President’s Commentary

In my October column, I offered a simple definition for the term “fisheries”: humans catching or rearing fish, with the caveat that it also involves humans interacting with fish, taking into account indirect interactions between people and aquatic life.

A key tenet of the AFS mission is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems. Toward that end, AFS uses a variety of communications approaches that were reviewed in the recent Strategic Communications Plan developed by the Potomac Communications Group under the leadership of Past President Donna Parrish (fisheries.org/about/governance/communications plan). The plan was revealed at the 2015 Governing Board meeting in Portland, and since then AFS staff and all members have had an opportunity to comment on it. A Special Committee on Communications Strategic Planning, chaired by Gwen White, analyzed all the feedback and developed recommendations for immediate actions for consideration by the Governing Board at its mid year meeting in April 2016. In this column, I share highlights from that discussion as well as my thoughts on several AFS communications vehicles considered in the plan: Journals: Peer-reviewed scientific information is disseminated in a traditional manner through the five AFS journals. The Governing Board agreed with recommendations to increase the footprint and impact of AFS journals through increased promotion and highlighting prominent articles. I anticipate that distribution changes in recent years to online formats and the purchase of individual articles will continue; otherwise, journals are a time-tested communications vehicle. Fisheries magazine: This monthly publication was established in 1976 and has a broad collection of peer-reviewed articles, essays, professional development columns, book reviews, news items, etc. The Governing Board supported efforts to leverage the appeal of Fisheries by better definition of standards for types of articles, shifting some material to other formats, and encouraging more synthesis articles and articles on broader topics. I like this direction and also recent Fisheries efforts to publish summaries of highlighted journal articles that can easily be understood by readers who may not be familiar with a particular discipline. E-newsletter: Since May 2014, AFS has produced a bi-weekly e-newsletter to disseminate news items more frequently than Fisheries. It has been well received by members who are also satisfied with its frequency, so its future seems bright. The Governing Board suggested that it could be shortened with embedded links to content. I particularly appreciate the reprinting of current happenings from other news sources like Greenwire in the e-newsletter. Website: The AFS website serves as a one-stop shop for information on a variety of topics, including AFS governance (e.g., Units, Committees, membership, and staff), fisheries resources (e.g., publications, news, policy), and professional development (e.g., certification, continuing education courses, meetings, jobs). The website was not included in the plan because it was being revised at that time. There has been positive feedback on the revised website launched in January 2016, and there is no doubt that it will be a strong communications vehicle for years to come. Social media: This includes Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, LinkedIn, etc. The Governing Board recognizes a need for continued activity and improvement in this arena, and agreed that there should be written social media guidelines. For example, there should not be confusion about which Facebook page actually represents the Society. A plenary speaker and at least one symposium at the AFS 2016 Annual Meeting will provide advice on the use of social media to communicate fisheries information. Media relations: AFS staff have interacted with media in a variety of ways in recent years, generally moving away from traditional news releases toward social media outreach. While there is clear Governing Board support to build and maintain relationships with prominent reporters, the specific approaches to do this need further fleshing out. Letter writing and legislative briefings/testimony: AFS engages in these forms of communication particularly in the policy arena. As issues affecting fisheries arise, there will likely be a continuing need for AFS to provide scientific information to decision makers. AFS intends to continue organizing congressional briefings on fisheries topics that are important to federal agencies and many members. AFS can leverage opportunities to work through established communications conduits of allied organizations. Oral and poster presentations: This form of communication at AFS meetings of all levels is another traditional method that is highly likely to continue. New methods like speed presentations and e-posters are likely to expand. Streaming and recording technology should be used more often so that sessions can be viewed anywhere in real-time or on-demand. Continuing Education and Unit Leader Training: This is a special type of communication that is very important in supporting the fisheries profession. The traditional method is face-to-face in the classroom, but online and webinar formats need to expand to meet member needs in a world where travel is increasingly difficult. Networking: Last, but certainly not least, is the informal communication of scientific information that occurs during AFS meetings of all levels. I cannot say enough about how important this is to building and maintaining professional relationships. Virtual attendance at AFS meetings has its place, but we can’t lose sight of the power of in-person communications. There are many other ways to communicate fisheries information that were not covered such as books, pamphlets, technical reports, popular articles, blogs, degree program teaching, and aquatic resource education to name just a few. Many of these are being actively discussed and implemented by various AFS Units. However, at least for the subset of communication approaches in the plan, AFS now has better direction, especially with the hiring of new Communications Director Martha Wilson to implement priority recommendations for improved communication of fisheries information. AFS, its members, and aquatic resources will be better off for doing so. Members click below for the June 2016 Fisheries magazine’s complete issue. Non-members, join here.

