Conservation Status of Crayfish Species Paddlefish Conservation ...

Fisheries 

American Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org 

Conservation Status 

of Crayfish Species 

Paddlefish 

Conservation 

Case Study 

Vol 32 no 8 

AuguSt 2007 

Fish News 

Legislative Update 

Journal Highlights 

Calendar 

Job Center 

Fisheries • vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 365

366 Fisheries • vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org

Fisheries 

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 • main@fisheries.org 

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 

PreSideNt 

Jennifer l. Nielsen 

PreSideNt eLeCt 

Mary c. Fabrizio 

FirSt 

viCe PreSideNt 

William G. Franzin 

SeCoNd 

viCe PreSideNt 

donald c. Jackson 

PASt PreSideNt 

christopher Kohler 

exeCUtive 

direCtor 

Ghassan “Gus” N. 

Rassam 

FIsheRIes 

stAFF 

SeNior editor 

Ghassan “Gus” N. 

Rassam 

direCtor oF 

PUbLiCAtioNS 

Aaron lerner 

mANAgiNg 

editor 

Beth Beard 

ProdUCtioN 

editor 

cherie Worth 

Vol 32 no 8 

AuguSt 2007 

eDItORs 

SCieNCe 

editorS 

Madeleine 

Hall-Arber 

Ken Ashley 

doug Beard 

Ken currens 

William e. Kelso 

deirdre M. Kimball 

Robert T. lackey 

dennis lassuy 

Allen Rutherford 

book review 

editorS 

Francis Juanes 

Ben letcher 

Keith Nislow 

dues and fees for 2007 are $76 in North America 

($88 elsewhere) for regular members, $19 in North 

America ($22 elsewhere) for student members, and $38 

($44) retired members. Fees include $19 for Fisheries 

subscription. Nonmember and library subscription rates 

are $106 ($127). 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 2007. 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, Inc. . . 415 

Alpha Mach, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 397 

Biosonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 

Flash Technology . . . . . . . . . . . 371 

Floy Tag and Mfg., Inc. . . . . . . . . 401 

Frigid units, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . 413 

Halltech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 

Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. . . . . 369 

lotek Wireless Inc. . . . . . . . . . . 398 

Miller Net company. . . . . . . . . . 370 

Northwest Marine Tcchnology, Inc. . . 366 

o.S. Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 381 

ocean Marine Industries . . . . . . . 403 

Smith-Root, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 416 

Sonotronics, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 381 

Vemco (Amirix Systems, Inc.) . . . . . 387 

Vemco (Amirix Systems, Inc.) . . . . . 389 

372 

Contents 

COLUMN: 

368 PRESIDEnt’S HooK 

thanks for an Incredible Year 

Through commitment and hardwork the AFS 

volunteer membership has accomplished 

significant changes in direction and a longawaited 

sea change in information technology 

and membership services. These folks are the 

heroes of our Society and they deserve all 

the acknowledgements and thanks you can 

muster. 

Jennifer L. Nielsen 

JOURNAL 

370 HIgHlIgHtS 

Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 

north American Journal of Aquaculture 

Feature: 

372 endangered SpeCieS 

a reassessment of the Conservation Status of 

Crayfishes of the united States and Canada 

after 10+ Years of increased awareness 

The AFS Endangered Species Committee has 

updated the conservation status list for all U.S. 

and Canadian crayfish species. Almost half 

of crayfish species are listed as endangered, 

threatened, or vulnerable. 

Christopher A. Taylor, Guenter A. Schuster, 

John E. Cooper, Robert J. DiStefano, Arnold 

G. Eversole, Premek Hamr, Horton H. 

Hobbs III, Henry W. Robison, Christopher 

E. Skelton, and Roger F. Thoma 

Feature: 

390 FiSherieS 

management 

protecting paddlefish from Overfishing: 

a Case history of the research 

and regulatory process 

New regulations are enacted to protect 

paddlefish from commercial overfishing 

following a stock assessment and carefully 

planned meetings with stakeholders and 

regulators 

Phillip W. Bettoli, George D. 

Scholten, and Willliam C. Reeves 

390 

COLUMN: 

398 guESt DIREctoR’S lInE 

new Features for AFS Publications 

As part of an ongoing effort to make AFS 

publications more and more useful for fisheries 

professionals, several new features have been 

added in the past few months, including all 

issues of The Progressive Fish-Culturist. 

Aaron Lerner 

OPINION: 

399 FARm BIll 

Farm Bill 2007: Placing Fisheries 

upstream of conservation Provisions 

The 2007 Farm Bill includes many provisions 

of interest to fisheries scientists, with farreaching 

consequences for water quality 

and conservation of aquatic habitats. 

2007 Farm Bill Advisory Committee 

of the American Fisheries Society 

AMeRICAN FIsheRIes sOCIety 

405 2007 REPoRt 

thinking Downstream 

and Downcurrent 

CALeNDAR: 

413 FISHERIES EVEntS 

ANNOUNCeMeNts: 

414 JoB cEntER 

Cover: The Short Mountain crayfish (Cambarus clivosus) is a narrowly endemic species found 

tell advertisers you found them through 

only in central Tennessee and ranked as Threatened. 

Fisheries! 

PHoto: R. Thoma. 

Fisheries • vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 367 

xxx

COLUMN: 

PRESIDEnt’S HooK 

The last Hook of an AFS president’s 

term is typically dedicated to listing her/his 

accomplishments during the previous year 

and looking forward to the impending 

Annual Meeting. While this has been a year 

of many activities, with significant changes 

in direction at AFS and a long-awaited 

sea change in information technology 

and membership services, I feel like the 

vehicle, not the primary force, behind 

these accomplishments. It is the volunteer 

membership, working hard with unending 

commitment, that makes this Society what 

it is. The president, at best, helps to guide 

the ship of state across calm and turbulent 

waters as the business of the Society moves 

forward. So, in my last column, I would 

like to highlight a few of the behind-thescenes 

accomplishments made by others 

this year. These folks are the heroes of our 

Society and they deserve all the acknowledgements 

and thanks you can muster. 

gwen white—The role of constitutional 

consultant for AFS is a poorly 

recognized but critical component of our 

governance. Gwen has been the most 

significant contributor to the final stages of 

reformatting the procedures for the Society 

and defining the roles of the different 

officer positions for future reference and 

guidance. I cannot begin to tell you how 

important this documentation is. once 

you are elected to a leadership position 

at AFS, the procedures manual provides 

guidance and continuity for structure and 

management at all levels. Gwen’s commitment 

and contributions in 2007 have 

been beyond exceptional. Thanks, Gwen, 

for always being there for the membership 

with all the “right” answers. 

John whitehead—As president of the 

Socioeconomics Section, John has weathered 

one of the most controversial issues 

one of our Sections has faced in recent 

memory—micro- and macro-economic 

policy. our membership splits divisively over 

these issues and we will still be in the thick of 

the arguments in San Francisco. John has his 

own opinion on the issue, but has retained a 

professional approach to maintain the status 

of leadership in his Section and to present 

both sides of the dialogue. It is a commitment 

to sound scientific dialogue and 

professional leadership like John’s that makes 

Section membership at AFS a valuable commitment. 

Thanks, John, for setting an excellent 

example of leadership in divisive times. 

Steve Cooke—last year, we had a 

difficult situation centering on the development 

of our new coastal and marine journal. 

The chair of the publications overview 

committee (poc) resigned after our meeting 

in lake placid and I needed a quick and 

effective replacement. Steve cooke’s long list 

of publications made him seem the appropriate 

choice to lead AFS back into forward 

motion on this issue. He was a good choice 

indeed! Through difficult times and with 

a knack for handling diverse personalities, 

Steve has brought a sea change to the poc. 

He has overseen and guided the selection of 

our new marine journal development editor, 

Jim cowan. He has set the goals high for 

changes in time-to-publication at our current 

journals and assisted in development options 

for increased impact for all AFS publications. 

Thanks, Steve, for your guidance, reconciliation 

skills, and leadership over the last year. 

Joel Carlin—out of the dark corners of 

the Genetics Section, I pulled a whopper of a 

candidate to lead the renewal and revitalization 

of information technology (IT) at AFS. 

Joel came to the table at our IT workshop 

in Bethesda with his guns loaded and we 

made important progress on implementation 

of new member-centric IT services. Joel 

has the background and leadership skill to 

bring together a team whose purpose is to 

make IT at AFS user-friendly and focused 

on membership needs and opportunities. 

Making the “old” system new and useful 

was the first priority of Joel’s leadership. 

But new information technologies are also 

coming to the table, including podcasts 

and virtual Student Subunits. Joel is leading 

an IT workshop at San Francisco for the 

webmasters from all units and Sections of 

AFS. communications is the lifeblood of 

our volunteer Society and Joel has facilitated 

and implemented corrections that will keep 

communications on the radar screen for 

membership for years to come. Thanks, 

Joel, for contributing significantly to one of 

toughest jobs we had this year—the IT fix. 

dave manning, Larry brown, 

eric wagner, mike meador, Peggy 

Jennifer l. nielsen 

AFS president Nielsen 

can be contacted at 

jlnielsen@usgs.gov. 

thanks for an Incredible Year 

wiltzbach, kathy 

Hieb, bellory 

Fong, diana 

watters, Noriko 

kawamoto, Joe margraf, mark gard, 

Shawn Chase, Jean baldridge, ted Frink, 

betsy Fritz, tom keegan, mike meinz, 

Steve Herrera, dan Logan, victoria 

Poage, rob Aramyo, david Hu, Jeff 

mcLain, tim Heyne, Lourdes rugge, 

Holly Herod, Sharon Shiba, Sarah 

giovanetti, Chris wilkinson, demian 

ebert, michael Carbiener, Natalie 

Cosentino-manning, ken Hashagen, 

Chuck knutson, tricia Parker, Zeke 

grader, don Potz, walt duffy, Joe Cech, 

bill kier, Pat Coulston, Jerry morinaka, 

bob Fujimura, darren Fong, david Cook, 

Lenny grimaldo, Josh Fuller, Louise 

Conrad, tina Swanson, russ bellmer, 

and Peter LaCivita—This fine group of 

people has worked tirelessly over the last 

two years to bring you the 2007 AFS Annual 

Meeting in San Francisco. You have no idea 

of all of the work involved in planning and 

implementation of this meeting! It is a work 

of absolute commitment and true love. We 

are entirely dependent on local chapters and 

units to provide the driving force and energy 

for these meetings and the volunteer hours 

and contributions are enormous. everyone 

named above, and all of the other volunteers 

that will make “Thinking downstream and 

downcurrent” in San Francisco the absolute 

success I am sure it will be, deserve your 

thanks and appreciation. Thanks, Team 

2007, for everything you have accomplished. 

mary Fabrizio—Mary’s assistance 

and professional back up as president 

elect during the last year has been 

invaluable to me. Her commitment 

to this Society is strong and sound. 

I feel I am leaving the reins in excellent 

hands. Thanks, Mary, for all your 

support and assistance, it was greatly 

appreciated—and good luck as the 

Fabrizio era dawns on our Society! We 

are all here to help in any way we can. 

Finally, thanks to the AFS membership 

at large for the opportunity to 

serve as president of such a prestigious 

society. It was a distinct pleasure to 

serve all of you to be best of my ability. 



Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 

voLUme 19, iSSUe 2 (JUNe 2007) 

JOURNAL 

HIgHlIgHtS 

[communication] First record of Bothriocephalus acheilognathi in 

the rio grande with Comparative Analysis of itS2 and v4-18S 

rrNA gene Sequences. Megan G. Bean, Andrea Škeíková, Timothy H. 

Bonner, Tomáš Scholz, and david G. Huffman, pages 71-76. 

[communication] Longevity of Ceratomyxa shasta and Parvicapsula 

minibicornis Actinospore infectivity in the klamath river. J. Scott 

Foott, R. Stone, e. Wiseman, K. True, and K. Nichols, pages 77-83. 

thiamine and Fatty Acid Content of walleye tissue from three 

Southern U.S. reservoirs. dale c. Honeyfield, christopher S. 

Vandergoot, phillip W. Bettoli, Joy p. Hinterkopf, and James l. Zajicek, 

pages 84-93. 

[communication] Pathological effects Caused by Chronic treatment 

of rainbow trout with indomethacin. Jan lovy, david J. Speare, and 

Glenda M. Wright, pages 94-98. 

mycobacterial infections in Striped bass from delaware bay. c. A. 

ottinger, J. J. Brown, c. l. densmore, c. e. Starliper, V. S. Blazer, H. S. 

Weyers, K. A. Beauchamp, M. W. Rhodes, H. Kator, d. T. Gauthier, and 

W. K. Vogelbein, pages 99-108. 

Sulfadimethoxine and ormetoprim residues in three Species 

of Fish after oral dosing in Feed. R. e. Kosoff, c.-Y. chen, G. A. 

Wooster, R. G. Getchell, A. clifford, A. l. craigmill, and p. R. Bowser, 

pages 109-115. 

[communication] Surveillance for Ceratomyxa shasta in the Puget 

Sound watershed, washington. Richard W. Stocking, Harriet V. lorz, 

Richard A. Holt, and Jerri l. Bartholomew, pages 116-120. 

[communication] Preliminary investigations of Hydrogen Peroxide 

treatment of Selected ornamental Fishes and efficacy against 

external bacteria and Parasites in green Swordtails. Riccardo Russo, 

eric W. curtis, and Roy p. e. Yanong, pages 121-127. 

Acute Hypoxia–reperfusion triggers immunocompromise in Nile 

tilapia. K. choi, d. W. lehmann, c. A. Harms, and J. M. law, pages 

128-140. 

to subscribe to AFS journals go to www.fisheries.org 

and click on Publications/Journals. 

north American Journal of Aquaculture 

voLUme 69, iSSUe 2 (APriL 2007) 

Changes in Lipid and Fatty Acid Composition of wild Freshwater 

Zooplankton during enrichment and Subsequent Starvation. 

S. e. lochmann, K. J. Goodwin, and c. l. Racey, pages 99-105. 

Family, Strain, gender, and dietary Protein effects on Production 

and Processing traits of Norris and NwAC103 Strains of Channel 

Catfish. Brian G. Bosworth, Jeffery T. Silverstein, William R. Wolters, 

Menghe H. li, and edwin H. Robinson, pages 106-115. 

volume and Lipid, Fatty Acid, and Amino Acid Composition of 

golden Shiner eggs during a Spawning Season. S. e. lochmann, 

K. J. Goodwin, R. T. lochmann, N. M. Stone, and T. clemment, pages 

116-126. 

the economic impact of restricting Use of black Carp for 

Snail Control on Hybrid Striped bass Farms. Yong-Suhk Wui and 

carole R. engle, pages 127-138. 

diet of the Nonindigenous Asian Swamp eel in tropical 

ornamental Aquaculture Ponds in west-Central Florida. 

Jeffrey e. Hill and craig A. Watson, pages 139-146. 

Captive Survival and Pearl Culture Potential of the Pink 

Heelsplitter Potamilus alatus. dan Hua and Richard J. Neves, pages 

147-158. 

Seasonal variation of Sperm Quality and the relationship 

between Spermatocrit and Sperm Concentration in yamú Brycon 

amazonicus. pablo e. cruz-casallas, Víctor M. Medina-Robles, and 

Yohana M. Velasco-Santamaría, pages 159-165. 

Potential effluent Quality from Commercial Crawfish Ponds. 

Francisco Xavier orellana and Robert p. Romaire, pages 166-173. 

Sources and Utilization of Amino Acids in Channel Catfish diets: A 

review. Amogh A. Ambardekar and Robert c. Reigh, pages 174-177. 

[Technical Note] Physiological Stress responses to Automated 

and Hand vaccine injection Procedures in yearling Coho Salmon. 

cameron S. Sharpe, pages 180-184. 

[Technical Note] design and testing of 

a Closed, Stirring respirometer for 

measuring oxygen Consumption of 

Channel Catfish eggs. eugene l. Torrans, 

pages 185-189. 

enriched Artemia and Probiotic diets 

improve Survival of Colorado river 

Cutthroat trout Larvae and Fry. 

Ronney e. Arndt and eric J. Wagner, pages 

190-196. 

[communication] evaluation of two 

Commercially Available Pressure 

Chambers to induce triploidy in Saugeyes. 

Mary Ann G. Abiado, Michael penn, 

Konrad dabrowski, and James Stafford, pages 

197-201. 


COVERED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE 

FOLLOWING PATENTS 

U.S. 5,850,806 & 5,937,791; AUSTRALIA 

723642; DENMARK 1014783; IRELAND 

1014783; NEW ZELAND 333432; 

NETHERLANDS1014783; NORWAY 

310592; SWEDEN 1014783; UNITED 

KINGDOM1014783. CANADIAN 

PATENTS PENDING. 

Aquatic Guidance Lighting 

Cost-Effective Compliance for the Protection of Fish 

Flash Technology has spent a decade developing, testing, and refining a 

bioengineering technology that is far less expensive than physical barrier 

options. Because of their strong aversion to strobe lighting, the movement of 

many species of fish can be directed away from water intake systems without 

acclimating to the light, even after long-term exposure. 

How Does It Work? 

The Aquatic Guidance Lighting system uses powerful, rapidly-pulsing 

underwater strobe lighting to create a “wall of light” in front of water intakes to 

prevent impingement and entrainment of fish. Successful field testing has been 

conducted by third party scientists. Technical papers by species are available 

upon request. 

Since every site is unique, we will be glad to discuss your potential application. 

For more information or to request field testing results and technical papers, 

Call 615- 503- 2000 or visit our web site at www.flashtechnology.com 


Feature: 

ENdANgEREd SPECIES 

a reassessment of the Conservation Status of 

Crayfishes of the united States and Canada 

after 10+ Years of increased awareness 

ABSTRACT: The American Fisheries Society Endangered Species Committee herein 

provides a list of all crayfishes (families Astacidae and Cambaridae) in the United 

States and Canada that includes common names; state and provincial distributions; a 

comprehensive review of the conservation status of all taxa; and references on biology, 

conservation, and distribution. The list includes 363 native crayfishes, of which 2 

(< 1%) taxa are listed as Endangered, Possibly Extinct, 66 (18.2%) are Endangered, 

52 (14.3%) are Threatened, 54 (14.9%) are Vulnerable, and 189 (52.1%) are 

Currently Stable. Limited natural range continues to be the primary factor responsible 

for the noted imperilment of crayfishes; other threats include the introduction of 

nonindigenous crayfishes and habitat alteration. While progress has been made in 

recognizing the plight of crayfishes, much work is still needed. 

una revaluación del estado de 

conservación de langostinos en los 

estados unidos y Canadá después de 

más de 10 años de conciencia creciente 

reSumen:. En el presente trabajo, El Comité para el Estudio de Especies 

Amenazadas de la Sociedad Americana de Pesquerías presenta una lista de todos 

los langostinos (familias Astacidae y Cambaridae) presentes en los Estados Unidos 

y Canadá, que incluye nombres comunes, distribución estatal y municipal, una 

revisión del estado de conservación de todos los taxa y referencias sobre su biología, 

conservación y distribución. La lista incluye 363 langostinos autóctonos, de los 

cuales dos taxa (< 1%) se catalogan como amenazados, posiblemente extintos; 66 

(18.2%) se consideran en peligro; 52 (14.3%) están amenazados; 54 (14.9%) son 

vulnerables; y 189 (52.1%) se encuentran actualmente en condición estable. El 

principal factor responsable de la vulnerabilidad de los langostinos es su limitado 

rango natural de distribución; otras amenazas incluyen la introducción de especies 

foráneas de langostinos y la alteración del hábitat. Si bien se ha progresado en 

cuanto al reconocimiento de las amenazas hacia los langostinos, aún existe mucho 

trabajo por hacer. 

The Short Mountain crayfish (Cambarus 

clivosus) a narrowly endemic species found 

only in central Tennessee and ranked as 

Threatened. 

photo by R. Thoma. 

Cambarus cymatilis, a burrowing species 

ranked as endangered by the AFS endangered 

Species crayfish Subcommittee. 

photo by c. lukhaup. 

Christopher a. taylor, 

guenter a. Schuster, 

John e. Cooper, 

robert J. diStefano, 

arnold g. eversole, 

premek hamr, 

horton h. hobbs iii, 

henry W. robison, 

Christopher e. Skelton, 

and roger F. thoma 

Taylor is a research scientist at the 

Illinois Natural History Survey, 

division of Biodiversity and Ecological 

Entomology, Champaign, and can 

be contacted at ctaylor@mail.inhs. 

uiuc.edu. Schuster is a professor of 

biological sciences at Eastern Kentucky 

University, Richmond, and can be 

contacted at guenter.Schuster@eku. 

edu. Cooper is curator of crustaceans 

at the North Carolina Museum of 

Natural Sciences, Raleigh. diStefano 

is a resource scientist with the Missouri 

department of Conservation, Columbia. 

Eversole is a professor of forestry and 

natural resources at Clemson University, 

Clemson, South Carolina. Hamr is 

an environmental science teacher 

at Upper Canada College, Toronto, 

Ontario. Hobbs III is a professor of 

biology at Wittenberg University, 

department of Biology, Springfield, 

Ohio. Robison is a professor of biology 

at Southern Arkansas University, 

department of Biology, Magnolia. 

Skelton is an assistant professor of 

biological and environmental sciences 

at georgia College and State University, 

Milledgeville. Thoma is a senior research 

scientist with Midwest Biodiversity 

Institute, Columbus, Ohio and an 

adjunct assistant professor at The Ohio 

State University Museum of Biological 

diversity, Columbus. 

The greensaddle crayfish (Cambarus manningi) 

is a currently Stable species found in rocky 

creeks of the coosa River drainage. 



intrOduCtiOn 

The term biodiversity has become intimately 

intertwined with the conservation 

movement of the last quarter-century, and 

in North America no serious discussion of 

biodiversity and conservation can neglect 

the status of that continent’s freshwater 

fauna. The presence of a highly diverse 

aquatic fauna in a densely populated, economically 

developed country such as the 

United States demands the continued 

attention of scholars, resource managers 

and biologists, politicians, and private conservation 

groups. Current biological information 

for species and species groups at risk 

is crucial to making sound decisions on all 

conservation fronts. 

The plight of North American aquatic 

biodiversity, particularly invertebrate biodiversity, 

was brought to the forefront with 

the compilation of Natural Heritage / The 

Nature Conservancy global (g) conservation 

status ranks for that continent’s fauna 

by Master (1990). Master (1990) found a 

disproportionate number of aquatic organisms 

in need of conservation attention 

when compared to their terrestrial counterparts. 

Since then a steady stream of literature 

has highlighted the need for action 

and identified threats to the aquatic fauna 

(e.g., Allan and Flecker 1993; Richter et 

al. 1997; deWalt et al. 2005). Through 

the American Fisheries Society (AFS) 

Endangered Species Committee and others, 

the conservation status of North 

America’s freshwater fish fauna has been 

assessed at regular intervals (deacon et al. 

1979; Williams et al. 1989; Warren et al. 

2000) while that of other aquatic taxa such 

as freshwater mussels (Williams et al. 1993) 

and crayfishes (Taylor et al. 1996) have only 

recently received their first conservation 

reviews. With the passing of a decade since 

Cambarus carolinus is a burrowing species 

found along the margins of Appalachian 

streams in North carolina, South carolina, and 

Tennessee. 

photo by A. Braswell. 

the first, and last, conservation review of 

North American crayfishes, the purposes of 

this article are to (1) reassess the conservation 

status and threats to native crayfishes 

in the United States and Canada using 

the best information available, (2) provide 

updated state/provincial distributions, (3) 

update the list of references on the biology, 

conservation, and distribution of crayfishes 

in the United States and Canada provided 

in Taylor et al. (1996), and (4) assign standardized 

common names to those species 

lacking them. 

Crayfishes are placed in the order 

decapoda, which also includes crabs, lobsters, 

and shrimps. They are most closely 

related to marine lobsters (Crandall et al. 

2000) and differ from those organisms by 

possessing direct juvenile development 

rather than dimorphic larval stages. Also 

known regionally as crawfish, mudbugs, 

or crawdads, crayfishes are assigned to 

three families and are native inhabitants 

of freshwater ecosystems on every continent 

except Africa and Antarctica. Two 

families, Astacidae and Cambaridae, occur 

natively in North America and it is here 

that crayfishes reach their highest level of 

diversity. Approximately 77% (405 species 

and subspecies) of the world’s 500+ species 

occur in North America (Taylor 2002), 

with the overwhelming majority of that 

continent’s fauna (99%) assigned to the 

family Cambaridae. With over two-thirds 

of its species endemic to the southeastern 

United States, the distribution of crayfish 

diversity in North America closely follows 

those observed in other freshwater aquatic 

taxa such as fishes (Warren and Burr 1994 

and mussels (Williams et al. 1993). 

Crayfishes are important ecologically 

as predators, bioprocessors of vegetation 

and carrion, and as a critical food resource 

for fishes and numerous other terrestrial 

The bottlebrush crayfish (Barbicambarus 

cornutus) is currently stable and found in 

the Green River drainage of Kentucky and 

Tennessee. 

photo by G. Schuster. 

and aquatic organisms (Hobbs III 1993; 

diStefano 2005). In some aquatic habitats 

they can comprise greater than 50% 

of macroinvertebrate biomass (Momot 

1995). They are equally important from 

an economic standpoint, supporting 

bait fisheries and a multi-million dollar 

human food fishery (Huner 2002). Finally, 

crayfishes in the family Cambaridae also 

possess unique life-history traits such as 

reproductive form alteration and burrowing 

abilities that allow numerous species 

to colonize seasonally wet and terrestrial 

habitats (Hobbs 1981; Welch and Eversole 

2006). Because the purpose of this article is 

to report on the conservation status of the 

North American fauna north of Mexico, 

we refer readers interested in the economic 

and ecological aspects of crayfish to previously 

published syntheses (Huner 1994; 

Taylor et al. 1996; Holdich 2002). 

ratiOnaLe and threatS 

Taylor et al. (1996) pointed to the broad 

disparity in the recognition of actual or 

potential imperilment of crayfishes between 

governmental agencies charged with protecting 

natural resources and non-profit 

conservation organizations as a rationale 

for their conservation assessment. At that 

time, only four crayfish species (Pacifastacus 

fortis, Cambarus aculabrum, Cambarus 

zophonastes, and Orconectes shoupi) received 

protection under the federal Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and 47 species 

received varying levels of protection at the 

state level. This was in stark contrast to the 

197 species listed by Master (1990) as in 

need of conservation attention. Taylor et 

al. (1996) surmised that 48% of the U.S. 

and Canadian crayfish fauna was imperiled. 

While some changes have been made 

at the state level (see below), the number 

crayfishes have historically been classified 

as opportunistic omnivores; however, our 

expanding knowledge of crayfish ecology 

indicates that they may be primary carnivores 

in some streams. 



and identity of species listed under the ESA 

remains unchanged. This continuing disparity 

serves as the underlying justification 

for the current reassessment. 

