational
anglers, who increasingly see Brazil as a desirable fishing des-
tination. However, there is no national estimate indicating the
importance of these data. Preliminary results indicated that 299
licenses were issued to non-Brazilians in 2011, when 7,230
tourists were expected to go fishing in Amazonian waters, most
of them from the state of São Paulo and from the United States
(Anonymous 2011). In the state of Amazonas, tourists usually
spend R$3,500–4,000 for a 3- to 7-day trip (US$1.00 = R$2.04).

FISHING CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS

Fishing clubs or associations (hereafter only referred to

as fishing clubs) were split into two broad categories: official
and unofficial. The former are recognized by the Brazilian Con-
federation of Sport Fishing and Underwater Sports (CBPDS),
which gives support to so-called official competitive fishing
events. Currently, there are 49 official fishing clubs in Brazil
but many more unofficial fishing clubs; the total number of
fishing clubs is unknown. For the northeastern region, Freire
(2010) found a total of 31 fishing clubs in 2009, even though
only 9 clubs are currently affiliated with the CBPDS.

Fishing activities are also promoted by clubs created for

other recreational purposes. Some of these were established as
early as 1930, but most were created since 1985. Not all fishing
clubs promote competitive events, and their members fish in
events promoted by other clubs. Some fishers are affiliated with Figure 6. Speckled pavon (Cichla temensis) caught in the Negro River, in
Santa Isabel do rio Negro, state of Amazonas, Brazil (the current Interna-
more than one fishing club. tional Game Fish Association record for this species: 13.19 kg).

488 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org

 TABLE 2. Some of the main native species caught by anglers in Brazilian inland waters (based on PNDPA [2009] and most cited in two magazines
specialized in recreational fishing in 2010–2012), their common names in Portuguese (italic) and English (presented within parentheses; from
FishBase), maximum size (total length or otherwise stated), maturity length (total length; female values used when informed), occurrence by
basin, and minimum catch size per basin, if defined. Gray boxes represent basins where species are caught by recreational fishers.

Common names Basinsd

Max. Mat.
Species size size
Portuguese (English)a (cm)b (cm)c Am TA Prn Sfr Wna Ena Ea Sea Sa Par Prg Urg
name
Brachyplatystoma Filhote, Piraíba (Kumakuma) 360.0 NAe 150 90
­filamentosum
Cichla piquiti Tucunaré-azul (NAe) 43.0 SL NAe
Cichla temensis Tucunaré-açu, tucunaré-paca 99.0 33.5
(Speckled pavon)
Colossoma macropomum Tambaqui (Cachama) 108.0 NAe 55

Hoplias malabaricus Traíra (Trahira) 55.2 NAe 30 30

Leporinus obtusidens e 76.0 21.6 25 30

Piapara, Piau (NA )
Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Aruanã (Arawana) 90.0 NAe 44 50
Phractocephalus hemio- Pirarara (Redtail catfish) 134.0 NAe 90 90
liopterus
Piaractus mesopotamicus Pacu (Pacu) 49.3 NAe 40 45

Pinirampus pirinampu Barba-chata, Barbado, 120.0 NAe 50 50 60

Piranambu (Flatwhiskered
catfish)
Pseudoplatystoma Pintado (Spotted sorubim) 166.0 65.2 80 90 85
corruscans

Pseudoplatystoma Cachara, Surubim (Barred 104.0 NAe 80 70 90 80

fasciatum ­sorubim)
Salminus brasiliensis Dourado (Dorado) 111.3 37.8 60 60 65

a
According to FishBase.
b
Total length from FishBase. SL = standard length. Converted to total length when length–length relationship available in FishBase.
c
From PNDPA (2009) or FishBase. Values presented for females.
d
Am = Amazonia; TA = Tocantins–Araguaia; Prn = Parnaíba; Sfr = São Francisco; Wna = western northeast Atlantic; Ena = eastern northeast Atlantic; Ea = eastern Atlantic; Sea = southeast Atlantic;
Sa = South Atlantic; Par = Paraná; Prg = Paraguay; Urg = Uruguay (based on PNDPA 2009).

FISHING AREAS
Brazil was divided by the Brazilian Water Agency into 12
basins that reflect different species/group of species (Figure
5). Theoretically, these basins work as management units for
recreational fishing. Some of the control measures (minimum
size and bag limits) are basin specific, but in general the control
level is poor.
TARGET SPECIES AND TOTAL CATCH
The total number of species targeted by recreational fishers
in Brazil is unknown. The PNDPA used to publish an annual
guide of fishing records for Brazil, based on the International
Game and Fish Association (IGFA) records (PNDPA 2009;
IGFA 2011). These records provide an idea of some species
caught by recreational fishers in Brazilian inland waters (75 na-
tive and 2 introduced; Table 2, Figure 6), though many Brazilian
records are not listed by the IGFA because they do not meet the
IGFA’s strict requirements. Most of the species recorded were
not assessed for their conservation status (74% according to
the International Union for Conservation of Nature 2010), but
some are listed as threatened (IBAMA 2004). Introduced spe-
cies include the largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides and the
rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss.
The total catch of each species is known for only some re-
gions. In southern Pantanal, the mean catch for 1994–1997 was
about 1,086 tons∙year−1, with a yield per recreational fisher∙day
of 3.6–6.2 kg (Catella and Albuquerque 2000). From 2001 to
2003, the mean catch rate was 329 tons∙year−1 with a yield of
2.1–3.8 kg/fisher∙day (Albuquerque et al. 2003; Catella and Al-
buquerque 2007). It is thought that this decrease in bag limits is
one of the factors leading to decreasing numbers of recreational
fishers visiting the southern Pantanal region (from 60,000 in
1997 to fewer than 20,000 in 2003). Much higher values were
obtained in other regions, some of them surpassing bag lim-
its (see Management Control Section): 21.2 kg/fisher∙day for
Marmelos River (Crepaldi et al. 2010), 36.2 kg/fisher∙day for
Jauaperi River in the states of Amazonas and Roraima (Crepal-
di and Machado 2010), and 39.4 kg/fisher∙day for Anauá River
in the state of Roraima (Machado and Crepaldi 2009).
MANAGEMENT CONTROL
The most basic measurement tool used to manage recre-
ational fisheries in Brazil is the requirement of a fishing license,
which was legally introduced in 1934. The cost of the license
ranges from US$10 per year for category A (R$20; with no
boats) to US$30 for categories B and C (R$60; B for those

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 489

fishing from boats and C for spearfishers). These values have
not changed since 1998. All recreational fishers caught fishing
without a license are required to pay fines ranging from US$147
to US$4,900 plus US$9.8 per kilogram of fish they hold (R$300
to R$10,000 plus R$20 per kilogram), and their fishing gear is
confiscated. However, enforcement is poor. Control is more ef-
fective in official competitive events where fishing licenses are
required. The fishing license, as required by federal regulation,
is valid nationwide; however, some states, such as Amazonas,
Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso do Sul, Pará, and Tocantins, require
an additional license according to state regulations, which can
vary from about US$8 to US$78 per year.
Catch control was introduced in 1967, with a bag limit of
50 kg plus one fish for both marine and inland waters. In 1989,
it was reduced to 30 kg plus one fish. In 2003, this limit was
decreased to 10 kg plus one fish (any species) when fishing in
inland waters (5 kg less than in marine waters), and it is the
catch control currently adopted. In some cases, according to
specific state regulations, these limits may be more restrictive
(the strictest is 5 kg or one fish in the state of Tocantins). The
scientific basis for such differences is unknown.
In addition to the fishing license and bag limit, another com-
mon management control is the use of minimum size (length)
limits. Most of the target freshwater species are managed under
this regime, with minimum size differing among basins (Table
2). However, for many species, the size at first maturity is not
known, which raises doubt about the scientific basis of the dif-
ferent minimum sizes established for different basins.
A research project was established by the PNDPA in the
state of Goiás, together with local hotels and fishing compa-
nies, in order to try to establish the maximum size of tucunaré
azul (Cichla piquiti), which represents about 95% of total catch
in that region. The purpose of this project was to obtain infor-
mation that will help protect genetic diversity, allowing larger
fishes to continue populating the area. The first phase of the
project was concluded, and a maximum catch size of 50 cm was
recommended. This control measure adds to the already exist-
ing minimum catch size allowed (35 cm) for a species that can
reach a maximum size of 73 cm, thus creating a size window
(i.e., allowable slot limit) for fishing. The catch per unit effort
(CPUE) for this window was approximately 5.2 kg/fisher∙day,
which is larger than the daily quota allowed for that state. Fur-
ther, only 6% of the catch of C. piquiti includes species larger
than 50 cm. However, the recommendation of a size window
for C. piquiti in Goiás was rejected without explanation by the
Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
TABLE 3. Percentage of competitive fishing events authorized by the Ministry of Fisheries and
Aquaculture from 2009 to 2011 (incomplete) by habitat.
Year Beach Offshore Estuarine Marine River Reservoir
spearfishing
2009 41.7 8.3 2.1 6.3 20.8 20.8
2010 41.7 5.2 10.4 6.1 8.7 23.5
2011 50.9 3.8 0.9 0.0 17.9 14.2
490 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
Brazil also closes seasons as an additional measure of con-
trol. Closed seasons are established according to the spawning
period of Brazilian freshwater species targeted by recreational
and commercial fishers. In general, the closed season begins
in November and runs until February in most of the Brazilian
river basins.
COMPETITIVE FISHING
According to the Brazilian legislation, the promoters of
competitive fishing events are required to obtain an authori-
zation from the government for each event held. Until 2009,
IBAMA—later replaced by the Ministry of Fisheries and Aqua-
culture—was in charge of issuing this authorization. However,
little information is available on these events and their out-
comes (total catch, number of species caught, and number of
anglers). Only recently have these data been compiled in a da-
tabase indicating that 269 competitive fishing events (90 per
year) were authorized from 2009 to 2011 (incomplete), most
of them in marine waters (60%; Table 3).This number is an un-
derestimate of the number of fishing events promoted in Brazil;
Freire (2010) estimated a total of 100 events for the northeast-
ern region alone. In marine waters, most of the authorizations
were for events that took place on sandy/rocky beaches. In in-
land waters, most of them were for reservoirs in 2010 and for
rivers in 2011.
In 2009–2011, only 40% of the authorized events were
based exclusively on catch-and-release. In fresh waters, a total
of 76% of the events were catch-and-release oriented. For ma-
rine waters, the opposite was observed, with 14% of the events
featuring catch-and-release only. The distribution of fishing
events throughout the year from 2009 to 2011 was bimodal,
with a peak in March and another large peak in October. In
freshwater fishing events authorized by the Ministry of Fish-
eries and Aquaculture, 16 to 800 competitors were involved
(average = 141 per event) in fishing competitions that took
place on boats. For those fishing events based onshore (no boats
involved), 14 to 4,000 recreational anglers were reported (av-
erage = 483). Some of them involved teams (2–3 recreational
fishers), and others were individual. Some events had a single
target species (e.g., blackbass, Micropterus salmoides; peacock
bass, Cichla spp.; snook, Centropomus spp.) but in others all
species were valid. Total catch from these events ranged from
1 to 1,050 specimens (average = 218) and from 16 g to 250 kg
(average = 58 kg).
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
As previously shown, the number of
licenses sold in Brazil represents less than
15% of our minimum estimate of the num-
Lake Total ber of recreational fishers (1.6 million).
Even though the license fee has not in-
0.0 48 creased since 1998, if all of these potential
4.3 115 fishers would pay individual licenses, it
12.3 106 would generate revenues six times higher
(i.e., at least US$50 million). This could
fund research leading to a better estimate of the number of
recreational fishers in the country and also provide funds for
better management of the fisheries. Thus, promoting the license
system would seem to be important, because there is no wide-
spread awareness of the need of licenses for recreational fishers.
Additionally, all organizers of fishing competitions (official and
nonofficial) must require licenses from their participants. The
media specializing in recreational fishing and tourism operators
could be involved in this task. A special form of registration for
children and retired/elders is also needed, free of charge, which
would allow for their activities to be monitored as well. Due to
the poor current enforcement power of the governmental agen-
cies in many developing countries and economies in transition,
it is important to have other mechanisms to monitor the activity.
Relying on the cooperation among recreational fishers, fishing
clubs and associations, and tourism agencies may be one op-
tion.
The requirement of a fishing license is based on the “user
pays–user benefits” principle. In recent years, Brazilian law
has allowed the revenue from fishing licenses to be used for
enforcement. However, the lack of implementation leads to
dissatisfaction among license holders. Reversing this trend is
essential to increase the number of licensed recreational fishers.
Communicating the results from the questionnaires here may
be one step toward this aim. Thus, once fishing licenses are
widespread, they can become a fundamental tool for qualitative
and quantitative studies of recreational fisheries.
Brazil has not been able to put in place a reliable collection
system of catch statistics for commercial fisheries (Freire and
Oliveira 2007). As stated above, there is no such a system for
recreational fisheries either. Thus, currently, we are not able to
quantify total extraction by recreational fishers or characterize
the composition of their catch. The Expert Consultation to De-
velop the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Technical
Guidelines for Responsible Recreational Fisheries, which con-
vened in 2011, recommended that FAO should request members
to collect and submit disaggregated data and information on
recreational fisheries catches and participation (FAO 2011).
Brazil and other developing countries/economies in transition
have to start moving in that direction to be able to fulfill this
agenda if this recommendation is accepted. We could use the
experience of a well-established program for the collection of
catch statistics from recreational fisheries in the state of Mato
Grosso do Sul (15 years) and adapt to other states and habitats
(there is no similar initiative for marine waters). As a starting
point, one could think of a voluntary Internet-based system for
catch reporting. The results obtained must then be used to plan
a well-structured sampling design; and strategies implemented
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (van
Voorhees et al. 2011) and by the Northern Research Institute in
Norway (Vølstad et al. 2011) could then be revised for guid-
ance. Some of these sampling programs are very expensive and
budget constraints will have to be considered. Here again we
stress the importance of fishing license revenues to cover part of
the sampling costs. Another important source of information on
catches comes from competitive events. The Ministry of Fish-
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 491
eries and Aquaculture is expected to demand that reports from
these events be delivered with all required details; otherwise,
permission for further competitions would not be provided.
Thus, it should be possible to obtain an initial estimate of catch
composition, at least from competitive fishing events.
Catch-and-release has been widely promoted and adopted
in Brazil. In 2009, 90% of the licensed recreational fishers stated
that they release fish either sometimes or always. The rationale
that “a fish released is a fish alive” has led to the proposal of
closure of some areas for commercial fishing, with exclusive
access for recreational fishers, which has generated serious
conflicts. The use of fish resources needs to be embedded in
integrated management plans, in order to consider other players
besides those associated with tourism and sports. Recreational
fishing is not an impact-free activity, and its real impact on the
resources provided should be properly assessed. Total catches,
including released fishes, must be reported to keep track of the
real impact of this activity. The promotion of catch-and-release
has to be linked with well-conceived studies of postrelease
mortality. These studies are very scarce in Brazilian freshwa-
ters and probably in other emerging countries. International
partnership could be established to develop standardized pro-
tocols for these studies to allow for comparison among regions.
Such partnership for marine waters will be more challenging,
because studies are currently more concentrated in freshwaters
worldwide (Cooke and Suski 2005).
Another impact of this activity is the introduction of target
species in other water bodies (a problem already common in
Brazil; see, e.g., Luiz et al. 2011). In addition, the impact of
the introduction of live bait cannot be ignored, especially con-
sidering that most anglers in Brazil prefer natural bait (87% in
2009), especially in marine waters, and that higher postrelease
mortality rates have been associated with live baits (Cooke and
Suski 2005).
The quota system currently used in Brazil is basin based
and multispecific but does not take into consideration the sta-
tus of the stocks and the effort that is more concentrated on
species with the highest recreational value. New information
should allow for moving toward a species/stock-specific quota
system, but information on sizes at first maturity is missing for
many species targeted by recreational fishers (Table 2). Thus,
the promotion and development of recreational fisheries in
Brazil—and, by extension, in other economies in transition
or developing countries—require research programs that are
able to generate and provide basic information. Such research
programs could use part of the revenue generated by fishing
licenses but also receive grants from other agencies. Here,
management agencies would request and/or fund research in-
stitutions to carry out studies on population dynamics (size at
first maturity, reproduction season, and growth) for the main
target species. However, due to the richness of species targeted
in Brazilian waters, agencies may consider the use of proxies
to estimate important parameters, such as size at first maturity
based on the asymptotic or maximum length, as proposed by
Froese and Binohlan (2000). Such data would also allow the
construction of models capable of predicting the likely impacts
of long-term fishing activities (both commercial and recreation-
al), such as Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE), one of the most widely
used and best tested platforms for the examination of indirect
effects of fishing (Christensen and Walters 2004). However, to
date, though many EwE models have been built in Brazil (e.g.,
Angelini and Gomes 2008; Freire et al. 2008), none of them
includes the effect of recreational fisheries, mainly due to lack
of basic catch data.
Management objectives for recreational fisheries are dif-
ferent from those traditionally defined for commercial fisheries,
which must be reflected in any management plan for fisheries.
The three indicators to deal with overexploitation proposed
by Froese (2004) could be a good option due to the expect-
ed ecological benefits: (1) percentage of mature fish in catch,
with 100% as target; (2) percentage of specimens with opti-
mum length in catch, with 100% as target; and (3) percentage
of mega-spawners in catch, with 0% as target. Thus, the idea of
having large specimens available to be caught (and released)
is very attractive for recreational fishers. This would lead to
regulations that add a maximum allowable size to the already
well-established minimum allowable size for many species.
However, this so-called size window may not be suitable for
all local species—hence the interest in estimating fishing and
natural mortality rates, as well as recruitment and growth rates.
Knowledge of these rates would allow for the assessment of
the best suitable regulation among the five most common size-
based regulations applied in recreational fisheries (FAO 2011).
Economic analyses of recreational fisheries also need to
be carried out, notably to allow for comparison with benefits
accrued from commercial fisheries. Venturieri (2000) estimated
that revenues of more than US$300 million are generated by
fish-and-pay enterprises in Brazil. Shrestha et al. (2002) cal-
culated a recreational fishing value of U$35–56 million for the
Brazilian Pantanal. However, there has been no attempt to date
to quantify the total economic value of recreational fisheries at
the national level. Fishing tourism is perceived as one impor-
tant benefit of recreational fishing. Nevertheless, there is a usual
complaint that many tourists visit remote areas with minimum
contribution to local communities, as suggested by our find-
ings that most recreational fishers stay with friends or relatives
(44%) or in campsites (40%) during their fishing trips. Studies
quantifying this contribution for major destinations, including
those visited by international fishers, are essential if this activ-
ity is to be further promoted.
Information gathered about recreational fishing would be
most useful if made widely available through the Internet so
recreational fishers would see why it is necessary to pay for
fishing licenses. Transparency could be the key to securing the
collaboration of recreational fishers and tourism operators. In-
formation could be provided in the form of an easy-to-query
database, instead of long reports (a task not yet fulfilled even by
the commercial sector in Brazil).
492 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
A fragile institutional framework could be a limitation for
any program that considers all of these points. Freire (2005)
listed the institutions responsible for managing recreational
fisheries since the 1930s. Since 2009, the Ministry of Fisher-
ies and Aquaculture has been in charge of this activity. During
this period some conflicts with the previous managing agen-
cy, IBAMA, were observed. Moreover, a succession of three
ministers of the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture in 2011
precluded any initiative to organize and develop this sector. The
establishment of a collection system of catch statistics would
have to take this into account—for example, by relying on very
well-established fishing clubs, associations, or federations—
thus allowing for continuity even during government transition
periods. However, even these institutions have suffered from
conflicts of interest (e.g., between official and nonofficial
fishing clubs or between catch-and-release and catch-and-kill–
oriented recreational fishers), which have to be overcome to
benefit the activity as a whole.
CONCLUSION
As evident from the above profile, recreational fisheries in
Brazil represent a growing fishing sector. However, the profile
is incomplete, particularly with respect to information on over-
all effort, catch, and harvest. Moreover, little is known about
the population biology of many of the species that are targeted,
and even less is known about how different species respond to
recreational fishing pressure (e.g., catch-and-release mortality).
Unfortunately, this is a reality for other developing countries
and economies in transition and must be addressed in order
to inform the development of rational and effective fisheries
management plans. Many of these countries have also become
an alternative destination for recreational fishers from other
countries, who are trying to escape from overcrowded fishing
grounds and depleted resources. Hence, there is some urgency
to ensuring that management actions will promote sustainable
fisheries.
We hope that this overview sheds some light on recre-
ational fisheries in Brazil and may lead to increased sharing of
knowledge, including partnerships with international organiza-
tions. We expect, finally, that some of the information provided
here may be used by other developing countries or economies
in transition whose recreational fisheries are facing problems
similar to Brazil’s.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Kevin Pope, Daniel Pauly, Steven Cooke, and two
anonymous reviewers for revising earlier drafts of this article. The
International Game Fish Association kindly allowed for the use of
the photo for one of its catch records. K.M.F.F. thanks the Orga-
nizing Committee of the 139th Annual Meeting of the American
Fisheries Society for the award from the Carl R. Sullivan Interna-
tional Endowment Fund to attend the meeting in Nashville, which
later led to the preparation of this article. K.M.F.F. also acknowl-
edges the travel stipend granted by the Organizing Committee of
the 6th World Recreational Fishing Conference to attend the con-
ference in Berlin, when the article was finalized.
REFERENCES
Albuquerque, S. P., A. C. Catella, and A. Copatti. 2003. Sistema de
Controle da Pesca de Mato Grosso do Sul SCPESCA/MS-8-
2001. Embrapa Pantanal, Corumbá, Brazil, and SEMA-IMAP,
Campo Grande, Brazil.
Angelini, R., and L. C. Gomes. 2008. O artesão de ecossistemas:
­construindo modelos com dados. EDUEM, Maringá, Brazil.
Anonymous. 2011. Fluxo de turistas para pesca esportiva vai crescer
10% no Amazonas. Available: http://acritica.uol.com.br/noticias/
Manaus-Amazonas-Amazonia-Fluxo-turistas-esportiva-crescer-
Amazonas_0_549545392.html. (February 2012).
Capistrano-Santana, A., A. C. Catella, D. Eaton, and D. K. S. Marques.
2007. Pesque-e-solte: sobrevivência inicial dos peixes devolvidos
ao rio no Pantanal. Anais do XVII Encontro Brasileiro de Ictiolo-
gia, Itajaí, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Catella, A. C. 2006. Turismo de pesca no Pantanal Sul: desafios e opor-
tunidades. Pages 56–69 in M. A. Rotta, H. S. E. Luna, and W.
A. Weis, editors. Ecoturismo no Pantanal. Embrapa, Corumbá,
Brazil.
Catella, A. C., and F. F. Albuquerque. 2000. Sistema de Controle de
Pesca de Mato Grosso do Sul SCPESCA/MS-4-Ano de 1997.
Embrapa Pantanal/SEMA-FEMAP, Corumbá, Brazil.
Catella, A. C., and S. P. Albuquerque. 2007. Sistema de Controle da
Pesca de Mato Grosso do Sul SCPESCA/MS-10-2003. Embrapa
Pantanal, Corumbá, Brazil.
Chiappani, L. H. B. 2006. Caracterização e avaliação da atividade de
pesca amadora na praia de Camburi, Vitória, ES. Available: http://
www.dern.ufes.br/oceano/link/monografias/2006/mono18_2006.
pdf. (May 2012).
Christensen, V., and C. J. Walters. 2004. Ecopath with Ecosim:
methods, capabilities and limitations. Ecological Modelling
172(2–4):109–139.
Cooke, S. J., and C. D. Suski. 2005. Do we need species-specific
guidelines for catch-and-release recreational angling to efectively
conserve diverse fishery resources? Biodiversity and Conserva-
tion 14:1195–1209.
Crepaldi, D. V., and M. L. Machado. 2010. Avaliação rápida dos es-
toques de Cichla do rio Jauaperino no trecho compreendido entre
sua foz e a Reserva Indígena Waimiri Atroari—AM e RR (Parte
I). Prospecção do potencial para pesca amadora do rio Jauaperi no
trecho compreendido entre sua foz e a Reserva Indígena Waimiri
Atroari—AM e RR (Parte II). IBAMA/MMA, Brasília.
Crepaldi, D. V., L. C. Silva, and M. L. Machado. 2010. Avaliação
rápida dos estoques de Cichla no rio Marmelos, dentro da área
indígena Tenharim Marmelos. IBAMA/MMA, Brasília.
da Costa, L. P., V. Bitencourt, L. Nogueira, A. M. Miragaya, V. Matsu-
do, R. Noé, and A. Carvalho. 2006. Cenário de tendências gerais
dos esportes e atividades físicas no Brasil. Pages 21.3–21.16 in L.
P. da Costa, editor. Atlas do Esporte no Brasil. CONFEF, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Ditton, R. B. 2008. An international perspective on recreational
fishing. Pages 5–55 in Ø. Aas, editor. Global challenges in recre-
ational fisheries. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, UK.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2011. Report of the Ex-
pert Consultation to Develop the FAO Technical Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries: Recreational Fisheries, Berlin, Germany,
5–6 August 2011. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture, Report 979,
Ankara, Turkey.
Freire, K. M. F. 2005. Recreational fisheries of northeastern Brazil:
inferences from data provided by anglers. Pages 377–394 in G.
H. Kruse, V. F. Gallucci, D. E. Hay, R. I. Perry, R. M. Peterman,
T. C. Shirley, P. D. Spencer, B. Wilson, and D. Woodby, editors.
Fisheries assessment and management in data-limited situations.
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 493
University of Alaska, Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Fair-
banks.
Freire, K. M. F. 2010. Unregulated catches from recreational fisheries
off northeastern Brazil. Atlântica 32:87–93.
Freire, K. M. F., V. Christensen, and D. Pauly. 2008. Description of
the East Brazil Large Marine Ecosystem using a trophic model.
Scientia Marina 72(3):477–491.
Freire, K. M. F., and T. L. S. Oliveira. 2007. Reconstructing catches of
marine commercial fisheries for Brazil. Pages 61–68 in D. Zeller
and D. Pauly, editors. Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches
for key countries and regions (1950–2005). Fisheries Centre Re-
search Reports 15(2), University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada.
Froese, R. 2004. Keep it simple: three indicators to deal with overfish-
ing. Fish and Fisheries 5:86–91.
Froese, R., and C. Binohlan. 2000. Empirical relationships to estimate
asymptotic length, length at first maturity and length at maximum
yield per recruit in fishes, with a simple method to evaluate length
frequency data. Journal of Fish Biology 56:758–773.
Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2012. FishBase. Available: http://www.fish-
base.org. (July 2012).
IBAMA. 2004. Instrução normativa no. 5 de 21 de maio de 2004.
­Anexo 1.
IGFA (International Game Fish Association). 2011. IGFA online world
record search. Available: http://www.igfa.org/Records/Default.
aspx. (September 2011).
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2010. Banco de Dados.
Séries Estatísticas. Available: http://www.ibge.gov.br. (March
2010).
IPAAM. 2001. Plano de gestão da pesca esportiva no Amazonas:
versão preliminar. Instituto de Proteção Ambiental do Estado do
Amazonas, Manaus, Brazil.
International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2010. 2010 IUCN red
list of threatened species. Available: http://www.iucn.org. (Au-
gust 2010).
Lopes, K. 2011. Análise preliminar da taxa de mortalidade em tucu-
narés Cichla spp. (Teleostei: Cichlidae) submetidos ao sistema
pesque-e-solte na Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável
Amanã (RDSA). Anais do XIX Encontro Brasileiro de Ictiologia,
Manaus, January 30 to February 4, 2011.
Luiz, T. F., M. R. Velludo, A. C. Peret, J. L. Rodrigues Filho, and A.
M. Peret. 2011. Diet, reproduction and population structure of the
introduced Amazonian fish Cichla piquiti (Perciformes: Cichli-
dae) in the Cachoeira Dourada reservoir (Paranaíba River, central
Brazil). Revista de Biologia Tropical 59(2):727–741.
Machado, M. L., and D. V. Crepaldi. 2009. Prospecção pesqueira no
rio Anauá, no entorno do Parque Nacional do Viruá, Roraima,
Brasil. IBAMA/MMA, Brasília.
MPA (Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura). 2010. Boletim Estatístico
da Pesca e Aquicultura. Brasil 2008–2009. Ministério da Pesca e
Aquicultura, Brasília.
Peixer, J., and M. Petrere, Jr. 2009. Sport fishing in Cachoeira de Emas
in Mogi-Guaçu River, state of São Paulo, Brazil. Brazilian Jour-
nal of Biology 69:1081–1090.
PNDPA. 2009. Guia de recordes. Peixes de água doce. PNDPA e
­IBAMA, Brasília.
Ramires, M., and W. Barrella. 2003. Ecologia da pesca artesanal em
populações caiçaras da estação ecológica de Juréia-Itatins, São
Paulo, Brazil. Interciência 28:208–213.
Schork, G., L. S. M. Mottola, and M. H. Silva. 2010. Diagnóstico da
pesca amadora embarcada na região de São Francisco do Sul
(SC). Revista do CEPSUL 1:8–17.
Schramm, H. L., Jr., and J. C. Harrison. 2008. Competitive fishing and
its role in recreational fisheries management. Pages 237–267 in
 Ø. Aas, editor. Global challenges in recreational fisheries. Black-
well Publishing Ltd., Oxford.
Shrestha, R. K., A. F. Seidl, and A. S. Moraes. 2002. Value of rec-
reational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis
using count data models. Ecological Economics 42:289–299.
SUDEPE. 1978a. Anuário do registro geral da pesca—1977. Ministé-
rio da Agricultura, Brasília.
SUDEPE. 1978b. Anuário do registro geral da pesca—1978. Ministé-
rio da Agricultura, Brasília.
SUDEPE. 1980. Anuário do registro geral da pesca—1979. Ministério
da Agricultura, Brasília.
SUDEPE. 1981. Anuário do registro geral da pesca—1980. Ministério
da Agricultura, Brasília.
SUDEPE. 1984. Anuário do registro geral da pesca—1981. Ministério
da Agricultura, Brasília.
van Voorhees, D., L. Han-Lin, F. J. Breidt, J. Opsomer, P. Zielinski,
and K. Fitzpatrick. 2011. Evaluation of a new design and estima-
tion approach for the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey in the
U.S. VI World Recreational Fishing Congress. Leibniz-Institute
of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany.
Venturieri, M. V. 2000. “Pesque e pague” no Estado de São Paulo.
Relatório do Programa Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Pesca
Amadora, PNUD BRA/97/012.
Vølstad, J. H., K. Korsbrekke, K. H. Nedreaas, M. Nilsen, G. N. Nils-
son, M. Pennington, S. Subbey, and R. Wienerroither. 2011.
Probability-based surveying using self-sampling to estimate
catch and effort in Norway’s coastal tourist fishery. ICES Journal
of Marine Science 68(8):1785–1791.

