GUIDELINES AND REVIEWS
AFS Completes Assessment, Issues New Guidance Regarding
Hatchery Operation and the Use of HatcheryOrigin Fish
Jesse Trushenski
BACKGROUND
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Center for Fisheries, Aquacul
ture, and Aquatic Sciences, Life Science II Room 251, Carbondale IL
62901. Email: saluski@siu.edu
Lee Blankenship
Northwest Marine Technology Inc., Tumwater, WA 98501
Jim Bowker
Downloaded by [Kenneth M. Leber] at 11:33 24 November 2014
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bozeman, MT 59715
Tom Flagg
National Marine Fisheries Service, Manchester, WA 98353
Jay Hesse
Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management, Lapwai,
ID 83540
Ken Leber
Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL 34236
Kai Lorenzen
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32653
Don MacKinlay
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0E6 Canada
Des Maynard
National Marine Fisheries Service, Manchester, WA 98353
Christine Moffitt
U.S. Geological Survey, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 838441141
Vince Mudrak (retired)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Warm Springs, GA 31830
Kim Scribner
Department of Zoology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Scott Stuewe
HDR, Springfield, IL 62703
John Sweka
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Lamar, PA 16841
Gary Whelan
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI 48909
Connie YoungDubovsky
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO 80225
The American Fisheries Society (AFS) is the oldest, largest, and most influential professional organization devoted to
fisheries conservation and, in this capacity, the AFS has routinely assessed the contributions of hatcheries to natural resource
management and issued recommendations to guide natural resource managers in best uses of hatchery-origin fish. For the
past several decades, the Society has explored these issues in
a formalized process conducted at approximately 10-year intervals to assess contemporary issues related to hatcheries and
management of aquatic resources. Representatives of the Fish
Culture and Fisheries Management Sections came together in
1985 to answer the question “Fish culture—fish management’s
ally?” in a symposium entitled “The Role of Fish Culture in
Fisheries Management.” In 1994, AFS reexamined the issues
of fisheries enhancement in the context of emerging ecosystembased approaches to resource management in a symposium
and workshop entitled “Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes
in Aquatic Ecosystems.” A similar process was undertaken in
2003–2004 to once again review the uses of hatchery-origin
fish and new scientific findings in the course of a symposium,
web-based survey of fisheries professionals, and a facilitated
workshop, collectively referred to as “Propagated Fishes in
Resource Management (PFIRM).” Each of the previous cycles
yielded a proceedings book (Fish Culture in Fisheries Management [Stroud 1986], Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes
in Aquatic Ecosystems [Schramm and Piper 1995], and Propagated Fishes in Resource Management [Nickum et al. 2004]),
and most recently a guidance document, “Considerations for
the Use of Propagated Fishes in Resource Management.” The
so-called “PFIRM Considerations” guide, published by AFS in
2005 (Mudrak and Carmichael 2005), provided resource managers with general recommendations for decision making and
successful implementation of fisheries supplementation, rehabilitation, and restoration programs.
In response to fisheries management policy changes that
have occurred, newly available information on supplementation and rehabilitation, and fisheries issues that have arisen
since the previous cycle, AFS President William Fisher established a steering committee in 2012 to reengage the Society
in the next cycle of this iterative process. Dubbed “Hatcheries
and Management of Aquatic Resources (HaMAR),” the process brought together Doug Bradley, Tom Flagg, Kurt Gamperl,
Jeff Hill, Christine Moffitt, Vince Mudrak, George Nardi, Kim
Scribner, Scott Stuewe, John Sweka, Gary Whelan, and Connie
Young-Dubovsky under the leadership of Jesse Trushenski and
Don MacKinlay to represent interested AFS Sections and the
perspectives of state and federal agencies. They were subse-
Fisheries • Vol 39 No 11• November 2014 • www.fisheries.org
543
quently joined by Jay Hesse and Ken Leber, Kai Lorenzen, and
Lee Blankenship to represent tribal/First Nation perspectives
and the Science Consortium for Replenishment of the Oceans,
respectively. Collectively, this committee worked to develop,
organize, and implement the HaMAR process.
