Dudley W. Reiser, R2 Resource Consultants Inc., 15250 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA 98052. E-mail: [email protected] Remember the “which one doesn’t belong” puzzle? Try that out on the list of organizations in Table 1 and I would wager that most of us would point to the American Fisheries Society (AFS). Why? Well, AFS is mostly built around the advancement of sound science. Most of the others tend to be more harvest or conservation focused. Don’t get me wrong; their goals and objectives are laudable, and a visit to their websites attests to notable achievements. However, seeing AFS among these organizations just does not fit my vision of AFS as the leading fishery science organization in North America. Since joining AFS in 1977, I have continuously relied upon its scientific journals and AFS Chapter, Division, and Society Annual Meetings and special symposia for the latest information in fishery science. I joined AFS while in graduate school because I thought it promoted development and application of objective, unbiased science that was not aligned with any cause and did not take sides on issues. I thought that was left to the more conservation-based organizations, such as those in Table 1. However, over the past few years, AFS, as a whole, appears to me to have assumed more of an advocacy position, becoming more active in developing policy statements, letters, and resolutions on a variety of issues. Inspection of the AFS website under Policy Letters (https://fisheries.org/policy-media/policy-letters) reveals that more than 80 have been penned since 2007; I do not know how many had been drafted prior to then. However, as early as 1870, AFS (then the American Fish Culturists Association) advocated for a federal fish and fisheries agency for devoting fishing tackle federal excise taxes to states for developing and maintaining fisheries resources (Moffitt 2001). In this article, which can be considered as an opposing view or counterpoint to others in this series, I want to share my thoughts on why I am less enthusiastic about and, yes, even concerned with the pathway of advocacy in AFS. I concede that to many members, taking a proactive approach is harmonious with their vision of AFS. It is perfectly understandable that AFS members feel a strong compulsion to have a voice on matters that pivot on technical issues to which they are well versed. However, I contend that leaning too much in this direction to the point where AFS becomes comfortable with advocacy not only runs the risk of reducing its scientific credibility but, in the long run, will change the public perception of AFS to that more closely aligned with other environmental conservation-based groups. And there are many such groups, albeit not all strictly focused on aquatic and fisheries issues. Like me, I suspect that many AFS members also belong to one or more of those nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). I personally applaud and support their efforts, provided that they are factually based and grounded in solid science. To me, those organizations are the perfect vehicles that we, as individuals, could and should use to voice concerns and advocate for or against particular projects, proposed legislative bills, or activities having global consequence. Is AFS an environmental NGO? Perhaps by definition yes, but to me, the answer is no because I have always separated scientific NGOs, such as AFS, the Ecological Society of America, and the Society of Ecological Toxicology and Chemistry, from environmental NGOs. The mission statements of Trout Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy are “to conserve, protect and restore North America’s coldwater fisheries and their watersheds” (tu.org/about-tu) and “to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends” (nature.org/about-us/vision-mission/ index.htm?intc=nature.tnav.about.list), respectively. Contrast this with the AFS mission statement “to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals.” To me there is an emphasis on science in the AFS mission statement, and that is where I think AFS should remain focused. Do we even want to be considered an environmental NGO? My experience is that many NGOs comment on a project that potentially affects aquatic ecosystems by pointing to the past and citing examples where a particular type of project (e.g., dam construction, mining, logging) has had devastating impacts on the aquatic resource, without carefully considering site and project specific information. This type of advocacy tends to be veiled in the name of science but is often incomplete, taken out of context, and selective. I think everyone would agree that the contemporary regulatory framework and our environmental awareness are dramatically different from what existed in the past when many of what would become the most ecologically damaging projects were allowed to be constructed. Resource projects considered today must be designed to meet or exceed rigorous local, state, and federal environmental and regulatory requirements before they can be developed. To me, it is fine to cite examples from the past when discussing potential impacts from a project if applicable, but these should be carefully formulated and balanced based on an understanding of site- and project-specific characteristics. Consider also that AFS membership is composed of scientists representing diverse employer types—research, academics, government agencies, NGOs, tribes, municipalities, counties, technical consultants, fish culturists, and private industry. With this diversity, it is expected that the respective roles and responsibilities of staff will differ depending upon employer. Some will be more focused on resource conservation and sustainability, some on impact assessment and mitigation, and some on pure research. It is unrealistic to assume that AFS’s policy or advocacy positions will be equally embraced and supported by all of its members. Of course, regardless of our employers, we as scientists should uniformly strive first and foremost to use the best available science no matter what the issue and to do so in an objective and unbiased fashion. As a fish consultant, I often work for a variety of clients, including government agencies, public and private utilities, and developers. In all cases, I apply the same high-quality,