From the Archives

The question of the digestibility
of foods is very complex, and it is
noticeable that the men who know
most about the subject are generally
the least ready to make definite and
sweeping statements concerning it.
One of the most celebrated physiolo-
gists of the time, an investigator
who has, I suppose, devoted as much
experimental study to this particu-
lar subject as any man now living, From the Archives
declares that aside from the chem-
istry of the process and the quan- From all over the land there is a mur-
tities of nutrients that may be mur of complaint about the pollution of
digested from different foods, he our creeks and rivers by manufactur-
is unable to affirm much of anything ing companies, dyeing establishments,
about it. The contrast between this saw mills, and the like; and while the
and the positiveness with which many general Government, States and indi-
people discourse about the digest- viduals are working to re-stock our
ibility of this or that kind of nearly exhausted rivers, lakes and
food, is very marked and has its streams, this pollution is allowed to
moral. go on unheeded and unchecked.
Fred Mather (1875): Poisoning and
Prof W. O. Atwater (1888): The Digest- Obstructing the Waters,Transactions of
­
ibility of Fish, Transactions of the the American Fisheries Society, 4:1,
American F
­isheries Society, 17:1, 69-83. ­14-19.

494 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org


Management of Alewife Using Pacific Salmon in the ­
Great Lakes: Whether to Manage for Economics or ­
the Ecosystem?
John M. Dettmers
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 2100 Commonwealth Boulevard, Suite
100, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. E-mail: jdettmers@glfc.org
Christopher I. Goddard
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 2100 Commonwealth Boulevard, Suite
100, Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Kelley D. Smith
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fisheries, Lan-
sing, MI 48909. Retired
ABSTRACT: The combined destructive effects of overfish-
ing, habitat destruction, and invasive species, especially
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and sea lamprey (Petromyzon
marinus) led to the loss of the native top predator lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush) from most of the Great Lakes by 1960.
Alewife populations then exploded, creating nuisance die-offs.
Public demands for action, coupled with control of sea lamprey,
allowed fishery managers to consider stocking Pacific salmon
to control alewife and establish a recreational fishery. This ef-
fort was successful, reducing alewife numbers and creating a
recreational fishery that is estimated at $7 billion annually.
This fishery management regime may no longer be viable as
new invasive species continue to alter the ecosystem. Fishery
managers face an interesting dilemma: whether to manage in
the short term for a popular and economically important sport
fishery or to embrace ecosystem change and manage primarily
for native fish species that appear to be better suited to ongoing
ecosystem changes. Such dilemmas occur in great lakes around
the world as fishery managers seek to balance economic pres-
sure with changes in their respective ecosystems, often brought
about by invasive species.
INTRODUCTION
Historically, fish communities of the Laurentian Great
Lakes were dominated by the top predator lake trout (Salveli-
nus namaycush) and a diverse assemblage of uniquely adapted
coregonine fishes. These communities were relatively intact
until the early 1900s, by which time overfishing and invasive
species began to impact the native fish community (Stein and
Goddard 2006). The alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), a pelagic
planktivore native to the Atlantic Ocean, was first seen in Lake
Ontario in 1873 (Smith 1970), entering via the Hudson–Mo-
hawk River drainage, the New York Finger Lakes, and the Erie
canal (Ihssen et al. 1992). Similarly, the parasitic sea lamprey
(Petromyzon marinus) was first observed in Lake Ontario in
1835 (Lark 1973), most likely entering the lake via the same
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 495
FEATURE
Fisheries Management
Manejo de la alosa en la región de los
grandes lagos por medio del salmón del
Pacífico: ¿manejo del ecosistema o de la
economía?
RESUMEN: Los efectos nocivos combinados de la so-
brepesca, la destrucción del hábitat y la introducción de
especies invasoras, particularmente la alosa (Alosa pseu-
doharengus) y la lamprea marina (Petromyzon marinus)
dio como resultado la pérdida de depredadores nativos
de los grandes lagos en 1960, como la trucha (Salvelinus
namaycush). Poco después, hubo una explosión de las po-
blaciones de alosa, causando mortalidades indeseables. La
demanda pública por acciones de manejo y el control de
la lamprea marina, orillaron los manejadores a considerar
la estabulación del salmón del Pacífico como medio para
controlar a la alosa y establecer al mismo tiempo una pes-
quería recreativa. Este esfuerzo rindió frutos, los números
poblacionales de la alosa se redujeron y se creó una pes-
quería que produce $7,000 millones de dólares al año. Este
régimen de manejo de la pesquería puede ya no ser viable
dado que nuevas especies invasoras continúan alterando
el ecosistema. Los manejadores se enfrentan a un dilema
interesante: hacer manejo en el corto plazo en pro de una
pesquería deportiva económicamente importante, o aceptar
el cambio en el ecosistema y dirigir el manejo a las es-
pecies nativas de peces que parecen adaptarse mejor a los
cambios. Tal dilema también se observa en otros grandes
lagos del mundo, a medida que los manejadores buscan
balancear la presión económica y los cambios en los re-
spectivos ecosistemas, los cuales suelen ser producto de la
introducción de especies invasoras.
route (Smith 1995). There is some recent speculation, however,
that sea lamprey are native to Lake Ontario and Lake Cham-
plain, migrating from the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence
River postglaciation (Daniels 2001; Bryan et al. 2005), but see
Eshenroder (2009) for another perspective.
Overfishing became a fishery management issue during
the late 1800s, as stocks of lake trout, Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar), lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), and some corego-
nines were overharvested (R. W. Brown et al. 1999). By the
early 1900s, the complex of coregonine fishes was showing
signs of overfishing, with several endemic species of this flock
driven extinct by the middle of the 20th century (Eshenroder
and Burnham-Curtis 1999). Meanwhile, sea lamprey and ale-
wife invaded the upper four Great Lakes after enlargement of
the Welland Canal (Christie and Goddard 2002). Sea lampreys
were first recorded in Lake Erie in 1921 (Sullivan et al. 2003)
and in the rest of the Great Lakes by 1938. Alewives were
widespread, except in Lake Superior, by 1960 (O’Gorman and
Stewart 1999). In addition, by 1960, the combination of over-
fishing and predation by sea lamprey resulted in the extirpation
of lake trout in all of the Great Lakes except Lake Superior.
Without the native top predator in these systems, alewives be-
came the dominant portion of fish biomass in three of the four
deep lakes (Michigan, Huron, and Ontario) by 1965, where
they exerted strong negative impacts on many native fishes
(Madenjian et al. 2008).
Alewives consume pelagic early life stages of several na-
tive fishes, including yellow perch (Perca flavescens; Brandt et
al. 1987) and lake trout (Krueger et al. 1995; Madenjian et al.
2008). Alewives also compete directly with coregonines, given
their ability to consume large quantities of zooplankton (Smith
1970; Crowder 1980). In fact, the width between gill rakers
of bloater (Coregonus hoyi) increased to allow bloater to feed
more effectively on larger bodied prey than zooplankton, after
alewife dominated the fish biomass (Crowder 1986). Moreover,
alewives appear to exert their own negative reproductive in-
fluence on salmonines through indirect means. Alewives carry
high body burdens of thiaminase (Tillitt et al. 2005), an enzyme
that denatures thiamine. Thiamine is an essential compound in
the early development of salmonines, and too little thiamine
will cause death or impair the function of early life stages (S.
B. Brown et al. 1998), a condition termed “thiamine deficiency
complex.”
Control of Sea Lamprey and Alewives
Recognizing the damage inflicted by sea lamprey, the
United States and Canada established the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission in 1955 for the purpose of controlling sea lamprey.
By 1960, treatments for sea lamprey were undertaken and sea
lamprey numbers have been reduced to about 10% of previous
highs in most lakes, allowing standard fisheries management
activities to be successful, including rehabilitation of lake trout
in Lake Superior (Hansen et al. 1995). Sea lamprey control ef-
forts, along with release from alewife predation since 2003,
have permitted increasing levels of natural lake trout reproduc-
tion in Lake Huron (Riley et al. 2007). Successful treatments
for sea lamprey also set the stage for reintroduction of the na-
tive top predator lake trout throughout the rest of the Great
Lakes basin.
Alewife dominated the fish communities of Lakes Michi-
gan, Huron, and Ontario during the 1960s (O’Gorman and
Stewart 1999). In Lake Michigan, alewife exceeded the lake’s
carrying capacity (E. H. Brown 1972), resulting in massive die-
offs that littered shorelines and fouled beaches (E. H. Brown
1972; O’Gorman and Stewart 1999). These die-offs resulted
in intense political pressure to develop an effective method
to control alewives. With effective sea lamprey control, along
496 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
with renewed efforts to reintroduce lake trout—the native top
predator—fishery managers supported the development of
commercial trawl fisheries to reduce alewife populations. Man-
agers also sought to stock pelagic piscivores to further reduce
the abundance of alewives.
Establishment of Thriving Sport Fisheries for
Pacific Salmon
To this end, managers stocked Pacific salmon as preda-
tors to control alewife, while also seeking to establish a viable
recreational fishery for salmon (Tanner and Tody 2002). The
state of Michigan first began this practice in earnest by stock-
ing coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) into Lake Michigan
in 1966 and subsequently Chinook salmon (O. tschawytscha)
in 1967 (Tanner and Tody 2002). This strategy worked well
in Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Ontario, because the Pacific
salmon, especially Chinook salmon, consumed large quantities
of alewives, thus reducing alewife populations (Madenjian et
al. 2002). By 1984, the biomass of alewives in Lake Michigan
was less than 20% of what it had been in 1967 (O’Gorman and
Stewart 1999). This shift away from a community dominated
by alewife resulted in a more diverse fish community well rep-
resented by native fishes during the 1980s and 1990s (Bunnell
et al. 2006).
As envisioned by the state of Michigan, an extensive
and popular recreational fishery for Pacific salmon developed
throughout the Great Lakes. By the late 1970s, catch rates of
Pacific salmon were high, and large Chinook salmon (up to
15–20 kg) were harvested by recreational anglers. The phe-
nomenally popular recreational fishery also led to widespread
establishment of a successful charter boat industry for stocked
Pacific salmonids. This recreational fishery provided significant
economic return to the Great Lakes states and the Province of
Ontario. To protect the recreational fishery, the state of Michi-
gan banned commercial harvest and sale of lake trout and
Pacific salmon and use of large mesh gill nets—forcing com-
mercial fishers to shift to impoundment gear, for which they
were compensated by the state (Talhelm 1978; Lupi and Jester
2002).
Based on this success, management agencies also stocked
steelhead (O. mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) to increase
the diversity of fishing opportunities in the Great Lakes (Bence
and Smith 1999). Steelhead and brown trout have become natu-
ralized in some locations of the Great Lakes (Tanner and Tody
2002; Johnson et al. 2010), allowing for excellent angling op-
portunities in both open-lake and tributary environments for
these fish, as well as for coho and Chinook salmon (Bence and
Smith 1999).
Management agencies stocked Pacific salmon in increas-
ing numbers, with more than 25 million being stocked into the
Great Lakes basin during the early 1980s (Kocik and Jones
1999). Initially, managers were quite pleased with stocking
results, because harvest increased linearly with stocking. As
populations of alewife declined during the 1980s, the size of
salmon also declined (Hansen and Holey 2002), setting the
stage for a large die-off of Chinook salmon in Lake Michigan
during the late 1980s due to bacterial kidney disease (Holey et
al. 1998). This die-off occurred, in part, because fewer alewives
were available for consumption by Chinook salmon, which re-
duced their overall condition and, thereby, allowed bacterial
kidney disease to be expressed. The resulting low abundance of
Chinook salmon led to extremely low catch rates of salmon for
several years after the die-off (Holey et al. 1998).
Low catch rates of Chinook salmon created a significant
and controversial management issue, with a reevaluation of
Chinook salmon as the primary predator suggested by Holey et
al. (1998). The popularity and resultant economic benefit of the
Pacific salmon fishery fostered significant political influence by
recreational fishers, who demanded that alewife populations be
maintained at levels sufficient to sustain the Pacific salmon fish-
ery. As a result, management agencies eliminated commercial
fisheries for alewife by 1991 because the commercial fisher-
ies competed with salmon for alewife (O’Gorman and Stewart
1999). Similarly, a court settlement ordered the owners of a
pumped-storage, power generating facility to pay restitution,
because operation of the facility on Lake Michigan impinged
and killed large numbers of several species of fish, particularly
alewife.
Recreational fisheries in the Great Lakes are estimated to
be valued at more than $7 billion annually (American Sport-
fishing Association 2008), compared to commercial fisheries
valued at more than $200 million (R. W. Brown et al. 1999).
Because of the popularity and large economic impact of salmon
fishing, fishery management agencies increasingly sought to
manage Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario to maintain ale-
wife populations, albeit at levels well below those observed in
the 1960s and 1970s, to provide the requisite forage base for
smaller, but healthier, populations of Pacific salmon. To this
end, several fishery management agencies have collaboratively
developed an indicator-based decision model derived from a
variety of biological observations to aid in annually determin-
ing the number of Chinook salmon to be stocked (Table 1). This
decision model was used to support a reduction in stocking of
Pacific salmon by the Lake Michigan management agencies for
the first time in 1998 (Kocik and Jones 1999), in 2006, and
again in 2012.
Cooperative fishery management in the Great Lakes oc-
curs in a nonbinding, consensus-based approach as outlined in
A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisher-
ies (Gaden et al. 2009). As such, all of the jurisdictions with
fishery management authority in each Great Lake (lake com-
mittees) meet at least annually in a public forum to decide
on management goals, objectives, and actions, including the
long-term objectives for the desired fish community. Each lake
committee has developed fish community objectives to guide
management in its particular lake. Generally, the fish com-
munity objectives adopted by fishery managers recognize the
importance of increasing the proportion of naturally produced
fish and of restoring native fishes decimated by sea lamprey
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 497
TABLE 1. Indicators used by fishery management agencies on Lake
Michigan in 2009 to determine whether changes in the number of
Chinook salmon stocked was warranted to manage alewife popula-
tions for good growth of salmonines.
Indicator Type Indicator
Chinook salmon Estimated lakewide harvest
­abundance
Catch rate from charter boats
Illinois harbor survey CPE and
Michigan weir returns
Measure of natural Proportion of naturally produced Chinook
­reproduction salmon
Chinook salmon growth Weight of Chinook salmon at age 2 (creel data)
Weight of Chinook salmon at age 3 (creel data)
Weight of Chinook salmon at age 3 (weir data)
Standard weight of Chinook salmon
Prey fish biomass Acoustic estimate of prey fish biomass
Bottom trawl estimate of prey fish biomass
Coho length index
Predator diet data
Ecosystem health Salmonine composition
Visual signs of disease
Muscle plug index
predation, overfishing, and impacts of alewife, while maintain-
ing popular fisheries for Pacific salmon.
The collaborative and consensus-based decision by the
fishery management agencies to reduce stocking of Chinook
salmon—while also not increasing stocking of lake trout to rec-
ommended levels—to maintain alewife populations in Lakes
Michigan and Huron reflected—as did stocking reductions of
Chinook salmon in Lake Ontario—the difficulty facing man-
agers seeking to maintain popular and economically important
sport fisheries while also seeking to restore native fishes. The
dominant management philosophy had evolved to establish a
balance between Pacific salmon and their alewife prey as the
primary goal. To accomplish this, the agencies reduced stocking
of Pacific salmon in an attempt to balance predator abundance
with lower levels of alewives to maintain a highly valuable,
but smaller, recreational fishery for Pacific salmon. At the same
time, decisions about how to proceed with lake trout rehabilita-
tion languished in Lake Michigan for over a decade. Calls for a
revision to Lake Michigan’s lake trout rehabilitation plan began
by 2000 (Holey and Trudeau 2005). A guide for rehabilitation
of lake trout in Lake Michigan was published in 2008 (Bronte
et al. 2008), but the Lake Michigan Committee did not adopt
a strategy for lake trout rehabilitation until 2011 (Dexter et al.
2011), when it chose to stock fewer lake trout than recommend-
ed by Bronte et al. (2008).
Impacts of Additional Invasive Species
Further confounding management, another wave of inva-
sive species has entered the Great Lakes, creating food web
changes that are ongoing and not yet well understood (Pangle et
al. 2007; Vanderploeg et al. 2010). For example, zebra mussels
(Dreissena polymorpha) and the spiny water flea (Bythotrephes
longiramus) invaded the Great Lakes during the 1980s (Lehman
1987; Carlton 2008). During the 1990s, two additional species,
quagga mussels (D. bugensis) and round gobies (Neogobius
melanostomus), colonized and spread throughout the Great
Lakes.
These new invasive species are exerting far-reaching
impacts on energy flow throughout the system. Dreissenid mus-
sels filter a substantial amount of annual primary production
(Madenjian 1995). Because this tremendous filtering capacity
may redirect primary production from offshore pelagic areas to
nearshore benthic areas (Hecky et al. 2004), another fundamen-
tal shift in community structure is now occurring in the Great
Lakes. In particular, the relative amount of energy available to
the pelagic portion of the food web has declined compared to
the amount of energy entering the benthic portion of the food
web.
Across Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario, remark-
ably similar ecological changes are occurring. Phytoplankton
abundance and composition has changed, reflecting gradual,
long-term oligotrophication since the Great Lakes Water Qual-
ity Agreement of 1972 and recent effects of dreissenid mussels
(Evans et al. 2011). Of particular concern to fishery managers is
the increased concentration of water column silica (Evans et al.
2011), which fuels the spring bloom of diatoms. The increased
concentration of silica in the water column during spring, when
it should be incorporated into diatoms, means that diatom pro-
duction has declined (Evans et al. 2011), leaving less desirable
phytoplankton available for zooplankton grazing. In turn, dia-
toms are a favored food of cladoceran zooplankton, which are
consumed by prey fish, including alewife and rainbow smelt
(Osmerus mordax). Zooplankton composition has shifted away
from dominance by cladocerans during summer months to
dominance by large calanoid copepods (Barbiero et al. 2009).
This shift is likely related to reduced nutrient availability and to
the combined direct and indirect effects of the invasive inver-
tebrate predator Bythotrephes longiramus (Pangle et al. 2007;
Barbiero et al. 2009; Bunnell et al. 2011). Cladoceran zooplank-
ton move deeper in the water column below the thermocline to
