Caviar and ConservationStatus, Management, andTrade of North AmericanSturgeon and Paddlefish

Douglas F. Williamson

May 2003

TRAFFIC North AmericaWorld Wildlife Fund

1250 24th Street NWWashington DC 20037

© 2003 WWF. All rights reserved by World Wildlife Fund, Inc.

All material appearing in this publication is copyrighted and may be reproducedwith permission. Any reproduction, in full or in part, of this publication must creditTRAFFIC North America.

The views of the author expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect thoseof the TRAFFIC Network, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), or IUCN-The WorldConservation Union.

The designation of geographical entities in this publication and the presentation ofthe material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part ofTRAFFIC or its supporting organizations concerning the legal status of any country,territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiersor boundaries.

The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and Registered Trademark ownership are held byWWF. TRAFFIC is a joint program of WWF and IUCN.

Suggested citation:

Williamson, D. F. 2003. Caviar and Conservation: Status, Management andTrade of North American Sturgeon and Paddlefish. TRAFFIC NorthAmerica. Washington D.C.: World Wildlife Fund.

Front cover photograph of a lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) by Richard T.Bryant, courtesy of the Tennessee Aquarium.

Back cover photograph of a paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) by Richard T. Bryant,courtesy of the Tennessee Aquarium.

Visit www.traffic.org for an electronic edition of this report, and for moreinformation about TRAFFIC North America.

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

II. GENERAL OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2.1 Species Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72.2 Management and Regulation in the United States and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162.3 Legal and Illegal Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182.4 Hatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

III. SPECIES SUMMARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

3.1 Atlantic Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223.2 Gulf Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .343.3 Shortnose Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .423.4 North American Paddlefish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .503.5 Shovelnose Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .573.6 Pallid Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .623.7 Alabama Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .673.8 Lake Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .723.9 White Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .773.10 Green Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

IV. MANAGEMENT AND REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

4.1 Atlantic Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .944.2 Gulf Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .974.3 Shortnose Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .984.4 North American Paddlefish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1004.5 Shovelnose Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1164.6 Pallid Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1214.7 Alabama Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1234.8 Lake Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1244.9 White Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1334.10 Green Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

V. LEGAL AND ILLEGAL TRADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145

5.1 The Global Caviar Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1455.2 CITES and North American Acipenseriformes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1505.3 Legal Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1555.4 Illegal Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

VI. HATCHERIES AND COMMERCIAL AQUACULTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183

6.1 Captive Propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1836.2 Commercial Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2006.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215

7.1 Species Status/Conservation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2157.2 Management and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2167.3 Legal and Illegal Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2197.4 Captive Propagation and Commercial Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223

ii

TEXT BOXES

Box 1. ESA, COSEWIC, CITES, IUCN Red List, and European Union Annexes . . . . . . . . . . .14

Box 2. Kootenai River White Sturgeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

Box 3. Federal Laws and Regulations Relevant to Acipenseriformes in the United States and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

Box 4. MICRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .101

Box 5. General CITES Permitting Requirements in the United States and Canada . . . . . . . . .156

Box 6. TRAFFIC Analysis of LEMIS Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Historic Atlantic Sturgeon Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Figure 2. Historic Gulf Sturgeon Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Figure 3. Shortnose Sturgeon Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Figure 4. Historic Paddlefish Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Figure 5. Historic Shovelnose Sturgeon Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Figure 6. Historic Pallid Sturgeon Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Figure 7. Current Alabama Sturgeon Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Figure 8. Current Lake Sturgeon Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Figure 9. White Sturgeon Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

Figure 10. Kootenai River White Sturgeon Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82

Figure 11. Green Sturgeon Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Section II. GENERAL OVERVIEW

Table 2.1.1 Historic and Current Range of North American Sturgeon and Paddlefish Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Table 2.1.2 Physical/Life History Characteristics of North American Acipenseriformes . . . . . .9

Table 2.1.3 Spawning Characteristics of North American Acipenseriformes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Table 2.1.4 Habitat of North American Acipenseriformes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Table 2.1.5 Historic Fisheries and Catch Levels of Sturgeon and Paddlefish in the United States and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Table 2.1.6 Classification of North American Paddlefish and Sturgeon Species UnderESA, COSEWIC, CITES, the IUCN Red List, and EU Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Table 2.1.7 Major Challenges/Threats to North American Acipenseriformes . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Table 2.2.1 State and Provincial Classifications/Commercial and Sport Fishing for Paddlefish and Sturgeon in the United States and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Table 2.3.1 Commercial Trade of Native Acipenseriformes in the United States and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Table 2.4.1 Captive Propagation and Commercial Aquaculture of North AmericanSturgeon and Paddlefish Species in the United States and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Section III. SPECIES SUMMARIES

Table 3.1.1 NMFS-Reported U.S. Atlantic Sturgeon Live Weight Landings by State,1962–1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Section IV. MANAGEMENT AND REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES ANDCANADA

Table 4.1.1 Atlantic Sturgeon Landings (kgs) in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia,1995–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

Table 4.1.2 Reported Catch and Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for Atlantic Sturgeon in Quebec, 1997–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

Table 4.4.1 Summary of Commercial and Sport Fishing Management Regulations for Paddlefish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Table 4.4.2 Commercial Paddlefish Catch in Illinois, 1990–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

Table 4.4.3 Recorded Angler-Caught Paddlefish at Osawatomie Dam andChetopa Dam, Kansas, 1992–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

Table 4.4.4 Commercial Catch of Paddlefish in Kentucky Waters, 1999–2002 (partial) . . . . .107

Table 4.4.5 Missouri Commercial Paddlefish Catch, Mississippi River, 1992–2001 . . . . . . .109

iv

Table 4.4.6 Paddlefish Catch Data in Montana, 1992–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

Table 4.4.7 Sport Catch from South Dakota/Nebraska Snagging, 1992–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . .111

Table 4.4.8 North Dakota Paddlefish Catch, 1995–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

Table 4.4.9 Annual Paddlefish/Roe Donation and Caviar Production, North Star Caviar, 1993–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

Table 4.4.10 Estimated Paddlefish Catch/Egg Harvest in Tennessee, 1990–2001 . . . . . . . . . . .116

Table 4.5.1 Commercial Shovelnose Sturgeon Catch/Roe Harvest in Illinois, 1990–2001 . . .118

Table 4.5.2 Iowa Commercial Catch of Shovelnose Sturgeon, 1998–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118

Table 4.5.3 Commercial Catch of Shovelnose Sturgeon in Kentucky Waters,1999–2002 (partial) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119

Table 4.5.4 Missouri Commercial Shovelnose Sturgeon Catch (lbs), 1999-2001 . . . . . . . . . .120

Table 4.8.1 Production and Value of Lake Sturgeon Fisheries in Manitoba, 1985–1996 . . . .126

Table 4.8.2 Ontario Commercial Catch of Lake Sturgeon, 1994–1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

Table 4.8.3 Ontario Commercial Catch of Lake Sturgeon by Fishery, 1998–1999 . . . . . . . . .127

Table 4.8.4 Quebec Commercial Catch of Lake Sturgeon, 1986–1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

Table 4.8.5 Minnesota Sport Catch of Lake Sturgeon, 1996–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130

Table 4.8.6 Wisconsin Sport Catch of Lake Sturgeon, 1998–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132

Table 4.9.1 Estimated Abundance of Catchable White Sturgeon in the LowerColumbia River, 1989–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136

Table 4.9.2 Commercial and Sport Catch of White Sturgeon in the LowerColumbia River and Percentages, 1977–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137

Table 4.9.3 Commercial Catch of White Sturgeon by Season, Annual SportCatch, and Comparisons to Catch Guidelines, 1993–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138

Table 4.9.4 Annual 3-6 foot Abundance Estimates by Pool in the Zone 6Management Area of the Columbia River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139

Table 4.9.5 Annual Catch Estimates and Guidelines for Commercial and Sport Fisheries in the Zone 6 Management Area, 1991–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

Table 4.10.1 Commercial and Sport Catch of Green Sturgeon in the LowerColumbia River, 1977–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143

Section V. LEGAL AND ILLEGAL TRADE

Table 5.1.1 World Sturgeon Catch and Production per Country in Metric Tons,1981–1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147

Table 5.1.2 Reported Caviar Imports by Selected Major Importers, 1990–2000 . . . . . . . . . .148

Table 5.2.1 Expected Export Levels of Native Acipenseriformes from the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153

v

Table 5.3.1 Canadian Commercial Atlantic Sturgeon Export Summary,1996–2000 (Product from Wild Sturgeon Only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158

Table 5.3.2 Canadian Exports of Atlantic Sturgeon (Hatchery-Reared LiveFish), 1997–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159

Table 5.3.3 Legal Exports of Paddlefish Products from the United States,2000–2001 (partial) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163

Table 5.3.4 Canadian Lake Sturgeon Commercial Export Summary, 1998–2000(Product from Wild Sturgeon Only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168

Table 5.3.5 U.S. Imports of Canadian Lake Sturgeon Products, 1998–2001 (partial) . . . . . . .169

Table 5.3.6 Canadian Scientific Exports of Lake Sturgeon (Hatchery-Reared Live Fish), 1997–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170

Table 5.3.7 Legal Trade of Lake Sturgeon in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170

Table 5.3.8 U.S. Exports of White Sturgeon Products, 1997–2001 (partial) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173

Table 5.3.9 Reported U.S. White Sturgeon Imports, 1998–2001 (partial) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

Section VI. HATCHERIES AND COMMERCIAL AQUACULTURE

Table 6.1.1 Suggested Atlantic Sturgeon Donor Broodfish Populations for Use in Culture and Stocking Programs in Select Atlantic Coast Tributaries . . . . . . . . . .187

Table 6.1.2 Paddlefish Stocking by Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks inKansas and Oklahoma, 1992–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193

Table 6.1.3 Oklahoma Reservoirs with Paddlefish Reintroduced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193

Table 6.1.4 South Dakota Paddlefish Stockings, 1985–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194

Table 6.1.5 Michigan Stocking of Lake Sturgeon, 1990–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198

Table 6.2.1 Summary of Private Aquaculture for Paddlefish and Sturgeon Speciesin the United States and Canada, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202

vi

vii

Living largely unknown or unnoticed by thepublic in many North American rivers, lakes,estuaries, and marine environments are varioussturgeon and paddlefish species, members ofan ancient family of fishes, Acipenseriformes,that dates back perhaps 250 million years.Aside from being a relic predating the era ofthe dinosaurs, these species are at the center ofa conservation dilemma because sturgeon andpaddlefish have long provided humankind withone of its most distinctive luxury foods—caviar—as well as meat and other products.

There are 28 sturgeon and paddlefish speciesin the world, all in the Northern Hemisphere.Best known of these “living fossils” are thoseof the Caspian Sea, which in recent decadeshave supplied 90% of the world caviar tradeunder labels such as Beluga, Sevruga, andOsetra. For years, the Caspian Sea fisheriesproduced what is widely claimed to be thehighest quality caviar on the market.

Recently, however, all six of the sturgeonspecies native to the Caspian Sea and the riversfeeding it have undergone serious declinesbecause of habitat loss, destruction of breedinggrounds, pollution, and/or mismanaged orunmanaged fisheries, particularly in thecomponent territories of the former SovietUnion. Five of the six resident species arenow considered by the World ConservationUnion (IUCN) to be endangered. TRAFFICdocumented the conservation status andpotential threats to Caspian Sea sturgeonpopulations in a 1996 report, “Sturgeons of theCaspian Sea and the International Trade inCaviar” (De Meulenaer and Raymakers 1996).

Concerns such as those expressed in the 1996report over the long-term health, sustainability,or even survival of the Caspian Sea fisheryhave prompted conservationists and others toexamine the potential consequences of itscollapse on the world’s other sturgeon andpaddlefish species. If the Caspian fisheries canno longer produce enough caviar to meetmarket demand, the reasoning goes, where willthe caviar industry turn next?

TRAFFIC North America has focused inparticular on the consequences of the declinein the Caspian Sea fishery for the future ofNorth America’s sturgeon and paddlefishspecies. North America, and primarily theUnited States, is a significant importer ofCaspian Sea caviar. It is also home to ninespecies of sturgeon (including one subspecies)and one of the world’s two species ofpaddlefish, and has historically produced bothcaviar and meat from several of these species.

The history of North American sturgeon andpaddlefish fisheries, however, is a troubledone. Heavy commercial fishing during variousperiods in the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies contributed significantly to thedecline and in some cases near-extinction ofsome species. As is discussed in the body ofthis report, several life history characteristics(e.g., late age at maturation, slow rate ofreproduction, specific habitat requirements)render sturgeon and paddlefish particularlyvulnerable to commercial overexploitation.Several North American acipenseriformspecies have not recovered from past declinesto a point where they can withstandcommercial, or even recreational, fishingpressure. One alternative to wild catch—commercial aquaculture—remains in itsinfancy, and thus at least in the short term anysignificant increase in North American caviarproduction from native Acipenseriformeswould have to come from wild populations.This situation prompted TRAFFIC to ask abasic question: If the Caspian Sea fisheriescontinue to decline and industry attentionshifts to North America as an alternative, whatmight the future hold for U.S. and Canadianpopulations of sturgeon and paddlefish?