Serving as an American Fisheries Society (AFS) officer is an honor and a privilege that comes with many responsibilities. One of these that I wanted to shed some light on in this column is the travel to represent the Society at various meetings of fisheries professionals. Many of these trips are to AFS Units in North America, and others are to meetings of professional societies on other continents. Of course, all AFS officers attend the Annual Meeting. Because this meeting represents the only in-person opportunity for most AFS Sections to meet, the officers try to attend as many of these as possible. Because there is much overlap in the scheduling of 21 Section meetings during the week, the officers typically split these up to ensure that each one is attended. There are also Management Committee and Governing Board meetings held during the week. The AFS President typically attends the four Division meetings during his or her term. Meetings of the North Central and Northeastern Divisions are held in conjunction with wildlife professionals in those regions and have many intriguing cross-discipline technical sessions. The Southern and Western Divisions meet separately from their regional fish and wildlife conferences, so large numbers of fisheries technical sessions are a real strength of these meetings. The Society has held mid-year, in-person Governing Board meetings in conjunction with Division meetings twice since 2013. This has provided an opportunity for officers and Governing Board members to attend scientific meetings that they normally would not get to. There was a rich suite of fisheries science topics featured in symposia at the four Division annual meetings in 2016. The North Central Division meeting in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in January had seven joint fisheries and wildlife and eight fisheries symposia, including climate change, reservoir fisheries, and the Michigan fisheries research legacy. Crayfish, Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis, and fish health were prominent topics within the seven symposia at the Southern Division meeting in Wheeling, West Virginia, in February. The Western Division meeting in Reno, Nevada, in March included 16 symposia ranging from desert fishes to Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi to Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius newberryi. Finally, the Northeastern Division meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, in April featured symposia on road–stream crossings and emerging recreational fisheries issues. The six memoranda of understanding that AFS has with professional fisheries societies in other countries that include officer travel exchange were described in the January President’s Commentary “Fisheries Down Under.” Since traveling to Australia in October 2015, I went to China in November 2015 and will be going to South Korea later this month and to the British Isles in July 2016. Due to conflicting Division meeting travel, another officer represented AFS at the Japanese Society of Fisheries Science meeting in March 2016. The Brazilian Society of Ichthyology meets every other year and will not meet in 2016. My trip to China was to the Institute of Hydrobiology in Wuhan and to the annual meeting of the China Society of Fisheries in Hangzhou. I experienced superb hospitality from the locals in both of these cities, each with populations of over 10 million. I was treated to outstanding cuisine, with many entrees from China’s extensive freshwater and marine aquaculture industry like water lotus and several species of carp. At the Institute of Hydrobiology, I gave a presentation with the dual themes of AFS and the Sport Fish Restoration Program to students and faculty. I heard about the successful second Mississippi River–Yangtze River symposium that had just occurred there two weeks before and how the third such symposium was being planned for the 2016 AFS meeting in Kansas City. The China Society of Fisheries meeting featured presentations mainly related to aquaculture, covering fish health, genetics, and physiology. But there were also a wide range of talks on aquatic ecology and fisheries management, including a student presentation on the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. My trip to South Korea will be particularly significant because it is to the 7th World Fisheries Congress in Busan. This conference is held every four years to share fisheries information on a global scale. The American Fisheries Society is involved in program planning, with Past President Donna Parrish playing a major role in cochairing the Program Committee. The 2016 meeting has the theme “Challenge to Sustainable Fisheries and Safe Seafoods,” with at least 39 sessions covering a broad range of topics from food science to climate change. The large travel demands on AFS officers generally prevent attendance at Chapter or Section meetings unless they are scheduled in conjunction with Society or Division meetings or are in an officer’s local area. I wish this could be different because Chapter meetings have a terrific focus on local fisheries issues. However, there just are not enough hours in the day considering all of the travel described above and other Society business, not to mention non-AFS job demands. AFS officer travel takes time and money, but the resulting information transfer on Society operations and fisheries issues from face-to-face meetings has a benefit to members that is priceless. Members click below for the May 2016 Fisheries magazine’s complete issue. Non-members, join here.