Downloaded by [Kenneth M. Leber] at 11:33 24 November 2014
The HaMAR committee’s work began with a scoping
survey to give voice to a diverse cross section of fisheries professionals in identifying contemporary issues of concern. The
respondents highlighted a number of critical issues related to
hatcheries, hatchery-origin fish, and fisheries management.
Based on these priority topics, presentations were solicited
for symposia held at the AQUACULTURE 2013 conference
(Nashville, Tennessee, February 21–25) and the AFS 2013 Annual Meeting (Little Rock, Arkansas, September 8–12). With
assistance from organizers of the HaMAR special publication
module, Des Maynard (see below), and Past President of the
Fish Culture Section, Jim Bowker, the HaMAR steering committee worked to distill the symposia into a new guidance
document, “Hatcheries and Management of Aquatic Resources
(HaMAR) Considerations for Use of Hatcheries and HatcheryOrigin Fish.” This process included multiple rounds of drafting
and revision, followed by consideration and approval by the
AFS Governing Board on 16 August 2014. The full text of the
“HaMAR Considerations” guide will appear in forthcoming
special issue of the North American Journal of Aquaculture,
along with a series of papers derived from HaMAR-related
symposia presentations. The “HaMAR Considerations,” summarized below, represents an update and expansion of the
previous “PFIRM Considerations” and is intended to provide
aquatic resource managers with timely and comprehensive
guidance regarding hatcheries and their products.
Executive Summary of “HaMAR Considerations”
Summary of Findings from PFIRM
The PFIRM process identified seven primary concepts that
remain informative and should be considered when stocking
fish:
the stocked fish and stocking will achieve the identified
management objective(s).
3. Risk and benefit analysis. Scientific evaluations should be
conducted to determine what effects stocked fishes may
have on the environment and native and naturalized biota
(including humans) and what benefits and risks various approaches may yield.
4. Evaluate potential beneficial or harmful effects of increased
and directed public use of aquatic environments on biotic
(including human) communities. Particular caution should
be exercised if introducing fish to an area where they did not
occur previously.
5. Economic evaluation. Benefits and costs should be comprehensively evaluated and quantitatively described as accurately as possible.
6. Public involvement. Keep the public informed about pending changes in fisheries management, encourage dialogue
on potential changes, and provide a forum for public input.
Moreover, when appropriate, educate the public on legal and
interjurisdictional issues, including tribal/First Nation treaty
rights and responsibilities.
7. Interagency cooperation. Share technical science-based fisheries information to strengthen interagency coordination and
interjurisdictional fisheries monitoring programs. Recognize
regulatory and legal differences for the United States, Canada, Mexico, tribes, provinces, states, territories, and federal
lands such as national parks and military reservations.
The “PFIRM Considerations” provided a good summary of
issues considered important at the time for fisheries managers
to use in their comprehensive planning process and subsequent
decisions involving the potential use of stocked fishes. We consider these key issues to still be a primary need for resource
managers in developing fisheries management plans that include stocking propagated fish.
Priority Shifts Identified during HaMAR
1. Comprehensive fishery management plans. Comprehensive
fishery management plans should guide resource managers
through the choice to stock fish, evaluate stocking programs,
and manage fisheries in an adaptive, responsive fashion. The
comprehensive management planning process should recognize and consider alternatives to stocking and include inputs
from various resource partners. When stocking is delineated,
specific goals and objectives should be considered. Objectives should be specific, measurable, accountable, realistic,
and time-fixed.
2. Biological and environmental feasibility. Decisions to stock
propagated fishes should be predicated on science-based
evaluations that indicate that the environment can support
544
The HaMAR scoping survey respondents were asked to
assess the current relevance of the major elements identified
in the “PFIRM Considerations.” More specifically, they were
asked to identify which three of the seven elements they considered to be the most important in terms of contemporary
stocking programs. The responses received made it clear that
the “PFIRM Considerations” remain relevant, but there is now
even more emphasis on integrated management and a need
for greater specificity in considering the use of hatcheries and
hatchery-origin fish. In particular, the following priority topics
were identified during the HaMAR process as being particularly relevant.
