American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org
Transcription
American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org
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 • www.fisheries.org 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. Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 American Fisheries Society c/o Books International P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 Phone: 703-661-1570 Fax: 703-996-1010 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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). Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Larson and Olden (2008) 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., Larson and Olden (2008) Coykendall 1973; Mason 1974), recent studies from British Alien CrayfishES Oregon 64 1999-2001 Pearl et al. (2005) Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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). Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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. Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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. Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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. Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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. Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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- Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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. Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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- Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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. Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 American Fisheries Society 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Email: [email protected] 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 Email: [email protected] 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 Email: [email protected] Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 American Fisheries Society 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). Nomination deadline: May 20, 2011 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 Email: [email protected] 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). Nomination deadline: May 10, 2011 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 Email: [email protected] 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). Nomination deadline: May 10, 2011 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 Email: [email protected] 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 Contact: Donald C. Jackson, Past President 90 Mississippi State University Dept Wildlife & Fisheries Box 9690 Mississippi State, MS 39762 TEL: (662) 325-7493 FAX: (662) 325-8726 Email: [email protected] 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 Email: [email protected] 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Email: [email protected] 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 Email: [email protected] 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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]. Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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. Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Integrated Approaches to Riverine 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. Integrated Approaches to Riverine Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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. Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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] Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org 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 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org • 763.444.9267 103 Lake Billy Chinook Oregon USA 104 Fisheries • vol 36 no 2 • february 2011 • www.fisheries.org