We are all aware that professional certification and licensing are required for practitioners in fields like medicine, law, and engineering. Although not as well known and not typically required for employment, many natural resource scientific professional organizations provide certification programs for their members. Some examples are the Ecological Society of America (certified ecologist), the Society of Wetlands Scientists (professional wetland scientist, wetland professional in training), the Society of American Foresters (certified forester), and The Wildlife Society (certified wildlife biologist, associate wildlife biologist). These organizations all recognize the value of these certification programs to their professions, as does AFS. The AFS professional certification program started in 1963 with two tiers of certification (Pegg et al. 1999), and it retains that same basic structure today. Associate fishery professional (FP-A) is for early career individuals and focuses on education requirements. Certified fishery professional (FP-C) is the main type of certification where work experience in addition to education must be substantial. Emeritus status FP-C can be granted when someone has been certified for at least 20 years and is retired or works less than full time. As of this writing, there are 118 FP-A, 342 FP-C, and 143 emeritus status FP-C. This total of 603 certified individuals represents about 10% of the AFS non-student membership. Fisheries science, aquatic sciences, and other biological sciences coursework represent the largest category of coursework required for certification. Other required courses are within chemical and physical sciences, mathematics and statistics, and communications. Human dimensions coursework requirements were added in 2002. A recent survey of fisheries employers analyzed by Kaemingk et al. (in press) suggests that there should be increased emphasis on communications and statistics coursework compared to general biological or physical science coursework. These suggestions, along with the fairly recent addition of human dimensions, demonstrate how the AFS certification program is continually evolving to remain relevant to effectively meet the needs of the profession. The other requirements for AFS certification involve work experience and professional development. The minimum number of years of qualifying work experience decreases as the level of degree advances. For example, five years are required for a bachelor degree, whereas two years are required for a doctoral degree. Professional development includes continuing education training, oral communications, written communications, and service. AFS provides many opportunities in the area of professional development through its continuing education class offerings, scientific meetings, outlets for publication, and Unit leadership positions. The process for AFS certification is relatively straightforward, with the applicant providing education and experience information. Decisions on certification are made by aboard of certified AFS members. If an applicant is unsuccessful, he or she can appeal that decision with the Board of Appeals. Except for emeritus status FP-C, certification must be renewed every five years to demonstrate continued personal growth through professional development achievements. My experience is that being a moderately active AFS member each year easily fulfills the professional development requirements. Colleges and universities accrue benefits from the AFS certification program. Most importantly, the educational requirements can help guide curricula development. If their curricula align with the educational requirements of AFS certification, graduating students will have these satisfied. Many schools use this as a marketing tool to attract students in the competitive arena of higher education. The AFS professional certification program benefits employers in several ways. An organization can be perceived as being more credible to its constituents if a high percentage of its workforce is certified. Certification can be important in the private sector where such qualifications might make a difference in gaining contract work. It can also be important in the public sector when such qualifications could be a consideration in awarding grants. Surveys of certified AFS members suggested that certification could provide credibility when testifying at legal hearings (Pegg et al. 1999) and perceived expertise by the public and peers (Long and Slaughter 2012). There are personal benefits of AFS certification. For some positions, certification may provide a competitive advantage in gaining a job or a promotion because it sometimes is listed among factors preferred in applicants. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources accept FP-A or FP-C in lieu of required coursework for fisheries biologist applicants. The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources has posted fish biologist positions that require applicants to be FP-A or FP-C. Some employers provide tangible benefits to professionally certified staff. Biologists employed by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission are eligible to receive a 6% pay increase if they obtain and maintain FP-C. As a result, 36% of AFS non-student members with addresses in Arkansas are certified, which is much higher than the Society average of 10%. Other personal benefits of AFS certification are less tangible but could be more meaningful to certain individuals. Certification is a form of recognition that might be helpful for motivation in work situations where praise and awards are scarce. Knowing that certification needs to be renewed every 5 years may help prevent job stagnation by stimulating continuing education and