This report addresses several aspects of thatquestion, focusing on the preparedness of U.S.and Canadian management bodies, currenttrends in legal and illegal trade,implementation of recent listings andresolutions adopted by the parties to theConvention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

PREFACE

(CITES), and the state of (and prospects for)commercial aquaculture and sustainableproduction from the wild. TRAFFIC’s intentin part is to provide information to continuethe dialogue among state and federalbiologists, fisheries managers, policy makers,the caviar industry, fishermen, and commercialaquaculture interests that began at theSymposium on Harvest, Trade andConservation of North American Paddlefishand Sturgeon, which was held in May 1998 inChattanooga, Tennessee. Specifically,TRAFFIC herein examines the following:

1. The current status of North Americanpaddlefish and sturgeon species, theirhistoric range and current distribution,ecology and habitat requirements,historic and current catch levels, andchallenges and/or threats to theirconservation;

2. Federal, state, and regional managementand regulatory regimes, which arereviewed to explain how sturgeon andpaddlefish species are being managed atpresent and to assess whether systems inplace are adequate to cope effectivelywith increased commercial pressure;

3. Current levels of and trends in legaldomestic and international tradeinvolving native North AmericanAcipenseriformes, the possible impact ofthese activities on the species involved,and the application in the United Statesand Canada of recent CITES decisionsregarding sturgeon and paddlefish trade;

4. What is known about illegal catch andtrade activities, and to what extent thisphenomenon might further threaten U.S.and Canadian sturgeon and paddlefishpopulations or undermine conservationefforts; and

5. Developments in private commercialaquaculture and other captivepropagation programs, and how suchventures might provide a conservationbenefit to wild populations or, conversely,present new problems or challenges tofisheries and trade managementauthorities.

TRAFFIC does not attempt herein to addressquestions of sturgeon biology or morphology,the legitimacy of designations of species andsubspecies, or other such issues that continueto be widely debated in the scientificcommunity. The fundamental focus ofTRAFFIC’s mission is to monitor trade inwildlife, and address issues of illegal orunsustainable harvest and trade that mightthreaten the conservation of wild species offauna and flora. The subjects highlighted inthis report are those that fall within thosegeneral parameters. The primary sources usedto compile the information presented arefisheries management plans, catch and tradestatistics, laws and regulations, and documentsconcerning ongoing or proposed conservationprograms. We hope that the findings andrecommendations included at the end of thisreport will advance current sturgeon andpaddlefish conservation efforts.

viii

TRAFFIC North America expresses its thanksto everyone who provided input into thisreport. So many people provided informationand assistance that listing each individualwould not be practical, but we are grateful toall of you.

In particular, TRAFFIC would like to thank allof the state, provincial, and federal fisheriesbiologists, law enforcement officials, and othermanagement authorities who took the time toprovide the data and insights that are the heartof the report. Other information was providedby representatives of nongovernmentalorganizations, members of the academiccommunity, representatives from the caviar andfishing industries, and those involved in thecaptive propagation and commercialaquaculture of North American sturgeon andpaddlefish. This report would not have beenpossible without the tremendous assistance ofall of these sources.

The author would also like to thank those whoreviewed early drafts of the report, includingGeorge Benz of the Southeast AquaticResearch Institute, Ray Beamesderfer of S. P.Cramer and Associates, Caroline Raymakers ofTRAFFIC-Europe, Andrea Gaski and MarieMaltese of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Craig Hoover, Kim Davis, and Ernie Cooper ofTRAFFIC North America.

TRAFFIC is grateful to Environment Canada,Richard Charette and Paul Vecsei for the use ofdrawings from Environment Canada's CITESIdentification Guide–Sturgeons and Paddlefish.

TRAFFIC thanks Alice Taylor of WWF, andAziz Gokdemir and Liz Monte ofGrammarians, Inc. for their editorial input andassistance.

Finally, TRAFFIC North America would alsoparticularly like to express its gratitude to theDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation, whosegenerous support made this report possible.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Background: The Acipenseriformesof North AmericaMembers of Acipenseriformes in NorthAmerica include the North Americanpaddlefish (Polyodon spathula); the Atlanticsturgeon and its subspecies, the Gulf sturgeon(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus andAcipenser oxyrinchus desotoi);1 the shortnosesturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum); the lakesturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens); the pallidsturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus); theshovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchusplatorhynchus); the Alabama sturgeon(Scaphirhynchus suttkusi); the white sturgeon(Acipenser transmontanus); and the greensturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). There is alsoa recognized sub-population of the whitesturgeon in the Kootenai/Kootenay Riversystem, which the United States lists federallyas an endangered species and British Columbiaclassifies provincially as critically imperiled(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]1994b, 2000d; B.C. Fisheries 2001a).2 TheGulf sturgeon, pallid sturgeon, shovelnosesturgeon, and Alabama sturgeon are endemic tothe United States. The Atlantic sturgeon,shortnose sturgeon, lake sturgeon, whitesturgeon, and green sturgeon inhabit U.S. andCanadian waters. The range of the paddlefishhistorically included rivers and lakes in boththe United States and Canada, but today thespecies is found only in the United States(National Paddlefish and Sturgeon SteeringCommittee [NPSSC] 1993; Graham 1997).

Paddlefish and sturgeon were once broadlydistributed throughout North America.TRAFFIC’s review of literature found one ormore species likely to have been presenthistorically in at least 45 U.S. states and 10Canadian provinces and territories. There wasno historical record or mention ofacipenseriform presence only in Arizona,Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, and Utah in theUnited States, and Nunavut, the NorthwestTerritories, and the Yukon Territory in Canada

(Gengerke 1986; NPSSC 1993; Hesse andCarreiro 1997; Hochleithner and Gessner 1999).

Today, native sturgeon and paddlefishpopulations continue to inhabit the vastmajority of U.S. states and Canadianprovinces, but the range and abundance ofmany species is significantly reduced. In somecases the historic or contemporary presence ofa particular acipenseriform species is difficultto confirm. For instance, sightings of pallidsturgeon in some U.S. states are so rare orhave not been documented for so long that thespecies’ continued existence in thosejurisdictions is uncertain (USFWS 1990).Similarly, it is uncertain whether remnantnatural populations of lake sturgeon still existin some river systems where habitat alterationsand other factors are believed to have largely,if not completely, extirpated the species.Acipenseriform species may also turn upoccasionally in North American waters wherethey are not normally found because offlooding or other unusual conditions. Such isthe case in Florida’s Apalachicola River, wherepaddlefish are sometimes reported duringperiods of very high water, even thoughFlorida lies outside of the species’ usual range(James Estes, Chief, Bureau of FreshwaterFisheries Resources, Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission, in litt. to TeikoSaito, Office of Management Authority,USFWS [USFWS/OMA], August 18, 2000).

Reasons for Concern About NorthAmerica’s AcipenseriformesNorth American sturgeon and paddlefish are thesubject of significant conservation interest andconcern, both domestically and internationally.Primary reasons for concern about thesespecies include issues of biology and ecology,management, commercial trade, and potentialthreats posed by disease, hybridization, orintroduction of non-native species.

Certain biological and ecologicalcharacteristics present a challenge to the

1

I. INTRODUCTION

1 Many reference sources also use the spelling “oxyrhynchus” for this species. 2 The spelling differs in the United States and Canada. In the United States it is the Kootenai River; in Canada it is the

Kootenay River.

conservation of Acipenseriformes. Their longlives (individuals of some species have beenaged at more than 100 years), relatively slowgrowth, and generally late age of sexualmaturity (10–20 years for some species) makethem slow to reproduce (NPSSC 1993;Haywood 1999; Musick 1999). In addition,sturgeon and paddlefish species have specificecological requirements and are particularlyvulnerable to spawning and nursery habitatdestruction because of their migratory and, insome species, anadromous behavior (NPSSC1993; Musick 1999). Largely for this reason,common themes appear repeatedly inexplanations of why many North Americansturgeon and paddlefish populations havedecreased over the past century or more.Human-caused habitat modification anddegradation (e.g., dams, channelization,dredging, pollution) and their resultingecological impacts (blocked migrationcorridors, loss of spawning and feedinggrounds, deterioration of water quality, etc.)are frequently cited as root factors in thedecline of North American acipenseriformspecies. Such ecological concerns are not justhistorical phenomena. Man-made alterationsof critical natural riverine, estuarine, andmarine ecosystems are ongoing and, as isdiscussed in greater detail in Section III of thisreport, pose a continuing threat to many NorthAmerican acipenseriform species andpopulations.

Management practices, particularly as theyrelate to commercial and sport fishing, areanother category of concern. It is believed thatoverfishing, particularly during periods of“boom-and-bust” commercial fishing for thecaviar industry, played a significant role in thehistorical decline of many of these long-lived,slow-reproducing species. For example,Atlantic sturgeon stocks in the United States’Delaware Bay were nearly extirpated byoverfishing during little more than a decade inthe late nineteenth century, and have shownlittle recovery since (Musick 1999; Secor andWaldman 1999). Several North Americanacipenseriform species or populations are nowlisted as endangered, threatened, or in need ofspecial protection measures in the UnitedStates and Canada. Other North AmericanAcipenseriformes continue to be fished. As isdetailed in Section IV of this report, there are

fisheries in the United States involving thepaddlefish (commercial and sport), shovelnosesturgeon (commercial and sport), lake sturgeon(sport), white sturgeon (commercial and sport),and, to a limited degree, green sturgeon(commercial and sport). Canada has fisheriesinvolving the Atlantic sturgeon (primarilycommercial), and lake sturgeon (commercialand sport). For these species, balancing theinterests of commercial and recreational fishersagainst conservation needs is a delicate issuefor fisheries agencies. Ensuring that the levelsof catch remain sustainable is a primaryconsideration for fishery managers,conservationists, and, if the resource is toremain available in the long-term, thecommercial and sport fishing industries as well.

A likely increase in demand for NorthAmerican caviar as an alternative to CaspianSea product in domestic and internationalmarkets presents a third issue for concern. Inrecent decades, Caspian Sea fisheries haveproduced an overwhelming preponderance ofthe caviar in international trade. Since thedissolution of the Soviet Union, however,mismanagement, lack of funding, deteriorationof infrastructure (hatcheries, etc.), illegal catchand trade, and lack of adequate lawenforcement have combined to seriouslythreaten the resource base. A recent 2002decision by USFWS to propose listing thehighly prized Beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) asendangered under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) is indicative of the high level of concernbeing expressed by many people about thesituation facing Caspian Sea sturgeon species(USFWS 2002a). As is described in Section Vof this report, TRAFFIC has serious doubts thatthe comparatively limited fisheries for sturgeonand paddlefish in North America could produceenough caviar to substitute for Caspian Seasources, should that fishery truly collapse. Thesection notes that demand for caviar in majorcaviar-consuming countries, primarily thenations of the European Union (EU), Japan,and the United States, is far above what NorthAmerican fisheries and commercial aquacultureoperations are currently producing. Ensuringthat rising demand for North American caviarin domestic and international trade does notlead to a repeat of past periods of overfishingmay prove to be a serious challenge.

2

Finally, relatively recent developments such asthe introduction of competitive foreign speciesand non-native pathogens, and the advent ofcaptive propagation and commercialaquaculture programs for North AmericanAcipenseriformes, have raised new sets ofconcerns regarding the potential loss ofendemic populations or strains through disease,hybridization, or genetic dilution. Iridologyand bacterial studies for sturgeon diseases arein their infancy, but there is reason for someanxiety about the potential threat thatintroduction of non-native diseases poses to allnative acipenseriform species. As is discussedin Section VI of this report, the outbreak in2000 of an iridovirus at hatcheries rearingpallid sturgeon for release as part of a recoveryprogram emphasized the need for vigilanceand caution in such efforts. Such concernincreases when the very real possibility ofaccidental releases from public hatcheries orprivate aquaculture facilities is factored in,particularly regarding those that may berearing non-native species.

Of course, none of these concerns, as looselycategorized above, should be examined in avacuum. Their potential impacts on NorthAmerican Acipenseriformes interrelate, andshould be explored in combination to ascertainthe overall effect on each of North America’snative species. Because a comprehensiveanalysis of every one of the challenges facingNorth American sturgeon and paddlefish fallsoutside of the scope of this report, readers areencouraged to refer to the literature cited inSection III for more detail than is provided inthe summaries herein.

The Purpose of This ReportIn May 1998, TRAFFIC North America, inpartnership with the Southeast AquaticResearch Institute (SARI) and in cooperationwith USFWS, convened a Symposium on theHarvest, Trade and Conservation of NorthAmerican Paddlefish and Sturgeon. Thesymposium’s goal was to increasecommunication and information exchange onissues affecting North American acipenseriformspecies and populations, to help ensure theirlong-term sustainability. TRAFFIC invitedfederal and state fisheries managers, wildlifetrade experts, caviar industry representatives

and importers/exporters, fishermen, federalregulatory and legal authorities, members of thescientific and academic communities, andinterested nongovernmental organizationrepresentatives to discuss a range of issues.These included the status of populations,management challenges and concerns, domesticand international trade, captive propagation andaquaculture, and ways to increase the flow ofinformation and dialogue among the variousconstituencies and interests represented.

