American Fisheries Society Family of Websites:
Read our five journals and Fisheries magazine
Find thousands of unpublished agency reports and other information
Join us in Honolulu in 2024
Find an AFS Unit near you or in your area of specialty
Learn how to communicate the effects of climate change on fisheries
Summer internships for high school students
Explore our initiatives to increase diversity in the Society and in the fisheries profession
Find fisheries science products and services
Quick answers to common questions
Check out this interview with Todd Pearsons where he talks about how he got started in photography and how he captures such amazing shots here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fsh.10040
The best memories come from collecting the fish and seeing them in the wild.
This image features the Fogo Island Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua stewardship fishery, which is a small-scale commercial fishery operating in Newfoundland, Canada.
Interview by Jeff Schaeffer Gyotaku is becoming more popular, but very few artists engage in it. How did you get started? I am self-taught in the Gyotaku technique, but initially saw some individuals making prints when I started graduate school in 1985. My initial thought was, “That’s a pretty neat art form.” Later that summer, I made my first print (Pile Seaperch Damalichthys vacca) and still have the best print from that initial effort. After earning my master’s degree in fisheries science from Oregon State University, I began working at the Aquarium of the Americas in New Orleans as an animal husbandry specialist. I decorated our New Orleans home with fish prints. When I gave notice that I had accepted a position at the Oregon Coast Aquarium, we received numerous inquiries about purchasing my fish prints. We sold all 12 prints that were in the house to friends in the New Orleans area. Can you tell us more about Gyotaku and your process? The literal translation of the Japanese term Gyotaku, is “fish-impression” or “fish-rubbing.” The twist to the entire process is that the actual animal is used to create the print. The art form has its roots in Japan during the mid-1800s. The oldest known print is dated to 1862 and is credited to an unknown artist who was likely commissioned by Lord Sakai, the angler who caught the Red Sea Bream Pagellus bogaraveo or “Tai.” The finished print memorializes the significant catch! Originally black ink was used as the pigment for Gyotaku. The art form has progressed to being polychromatic, so I have quite an inventory of acrylic paints and brushes at my disposal. Once the print is dried, I’ll paint the eyes. It is at this stage that the print becomes alive. I favor reflecting the fish’s natural colors, though I do on occasion get wild with colors and patterns. There are two major styles of Gyotaku, and I practice the “Direct” Method. In this method, the paint is applied directly onto the subject with brushes. A different brush is used for each color of paint used. Rice paper or tightly woven cloth is placed atop the painted subject. The paper is then gently rubbed against the subject. This fingertip pressure transfers the paint onto the paper, thus creating a mirror image of the subject. In contrast, the paper is molded directly against the subject in the “Indirect Method,” before different colors are applied with separate tampos, a ball of cotton encased in silk cloth In both cases, numerous paper towels are required to remove mucous or moisture from the surface of the subject. Fins are also positioned to re-create natural movement or posturing. Once the eyes are completed, I sign each print, add the name of each subject, and apply my last name in Japanese characters. How do you get your specimens? I obtain specimens from many different sources including commercial fishers, research scientists, recreational anglers, fish farmers, and Asian markets. My public aquarium colleagues have contributed specimens, and I’ve also printed fishes that I have caught. In cases such as salmon or Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus, the fish ultimately ends up as table fare once printing is completed. A key aspect of printing is to obtain a specimen that is fully in tact…no missing scales, no fin splitting, and “no cuts or guts.” In addition to fishes, I have also printed botanical subjects and an array of invertebrates including oysters, geoduck clams, mussels, scallops, crabs, and barnacles. What are some of your current or upcoming projects that we might look for during 2016–2017? Look for me at the AFS-2016 Tradeshow in Kansas City. It’ll be a sort of a homecoming as I received my bachelor’s degree from Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri. I will also be part of the Issahquah’s (WA) Salmon Days Festival during October 1 and 2, 2016. You have printed over 150 different species of aquatic animals, are there any that are especially memorable, and why? I was commissioned to print a goldfish that was a companion animal for 15 years after being won