The causes of aquatic species losses and 

population declines have been thoroughly 

discussed in the literature and are usually 

ascribed to four major categories: (1) loss, 

degradation, or alteration of habitat; (2) 

chemical pollution; (3) introduction of 

nonindigenous organisms; and (4) overexploitation 

(Allan and Flecker 1993; Richter 

et al. 1997; Wilcove et al. 2000). For crayfishes, 

most of these threats are applicable. 

As benthic invertebrates susceptible to fish 

predation, the impoundment of lotic habitat 

can affect crayfishes by increasing concentrations 

of major crayfish predators such 

as centrarchid bass and sunfish and altering 

both the physical and chemical structure 

of streams (Williams et al. 1993). Crayfish 

depend on gravel and boulder substrates, 

woody debris, and vegetation for refuge 

from predators (Stein 1977). Loss of such 

habitat components through dredging and 

channelization can drastically affect crayfish 

populations by making them more susceptible 

to predation. Finally, draining wetlands 

and dewatering of springs can have obvious 

impacts on crayfishes dependent on those 

types of habitats. The possible extinction 

of Cambarellus alvarezi after the removal of 

spring water from its only known location 

in northern Mexico (Contreras-Balderas 

and Lozano-Vilano 1996) serves as a prime 

example of the negative consequences of 

the latter type of habitat alteration. 

Crustacea are known to be among the 

most sensitive aquatic organisms when 

exposed to pesticides and metals (Mayer 

and Ellersieck 1986, Jarvinen and Ankley 

1999). While acute toxicity tests (usually 

expressed as LC50 values) have been 

performed using many crayfish species and 

Procambarus escambiensis is an endemic 

species found in narrow region of the Gulf 

coastal plain of Alabama and Florida. 


toxicants (Eversole and Seller 1996), field 

studies examining the effects of chemical 

or heavy metal pollutants on crayfishes are 

lacking. The available data suggest significant 

variability among genera, species, and 

life stages (Berrill et al. 1985; NCdENR 

2003, Peake et al. 2004, Wigginton and 

Birge 2007). Recently Wigginton and Birge 

(2007) reported higher mortality rates for 

juvenile than adult crayfishes exposed 

to cadmium, which they attributed to 

increased cadmium uptake and calcium 

metabolic disruption in the more rapidly 

molting juveniles. Besser et al. (2006) 

found evidence for heavy metal accumulation, 

including cadmium, in crayfishes 

found near mining sites while Allert et al. 

(in press) noted increased sensitivity in 

at least one species to these same metals. 

These observations indicate that crayfish 

may prove to be indicators of habitat degradation 

from pollutants and that future 

research is warranted. 

The introduction of nonindigenous 

organisms may represent the gravest of all 

threats to this planet's biodiversity (Clavero 

and garcía-Berthou 2005) and crayfish 

could represent the proverbial posterchild 

of the damage wrought by these species 

(Lodge et al. 2000). In North America crayfishes 

are transported easily over land and 

inadvertently introduced into aquatic habitats 

when they are discarded as unused bait. 

Such bait-bucket introductions have led to 

dramatic range extensions of several species, 

most notably the rusty crayfish (Orconectes 

rusticus). The rusty crayfish is native to 

the lower Ohio River drainage in Ohio, 

Indiana, and Kentucky and the Maumee 

River drainage in extreme southeastern 

Michigan. Over the past 50 years the species 

has been introduced across the upper midwestern 

United States and Canada (Page 

1985; Lodge et al. 2000). Once introduced, 

Numerous species of crayfishes spend all or a 

significant portion of their lives in subterranean 

burrows. Basic ecological information can be 

very hard to collect for these species. 


O. rusticus rapidly expands its range and displaces 

native crayfishes (Taylor and Redmer 

1996). This behavior has led to the complete 

elimination of local populations and 

reductions in total ranges of native species 

in at least three midwestern states and one 

Canadian province (Lodge et al. 2000; C. 

A. Taylor, unpub. data). Possible displacement 

mechanisms include faster individual 

growth rates (Hill et al. 1993), differential 

susceptibility to fish predation (didonato 

and Lodge 1993), and hybridization (Perry 

et al. 2001). Imperiled crayfishes also have 

been affected by nonindigenous species. 

The federally endangered Shasta crayfish, 

(Pacifastacus fortis) has been displaced in 

large portions of its native range by the 

nonindigenous signal crayfish (P. leniusculus; 

Erman et al. 1993). Nonindigenous 

crayfishes can also serve as disease vectors. 

The introduction of three North American 

species, Procambarus clarkii, O. limosus, 

and Pacifastacus leniusculus, into western 

Europe has contributed to massive die-offs 

of native crayfishes in that region. A fungus-like 

protist, Aphanomyces astaci (Class 

Oomycetes), causes a lethal disease known 

as the “crayfish plague” in native European 

species while North American species are 

immune to its effects. By carrying spores 

of A. astaci, North American species act 

as a plague vector between water bodies. 

Outbreaks of the crayfish plague have been 

occurring in Europe since the introduction 

of the North American species in the late 

1880s (Ackefors 1999; Holdich 1999) and 

have led to 85% or greater reductions in 

native crayfish populations in several countries 

(Fjälling and Fürst 1988; Ackefors 

1999; Holdich 1999). 

While the introduction of nonindigenous 

crayfishes through their use as bait 

continues to represent a significant threat 

to crayfish biodiversity, the Internet revo- 

The eastern red swamp crayfish, Procambarus 

troglodytes, is a currently Stable species found 

on the Atlantic Slope of Georgia and South 

carolina. 



lution of the past 10 years has spawned an 

equally disconcerting vector. Conservation 

biologists have for years warned of the risk 

posed from the release/escape of pets. From 

monk parakeets in Chicago (Kleen et al. 

2004) to burmese pythons in the Florida 

Everglades (Mcgrath 2005), established 

populations of organisms kept as pets have 

become an unwelcome component of the 

North American fauna. Currently over 

a half-dozen Internet businesses (www. 

google.com search conducted 03/23/07) 

and numerous individuals on the Internet 

auction site eBay® (www.ebay.com) offer 

for sale dozens of live crayfish species from 

North America and around the world. 

While the aquarium pet trade has been 

around for more than half a century, crayfishes 

are a recent arrival to the aquarium 

marketplace. The ease of 24-hour shopping 

and overnight delivery to anywhere in the 

world facilitated by the Internet has dramatically 

increased the potential for accidental 

introductions of crayfishes. 

While no known cases of overexploitation 

of crayfish have been documented in 

North America, it has been cited as a contributing 

factor in the decline of at least one 

Australian crayfish species. The Tasmanian 

crayfish (Astacopsis gouldi) can reach sizes 

in excess of 0.8 meters in length (> 5 kg 

in weight), and its meat is valued by local 

inhabitants. The species has experienced 

local extirpations and population declines 

throughout a significant portion of its range, 

and over-harvesting has been implicated as 

a contributing factor (Horwitz 1994). We 

acknowledge that overexploitation is not 

an imminent threat to United States and 

Canadian crayfish populations; however, 

we believe that it is prudent to acknowledge 

this potential threat and be proactive 

in future crayfish fishery decisions. 

Members of the genus Fallicambarus, such as 

the burrowing bog crayfish (F. burrisi) here, are 

all burrowing species. 


The above-listed threats are not unique 

to crayfishes; however, they are compounded 

by a single overarching factor—limited natural 

ranges (Taylor et al. 1996). Crayfishes 

show a level of endemism not seen in other 

aquatic groups. Approximately 43% of the 

U.S. crayfish fauna is distributed entirely 

within one state’s political boundaries, compared 

to 16% for freshwater fishes and 15% 

for unionid mussels (Lodge et al. 2000). In 

their first conservation assessment, Taylor et 

al. (1996) documented 11 crayfish species 

known from single localities and another 

20 known from 5 or fewer localities. While 

taxa with restricted natural ranges are particularly 

vulnerable to habitat destruction 

or degradation, the known displacement 

abilities of nonindigenous crayfishes when 

coupled with a high level of endemism represent 

a threat of unequalled severity. 

prOgreSS and ChangeS 

The conservation status of 30 taxa has 

changed since the previous assessment 

(Taylor et al. 1996). These changes have 

been facilitated by an increased awareness 

of crayfishes (Butler et al. 2003) and a subsequent 

increase in field efforts undertaken 

by federal (e.g.; Simon and Thoma 2003), 

state (e.g.; Thoma and Jezerinac 2000; 

Westhoff et al. 2006), and academic (e.g.; 

Ratcliffe and deVries 2004; Taylor and 

Schuster 2004) personnel. These efforts 

have provided new distributional records 

that led to downgrading 25 taxa by at least 

one conservation category. Simultaneously, 

these efforts documented the introduction 

of nonindigenous species into the ranges of 

narrow endemics (Flinders and Magoulick 

2005) and the subsequent reductions in 

range sizes, leading to the upgrading of four 

taxa. Promising signs of increased awareness 

are the proposed changes in bait regu- 

due to their restricted ranges, specialized 

habitats, and the development of groundwater 

recharge areas, many obligate cave dwelling 

crayfish species such as the orlando cave 

crayfish (Procambarus acherontis) are listed as 

endangered. 

photo by d. McShaffrey. 

lations by several states in an attempt to 

thwart the spread of nonindigenous crayfishes, 

as well as an increase in the number 

of crayfishes listed by state agencies as 

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable/special 

concern. Virginia now bans the sale of 

crayfish as bait while Missouri has followed 

the lead of other states and recently created 

a prohibited species list for use by bait dealers 

which includes several nonindigenous 

crayfishes (B. Watson, VA dept. game and 

Inland Fisheries, pers. com.; B. diStefano, 

pers. com.). Since 1996 at least two new 

states, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, 

have added the rusty crayfish to their lists of 

banned species (www.fish.state.pa.us/newsreleases/2005/rusty_cray.htm; 

NCWRC 

2006). North Carolina also banned the 

transport, purchase, and possession of the 

nonindigenous virile crayfish (O. virilis). 

While the level of protection afforded to 

species listed at the state level ranges from 

bans on taking to token lists for future 

research efforts, it is noteworthy that the 

number of species listed at some level has 

increased from 47 to 66 since 1996. Finally, 

seven states (Arkansas, Missouri, New 

Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Virginia) now have at least one 

field biologist in their respective natural 

resource agencies whose position requires 

them, at least on a part time basis, to monitor 

and assess crayfish populations. Taken 

together, these regulatory actions and field 

efforts can be interpreted as nothing less 

than progress in the domain of crayfish conservation. 

However, the majority of states 

with highly diverse crayfish faunas and high 

levels of endemism lack any protective 

measures and adequate funding structures 

to ascertain the statuses of their respective 

faunas. 

While little research is being conducted 

in Canada at present, its crayfish fauna was 

Meek’s crayfish (Orconectes meeki meeki) 

is a common inhabitant of ozark streams in 

Missouri and Arkansas. 

photo by c. Taylor. 


eviewed by Hamr (1998, 2003). This work 

resulted in new provincial records for several 

species. Most recently, the Framework 

for Conservation of Species at Risk in 

Canada (a federal and provincial initiative) 

has classified the status of Canadian crayfish 

species based on existing information 

(www.wildspecies.ca). 

Taxonomic efforts since Taylor et al. 

(1996) have resulted in the description 

of 27 new crayfish species in the United 

States. At slightly more than two new 

species per year, these efforts clearly demonstrate 

that undiscovered biodiversity 

continues to exist in North America. Using 

the best available information, 21 of these 

27 species are recognized as requiring conservation 

attention in the following analysis. 

Clearly, more field efforts will yield new 

discoveries and improve the basis for future 

conservation assessments. 

methOdS and deFinitiOnS 

Our review of the conservation status of 

crayfishes includes all species and subspecies 

from the United States and Canada 

as recognized by Taylor et al. (1996) with 

minor exceptions. Cambarus laevis and C. 

ornatus are not recognized following Taylor 

(1997), Procambarus ferrugineus is not recognized 

following Robison and Crandall 

(2005), and Cambarus bartonii carinirostris 

is recognized as C. carinirostris following 

Thoma and Jezerinac (1999). Twenty-seven 

taxa are also included that were described 

subsequent to Taylor et al. (1996). Both 

scientific and common names are given for 

each taxon (Appendix 1). Common names 

were taken from McLaughlin et al. (2005) 

and other peer-reviewed literature, including 

original species descriptions, and were 

available for approximately 50% of crayfish 

taxa; those taxa that lacked common 

The St. Francis River crayfish, Orconectes 

quadruncus is a species classified as Threatened 

due to its narrow range and the establishment 

of nonindigenous species near its range. 


names were assigned one after soliciting 

input from all authors and active species 

authorities. In most cases, we looked at the 

original descriptions to try to find a name 

that fit the spirit of what the author was 

trying to convey with the specific epithet. 

In other cases we simply used the English 

translation of the specific epithet. In determining 

conservation status and distribution, 

a variety of sources was used including 

state and federal endangered species lists, 

government agency reports and websites, 

research publications, and books. In addition, 

the observations and field experiences 

of the authors, reviewers, and other biologists 

working with crayfishes were actively 

solicited and incorporated. 

The American Fisheries Society 

Endangered Species Committee, 

Subcommittee on Crayfishes has reviewed 

the best available distributional and status 

information and is responsible for the resulting 

conclusions. The assigned conservation 

category is based on the status of the taxon 

throughout its range without consideration 

of political boundaries (Appendix 1). 

Restricted range was the primary criterion 

for assignment of endangered or threatened 

status. Other threats, such as introductions 

of nonindigenous crayfishes, unique habitat 

requirements, and proximity to metropolitan 

areas, were taken into account in category 

assignments, but known range and 

consequent rarity were uppermost in applying 

category definitions. Conservation status 

categories generally follow Williams et 

al. (1993) and are defined as: Endangered 

(e)—a species or subspecies in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range—an asterisk (*) following 

the letter “e” indicates the taxon is possibly 

extinct; Threatened (t)—a species 

or subspecies likely to become endangered 

throughout all or a significant portion of its 

over 50% of crayfish species are classified 

as currently Stable. The golden crayfish, 

Orconectes luteus is one of those. 


range; Vulnerable (V)—a species or subspecies 

that may become endangered or threatened 

by relatively minor disturbances to its 

habitat and deserves careful monitoring of 

its abundance and distribution; Currently 

Stable (CS)—a species or subspecies whose 

distribution is widespread and stable and 

is not in need of immediate conservation 

management actions. Following Warren 

et al. (2000), the category of Vulnerable 

replaces the category of Special Concern 

used by Taylor et al. (1996) and Williams et 

al. (1993). In addition, criteria responsible 

for designating species as E, T, or V are noted 

(Appendix 1). These criteria have been 

formulated by the AFS Endangered Species 

Committee as: (1) existing or potential 

destruction, modification, or reduction of 

a species’ habitat or range; (2) over-utilization 

for commercial, sporting, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (3) disease; (4) other 

natural or anthropogenic factors affecting a 

species’ continued existence (e.g., hybridization, 

introduction of nonindigenous or 

transplanted species, predation, competition); 

and (5) restricted range (deacon et 

al. 1979; Williams et al. 1989). 

To allow state natural heritage programs 

across the United States to make comparisons 

between AFS Crayfish Subcommittee 

ranks and heritage ranks, we have also 

included the conservation ranks for each 

taxon following the system developed 

over the past 25 years by The Nature 

Conservancy/NatureServe and the Network 

of Natural Heritage Programs (Master 

1991; Appendix 1). This system ranks taxa 

on a 1 to 5 (1 being the rarest) scale based 

on best available information and considers 

a variety of factors including abundance, 

distribution, population trends, and threats 

(www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking. 

htm). Since our assessments are based on 

the statuses of crayfishes across their entire 

The Barren River crayfish, Orconectes 

barrenensis, is a species that occurs under 

gravel and cobble in creeks and rivers in 

the Barren River drainage of Kentucky and 

Tennessee. 



native ranges, we use the g or global scale 

for conservation status rankings. Categories 

follow Master (1991) and are defined as 

follows: g1 = critically imperiled, g2 = 

imperiled, g3 = vulnerable to extirpation 

or extinction, g4 = apparently secure, g5 

= demonstrably widespread, abundant, and 

secure, gH = possibly extinct, known only 

from historical collections, and gX = presumed 

extinct. 

LiSt OF taXa (appendiX 1) 

The list of crayfish species and subspecies 

is arranged alphabetically by genus 

and by species and subspecies within the 

genus. Following the scientific name and 

author(s), the common name is followed by 

assigned conservation status using a letter 

code: e = Endangered; e* = Endangered, 

Possibly Extinct; t = Threatened; V 

= Vulnerable; CS = Currently Stable. 

Criteria used to determine conservation 

statuses are indicated by numerals 1 

through 5 and correspond to those defined 

in Methods. global Heritage ranks (see 

Methods) immediately follow listing criteria. 

A dagger denotes a species complex 

currently under taxonomic investigation. 

Finally, the distribution of each taxon is 

indicated by an alphabetical listing of U. S. 

states and Canadian provinces where that 

taxon occurs. Parentheses around states 

indicate known or suspected introductions. 

Standard two-letter abbreviations 

for states and provinces follow Williams et 

al. (1989). 

SummarY and COnCLuSiOnS 

The list of crayfishes of the United 

States and Canada includes 363 taxa. 

Possibly Extinct, Endangered, Threatened, 

or Vulnerable statuses are recognized for 

The digger crayfish (Fallicambarus fodiens) is 

one of the most widespread crayfish species in 

North America. It occurs from ontario, canada 

to Texas. 


174 taxa (47.9%). Of these, 2 (< 1%) 

are possibly Extinct, 66 (18.2%) are 

Endangered, 52 (14.3%) are Threatened, 

and 54 (14.9%) are Vulnerable. Taxa classified 

as currently stable total 189 (52.1%). 

The number of imperiled crayfishes (48%) 

parallels the high levels of imperilment of 

fishes and freshwater mussels, almost 33% 

and 72%, respectively (Williams et al. 

1989; Williams et al. 1993; Warren and 

Burr 1994). These assessments support the 

contention that aquatic diversity in North 

America is in far worse condition than 

its terrestrial counterpart (Master 1990, 

Master et al. 2000). 

For some crayfishes, limited natural 

range (e.g., one locality or one drainage 

system) precipitates recognition as 

Endangered or Threatened; but for many 

others, status assignments continue to be 

hampered by a paucity of recent distributional 

information. While progress has 

been made in this arena, basic ecological 

and current distributional information are 

lacking for 60% of the U.S. and Canadian 

fauna. In addition, threats highlighted 

by Taylor et al. (1996) such as habitat 

loss and the introduction of nonindigenous 

crayfishes continue to persist and 

are greatly magnified by the limited distributions 

of many species. The threat of 

nonindigenous species has even increased 

(Lodge et al. 2000; Flinders and Magoulick 

2005) due to actual introductions and 

emerging conduits for potential introductions. 

As stated by Taylor et al. (1996), 

lack of recent species-specific information, 

whether distributional or biological, does 

not warrant neglect by resource agencies. 

Recognition of the potential for rapid decimation 

of crayfish species, especially those 

with limited ranges, should provide impetus 

for proactive efforts toward conserva- 

While generally inhabiting lentic habitats, a 

few members of the genus Procambarus, such 

as P. lophotus shown here, can occur in high 

gradient streams. 


tion as espoused by the American Fisheries 

Society (Angermeier and Williams 1994). 

In publishing this list, the American 

Fisheries Society Endangered Species 

Committee summarizes for fisheries professionals, 

natural resource agencies, 

university researchers, conservation organizations, 

lawmakers, and citizens, the 

conservation status of crayfishes in the 

United States and Canada. The results 

of this reassessment provide some signs of 

improvement in the recognition of crayfish 

conservation. Because the number of crayfish 

taxa in need of conservation attention 

has changed little, suggested actions for 

natural resource personnel mirror those 

proposed by Taylor et al. (1996). These 

include, but are not limited to: (1) critically 

examine the findings of this reassessment 

and bring to our attention additional 

information; (2) use the list as a planning 

and prioritization tool for conducting 

recovery efforts, status surveys, and biological 

research on imperiled crayfishes; 

(3) support graduate research and training 

in the distribution, taxonomy, and ecology 

of crayfishes; (4) propagate education 

of citizens; and (5) recognize the plight of 

aquatic resources and act accordingly and 

proactively. 

additiOnaL inFOrmatiOn 

We provide this section to aid the 

reader in accessing additional information 

on crayfishes of the United States 

and Canada. The papers and Internet 

resources, organized alphabetically by state, 

are primarily taxonomic or distributional 

in nature but also cover topics associated 

with a variety of aspects of the biology of 

crayfishes. Additional crayfish information 

can also be found by following links found 

on some of the websites listed below. 

The signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus 

leniusculus) is a widespread species found 

in the pacific Northwest and is harvested for 

human consumption in parts of its range. 



aLaBama 

Bouchard, r. W. 1976. Crayfishes and 

shrimps. Pages 13-20 in H. Boschung, 

ed. Endangered and threatened plants 

and animals of Alabama. Bulletin of the 

Alabama Museum of Natural History 2. 

harris, S. C. 1990. Preliminary considerations 

on rare and endangered invertebrates 

in Alabama. Journal of the Alabama 

Academy of Science 61:64-92. 

mcgregor, S. W., t. e. Shepard, t. d. 

richardson, and J. F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 

1999. A survey of the primary tributaries 

of the Alabama and lower Tombigbee 

rivers for freshwater mussels, snails, and 

crayfish. geological Survey of Alabama 

Circular 196. 

ratcliffe, J. a., and d. r. deVries. 2004. 

The crayfishes (Crustacea: decapoda) of 

the Tallapoosa River drainage, Alabama. 

Southeastern Naturalist 3:417-430. 

Schuster, g. a., and C. a. taylor. 2004. 

Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature 

review and museum database review, 

species list with abbreviated annotations 

and proposed conservation statuses. 

Illinois Natural History Survey, Center of 

Biodiversity Technical Report 2004(12). 

Online resources 

alabama department of Conservation and 

natural resources. Crayfish in Alabama. 

Available at: www.outdooralabama.com/ 

watchable-wildlife/what/inverts/crayfish/. 

arKanSaS 

Bouchard, r. W., and h. W. robison. 1980. 

An inventory of the decapod crustaceans 

(crayfishes and shrimps) of Arkansas with 

a discussion of their habitats. Arkansas 

Academy of Science Proceedings 

34:22-30. 

hobbs Jr., h. h., and h. W. robison. 

1988. The crayfish subgenus Girardiella 

over 70, 000 metric tons of the red swamp 

crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) are harvested 

each year for human consumption. 


(decapoda: Cambaridae) in Arkansas, 

with the descriptions of two new species 

and a key to the members of the 

gracilis group in the genus Procambarus. 

Proceedings of the Biological Society of 

Washington 101:391-413. 

_____. 1989. On the crayfish genus 

Fallicambarus (decapoda: Cambaridae) in 

Arkansas, with notes on the fodiens complex 

and descriptions of two new species. 

Proceedings of the Biological Society of 


Williams, a. B. 1954. Speciation and distribution 

of the crayfishes of the Ozark Plateaus 

and Ouachita Provinces. University of 

Kansas Science Bulletin 36: 803-918. 


u.S. Forest Service. Available at: www.fs.fed. 

us/r8/ouachita/natural-resources/crayfish/ 

ouachita_crayfish.shtml. 

CaLiFOrnia 

eng, L. L., and r. W. daniels. 1982. Life history, 

distribution, and status of Pacifastacus 

fortis (decapoda: Astacidae). California 

Fish and game 68:197-212. 

riegel, J. a. 1959. The systematics and 

distribution of crayfishes in California. 

California Fish and game 45:29-50. 

COLOradO 

unger, p. a. 1978. The crayfishes (Crustacea: 

Cambaridae) of Colorado. Natural History 

Inventory of Colorado 3:1-19. 

FLOrida 

deyrup, m., and r. Franz, eds. 1994. Rare 

and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. IV. 

Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, 

gainesville. 

Franz, r., and S. e. Franz. 1990. A review of 

the Florida crayfish fauna, with comments 

Since 1996 several species such as the rusty 

gravedigger (Cambarus miltus) have had their 

conservation statuses downgraded due to 

intensive field surveys. 


on nomenclature, distribution, and conservation. 

Florida Scientist 53:286-296. 

hobbs Jr., h. h. 1942. The crayfishes of 

Florida. University of Florida Publications, 

Biological Science Series 3. gainesville. 

hobbs, Jr., h. h., and h. h. hobbs iii. 

1991. An illustrated key to the crayfishes 

of Florida (based on first form males). 

Florida Scientist 54:13-24. 

geOrgia 


georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to 

Zoology 318. 

iLLinOiS 

Brown, p. L. 1955. The biology of the crayfishes 

of central and southeastern Illinois. 

doctoral dissertation. University of 

Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 

herkert, J. r. (editor). 1992. Endangered 

and threatened species of Illinois: status 

and distribution. Vol. 2 - animals. Illinois 

Endangered Species Protection Board, 

Springfield. 

page, L. m. 1985. The crayfishes and shrimps 

(decapoda) of Illinois. Illinois Natural 

History Survey Bulletin 33:335-448. 

indiana 

eberly, W. r. 1955. Summary of the distribution 

of Indiana crayfishes, including 

new state and county records. Proceedings 

of the Indiana Academy of Science 

64:281-283. 

page, L. m., and g. B. mottesi. 1995. The 

distribution and status of the Indiana 

crayfish, Orconectes indianensis, with 

comments on the crayfishes of Indiana. 

Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of 

Science 104:103-111. 

Simon, t. p. 2001. Checklist of crayfishes and 

freshwater shrimp (decapoda) of Indiana. 


Science 110:104-110. 

iOWa 

phillips, g. S. 1980. The decapod crustaceans 

of Iowa. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy 

of Science 87:81-95. 

KanSaS 

ghedotti, m. J. 1998. An annotated list of 

the crayfishes of Kansas with first records 

of Orconectes macrus and Procambarus acutus 

in Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas 



Williams, a. B., and a. B. Leonard. 1952. The crayfishes of Kansas. 

University of Kansas Science Bulletin 34:961-1012. 

KentuCKY 

Burr, B. m., and h. h. hobbs, Jr. 1984. Additions to the crayfish fauna 

of Kentucky, with new locality records for Cambarellus shufeldtii. 

Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 45:14-18. 

rhoades, r. 1944. The crayfishes of Kentucky, with notes on variation, 

distribution, and descriptions of new species and subspecies. 

American Midland Naturalist 31:111-149. 

taylor, C. a., and g. a. Schuster. 2004. The crayfishes of Kentucky. 

Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 28. 

LOuiSiana 

penn, g. h. 1950. The genus Cambarellus in Louisiana (decapoda, 

Astacidae). American Midland Naturalist 44:421-426. 