This report follows up on some of those sameissues, as reviewed by TRAFFIC NorthAmerica four years later. It attempts tosummarize, explain, and provide criticalanalysis of how past and current ecologicalalterations, management practices, trade trends,and other factors have affected NorthAmerica’s acipenseriform species to date. Indoing so, TRAFFIC’s intent is twofold. First,we hope that the information and analysis inthis report will help to clarify some of theissues involved in the debate over the futureconservation and management of NorthAmerican sturgeon and paddlefish, as well asidentifying specific areas where furtherresearch and investigation are necessary.Second, TRAFFIC hopes that therecommendations provided herein will help topromote progress toward requisite legal,regulatory, and other actions necessary toensure the long-term survival of this ancient,unique, and valuable group of species.

The Structure of This ReportDetermining an appropriate structure topresent the information gathered for thisreport proved somewhat difficult. TRAFFICidentified three primary audiences, withdifferent informational needs.

Because TRAFFIC’s fundamental mission is tomonitor wildlife trade, an essential intendedaudience for this report comprises fisheriesauthorities, conservationists, and othersinterested in how issues and managementapproaches regarding conservation status,threats or challenges, commercial and sportfishing, and captive propagation or commercialaquaculture cross-compare or differ amongNorth America’s acipenseriform species,especially as they relate to trade in caviar andother products. To accommodate the needs of

3

this primary audience, the major sections in thereport are structured thematically.

TRAFFIC is aware, however, that manyreaders are likely to have a particular interestin one or more specific North Americanacipenseriform species, and so might prefer tohave the information presented in a species-by-species format. For this readership, TRAFFICattempted wherever practical to subdivide themajor sections of the report by species. Someof the information in the individual sectionsmay therefore appear to be somewhatredundant. For example, many of the threatsor challenges facing the conservation of NorthAmerican acipenseriform species, detailed inSection III, are similar (e.g., habitat loss ordegradation, pollution, overfishing). Suchinformation is nevertheless reiterated in thebody of this report as it applies to each species,for the convenience of those readers who maywant to skip through the thematic sections andfocus only on those specific North AmericanAcipenseriformes that interest them.

Lastly, TRAFFIC knows that some readersmay want only a general synopsis of NorthAmerican acipenseriform species and keyissues involved in their conservation. For thesereaders, it was important to synthesize key datainto a convenient format, through which theycan see the broad outlines of the report anddecide which particular species or issues theymay wish to examine further. For this group ofreaders, the general overview provided inSection II of this report may prove sufficient.

Following this introduction, the reportproceeds along the following lines.

Section II: General Overview. This sectionprovides a thumbnail sketch of the informationpresented in later sections of the report on thestatus of North American sturgeon andpaddlefish species, threats and challenges,legal classification, commercial andrecreational fisheries, trade, and captivepropagation and commercial aquaculture.Section II attempts to condense available datainto an accessible format that allows for easycross-comparison among species and politicaljurisdictions. It is intended for those readerswho are not interested in the full details of thereport, and also as a convenient referencesection for all readers.

Section III: Species Summaries. TRAFFICreviewed available literature, managementplans, and other documentation regarding thestatus of each of North America’s paddlefishand sturgeon species. The review includedexamining what is known about these specieshistorically, as well as what is known abouteach today. TRAFFIC found very differentamounts of information for each species. Thelife history characteristics of some of thesefishes and their relationship to and utilizationby people are well documented. In othercases, some North American sturgeons werenot recognized as separate species until fairlyrecently, and little is known about their lifehistory characteristics, ecological and habitatneeds, or historical fisheries and catch levels.TRAFFIC herein attempts to summarizeknown information on each species, and tohighlight gaps in knowledge and other issuesfacing fisheries authorities andconservationists.

Section IV: Management and Regulation in theUnited States and Canada. This sectionattempts to elucidate how each nativeacipenseriform species is managed in theUnited States, Canada, or, where applicable, inboth countries. Central issues include thevarious species’ legal classifications, whatauthorities have management jurisdiction, andwhether current management regimes areadequate to meet increasing demand for thecaviar trade. The section draws heavily onexisting recovery plans for thoseacipenseriform species that have been federallylisted as endangered, threatened, or of specialconcern. Regarding those species for whichfederal, state, and provincial authorities allowcommercial or recreational fishing, the sectionhighlights relevant laws and regulationsgoverning catch and possession, as well asconservation measures in place or proposed tomaintain the abundance of stocks.

Section V: Legal and Illegal Trade. In June1997, international concern over the decline ofCaspian Sea fisheries and the potentialconsequences for other sturgeon and paddlefishspecies led the Parties to the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species ofFauna and Flora (CITES) to place all previouslyunlisted acipenseriform species in CITESAppendix II. The listing entered into effect in

4

April 1998, and parties to the Convention arenow obligated to regulate and monitorinternational trade. This section examines thecurrent (2002) status of legal trade in NorthAmerican paddlefish and sturgeon species, aswell as implementation of the CITES listing inthe United States and Canada. TRAFFIC alsoexamines what is known about illegal catch andtrade in North America, and the prospects thatsuch activity could grow into a serious threat tonative species.

Section VI: Hatcheries and CommercialAquaculture. In the United States, federal andstate fish hatcheries have been captive-propagating paddlefish and native sturgeonspecies for many years to facilitate restoration,reintroduction, stocking, and researchprograms. Traditionally, captive propagationof sturgeon has been less widespread inCanada, although there is some activity. Therehas also been growing interest in recent yearsin the commercial aquaculture, or “fish-

farming,” of several acipenseriform species,particularly in the United States. This sectionsummarizes captive propagation andcommercial aquaculture programs andinitiatives in the United States and Canada. Itthen examines various issues and questionsregarding both practices and what role theymight play in the future conservation of NorthAmerican paddlefish and sturgeon species.

Section VII: Conclusions andRecommendations. At the end of the report,TRAFFIC presents a set of conclusions andspecific recommendations on each of theaforementioned topics. We hope that the ideasand actions suggested will be considered byfisheries managers, law enforcement authorities,representatives of the CITES Secretariat andParties, and other individuals and organizationsin the public, nongovernmental, and privatesectors interested in paddlefish and sturgeonconservation.

5

The following summaries and tables track thethematic outline of this report. Because themajor sections of the report are subdivided byspecies where possible, the tables belowattempt to pull together information forcomparison in a species-by-species andjurisdiction-by-jurisdiction format. Not all ofthe subject matter discussed later in the reportproved easy to condense, however. Forexample, information on illegal trade in caviarand other products is often anecdotal, andtherefore proved difficult to distill into tableformat.

The sheer number of sources (literature, in litt.correspondence, personal communication, etc.)used to compile the information in this reportalso made it impractical to try to cite theindividual source(s) of every piece of data ineach of the summary tables below. More detailon each of the subjects addressed in the tables,as well as the specific sources of each piece ofinformation, are provided in sections IIIthrough VI. Readers are encouraged to usethese summaries and tables as a broadsnapshot of the contents of the report, and referto the later sections for more specificinformation and further informationalresources on topics that may interest them.

2.1 Species SummariesSection III of this report provides basicinformation on each of North America’sacipenseriform species, including historicrange and current distribution, ecology andhabitat, historic fisheries and catch levels, andconservation status and challenges/threats.

Historic Range and CurrentDistributionFive North American sturgeon species—theAtlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, lakesturgeon, white sturgeon, and green sturgeon—occur in both the United States and Canada.The white sturgeon and green sturgeon alsomigrate into Mexican waters along the Pacificcoast. The Gulf sturgeon, shovelnose sturgeon,Alabama sturgeon, and pallid sturgeon areendemic to the United States. Although thepaddlefish is believed to have once inhabitedwaters in southern Ontario, the species isconsidered extirpated in Canada, and presentlyoccurs only in the United States.

Sturgeon and paddlefish populations crossnumerous political and managementjurisdictions within the United States, as dosome sturgeon populations within Canada.Table 2.1.1 shows the historic and currentranges of each of the North AmericanAcipenseriformes, according to politicaljurisdiction. The indication of “present” in thetable indicates a determination that the speciescontinues to inhabit the jurisdiction;“extirpated” indicates some certainty amongmanagement authorities that there are no extantnatural populations of species once known orreported to be present. The use of a questionmark (“?”) indicates uncertainty or conflictinginformation on whether the species in questioninhabited the jurisdiction historically, or that itspresence in (or extirpation from) historic rangewaters is unclear. More detail on such casesinvolving individual species is provided inSection III of this report.

7

II. GENERAL OVERVIEW

8

Table 2.1.1. Historic and Current Range of North American Sturgeon andPaddlefish Species (45 U.S. States and 10 Canadian Provinces)*

Province/State AtlS GlfS ShnS Pd ShvS AlS PS LS WS GrS

Alberta ✔

British Columbia ✔ ✔

Manitoba ✔

New Brunswick ✔ ✔

Newfoundland ✔

Nova Scotia ✔

Ontario E ✔

PEI ✔

Quebec ✔ ✔

Saskatchewan ✔

Alabama ✔ ✔ E(?) ✔ E Alaska ✔ ✔

Arkansas ✔ ✔ ✔ E California ✔ ✔

Connecticut ✔ ✔

Delaware ✔ ✔

Florida ✔ ✔ ✔

Georgia ✔ ✔ ? ? E(?) Idaho ✔

Illinois ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Indiana ✔ ✔ ✔

Iowa ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Kansas ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Kentucky ✔ ✔ ✔ E(?) Louisiana ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ E(?) Maine ✔ ✔

Maryland ✔ ✔ E Massachusetts ✔ ✔

Michigan ? ✔

Minnesota ✔ ✔ ✔

Mississippi ✔ ✔ ✔ E ✔ E Missouri ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Montana ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Nebraska ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

New Hampshire ✔ ✔

New Jersey ✔ ✔

New Mexico E New York ✔ ✔ E ✔

North Carolina ✔ ✔ E E ? North Dakota ✔ ✔ ✔ ? Ohio ✔ ✔ ✔

Oklahoma ✔ ✔

Oregon ✔ ✔

Pennsylvania ✔ ✔ E E ✔

Rhode Island ✔ ✔

South Carolina ✔ ✔

South Dakota ✔ ✔ ✔ ? Tennessee ✔ ✔ ✔ E(?) Texas ✔ ✔

Vermont ✔

Virginia ✔ ✔ E(?) Washington ✔ ✔

West Virginia ✔ E(?) E Wisconsin ✔ ✔ ✔

Wyoming ✔

Key: ✔ = present; E = Extirpated; ? = Uncertain/conflicting data; AtlS = Atlantic sturgeon; GlfS = Gulf sturgeon; ShnS = shortnose sturgeon;Pd = paddlefish; ShvS = shovelnose sturgeon; AlS = Alabama sturgeon; PS = pallid sturgeon; LS = lake sturgeon; WS = white sturgeon; GrS = green sturgeon.* Sources: Compiled by TRAFFIC North America from various species literature and studies, in litt. correspondence, and personalcommunications. More detailed information and specific references are provided in Section III.

Ecology and HabitatSection III also provides basic information onwhat is known about the physical and lifehistory characteristics, spawningcharacteristics, and habitat preferences ofNorth America’s Acipenseriformes. Becauseof a lack of definitive research, paucity ofhistorical records, rarity, and the fact that someAcipenseriformes were not recognized asseparate species until relatively recently, muchremains unknown for some species (e.g., theAlabama sturgeon, pallid sturgeon, greensturgeon). The following tables summarizewhat is generally known or believed.

Physical/Life history characteristics. NorthAmerican Acipenseriformes vary widely in sizeand weight, from the 2–4 pound (1–2 kg)Alabama sturgeon to the white sturgeon, whichcan reach lengths of up to 20 feet (>6 meters)and weights of close to 2,000 pounds (907 kg),and is the largest freshwater fish in NorthAmerica. As a general principle,Acipenseriformes are slow-growing, long-lived

fish, with cases of individual lake sturgeon andwhite sturgeon being aged at more than 100years. However, as is noted below, mostcontemporary captures of North Americansturgeon and paddlefish involve specimens thatare smaller and younger than the maximum sizesand ages that have been recorded historically.

Age at sexual maturity differs among theindividual species, from as few as five yearsfor some sturgeon species or populations toclose to 30 years for others. It is alsonoteworthy that species such as the Atlanticsturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, white sturgeon,and paddlefish exhibit clinal variations, withnorthern stocks or distinct population segmentsreaching sexual maturity much later thansouthern stocks, and also reaching greaterages. More specifics on species’ stockstructures and variations are provided inSection III. Table 2.1.2 summarizes availabledata on the basic physical parameters, age atmaturity, and longevity of North Americansturgeon and paddlefish species.