avoid predation by Bythotrephes but suffer from dramatically
reduced reproductive potential in the much colder epilimnetic
waters. The combined effect of these food web changes may
mean much reduced availability of prey for alewife and Chi-
nook salmon.
Since the mid-1990s, dreissenid mussel populations have
exploded in Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario (Watkins et
al. 2007; Nalepa et al. 2010) at the expense of the native deep-
water amphipod Diporeia in all three lakes (Watkins et al. 2007;
Nalepa et al. 2009; Barbiero et al. 2011). In Lake Michigan, Di-
poreia densities averaged 5,365/m2 in 1995 but were just 329/
m2 in 2005 (Nalepa et al. 2009).
Further, the energy density of adult alewife in Lake Michi-
gan has declined by 23% since dreissenid mussels invaded the
498 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
lake (Madenjian et al. 2006), as the importance of Diporeia in
their diets declined. Functionally, this means that the current
capacity of lower trophic levels to support alewife, and hence
Chinook salmon, has been reduced since 1990. Alewives col-
lapsed during 2003 in Lake Huron as a result of a combination
of increased predation by Chinook salmon and double-crested
cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) and successive years of
poor recruitment (Bence et al. 2008); alewife remain nearly ab-
sent from this ecosystem since their collapse. Overall, the prey
fish biomass in Lake Huron has declined by 87% since 1984
(Roseman and Riley 2009).
The resources that are available, however, support benthic-
oriented native fishes such as coregonids and lake trout. This
trend toward a benthic-dominated food web may become even
more pronounced if the invasive bighead carp (Hypopthalmich-
thys nobilis) and silver carp (H. molitrix) become established in
the Great Lakes and further decrease the availability of pelagic
plankton. Interestingly, such changes likely will benefit corego-
nids and lake trout—native fishes that are adapted to the deep,
less productive state that many Great Lakes are moving toward
and that may be a more sustainable community in the long run
(Eshenroder and Burnham-Curtis 1999).
Other important changes in the ecosystem occurred as
Pacific salmon and other introduced salmonids became natu-
ralized. Substantial natural reproduction of Chinook and coho
salmon has been documented in Lakes Michigan and Huron
(Carl 1983, 1984; Bence et al. 2008; Jonas et al. 2008) and
also occurs in Lake Ontario (Ribey and Chapleau 1996; Con-
nerton et al. 2009). A marking study documented that 80% of
Chinook salmon in Lake Huron were naturally produced during
2000–2003 (Johnson et al. 2010). Johnson et al. (2010) further
estimated that wild production during this period could have
been as high as 18 million Chinook salmon annually, compared
with the 3.5 million fish stocked annually by management
agencies. Given the extensive natural reproduction of Chinook
salmon occurring throughout the Great Lakes basin, it is likely
that greater predatory pressure is being exerted on alewife pop-
ulations than originally anticipated by fishery managers.
Managing the Fishery in a Changing Ecosystem
All of the above factors create an interesting paradox for
fishery managers. The initial strategy was to manage preda-
tory pressure on alewife populations by manipulating stocking
levels of Pacific salmon. As Pacific salmon have become nat-
uralized and the extent of natural reproduction is substantial,
the ability of managers to control this strategy has decreased.
Nevertheless, because of the contribution of alewife to thiamine
deficiency complex (Honeyfield et al. 2005), a diet consisting
largely of alewife reduces the success of natural reproduction
of both Pacific salmon and native salmonids (S. B. Brown et
al. 2005). Simultaneously, food web changes are occurring that
appear to make the lakes less suited to production of alewife
and Pacific salmon and more suited to production of several
species of native fishes. As a result, the case can be made that
it is logical for managers to direct fewer resources toward ac-
tive management of Pacific salmon in favor of efforts to restore
native species given these changing food webs. Conversely, the
popular and economically important recreational fishery for
Pacific salmon creates an atmosphere in which managers are
pressured to maintain the Pacific salmon fishery at least at cur-
rent levels. An important dilemma for managers to consider is
whether to invest limited resources to sustain a popular sport
fishery or to manage less intensively for natives fishes that may
be better suited to the changing ecosystem.
In Lake Huron, this dilemma has already unfolded. In the
space of 5 years between 2004 and 2008, the lake has gone
from a system dominated by Chinook salmon and alewife to
one in which alewife have been nearly eliminated and Chinook
salmon harvest has been reduced from over 100,000 annually
in 2003 to just over 3,000 in 2010 (Michigan Department of
Natural Resources [DNR] 2011). This fundamental ecosystem
shift apparently occurred because of (1) several years of sto-
chastically low alewife recruitment; (2) the shift in food web
structure toward more benthic production mediated by dreis-
senid mussels and Bythotrephes led to a reduced capacity for
alewife to produce large year classes; and (3) natural produc-
tion of Chinook salmon between 2000 and 2003 that could
have been as great as 18 million annually (Johnson et al. 2010),
which, coupled with annual stocking of 3.5 million Chinook
salmon fingerlings, added substantial predation pressure on ale-
wife in 2003 and 2004 (Michigan DNR 2011). As a result, the
condition of Chinook salmon declined precipitously and mor-
tality increased, as predicted by Goddard (2002). In response,
management agencies reduced stocking of Chinook salmon by
50%, and angler effort and catch has declined by about 90%. In
the absence of alewife, recruitment of native fishes, including
lake trout (Riley et al. 2007), walleye (Sander vitreus; Fielder et
al. 2007), cisco (Coregonus artedii), bloater, and emerald shin-
ers (Notropis atherinoides; Schaeffer et al. 2008), is increasing.
Thus, unwanted aquatic invasive species—such as dreissenid
mussels and Bythotrephes—are changing the ecosystem from
the state desired by anglers (i.e., a balance between Chinook
salmon and alewife) to an alternative state where native species
are dominant. Lake Huron fishery managers have adapted to
this fundamental ecosystem shift and are managing the system
primarily for native or naturally produced fishes. The state of
Michigan decided in 2011 to further cut Chinook salmon stock-
ing in Lake Huron (Michigan DNR 2011). Lakewide research
demonstrated that about 80% of the Chinook salmon popula-
tion is naturally produced (Johnson et al. 2010), and anglers
recognize that stocked Chinook salmon are simply feeding ex-
isting predators, especially walleye and lake trout.
Interestingly, indications are that the ecosystems of Lakes
Michigan and Ontario are also changing in ways that mimic the
ecosystem changes occurring in Lake Huron during the early
2000s. Chinook salmon in Lake Michigan effectively reduce
alewife abundance (Madenjian et al. 2002, 2005). The combi-
nation of results from Madenjian et al. (2002, 2005) and the
Lake Huron experience suggests that sufficient numbers of
Chinook salmon could be stocked to nearly eliminate alewife,
especially in conjunction with a few years of stochastically low
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 499
alewife recruitment. In turn, drastically reduced abundance of
alewives could lead to the rehabilitation of populations of em-
erald shiner, lake trout, and cisco—native species that likely
require further reduction of alewife than has already occurred
in Lakes Michigan and Ontario (Bunnell et al. 2006; Madenjian
et al. 2008) before they will recruit extensively.
As a result, managers on these lakes must now make the
difficult decision about whether to
• manage for economic returns by balancing the demand
for Pacific salmon fisheries with declining alewife pro-
duction that supports these recreational fisheries; or
• manage for rehabilitation of native fishes previously
suppressed by alewife.
Further complicating this picture are results from Lake
Ontario that suggest that top-down processes are currently
decoupled from bottom-up processes (Stewart et al. 2010). Al-
though the decision choice for fishery managers may become
moot following fundamental ecosystem shifts, it remains a sig-
nificant paradox. It is not yet clear whether managers will strive
to maintain the popular recreational Pacific salmon fishery and
its associated economic benefit to the degree they have in the
past. It appears to be increasingly difficult to balance between
the predatory demand of Pacific salmon and alewife produc-
tion in a constantly changing and unpredictable ecosystem. As
a result, future management efforts may place more emphasis
on the other aspects of fish community objectives that call for
rehabilitating native fishes that have been at low levels for the
past 50 years and that may regulate themselves in concert with
the changing Great Lakes ecosystem.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources for their support.
Comments from three anonymous reviewers substantially im-
proved the manuscript.
REFERENCES
American Sportfishing Association. 2008. Today’s angler: A statistical
profile of anglers, their targeted species and expenditures. Ameri-
can Sportfishing Association, Alexandria, Virginia.
Barbiero, R. P., M. Balcer, D. C. Rockwell, and M. L. Tuchman.
2009. Recent shift in the crustacean zooplankton community of
Lake Huron. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
66:816–828.
Barbiero, R. P., K. Schmude, B. M. Lesht, C. M. Riseng, G. J. Warren,
and M. L. Tuchman. 2011. Trends in Diporeia populations across
the Laurentian Great Lakes, 1997–2009. Journal of Great Lakes
Research 37:9–17.
Bence, J. R., J. E. Johnson, J. He, J. S. Schaeffer, S. Riley, R. J. Young,
M. Ebener, D. Reid, L. C. Mohr, D. Gonder, A. Cottrill, A. Woldt,
T. J. Morse, G. C. Christie, and M. Ridgway. 2008. Offshore preda-
tors and their fish community. Pages 11–36 in J. R. Bence and L.
C. Mohr, editors. The state of Lake Huron in 2004. Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, Special Publication 08-01.
Bence, J. R., and K. D. Smith. 1999. An overview of recreational fish-
 eries of the Great Lakes. Pages 259–306 in W. W. Taylor and C.
P. Ferreri, editors. Great Lakes fisheries policy and management:
a binational perspective. Michigan State University Press, East
Lansing.
Brandt, S., D. Mason, D. MacNeill, T. Coates, and J. Gannon. 1987.
Predation by alewives on larvae of yellow perch in Lake Ontario.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:641–645.
Bronte, C. R., C. C. Krueger, M. E. Holey, M. L. Toneys, R. L. Eshen-
roder, and J. L. Jonas. 2008. A guide for the rehabilitation of lake
trout in Lake Michigan. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Miscel-
laneous Publication 08-01.
Brown, E. H., Jr. 1972. Population biology of alewives, Alosa pseudo-
harengus, in Lake Michigan, 1949–1970. Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 29:477–500.
Brown, R. W., M. Ebener, and T. Gorenflo. 1999. Great Lakes com-
mercial fisheries: historical overview and prognosis for the future.
Pages 307–354 in W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri, editors. Great
Lakes fisheries policy and management: a binational perspective.
Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.
Brown, S. B., J. D. Fitzsimons, V. P. Palace, and L. Vandenbyllaardt.
1998. Thiamine and early mortality syndrome in lake trout. Pages
18–25 in G. McDonald, J. D. Fitzsimons, and D. C. Honeyfield,
editors. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 21, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Brown, S. B., D. C. Honeyfield, J. G. Hnath, M. Wohlgamood, S. V.
Marcquenski, J. D. Fitzsimons, and D. E. Tillitt. 2005. Thiamine
status in adult salmonines in the Great Lakes. Journal of Aquatic
Animal Health 17:59–64.
Bryan, M. B., D. Zalinski, K. B. Filcek, S. Libants, W. Li, and K. T.
Scribner. 2005. Patterns of invasion and colonization of the sea
lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in North America as revealed by
microsatellite genotypes. Molecular Ecology 14:3757–3773.
Bunnell, D. B., B. M. Davis, D. M. Warner, M. A. Chriscinske, and
E. F. Roseman. 2011. Planktivory in the changing Lake Huron
zooplankton community: Bythotrephes consumption exceeds that
of Mysis and fish. Freshwater Biology 56:1281–1296.
Bunnell, D. B., C. P. Madenjian, and R. M. Claramunt. 2006. Long-
term changes of the Lake Michigan fish community following the
reduction of exotic alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:2434–2446.
Carl, L. M. 1983. Density, growth, and change in density of coho salm-
on Oncorhynchus kisutch and rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri in
3 Lake Michigan USA tributaries. Canadian Journal of Zoology
61:1120–1127.
Carl, L. M. 1984. Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha density,
growth, mortality, and movement in 2 Lake Michigan tributaries
USA. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:65–71.
Carlton, J. T. 2008. The zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha found
in North America in 1986 and 1987. Journal of Great Lakes Re-
search 34:771–773.
Christie, G. C., and C. I. Goddard. 2002. Sea Lamprey International
Symposium (SLIS) II—advances in the integrated management
of sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Re-
search 29:1–14.
Connerton, M. J., B. A. Murry, N. H. Ringler, and D. J. Stewart. 2009.
Majority of age-3 Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
in Lake Ontario were wild from 1992–2005, based on scale pat-
tern analysis. Journal of Great Lakes Research 35:419–429.
Crowder, L. B. 1980. Alewife, rainbow smelt, and native fishes in Lake
Michigan: competition or predation. Environmental Biology of
Fishes 5:225–237.
Crowder, L. B. 1986. Ecological and morphological shifts in Lake
Michigan fishes—glimpses of the ghost of competition past. En-
vironmental Biology of Fishes 16:147–157.
500 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
Daniels, R. A. 2001. Untested assumptions: the role of canals in the
dispersal of sea lamprey, alewife, and other fishes in the Eastern
United States. Environmental Biology of Fishes 60:309–329.
Dexter, J. L., Jr., B. T. Eggold, T. K. Gorenflo, W. H. Horns, S. R.
Robillard, and S. T. Shipman. 2011. A fisheries management im-
plementation strategy for the rehabilitation of lake trout in Lake
Michigan. Available: http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/lmc/impstr_
rehablktrout.pdf (accessed May 2012).
Eshenroder, R. L. 2009. Comment: mitochondrial DNA analysis indi-
cates sea lampreys are indigenous to Lake Ontario. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 138:1178–1189.
Eshenroder, R. L., and M. K. Burnham-Curtis. 1999. Species succes-
sion and sustainability of the Great Lakes fish community. Pages
145–184 in W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri, editors. Great Lakes
fisheries policy and management: A binational perspective. Mich-
igan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.
Evans, M. E., G. Fahnenstiel, and D. Scavia. 2011. Incidental oli-
gotrophication of North American Great Lakes. Environmental
Science & Technology 45:3297–3303.
Fielder, D. G., J. S. Schaeffer, and M. V. Thomas. 2007. Environmen-
tal and ecological conditions surrounding the production of large
year classes of walleye (Sander vitreus) in Saginaw Bay, Lake
Huron. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:118–132.
Gaden, M., C. Krueger, and C. Goddard. 2009. Managing across ju-
risdictional boundaries: fishery governance in the Great Lakes
and Arctic–Yukon–Kuskokwim regions. Pages 941–962 in C.
C. Krueger and C. E. Zimmerman, editors. Pacific salmon: ecol-
ogy and management of western Alaska’s populations. American
Fisheries Society, Symposium 70, Bethesda, Maryland.
Goddard, C. I. 2002. The future of Pacific salmon in the Great Lakes.
Pages 243–258 in K. D. Lynch, M. L. Jones, and W. W. Taylor,
editors. Sustaining North American salmon: perspectives across
regions and disciplines. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Hansen, M. J., and M. E. Holey. 2002. Ecological factors affecting
the sustainability of Chinook and coho salmon populations in the
Great Lakes, especially Lake Michigan. Pages 155–180 in K. D.
Lynch, M. L. Jones, and W. W. Taylor, editors. Sustaining North
American salmon: perspectives across regions and disciplines.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Hansen, M. J., J. W. Peck, R. G. Schorfhaar, J. H. Selgeby, D. R. Sch-
reiner, S. T. Schram, B. L. Swanson, W. R. MacCallum, M. K.
Burnham-Curtis, G. L. Curtis, J. W. Heinrich, and R. J. Young.
1995. Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) populations in Lake Su-
perior and their restoration in 1959–1993. Journal of Great Lakes
Research 21(Supplement 1):152–175.
Hecky, R. H., R. E. H. Smith, D. R. Barton, S. J. Guildford, W. D.
Taylor, M. N. Charlton, and T. Howell. 2004. The nearshore
phosphorus shunt: a consequence of ecosystem engineering by
dreissenids in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:1285–1293.
Holey, M. E., R. F. Elliott, S. V. Marquenski, J. G. Hnath, and K. D.
Smith. 1998. Chinook salmon epizootics in Lake Michigan: pos-
sible contributing factors and management implications. Journal
of Aquatic Animal Health 10:202–210.
Holey, M. E., and T. N. Trudeau. 2005. The state of Lake Michigan
in 2000. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Special Publication
05-01.
Honeyfield, D. C., J. P. Hinterkopf, J. D. Fitzsimons, D. E. Tillitt, J.
L. Zajicek, and S. B. Brown. 2005. Development of thiamine de-
ficiencies and early mortality syndrome in lake trout by feeding
experimental and feral fish diets containing thiaminase. Journal
of Aquatic Animal Health 17:4–12.
Ihssen, P. E., G. W. Martin, and D. W. Rogers. 1992. Allozyme varia-
 tion of Great Lakes alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus: genetic
differentiation and affinities of a recent invader. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1770–1777.
Johnson, J. E., S. P. DeWitt, and D. J. A. Gonder. 2010. Mass-mark-
ing reveals emerging self-regulation of the Chinook salmon
population in Lake Huron. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 30:518–529.
Jonas, J., R. M. Claramunt, and E. S. Rutherford. 2008. Salmonine
reproduction and recruitment. Pages 65–70 in D. F. Clapp and W.
Horns, editors. The state of Lake Michigan in 2005. Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, Special Publication 08-02.
Kocik, J. E., and M. L. Jones. 1999. Pacific salmonines in the Great
Lakes. Pages 455–488 in W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri, editors.
Great Lakes fisheries policy and management: a binational per-
spective. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.
Krueger, C. C., D. L. Perkins, E. L. Mills, and J. E. Marsden. 1995.
Predation by alewives on lake trout fry in Lake Ontario: role of an
exotic species in preventing recovery of a native species. Journal
of Great Lakes Research 21(Supplement 1):458–469.
Lark, J. G. I. 1973. An early record of the sea lamprey (Petromyzon
marinus) from Lake Ontario. Journal of the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada 30:131–133.
Lehman, J. T. 1987. Palearctic predator invades North American Great
Lakes. Oecologia 74:478–480.
Lupi, F., and D. B. Jester. 2002. Use of resource economics in manag-
ing Great Lakes fisheries: Michigan examples. Pages 195–220 in
K. D. Lynch, M. L. Jones, and W. W. Taylor, editors. Sustaining
North American salmon: perspectives across regions and disci-
plines. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Madenjian, C. P. 1995. Removal of algae by the zebra mussel
(Dreissena polymorpha) population in western Lake Erie—a bio-
energetics approach. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 52:381–390.
Madenjian, C.P, G. L. Fahnenstiel, T. H. Johengen, T. F. Nalepa, H.
A. Vanderploeg, G. W. Fleischer, P.J. Schneeberger, D. M. Ben-
jamin, E. B. Smith, J. R. Bence, E. S. Rutherford, D. S. Lavis, D.
M. Robertson, D. J. Jude, and M. P. Ebener. 2002. Dynamics of
the Lake Michigan food web, 1970–2000. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:736–753.
Madenjian, C. P., T. O. Hook, E. S. Rutherford, D. M. Mason, T.
E. Crowley, E. B. Szalai, and J. R. Bence. 2005. Recruitment
variability of alewives in Lake Michigan. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 134:218–230.
Madenjian, C. P., R. O’Gorman, D. B. Bunnell, R. L. Argyle, E. F.
Roseman, D. M. Warner, J. D. Stockwell, and M. A. Stapanian.
2008. Adverse effects of alewives on Laurentian Great Lakes fish
communities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
28:263–282.
Madenjian, C. P., S. A. Pothoven, J. M. Dettmers, and J. D. Holuszko.
