American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

Transcription

Fisheries
VOl 36 NO 2
FEBRUARY 2011
American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org
Legislative Update
Journal Highlights
Calendar
Job Center
The State of
Crayfish in
the pacific
Northwest
The Aquarium
Trade as an
Invasion
pathway in
the pacific
Northwest
Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org
53
Inland Fisheries Management
in North America, Third Edition
Edited by
Wayne Hubert
and
Michael Quist
738 pages, index, hardcover
List price: $104.00
AFS Member price: $73.00
Item Number: 550.60C
Published October 2010
TO ORDER:
Online: www.afsbooks.org
American Fisheries Society
c/o Books International
P.O. Box 605
Herndon, VA 20172
Phone: 703-661-1570
Fax: 703-996-1010
T
his book describes the conceptual basis and current management practices for freshwater fisheries of North America. This third edition is written by an array of new authors who
bring novel and innovative perspectives. The book incorporates recent technological and
social developments and uses pertinent literature to support the presented concepts and
methods.
Covered topics include the process of fisheries management, fishery assessments, habitat and
community manipulations, and the common practices for managing stream, river, lake, and
reservoir fisheries. Chapters on history, population dynamics, assessing fisheries, regulation
of fisheries, use of hatchery fish, and the process and legal framework of fisheries management are included along with innovative chapters on scales of fisheries management, communication and conflict resolution, managing undesired and invading species, ecological
integrity, emerging multispecies approaches, and use of social and economic information.
The book is intended for use in fisheries management courses for undergraduate or graduate students, as well as for practicing fisheries managers.
54
Fisheries
VOL 36 NO 2
FEBRUARY 2011
AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY • WWW.FISHERIES.ORG
EDITORIAL / SUBSCRIPTION / CIRCULATION OFFICES
5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199
301/897-8616 • fax 301/897-8096 • [email protected]
The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870,
is the oldest and largest professional society representing
fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and
enlightened management of aquatic resources for optimum
use and enjoyment by the public. It also encourages
comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and
continuing on-the-job training.
AFS OFFIcERS
FISHERIES STAFF
PRESIDENT
Wayne A. Hubert
DIRECTOR OF
PUBLICATIONS
Aaron Lerner
PRESIDENT ELECT
William L. Fisher
FIRST
VICE PRESIDENT
John Boreman
SECOND
VICE PRESIDENT
Robert Hughes
PAST PRESIDENT
Donald C. Jackson
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam
EDITORS
SCIENCE EDITORS
Madeleine Hall-Arber
Ken Ashley
Doug Beard
MANAGING EDITOR
Ken Currens
Sarah Gilbert Fox
Steven Cooke
ABSTRACT
Deirdre M. Kimball
TRANSLATION
Dennis Lassuy
Pablo del Monte Luna
Allen Rutherford
Jack Williams
BOOK REVIEW
EDITORS
Francis Juanes
Ben Letcher
Keith Nislow
Dues and fees for 2011 are:
$80 in North America ($95 elsewhere) for regular members,
$20 in North America ($30 elsewhere) for student members,
and $40 ($50) retired members.
Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription.
Nonmember and library subscription rates are $157.
Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmember.
Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the
American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane,
Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 ©copyright 2011.
Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at
an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for
Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website,
www.fisheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with
your request. Republication or systematic or multiple
reproduction of material in this publication is permitted only
under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society.
Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American
Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda,
MD 20814-2199.
Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer
recycled paper with soy-based printing inks.
Advertising Index
Advanced Telemetry Systems . . . . 103
American Public University . . . . . . 88
Floy Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Halltech Aquatic Research, Inc. . . . . 88
Contents
COLUMN:
56 PRESIDENT’S HOOK
New Frontiers in Fisheries
Management and Ecology:
Communicating to Our Members
and Associates
Wayne Hubert
COLUMN:
86 DIRECTOR’S LINE
American Fisheries Society issues
policy statement on Climate Change
Gus Rassam
JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS:
58 TRANSACTIONS OF THE
AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY
CALENDAR:
87 FISHERIES EVENTS
UPDATE:
59 LEGISLATION AND POLICY
Elden Hawkes, Jr.
CALL FOR AWARD NOMINATIONS:
89 2011 AMERICAN FISHEREIS
SOCIETY AWARDS
FEATURE:
60 THE STATE OF CRAYFISH IN THE
PACIFIC NORTH WEST
A summary of native and alien crayfish
distributions and ecology in the Pacific
Northwest, with review of crayfishrelevant fishing regulations and laws across
this region
Eric R. Larson and Julian D. Olden
FEATURE:
74 THE AQUARIUM TRADE AS AN
INVASION PATHWAY IN THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST
Understanding and quantifying the risk
of invasion from freshwater fish and plant
species in the aquarium trade.
Angela L. Strecker, Phillip M. Campbell, and
Julian D. Olden
OBITUARIES:
92 TWO IDAHO CHAPTER AFS
MEMBERS DIE IN HELICOPTER CRASH
PUBLICATIONS:
95 BOOK REVIEW
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
96 AFS 2011 SEATTLE:
SUSTAINABLE IN SEATTLE
NEWS:
98 UNITS
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
102 JOB CENTER
Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. . . . 104
Johns Hopkins University Press . . . . 59
O.S. Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Sonotronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Cover:
Tell advertisers you found them through
Fisheries!
Credit:
The Pacific Northwest region of the United States and Canada are home to a number of
native (blue glow) and non-native (red glow) crayfish species.
The collage of crayfish images are courtesy of E. Larson, J. Ludlam, J. Olden, N. Usio,
T. Woolf, and the public domain.
55
COLUMN:
PRESIDENT’S HOOK
Wayne Hubert
AFS President Hubert
may be contacted at:
[email protected].
New Frontiers in Fisheries Management and Ecology:
Communicating to
Our Members and Associates
Last night I awoke suddenly,
startled, and with my heart pounding. From my bedside, a deep,
vibrato voice had spoken to me,
“Droid.” A green light was flashing next to my bed. It took less
than a second for the adrenalin rush to occur and the “fight
or flight” response to kick in. I
reached for the nightstand, not for
a weapon, but for that brand new
Smart Phone. At that moment,
I realized that this device was a
whole lot smarter than I was. The
previous day, my wife and I had
discarded our cell phones and gotten into the contemporary world
of communications, each with a
Smart Phone. My new Smart Phone
was telling me that I had just been
texted, emailed, or somebody had
communicated to me via Facebook.
How do I stop that? There is a
learning curve associated with
these devices!
My Smart Phone is a hybrid
telephone and PDA. A few decades
ago when I was a college student,
a PDA was forbidden in dorms or
classroom buildings, but at that
time it meant a “public display of
affection.” Today, we know a PDA
to be a “personal digital assistant.” It seems like every teenager
and young adult, as well as many
within my cohort, have these
devices on their bodies or within
reach at all times. They are amazing! One device gives me a mobile
56
phone, a planner, a calculator,
Internet access, a web browser,
access to Facebook, a media
player, an e-book reader, a camera,
a GPS, an English-Spanish dictionary, and access to thousands of
“apps” specific to my interests and
needs. Plus, the device is wireless
and extremely portable.
We still communicate by means
of mail, printed newspapers and
books, radio, television, and
telephone, but electronic communication technologies are growing
at an unbelievable rate and are
dominating how we interact with
each other. Think about it. Phone
calls are nice and add a personal
touch, but they take time, are
interruptive, and the intended
receiver may not choose to answer.
A text message is a lot more efficient, and you can insert a photo.
A quick posting on a social website
reaches a wide array of “friends,”
and allows them to respond to you
personally or to the group. Almost
all of our business is done by email
or via the Internet. And we search
for and find most of our information needs via the Internet.
The American Fisheries Society
(AFS) is striving to keep up in this
rapidly-evolving world of electronic
communications, and our foremost
tool in doing so is the AFS website
(www.fisheries.org). As President
of this Society, I find myself going
to the website almost daily, and
many times a day when I am focusing on the business of the Society.
It is an amazing resource.
The AFS website is a door to
information about our profession and society, and a means
of communication. The home
page tells of the mission of AFS;
has news and messages that are
immediately pertinent; provides
links to Division, Section, and
Chapter websites; enables access
to a listing of upcoming meetings, with special attention to the
next annual AFS meeting; and
enables users to obtain information about our primary science
products —our journals. The
home page also has really cool
animated tabs to topic areas, with
names such as: About Us, Policy/
Media, Publications, Membership,
Job Board, International, Awards,
Certification, Education, and
Hutton. Behind the tabs is a
wealth of information, immediately
available. For example, there is a
blog with current information and
commentary on issues pertinent
to fisheries professionals under
About Us. If you are interested in
how AFS business is done —such
as the development of a resolution or amendment to the constitution —this can be found in
the Procedures Manual under the
About Us tab. If you are interested
Continued on page 94
Biology, Management, and Conservation
of Lampreys in North America
Larry R. Brown, Shawn D. Chase, Matthew G. Mesa,
Richard J. Beamish, and Peter B. Moyle, editors
L
ampreys represent an ancient lineage extending back to the ostracoderms and are one of the
most successful groups of living fishes. Perhaps best known for feeding on and killing bony
fishes valued by humans, such as salmonids, lampreys exhibit a variety of fascinating life histories.
Most lamprey species have lost the adult predatory stage of the life cycle and metamorphose,
spawn, and die in the same stream in which they were spawned. Unfortunately, the bad reputation
of predatory lampreys and the inconspicuous nature of small, nonpredaceous lampreys have
resulted in their importance and special requirements in aquatic ecosystems being ignored.
This book presents new scientific
as well as traditional (indigenous)
knowledge of lampreys while
demonstrating their fascinating
nature. Readers interested in learning
about lampreys will find not only
a wealth of new information but
also extensive citations of existing
information in each chapter.
321 pages, paper
List price: $79.00
AFS Member price: $55.30
Item Number: 540.72P
Published December 2009
TO ORDER:
Online: www.afsbooks.org
c/o Books International
P.O. Box 605
Herndon, VA 20172
Phone: 703-661-1570
Fax: 703-996-1010
57
JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS:
TRANSACTIONS OF THE
aMERICAN fISHERIES sOCIETY
Volume 139, Issue 5
September 2010
To subscribe to AFS journals go to www.fisheries.org and click on Publications/Journals.
Smolt Transformation in Two California
Steelhead Populations: Effects of Temporal
Variability in Growth
Michael P. Beakes, William H. Satterthwaite,
Erin M. Collins, David R. Swank, Joseph E.
Merz, Robert G. Titus, Susan M. Sogard, and
Marc Mangel
Pages 1263-12765
Dispersal and Within-Stream Spatial
Population Structure of Brook Trout
Revealed by Pedigree Reconstruction
Analysis
Mark Hudy, Jason A. Coombs, Keith H. Nislow,
and Benjamin H. Letcher
Pages 1276 -1287
[Note] Feasibility of Surgically Implanting
Acoustic Tags into Pacific Herring
Andrew C. Seitz, Brenda L. Norcross, John C.
Payne, Anna N. Kagley, Buck Meloy, Jacob L.
Gregg, and Paul K. Hershberger
Pages 1288-1291
Outbreeding Depression after Two
Generations of Hybridizing Southeast
Alaska Coho Salmon Populations?
Tyler H. Dann, William W. Smoker, Jeffrey J.
Hard, and Anthony J. Gharrett
Pages 1292-1305
Accuracy and Precision of Salmon Length
Estimates Taken from DIDSON Sonar
Images
Debby L. Burwen, Steven J. Fleischman, and
James D. Miller
Pages 1306-1315
Unintended Effects of Electrofishing on
Nongame Fishes
L. E. Miranda, and R. H. Kidwell
Pages 1315-1321
Long-Term Trends in Habitat Use of
Offshore Demersal Fishes in Western Lake
Huron Suggest Large-Scale Ecosystem
Change
Stephen C. Riley, and Jean V. Adams
Pages 1322-1334
Feeding Ecology of Blue Marlins,
Dolphinfish, Yellowfin Tuna, and Wahoos
from the North Atlantic Ocean and
Comparisons with Other Oceans
Paul J. Rudershausen, Jeffrey A. Buckel, Jason
Edwards, Damon P. Gannon, Christopher M.
Butler, and Tyler W. Averett
Pages 1335-1359
Annual Intrabasin Movement and
Mortality of Adult Bonneville Cutthroat
Trout among Complementary Riverine
58
Habitats
Andrew J. Carlson, and Frank J. Rahel
Pages 1360-1371
Intra- and Intersystem Variation
in Largemouth Bass Recruitment:
Reproduction, Prey Availability, and the
Timing of Year-Class Establishment
Joseph J. Parkos III, and D. H. Wahl
Pages 1372-1385
Determination of Upper Temperature
Tolerance in June Sucker Larvae: Is the
Transition to Utah Lake Temperatures a
Recruitment Bottleneck?
Kevin M. Kappenman, Molly A. H. Webb,
Elijah S. Cureton, and Jason Ilgen
Pages 1386-1399
Summer Stream Water Temperature
Models for Great Lakes Streams: New York
James E. McKenna Jr., Ryan S. Butryn, and
Richard P. McDonald
Pages 1398-1414
Abundance Estimates of Skates
(Rajidae) on the Continental Shelf of the
Northeastern United States Using a Video
Survey
Alyssa M. MacDonald, Charles F. Adams, and
Kevin D. E. Stokesbury
Pages 1415-1420
Estimating Sampling Effort Required
for Characterizing Species Richness and
Site-to-Site Similarity in Fish Assemblage
Surveys of Wadeable Illinois Streams
Ann M. Holtrop, Yong Cao, and Chad R. Dolan
Pages 1421-1435
Seasonal Distribution and Movements of
Shortnose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon
in the Penobscot River Estuary, Maine
Stephen J. Fernandes, Gayle Barbin Zydlewski,
Joseph D. Zydlewski, Gail S. Wippelhauser, and
Michael T. Kinnison
Pages 1436-1449
Striped Bass Habitat Selection Rules in
Reservoirs without Suitable Summer
Habitat Offer Insight into Consequences
for Growth
Jessica S. Thompson, James A. Rice, and D.
Scott Waters
Pages 1450-1464
Examining Genetic Lineages of Chinook
Salmon in the Columbia River Basin
Shawn R. Narum, Jon E. Hess, and Andrew P.
Matala
Pages 1465-1476
Survival Rates and Movement of
Hatchery-Reared Razorback Suckers in
the Upper Colorado River Basin, Utah and
Colorado
Koreen A. Zelasko, Kevin R. Bestgen, and Gary
C. White
Pages 1478 -1499
Persistence of Colorado River Cutthroat
Trout Populations in Isolated Headwater
Streams of Wyoming
Nathan Cook, Frank J. Rahel, and Wayne A.
Hubert
Pages 1500-1510
Detailed Examination of Ichthyoplankton
Seasonality from a High-Resolution Time
Series in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
during 2004–2006
Frank J. Hernandez Jr., Sean P. Powers, and
William M. Graham
Pages 1511-1525
Abundance and Recruitment of Juvenile
Atlantic Sturgeon in the Altamaha River,
Georgia
Paul Schueller, and Douglas L. Peterson
Pages 1526-1535
Introduced Lake Trout Produced a FourLevel Trophic Cascade in Yellowstone Lake
Lusha M. Tronstad, Robert O. Hall Jr., Todd M.
Koel, and Ken G. Gerow
Pages 1536-1550
The Elusive Minimum Viable Population
Size for White Sturgeon
Henriette I. Jager, Ken B. Lepla, Webb Van
Winkle, Brad W. James, and Steven O.
McAdam
Pages 1551-1565
Streamflow Reductions and Habitat
Drying Affect Growth, Survival, and
Recruitment of Brassy Minnow across a
Great Plains Riverscape
Jeffrey A. Falke, Kevin R. Bestgen, and Kurt D.
Fausch
Pages 1566-1583
Contrasting Ecology Shapes Juvenile LakeType and Riverine Sockeye Salmon
Scott A. Pavey, Jennifer L. Nielsen, Renae H.
Mackas, Troy R. Hamon, and Felix Breden
Pages 1584-1595
The Effects of the Stronach Dam Removal
on Fish in the Pine River, Manistee County,
Michigan
Bryan A. Burroughs, Daniel B. Hayes, Kristi D.
Klomp, Jonathan F. Hansen, and Jessica Mistak
Pages 1595-1613
UPDATE:
lEGISlATION AND POlIcY
Elden hawkes, Jr.
AFS Policy Coordinator Hawkes
can be contacted at
[email protected]
More Changes in the
u.S. house
With the change in majority of the 112th Congress, Rep. Frank
Lucas has been elected chair of the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Agriculture. The committee has jurisdiction over
federal agriculture programs, and also administers funding for
critical natural resource policies, such as the Farm Bill — the
conservation title of which is the single-largest source of federal
funding for conservation on private lands in the country. The
new chair of the House Natural Resources committee, Rep. Doc
Hastings, has announced the new republican members of the
committee:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Glenn Thompson (PA)
Daniel Benishek (MI)
Jeff Denham (CA)
Jeff Duncan (SC)
Charles Fleischmann (TN)
William Flores (TX)
Paul Gosar (AZ)
Andy Harris (MD)
Bill Johnson (OH)
Raul Labrador (ID)
Jeffrey Landry (LA)
Kristi Lynn Noem (SD)
David Rivera (FL)
Jon Runyan (NJ)
Steve Southerland (FL)
Scott Tipton (CO)
Omnibus public Lands,
Water, and Wildlife bill
Fails to Clear Senate
The omnibus lands, water, and wildlife bill that was
introduced in the waning days on the 111th Congress failed
to get enough votes in the Senate to be brought to the
floor. The package had contained some 110 bills relating to
the management of public lands. Included in the package
was the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act which would
have created a National Fish Habitat Board and established
procedures to implement the goals of the 2006 National Fish
Habitat Action Plan, and would have authorized funding for
projects that conserve fish habitat, as well as implement the
action plan. Other measures in the bill included:
• reauthorizing the National Estuary Program through
2016;
• establishing uniform enforcement policies and procedures
for federal statutes that regulate commercial fishing;
• authorizing new appropriations for coral reef programs,
establish new protections for coral reefs, and extend
those protections to reefs in all U.S. waters.
Even with the defeat of the omnibus package, many of
the individual components are planned to be reintroduced in
the 112th Congress.
A Field GUide To CoAsTAl Fishes
From Maine to Texas
val kells and kent Carpenter
“An accurate, easy-to-use field guide that clearly explains and
shows a reader how to correctly identify coastal fishes.”
—Joe Malat, Joe Malat Communications
$25.00 paperback
eColoGy oF esTUArine Fishes
Temperate Waters of the Western North Atlantic
kenneth W. Able and Michael p. Fahay
“I am amazed by the depth and range of knowledge demonstrated. This synthesis is a major contribution to estuarine fish
studies.”—David H. Secor, University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science
$120.00 hardcover
The Johns hopkins UniversiTy press
1-800-537-5487 • press.jhu.edu
59
Feature:
The State of Crayfish in the Pacific Northwest
Eric R. Larson and
Julian D. Olden
Larson is a graduate student at the
University of Washington, Seattle, and
can be contacted at School of Aquatic
and Fishery Sciences, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
E-mail: [email protected]. Olden is
an assistant professor in the School of
Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the
University of Washington, and can
be contacted at the same address. His
E-mail is: [email protected] .
ABSTRACT: We summarize the state of knowledge on crayfish in the Pacific
Northwest region of the United States and Canada, emphasizing distributions
and conservation status of native species, as well as known introductions and
distributions of alien crayfishes, and reviewing fishing regulations relevant to
crayfish across five states and provinces. We found the present distribution and
ecology of native crayfishes in this region to be poorly known, inhibiting accurate
conservation assessments and management. The number of alien crayfishes
established in the region, ranging in distribution from localized to widespread
and including several major invasive species, now exceeds the diversity of native
crayfishes. The treatment of crayfish by fishing regulations and laws varies among
states and provinces, potentially impairing successful management and conservation
of these species in shared ecosystems such as the Snake and Columbia rivers. We
conclude with recommendations for crayfish management and regulation, and a
call for more research on the ecology of crayfish in the Pacific Northwest.
El Estado Del Langostino En El Pacífico Noroeste
Se presenta un resumen del estado de conocimiento acerca del langostino en la región del Pacífico noroeste de los Estados
Unidos de Norteamérica y Canadá, haciendo énfasis en la distribución y estado de conservación de las especies nativas así
como también en introducciones conocidas y distribución de especies foráneas de langostinos; también se hace una revisión
de las regulaciones pesqueras relevantes para los langostinos a lo largo de cinco estados y provincias. Se encontró que la
distribución actual y ecología de los langostinos nativos de esta región son poco conocidas, lo que impide realizar evaluaciones
precisas de conservación y manejo. El número de langostinos foráneos establecidos en la región, cuya distribución va desde
los altamente localizados a los ampliamente distribuidos incluyendo varias de las especies invasivas más importantes, excede
la diversidad de langostinos nativos. El manejo de los langostinos a través de leyes y medidas regulatorias de pesca varía
entre estados y provincias, lo que potencialmente puede reducir el éxito de la conservación y manejo de estas especies en
ecosistemas compartidos como los ríos Snake y Columbia. Se concluye con recomendaciones para el manejo y regulación
del langostino y se hace un llamado para incrementar los esfuerzos de investigación en la ecología del langostino del Pacífico
noroeste.
60
INTRODUCTION
Crayfishes of North America have received increased attention
from fisheries biologists over recent decades in response to
several factors. First, crayfish often fill a keystone role in aquatic
food webs as omnivorous consumers of plant matter, animal
matter, and detritus, and serve as an important link between
these energy sources and aquatic and terrestrial predators (Rabeni
1992; Creed 1994; Usio and Townsend 2004; Tablado et al. 2010).
Consequently, the addition (invasion) or subtraction (extirpation)
of a crayfish species can have far-reaching consequences for
communities and ecosystems (e.g., Nyström et al. 1996; Dorn
and Mittelbach 1999). Invasive crayfish species introduced to
new regions have had severe impacts on aquatic communities
and valuable recreational and commercial fisheries (e.g., Wilson
et al. 2004; McCarthy et al. 2006). Invasive crayfishes have
also contributed to population declines, extirpations, and
extinctions of native crayfishes (e.g., Bouchard 1977a; Light et
al. 1995), combining with other stressors such as habitat loss
and degradation to make crayfish one of North America’s most
imperiled taxonomic groups (Strayer and Dudgeon 2010). Finally,
the value of crayfish in recreational and commercial fisheries also
requires attention and regulation from fisheries biologists (Miller
and Van Hyning 1970; Roell and Orth 1998).
Recognition of the importance of crayfish has resulted
in heightened research and management attention dedicated
to this taxonomic group, ranging from evaluations of
species conservation status (Taylor et al. 2007) to policy
recommendations for the prevention of crayfish invasions
(DiStefano et al. 2009). However, we perceive a striking regional
disparity in the attention given crayfishes by fisheries biologists.
Researchers in the southeastern United States (US) are increasing
efforts to document and conserve the region’s endemic crayfish
diversity (e.g., Larson and Olden 2010; Welsh et al. 2010), while
researchers in the Great Lakes region and California have made
important contributions quantifying the economic and ecological
costs associated with crayfish invasions (e.g., Gamradt and
Kats 1996; Keller et al. 2008). By contrast, few recent studies
on distributions, ecology, or management of crayfish have
been conducted in the Pacific Northwest region of the US and
Canada (but see Lewis 1997; Bondar et al. 2005a; Mueller and
Bodensteiner 2009).
Native crayfishes of the Pacific Northwest: A. Snake River pilose crayfish (Pacifastacus connectens); B. pilose crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii);
C. signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus klamathensis); D. signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus leniusculus). Photos by N. Usio (A), T. Woolf (B),
D. VanSlyke (C), and J. Benca (D).
61
This oversight is somewhat surprising given the
unfortunate history of crayfish invasions and conservation
in adjacent California, where the native sooty crayfish
(Pacifastacus nigrescens) was declared extinct in 1977, and
the native Shasta crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis) is listed under
the US Endangered Species Act. Both declines have been
attributed to the combined effects of habitat loss and
invasive crayfishes (Bouchard 1977a; Light et al. 1995).
These Californian crayfishes represented 40% of the native
crayfish diversity west of the Continental Divide in North
America. The remaining three western crayfishes are native
to the Pacific Northwest, from coastal British Columbia,
Oregon, and Washington, inland to the Columbia and Snake
River headwaters of Montana, Nevada, Wyoming, and Utah
(Miller 1960). These species have almost no contemporary
published records on their distribution and ecology to justify
their present “stable” conservation status (Taylor et al. 2007).
Furthermore, the perception of the Pacific Northwest as
uninvaded by aquatic nuisance species relative to eastern
North America is no longer justifiable (Sanderson et al. 2009),
and the increasingly invaded status of the region includes
multiple newly discovered populations of invasive crayfishes
from eastern North America (Mueller 2001; Olden et al.
2009a; Larson et al. 2010).
Crayfish management in the Pacific Northwest may also
be complicated by the common asynchrony between political
boundaries and natural populations, communities, and
ecosystems that cross them (Powell 1890; Giordano and Wolf
2003). For example, inconsistent alien species regulations
between nations or states sharing aquatic ecosystems can leave
entire regions vulnerable to invasion because of “weak links”
(Peters and Lodge 2009). Similarly, activities such as wild fish
harvest can be mismanaged or promote conflict when adjacent
jurisdictions pursue differing agendas (Mitchell 1997; Brown
1999). Such transboundary resource management issues are
certainly relevant in the Pacific Northwest, where most major
aquatic ecosystems such as the Columbia and Snake rivers
cross the borders of multiple US states and the Canadian
province of British Columbia. Relevant to crayfish, this
means that how one state or province regulates alien species,
the use of live bait, or the harvest of wild populations can
affect neighboring jurisdictions and their aquatic resources
(DiStefano et al. 2009; Peters and Lodge 2009).
Here we summarize the state of knowledge on crayfish
in the Pacific Northwest, with the intent of providing an
introduction for fisheries biologists in the region and a
contemporary update to past work on this subject (Miller
1960; Bouchard 1977a). We first present historic point
occurrences of native crayfishes in the region from the
diligent summary of Miller (1960), crustacean collections of
the Smithsonian Institution and Carnegie Museum of Natural
History, and more recent published accounts (e.g., Johnson
1986; Hubert 1988; Bondar et al. 2005a). Relevant issues in
taxonomy, identification, and ecology of these species are
briefly discussed, but we focus primarily on providing known
distributions for use as a historic benchmark in evaluating
current conservation status. We next summarize known
62
alien crayfish occurrences from museum records, published
accounts, and recent surveys (e.g., Sheldon 1989; Clark and
Lester 2005), with the aim of synthesizing knowledge on the
accumulating crayfish invasions of the Pacific Northwest.
For both native and alien species, our reliance on point
occurrences from museum records and published accounts
likely leads to underestimates in ranges, although the inverse
may be true for native crayfishes that could be suffering
population declines.
We also review crayfish-relevant fishing regulations and
laws for states and provinces of the Pacific Northwest,
focusing on prohibited species, live bait, and recreational and
commercial harvest. We chose to summarize these policies for
British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington,
as these states and province dominate the region’s surface
area. We exclude California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming for
brevity, but do report on native and alien crayfish distributions
for these states where they border the Pacific Northwest.
Fishing regulations and laws were reviewed by state or
provincial managers for accuracy (see acknowledgements). The
intent of this policy review was to evaluate cross-jurisdictional
consistency in regulations and laws relevant to minimizing the
risk of crayfish invasions and to compare how the recreational
and commercial harvest of crayfish is managed. We
conclude with suggested research priorities and management
recommendations for crayfish in the Pacific Northwest.
NATIVE CRAYFISHES
Snake River pilose crayfish
(Pacifastacus connectens)
The Snake River pilose crayfish (Pacifastacus connectens) was
described by Faxon (1914) and considered a subspecies of
the pilose crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii) until reclassified as
a distinct species by Hobbs (1972) and Bouchard (1977b),
who grouped P. connectens in the subgenus Hobbsastacus with
P. gambelii, P. fortis, and the extinct P. nigrescens on the basis of
mandible morphology. Pacifastacus connectens may be most easily
distinguished from the signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) by
the presence of clusters of setae (hairs) on the chelae (claws),
and from P. gambelii by the presence of spines or tubercles
(bumps) on a carapace ridge located just behind the eye
(postorbital ridge).
The range of P. connectens historically extended from the
desert lake basins of southeastern Oregon across the Snake
River and tributaries of southern Idaho (Figure 1), and
presumably these same streams in northern Nevada. Our
literature review revealed no studies on the ecology or life
history of this species and no contemporary survey of its
distribution or conservation status. The American Fisheries
Society recognizes its conservation status as currently stable
(Taylor et al. 2007), although the states of Idaho and Oregon
consider the species vulnerable. Threats to P. connectens
might include land use change and resultant habitat loss or
degradation, as well as the introduction of invasive species to
Figure 1. Point occurrences from literature and museum records for crayfish species and subspecies native to the Pacific Northwest.
the region. In particular, several invasive crayfishes have been
documented from southern Idaho (Clark and Wroten 1978;
Clark and Lester 2005).
Pilose crayfish
(Pacifastacus gambelii)
The pilose crayfish Pacifastacus gambelii has had an unclear
taxonomic and distributional history (Riegel 1959), including
a type description from California (Girard 1852) that was later
disputed as a specimen instead collected while in transit to
California (Faxon 1885). The species is presumed native to the
states of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming (Hobbs 1972; Taylor et al. 2007). As of Miller
(1960), historic records that could be reliably identified as
P. gambelii were known only from the Snake River and its
tributaries of Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as
Great Salt Lake tributaries like the Bear and Weber rivers of
Utah and Wyoming (Figure 1). We are inclined to conclude
that the historic attribution of this species to Oregon was
instead P. connectens, and we found no records of either species
in Washington. Faxon (1885) reported P. gambelii to occur
widely east of the Continental Divide in the upper Missouri
River and other drainages, a claim met with some skepticism
by Bouchard (1978) and an absence of known museum
records. Sheldon (1989) did not report P. gambelii from Pacific
drainages of western Montana. Knowledge of the distribution
of P. gambelii and relationship to P. connectens would benefit
from further investigation.
The American Fisheries Society recognizes P. gambelii as
currently stable (Taylor et al. 2007), while state assignments
range from critically imperiled in Montana to apparently
secure in Idaho. Like P. connectens, the ecology and life history
of P. gambelii is minimally known, although Koslucher and
Minshall (1973) reported omnivorous feeding habitats, typical
of crayfishes, for P. gambelii in a desert stream of Idaho and
Utah. Conservation threats to P. gambelii might include land
use change, habitat loss or degradation, and invasive species.
Alarmingly, Hubert (2010) recently revisited sites sampled for
crayfishes in Wyoming from 1986 to 1988 (Hubert 1988) and
found P. gambelii absent from all sites previously occupied in
the Bear River drainage, replaced by the invasive virile crayfish
(Orconectes virilis).
63
Signal crayfish
(Pacifastacus leniusculus)
Columbia on ecological function in small streams (e.g., Bondar et
al. 2005b; Bondar and Richardson 2009), and exhaustive markrecapture estimates of lake populations (e.g., Johnson 1971; Lewis
1997).
All subspecies of P. leniusculus are recognized as currently
stable by the American Fisheries Society (Taylor et al. 2007),
although state and province designations vary and conservation
concern is expressed for the species in British Columbia (Bondar
et al. 2005a). Pacifastacus leniusculus may be affected by invasive
crayfishes in some portions of its range. Bouchard (1977a) and
Sheldon (1989) report apparent losses of P. leniusculus habitat
to invasive crayfishes of the genus Orconectes, and both authors
describe a pattern of habitat partitioning in which P. leniusculus
persists in fast flowing waters while Orconectes dominates slow or
impounded waters. Other records have also observed an absence
of P. leniusculus from sites presently dominated by invasive
crayfishes (Olden et al. 2009a; Larson et al. 2010). Although
resistant to extinction due to its large range size and wide success
as an invasive species, subspecies and populations of P. leniusculus
in its native range may still be threatened by invasive species or
other factors like habitat loss and degradation.
The signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus is the most widely
distributed and best known of the crayfishes native to the Pacific
Northwest, although it has been better studied as an invasive
species in California, Europe, and Japan (e.g., Abrahamsson and
Goldman 1970; Nyström et al. 1996; Usio et al. 2009). Pacifastacus
leniusculus was initially described as three species: P. klamathensis
(Stimpson 1857), P. leniusculus (Dana 1852), and P. trowbridgii
(Stimpson 1857). Riegel (1959) considered P. leniusculus and P.
trowbridgii to be synonymous but P. klamathensis a unique species,
while Miller (1960) considered all three to be subspecies of
P. leniusculus due to observed intergrade forms. This view was
adopted by later taxonomic guides (Hobbs 1972; Bouchard et
al. 1977b). Genetic work to date has found P. l. leniusculus and P.
l. trowbridgii to be the most similar and P. l. klamathensis the most
distinct subspecies (Agerberg and Jansson 1995).
Where possible, we report distributions by subspecies for P.
leniusculus (Figure 1), although many distributional records neglect
to include a subspecies designation. Some morphological features
useful in differentiating P. l. leniusculus from P. l. trowbridgii include
a narrow or fusiform rather than broad or robust carapace, and
the presence of sharp spines rather than rounded tubercles on
All known alien crayfishes in the Pacific Northwest belong
the postorbital ridge (Riegel 1959; Miller 1960). The subspecies
to
the
family Cambaridae of eastern North America. These
P. l. klamathensis lacks either spines or tubercles on the postorbital
crayfishes
differ from native Pacifastacus, which belong to the
ridge, and has also been noted to lack the white or blue-green
family
Astacidae,
by the presence of ventral hooks on upper
coloration across the joint of the chelae commonly found in
segments
of
walking
legs in mature males (Hobbs 1972). The
the other two subspecies (Riegel 1959; Miller 1960). While often
large
tubercles
on
the
chelae or carapace of many Cambarid
brown or tan, the life colors of P. leniusculus are highly variable,
adults,
absent
in
Pacifastacus,
may be a more conspicuous trait to
and can range from bright red to blue.
biologists
unfamiliar
with
crayfishes.
Identification to species of
The native distribution of P. leniusculus extends from
the Klamath River of northern California to southern
Table 1. Alien crayfishes in the Pacific Northwest (including upper Snake River
British Columbia, and inland to Columbia River tributaries
and tributaries and the Great Salt Lake basin in Utah and Wyoming) by species
of western Montana (Figure 1). Bouchard (1978) notes
and state with year discovered and reporting sources.
that the biogeography of P. leniusculus subspecies is likely
confounded by translocation of this species within
its native range, as either bait or through the stocking
Species
State
Year
Sources
of ponds and lakes. The most apparent pattern in
Orconectes
neglectus
Oregon
1966
Bouchard (1977a)
subspecies distributions emerges from P. l. klamathensis,
which occupies coastal rivers of northern California
Orconectes rusticus
Oregon
2005
Olden et al. (2009a)
and southwestern Oregon in the southern portion of
Orconectes sanbornii Washington 1987
Larson and Olden (2008)
Larson et al. (2010)
its range, but then transitions to drainages east of the
Cascade Mountains of Oregon and Washington in its
Orconectes virilis
Utah
1981
Johnson (1986)
northern range. Pacifastacus l. leniusculus and P. l. trowbridgii
Montana
1988
Sheldon (1989)
are common in northwest Oregon, coastal Washington,
Idaho
1999
Clark and Lester (2005)
and the lower Columbia River (Figure 1). Subspecies
Washington 2006
designations are rare for British Columbia, Idaho, and
Larson et al. (2010)
Montana. A number of studies on the basic ecology and
Wyoming
2007-2009 Hubert (2010)
life history of P. leniusculus are available from the Pacific
Procambarus
acutus
Washington
2009
Larson and Olden (unpub.)
Northwest. Many of these are in the form of graduate
theses or agency reports that were unfortunately never
Procambarus clarkii
Idaho
1975
Clark and Wroten (1978)
published in the peer-reviewed literature. Some notable
Utah
1978
Johnson (1986)
works include physiological and life history investigations
Washington 2000
Mueller (2001)
into the viability of the species for aquaculture (e.g.,
Coykendall 1973; Mason 1974), recent studies from British
Alien CrayfishES
Oregon
64
1999-2001
Pearl et al. (2005)
Figure 2. Point occurrences from literature and museum records for alien crayfish species in the Pacific Northwest.
Cambarid crayfishes requires keys based on mature (Form I) male
reproductive organs (gonopods), and consultation with an expert
is recommended. Information on typical life colors is provided
for alien crayfishes found in the Pacific Northwest, with the
caveat that this trait can vary across populations.
Ringed crayfish
(Orconectes neglectus)
The ringed crayfish (Orconectes neglectus), native to the Great
Plains and Ozark Plateaus of the central US, was the first
crayfish from eastern North America documented in the Pacific
Northwest (Table 1). Bouchard (1977a) provides a summary of
its discovery and basic ecology in Oregon, the only state in the
region from which it is known (Figure 2). Widespread by 1977
in the Rogue River and tributaries, little subsequent work on the
species has been pursued, and its present distribution in that
drainage, or potentially in adjacent systems, has not been assessed.
Bouchard (1977a) speculated that O. neglectus was introduced to
the Rogue River either incidentally with stocking of warmwater
fish, or through the use of crayfish as bait. Orconectes neglectus has
prominent orange and black rings at the tips of the chelae, and a
dark u-shaped saddle mark on the dorsal surface of the carapace
that is pronounced relative to other Orconectes species in the
region.
Rusty crayfish
(Orconectes rusticus)
The rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus), native to the Ohio
River drainage, is a highly invasive crayfish that has had welldocumented impacts in aquatic ecosystems of the Great Lakes
region and elsewhere (McCarthy et al. 2006; Keller et al. 2008).
It was not known to occur west of the Continental Divide until
found in the John Day River of central Oregon in 2005 (Figure
2; Table 1). Olden et al. (2009a) speculated that O. rusticus may
have been introduced to the John Day River as bait for popular
warmwater fisheries, or through its use in schools and biological
supply in the region (Larson and Olden 2008). Orconectes rusticus
has not yet been found elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest. Its
status and spread in the John Day River demands monitoring
and, if feasible, management intervention. Orconectes rusticus
65
possesses distinctive rust-colored spots on both lateral surfaces
of the carapace, and often black or orange tips of the chelae.
Rapid identification of newly established O. rusticus populations is
necessary for control or eraurvdication (Hein et al. 2006).
Sanborn’s crayfish
(Orconectes sanbornii)
Sanborn’s crayfish (Orconectes sanbornii), native to the Ohio
River drainage, represents an unusual crayfish introduction to the
Pacific Northwest. The species has not been found introduced
elsewhere in the world. Larson and Olden (2008) found O.
sanbornii in Big Lake, Washington, in the summer of 2008 (Figure
2), although this species was incorrectly identified as O. virilis
(corrected in Larson et al. 2010). Consultation with crayfish
taxonomist Christopher Taylor, Illinois Natural History Survey,
revealed a Smithsonian Institution record for O. sanbornii from
this lake and adjacent streams from 1987 (Table 1). Origins of the
O. sanbornii population in northwest Washington are unknown.
Orconectes sanbornii appears brown or tan with less distinctive life
colors than either O. neglectus or O. rusticus.
Virile crayfish
(Orconectes virilis)
The virile (or northern) crayfish Orconectes virilis may be the
most widely invasive crayfish in the Pacific Northwest, known
from Idaho, Montana, and Washington, as well as adjacent states
like Utah and Wyoming (Figure 2; Table 1). Native over a large
area of North America east of the Continental Divide, O. virilis
is now widespread in the west, with populations documented
in California and the Colorado River drainage (Riegel 1959;
Johnson 1986). The species may have been introduced to the
Pacific Northwest through multiple pathways. In California, O.
virilis was first established in the Central Valley after escapes
from laboratory ponds at Chico State University (Riegel 1959).
By contrast, both Johnson (1986) and Sheldon (1989) report
that O. virilis was deliberately stocked by the states of Utah and
Montana, respectively, to serve as forage for warmwater fishes.
Orconectes virilis was first detected in the Columbia River in
Washington State in 2006, and this occurrence could represent
time-lagged downstream dispersal from stocked populations in
western Montana. Alternatively, the species is commonly used as
fishing bait and occurs in biological supply (Larson and Olden
2008; DiStefano et al. 2009). We suspect the species is present in
British Columbia in the Columbia River due to occurrences in the
Montana headwaters and the northern Washington mainstem of
this river.
Although not as well studied as some invasive crayfishes, O.
virilis has been found to compete with fishes endemic to the west
for food (Carpenter 2005; Rogowski and Stockwell 2006), and
to prey on fish eggs in its native range (Dorn and Mittelbach
2004). Sheldon (1989) suspected O. virilis competed with and
displaced native P. leniusculus in rivers and reservoirs of western
Montana. Orconectes virilis has apparently replaced P. gambelii from
multiple sites where this native species historically occurred in
66
the Bear River drainage of southwestern Wyoming (Hubert
2010). Orconectes virilis has also been implicated in declines of the
crayfish P. fortis in northern California (Bouchard 1977a; Light et
al. 1995). Owing to its large native range and substantial genetic
diversity (Filipova et al. 2010), the appearance of O. virilis can be
quite variable. Body color may be brown, green, or tan. Chelae are
typically green or blue-green, with pronounced yellow tubercles.
White river crawfish
(Procambarus acutus)
The white river crawfish (Procambarus acutus), native over a
large and disjunct range in eastern North America, has recently
been documented in the Pacific Northwest. Historically, P.
acutus was only known west of the Continental Divide from a
single stream in California, where its invasion in the 1920s was
attributed to the release of laboratory animals by local schools
(Bouchard 1977a). Bouchard (1977a) revisited this stream a half
century later and found only the red swamp crawfish (Procambarus
clarkii), suggesting either an initial misidentification, or perhaps
the subsequent replacement of P. acutus by P. clarkii. As a
result, the late 2009 discovery of P. acutus in Echo Lake, Seattle,
Washington, and the early 2010 discovery of the species from a
wetland on Lopez Island, Washington, may represent the only
known populations of this species in the western US (Figure
2). Procambarus acutus specimens from both sites were verified
by Christopher Taylor and deposited at the Illinois Natural
History Survey. Origins of these populations remain unknown.
Procambarus acutus is often dark burgundy with pronounced
tubercles on the chelae and carapace. Procambarus acutus may be
distinguished from the widely invasive P. clarkii in the west by an
open rather than closed or absent areola (hourglass-shaped area
on the dorsal surface of the carapace).
Red swamp crawfish
(Procambarus clarkii)
The red swamp crawfish Procambarus clarkii, native to the
southern US and northeastern Mexico, is the most invasive
crayfish in the world. It has been introduced to Africa, Asia,
Europe, and within North America through a variety of
pathways, although primarily via stocking for aquaculture or
wild harvest (Hobbs et al. 1989). It is also a common species
in the biological supply trade (Larson and Olden 2008). In
western North America, P. clarkii was first brought to California
in the 1930s as forage for frog farms, and was widespread from
southern California to the Central Valley by the 1950s (Riegel
1959). The species was first found in the Pacific Northwest
from a spring in southwestern Idaho in 1975, and then northern
Utah in 1978 (Table 1; Clark and Wroten 1978; Johnson 1986).
Procambarus clarkii was documented in wetlands of the Willamette
Valley, Oregon by 1999 (Pearl et al. 2005), and from an urban lake
in western Washington by 2000 (Mueller 2001). Procambarus clarkii
has since been found in nearly a dozen lakes and wetlands of
western Washington (Figure 2; Larson and Olden 2008).
Some of the many impacts of invasive P. clarkii populations
have included predation on amphibians (Gamradt and Kats
1996), and transformation of lakes and wetlands from clear to
turbid water states through consumption of macrophyte beds and
bioturbation by burrowing (Matsuzaki et al. 2009). A few studies
have begun to investigate the ecology and potential impacts of P.
clarkii in the Pacific Northwest. Mueller and Bodensteiner (2009)
did not find competitive dominance of P. clarkii over native P.
leniusculus under field conditions in a Washington lake. Olden et al.
(2009b) observed that P. clarkii was less predatory on an invasive
snail common to Washington than P. leniusculus. More work on the
distribution and impacts of this invader in the Pacific Northwest
is needed. Procambarus clarkii adults generally range from bright
red to black with tubercles on the carapace and chelae, although
juveniles may be lighter in color.
CRAYFISH MANAGEMENT
AND REGULATIONS
Prohibited Species
Prevention is the preferred management strategy for aquatic
invasive species (Vander Zanden and Olden 2008), and the
complete prohibition of alien species anticipated to become
invasive may be an effective and proactive first line of defense.
For crayfish, this means restricting the species permitted in
a region via dominant pathways of introduction, such as the
aquarium, biological supply, live bait, and live seafood trades
(Lodge et al. 2000; DiStefano et al. 2009; Peters and Lodge
2009). We found that the crayfish species explicitly prohibited
by states and provinces of the Pacific Northwest were extremely
variable as of the summer of 2010. We found no evidence
that British Columbia prohibits any crayfish species. Montana
explicitly prohibits only O. rusticus, but recognizes non-classified
species alien to the state as prohibited for private possession.
Idaho prohibits O. rusticus, the parthenogenic marbled crayfish
Procambarus sp., and three southern hemisphere species in the
genus Cherax. Oregon prohibits all eastern North American
crayfishes in the family Cambaridae. Washington has the most
restrictive regulations, prohibiting not only all crayfishes in the
family Cambaridae but also all species in the southern hemisphere
family Parastacidae, with exceptions for three species in the genus