Fisheries • Vol 39 No 11 • November 2014 • www.fisheries.org
Habitat Restoration and Management Efforts as
Companions to Stocking
Monitoring provides decision makers with the evidence needed
to objectively evaluate enhancement effectiveness.
Whereas the focus of the “HaMAR Considerations” guide
is the use of hatcheries and hatchery-origin fish, it is imperative
to note that stocking is just one leg of the “three-legged stool”
of fisheries management: stocking for supplementation is unlikely to be successful in the absence of complementary habitat
rehabilitation and harvest management strategies.
Hatchery Operation and Propagation Techniques
•
Types of enhancements and complementary modes of
hatchery operation. Not all fish tolerate the same environmental conditions, and husbandry methods vary substantially among the hundreds of finfish species that are
reared throughout the world. Just as propagation techniques
vary from fish to fish, what constitutes “best management
practices” for a hatchery depends on the operation’s requirements. Much progress has been made toward defining common stocking strategies; however, standardized
terminology and definitions remain elusive. We encourage adoption of standardized terms to broadly characterize
managers’ expectations of the hatchery origin fish and help
to frame the principles of hatchery operation and propagation methods. With this in mind, it is important to recognize
that many hatcheries are functional hybrids, operating as
harvest augmentation, supplementation, or conservation
hatcheries by turns or simultaneously to produce various
fishes in a manner consistent with their intended uses. Clear
and well-documented objectives are essential for all hatchery programs, especially facilities rearing fish for different
uses.
•
Conflicting mandates. During development and operation
of hatchery programs, managers are often faced with having to address competing and often conflicting objectives
or mandates. Achieving a scientifically defensible but socially acceptable balance between harvest and conservation has proved to be challenging in many situations, both
politically and biologically. To be considered successful,
hatcheries should be used as part of a comprehensive strategy where habitat, hatchery management, and harvest are
coordinated to best meet resource management goals that
are defined for each population.
•
Controlling the costs of hatchery operation. Feed cost and
effluent management are increasingly critical constraints
for hatcheries: flat or declining budgets and stricter oversight of water usage make the prospect of producing the
same or greater numbers of fish a difficult, if not impossible, proposition. The costs of hatchery operation will
continue to increase as a result of increasing feed prices
and/or the need to implement more robust water treatment
methods or transition to more intensive, water reuse–based
rearing systems. Though reductions in effort or hatchery
closures may offer short-term savings, it is important to
recognize that curtailing hatchery programs will undoubtedly have broader economic consequences. In assessing
their costs, the value of hatchery programs and their products must also be considered.
Downloaded by [Kenneth M. Leber] at 11:33 24 November 2014
Establishing Appropriate Uses for HatcheryOrigin Fish and Defining Expectations for
Stocking Programs
Hatchery-origin fish are used to achieve a number of management objectives, and appropriate propagation and stocking
methods vary based on the intended use of the fish. It is impossible to apply the principles of adaptive management if
goals and objectives are not clearly articulated and agreed to
by decision makers and stakeholders. Stocking may or may not
be an effective management action, depending on the targets
identified for the fishery and the current status of the receiving
system. If quantitative assessments indicate stocking are advisable, species selection processes should take a broad range of
biological, economic, and risk management criteria into consideration.
Understanding the Limitations of Hatchery-Origin
Fish and Stocking Programs
Hatcheries and hatchery-origin fish are an essential component of many fishery management plans. However, there are
limitations to stocking, and failure to recognize and address
these limitations is likely to yield less than desired results and
unintended consequences. Successful enhancement programs
are closely connected to the fishery management process and
are integrated with ongoing fishery monitoring programs. Flexible/adaptive management of hatcheries, conducted in concert
with that of fisheries management plans, enables refinement,
progress, and success in stocking programs.