2006. Changes in seasonal energy dynamics of alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) in Lake Michigan after invasion of dreissenid
mussels. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
63:891–902.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Managing Chinook
salmon in Lake Huron: current findings and proposed manage-
ment options. Available: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/
dnr/Lake_Huron_Chinook_Management-2011_359039_7.pdf
(accessed November 2011).
Nalepa, T. F., D. L. Fanslow, and G. A. Lang. 2009. Transformation of
the offshore benthic community in Lake Michigan: recent shifts
from the native amphipod Diporeia spp. to the invasive mussel
Dreissena rostriformis bugensis. Freshwater Biology 54:466–479.
Nalepa, T. F., D. L. Fanslow, and S. A. Pothoven. 2010. Recent chang-
es in density, biomass, recruitment, size structure, and nutritional
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 501
state of Dreissena populations in southern Lake Michigan. Jour-
nal of Great Lakes Research 36:5–19.
O’Gorman, R., and T. J. Stewart. 1999. Ascent, dominance, and de-
cline of alewife in the Great Lakes: food web interactions and
management strategies. Pages 489–513 in W. W. Taylor and C.
P. Ferreri, editors. Great Lakes fisheries policy and management:
a binational perspective. Michigan State University Press, East
Lansing.
Pangle, K. L., S. D. Pecor, and O. E. Johannsson. 2007. Large nonle-
thal effects of an invasive invertebrate predator on zooplankton
population growth rate. Ecology 88:402–412.
Ribey, S. C., and F. Chapleau. 1996. Evidence of successful Chinook
salmon Oncorhynchus tschawytscha spawning in the St. Law-
rence River, near Cornwall, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist
110:346–347.
Riley, S. C., J. X. He, J. E. Johnson, T. P. O’Brien, and J. S. Schaeffer.
2007. Evidence of widespread natural reproduction by lake trout
Salvelinus namaycush in the Michigan waters of Lake Huron.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:917–921.
Roseman, E. F., and S. C. Riley. 2009. Biomass of deepwater demer-
sal forage fishes in Lake Huron, 1994–2007: implications for
offshore predators. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management
12:29–36.
Schaeffer, J. S., D. M. Warner, and T. P. O’Brien. 2008. Resurgence
of emerald shiners Notropis atherinoides in Lake Huron’s main
basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research 34:395–403.
Smith, S. H. 1970. Species interactions of the alewife in the Great
Lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99:754–
765.
Smith, S. H. 1995. Early changes in the fish community of Lake On-
tario. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Technical Report 60.
Stein, R. A., and C. I. Goddard. 2006. Reconciling fisheries with the
rehabilitation of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Pages in J. Neilson,
editor. Proceedings of the Fourth World Fisheries Congress.
Stewart, T. J., R. O’Gorman, W. G. Sprules, and B. F. Lantry. 2010.
The bioenergetic consequences of invasive-induced food web
disruption to Lake Ontario alewives. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 30:1485–1504.
Sullivan, W. P., G. C. Christie, F. C. Cornelius, M. F. Fodale, D. A.
Johnson, J. F. Koonce, G. L. Larson, R. B. McDonald, K. M. Mul-
lett, C. K. Murray, and P. A. Ryan. 2003. The sea lamprey in Lake
Erie: a case history. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29(Supple-
ment 1):615–636.
Talhelm, D. R. 1978. Limited entry in Michigan fisheries. Pages 300–
316 in R. Rettig and J. J. C. Gintner, editors. Limited entry as a
management tool. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Tanner, H. A., and W. H. Tody. 2002. History of the Great Lakes
salmon fishery: a Michigan perspective. Pages 139–154 in K. D.
Lynch, M. L. Jones, and W. W. Taylor, editors. Sustaining North
American salmon: perspectives across regions and disciplines.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Tillitt, D. E., J. L. Zajicek, S. B. Brown, L. R. Brown, J. D. Fitzsi-
mons, D. C. Honeyfield, M. E. Holey, and G. M. Wright. 2005.
Thiamine and thiaminase status in forage fish of salmonines from
Lake Michigan. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 17:13–25.
Vanderploeg, H. A., J. R. Liebig, T. F. Nalepa, G. L. Fahnenstiel, and S.
A. Pothoven. 2010. Dreissena and the disappearance of the spring
phosphorus bloom in Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Re-
search 36(3):50–59.
Watkins, J. M., R. Dermott, S. J. Lozano, E. L. Mills, L. G. Rudstam,
and J. V. Scharold. 2007. Evidence for remote effects of dreisse-
nid mussels on the amphipod Diporeia: analysis of Lake Ontario
benthic surveys, 1972–2003. Journal of Great Lakes Research
33:642–657.
FEATURE
Fisheries Science
Importance of Assessing Population-Level Impact of
­Catch-and-Release Mortality
Janice A. Kerns
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Program, University of Florida, 7922 NW
71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653. E-mail: Janice.Kerns@ufl.com
Micheal S. Allen
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Program, University of Florida, 7922 NW
71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653
Julianne E. Harris
North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department
of Biology, North Carolina State University, 127 David Clark Labs, Cam-
pus Box 7617, Raleigh, NC 27695
Many studies have measured the mortality of fish that are
recreationally caught and released (i.e., catch-and-release [CR]
mortality); however, little work has explored methods to un-
derstand the cumulative impact of CR mortality on fish stocks.
Despite considerable examination of biological, ethical, and
practical aspects of CR fisheries (Arlinghaus et al. 2007, 2012;
Cooke and Schramm 2007), little research has evaluated the
cumulative effects of the different sources of mortality on rec-
reational fisheries. The purpose of this essay is to provide a
brief discussion of the different components of mortality for
fisheries with high rates of CR and the possible cumulative
impacts of CR mortality on the quality of these fisheries. We
demonstrate the need for studies that evaluate the impacts of
CR mortality on fish stocks and estimate the fishing mortality
rates associated with CR (Fcr).
Future research needs to move past
estimating CR mortality to developing
more intensive field studies to mea-
sure Fcr for a wide range of fisheries.
COMPONENTS OF FISH MORTALITY
The instantaneous total mortality (Z) of a fished population
is described by the equation
Z=F+M
where F is the instantaneous fishing mortality and M is the
instantaneous natural mortality. Fishing mortality is the rate
at which fish are removed from a population due to fishing.
Natural mortality is the rate at which individuals are lost from
a population due to natural causes (i.e., predation, senescence,
or disease). Components of fishing mortality include harvest
and deaths of fish that are caught and released (e.g., CR mortal-
502 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
ity from either immediate or delayed release of caught fish).
To account for these components, the above equation can be
expanded to
Z=Fh+ Fcr+M
where Fh is the instantaneous fishing mortality rate from
harvest and Fcr is the instantaneous fishing mortality rate via
CR mortality. Fishing mortality from harvest is one of the most
commonly estimated parameters in fisheries investigations via
tagging studies, stock assessment models, and other approach-
es. It is important to make the distinction between Fcr and CR
mortality: Fcr is the instantaneous fishing mortality rate result-
ing from CR mortality, whereas CR mortality is the proportion
of individuals that die after being caught and released. Bar-
tholomew and Bohnsack (2005) and Muoneke and Childress
(1994) reviewed hundreds of published estimates of CR mortal-
ity, but we found no synthesis or literature reviews of Fcr values.
Relatively few studies have measured Fcr for fish stocks.
For some stocks, Fcr can be a significant source of mortality
resulting from harvest regulations or behavior of anglers (e.g.,
voluntary release; Driscoll et al. 2007). Harvest regulations can
cause Fcr to be a substantial mortality source, particularly if the
CR mortality rate is high and a large portion of the age struc-
ture is protected from harvest (Coggins et al. 2007). Even if CR
mortality is not high, impacts can be substantial. For example,
Florida’s common snook (Centropomus undecimalis) fisheries
have been managed with increasingly stringent harvest regula-
tions to prevent overfishing, which has increased release rates
from 31% in 1981 to over 90% in the late 1990s (Muller and
Taylor 2006). Common snook have relatively low CR mortal-
ity (approximately 3%), but due to increasing fishing effort,
about 35% of the total fishery-related deaths are attributed to
Fcr (Muller and Taylor 2006). Many recreational fisheries (e.g.,
trout [Family: Salmonidae] or black bass [Micropterus spp.])
have high release rates of fish that are legal to harvest; thus,
traditional measures of Fh may not indicate the full impact of
fishing on fish abundance, size, or age structure.
Although estimates of Fcr are not common, this mortal-
ity source has not been completely ignored. Most marine and
anadromous stock assessments incorporate indirect estimates of
Fcr by estimating the number of fish released in a fishery and
multiplying this by an average CR mortality rate obtained from
experimental studies. The resulting estimate of dead releases
is then added to the catch to determine total fishing mortality
in stock assessment models (i.e., Fh + Fcr). Similarly, Driscoll
et al. (2007) used a tag-return study and a range of CR mortal-
ity rates from literature to understand the impact tournament
fishing was having on a largemouth (Micropterus salmoides)
fishery in Sam Rayburn Reservoir, Texas. The combined mor-
tality associated with CR fishing (i.e., mortality of tournament
released and fish immediately caught and released) accounted
for 19–50% of the total fishing mortality.
FUTURE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT
NEEDS
Future research needs to move past estimating CR mortal-
ity to developing more intensive field studies to measure Fcr
for a wide range of fisheries. In our experience, many fisheries
professionals report CR mortality as if high values are harmful
and low values are not a concern. However, the ultimate im-
pact of CR mortality on fish populations is known only through
estimates of Fcr, because low CR mortality can have large popu-
lation impacts (see common snook example above). Only by
estimating Fcr will we understand the impacts of CR mortality
on fish stocks.
There are two basic options for estimating Fcr. First, apply-
ing literature-derived CR mortality rates in stock assessments
or tag-return studies as per Driscoll et al. (2007) would pro-
vide estimates of Fcr. This may be the only feasible option for
evaluating Fcr for recreational fisheries that occur in the open
ocean or on some of the larger inland lake and riverine sys-
tems. However, for many freshwater and estuarine fisheries a
second method is possible. We suggest using a combination of
telemetry and tag-return methods that have been shown to pro-
vide unbiased estimates of fishing and natural mortality rates
(Pollock et al. 2004). In this framework, a fishery-dependent
high-reward tag-return study is primarily used to estimate
Fh, whereas telemetry or fishery-independent tags are used to
estimate M (Pollock et al. 2004; Bacheler et al. 2009). Pol-
lock et al. (2004) illustrated that combining the two tagging
methods incorporated the advantages of both approaches and
provided more precise estimates of Fh and M than either method
would individually. This design could be expanded to include
additional mortality components if the fates of all caught tele-
metered fish are known. For example, tagging all telemetered
fish with an additional external high-reward tag would allow
researchers to document when fish are caught. If the fish is har-
vested it would contribute to Fh in the typical way. If the fish is
released, then its survival could be monitored to estimate Fcr.
This method also assumes a reporting rate of 100%, which is
realistic due to the use of high reward tags. Nonreporting may
still occur but it would be considered negligible. Although this
method is not infallible (e.g., tag loss, incorrect fate determina-
tion, and tag failure), it is an improvement upon the resolution
and uncertainty of conducting tag-return and telemetry studies
independently (Pollock and Pine 2007).
Thus, we contend that future fisheries research should be
directed less at estimating CR mortality where estimates exist
under a range of environmental conditions for well-studied spe-
cies (see examples in Cooke and Suski 2005). Instead, efforts
should shift toward measuring Fcr, which could be compared to
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 503
Fh to understand whether Fcr could be a significant component
of total fishing mortality. Using this information, biologists
could explore the population-level effects of both voluntary and
regulatory release of fish. Managers could then incorporate this
information into comprehensive management plans and future
data collection needs to further reduce uncertainty in under-
standing stock status.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Joe Hightower and Bill Pine for help when con-
ceptualizing this problem. This study was funded by the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
REFERENCES
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 recreational fishing: an inte-
grative synthesis of global knowledge from historical, ethical,
social, and biological perspectives. Reviews in Fisheries Science
15:75–167.
Arlinghaus, R., A. Schwab, C. Riepe, and T. Teel. 2012. A primer on
anti-angling philosophy and its relevance for recreational fisher-
ies in urbanized societies. Fisheries 37:153–164.
Bacheler, N. M., J. A. Buckel, J. E. Hightower, L. M. Paramore, and
K. H. Pollock. 2009. A combined telemetry-tag return approach
to estimate fishing and natural mortality rates of an estuarine fish.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66:1230–
1244.
Bartholomew, A., and J. A. Bohnsack. 2005. A review of catch-and-
release angling mortality with implications for no-take reserves.
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15:129–154.
Coggins, L. G., M. J. Catalano, M. S. Allen, W. E. Pine, and C. J.
Walters. 2007. Effects of cryptic mortality and the hidden costs
of using length limits in fishery management. Fish and Fisheries
8:196–210.
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.
Cooke, S. J., and C. D. Suski. 2005. Do we need species-specific guide-
lines for catch-and-release recreational angling to effectively
conserve diverse fishery resources? Biodiversity and Conserva-
tion 14:1195–1209.
Driscoll, M. T., J. L. Smith, and R. A. Myers. 2007. Impact of tour-
naments on the largemouth bass population at Sam Rayburn
reservoir, Texas. North American Journal of Fisheries Manage-
ment 27:425–433.
Muller, R. G., and R. G. Taylor. 2006. The 2005 stock assessment
update of common snook, centropomus undecimalis. Florida
Marine Research Institute, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Com-
mission, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Muoneke, M. I., and W. M. Childress. 1994. Hooking mortality: a
review for recreational fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science
2:123–156.
Pollock, K. H., H. Jiang, and J. E. Hightower. 2004. Combining telem-
etry and fisheries tagging models to estimate fishing and natural
mortality rates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
133:639–648.
Pollock, K. H., and W. E. Pine, III. 2007. The design and analysis
of field studies to estimate catch-and-release mortality. Fisheries
Management and Ecology 14:123–130.
TWIN CITIES WRAP UP
142nd Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society,
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, August 19–23, 2012.
Fisheries Networks: Building Ecological, Social, and Professional ­Relationships
On the boat trip down the Mississippi River, Darrell Bowman (Chair of
the Arkansa Committee) gives a toast. (photo: Jacob Osborne)
Due to travel restrictions by Federal agencies, the 142nd
Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society might not
have had quite as many attendees as at the Seattle meeting, but
we still managed to have a strong showing with over 1,600
attendees, plus guests. Fisheries enthusiasts gathered in Min-
neapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota to network with fellow
fisheries professionals and students, to stay current on the latest
in fisheries science, and to enjoy the sights and scenes of the
Twin Cities and beyond. The AFS Minnesota Chapter partnered
with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to make
sure everyone had what was needed to keep the focus of the
meeting – “Fisheries Networks: Building Ecological, Social
and Professional Relationships” – on target, as well as to pro-
vide good cheer. (The weather was so pitch perfect, attendees
began to wonder if the hosts had an “in” with the Big Guy.)
Initial registrants and continuing education seekers began
arriving Saturday, when available training sessions included
“Beginning/Intermediate GIS for Fisheries Biologists,” “Lead-
ership At All Levels of AFS,” “Climate Change and Fish
Habitat Project Workshop,” and other developmental topics.
The first real treat came with the start of the conference proper
at Sunday night’s Welcome Social. Festivities got off to a merry
start at the Opening Social, held in the Great River Ballroom in
the Crowne Plaza, overlooking a fantastic view of the Upper
Mississippi. Guests hit the drink stations, snacked on shrimp,
chicken skewers, cheese, and other hors d’oeuvres, and started
up lively conversations with fellow attendees from the previous
annual meeting in Seattle, as though there hadn’t even been a
pause (much less a year!) between salutations.
504 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
Ira Adelman on the sax! (photo: Jacob Osborne)
The Plenary Session took place on Monday, with past
president, Bill Fisher, calling the meeting to order, and our
newly-elected president, John Boreman presenting the Dis-
tinguished Service Award to Andrew Loftus and the Carl R.
Sullivan Fishery Conservation Award to the Alaska Salmon
Program of the University of Washington.
Following the awards, the Plenary talks began with Dr. Vil-
ly Christensen, Professor at the UBC Fisheries Centre, the lead
developer of the Ecopath with Ecosim approach and software
(which is used extensively throughout the world for ecosystem-
based management of marine areas), and the Director of the
Nereus Program (a cooperative initiative of the Nippon Foun-
dation and the Univ. of British Columbia, and a program named
as one of the ten biggest scientific breakthroughs in NOAA’s
200-year history). His lecture on “Ecological Networks – From
Who Did It to Future Food Webs,” began with lessons from ex-
perience with food web modeling, including how humans have
impacted the oceans. He explained the importance of database-
driven ecosystem model construction using global, spatial
databases to parameterize, balance, and fit ecosystem models,
and demonstrated some new approaches for science communi-
cation to the public. All of Christensen’s research comes down
to trying to answer one question – “Will there be seafood and
healthy oceans for future generations?” All signs point to a sig-
nificant decrease in global fish supply if we continue down the
same path we’ve been going.
The second plenary speaker, Dr. Barbara A. Knuth (Past-
President of the American Fisheries Society) focused her
lecture on “Expanding the Reach of Fisheries Science and
Management through Strategic Social Networking.” Dr. Knuth
(who serves on the Ocean Studies Board of the National Re-
search Council and on the NRC Committee on the Effects of the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Ecosystem Services in the Gulf
of Mexico; was Vice President of the Executive Board of the
World Council of Fisheries Societies; and is a Vice Provost and
Dean of the Graduate School at Cornell University and Profes-
sor of Natural Resource) does work with cutting edge resources
that focus on the human dimensions of fisheries and wildlife
management and policy, and is known particularly for her work
on risk perception, communication, and management associat-
ed with chemical contaminants in fish. She’s not only informed,
but continues to challenge others to understand the importance
of social networks in fisheries management, explaining ways to Spawning Run. (photo: Jacob Osborne)
cultivate these networks to help improve fisheries management
capacity and foster positive relationships among stakehold-
ers, managers, and scientists. Building strategies that will help
stakeholders meet their different needs during a collaborative,
community-based natural resource management project, is of
great value to our science.