Cherax and the entire genus Engaeous. Characteristic of a “weak
links” problem (Peter and Lodge 2009), two of these southern
hemisphere species allowed in Washington — the redclaw crayfish
(Cherax quadricarinatus) and the marron (Cherax teniumanus) — are
prohibited in neighboring Idaho.
Our inquiries related to prohibited species lists were often
answered with the caveat that states and provinces have laws
against the stocking or release of organisms into natural waters.
For example, Idaho fishing regulations are typical in specifying:
“It is unlawful to release or allow the release of any species of
live fish (including crayfish), or fish eggs, in the state of Idaho
without a permit from the director of Idaho Department of Fish
and Game, except at the same time and place where caught.”
We respond that such laws are important but also limited; they
probably do little to deter introductions, are difficult to enforce
because violators are infrequently apprehended, and they are
reactive because they apply punishments after an alien species
is already introduced (Johnson et al. 2009). These laws are
also predominantly published in fishing regulations and fail to
address common pathways of crayfish introduction such as the
aquarium or biological supply trades. Standardizing a uniform list
of crayfishes prohibited (or permitted in a “white list”; Lodge et
al. 2000) across states and provinces of the Pacific Northwest,
and implementing their enforcement across diverse introduction
pathways, is both advisable and urgently needed. Outreach and
education efforts are also critical for informing the public about
the existence of these laws and regulations, and the ecological and
economic consequences of species invasions.
Live Bait
Crayfish invasions are often attributed to the historically
common use of crayfish as live fishing bait (Lodge et al. 2000;
DiStefano et al. 2009). Like regulations on prohibited species,
live bait regulations vary between states and provinces of the
Pacific Northwest. The most common practice, implemented
by Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, is to permit the use of live
crayfish only in the water body where the organism was captured.
British Columbia allows live crayfish as bait in streams but not
lakes, while Montana allows the use of live crayfish on all waters
not restricted to artificial lures. We recommend allowing live bait
only in the water where the organism was directly captured as a
precautionary means of reducing risk of introductions, but others
have strongly recommended complete bans on use of live crayfish
as bait (Lodge et al. 2000).
Recreational Harvest
All states and provinces in the Pacific Northwest allow the
recreational harvest of crayfish for personal consumption. British
Columbia, Idaho, and Montana require a fishing license for
recreational crayfish harvest, whereas Oregon and Washington
do not. Recreational harvest is open year round in Oregon,
defined by the game fish season of the water body in Idaho,
and open only from the first Monday in May to October 31st
in Washington. British Columbia and Montana do not specify
crayfish harvest seasons in their fishing regulations. Idaho and
Montana have no limits on recreational crayfish catch. British
Columbia allows 25 crayfish in possession, Oregon allows 100
crayfish harvested per day with two limits in possession, and
Washington allows 10 lbs. in shell per day. Only British Columbia
(9 cm) and Washington (3 ¼ in or 8.3 cm) publish minimum
total lengths for harvestable crayfish in the recreational fishery.
Gear allowed ranges from any number or size of traps in British
Columbia to a limit of five units of gear (traps or pots) per
person in both Idaho and Washington. Idaho and Montana set
limits for maximum trap sizes, and Idaho and Oregon allow
other techniques like hand nets, baited lines, or seines. All states
and provinces require the release of female crayfish with eggs in
both recreational and commercial fisheries, although Washington
excludes invasive crayfishes from this regulation.
The increasingly widespread presence of alien crayfishes
67
Figure 3. An excerption from the 2010 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife fishing regulations addressing the harvest of native and
alien crayfish and their identification.
Figure 4. Commercial crayfish harvest in Oregon and Washington as A. lbs. sold and price per lb. by year; B. cumulative lbs. sold by county between
2004 and 2009.
68
in the Pacific Northwest raises challenges for both
recreational and commercial harvest (see below). While it
seems reasonable to allow the harvest of alien crayfishes
that are now well-established in the region, valid concern
exists over the potential for harvest to encourage subsequent
illegal introductions by the public (Johnson et al. 2009). In
2010, Washington revised their fishing regulations to address
this concern, allowing the harvest of invasive crayfishes
such as O. virilis or P. clarkii but specifying that these species
cannot be transported live (Figure 3). Implementation of
this regulation may be challenged by the preference of most
harvesters to transport or store crayfish live in shell until
the time of consumption (Momot 1991). Washington fishing
regulations provide an identification guide for native and
alien crayfishes and recommendations for humane euthanasia
of crayfish (Figure 3). The presence of alien crayfishes in
the Pacific Northwest complicates the management of both
recreational and commercial fisheries. The popularity and
spatial distribution of recreational crayfish harvest in the
region is worth quantifying, perhaps through a mail survey
of fishing license holders or a no-cost crayfish recreational
license.
Commercial Harvest
The legality and popularity of commercial harvest of crayfish
varies across the Pacific Northwest. British Columbia provides
little information on the status of commercial harvest in the
province. Montana prohibits commercial harvest of crayfish,
resulting from public concerns that crayfish might be overharvested or that commercial harvest might negatively affect
sport fish dependent on crayfish (Sheldon 1989). Idaho allows
commercial harvest in select rivers and lakes from April 1st to
October 31st, defines a minimum harvestable size for crayfish
(3 5/8 in or 9.2 cm total length), allows only the harvest of
Pacifastacus species, and reports no catch statistics.
Relative to their Pacific Northwest neighbors, Oregon and
Washington harvest a large volume of crayfish commercially.
Washington issued between 3 and 13 commercial crayfish
permits annually between 1998 and 2009, with a mean of 5,697
lbs. and maximum of 9,710 lbs. sold (Figure 4). The majority
of Washington’s commercial crayfish harvest occurs in large
lakes of King County in proximity to Seattle, although some
harvest is reported from the Columbia and Snake rivers (Figure
Common invasive crayfishes in the Pacific Northwest: A. ringed crayfish (Orconectes neglectus); B. rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus); C. virile
crayfish (Orconectes virilis); D. red swamp crawfish (Procambarus clarkii). Photos by J. Ludlam (A), the authors (B, C), and F. Tomasinelli (D).
69
4). Crayfish have recently sold for between $1.50 and $2.50 per
lb. in Washington (Figure 4). The season and minimum size of
harvestable crayfish is the same as for the recreational fishery.
Commercial harvesters are restricted to a total of 400 traps
or pots on a license, smaller lakes with large public parks or
extensive residential development are prohibited for harvest,
and the number of traps allowed on a lake is scaled to the lake’s
surface area. Washington requires traps to have individual lines
and buoys labeled with the harvester’s name and address, and it
also requires that traps have a biodegradable release device to
disable the trap if lost or not recovered.
The commercial crayfish harvest in Oregon is a degree of
magnitude larger than in Washington, and has an interesting
history recounted in Miller and Van Hyning (1970) and Lewis
(1997). Miller and Van Hyning (1970) summarize the history of
commercial crayfish harvest in Oregon from its inception in the
1890s, documenting fluctuations in popularity with the Great
Depression and both World Wars, and report a maximum historic
crayfish harvest of 176,000 lbs. sold in 1930. Historic uses of
harvested crayfish ranged from fishing bait, to free food at
depression-era lunch counters, to export in the seafood trade to
Europe (Momot 1991). More recently, a mean of 72,081 lbs. has
been sold per year with a maximum of 100,698 lbs. sold (Figure
4). The lower Columbia River and adjacent areas in western
Oregon are popular sites for commercial crayfish harvest (Figure
4; Miller and Van Hyning 1970), but Jefferson County, Oregon
dominates the commercial harvest with a sum of 189,769 lbs.
of crayfish sold between 2004 and 2009 (Figure 4). This may be
attributable to a popular fishery in Lake Billy Chinook, including
a tribal fishery by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
(Lewis 1997). Oregon no longer issues and enumerates permits
exclusively for commercial crayfish harvest, but rather crayfish
can be harvested under a general commercial fishing permit.
Commercial crayfish regulations resemble those of Washington,
but with an April 1st to October 31st open season, and a larger
minimum size of 3 5/8 in or 9.2 cm total length.
DISCUSSION
The conservation status of native species is often uncritically
assumed secure for too long. The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
is a representative example from the Pacific Northwest, in
which a species progressed over the course of a century from
long-neglected to belatedly protected under the US Endangered
Species Act (Rieman et al. 1997). We have summarized here the
state of knowledge on native crayfishes in the Pacific Northwest
to prevent a similar such progression, which has already occurred
in adjacent California (Bouchard 1977a; Light et al. 1995). We
recommend the following as the most urgent needs for native
crayfish research and conservation in the Pacific Northwest:
documenting the present distributions of native crayfishes and
comparing them to the best available historic benchmarks (Figure
1); evaluating conservation statuses relative to threats like land use
change and prevalence of invasive species; and quantifying the
life history and ecological attributes of these species, particularly
in contrast to the invasive crayfishes that are increasingly common
in the region (Figure 2).
70
It is now well-established that the ecological function of one
crayfish species does not equal that of another (e.g., McCarthy
et al. 2006; Olsson et al. 2009). Invasive crayfishes in the
Pacific Northwest should be anticipated to interact with native
communities, ecosystems, or valuable fisheries in ways that
differ from native Pacifastacus species, particularly owing to the
wide evolutionary separation between the Cambarid crayfishes
of eastern North America and Astacid crayfishes of western
North America. Research should be directed at evaluating these
differences as well as developing management and control options
for invasive crayfishes (Freeman et al. 2010). Ample experience
from other regions of the world suggests that invasive crayfishes
will have unwanted impacts in the Pacific Northwest (McCarthy
et al. 2006; Matsuzaki et al. 2009), and consequently immediate
precautionary measures should be taken to prevent additional
introductions. States and provinces in the Pacific Northwest need
to agree on a region-wide black list of prohibited, or white list
of permitted, crayfishes and pursue its enforcement, including
oft-neglected pathways, such as the aquarium and biological
supply trades (Lodge et al. 2000; Keller and Lodge 2007). The
use of crayfish as live bait cannot be unrestricted; at a minimum,
crayfish should only be permitted as bait in the water where
directly collected by the angler. The management of recreational
and commercial crayfish harvest must adjust to the increasingly
common occurrence of invasive crayfishes in the region and take
measures to discourage the illegal stocking of these crayfishes for
harvest (Johnson et al. 2009).
The recreational and commercial harvest of crayfish has a
long and interesting history in the Pacific Northwest (Miller
and Van Hyning 1970), and represents a significant economic
commodity (Figure 4). Evaluations of the efficacy of fishing
regulations for crayfish are rare (but see Lewis 1997), and some
evidence indicates that the harvest of crayfish can affect broader
aquatic communities (Roell and Orth 1988). Quantifying the
extent and popularity of recreational harvest of crayfishes in the
Pacific Northwest would be valuable, and could be used to target
outreach materials for discouraging illegal stocking of invasive
crayfishes. Lakes and rivers with active commercial crayfish
harvest would benefit from evaluation of the effectiveness of
regulations in protecting both crayfish populations and other
members of the aquatic community.
Over the journal’s history, Fisheries has published multiple
reviews on the state of crayfish management and conservation in
North America (Bouchard 1978; Momot 1991; Lodge et al. 2000;
Taylor et al. 2007). Many of these papers have made reasonable and
legitimately urgent management recommendations that have yet to
see wide implementation (DiStefano et al. 2009; Peters and Lodge
2009). We have added to this literature by summarizing the state of
crayfish in the Pacific Northwest, and found the conservation status
of native crayfishes to be poorly known, invasive crayfishes to be
increasingly widespread, and adjacent states and provinces to be
pursuing inconsistent regulations related to crayfish management.
Basic research by fisheries biologists and coordination among state,
provincial, and federal managers is needed to safeguard populations
of native crayfishes and minimize the threat of invasive crayfishes
in the Pacific Northwest, and we hope that our review provides an
impetus for such a response.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful for comments on our review of state
and province crayfish regulations by Tim Feldner (Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks), Nadine Hurtado (Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife), Vicki Marshall (British
Columbia Ministry of the Environment), David Parrish
(Idaho Department of Fish and Game), and Allen Pleus
(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). Molly
Hallock (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)
and Nadine Hurtado provided data on commercial crayfish
landings. This manuscript was improved by comments from
Bob DiStefano, Angela Strecker, Chris Taylor, and Carolyn
Wisniewski. The lead author is grateful for support of
western crayfish research from the Anchor Environmental
Scholarship, Oregon Zoo Future for Wildlife Grants
program, Washington Lake Protection Association Nancy
Weller Scholarship, and the Western Division American
Fisheries Society William Trachtenberg Scholarship.
Additional funding was provided by NOAA Sea Grant.
REFERENCES
Abrahamsson, S.A.A., and C.R. Goldman. 1970.
Distribution, density and production of the crayfish
Pacifastacus leniusculus Dana in Lake Tahoe, California
– Nevada. Oikos 21:83-91.
Agerberg, A., and H. Jansson. 1995. Allozymic comparisons between three subspecies of the freshwater crayfish
Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana), and between populations introduced to Sweden. Hereditas 122:33-39.
Bondar, C.A., Y. Zhang, J.S. Richardson, and D. Jesson.
2005a. The conservation status of the freshwater crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus, in British Columbia.
Fisheries Management Report No. 117, British
Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
Surrey, BC.
Bondar, C.A., K. Bottriell, K. Zeron, and J.S. Richardson.
2005b. Does trophic position of the omnivorous signal
crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) in a stream food web
vary with life history stage or density? Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:2632-2639.
Bondar, C.A., and J.S. Richardson. 2009. Effects of
ontogenetic stage and density on the ecological role
of the signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) in a
coastal Pacific stream. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 28:294-304.
Bouchard, R.W. 1977a. Distribution, systematic status and
ecological notes on five poorly known species of crayfishes in western North America. Freshwater Crayfish
3:409-423.
Bouchard, R.W. 1977b. Morphology of the mandible
in holarctic crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae and
Cambaridae): ecological and phylogenetic implications.
Freshwater Crayfish 3:425-452.
Bouchard, R.W. 1978. Taxonomy, distribution, and general ecology of the genera of North American crayfishes.
Fisheries 3(6):11-19.
Brown, K.D. 1999. Truce in the salmon war: alternatives
for the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Washington Law Review
74:605-695.
Carpenter, J. 2005. Competition for food between an
introduced crayfish and two fishes endemic to the
Colorado River basin. Environmental Biology of Fishes
72:335-342.
Clark, W.L., and G.T. Lester. 2005. Range extension
and ecological information for Orconectes virilis (Hagen
1870) (Decapoda:Cambaridae) in Idaho, USA. Western
North American Naturalist 65:164-169.
Clark, W.L., and J.W. Wroten. 1978. First record of
the crayfish, Procambarus clarkii, from Idaho, U.S.A.
(Decapoda, Cambaridae). Crustaceana 35:317-319.
Coykendall, R.L. 1973. The culture of crayfish native
to Oregon. Masters Thesis, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR.
Creed, R.P. 1994. Direct and indirect effects of crayfish
grazing in a stream community. Ecology 75:2091-2103.
Dana, J.D. 1852. United States exploring expedition during the years 1838 to 1842 under the command of Charles
Wilkes, U.S.N. Crustacea. Vol. 13. Philadelphia, PA.
DiStefano, R.J., M.E. Litvan, and P.T. Horner. 2009.
The bait industry as a potential vector for alien crayfish
introductions: problem recognition by fisheries agencies
and a Missouri evaluation. Fisheries 34(12):586-597.
Dorn, N.J., and G.G. Mittelbach. 1999. More than predator and prey: a review of interactions between fish and
crayfish. Vie et Milieu 49:229-237.
Dorn, N.J., and G.G. Mittelbach. 2004. Effects of a
native crayfish (Orconectes virilis) on the reproductive
success and nesting behavior of sunfish (Lepomis spp.).
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
61:2135-2143.
Faxon, W. 1885. A revision of the Astacidae. I. The genera Cambarus and Astacus. Memoirs of the Museum of
Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. 10(4):1-186.
Faxon, W. 1914. Notes on the crayfishes in the United
States National Museum and the Museum of Comparative
Zoology with descriptions of new species and subspecies. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology
at Harvard College. 40(8):351-427.
Filipova, L., D.M. Holdich, J. Lesobre, F. Grandjean, and
A. Petrusek. 2010. Cryptic diversity within the invasive virile crayfish Orconectes virilis (Hagen, 1870) species complex: new lineages recorded in both native and
introduced ranges. Biological Invasions 12:983-989.
Freeman, M.A., J.F. Turnbull, W.E. Yeomans, and C.W.
Bean. 2010. Prospects for management strategies of
invasive crayfish populations with an emphasis on
biological control. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems 20:211-223.
71
Gamradt, S.C., and L.B. Kats. 1996. Effects of introduced crayfish and mosquitofish on California newts.
Conservation Biology 10:1155-1162.
Giordano, M.A., and A.T. Wolf. 2003. Sharing waters:
post-Rio international water management. Natural
Resources Forum 27:163-171.
Girard, C. 1852. A revision of the North American Astaci,
with observations on their habits and geographical
distribution. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia 6:87-91.
Hein, C.L., B.M. Roth, A.R. Ives, and M.J. Vander
Zanden. 2006. Fish predation and trapping for rusty
crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) control: a whole-lake
experiment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 63:383-393.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1972. Crayfishes (Astacidae) of
North and Middle America. Water Pollution Control
Research Series Identification Manual 9, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Hobbs, H.H., III., J.P. Jass, and J.V. Huner. 1989. A
review of global crayfish introductions with particular
emphasis on two North American species (Decapoda,
Cambaridae). Crustaceana 56:299-316.
Hubert, W.A. 1988. Survey of Wyoming crayfishes. Great
Basin Naturalist 48:370-372.
Hubert, W.A. 2010. Survey of Wyoming crayfishes: 20072009. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne,
WY.
Johnson, B.M., R. Arlinghaus, and P.J. Martinez. 2009.
Are we doing all we can to stem the tide of illegal fish
stocking? Fisheries 34(8):380-394.
Johnson, E.A. 1971. Biological studies on the crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus trowbridgii (Stimpson), in
Fern Lake, Washington. Masters Thesis, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA.
Johnson, J.E. 1986. Inventory of Utah crayfish with notes
on current distribution. Great Basin Naturalist 46:625631.
Keller, R.P., and D.M. Lodge. 2007. Species invasions
from commerce in live aquatic organisms: problems and
possible solutions. BioScience 57:428-436.
Keller, R.P., K. Frang, and D.M. Lodge. 2008. Preventing
the spread of invasive species: economic benefits of intervention guided by ecological predictions. Conservation
Biology 22:80-88.
Koslucher, D.G., and G.W. Minshall. 1973. Food habits
of some benthic invertebrates in a northern cool-desert stream (Deep Creek, Curlew Valley, Idaho-Utah).
Transactions of the American Microscopical Society
92:441-452.
Larson, E.R., C.A. Busack, J.D. Anderson, and J.D.
Olden. 2010. Widespread distribution of the non-native
northern crayfish (Orconectes virilis) in the Columbia
River basin. Northwest Science 84:109-112.
Larson, E.R., and J.D. Olden. 2008. Do schools and golf
courses represent emerging pathways for crayfish invasions? Aquatic Invasions 3:465-468.
72
Larson, E.R., and J.D. Olden. 2010. Latent extinction and
invasion risk of crayfishes in the southeastern United
States. Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.15231739.2010.01462.x
Lewis, S.D. 1997. Life history, population dynamics, and
management of signal crayfish in Lake Billy Chinook,
Oregon. Masters Thesis, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR.
Light, T., D.C. Erman, C. Myrick, and J. Clarke. 1995.
Decline of the Shasta crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis Faxon)
of northeastern California. Conservation Biology
9:1567-1577.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal.
2000. Reducing impacts of exotic crayfish introductions: new policies needed. Fisheries 25(8):21-23.
Mason, J.C. 1974. Aquaculture potential of the freshwater
crayfish (Pacifastacus). I. Studies during 1970. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada Technical Report No. 440,
Nanaimo, BC.
Matsuzaki, S.S., N. Usio, N. Takamura, and I. Washitani.
2009. Contrasting impacts of invasive engineers on
freshwater ecosystems: an experiment and meta-analysis. Oecologia 158:673-685.
McCarthy, J.M., C.L. Hein, J.D. Olden, and M.J. Vander
Zanden. 2006. Coupling long-term studies with metaanalysis to investigate impacts of non-native crayfish
on zoobenthic communities. Freshwater Biology 51:224235.
Miller, G.C. 1960. The taxonomy and certain biological aspects of the crayfish of Oregon and Washington.
Masters Thesis, Oregon State College, Corvallis, OR.
Miller, G.C., and J.M. Van Hyning. 1970. The commercial
fishery for fresh-water crawfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus
(Astacidae), in Oregon, 1893-1956. Research Reports
of the Fish Commission of Oregon 2:77-89.
Mitchell, C.L. 1997. Fisheries management in the Grand
Banks, 1980-1992 and the straddling stock issue. Marine
Policy 21:97-109.
Momot, W.T. 1991. Potential for exploitation of freshwater crayfish in coolwater systems: management guidelines and issues. Fisheries 16(5):14-20.
Mueller, K.W. 2001. First record of the red swamp crayfish, Procambarus clarkii (Girard 1852) (Decapoda,
Cambaridae), from Washington State, U.S.A.
Crustaceana 74:1003-1007.
Mueller, K.W., and K.R. Bodensteiner. 2009. Shelter
occupancy by mixed-species pairs of native signal crayfish and non-native red swamp crayfish held in enclosures. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 24:67-76.
Nyström, P., C. Brönmark, and W. Granéli. 1996.
Patterns in benthic food webs: a role for omnivorous
crayfish? Freshwater Biology 36:631-646.
Olden, J.D., J.W. Adams, and E.R. Larson. 2009a.
First record of Orconectes rusticus (Girard 1852) west
of the Great Continental Divide in North America.
Crustaceana 82:1347-1351.
Olden, J.D., E.R. Larson, and M.C. Mims. 2009b. Homefield advantage: native signal crayfish (Pacifastacus
leniusculus) out consume newly introduced crayfishes
for invasive Chinese mystery snail (Bellamya chinensis).
Aquatic Ecology 43:1073-1084.
Olsson, K., P. Stenroth, P. Nyström, and W. Granéli.
2009. Invasions and niche width: does niche width of
an introduced crayfish differ from a native crayfish?
Freshwater Biology 54:1731-1740.
