NEWS NOTE
January 2007
Topics
Spring Meeting
Request for Information on Foreign Travel
Section Name Change and AFS Bylaw Change
National Conservation Need
NFHI Science Review Deadline Reminder
Spring Meeting
Please reserve the last weekend of April (27-30) for the Spring meeting of the FAS. We are finalizing plans for a meeting in Corpus Christi. Additional details on the meeting will be forthcoming. If you have topics for the Agenda, please forward them to me gary.saul@tpwd.state.tx.us and cc: Ken Kurzawski ken.kurzawski@tpwd.state.tx.us. This meeting is the time to nominate the new President-Elect and Secretary-Treasurer. Please be thinking of those who can help this Section move forward!
Request for Information on Foreign Travel
I was just contacted by Ira Aldeman, co-chair of the AFS Meetings Oversight Committee requesting information on the difficulty of state agency employees traveling to AFS meetings held outside the US. His email is presented below. In the interest of time, please email him directly and cc me. I will put together a combined response by his requested date of 29 January 2007.
Dear Gary:
I am co-chair of the AFS Meetings Oversight Committee. A question arose at a recent committee meeting as to how difficult it would be for state agency employees to get to the AFS Annual Meeting if it were held out of the U.S. We are interested in any international destination, but in particular Mexico because the Mexico chapter may put in a bid for the annual meeting sometime in the near future. We note that there was some difficulty in state employees getting support to travel to Quebec in 2003, but nevertheless, the conference was very well-attended. We thought that the Fisheries Administration Section might help us to answer this question. Can you give me some feedback? Perhaps email the question to your section members and let them respond to me directly. I need a response before our next meeting, Jan. 29 at the latest.
Thanks for your help,
Ira
Ira Adelman
ira@umn.edu
Section Name Change and AFS Bylaw Change
At the AFS business meeting in Lake Placid, the AFS membership voted to approve our bylaw changes that modified the name of our section from the Fisheries Administrators Section to the Fisheries Administration Section. We made this change to be more inclusive of all interested AFS members. There was some discussion from the floor on the description of our Section in the AFS Constitution and Rules (Rule 4.I) and some wording changes were made to the description in an attempt to broaden our Section. After the meeting, we discussed further simplification of the description with Gwen White, AFS Constitutional Consultant and a FAS member. The parent society constitution would need to be amended to reflect those changes (see below). Gwen will include this new language in her report to the March Governing Board meeting so the new language can be voted on at the San Francisco meeting. If any FAS members have any comments on the suggested changes, please send those to Ken Kurzawski.
Rule 4.I would read:
The FISHERIES ADMINISTRATION SECTION is an association of members who have a stake in the administration of fisheries agencies or programs; and who wish to encourage timely discussions and exchanges of information on issues that impact fisheries management programs and users.
National Conservation Need
We have received requests for the FAS to promote a National Conservation Need for the next meeting of the AFWA Fisheries and Water Resource Policy Committee. While I am not really sure what approach our Section should take, I will compose a letter from the FAS to Doug Hansen, AFWA FWRPC Chair, suggesting that the daughterless carp technology be proposed on behalf of the FWRPC as a NCN for consideration at the 2007 spring meeting. It is my understanding that each AFWA Committee and each Regional Association can submit a proposed NCN and then the proposals are selected by an identified group within the AFWA. The daughterless carp technology project certainly has broad application to a wide geographic area and the technology, if proven effective could be expanded to other ANS. Presentations were made to the FAS last spring in Columbus and at the AFWA in Aspen in the fall.
NFHI Science and Data Report – Deadline Reminder
This is a follow-up reminder regarding the 19 January 2007 deadline for reviewing and commenting on the National Fish Habitat Initiative, draft "National Fish Habitat Action Plan Science and Data Report". The draft Science and Data Report entitled, "A Framework for Assessing the Nation's Fish Habitat," represents a companion document to the final version of the "National Fish Habitat Action Plan".
Web Links
"Science and Data Report" draft document:
www.fishhabitat.org/science/default.htm
"Comments Form" for draft "Science and Data Report": www.djcase.com/selectsurvey/TakeSurvey.asp?SurveyID=40L5630I4634MNational
Fish Habitat Initiative Home Page: www.fishhabitat.org
Final "National Fish Habitat Action Plan": http://www.fishhabitat.org/plan/default.htm
"Sign-up Page" to be notified of web and other NFHI related updates:
http://fishhabitat.org/partner/signup.htm
Please feel free to pass on this review deadline reminder to others.
I have received emails of concern regarding the Science and Data report and request members do their best to review the document. Below is a review from one concerned fisheries administrator.
At the first National Fish Habitat Initiative (NFHI) stakeholder meeting, held in Kansas City, Mamie Parker stated that her brother (who lives in K.C.) expects the NFHI to improve fishing. At that meeting, it was concluded that unless the nation’s anglers get behind the NFHI, it is doomed to fail. However, at the K.C. meeting and at all the other meetings I have attended on the NFHI (Madison, Kissimmee, and Lake Placid), it has been clear that many see the NFHI primarily as a means to recover at-risk aquatic species. After reading "A Framework for Assessing the Nation’s Fish Habitat," it appears this is now the main focus of the NFHI.
The word "fishing" appears in two literature citations (pages 16 and 17), in two tables (pages 10 and 75), and only once in the text (on page 12); and that is in reference to commercial overfishing. The word "angler" appears only in a table on page 75 and is not mentioned in the text. I understand that the framework is intended to address how fish habitat should be assessed and how potential projects should be scored. But, I think some mention of angling benefits anticipated from improved habitat should be included in the text, if any are expected.
Given the emphasis of the NFHI on native species in natural, unaltered systems, I am not sure whether reservoirs have a place in the NFHI. Appendix 4 does contain information on hydrology and energy flow pertaining to reservoirs, but references to reservoirs in the text are limited to their negative impacts on rivers and streams.
Several state fish chiefs in the Great Plains have talked about creating a reservoir initiative, hoping that NFHI funds might some day be used to maintain reservoir water levels by leasing or buying water from irrigators. Given that these artificial habitats usually contain introduced species, such a project would not score well using the criteria and tools suggested in "A Framework for Assessing the Nation’s Fish Habitat."
Remember, comments are due 19 January 2007. I have requested from the NFHI an extension on that deadline.
We’ll be contacting you soon with the details on our Spring meeting.
Gary Saul, President
Fisheries Administrators Section
Deputy Director, Inland Fisheries
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
512.389.8082
gary.saul@tpwd.state.tx.us