The third plenary speaker, Dr. William W. Taylor (anoth-

er former president of AFS, and a University Distinguished
Professor in Global Fisheries Systems in the Department of
Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State University and a
member of MSU’s Center for Systems Integration and Sustain-
ability), gave his talk on “Fisheries Sustainability: The Science
and Art of Coupling Human and Natural Systems.” Taylor is
an internationally recognized expert in Great Lakes fisheries
ecology, population dynamics, governance, and management,
and he holds a U.S. Presidential appointment as a U.S. Com-
missioner (alternate) for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
In addition, he has held a gubernatorial appointment to Michi-
gan’s Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinating Council, and a
U.S. Secretary of Interior appointment to the Sport Fishing and
Boating Partnership Council, which he chaired for eight years.
He also is the associate director of the Michigan Sea Grant Col- Gus Rassam hits the Spawning Run. ­
lege Program. Taylor has an interest in environmental policy (photo: Jacob Osborne)
and management from a local to global perspective, and he be-
lieves that fish are the ultimate integrators, and are symbolic
of our way of living harmoniously in the world. To understand
their habitat, we must also understand how ours affects them.
Fish habitat and fish production are directly linked to human
systems locally and globally. Studying global change issues
such as climate, evaluation of governance, policies on the im-
pact of fish community dynamics and sustainability, is the first
step to helping to obtain sustainability, and is key to developing
effective policies for ecological and socioeconomic sustainabil-
ity.

After the Plenary Session, students enjoyed their own

conference-within-a-conference, starting with the Best Student
Paper Colloquium followed by the Student-Mentor Social,
whereby a panel of professional fishery scientists and aquatic
ecologists from a range of backgrounds (including academia,
state, and federal agencies, non-profit organizations, tribes, Fish sculptures at the auction. (photo: Cynthia Fox)
and industry) discussed the skills students needed to enter the

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 505


Changing of the guard from 2012’s President
Bill Fisher (right) to 2013’s John Boreman
(left). (photo: Brian Borkholder)
Fisheries students enjoy brews at the Eagle Street Grille.
(photo: Jacob Osborne)
The Past Presidents meeting with New President John B
­ oreman.
(photo: Brian Borkholder)
506 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
job market and be successful in the various sectors of fisheries
management and science. After their talk, the panel members
mingled with the students to offer advice and mentoring. Tues-
day brought in the Best Student Judging along with the Best
Student Paper-Poster Judges’ Luncheon (a yummy freebie!),
followed by the Career Fair, where students showed up with
their resumes to meet representatives from academic, state, fed-
eral, and non-government institutions to discuss employment
opportunities. After a lot of excitement and work, students took
the short walk from the conference center to the Eagle Street
Grille for their Student Social, where brick walls, wooden
booths, and blue leather topped chairs offered a perfect place to
relax, eat zesty ribs, and take in a beer or two.
Another special group—the international conference-
goers—joined together Tuesday when International Fisheries
Section President Felipe Amezcua hosted an International Re-
ception. Those in attendance enjoyed a Latin American menu
(which really should be on everyone’s top buffet list at any AFS
Annual Meeting). Amezcua always brings good talks and good
food to the table to these events.
The Trade Show opened to booming business on Mon-
day, and information-packed symposia could be found at
every turn: “Understanding the Ecological and Social Con-
straints to Achieving Sustainable Fisheries Resource Policy
and Management,” “Fisheries Data Dissemination – Building
Better Networks,” “Stakeholder Involvement in Fisheries Sci-
ence: New Approaches and New Partnerships,” “Climate and
Fisheries: Responses of a Socio-Ecological System to Global
Change,” and “Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 75th An-
niversary,” to name just a few.
Wednesday called out for the athletically inclined (AFS’
own executive director, Gus Rassam, being one!) to conquer
the 5k Spawning Run, which took place on a scenic trail along
the Mississippi River on Harriet Island Regional Park in St.
Paul. The Trade Show and Symposia continued throughout the
day, and by afternoon almost 1,000 attendees and their guests
were ready for the evening social: A Taste of Minnesota: The
Famous and Infamous! A special Minnesota feast of walleye
and lake herring (the “famous”), the jumping (and infamous)
silver carp, complimented with a “Beer Extravaganza” fea-
turing a dozen outstanding Midwestern microbreweries (also
famous!) were available at multiple buffets, and even with
so many attendees the lines were non-existent. For those
who hadn’t had too much beer, Segway rides were offered.
To culminate the 142nd Meeting, AFS members and the Ar-
kansas Planning Committee gathered to network on riverboat
cruises at the “Goodbye Twin Cities, Hello Little Rock” Social.
After walking across the Wabasha Bridge, everyone set out on
a 2-hour cruise through the wooded banks of the Mississippi
River Gorge (the only true gorge on the Mississippi River), to
relax with old friends, converse with new friends, finalize those
new collaborative studies that were discussed at the previous
night’s social, and eagerly talk about next year’s appropriate
theme, “Preparing for the Challenges Ahead.”
The Governing Board. (photo: Brian Borkholder) Les Douglas, owner of Creative Pewter Designs, looking to sell
­products to an AFS attendee. (photo: Coley Hughes)

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton speaks to the

crowd. (photo: Brian Borkholder) MN DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr.
(photo: Brian Borkholder)

Happy attendees at the Wednesday Night Social at the Nicollet Island

Pavilion. (photo: Coley Hughes) Folks making s’mores at the Nicollet Island Pavilion, Wednesday
night’s “A Taste of Minnesota” Grand Social. (photo: Coley Hughes)

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 507

The Raffle Booth! (photo: Brian Borkholder) Folks waiting to disembark from the paddleboats at the Thursday
Night Social. (photo: Brian Borkholder)

A gentleman scanning through products of

the new e-signage used for displaying posters. A scene from the Trade Show Social on
(photo: Jennifer Johnson) ­Monday night. (photo: Jennifer Johnson)

Two gentlemen enjoying the view of the Mississippi River at Wednes-

day night’s “A Taste of Minnesota” Grand Social. (photo: Cynthia Fox) The Student Career Fair at the River Centre. (photo: Brian Borkholder)

508 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org

Third Call for Papers: Little Rock 2013
GENERAL INFORMATION
Fisheries and natural resource professionals are invited to
submit symposia proposals or abstracts for contributed oral,
poster, and speed presentations that address the meeting’s
theme, or on other issues and subjects pertinent to our field. We
encourage state and federal fisheries professionals, private biol-
ogists, academics, and students to participate. There will be four
types of sessions at the meeting: Symposia (oral presentations
organized by individuals or groups with a common interest),
Contributed Oral Presentations (grouped together into themes),
Contributed Poster Presentations (organized to coincide with
either symposia or contributed oral presentations themes), and
Speed Presentations for students or professionals just beginning
research or interested in feedback on a specific issue.

A NEW TIME FORMAT

The Little Rock meeting will be experimenting with a new
presentation time format. Regular symposia presentations and
oral contributed presentations are designed to fit into 20 minute
time slots. However, presenters should plan on presenting for
12 minutes, leaving 3 minutes for questions and 5 minutes for
room changes (and further questions). It is important for sym-
posia and oral contributed presenter to plan for, and abide by,
this new time format.