Pearl, C.A., M.J. Adams, N. Leuthold, and R.B. Bury.
2005. Amphibian occurrence and aquatic invaders in
a changing landscape: implications for wetland mitigation in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, USA. Wetlands
25:76-88.
Peters, J.A., and D.M. Lodge. 2009. Invasive species policy at the regional level: a multiple weak links problem.
Fisheries 34(8):373-381.
Powell, J.W. 1890. Institutions for arid lands. The Century
40:111-116.
Rabeni, C.F. 1992. Trophic linkage between stream centrarchids and their crayfish prey. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1714-1721.
Riegel, J.A. 1959. The systematics and distribution of
crayfishes in California. California Fish and Game
45(1):29-50.
Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, and R.F. Thurow. 1997.
Distribution, status and likely future trends of bull trout
within the Columbia River and Klamath River basins.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management.
17:1111-1125.
Roell, M.J., and D.J. Orth. 1998. Indirect effects of fishery exploitation and pest control in a riverine food
web. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
18:337-346.
Rogowski, D.L., and C.A. Stockwell. 2006. Assessment
of potential impacts of exotic species on populations of
a threatened species, White Sands pupfish, Cyprinodon
tularosa. Biological Invasions 8:79-87.
Sanderson, B.L., K.A. Barnas, and A.M. Wargo Rub.
2009. Nonindigenous species of the Pacific Northwest:
an overlooked risk to endangered salmon? BioScience
59:245-255.
Sheldon, A.L. 1989. A reconnaissance of crayfish populations in western Montana. Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Missoula, MT.
Strayer, D.L., and D. Dudgeon. 2010. Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society 29:344-358.
Stimpson, W. 1857. On the Crustacea and Echinodermata
of the Pacific shores of North America. I. Crustacea.
Boston Journal of Natural History 6(4):444-532.
Tablado, Z., J.L. Tella, J.A. Sánchez-Zapata, and F.
Hiraldo. 2010. The paradox of the long-term positive
effects of a North American crayfish on a European
community of predators. Conservation Biology 24:12301238.
Taylor, C.A., G.A. Schuster, J.E. Cooper, R.J. DiStefano,
A.G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H.H. Hobbs, H.W. Robison,
C.E. Skelton, and R.E. Thoma. 2007. A reassessment
of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389.
Usio, N., R. Kamiyama, A. Saji, and N. Takamura. 2009.
Size-dependent impacts of invasive alien crayfish on a
littoral marsh community. Biological Conservation
142:1480-1490.
Usio, N., and C.R. Townsend. 2004. Roles of crayfish:
consequences of predation and bioturbation for stream
invertebrates. Ecology 85:807-822.
Vander Zanden, M.J., and J.D. Olden. 2008. A management framework for preventing the secondary spread of
aquatic invasive species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 65:1512-1522.
Welsh, S.A., Z.J. Loughman, and T.P. Simon. 2010.
Concluding remarks: a symposium on the conservation,
biology, and natural history of crayfishes from the southern United States. Southeastern Naturalist 9:267-269.
Wilson, K.A., J.J. Magnuson, D.M. Lodge, A.M. Hill,
T.K. Kratz, W.L. Perry, and T.V. Willis. 2004. A
long-term rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) invasion:
dispersal patterns and community change in a north-
Submit Your Review Articles
to Fisheries
In 2011 we are particularly
encouraging submission of
review articles on topics of
current interest in fisheries science and
will waive page charges for such
topical review articles.
In addition, we have worked through
our backlog from record submissions
two years ago and can now offer
speedier time to publication.
Fisheries offers a large and
influential readership of
more than 8,000 subscribers and
one of the highest citation rates
in the fisheries science field.
See the Guide for Authors in the January issue.
73
feature:
The aquarium trade as an invasion
pathway in the Pacific Northwest
ABSTRACT: The aquarium trade moves thousands of species around the
globe, and unwanted organisms may be released into freshwaters, with adverse
ecological and economic effects. We report on the first investigation of the
ornamental pet trade as an invasion pathway in the Pacific Northwest region
of the United States, where a moderate climate and a large human population
present ample opportunities for the introduction and establishment of aquarium
trade species. Results from a regional survey of pet stores found that the number
of fish (n=400) and plant (n=124) species currently in the aquarium trade is
vast. Pet stores import thousands of fish every month, the majority of which
(58%) are considered to pose an ecological threat to native ecosystems. Our
propagule pressure model suggests that approximately 2,500 fish (maximum ~
21,000 individuals) are likely released annually to the Puget Sound region by
aquarists, and that water temperatures in many parts of Washington are suitable
for establishment of populations. In conclusion, the aquarium trade may be a
significant source of past and future invasions in the Pacific Northwest, and
we recommend enhanced public education programs, greater regulation of
the aquarium industry, and improved legislation of nonnative species in the
ornamental trade.
Tratado de Comercio en
Acuarios como una vía de
invasión en el Pacífico noroeste
Resumen: El Tratado de Comercio en Acuarios mueve miles de especies en todo
el mundo y organismos no deseados pueden ser liberados en aguas continentales,
lo que provoca efectos ecológicos adversos. En la presente contribución se
reporta la primera investigación sobre el tratado de especies ornamentales como
una vía de invasión en la región del Pacífico noroeste de los Estados Unidos
de Norteamérica, donde tanto el clima como la enorme población humana
representan amplias oportunidades para la introducción y establecimiento de
especies comerciales de acuario. Los resultados de un sondeo realizado a nivel
regional a los negocios de mascotas muestran que el número de especies de peces
(n=400) y plantas (n=124) que actualmente contiene el Tratado de Comercio
en Acuarios es vasto. Los negocios de mascotas importan miles de peces cada
mes, la mayor parte de los cuales (58%) se considera que representan una
amenaza ecológica a los ecosistemas nativos. Se utilizó un modelo de presión de
propágulo y los resultados sugieren que aproximadamente 2,500 peces (máximo
~ 21,000 individuos) pueden estar liberándose anualmente a la región de Sonda
Puget por parte de los acuaristas y que la temperatura del agua en muchas
partes del estado de Washington son adecuadas para el establecimiento de las
poblaciones. Concluyendo, el Tratado de Comercio de Acuarios puede ser una
fuente importante de invasiones en el Pacífico noroeste tanto en el pasado como
en el futuro; se recomienda perfeccionar los programas de educación pública,
aumentar la regulación de la industria del acuarismo y mejorar la legislación en
lo tocante a especies foráneas dentro del tratado.
74
Angela L. Strecker
Philip M. Campbell, and
Julian D. Olden*
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA,
USA, 98105. *Olden, 206-616-3112,
[email protected].
Introduction
Human activities have greatly increased
the number and geographical extent of
aquatic invasive species (AIS) throughout
the United States and globally. Prevention
of species introductions is considered the
cornerstone of invasive species management (Vander Zanden and Olden 2008), yet
integrated approaches to managing invasion
vectors (sensu Ruiz and Carlton 2003) are
difficult to develop and implement because
pathways to aquatic species introductions
are diverse, dynamic over time, and vary
both taxonomically and geographically (e.g.,
Moyle and Marchetti 2006, Ricciardi 2006).
An understanding of the full complement
of invasion pathways is critical to improve
policy actions, guide integrated management
strategies, and enhance educational campaigns aimed at reducing the threat of future
invasions (Lodge et al. 2006).
To date, considerable research activity
and management attention has focused on
unintentional pathways to AIS introductions
through ballast-water transfer in ships (e.g.,
Carlton and Geller 1993, Ruiz et al. 1997),
transport via trailered boats (e.g., Leung et al.
2006, Rothlisberger et al. 2010), bait-bucket
releases by recreational anglers (e.g., Litvak
and Mandrak 1993, DiStefano et al. 2009),
and escapes associated with aquaculture (e.g.,
Naylor et al. 2001, De Silva et al. 2009). By
contrast, the ornamental pet and aquarium
trade has only recently been recognized as
a major pathway for freshwater fish and
plant introductions (Copp et al. 2010). This
is despite the fact that the ornamental pet
trade represents a multi-billion dollar industry that includes thousands
of foreign species and has grown by 14% annually since the 1970s
(Padilla and Williams 2004, Cohen et al. 2007). Although the import
of some nonnative species common to the pet trade are regulated
by certain countries (e.g., reptiles in Australia and New Zealand),
ornamental fish generally have not received attention from regulatory
agencies (Thomas et al. 2009, Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity 2010). Additionally, reliable record keeping of
the type and number of organisms currently in the trade is lacking
(Schlaepfer et al. 2005, Smith et al. 2008, Chang et al. 2009). Given
the present uncertainty in the taxonomy of many ornamental fish and
plant species within the aquarium trade, as well as the widespread
contamination of many aquarium plants with unidentified organisms
(e.g., molluscs: Keller and Lodge 2007), our ability to assess invasion
risk associated with this pathway is limited.
Aquarium trade species are introduced when owners release
unwanted organisms into natural waterbodies for various reasons,
including large size, humane treatment, aggressiveness, and high
reproductive rates (Padilla and Williams 2004, Gertzen et al. 2008).
The most popular fish sold in the aquarium trade are also the most
likely to be introduced and establish in freshwater habitats (Duggan
et al. 2006). Although the aquarium trade and its associated vectors
have been increasingly recognized as a primary pathway of biological
invasions in the Laurentian Great Lakes region (Rixon et al. 2005,
Cohen et al. 2007, Gertzen et al. 2008) and the San Francisco BayDelta region (Chang et al. 2009), surprisingly little is known regarding
the scope of the issue in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.
In a region where invasive species are considered a significant
threat to native biodiversity, ecosystem function, and culturally- and
economically-important Pacific salmon (Sanderson et al. 2009), it is
imperative that scientific research is available to quantify the strength
of the aquarium trade as a pathway of new invasions. In Washington
and Oregon, there are a number of plant and animal species that have
likely been introduced into the wild via the aquarium trade, including
oriental weatherfish (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus), Amur goby
(Rhinogobius brunneus), red-bellied pacu (Piaractus brachypomus),
goldfish (Carassius auratus), red swamp crayfish (Procambarus
clarkii), Chinese mystery snail (Cipangopaludina chinensis malleata),
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), and parrot feather
(Myriophyllum aquaticum)1. Thus, the scope of this problem is
significant. Furthermore, many aquarium species may become more
successful at establishing in higher latitudes with warmer temperatures
projected to occur under climate change scenarios (Rahel and Olden
2008, Chang et al. 2009).
Our paper is the first to examine the ornamental pet trade as an
invasion pathway in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States,
where a moderate climate—in combination with a large and growing
human population—presents ample opportunities for the introduction
and establishment of aquarium trade species. We combine data,
gathered over time, from a regional survey of aquarium pet stores
with a detailed investigation of fish and plant sales to quantify the
type and number of organisms in the ornamental trade. From this we
examined selected common aquarium fish species with high invasion
potential according to previous invasion history and thermal suitability
for establishment in Washington State waters. Next, we report on the
results from a survey of live organism used by aquarists, which is used
to parameterize a model of propagule pressure to estimate the number
of aquarium fish likely to be introduced annually to the Puget Sound
region of western Washington.
Methods
Store Inventory Surveys and
Aquarist Questionnaires
We conducted an intensive (temporal trends in a single store) and
extensive (spatial trends from multiple stores) survey of pet stores in
the Puget Sound area of Washington to document the numbers and
types of fish and plant taxa in the ornamental pet trade (Figure 1).
The intensive survey analyzed monthly sale invoices from a single
(large and independent) pet store in 2007. All fish and plant species
were identified and individuals counted. Fish were separated into
ornamental (i.e., fish of primary interest for viewing) and feeder (i.e.,
to feed to other fish) species. When there was a disparity between a
store label scientific name and common name, we used the scientific
name provided in FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2009). Additionally,
30 pet stores in Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties were surveyed
over a two-week period in February 2008 to regionally characterize
the ornamental pet trade (Figure 1). Two different national pet store
chains were chosen for the survey (chain A, n = 14; chain B, n = 8),
as well as eight independently owned stores. There is some evidence
that independent retailers differ in the numbers and types of species
sold compared to chain stores (Chang et al. 2009); understanding
differences between store types can help direct educational efforts.
Preliminary analyses indicated that the two sets of chain stores differed in the numbers and types of species sold, therefore, we analyzed
the chains separately. Stores were visited a day after receiving their
fish and plant shipment (determined by contacting the store managers) to enumerate organisms before they were purchased, but after any
had died from travel stress. This ensured that our survey accurately
reflected the current inventory of store. Time constraints precluded the
enumeration of individual plants, resulting in species being reported as
present or absent.
Fish and plant taxa observed in our regional survey were compared
to the USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species list1 and the Washington
State Aquatic Nuisance Species list2 to determine whether the species
have a demonstrated history of invasion in other regions of the United
States. The USGS defines nonindigenous species as species that are
outside of their historic or native range, whereas Washington State
defines invasive species as species that are not historically native to
the state. Previous invasion history is one of the best predictors of
invasion potential (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998). For the purposes
of our study these taxa were designated as “invasive.” Next, optimal
and lethal temperature requirements for selected fish species were
obtained from FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2009): when lethal limits
were unavailable, values were obtained from primary literature (white
cloud mountain minnow, Tanichthys albonubes: Cheverie and Lynn
(1963); goldfish, Carassius auratus: Ford and Beitinger (2005);
molly, Poecilia sphenops: Hernández and Bückle (2002); koi carp,
Cyprinus carpio carpio: Opuszyňski et al. (1989)). These species
were chosen because they represent a cross-section of species common to aquarium and pet stores; they have been identified previously
http://wdfw.wa.gov/ais/;
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/exotic.html
2
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/
1
75
as species with potential to establish in temperate North America and
Washington State (Tabor et al. 2001, Rixon et al. 2005, Gertzen et al.
2008); and there was optimal and lethal temperature range data available in the literature. Optimum temperature was defined as the range
of temperatures in which fish species typically habituate in the wild,
whereas lethal temperatures indicate absolute minimum and maximum temperatures that fish can survive in under experimental settings
(Brett 1956). Additionally, data layers for stream water temperatures
from 2000-2008 were obtained from 236 monthly monitoring sites in
the Environmental Protection Agency’s STORET Database3. Water
temperature data were summarized as mean annual temperature
because values from winter months (i.e., minimum values) were not
http://www.epa.gov/storet/dbtop.html
3
consistently available. We use stream temperatures as our proxy of
water temperatures across the state because data from a suitable number of lakes was not available.
A survey of 92 aquarists was conducted at an independent pet
store (same store as the intensive survey) in June 2008 to assess
the numbers of pet fish owned, and to estimate the proportion of
aquarists releasing fish or plants into local waterways. Questions
asked included: 1) total number of freshwater fish species typically
owned each year; 2) whether or not the owner had released live fish
or plants into the wild in their lifetime; 3) where live fish and/or
plants were released; and 4) methods of deposing of fish and plants.
Questionnaires were randomly given to aquarists in the store, and
responses were anonymous.
Figure 1: A) Number of pet stores in Washington state counties (US Economic Census 2007: http://www.census.
gov/econ/census07/), B) location of stores included in the regional survey of the Puget Sound area (n = 30), and C) a
typical aquarium showroom.
Analysis
of Taxa
Currently in
the Pet and
Aquarium
Trade
The number of fish
and plant species per
store, and the number of
fish individuals per store
recorded during the spatial
survey of pet stores were
averaged within store
category (chain A, chain
B, and independent). Fish
abundance and number of
fish species were ln-transformed, and the number of
plant species was squareroot transformed prior
to analysis to normalize
data. We used analysis of
variance (ANOVA) tests,
followed by a Tukey HSD
post hoc test, to examine
differences among store
types in fish abundance,
and fish and plant species
richness. Additionally,
we performed a multivariate analysis to examine
similarities and differences
in the abundances of each
fish species sold across
the different store types.
Fish species that occurred
in <10% of stores were
excluded from the analysis,
and counts were standardized to z-scores to reduce
the influence of rare and/
or abundant taxa. We used
76
non-metric multidimensional
scaling (NMDS) to summarize
store differences, as NMDS is
effective with non-normal data
and can use any distance measure (Legendre and Legendre
1998). We used the Bray-Curtis
dissimilarity index, and tested
for significance of the ordination with randomization tests.
According to multivariate stress
values we found that the optimal
ordination utilized three dimensions. Ordination analyses were
performed using the MASS
library in R (R Development
Core Team 2010).
Figure 2: Total monthly number of fish (i.e., feeders and ornamentals), ornamental fish, and plant individuals
purchased by the store (reflecting monthly sales). Note that plants are represented on the right-hand axis.
Propagule
Pressure Model
One of our objectives was
to estimate the number of fish
likely to be introduced annually
to the Puget Sound region of Washington (King, Snohomish, and
Pierce counties), which was the location of our regional survey, and
held the most populated counties in the state. We used the results
of our aquarist survey to parameterize a propagule pressure model
by modifying the approach of Gertzen et al. (2008). The model
structure is:
propagule pressure = M ∙ P(I) ∙ N ∙ P(R|I)
where M is the number of households that own aquarium fishes, P(I)
is the probability that an owner is a releaser, N is average number of
fish owned annually, and P(R|I) is the probability fish are released
given that an owner is a releaser (Gertzen et al. 2008). We based the
parameters P(I) and N on data from our aquarist survey, whereas
P(R|I) was derived from Gertzen et al. (2008). We used a Bayesian
approach to incorporate uncertainty about the representativeness of
our values in the model. Bayesian statistics consider prior information in the determination of parameters from a data set. Thus, we
created probability distributions that reflected our data: we multiplied these distributions by each other to generate a joint probability
distribution.
The number of households that own aquarium fishes, M, was
determined by multiplying the number of households in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties (1,196,568; US Census 20004) by the
percentage of U.S. households that own fishes (10.6%), and by the
percentage of fish in the aquarium trade that are freshwater (96%)
(values from Chapman et al. 1997). P(I), the probability of being
a releaser, was a binary variable determined from survey data and
modeled with a binomial distribution (i.e., heads or tails), which reflects the uncertainty from our random survey of 92 people (Bolker
2008). N, the number of fish owned annually, was determined from
our survey and was modeled with a negative binomial distribution.
In a negative binomial distribution, the variance is larger than the
mean (Bolker 2008), which reflects the large number of aquarists
4
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
who own a small number of fish (e.g., ≤5), but that a small number
of aquarists own large numbers of fish. P(R|I), the probability that
fish are released given that the owner is a releaser, was based on
the value of Gertzen et al. (2008) (5.1%) and modeled with a beta
distribution that is bound by 0 and 1 (Bolker 2008). Each probability
distribution (P(I), N, and P(R|I)) was then combined with a uniform
flat prior to generate posterior distributions; we used uniform priors
as we had no prior expectations about model parameters (Bolker
2008, Gertzen et al. 2008). Finally, all combinations of the posterior
distributions and the constant, M, were multiplied together to create
a joint probability distribution that reflects the inherent uncertainty
in our survey data. All propagule pressure model steps were performed in R (R Development Core Team 2010).
Results
A year-long intensive survey of a pet store in the Puget Sound
area revealed a distinct peak in the number of ornamental fish, the
number of total fish (ornamentals + feeder fish), and number of
plants purchased starting in late spring (February and March) and
extending through the summer to September (Figure 2). Fish sales
peaked in May, with >9,700 fish purchased in the store, half of
which were ornamental fish, whereas sales for plants peaked in July,
at >700 plants (Figure 2).
Our regional survey of 30 pet stores identified 400 fish species
and 124 plant taxa currently in the ornamental trade, a number
that represents the minimal species pool for the Pacific Northwest
region. None of the fish species are native to Washington State
and only 8 plant species are natives. Of the 400 fish species, 29
occurred in greater than 75% of stores, including two taxa, tiger
barb (Puntius tetrazona) and three spot gourami (Trichogaster
trichopterus), which occurred in all of the stores surveyed (Table
1). Other commonly encountered fish species included goldfish,
Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens), several different tetras,
mollies, and guppies (Poecilia spp.) (Table 1). Additionally, a
77
in one store we found an aquatic plant species, the water chestnut
(Trapa natans), which is banned for sale by the Washington State
Department of Agriculture.
As many aquarium species are tropical in origin, their minimum
optimal temperatures typically exceed winter water temperatures
observed in temperate waterbodies (Table 1, Figure 3). However,
several aquarium species that are prevalent in the ornamental trade
have lower-lethal and minimum optimal temperatures that are found
well within the range of mean annual stream water temperatures
in Washington State (Figure 3). This includes several taxa, such
as the white cloud mountain minnow and the oriental weatherfish,
which may have high invasion potential. Oriental weatherfish have
established a population in Washington (Tabor et al. 2001), and the
white cloud mountain minnow are considered a high risk invader
in the United States as a result of broad thermal tolerance (Rixon
et al. 2005). Additionally, koi carp and goldfish (both present in
Washington) have very
broad thermal tolerance ranges, suggestTable 1. Frequency of occurrence of aquarium fish species in pet stores (>75%) and minimum
Table 1. Frequency of occurrence of aquarium fish species in pet stores (>75%) and minimum
ing that these species
may have elevated
optimum temperature (°C).
optimum temperature (°C).
establishment potential. Our estimates of
Minimum
concordance between
Minimum
Frequency of
optimum
Scientific name
Common name
fish species thermal
Frequency