9

Table 2.1.2 Physical/Life History Characteristics of North AmericanAcipenseriformes*

Species Maximum Weight (kg/lb) Maximum Length Age at Maturity Longevity

Atlantic sturgeon 368 kg (~810 lb) 4.2 meters (14 feet) 7–28+ 60 yrs

Gulf sturgeon 200–225 kg (440-500 lb) 2.4–2.7 meters (8–9 feet) 7–12+ 42 yrs

Shortnose sturgeon 23–24 kg (~50–53 lb) 1.4 meters (4 feet) 5–18+ 30–67 yrs+

Paddlefish 80 kg (175 lb) 2.3 meters (7 feet) 5–9 (m); 8–12 (f) 30 yrs+

Shovelnose sturgeon 2.5–4.5 kg (5–10 lb) 1+ meters (3–4 feet) 5–7 27

Pallid sturgeon 30–45 kg (66–100 lb)+ 1.8 meters (6 feet) 5–20+ 60+

Alabama sturgeon 1–2 kg (2-4 lb) 31 inches (80 cm) 5–7 15

Lake sturgeon 140 kg (300 lb)+ 2.4 meters (7 feet)+ 12–22 (m); 14–27 (f) 152+

White sturgeon 907 kg (~2,000 lb)+ >6 meters (20 feet)+ 10–20 (m); 15–30 (f) >82+

Green sturgeon 160 kg (~325 lb)+ ~2 meters (7 feet)+ 8–10 (m); 10–12 (f)+ >40+

Key: m = male; f = female.* Sources: Compiled by TRAFFIC North America from various species literature and studies, in litt. correspondence, and personalcommunications. More detailed information and specific references are provided in Section III, and below in Additional Comments.+ Additional Comments: Atlantic sturgeon: Sexual maturity for Atlantic sturgeon varies widely depending on distribution, with northernpopulations maturing much later than southern populations. In the far northern extent of the species range (St. Lawrence River) femalesreach sexual maturity at 24–28 years and males at 20–24 years, while in the south females may reach maturity at 9–15 years and males at 7–9years (Hochleithner and Gessner 1999). Gulf sturgeon: Huff (1975) found that sexually mature females in the Suwanee River (FL) rangedfrom 8 to 17 years old. Shortnose sturgeon: Males are estimated to reach sexual maturity at 5–12 years of age; females at 6–18 years ofage. It is believed that northern populations mature more slowly than do southern populations. Oldest known female was recorded at 67years; males believed to seldom exceed 30 years. Paddlefish: Paddlefish in southern stocks are believed to mature faster than those innorthern stocks, but exhibit far shorter lifespans. Pallid sturgeon: Maximum weight—Estimates of maximum weights cited for the speciesvary (see Section III for details). Age at maturity—Chapman (1999) reported that pallid sturgeon reach sexual maturity at 5–20 years of age.USFWS (2000b) cited Keenlyne and Jenkins (1993) in estimating sexual maturity for males at 7–9 years of age, and female sexual maturity at15–20 years; Longevity—Little is known about age or growth of pallid sturgeon. Chapman (1999) estimated the maximum age of the speciesat 39–41 years. However, a female pallid sturgeon aged following mortality in 1998 was estimated at more than 50 years of age, and possiblyas high as 60 (USFWS 2000b). Lake sturgeon: More typically, lake sturgeon are believed to reach ~1.5 meters in length (4–5 feet), ~30 kgin weight (60–70 lb), and 40 years of age. White sturgeon: Maximum weight/length—Most fish caught in recent times have been muchsmaller; Longevity—One female caught in Oregon was aged at 104 years, but most fish caught are much younger. Green sturgeon: Thegreen sturgeon’s life history has not been extensively studied and documented.

Spawning characteristics. Table 2.1.3 showssome of the basic spawning characteristics ofNorth American acipenseriform species.Details on specific migration and spawningcues (e.g., water temperature, current velocity,light intensity) are discussed (where known) inthe relevant species summaries in Section III.

Habitat preferences. Five North Americansturgeon species are either anadromous1

(Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, greensturgeon) or have both anadromous andfreshwater populations (shortnose sturgeon,white sturgeon). Shortnose sturgeon alsoexhibit a freshwater amphidromous form.2

Paddlefish, lake sturgeon, shovelnose sturgeon,Alabama sturgeon, and pallid sturgeon arefreshwater species, although, as is discussed inSection III, individuals of some of thesespecies have been found occasionally inbrackish waters. The ranges of several NorthAmerican species overlap; however, as Table2.1.4 shows, different habitat preferences and

seasonal movements serve to largely avertcompetition for food or other resources.

Historic Fisheries/Catch LevelsIn the United States, commercial fisheriesdirected at the Atlantic sturgeon, Gulfsturgeon, lake sturgeon, paddlefish, whitesturgeon, and likely the Alabama sturgeondeveloped and peaked during the latenineteenth century. Shortnose sturgeon,shovelnose sturgeon, and pallid sturgeon mayalso have been caught, although for reasonsexplained in the table below and in more detailin Section III, these species are not thought tohave been specifically targeted during thisperiod. In Canada, late nineteenth centurycommercial sturgeon fisheries focused on thelake sturgeon and white sturgeon. As in theUnited States, Canadian stocks of these speciesquickly declined. A smaller Canadian Atlanticsturgeon fishery continued through thetwentieth century, and still exists today. Table

10

Key: m=male; f=female.

* Sources: Compiled by TRAFFIC North America from various species literature and studies, in litt. correspondence, and personalcommunications. More detailed information and specific references are provided in Section III, and below in Additional Comments.

+ Additional Comments: Atlantic Sturgeon: Oocytes—From Chapman (1999); Hochleithner and Gessner (1999) estimated 2.3–2.8 mm.Gulf Sturgeon: Substrate—A substrate of exposed bedrock overlain with gravel and small cobble used by spawning Gulf sturgeon hasbeen called a “sturgeon spawning reef” (Sulak and Clugston 1999). Shortnose sturgeon: Spawning interval—Some males may spawnevery year; Fecundity—Hochleithner and Gessner (1999) reported female fecundity at 11,000–12,000 per kg. Shovelnose sturgeon:Spawning interval is not well known. Pallid sturgeon: Substrate—Because existing data indicate that extremely limited naturalreproduction is occurring in wild populations, little information is available to delineate precise spawning areas. Lake sturgeon: Oocytes—Hochleithner and Gessner (1999) estimated 2.5–3 mm. White sturgeon: Spawning season—Spawning in the Columbia River has beenreported as occurring between April and July; Fecundity—Hochleithner and Gessner (1999) estimated an average of ~5,600/kg. Greensturgeon: Spawning interval—Not definitely established; Spawning season—Peak believed to occur between mid-April and mid-June inCalifornia; Substrate—Large cobble preferred, but substrate reported to range from clean sand to bedrock; Oocytes—Chapman (1999)estimated a range of 3.3–3.7 mm.

Species Spawning Spawning Substrate Fecundity Oocytes Interval (yrs) Season (eggs/kg, 1,000s) (diameter, mm)

Atlantic sturgeon 1–4 (m); 3–5 (f) April–July Gravel or Rock 16–24 2.1–3.0+

Gulf sturgeon 1–3 (m & f) February–April Gravel, Small Cobble+ 9–21 2.3–2.8

Shortnose sturgeon 2–3 (m)+; 3–8 (f) March–June Gravel or Rock 9–16+ 3.0–3.2

Paddlefish 1–2 (m); 2–4 (f) March–June Gravel or Rock 15–20 3.3–3.9

Shovelnose sturgeon 1–>?+ April–July Gravel or Rock 6–17 2.8–3.5

Pallid sturgeon 2–3 (m); 3-10 (f) March–July Not well known+ 10 2.5–3.1

Alabama sturgeon 1–3 Not well known Gravel or Rock ? ?

Lake sturgeon 2–3 (m); 4–6 (f) April–June Rock or Pebble 10–13 2.7–3.5+

White sturgeon 1–2 (m); 2–6 (f) March–June+ Rock or Pebble 5–23+ 2.6–4.0

Green sturgeon 2–6+ March–July+ Large Cobble+ 0.6–1.0 ~3.8+

Table 2.1.3 Spawning Characteristics of North American Acipenseriformes*

1 Anadromous species are those that migrate from marine or coastal saltwater habitats to freshwater rivers to spawn.2 Adults of freshwater amphidromous species live and spawn in fresh water, but regularly enter saltwater environments.

2.1.5 summarizes historic fisheries and peakcatch levels for North AmericanAcipenseriformes. Table 2.2.1 further belowshows those U.S. states and Canadianprovinces that currently have sturgeon andpaddlefish fisheries.

Conservation Status andChallenges/ThreatsFinally, Section III of this report details theconservation status of North American

acipenseriform species, as measured at thenational and international levels.3 Section IIIalso discusses major challenges or threats totheir future conservation and, in the case ofsome species, even their continued survival.

Conservation status (national andinternational). In the United States, theprimary federal legal mechanism to protectspecies deemed at risk is the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 (ESA). Primary agenciescharged with implementing the ESA are

11

Table 2.1.4 Habitat of North American Acipenseriformes*

Species Anadromous/ Habitats CommentsFreshwater

Atlantic sturgeon Anadromous Marine; Uses rivers, estuaries, bays, and the ocean at various times Estuarine; in their lifespans. Adults spend much of their lives in marineRiverine and near-shore waters. Highly migratory—feeding migrations

up to 1,800 miles have been reported.Gulf sturgeon Anadromous Riverine; Adults and sub-adults believed to spend 8–9 months of each

Marine; year in rivers and 3–4 months in estuaries or the Gulf of Estuarine Mexico, usually during winter. Juveniles likely remain in

riverine habitats and estuaries year-round.Shortnose sturgeon Anadromous; Estuarine; Confined primarily to natal rivers and estuaries, with adults

Freshwater Riverine; migrating seasonally into marine waters. Spends most of itsAmphidromous; Marine life in slow-moving riverine or near-shore marine waters.Freshwater Some northern populations have freshwater forms.

Paddlefish Freshwater Riverine; Inhabits the moderate flow of large rivers that provide high Lacustrine; zooplankton production. Prior to alteration of large rivers, Reservoirs paddlefish preferred the naturally braided channels, extensive

backwater areas, and oxbow lakes of these rivers. In alteredrivers, paddlefish concentrate in sheltered areas where flowvelocity is reduced. Has adapted to reservoirs.

Shovelnose sturgeon Freshwater Riverine Prefers the rapid currents of main river channels, and highturbidities. In altered rivers, commonly frequents thetailwaters below wing dams and other structures thataccelerate current flow.

Pallid sturgeon Freshwater Riverine Prefers large, turbid, free-flowing river habitats with rockysubstrates, swifter than those preferred by the shovelnosesturgeon. Believed to be more specific and restrictive in theuse of microhabitats than shovelnose sturgeon.

Alabama sturgeon Freshwater Riverine Inhabits large channels of big rivers, although at least twohistoric records involved Alabama sturgeon found in oxbowlakes. Believed to prefer low-velocity currents and sandy orgravel substrates.

Lake sturgeon Freshwater Riverine; Inhabits shallow riverine and lacustrine waters with a rocky or Lacustrine muddy substrate; commonly found in the highly productive

shoals of large lakes and rivers.White sturgeon Anadromous; Marine; Found in major rivers, estuaries, and near-shore marine

Freshwater Estuarine; environments. Some populations that once had access toRiverine the ocean now fragmented and confined to freshwater by dams.

Green sturgeon ` Anadromous Marine; Relies on streams, rivers, estuaries, and marine waters Estuarine; throughout its life cycle. Adults are believed to be more Riverine marine than white sturgeon, and spend comparably less time

in estuaries or freshwater.

* Sources: Compiled by TRAFFIC North America from various species literature and studies, in litt. correspondence, and personalcommunications. More detailed information and specific references are provided in Section III.

3 How North American sturgeon and paddlefish species and populations are legally classified at the state and provinciallevels is addressed separately in Section IV.

12

Table 2.1.5 Historic Fisheries and Catch Levels of Sturgeon and Paddlefish inthe United States and Canada*

Species Historic Peak Catch Level Comments Fishery? (metric tons, year) (US, CA)

Atlantic US, CA US: 3,348 mt, 1890+ US: Delaware Bay supported the largest U.S. fishery during the sturgeon CA: 120 mt, 1993 peak years in the 1880s and 1890s. Following its collapse, the

focus of commercial fishing shifted to other river systems during thetwentieth century.

CA: St. Lawrence River catch averaged 20–40 mt from 1940 to1966, then almost no captures from 1967 to 1975, followed by asignificant increase to >100 mt in 1988 and 120 mt in 1993.

Gulf sturgeon US > 129 mt, 1902 Sporadic data make it difficult to assemble an overall picture of thehistoric harvest level throughout the species’ range; 1902 catchfigure includes Florida and Mississippi only. Historic fisheriesconcentrated in Florida.

Shortnose — NA/NR Historic overfishing believed to have impacted populations, primarily sturgeon through bycatch in Atlantic sturgeon, other fisheries. Separate

records on catch not recorded.

Paddlefish US 1,080 mt, 1899+ Of little commercial interest prior to the late 1800s, althoughcommercial harvest was significant. Became more widely valued asoverfishing of Atlantic and lake sturgeon led to the decline of thosefisheries.

Shovelnose US ? mt, 20th century Traditionally perceived as a “trash” fish and often destroyed as a sturgeon threat to fishing nets. Was harvested in all states on the Mississippi

and Missouri rivers during parts of the twentieth century. Not allstates kept harvest records, however. Commercial catch in the UpperMississippi River exceeded 100,000 pounds in 1956 and 1958.