professional Society engagement. Finally, AFS certification represents a way of supporting the fisheries profession by documenting the professionalism embodied by Society members. Maybe it is time for you to reconsider AFS professional certification. Perhaps it will benefit you in ways that you had not thought of before. Maybe it will provide benefits to your employing agency. Perhaps the certification process is not as onerous as you envisioned. Regardless of the reason, please give AFS certification another look (fisheries.org/membership/afscertification). You might be glad that you did. REFERENCES Kaemingk, M. A., R. J. Essig, S. L. McMullin, C. Bonds, R. L. DeBruyne, M. E. Mather, C. A. Myrick, Q. E. Phelps, T. M. Sutton, and J. R. Triplett. In press. Examining the relevancy and utility of the American Fisheries Society certification program to prepare future fisheries professionals. Fisheries. Long, J. M., and J. E. Slaughter. 2012. Certification benefits AFS members working in the private sector. Fisheries 37(9):424–425. Pegg, M., K. Pope, and C. Guy. 1999. Evaluation of

By Gary Jackson ([email protected]) and Ron Essig AFS is a lot more than a United States fisheries society. Of course, North America has been at the forefront, but AFS has members from about 60 countries. AFS has been a leader in the World Fisheries Council that organizes the World Fisheries Congress held every four years, with the next being May 23-27, 2016, in Busan, South Korea (wcfs.fisheries.org/7th-worldfisheries-congress-2016-busan-korea). In recent years, AFS has established Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the fisheries societies in Brazil, the British Isles, China, Japan, and South Korea for officer exchange programs, where the host society funds lodging and meeting registration for the society president visiting their annual meeting. A similar MOU was just approved with the Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB), whereby the ASFB President Gary Jackson attended the 2015 AFS meeting in Portland and AFS President Ron Essig attended the 2015 ASFB conference in Sydney. There have been limited officer exchanges between the two societies in the past, but they  were on a more ad hoc basis with individuals electing to attend for personal interest reasons. The ASFB (asfb.org.au) was founded in 1971 and currently has about 325 members including 93 students. As of this writing, there are 34 AFS members from Australia, with most also belonging to ASFB. Administrative work like membership, meeting arrangements, website, and newsletter that were formerly done by volunteers is mostly now done for ASFB under contract. There are two elected representatives from each of the seven Australian states and territories, two from New Zealand, and two more representing the student membership. The ASFB has active Threatened Fishes and Alien Fishes committees, plus several committees that have been active in the past including Stock Assessment, Fish Passageway, and Recreational Fishing. Similar to AFS, all that is needed for such groups to thrive are 1-2 champions to lead them and make them work. The 41st annual ASFB conference that was held in October 2015 in Sydney, New South Wales, had plenary speakers each morning covering topics as diverse as indigenous fishing rights, fish screening technology, abalone sea-ranching through to e-DNA. The meeting was held in conjunction with the International Symposium on Stock Assessment and Sea Ranching, which drew about 70 international participants of the total 300 conference attendees. This conference was large enough for there to be up to six concurrent sessions over three days, although this format varies annually. The ASFB conferences rotate geographically around the country, and New Zealand with the membership in the various states taking their turn in hosting the event, as with AFS. The next ASFB conference will be September 5-8, 2016, in Hobart, Tasmania, with Western Australia already lined up for 2017. Here is some unique Australian fishery information from the meeting that we would like to share: • In 2011, there was an extreme  marine warming event off Southwest Australia where surface ocean temperatures were 3-5 C° above normal. This caused several tropical species to recruit and overwinter, but only the rabbitfish Siganus sp. was shown to have reproduced over 200 nm south of its historical southern limit. • Common Carp Cyprinus carpio expansion in recent years has resulted in plans for control using a herpes virus. • There is commercial sea ranching of abalone in Western Australia that involves the deployment of artificial reef structures that provide benefits for other marine species. There is increasing use of artificial reefs in marine waters for recreational fishing and a concurrent increase in research programs to monitor their success. • The use of acoustic telemetry is very popular and large arrays of receivers are in place, particularly off Australia’s east coast. • An innovative program called Redmap (redmap.org.au) allows citizen scientists to report observations of unusual fish and other marine life along with photographs for scientific verification. •There are directed recreational fisheries on Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar.  