at a county fair. The relationship between the fish and its owner is what made this print noteworthy. I also printed several fishes that my dad caught while on Long Range fishing trips along the Pacific coast of Mexico. These specimens included Mahi mahi, California Flying Fish Cheilopogon pinnatibarbatus californicus, and Black Triggerfish or Black Durgon Melichthys niger. Which species is you favorite to print, and which species is the most challenging to print? I enjoy printing the wide array of Eastern Pacific rockfishes of the family Sebastidae. The prominent scales, large spines found in the fins and head, as well as the wide array of color patterns make these fishes my favorite. I have also printed a number of Scombridae species. The round body and low profile scales, or the absence of scales, make these fish a particular challenge to print. We have never seen an artist that printed both the organism and the habitat too. What led you to take that next step? My academic and career background aids me in creating a context for the subject. That context could take the form of a fish in its habitat, or fishes interacting with each other, such as schooling or in a predator/prey interaction. In one composition, I placed a lure in front of a chasing Wahoo Acanthocybium solanderi. I have also placed a steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss hen on a spawning bed, complete with eggs. Somewhere out there is the species you have always wanted to print, but haven’t. Which one is it, and why is it still on your to-do list? I’d love to do a series of Amazonian fishes, or endangered species. Fishes with a typical body “shapes” such as Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus, lungfish, or Coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae, would be an exceptional experience to print. I’m also open to contributing art for science related literature or reports. I am also in the beginning
John Waldman is a professor of biology at Queens College, Queens, NY 11367. E-mail: [email protected] How did you get involved with the work you are doing now—what led you into this particular line of research? Though I grew up in the Bronx, I lived in walking distance of Long Island Sound. There I had an urban “Huck Finn” boyhood with endless fishing and boating adventures. Also, my father would drive me north of New York City to fish various streams, where I discovered the magic of flowing water. Although only a casual angler, my dad always had some Outdoor Life and Field and Stream magazines around that whetted my appetite for broader knowledge of fishes. My incipient proclivities for the scientific side of the underwater world were given a huge boost on my ninth birthday with a copy of the epic, 1,156-page McClane’s New Standard Fishing Encyclopedia and International Angling Guide, which I soon read from cover to cover and then back again. Much later, my doctoral work at the City University of New York and the American Museum of Natural History focused on the anadromous Striped Bass Morone saxatilis and its relatives, but as a taxonomic study. Though I enjoyed that research, I was more drawn to the many other biological aspects of anadromous fishes than I was to systematic biology. An offer to help launch a Striped Bass tagging program led to a 20-year career at the Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research. Though a foundation is an odd base for a research career, with a generous leash I managed through collaborations and conferences to also become heavily involved with the study and conservation of sturgeons, shads, and Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus, in addition to Striped Bass, and in the process to assemble a respectable publication record. Publication of my book, Heartbeats in the Muck: The History, Sea Life, and Environment of New York Harbor, prompted a speaking invitation to Queens College in 2004 and then to a professorship there, allowing me to reinvent myself as an academic and to focus more specifically on diadromous fishes. This culminated in 2013, after six-years of research (and a lifetime of experiences), with my book Running Silver: Restoring Atlantic Rivers and their Great Fish Migrations. What is the most challenging work issue you are dealing with now—what is unique that makes it challenging? I think the deeper history of many conservation issues often remains far too little appreciated—we need more historical ecologists. In delving into the environmental history of New York Harbor, I was astonished at just how awful conditions were a century ago—its oil-coated waters caught fire and portions of its bottoms were covered in raw human sewage sludge 10-feet thick. Not surprisingly, many fishes, oysters, and herons and other birds of prey were only a memory. In restoring this remarkably compromised water body, we’ve done an even better job than most today are aware of. However, the opposite is true concerning diadromous fishes and Atlantic rivers. There is general appreciation that runs in these rivers