Pallid — ? mt, late 1800s Believed to have always been a rare species. Caught with lake sturgeon sturgeon in nineteenth century roe fisheries, but lack of separate

records makes estimating historic catch levels impossible.

Alabama US ? mt, late 1800s Some records exist of a substantial harvest of Alabama sturgeon in sturgeon the late nineteenth century. In 1898 total commercial catch of

shovelnose sturgeon in Alabama was reported as 19,000 kg(Alabama sturgeon had not yet been identified as a separatespecies). Impossible to determine whether catch was Alabamasturgeon, shovelnose sturgeon, or both.

Lake sturgeon US, CA >2,700 mt, ~1885 Most intense period of fishing began around 1885 in both United (US & CA) States and Canada, with major fisheries on lakes Erie, Huron,

Ontario, Superior, Nipissing, Nipigon, Winnipeg, and others.Cumulative catch records for all fisheries not available, but likely tobe substantial. Figure of 2,700 metric tons in 1885 is from LakeErie and Lake Huron fisheries alone.

White US, CA 747 mt, 1885 Fisheries peaked in different years in major Pacific River systems.sturgeon (Sacramento/San The commercial fishery in California’s Sacramento/San Joaquin

Joaquin River) Basin lasted from the 1860s until 1901, then reopened temporarily 2,500 mt, 1892 before closing permanently in 1917. The Columbia River fishery (Columbia River) collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century; recovery did not 512 mt, 1897 begin until the 1950s. Canada’s Fraser River fishery collapsed by (Fraser River) 1905, reopened later in the twentieth century, and is again closed.

Green US ? mt, 20th century Historically not targeted as a food fish or for caviar. Native sturgeon American subsistence fishing at least since 1900. Columbia River

commercial catch averaged 200–500 fish annually from 1941 to1951; 1,400 fish annually from 1951 to 1971; and 2,000–4,000 fishannually from 1971 to 1990. Columbia River catch of 6,000 fish in1987 and 4,900 in 1987 were notably high.

* Sources: Compiled by TRAFFIC North America from various species literature and studies, in litt. correspondence, and personalcommunications. More detailed information and specific references are provided in Section III.+ Additional Comments: Atlantic Sturgeon: From ASMFC (1998b). Secor and Waldman (1999) placed the peak in 1888 at 3,152 metrictons. Paddlefish: From Waldman (1999). Russell (1986) reported that the commercial harvest was 1,136 mt in 1897.

USFWS and, in the case of marine species, theNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). InCanada, the Committee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)determines national species classifications.North American paddlefish and sturgeon alsofall under the auspices of certain internationalorganizations and treaties. The WorldConservation Union (IUCN) categorizes thestatus of species and ecosystems worldwide,including the status of North American speciesand populations. The role of sturgeon andpaddlefish in international trade further placesthese species under the umbrella of theConvention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES), as well as the European Union’s(EU) Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 “onthe protection of species of wild fauna andflora by regulating trade therein.”

Table 2.1.6 shows how North Americanacipenseriform species are classified under theESA, COSEWIC, CITES, IUCN, and the EU.Box 1 explains the categories and criteria used

to classify species under these respective legaland scientific regimes.

Challenges/Threats. For the purposes of thisreport, TRAFFIC did not attempt tocomprehensively analyze all of the challengesfacing conservation of North America’sacipenseriform species. Instead, TRAFFICconducted a broad review of literature onNorth American paddlefish and sturgeon,species management and recovery plans, andother sources. This review suggested a generalconsensus that inter-related issues of habitatalteration (e.g., dams, channelization,dredging, etc.) and degradation of waterquality (e.g., pollution, changes in temperature,current velocity, and sedimentation regimes)have affected all native Acipenseriformes. Thelingering effects of past overfishing and theunique life history characteristics of sturgeonand paddlefish (i.e., long lives, slow growth,late age at maturation, specific spawningrequirements, etc.) are also commonly cited aschallenges to the conservation of these species.

13

Table 2.1.6 Classification of North American Paddlefish and Sturgeon SpeciesUnder ESA, COSEWIC, CITES, the IUCN Red List, and EU Annexes*

Species US/ESA COSEWIC CITES IUCN EU

Atlantic sturgeon Not listed+ Not listed App. II LR (nt) B

Gulf sturgeon Threatened — App. II VU B

Shortnose sturgeon Endangered SC App. I VU A

Paddlefish Not listed+ Extirpated App. II VU B

Shovelnose sturgeon Not listed — App. II VU B

Pallid sturgeon Endangered — App. II CR B

Alabama sturgeon Endangered — App. II CR B

Lake sturgeon Not listed Not listed App. II+ VU B

White sturgeon+ Not listed+ SC App. II LR(nt) B

Green sturgeon Not listed SC App. II VU B

Key: SC = Special Concern; VU = Vulnerable; LR = Lower Risk (nt/near threatened); CR = Critically Endangered; A = EU Annex A; B = EU Annex B.

* Sources: CITES (2001a), IUCN (2001), Environment Canada (1999, 2000, 2001a, 2001b), USFWS (2002b).+ Additional Comments: Atlantic sturgeon: Designated a Candidate Species for ESA listing in 1991; in 1998 the U.S. Department ofCommerce (of which NMFS is a part) decided that listing as threatened or endangered was not warranted at that time. Paddlefish: USFWSwas petitioned to list the paddlefish under the ESA in 1989; after review, USFWS determined that listing was not warranted (see Section 3.4 fordetails). Lake sturgeon: Listed in Appendix II from 1975 to 1983, then removed from the Appendices until 1997, when re-listed in Appendix II.White sturgeon: The Kootenai River subpopulation of the white sturgeon is listed as Endangered by both the United States and Canada and isalso considered endangered by IUCN.

14

continued on next page

National laws and international organizationsand conventions pertaining to wildlife defineand classify species differently according totheir own criteria. This report makes frequentreference to these laws and classifications.The following briefly summarizes those mostrelevant to North American sturgeon andpaddlefish.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).The ESA is the primary federal legislation inthe United States providing for the protectionof threatened and endangered species and theecosystems upon which they depend. Underthe law, species may be listed as either“endangered” or “threatened.” Designating aspecies as Endangered means that it is indanger of extinction throughout all or asignificant portion of its range. Threatenedmeans a species is likely to becomeendangered within the foreseeable future.The law is administered by the InteriorDepartment’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) and the Commerce Department’sNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).USFWS has primary responsibility forterrestrial and freshwater species, whileNMFS jurisdiction includes marine andanadromous species. There is also a list ofCandidate species, for which USFWS hasenough information to warrant proposal forlisting as threatened or endangered but whichhave not been proposed for listing.

The Committee on the Status of EndangeredWildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).COSEWIC includes members from theCanadian federal, provincial, and territorialgovernments, as well as nongovernmentalrepresentatives. It was created in 1977 toprovide a scientifically based evaluation of thenational status of Canadian species,subspecies, and separate populationssuspected of being at risk. While COSEWICdesignations have no legal standing, they arewell respected. The legal list of wildlifespecies at risk in Canada is based onCOSEWIC evaluations. Terms and risk

categories used by COSEWIC include:Extinct, for species that no longer exist;Extirpated, for species that no longer exist inthe wild in Canada but occur elsewhere;Endangered, for species facing imminentextirpation or extinction; Threatened, forspecies likely to become endangered iflimiting factors are not reversed; SpecialConcern, which applies to species whosecharacteristics make them particularlysensitive to human activities or natural events;Not at Risk, for species that have beenevaluated and found to be not at risk; andData Deficient, which applies to species forwhich there is insufficient scientificinformation to support status designation.

The Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES). CITES is an internationaltreaty that came into force in 1975 and as ofMay 2002 had 158 member nations, knownas Parties to the Convention. CITESprovides the international legal frameworkfor a worldwide system of controls oninternational trade in threatened andendangered wildlife and wildlife products.At present, some 5,000 species of animalsand 25,000 species of plants are protected byCITES. Protection for species is providedunder the Convention’s Appendices, whichdescribe the status of the species anddetermine what species may be used ininternational commercial trade. The mostendangered species are listed in Appendix I,which includes all species threatened withextinction that are or may be affected bytrade. Commercial trade is not permitted forthese species, and other trade for purposessuch as scientific research is strictlycontrolled through import and export permits.Appendix II species are those that are notrare or endangered at present but couldbecome so if trade is not regulated;international trade in such species requiresthe issuance of a CITES export permit by the exporting country. Appendix III speciesare not endangered but are subject to

Box 1. ESA, COSEWIC, CITES,IUCN Red List, and European Union Annexes*

15

regulation within the listing nation for thepurposes of preventing or restrictingexploitation, and, as requested, promoting thecooperation of other parties in the control oftrade. Appendix III requires the issuance ofan export permit by the listing country, or aCertificate of Origin from all other parties.Any Party to CITES may unilaterally statethat it will not abide by the provisions of theConvention relating to trade in a particularspecies listed in the Appendices. Suchstatements are Reservations made inaccordance with relevant Articles of CITES.For species included in Appendix I or II,there are restrictions on when a reservationmay be entered.

IUCN Red List 2000. The WorldConservation Union (IUCN) periodicallypublishes the Red List, a comprehensiveinventory of the global conservation status ofplant and animal species, to convey theurgency and scale of conservation problems tothe public and policy makers, and to motivateglobal action to reduce species extinctions.First conceived in 1963, the Red List systemset a standard for species listing andconservation assessment efforts. Mostrecently, Red Lists were published in 1996and 2000, using a set of scientific criteriarelevant to evaluating the extinction risk ofthousands of species and subspecies. Taxaare divided into eight categories. Extinctrefers to a taxon when there is no reasonabledoubt that the last individual has died.Extinct in the Wild includes taxa known tosurvive only in cultivation, captivity, or as anaturalized population (or populations)outside the past range. CriticallyEndangered taxa are those facing anextremely high risk of extinction in the wildin the immediate future. Endangered refersto taxa not critically endangered but facing avery high risk of extinction in the wild in thenear future. Vulnerable pertains to taxa notcritically endangered or endangered but facinga high risk of extinction in the wild in themedium-term future. Lower Risk applies totaxa that upon evaluation do not satisfy thecriteria for any of the categories criticallyendangered, endangered, or vulnerable (thereare three sub-categories: Conservation

Dependent, Near Threatened, and LeastConcern). Data Deficient applies to taxawhen there is inadequate information to makea direct or indirect assessment of the species’risk of extinction based on distribution and/orpopulation status. Not Evaluated refers totaxa that have not yet been assessed againstthe criteria.

The European Union. In December 1996,the Council of the European Union adoptedCouncil Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 “on theprotection of species of wild fauna and floraby regulating trade therein.” The Regulationestablished a set of annexes generallyconsistent with CITES. Annex A containsspecies listed in CITES Appendix I for whichthe EU Member States have not entered areservation, as well as species that are or maybe in demand in the EU or international tradeand are either threatened with extinction or sorare that any trade would imperil theirsurvival. Annex B contains: (1) species listedin CITES Appendix II (other than those listedin Annex A) for which the Member Stateshave not entered a reservation, and specieslisted in CITES Appendix I for which areservation has been entered; (2) species notlisted in Appendices I or II that are subject tolevels of international trade that might not becompatible with their survival, the survival ofpopulations in certain countries, or themaintenance of the total population at a levelconsistent with the role of the species in theecosystems in which they occur; and (3)species whose listing is for reasons ofsimilarity in appearance to other species listedin Annex A or B, to ensure the effectivenessof controls on trade. Annex C containsspecies listed in CITES Appendix III that areimported into the EU for which the MemberStates have not entered a reservation, as wellas species listed in CITES Appendix II forwhich a reservation has been entered. AnnexD contains species not listed in Annexes A toC that are imported into the EU in numbersthat warrant monitoring, and species listed inCITES Appendix III for which a reservationhas been entered.* Sources: CITES (2000), IUCN (2000), COSEWIC (2001),European Union (2001), USFWS (2001a, 2001b).

Table 2.1.7 lists those major challenges orthreats to North American Acipenseriformesthat are discussed in more detail in the speciesdescriptions in Section III.

2.2 Management andRegulation in the UnitedStates and Canada

Because of their broad distribution and highlymigratory nature, North AmericanAcipenseriformes fall under the purview ofmyriad federal, state, provincial, andinternational agencies, commissions, and othermanagement authorities. For example,anadromous species such as the Atlanticsturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon,white sturgeon, and green sturgeon mightspend parts of their lives in state orprovincially managed waters and parts infederally managed waters, including theExclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) that extendup to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) fromthe coastline. Freshwater species such as thepaddlefish, shovelnose sturgeon, pallidsturgeon, and lake sturgeon are also migratoryin the river systems they inhabit, and may

regularly cross jurisdictional lines during theirlife cycles.

There has been an attempt to coordinate andrationalize an overall strategy for paddlefishand sturgeon management and conservation inthe United States, represented in the NationalPaddlefish and Sturgeon Steering Committee.There are also established inter-jurisdictionaland international bodies and agreementscovering certain geographic regions and thespecies that fall within them, such as theAtlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission,Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, ColumbiaRiver Compact, and Mississippi InterstateCooperative Resource Association. Some U.S.states have also joined voluntarily to cooperatein the management of certain populations (e.g.,the Yellowstone-Sakakawea Paddlefish StockManagement Plan between Montana and NorthDakota). However, the number of speciesinvolved, their varying status and needs, andthe sheer number of political and bureaucraticentities involved make it virtually impossiblefor there to be any centralized managementauthority or strategy.