of
optimum
occurrence
temperature
Scientific name
Common name
tolerance and water
occurrence
temperature
(%)
(°C)
temperatures in Wash(%)
(°C)
Puntius tetrazonaaa
tiger barb
100.0
20.0
ington State may be
a
Puntius
tetrazona
tiger
barb
100.0
20.0
Trichogaster trichopterusa
three spot gourami
100.0
22.0
conservative, as lakes
a
three
spot
gourami
100.0
22.0
Trichogaster
trichopterus
Siamese fighting fish
96.7
24.0
Betta splendensa
may exhibit greater
a,b
Siamese
fighting
fish
96.7
24.0
Betta
splendens
goldfish
96.7
0.0
Carassius auratusa,b
thermal heterogeneity
c
goldfish
96.7
0.0
Carassius
auratus
zebra danio
96.7
18.0
Danio rerioc
compared to streams.
a
zebra
danio
96.7
18.0
Danio
rerio
black tetra
96.7
20.0
Gymnocorymbus ternetzia
We found differc
black
tetra
96.7
20.0
Gymnocorymbus
ternetzi
glowlight tetra
96.7
24.0
Hemigrammus erythrozonusc
ences between fish and
a
glowlight
tetra
96.7
24.0
Hemigrammus
erythrozonus
neon tetra
96.7
20.0
Paracheirodon innesia
plant inventories from
a
neon tetra
96.7
20.0
Paracheirodon
innesi
sailfin
molly
96.7
20.0
Poecilia latipinna
our regional survey of
a
sailfin molly
96.7
20.0
Poecilia reticulata
latipinna a
guppy
96.7
18.0
Poecilia
chain stores and a set
a
guppy
96.7
18.0
Poecilia reticulata
molly
96.7
18.0
Poecilia
sphenopsaa
of independent stores.
c
molly barb
96.7
18.0
Poecilia
sphenops
cherry
96.7
23.0
Puntius titteya
Chain A had signific
cherry
barb
96.7
23.0
Puntius titteyamaculatusa
southern
platyfish
96.7
18.0
Xiphophorus
cantly lower numbers
a
southern
platyfish
96.7
18.0
Xiphophorus
dwarf gourami
90.0
25.0
Colisa laliaaa maculatus
of fish individuals
dwarf
gourami
90.0
25.0
Colisa
lalia
Pristella
maxillaris
x-ray tetra
90.0
24.0
per store compared
Pristella
maxillaris a
x-ray
tetra
90.0
24.0
rosy barb
90.0
18.0
Puntius conchonius
to chain B (ANOVA:
a
rosy barb
90.0
18.0
Puntius
conchonius
oscar
83.3
22.0
Astronotus
ocellatusaa
F2,27 = 9.56, p < 0.01;
oscar sharkminnow
83.3
22.0
Astronotus ocellatus
Tukey HSD p < 0.05),
Epalzeorhynchos
frenatum
rainbow
83.3
24.0
a
Epalzeorhynchos
frenatum
rainbow
sharkminnow
83.3
24.0
but neither chain store
Chinese algae-eater
83.3
25.0
Gyrinocheilus aymonieri
a
a
Chinese
algae-eater
83.3
25.0
Gyrinocheilus
aymonieri
was different from
83.3
22.0
Moenkhausia sanctaefilomenaea redeye tetra
redeye tetra
83.3
22.0
Moenkhausia sanctaefilomenae
the set of independent
Trigonostigma
heteromorpha
harlequin
rasbora
83.3
22.0
Trigonostigma
harlequin
rasbora
83.3
22.0
stores (Tukey HSD p
tricolor sharkminnow
80.0
22.0
Balantiocheilosheteromorpha
melanopterusaa
a
tricolor sharkminnow
80.0
22.0
Balantiocheilos
melanopterus
> 0.05) (Figure 4A).
peppered
corydoras
80.0
18.0
Corydoras paleatus
peppered
corydoras
80.0
18.0
Corydoras
paleatusa
Chain A also had
Devario
aequipinnatus
giant danio
80.0
22.0
a
Devario
aequipinnatus
giant
danio
80.0
22.0
significantly fewer
green swordtail
80.0
22.0
Xiphophorus helleria
c
fish species compared
green
swordtail
80.0
22.0
Xiphophorus
helleri
jewel tetra
76.7
22.0
Hyphessobrycon equesc
to both chain B and
jewel
tetra
76.7
22.0
Hyphessobrycon
eques
Labidochromis caeruleus
blue streak hap
76.7
23.0
independent stores
a
Labidochromis
caeruleus
blue
streak
hap
76.7
23.0
silver dollar
76.7
24.0
Metynnis hypsauchena
(ANOVA: F2,27 =
a
silver
dollar
76.7
24.0
Metynnis
hypsauchen
white cloud mountain minnow
76.7
18.0
Tanichthys albonubesa
13.00, p < 0.01; Tukey
aTanichthys albonubes
white
cloud
mountain
minnow
76.7
18.0
listed as USGS Nonindigenous Species
ab
HSD p < 0.05), but
listed
Nonindigenous
Species
listed as
as USGS
Washington
State Aquatic
Nuisance Species
b
there was no differc listed as Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species
species within same genus listed as USGS Nonindigenous Species
c
ence between chain
species within same genus listed as USGS Nonindigenous Species
number of species that have previously been detected in the wild
in Washington State were found in a lower proportion of stores
in the survey: koi carp = 60%, oriental weatherfish = 33%, and
Amazon sailfin pleco (Pterygoplichthys pardalis) = 3%. Plant
species occurred with lower frequency: the top species, Amazon
sword (Echinodorus amazonicus), occurred in 77% of stores, and an
additional 19 taxa occurred in >25% of stores (Table 2). On average,
58% of fish individuals, 43% of fish species, and 5% of plant
species found in pet stores were considered invasive according to
the USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species list and the Washington
State Aquatic Nuisance Species list. However, the maximum
number of invasive taxa encountered in a single store in our survey
indicated that invaders comprised up to 72% of fish individuals,
61% of fish species, and 17% of plant species. Further, a number of
fish and plant species in our survey are within the same genera as
species that are considered invasive (Table 1 and 2). Additionally,
602
602
603
603
604
604
605
605
606
606
78
607
608
Table 2. Frequency of occurrence of aquarium plant species in pet stores (>25%).
Scientific name
609
610
611
Common name
Frequency of
occurrence (%)
76.7
73.3
70.0
63.3
56.7
56.7
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
46.7
43.3
40.0
36.7
36.7
33.3
33.3
26.7
26.7
26.7
Echinodorus amazonicus
Amazon sword
Microsorium pteropus
java fern
Hygrophila difformis
wisteria
Cryptocoryne wendtii
Cryptocoryne wendtiia
Ceratophyllum demersum hornwort
Echinodorus tennellus
narrow leaf chain sword
Acorus gramineus
Japanese rush
Dracena sanderiana
green sandriana
Nymphoides aquatica
banana
Ophiopogon japonicus
mondo grass
Trichomanes javanicum
Trichomanes javanicum
Echinodorus paniculatus
bleheri sword
Echinodorus argentinensis Argentine sword
Anubias barteri
Anubias barteri
Vesicularia dubyana
java moss
Crinum thaianum
crinum bulb
Echinodorus osiris
melon sword
Bacopa monnieri
moneywort
dwarf sagittaria
Sagittaria subulatab
Spathiphyllum wallisii
peace lily
a
listed as USGS Nonindigenous Species
b
species within same genus listed as Washington State Noxious Aquatic Weed
B and independents (Tukey HSD p > 0.05)
(Figure 4B). We found no differences in the
number of plant species between store types
(ANOVA: F2,27 = 0.75, p = 0.48) (Figure 4C).
Results from the multivariate analysis on fish
abundance revealed strong clustering of store
types in ordination space (Figure 5). Little
overlap of stores in multivariate space was
observed, suggesting that store types have
fairly distinctive inventories of ornamental
fishes (although clear similarities exist in that
all stores have a core suite of species in their
inventories). Most notably, stores that are independently owned occupied the greatest area
in ordination space, suggesting that they carry
the highest diversity of fish species (Figure 5,
supported by Figure 4).
The results from our questionnaire indicated that, on average, aquarists owned ~ 9 fish
(median = 5) and that 6.4% of aquarists had
released live fish in the past. The majority of
introductions were into lakes or streams. Using
a Bayesian statistical approach, we estimated
that the most likely number of fish introduced
annually into the Puget Sound area was 2,536;
however, the 95% confidence interval suggests
that 20,869 fish could be introduced in a year
(Figure 6).
Figure 3: Mean annual stream water temperatures (°C) in Washington streams (left panel), thermal preferenda (°C) of certain common fish species found in
the aquarium trade (right panel). Water temperatures are represented by a box plot, where the centre line is the median, the lower and upper box boundaries
are the 25th and 75th percentiles, the whiskers are the 10th and 90th percentiles, and outliers are represented by circles. The shaded boxes in the background
correspond to the 10th and 90th percentiles of stream temperatures (dark grey) and the most extreme outliers (light grey). Thermal preferenda for the fish species
are represented by ranges, where the box represents the optimal temperature range and the whiskers represent the upper and lower lethal limits. Fish species are
arranged by increasing thermal range. Note that water temperature data was not available for lakes, although we would expect that introductions occur in both
lakes and streams.
29
79
Figure 4: Comparisons of chain and independent pet stores for A) number of fish individuals per store, B) number of fish species per store, and C) number of
plant species per store. Center line in box plots represents median, lower and upper box boundaries are the 25th and 75th percentiles, and whiskers are the 10th
and 90th percentiles. Outliers are represented by circles. Letters above the bars represent the results of Tukey HSD post hoc tests, where different letters indicate
significant differences between store categories (p < 0.05).
Figure 5: Non-metric multidimensional scaling of relative abundance of aquarium fishes in pet stores in the Puget Sound area using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity. Chain
stores (triangles, n = 8; squares, n = 14) are contrasted with a set of independent stores (circles, n = 8). Common names of fishes highly correlated with NMDS
axes are indicated on the outer edges of the graph. NMDS stress = 10.2, p = 0.02 on three dimensions. Ellipses drawn around the outer edges of groups of stores
are simply for illustration. Star indicates the species score of oriental weatherfish (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus), one of several aquarium fishes with an established
population in Washington.
80
diffuse, whereas the distribution
of boat launches is well defined.
This comparison underscores the
importance of this understudied
pathway, and highlights the
significant management and
educational challenges that the
aquarium pathway represents.
The regional survey of 30
pet and aquarium stores indicated that independently owned
stores tend to carry a greater
number of —and a more unique
variety of—fish species compared to some chain stores (e.g.,
chain A: Figures 4,5). Despite
the lower diversity, chain
store B had a larger inventory
available for sale; presumably,
related to faster turnover of
stocks. Our results concur with
the study of Chang et al. (2009)
in the San Francisco Bay-Delta
region, where independent
retailers generally sold greater
numbers of fish species compared to chain stores. Goldfish,
Siamese fighting fish, neon
tetras (Paracheirodon innesi), and guppies and/or mollies all occur
frequently in our study, as well as those of Gertzen et al. (2008) and
Rixon et al. (2005) conducted in the Laurentian Great Lakes region.
In our survey, the number of aquatic plants was similar between
store types, but the composition tended to be relatively different, as
only six species occurred in more than half of the stores surveyed. In
contrast to aquarium fish, the most common aquatic plants differed
from a similar study conducted in another region: only two taxa,
Amazon sword and hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum), were frequently encountered in our study and the study conducted by Rixon
et al. (2005). Overall, the moderate climate of the Pacific Northwest,
as well as large population centers in the Puget Sound basin, suggests that freshwater ecosystems are threatened by the establishment
of nonnative species from the aquarium trade. We expect that other
large urban centers in the Pacific Northwest, such as Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia, would be similarly at risk of
nonnative species introductions via the aquarium trade pathway, and
thus, should be targets for educational campaigns. Further, climate
change will certainly increase establishment of nonnative aquarium
and pet trade species in the Pacific Northwest, where temperatures
are predicted to increase by > 3°C by the end of the 21st century
(Mote and Salathé Jr. 2010). Additionally, nonnative species introductions via the aquarium trade in milder tropical and sub-tropical
habitats will have substantially greater establishment success because of greater thermal suitability. Indeed, established populations
of aquarium trade species have been increasingly detected in the
southern United States (e.g., Florida: Padilla and Williams 2004).
Our study identified several fish species that may be of particular concern for establishment of populations via the aquarium
pathway. The oriental weatherfish currently has an established,
but limited, distribution in Washington State (i.e., Lake Washington basin in Seattle: Tabor et al. 2001), and further invasions
Figure 6: Histogram of estimated relative frequency of number of individual fish released annually in King County. The
median value of fish released each year is 2,536, the mean is 4,707, and the upper 95th confidence interval (indicated
by grey box) is 20,869.
Discussion
Using a combination of regional store surveys, aquarist questionnaires, and statistical models, we have demonstrated that the
number of fish (n=400) and plant (n=124) species currently in the
aquarium trade is vast, the majority of species in the trade are not
native to the region, and that this introduction pathway deserves
greater research and regulation in the Pacific Northwest. Pet and
aquarium stores import thousands of fish every month, the majority
of which (58%) are considered to pose an ecological threat to native
ecosystems. Our model suggests that up to 21,000 fish (average of
2,500 individuals) are likely released into the wild each year in the
Puget Sound area by aquarists, and that water temperatures in many
parts of Washington State are suitable to allow establishment of
populations. The predictions of our model suggest that the pet trade
is a significant pathway of AIS introductions, particularly around
populated urban centers, yet far greater research effort and funding
for prevention have been directed towards boater movement as an
invasion pathway (e.g., Leung et al. 2006, Rothlisberger et al. 2010).
This is particular true in Washington State where management efforts continue to focus on preventing invasions via trailered boats
(State of Washington Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee 2010). To illustrate the potential importance of the ornamental
pet trade, we compared several different features of the aquarium
and boater pathways (Table 3). Our comparison suggests that the
number of aquarists is similar to the number of registered boats in
Washington State (i.e., vector strength), and that propagule pressure
from the aquarium trade is high relative to boats for some taxonomic
groups (e.g., fish, invertebrates: Duggan (2010)), but low for others
(e.g., plants). Management and educational challenges are likely
very different between the pathways; the distribution of aquarists
(i.e., reflecting the location of potential introductions) is spatially-
81
seem likely without
successful intervention 612
Table 3. Comparison of the aquarium trade and trailered boats as pathways of nonnative species
and management of this613
invasions. This illustrative comparison indicates that the threat posed by the aquarium trade may
pathway. According 614
be comparable to that of boat trailers. For establishment success, categories of low, moderate,
to our regional survey
615 and high are simply qualitative characterizations based on relative comparisons of potential
of pet stores, oriental
616 establishment between taxonomic groups.
weatherfish are found in
chain and independent
Characteristic
Aquarium trade
Trailered boats
stores, but are currently
Taxonomy
fish, aquatic invertebrates, and
aquatic invertebrates and plants4
more common in the in1,2,3
plants
ventories of chain stores
compared to indepenPropagule pressure
fish: <1 fish released per aquarist invertebrates + plants: ~37
per year1
organisms per boat4
dent stores (Figure 5).
invertebrates: >4,000 released per
The invasion of oriental
aquarist per year3
weatherfish may have
plants: <1 released per aquarist
serious consequences
per year2
for fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. Perhaps
estimated number of recreational
Vector strength
estimated number of households
boats in Washington State =
in Washington State with an
most notably, the virus
264,0006
aquarium = 227,1405
birnavirus LV1 was
isolated from invasive
Establishment success fish: low, Allee effects
invertebrates: moderate, some
oriental weatherfish in
invertebrates: moderate, some
asexual reproduction
Australia (Lintermans
asexual reproduction
plants: high, vegetative
et al. 1990). Birnavirus
plants: high, vegetative
reproduction
LV1 is related to the
reproduction
infectious pancreatic
Prevention
5.0-6.4% of aquarists release live 13% of boaters never remove
necrosis virus, a disease
aquatic plants4
compliance
fish1,7
of salmonid fishes (Wolf
Management and
spatially-diffuse: target
spatially-specific: target high
1988). Additionally
educational challenges pet/aquarium stores and groups
traffic boat launches
invasive parasites have
1
been found in oriental 617
this study
2
weatherfish (Dove and 618
Cohen et al. (2007)
3
Ernst 1998). Further, 619
Duggan (2010)
4
it has been shown that 620
Rothlisberger et al. (2010)
5
2000 US Census: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html and based on the percentage
oriental weatherfish can621
of U.S. households that own fishes (10.6%) according to values from Chapman et al. (1997).
reduce the abundance 622
623 6 State of Washington Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (2010). Recreational
and biomass of macroinvessels include sailboats, yachts, and motorized boats that were registered in 2008; only a
vertebrates (Keller and 624
fraction of these boats are trailered.
Lake 2007) and prey 625
7
626
Gertzen et al. (2008)
on fish larvae (Logan
627
et al. 1996). Altogether,
628
these factors suggest that
zon sailfin pleco as invasive species in Washington State:
oriental weatherfish may have significant effects on native fish
both species were found with a much lower frequency in pet
populations and should be a target for invasion vector managestore inventories compared to goldfish and koi carp (oriental
ment.
weatherfish: 33%; Amazon sailfin pleco: 3%). We recomA number of additional fish and plant species are current- mend that research and management efforts target species
ly in the ornamental pet trade and are regulated or prohibited
that have been identified by the state and federal governin Washington State. Strikingly, we found the water chestnut
ments as threats to native organisms.
30
(Trapa natans) for sale in one store; a species that is banned
for sale by the Washington Department of Agriculture.
Although we did not report on invertebrates, we also found
a single crayfish species of the Family Cambaridae in a pet
Our study represents the first scientific investigation of the
store: taxa from this family are prohibited by the Washington
ornamental pet trade in the Pacific Northwest, thereby enhancing
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Additionally, goldfish and
the scientific basis for improving policy and management intended
koi carp are considered regulated fishes (e.g., species may
to reduce the threat of this pathway. Based on our findings we have
not be released into state waters) by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: goldfish were found in almost all
three primary recommendations to slow the introduction of AIS
surveyed pet stores (97%), and koi carp were found in 60%
from the pet trade.
of the stores. The federal USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic
First, we believe that public education programs targeted at the
Species list has designated oriental weatherfish and Amainterface of aquarium owners and retailers will likely have the greatest
Recommendations
82
success. One such program, Habitattitude™, is a partnership of the Pet industry be held responsible for demonstrating that a species
Industry Joint Advisory Council, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
will not cause “economic or ecological harm” via the creation
and NOAA National Sea Grant College Program, with the mandate,
of lists of allowed and banned species. However, the approach
“…to eliminate the transfer and survival of any species outside of
of creating lists of permitted species is not always successful. In
[an] enclosed, artificial system, which has the potential to cause the
Australia, >40% of established invasive aquarium species are
loss or decline of native plants and animals.” The Habitattitude™
on a list of species that are permitted for importation (McNee
program supplies educational materials (e.g., pamphlets and stickers)
2002). Additionally, blacklists of banned species can be difficult
to pet stores, as well as plastic bags with the message “Do not release
to enforce, particularly given the lack of knowledge about the
fish and aquatic plants.” This is an important step towards educating
ecological effects of most aquarium trade species (Lintermans
aquarium owners about the harm of releasing live organisms into the
2004, Padilla and Williams 2004). The lack of information about
wild; however, our study found that these materials were only presmost aquarium fishes is a more general problem and should be
ent in chain stores and absent from independent retailers. We have
considered a research priority. For example, lethal temperatures
demonstrated that independent stores tend to carry a larger variety of
for most of the fish species in the aquarium trade are unknown,
fish species compared to chain stores, therefore, we recommend that
despite the importance of temperature to invasion success.
independent retailers should be the next focal point of the HabitattiA third possible strategy would involve the aquarium industry,
tude™ campaign and other private and government funded education
but would shift the responsibility of disposing of unwanted fish
programs (Table 4). Efforts to educate aquarists on the repercussions
to the aquarists; we call this the ‘cash for critters’ approach. The
of releasing aquarium fish and plants to the wild will only be successstrategy involves providing a financial incentive to aquarists for
ful if the distribution of educational materials reaches the broadest
returning unwanted live organisms to a pet store, which then can
possible audience, including the vast and under-appreciated Internet
be re-sold (although concern regarding disease transmission may
trade in ornamental species (Secretariat of the Convention on Biologi- limit this option) or euthanized in a humane manner. The store
cal Diversity 2010). However, these efforts should be coupled with
benefits from re-selling the organism, and from the likelihood
more directed educational campaigns that target pet enthusiasts that
that the aquarist will buy more fish, whereas the aquarist could
belong to the hundreds of aquarium societies across the United States
benefit by receiving a store voucher or discount. Notably, over a
(e.g., Greater Seattle Aquarium Society), national and international
quarter of aquarists in our survey indicated that they had taken
aquarium associations (e.g., Heart of America Aquarium Society, Caorganisms to a store that has a return program.
nadian Association of Aquarium Clubs, Federation of British Aquatic
Our final recommendation is to improve legislation on the
Societies), and online aquarium forums and websites in which thouimportation and distribution of nonnative species in the ornamensands of people exchange information daily. Finally, similar to how
tal trade, as well as response guidelines for local, state and federal
boat inspection and cleaning campaigns target focal “hub” lakes that
jurisdictions. The aquarium trade pathway has been noted as having
receive greater amounts of boat traffic (Rothlisberger et al. 2010), we
particularly weak regulatory oversight compared to other invasion
suggest that particular pet stores that sell large numbers of cosmopolipathways for fish (Thomas et al. 2009). Legislation that allows for
tan taxa should be approached (perhaps with financial incentives) to
a rapid management response to the detection of nonnative species
participate in the distribution of educational materials.
can be a significant deterrent to their successful establishment: the
Our second recommendation is that the responsibility of
marine alga, Caulerpa taxifolia, is a prominent aquarium species
identifying and regulating species that are at great risk to invade
that invaded and was subsequently contained in California coastal
native habitats should be shifted to the aquarium industry. This
waters by the enactment of a rapid response legislation (Anderson
approach can take a number of routes. Padilla and Williams
2005). However, this type of legislation is rare in North America,
(2004) recommended that businesses post bonds equal to the cost especially in jurisdictions that have shared international waters,
of repairing damage resulting from the invasion and establishsuch as the Pacific Northwest (Thomas et al. 2009). The challenge
ment of aquarium species. We fear that this policy may be costly
of having different regulations across jurisdictions, i.e., “multiple
and difficult to
establish, particu- 629
Table 4. List of educational resources on the release of aquarium organisms.
larly without the
strong support
Source
Website
of the aquarium
California Sea Grant
http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/extension/
industry (including
importers, manuConvention on Biological Diversity
http://www.cbd.int/invasive/