SYMPOSIA
The Program Committee invites proposals for Symposia.
We are specifically requesting topics related to the meeting
theme of “Preparing for the Challenges Ahead.” Topics not
addressing the meeting theme should be of general interest to
The Arkansas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society AFS members. Symposia that address challenges facing broad
is pleased to announce the third call for symposia, contributed groups of fisheries professionals, along with solutions to spe-
oral, and contributed poster presentations for the 143rd Annual cific challenges will receive priority.
Meeting of the American Fisheries Society to be held in Little Symposium organizers are responsible for recruiting pre-
Rock, Arkansas! The meeting theme, “Preparing for the Chal- senter, soliciting their abstracts, and directing them to submit
lenges Ahead” is likely to stimulate thoughts and presentations their abstracts through the AFS online submission forms. Orga-
on: nizers are not required to recruit a full symposium at the time of
• Challenges facing natural resource agencies regarding proposal submissions. The Program Committee is particularly
mandates to do more with fewer resources interested in working with symposium organizers to incorporate
• Challenges facing educators regarding a growing ­ into symposia appropriate presentations that are submitted as
knowledge base, changing student expectations, and contributed oral or poster presentations. A symposium should
teaching to Millennials include a minimum of 10 presentations and we encourage or-
• Challenges facing students regarding their roles as future ganizers to limit their requests to 1-d symposia (about 20 oral
scientists and managers serving increasingly more ­ presentations). Time slots are limited to 20 minutes, but mul-
diverse stakeholders tiple time slots (i.e., 40 or 60 minutes) may be offered to keynote
• Other challenges that confront fisheries and natural ­ symposia speakers.
resource professionals Symposium proposals must be submitted by 11 January
2013. All symposium proposal submissions must be made using
AFS 2013 will be 8-12 September in Little Rock, at the the AFS online symposium proposal submission form available
Statehouse Convention Center located at the east end of Presi- on the AFS website (www.fisheries.org). The Program Commit-
dent Clinton Avenue. The River Market District in Little Rock tee will review all symposium proposals and notify organizers
and the Argenta District in North Little Rock offer the best in of their acceptance or refusal by 1 February 2013. If accepted,
dining, entertainment, museums, and shopping. Let us show organizers must submit a complete list of all confirmed presen-
you some southern hospitality next year in Little Rock. tations and titles by 22 February 2013. Symposium presentation
abstracts (in the same format as contributed oral or contributed
poster presentation abstracts; see below) are due by 15 March

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 509

2013. All symposium presenters are expected to deliver Power-
Point presentations.
The Program Committee is developing ways to increase the
accessibility of symposia to all potential participants. See future
calls for papers, e-mail messages, and the meeting web site for
more details.
FORMAT FOR SYMPOSIUM PROPOSALS
(submit using AFS online symposium submission form)
When submitting your abstract, include the following:
• Symposium title: Brief but descriptive
• Sponsors: If applicable, indicate sponsorship. Please note
that a sponsor is not required.
• Organizer(s): Provide name, affiliation, telephone
number, and e-mail address of each organizer. The first
name entered will be the main contact person.
• Chairs: Supply name(s) of individual(s) who will chair
the symposium.
• Description: In 300 words or less, describe the topic ad-
dressed by the proposed symposium, the objective of the
symposium, and the value of the symposium to AFS mem-
bers and meeting participants.
• Audiovisual requirements: LCD projectors and laptops
will be available in every room. Other audiovisual equip-
ment needed for the symposium will be considered, but
computer projection is strongly encouraged. Please list spe-
cial AV requirements.
• Special seating requests: Standard rooms will be arranged
theatre-style. Please indicate special seating requests (for
example, “after the break, a panel discussion with seating
for 10 panel members will be needed”).
The Program Committee invites abstracts for contributed oral
presentations, contributed poster presentations, or speed pre-
sentations. Authors must indicate their preferred presentation
format:
• Contributed oral presentation only,
• Contributed poster presentation only,
• Contributed oral presentation preferred, but poster
presentation acceptable, or
• Speed Presentation
510 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
CONTRIBUTED ORAL AND POSTER
­PRESENTATIONS
Only one contributed oral presentation will be accepted for
each senior author. Contributed oral presentations will be or-
ganized by 20 minute time slots (i.e., 12-minute presentation, 3
minutes for questions, and 5 minutes for room changes). All oral
presenters are expected to deliver PowerPoint presentations.
We encourage poster submissions because of the limited
time available for oral presentations. The program will include
a dedicated poster session to encourage discussion between
poster authors and attendees. The dedicated poster session will
include traditional hard copy posters. In addition, the Program
Committee is exploring methods for incorporating electronic
posters, such as inclusion of electronic posters in symposia or
other sponsored electronic poster opportunities.
SPEED PRESENTATIONS
The Program Committee is interested in organizing one or
more speed presentation sessions. Speed presentations would
require a brief (2-3 sentences) abstract submitted through the
AFS abstract submission site. Speed presentations would be an
outlet for students or professionals just beginning their research
or interested in feedback on a small specific issue. The format
for a speed presentation would be 1 or 2 PowerPoint slides used
during a 3-minute presentation, followed by 2 minutes for ques-
tions or feedback.
STUDENT PRESENTERS
Student presenters must indicate if they wish their abstract
to be considered for competition for a best student presentation
(i.e., paper or poster, but not both) award by submitting to the
Best Student Presentation competition section. If a student does
not wish to be considered, they should submit to the normal con-
tributed abstracts section. Components of the application will
include an extended abstract and a check-off from their mentor
indicating that the study is at a stage appropriate for consider-
ation for an award. Please note that speed presentations are not
eligible for best student presentation.
ABSTRACT SUBMISSIONS
Abstracts for contributed oral and poster presentations and
speed presentations may be submitted after 1 February 2013 and
must be received by 15 March 2013. All submissions must be
made using the AFS online abstract submission form, available
at www.fisheries.org. When submitting your abstract:
• Use a brief but descriptive title, avoiding acronyms or sci-
entific names in the title unless the common name is not
widely known;
• List all authors, their affiliations, addresses, telephone
numbers, and e-mail addresses; and
• Provide a summary of your findings and restrict your ab-
stract to 200 words.
• Use 2-3 sentences for a speed presentation abstract.
All presenters will receive an email confirmation of their
abstract submission and will be notified of acceptance and the
designated time and place of their presentation by 5 April 2013.
The Program Committee will group contributed oral and
poster presentations thematically based on the title and two or
three keywords you will choose and prioritize during the abstract
submission process. Speed presentations will be combined into
separate sessions.
Late submissions will not be accepted. AFS does not waive
registration fees for presenters at symposia, workshops, or con-
tributed oral or poster presentation sessions. All presenters
and meeting attendees must pay registration fees. Registration
forms will be available on the AFS website (www.fisheries.org)
in May 2013. There is a cost savings for registering early.
FORMAT FOR ABSTRACTS
Title: An Example Abstract for the AFS 2013 Annual Meeting
Format: Oral
Authors: Lochmann, Steve. Aquaculture/Fisheries Center, Uni-
versity of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, 1200 N. University Dr., Pine
Bluff, AR 71601; 870-575-8165; slochmann@uaex.edu
Racey, Christopher. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 2
Natural Resources Drive, Little Rock, AR 72205; 501-223-
6371; clracey@agfc.state.ar.us
Presenter: Steve Lochmann
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 511
Abstract: Abstracts are used by the Program Committee to
evaluate and select papers for inclusion in the scientific and tech-
nical sessions of the 2013 AFS Annual Meeting. An informative
abstract contains a statement of the problem and its significance,
study objectives, principle findings, and applications. The ab-
stract conforms to the prescribed format. An abstract must be no
more than 200 words in length.
Student presenter: No
PROGRAM COMMITTEE CONTACTS
Program Chair:
Steve Lochmann, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, sloch-
mann.afs2013@gmail.com, 870-575-8165
Contributed Oral Presentation Subcommittee Chair:
Rick Eades, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, rick.
eades@nebraska.gov, 402-471-5554
Contributed Poster Presentation Subcommittee Chair:
Greg Summers, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conserva-
tion, gsummers@odwc.state.ok.us, 405-325-7288
Speed Presentation Subcommittee Chair:
Nick Phelps, University of Minnesota – Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratory, phelp0830@umn.edu, 612-624-7450
Symposia Subcommittee Chair:
Tom Lang, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks & Tourism,
tom.lang@ksoutdoors.com, 620-672-0722
Committee Members:
Amanda Rosenberger, USGS Missouri Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit, rosenbergera@missouri.edu, 573-882-
9653
Quenton Fontenot, Nicholls State University, quenton.fon-
tenot@nicholls.edu, 985-449-7062
Steve Sammons, Auburn University, sammosm@auburn.edu,
334-844-4159
IN MEMORIAM
James R. Sedell
(July 5, 1944 – August 18, 2012)
Aquatic science lost one of its most creative thinkers and
astute administrators when Jim Sedell died on August 18, 2012.
His scientific and management legacies were matched by the
contagious enthusiasm he brought to the resolution of natural
resource problems. To those who knew him, Jim was a whirl-
wind of energy, pulling in anything and everything in his path
and sending it all skyward in a fountain of creativity.
Jim graduated from Willamette University and attended
graduate school at the University of Pittsburgh, receiving a
doctorate in biology and ecology. From 1971 to 1977 he held a
research faculty position at Oregon State University, studying
stream ecosystems in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest.
Many of the insights gained from that work appeared in a co-
authored 1980 paper—The River Continuum Concept—which
crystallized a new paradigm of how energy and materials are
recycled along gradients from small streams to large rivers.
Jim also taught the importance of incorporating the history
of an ecosystem in studying and managing it. The early work
he and his students did on the Willamette and Coquille Rivers
remains a key component of their management and rehabilita-
tion. Knowing the fire, beaver, and splash dam history of PNW
forests has led to changes in forest management, and that sense
of history is also a large part of the reference condition con-
cept used in the EU and by the USEPA and state water quality
agencies for making ecological assessments, and in developing
expected conditions for water bodies.
From 1977 to 1980 he managed an aquatic research team
at the Weyerhaeuser Company. He immersed himself in applied
science and pressed hard for changes in riparian protection on
private industrial forests, loudly proclaiming the importance of
large wood. Jim was instrumental in reversing the policy of re-
moving trees from channels for fish passage to recruiting wood
for fish habitat. So persuasive were his arguments that by the
mid-1980s many management organizations formally recog-
nized the importance of living and dead trees for fish habitat in
their riparian prescriptions.
512 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
In 1980 Jim returned to Corvallis, Oregon, to lead an aquat-
ic science team for the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest
Research Station. A few months later Mount St. Helens erupt-
ed. There was no way you could keep him from capitalizing on
this unprecedented opportunity to examine ecosystem reassem-
bly after a major disturbance. Jim was one of the first scientists
to sample Spirit Lake and many of the new lakes formed by the
largest recent volcanic landslide in North America. His studies
at Mount St. Helens helped lay the groundwork for what has
become one of the world’s most comprehensive collections of
research on volcanic landscapes.
By the late 1980s it became clear that timber policies in the
Pacific Northwest were not sustainable and confrontations grew
between pro-development and conservation interests over fed-
eral timber sales. In 1989 a federal judge issued an injunction
against 139 timber sales that brought the issue to a head. Con-
gress appointed a panel of distinguished scientists—the “Gang
of Four”—to develop a long-term management strategy that
would protect essential functions of forest ecosystems while al-
lowing for commodity production. The four panelists requested
that Jim Sedell and Gordon Reeves join them because there
was mounting evidence that anadromous salmonid populations
were at risk. Together, they produced Alternatives for Manage-
ment of Late-Successional Forests of the Pacific Northwest: A
Report to the Agriculture Committee and the Merchant Marine
and Fisheries Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives,
a paper that remains one of the most important blueprints for
managing forested watersheds in recent decades. The strategy
for protecting anadromous fish habitat that eventually emerged
from the effort was to become the conceptual backbone of
many subsequent aquatic habitat conservation plans.
Although the report made quite a splash in the forestry
community, Congress was unable to resolve the problem of
reconciling timber production and ecosystem management. In
1993, following up on a campaign promise, President Clinton
convened a Forest Summit in Portland, Oregon. Jim was se-
lected to be the scientific expert for fish and water quality on
the president’s panel and subsequently became coleader of the
aquatic component of the Forest Ecosystem Management and
Assessment Team. The new Northwest Forest Plan outlined an
aquatic conservation strategy that was eventually implemented
on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management districts
throughout the Pacific coastal ecoregion and has since been
widely emulated.
After leading a similar effort to develop a broad aquatic
conservation strategy for federal lands in the Interior Columbia
River Basin, Jim accepted the position of Forest Service Water
Coordinator in Washington, D.C. Soon thereafter he became
Director of Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air Research, a position
that gave him an opportunity to provide scientific insights to
policy makers at the national level. In 2004, Jim was appointed
Director of the Pacific Southwest Research Station in Albany,
California, where one of his favorite accomplishments was cre-
ating the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry in Hilo, Hawaii, a
center of research for management, preservation, and restora-
tion of natural ecosystems throughout the Indo-Pacific.

Jim retired from the Forest Service in 2008 and took a

position with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in
Portland, Oregon. As Fish Conservation Director he was re-
sponsible for awarding and overseeing grants for protecting a
variety of aquatic resources. It had always been Jim’s view that
fish were part of larger aquatic communities and that effective
conservation meant understanding how various parts inter-
acted. Nevertheless, he understood the importance of fish to
society and was proactive in supporting investigations of water
flows and climate change on fish habitat, as well as research on
species about which information was critically needed, such as
Apache trout and the native fishes of the upper Klamath River
basin.

Jim was able to share fresh ideas and insights from his work
in the Pacific Northwest with foreign scientists. He spent a year
at Environnement-Ville-Société du CNRS in Lyon, France,
working with leading aquatic ecologists in Europe on dynamic
processes in river systems. His international collaborations
spanned a wide range of topics, from large-scale modeling of
major floodplain rivers in Western Europe to the effects of in-
troduced North American beaver on streams in Patagonia.

Although Jim left a rich and varied scientific legacy, he

will be equally remembered for his ability to get people excited
about science. He had an enthusiasm that, though at times ex-
hausting for those around him, was always infectious. His sense
of humor was legendary and as a cheerleader he was unequaled.
Though he will be greatly missed by his colleagues, we can take
comfort in knowing that our watersheds and the plants and ani-
mals they contain are better off for his having been here.

Pete Bisson, USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station,

Olympia, Washington;

Gordie Reeves, USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station,

Corvallis, Oregon;

Stan Gregory, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon

State University, Corvallis, Oregon

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 513

MAGAZINE
A Member’s Story

The Untold Story of Bob

­Piper — AFS Honorary
Member
Jim Bowker
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bozeman, MT.
E-mail: Jim_Bowker@fws.gov

Bob Piper was recently awarded honorary membership

to our society. He had intended to attend the plenary session
to personally accept this award and entertain us with a story
about his introduction to the society. Unfortunately, Bob could
not make the meeting to share this story with us. Not to be de-
nied, here is his story (as told to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
employee and American Fisheries Society member Jim Bowker).

My first encounter with the American Fisheries Society

(AFS) was in my hometown of Rochester, New York, in 1951.
The society was conducting its 81st Annual Meeting there, and
I was home for the summer, having just completed my junior
year at Cornell University. I was enrolled in Cornell with the
goal to graduate with a bachelor of science degree in fisheries.
So, when I read in the newspaper that the AFS was in town Jim Bowker (left), presenting the AFS Honorary Member Award to
holding their meeting, I told my mom that I was going down- Bob Piper.
town to check it out and that I probably wouldn’t be home for
supper. I hopped on a bus for the downtown Rochester Sheraton The trip culminated with a visit to a New York winery
Hotel, where the meeting was being hosted. where I observed the subtle transformation of a scholarly, soft-
spoken group of scientists into a robust, song-singing band of
Once there, I sauntered up to the registration desk in the colleagues enjoying each other’s friendship. I was impressed! I
hotel lobby and asked what it cost to attend the meeting. A nice wanted to be one of them.
lady behind the desk handed me a registration form, the meet-
ing agenda, and some brochures and remarked that buses were When I told my mom about my trip and meeting real fish-
about to leave for a tour of some state fisheries facilities and eries scientists, she wasn’t so impressed—I think she smelled
also for a visit to a local winery. wine on my breath.

Of course, I had no intention of registering for the meeting
because I was a dirt-poor college student. However, when I left
the hotel, sure enough, there were folks boarding tour buses
without any kind of ticket or boarding pass. I thought to myself
“ah ha!” and began to mingle with the group, boarded the bus,
and soon found that I was on my way, in the company of mul-
tiple members of AFS, for a day of touring.
It was a magnificent day and I had a great time; we stopped
at a hatchery, had a free lunch, and were given a demonstration
by David Haskell of an innovative backpack electroshocker for
collecting fish in streams.
After graduating from college, I worked for several years
at a commercial hatchery in Pennsylvania, paid off my modest
(in those days) student loan, and joined the Fish and Wildlife
Service in 1956. Finally, in 1958 I became a dues-paying mem-
ber of the AFS.
The rest is history and I won’t bore you with the details
because it could lead to a lengthy trilogy. I look fondly at my
Golden Membership Award, presented to me in 2007, for a half-
century of being part of AFS. I wish for all of you the same
fantastic experience I’ve had—of a career filled with colleagues
who became lasting best friends.

I spent the day eavesdropping on conversations between May each of you have the opportunity to enjoy a free bus
fisheries professionals and heard great stories about their vari- tour in the company of a robust, song-singing band of col-
ous activities and their accomplishments. To a young neophyte leagues enjoying each others’ friendship. Thank you for this
fisheries student, it was an awesome experience. special honor.

514 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org

 MAGAZINE
Cool Fish

Needlefish
Jeff Schaeffer
USGS Great Lakes Science Center, 1451 Green Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48105. E-mail: Jschaeffer@usgs.gov

Image of Gyotaku print by Harry S. Schaeffer.

The image of the above fish is a Gyotaku1 print by Harry S.

Schaeffer of Key West, Florida, reflecting the actual image of a
member of the Belonidae (needlefish) family. It was identified
by the collector as a houndfish, but the image could represent
one of several other species found in Florida waters. Needlefish
have a circumtropical distribution. Houndfish are the largest
Belonid and attain lengths of up to 1.5 m and weights of over
6 kg. Needlefish are predominantly nearshore species; they
lurk near flats and reefs where they consume smaller fish by
pursuit of up to speeds of 13 m/s that may involve long leaps.
Needlefish have been studied infrequently, and most litera-
ture citations represent locality records or describe parasites.
The few modern references that exist are found primarily in
the medical literature and focus on houndfish, which have the
unfortunate habit of impaling bathers and fishers during their
prodigious leaps. Several reports have been written on the best
way to remove them from swimmers. Fatalities due to hound-
fish impalement have been reported but remain unverified.
However, these impalements can cause serious trauma. Two
recent cases in Florida reported lung penetration and a serious
neck injury (both victims recovered).