16

Table 2.1.7 Major Challenges/Threats to North American Acipenseriformes*

Species Habitat Pollution/ Historic Life History Non- Rarity/Lack OtherDegradation/ Water Over-fishing Characteristics/ indigenous of Natural

Restricted Quality Limitations Disease or ReproductionRange Competition

Atlantic sturgeon X X X X X X+

Gulf sturgeon X X X X X

Shortnose sturgeon X X X+ X X

Paddlefish X X X X+

Shovelnose sturgeon X X X+

Pallid sturgeon X X X X+

Alabama sturgeon X X X X

Lake sturgeon X X X

White sturgeon X X X X+

Green sturgeon X X X+

* Sources: Compiled by TRAFFIC North America from various species literature and studies, in litt. correspondence, and personalcommunications. More detailed information and specific references are provided in Section III. + Additional Comments: Atlantic sturgeon: Bycatch in other fisheries (see Section 3.1 for details). Shortnose sturgeon: Likely as bycatchin other fisheries (Atlantic sturgeon, shad, others—see Section 3.3 for details). Paddlefish: Illegal catch and trade (see Section 3.4 fordetails). Shovelnose sturgeon: Illegal catch and trade (see Section 3.5 for details). Pallid sturgeon: Hybridization (see Section 3.6 fordetails). White sturgeon: Particularly Kootenai River subpopulation and other fragmented subpopulations in Columbia River in the UnitedStates; Kootenay, Nechako, and upper Columbia River populations in Canada (see Section 3.9 for details). Green sturgeon: Much remainsunknown or not well documented about the green sturgeon.

Instead, the ways that acipenseriform speciesare legally classified, and the purposes forwhich they are managed, vary widely amongthe states and provinces that they inhabit,reflecting the individual circumstances in eachspecific jurisdiction. To give a very broadexample, the paddlefish may be classified asthreatened or endangered in one state, andthereby protected from fishing, but consideredabundant in a neighboring state, whichtherefore allows commercial and sport fishingof the species. In the case of U.S. species thatare listed as threatened or endangered at the

federal level under the ESA, managementregimes further fall under the provisions andstrictures of that law.

Section IV of this report describes themanagement structures in place regarding eachof North America’s acipenseriform species atthe federal, state, and provincial levels. Table2.2.1 below provides a summary overview ofhow the various species are legally classified atthe state and provincial levels in the UnitedStates and Canada, and whether or notcommercial and/or sport fishing are allowed.

17

Table 2.2.1 State and Provincial Classifications/Commercial and SportFishing for Paddlefish and Sturgeon in the United States andCanada (45 U.S. States and 10 Canadian Provinces)*

Province/State AtlS GlfS ShnS Pd ShvS AlS PS LS WS GrS

Alberta — — — — — — — SF+ — — British Columbia — — — — — — — — IM+ CI Manitoba — — — — — — — CL+ — — New Brunswick CF, SF — — — — — — — — — Newfoundland CL — — — — — — — — — Nova Scotia CL — — — — — — — — — Ontario — — — EX — — — CF, SF — — PEI CL — — — — — — — — — Quebec CF, SF — — — — — — CF, SF — Saskatchewan — — — — — — — CL+ — — Alabama — TH — CL CL PR — EX — — Alaska — — — — — — — — CF CF Arkansas — — — CF, SF CF, SF — EN EX — — California — — — — — — — — SF SC, SF Connecticut TH — EN — — — — — — — Delaware EN — CL — — — — — — — Florida SC SC+ EN — — — — — — — Georgia CL SC+ EN EX — — — SC+ — — Idaho — — — — — — — — CL+ — Illinois — — — CF, SF CF, SF — EN EN — — Indiana — — — CF, SF CF, SF — EN EN — — Iowa — — — SF CF, SF — EN EN — — Kansas — — — SF SF — EN CL+ — — Kentucky — — — CF, SF CF, SF — EN CL — — Louisiana — TH — CL CL — EN EX — — Maine CL — CL — — — — — — — Maryland CL — EN EX — — — — — — Massachusetts EN — EN — — — — — — — Michigan — — — — — — — TH, SF — — Minnesota — — — TH SF — — SC, SF — — Mississippi — EN — CF, SF CL EN EN CL — — Missouri — — — CF, SF CF, SF — EN EN — — Montana — — — SC, SF SF — EN — CL+ — Nebraska — — — SF SF — EN TH — — New Hampshire CL — EN — — — — — — — New Jersey CL — EN — — — — — — — New Mexico — — — — EX — — — — — New York CL — EN EX+ — — — TH — — North Carolina SC — EN EN+ EX — — SC+ — —

18

Province/State AtlS GlfS ShnS Pd ShvS AlS PS LS WS GrS

North Dakota — — — SF — — EN — — Ohio — — — TH, SF EN — — EN — — Oklahoma — — — SF SF — — — — — Oregon — — — — — — — — CF, SF SF Pennsylvania TH — EN CL+ EX — — EN — — Rhode Island SH — CL — — — — — — — South Carolina CL — EN — — — — — — — South Dakota — — — SF CL — EN CL+ — — Tennessee — — — CF, SF CF, SF — EN EN — — Texas — — — TH TH — — — — — Vermont — — — — — — — EN — — Virginia SC — EN EN+ — — — — — — Washington — — — — — — — — CF, SF SF West Virginia — — — CI CL — — EX — — Wisconsin — — — TH CF, SF — — WA, SF — — Wyoming — — — — SF — — — — —

Key: AtlS = Atlantic sturgeon; GlfS = Gulf sturgeon; ShnS = Shortnose sturgeon; Pd = Paddlefish; ShvS = Shovelnose sturgeon; AlS = Alabamasturgeon; PS = Pallid sturgeon; LS = Lake sturgeon; WS = White sturgeon; GrS = Green sturgeon; EN = Endangered; TH = Threatened; IM =Imperiled; CI = Critically Imperiled; EX = Extirpated; SC = Species of Special Concern; SH = State Historical (documented for state in last 100years but not currently known to occur); CF = Commercial Fishery; SF = Sport Fishery (in many states/provinces species classified as GameFish); CL = Species not legally classified as threatened, endangered or at risk, but commercial and sport fishing closed; PR = Protectednongame species; WA = Watch List. * Sources: Compiled by TRAFFIC North America from various species literature and studies, in litt. correspondence, and personalcommunications. More detailed information and specific references are provided in Section IV.+ Additional Comments: Alberta: Zero catch limit in the North Saskatchwan River (catch-and-release only); Sport catch allowed in the SouthSaskatchewan River and its tributaries. British Columbia: Three white sturgeon populations in British Columbia (the Nechako, upper Columbia,and Kootenay populations) designated as Critically Imperiled by the province. Manitoba: Catch-and-release fishing allowed in many rivers, as isaboriginal subsistence fishing. Newfoundland: Atlantic sturgeon may be present in marine waters, but no commercial or sport fishery.Saskatchewan: Has commercial quota, but province imposed a moratorium on catch in 1996. Sport angling is catch-and-release only. Florida:State does not list subspecies separately from Atlantic sturgeon, but notes federal Threatened status. Georgia: Gulf and lake sturgeon listed asSpecies of Special Concern based on historical occurrence. No reports of species in recent years, but may still be extant. Idaho: Catch-and-release fishing only in Snake River. The Kootenai River subpopulation is listed as Endangered under the ESA. Kansas: No directed commercialfishing for lake sturgeon, but those who catch them incidentally in other fisheries may keep them. No sport fishery. Montana: Kootenai Riversubpopulation, listed as Endangered under the ESA. New York: Natural paddlefish population extirpated. Recovery through stocking underway.North Carolina: Paddlefish listed based on historical occurrence. No reports of species in recent years, but may still be extant. Lake sturgeonlisted as Species of Special Concern, although apparently extirpated from the state. Pennsylvania: Natural paddlefish population extirpated.Recovery through stocking underway; population status/recovery progress undetermined to date. South Dakota: Lake sturgeon not legallyclassified as Threatened or Endangered, but is on a state list of rare, threatened or endangered animals. State prohibits catch of any sturgeonspecies. Virginia: Paddlefish likely extirpated, but listed as Endangered to protect possible extant fish.

Table 2.2.1 State and Provincial Classifications/Commercial and SportFishing for Paddlefish and Sturgeon in the United States andCanada (45 U.S. States and 10 Canadian Provinces)* continued

2.3 Legal and Illegal TradeNorth American paddlefish and sturgeonspecies have a long history in commercialtrade. Traditionally, the majority of themarkets for their products—caviar inparticular—have been within North America.Unfortunately, historic overfishing duringperiods of high demand and prices for caviarled at various times to dramatic populationdeclines and the collapse of fisheries for theAtlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, lake sturgeon,white sturgeon, and other species takenincidentally as bycatch. Similarly, demand forpaddlefish roe for caviar has spiked anddeclined in cycles over the past century ormore, leading to years of heavy fishingpressure followed by years of relative

inattention. Given the ready availability andpreference for the caviar of Caspian Seasturgeon in recent decades, trade pressure onNorth American species remained relativelylow. Recent developments in the Caspian Seafisheries, however, indicate that thiscircumstance is likely coming to an end. Inlegal markets, prices for roe from NorthAmerican species are rising, possibly becauseof anticipation of the further decline or evencomplete collapse of Caspian Sea production.Price increases are likely in illegal markets aswell. In a more ominous development, lawenforcement authorities are beginning to detectcaviar from North American speciesmislabeled and sold fraudulently as CaspianSea product.

19

Table 2.3.1 Commercial Trade of Native Acipenseriformes in the United Statesand Canada (2002)*

Species United States Canada Trade from Export Import Trade from Export Import

Domestic Stocks Trade Trade Domestic Stocks Trade TradeLegal? Legal? Legal? Legal? Legal? Legal?

Atlantic sturgeon No No Yes1 Yes Yes Yes2

Gulf sturgeon No No No — — —

Shortnose sturgeon No No No No No No

Paddlefish Yes Yes Yes2 — — Yes

Shovelnose sturgeon Yes Yes Yes2 — — Yes

Pallid sturgeon No No No — — —

Alabama sturgeon No No No — — —

Lake sturgeon No No Yes1 Yes Yes Yes2

White sturgeon Yes Yes3 Yes2 No No Yes1

Green sturgeon Yes Yes2 Yes No No Yes1

* Source: TRAFFIC summary of species trade status, detailed in Section V of this report.Additional Comments:

1 Subject to specific prohibitions or restrictions in certain states or provinces.2 Legal, but little to no actual trade recorded.3 Meat and caviar only; commercial trade in live white sturgeon prohibited since 1999.

Section V of this report discusses the currentstatus of North American Acipenseriformes inlegal trade, both domestically and inter-nationally, as well as what is known aboutillegal trade in North American caviar. Table2.3.1 provides a very broad overview of legaltrade in North American sturgeon andpaddlefish.

2.4 Hatcheries andCommercial Aquaculture

Captive rearing of North Americanacipenseriform species takes two basic forms.One involves captive propagation of sturgeonand paddlefish in government or government-sponsored hatcheries for purposes of speciesrecovery, restoration, stocking or research.The other involves commercial aquaculture,usually by private interests, to produce caviar,meat, or live fish for the commercial market.As is discussed in Section VI of this report,both activities carry potential benefits for theconservation of native acipenseriform stocks.Captive propagation can assist in the recoveryor reintroduction of endangered species,augment existing sturgeon or paddlefish stocks,and provide a means to better understand thebiology and ecology of these fish.Commercial aquaculture may provide an

alternative source of roe to wild-caught fish.However, both practices also carry potentialrisks or drawbacks, for example geneticdilution of wild stocks, introduction of non-native diseases, or, in the case of commercialaquaculture, an opportunity for the illegallaundering of roe from wild paddlefish andsturgeon populations.

Table 2.4.1 provides a very broad summary ofU.S. states and Canadian provinces with activeor recent captive propagation programs,stocking efforts, and commercial aquacultureoperations. Some of these initiatives involvefederal agencies, some have been undertakenby state or provincial authorities, and some areprivate ventures. For purposes here, the tableshows the presence of commercial aquaculturein jurisdictions where there are licensedoperations. As is described in more detail inSection VI, in some jurisdictions it is notknown whether any or all of the privateoperations licensed to rear paddlefish orsturgeon are actively engaged in commercialaquaculture. It should also be noted thatcommercial aquaculture of paddlefish is legalbut not closely monitored in several U.S.states. As Section VI explains, it is thereforepossible that there are commercial operationsrearing paddlefish in more states than areindicated in the table.