_____. 1952. The genus Orconectes in Louisiana (decapoda, Astacidae). 


_____. 1956. The genus Procambarus in Louisiana (decapoda, 

Astacidae). American Midland Naturalist 56:406-422. 

_____. 1959. An illustrated key to the crawfishes of Louisiana with a 

summary of their distribution within the state. Tulane Studies in 

Zoology 7:3-20. 

penn, g. h., and g. marlow. 1959. The genus Cambarus in Louisiana. 


Walls, J. g., and J. B. Black. 1991. distributional records for some 

Louisiana crawfishes (decapoda: Cambaridae). Proceedings of the 

Louisiana Academy of Science 54:23-29. 

Walls, J. g., and S. Shively. 2003. A working checklist of Louisiana 

crawfishes (Crustacea, decapoda, Cambaridae). Louisiana Fauna 

Project Special Report 3 (Level 2): 1-8, Bunkie. 

maine 

martin, S. m. 1997. Crayfishes (Crustacea: decapoda) of Maine. 

Northeastern Naturalist 4:165-188. 

marYLand 

meredith, W. g., and F. J. Schwartz. 1959. The crayfishes of 

Maryland. Maryland Tidewater News 15:1-2. 

_____. 1960. Maryland crayfishes. Maryland department of Research 

and Education, Educational Series 46. 

miChigan 

Creaser, e. p. 1931. The Michigan decapod crustaceans. Papers of the 

Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 13:257-276. 

minneSOta 

helgen, J. C. 1990. The distribution of crayfishes (decapoda, 

Cambaridae) of Minnesota. Minnesota department of Natural 

Resources, Investigational Report 405. 

miSSiSSippi 

Fitzpatrick Jr., J. F. 2002. The conservation status of Mississippi 

crawfishes. Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Science 

63:25-36. 

MISSOURI 

pflieger, W. L. 1996. The crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri department 

of Conservation, Jefferson City. 

Williams, a. B. 1954. Speciation and distribution of the crayfishes of 

the Ozark Plateaus and Ouachita Provinces. University of Kansas 

Science Bulletin 36: 803-918. 

neBraSKa 

engle, e. t. 1926. Crayfishes of the genus Cambarus in Nebraska and 

eastern Colorado. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 42:87-104. 

neW JerSeY 

Bouchard, r. W. 1982. The freshwater malacostracan crustaceans of 

New Jersey. Pages 83-100 in W. J. Cromartie, editor. New Jersey’s 

endangered and threatened plants and animals. Stockton State 

College Center for Environmental Research, Pomona, New Jersey. 

Francois, d. d. 1959. The crayfishes of New Jersey. Ohio Journal of 

Science 59:108-127. 

neW YOrK 

Crocker, d. W. 1957. The crayfishes of New York State (decapoda, 

Astacidae). New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 

355. 

Habitat alteration, such as stream channelization and 

substrate removal can negatively impact crayfishes. 

channelization and high erosion rates at the 

type-locality for the Yalobusha riverlet 

crayfish (Hobbseus yalobushensis) 

shown here may have contributed 

to its extirpation at the site. 

photo by J. Fetzner. 


nOrth CarOLina 

Cooper, J. e. 2002. North Carolina crayfishes (decapoda: Cambaridae): 

notes on distribution, taxonomy, life history, and habitat. Journal of 

the North Carolina Academy of Science 118:167-180. 

Cooper, J. e., and a. L. Braswell. 1995. Observations on North 

Carolina crayfishes (decapoda: Cambaridae). Brimleyana 

22:87-132. 

Cooper, J. e., a. L. Braswell, and C. mcgrath. 1998. Noteworthy 

distributional records for crayfishes (decapoda: Cambaridae) in 

North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 

114(1):1-10. 

Legrand Jr., h. e., S. p. hall, S. e. mcrae, and J. t. Finnegan. 

2006. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species 

of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, 

North Carolina department of Environment, Health, and Natural 

Resources, Raleigh. 


north Carolina Wildlife resources Commission. The crayfishes 

of North Carolina. Available at: www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_ 

WildlifeSpeciesCon/nccrayfishes/nc_crayfishes.html. 

north Carolina musuem of natural Sciences. Available at: www. 

naturalsciences.org/researach/inverts/cooper.html. 

OhiO 

Jezerinac, r. F. 1982. Life-history notes and distributions of crayfishes 

(decapoda: Cambaridae) from the Chagrin River basin, northeastern 

Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 82:181-192. 

_____ 1986. Endangered and threatened crayfishes (decapoda: 

Cambaridae) of Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 86:177-180. 

_____ 1991. The distribution of crayfishes (decapoda: Cambaridae) of 

the Licking River watershed, eastcentral Ohio: 1972-1977. Ohio 

Journal of Science 91:108-111. 

Jezerinac, r. F., and r. F. thoma. 1984. An illustrated key to the 

Ohio Cambarus and Fallicambarus (decapoda: Cambaridae) with 

comments and a new subspecies record. Ohio Journal of Science 

84:120-125. 

rhoades, r. 1944. Further studies on distribution and taxonomy of 

Ohio crayfishes and the description of a new subspecies. Ohio 


thoma, r. F. and r. F. Jezerinac. 2000. Ohio crayfish and shrimp atlas. 

Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contribution 7, Columbus. 

turner, C. L. 1926. The crayfishes of Ohio. Ohio Biological Survey 

Bulletin 13:144-195. 

OKLahOma 

Creaser, e. p., and a. i. Ortenburger. 1933. The decapod crustaceans 

of Oklahoma. Publications of the University of Oklahoma 

Biological Survey 5:14-47. 

dunlap Jr., p. m. 1951. Taxonomic characteristics of the decapod crustaceans 

of the subfamily Cambarinae in Oklahoma with descriptions 

of two new species and two keys to species. Master’s thesis, 

Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College, Stillwater. 

Jones, S. n., e. a. Bergey, and C. a. taylor. 2005. Update to the 

checklist of Oklahoma crayfishes. Proceedings of the Oklahoma 


reimer, r. d. 1969. A report on the crawfishes (decapoda, Astacidae) 

of Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 

48:49-65. 

taylor, C. a., S. n. Jones, and e. a. Bergey. 2004. The crayfishes 

of Oklahoma revisited: new state records and checklist of species. 

Southwestern Naturalist 49(2): 250-255. 

OregOn 

See Washington. 

pennSYLVania 

Ortmann, a. e. 1906. The crawfishes of the state of Pennsylvania. 

Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 2:343-523. 

Schwartz, F. J., and W. g. meredith. 1960. Crayfishes of the Cheat 

River watershed West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Part I. Species 

and localities. Ohio Journal of Science 60:40-54. 


nuttall, t. r. Pennsylvania crayfish reference collection. Available at: 

www.lhup.edu/tnuttall/pennsylvania_crayfish_reference_.htm. 

SOuth CarOLina 

eversole, a. g. 1995. distribution of three rare crayfish species in 

South Carolina. Freshwater Crayfish 8:113-120. 

eversole, a. g. and d. r. Jones. 2004. Key to the crayfishes of South 

Carolina. Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. 

hobbs iii, h. h., J. h. thorp, and g. e. anderson. 1976. The 

freshwater decapod crustaceans (Palaemonidae, Cambaridae) of 

the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina. Unpublished report, 

Savannah River Plant, National Environmental Research Park 

Program. 


u.S. Forest Service. www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms/forest/publications/Crayfish. 

pdf. 

tenneSSee 

Bouchard, r. W. 1972. A contribution to the knowledge of Tennessee 

crayfish. doctoral dissertation. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 

Williams, C. e., and r. d. Bivens. 2001. Key to the crayfishes of 

Tennessee, abstracted from H.H. Hobbs, Jr. (1976 sic), H.H. Hobbs, 

Jr. (1981), and Bouchard (1978), and an annotated list of the 

crayfishes of Tennessee. Unpublished report, Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Agency, Talbott. 

teXaS 

albaugh, d. W., and J. B. Black. 1973. A new crawfish of the genus 

Cambarellus from Texas, with new Texas distributional records 

for the genus (decapoda, Astacidae). Southwestern Naturalist 

18:177-185. 

hobbs Jr., h. h. 1990. On the crayfishes (decapoda: Cambaridae) 

of the Neches River basin of eastern Texas with the descriptions 

of three new species. Proceedings of the Biological Society of 


penn, g. h., and h. h. hobbs Jr. 1958. A contribution toward a 

knowledge of the crawfishes of Texas (decapoda, Astacidae). Texas 



utah 

Johnson, J. e. 1986. Inventory of Utah crayfishes with notes on current 

distribution. great Basin Naturalist 46:625-631. 

WaShingtOn 

miller, g. C. 1960. The taxonomy and certain biological aspects of the 

crayfish of Oregon and Washington. Master’s thesis. Oregon State 

College, Corvallis. 

WeSt Virginia 

Jezerinac, r. F., g. W. Stocker, and d. C. tarter. 1995. The crayfishes 

(decapoda: Cambaridae) of West Virginia. Ohio Biological 

Survey Bulletin New Series 10(1). 

Lawton, S. m. 1979. A taxonomic and distributional study of the 

crayfishes (decapoda: Cambaridae) of West Virginia with diagnostic 

keys to species of the genera Cambarus and Orconectes. Master’s 

thesis. Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia. 

newcombe, C. L. 1929. The crayfishes of West Virginia. Ohio Journal 

of Science 29:267-288. 

Schwartz, F. J., and W. g. meredith. 1960. Crayfishes of the Cheat 

River watershed West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Part I. Species 

and localities. Ohio Journal of Science 60:40-54. 

WiSCOnSin 

Creaser, e. p. 1932. The decapod crustaceans of Wisconsin. 

Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy Science, Arts, and Letters 

27:321-338. 

hobbs iii, h. h., and J. p. Jass. 1988. The crayfishes and shrimp of 

Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

WYOming 

hubert, W. a. 1988. Survey of Wyoming crayfishes. great Basin 

Naturalist 48:370-372. 

Canada 

Bondar, C., Y. Zhang, J. S. richardson, and d. Jesson. 2003. The 

conservation status of freshwater crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus 

in British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 

Fisheries Management Report, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Crocker, d. W., and d. W. Barr. 1968. Handbook of the crayfishes 

of Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. 

guiasu, r. C., d. W. Barr, and d. W. dunham. 1996. distribution 

and status of crayfishes of the genera Cambarus and Fallicambarus 

(decapoda: Cambaridae) in Onatario, Canada. Journal of 

Crustacean Biology 16:373-383. 

hamr, p. 1998. Conservation status of Canadian freshwater crayfishes. 

World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, Ontario. 

_____. 2003. Conservation status of burrowing crayfishes in Canada. 

Report for the Endangered Species Unit, World Wildlife Fund 

Canada. Upper Canada College Press, Toronto, Canada. 

taylor, r. m., p. hamr, and a. Karstaad. 2005. Pages 222-317 

in g. Winterton, ed. The comprehensive bait guide for eastern 

Canada, the great Lakes region and northeastern United States. 

University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 

Other internet reSOurCeS 

Fetzner Jr., J. W. 2007. global crayfish resources at the Carnegie 

Museum of Natural History. Available at: http://iz.carnegiemnh. 

org/crayfish/. 

Crandall, K.a., and J.W. Fetzner, Jr. 2007. Crayfish home page. 

Available at: http://crayfish.byu.edu/. 

Crayfish World. 2007. Available at: www.crayfishworld.com/sciencecontents.htm. 

international association of astacology. 2007. Home page. 

Available at: http://147.72.68.29/crayfish/IAA/index.htm. 

national general Status Working group. 2007. Wild species: general 

status of species in Canada. Available at: www.wildspecies.ca. 


Appendix 1. 

Species Common name AFS Listing Heritage known distribution 

status criteria rank 

Family Astacidae 

Pacifastacus connectens (Faxon) Snake River pilose crayfish cS G4 Id, oR 

Pacifastacus fortis (Faxon) Shasta crayfish e 4, 5 G1 cA 

Pacifastacus gambelii (Girard) pilose crayfish cS G4,G5 (cA), Id, MT, NV, oR, uT, WA, 

WY 

Pacifastacus leniusculus klamathensis (Stimpson) Klamath Signal crayfish cS G5 cA, Id, oR, WA. Bc 

Pacifastacus leniusculus leniusculus (dana) Signal crayfish cS G5 (cA), Id, (NV), oR, (uT), WA. Bc 

Pacifastacus leniusculus trowbridgii (Stimpson) columbia River Signal crayfish cS G5 (cA), Id, (NV), oR, MT, WA. Bc 

Pacifastacus nigrescens (Stimpson) Sooty crayfish e* GX cA 

Family Cambaridae 

Barbicambarus cornutus (Faxon) Bottlebrush crayfish cS G4 KY, TN 

Bouchardina robisoni Hobbs Bayou Bodcau crayfish V 5 G2,G3 AR 

Cambarellus blacki Hobbs cypress crayfish e 1, 5 G1 Fl 

Cambarellus diminutus Hobbs least crayfish T 5 G3 Al, MS 

Cambarellus lesliei Fitzpatrick and laning Angular dwarf crawfish T 5 G3 Al, MS 

Cambarellus ninae Hobbs Aransas dwarf crawfish V 5 G3 TX 

Cambarellus puer Hobbs Swamp dwarf crayfish cS G5 AR, Il, KY, lA, MS, Mo, oK, TN, 

TX 

Cambarellus schmitti Hobbs Fontal dwarf crawfish cS G3 Fl 

Cambarellus shufeldtii (Faxon) cajun dwarf crayfish cS G5 Al, AR, Il, KY, lA, MS, Mo, TN, 

TX 

Cambarellus texanus Albaugh and Black Brazos dwarf crawfish cS G3,G4 TX 

Cambarus acanthura Hobbs Thornytail crayfish cS G4,G5 Al, GA, Nc, TN 

Cambarus aculabrum Hobbs and Brown Benton county cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1 AR 

Cambarus acuminatus Faxon Acuminate crayfish †cS G4 Md, Nc, Sc, VA 

Cambarus angularis Hobbs and Bouchard Angled crayfish cS G3 TN, VA 

Cambarus asperimanus Faxon Mitten crayfish cS G4 GA, Nc,Sc, TN 

Cambarus bartonii bartonii (Fabricius) common crayfish cS G5 Al, cT, de, GA, Me, Md, MA, 

NJ, NY, Nc, pA, RI, Sc, TN, VT, 

VA, WV. NB, oN, Qc 

Cambarus bartonii cavatus Hay Appalachian Brook crayfish cS G5 Al, GA, KY, IN, oH, TN, VA, WV 

Cambarus batchi Schuster Bluegrass crayfish V 5 G3 KY 

Cambarus bouchardi Hobbs Big South Fork crayfish e 5 G2 KY, TN 

Cambarus brachydactylus Hobbs Shortfinger crayfish cS G4 TN 

Cambarus brimleyorum cooper Valley River crayfish V 5 G3 Nc 

Cambarus buntingi Bouchard longclaw crayfish †cS G4 KY, TN 

Cambarus carinirostris Hay Rock crawfish cS G5 oH, pA, VA, WV 

Cambarus carolinus (erichson) Red Burrowing crayfish cS G4 Nc, Sc, TN 

Cambarus catagius Hobbs and perkins Greensboro Burrowing crayfish V 1, 5 G3 Nc 

Cambarus causeyi Reimer Boston Mountains crayfish V 1, 5 G2 AR 

Cambarus chasmodactylus James New River crayfish cS G4 Nc, VA, WV 

Cambarus chaugaensis prins and Hobbs chauga crayfish T 5 G2 GA, Nc, Sc 

Cambarus clivosus Taylor and Soucek Short Mountain crayfish T 5 G2 TN 

Cambarus conasaugaensis Hobbs and Hobbs Mountain crayfish V 5 G3 GA, TN 

Cambarus coosae Hobbs coosa crayfish cS G5 Al, GA, TN 

Cambarus coosawattae Hobbs coosawattee crayfish e 1, 5 G1 GA 

Cambarus cracens Bouchard and Hobbs Slenderclaw crayfish e 5 G1 Al 

Cambarus crinipes Bouchard Hairyfoot crayfish cS G3 TN 

Cambarus cryptodytes Hobbs dougherty plain cave crayfish T 5 G2,G3 Fl, GA 

Cambarus cumberlandensis Hobbs and Bouchard cumberland crayfish cS G5 KY, TN 

Cambarus cymatilis Hobbs conasauga Blue Burrower e 5 G1 GA, TN 

Cambarus davidi cooper carolina ladle crayfish cS G4 Nc 

Cambarus deweesae Bouchard and etnier Valley Flame crayfish cS G4 KY, TN 

Cambarus diogenes Girard devil crawfish †cS G5 Al, AR, co, de, Fl, GA, Il, IN, 

IA, KS, KY, lA, Md, MI, MN, MS, 

Mo, Ne, NJ, Nc, Nd, oH, oK, pA, 

Sc, Sd, TN, TX VA, WI, WY. oN 

Cambarus distans Rhoades Boxclaw crayfish cS G5 Al, GA, KY, TN 

Cambarus doughertyensis cooper and Skelton dougherty Burrowing crayfish e 5 G1 GA 

Cambarus dubius Faxon upland Burrowing crayfish cS G5 KY, Md, Nc, pA, TN, VA, WV 

Cambarus eeseeohensis Thoma Grandfather Mountain crayfish T 5 G2 Nc 

Cambarus elkensis Jezerinac and Stocker elk River crayfish T 1, 5 G2 WV 

Cambarus englishi Hobbs and Hall Tallapoosa crayfish V 5 G3 Al, GA 

Cambarus extraneus Hagen chickamauga crayfish T 5 G2 GA, TN 

Cambarus fasciatus Hobbs etowah crayfish T 1, 5 G3 GA 

Cambarus friaufi Hobbs Hairy crayfish cS G4 KY, TN 

Cambarus gentryi Hobbs linear cobalt crayfish cS G4 TN 

Cambarus georgiae Hobbs little Tennessee crayfish V 5 G2 GA, Nc 

Cambarus girardianus Faxon Tanback crayfish cS G5 Al, GA, TN 

Cambarus graysoni Faxon Twospot crayfish cS G5 Al, KY, TN 

Cambarus halli Hobbs Slackwater crayfish V 5 G3,G4 Al, GA 

Cambarus hamulatus (cope) prickly cave crayfish cS G3,G4 Al, TN 

Cambarus harti Hobbs piedmont Blue Burrower e 5 G1 GA 

Cambarus hiwasseensis Hobbs Hiwassee crayfish V 5 G3,G4 GA, Nc, TN 

Cambarus hobbsorum cooper Rocky River crayfish cS G3,G4 Nc, Sc 

Cambarus howardi Hobbs and Hall chattahoochee crayfish cS G3 Al, GA, Nc 

Cambarus hubbsi creaser Hubbs’ crayfish cS G5 AR, Mo 

Cambarus hubrichti Hobbs Salem cave crayfish cS G4 Mo 


Cambarus hystricosus cooper and cooper Sandhills Spiny crayfish V 5 G2 Nc 

Cambarus jezerinaci Thoma Spiny Scale crayfish †cS G3 TN, VA 

Cambarus johni cooper carolina Foothills crayfish V 5 G3 Nc 

Cambarus jonesi Hobbs and Barr Alabama cave crayfish cS G3 Al 

Cambarus latimanus (le conte) Variable crayfish cS G5 Al, Fl, GA, Nc, Sc, TN 

Cambarus lenati cooper Broad River Stream crayfish T 5 G2 Nc 

Cambarus longirostris Faxon longnose crayfish †cS G5 Al, GA, Nc, (Sc), TN, VA 

Cambarus longulus Girard Atlantic Slope crayfish cS G5 Nc, VA, WV 

Cambarus ludovicianus Faxon painted devil crayfish cS G5 Al, AR, KY, lA, MS, Mo, oK, TN, 

TX 

Cambarus maculatus Hobbs and pflieger Freckled crayfish cS G4 Mo 

Cambarus manningi Hobbs Greensaddle crayfish cS G4 Al, GA, TN 

Cambarus miltus Fitzpatrick Rusty Grave digger T 5 G1,G2 Al, Fl 

Cambarus monongalensis ortmann Blue crawfish cS G5 pA, VA, WV 

Cambarus nerterius Hobbs Greenbrier cave crayfish e 5 G2 WV 

Cambarus nodosus Bouchard and Hobbs Knotty Burrowing crayfish cS G4 GA, Nc, Sc, TN 

Cambarus obeyensis Hobbs and Shoup obey crayfish e 5 G1 TN 

Cambarus obstipus Hall Sloped crayfish V 5 G4 Al 

Cambarus ortmanni Williamson ortmann’s Mudbug cS G5 IN, KY, oH 

Cambarus parrishi Hobbs Hiwassee Headwater crayfish e 5 G1 GA, Nc 

Cambarus parvoculus Hobbs and Shoup Mountain Midget crayfish cS G5 Al, GA, KY, TN, VA 

Cambarus polychromatus Thoma et al. paintedhand Mudbug cS G5 Al, Il, IN, KY, MI, oH, TN 

Cambarus pristinus Hobbs pristine crayfish e 5 G1 TN 

Cambarus pyronotus Bouchard Fireback crayfish e 5 G2 Fl 

Cambarus reburrus prins French Broad crayfish cS G3 Nc 

Cambarus reduncus Hobbs Sickle crayfish cS G4,G5 Nc, Sc 

Cambarus reflexus Hobbs pine Savannah crayfish cS G4 GA, Sc 

Cambarus robustus Girard Big Water crayfish cS G5 cT, Il, IN, KY, MI, NY, Nc, oH, 

pA, TN, VA, WV, oN, Qc 

Cambarus rusticiformis Rhoades depression crayfish cS G5 (Al), Il, KY, TN 

Cambarus sciotensis Rhoades Teays River crayfish cS G5 KY, oH, VA, WV 

Cambarus scotti Hobbs chattooga River crayfish T 5 G3 Al, GA 

Cambarus setosus Faxon Bristly cave crayfish cS G4 AR, Mo 

Cambarus speciosus Hobbs Beautiful crayfish e 1, 5 G2 GA 

Cambarus sphenoides Hobbs Triangleclaw crayfish cS G4 KY, TN 

Cambarus spicatus Hobbs Broad River Spiny crayfish V 5 G2 Nc, Sc 

Cambarus striatus Hay Ambiguous crayfish cS G5 Al, Fl, GA, KY, MS, Sc, TN 

Cambarus strigosus Hobbs lean crayfish T 5 G2 GA 

Cambarus subterraneus Hobbs delaware county cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1 oK 

Cambarus tartarus Hobbs and cooper oklahoma cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1 oK 

Cambarus tenebrosus Hay cavespring crayfish †cS G5 Al, Il, IN, KY, oH, TN 

Cambarus thomai Jezerinac little Brown Mudbug cS G5 KY, oH, pA, TN, WV 

Cambarus truncatus Hobbs oconee Burrowing crayfish T 5 G2 GA 

Cambarus tuckasegee cooper and Schofield Tuckasegee Stream crayfish T 5 G2 Nc 

Cambarus unestami Hobbs and Hall Blackbarred crayfish T 5 G2 Al, GA 

Cambarus veitchorum cooper and cooper White Spring cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1 Al 

Cambarus veteranus Faxon Big Sandy crayfish T 1, 5 G3 KY, VA, WV 

Cambarus williami Bouchard and Bouchard Brawleys Fork crayfish e 5 G1 TN 

Cambarus zophonastes Hobbs and Bedinger Hell creek cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1 AR 

Distocambarus carlsoni Hobbs Mimic crayfish T 5 G2,G3 Sc 

Distocambarus crockeri Hobbs and carlson piedmont prairie Burrowing crayfish T 1, 5 G3 Sc 

Distocambarus devexus (Hobbs) Broad River Burrowing crayfish T 5 G2 GA 

Distocambarus hunteri Fitzpatrick and eversole Saluda Burrowing crayfish e 5 G1 Sc 

Distocambarus youngineri Hobbs and carlson Newberry Burrowing crayfish e 5 G1 Sc 

Fallicambarus burrisi Fitzpatrick Burrowing Bog crayfish T 5 G3 Al, MS 

Fallicambarus byersi (Hobbs) lavender Burrowing crayfish cS G4 Al, Fl, MS 

Fallicambarus caesius Hobbs Timberlands Burrowing crayfish cS G4 AR 

Fallicambarus danielae Hobbs Speckled Burrowing crayfish T 5 G2 Al, MS 

Fallicambarus devastator Hobbs and Whiteman Texas prairie crayfish V 5 G3 TX 

Fallicambarus dissitus (penn) pine Hills digger V 5 G4 AR, lA 

Fallicambarus fodiens (cottle) digger crayfish cS G5 Al, AR, Fl, GA, Il, IN, KY, lA, 

Md, MI, MS, Mo, Nc, oH, oK, 

Sc, TN, TX, VA, WV. oN 

Fallicambarus gilpini Hobbs and Robison Jefferson county crayfish e 5 G1 AR 

Fallicambarus gordoni Fitzpatrick camp Shelby Burrowing crayfish T 5 G1 MS 

Fallicambarus harpi Hobbs and Robison ouachita Burrowing crayfish V 5 G3 AR 

Fallicambarus hortoni Hobbs and Fitzpatrick Hatchie Burrowing crayfish e 5 G1 TN 

Fallicambarus jeanae Hobbs daisy Burrowing crayfish V 5 G2 AR 

Fallicambarus macneesei (Black) old prairie digger V 1, 5 G3 lA, TX 

Fallicambarus oryktes (penn and Marlow) Flatwoods digger V 1, 4, 5 G4 Al, lA, MS 

Fallicambarus petilicarpus Hobbs and Robison Slenderwrist Burrowing crayfish e 5 G1 AR 

Fallicambarus strawni (Reimer) Saline Burrowing crayfish T 5 G1,G2 AR 

Faxonella beyeri (penn) Sabine Fencing crayfish cS G4 lA, TX 

Faxonella blairi Hayes and Reimer Blair’s Fencing crayfish cS G3 AR, oK 

Faxonella clypeata (Hay) ditch Fencing crayfish cS G5 Al, AR, Fl, GA, lA, MS, Mo, Sc, TX 

Faxonella creaseri Walls ouachita Fencing crayfish V 1, 5 G2 lA 

Hobbseus attenuatus Black pearl Riverlet crayfish e 1, 5 G2 MS 

Hobbseus cristatus (Hobbs) crested Riverlet crayfish T 1, 5 G3 MS 

Hobbseus orconectoides Fitzpatrick and payne oktibbeha Riverlet crayfish T 1, 5 G3 MS 

Hobbseus petilus Fitzpatrick Tombigbee Riverlet crayfish T 1, 5 G2 MS 

Hobbseus prominens (Hobbs) prominence Riverlet crayfish cS G4,G5 Al, MS 


Hobbseus valleculus (Fitzpatrick) choctaw Riverlet crayfish T 1, 5 G1 MS 

Hobbseus yalobushensis Fitzpatrick and Busack Yalobusha Riverlet crayfish e 1, 5 G3 MS 