facturers, wholeDon't Release a Pest! University of
salers, retailers),
http://www.usc.edu/org/seagrant/caulerpa/index.html
Southern California - Sea Grant
and conflicts with
Global Invasive Species Program
http://www.gisp.org/
the “precautionary
principle,” which
Habitattitude™
http://www.habitattitude.net/
would prohibit the
Oregon Sea Grant
http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/themes/invasives/index.html
entry of any species
that could become
Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association http://www.ornamentalfish.org/
invasive (McDowPet Industry Joint Advisory Council
http://www.pijac.org/aquatic/
all 2004). Peters
United States Geological Survey
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/fish/docs/dont_rel.asp
and Lodge (2009)
suggested that the 630
Fisheries • vol 36
no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org
631
83
weak links,” has been identified as a significant barrier to preventing the establishment and spread of nonnative species (Peters and
Lodge 2009, Thomas et al. 2009). Greater legislative and regulatory
control of nonnative aquatic species currently in the ornamental
pet trade is needed, but requires coordinated action across state,
provincial, federal, and international jurisdictions. International trade
regulations on economically-valuable species can be successfully
implemented (e.g., CITES: Ginsberg 2002). Although the US Fish
and Wildlife Service’s Lacey Act has successfully regulated the
trade and prevented secondary spread of a handful of species (e.g.,
Java sparrow, brown tree snake), the Act is generally considered
inefficient at preventing species invasions (Fowler et al. 2007). New
federal policy is needed to support the necessary legal tools to better
prevent further introduction of potentially and already harmful nonnative animals. One possibility to meet this objective is the recently
introduced Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669);
a bill that requires the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations establishing a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative
wildlife species proposed for importation into the United States,
other than those included in a list of approved species issued under
this Act. Thus far, Bill H.R. 669 has garnered a mixed reaction: the
bill is supported by the National Wildlife Federation and Humane
Society of the United States (among other organizations), but is
adamantly opposed by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Commission
and a number of other sectors of the aquarium industry including
importers and manufacturers.
In conclusion, the aquarium and ornamental trade represent a
significant invasion pathway for fish and aquatic plants in the Pacific Northwest. Although the introduction pathways associated
with ballast water and transport by trailered boats continue to receive the greatest attention with respect to research, management
and policy, we cite the need for a greater appreciation of the ornamental pet trade as a source of nonnative species introductions.
The greatest risk of nonnative fish species introductions via the
aquarium trade likely lies in regions of higher human population
sizes, and by association, higher numbers of aquarists and aquarium stores. These regions should be targeted for educational and
legislative efforts. However, given the widespread availability of
invasive species through mail-order and e-commerce, even rural
areas are susceptible to species invasions via the aquarium trade
(Kay and Hoyle 2001). Thus, there is a need for a comprehensive
plan of action. Greater attention to educational programs involving the aquarium industry and new legislative action may help
to reduce the importance of the aquarium trade as a pathway of
freshwater species invasions in the Pacific Northwest.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank local pet stores for access to their invoices, and the questionnaire respondents. Tim Essington, Brian
Leung, Kristin Jaeger, Eric Larson, David Lawrence, Thomas
Pool, Mariana Tamayo, and two anonymous reviewers provided
constructive feedback. Funding support for ALS and JDO was
provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Gap Analysis Program.
References
Anderson, L. W. J. 2005. California’s reaction to Caulerpa taxifolia: a model for invasive species rapid response. Biological
84
Invasions 7: 1003-1016.
Bolker, B. M. 2008. Ecological models and data in R. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Brett, J. R. 1956. Some principles in the thermal requirements of
fishes. Quarterly Review of Biology 31: 75-87.
Carlton, J. T. and J. B. Geller. 1993. Ecological roulette: the global
transport of nonindigenous marine organisms. Science 261:
78-82.
Chang, A. L., J. D. Grossman, T. S. Spezio, H. W. Weiskel, J. C.
Blum, J. W. Burt, A. A. Muir, J. Piovia-Scott, K. E. Veblen
and E. D. Grosholz. 2009. Tackling aquatic invasions: risks and
opportunities for the aquarium fish industry. Biological Invasions
11: 773-785.
Chapman, F. A., S. A. Fitz-Coy, E. M. Thunberg and C. M.
Adams. 1997. United States of America trade in ornamental fish.
Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 28: 1-10.
Cheverie, J. C. and W. G. Lynn. 1963. High temperature tolerance and thyroid activity in teleost fish, Tanichthys albonubes.
Biological Bulletin 124: 153-162.
Cohen, J., N. Mirotchnick and B. Leung. 2007. Thousands
introduced annually: the aquarium pathway for non-indigenous
plants to the St Lawrence Seaway. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 5: 528-532.
Copp, G. H., L. Vilizzi and R. E. Gozlan. 2010. The demography
of introduction pathways, propagule pressure and occurrences
of nonnative freshwater fish in England. Aquatic ConservationMarine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20: 595-601.
De Silva, S. S., T. T. T. Nguyen, G. M. Turchini, U. S. Amarasinghe and N. W. Abery. 2009. Alien species in aquaculture and
biodiversity: a paradox in food production. Ambio 38: 24-28.
DiStefano, R. J., M. E. Litvan and P. T. Horner. 2009. The bait
industry as a potential vector for alien crayfish introductions:
problem recognition by fisheries agencies and a Missouri evaluation. Fisheries 34: 586-597.
Dove, A. D. M. and I. Ernst. 1998. Concurrent invaders - four exotic species of Monogenea now established on exotic freshwater
fishes in Australia. International Journal for Parasitology 28:
1755-1764.
Duggan, I. C. 2010. The freshwater aquarium trade as a vector for
incidental invertebrate fauna. Biological Invasions 12: 37573770.
Duggan, I. C., C. A. M. Rixon and H. J. MacIsaac. 2006. Popularity and propagule pressure: determinants of introduction and
establishment of aquarium fish. Biological Invasions 8: 377-382.
Ford, T. and T. L. Beitinger. 2005. Temperature tolerance in the
goldfish, Carassius auratus. Journal of Thermal Biology 30:
147-152.
Fowler, A. J., D. M. Lodge and J. F. Hsia. 2007. Failure of the
Lacey Act to protect U.S. ecosystems against animal invasions.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 353-359.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. 2009. FishBase. www.fishbase.org, version (05/2009).
Gertzen, E., O. Familiar and B. Leung. 2008. Quantifying invasion pathways: fish introductions from the aquarium trade. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 1265-1273.
Ginsberg, J. 2002. CITES at 30, or 40. Conservation Biology 16:
1184-1191.
Hernández, R. M. and R. L. F. Bückle. 2002. Temperature
tolerance polygon of Poecilia sphenops Valenciennes (Pisces :
Poeciliidae). Journal of Thermal Biology 27: 1-5.
Kay, S. H. and S. T. Hoyle. 2001. Mail order, the internet, and
invasive aquatic weeds. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management
39: 88-91.
Keller, R. P. and P. S. Lake. 2007. Potential impacts of a recent and
rapidly spreading coloniser of Australian freshwaters: oriental
weatherloach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus). Ecology of Freshwater Fish 16: 124-132.
Keller, R. P. and D. M. Lodge. 2007. Species invasions from commerce in live aquatic organisms: problems and possible solutions. BioScience 57: 428-436.
Legendre, P. and L. Legendre. 1998. Numerical ecology. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Leung, B., J. M. Bossenbroek and D. M. Lodge. 2006. Boats,
pathways, and aquatic biological invasions: estimating dispersal
potential with gravity models. Biological Invasions 8: 241-254.
Lintermans, M. 2004. Human-assisted dispersal of alien freshwater
fish in Australia. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research 38: 481-501.
Lintermans, M., T. Rutzou and K. Kukolic. 1990. The status,
distribution and possible impacts of the oriental weatherloach
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus in the Ginninderra Creek catchment.
Australian Capital Territory Parks and Conservation Service,
Research Report 2, Tuggeranong, Australia.
Litvak, M. K. and N. Mandrak. 1993. Ecology of freshwater baitfish use in Canada and the United States. Fisheries 18: 6-13.
Lodge, D. M., S. Williams, H. J. MacIsaac, K. R. Hayes, B.
Leung, S. Reichard, R. N. Mack, P. B. Moyle, M. Smith, D.
A. Andow, J. T. Carlton and A. McMichael. 2006. Biological
invasions: recommendations for U.S. policy and management.
Ecological Applications 16: 2035-2054.
Logan, D. J., E. L. Bibles and D. F. Markle. 1996. Recent collections of exotic aquarium fishes in the freshwaters of Oregon
and thermal tolerance of oriental weatherfish and pirapatinga.
California Fish and Game 82: 66-80.
McDowall, R. M. 2004. Shoot first, and then ask questions: a look
at aquarium imports and invasiveness in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 503-510.
McNee, A. 2002. A national approach to the management of exotic
species in the aquarium trade: an inventory of exotic freshwater
fish species. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, Australia.
Mote, P. W. and E. P. Salathé Jr. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific
Northwest. Climatic Change 102: 29-50.
Moyle, P. B. and M. P. Marchetti. 2006. Predicting invasion success: freshwater fishes in California as a model. BioScience 56:
515-524.
Naylor, R. L., S. L. Williams and D. R. Strong. 2001. Aquaculture:
a gateway for exotic species. Science 294: 1655-1656.
Opuszyňski, K., A. Lirski, L. Myszkowski and J. Wolnicki. 1989.
Upper lethal and rearing temperatures for juvenile common carp,
Cyprinus carpio L., and silver carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
(Valenciennes). Aquaculture Research 20: 287-294.
Padilla, D. K. and S. L. Williams. 2004. Beyond ballast water:
aquarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasive species in
aquatic ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:
131-138.
Peters, J. A. and D. M. Lodge. 2009. Invasive species policy at
the regional level: a multiple weak links problem. Fisheries 34:
373-381.
R Development Core Team. 2010. R: a language and environment
for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Comput-
ing.
Rahel, F. J. and J. D. Olden. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate
change on aquatic invasive species. Conservation Biology 22:
521-533.
Ricciardi, A. 2006. Patterns of invasion in the Laurentian Great
Lakes in relation to changes in vector activity. Diversity and
Distributions 12: 425-433.
Ricciardi, A. and J. B. Rasmussen. 1998. Predicting the identity
and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 55: 1759-1765.
Rixon, C. A. M., I. C. Duggan, N. M. N. Bergeron, A. Ricciardi
and H. J. MacIsaac. 2005. Invasion risks posed by the aquarium
trade and live fish markets on the Laurentian Great Lakes. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 1365-1381.
Rothlisberger, J. D., W. L. Chadderton, J. McNulty and D. M.
Lodge. 2010. Aquatic invasive species transport via trailered
boats: what is being moved, who is moving it, and what can be
done. Fisheries 35: 121-132.
Ruiz, G. M. and J. T. Carlton. 2003. Invasion vectors: a conceptual
framework for management. In G. M. Ruiz and J. T. Carlton
[eds.]. Invasive species: vectors and management strategies.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Ruiz, G. M., J. T. Carlton, E. D. Grosholz and A. H. Hines. 1997.
Global invasions of marine and estuarine habitats by non-indigenous species: mechanisms, extent, and consequences. American
Zoologist 37: 621-632.
Sanderson, B. L., K. A. Barnas and A. M. W. Rub. 2009. Nonindigenous species of the Pacific Northwest: an overlooked risk to
endangered salmon? BioScience 59: 245-256.
Schlaepfer, M. A., C. Hoover and C. K. Dodd. 2005. Challenges in
evaluating the impact of the trade in amphibians and reptiles on
wild populations. BioScience 55: 256-264.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Pets,
aquarium, and terrarium species: best practices for addressing
risks to biodiversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montreal, Canada.
Smith, K. F., M. D. Behrens, L. M. Max and P. Daszak. 2008.
U.S. drowning in unidentified fishes: scope, implications, and
regulation of live fish import. Conservation Letters 1: 103-109.
State of Washington Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee. 2010. Activities supporting recreational boating in Washington. Olympia, WA.
Tabor, R. A., E. Warner and S. Hager. 2001. An oriental weatherfish (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) population established in
Washington State. Northwest Science 75: 72-76.
Thomas, V. G., C. Vasarhelyi and A. J. Niimi. 2009. Legislation
and the capacity for rapid-response management of nonindigenous species of fish in contiguous waters of Canada and the
USA. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
19: 354-364.
Vander Zanden, M. J. and J. D. Olden. 2008. A management
framework for preventing the secondary spread of aquatic invasive species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
65: 1512-1522.
Wolf, K. 1988. Fish viruses and fish viral diseases. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY.
85
Column:
Director’s line
Gus Rassam
AFS Executive Director
Rassam can be contacted
at [email protected].
American Fisheries Society issues policy statement on
Climate Change
Bethesda, MD – The effects
of global climate change on
fisheries—and the steps needed
for successful adaptation to these
effects—are the basis of a new
policy statement issued by the
American Fisheries Society.
AFS emphasizes that successful
adaptation also requires long-term
monitoring of sensitive indicators,
predictive modeling, and
adaptive management, whereby
the consequences of climate
change and other stressors are
detected early, and appropriate
responses or adaptations can be
implemented and continually
evaluated. These adaptive
measures should include:
• Water conservation measures
that support sustainable use
• Decisions in which water
priorities are constructed
through careful evaluation of
market demands, weighed
against the potential impacts
to sustainability of fisheries
and aquatic habitats
• Continued research and
monitoring of climate change
• Captive propagation of
imperiled native fish species
• Resiliency of aquatic
ecosystems, thereby increasing
their ability to withstand the
86
many stressors associated with
local impacts
• An adaptive management
framework to cope with
uncertainty; policy and
management decisions using
precautionary principles (e.g.,
decisions that are deliberately
conservative); and including a
strong evaluation component.
The statement includes
recommendations on what needs
to be done in addressing climate
change and its effects. These
recommendations include:
• Proceeding with emission
reductions with no delay
Reductions in anthropogenic
sources of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases.
• Economic mitigation options
that indirectly or directly
assist with water conservation
practices and watershed
protection of policies and
laws that support wise and
sustainable use.
• Integrating efforts to manage
both fish and wildlife habitats.
(Developing partnerships
with overlapping interests on
shared concerns will increase
overall effectiveness, and
temper uncertainty of difficult
decisions.)
• Encouraging education efforts
aimed at federal and state
agencies and the private
sector about the general
effects of climate change to
our aquatic ecosystems. This
would ensure the transparency
of the principles and practices
employed for either mitigation
or adaptation responses to
climate change in fisheries.
• Encouraging the
implementation of national,
regional, and local monitoring
programs to evaluate the
effects of climate change in
fisheries.
• Encouraging research activities
to characterize climate
effects in marine, arctic and
freshwater systems, reduce
ecosystem stressors, and
optimize harvest quota for
commercial fisheries stocks.
• Supporting provisions of
dedicated funding for climate
legislation that would provide
for conservation of fish, water
and other natural resources
affected by climate change.
To obtain a copy of the policy
statement visit www.fisheries.org/
afs/docs/policychange.pdf.
CALENDAR:
FISHERIES EVENTS
To submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFS Web site
Calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/province, web
address, and contact information to [email protected].
(If space is available, events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.)
More events listed at www.fisheries.org.
Feb 3-4
Acoustic Tag and Hydroacoustic
Winter Short Courses
Seattle, Washington
www.htisonar.com/
at short course.htm
Feb
10-11
Using Hydroacoustics for
Fisheries Assessment
Seattle, Washington
www.htisonar.com/
at short course.htm
Feb
13-18
American Society of Limnology and
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Oceanography Aquatic Sciences Meeting
http://aslo.org/meetings/sanjuan2011
Feb
28-Mar3
Aquaculture America
New Orleans, Lousiana
www.was.org/WasMeetings/meetings/
Default.aspx?code=AA2011
Mar
27-31
103rd Meeting of the National
Shellfisheries Association
Baltimore, Maryland
http://shellfish.org/node/78817
Mar
14-18
Biologging4
Hobart Tasmania
www.cmar.csiro.au/biologing4
Mar
14-18
Fifth International Zooplankton
Production Symposium: Population
Connections, Community Dynamics,
and Climate Variability
Pucon, Chile
www.pices.int/zooplankton2011.aspx
Apr 9-12
Kodiak Area Marine Science Symposium
Kodiak, Alaska
http://seagrant.uaf.edu/
conferences/index.html#coming
Apr
19-21
31st Pakistan Congress of
Zoology (International)
University of Azad
Jammu and Kashmir,
www.zsp.org.pk/pcz-b.pdf
Muzaffarabad, Pakistan
May
25-27
ASA-AFS Fisheries Acoustics Workshop
Seattle, Washington
May 4-6
International Symposium on Circle Hooks Miami, Florida
circlehooksymposium.org
May
14-18
Second International Marine
Conservation Congress
Victoria, British
Columbia, Canada
www2.cedarcrest.edu/imcc/index.html
Jun
12-18
First International Conference
on Fish Telemetry
Sapporo, Japan
www.knt.co.jp/ec/2011/icft/
Jun 7-9
Arctic Grayling Conference Symposium
Grande Prairie,
Alberta, Canada
http://tucanadaorg/TUC_
AGSW2011.shtml
Jul 6-11
Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists
and Herpetologists
Minneapolis,
Minnesota
www.dce.ksu.edu/conf/
jointmeeting/future.shtml
Aug 1-4
Sixth World Recreational
Fishing Conference
Berlin, Germany
www.worldrecfish.org
Sep 4-8
141st Annual Meeting
Seattle, Washington
www.fisheries.org/AFS2011
Sep
22-24
Icelandic Fisheries Exhibition 2011
Smarinn, Kopavogur,
Iceland
www.icefish.is
Nov
6-11
Coastal and Estuarine
Research Federation
Daytona Beach, Florida
http://erf.org
http://acousticalsociety.org/meetings/
future_meeting/seattle/fisheries
87
American Public University
You are1degree of separation from changing your world. Which 1will it be?
79 affordable degrees of distinction – 100%
online, including including Environmental
Studies with concentrations in:
Fish and Wildlife Management
Environmental Sustainability
Environmental Planning
Global Environmental Management
Environmental Technology Management
Start learning more at studyatAPU.com/enviro
APUS is the 2009 Recipient of the Ralph E. Gomory
Award for Quality Online Education and the Effective
Practice Award in 2009 & 2010.
Text “APU” to 44144 for more
info. Message and data rates may apply.
88
Call for Award Nominations:
2011 American Fisheries Society Awards
The American Fisheries Society is seeking
nominations and applications for several
2011 awards. Award recipients will
be honored at the Annual Meeting
in Seattle, Washington, September,
2011. Nominations typically require a
candidate’s name, full contact information,
biographical information and/or history of
service to the Society. Some awards require
additional nomination materials. For
more information on how to nominate an
individual, or organization, see descriptions
below or contact the award chair. You may
also contact Gail Goldberg, AFS awards
coordinator, at [email protected], or
301-897-8616 X 201 for more information.
Award of Excellence
The Society’s highest award for scientific
achievement is presented to a living AFS
member for original and/or outstanding
contributions to fisheries and aquatic
biology. Nomination materials can be sent
via electronic, mail or fax. Materials should
include a detailed letter of nomination to
address award criteria, vitae of nominee,
and additional supporting materials as
needed. See the main awards page for
criteria for selection and other important
nomination information.
Nomination deadline: May 10, 2011
Contact: Christine Moffitt, Committee
Chair
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources
USGS-Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit
104C CNR, Sixth and Line Street
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83844-1141
Phone: 208-885-7047
Fax: 208-885-9080
Email: [email protected]
Carl R. Sullivan Fishery Conservation
Award
Presented to an individual or organization
for outstanding contributions to the
conservation of fishery resources. Eligibility
is not restricted to AFS members, and
accomplishments can include political,
legal, educational, scientific, and
managerial successes. Nominations
should include a synopsis of fishery
conservation contributions; a description
of the influence of those contributions on
improved understanding, management, or
use of fishery resources; and at least one
additional supporting letter. Nominations
may be submitted electronically via email
or as hard copy delivered by mail.
Nomination deadline: April 15, 2011
Contact: Bill Fisher, Committee Chair
New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit
Fernow Hall, room 206
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Phone: (607) 255-2839
Distinguished Service Award
Recognizes outstanding contributions of
time and energy for special projects or
activities by AFS members. The number
of recipients may vary. A single member,
a group of members, and AFS staff are
eligible candidates. Nominations should
include description of the outstanding
contributions by the candidate(s) and may
be submitted electronically via email or as
hard copy delivered by mail.
Nomination deadline: January 31, 2011
Contact: Bill Fisher, Committee Chair
New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit
Fernow Hall, room 206
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Phone: (607) 255-2839
Excellence in Public Outreach
Presented to an AFS member who goes
the “extra mile” in sharing the value of
fisheries science/research with the general
public through the popular media and
other communication channels. Two or
more individuals may act as nominators,
but at least one nominator must be
an AFS member. Entries must include
a biographical sketch of the nominee
(not to exceed 3 pages) and supporting
evidence of communicating the value of
fisheries issues/research to the general
public through the media and other
communication channels, plus any evidence
of teaching others about communication
with the public.
Nomination deadline: April 15, 2011
Contact: Walt Duffy, chair
CA Cooperative Research Unit
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA 95521-8299
Phone: (707) 826-5644
Fax: (707) 826-3269
Honorary Membership
Presented to individuals who have achieved
outstanding professional accomplishments
or have given outstanding service to
the Society. Honorary Members must be
nominated by at least 100 active members
and elected by a 2/3 majority of active
members online.
Nomination dateline: May 1, 2011
Contact: Gail Goldberg
5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda, MD 20815
[email protected]
Meritorious Service Award
Presented annually to an individual
AFS member for loyalty, dedication,
and meritorious service to the Society
throughout the years; and for exceptional
commitment to the programs, objectives,
and long-term goals of the Society.
Nominations should include the
candidate’s name, full contact information,
biographical information and/or history
of the nominee’s service (not to exceed 3
pages) to the Society. Letters supporting
the nomination are welcome. Nominations
and any supporting letters may be sent
electronically via email or as hard copy
delivered by mail, or fax (email, in PDF
format preferred).
Contact: Bob Curry, Committee Chair
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Phone: (919) 707-0221
Fax: (919) 707-0028
[email protected]
Outstanding Chapter Award
Recognizes outstanding professionalism,