20

Table 2.4.1 Captive Propagation and Commercial Aquaculture of NorthAmerican Sturgeon and Paddlefish Species in the United Statesand Canada (45 U.S. States and 10 Canadian Provinces)*

Province/State AtlS GlfS ShnS Pd ShvS AlS PS LS WS GrS

Alberta — — — — — — — — — — British Columbia — — — — — — — — CP, AQ — Manitoba — — — — — — — CP, ST — — New Brunswick AQ — — — — — — — — — Newfoundland — — — — — — — — — — Nova Scotia — — — — — — — — — — Ontario — — — — — — — AQ — — PEI — — — — — — — — — — Quebec — — — — — — — — — — Saskatchewan — — — — — — — ST — — Alabama — — — — — CP — — — — Alaska — — — — — — — — — — Arkansas — — — — — — — — — — California — — — — — — — — AQ — Connecticut — — — — — — — — — — Delaware — — — — — — — — — — Florida AQ CP CP — — — — — — — Georgia — CP CP, ST AQ — — — CP — — Idaho — — — — — — — — CP, AQ — Illinois — — — AQ AQ — — — — — Indiana — — — — — — — — — — Iowa — — — — — — — — — — Kansas — — — CP, ST — — — — — — Kentucky — — — AQ — — — — — — Louisiana — CP — CP, ST CP — CP, ST — — — Maine — — — — — — — — — — Maryland ST — — — — — — — — — Massachusetts CP — — — — — — — — — Michigan — — — — — — — CP, ST — — Minnesota — — — — — — — CP, ST, AQ — — Mississippi — — — CP — — — — — — Missouri — — — CP, AQ — — CP, ST CP, ST — — Montana — — — CP — — ST — — — Nebraska — — — — — — ST — AQ — New Hampshire — — — — — — — — — — New Jersey — — — — — — — — — — New Mexico — — — CP — — — — — — New York ST — — CP, ST — — — CP, ST — — North Carolina — — — — — — — — — — North Dakota — — — — CP — CP, ST — — — Ohio — — — AQ CP — — CP — — Oklahoma — — — CP, ST — — — — — — Oregon — — — — — — — — — — Pennsylvania CP — — CP, ST — — — — — — Rhode Island — — — — — — — — — — South Carolina CP — CP, ST — — — — — — — South Dakota — — — CP, ST CP — CP, ST — — — Tennessee — — — AQ — — — ST — — Texas — — — CP, ST — — — — — — Vermont — — — — — — — CP — — Virginia CP — — — — — — — — — Washington — — — — — — — — CP — West Virginia — — — ST ST — — — — — Wisconsin — — — — — — — CP, ST — — Wyoming — — — — ST — — — — —

Key: AtlS = Atlantic sturgeon; GlfS = Gulf sturgeon; ShnS = Shortnose sturgeon; Pd = Paddlefish; ShvS = Shovelnose sturgeon; AlS =Alabama sturgeon; PS = Pallid sturgeon; LS = Lake sturgeon; WS = White sturgeon; GrS = Green sturgeon; CP = Captive Propagation; AQ =Commercial Aquaculture; ST = Stocking.* Sources: Compiled by TRAFFIC North America from various literature, in litt. correspondence, and personal communications. More detailedinformation and specific references are provided in Section VI.

North American Acipenseriformes occur inmarine, estuarine, and freshwater ecosystems.The ranges of several species overlap;however, different life history characteristicsand seasonal habitat use patterns have largelyaverted direct competition among them.Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons inhabit rivers,estuaries, and marine waters along the Atlanticcoast. The Gulf sturgeon is endemic to U.S.coastal rivers and near-shore waters alongportions of the central and eastern Gulf ofMexico. The paddlefish, shovelnose sturgeon,pallid sturgeon, and Alabama sturgeon occur ininterior freshwater ecosystems, primarilywithin the Mississippi and Missouri riverdrainages. Lake sturgeon inhabit both therivers and lakes of southern Canada and theMississippi and Missouri river systems. Whitesturgeon and green sturgeon are found inrivers, estuaries, and marine waters along thePacific coast.

There is ongoing debate about whether someNorth American sturgeons are truly separatespecies, or merely subspecies or variations ofother species. Such debate particularlyconcerns the pallid and Alabama sturgeons,and their relationship to the shovelnosesturgeon. TRAFFIC does not attempt toaddress such issues herein, as they primarilyencompass discussions regarding morphologyand genetics that fall outside the scope of thisreport. The species, subspecies, and sub-populations included here are those recognizedunder U.S. or Canadian law, or treateddistinctly by federal, state, or provincialfisheries agencies for management purposes.

Historical accounts suggest that paddlefish andalmost all North American sturgeon specieswere once relatively abundant. The exceptionis the pallid sturgeon, which is believed to havealways been rare. Such is not the case today,when only a few species have populations thatcan be considered relatively abundant, and eventhen often only in parts of their present range.For example, portions of some Pacific riversystems and their tributaries may have fairlysignificant populations of white sturgeon, whileother segments of the same rivers now containonly isolated and threatened sub-populations.There has also been considerable discussionabout the situation of the paddlefish andshovelnose sturgeon in parts of their ranges inthe Mississippi and Missouri river systems.

The following section condenses knowninformation on each of the North Americanacipenseriform species, including their historicrange and current distribution, ecology andhabitat, historic catch levels, presentconservation status, and threats or challenges tocontinued survival. The amount of informationand level of detail available for each speciesvary, particularly regarding historic range andcatch. This is because recorded data on somespecies are sketchy, and often consist largely ofanecdotal accounts. Even the historicalpresence of some acipenseriform species incertain river systems cannot be definitivelyconfirmed. As the species accounts hereinshow, the same can be said of whether someAcipenseriformes are present or absent today insome waters they are believed to have onceinhabited. Resolving the true status of severalspecies will require further research.

21

III. SPECIES SUMMARIES

Sometimes referred to as the black sturgeon,common sturgeon, or sea sturgeon, the Atlanticsturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) isone of two subspecies of A. oxyrinchus presentin North America, the other being the Gulfsturgeon (A. o. desotoi). The Atlantic sturgeonis a large, anadromous fish native to theAtlantic ocean and bays and rivers along theeastern coast of North America. Once found inabundance, the species is now considered rarein many rivers and coastal waters throughoutits historic range. A primary cause for theAtlantic sturgeon’s decline is believed to bepast overfishing (Atlantic States MarineFisheries Commission [ASMFC] 1998a,1998b). As fishing pressure shifted from stateto state during various decades over the pastcentury or more, individual populationsdeclined in succession, and the species hasproven as yet unable to rebound. Although theU.S. population of Atlantic sturgeon wasproposed for listing under the EndangeredSpecies Act in the 1990s, in 1998 the federalgovernment concluded that listing was notwarranted at that time (Field et al. 1999).

Historic Range and CurrentDistributionThe historic range of the Atlantic sturgeoncovered most of the eastern seaboard of NorthAmerica, from Hamilton Inlet in Labrador,Canada to the St. Johns River in Florida.Although the species’ overall range remainsrelatively constant to this day, Atlanticsturgeon have been extirpated locally fromsome rivers.

Because the Atlantic sturgeon is a highlymigratory, anadromous species, there are two

ways to measure its range. One methodregards where the species is believed to bepresent at least occasionally, while the otherpertains to those rivers in which it spawns. Forexample, while the Atlantic sturgeon has beenreported as far north as Labrador, it is notknown if spawning ever occurred in any riverthere. In addition, the extensive migration ofsub-adult Atlantic sturgeon means that thepresence of juveniles in a river does notnecessarily provide evidence of spawning(National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service [NMFS/USFWS]1998). Therefore, in terms of overalldistribution, the range of the Atlantic sturgeoncovers almost the entire eastern seaboard ofNorth America from Labrador to Florida. Butin terms of reproduction, the species’ knownhistoric spawning range consists of a distinctsubset of rivers between Newfoundland in thenorth and Florida in the south.

In 1998, responding to a petition from theBiodiversity Legal Foundation to list theAtlantic sturgeon as threatened or endangeredand designate critical habitat, NMFS andUSFWS conducted a status review of thespecies to determine if protection under theEndangered Species Act was warranted(NMFS/USFWS 1998). One of the steps inthat review was an examination of thedistribution and abundance of the species.Much of the information presented heresummarizes the findings of that review, as wellas the findings of other studies, as cited.Figure 1 shows the overall range of theAtlantic sturgeon.

Unfortunately, the aforementioned reviewfound comprehensive information on current or

22

3.1 Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)

Illustration by Paul Vecsei

historic abundance of Atlantic sturgeon lackingfor most river systems. Overfishing in the late1800s led to a significant decline in theabundance of the species throughout its range,and habitat degradation from dams, dredging,and other human activities also impactedstocks, especially in the early to mid-1900s.Because these developments took place in theabsence of any concrete scientific baseline dataon the species, it proved difficult to preciselyquantify the extent of the Atlantic sturgeon’sdecline. Also, available data were largelyderived from studies directed at other species,

and primarily provided evidence of absence orpresence rather than abundance(NMFS/USFWS 1998). Consequently there isan incomplete body of research on the historicpresence of Atlantic sturgeon in the UnitedStates and Canada, including the exact numberof rivers that may have once had spawningpopulations.

In Canada, Atlantic sturgeon have historicallybeen reported as far north as the lower GeorgeRiver in Ungava Bay and Hamilton Inlet inLabrador. The species is currently found inQuebec in the Gulf of St. Lawrence from the

23

Figure 1 Historic Atlantic Sturgeon Range

Source: Environment Canada (revised)

Blanc Sablon on the Quebec side of the StraitBelle Isle, in the St. Lawrence River up toTrois Rivières, and occasionally further upriverat Sorel. Atlantic sturgeon have also beencaptured on the Gulf of St. Lawrence shore inNewfoundland; in the Mirimichi River, NewBrunswick; and at Cheticamp, Aspy Bay,Canso Straits, and Halifax in Nova Scotia. Inthe Bay of Fundy, Atlantic sturgeon werefound in studies during the 1960s to beabundant in the Saint John River, NewBrunswick, and were reported in the Minasbasin, Passamaquoddy Bay, and the AvonRiver (NMFS/USFWS 1998; Anon. 2001a).

Unfortunately, very little sampling has beendone to document the spawning grounds orbreeding behavior of Atlantic sturgeon inCanadian rivers. In the St. Lawrence River,spawning is believed to occur in deep poolsbelow waterfalls in tributaries, including theBatican River and Riviere aux Outardes (Anon.2001a). Interviews cited in the NMFS/USFWSsurvey found it likely that Atlantic sturgeonspawned in the Mirimichi, Shubenacadie, andLa Have rivers. It is also believed that thespecies probably spawned historically in theAnnapolis River in Nova Scotia(NMFS/USFWS 1998).

In the United States, Atlantic sturgeon werepresent historically in approximately 34 rivers,from the Penobscot in Maine to the St. Johnsin Florida; it is unknown how many of thoserivers supported spawning. The current rangemay have contracted slightly, reaching fromthe Kennebec River, Maine, (absence from thePenobscot River is not certain) to the SatillaRiver, Georgia. Atlantic sturgeon have beenreported as extant in 32 U.S. rivers, althoughspawning may now occur in only as many as14 of these (NMFS/USFWS 1998).

State-by-state, available information onAtlantic sturgeon in the United States showscontinuing uncertainty about its abundance oreven its presence in some river systems.

Maine: The historic northern limit of the U.S.Atlantic sturgeon population was believed tobe Maine’s Penobscot River. In 1994 and1995, a sampling effort by state authorities todetermine the presence of shortnose sturgeonin the river failed to capture either shortnose orAtlantic sturgeon. Although no recentevidence of Atlantic sturgeon presence was

found, because of the mesh sizes used in thesampling, the limited focus of the effort, andthe presence of suitable habitat in the river, thepossibility that a small population may existcannot be ruled out (NMFS/USFWS 1998).

The estuarial complex of Maine’s Kennebec,Androscoggin, and Sheepscot rivers is the onlysystem in New England exhibiting currentevidence of Atlantic sturgeon spawning. Thespecies was believed to be historicallyabundant in the Kennebec River and itstributary the Androscoggin. A series ofsampling efforts and surveys using gill netsand trawls in the 1980s and 1990s capturedboth adult male sturgeon expressing milt andsub-adults in the Kennebec River and its tidalfreshwater tributaries and mid-estuary,providing evidence that a spawning populationwas present. While as of the time of thisreport studies had not been conducted todetermine whether Atlantic sturgeon continueto spawn in the Androscoggin River, sub-adultshave been captured in the Sheepscot River,which is believed to serve as a nursing area forKennebec River sturgeon. Atlantic sturgeonmay also use the estuaries of smaller Mainerivers during summer months, although mostof these coastal rivers are not suitable forspawning populations (NMFS/USFWS 1998).