Orconectes acares Fitzpatrick Redspotted Stream crayfish cS G4 AR 

Orconectes alabamensis (Faxon) Alabama crayfish V 5 G5 Al, MS, TN 

Orconectes australis australis (Rhoades) Southern cave crayfish cS G4 Al, TN 

Orconectes australis packardi Rhoades Appalachian cave crayfish T 1, 5 G2 KY 

Orconectes barrenensis Rhoades Barren River crayfish cS G4 KY, TN 

Orconectes bisectus Rhoades crittenden crayfish e 5 G1 KY 

Orconectes blacki Walls calcasieu crayfish T 1,5 G2 lA 

Orconectes burri Taylor and Sabaj Blood River crayfish e 1, 5 G1 KY, TN 

Orconectes carolinensis cooper and cooper North carolina Spiny crayfish cS G4 Nc 

Orconectes causeyi Jester Western plains crayfish cS G5 co, KS, (NM), oK, TX 

Orconectes chickasawae cooper and Hobbs chickasaw crayfish cS G5 Al, MS 

Orconectes compressus (Faxon) Slender crayfish cS G5 Al, KY, MS, TN 

Orconectes cooperi cooper and Hobbs Flint River crayfish e 5 G1 Al, TN 

Orconectes cristavarius Taylor Spiny Stream crayfish cS G5 KY, oH, Nc, TN, WV, VA 

Orconectes deanae Reimer and Jester conchas crayfish cS G4 NM, oK 

Orconectes difficilis (Faxon) painted crayfish cS G3 oK 

Orconectes durelli Bouchard and Bouchard Saddle crayfish cS G5 Al, KY, TN 

Orconectes erichsonianus (Faxon) Reticulate crayfish cS G5 Al, GA, TN, VA 

Orconectes etnieri Bouchard and Bouchard ets crayfish cS G4 MS, TN 

Orconectes eupunctus Williams coldwater crayfish T 1, 4, 5 G2 AR, Mo 

Orconectes forceps (Faxon) Surgeon crayfish cS G5 Al, GA, TN, VA 

Orconectes harrisonii (Faxon) Belted crayfish V 5 G3 Mo 

Orconectes hartfieldi Fitzpatrick and Suttkus Yazoo crayfish T 1, 5 G2 MS 

Orconectes hathawayi penn Teche painted crawfish V 5 G3 lA 

Orconectes hobbsi penn pontchartrain painted crawfish cS G4 lA, MS 

Orconectes holti cooper and Hobbs Bimaculate crayfish V 5 G3 Al 

Orconectes hylas (Faxon) Woodland crayfish cS G4 Mo 

Orconectes illinoiensis Brown Shawnee crayfish cS G4 Il 

Orconectes immunis (Hagen) calico crayfish cS G5 co, (cT), Il, IN, IA, KS, KY, (Me), 

(MA), MI, MN, Mo, MT, Ne, 

(NH), NY, Nd, oH, (RI), Sd, TN, 

(VT), WI, WY. MB, oN, pQ 

Orconectes incomptus Hobbs and Barr Tennessee cave crayfish e 5 G1 TN 

Orconectes indianensis (Hay) Indiana crayfish cS G4 Il, IN 

Orconectes inermis inermis cope Ghost crayfish cS G4 IN, KY 

Orconectes inermis testii (Hay) unarmed crayfish T 1, 5 G2 IN 

Orconectes jeffersoni Rhoades louisville crayfish e 1, 5 G1 KY 

Orconectes jonesi Fitzpatrick Sucarnoochee River crayfish †V 5 G3 Al, MS 

Orconectes juvenilis (Hagen) Kentucky River crayfish cS G4 IN, KY 

Orconectes kentuckiensis Rhoades Kentucky crayfish cS G4 Il, KY 

Orconectes lancifer (Hagen) Shrimp crayfish cS G5 Al, AR, Il, KY, lA, MS, Mo, oK, 

TN, TX 

Orconectes leptogonopodus Hobbs little River creek crayfish cS G4 AR, oK 

Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque) Spinycheek crayfish cS G5 cT, de, Me, Md, MA, NH, NJ, 

NY, pA, RI, VT, VA, WV. Qc, NB 

Orconectes longidigitus (Faxon) longpincered crayfish cS G4 AR, Mo 

Orconectes luteus (creaser) Golden crayfish cS G5 IA, Il, KS, MN, Mo 

Orconectes macrus Williams Neosho Midget crayfish cS G4 AR, KS, Mo, oK 

Orconectes maletae Walls Kisatchie painted crayfish T 1, 5 G2 lA 

Orconectes marchandi Hobbs Mammoth Spring crayfish T 1, 5 G2 AR, Mo 

Orconectes margorectus Taylor livingston crayfish T 5 G2 KY 

Orconectes medius (Faxon) Saddlebacked crayfish cS G4 Mo 

Orconectes meeki brevis Williams Meek’s Short pointed crayfish T 5 G2 AR, oK 

Orconectes meeki meeki (Faxon) Meek’s crayfish cS G5 AR, Mo 

Orconectes menae (creaser) Mena crayfish T 5 G3 AR, oK 

Orconectes mirus (ortmann) Wonderful crayfish cS G4 Al, TN 

Orconectes mississippiensis (Faxon) Mississippi crayfish V 5 G3 MS 

Orconectes nais (Faxon) Water Nymph crayfish cS G5 KS, Mo, oK, TX 

Orconectes nana Williams Midget crayfish V 5 G3 AR, oK 

Orconectes neglectus chaenodactylus Williams Gap Ringed crayfish V 5 G3 AR, Mo 

Orconectes neglectus neglectus (Faxon) Ringed crayfish cS G5 AR, co, KS, Mo, Ne, (NY), oK, 

(oR), WY 

Orconectes obscurus (Hagen) Allegheny crayfish cS G5 Me, Md, NY, oH, pA, VA, WV. 

oN, Qc, 

Orconectes ozarkae Williams ozark crayfish cS G5 AR, Mo 

Orconectes pagei Taylor and Sabaj Mottled crayfish cS G4 TN 

Orconectes palmeri creolanus (creaser) creole painted crayfish cS G4 (GA), lA, MS 

Orconectes palmeri longimanus (Faxon) Western painted crayfish cS G5 AR, KS, lA, oK, TX 

Orconectes palmeri palmeri (Faxon) Gray-speckled crayfish cS G5 AR, KY, lA, MS, Mo, TN 

Orconectes pardalotus Wetzel et al. leopard crayfish e 1, 5 G1 Il, KY 

Orconectes pellucidus (Tellkampf) Mammoth cave crayfish cS G5 KY, TN 

Orconectes perfectus Walls complete crayfish cS G4,G5 Al, MS 

Orconectes peruncus (creaser) Big creek crayfish T 4, 5 G2 Mo 

Orconectes placidus (Hagen) Bigclaw crayfish cS G5 Al, Il, KY, TN 

Orconectes propinquus (Girard) Northern clearwater crayfish cS G5 Il, IN, IA, MA, MI, MN, NY, oH, 

pA, VT, WI. oN, Qc 

Orconectes punctimanus (creaser) Spothanded crayfish cS G4,G5 AR, Mo 

Orconectes putnami (Faxon) phallic crayfish cS G5 Al, IN, KY, TN 

Orconectes quadruncus (creaser) St. Francis River crayfish T 4, 5 G2 Mo 


Orconectes rafinesquei Rhoades Rough River crayfish V 1, 5 G3 KY 

Orconectes rhoadesi Hobbs Fishhook crayfish cS G4 TN 

Orconectes ronaldi Taylor Mud River crayfish T 5 G3 KY 

Orconectes rusticus (Girard) Rusty crayfish cS G5 (cT), (Il), IN, (IA), KY, (Me), (MA), 

MI, (MN), (NH), (NJ), (NM), (Nc), 

(NY), oH, (pA), (TN), (VT), (VA), 

(WV), (WI). (oN), (Qc) 

Orconectes sanbornii (Faxon) Sanborn’s crayfish cS G5 KY, oH, (WA), WV 

Orconectes saxatilis Bouchard and Bouchard Kiamichi crayfish e 5 G1 oK 

Orconectes sheltae cooper and cooper Shelta cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1 Al 

Orconectes shoupi Hobbs Nashville crayfish e 1, 5 G1 TN 

Orconectes sloanii (Bundy) Sloan crayfish V 1, 4 G3 IN, oH 

Orconectes spinosus (Bundy) coosa River Spiny crayfish cS G4 Al, GA, TN 

Orconectes stannardi page little Wabash crayfish V 1, 5 G3 Il 

Orconectes stygocaneyi Hobbs caney Mountain cave crayfish T 5 G1 Mo 

Orconectes theaphionensis Simon et al. Sinkhole crayfish cS G4 IN 

Orconectes tricuspis Rhoades Western Highland crayfish cS G4 KY 

Orconectes validus (Faxon) powerful crayfish cS G4,G5 Al, MS, TN 

Orconectes virginiensis Hobbs chowanoke crayfish cS G4 Nc, VA 

Orconectes virilis Hagen Virile crayfish cS G5 (Al), (AZ), AR, (cA), co, (cT), 

Il, IN, IA, KS, (Me), (Md), (MA), 

MI, MN, Mo, MT, Ne, (NH), (NJ), 

(NM), (Nc), NY, Nd, oH, oK, 

(pA), (RI), Sd, (TN), TX, uT, (VT), 

(VA), (WA), (WV), WI, WY. AB, 

MB, oN, pQ, SK 

Orconectes willliamsi Fitzpatrick Williams crayfish cS G4 AR, Mo 

Orconectes wrighti Hobbs Hardin crayfish e 5 G2 MS, TN 

Procambarus ablusus penn Hatchie River crayfish cS G4 MS, TN 

Procambarus acherontis (lonnberg) orlando cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1 Fl 

Procambarus acutissimus (Girard) Sharpnose crayfish cS G5 Al, GA, MS 

Procambarus acutus (Girard) White River crawfish †cS G5 Al, AR, (cA), (cT), de, Fl, GA, 

Il, IN, IA, KS, KY, lA, (Me), Md 

(MA), MI, MN, MS, Mo, NJ, NY, 

Nc, oH, oK, pA, (RI), Sc, TN, TX, 

VA, WV, WI 

Procambarus advena (le conte) Vidalia crayfish cS G3 GA 

Procambarus alleni (Faxon) everglades crayfish cS G4 Fl 

Procambarus ancylus Hobbs coastal plain crayfish cS G4,G5 Nc, Sc 

Procambarus angustatus (le conte) Sandhills crayfish e* GX GA 

Procambarus apalachicolae Hobbs coastal Flatwoods crayfish T 1, 5 G2 Fl 

Procambarus attiguus Hobbs and Franz Silver Glen Springs crayfish e 5 G1,G2 Fl 

Procambarus barbatus (Faxon) Wandering crayfish cS G5 GA, Sc 

Procambarus barbiger Fitzpatrick Jackson prairie crayfish V 5 G2 MS 

Procambarus bivittatus Hobbs Ribbon crayfish cS G5 Al, Fl, lA, MS 

Procambarus blandingii (Harlan) Santee crayfish cS G4 Nc, Sc 

Procambarus braswelli cooper Waccamaw crayfish V 5 G3 Nc, Sc 

Procambarus brazoriensis Albaugh Brazoria crayfish e 1, 5 G1 TX 

Procambarus capillatus Hobbs capillaceous crayfish V 5 G3 Al, Fl 

Procambarus caritus Hobbs poor crayfish cS G4 GA 

Procambarus ceruleus Fitzpatrick and Wicksten Blueclaw chimney crawfish e 5 G1 TX 

Procambarus chacei Hobbs cedar creek crayfish cS G4 GA, Sc 

Procambarus clarkii (Girard) Red Swamp crawfish cS G5 Al, (AZ), AR, (cA), Fl, (GA), (HI), 

(Id), Il, IN, KY, lA, (Md), MS, Mo, 

(NV), (NM), (Nc), (oH), oK, (oR), 

(Sc), TN, TX, (uT), (VA), (WA) 

Procambarus clemmeri Hobbs cockscomb crayfish cS G5 Al, lA, MS 

Procambarus cometes Fitzpatrick Mississippi Flatwoods crayfish e 5 G1 MS 

Procambarus connus Fitzpatrick carrollton crayfish e 5 GH MS 

Procambarus curdi Reimer Red River Burrowing crayfish cS G5 AR, oK, TX 

Procambarus delicatus Hobbs and Franz Bigcheek cave crayfish e 5 G1 Fl 

Procambarus dupratzi penn Southwestern creek crayfish cS G5 AR, lA, oK, TX 

Procambarus echinatus Hobbs edisto crayfish V 5 G3 Sc 

Procambarus econfinae Hobbs panama city crayfish e 1, 5 G1 Fl 

Procambarus elegans Hobbs elegant creek crayfish cS G5 AR, lA, MS 

Procambarus enoplosternum Hobbs Black Mottled crayfish cS G4,G5 GA, Sc 

Procambarus epicyrtus Hobbs Humpback crayfish V 5 G3 GA 

Procambarus erythrops Relyea and Sutton Santa Fe cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1,G2 Fl 

Procambarus escambiensis Hobbs escambia crayfish e 5 G2 Al, Fl 

Procambarus evermanni (Faxon) panhandle crayfish cS G4 Al, Fl, MS 

Procambarus fallax (Hagen) Slough crayfish cS G5 Fl, GA 

Procambarus fitzpatricki Hobbs Spinytail crayfish T 5 G2 MS 

Procambarus franzi Hobbs and lee orange lake cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1,G2 Fl 

Procambarus geminus Hobbs Twin crawfish cS G3,G4 AR, lA 

Procambarus geodytes Hobbs Muddiver crayfish cS G4 Fl 

Procambarus gibbus Hobbs Muckalee crayfish T 4, 5 G3 GA 

Procambarus gracilis (Bundy) prairie crayfish cS G5 Il, IN, IA, KS, Mo, Ne, oK, TX, WI 

Procambarus hagenianus hagenianus (Faxon) Southeastern prairie crayfish cS G4 Al, MS 

Procambarus hagenianus vesticeps Fitzpatrick egyptian crayfish V 5 G3 MS 

Procambarus hayi (Faxon) Straightedge crayfish cS G5 Al, MS, TN 

Procambarus hinei (ortmann) Marsh crayfish cS G5 lA, TX 


Procambarus hirsutus Hobbs Shaggy crayfish cS G4 Sc 

Procambarus horsti Hobbs and Means Big Blue Springs cave crayfish e 1, 5 G2 Fl 

Procambarus howellae Hobbs ornate crayfish cS G5 GA 

Procambarus hubbelli (Hobbs) Jackknife crayfish cS G4 Al, Fl 

Procambarus hybus Hobbs and Walton Smoothnose crayfish cS G5 Al, MS 

Procambarus incilis penn cut crayfish cS G4 TX 

Procambarus jaculus Hobbs and Walton Javelin crayfish cS G4 lA, MS 

Procambarus kensleyi Hobbs Free State chimney crawfish cS G4 lA, TX 

Procambarus kilbyi (Hobbs) Hatchet crayfish cS G4 Fl 

Procambarus lagniappe Black lagniappe crayfish T 5 G2 Al, MS 

Procambarus latipleurum Hobbs Wingtail crayfish V 5 G2 Fl 

Procambarus lecontei (Hagen) Mobile crayfish V 5 G3,G4 Al, MS 

Procambarus leitheuseri Franz and Hobbs coastal lowland cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1 Fl 

Procambarus leonensis Hobbs Blacknose crayfish cS G1,G2 Fl 

Procambarus lepidodactylus Hobbs pee dee lotic crayfish †cS G4 Sc 

Procambarus lewisi Hobbs and Walton Spur crayfish V 5 G4 Al 

Procambarus liberorum Fitzpatrick osage Burrowing crayfish cS G4 AR, oK 

Procambarus litosternum Hobbs Blackwater crayfish cS G4 GA 

Procambarus lophotus Hobbs and Walton Mane crayfish cS G5 Al, GA, TN 

Procambarus lucifugus alachua (Hobbs) Alachua light Fleeing cave crayfish T 1, 5 G2,G3 Fl 

Procambarus lucifugus lucifugus (Hobbs) Florida cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1 Fl 

Procambarus lunzi (Hobbs) Hummock crayfish cS G4 GA, Sc 

Procambarus lylei Fitzpatrick and Hobbs Shutispear crayfish V 5 G2 MS 

Procambarus machardyi Walls caddo chimney crawfish e 5 G1,G2 lA 

Procambarus mancus Hobbs and Walton lame crayfish cS G4 MS 

Procambarus marthae Hobbs crisscross crayfish V 5 G3 Al 

Procambarus medialis Hobbs pamlico crayfish V 5 G2 Nc 

Procambarus milleri Hobbs Miami cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1 Fl 

Procambarus morrisi Hobbs and Franz putnam county cave crayfish e 1, 5 G1 Fl 

Procambarus natchitochae penn Red River crayfish cS G5 AR, lA, TX 

Procambarus nechesae Hobbs Neches crayfish T 5 G2 TX 

Procambarus nigrocinctus Hobbs Blackbelted crayfish e 5 G1,G2 TX 

Procambarus nueces Hobbs and Hobbs Nueces crayfish e 5 G1 TX 

Procambarus okaloosae Hobbs okaloosa crayfish cS G4 Al, Fl 

Procambarus orcinus Hobbs and Means Woodville Karst cave crayfish T 1, 5 G3 Fl 

Procambarus ouachitae penn ouachita River crayfish cS G5 AR, MS 

Procambarus paeninsulanus (Faxon) peninsula crayfish cS G5 Al, Fl, GA 

Procambarus pallidus (Hobbs) pallid cave crayfish V 1, 5 G3,G4 Fl 

Procambarus parasimulans Hobbs and Robison Bismark Burrowing crayfish cS G4 AR 

Procambarus pearsei (creaser) carolina Sandhills crayfish cS G4 Nc, Sc 

Procambarus pecki Hobbs phantom cave crayfish e 5 G1,G2 Al 

Procambarus penni Hobbs pearl Blackwater crayfish V 5 G3 lA, MS 

Procambarus petersi Hobbs ogeechee crayfish V 5 G3 GA 

Procambarus pictus (Hobbs) Black creek crayfish T 1, 5 G2 Fl 

Procambarus planirostris penn Flatnose crayfish cS G4 lA, MS 

Procambarus plumimanus Hobbs and Walton croatan crayfish cS G4 Nc 

Procambarus pogum Fitzpatrick Bearded Red crayfish e 5 G1 MS 

Procambarus pubescens (Faxon) Brushnose crayfish cS G4,G5 GA, Sc 

Procambarus pubischelae deficiens Hobbs Hookless crayfish cS G5 GA 

Procambarus pubischelae pubischelae Hobbs Brushpalm crayfish cS G5 Fl, GA 

Procambarus pycnogonopodus Hobbs Stud crayfish cS G4,G5 Fl 

Procambarus pygmaeus Hobbs christmas Tree crayfish cS G4 Fl, GA 

Procambarus raneyi Hobbs disjunct crayfish cS G4 GA, Sc 

procambarus rathbunae (Hobbs) combclaw crayfish T 5 G2 Fl 

Procambarus regalis Hobbs and Robison Regal Burrowing crayfish V 5 G2,G3 AR 

Procambarus reimeri Hobbs Irons Fork Burrowing crayfish e 1, 5 G1 AR 

Procambarus rogersi campestris Hobbs Field crayfish V 1, 5 G3 Fl 

Procambarus rogersi expletus Hobbs and Hart perfect crayfish e 5 G1 Fl 

Procambarus rogersi ochlocknensis Hobbs ochlockonee crayfish V 5 G3 Fl 

Procambarus rogersi rogersi (Hobbs) Seepage crayfish e 5 G1,G2 Fl 

Procambarus seminolae Hobbs Seminole crayfish cS G5 Fl, GA 

Procambarus shermani Hobbs Gulf crayfish cS G4 Al, Fl, lA, MS 

Procambarus simulans (Faxon) Southern plains crayfish cS G5 AR, co, KS, lA, NM, oK, TX 

Procambarus spiculifer (le conte) White Tubercled crayfish †cS G5 Al, Fl, GA, Sc, TN 

Procambarus steigmani Hobbs parkhill prairie crayfish e 5 G1,G2 TX 

Procambarus suttkusi Hobbs choctawhatchee crayfish V 5 G3,G4 Al, Fl 

Procambarus talpoides Hobbs Mole crayfish cS G5 Fl, GA 

Procambarus tenuis Hobbs ouachita Mountain crayfish V 5 G3 AR, oK 

Procambarus texanus Hobbs Bastrop crayfish e 5 G1 TX 

Procambarus troglodytes (le conte) eastern Red Swamp crawfish cS G5 GA, Sc 

Procambarus truculentus Hobbs Bog crayfish cS G4 GA 

Procambarus tulanei penn Giant Bearded crayfish cS G5 AR, lA 

Procambarus verrucosus Hobbs Grainy crayfish cS G4 Al, GA 

Procambarus versutus (Hagen) Sly crayfish cS G5 Al, Fl, GA 

Procambarus viaeviridis (Faxon) Vernal crayfish cS G5 Al, AR, Il, KY, lA, MS, Mo, TN 

Procambarus vioscai paynei Fitzpatrick payne’s creek crayfish cS G4 Al, MS, TN 

Procambarus vioscai vioscai penn percy’s creek crayfish cS G5 AR, lA 

Procambarus youngi Hobbs Florida longbeak crayfish T 5 G2 Fl 

Procambarus zonangulus Hobbs and Hobbs Southern White River crawfish cS G5 Al, lA, (Md), MS, TX, (VA) 

Troglocambarus maclanei Hobbs Spider cave crayfish V 5 G3,G4 Fl 


aCKnOWLedgmentS 

We thank S. Adams, A. Allert, L. Bergey, B. Butler, K. Crandall, 

J. Cordeiro, J. Fetzner, J. godwin, P. Hartfield, d. Peterson, g. 

Walls, and C. Williams for reviewing this article, or portions 

thereof, prior to submittal. Their constructive criticisms and comments 

vastly improved the resulting manuscript. We acknowledge 

the Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity 

and Ecological Entomology and Eastern Kentucky University, 

department of Biological Sciences, for supporting our efforts. 

reFerenCeS 

ackefors, h. 1999. The positive effects of established crayfish introductions 

in Europe. Pages 49-61 in F. gherardi and d. M. Holdich, 

eds. Crayfish in Europe as alien species. How to make the best of a 

bad situation? Crustacean Issues 11. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam. 

allan, J. d., and a. S. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity conservation in 

running waters. Bioscience 43:32-43. 

allert, a. L., J.F. Fairchild, r.J. diStefano, C. J. Schmitt, J. m. 

Besser, W. g. Brumbaugh, and B. C. poulton. Effects of leadzinc 

mining on crayfish (Orconectes hylas) in the Black River 

watershed, Missouri, USA. Freshwater Crayfish (in press). 

angermeier, p. L., and J. e. Williams. 1994. Conservation of imperiled 

species and reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. Fisheries 19(1):26-29. 

Berrill, m., L. hollett, a. margosian and J. hudson. 1985. Variation 

in tolerance to low environmental pH by the crayfish Orconectes 

rusticus, O. propinquus and Cambarus robustus. Canadian Journal 

of Zoology 63:2586-2589. 

Besser, J. m., W. g. Brumbaugh, t. W. may, and C. J. Schmitt. 

2006. Biomonitoring of lead, zinc, and cadmium in streams 

draining lead-mining and non-mining areas, southeast 

Missouri, USA. Environment Monitoring and Assessment 

10.1007/s10661-006-9356-9. 

Butler, r. S., r. J. diStefano, and g. a. Schuster. 2003. Crayfish: 

an overlooked fauna. Endangered Species Bulletin 28(2):10-11. 

Clavero, m., and e. garcía-Berthou. 2005. Invasive species are 

a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution 20:110. 

Contreras-Balderas, S., and m . de Lourdes Lozano-Vilano. 1996. 

Extinction of most Sandia and Potosí valleys (Nuevo León, 

Mexico) endemic pupfishes, crayfishes and snails. Ichthyological 

Explorations of Freshwaters 7:33-40. 

Crandall, K. a., d. J. harris, and J. W. Fetzner, Jr. 2000. The monophyletic 

origin of freshwater crayfish estimated from nuclear and 

mitochondrial dNA sequences. Proceedings of the Royal Society 

of London B. 267:1679-1686. 

deacon, J. e., g. K. Kobetich, J. d. Williams, S. Contreras, and 

other members of the aFS endangered Species Committee. 

1979. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special 

concern. Fisheries 4(2):29-44. 

dewalt r.e., Favret C., and Webb d.W. 2005. Just how imperiled are 

aquatic insects? A case study of stoneflies (Plecoptera) in Illinois. 

Annals of the Entomological Society of America 98:941-950. 

didonato, g. t., and d. m. Lodge. 1993. Species replacements 

among Orconectes crayfishes in northern Wisconsin lakes: the role 

of predation by fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 50:1484-1488. 

diStefano, r. J. 2005. Trophic interactions between Missouri 

Ozarks stream crayfish communities and sport fish predators: 

increased abundance and size structure of predators cause little 


change in crayfish community densities. 

Final Report, Missouri department of 

Conservation, dingell-Johnson Project 

F-1-R-054, Study S-41, Job 4. Columbia. 

erman, d. C., t. Light, and C. myrick. 

1993. Survey of the status of the Shasta 

crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis) in northeastern 

California (1991 study year). Final 

report to California department of Fish 

and game, Sacramento. 

eversole, a. g., and B. C. Seller. 1996. 

Comparison of relative crayfish toxicity 

values. Freshwater Crayfish 11:274-285. 

Fjälling, a., and m. Fürst. 1988. 

Signalkräftan I Sverige 1969-1984. 

Information fran Söetvattenslaboratoriet 

drottningholm 8. 

Flinders, C. a., and d. d. magoulick. 

2005. distribution, habitat use and life 

history of stream-dwelling crayfish in the 

Spring River drainage of Arkansas and 

Missouri with a focus on the imperiled 

Mammoth Spring crayfish (Orconectes 

marchandi). American Midland Naturalist 

154:358-374. 

hamr, p. 1998. Conservation status of 

Canadian freshwater crayfishes. World 

Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, ON. 

_____. 2003. Conservation status of burrowing 

crayfishes in Canada. Report for the 

Endangered Species Unit, World Wildlife 

Fund Canada. Upper Canada College 

Press, Toronto. 

hill, a. m., d. m. Sinars, and d. m. Lodge. 

1993. Invasion of an occupied niche by 

the crayfish Orconectes rusticus: potential 

importance of growth and mortality. 