Needlefish are edible but have limited consumer appeal

because they have green flesh and bones.
1 “Gyotaku” is a Japanese technique in which an actual fish is inked
and used as a printing block. The life-sized image may be enhanced by the
artist, especially eye details. Gyotaku is thought to have originated in Japan
as a way of recording size information during regional fishing contests, but it
later became an art form. Gyotaku is difficult because the artist must manipu-
late delicate mulberry paper over a three-dimensional surface without tearing
or smudges. Many printing attempts are spoiled before a high-quality image is
attained.

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 515

COLUMN
Guest Director’s Line

Stoking the “Green Fire”1:

Bringing the Land Ethic ­
to the Water
John J. Piccolo
Department of Biology, Karlstad University, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden.
­E-mail: john.piccolo@kau.se

Piccolo is an Associate Professor in the Biology Department at Karlstad

University, Karlstad, Sweden. He’s worked in research and management
of native fish in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Wyoming,
and Värmland, Sweden.

The 2011 American Fisheries Society (AFS) meeting in

Seattle, Washington, was outstanding in many ways. It was
the largest AFS meeting ever, with over 4,000 participants
and 2,000 presentations. In my opinion it set a gold standard
for disseminating a great volume of information to so many
people. The ability to pre-upload presentations, use an online
scheduling tool, and download the abstracts afterward allowed
a tremendous amount of cutting-edge science and management
information to be communicated to a record number of people.
Thus, the meeting went a long way toward the goal of exploring
its theme “New Frontiers in Fisheries Management and Ecol-
ogy,” and it will indeed be remembered as “Leading the Way in
a Changing World.” The conference organizers deserve much
thanks for making the meeting such a success and for laying the
foundation for future meetings in this new age of open-access
information and rapidly advancing technologies.

This ability to communicate so much knowledge to so

many people opens up new possibilities for making further
progress on both new and existing frontiers. My intention in
this essay is to address one such existing frontier—the devel-
opment of a conservation ethic. This is not a new frontier in
either ecology or ethics (e.g., Leopold 1949; Rolston 1975),
but I believe that our progress in developing it has been too
slow. In a recent Fisheries essay, Edwin “Phil” Pister expressed
a similar sentiment (Pister 2011); he discussed over 50 years
of California golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquabonita)
conservation, concluding that “there is a growing need … for an
improved environmental ethic …” and that “the role of public
education in preservation of species cannot be overemphasized”
(see also Pister [1993] for a thoughtful essay on conservation
ethics). I couldn’t agree more, and as we look toward ever larg-
er audiences and enhanced communication, I believe that the
American Fisheries Society can play a key role in extending
this important frontier.
1  “Green Fire” is taken from Aldo Leopold’s famous quote about the shoot-
ing of a wolf in his essay “Thinking like a mountain.” It is the title of a new
documentary film about his life and work (www.greenfiremovie.com).
Aldo Leopold with fish, Flathead River Oregon, 1926. Photo courtesy
of the Aldo Leopold Foundation, www.aldoleopold.org.
I begin by recalling Aldo Leopold’s sentiment, “that land
is a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is
to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics” (Leopold
1949:viii). This statement addresses an important fundamen-
tal shift from “is” questions, which describe ecosystems (what
Leopold termed communities), to “ought” questions, which
guide moral behavior (Rolston 1975). I contend that although
ecologists are rapidly improving our ability to address is ques-
tions, we have become increasingly isolated from the ethical
underpinnings as to why we ought to conserve species and eco-
systems. This is particularly true during the period since the
environmental movement of the 1960s–1970s, because this
period happens to coincide with rapid technological advances
in scientific methods, analyses, and communication. Although
this period resulted in a legal mandate to conserve species and
their ecosystems (e.g., the Endangered Species Act), it has been

516 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org


Aldo Leopold with rod and fish in Boundary Waters, 1924. Photo cour-
tesy of the Aldo Leopold Foundation, www.aldoleopold.org.
juxtaposed with increasingly quantitative and complicated anal-
yses; for example, measures of genetic diversity, critical habitat,
and ecosystem services. Thus, a species and its critical habitat
(its ecosystem) is to be legally protected only when quantitative
analyses can demonstrate, within some predetermined P value,
that it is genetically unique and at risk of extinction. Wiens
(2008) elegantly pointed out, however, the difficulties of rec-
tifying this level of scientific rigor with the day-to-day realities
of pressing conservation decision making. In general, the 2011
AFS meeting was typical in that the is questions in conservation
received a great deal of attention, whereas the ought was barely
mentioned (the word “conservation” appears on virtually every
one of the 1,686 pages of downloaded abstracts but I could find
conservation ethics addressed in only three abstracts).
In my opinion, failure to overtly address the ought question
in conservation has resulted in the scientific community—and
the public at large—being less certain (and therefore less sup-
portive) of conservation measures. I propose that revisiting
Leopold’s land ethic offers a meaningful way of addressing this
ought question. I further contend that conservation, like any
scientific endeavor, requires this theoretical underpinning to
achieve its full potential. Yes, I know, science is supposed to be
objective—dealing with is questions that address patterns in na-
ture and (hopefully) their underlying processes. But I agree with
Leopold (1949), Rolston (1975), and numerous others who have
suggested that it is largely through science that modern society
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 517
has gained the understanding that ecosystem services are the
basis for sustaining life. Hence, if sustaining life is considered
morally right, then science is already addressing the imperative
ought question in conservation. The immediacy of bringing this
fundamental shift from is to ought to the forefront, however, is
driven by both rapid scientific advances (which have not been
communicated to managers with equal expediency) and by the
ever-increasing pressures that modern society imposes on eco-
systems.
Although we have continued to make progress in conserva-
tion, no ecologist, manager, or layperson should be deceived as
to the short- and long-term threats to freshwater and marine eco-
systems worldwide. The most recent compilation of imperiled
freshwater fish, by the AFS Endangered Species Committee,
for example, stated that “imperilment of inland fishes has in-
creased substantially … [since 1989]” (Jelks et al. 2008). If the
problems at home are not enough, glance over the recent Inter-
national Union for Conservation of Nature reports on freshwater
biodiversity in Africa and Europe (www.iucn.org) or read up on
the impending threats to the Mekong River ecosystem (www.
mekonginfo.org/). In regards to marine ecosystems, many AFS
members are probably aware of the ongoing debate on deep-sea
fishing, which made national headlines during the 2011 meet-
ing (Seattle Times 2011). Although there may be some room
for debate concerning how acute the overfishing crisis is and
what proportion of species is affected, it is certain that direct
human impacts are great and increasing. Indirect human-driven
impacts, such as climate change and ocean acidification, will
exacerbate or exceed these threats to freshwater and marine
ecosystems. But my intention here is not a gloom-and-doom let-
ter—rather, it is a call to action, precipitated not only by these
increasing threats but by what I see as a new opportunity to meet
them.
Among his many insights into the impending environmental
crisis, Aldo Leopold was particularly critical of both consumer-
ism and the loss of wilderness through mechanized travel; the
former because it removed people from nature and the latter be-
cause it diminished the chances to reconnect with nature. It was
during his time in New Mexico in the 1920s that Leopold real-
ized the importance of roadless “wilderness” and the effects that
mechanized travel were about to have on wild places. This led
to his successful effort to lead the creation of America’s first wil-
derness area. But even with his unique insight I wonder whether
Leopold could possibly have imagined the subsequent explo-
sion in mechanized travel and mass consumerism that defines
modern global society. His conclusion that “Nothing could be
more salutary at this stage than a little healthy contempt for a
plethora of material blessings” is now more relevant than ever
before. It seems to me that along with the right to avail our-
selves of technological advances to improve the pace and scope
of scientific research, scientists have the responsibility to lead
the way toward a better definition of society’s relationship with
nature. Aldo Leopold saw modern society’s detachment from
nature as the major impediment to the evolution of a land ethic.
If this is true, then we have a lot of work ahead of us, given how
our society has developed since his death in 1948. This is why I
feel such urgency in bringing the topic to the forefront of issues
to be addressed by the world’s foremost professional fisheries
society.
Like Leopold and many others who have subsequently ad-
dressed a land ethic, I have no simple formula for how this is to
be done (but see Piccolo [2011] for a discussion relevant to sal-
monid conservation). For many who profess to have developed
a land ethic, scientific learning has been a key factor. For me, it
was only after studying both science and environmental ethics
that I saw where these paths meet. One way forward, therefore,
might be to redouble our efforts at communicating science to the
public and improving science education in schools. Symposia
at future AFS meetings that specifically address conservation
ethics may be a good first step. But beyond education, perhaps
we all have some level of inherent “biophilia,” as E. O. Wilson
suggested, which requires contact with nature to be stimulated.
For myself, I can clearly trace my first stirrings of a land eth-
ic back to the time I received an aquarium at the age of five.
Robert J. Behnke related a similar story about catching his first
trout (Behnke 2002), an experience that has led to a lifetime of
conservation of native fish. His most influential work has argu-
ably been the popular science column in the Trout Unlimited’s
quarterly magazine, which has educated a generation of anglers
about native trout (Behnke 2007). More than classrooms and
textbooks, therefore, I suppose that it is contact with nature that
has the greatest potential to stimulate and strengthen one’s land
ethic. Hence, successful conservation efforts are themselves
feedback loops that provide opportunities for future generations
to develop relationships with “things natural, wild, and free”
(Leopold 1949:ix).
I have had the good fortune throughout my career to work
with people who are renowned worldwide for ecology, conserva-
tion, and environmental ethics. Many of them are cited here. This
article is really just a synthesis of their ideas—standing in the
footprints of giants, if not on their shoulders. I began my career
as a fisheries manager, after which I spent some time immersed
in theoretical ecology before returning to applied ecology and
conservation science. Theoreticians address is questions in the
purest sense, in the timeless human quest to explain patterns we
find in nature. In the same way, philosophers since Leopold have
sought the underlying ethic for conservation. Their conclusions
have ranged from purely utilitarian values of nature to an ac-
ceptance of inherent natural value (see Callicott 1999). Leopold
(1949:224) would appear to have been firmly in the latter camp
when he wrote his most famous lines: “A thing is right when it
tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic
community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” Be that as it
may, philosophers will never have P values to extol, so the true
center of value, whether in nature or as a construct of the human
mind, shall forever remain, as Leopold (1949:ix) acknowledged,
“subject to the blurs and distortions of personal experience and
personal bias.” Having broadened my research from theoretical
to applied ecology again, I now find nothing incongruous about
addressing the ought question that underlies conservation. In
fact, I see it more and more as a necessary underpinning of the
518 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
work, and I fear that in the long-term, conservation programs
that don’t do so are destined to fail.
Ecologists search for patterns and processes that we hope
will allow us to contribute to sustainable management of Earth’s
ecosystems. Science can and should lead the way in answer-
ing these important is questions. But despite our ever-increasing
proficiency, I fear that science alone will not achieve answers
fast enough to prevent further catastrophic ecological degra-
dation. The variation inherent in natural systems, in fact, will
always preclude our ability to predict ecosystem responses with
100% accuracy, no matter how sophisticated our models be-
come.
Ultimately, we may find that the only process common
to all ecosystems is simply the interconnectivity of all of their
components, including ourselves. In that case it may be only the
land ethic that unites them, and it may be that sustainability can
only be achieved by recognizing and addressing this.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to all of the professors, students, colleagues, and
naturalists from all walks of life who have contributed to these
ideas over the years. E. Pister and one anonymous reviewer pro-
vided helpful comments.
REFERENCES
Behnke, R. J. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. The Free
Press, New York.
Behnke, R. J. 2007. About trout. The Lyons Press, Guilford, Connecti-
cut.
Callicott, J. B. 1999. Beyond the land ethic: more essays in environ-
mental philosophy. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Eilperin, J. 2011. Marine scientists call for industrial deep-sea fish-
ing ban. Seattle Times. Originally published 6 September
2011. Available: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nation-
world/2016127117_fishing07.html (accessed 10 October 2012).
Jelks, H. L., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E.
Diaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F.
McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Ren-
aud, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M. L. Warren. 2008.
Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and
diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33:372–407.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County almanac and sketches here and there.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Piccolo, J. J. 2011. Challenges in the conservation, rehabilitation and
recovery of native stream salmonid populations: beyond the 2010
Luarca symposium. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 20:346–351.
Pister, E. P. 1993. Species in a bucket. Natural History 102:14–19.
Available: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/index_ar-
chivepicks.html. (February 2012).
Pister, E. P. 2011. California golden trout: perspectives on restoration
and management. Fisheries 35:550–553.
Rolston, H., III. 1975. Is there an ecological ethic? Ethics: An In-
ternational Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy
85:93–109.
Wiens, J. A. 2008. Uncertainty and the relevance of ecology. Bulletin of
the British Ecological Society 39:47–48.
JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
Volume 141, Number 5, September 2012
Dam Removal In-
creases American Eel
Abundance in Distant
Headwater Streams. Na-
thaniel P. Hitt, Sheila Eyler,
and John E. B. Wofford.
141: 1171–1179.
Quantifying
­Cumulative Entrain-
ment Effects for Chinook
Salmon in a Heavily
­Irrigated Watershed.­
Annika W. Walters, Da-
mon M. Holzer, James R.
Faulkner, Charles D. War-
ren, Patrick D. Murphy,
and Michelle M. McClure. 141: 1180–1190.
Quantifying Latent Impacts of an Introduced Piscivore:
Pulsed Predatory Inertia of Lake Trout and Decline of Kokanee.
Erik R. Schoen, David A. Beauchamp, and Nathanael C. Overman.
141: 1191–1206.
Evidence for Parr Growth as a Factor Affecting Parr-to-Smolt
Survival. William P. Connor and Kenneth F. Tiffan. 141: 1207–1218.
Swimming Depth, Behavior, and Survival of Atlantic Salmon
Postsmolts in Penobscot Bay, Maine. Mark D. Renkawitz, Timothy F.
Sheehan, and Graham S. Goulette. 141: 1219–1229.
[Note] Variation in Acute Thermal Tolerance within and
among Hatchery Strains of Brook Trout. Jenni L. McDermid, Fried-
rich A. Fischer, Mohammed Al-Shamlih, William N. Sloan, Nicholas E.
Jones, and Chris C. Wilson. 141: 1230–1235.
Use of Radiotelemetry and Direct Observations to Evalu-
ate Sea Lion Predation on Adult Pacific Salmonids at Bonneville
Dam. Matthew L. Keefer, Robert J. Stansell, Sean C. Tackley, William
T. Nagy, Karrie M. Gibbons, Christopher A. Peery, and Christopher C.
Caudill. 141: 1236–1251.
Largemouth Bass Selected for Differential Vulnerability to
Angling Exhibit Similar Routine Locomotory Activity in Experi-
mental Ponds. Thomas R. Binder, Michael A. Nannini, David H. Wahl,
Robert Arlinghaus, Thomas Klefoth, David P. Philipp, and Steven J.
Cooke. 141: 1252–1259.
Survival and Growth of Juvenile Pacific Lampreys Tagged
with Passive Integrated Transponders (PIT) in Freshwater and
Seawater. Matthew G. Mesa, Elizabeth S. Copeland, Helena E. Chris-
tiansen, Jacob L. Gregg, Sean R. Roon, and Paul K. Hershberger. 141:
1260–1268.
[Note] Genetic Analysis Reveals Dispersal of Florida Bass
Haplotypes from Reservoirs to Rivers in Central Texas. Jesse W.
Ray, Martin Husemann, Ryan S. King, and Patrick D. Danley. 141:
1269–1273.
Mercury in Groupers and Sea Basses from the Gulf of Mex-
ico: Relationships with Size, Age, and Feeding Ecology. Derek M.
Tremain and Douglas H. Adams. 141: 1274–1286.
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 519
[Note] Quantifying Salmon-Derived Nutrient Loads from the
Mortality of Hatchery-Origin Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the
Snake River Basin. Dana R. Warren and Michelle M. McClure. 141:
1287–1294.
Parental Effect as a Primary Factor Limiting Egg-to-Fry
Survival of Spring Chinook Salmon in the Upper Yakima River
Basin. Christopher L. Johnson, Philip Roni, and George R. Pess. 141:
1295–1309.
Estimating Abundance and Life History Characteristics of
Threatened Wild Snake River Steelhead Stocks by Using Genetic
Stock Identification. Matthew R. Campbell, Christine C. Kozfkay,
Timothy Copeland, William C. Schrader, Michael W. Ackerman, and
Shawn R. Narum. 141: 1310–1327.
Effects of Activity and Energy Budget Balancing Algorithm
on Laboratory Performance of a Fish Bioenergetics Model.
Charles P. Madenjian, Solomon R. David, and Steven A. Pothoven.
141: 1328–1337.
Genetic Characterization of American Shad in the Edisto
River, South Carolina, and Initial Evaluation of an Experimental
Stocking Program. Elizabeth Cushman, Carolyn Tarpey, Bill Post,
Kent Ware, and Tanya Darden. 141: 1338–1348.
A Remote-Sensing, GIS-Based Approach to Identify, Charac-
terize, and Model Spawning Habitat for Fall-Run Chum Salmon in
a Sub-Arctic, Glacially Fed River. Lisa Wirth, Amanda Rosenberger,
Anupma Prakash, Rudiger Gens, F. Joseph Margraf, and Toshihide
Hamazaki. 141: 1349–1363.
Estimating and Predicting Collection Probability of Fish at
Dams Using Multistate Modeling. John M. Plumb, William P. Con-
nor, Kenneth F. Tiffan, Christine M. Moffitt, Russell W. Perry, and Noah
S. Adams. 141: 1364–1373.
Genetically Derived Estimates of Contemporary Natural
Straying Rates and Historical Gene Flow among Lake Michi-
gan Lake Sturgeon Populations. Jared J. Homola, Kim T. Scribner,
Robert F. Elliott, Michael C. Donofrio, Jeannette Kanefsky, Kregg M.
Smith, and James N. McNair. 141: 1374–1388.
Stock Origin of Migratory Atlantic Sturgeon in Minas Basin,
Inner Bay of Fundy, Canada, Determined by Microsatellite and
Mitochondrial DNA Analyses. Isaac Wirgin, Lorraine Maceda, John
R. Waldman, Sierra Wehrell, Michael Dadswell, and Tim King. 141:
1389–1398.
Conservation Genetics of Remnant Coastal Brook Trout Pop-
ulations at the Southern Limit of Their Distribution: Population
Structure and Effects of Stocking. Brendan Annett, Gabriele Ger-
lach, Timothy L. King, and Andrew R. Whiteley. 141: 1399–1410.
The Impact of Stocking on the Current Ancestry in Twenty
Native and Introduced Muskellunge Populations in Minnesota.
Loren M. Miller, Steven W. Mero, and Jerry A. Younk. 141: 1411–1423.
The Effects of Neutrally Buoyant, Externally Attached Trans-
mitters on Swimming Performance and Predator Avoidance of
Juvenile Chinook Salmon. Jill M. Janak, Richard S. Brown, Alison
H. Colotelo, Brett D. Pflugrath, John R. Stephenson, Z. Daniel Deng,
Thomas J. Carlson, and Adam G. Seaburg. 141: 1424–1432
MAGAZINE
A Bit of History
Scientific
The Night I Disrupted a Communication
Danish Airliner Schedule for Natural Resource
Mervin F. Roberts
Retired Fish Biologist, Old Lyme, CT. E-mail: ritzeb@99main.com
Professionals
In the mid-1960s I was dabbling in aquarium fishes, Edited by
and my then-boss, Dr. Herbert R. Axelrod, sent me to Denmark Cecil A. Jennings
on some related business. A final task on that trip was to visit
Colonel Jorgen Scheel to pick up some African cyprinodonts
Thomas E. Lauer
for Dr. Axelrod. The colonel had collected them in the Congo and Bruce Vondracek
and was breeding them in his Copenhagen home.