are markedly smaller than they once were, but in examining this history the decline is shockingly bad—with decreases as much as 4 to 5 orders of magnitude—what are pathetically small relics today rather than waters that once “ran silver” with the migrating fish. This somewhat passive acquiescence to the current reality is a prime example of a “shifted baseline,” where we have accepted the mere persistence of these comparatively tiny runs (rather than their primordial abundances) as the new normal. Getting the public and resource managers to firmly reject the status quo and to set their sights higher is the challenge, and we need to rethink our reference points. I wrote Running Silver with the aim of not only informing about the incredible legacy that has been lost, but also to inspire society do something about it. That “something” is no mystery—most significantly, it’s removing dams. What’s one interesting fact that most people don’t know about the field of research you are in? There is a lot of valuable, practical information to be gained by being an engaged angler out on the water and in being part of the larger angling community—textbook knowledge only goes so far. To put serious time towards locating and fooling trout or bass, for instance, in the structurally complex realm of a flowing river or the various habitats of a lake is to begin to really understand their needs and habits. And enmeshing yourself in your own local angling world puts you in contact with keen and caring observers of nature, especially regarding changing phenologies and shifting ecological communities. So if you are a fisheries biologist, angling should be considered working! Members click below for the March 2016 Fisheries magazine’s complete issue. Non-members, join here.
Daniel Pauly, Ph.D. is a French researcher who became a professor at the Fisheries Centre of the University of British Columbia in 1994, of which he was the director for 5 years. He has been the principal investigator of the Sea Around Us project since 1999. He is one of the main contributors of the Ecopath modeling approach and software and of FishBase, the online encyclopedia of fish. He is also the author or coauthor of several famous papers in Science and Nature and the recipient of various awards, including the Award of Excellence of the American Fisheries Society. Q. In “Toward Sustainability in World Fisheries” (Pauly et al. 2002) and “The Future for Fisheries” (Pauly et al. 2013), you expressed serious concerns about the sustainability of global fisheries and offered recommendations for rebuilding marine resources. Do you have the feeling that the situation of world fisheries is better or worse today than a decade ago? A. A journalist working for the International New York Times asked me the same question a few weeks ago, though with reference to my “Aquacalypse Now” article (Pauly 2009; whose cute title, incidentally, I discovered only when reading the published version). My answer to his question was an op-ed (Pauly 2014) in which I noted the tremendous progress in rebuilding stocks in the United States in the last decade and the hope that the European Union (EU) will follow suit, now that its Parliament has passed enabling legislation. However, I also noted that both the United States and the EU obtain—via direct catches or imports—over 70% of their seafood from outside of their waters, mostly from developing countries where overfishing is accelerating and that much of this seafood in fact originates from “food-deficit” countries. Thus, “we” (in the United States and EU) will have to deal with the huge equity issues that this poses and, at least, export some of the sustainability that we have recently developed. Q. In “Fishing Down Marine Food Webs” (Pauly et al. 1998a), you showed that the mean trophic level (MTL) of fisheries landings has declined since the 1950s, which reflects the collapse of an increasing number of high-trophic-level fish populations and unsustainable fishing patterns. This idea was confirmed later on (e.g., Pauly and Palomares 2005). By contrast, Branch et al. (2010) found recent increases in catch, survey, and stock assessment MTL. Why are there discrepancies between your findings and those of Branch et al. (2010)? Is catch MTL increasing or decreasing in the United States, why, and what does this suggest? A. A superficial reading of the question would suggest that I led a paper claiming a widespread occurrence of “fishing down marine food webs” (FD) in 1998, that this claim was reiterated in 2005, that it is these two papers which were contested by Branch et al. (2010), and that then a debate ensued. Actually, the 1998 paper was challenged immediately by Caddy et al. (1998); that is, by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) staff, who stated that they [su_members message=”This content is for members only. Please login.” color=”#ffcc00″ login_text=”login” login_url=”/membership/member-login/” class=””] “do not disagree that a general decline in mean trophic level is likely to have