Oecologia 94:303-306. 


georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to 

Zoology 318. 

hobbs iii, h. h. 1993. Trophic relationships 

of North American freshwater 

crayfishes and shrimps. Milwaukee Public 

Museum Contributions in Biology and 

geology 85:1-110. 

holdich, d. m. 1999. The negative effects of 

established crayfish introductions. Pages 

31-47 in F. gherardi and d. M. Holdich 

eds. Crayfish in Europe as alien species. 

How to make the best of a bad situation?. 

Crustacean Issues 11. A. A. Balkema, 

Rotterdam. 

_____. (editor). 2002. Biology of freshwater 

crayfish. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, 

UK. 

horwitz, p. 1994. distribution and conservation 

status of the Tasmanian giant freshwater 

lobster Astacopsis gouldi (decapoda: 

Parastacidae). Biological Conservation 

69:199-206. 

huner, J. V. (editor). 1994. Freshwater 

crayfish aquaculture in North America, 

Europe, and Australia: Families Astacidae, 

Cambaridae, and Parastacidae. Food 

Product Press, New York. 

_____. 2002. Procambarus. Pages 541-584 in 

d. M. Holdich ed. Biology of freshwater 

crayfish, Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, 

UK. 

Jarvinen, a. W., and g. t. ankley. 1999. 

Linkage of effects of tissue residues: development 

of a comprehensive database 

for aquatic organisms exposed to inorganic 

and organic chemicals. Society of 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

Technical Publication Series, Pensacola, 

Florida. 

Kleen, V. m., L. Cordle, and r. a. 

montgomery. 2004. The Illinois breeding 

bird atlas. Illinois Natural History Survey 

Special Publication 26. 

Lodge, d. m., C. a. taylor, d. m. holdich, 

and J. Skurdal. 2000. Nonindigenous 

crayfishes threaten North American 

freshwater biodiversity: lessons from 

Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7-20. 

master, L. 1990. The imperiled status 

of North American aquatic animals. 

Biodiversity Network News 3:1-2, 7-8. 

_____. 1991. Assessing threats and setting 

priorities for conservation. Conservation 

Biology 5:559-563. 

master, L., B. a. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and 

g. a. hammererson. 2000. Pages 93- 

118 in B. A. Stein, L. S. Kutner, and J. 

S. Adams eds. Precious heritage, the status 

of biodiversity in the United States. 

Oxford University Press, New York. 

mayer, F. L., and m. r. ellersieck. 1986. 

Manual of acute toxicity: interpretation 

and data base for 410 chemicals and 66 

species of freshwater animals. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Resource Publication 160, 

Washington, dC. Available at: www.cerc. 

usgs.gov/data/acute/acute.html. 

mcgrath, S. 2005. Attack of the alien 

invaders. National geographic magazine, 

March 2005. 

mcLaughlin, p. a., et al. 2005. Common 

and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates 

from the United States and 

Canada: Crustaceans. American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication 31. 

momot, W. t. 1995. Redefining the role of 

crayfish in aquatic ecosystems. Reviews in 

Fisheries Science 3:33-63. 

nCdenr (north Carolina department of 

environment and natural resources). 

2003. Standard operating procedures for 

benthic macroinvertebrates. division of 

Water Quality, Water Quality Section, 

Environmental Sciences Branch 

Technical Report. NCdENR, Raleigh, 

North Carolina. 

nCWrC (north Carolina Wildlife 

resources Commission). 2006. North 

Carolina inland fishing, hunting and 

trapping regulations digest, 1 July 2006 to 

30 June 2007. NCWRC, Raleigh. 

page, L. m. 1985. The crayfishes and shrimps 

(decapoda) of Illinois. Illinois Natural 

History Survey Bulletin 33:335-448. 

peake, d. r., g. J. pond and S. e. 

mcmurray. 2004. development of tolerance 

values for Kentucky crayfishes. 

Kentucky Environmental and Public 

Protection Cabinet, department for 

Environmental Protection, division of 

Water, Frankfort. 

perry, W. L., J. L. Feder, and d. m. 

Lodge. 2001. Implications of hybridization 

between introduced and resident 

Orconectes crayfishes. Conservation 

Biology 15:1656-1666. 

ratcliffe, J. a., and d. r. deVries. 2004. 

The crayfishes (Crustacea: decapoda) of 

the Tallapoosa River drainage, Alabama. 

Southeastern Naturalist 3:417-430. 

richter, B. d., d. p. Braun, m. a. 

mendelson, and L. L. master. 1997. 

Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. 

Conservation Biology 11:1081-1093. 

robison, h. W., and K. a. Crandall. 2005. 

Status and genetics of Procambarus ferrugineus 

Hobbs and Robison. Final 

Report to the Arkansas game and Fish 

Commission, Little Rock. 

Simon, t. p., and r. F. thoma. 2003. 

distribution patterns of freshwater shrimp 

and crayfish (decapoda: Cambaridae) 

in the Patoka River basin of Indiana. 


Science 112:175-185. 

Stein, r. a. 1977. Selective predation, optimal 

foraging, and the predator-prey interactions 

between fish and crayfish. Ecology 

58:1237-1253. 

taylor, C. a. 1997. The taxonomic status of 

members of the subgenus Erebicambarus, 

genus Cambarus (decapoda: Cambaridae), 

east of the Mississippi River. Journal of 

Crustacean Biology 17:352-360. 

_____. 2002. Taxonomy and conservation of 

native crayfish stocks. Pages 236-257 in 

d. M. Holdich, ed. Biology of freshwater 

crayfish. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, 

UK. 

taylor, C. a., and m. redmer. 1996. The 

dispersal of the crayfish Orconectes rusticus 

in Illinois, with notes on species displacement 

and habitat preference. Journal of 

Crustacean Biology 16: 547-551. 


taylor, C. a., and g. a. Schuster. 2004. The crayfishes of Kentucky. 

Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 28. 

taylor, C. a., m. L. Warren Jr., J. F. Fitzpatrick Jr., h. h. hobbs 

iii, r. F. Jezerinac, W. L. pflieger, and h. W. robison. 1996. 

Conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada. 

Fisheries 21(4):25-38. 

thoma, r. F., and r. F. Jezerinac. 1999. The taxonomic status 

and zoogeography of Cambarus bartonii carinirostris Hay, 1914 

(Crustacea: decapoda: Cambaridae). Proceedings of the Biological 

Society of Washington 112:97-105. 

thoma, r. F., and r. F. Jezerinac. 2000. Ohio crayfish and shrimp 

atlas. Ohio Biological Survey Miscellaneous Contribution 7, 

Columbus. 

Warren Jr., m. L., and B. m. Burr. 1994. Status of freshwater fishes 

of the United States: overview of an imperiled fauna. Fisheries 

19(1):6-18. 

Warren, Jr., m. L., B. m. Burr, S. J. Walsh, h. L. Bart Jr., r. C. 

Cashner, d. a. etnier, B. J. Freeman, B. r. Kuhajda, r. L. 

mayden, h. r. robison, S. t. ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000. 

diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native fresh- 

water fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31. 

Welch, S. m., and a. g. eversole. 2006. The occurrence of primary 

burrowing crayfish in terrestrial habitat. Biological Conservation 

130:458-464. 

Westhoff, J. t., J. a. guyot, and r. J. diStefano. 2006. distribution 

of the imperiled Williams’ crayfish (Orconectes williamsi) in 

the White River drainage of Missouri: associations with multi- 

scale environmental variables. American Midland Naturalist 

156:273-288. 

Wigginton, a. J., and W. J. Birge. 2007. Toxicity of cadmium to 

six species and two genera of crayfish and the effect of cadmium 

on molting success. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26: 

548-554. 

Wilcove, d. S., d. rothstein, J. dubow, a. phillips, and e. Losos. 

2000. Leading threats to biodiversity. Pages 239-254 in B. A. Stein, 

L. S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams eds. Precious heritage, the status of 

biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New 

York. 

Williams, J. d., m. L. Warren Jr., K. S. Cummings, J. L. harris, 

and r. J. neves. 1993. Conservation status of freshwater mussels 

of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22. 

Williams, J. e., J. e. Johnson, d. a. hendrickson, W. Contreras- 

Balderas, J. d. Williams, m. navarro-mendoza, d. e. mcallister, 

and J. e. deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America endangered, 

threatened, or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2-20. 


Feature: 

FISHERIES MANAgEMENT 

Paddlefish caught in gill nets in the warm waters 

at the beginning and end of the fishing season 

experience high mortality. this paddlefish 

(missing its rostrum) was alive (but barely) 

when tagged with a radio transmitter and 

released as bycatch; it subsequently died. 

Photo by Phil bettoli. 

protecting paddlefish from Overfishing: 

a Case history of the research 

and regulatory process 

aBStraCt: A commercial fishery for paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) in the 

Tennessee River was largely unregulated through the 1990s. Beginning in 2002, 

attention devoted to the plight of caviar-yielding species around the world resulted 

in much more scrutiny of the Tennessee paddlefish industry. This article describes 

the stock assessment of a paddlefish stock and the approach taken to present research 

findings to state and federal regulators and a skeptical fishing community. The end 

result for the fishery, and lessons learned from a series of public, facilitated, and 

state commission meetings are discussed. The need to compromise with the fishing 

industry meant that not all of the measures proposed to protect the fishery from 

overfishing were enacted; however, the fishery entered the 2006–2007 season with 

more regulations in place than ever before and with a promise by the regulatory 

commission that more restrictive regulations will be imposed in the future if 

warranted. 

protegiendo al “pez espátula” de la sobrepesca: 

historia de la investigación y 

el proceso regulatorio 

reSumen: La pesca comercial del “pez espátula” (Polyodon spathula) en el Río 

Tennessee se mantuvo sin regulación durante la década de 1990. A principios de 

2002, la atención dedicada a las especies productoras de caviar a nivel mundial 

dio como resultado un mayor escrutinio de la industria del “pez espátula” en 

Tennessee. En este artículo se describe la evaluación pesquera de una población 

de “pez espátula” y el enfoque adoptado para presentar los resultados de la 

investigación a las agencias estatales y federales de regulación y a la escéptica 

comunidad pesquera. También se discute el resultado final para la pesquería, 

las lecciones aprendidas por diferentes tipos de público y las reuniones de las 

comisiones estatales. La necesidad de compromiso con la industria pesquera 

significa que no se han puesto en marcha todas las medidas propuestas para evitar 

la sobrepesca; sin embargo, la pesquería comenzó la temporada 2006–2007 con 

más regulaciones que nunca antes y con la promesa de la comisión reguladora de 

que en el futuro se impondrá un control más estricto. 

phillip W. Bettoli, 

george d. Scholten, 

and Willliam C. reeves 

Bettoli is assistant unit leader and fisheries 

research scientist at the U.S. geological 

Survey Tennessee Cooperative Fishery 

Research Unit, Tennessee Technological 

University, Cookeville. The Unit is 

jointly sponsored by the Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Agency, Tennessee 

Technological University, and the U.S. 

geological Survey. Bettoli can be contacted 

at pbettoli@tntech.edu. Scholten is 

reservoir and river fisheries coordinator 

and Reeves is fisheries chief at Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville. 

When the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered and Imperiled Species 

of Flora and Fauna (CITES) designated 

paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) an Appendix 

II species in 1992, export of their caviar fell 

under the regulatory authority of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) division of 

Management Authority (dMA). Although 

trade in products of any animal designated 

an Appendix II species is allowed under 

international law, CITES requires that the 

relevant management authority ensure that 

“trade will not imperil the survival of the species 

in the wild.” In other words, the dMA is 

authorized to grant export permits to paddlefish 

caviar wholesalers and retailers if state 

fisheries personnel demonstrate to the dMA 

that the stocks within their state boundaries 

are healthy enough to withstand commercial 

fishing. 

For at least a decade, dMA personnel 

were concerned over the number of export 

permits requested by purveyors of Tennessee 

paddlefish caviar. Tennessee was one of seven 

states that still allowed commercial harvest of 

paddlefish for their roe and Tennessee often 

led the nation in the amount of paddlefish 

caviar exported (Marie Maltese; dMA; pers. 

comm.); more than 17,000 kg of wild-caught 

paddlefish roe were exported from the United 

States between 2001 and 2005 (dMA 2006). 

Additionally, the successful prosecution 

in 2002 of three Tennessee wholesalers for 

violations of the Lacey Act, in which more 

than 3,500 kg of illegally obtained paddlefish 

roe were seized, revealed a flourishing illegal 

trade in paddlefish caviar. In Tennessee, most 

paddlefish are harvested from Kentucky Lake, 


Tennessee-Kentucky, a 65,000-hectare reservoir 

on the lower Tennessee River; therefore, 

the dMA was particularly interested in 

any stock assessments of the Kentucky Lake 

population. 

When national attention began to focus 

on the Kentucky Lake fishery early in this 

century, little was known about the status of 

paddlefish in the Tennessee River. University 

researchers had assessed the age structure, size 

structure, and commercial exploitation of 

paddlefish in Kentucky Lake in the 1980s and 

early 1990s (Hoffnagle and Timmons 1989; 

Timmons and Hughbanks 2000), but no fishery 

independent data were collected in those 

studies, and little information existed other 

than numbers of fish harvested in the years 

between 1999 and 2003. In the absence of 

stock assessment data, the dMA is supposed 

to deny export permits, and some permits from 

Tennessee were denied in recent years (Marie 

Maltese; dMA; pers. comm.). It was clear 

to regulatory parties (i.e., dMA, Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Agency [TWRA]) in 2001 

that a stock assessment should be conducted 

at the earliest opportunity. 

This article summarizes our stock assessment 

activities and the strategies we employed 

to convey our recommendations to the fishing 

industry, TWRA biologists, and the governing 

board of the TWRA, the Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Commission (TWRC). We discuss 

what regulations were and were not enacted 

by the TWRC, and how a compromise was 

eventually reached to balance the state’s 

mandate to conserve fisheries resources with 

the legitimate economic interests of private 

businesses. Finally, we discuss what the future 

might hold for Tennessee paddlefish in light 

of recent harvest trends. 

StudY area and the 

COmmerCiaL FiSherY 

Kentucky Lake is the last impoundment 

on the Tennessee River before its confluence 

with the Ohio River (Figure 1). The lacustrine, 

downlake reach of the reservoir provides 

excellent habitat for paddlefish; whereas, the 

narrow, riverine headwaters serve as ideal fishing 

grounds for commercial fishers deploying 

gill nets during the winter and spring spawning 

migrations. 

Before 2002, fishers harvesting paddlefish 

were required to possess a commercial fishing 

license (US$125) and a free paddlefish 

permit. The season ran from 1 November 

through 23 April and there were no quotas 

or other harvest restrictions other than a 813mm 

eye-fork-length (EFL) minimum length 

Figure 1. Kentucky lake, a mainstream impoundment on the lower Tennessee River, is where most of the 

paddlefish harvested in Tennessee originate. 

when river conditions are right, paddlefish 

are easily harvested in the tennessee river, 

as demonstrated by Patsy Cornelius and deb 

blackwelder. Photo by Cory goldsworthy. 


limit. during drought conditions in 1999 and 

2000, the reported harvest from Kentucky 

Lake exceeded 10,000 paddlefish each year 

(compared to about 4,500 fish in years with 

high rainfall). Amid growing concerns that 

the stock in Kentucky Lake was being overfished, 

the commercial season in 2002 started 

two weeks later, fishers were required to use 

nets with at least 152-mm bar measure netting, 

and the minimum length limit was 

increased to 864-mm EFL. despite these more 

restrictive regulations, federal authorities at 

the dMA requested more information on the 

exploited paddlefish stock in Kentucky Lake 

and a fishery independent assessment began 

in the fall of 2002 (Figure 2). 

FiSherY aSSeSSment 

Research objectives, field sampling methods, 

and data analyses were presented by 

Scholten and Bettoli (2005) and Bettoli and 

Scholten (2006) and will not be repeated in 

detail here. In short, random samples of paddlefish 

in Kentucky Lake were collected with 

experimental gillnets before and after the 

commercial fishing season in two consecutive 

years. We also accompanied commercial fishers 

to sample their catch for additional ovary 

and dentary bone samples and record data on 

bycatch rates and initial mortality. 

It was only after we established working 

relationships with several fishers concerned 

about overfishing that we tapped into their 

“Traditional Ecological Knowledge” (Price 

and Rulifson 2004). Under their tutelage, we 

fabricated new gear and altered where and 

how we fished our experimental gill nets. Most 

importantly, we learned that commercial fishing 

activity was linked to the amount of water 

discharged from Pickwick dam. Commercial 

fishers avoid setting their nets at high flows 

(e.g., ~ 850 m 3 /sec or more) because the nets 

catch too much debris and are damaged, the 

nets do not fish properly, or for both reasons. 

By the spring of 2004 we were able to 

collect or observe enough paddlefish (n = 

1,615) to meet our primary project objectives, 

which were (1) mathematically assess 

whether the population was experiencing 

recruitment or growth overfishing, and (2) 

determine whether the new harvest regulations 

were sufficient to protect the population 

from both forms of overfishing. Our 

findings were presented in a M.S. thesis in 

August 2004 (Scholten 2004) and in a final 

report submitted to the dMA in May 2005. 

given the likelihood that our results would be 

scrutinized by a skeptical commercial fishing 

community, we delayed submitting our final 

Figure 2. Timeline of key events in the regulation of the paddlefish fishery in Kentucky lake. 

report and posting it on the Internet until our 

key findings had been subjected to the peerreview 

process. Scholten and Bettoli (2005) 

concluded (1) the population was experiencing 

growth overfishing (i.e., the average size 

of harvested fish was less than the size that 

would maximize yield-per-recruit), and (2) 

severe recruitment overfishing (i.e., the adult 

stock is overfished to the point that it does not 

have the reproductive capacity to replenish 

itself) would occur whenever weather conditions 

(i.e., dry winters) allowed heavy fishing 

activity. These findings were not unexpected 

because species that can be harvested at a 

young age, but mature at an old age (which is 

true for paddlefish), are vulnerable to overfishing 

(Myers and Mertz 1998). The final report 

and subsequent publications (Bettoli and 

Scholten 2006; Scholten and Bettoli 2007) 

noted that for every mature (i.e., egg-laden) 

female paddlefish that was harvested, about 

12 immature females and male paddlefish 

were captured by gill nets. More importantly, 

paddlefish bycatch (i.e., males and juvenile 

females; regulatory discards) suffered high 

rates of mortality at warm water temperatures 

(>_ 15 o C) at the end of the fishing season. 

Additionally, the hobbled gill nets used in this 

fishery did not exhibit size selectivity; thus, 

increasing the minimum mesh size regulation 


in 2002 to 152-mm did not reduce bycatch of 

juvenile paddlefish. 

puBLiC meetingS and the 

deCiSiOn-maKing prOCeSS 

The problem of overfishing—and how to 

fix it—was not a “messy problem” (McCool 

and guthrie 2001) because (1) there was 

general agreement in the scientific community 

about the validity of the scientific data, 

and (2) the goal for the fishery (i.e., manage 

the stock for sustained roe harvest) was 

understood by all. The problem was going 

to be convincing fishers to participate in 

solving the problem. To that end, TWRA 

administrators sought public involvement in 

the decision-making process via the consultative 

group approach described by Vroom 

and Yetton (1973), as adapted by McMullin 

(1996). Informational presentations would 

be made at open public meetings to heterogenous 

audiences and questions and comments 

would be solicited. A more structured 

advisory meeting would follow and its agenda 

would be established by comments received 

from the open public meetings. The process 

loosely resembled “Fishbowl Planning” as 

discussed by McMullin (1996) because it was 

an iterative process of seeking inputs from 

stakeholders, redefining and communicating 

management goals and objectives, then 

seeking additional inputs from the public to 

produce a management plan that would be 

widely supported. 

A schedule was drawn up for meetings at 

which the final report findings and recommendations 

would be presented to TWRA 

biologists and stakeholders (i.e., fishers, processors, 

caviar retailers, and politicians). The 

key recommendations that appeared in the 

final report to the USFWS (and TWRA) 

were to: 

1. Immediately raise the length limit from 

864 to 965-mm EFL; 

2. Ban the use of monofilament gill nets 

(because they were shown to be more 

lethal to paddlefish released as bycatch 

than multifilament nets); 

3. Establish a “no fishing” refuge in Kentucky 

Lake’s largest embayment (because it was 

habitat used by immature fish, not mature 

fish, during the fishing season); and 

4. End the season 16 days sooner in the 

spring (to avoid warm water temperatures 

and high bycatch mortality rates). 

The first official PowerPoint presentation 

of project findings and recommendations 

was given to senior TWRA administrators 

at their headquarters in April 2005; the talk 

was not open to the public. Each PowerPoint 

presentation started off with a brief discussion 

of the two biggest threats to marine fisheries 

identified by high-profile commission 

reports (Pew Oceans Commission 2003; U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy 2005); namely, 

overfishing and bycatch. Problems in marine 

fisheries management were presented to make 

the point that the issues surrounding paddlefish 

exploitation and management were not 

unique. That “director’s Meeting” talk was 

followed two weeks later by a similar presentation 

to the commissioners of the TWRC, 

which was open to the public. 

The final report of the stock assessment 

was posted on the Internet in early May 2005 

(www.tntech.edu/fish/PdF/Paddlefish.pdf) 

and a presentation was made to a meeting 

of TWRA biologists in mid-May 2005. The 

biologists were not necessarily aware of the 

findings presented in the two earlier talks; 

thus, this talk gave them the opportunity to 

comment. 

Public meetings targeting commercial fishers 

were presented in three Tennessee cities in 

late June 2005. Each meeting was hosted by 

the chief of fisheries for TWRA (WCR) and 

was attended by TWRA regional managers 

and biologists. Only seven commercial fishers, 

as well as a lawyer, stenographer, and videographer 

hired by a commercial fisherman, 

attended the first meeting in a pavilion on the 

banks of the Tennessee River in Chattanooga, 

about 400 km upstream of Kentucky Lake. 

Most of the local fishers in attendance targeted 

other commercial fish species besides 

paddlefish (e.g., Ictaluridae, Ictiobus spp.). 

After the presentation, commercial fishers 

took the opportunity to voice their anger over 

TWRA policies relating to commercial fishing 

and sport fishing. Most comments relating 

to paddlefish management revolved around 

opening up new 

waters to paddlefish 

harvest. 

The next public 

meeting was held 

the following night 

in a west Tennessee 

city (Jackson) 

that was much 

closer to Kentucky 

Lake and most 

Tennessee roe buyers. 

Approximately 30 

commercial fishers 

were in attendance, 

as well as two elected 

representatives from 

the Tennessee State House, several TWRC 

commissioners, and uniformed wildlife officers. 

The questions that followed the presentation 

left little doubt that no common understanding 

of the problem or potential solutions would 

be achieved that night. Questions covered 

a wide range of topics only distantly related 

to the issue of what steps should be taken to 

reduce overfishing and ensure the sustainability 

of the resource. Audience participation 

was largely limited to a handful of charismatic 

speakers, which is not uncommon at large public 

meetings. 

The final meeting in the series was held 

three days later in Nashville. Only four commercial 

fishers attended and the most meaningful 

dialogue between biologists and fishers 

occurred at that meeting. Two fishers noted 

that the paddlefish they exploited in the 

Mississippi River matured at a smaller size 

than those in the Tennessee River. One fisher 

pointed out that a ban on monofilament 

netting would be unnecessary if fishing was 

restricted to the coldest months, when the 

lethality of the two types of net did not differ 

(according to Bettoli and Scholten 2006). 

After three public meetings in five days, 

we learned that (1) opposition to all recommendations 

was strong and organized, (2) the 

possibility of important biological differences 

among paddlefish stocks should be considered 

when proposing new regulations, and 

(3) open public meetings are not conducive 

to problem solving. We also noted that fewer 

than 35% of the holders of free paddlefish permits 

attended any of the meetings. 

The public meetings were followed by a 

TWRC meeting in late July 2005 at which the 

third author (as chief of fisheries) responded 

to an earlier request to open up more waters to 

commercial harvest of rough fish and paddlefish; 

proposed new paddlefish regulations were 

also unveiled. At least 23 commercial fishers 

Fishers fought hard to retain the right to process or 

“block” paddlefish carcasses onboard their boats. L-r: deb 

blackwelder, george Scholten, Janice kerns. 

Photo by Phil bettoli. 


were present, as well as representatives from 

various sport fishing and conservation groups. 

One common theme among proponents of 

opening up new waters was that removing 

rough fish is good for sport fish. Opponents 

opined that (1) the interests and economic 

impact of sport anglers in those reservoirs 

dwarfed the benefits that might be accrued by 

a handful of commercial fishers, and (2) those 

waters were too crowded with recreational 

boaters to permit widespread deployment of 

gill nets. The commissioners subsequently 

opted to keep the commercial fishing ban in 

effect in the upper Tennessee River and not 

open additional waters. 

Following the July 2005 TWRC meeting, 

all (n = 112) fishers holding a free paddlefish 

permit were invited to attend a facilitated 

meeting in Nashville in August 2005. (Note: 

Beginning in March 2006, paddlefish and 

sturgeon permits previously issued by TWRA 

at no charge were replaced with a roe fish permit 

costing US$1,000 and the fee for a commercial 

fishing license was increased from 

US$125 to US$200; fishers were required to 

purchase a roe fish permit and commercial 

fishing license if they wanted to harvest paddlefish 

or shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus 

platyrhynchus.). Forty-two fishers attended 

and they were instructed (in their invitation 

letters) to choose seven of their peers to represent 

their views. The purpose of the meeting 

was to obtain the opinions of fishers on the 

proposed regulation changes (Table 1), but 

in a more structured environment than the 

open public meetings. The panel was seated 

and the facilitator (the personnel director of 

the TWRA) explained the rules of the meeting. 

Fishers not on the panel would not be 

allowed to speak until the panel addressed 

each regulation. 

despite the best efforts of the facilitator, 

panelists did not limit their comments to each 

regulation as each was considered. When the 

“no fishing refuge” recommendation was presented 

for discussion, few comments were 

directed at the idea of a refuge itself. Most 

fishers eventually agreed that it would not 

be a burden. After about an hour, the panel 

agreed to consider the next regulation. 

Limited entry was not recommended in 

the final report but the TWRA included that 

option in their list of recommendations. That 

is, TWRA would be willing to limit the number 

of new roe fish permit holders to some percentage 

above the number that purchased this 

new permit before the end of the 2005–2006 

fishing season. The panel was unanimously in 

favor of limited entry, which clearly benefited 

them and their colleagues. 

The discussion on shortening the season 

was brief. TWRA staff indicated at the July 

2005 TWRC meeting that they wanted to 

close the season on 31 March. The final report 

recommended moving the end of the season 

from 23 April to 7 April. A comment to “split 

the difference” between 7 April and 23 April 

(i.e., April 15) was met with approval by the 

full panel of seven commercial fishers. The 

brevity of their comments was surprising, considering 

how important season length was to 

their ability to make a living. 