Escapees from net pen ranching in Tasmania. Escapees are not as much of a genetics issue as in North America since there are no other native salmon species. There are many benefits of the officer exchange between AFS and ASFB. Foremost is communication of scientific information, and the meeting highlights above provide a few examples. There were several presentations at the ASFB meeting on large-scale recreational fishing surveys in Australia and New Zealand that prompted the sharing of information on new U.S. national survey methodologies. Several ASFB members gained new insights on the potential for publishing in AFS journals or attending AFS meetings. There was sharing of ideas for society governance like the Emerging Leaders Mentoring Program, involvement of women scientists in leadership positions, and student engagement strategies. Regarding students, both societies have student presentation awards and international travel awards. Perhaps there can be reciprocal study opportunities between the two societies in the future. Of note here is that Australian colleges and universities do not typically have master’s level programs like in North America. The AFS-AFSB MOU exchange is off to a great start. This co-authored column is just the first step in mutual information dissemination. Members can attend meetings of the other society or write journal or newsletter articles. The more that happens, the more the realization that fisheries issues have commonalities, even if they are halfway around the world from each other. Members click below for the January 2016 Fisheries magazine’s complete issue. Non-members, join here.

Variety in membership is what keeps AFS strong and vibrant and provides many opportunities for engagement in Society business on a voluntary basis at a number of different levels. The volunteer nature of AFS means that it must be flexible and forgiving as an organization to meet a variety of member needs. The AFS current membership (~7,600) consists of a wide range of fisheries professionals, students, and retirees engaged in many different disciplines. Recent information from the membership database is that there are 1,718 students and 351 retirees. Of the remaining members who have employment information in the database, the percentages by employment type are: state/provincial government (27%), federal government (23%), college/university faculty (21%), private sector (16%), tribal government (3%), and other (10%). It is important to note that 35% of AFS members have not indicated their employment status, so there could be inaccuracy from non-response bias in these data. Please consider taking a few minutes to make sure that the information in your AFS member profile is up-to-date (fisheries.org/welcome-login-or-create-an-account). At the Society level, there are 22 standing committees, 14 standing subcommittees, 5 special committees, and 16 liaisons to other professional societies. AFS also has a large number of Units including 4 Divisions, 44 Chapters, 47 Student Subunits, and 21 Sections. Each of these Units typically has several associated committees, so there are many opportunities for an AFS member to get involved with a particular activity. With limited volunteer time available, the key is to pick a task that is meaningful to you and for which you feel that your involvement can make a difference. There are many assignments that might fit the bill, and Society members should find that niche where they can contribute. New members shouldn’t feel like they have to earn their stripes before jumping in, as their energy and enthusiasm can far overshadow their lack of experience. For example, in my current home Chapter, a graduate student recently served as its president. That year was an outstanding one for the Chapter and a great leadership experience for the student. Sometimes members don’t step up because they feel that they can’t devote enough time to do a good enough job. However, experts say that people who step up to leadership positions are often the ones who are the busiest. Members might feel that there are several others who could do a better job than they could, so they don’t volunteer. If that was the case, then chances are that those individuals have already been asked and have declined for one reason or the other. So it is better to try than to not have tried. The beauty of the voluntary nature of the Society is that you can beg forgiveness if the results of your efforts are not as timely or ideal as you had envisioned. Having said that, I’ve seen some examples of members volunteering for a task and then never following through. So it is important to be honest in assessing your limitations. My experience is that the Society is very good at providing forgiving environments. If you are a committee member who can’t finish a task because of a competing demand on your time from your work or home life, then chances are that another member can pitch in to help get it done. If you are uncomfortable with Robert’s Rules of Order, as many members are, then others at the meeting can help get you through. I have found that even scientific meeting audiences are forgiving, in that they typically show respect and offer constructive criticism to less polished presenters. As a graduate student giving my first AFS meeting presentation on my master’s thesis river herring work, I fielded questions from a leading diadromous fish expert. While stressful at the time, I later appreciated his respectful manner and genuine interest in leading me to a better scientific place. So please consider becoming more active in AFS at whatever level you are comfortable. Maybe this just means a personal commitment to attend more of your local Chapter meetings. Maybe it is volunteering to serve on a Society or Unit committee. Maybe it is helping to organize a portion of an annual Unit meeting. You will likely find that these small steps are quite fulfilling. The personal satisfaction from contributing to a successful result might even encourage you to get a little bit out of your comfort zone in your next AFS venture. This type of progression in service is what makes AFS great and helps advance the fisheries profession. Members click below for the December 2015 Fisheries magazine’s complete issue. Non-members, join here.