Monitoring and Flexible/Adaptive Management of
Stocking Programs
It is absolutely essential that fishery management plans
include preestablished timelines and criteria for evaluating
enhancement and deciding whether to continue, modify, or
terminate the stocking program. The specific objectives and
benchmarks of effectiveness will vary from one situation to
another depending on the stakeholders involved and their values. The decision to continue or discontinue a long-standing
stocking program can be fraught with political discord without
agreed-upon criteria and quantitative measures to reference.
Fisheries • Vol 39 No 11• November 2014 • www.fisheries.org
545
Downloaded by [Kenneth M. Leber] at 11:33 24 November 2014
Culture of Imperiled Species and Conservation
Hatcheries
The operational approaches and measures of success
for a conservation hatchery may differ considerably from
those of harvest augmentation/production or supplementation
hatcheries. The mission of a modern conservation hatchery is
twofold: gene pool preservation and recovery. Each conservation program will be site specific and depend on the physical and
management limitations of each individual hatchery. The exact
application of conservation hatchery strategies will depend on
the particular stock of fish, its level of depletion, and the biodiversity of the ecosystem but will generally involve rearing
protocols to maximize genetic diversity and the inherent fitness
of the fish to survive and breed in its natural environment. In
the future, creation of gene banks using cryopreservation and
other biotechnological tools for reproduction may be increasingly important in the preservation or production of rare aquatic
organisms.
Fish Health and Access to Disease Management
Tools
Successful hatchery programs take a comprehensive approach to aquatic animal health, including use of biologics
(i.e., vaccines and bacterins), biosecurity measures, and other
preventative strategies; use of therapeutants and other disease
management techniques; broodstock conditioning and spawning; marking progeny; and reducing handling stress. Many of
these activities require administration of fish drugs, including
antimicrobials, spawning aids, marking agents, and sedatives.
To maximize the effectiveness of drug treatments and remain
compliant with relevant regulations and aquatic animal health
plans, hatcheries have a responsibility to ensure that staff know
what drugs are legal and how to apply them correctly.
Biosecurity
“Biosecurity” refers to practices used to prevent the introduction and spread of disease-causing organisms and nuisance/
invasive species. Biosecurity is commonly associated with
disinfection, but comprehensive biosecurity plans can go well
beyond simple disinfection procedures to include everything
from facility layout and design, to livestock sourcing and
quarantine, to record-keeping. Although many common fish
pathogens and parasites are present in virtually all environments and are difficult or impossible to eradicate, others have
a regional distribution or are easier to avoid or contain. In any
event, biosecurity is an essential first line of defense against
introduction or transmission of undesirable organisms.
Strategies to Maintain Genetic Integrity and
Diversity in Hatchery-Origin Fish
Proper genetic management of and spawning strategies for
hatchery-origin fish are critical to maintaining genetic diversity,
minimizing inbreeding, maximizing effective population size,
and reducing artificial selection. The degree to which these ele-
546
ments are intensively managed depends, in part, on the type
of hatchery and intended use of the hatchery-origin fish. Various spawning strategies can be employed in hatcheries that can
maintain genetic diversity, minimize inbreeding, maximize effective population size, and reduce adaptation in captivity and
upon supplementation of these fish into wild populations.
Biological and Other Interactions between Wild
and Hatchery Fish
Much of the concern over interactions between hatchery
and wild fish has centered on genetic effects of hatchery fish
on wild populations, and hatchery management strategies are
often in place to minimize genetic risks. However, ecological
effects may be just as important as genetic effects and should
be considered when releasing hatchery origin fish into the wild.
Responsible use of hatchery fish in sympatry with wild fish
should strive to minimize risk of negative interactions with wild
populations, and a number of strategies may be applied to mitigate ecological risks from hatchery programs.
Risk Assessment and Decision Making
Risk assessment is the process by which the likelihood
of an event occurring and the severity of its consequences are
described. Risk itself is defined as the product of these two
factors—likelihood of occurrence and negativity of consequences. Risks associated with hatchery operation and use of
hatchery-origin fish should be delineated and integrated into
the decision-making process in as quantitative a manner as possible, including the consequence of taking no action. Potential
benefits should also be considered as a part of such an assessment. Benefits often relate to society, such as angling days, fish
yield, and public access, but may also include ecosystem function, stability, cultural value, productivity, and others.