The ban on monofilament netting met 

with opposition from some fishers, particularly 

those fishing the Mississippi River. Many 

fishers prefer monofilament netting because it 

snags less debris (e.g., filamentous algae and 

other detritus) and shakes clean easier than 

multifilament netting. 

The subsequent recommendation that 

fishers be prohibited from “blocking” paddlefish 

onboard their boats met with strong 

opposition. Removing the head, tail, and fins 

was commonplace, but this made the use of 

a minimum length limit (the next item up 

on the agenda) problematic. In the past, a 

fisher could keep an intact paddlefish longer 

than the minimum EFL limit, or a blocked 

carcass longer than a length calculated by 

TWRA officials to represent the minimum 

EFL length limit. For instance, when the 

minimum length limit was 864-mm (34”) 

EFL, the blocked carcass had to be at least 

635-mm (25”) long. Allowing fishers to use 

either approach had long troubled TWRA 

enforcement officers because of the potential 

of fish being blocked in such a way as to make 

an illegal fish legal. 

The discussion concerning blocking fish 

was followed by strong opposition to increasing 

the length limit from 864-mm EFL to 

965-mm EFL over four years, with the option 

of going to a 1,016-mm EFL limit if the population 

did not show signs of recovering from 

overfishing. The panel generally agreed that 

a 914-mm length limit could be tolerated, but 

a 965-mm length limit would hurt business 

too much; raising the minimum size to over 

1,000-mm EFL was totally unacceptable. The 

floor was subsequently open to comments 

from all fishers in attendance. Most comments 

revisited topics that had earlier been 

taken off the table (e.g., opening new waters 

to commercial paddlefish harvest; stocking 

fingerlings to mitigate for overfishing). 

A regularly scheduled TWRC meeting 

in Knoxville in September 2005 followed 

the August 2005 “invitation only” facilitated 

meeting. This was the “Proclamation 

Meeting” at which new paddlefish regulations 

would be voted on by the commission. 

As chief of fisheries, the third author listed 

each proposed regulation change that the 

TWRA fisheries staff had crafted after considering 

three months of public meetings and 

comments; the audience was then allowed to 

speak to each proposed change. The TWRC 

received few complaints from the audience 

when they voted to establish the proposed 

refuge. In fact, when one commissioner 

questioned whether a refuge was necessary, a 

commercial fisher spoke up and defended the 

concept of a refuge. 

The stepwise increase in the length limit 

(immediately raise the length limit from 864 

to 914-mm EFL, then raise it to 965-mm EFL 

over a three-year period) was not debated 

on its merits by four fishers who opposed 

that change. For instance, the oft-repeated 

claim came up again that the researchers did 

not know what they were doing until they 

(the commercial fishers) helped them (the 

researchers) catch fish. The TWRC was not 

swayed by those arguments against the mini- 

table 1. potential regulations presented for discussion by a Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency facilitator to a panel of seven representatives of the commercial 

paddlefish fishing industry at a facilitated meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, August 2005. Another 35 fishers were in attendance. 

regulation rationale/justification 

establish a no-fishing refuge Reduce bycatch rates and mortality by reducing encounters between juvenile paddlefish and gillnets. 

limited entry prevent the number of fishers targeting paddlefish from increasing with ever-increasing roe prices. 

Shorten Season Reduce harvest and prevent fishing when high water temperatures will cause high bycatch mortality. 

Ban monofilament nets Reduce bycatch mortality. 

prohibit the blocking 1 of carcasses onboard Improve the ability to enforce minimum length regulations. 

Increase the minimum length limit Reduce growth overfishing and eliminate concerns over recruitment overfishing. 

1 Removing the head, tail, fins, and viscera to facilitate storage and chilling of the carcass. 


mum length limit increases and that regulation 

change was subsequently enacted. 

The proposal to shorten the season and 

end it on 31 March was met with comments 

from fishers that the commission should not 

confuse academic research with reality and 

that shortening the season and raising the 

length limit at the same time would hurt their 

businesses too much. The TWRC agreed 

with the latter assertion and amended the 

proclamation to end the season on 15 April. 

TWRA staff biologists were confident that 

the TWRC would approve the 31 March 

closure; thus, they did not propose a monofilament 

ban. Upon learning that the season 

would end two weeks later than proposed, 

an attempt was made to convince the commissioners 

that a later closure date should be 

accompanied by a monofilament ban, but 

that request was denied. 

The regulation to ban blocking of carcasses 

was opposed, as expected, by the fishing 

industry and several fishers spoke forcefully to 

the issue. Several TWRA staff countered that 

sport anglers are not allowed to process their 

catch onboard and commercial fishers should 

not be treated any differently. The TWRC 

was unconvinced by that argument and voted 

to allow fishers to block their catch. The final 

recommendation (limited entry) met with 

no opposition and the TWRC voted to limit 

the number of roe fish permits that would be 

issued during future seasons to 115% of permit 

sales during the 2005–2006 license year. 

In summary, the TWRC enacted two regulations 

(establish a refuge and limit the number 

of roe fish permits) that would help keep 

fishing pressure from rising higher than the 

Kentucky Lake stock was currently experiencing. 

However, those two regulations would do 

little to reverse the trend of declining size- and 

age-structure of the population. The new minimum 

length limit regulation that passed was 

intended to increase the average age and size 

of fish in the population, and reduce the likelihood 

of growth and recruitment overfishing. 

The higher minimum length limits also satisfied 

the desire to allow at least some female 

paddlefish to spawn at least once before they 

were vulnerable to harvest, a common theme 

in marine fisheries management plans (Myers 

and Mertz 1998). However, the efficacy of the 

higher minimum length limit regulation was 

in question because (1) already high bycatch 

rates would climb under the higher length 

limit, and (2) shortening the season by only 

eight days (and not banning monofilament 

netting) might not reduce bycatch mortality 

to acceptably low rates. 

With these new regulations in place (refuge 

area, cap on permits, higher minimum 

length limit, slightly shorter season), the 

2005–2006 commercial season commenced. 

When fishery harvest data were tallied after 

the season ended in April 2006, it was clear 

that the 2005–2006 season was exceptional. 

Rainfall and river flows were modest, fishers 

had ample opportunity to deploy their 

gear, and the reported statewide harvest of 

egg-bearing paddlefish (n = 7,277 fish) and 

the egg harvest (12,827 kg) were the highest 

ever recorded by TWRA. Coupled with 

an increase in prices that fishers were getting 

for paddlefish eggs (approaching US$200/ 

kg), such high harvests prompted TWRA to 

redouble their efforts to shorten the season to 

their original target of 31 March. 

Another facilitated meeting was held in 

June 2006 to present the previous season’s 

harvest data and discuss possible regulation 

changes; in particular, shortening the season 

from 15 April to 31 March. As before, the 

fishing industry chose seven representatives 

to represent its interests. Fishers were adamant 

in not wanting to shorten the season 

any further for the same reasons voiced at earlier 

meetings. The fishers themselves put forth 

several proposals, most notably to cease fishing 

when a certain temperature was reached 

and to ban the use of monofilament netting 

after 31 March. These two recommendations 

were an acknowledgment by fishers that 

bycatch mortality is problematic when waters 

are warm and that monofilament netting is 

more injurious than multifilament netting. 

These recommendations were proposed to 

Large, mature female paddlefish, like this 

one being held by Janice kerns, represent a 

small percentage of all paddlefish caught in 

commercial gillnets. Photo by Phil bettoli. 

forestall what the fishers probably suspected 

was inevitable: shortening the season yet 

again to further reduce harvest. 

The TWRA representatives responded 

by stating (1) closing the season when a certain 

temperature is reached might have some 

merit, and (2) the possibility of a monofilament 

ban was taken off the table last year and 

should not be brought up again at this time. 

When asked to rank the various management 

options discussed at this meeting, the 

fishers ranked “No change” (which was not 

an option) as number 1, followed by ending 

the season when a specific temperature was 

reached, and closing the fishery each year on 7 

April (8 days sooner). After a heated debate, a 

consensus was reached among the fishers that 

closing the season on 7 April was acceptable. 

That consensus was reached after one fisher 

noted that the TWRC would view them very 

unfavorably if they failed to act responsibly 

and agree to do something to reduce what 

many agreed (either privately or publicly) was 

an unsustainable harvest. 

At the regularly scheduled TWRC 

monthly meeting in September 2006, the 

commissioners saw one more PowerPoint 

presentation. The high harvest numbers from 

the previous season were discussed and it was 

recommended (again) that the paddlefish 

season should end on 31 March each year. 

It was also proposed that the number of roe 

fish permits should be limited to 80 each year 

(this was 115% of 2005–2006 permit sales). 

The 16+ commercial fishers in the audience 

argued many points, in particular that they 

had already given up enough and that they 


couldn’t and shouldn’t be asked to give up 

any more. The full commission subsequently 

compromised and proclaimed that the season 

would end on 7 April each year, one 

week later than TWRA biologists proposed, 

but eight days sooner than the fishers might 

have hoped. Additionally, everyone agreed 

that no new paddlefish regulations would be 

proposed (except for the Mississippi River 

paddlefish fishery where possible regulation 

changes were still being discussed with border 

states) until after the 2009–2010 fishing 

season and the effects of the new regulations 

were evaluated. 

LeSSOnS Learned 

Initial discouragement following several 

of the open public meetings turned out to 

be unjustified. Although two of three public 

meetings were unproductive in terms of 

having a meaningful dialogue, they allowed 

us to gather the information needed to subsequently 

host more productive, facilitated 

meetings. Secondly, we suspect that forgoing 

the open public meetings and moving right 

to a facilitated meeting would have been a 

mistake: many fishers were angry that their 

industry was being closely scrutinized and they 

wanted to make their feelings publicly known. 

Thus, the open meetings were a perfect forum 

for publicly voicing opposition to the government 

(in general) and fisheries scientists 

(in particular). Of course, managers should 

not think that simply hosting a few boisterous 

public meetings and letting stakeholders 

vent their anger or frustration will make a 

“messy problem” go away. The TWRA made 

that mistake in the 1990s when a controversy 

erupted over management of a trophy 

striped bass (Morone saxatilis) fishery, which 

pitted anglers targeting that transplanted species 

against anglers pursuing native species 

such as walleyes (Sander vitreus) and crappies 

(Pomoxis spp.; Churchill et al. 2002). 

The fact that commercial paddlefish fishers 

and industry representatives were given 

multiple opportunities in different settings to 

participate in the regulatory process (Table 

2) was clearly not lost on members of the 

TWRC. Although not all of the regulations 

proposed by the TWRA staff were adopted, 

the TWRC’s actions at the September 2005 

meeting collectively represented the largest 

steps ever taken by the TWRC to conserve 

the resource. Additional proposals to further 

restrict fishing were also entertained (and 

compromise versions were enacted) by the 

TWRC at their September 2006 meeting. 

Although the regulations currently in effect 

will probably not help rebuild the stock of 

paddlefish in the lower Tennessee River, 

the TWRC noted that stronger measures 

to rebuild the stock would be considered if 

future sampling indicates such measures are 

necessary. 

How did the USFWS and its dMA staff 

react to what was (or was not) accomplished 

to protect paddlefish in the lower Tennessee 

River? The dMA was kept apprised during 

the regulatory process and indicated that (1) 

the regulations passed in September of 2005 

and 2006 were positive first steps towards conserving 

the resource, and (2) export permits 

would be provided to purveyors of Tennessee 

paddlefish caviar (M. Maltese, dMA, pers. 

comm.). The dMA also indicated that future 

requests for export permits would not be automatically 

granted. 

The 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 commercial 

paddlefish seasons in Tennessee proceeded 

against the backdrop of a recent ban on the 

importation into the United States of caviar 

from beluga sturgeon (Huso huso), followed 

by a CITES ban (albeit temporary) on the 

exportation of other sturgeon products (e.g., 

sevruga caviar from Acipenser stellatus) from 

Caspian Sea states. Perhaps not coincidentally, 

the wholesale prices for paddlefish roe in 

Tennessee jumped from around US$110/kg 

in 2004–2005 to US$143-187/kg during the 

2005–2006 season; in some locales during 

the 2006–2007 season, fishers were receiving 

more than US$200/kg for paddlefish roe 

taken from Tennessee waters. In other words, 

negotiations to more tightly regulate paddlefish 

harvest in Tennessee occurred at a time 

when a single large female carrying 3.5 kg of 

roe was worth more than US$650 wholesale 

(and twice that or more at retail prices). The 

new Tennessee regulations, coupled with rising 

prices for paddlefish roe, may be contributing 

to increased commercial fishing activity 

on the Ohio River, particularly by Tennessee 

residents (d. Henley, Kentucky department 

of Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm.). These 

observations serve as justification for biologists 

throughout the Mississippi River basin 

to continue to work together to monitor their 

respective paddlefish fisheries, and for the 

dMA to continue to scrutinize requests for 

export permits for paddlefish roe, especially if 

unambiguous signs of overfishing exist. 

In conclusion, our approach to assessing 

the likelihood of overfishing, communicating 

research findings, and moving paddlefish 

management and conservation in Tennessee 

into the twenty-first century yielded positive 

results. Our approach could be summarized 

as (1) conduct a fishery independent stock 

assessment that can withstand peer-scrutiny, 

(2) interact with fishers and provide them 

with opportunities to participate in data collections, 

(3) carefully schedule how, when, 

and where research findings and management 

recommendations will be presented to 

the industry and decision makers, (4) provide 

ample and varied opportunities for fishers to 

learn about the research and participate in 

crafting new regulations, and (5) take what- 

table 2. list of presentations and meetings during the regulatory process with commercial paddlefish fishers, the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency (TWRA) staff, and 

the Tennessee Wildlife Resource commission (TWRc). A powerpoint presentation was made at every meeting except the August 2005 facilitated meeting. 

date Audience and type of meeting objective or Action 

April 2005 TWRA administrators and senior staff presented final report findings and recommendations. 

April 2005 TWRc monthly meeting presented final report findings and recommendations to commissioners and the public. 

June 2005 open public meeting presented final report findings and recommendations to commercial fishers in and around chattanooga, 

Tennessee; solicited comments. 

June 2005 open public meeting presented final report findings and recommendations to commercial fishers in and around Jackson, Tennessee; 

solicited comments. 

une 2005 open public meeting presented final report findings and recommendations to commercial fishers in and around Nashville, 

Tennessee; solicited comments. 

July 2005 TWRc monthly meeting Argued against opening up new waters to paddlefish harvest; unveiled proposed new regulations. 

August 2005 Facilitated meeting proposed new harvest regulations to commercial fishers and solicited their comments; sought consensus. 

September 2005 TWRc monthly meeting commissioners voted on proposed new regulations. 

June 2006 Facilitated meeting Reviewed past season’s harvest data and sought consensus on management actions that should be proposed 

to further restrict harvest. 

September 2006 TWRc Monthly meeting commissioners voted on proposed new regulations 


ever time is necessary to educate commercial fishers and decision makers 

on the issues. 

aCKnOWLedgementS 

Paddlefish stock assessment activities were supported primarily 

with funds provided by the U.S. geological Survey, per the request of 

Marie Maltese, division of Management Authority at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, the 

Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, and the Center for the 

Management, Utilization, and Protection of Water Resources on the 

campus of Tennessee Technological University provided additional 

funding and logistical support. 

reFerenCeS 

Bettoli, p.W., and g.d. Scholten. 2006. Bycatch rates and initial 

mortality of paddlefish in a commercial gillnet fishery. Fisheries 

Research 77:343-347. 

Churchill, t.n., p.W. Bettoli, d.C. peterson, W.C. reeves, and B. 

hodges. 2002. Angler conflicts in fisheries management: a case 

study of the striped bass controversy at Norris Reservoir, Tennessee. 

Fisheries 27(2):10-19. 

division of management authority. 2006. U.S. trade in sturgeon 

and paddlefish 2001-2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report. 

department of Interior, Washington, dC. 

hoffnagle, t. L., and t. J. timmons. 1989. Age, growth, and catch 

analysis of the commercially exploited paddlefish population in 

Kentucky Lake, Kentucky-Tennessee. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 9:316-326. 

mcCool, S. F., and K. guthrie. 2001. Mapping the dimensions of successful 

public participation in messy natural resources management 

situations. Society and Natural Resources 14:309-323. 

mcmullin, S. L. 1996. Natural resource management and leadership 

in public arena decision making: a prescriptive framework. Pages 

54-63 in L.E. Miranda and d.R. devries, eds. Multidimensional 

approaches to reservoir fisheries management. American Fisheries 

Society Symposium 16. 

myers, r. a., and g. mertz. 1998. The limits of exploitation: a precautionary 

approach. Ecological Applications 8(Supplement): 

S165-S169. 

pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s living oceans: charting a 

course for sea change. A report to the nation and recommendations 

for a new ocean policy. Pew Oceans Commission, Washington, 

dC. 

price, a. B., and r. a. rulifson. 2004. Use of traditional ecological 

knowledge to reduce striped bass bycatch in the Currituck Sound 

white perch gill-net fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 24:785-792. 

Scholten, g. d. 2004. Population characteristics of an exploited 

paddlefish population in the lower Tennessee River. M.S. thesis, 

Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville. 

Scholten, g. d., and p. W. Bettoli. 2005. Population characteristics 

and assessment of overfishing for an exploited paddlefish population 

in the lower Tennessee River. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 134:1285-1298. 

_____. 2007. Lack of size selectivity for paddlefish captured in hobbled 

gillnets. Fisheries Research 83:355-359. 

timmons, t. J., and t. a. hughbanks. 2000. Exploitation and mortality 

of paddlefish in the lower Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:1171-1180. 

u.S.CommissiononOceanpolicy.2005. An ocean blueprint for the 21st century: 

final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, dC. 

Vroom, V.h., and p.W. Yetton. 1973. Leadership and decision-making. 

University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

iButton ® 

Temperature Data Logger 

iBCod 

Starts at 19 USD* 

Submerged 

buoy 

iBTag 

(the iBCod size is the 

best choice for this 

application) 

Ty-rap used to fix 

the iBTag to rope 

Polypropylene 

rope with protection 

against chafing 


 

 

 

 

 

iBTag 

Miniature 

Very low cost 

Fish tags 

Water temperature monitoring 

Proven, see http://www.ibtag.com/articles 

for studies completed with iBTags 

44 mm 

Submersible, for water column 

temperature monitoring & adult fish tags. 

Starts at 41 USD * 

iBKrill 

24.5 mm 

Submersible, for fish tags. Can be used 

internally as gastric or abdominal 

implants or externally for small fish. 

Starts at 87 USD * 

iButton 

Smallest and lowest cost logger, used 

extensively for temperature traceability in 

industrial applications. Not submersible. 

Starts at 19 USD each*. Low cost set-up 

hardware and free software from our 

Internet site. 

Mont-St-Hilaire, Qc., Canada, 

Tel: 450-446-3153, www.ibtag.com 

* For a quantity of 100 units and more 

iButton® is a registered trademark of Dallas Semiconductor / Maxim. 

Anchor

COLUMN: 

guESt DIREctoR’S lInE 

As part of our continuous efforts 

at enhancing our suite of online 

products and services and as a way 

of investing in the future of the 

Society, we have made the following 

additions to the Fisheries InfoBase: 

• Scanned and digitized 

scientific articles from 

2003–2006 issues of 

Fisheries magazine, and 

incorporated them into 

the Fisheries infobase. 

• Scanned and digitized 

1935–1983 issues (over 

10,000 pages) of The 

Progressive Fish-Culturist, 

and incorporated them into 

the Fisheries infobase. 

These changes make the Fisheries 

InfoBase online the most complete 

scientific information source 

available, covering a period of 

new Features for AFS Publications 

time, 1872–present, and tracking 

the major advances in fisheries and 

aquaculture science. Available free 

of charge to all student members 

of AFS, Fisheries InfoBase is also 

available at a modest cost to 

members as an annual subscription. 

In the meanwhile, we also have 

added the following features to 

our suite of online journals: 

• Article reference creation— 

creates the correct form of 

the reference and downloads 

it in your choice of four 

software formats. 

• Article e-mailing—enables 

quick e-mailing of the article 

link to a colleague. 

• google Scholar search—search 

for other scholarly articles 

written by the authors. 

Aaron lerner 

AFS publications 

director lerner can 

be contacted at 

alerner@fisheries.org. 

In these, as in other recent 

developments at AFS, we continue 

to respond to demands from 

our membership. our goal is for 

AFS’s products and services to 

contribute to the efficiency and 

productivity of scientific research. 


OPINION: 

FARm BIll 

Farm Bill 2007: 

Placing Fisheries upstream of 

conservation Provisions 

overview 

Although policy issues likely cause most 

fisheries professionals to feel sleepy and 

move on to more enticing reading material, 

we hope that our colleagues will take the 

time to explore the implications of upcoming 

reauthorization of the u.S. Farm Bill. 

The name of the bill may imply corn and 

cattle; however, it is potentially the most 

influential aquatic conservation legislation to 

be considered by the u.S. federal government 

and requires the focused attention of 

all fisheries and aquaculture professionals, 

especially those within the united States. 

Below, we describe the history and inner 

workings of this legislation and provide a 

list of issues to be addressed in the 2007 

version of the Farm Bill. By understanding 

this bill, contributing to its genesis, and 

fully participating in its implementation as 

fisheries scientists, we have the opportunity 

to benefit fisheries resources immensely 

and create an important precedent for a 

future technical presence in the process. 

iNtrodUCtioN 

The 2002 Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act (i.e., the Farm Bill) is slated 

for reauthorization in 2007. This legislation 

is vast and complex; the amount of 

fiscal resources appropriated (> $1 billion 

annually) by the u.S. congress to conservation 

(i.e., promoting the sustainable 

use of natural resources) within this bill is 

considerable and equivalent to or greater 

than the conservation budgets within other 

resource-oriented agencies (e.g., u.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service). A Farm Bill has existed 

in some form since the dust Bowl era when 

it provided funding for soil conservation 

and implementation of improved farming 

techniques. In the mid-1980s, Farm Bill provisions 

dramatically expanded in scope by 

increasing the reach of agriculture-related 

conservation programs. The 2002 Farm Bill 

was even more comprehensive, expanding 

incentives for practicing sound conservation 

and setting aside land in protected reserves. 

Mention of aquatic conservation, particularly 

as it relates to fisheries, is scarce in 

the 2002 Farm Bill language. The linkages 

among sound agricultural and forestry 

practices, water quality, and aquatic habitat 

integrity are implied rather than explicitly 

stated. In recent years, the importance of 

land use to aquatic ecosystems, resident 

fishes, and other aquatic organisms has 

become exceedingly clear (e.g., Naiman 

and Turner 2000; Vanni et al. 2005; Hughes 

et al. 2006). unlike identifying the effects 

of point-source pollutants, which can be 

directly quantified as water leaves the 

pipes, non-point sources such as those 

typically associated with farming, ranching, 

and forestry are often difficult to precisely 

quantify and relate to aquatic resources. 

However, improved geographic-based tools 

for assessing land use and other technological 

advances such as intensified computer 

modeling power have greatly improved our 

ability to link land use patterns to aquatic 

ecosystems and fisheries at local, regional, 

national, and even global scales. Given 

recent Internet access to free and easy-touse 

geographic-information programs, it 

has become very easy for professionals and 

laypeople alike to envision the complex and 

far-reaching relationships between land and 

water: a lake, stream, or ocean is always 

downhill. For example, seasonal hypoxia in 

the Gulf of Mexico is now believed to be 

a consequence of the widespread use of 

nitrogen-based fertilizers in the Mississippi 

River basin (Scott et al. 2007). loss of fishery 

production due to this phenomenon as well 

as impacts of agriculture-related activities 

on other aquatic systems is a major concern 

of fisheries professionals. Riparian disturbance, 

and excess nutrients and sediments 

are the major stressors of 25-30% of u.S. 

streams, with those percentages increasing 

in agricultural regions (Stoddard et al. 2005; 

uSepA 2006). The conservation programs 

outlined within the next Farm Bill should 

provide opportunities by which fisheries 

biologists and aquatic scientists can begin 

to tackle global and local problems such as 

stream channelization, headwater loss, and, 

more generally, aquatic habitat degradation. 

There are indeed opportunities for 

fisheries professionals to influence the 

direction of Farm Bill programs ,as outlined 

2007 Farm Bill Advisory 

committee of the American 

Fisheries Society 

The committee is chaired by James 

e. Garvey, Fisheries and Illinois 

Aquaculture center, Southern Illinois 

university, carbondale. Garvey can 

be contacted at jgarvey@siu.edu. 

previously by many authors (pajak et al. 

1994; pajak 2000; Thomas et al. 2001). To 

do so in the next bill, we should explicitly 

outline relationships between land use 

(both agricultural and urban) and fisheries. 

The Farm Bill is an extremely long and 

complicated piece of legislation. In this 

white paper, we will not review the bill 

in its entirety. Throughout the bill, provisions 

exist that affect fisheries, such as 

funding for land-grant universities where 

many fisheries programs reside. We limit 

our effort to reviewing some of the most 

germane programs in the previous Farm 

Bill that have had direct implications for 

fish conservation and fisheries resources. 

We then discuss the pros and cons of the 

recent u.S. department of Agriculture 

(uSdA) proposal for the 2007 Farm Bill as it 

pertains to fisheries and aquatic ecosystem 

condition . We close with some recommendations 

for the upcoming legislation and 

the participation of the fisheries profession 

in future Farm Bill-related programs. 

2002 FArm biLL: A SHort Primer 

The 2002 Farm Bill is divided into major 

subsections, with the one called “Title II: 

conservation and enhancement” being 

most germane to fisheries. This section 

contains most of the major provisions for 

conservation, including many well-known 

programs such as the Wetlands Reserve 

program (WRp) and conservation Reserve 

program (cRp). However, other programs 

not included in Title II can have indirect 

socioeconomic effects on fisheries. To 

illustrate, fluctuations in the environment 

and markets translate to variable economic 

returns in agriculture; government support 

is occasionally required to maintain farming 

as a viable economic option. Thus, Farm Bill 

programs can affect the balance between 

farming and other forms of land use (e.g., 

urbanization) within many regions, influencing 

aquatic condition, human perceptions 

of natural resources, and behavior of the 

fishing public. Fisheries science cannot 

afford to ignore the indirect effects of these 

programs on human use of the environment, 

aquatic resources, and fisheries. 


The complex tangle of Title II programs 

within the expiring Farm Bill are administered 

by the uSdA Natural Resources 

conservation Service (NRcS). Most of these 

programs are either (1) oriented toward 

conservation of marginal agricultural lands 

by taking them out of production and 

compensating land owners for the loss 

or (2) rewarding land owners that have 

adopted best-management practices 

(BMps) associated with farming, ranching, 

and forestry. The NRcS, in concert 

with the cooperative State Research 

education and extension Service (cSReeS), 

also provides extension services to local 

land owners to bring their properties into 

compliance with the most recent suite of 

BMps or to develop new, innovative BMps. 