occurred in many regions” but felt that it may not be solely due to FD, before proposing alternative explanations, in part based on what they said was the low quality of the FAO data. We provided what I think were satisfactory answers to this (see Pauly et al. 1998b), and the original FD paper went on to be cited over 3,200 times, as assessed by Google Scholar. The overwhelming majority of these citations, I should add, are positive or neutral; that is, not questioning the occurrence of the FD effect. In addition, Pauly et al.’s (1998a) results were replicated in numerous studies (see Stergiou and Christensen [2011] for a review). Notably, a recent study by Polovina and Woodworth-Jefcoats (2013) analyzed the U.S. tuna fishery around Hawaii and documented a strong FD effect, which, however, can be detected only after discards are accounted for. Another recent account for FD is Molfese et al. (2014), who studied a 90-year time series from the English Channel (see www.fishingdown.org for more cases). Thus, there is a huge independent body of work that Branch et al. (2010) did not consider when claiming that the FD phenomenon occurs only in a few cases, if at all. The fact is that Branch et al. (2010), as is often the case in fisheries science, did not account for the spatial expansion of fisheries, as documented worldwide in Swartz et al. (2010). Expansion is not a problem for FD when using local catch data, as most previous authors had done. However, this was not the case for the data that Branch et al. (2010) used. I should know, because what they used were FAO catch data processed by the Sea Around Us project, in which the offshore expansion of fisheries not only is not taken into account when they are “spatialized” (see Watson et al. [2004] for method) but is completely masked. Collectively, the fisheries of a given country, when the biomass of the coastal resources they exploit declines (along with the mean trophic level of their catch), tend to expand further from the coast. As they do this, they encounter tuna, billfishes, and other large pelagic fishes with high trophic level (TL) and relatively fewer low-TL fishes. Thus, if you fail to account for expansion, you will get the impression that the downward MTL trend that was visible at first has reversed. The error made here is as elementary as that of an agronomist who would report on the growing productivity of a farm without accounting for increase in acreage planted. This is not an idle claim. We have a paper coming out (Kleisner et al., 2014) which not only elaborates on this effect but presents an approach by which the masking effect of an expansion can be quantified, if approximately. This, and other papers to be submitted in 2015, including one with the many authors who have documented FD in their countries (with local catch data not biased by offshore expansion), and another one on worldwide biomass trends by TLs, should be able to put the notion to rest that “fishing
Ivy Baremore has a bachelor’s degree in biological sciences from Florida State University and a master’s degree in fisheries and aquatic sciences from the University of Florida. She worked as a biological technician, fishery observer coordinator, and then a fishery biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service Panama City Laboratory, where her research focused on commercial and recreational landings and life history biology of shark species in support of stock assessment. She moved to Belize in 2013 to take on the role of technical coordinator for MarAlliance, where she helps to coordinate and implement research activities. How did you get involved with the work you are doing now— what led you into this particular line of research? I worked as a contract employee for the U.S. federal government for 10 years and was very lucky to work with some of the most dedicated and talented fisheries scientists in their field. Though I enjoyed my work, I began to feel that my contributions were not terribly important in the grand scheme of fisheries management. In 2013, I made a big move—in my career and physical location—and joined a small non-governmental organization in Belize that is now MarAlliance (maralliance.org). Living and working full time in a developing country has given me a greater appreciation of what “data poor” can mean. It is also very rewarding to be part of a team that is helping to move this region out of the data poor category. What is the most challenging work issue you are dealing with now—what is unique that makes it challenging? Right at this moment, I’m in the process of renewing my work permit and applying for residency in Belize, which is probably the most frustrating part of my job! However, bureaucracy is hardly unique to this country. In reference to my actual work, we have just begun a brand new project funded by Save Our Seas Foundation and Rufford Small Grants studying the emerging deep-sea fishery here in Belize. Earlier this year, we started fishery-independent monitoring of deep-sea fishes, especially sharks.