We’ve probably all experienced the following scenario. An idea surfaces during lengthy discussion in a meeting that could move a group forward. Several meeting participants agree that the idea is a good one. With luck, this idea is recorded in meeting minutes; however, it is never acted on later. With typical member turnover in any group, it may be months or years before the issue resurfaces. Then members struggle to recall that good idea and why it was not implemented. What can prevent this scenario from occurring is taking action at the time an idea surfaces. For an informal group, this might simply be the leader sensing buy-in from most members and proceeding in that direction. This is a typical process in many AFS committees, which have relatively small numbers of members. However, in larger AFS Units—Sections, Divisions, and Chapters—there needs to be a bit more formality to maintain an orderly process. I am a poor constitutional consultant, but I have learned that the motion process within Robert’s Rules of Order is a very powerful tool indeed. It is what moves forward the Society, its Units, and other organizations that you may be part of in your work and personal life. According to Robert’s Rules, a motion is simply a formal proposal by a member that the group take a certain action. The process involves someone making a motion for action that is germane to the particular agenda topic. That person should state the exact wording of the motion. It can be modified through subsequent dialogue with the chair of the meeting. Then if modified, the chair should restate the motion and obtain a second to the motion before it can be debated. The purpose of a second is to indicate that more than one member of the group agrees that the motion should be discussed. The seconder does not have to agree with the motion. After discussion, either a vote is taken or the motion is declared passed by unanimous consent. An effective strategy with motions is to get support behind it before you introduce it. This means doing some homework vetting it prior to the meeting. You don’t want your idea to fall on deaf ears and go nowhere. Having at least a couple members on your side may help sway the conversation to the conclusion you want. Depending on complexity, it is desirable to write out proposed motions either before the meeting or during the meeting. That way, there is no uncertainty in exactly what is being requested since misstating a key word can make a big difference. Sometimes the group struggles to come to a consensus on wording of a motion. This is when a chair can take advantage of a meeting break to allow time for a couple members to work on wording that captures the flavor of the points raised. After the break, one of those individuals offers the motion. Hopefully, there is a second to the motion, and the ensuing discussion might be more straightforward. There can be many permutations to the simplified process described here, but it is not my intent, nor my expertise, to discuss them here. AFS is fortunate to have the appointed position of constitutional consultant. Each new person taking this on has a one-year apprenticeship with their predecessor, so he/she is well-trained and hits the job running. This individual is well versed in Robert’s Rules and the AFS Constitution, Rules, and Procedures. They also have to qualify for membership in the National Association of Parliamentarians. They draw on that knowledge base to offer constructive criticism of draft motions on a variety of AFS issues, including Unit bylaw changes. It is particularly important for the constitutional consultant to review draft motions to come before the Management Committee or the Governing Board. Getting clear wording will save considerable time debating what the desired purpose of the motion really is. There have been several examples in my officer tenure when motions have been sent back for reworking, which could have been avoided with constitutional consultant input beforehand. I hope these words encourage you to offer motions during business meetings of your AFS Unit. If you don’t have the wording just right, it is likely that someone else will offer amended language that will work better for the group. The power of a motion can only be realized if it is presented to the group. Take action! Make motions! Members click below for the November 2015 Fisheries magazine’s comple issue. Non-members, join here.