The conservation programs within the 

2002 Farm Bill are broad and many are 

difficult to tease apart. The environmental 

Quality Incentives program (eQIp) is among 

one of the most important to the use of 

private lands and its ultimate impact on 

watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. This is 

a cost-sharing mechanism by which farmers 

and ranchers are rewarded for adopting 

BMps on their properties. The program is 

voluntary and involves land owners submitting 

proposals and then NRcS selecting proposals 

through a complex, tiered process. 

Based on our non-scientific census of eQIps 

throughout the united States and a review 

by Berkland and Rewa (2005), it appears 

the program is largely assessed though its 

apparent benefits to wildlife rather than 

fish, although fish are presumed to be 

a beneficiary (Gray and Teels 2006). The 

uSdA has wide latitude in choosing how 

to allocate eQIp support, allowing NRcS 

to focus on watersheds in greatest need. 

The conservation Security program (cSp) 

is similar in spirit, providing fiscal incentive 

to farmers and ranchers for adhering to 

sound soil conservation practices, but it is 

more equitably distributed nationwide. 

In contrast to eQIp and cSp, cRp and 

WRp provide opportunities for land to 

be turned over to other parties (typically 

a state or federal agency) for management 

and restoration. There is a cap on 

annual enrollment, and the easements 

are leased in a variety of ways. use of 

land in cRp or WRp is restricted; putting 

protected land back into production 

incurs penalties often called “sod buster” 

for cRp and “swamp buster” for WRp. 

Although our summary appears 

straightforward, this is a simplification and 

represents a mere tip of the iceberg, with 

many other programs and subprograms 

containing their own galaxy of associated 

acronyms, guidelines, and restrictions. 

The programs within Title II need 

to be streamlined and refined to better 

distribute incentives to the land in greatest 

need of watershed conservation. The 

watershed (i.e., a drainage basin) should 

be the basic conservation unit from our 

fisheries perspective because a stream, lake, 

or estuary will always be downstream of 

some agricultural practice. However, the 

approach needs to extend beyond water 

flowing off or percolating through the 

landscape. We review how the proposed 

2007 legislation builds upon the 2002 Farm 

Bill and discuss the potential for its many 

programs to provide tangible benefits to 

u.S. fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. 

ProPoSed 2007 FArm biLL 

In preparation for the upcoming legislation, 

the u.S. Secretary of Agriculture 

solicited comments in 52 forums conducted 

across the nation. Given the resources 

available through this legislation, interest 

among individuals and organizations within 

the farming and ranching communities was 

keen. In response to these comments, the 

uSdA proposed 2007 Farm Bill conservation 

provisions that, in its view, are more 

streamlined, less redundant, and ultimately 

cheaper than the previous legislation. 

In the 2007 proposal, the flexible eQIp is 

given more weight and scope, encompassing 

other cost-sharing incentives programs 

under a single programmatic awning. 

This program would be focused on critical 

agricultural landscapes within important 

watersheds. Most notably to fisheries and 

aquatic conservation, the proposal outlines 

a Regional Watershed enhancement 

program, which would invest $175 million 

annually to conduct environmentallyfriendly 

agriculture, affecting systems in 

need of enhancement or protection (e.g., 

the Mississippi River delta system, the 

chesapeake Bay system). The program also 

would house a conservation Innovation 

Grants program that provides up to $100 

million annually to develop market-based 

models of sustainable watersheds deemed 

critical by uSdA. Guidelines provided by 

NRcS would be simpler than in the past 

and more accessible and transparent to 

the producers. Given the proposed 10-year 

horizon of this 2007 Farm Bill, the proposed 

eQIp could inject well over $2 billion into 

innovative programs to improve water 

quality within key watersheds throughout 

the united States. However, this is a federal 

cost-sharing program, requiring that considerable 

non-federal funds be generated to 

match the authorized budget. Thus, we recommend 

that the required match be minimized 

or be allowed as in-kind to make this 

program widely available to cash-strapped 

agencies, non-government organizations 

(NGos), and private citizens. Affected 

watersheds typically extend beyond local 

and state-government borders; thus, by 

the interstate nature of the problem, the 

lion’s share of the responsibility is federal, 

although the problems do begin at the 

local scale and need to be administered by 

local NRcS offices with stakeholder input. 

The proposed cSp continues to uphold 

the spirit of private stewardship of working 

land by enrolling up to 96.5 million 

acres and investing $8.5 billion across 10 

years. eligibility would depend on a ranking 

process based on the adoption of BMps on 

the land. Although this program has been 

criticized in the past for rewarding individuals 

for following the rules, the lucrative 

nature of this program does create a strong 

incentive among agricultural producers 

to compete successfully for federal support 

by practicing sound conservation. 

Three easement programs are proposed 

in the 2007 conservation title. (1) A private 

lands protection program would invest 

$190 million annually toward keeping 

agricultural land from being developed 

and maintaining it in a natural state. The 

owner would be able to actively manage 

the site for conservation. Given that urban 

and suburban development and sprawl 

negatively affect aquatic ecosystems in 

many ways (e.g., modified hydrographs, 

polluted run-off, fragmentation; see Roy 

et al. 2005), providing strong incentives for 

private citizens to maintain land in a more 

natural state rather than paving it over 

irrevocably for urban use is a good idea. 

(2) The cRp would continue to strive to 

maintain protected lands; it would allow 

for harvest of biomass production related 

to cellulosic (e.g., forest products, corn, 

switch grass, sugar cane) energy production 

during non-sensitive periods (e.g., 

when birds are not breeding) of the year. 

(3) The WRp would only be supported for 

an additional 5 years before reassessment; 

the enrollment target would remain at 

250,000 acres per year. obviously, with 

these collective easement programs, uSdA 

is proposing to provide land-owners more 

flexibility in their use, rather than investing a 

greater proportion of land toward complete 



protection. The key appears to center on 

providing incentives for keeping private 

land from falling to the fiscally lucrative lure 

of urbanization while still allowing natural 

resources managers the ability to directly 

access and protect critical areas for wildlife 

and fish. In terms of benefiting fish and 

wildlife, we are unsure whether the uSdA’s 

proposed balance between private and 

non-private stewardship is allocated in the 

correct proportions. Most likely, the relative 

value of private versus third-party ownership 

programs will depend on the various 

socioeconomic forces affecting land owners 

within their region. For example, the local 

NRcS should be allowed the flexibility of 

asking questions such as: “What is the 

risk that a fast food restaurant or housing 

development will be built on the local 

pasture or across a headwater stream?” 

and “What is the proximity of this land to 

critical habitat or a sensitive watershed?” 

SUmmAry ANd reCommeNdAtioNS 

like its relatively successful predecessor, 

the proposed 2007 Farm Bill is incentivebased 

and voluntary rather than imposing 

strict regulations and restrictions on land 

use. Given the economic importance of 

agriculture in the united States plus its 

strong political ties (i.e., well-organized 

lobbying groups), this legislation will be 

the source of much debate within the 

federal government and will likely continue 

to be sweeping in scope and budget. 

pressures on agriculture and its impact 

on aquatic resources are sure to rise during 

the life of this next bill. World population 

and thus demand for u.S. food, fiber, and 

energy products will increase, particularly 

if climate change leads to food shortages 

via agricultural failure in many parts 

of the world (including regions within 

the united States). As the conversion of 

plants to biofuels becomes economically 

feasible, market forces will likely encourage 

green biomass production for conversion 

to ethanol or biodiesel. For example, 

corn production in Illinois in 2007 is set to 

be near or perhaps exceed historic highs, 

given contemporary demand for ethanol 

(Illinois corn Growers Association 2007). 

even given huge increases in conservation 

provisions to combat potentially negative 

conservation effects on aquatic resources, 

the proposed programmatic funds will 

simply be guidelines; the appropriations 

will likely be smaller, depending on federal 

priorities during any given year. For that 

reason, we recommend the following: 

• Fish must have co-equal status with 

other wildlife throughout the language 

of the next version of the bill. 

• conservation provisions within the 

next Farm Bill need to incorporate a 

landscape-based, watershed-scale 

perspective (uSepA 2005) while still 

providing the NRcS and other relevant 

agencies with the tools necessary 

to help landowners conserve our 

limited soil and water resources. 

• The general consensus is that the 2002 

Farm Bill was cumbersome and inefficient. 

The accessibility and implementation 

of conservation programs need to be 

streamlined in the next bill, as the uSdA 

proposal attempts to do. Redundancy 

among programs should be eliminated. 

• Although the 2002 Farm Bill implied 

that good land use translates to healthy 

watersheds, the 2007 uSdA proposal 

explicitly recognizes the issue through 

development of special watershed 

programs within eQIp. We endorse this 

approach and encourage its expansion. 

like any human activity, agriculture and 

forestry always have a downstream 

impact on aquatic systems and need to 

be continually managed in this context. 

• cost sharing is an attempt to form 

good-faith partnerships between the 

federal government and other entities. 

It also can limit participation of worthy 

stakeholders in programs. For programs 

with a clear interstate reach, cost sharing 

should be reduced, eliminated, or 

allowed to be matched through in-kind 

mechanisms. Innovative mechanisms 

for cost-sharing (e.g., by using land 

value as match) need to be explored. 

• Wetland protection and restoration 

are critical for maintaining aquatic 

integrity and fisheries resources. Target 

acreage to be placed in WRp should 

be substantially increased relative 

to the current uSdA proposal. 

• Agricultural practices affect aquatic and 

fisheries resources through pathways 

other than increased sedimentation 

and reduced water quality. Intensive 

agriculture requires water, which is 

diverted from waterways, held in 

reservoirs, or permanently removed 

from aquifers. The deleterious effects 

on fish passage and habitat are clearly 

issues that should be considered in 

the next incarnation of the Farm Bill. 

• Aquaculture is a form of agriculture 

that receives no consideration in the 

current conservation title. However, as 

fisheries resources are reduced through 

environmental degradation (e.g., as a 

function of modified aquatic ecosystems 

due to farming and ranching) 

and increased harvest, aquaculture 

and mariculture will increase in importance 

both within the united States 

and abroad. Incentives for developing 

low-impact, ecologically sound, and 

sustainable freshwater and marine culture 

to mitigate the effects of land-based 

agriculture should be strongly considered. 

• Introduction of harmful exotic plant 

and animal species through agriculture 

or aquaculture mitigation (see above) 

should not be supported by Farm 

Bill programs. clearly, many invasive 

species have had deleterious effects 

on wetlands and aquatic systems. 

• urban sprawl threatens fisheries resources 

as well as agriculture by reducing a way 

of life and a source of economic strength. 

The 2007 Farm Bill needs to provide 

strong incentives for preventing land 

slated to be taken out of agricultural production 

from being developed, particularly 

in areas with sensitive watersheds. 

• Technical guidance teams to uSdA-NRcS 

need to be assembled and must include 

fisheries and aquatic professionals. 

Much expertise about land use, aquatic 

resources, and conservation exists beyond 

the uSdA-NRcS and would help guide 

targets for special programs (e.g., eQIp). 

Funds to support these experts should 

be made available through a competitive 

contracting mechanism. All federal 

conservation funds routed through Farm 

Bill programs must be implemented in a 

wise, concerted, and streamlined fashion. 

• The current legislation and the proposed 

uSdA 2007 Farm Bill do not contain clear 

guidelines for evaluating the success of 

conservation programs extending much 

beyond the land area enrolled in the 

watershed in which a fishery exists. The 

“success stories” are likely truthful but 

largely anecdotal. Without well-designed 

monitoring and research, the positive 

impacts of conservation programs on 

aquatic resources will remain enigmatic. 

We recommend that some provision for 

guiding and then evaluating major programs 

such as those outlined in eQIp be 

made in the next bill. perhaps this could 

be accomplished through partnerships 

with other federal agencies or research 

institutions (e.g., universities) that have 

an existing research and monitoring 

infrastructure rather than the NRcS. 


WHERE ARE 

YOUR FISH? 

Automated 

Hydroacoustic 

Monitoring Systems 

~ Remote, Unmanned Operation 

~ Fish Count, Size and Behavior Analysis 

~ No Fish Tagging or Handling Required 

BioSonics Inc. - Seattle, Washington, USA 

Sounding Around the World Since 1978 

www.biosonicsinc.com 

Tel: 206-782-2211 ~ Fax: 206-782-2244 


• Many agricultural practices have 

disproportionately negative impacts on 

aquatic ecosystems relative to others. 

For example, some crops (e.g., corn) are 

nitrogen intensive and require the application 

of high concentrations of nitrogenbased 

fertilizer that can lead to hypoxia 

and perhaps nitrogen toxicity to fishes. 

Feedlots and other mass livestock operations 

generate tremendous burdens on 

aquatic systems by increasing eutrophication 

of waterways and perhaps leading 

to blooms of toxic microorganisms (e.g., 

red tides in estuaries). crops that are bioengineered 

to produce BT insecticide may 

contain residue that is harmful to aquatic 

insects within streams and thereby other 

organisms that require these insects as a 

food supply (i.e., fish). Subsidies provided 

to these and other high-risk types of 

agriculture by the 2007 Farm Bill need 

to have strict associated safeguards to 

ensure the integrity of aquatic ecosystems 

within associated watersheds. 

• When implementing the various Farm Bill 

programs, NRcS must give equal status 

to soil and water conservation issues in 

their decision-making. State-of-the-art 

BMps must be adopted to minimize the 

impact of farming, ranching, and forestry 

on adjacent and downstream water 

resources. In addition to nutrient loading, 

soil erosion and resulting sedimentation 

of streams and associated backwaters 

continues to be an alarming problem. 

ultimately, increased sedimentation 

caused by poor soil conservation leads 

to choked waterways and increased 

dredging. dredging in navigable rivers 

is expensive and potentially damaging 

to main-channel communities in 

large rivers. BMps to conserve soil and 

minimize degradation of stream habitat 

include but are not limited to: 

o Maintain vegetative buffer strips, especially 

shade trees, adjacent to waterways. 

o eliminate dams, avoid stream 

channelization, and discourage 

removal of woody debris. 

o eliminate, when possible, direct 

access of livestock to waterbodies. 

o provide controls for run-off associated 

with concentrated animal feeding 

and other livestock operations. 

o protect headwater streams and wetlands, 

which many times contain sensitive 

and rare aquatic species and are often 

lost to impoundments or drainage; loss 

of wetlands and small streams may 

have far-reaching effects on food web 

interactions and habitat integrity in 

downstream reaches. Also, headwater 

streams are important for absorbing 

nitrogen (peterson et al. 2001). 

• Most states have developed plans 

for the conservation of wildlife and 

fish. In developing and implementing 

Farm Bill programs, these plans 

should be used for guidance. 

• unobligated or surplus Farm Bill programmatic 

funds should be reserved for fish 

and wildlife conservation and reallocated 

back to states in a competitive fashion. 

• use partnerships of like-minded 

organizations and initiatives such 

as the National Fish Habitat Action 

plan (AFWA 2006) and the American 

land conservancy when participating 

in Farm Bill policy development. 

clearly, the uSdA’s 2007 proposal is 

taking steps in the right direction. However, 

many issues including those outlined in 

the points above need to be addressed to 

balance terrestrial-based agriculture with 

sustenance of aquatic resources in the 

united States. It is important that members 

of the fisheries and aquaculture community 

make their scientific views known 

to the crafters of the next Farm Bill and 

participate fully in the shaping the future of 

the nation’s natural resources. The aquatic 

environment and the fisheries resources 

dependent on it are vitally affected by 

Farm Bill provisions and should be fully 

considered when debating the future of 

agriculture in the united States and the role 

of the federal government in that future. 

ACkNowLedgmeNtS: 

Members of the Farm Bill Advisory 

committee were phaedra Budy, david 

Bunnell, Scott Hale, craig paukert, and 

Russell Wright. The committee represented 

a broad geographical range as well as a 

cross-section of federal, state, and academic 

expertise in fisheries. The committee thanks 

Rob colombo, Robert Hughes, chris Kohler, 

paul pajak, Quinton phelps, Gus Rassam, 

and Matt Whiles for their helpful input. 

reFereNCeS 

AFwA (Association of Fish and wildlife 

Agencies). 2006. National Fish Habitat 

Action plan. AFWA, Washington d.c. 

berkland, m.w., and C.A. rewa. 2005. 

environmental quality incentives program 

contributions to fish and wildlife conservation. 

Fish and wildlife benefits of 

Farm Bill programs: 2000-2005 update. 

pages 171-184 in The Wildlife Society 

Technical Review 05-2, Bethesda, Md. 

gray, r. L., and b. m. teels. 2006. Wildlife 

and fish conservation through the Farm 

Bill. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(4):906-913. 

Hughes, r. m., L. wang, and P. w. 

Seelbach (editors). 2006. landscape influences 

on stream habitat and biological 

assemblages. American Fisheries Society, 

Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland. 

illinois Corn growers Association. 2007. corn 

growers step up to plant largest crop in six 

decades. press release. Illinois corn Growers 

Association, Bloomington. Available at: 

www.ilcorn.org/news/html/6-29-07.html 

Naiman, r.J., and m.g. turner. 2000. 

A future perspective on North 

America’s freshwater ecosystems. 

ecological Applications 10:958-970. 

Pajak, P., r. e. wehnes, L. gates, g. Siegwarth, 

J. Lyons, J. m. Pitlo, r. S. Holland, d. P. 

roseboom, and L. Zuckerman. 1994. 

Agricultural land-use and reauthorization of 

the 1990 Farm Bill. Fisheries 19(12):22-27. 

Pajak, P. 2000. Sustainability, ecosystem 

management, and indicators: thinking 

globally and acting locally in the 

21st century. Fisheries 25(12):16-29. 

Peterson, b. J., and 14 co-authors. 2001. 

control of nitrogen export from watersheds 

by headwater streams. Science 292:86-90. 

roy, A. H., m. C. Freeman, b. J. Freeman, S.J. 

wenger, w. e. ensign, and J. L. meyer. 

2005. Investigating hydrologic alterations 

as a mechanism of fish assemblage shifts 

in urbanizing streams. Journal of the North 

American Benthological Society 24:656-678. 

Scott, d., J. Harvey, r. Alexander, and g. 

Schwarz. 2007. dominance of organic 

nitrogen from headwater streams to large 

rivers across the conterminous united 

States. Global Biogeochemical cycles 21:1. 

Stoddard, J. L., d. v. Peck, S. g. Paulsen, J. 

van Sickle, C. P. Hawkins, A. t. Herlihy, 

r. m. Hughes, P. r. kaufmann, d. P. 

Larsen, g. Lomnicky, A. r. olsen, S. 

A. Peterson, P. L. ringold, and t. r. 

whittier. 2005. An ecological assessment 

of western streams and rivers. 

epA 620/R-05/005, u.S. environmental 

protection Agency, Washington, dc. 

thomas, d. L., P. Pajak, b. mcguire, C. 

williams, S. Filipek, and r. m. Hughes. 

2001. Farm Bill 2002: a discussion of the 

conservation aspects of the Farm Bill from a 

fisheries perspective. Fisheries 26(11):36-38. 

USePA (U.S. environmental Protection 

Agency). 2005. Handbook for developing 

watershed plans to restore and protect our 

waters. epA 841-B-05-005, Washington, d.c. 

_____. 2006. Wadeable streams assessment: a 

collaborative survey of the nation’s streams. 

epA 841-B-06-002, Washington, dc. 

vanni, m. J., k. k. Arend, m. t. bremigan, 

d. b. bunnell, J. e. garvey, m. J. 

gonzalez, w. H. renwick, P. A. 

Soranno, and r. A. Stein. 2005. linking 

landscapes and food webs: effects of 

omnivorous fish and watersheds on reservoir 

ecosystems. Bioscience 55:155-167. 


AmericAn Fisheries society 

2007 report 

thinking Downstream and 

Downcurrent 


PHoto: S. greg PANoSiAN

AmericAn Fisheries society: 

2007 REPoRt 

introduction 

This has been a very productive and effective year at the 

American Fisheries Society. We have made significant headway 

in the development of new communication tools designed 

to enhance and provide exciting opportunities for membership. 

inFormAtion trAnsFer AnD outreAch 

The AFS Governing Board voted to develop a new journal project dedicated to marine 

and coastal fisheries issues. Using an online, open-access format, this journal will be a 

significant contribution to the scientific community and may set a trend for future publication 

activities at AFS. We are also moving forward with making Fisheries available online 

to the full membership. At the same time, we are embarking on an effort to make some 

of the significant science published in AFS journals more accessible to the general public. 

AquAtic stewArDship 

AFS is working hard to increase the collaborative advantage of increased outreach 

activities with our sister resource societies, both in North America and internationally. 

Fisheries abstracts in Spanish are increasing the awareness of AFS activities and publications 

in Central and South America. Full participation in planning a fish tagging meeting 

in New Zealand in February 2008 and the Fifth World Fisheries Congress in Yokohama, 

Japan, in October 2008 shows a clear awareness of the value of international engagement. 

Increased inter-society liaisons and the appointment of a new staff position 

in Bethesda for outreach services greatly increases our communications tools. 

member services 

Membership in AFS remains stable and this year we made important efforts to increase 

student participation in the society. The new $19 student membership, which includes free 

access to all of our online publications, is an incredible opportunity for students at any level 

and has helped recruitment in this demographic. We are also shifting to a member-centric 

information technology (IT) vision. We have greatly improved the structure and design of 

IT at AFS in an effort to provide the required information interface between the different 

AFS Units and their memberships. This change is critical for future developments in information 

exchange and membership services. It also points the way for new web-based tools 

and communication links at AFS, such as podcasting the Plenary Session at the AFS Annual 

Meeting in San Francisco. Our goal is to develop the technology and services that will 

carry our Society into the next decade with clear and efficient tools for the membership. 

Jennifer L. Nielsen Gus Rassam 

President Executive Director 


nAtionAl Fish hAbitAt 

Action plAn 

In April, the first anniversary of the launch 

of the National Fish Habitat Action 

Plan (NFHAP) was celebrated with the 

unveiling of “10 Waters to Watch,” 

which collectively illustrate the promising 

partnerships at the heart of this 

program. These 10 waters are bringing 

together community groups, non-profit 

organizations, local watershed groups, 

Native American tribes, and state and 

federal agencies to plant streamside 

vegetation, remove structures blocking 

fish from accessing habitat, and protect 

rivers from the effects of agriculture and 

livestock. The idea is to provide clean 

water and robust, healthy habitats for 

the many fish and wildlife species and 

people who call these areas home. 

NFHAP currently supports 40 local, 

grassroots-driven projects, like those on 

the Waters to Watch list, as well as U.S. 

national efforts to identify the root causes 

of aquatic habitat declines, identify 

and implement corrective actions, and 

measure and communicate its progress. 

Projects in the “10 Waters to Watch” are 

being coordinated through five “National 

Fish Habitat Partnerships” and organized 

as regional-scale efforts to implement 

NFHAP. These regional partnerships 

are currently “pilots” that include the 

Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership, 

Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, the 

Western Native Trout Initiative, the 

Midwest Driftless Area Restoration 

Effort, and the Matanuska-Susitna Basin 

Salmon Conservation Partnership. The 

plan calls for the creation of 12 or more 

Fish Habitat Partnerships by 2010. 

2007 AFs-seA GrAnt symposium 

The American Fisheries Society and 

Sea Grant continue their biennial series 

of special symposia with “Mitigating 

Impacts of Natural Hazards on Fishery 

Ecosystems.” The symposium, which will 

be held at this year’s Annual Meeting 

in San Francisco, will explore how to 

better mitigate the impacts of natural 

hazards on fish populations, fish habitat 

and fishing communities. An associated 

proceedings volume will be 

published early next year for use by 


2007 REPoRt 

special projects 

fisheries professionals hoping to be better 

prepared for the next hazard event. 

Here, natural hazards are defined as 

sudden events which can lead to rapid, 

significant ecosystem impacts of various 

geographic scopes. Such events can be 

characterized as producing large impact 

(biological, economic and social), 

and occurring with little or no warning. 

Hazards that will be discussed during our 

symposium include hurricanes and other 

coastal storms, earthquakes, tsunamis, 

volcanoes, harmful algal blooms, and 

localized or regional anoxic events. 

Researchers will discuss their work as 

well as lessons learned from well-known 

hazard events such as the 2004 Indian 

Ocean tsunami and Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita, in addition to smaller scale 

hazards that occur on a more regular 

basis, such as harmful algal blooms off 

the Florida coast. A synthesis piece 

and moderator-led audience participation 

discussion will close out the session 

to draw out common themes from the 

hazards discussed. A total of 32 presentations 

will occur over the 2-day symposium 

(5-6 September), in addition to 5 

posters. More information is available at 

www.fisheries.org/units/afs-sgsymposium. 

FiFth worlD Fisheries 

conGress plAnninG 

Planning is well underway for the Fifth 

World Fisheries Congress (WFC), which 

will be held in Yokohama, Japan, from 

20-24 October 2008. The goal of WFC 

meetings is to convene fisheries scientists 

from around the world to discuss 

and bring attention to the primary issues 

facing global fisheries. The 5 th WFC 

is being organized by the Japanese 

Society of Fisheries Science (JSFS) as 

the lead society, and members of the 

World Council of Fisheries Societies are 

also included in the program planning. 

AFS has been heavily involved in 

the program planning for the 5 th WFC 

and many of the priorities that AFS has 

brought to the WFC program planning 

committee have been incorporated into 

what will be an excellent WFC program. 

The objective of the 5 th WFC is to address 

issues that contribute to the global 

welfare and environmental conservation 

of the world’s fisheries. WFC will be 

organized around nine topical sessions, 

which include fisheries and fish biology; 

aquaculture; biotechnology; post-harvest 

science and technology; material 

cycling in aquatic ecosystems—linking 

climate change and fisheries; freshwater, 

coastal, and marine environments; 

biodiversity and management; fisheries 

economics and social science; and 

education and international cooperation. 

Under each topical session, a series 

of subsessions will be developed to 

address specific issues surrounding each 

topic. There also will be an open call for 

papers during the fall of 2007, for those 

wishing to submit papers for possible 

inclusion into the program. The 5 th WFC 

will be held at the Pacifico Yokohama 

convention center, a short bus or train 

trip from Tokyo and Narita International 

Airport. For more details on the 5 th WFC, 

please see www.5thwfc2008.com. 

hutton upDAte 

The Hutton Junior Fisheries Biology 

Program is a summer mentoring program 

for high school students. The principal 

goal of the Hutton Program is to stimulate 

interest in careers in fisheries science and 

management among groups underrepresented 

in the profession, including 

minorities and women. Hutton provides 

students with a summer-long hands-on 

experience in fisheries research with a 

mentor who is working in some aspect 

of the field. A scholarship and an AFS 

student membership are provided 

to each student accepted into the 

program. The Class of 2007 includes 

36 outstanding students who worked 

with more than 40 mentors in 21 states 

(Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, 

Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New York, North 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, 

Washington, Wisconsin). As in past 

years, the group of student applicants 

was ethnically diverse. A majority of the 

selected students were either women 

and/or were from a minority group. 