The Gulf Coast Research Laboratory (GCRL) is a marine/coastal research and education enterprise located in Ocean Springs, Mississippi, and is a unit of The University of Southern Mississippi. What are some of the projects at GCRL that you are currently working on? I am co-principal investigator on several fisheries projects at GCRL. One of those is a study of Atlantic Tarpon Megalops atlanticus in Mississippi coastal waters and the adjacent northern Gulf of Mexico (Gulf). This work is funded by the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), with additional support provided by the local fly fishing organization (HOSSFLY), and is focused primarily on biological and ecological aspects of juveniles and larvae. Our work to back-track transport pathways of aged leptocephali to presumed offshore northern Gulf spawning locations is an exceptionally interesting study component. This is of tremendous interest since only recently were adult Atlantic Tarpon from northern Gulf waters documented to be spawning capable. Additionally, satellite (PSAT) tagging of adults off Mississippi is scheduled for late summer 2015 in an effort to examine seasonal movements, habitat preferences, and aspects of regional winter residency. Another project involves an investigation of life history aspects of Yellowfin Tuna Thunnus albacares in the northern Gulf of Mexico. This research is funded by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). GCRL collaborators (co-PIs) on the project are Eric Saillant (genetic stock structure of Gulf Yellowfin Tuna and connectivity with other regional stocks within the Atlantic Basin) and Nancy Brown-Peterson (reproductive biology). My role is overseeing the feeding ecology component of the study and some of the field sampling efforts. Jay Rooker, professor with Texas A and M University at Galveston, is also a project co-PI assessing “natural” tags to determine the nursery origin and stock structure of Yellowfin Tuna. Yellowfin Tuna examined in the study are sampled from the recreational fishery at dock locations along the northern Gulf, primarily Venice, Louisiana, and Biloxi, Mississippi. Other aspects of the project being conducted by our LDWF colleague Brett Falterman (project manager) and his research team include satellite and acoustic tagging. The Yellowfin Tuna study represents the first large-scale biological investigation of this species in the region. Yellowfin Tuna support valuable commercial and recreational fisheries in the Gulf, and study results will inform management of the species. Other research involves the use of acoustic telemetry to better understand the associations of Spotted Seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus, juvenile snapper and grouper, and juvenile sharks with inshore artificial reef habitats as well as their seasonal use of coastal embayments as critical habitat. This work (funded primarily by the MDMR) was initiated several years ago by the GCRL Center for Fisheries Research and Development (CFRD) team, with an ultimate goal of vastly expanding our fisheries acoustic research capabilities via establishment of larger arrays of “listening stations” throughout the Mississippi Sound estuary. This work, coupled with our long-term collaborative research with MDMR on important fisheries in Mississippi coastal waters, greatly expands our knowledge of the ecology of those important finfish populations. These studies are examples of CFRD research that provides support for GCRL–Department of Coastal Sciences graduate students, engaging them in field and laboratory activities, and offering unparalleled learning opportunities and hands-on experience. Pelagic sargassum (a surface drifting brown alga; two species complex) as critical fish habitat is a GCRL focus of considerable interest. GCRL’s scientists have been studying sargassum/fish associations for over a decade, with more recent sargassum research in the northern Gulf being conducted by Frank Hernandez of USM’s Department of Coastal Sciences and his great team. Moving beyond the Gulf, CFRD oceanographer Don Johnson and I have taken particular interest in an astounding, emerging pelagic sargassum issue in the Caribbean. Since 2011, massive quantities have been washing into bays and onto shorelines of Caribbean countries, negatively impacting ecological services, as well as fishers’ livelihoods, tourism, and local community life. Without question, a regional issue of considerable consequence. We have been joined by naval oceanographer collaborator D.S. Ko in examining possible underlying mechanisms driving this phenomenon. Development of a predictive model having utility in the development of response plans and adaptive strategies is a goal of ours. Can you tell us about your involvement in GCRL-CFRD shark studies? Well, I am fortunate indeed to be involved in some capacity in a couple of shark research projects with Jill Hendon, GCRL-CFRD shark biologist and Shark Research Program team leader. The Program conducts population monitoring/assessment