active resource protection, and
enhancement programs, as well as a
strong commitment to the mission of the
Society. Three awards are given, one for
small chapters, one for large chapters and
one for a student subunit of a chapter.
Chapters should submit an application to
their division presidents to be considered.
Division presidents must nominate two best
chapters from their divisions, one with less
than 100 members and another with 100
members or more by June 1, 2011
89
Applications can be obtained from the AFS website See the main
awards page for more information –to be updated when available
Nomination deadline: June 1, 2011
Contact: Chair, Mark Porath,
Nebraska Game & Parks Commission
2200 N 33th St
Lincoln, NE 68503
Phone: (402) 471-5583
Fax: (402) 471-4992
President’s Fishery Conservation Award
Presented in two categories: (1) an AFS individual or unit, or (2) a
non-AFS individual or entity, for singular accomplishments or longterm contributions that advance aquatic resource conservation
at a regional or local level. The award is administered by the Past
President’s Advisory Council. A nomination package should include
a strong and detailed letter describing the nominee’s contribution
and the evidence for accomplishment at a regional or local level.
If the nomination is for an individual, include a CV if possible.
Nominations may be supported by multiple individuals by signing
one nomination letter, or by submitting supporting letters in
addition to the main nomination letter. Include the nominee’s title
and full contact information (address, email, and phone).
Contact: Donald C. Jackson, Past President
Mississippi State University
Dept Wildlife & Fisheries
Box 9690
Mississippi State, MS 39762
TEL: (662) 325-7493
FAX: (662) 325-8726
William E. Ricker Resource Conservation Award
Presented to any entity (individual, group, agency, or company)
for accomplishment or activity that advances aquatic resource
conservation that is significant at a national or international level.
The award is administered by the Past President’s Advisory Council.
A nomination package should include a strong and detailed letter
describing the nominee’s accomplishments and the evidence
for being “significant at a national or international level”. If
the nomination is for an individual, include a CV if possible.
Nominations may be supported by multiple individuals by signing
one letter, or by submitting supporting letters in addition to the
main nomination letter. Include the nominee’s title and full contact
information (address, email, phone).
Box 9690
TEL: (662) 325-7493
FAX: (662) 325-8726
Retired Members Travel Award for the AFS Annual Meeting
The American Fisheries Society has established this travel award
to encourage and enable members of the Society to attend
annual meetings, particularly those members who might play a
more active role in the meeting. The Society recognizes that some
retired members who desire to participate in the annual meeting
might be inhibited for financial reasons. Retired members may
not have funds for travel to meetings that were available to them
while employed. Therefore, this award is meant for those members
who truly have a need for financial assistance. The Society has
neither means nor desire to verify financial need, so that your
request for support is based on an honor system. However,
you must be a dues-paying retired member of the American
Fisheries Society to apply. A maximum of $1,500 may be awarded
for reimbursable expenses. See the main awards page for the
application form on the AFS website.
Please send applications to Don Jackson, Chair, Past President’s
Advisory Council.
Deadline: June 19, 2011
90
Box 9690
TEL: (662) 325-7493
FAX: (662) 325-8726
The Emmeline Moore Prize
The American Fisheries Society (AFS) has established a new
career achievement award, named after the first female AFS
president, Emmeline Moore (1927-1928), to recognize efforts of
an individual member in the promotion of demographic diversity
in the society. This award will be presented to an individual
who demonstrates strong commitment and exemplary service to
ensuring equal opportunity access to higher education in fisheries
and/or professional development in the broad range of fisheries
science disciplines. Qualified nominees must exhibit clear evidence
of service and commitment to diversity initiatives, including a
strong research or fisheries management leadership background,
public understanding of diversity issues, technical and popular
writing, and inspirational leadership. Candidates should also
have enunciated principles that lead to greater involvement of
under-represented groups in fisheries science, education, research
or management. Nominees for the award are restricted to AFS
members. A nomination package should include a detailed letter
of support (maximum three pages) describing the nominee’s
accomplishments and including evidence of involvement in
diversity initiatives given the criteria noted above. The main letter
of nomination can be supported through several signatures or up
to three additional letters of support can be submitted. Please
include in the nomination letter, the nominee’s title and full
contact information (i.e. address, e-mail, phone etc.) to complete
the package.
Nomination Deadline: May 31, 2011
For more information about the Emmeline Moore Prize, or to
submit nominations (electronic format preferred),
Contact: Larry A. Alade, Chair
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Woods Hole Laboratory/Population Dynamics
166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543
Phone: 508 495-2085
Fax: 508 495-2393
E-mail: [email protected]
Student Writing Contest
Recognizes students for excellence in the communication of
fisheries research to the general public. Undergraduate and
graduate students are asked to submit a 500- to 700-word article
explaining their own research or a research project in their lab or
school. The article must be written in language understandable
to the general public (i.e., journalistic style). The winning article
will be published in Fisheries. Students may write about research
that has been completed, is in progress, or is in the planning
stages. The papers will be judged according to their quality and
their ability to turn a scientific research topic into a paper for the
general public and will be scored based upon a grading rubric.
(check the AFS web site on the main awards page for the grading
rubric)
(For examples of past winning papers, see Fisheries
32(12):608&609 and Fisheries 34(1):39)
Submission deadline: April 15, 2011
Contact: Walt Duffy
CA Cooperative Research Unit
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA 95521-8299
Phone: (707) 826-5644
Fax: (707) 826-3269
Awards Administered by Sections
Education Section
Excellence in Fisheries Education Award
The American Fisheries Society (AFS) Excellence in Fisheries
Education Award was established in 1988. The award is
administered by the Education Section and is presented to an
individual to recognize excellence in
organized teaching and advising in some
aspect of fisheries education. Nominees
may be involved in extension or continuing
education, as well as traditional college
and university instruction. Nominees
must be AFS members, have been actively
engaged in fisheries education within
the last five years, and have had at least
10 years of professional employment
experience in fisheries education. Two or
more people may act as nominators, but
at least one nominator must be an AFS
member. The nominator(s) is responsible
for compiling supporting material and
submitting the application. The suggested
format for applications can be found on
the Education Section web site. Application
materials should be sent to Jason Vokoun
([email protected]) in digital form.
Nomination deadline is May 15, 2011.
Additional information can be obtained
from:
Jason Vokoun
Chair, Excellence in Fisheries Education
Committee
Dept. of Natural Resources and the
Environment
University of Connecticut
Phone: (860) 486-0141
John E. Skinner Memorial Fund Award
The John E. Skinner Memorial Fund was
established in memory of John Skinner,
former California-Nevada Chapter and
Western Division AFS President. The fund
provides monetary travel awards (up to
$800 per award) for deserving graduate
students or exceptional undergraduate
students to attend the AFS annual meeting.
The 2011 meeting will be held in Seattle,
Washington, September 4th through the
8th.
Any student who is active in fisheries or
related aquatic disciplines is eligible to
apply. Awardees are chosen by a committee
of the AFS Education Section. Selection
is based on academic qualifications,
professional service, and reasons for
attending the meeting. In addition to
travel assistance to attend the AFS annual
meeting, award winners will also receive a
one-year paid membership to the American
Fisheries Society.
Applications for 2011 will be available in
January (see http://www.fisheries.org/afs/
awards.html). Completed applications (for
both students and faculty advisors) must
be received no later than May 9th, 2011.
Electronic submissions preferred.
For more information about the Skinner
Award,
Contact: Dan J. Daugherty
Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Heart of the Hills Fisheries Science Center
5103 Junction Hwy.
Mountain Home, TX 78058
Phone: (830) 866-3356 x 211
Fax: (830) 866-3549
Equal Opportunities Section
J. Frances Allen Scholarship Award
The American Fisheries Society (AFS) is
pleased to announce that applications
are being accepted until March 11, 2011,
for the J. Frances Allen Scholarship for a
female doctoral fisheries student. The J.
Frances Allen Scholarship was established
in 1986 to honor Allen, who pioneered
women’s involvement in the AFS and in the
field of fisheries. The scholarship fund was
established with the intent of encouraging
women to become fisheries professionals.
Eligibility: The qualified applicant must
be a female PhD student who was an AFS
member as of December 31, 2011. The
applicant must be conducting aquatic
research in line with AFS objectives,
which include “all branches of fisheries
science, including but not limited to
aquatic biology, engineering, fish culture,
limnology, oceanography, and sociology”.
Typically, this award is given to a student
who has completed preliminary exams.
Application: To apply, submit items A
through D:
A. Resume with information in the
following format:
- Educational history: degrees, grade point
average for each degree (overall and in
major), relevant courses taken
- Professional experience: positions held,
levels of position, years of experience at
each level
- Publications: separated into refereed and
other
- Presentations: “first author” implies you
presented it, “second author” assumes you
did not, specify if otherwise
- AFS participation: year joined, meeting
attendance and participation, committee
involvement, presentations at AFS meetings
B. Transcripts from all institutions of
higher education: include enrollment in
PhD program. Please include transcripts
with your application, do not have them
sent separately. You may scan an official
transcript as long as it is of high quality.
C. Dissertation research proposal: do not
exceed 4 single spaced pages (excluding
title page, abstract, and references).
The proposal must be submitted in the
following single-spaced format with
headings:
- Title page: with project title, area of
research (genetics, modeling, ecology,
etc.), applicants name and affiliation
- Abstract: not to exceed one-half page,
describing research proposed
- Introduction: Including project
justification and background
- Specific objectives and hypotheses if
appropriate
- Summary of procedures/methods:
justification for choices including
preliminary testing and references
- Expected and preliminary results
- Significance of research: include
anticipated application of findings
- Literature cited: follow Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society format
D. Three letters of recommendation: One
must be from the applicant’s major advisor
and one must be from an AFS member.
Each letter should address 1) the applicants
promise as a fisheries scientist, 2) the
potential of the applicant to complete
their proposed work and 3) significance
of the applicants proposed research to
the advancement of fisheries science. If
those writing letters prefer- they may email
letters separately to the address below, but
they must be received by the deadline and
should contain the applicants name along
with J.F. Allen Scholarship in the subject
heading.
Please contact the Committee Chair if
you have any questions. Send electronic
applications and recommendations
(preferably in one mailing), to be received
by March 11, 2011 to:
Marie-Ange Gravel, Chair
EMAIL: [email protected]
Subject: J. Frances Allen Scholarship
PHONE: 613-520-2600 ext: 3573
An application will not be reviewed if any
part is missing or it is received after the
deadline.
Criteria for selection: Selection will be
made by the J. Frances Allen Scholarship
Committee of the AFS Equal Opportunity
Section. Proposal reviews by scientists in
appropriate fields will be solicited by the
committee. Awardee will be selected on a
competitive basis with an emphasis placed
on research promise, scientific merit, and
academic achievement. Submission of an
application acknowledges the applicant’s
acceptance of the Committee’s decision as
final.
Public Announcement and Notification:
Public announcement of the recipient will
be made at the 2011 AFS Annual Meeting
in Seattle, Washington. In addition a
written announcement will appear in
Fisheries and the recipient will receive an
official letter of award. The recipient is
encouraged to present the results of their
research at an Annual Meeting of AFS. It
is expected that the research findings will
be published in an appropriate fisheries
journal upon project completion, at which
time the support from this scholarship and
AFS will be acknowledged.
Marine Fisheries Section
The Steven Berkeley Marine Conservation
Fellowship
This fellowship was created by AFS in
2007 to honor the memory of Steven
Berkeley, a dedicated fisheries scientist
with a passionate interest in integrating
the fields of marine ecology, conservation
biology, and fisheries science to improve
fisheries management. Berkeley was a
long-time member of AFS and a member of
the first Board of Directors of the Fisheries
Conservation Foundation. The fellowship
comprises a competitively based $10,000
award to a graduate student actively
engaged in thesis research relevant to
marine conservation. Research topics may
address any aspect of conservation; a focus
on fisheries issues is not required.
For more information and application
requirements see: http://fishweb.ifas.ufl.
edu/mfs/index_files/Berkeley_Fellowship.
htm
Send electronic applications and
recommendations, to be received no
later than February 1, 2011 to: Howard
Williams, [email protected]
a
91
OBITUARIES
Two Idaho Chapter AFS Members
Die in Helicopter Crash
grounds in
the Selway
River of
central Idaho.
Dani Schiff
grew up in
South Range,
Wisconsin,
where she
spent her
time riding
horses and
playing
softball. She
graduated
from
Northwestern
High School
in Maple,
Wisconsin, in 1994. She attended
Northland College, where she
started her career in fisheries. She
then moved west, spending time
Danielle JoAnne Schiff, 34, and
in Bozeman, Montana, before
Lawrence T. Barrett, 47, fisheries
following her heart to Idaho. Dani
biologists with Idaho Department
started her career with IDFG as
of Fish and Game (IDFG), died in
a temporary employee in 1997.
a helicopter crash on August 31,
She was excited about fisheries
2010. The helicopter was en route
conservation and management, and
to survey Chinook salmon spawning
enrolled at the University of Idaho
to finish her
undergraduate
education.
She worked
sampling wild
fish on the
Selway, Lochsa,
North Fork
Clearwater,
and Salmon
rivers. Dani was
promoted to
the field crew
leader on a
project studying
bull trout life
history in the
North Fork of
the Clearwater
Danielle
JoAnne Schiff
92
River upstream of Dworshak
Reservoir. Dani’s work provided an
understanding of basic ecology and
life history of bull trout throughout
the watershed, including the
16,000 acre reservoir. Her study
was the first to determine how bull
trout used Dworshak Reservoir,
and how dam operation and
pool fluctuations impacted them.
This project provided her the
opportunity for her to earn a M.S.
in Fisheries from the University of
Idaho. She was subsequently hired
as a full time biologist to complete
the 5 year project. Dani also
worked for three years for the Nez
Perce Tribe on the Tribal Hatchery
Evaluation Program. She returned
to IDFG in 2008 as a Fisheries
Habitat Biologist. Her habitat
work was primarily focused in the
Potlatch River Basin, implementing
stream habitat restoration projects
associated with recovery of ESA
listed Steelhead. Dani’s love of
fish biology and ecology led her to
fishing. She was an accomplished
angler and loved to catch B-run
steelhead on the Clearwater River
and spring Chinook salmon in the
Salmon and Clearwater rivers. Dani
developed her love for wild rivers
and whitewater through her work
at Idaho Fish and Game. It became
a personal passion. She was a
very accomplished whitewater
boater. Dani was a supporter of
many local, nonprofit and state
organizations that protect the
wildlife and the land the she loved.
Dani is survived by her mother and
father, brother and sister-in-law
and their children. Donations in
memory of Dani may be made to
River Access for Tomorrow (RAFT),
P.O. Box 1666, Lewiston, ID 83501,
phone: (208) 746-6290,
[email protected].
OBITUARIES
Larry Barrett
Larry Barrett also died in the helicopter
crash. Barrett started his fisheries career with IDFG
in 1985. He directed the monitoring of angler
use, catch and harvest of steelhead and salmon in
the Clearwater, Snake and Lower Salmon rivers of
Idaho. He excelled in the “people side” of fisheries
management. Larry was an effective advocate for
angling opportunity and fishing rule simplification.
He was a very empathetic supervisor and truly cared
for the personal well being of his crew. This trait was
exemplified the service that his employees provided
to the salmon and steelhead anglers of Idaho. White
sturgeon was Larry’s conservation passion. He was
active in sturgeon management and development
of fishing regulations to allow continued sport
fishing while reducing unintended impacts on these
special fish. Larry was personally responsible for
introducing hundreds, if not thousands, of kids to
fish and fishing. Larry’s commitment to sharing his
passion for fishing with kids resulted in the children
Steelhead Fishing Clinic, Free Fishing Day events,
Trout in the Classroom and personalized outings with
many children. He was a tremendous ambassador for
IDFG and the sport of angling. Larry is survived by
his wife, Cindy Barrett of Lewiston, Idaho, mother, a
sister, four brothers, and many nieces and nephews.
Donations in memory of Larry can be made to the
Larry Barrett Youth Fishing Fund at Twin Rivers
National Bank, Lewiston, ID 83501 (208-746-4848).
—written by Ed Schriever
93
PRESIDENT’S HOOK
continued from page 56
in AFS policy statements, such as the recent Climate
Change Policy Statement or the proposed Lead in
Sport Fishing Tackle Policy Statement, they can be
found under Policy/Media. If you are interested in
joining AFS, look under Membership. Similarly, if
you are looking for a job, take a gander at the Job
Board. Or if you’re wanting to enhance your professional credentials, investigate Certification. The
array of information is quite remarkable. I encourage
you to browse the AFS website and I think you will
find yourself going to it often via your PDA, wireless laptop, or whatever means you use to access the
Internet.
As with any human endeavor, the AFS website
is in constant need of updating and improvement.
The website is maintained by AFS staff under the
direction of our Executive Director. Within AFS we
have several members who voluntarily serve on
the Electronic Services Advisory Board. The Board’s
94
responsibilities include all aspects of electronic
communications, and they have quite a job given
the rapid evolution and adoption of technologies.
This year the Board has been charged specifically to
provide guidance on how the AFS website can be
improved, and our Governing Board has authorized
financial resources to assist the staff in this endeavor.
Do not hesitate to provide your suggestions to me
on how to improve the AFS website, and I will make
sure that the Electronic Services Governing Board and
AFS staff will give them appropriate consideration.
So, make the AFS website a regular stop when
browsing, make it your first stop when seeking
information about the Society, and anticipate an
even better AFS website in the future. My new Smart
Phone is probably going to become my primary link
to the AFS website, but that depends on if I can curtail its night-time declarations.
Publications:
Book REview
Integrated Approaches to Riverine
Resource Stewardship: Case Studies,
Science, Law, People and Policy
by A. Locke, C. Stainaker, S. Zellmer,
K, Williams, H. Beecher, T. Richards, C.
Robertson, A. Wald, A. Paul and T. Annear.
Instream Flow Council.
Bozeman, Montana. 2009, 430 pages,
$49.00
The book promotes the application of the best technology
available and offers a good perspective into the current state of
North American research and development. It offers not only
an excellent resource to those interested in river management,
but also guidance for river scientists concerned with the
health of our rivers, and advice on where to invest effort.
institutional, public involvement, hydrology, geomorphology, biology, water quality
and connectivity. The chapter discussing
the state-of-the-practice for instream flow
studies intends to present the best available method and succeeds to present the
manager’s perspective on what is available. This nicely reflects the disconnect
between developers and users mentioned
in the introduction of this review, as some
of the important new developments have
The key drawback in the application of
been omitted. It would be very valuable
the best available river-management scito see more informaence is the lack of direct
Although focused on flows as a driving variable of
tion about state-ofcommunication and
the-practices in other
understanding between
riverine environments, the book addresses all eight
countries, as considerthe developers of river
ecosystem components as defined by the Instream Flow
able achievements are
science and the practitioners implementing
Council: legal, institutional, public involvement, hydrology, reported from Europe,
Asia, Africa, Australia
the scientific products.
geomorphology, biology, water quality and connectivity. and New Zealand.
The mechanisms leadKnowledge of global
ing to this gap are well
advances in the field could greatly benefit
described by Acreman 2005 as a “disconResource Stewardship summarizes and
American practitioners. A shortcoming,
nect between the needs of resource manexpands material prepared for the Flow
which I hope will be addressed in the
agers for simple and effective solutions (..)
2008 Conference, which took place in
next edition of the book. Good practical
and cost-independent needs for innovation San Antonio, TX. Eight case studies from
examples were intertwined with general
and basic understanding of complex proacross the United States and Canada are
guidelines and a holistic perspective on
cesses that motivate scientists.” In the US,
used to demonstrate a good cross section
the river management to make Integrated
there exists little incentive for researchers
through the implementation of environApproaches to Riverine Resource
to go beyond producing scientific papers
mental flows in varying ecoregions. These
Stewardship a very good read with over
and into creating tools that allow for the
case studies belong to the most successful
400 pages of valuable information. An
quick application of their research. Beyond implementations of instream flow policies.
excellent observation presented in the
a notorious lack of resources for such
The descriptions include a summary of
book is the emerging lack of instream
developments, the introduction of new
each project, the legal and collaborative
flow professionals, and
technologies in the regulaAn excellent observation presented in the book is the the need for a national
tory environment is also
training center to continue
hampered by a frequent call
emerging lack of instream flow professionals, and
developing well informed
for the use of widely applied
the need for a national training center to continue
researchers and managers.
but perhaps antiquated
developing well informed researchers and managers. I hope that universities and
methods. Another major
funding agencies will step
disadvantage is that few
up to the challenge and help prevent a
scientists are fluent in the regulatory and
framework, the applied science, the negonational decline in the recent advances to
implementation process and are therefore
tiation processes as well as information
Instream Flow studies.
unable to appreciate the needs and limitaon post-project monitoring and adaptive
tions facing river stewards and practitiomanagement. The chapters that follow
ners, resulting in an underestimation of the describe the existing legal frameworks