The program is evaluated annually 

through a survey of all previous alumni. 

The ultimate success of the program 

will be determined by the number of 

students that enter the fisheries profession. 

According to the 2006 survey, 78% 

of alumni are studying or considering 

studying fisheries or biology. The 2007 survey 

is currently underway, and the results 

will be printed in Fisheries this winter. 



2007 REPoRt 

publications 

AFs web site 

Visit www.fisheries.org for the 

latest on fisheries science and 

the profession. Subscribe to 

the free Contents Alert e-mail 

service or search for your colleagues 

by using the membership 

directory online. 

The Fisheries InfoBase now 

includes all AFS journals back 

to 1870, including all issues of 

The Progressive Fish Culturist. 

AFs mAGAzine 

The AFS 

membership 

magazine, 

Fisheries, 

offers up-todateinformation 

on 

fisheries science,management, 

and research, 

as well as 

AFS and professional activities. 

Featuring peer-reviewed scientific 

articles, analysis of national 

and international policy, commentary, 

chapter news, and 

job listings, Fisheries gives AFS 

members the professional edge 

in their careers as researchers, 

regulators, and managers of 

local, national, and world fisheries. 

Fisheries is available to members 

online at www.fisheries.org. 

AFs JournAls 

• Transactions of the 

American Fisheries society, 

bimonthly, Volume 136 

• North American 

Journal of Aquaculture, 

quarterly, Volume 69 

• North American Journal 

of Fisheries Management, 

quarterly, Volume 27 

• Journal of Aquatic Animal 

Health, quarterly, Volume 18 

Journals are also available to 

subscribing members online 

at http://afs.allenpress.com. 

AFs to stArt new 

mArine AnD coAstAl 

Fisheries JournAl 

In 2008 AFS will begin a new open 

access electronic-only journal 

devoted to the science and management 

of marine and coastal 

fish, fisheries, and fish habitat. This 

peer-reviewed publication will 

provide a highly visible outlet for 

the growing number of marine 

and coastal fisheries papers. The 

format will encourage lively, current, 

and transparent debate on 

controversial topics through use 

of comments, viewpoints, and 

invited perspectives. The scope is 

international and includes open 

ocean, coastal, and estuarine 

environments. Since there will be 

no charge to access articles, AFS 

hopes to reach the global fisheries 

research and management community. 

Editors and staff will focus 

on rapid review and publication. 

James Cowan, a professor of 

oceanography and coastal 

sciences at Louisiana State 

University, is the new journal’s 

development editor. He can be 

reached at jhcowan@lsu.edu. 

AFs books: 

recent AnD 

upcominG titles 

Analysis and Interpretation of 

Freshwater Fisheries Data 

Salmonid Field Protocols 

Handbook: Techniques for 

Assessing Status and Trends in 

Salmon and Trout Populations 

Bluegills: Biology and Behavior 

Anadromous Sturgeons: Habitats, 

Threats, and Management 

Aquatic Stewardship Education 

in Theory and Practice 

Status, Distribution, and 

Conservation of Native Freshwater 

Fishes of Western North America 

Sockeye Salmon Evolution, 

Ecology, and Management 

Bigheaded Carps: A Biological 

Synopsis and Environmental 

Risk Assessment 

Shark Nursery Grounds of the Gulf 

of Mexico and the East Coast 

Waters of the United States 

The Ecology of Juvenile Salmon 

in the Northeast Pacific Ocean: 

Regional Comparisons 

Eels at the Edge 

Proceedings of the Fourth World 

Fisheries Congress: Reconciling 

Fisheries with Conservation 


society AwArDs 

carl r. sullivan Fishery conservation 

Award C. Jeff Cederholm 

Award of excellence Carl Walters 

president’s Fishery 

conservation Award Great Lakes Fish Health Committee 

william e. ricker resource conservation Award Resource Evaluation and 

Assessment Division of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA 

meritorious service Award Christopher Goddard 

Distinguished service Award William J. Wilson, Michael D. Porter, Eric E. Knudsen 

excellence in Fisheries education Joseph E. Hightower 

excellence in public outreach Award Ralph Manns 

outstanding large chapter Award Oregon Chapter, Wisconsin Chapter 

outstanding small chapter Award Tennessee Chapter 

outstanding student subunit Award East Carolina University Student Subunit 

Golden membership Awards (50 years) Robert L. Burgner, Albert 

C. Jones, Fred P. Meyer, Spencer H. Smith, Bruce B. Collette, 

William R. Nicholson, Henry A. Regier, David W. Robinson 

John e. skinner memorial Fund Awards Michael Bailey, Andrew Carlson, 

Bart Durham, Janice Kerns, Thomas Lang, Heidi Lewis, Kathy Mills, 

Quinton Phelps, Mark Rogers, Jesse Trushenski, Rebecca Zeiber 

J. Frances Allen scholarship Virginia Shervette 

J. Frances Allen runner-up Jesse Trushenski 

student writing contest First place Andrew Rypel 

student writing contest second place Rebecca Zeiber 

stuDent pAper AnD poster AwArDs 

2005 best student poster Award CariAnn Hayer 

2005 best student poster Award honorable mention Donald Ratcliff 

2005 AFs/sea Grant outstanding student paper Beth Gardner, Brandon J. Puckett 

2005 AFs/sea Grant outstanding student paper honorable mention Katie Bertrand 

best pAper AwArDs 

mercer patriarche Award for the best paper in the North American Journal 

of Fisheries Management Brett T. van Poorten and John R. Post 

robert l. kendall best paper in Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society Brian J. Pyper, Franz J. Mueter, and Randall M. Peterman 

best paper in the Journal of Aquatic Animal Health Heather 

Harbottle, Karen P. Plant, and Ronald L. Thune 

best paper in the North American Journal of Aquaculture 

Alexander Brinker, Wolfgang Koppe, and Roland Rösch 

section AwArDs 

computer user section best student poster Award Thomas Lang 

Education Section Certificate of Appreciation David Hewitt 

estuaries section nancy Foster habitat conservation Award Elliott Norse 

estuaries section student travel Award Bernice Bediako, 

Bradly Trumbo, Benjamin Ciotti and William Smith 

Fish culture section student travel Award Jesse Trushenski 

Fish Culture Section 2005 Most Significant Paper in the North American Journal 

of Aquaculture Alexander Brinker, Wolfgang Koppe, and Roland Rosch 

Fish Culture Section 2005 Most Significant Paper Honorable Mentions 

Eugene Torrans; R. L. Hedrick, T. J. Popma, and D. Davis 

Fish health section snieszko Distinguished service Award Donald Lightner 

Fish health section Distinguished service Award Ben LaFrentz, Nicole White 

Fish health section past presidents Distinguished service Award John Hawke 

Fisheries management section hall of excellence Wayne Hubert, Bob Carline 

Fisheries management section Award of merit Fred Jannsen 

Fisheries management section conservation Achievement Award Great 

Lakes Fishery Commission, Missouri River Natural Resources Council 

Fisheries management section Award of excellence Jerry Rasmussen 

Genetics section James e. wright Award Melinda R. Baerwald, Molly R. Stephens 

Genetics section stevan phelps memorial Award Anthony J. Gharrett, Andrew P. 

Matala, Eric L. Peterson, Andrew K. Gray, Zhouzhou Li, and Jonathan Heifetz. 

marine Fishes section oscar e. sette Award Kenneth Sherman 

socioeconomics section stephen weithman Award Kathy Mills 


2007 REPoRt 

Awards & board members 

AFs GoverninG boArD 

2006–2007 oFFicers 

president Jennifer Nielsen 

president elect Mary Fabrizio 

First vice president Bill Franzin 

second vice president Don Jackson 

past president Chris Kohler 

executive Director Gus Rassam 

Division presiDents 

northeastern Division president 

Larry Miller 

northeastern Division president elect 

Scott Decker 

north central Division president 

Stu Shipman 

north central Division president elect 

Joe Hennessy 

southern Division president 

Fred Heitman 

southern Division president elect 

Steve McMullin 

western Division president 

Robert Hughes 

western Division president elect 

Eric Wagner 

section presiDents 

bioengineering section 

Marcin Whitman 

canadian Aquatic resources section 

Kim D. Hyatt 

computer user section Fred Janssen 

early life history section 

Chris Chambers 

education section Donna Parrish 

equal opportunities section 

Taconya Piper 

estuaries section Syma A. Ebbin 

Fish culture section Mike Barnes 

Fish health section Ted Meyers 

Fisheries Administration 

section Gary Saul 

Fisheries history section Christine Moffitt 

Fisheries law section Dave Allison 

Fisheries management section 

Joe Larscheid 

Genetics section Ed Heist 

international Fisheries section 

Dana Schmidt 

introduced Fish section 

Margaret Dochoda 

marine Fisheries section Debra Murie 

native peoples Fisheries 

section Jeremy Pyatskowit 

physiology section Alan Kolok 

socioeconomics section 

John Whitehead 

water quality section Lou Reynolds 

non-votinG members 

constitutional consultant Gwen White 

student subsection of education section 

Justin Davis 

executive Director Gus Rassam 


AssociAte members 

(individuals, corporations, and 

foundations that support AFs with 

their annual dues of $2,000) 

Electric Power Research Institute 

Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. 

American Sportfishing Association 

oFFiciAl members 

(Federal, state, provincial, territorial, 

and intergovernmental agencies that 

support AFs with $1,600 annually) 

Alabama Department of Conservation 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Arizona State Game and Fish Commission 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission 

Bureau of Land Management 

California Department of Fish and Game 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife 

District of Columbia Fish and 

Wildlife Division 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources Wildlife Resources Division 

Great Lakes Fishery Commission 

Idaho Fish and Game Department 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

Indiana Department of Natural 

Resources/Division of Fish and Wildlife 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Kansas Department of Wildlife/Parks 

Kentucky Department of Fish 

and Wildlife Resources 

Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 

Maine Department of Inland 

Fish and Wildlife 

Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources - Fisheries 

Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources 

Mississippi Department of 

Marine Resources 

Mississippi Department of 

Wildlife Fish and Parks 

Missouri Department of Conservation 

Montana Department of Fish 

Wildlife and Parks 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 


2007 REPoRt 

contributing members 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

New Hampshire Fish and 

Game Department 

New Jersey Department of 


New Mexico Game and Fish/ 

Department of Fish Management 

New York Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

NMFS/NOAA/Office of the 

Assistant Administrator 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife 

South Carolina Department 

of Natural Resources 

South Dakota Game Fish and Parks 

Southern Nevada Water Authority 

Tennessee Valley Authority 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Utah Department of Natural Resource/ 

Division of Wildlife Resources 

Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Virginia Department of Game 

and Inland Fish 

Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife 

West Virginia Department of 


Wisconsin Department of 


Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

sustAininG members 

(small companies and organizations, 

agency field offices, and 

academic departments that support 

AFs with $300 annually) 

Abernathy Fish Technology Center 

Advanced Technical Aquatic Control LLC 

Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc. 

AIS Inc. 

Alaskan Observers, Inc. 

Alpha Mach Inc. 

Amirix Systems, Inc. 

Aquatic Control 

Arizona Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Resources Unit 

BioSonics 

Cerexagri 

Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Confederated Tribes of Warm 

Springs Reservation 

Devine Tarbell and Associates, Inc 

Douglas Island Pink and Chum 

Floy Tag and Manufacturing Co. 

Golder Associates, Inc. 

Gomez and Sullivan Engineers PC 

Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

Hallprint Pty, Ltd. 

Halltech Aquatic Research, Inc. 

HDR/SWRI 

Hoopa Valley Tribal Council 

Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute 

Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. 

IAP World Services 

Illinois Natural History Survey 

Intake Screens, Inc. 

Karuk Tribe of California 

Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association 

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 

Kuskokwim Native Association 

Lahontan National Fish Hatchery 

Makah Fisheries Management 

Marine Science Consortium 

Maritime Aboriginal Aquatic Resources 

Mason, Bruce and Girard, Inc. 

Michigan State University 

Miller Net Company, Inc. 

Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant 

Mora Fish Technology Center 

Native Village of Eyak 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Nature Conservancy in Iowa 

New England Fishery 

Management Council 

New York University School of Medicine 

NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 

North Pacific Fisheries Observer 

Northeast Consortium 

Northern Southeast Regional 

Aquaculture Association 

Ohio State University 

Oregon RFID 

Oregon State University Hatfield 

Marine Science Center 

Pacific States Marine Fish Commission 

Pennsylvania Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Unit 

Pentec Environmental 

Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 

Prentiss Incorporated 

Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corp. 

Pyramid Lake Fisheries 

REMSA Inc. 

The River Project 

Robertson-Bryan, Inc. 

SePRO 

Smith-Root, Inc. 

Solarbee, Inc. 

SP Cramer and Associates 

Squaxin Island Tribe 

Star-Oddi 

Stroud Research Center 

Student Conservation Association 

Tanana Chiefs Conference 

Trinity River Restoration Program 

Turner Enterprises, Inc. 

University of Alaska Fairbanks/Fisheries Division 

University of New Brunswick 

Versar Incorporated 

Wildlife International, Ltd. 

Yakama Indian Nation 

Yurok Tribal Fisheries Program 



2007 REPoRt 

AFs 2006 Donors 

presiDent's circle 

$50,000-$150,000 

National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation 

NOAA Fisheries 

mAJor 

beneFActors 

$25,000-$49,999 

NOAA National Centers for 

Coastal Ocean Science 

USDA Forest Service 


beneFActors 

$10,000-$24,999 

Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game 

Bureau of Land Management 

Karen Cortese 

Becky Nelson 

NOAA National Ocean Service 

NOAA Sea Grant 

New York State Department 

of Environmental 

Conservation 

The Northern Trust Company 

Smith Root 


Northeast Region 

U.S. Geological Survey 

pAtrons 

$2,000-$9,999 

AFS Fisheries Management 

Section 

AFS New York Chapter 

AFS North Carolina Chapter 

AFS North Central Division 

AFS Northeastern Division 

AFS Oklahoma Chapter 

AFS Southern Division 

J. Frances Allen 

BRP-Evinrude 

Cornell University 

Environmental Energy 

Alliance of New York 


Agency 

Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission 

Fred Heitman 

Keyspan 

Donald D. Macdonald 

North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission 

John G. Nickum 

National Grid 

NOAA Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center 

New York Power Authority 

New York State Electric 

and Gas Corporation 

Northwest Marine 

Technology Inc. 

SUNY Cobleskill Department 

of Fisheries and Wildlife 

Sustainable Fisheries 

Foundation 

USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 

Wisconsin Department of 


contributors 

$1,000-$1,999 

AFS Arkansas Chapter 

AFS Wisconsin Chapter 

Anonymous 

Keith W. Ashley 

Robert Carline 

Clark Co. (Delhi) 

Michael Eggleton 

Electric Power Research 

Institute 

Carlos Fetterolf 

Carolyn A. Griswold 

Nebraska Game and 

Parks Commission 

New York State Council 

of Trout Unlimited 

Richard Noble 

SUNY College of Environmental 

Science and Forestry 

supporters 

$500-$999 

AFS Minnesota Chapter 

AFS Western Division 

In-Fisherman Inc. 

Stanley Moberly 

sponsors 

$100-$499 

AFS Bonneville Chapter 

AFS Marine Fisheries Section 

AFS Michigan Chapter 

AFS Mid-Atlantic Chapter 

AFS Minnesota Chapter 

AFS New York Chapter 

AFS Pennsylvania Chapter 

AFS Southern New 

England Chapter 

AFS Wisconsin Chapter 

Aquatic Resources Education 

Reeve M. and Marian K. Bailey 

Kenneth Beal 

Carl V. Burger 

Elaine Caldarone 

James Clugston 

W. Gregory Cope 

Dave Coughlan 

Charles C. Coutant 

William E. Davis 

Samuel G. Dennison 

Ronald Eisler 

John L. Forney 

John Foster 

James E. Frank 

Richard W. Gregory 

Fred Harris 

Harold H. Heinkel 

(In memory) 

Jeffrey Holkovic 

Ben D. Jaco 

Barbara A. Knuth 

Christine Kondzela 

Eugene R. Mancini 

Michael Marcus 

Robert Muller 

David Nyquist 

Stephen H. Phillips 

Ronald Preston 

Scott J. Reger 

Robert H. Reider 

Richard Ridenhour 

Patrick Rivers 

Diane Rusanowsky 

Progressive Insurance 

Foundation 

Gary Sakagawa 

Geoffry Smith 

Kelly D. Smith 

Stanford H. Smith 

Jana S. Stewart 

William L. Sullivan, Jr. 

James Wiersema 

United Way California 

Capital Region 

FrienDs 

$25-$99 

T. Douglas Beard, Jr. 

Bree Belyea 

Charles Benedict 

Carl E. Bond 

Ann Blakley 

Jim Branson 

Mary Bremigan 

Martha H. Brookes 

E. Brown 

Harlan Brumsted 

John L. Casteel 

Michael A. Colvin 

Laurence Connor 

James Cooper 

Richard E. Craven 

Phil Cronin 

Samuel G. Dennison 

Susan Doka 

Diane Elliott 

Juan F. Elorduy-Garay 

Ronald Essig 

Arleen Feng 

Michael J. Flaherty 

Holly Frank 

Lee A. Gardner 

Albert E. Giorgi 

Judith A. Gordon 

William G. Gordon 

Dennis A. Haag 

Donald Herrig 

Robert E. Hillman 

William Hogarth 

Kevin D. Hopkins 

Clark Hubbs 

Christopher Kohler 

Richard Krejsa 

Charles R. Lawson 

Bruce M. Leaman 

D.W. Levonian 

Wayne Lifton 

Karin Limburg 

Linda Lombardi-Carlson 

Asfie Maidie 

Edie Marsh-Matthews 

Carol McCollough 

K. Michael McDowell 

Robert Meyer 

Bob Moody 

Marilyn Myers 

Joseph S. Nelson 

Patrick Nelson 

David L. Noakes 

Robert O'Gorman 

Shauna Oh 

J.A. Parks 

Geoffrey Power 

Kim Primmer 

C.T. Rance 

Brian E. Riddell 

Lisa E. Roberts 

Thomas E. Ruehle 

Kelly Russell 

Charles G. Scalet 

Ann Scarborough Bull 

Kenneth Semmens 

Steven Shapiro 

Russell Short 

Eric Smith 

Nicholas A. Smith 

John Stephens 

Jill Spangenberg 

Ronald C. Thomas 

William Tietjen 

Clement Tillion 

William Tonn 

James R Triplett 

United Way of Central 

Maryland 

Fred M. Utter 

Jon H. Volstad 

Kate Wedemeyer 

Cindy A. Williams 

Gregory Wilson 

David M. Wyanski 

Terutoyo Yoshida 

Mr. W. A. Wentz 

Gwen White 

Shirley Witalis 



2007 REPoRt 

AFs 2006 FinAnciAls 

revenue Amount % 

Publications 1,551,190 46.71% 

Advertising 178,429 5.37% 

Contributions 44,701 1.35% 

Membership Dues 484,166 14.58% 

Annual Meeting & Trade Show 189,376 5.46% 

Grants & Contracts 618,717 18.63% 

Other 404,664 12.18% 

total 3,471,242 100.00% 

expenses 

Publications 1,199,156 38.40% 

Membership Services 225,431 7.22% 

Administration & Fund Raising 265,273 8.49% 

Annual Meeting & Trade Show 210,779 6.75% 

Grants & Contracts 524,886 16.81% 

Other 697,485 22.33% 

Total 3,123,011 100.00% 

change in net Assets 198,232 

net Assets at the beginning of the year 3,926,437 

net Assets at the end of the year 4,124,669 

stAtement oF FinAnciAl position As oF December 31, 2006 

Assets liabilities 

Cash 2,801,153 Accounts Payable 279,271 

Investments 1,550,111 Deferred Revenue 1,157,043 

Accounts Receivable 214,643 Net Assets 4,124,669 

Prepaid Expenses 17,685 

Property & Equipments 767,819 

Inventory 209,571 

total 5,560,983 total 5,560,983 

2006 proGrAm income 2006 proGrAm expenses 


CALeNDAR: 

FISHERIES EVEntS 

to see more event listings go to 

www.fisheries.org and click click calendar of Events. 

Sep 2-6—American Fisheries 

Society 137th Annual meeting, San 

Francisco, california. See www. 

fisheries.org/sf/. 

Sep 11-13—Second global Conference 

on Large marine ecosystems, Qingdao. 

china. See www.ysfri.ac.cn.?GlMeconference2Qingdao/homepage.htm. 

Sep 11-15—Fish Stock Assessment 

methods for Lakes and reservoirs 

Conference: towards the true Picture 

of Fish Stock, ceske Budejovice, czech 

Republic. See www.fsamlr2007.czweb.org. 

Sep 15—ocean Conservancy’s 22nd 

Annual international Coastal Cleanup. 

See www.oceanconservancy.org/iccmedia. 

Sep 17-21—Northwest environmental 

training Center: introduction to 

engineered Log Jam—technology 

and Applications for erosion Control 

and Fish Habitat, olympic peninsula, 

Washington. See www.nweec.org. 

Sep 16-21—Association of Fish and 

wildlife Agencies, louisville, Kentucky. See 

www.fishwildlife.org/annualmeet.html. 

Sep 17-21—international Council 

for the exploration of the Sea, 

Helsinki, Finland. See www.ices.dk. 

Sep 18-21—international Conference 

on Freshwater Habitat management 

for Salmonid Fisheries, university 

of Southampton, uK. See www.salmonidhabitat.co. 

contact lynn Field, 

admin@salmonidhabitat.com. 

oct 2-3—Second thermal ecology and 

regulation workshop, Westminster, 

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 cworth@fisheries.org. 

(if space is available, events will also 

be printed in Fisheries magazine.) 

colorado. See www.rd.tetratech.com/ 

epRIThermalWorkshop.com. contact Bob 

Goldstein, rogoldst@epri.com, 650/855-2593. 

oct 8-11—Second international 

Symposium on tagging and tracking of 

marine Fish with electronic devices, San 

Sebastian, Guipuzcoa, pais Vasco, Spain. 

See http://unh.edu/taggingsymposium/. 

oct 9-10—Symposium on Anadromous 

Salmonid tagging and identification 

techniques in the greater Pacific 

region, portland, oregon. See www.rmpc. 

org/2007-marking-symposium.html contact 

george_nandor@psmfc.org 503/595-3100. 

oct 9-10—Seattle-bioneers 

Conference 2007, Seattle, 

Washington. See www.nwetc.org. 


ANNOUNCeMeNts: 

JoB cEntER 

Assistant Professor riparian 

ecology, college of Natural Resources, 

department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, 

university of Idaho, Moscow. 

responsibilities: Academic year, tenure 

track assistant professor. 40% teaching; 

40% scholarship; 20% advising/outreach/ 

service. Successful candidate expected to 

develop comprehensive, externally funded 

research program involving graduate 

students; teach undergraduate course 

in riparian ecology and management; 

participate in other undergraduate courses as 

needed; teach a graduate course in riparian 

ecology, management, and restoration; 

and a graduate course in specialty area. 

Qualifications: Successful candidate must 

have ph.d. with focus on riparian ecology 

emphasizing impacts of humans on riparian 

systems from headwater systems to large rivers, 

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 jobs@fisheries.org. online job announcements will be billed at 

$350 for 150 word increments. Please send billing information. Listings 

are free for Associate, official, and Sustaining organizations, and for 

individual members hiring personal assistants. if space is available, jobs 

may also be printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge. 

to see more job listings go to 

www.fisheries.organd click Job Postings. 

biotic-abiotic interactions, and restoration; 

must demonstrate successful research 

productivity through external funding and 

refereed publications; and must demonstrate 

a commitment to teaching excellence. postdoctoral 

or equivalent experience desired. 

Closing date: Review begins 12 

october 2007 and continues until 

successful candidate identified. 

Contact: Apply online at www.hr.uidaho. 

edu. Questions can be addressed to 

carrie Barron at cbarron@uidaho.edu. 

m.S./Ph.d. Assistantship, Brown Trout 

Bioenergetics, uSGS South dakota cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research unit/South 

dakota State university, Brookings. 

responsibilities: evaluate the effects of an 

invasive diatom Didymosphenia geminata on 

brown trout foraging ecology in the Black 

2007 Membership Application 

American Fisheries Society • 5410 Grosvenor lane • Suite 110 • Bethesda, Md 20814-2199 

301/897-8616 x203 or 218 • fax 301/897-8096 • www.fisheries.org 

Hills, South dakota. Interest/experience 

with bioenergetics modeling, stable isotope 

analysis, and food web ecology are desired. 

Qualifications: B.S. or M.S. degree in fisheries 

science or related field; motivated M.S. or 

ph.d. student ; strong written and oral communication 

skills; competitive GpA and GRe scores. 

Salary: $16,000–20,000 research stipend, 

ncludes out-of-state tuition waiver. 

Closing date: 1 September 2007. 

Contact: Submit a letter of interest, resume, 

names and addresses of three references, 

copies of academic transcripts and GRe scores 

to Steven R. chipps, uSGS South dakota 

cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

unit, department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Sciences, NpBl 2140B, South dakota State 

university, Brookings, Sd 57007; Steven. 

chipps@sdstate. edu; 605/688-5467. 

NAme Please provide (for AFS use only) employer 

Address phone Industry 

Fax Academia 

e-mail Federal gov't. 

city State/province Recruited by an AFS member? yes__ no__ State/provincial gov't. 

Zip/postal code country Name other 

memberSHiP tyPe (includes print Fisheries and online Membership directory) North America/dues other dues 

developing countries I (includes online Fisheries only) N/A $ 5 

developing countries II N/A $25 

Regular $76 $88 

Student (includes online journals) $19 $22 

Young professional (year graduated) $38 $44 

Retired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older) $38 $44 

life (Fisheries and 1 journal) $1,737 $1,737 

life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years) $1,200 $1,200 

life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year) $1,000 $1,000 

JoUrNAL SUbSCriPtioNS (optional) North America other 

Journal name Print Online Print Online 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society $43 $25 $48 $25 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management $43 $25 $48 $25 

North American Journal of Aquaculture $38 $25 $41 $25 

Journal of Aquatic Animal Health $38 $25 $41 $25 

Fisheries InfoBase $25 $25 

PAymeNt please make checks payable to American Fisheries Society in u.S. currency drawn on a u.S. bank or pay by VISA or Mastercard. 

check p.o. number 

Visa Mastercard Account # exp. date Signature 

All memberships are for a calendar year. New member applications received January 1 through August 31 are processed for full membership that 

calendar year (back issues are sent). Those received September 1 or later are processed for full membership beginning January 1 of the followig year. 

Fisheries, Vol. 32 No. 8, Aug. 2007 

414 Fisheries • vol 32 no 8 • august 2007 • www.fisheries.org 

PAid:

Conservation Status of Crayfish Species Paddlefish Conservation ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?