surveys of Gulf shark species as well as studies on their biology and ecology. Use of acoustic telemetry and satellite tag technologies is providing exceptional insight into seasonal behavior, habitat use, and movements of coastal and large pelagic sharks. Recently, Andy Evans (COA) joined forces with the CFRD to expand the Shark Research Program by providing expertise in molecular endocrinology and physiology. Whale Sharks Rhincodon typus in the Gulf of Mexico are of paramount interest to the shark team, particularly the large aggregations that occur with some regularity at a few unique locations many miles off coastal Louisiana. These tend to be feeding aggregations focused, in great part, on consumption of eggs from spawning fishes that gather over bottom features (domes and the banks). The Whale Sharks (most appear to be juveniles) may well time their occurrences at such features to coincide with the spawning events. Satellite tagging Whale Sharks at those locations and among those aggregations is a viable strategy for data acquisition. Among key personnel collaborating with GCRL in various components of the research are LDWF scientists Brett Falterman and Jennifer McKinney, NOAA research colleague Eric Hoffmayer, spotter pilot Bonnie Schumaker, and her team of keen-eyed observers, critically important research sponsors and others. What makes GCRL fisheries research stand out from other fisheries programs? Since the early days of its founding in 1947, the GCRL has placed strong emphasis on fisheries and providing scientific support for resource management, both within the State of MissisCFRD and COA covers a wide diversity of coastal and offshore fishes and invertebrates and their habitats. In particular, GCRL’s multi-decade historic data sets and long-term routine monitoring and sampling in local coastal waters provide for greater understanding of Mississippi fishery species and their ecology. Working with user groups, locally and region-wide, who rely on coastal and marine fisheries is also a critically important and effective component of the GCRL’s research
Paul Scheerer is a project leader with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)–Native Fish Investigations Program. He has worked with ODFW for 24 years with a focus on describing the status, distribution, seasonal movements, and life history characteristics of Oregon’s native non-game fishes. Email:[email protected]. Past president Bob Hughes says, “This project was a decades-long labor of love by some for a little unexciting fish to others.” Why is it worth so much money and time to recover the little Oregon Chub – a fish most people do not even know exists? The Oregon Chub Oregonichthys crameri has been described as an indicator species of the health of Willamette River off-channel floodplain habitats. The work we have done to protect this chub has benefited countless other species of fish, birds, amphibians, and mammals that also depend on these off-channel habitats, including but not limited to, salmon and steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss, otters, deer, elk, beavers Castor canadensis, western pond turtles Actinemys marmorata, red-legged frogs, herons, shorebirds, and ducks. The collective effort by a very strong public-private partnership in the Willamette Valley clearly demonstrates that listed species can be recovered and delisted in a highly populated, working landscape. This illustrates one of the rare success stories for the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which just turned 40 years old last year. It is important to document success stories to show that the ESA is working and justify its value. Why did you become interested in Oregon Chub in the first place? My career focus has been on assessing the status, protection, and recovery of Oregon’s native nongame, often endemic, fishes, so I was asked to lead the monitoring effort of the Oregon Chub when biologists became concerned about its status—prompted in part by an Oregon State University study in 1989 (Todd Pearsons and Doug Markle), where historical chub locations were resurveyed and chub were only found at a handful of the 29 historically documented locations. This study prompted a proposal to list the species under the ESA and develop an interagency Oregon Chub Conservation Plan in 1992. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) obtained funds in 1992 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to assess the current status and abundance of the species. Oregon Chub was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1993, downlisted to threatened in 2010, and successfully delisted February 19, 2015 (Federal Register posting). What were the most challenging issues you confronted regarding Oregon Chub recovery? The most challenging issues were how to recover a small floodplain fish threatened by altered flow regimes and nonnative predatory fishes, including Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides, Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, bullheads, and Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. How did you and your team surmount those challenges? Our main focus was to identify previously unknown populations of chub, protect the existing/known natural populations, and to reduce the risk of the species’ extinction by conducting reintroductions into secure locations with no nonnatives or threats of invasion within their historical range. To address the issue of altered flow regimes, we worked closely with the USFWS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to balance the protection of off-channel habitats and natural flow regimes with the USACE flood control objectives. The USACE also funded studies to assess the relationships between flows released from 13 tributary dams and conditions in off-channel habitats upon which chub rely (temperatures, water levels, connectivity) and fish assemblages (native/nonnative) in these habitats. One of the questions we hoped to answer was what characteristics of floodplain habitats allow native and nonnative fishes to coexist. There are several locations where chub and nonnative fish co-occur in floodplain habitats, but chub abundance is typically lower in these habitats, and nonnatives often dominate floodplain habitats that have been altered (e.g., abandoned gravel mining pits). To reduce the risk of extinction and increase the distribution of the species, we initiated a reintroduction program with strict guidelines to protect the donor population and establish new populations with a sufficient number and diversity of donors to avoid genetic bottlenecks. To date, we established 21 populations through our reintroduction program, which was facilitated by working with the USFWS to develop a programmatic Biological Assessment for reintroductions and a programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) for private landowners who agreed to allow us to introduce this listed fish on their properties. Four of the five most abundant chub populations are at reintroduction sites. How did you and your team manage to obtain the support of landowners, NGOs, and federal and state agencies in this recovery process? Surprisingly, this was probably one of the easiest tasks. We had strong support of most of the relevant state and federal agencies from their early involvement in developing the Conservation Agreement in 1992 (prelisting). After listing, we gained additional support (including financial support) from federal agencies (USFWS, USACE, and the U.S. Forest Service [USFS]) in the process of fulfilling their obligations under the ESA. In many cases, NGOs, including land trusts and watershed councils, came to us to see how they could participate. We also had support from many landowners due to their involvement in the Farm Bill conservation programs and the focused activities of USFWS private lands biologists to encourage involvement in the chub introductions/recovery. As time progressed and we started to show progress towards downlisting and delisting, many more agencies and landowners joined in and contacted us to see how they could participate. Did you have any sense of an anti-government or anti-conservation attitude among landowners? If so, how did you and your team allay those fears? Not much. Part of that may be reflected in the liberal demographic in the Willamette Valley. Fortunately, the recovery of Oregon Chub had very little to no regulatory impacts on landowners. Existing laws (clean water, fill, and removal) were adequate to protect their habitats. To allay fears from landowners who voluntarily agreed to allow us to introduce chub onto their properties, we worked with the USFWS to develop the SHAs with landowners (individually, and
Jay Hemdal has been the aquarium curator for the Toledo Zoo since 1989. Prior to that time, he worked for the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. He is a graduate of Eastern Michigan University and has written six books and close to 200 magazine articles on fish and aquariums. INTRODUCTION On the morning of March 27, 2015, several hundred people braved unseasonable bitter cold and snow flurries to attend the grand reopening of the Toledo Zoo Aquarium. The dedication speeches were cut short due to frigid weather and biting winds, and the mayor and zoo executive director used a giant pair of shark-shaped scissors to cut the ribbon. At first, the visitors rushed inside as fast as possible, if only to get out of the wind, but forward motion stopped due to wonderment as people entered the first gallery of new exhibits. When first opened in 1939, the Toledo Zoo Aquarium was the largest freshwater aquarium in the world, and it had remained one of the zoo’s most popular attractions for decades. But by the mid-2000s, the aquarium was both dated and in trouble. Originally constructed during the Great Depression as a Works Progress Administration project, it had been built to last with a beautiful exterior. At that time, the state-of-the-art exhibit galleries were set up in the fashion of an art