References
importance of such work.
within the US and Canada, the focus on
monitoring, adaptive management and the
Acreman M. 2005 Linking science and decisionResource Stewardship by the Instream
available science.
making: features and experience from enviFlow Council excels by offering an insight
The final chapter specifies the research
ronmental river flow setting. Environmental
into the development of successful ecoand educational needs, river conservation,
Modeling & Software 20, 99-109
logical flow management projects, and
and management planning. Although
by describing the practitioner’s perspecfocused on flows as a driving variable of
—Piotr Parasiewicz
tive based on the availability of tools and
riverine environments, the book addresses
Rushing Rivers Institute
improvement needs. It fills the void where
all eight ecosystem components as defined
592 Main Street
we have the most urgent needs for comby the Instream Flow Council: legal,
Amherst, MA 01002
munication between the science, policy
and practice of instream flow management. The book promotes the application of the best technology available and
offers a good perspective into the current
state of North American research and
development. It offers not only an excellent resource to those interested in river
management, but also guidance for river
scientists concerned with the health of our
rivers, and advice on where to invest effort.
95
AFS 2011 Seattle:
An Extraordinary Meeting in
an Extraordinary place
Tim Thompson
Sustainable in Seattle!
Let’s work together to make the 2011 AFS Annual Meeting in Seattle, September 4-8,
the most environmentally and socially responsible meeting ever.
Our part:
The Seattle Convention Center—the site of this year’s conference—is dedicated to operating in
as eco-friendly a manner as possible. They routinely recycle cardboard, plastic, metal, glass, and
compost food-waste. Their facilities have recently been upgraded with energy efficient lighting to
reduce energy consumption. The city of Seattle was able to reuse already disturbed land to create
a community asset by building the Convention Center over an existing 12-lane freeway, and
adding over 3 acres of indoor and outdoor gardens. Centrally located in downtown Seattle, the
Convention Center and surrounding hotels are jumping off points for Seattle’s “must-see” sites.
Your part:
We urge you to make the personal commitment to minimize the environmental impacts
associated with your attending the meeting. The “Green” webpage on the 2011 AFS Annual
Meeting website focuses attention on sustainable choices, and describes ways you can reduce
your impact. Here are some quick suggestions:
• Inform yourself: there are a plethora of websites that offer tips on how to “tread lightly
on the Earth.”
• Use recycled or reuseable materials; bring your own water bottle, mug, and shopping bag.
• When not in use, unplug, turn off, and shutdown: turn off lights, computer, TV, and
other electronic devices.
• Calculate your carbon footprint (www.myfootprint.org) and buy carbon credits to
offset CO2 emissions associated with your travel.
• Walk, cycle, carpool, or take public transport whenever possible (this should be easy in
Seattle—www.commtrans.org).
• Favor eco-friendly, locally made products; buy fresh produce, fish, and meat that has
been sustainably grown or caught.
• Patronize environmentally friendly hotels, restaurants, shops, and services.
• Share a hotel room; turn down the thermostat; and reuse your linens
(both towels and sheets).
• Visit the AFS 2011 “Green” booth during the Tradeshow!
• Look for a Recycle/Share table at the Registration Booth.
Exhibitors:
Please check the “Green” webpage of the AFS 2011 website for suggestions on
how to be as sustainable as possible. See www.fisheries.org/AFS2011.
96
AFSSeattle
SeattleBooth
BoothReservation
ReservationRequest
Request
AFS
September4-8,
4-8,2011
2011
September
Please
complete
this
application
entirety.
Please
complete
this
application
in in
itsits
entirety.
Please
print
type
information.
Please
print
or or
type
allall
information.
Company
Name
____________________________________________________________
Company
Name
____________________________________________________________
Address___________________________________________________________________
Address___________________________________________________________________
City
______________________________State
_____________________
____________
City
______________________________State
_____________________
ZipZip
____________
Phone
___________________________________________
Fax
_______________________________________________
Phone
___________________________________________
Fax
_______________________________________________
Company
Contact_____________________________________________________________________________________
Company
Contact_____________________________________________________________________________________
Phone
__________________________
__________________________
Email
________________________________
Phone
__________________________
FaxFax
__________________________
Email
________________________________
Exhibitor
exhibit,
display,
promote
following
products
or services;
limit
words.
Please
description
Exhibitor
willwill
exhibit,
display,
andand
promote
thethe
following
products
or services;
limit
75 75
words.
Please
listlist
thisthis
description
as as
youyou
would
to appear
in meeting
material,
or you
may
e-mail
your
description
to [email protected]
would
likelike
it toit appear
in meeting
material,
or you
may
e-mail
your
description
to [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAYMENT
PAYMENT
BOOTH
FEES
AND
SELECTION
BOOTH
FEES
AND
SELECTION
• AFS
member
firm*:
$1,400.00
x 10
booth
• AFS
member
firm*:
$1,400.00
perper
10 10
x 10
booth
• AFS
nonmember
firm:
$1,550.00
x 10
booth
• AFS
nonmember
firm:
$1,550.00
perper
10 10
x 10
booth
(Four
or more
booths,
discount
$200
each
booth)
(Four
or more
booths,
discount
$200
off off
each
booth)
Crafters/Non-Profit
: $500.00
booth
Crafters/Non-Profit
: $500.00
perper
10 10
x10x10
booth
* To
qualify
member
rate,
exhibiting
company
* To
qualify
forfor
member
rate,
thethe
exhibiting
company
must
hold
a sustaining,
official,
associate
must
hold
a sustaining,
official,
or or
associate
membership
with
AFS
membership
with
AFS
Number
of Booths
Number
of Booths
Total
Cost
Total
Cost
––––––––
––––––––
––––––––
––––––––
Send
request
with
your
50%
deposit
exhibit
Send
request
with
your
50%
deposit
of of
thethe
fullfull
exhibit
feefee
forfor
space
required.
Make
checks
payable
AFS
2011
Annual
space
required.
Make
checks
payable
to to
AFS
2011
Annual
Meeting.
The
balance
June
1, 2011.
Applications
Meeting.
The
balance
willwill
be be
duedue
by by
June
1, 2011.
Applications
submitted
after
June
2011
must
accompanied
submitted
after
June
1, 1,
2011
must
be be
accompanied
by by
fullfull
payment.
payment.
Cancellations
received
after
April
2011
prior
Cancellations
received
on on
or or
after
April
15,15,
2011
andand
prior
to to
June
1, 2011
assessed
a cancellation
equal
to 50%
June
1, 2011
willwill
be be
assessed
a cancellation
feefee
equal
to 50%
total
exhibit
space
rental
Cancellations
received
of of
thethe
total
exhibit
space
rental
fee.fee.
Cancellations
received
after
June
1, 2011
assessed
a cancellation
equal
after
June
1, 2011
willwill
be be
assessed
a cancellation
feefee
equal
to to
100%
of the
total
exhibit
space
rental
100%
of the
total
exhibit
space
rental
fee.fee.
CHECK:
CHECK:
would
to be
located
near
WeWe
would
likelike
to be
located
near
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Amount
enclosed:
$______________
Amount
enclosed:
$______________
would
rather
located
near
WeWe
would
rather
notnot
be be
located
near
CREDIT
CARD
(Circle
One):Visa
Visa
CREDIT
CARD
(Circle
One):
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
AFS
reserves
right
to assign
alternative
choice
based
AFS
reserves
thethe
right
to assign
an an
alternative
choice
based
on on
availability
availability
. .
MasterCard
MasterCard
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Name
it appears
card
Name
as as
it appears
on on
card
agree
to abide
AFS
2011
Annual
Meeting
WeWe
agree
to abide
by by
thethe
AFS
2011
Annual
Meeting
Booth
Reservation
Terms
Conditions
specified
Booth
Reservation
Terms
andand
Conditions
specified
on on
thisthis
booth
reservation
form,
which
made
part
hereof
booth
reservation
form,
which
areare
made
part
hereof
by by
reference.
reference.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Card
Number
Card
Number
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Signature
Signature
Signature________________________________________
Signature________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Exp.
Date
3-digit
Security
Code
Exp.
Date
3-digit
Security
Code
RETURN
COMPLETED
FORM
WITH
DEPOSIT
TO
RETURN
COMPLETED
FORM
WITH
DEPOSIT
TO
American
Fisheries
Society,
5410
Grosvenor
Lane,
Suite
110,
Bethesda,
20814,
Attn:
Shawn
Johnston
American
Fisheries
Society,
5410
Grosvenor
Lane,
Suite
110,
Bethesda,
MDMD
20814,
Attn:
Shawn
Johnston
Questions
about
Trade
Show?
Please
contact
Shawn
Johnston,
AFS
Trade
Show
Coordinator,
301-897-8616
X 230,
Questions
about
thethe
Trade
Show?
Please
contact
Shawn
Johnston,
AFS
Trade
Show
Coordinator,
301-897-8616
X 230,
[email protected]
[email protected]
Hosted
By:
Hosted
By:
American
Fisheries
American
Fisheries
Society
Society
AFS
WashingtonAFS
WashingtonBritish
Columbia
British
Columbia
Chapter
Chapter
AFS
Western
Division
AFS
Western
Division
97
UNIT News:
AFS MEMBERS in HALL OF Fame
2011
Freshwater Fishing
Hall of Fame
Enshrinees and Inductees
are Announced
On August 16th and
17th, 2010 our Awards
Committee met in Hayward,
Wisconsin. They consisted of
a very talented and devoted
cross section of our fresh
water sportfishing leaders
—people who have made
a lasting national impact to
the benefit of fresh water
sportfishing. They are:
Bill Gautsche (Wisconsin);
Larry Colombo (Alabama);
Clem Dippel (Wisconsin);
Mike Dombeck (Wisconsin);
James Gammon (Indiana);
Elmer Guerri (Indiana);
Bruce Holt (Washington);
Tim Lesmeister (Minnesota);
Gil Radonski (North Carolina);
Vin Sparano (New Jersey);
Burt Steinberg (Missouri);
Wendy Williamson (Wisconsin);
Gregg Wollner (Minnesota)
and Forrest Wood (Arkansas).
98
Four of these leaders are AFS
Members!
Richard O. Anderson
Michigan
As Leader of the Coop Fishery
Unit, Richard ( AFS member, ‘51)
and his graduate students (at the
University of Michigan) conducted
research on fish population dynamics
in ponds and reservoirs. He actively
promoted a change in the goal of
fishery management from the traditional maximization of harvest to one
of optimizing yields and benefits.
Richard recognized over harvest of
largemouth bass and other game fish
as a primary challenge for fishery
managers. Based on the results of his
original research with a slot length
limit, he promoted more protective
size limits to improve and sustain the
biological integrity (balance) of fish
populations and communities and
the quality of fishing. Proportional
Size Distribution (PSD) and relative
weight (Wr) are indices he developed
and promoted for fishery managers
to recognize problems and opportunities and establish measurable management objectives. Richard taught
his new approaches at workshops
in 21 states and provinces between
1977 and 1983.
Robert J. Behnke
Colorado
The Robert J. Behnke ( AFS member, ‘54) papers include a vast array of
created and collected material representing his many years as a consultant
with experts, students and interested
parties on his specialty of studying the
trout and salmonid families of fishes.
The first series of the collection consists
of general research topical files containing information about genetics, water
conditions (limnology), management of
fisheries and conservation challenges
for fish populations, on the locations of
many species of fishes around the world
with concentration on the Northwest
regions of the U.S. and research about
the various specific species within his
specialty. The second series consists of
focused research, based on Behnke’s
work, directly related to his publications,
teaching and consulting work. These
topical files pertain to published and
unpublished books and papers, professional and personal correspondence,
reprinted articles of a wide variety of
studies, drafts of manuscripts, photocopied or original articles and newspaper clippings, legal papers related to his
consulting work with fishery and water
issues, reports and studies by universities, fish and wildlife agencies and other
related groups. Robert participated in
symposia on fishes and retained student
papers and theses of interest to him.
Also present are materials from his
teaching classes in various aspects of fish
species and environment. There are photos, maps, diagrams for use in published
works, memorabilia and papers related
to organizations and societies for which
he had membership.
Paul Brouha
Vermont
Paul (AFS member, ‘73) began his
career as a fish manager in Wisconsin
in 1974. The U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS)
recognition of the need to develop a
recreational fishing policy required aquatic/
fisheries expertise. Paul joined the USFS,
attracted by this exciting new aquatic
resource direction. Paul left Wisconsin
for a staff biologist position at the Shasta
–Trinity National Forest in California. Later
he became Northern Regional Fisheries
Program Manager. He was next promoted
to National Fisheries Program Manager in
USFS headquarters in Washington, DC,
the top fisheries job with the USFS. Here
Paul emerged as a national leader, building
support for and institutionalizing a fisheries/aquatic habitat program in the Forest
Service’s 155 national forests across the
country. Paul’s thrust was to underpin this
program with science with the focus on
habitat protection and improvement. Paul
was an early champion of using economics of both commercial (salmon) and
recreational fishing in successfully making
the case to U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the U.S. Congress to adequately fund
fish habitat management and access to
fishing in the national forests. Paul lead
a coalition of state and national fisheries
leaders who crafted the foundation for
the Forest Service’s “Rise to the Future”
fisheries program, that by 1992 grew to
exceed $40 million staffed by over 300
professional fisheries biologists. Nationally
recognized for his leadership skills and
success, Paul was selected as the Deputy
Director of the American Fisheries Society
(AFS) and shortly promoted to Director
following Carl Sullivan’s retirement (Note:
Carl Sullivan is Enshrined). Paul’s leadership at AFS had an astounding and lasting
impact on the AFS, the major international
fisheries professional society.
Robert B. Ditton
Texas
During Robert’s (longtime member
of AFS) long successful career, he taught
a number of classes at the graduate
level focusing on Human Dimensions
of Fisheries and Outdoor Management.
He advised a large number of graduate
students and was respected by all who
worked with him. He served in many
editorial positions for numerous scientific journal publications including but
not limited to North American Journal
of Fisheries Management, Fisheries,
Society and Natural Resources, Journal of
Human Dimension of Fish and Wildlife
Management,
Leisure Sciences
(Editor-in-Chief),
Coastal Zone
Management
Journal and the
Journal of Leisure
Research. He
co-wrote 3 books
and hundreds of
journal articles and
papers in his field
of expertise. Robert
was affiliated with a
number of professional organizations
including American
Fisheries Society,
Texas ChapterAmerican Fisheries
Society, National
Recreation and
Park Association,
Society for Park
and Recreation
Educators and AFS
Committee on the
Human Dimensions
of Recreational
Fisheries. Robert was an avid traveler and
had amazing opportunities to travel all
over the world doing what he loved. He
was part of many projects in Norway,
Mexico, Canada, Australia, Italy, Hungary,
Jordan, Guatemala, Finland, Ireland,
Dominican Republic, Portugal, Korea,
Galapagos Islands, Ecuador and more.
He was invited to speak and present his
research in many places. One of his greatest honors was teaching classes in Wuhan,
China and South Korea. Robert retired in
September 2007 as Professor Emeritus
in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences and
Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences. Dr.
Robert Ditton passed away October 30,
2009. http://wfscnet tamu.edu/news_ditton.html.
99
Every 1 Counts
Membership Recruitment Campaign
Earn recognition…….Win prizes……Help AFS grow!
Did you know that most of our members join because someone like you asked them?
Send one email
Make one phone call
Have one conversation
That’s all it takes to recruit a new member and participate in AFS’s
Every1Counts Membership Recruitment Campaign — and you’ll receive recruiter points, win great prizes and
earn recognition from your colleagues! Take the initiative today. Recruit a member – or two, or more!
How it works:
All members in good standing may participate. You will receive a point for each new member recruited through the end
of August 2011, and will be recognized in Fisheries. Everyone will receive a prize, even if you recruit just one new member.
Please be sure to have the new member recruit enter your name on the membership application.
Top recruiters will be awarded as follows:
3rd place – complimentary AFS membership for the following calendar year, and a choice of an AFS book
2nd place - $100.00 gift certificate to your favorite sporting goods store
1st place – complimentary registration to the AFS Annual Meeting in Seattle
So send that email today, talk to your colleagues, and help AFS become a stronger advocate for you and your profession.
Meet our newest members:
Maurice Crawford
Tim Allen
Joshua Dub
Donald Anadu
Jihong Dai
Marshall Bailey
Ben Dickinson
Sara Bangen
Kari Dammerman
Kira Baranowski
Kiley Danc
Adam Barrager
Michael Downs
Dyhia Belhabib
Danielle Duncan
Dale Bertelson
Robert Dunn
Nick Bertrand
Erika Eliason
Rachael Blevins
Aaren Ellsworth
Chris Bowser
Robert Euchner
Parker Bradley
James Europe
Tanya Brunner
Tina Fairbanks
Stacey Buckelew
Ashley Ferguson
Steve Budnik
Patrick Ferguson
Kaden Buer
Gilbert Flores
David Buzan
David Fowler
Andrew Carlson
Trevor Fox
Justin Carney
Ignacio Alberto Catalán Jens-Ole Frier
Heather Fuller
Adam Challice
Jeanette Gann
Catherine Chambers
Damon Gannon
Christopher Cheek
Greg Gaulke
Ellen Chenoweth
Marc Gendron
Roger Chong
Rosalinda Gonzalez
David Clausen
Dayna Green
Brendan Coffin
Matthew Gruntorad
Nathan Cooley
Danielle Haak
Craig Corpstein
Travis Haas
Travis Crist
100
William Haase
Alexis Hall
James Hawhee
Walter Heady
Jeff Hendrickson
Billy Hensley
Benjamin Hlina
Bruce Higgins
Keiko Hirokawa
John Hook
Allison Hrycik
William Humbert
Dan Isaak
Jennifer Jacobs
Sheila Jacobson
Caroline Jezierski
Kevin Job
Jason Kaczor
Elizabeth Kandror
Iris Kemp
Justin Keesee
Constance Kersten
H. George Ketola
Nicole Kierl
Ronald Koth
Michael Kohan
Jessica Kosiara
Melissa Kracke
Sean Larson
Christopher Leckie
Nicole Legere
Marylise Lefevre
Justin Leon
Tyler Linderoth
Matthew Litvak
Randal Loges
Michael Lloyd
Courtney Lyons
Chris Manhard
Laurinda Marcello
Joe Mazza
Jamie McKellar
Megan McKim
Stephanie Meggers
Melissa Meiner-Johnson
Brett Miller
Seyed Saeed Mirzargar
Katie Moerlein
Cinamon Moffett
Leslie Moore
Ethan Mora
Reid Morehouse
Ernie Niemi
Kevin Ott
Andy Otting
Veronica Padula
Jackie Patt
Laure Pecquerie
Pablo Perez Martinez
Logan Perkins
Daniel Peterson
Dan Prince
Enrique Pugibet
Geoff Rabone
Joe Reisdorf
Anne Reynolds
Jessica Rohde
Melissa Rhodes-Reese
Ryan Rindone
Matthew Robinson
Jared Ross
Stuart Running
David Ruppel
Dave Rutz
Brandi Sangunett
Scott Shasteen
Nicholas Shaw
Kevin Schab
Michael Schmidt
Lee Schoen
Grant Scholten
Cody Schrader
Mike Selckmann
Robert Sims
Bridget Smith
Michael Smith
Nicholas Smith
Willia Smith
Travis Snyder
Timothy Softye
Justin Spaulding
Emilie Springer
Molly Stevens
Jacob Stockton
Andrea Stoneman
Jennifer Stoutamore
Gregory Stunz
Steven Sutton
John Swanson
Daniella Swenton
Brian Tate
Andrew Taylor
Kristen Taylor
Suzanne Teerlink
Ben Trerise
Kelly Turek
John Vile
Dominic Vitali
Rachael Wadsworth
Lila Warren
Joel Webb
Chantel Wetzel
Ciaran Whatley
Amanda Wiese
Gerrish Willis
Shay Wolvert
Patricia Woodruff
Adam Zaleski
Syeda Zohra
Win the honor of having YOUR writing published In Fisheries!
In Fisheries!
Student Writing Contest Now Accepting Submissions
Student Writing Contest Now Accepting Submissions Submission deadline April 15, 2011 SSubmissions should be b i i
h ld b
directed to: Walt Duffy California Coop Fish & Wildlife Unit, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521
Questions? Call Walt Duffy at (707) 826‐
Call Walt Duffy at (707) 826
5644 or email [email protected]
The American Fisheries Society Student Writing Contest recognizes students for excellence in the communication of fisheries research to the general public.
research to the general public. Undergraduate and graduate students are encouraged to submit a 500‐ to 700‐word article explaining their own research or a research project in their lab or school. The article must be written in language understandable to the general public (i.e., journalistic style). The winning article will be published in Fisheries. Students may write about research that has Students
may write about research that has
been completed, is in progress, or is in the planning stages. The papers will be judged according to their quality and their ability to turn a scientific research topic into a paper o e ge e a pub c a d
be sco ed
for the general public and will be scored based upon a grading rubric. Check the AFS Web site (www.fisheries. org) awards page for the grading rubric. Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org
101
Announcements:
Job Center
Fisheries Biologist II, Association of
Village Council Presidents, Alaska
Salary: JC 45
Closing: Until filled
Responsibilities: Natural Resources
Supervisor: Natural Resources Director
FLSA status: Exempt
Responsible for the program management
and administration of fisheries projects and
other fisheries related issues for the YukonKuskokwim delta villages as established
by the Natural Resources Department
director. Serve as a liaison between tribes
of the AVCP and outside entities to
address management and policy concerns
utilizing his/her own professional discretion
regarding fisheries.
102
EMPLOYERS: To list a job opening on the AFS Online Job Center submit a
position description, job title, agency/company, city, state, responsibilities,
qualifications, salary, closing date, and contact information (maximum
150 words) to [email protected]. 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 memberships, and for Individual members, who
are faculty members, hiring graduate assistants. If space is available, jobs
may also be printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge.
Qualifications: For a full job description,
contact Lema at the below e-mail or call
her at 1-800-478-3521 or 907-543-7340
Contact: [email protected]
Under the provisions of P.L. 93-638
qualified Indians/Alaska Natives are provide
dpreference in filling vacancies. EEO.
Qualifications: Degree in fisheries or
related field or equivalent experience.
Understanding of salmon culture
techniques. Maintenance experience.
Supervisory experience preferred but not
required. Must pass pre-employment drug
screen and possess current drivers license.
Salary range: Competitive wages, DOE.
Fish Culturist, Prince William Sound,
Benefits include housing and utilities,
Aquaculture Corporation, Alaska
health insurance, annual leave, relocation
Salary: TBD
benefits, 403 b retirement plan. Satellite
Closing: Until filled
service for internet, phone, and television
Responsibilities: Be responsible for all
possible.
aspects of cultivation and rearing of
Contact: www.pwsac.com or call 1-800salmon including propagation, harvest and 884-1331. Send or fax completed
analysis of data, provide assistance to the application, resume and letter of interest to
hatchery maintenance and improvement Human Resources, PWSAC, PO Box 1110,
program and lead crews of seasonal
Cordova, Alaska 99574, fax 907-424fisheries technicians.
7515, [email protected], [email protected]
NO FISH GETS BY THE R4500!
Hundreds of fish can pass by a stationary receiver site within seconds of each other.
And with an ATS system, they won’t go by undetected. Plus ATS’ coded system virtually
eliminates false positives from your data set, providing you with 99.5% accuracy, a level not
available from any other manufacturer.
Call or visit our website for details.
World’s Most Reliable Wildlife
Transmitters and Tracking Systems
ATStrack.com
•
763.444.9267
103
Lake Billy Chinook
Oregon USA
104

American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

Transcription

Similar documents

DAYBROOK FISHERIES, INC.

Saturday, October 17 Port Administration Main Dock, Fagatogo

to see our conservation presentation outlining our Taimen

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Göktuğ DALGIÇ RTEÜ Fisheries Faculty

“GOUYAVE FISH FRY – BEST FISH IN GRENADA, MAYBE THE

Lira presentation

Finfish - Department of Agriculture

Brixham`s Open Air Fish Market to re

Blue Growth Role of the Fish Info Network and Globefish

Dealfish - Wester Ross Fisheries Trust