Depending on the elements of the scenario and the availability of quantitative information, risk assessment can be a
straightforward assembling of facts and figures or it can be
a challenging process involving considerable uncertainty.
These challenges should not dissuade resource managers from
attempting to assess the relative risk of proposed actions, including stock enhancement, with the caveat that decisions will
still need to be made even when risks are not completely understood.
FINAL THOUGHTS
•
Effective communication. Though the need for cooperative
management, inclusive planning, and interdisciplinary approaches to fisheries management may seem self-evident
today, this was not always the case. Those participating in
HaMAR exemplified a willingness to engage those with
differing views and focus on science-based decision making, both of which are essential to the creation of effective
fisheries management plans, including the use of hatcheries
and hatchery-origin fish.
Fisheries • Vol 39 No 11 • November 2014 • www.fisheries.org
•
Issues yet to be resolved. Like any scientific endeavor,
HaMAR effectively addressed many questions but raised
others. What progress has there been in quantifying the
socioeconomic impact of fisheries enhancement? Why are
state fisheries managers reluctant to resist stakeholder demands to judge stocking programs simply by the numbers
of organisms stocked? Is there an urgent need to increase
seafood production? Whereas some of these questions may
find quantitative responses or solutions in the future, it may
not be possible to address all of them in the context of traditional fisheries science.
Downloaded by [Kenneth M. Leber] at 11:33 24 November 2014
To be fully successful, every hatchery program must be
scientifically defensible, have well-defined and documented
goals, and be flexible and respond adaptively to new information. Proper forethought and documentation will go a long way
to strengthening the scientific foundation of hatchery operation
and the use of hatchery-origin fish.
For more information about the HaMAR process or its deliverables, please contact the authors.
REFERENCES
Mudrak, V.A., and G.J. Carmichael. 2005. Considerations for the use of propagated fishes
in resource management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 39 pp.
Nickum, M.J., P.M. Mazik, J.G. Nickum, and D.D. MacKinlay (editors). 2004. Propagated
Fishes in Resource Management. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 644 pp.
Schramm, H.L, and R.G. Piper (editors). 1995. Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in
Aquatic Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 608 pp.
Stroud, R.H. (editor) 1986. Fish Culture in Fisheries Management. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD. 481 pp.
The World Leader & Innovator in Fish Tags
• Call 800-843-1172 to discuss your
custom tagging needs
• Email us at sales@floytag.com
• View our website for our latest catalog
www.floytag.com
floy tag ad3.indd 1
1/24/2013 6:45:34 PM
AFS Seeks Journal Editor
The American Fisheries Society (AFS) seeks a scientist to serve as editor of the
Journal of Aquatic Animal Health (JAAH). Editor must be committed to fastpaced deadlines, and would be appointed for a five-year renewable term.
Duties include:
1. Deciding on the suitability of contributed papers, and advising authors on
what would be required to make contributions publishable, using advice of associate editors and reviewers. Reviewing papers for scientific accuracy as well
as for clarity, readability, and interest to scientists and culturists concerned with
the health of aquatic organisms;
2. Soliciting manuscripts to ensure broad coverage;
3. Setting editorial standards for JAAH in keeping with the objectives of the
publication in accordance with AFS policies, and guidance provided by the Publications Overview Committee and the JAAH editorial board;
4. Making recommendations to enhance the vitality and prestige of the Journal.
To be considered, send a current curriculum vitae along with a letter of interest explaining why you want to be the Journal
editor by e-mail to alerner@fisheries.org. To nominate a highly qualified colleague, send a letter of recommendation to
the same e-mail address.
Note: Editors receive an honorarium, and support to attend the AFS Annual Meeting.
Fisheries • Vol 39 No 11• November 2014 • www.fisheries.org
547