museum. Visitors would walk down long hallways of similar-sized exhibits as if they were observing paintings. The exhibits were well crafted, fish care was exquisite (many of the fish that were there when I was in grad school are still in residence, only larger), but the interior felt dark and gloomy. It was like walking through a tunnel. And behind the scenes, it was far worse. The addition of saltwater exhibits during the 1970s had led to corrosion of not only life support systems but also the building itself. Most zoos would have likely closed a facility with that many problems, but the Toledo Zoo is unique. Long rated as one of the best zoos in the United States, it has strong [su_members message=”This content is for members only. Please login.” color=”#ffcc00″ login_text=”login” login_url=”/membership/member-login/” class=””]community support; voters approved a tax levy in 2006 that supported the renovation and funded about 80% of the US$25.5 million dollar cost (yes, 25.5 million dollars!), with the rest coming from donations (some initial planning for the renovation actually started almost 15 years ago). The aquarium closed during 2012 for the reconstruction. The historic exterior was preserved, but the inside was gutted for structural repair, and a complete redesign of both display and support systems. The old exhibit was about seeing fish; the new design is about interacting with them. The project architect was the same firm that designed the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and every exhibit was replaced. Total water volume increased nearly four-fold, from 46,000 to 178,000 gallons, and the largest exhibit increased nearly 12-fold, from 7,600 to 90,000 gallons. There was a slight reduction in freshwater diversity via reduced focus on common freshwater forms (some common species had appeared in multiple exhibits). However, there was an increase in the number of marine species (both fish and corals). The new facility supports about 3,700 organisms representing 50 freshwater and 150 marine species. The new architecture contains a key modern feature designed to enhance visitor experience. Where, in the past, nearly every exhibit was gallery style—where a visitor walked up to it and looked in—the new style allows visitors to see through the exhibits from multiple perspectives (a feature of nearly every modern aquarium), giving viewers a better appreciation for both volume and habitat. The renovation also resulted in a complete overhaul of life support systems (many which were tested extensively prior to demolition to verify effectiveness). One key finding was that drum filters were highly effective at maintaining water quality. They had not been used previously as a primary particulate removal system in any aquarium, but test results supported the zoo’s decision to adopt them. Extensive lighting tests were also undertaken to develop illumination strategies that maintained fish and coral health, allowed visitors to see the fish, and created aesthetic experiences such as light shimmering, all while being as energy efficient as possible. The renovation also resulted in a complete overhaul of life support systems (many which were tested extensively prior to demolition to verify effectiveness). One key finding was that drum filters were highly effective at maintaining water quality. They had not been used previously as a primary particulate removal system in any aquarium, but test results supported the zoo’s decision to adopt them. Extensive lighting tests were also undertaken to develop illumination strategies that maintained fish and coral health, allowed visitors to see the fish, and created aesthetic experiences such as light shimmering, all while being as energy efficient as possible. Virtually all the new exhibits are far more consistent ecologically with natural habitats. Hard and soft corals attack each other via alleopathy, so those species are housed in separate reef crest and lagoon habitats with non-coral grazing fish species. The Japanese spider crab Macrocheira kaempferi exhibit quadrupled in size and contains flat substrate with no other habitat features. This allows the animals to stretch out to their full size while deep blue lighting conveys the feel of deep water. And although perfect ecologically, potential monotony of the flat substrate is broken by spot illumination that allows visitors a close and detailed view whenever the animals are under a beam, creating a dimension of interest that heightens visitor interaction. And as with most exhibits, lighting was designed to prevent animals from seeing visitors so that natural behaviors would be the norm. I had envisioned a morning grand opening ceremony as sort of a solemn gathering of dignitaries and zoo staff. They were overshadowed by a much larger turnout of over a thousand people who were geeked to see some fish. By the time the ribbon was cut, a line of families with children had formed, stretching from the aquarium
Copyright © 2024 American Fisheries Society | Privacy Policy