On the eve of my scheduled departure from Denmark I

was to be the guest of the colonel and his wife. I arrived in time
for dinner and it was delicious. Then there were sweets and ci-
gars—and the ticking clock. The evening festivities were going
longer than planned. I began to imagine the airport announcer
calling the number of my flight, when the colonel eventually set
out to show me his extensive collection of rare African Fundu-
lus and other killifishes. There was a lot to see, but finally the
colonel netted the various pairs of fishes for Dr. Axelrod and put
them in thermos jars. Still, all I could envision was the airplane
on the taxiway that was aimed at America—and I wasn’t on it.
Add to the long evening a leisurely goodbye drink of aquavit,
and I was already making plans to get a hotel for the night and
another flight the next day.
180 pages
In due course, the colonel and his wife bid me a fond List price: $35.00
farewell and only then did I see, pulled up to his front porch, AFS Member price: $25.00
a sedan with Danish Army markings on it. A soldier jumped Item Number: 550.66P
out, took my luggage, helped me in, and we took off for the Published August 2012
airport. We drove to a guarded gate, which two soldiers prompt-
ly opened, and we drove right across the airport runways to a
lighted plane with its loading ramp down and its cabin door
This book is a “how to” guide to most
open. The other passengers were already settled in. Soldiers
forms of modern scientific communica-
helped me on board with my luggage. No luggage was checked. tion, containing practical advice on im-
No one ever asked to see what was in my thermos jars or my proving communications and publishing
ticket or visa or passport; I was not frisked or X-rayed; I didn’t success. This topical volume will be of
even take off my shoes. The soldiers just helped me board the interest to students, young professionals,
plane, saluted, and departed. educators, scientists, managers, and any-
one who needs to communicate science.
The aircraft door closed as a stewardess showed me to my
seat and the plane immediately took off, delayed by about a
half an hour. TO ORDER:
Online: www.afsbooks.org
I later mentioned the colonel’s name and was told that American Fisheries Society
he was not only a Danish colonel but he (or his wife) was also c/o Books International
a member of the Danish Royal Family. The plane quickly made P.O. Box 605
up the half-hour delay and I got home on schedule. And that’s Herndon, VA 20172
the way it was with ichthyology back in the good old days.
Phone: 703-661-1570
Fax: 703-996-1010

520 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org

Continued from page 483

and reevaluating the AFS financial model, paying particular
attention to the income from activities versus the costs of main-
taining those activities and their benefits to membership and the
fisheries profession as a whole.
Finally, the governing board tackled the third and fourth
radical changes: rigorously defining the current and potential
member and product markets and rationalizing programs and
services. The board members recognized that professional soci-
ety memberships and member needs are changing over time, and
it is difficult to judge what programs and services AFS should
be providing in the future. Surveys of AFS members and unit
leaders have consistently shown the value of our publications
and meetings as key methods of communicating our science as
well as with one another. The retreat attendees agreed that we
have not ascertained what our potential membership base could
be or what member markets we are not satisfying. Additionally,
we need more effective mechanisms to reach out to potential
members, and we have not evaluated the utility of our current
or potential programs and services. Maybe our current scope of
benefits does not resonate with younger and older profession-
als and retirees. Suggestions made at the retreat to help address
these issues included mining our own membership data and do-
ing a better job of tracking hits on our website to determine
the potential for expanding our membership; marketing our
publications, meetings, continuing education courses, and other
services more effectively; doing more to promote and describe
the value of fisheries as a profession; providing regular testi-
monials in our published materials and website; and surveying
individuals who do not renew their memberships to determine
key causal factors.
The issues and solutions discussed at the governing board
retreat are starting us out on a road to greater success and rel-
evance of AFS as a professional society. As I mentioned in my
closing remarks at the retreat, a turtle cannot make progress
without sticking out its neck.
REFERENCE
Coerver, H., and M. Byers. 2011. Race for relevance: 5 radical changes
for associations. ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership,
Washington, D.C.

From the Archives

What we want is a pure river and river bed; this latter we can hardly expect for
some time under any circumstances, as there is a very great and dense mass of filth
in the river, but, if all unite, north and west, and without petty considerations
of self interests, and without any spirit of Bumbledom, we may have it at last.

Fred Mather (1875): Poisoning and Obstructing the Waters, Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society, 4:1, 14-19.

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 521

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

Fisheries Events (If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.)
More events listed at www.fisheries.org

DATE EVENT LOCATION WEBSITE

December 4–5, 2012 13th Flatfish Biology Conference Westerbook, CT http://mi.nefsc.noaa.gov/flatfishbiology-
workshop
December 9–12, 2012 73rd Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference Wichita, KS http://www.midwestfw.org/html/call.shtml

January 22–24, 2013 Georgia Chapter of the AFS Annual Meeting Jekyll Island, GA www.gaafs.org

February 21–25, 2013 Aquaculture 2013 Nashville, TN www.was.org/WasMeetings/meetings/

Default.aspx?code=AQ2013
March 26–29, 2013 Responses of Arctic Marine Ecosystems to Anchorage, AK seagrant.uaf.edu/conferences/2013/
­Climate Change Symposium wakefield-arctic-ecosystems/index.php
April 8–12, 2013 7th International Fisheries Observer and Viña del Mar, Chile www.ifomc.com/
­Monitoring Conference (7th IFOMC)
April 15–18, 2013 Western Division of the AFS Annual Boise, ID www.idahoafs.org/meeting.php
­Meeting
April 25–26, 2013 NPAFC 3rd International Workshop on Migration Honolulu, HI http://www.npafc.org/new/index.html
and Survival Mechanisms of Juvenile Salmon and
Steelhead in Ocean Ecosystems
June 24–28, 2013 9th Indo-Pacific Fish Conference Okinawa, Japan http://www.fish-isj.jp/9ipfc
July 14–20, 2013 2nd International Conference on Fish Telemetry Grahamstown, South Contact: Dr. Paul Cowley at tagfish@gmail.
Africa com

TelemeTry Techniques
A user Guide for fisheries reseArch
Edited by 518 pages
Noah S. Adams List price: $79.00
John W. Beeman AFS Member price: $55.00
Item Number: 550.68C
and John H. Eiler
Published September 2012

Telemetry provides a powerful and flexible tool for studying

fish and other aquatic animals, and its use has become increas-
ingly commonplace. However, telemetry is gear intensive and
typically requires more specialized knowledge and training
than many other field techniques. As with other scientific
methods, collecting good data is dependent on an under-
standing of the underlying principles behind the approach,
knowing how to use the equipment and techniques properly,
and recognizing what to do with the data collected.
TO ORDER: This book provides a road map for using telemetry to study
Online: www.afsbooks.org aquatic animals, and provides the basic information needed to
American Fisheries Society plan, implement, and conduct a telemetry study under field
c/o Books International
P.O. Box 605 conditions. Topics include acoustic or radio telemetry study
Herndon, VA 20172 design, tag implantation techniques, radio and acoustic telem-
Phone: 703-661-1570 etry principles and case studies, and data management and
Fax: 703-996-1010 analysis.

522 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org

ANNOUNCEMENTS
November 2012 Jobs
Fisheries Biologist / Lake Management
Solitude Lake Management, HQ in VA
Permanent
Salary: Commensurate with qualifications and experience
Closing: Until filled
Responsibilities: Growing professional services firm dedicated
to preservation and restoration of fresh water resources is seeking
qualified candidates to support our growth in the Lake Management
services we offer. Candidates will be expected to perform all field
work required to support our lake and fisheries management ser-
vices, to include pesticide applications for the treatment and control
invasive aquatic vegetation, algae, and other water quality issues
through the application of aquatic herbicides, installation of foun-
tains and aeration systems, and application of other water quality
restoration products to maintain a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Can-
didates will also assist our fisheries management division with fish
stocking, fish surveys and populations assessments, habitat manage-
ment, water quality monitoring, and other related fisheries services.
Qualifications: Qualified candidates should be able to demonstrate
and document previous experience in this field and will be expected
to become a licensed aquatic pesticide applicator for the states in
which they will work.
Contact: Kevin Tucker, by below email or by phone 1-888-480-
5253
Email: ktucker@solitudelake.com
Link: http://www.solitudelakemanagement.com
Computer Programmer/Data Analyst
Quantitative Fisheries Center, MI State Univ
Professional
Salary: $45,000–$50,000
Closing: Until filled
Responsibilities: Utilize fisheries and computer programming
knowledge and skills to provide modeling and analytical support
for Quantitative Fisheries Center scientists, staff, and supporting
partners. Develop and support use of decision analysis models. Pro-
vide statistical data analysis support to center scientists and staff;
assist with preparation of funding proposals, reports and scientific
manuscripts. Responsible for computer system maintenance includ-
ing server maintenance, data backup, security procedures, and web
development.
Qualifications: Master’s degree in Fisheries Science, Ecology, Sci-
entific Computing or related field. Minimum of 3 years full-time
experience in fisheries research with extensive emphasis in comput-
er programming, data analysis, and simulation modeling. Familiarity
with C++, VB.net, R, and/or AD Model Builder is desired.
Contact: Applicants must apply for this position via the link https://
jobs.msu.edu using posting number 6832. Applications must include
letter of interest, CV, description of relevant experience, expertise,
and professional goals, and names and contact information for 3
references.
Email: brenden@msu.edu
Link: http://qfc.fw.msu.edu
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 523
Employers: to list a job opening on the AFS online job center sub-
mit a position description, job title, agency/company, city, state,
responsibilities, qualifications, salary, closing date, and contact
information (maximum 150 words) to jobs@fisheries.org. Online
job announcements will be billed at $350 for 150 word increments.
Please send billing information. Listings are free (150 words or less)
for organizations with associate, official, and sustaining member-
ships, and for individual members, who are faculty members, hiring
graduate assistants. if space is available, jobs may also be printed in
Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge.
Regional Fisheries Management Biologist
WY Game and Fish Dept
Permanent
Salary: $4,569.00–$5,375.00 per month
Closing: Until filled
Responsibilities: Conserve and enhance the aquatic resources of
northwest Wyoming, including waters in the Big Horn, Yellow-
stone and Shoshone River drainages. Additional details available at
https://statejobs.state.wy.us/JobSearchDetail.aspx?ID=20678
Qualifications: Prefer Master’s degree in fishery biology, biology,
zoology, ichthyology, wildlife management, or closely related field,
PLUS two years of professional work experience in fisheries man-
agement, aquatic resource research or aquatic habitat management.
Contact: Preference will be given to applicants who submit a cover
letter to Mr. Dave Zafft, Fisheries Management Coordinator, 528
S. Adams St., Laramie, WY 82070 (FAX 307-745-8720, or below
email), in addition to submitting the state application.
Email: david.zafft@wyo.gov
Link: https://statejobs.state.wy.us/JobSearchDetail.aspx?ID=20678
North Pacific Groundfish Field Coordinator
AIS, Inc.
Permanent
Salary: Commensurate with experience and includes benefits
­package
Closing: 12/1
Responsibilities: AIS, Inc. Positions located in ports along the Gulf
of Alaska and the Bering Sea. The Field Coordinators will be the
primary source of direction and support for the observers work-
ing for the partial coverage portion of the NPGOP. Interact with
industry and support observers throughout their geographic area and
complete sampling trips as needed. Travel throughout Alaska may
be required depending on the coordinators assigned area.
Qualifications: A BS in Marine Biology or other natural science is
required including 30 credits of biological course work and 5 cred-
its of mathematics. Previous observer experience or sea and fish
research experience preferred. Experience managing people, pro-
viding logistical support and strong organizational skills, experience
with MS Office and a valid driver’s license are required.
Contact: Jay Litchfield at below email.
Email: jay@aisobservers.com
Link: http://goo.gl/JHWa9
Manager – Salmon Hatchery
Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation, AK
Permanent
Salary: DOE. Benefit package includes private housing, medical
insurance, generous annual leave accrual, travel and relocation as-
sistance.
Closing: Until filled
Responsibilities: Year-round hatchery manager position in Prince
William Sound. The hatchery manager works closely with the
General Manager to coordinate all aspects of facility operations, su-
pervision of personnel, administrative duties and construction.
Qualifications: BS in Fisheries or related field and/or Business Ad-
ministration.
3 years experience managing a production facility and supervising
staff.
Working knowledge of salmon culture techniques.
Working knowledge of accounting and budgeting.
Excellent written and verbal communication skills.
Must be able to live in a remote environment.
Current driver’s license with clean driving record.
Contact: See www.pwsac.com for online application. Submit com-
pleted application, resume and cover letter to email address below.
Email: cece.pwsac@ak.net
Watershed Scientist
Versar, Inc., Columbia MD
Permanent
Closing: Until filled
Responsibilities: May include fieldwork/ team leadership, field
equipment management, task management, writing assignments,
data compilation and quality control for Storm runoff monitoring
projects
Stream geomorphic, benthic and fish surveys
Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Upland watershed assessments using Center for Watershed Protec-
tion methods
Qualifications: BS Environmental Science or equivalent
Experience with:
Electronic flow monitoring
Automated sampling using ISCO equipment
Stream velocity measurements using flowmeter and wading rod
Fluvial geomorphic assessment (Rosgen or equivalent training is
preferred)
Benthic sampling using methods comparable to Maryland Biologi-
cal Stream Survey (MBSS)
Fish sampling using backpack electroshocker
ArcGIS
Contact: Information may be found at our corporate web site
(www.versar.com) and our Mid-Atlantic regional office site (www.
esm.versar.com). Submit resume through Versar’s corporate web
site (www.versar.com) “Careers” page, Position 2012-1465.
524 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
Modeler/Biometrician
Cramer Fish Sciences; Auburn, CA
Permanent
Salary: $5,265 – $6,046 monthly, plus bonuses; excellent benefits
Closing: Until filled
Responsibilities: CFS seeks an individual with very strong quantita-
tive and programming skills. Expertise in developing and analyzing
individual/agent based models using NetLogo or other modeling
platforms is highly desirable. Knowledge and experience with other
statistical analyses, programming languages, and with ecology and
resource management is a plus. Must be able to collaborate with bi-
ologists to develop simulation models and quantitative assessments
for ecological data.
Qualifications: Ph.D. or M.S. with one or more years of experience
with simulation modeling and statistics. Strong technical writing
and advanced computer skills. Experience leading small to mod-
erate sized projects. Highly-motivated, self-starter who can work
independently and as part of a team. Speak and write English flu-
ently.
Contact: E-mail cover letter and resume to below email Full job
announcement at: www.fishsciences.net
Email: hr@fishsciences.net
Natural Resource Specialist II TO3264 ESA
Santa Rosa, CA
Permanent
Salary: $22.17/hr
Closing: Until filled
Responsibilities: Natural Resource Specialist II TO3264 ESA sec-
tion 7 Consultation Assistance
Ocean Associates is seeking a Natural Resource Specialist II to sup-
port the NOAA NMFS Southwest Region Habitat Conservation
Division. Review and evaluate proposed projects and applications
submitted to NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). Evaluate and analyze effects of proposed actions, con-
servation measures, and mitigation activities on ESA-listed salmon,
steelhead and green sturgeon and their habitat. Develop recommen-
dations on ways to minimize adverse effects to ESA-listed fish and
their habitat associated with proposed activities. See web site for
additional responsibilities.
Qualifications: BS degree in fisheries, biological sciences or natu-
ral resource management and 3 years of experience, or a MS degree
and one year of experience. Knowledge of anadromous fish life his-
tory, biology, and habitat requirements. See web site for additional
qualifications required.
Email: jobs@oceanassoc.com
Link:
http://oceanassoc.com/Jobs/NaturalResourceSpecialistIITO3264.html
 Specializing in RFID products, expert customer service & biological consulting to
the fisheries, wildlife & conservation communities for over 20 years.

Biomark 601 Reader HPT PIT Tags

| FDX B, FDX A & HDX | Outstanding performance 8.4 x 1.4 mm

| Water resistant & durable | FDX B, 134.2 kHz ISO Standard 9 x 2.12 mm

| Time/Date stamp on each read | Available in pre-load & sterile 12.5 x 2.12 mm

| 1600 tag code memory | HDX tags now available 23 x 3.85 mm

Monitoring solutions for every budget | 208.275.0111 | www.biomark.com

Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 525

526 Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
Fisheries • Vol 37 No 11• November 2012 • www.fisheries.org 527
At Smith-Root, we take repairs
VERY SERIOUSLY

Meet Kirk and Al - they’ve got the expertise and tools to have your
electrofishing equipment up and running by the time that you need it.
Kirk: (360) 573-0202 ext. 109 • Al: (360) 573-0202 ext. 130

NOW IS THE BEST TIME to have your electrofishing

equipment repaired, calibrated and upgraded.
From November through February, take
advantage of our 10% discount on needed
repairs and upgrades. Our technicians have the
knowledge base and experience to bring your
equipment up to current operating specifications.

•GPPs •LR-24s •VVPs •Boats

....and More

Have your electrofisher ready to go when you need it AND save money.

14014 NE Salmon Creek Ave.

Vancouver, WA 98686 USA
Call our sales team for more info:
Phone: (360) 573-0202
(360) 573-0202 or visit our website:
528 Fisheries • Fax:
Vol 37(360) 573-2064
No 11• November 2012• www.fisheries.org
info@smith-root.com www.smith-root.com
 Why is Choosing a
Telemetry Supplier an
Important Decision?

Because success is your only option.

ATS provides the most reliable transmitters, guaranteed delivery in four weeks or less,
backs up its products 100%, gives you top-notch support, and offers the most experience
in the industry.

ATS is the perfect partner. Call us or visit our website today.

World’s Most Reliable Wildlife

Transmitters and Tracking Systems
ATStrack.com • 763.444.9267
View publication stats