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,and Connecticut: Atlantic sturgeon inhabitseveral rivers in these states, but there is nocontemporary evidence of spawningpopulations. For example, while a few Atlanticsturgeon have been captured in the PiscataquaRiver/Great Bay Estuary system in NewHampshire, these appear to be isolated events.The species is found only rarely in tidal watersof the state, although it is believed likely thatsub-adults use the Great Bay Estuary as anursery habitat (NMFS/USFWS 1998; BruceSmith, Marine Biologist, New HampshireDepartment of Fish and Game, in litt. toRosemarie Gnam, USFWS/OMA, August 15,2000). Similarly, there are historic and recentreports of adult Atlantic sturgeon beingcaptured or found dead in the Merrimack River(New Hampshire and Massachusetts). Whilestudies using intensive gill net surveys duringthe late 1980s provided no evidence of aspawning population, capture and sonictracking of sub-adults indicated that the river isused as a nursery ground. In the Taunton River

24

(Massachusetts and Rhode Island), ConnecticutRiver (Massachusetts and Connecticut),Thames River (Connecticut), and HousatonicRiver (Connecticut), there are historic reportsof spawning populations dating to the 1700s,and of use of Atlantic sturgeon by NativeAmericans. However, in recent times there isno evidence of spawning, and stocks ofAtlantic sturgeon native to these river systemsare believed to be extirpated. There are reportsof sub-adults being captured in all of theserivers, indicating that while spawningpopulations may no longer be present, the riversystems and their estuaries continue to be usedas nursery areas (NMFS/USFWS 1998).

New York: It is believed that New York’sHudson River was historically important forspawning. The Hudson supported subsistenceand commercial fisheries for Atlantic sturgeonduring Colonial times, and legal catchcontinued sporadically through 1997.However, no data on abundance of juvenilesturgeon was available before the 1970s. Twolater studies indicated that the river continuesto serve as a spawning ground, but there areindications of a decline. Whereas an estimatefor the 1976 year class ranged from 14,500 to36,000 individuals (mean of 25,000), a CornellUniversity sample estimated that there were9,529 age 0 Atlantic sturgeon in the estuary in1994. Because the New York Department ofEnvironmental Conservation stocked 4,929Atlantic sturgeon marked age 0 in October1994, by extrapolation 4,600 fish were of wildorigin, a significant decline from the 1976 yearclass. Available data from mark/recapturestudies, bycatch from the commercial gill netfishery, and utilities sampling1 indicated thatthe greatest decline appeared to occur in themiddle to late 1970s, followed by a secondarydrop in the late 1980s. The Hudson Riversupported spawning as recently as 1997,although efforts to secure mature adult Atlanticsturgeon in that year resulted in the capture ofonly males, unlike in previous years when bothmales and females were found(NMFS/USFWS 1998).

New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania: TheDelaware River, which flows through these threestates into the Delaware Bay, may have

supported the largest historical stock of Atlanticsturgeon of any coastal river system. Possiblespawning grounds were reported as far north asBordentown, New Jersey, just below Trenton,and juveniles were once considered a nuisancebycatch in the American shad fishery. As withthe Hudson River, recent studies and surveysindicate that the species has declined sharplyfrom historical levels, which may be attributableto the fact that much of the Atlantic sturgeonfishery concentrated in the Delaware River andBay at the end of the nineteenth century(ASMFC 1998b; NMFS/USFWS 1998; Secorand Waldman 1999). Whereas Secor andWaldman (1999) calculated that femaleabundance of Atlantic sturgeon in 1890 mayhave been as high as 180,000 (extrapolated fromestimates of biomass, male/female catch biomassratio, and mean female weight), NMFS/USFWS(1998) reported that population estimates basedon mark and recapture of immature Atlanticsturgeon declined from a high of 5,600 in 1991to less than 1,000 in 1995. Despite the highvalue of caviar, no commercial fisherydeveloped in recent periods when catch waslegal, suggesting a very low abundance ofspawning stock. The continued presence ofadult sturgeon and juveniles aged one year oryounger indicates that the Delaware River andBay continue to serve as a spawning ground,although numbers are believed to have declinedduring the 1990s (NMFS/USFWS 1998).

The Chesapeake Bay and tributaries inPennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia: Thissystem comprises another complex of riversand estuaries where Atlantic sturgeon werehistorically common. Important rivers withhistoric and modern reports of sturgeonspawning grounds or presence include thePotomac, Rappahannock, York, James,Susquehanna, and Nanticoke. Along with fishof hatchery origin, the capture of numerousjuvenile young-of-the-year wild or age 1+Atlantic sturgeon from the lower James andYork rivers in an interagency reward programfrom 1996 to 1998 indicate that spawning mayhave taken place as recently as 1996 or 1997 inthe lower Chesapeake Bay, and most of theBay and several major tributaries are used asnursery habitat (NMFS/USFWS 1998).

25

1 Hudson River Valley utilities conduct extensive river-wide fisheries surveys to estimate impacts of power plant operations.

North Carolina: Atlantic sturgeon werehistorically abundant in most of NorthCarolina’s coastal rivers and estuaries,including the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, Neuse,Cape Fear, and Brunswick rivers and theAlbemarle Sound system. As of 1998, surveydata indicated that spawning continued tooccur in the Roanoke River/Albemarle Soundsystem and the Cape Fear River, and it is alsothought to have occurred recently in the Neuseand Tar-Pamlico rivers. Some adult sturgeonapparently migrate upstream in the fall,although they may not spawn until thefollowing spring. An examination by theNMFS interagency team of all databases in thestate for entries for Atlantic sturgeon coveringvarious years from 1957 to 1997 found a totalof 1,210 Atlantic sturgeon recorded, andindicated that Atlantic sturgeon are present inall major rivers in North Carolina(NMFS/USFWS 1998).

South Carolina: Atlantic sturgeon were presenthistorically in many South Carolina rivers andestuaries, although it is not known wherespawning occurred. The 1998 NMFS/USFWSstudy concluded from sampling conductedwithin the previous two decades that Atlanticsturgeon were present in the following riversystems: the Great PeeDee River, WaccamawRiver, and Sampit River, all tributaries toWinyah Bay; the Santee River, Lake Moultrie,Cooper River, Ashley River, South EdistoRiver, Ashepoo River, and Combahee River, alltributaries to St. Helena Sound; theBroad/Coosawhatchie River; and the SavannahRiver. Based on the collection of juveniles, itwas believed that spawning continued to occurin the Santee River, one or more of theAshepoo, Combahee, or Edisto (ACE) Basintributaries, the Savannah River, and possiblythe Cooper, Great PeeDee, and Waccamawrivers. All of the systems noted above, exceptfor Lake Moultrie, probably provided nurseryhabitat (NMFS/USFWS 1998).

Georgia and Florida: The Altamaha River inGeorgia is believed to support one of the mostabundant Atlantic sturgeon populations in theSoutheast, based on the presence of more than2,000 juveniles found in a sample usingtrammel nets in the early 1990s. Of thejuveniles sampled, 800 were believed to be ageone fish. Another population of Atlanticsturgeon occurs in Georgia’s Ogeechee River.

Sampling efforts in the 1990s suggested thatjuveniles are scarce or absent in some years,indicating spawning or recruitment failure anda severely stressed population. Similarly, it isbelieved that a population of Atlantic sturgeonpersists in the Satilla River in Georgia, but isunder stress (NMFS/USFWS 1998). It hasbeen hypothesized that nursery habitat in boththe Ogeechee and Satilla rivers has beencompromised during hot, dry summers byreduced dissolved oxygen levels from non-point source pollution and loss of thermalrefugia from lowering the aquifer [Rogers etal. (1994), cited in NMFS/USFWS (1998)].

At the southern end of its range, recentsampling indicates that the Atlantic sturgeonhas been extirpated from some rivers where itwas historically reported. These include theSt. Marys River in Georgia and Florida, wheresampling has resulted in zero catch, andpossibly Florida’s St. Johns, St. Augustine, andSt. Lucie rivers. However, it is unknownwhether these rivers were ever used forspawning or merely by migrating populations.There is no evidence of current presence ofAtlantic sturgeon in any of these systems(NMFS/USFWS 1998).

Ecology and Habitat Adult Atlantic sturgeon are anadromous,primarily inhabiting marine and brackishwaters, and ascending into fresh water forspawning only. Feeding migrations of up to1,800 miles (3,000 kilometers) have beenreported. The largest specimen ever recordedwas 14 feet long and weighed 811 pounds(approximately 4.2 meters and 370 kg), buttoday the species rarely attains more than 6–7feet and 130 pounds (approximately 2 metersand 60 kg) (ASMFC 2001a; Hochleithner andGessner 1999). The maximum lifespan isreported to be 60 years (ASMFC 2001a;Hochleithner and Gessner 1999). Atlanticsturgeon are benthic (bottom) feeders; theirfood consists primarily of benthic invertebratessuch as crustaceans, bivalves, and worms.Small bottom-dwelling fish may also beconsumed, and seasonal preferences have beenreported (Hochleithner and Gessner 1999;Friedland 2000; ASMFC 2001a).

Spawning season varies with watertemperatures between April and July.

26

Spawning occurs at water temperaturesbetween 55 and 72° F (13–22° C) over rockyor gravel substrate, with a preferable currentvelocity of 1.6–2.6 feet per second (0.5–0.8meters per second). Spawning migrationdistances can be long, with reports ofmigrations of up to 900 miles (1,500kilometers). Males reach spawning sites asmuch as 10 days prior to females(Hochleithner and Gessner 1999). Sexualmaturity for Atlantic sturgeon varies widelydepending on the climate at the point ofdistribution, with northern populationsmaturing much later than southern populations.For example, in the far northern extent of thespecies’ range in the St. Lawrence River,females reach sexual maturity at 24–28 yearsand males at 20–24 years, while in the southfemales may reach maturity at 9–15 years andmales at 7–9 years. Intervals betweenspawning also vary according to geographicaldistribution, from 1–4 years for males to 3–5years for females (Hochleithner and Gessner1999; Chapman 1999).

Egg size ranges from 2.3 to 2.8 millimeters indiameter, with fecundity varying from 16,000to 24,000 eggs per kilogram of body weight(average = 20,000). Some references thusestimate that a female may carry600,000–2,000,000 eggs (Hochleithner andGessner 1999; Chapman 1999). VanEenennaam et al. (1996), cited in Secor andWaldman (1999), estimated that fecundityranged from 400,000 to 2,000,000. Hatchingoccurs at water temperatures between 61 and66° F (16–19° C) after 120–140 hours.Juvenile sturgeon remain in freshwater for 1–3years and then descend into estuaries. It maybe six years from hatching before they migrateto the ocean (ASMFC 2001a). Adults descendthe rivers immediately after spawning(Hochleithner and Gessner 1999).

Despite its highly migratory nature, the coastalmovements of Atlantic sturgeon are believed tobe largely, but not completely, confined to thebiogeographic provinces in which their nativerivers belong. The fidelity of Atlantic sturgeonto their native rivers is uncertain, and thegenetic structure of populations of the species isstill being learned. A 1996 study and 1997analysis [Waldman et al. (1996) and Wirgin etal. (1997), both cited in NMFS/USFWS (1998)]of the stock structures of populations of Atlantic

sturgeon showed three highly differentiatedstocks: Canadian (St. Lawrence and Saint Johnrivers); Hudson River; and southeastern rivers(Edisto, Savannah, Ogeechee, Altahama, andSatilla). Furthermore, despite the geographicproximity of the southern rivers, mitochondrialDNA analysis in these studies indicated thatstocks generally exchange less than one femaleper generation. A 1998 paper cited these lowgene flows as evidence that naturalrecolonization of extinct or extirpatedpopulations of Atlantic sturgeon will proceedslowly, complicating conservation and recoveryefforts [Waldman and Wirgin (1998), cited inNMFS/USFWS (1998)].

More recent studies have supported theexistence of the three basic regional divisionsof Atlantic sturgeon populations identified inthese studies. However, the addition ofsamples from more estuaries on thesoutheastern U.S. coast, larger sample sizes insoutheastern rivers, and identification of farmore haplotypes have allowed additionalprecision in distinguishing populations. Theresults of one study were consistent with thepresence of a minimum of seven groupings ofAtlantic sturgeon along the entire easternseaboard. Within the southeast, the dataindicated the presence of at least fourgenetically distinct stocks: those in theAlbemarle Sound, the Cape Fear River, theEdisto River, and populations in the remainingthree rivers (Savannah, Ogeechee, andAltamaha). Furthermore, although the geneticstatus of the three southernmost populationswas not clear, there was some evidence ofgenetic uniqueness in these populations,despite their geographic proximity to oneanother (Wirgin et al. 2000).

Historic Fisheries/Catch LevelsHuman fishing for Atlantic sturgeon dates backat least as far as 2190 B.C., when NativeAmericans used the species for food. In theUnited States, in the mid-nineteenth centuryAtlantic sturgeon were often caught in shadfishing operations and killed to protect fishingnets. At that time, Atlantic sturgeon roe wasconsidered useful regionally only for fish baitand hog feed (Waldman 1999).

Major commercial fisheries in the UnitedStates developed later in the nineteenth century

27

as the potential value of sturgeon for caviarand meat became apparent. By 1860, fisheriesexisted in Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, NewJersey, New York, North Carolina,Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia,focusing on rivers where sturgeon aggregatedto spawn (NMFS/USFWS 1998; Waldman1999). Caviar fisheries focused on Atlanticsturgeon developed rapidly in the 1870s in themid-Atlantic states, which was largelyattributable to technology transfer from Europeon processing caviar and fishing techniques.Improved domestic and internationaltransportation systems are believed to havebeen a contributing factor in the emergence ofAtlantic sturgeon fisheries [Cobb (1900), citedin Secor and Waldman (1999)].

Delaware Bay supported the largest Atlanticsturgeon fishery in the United States during thepeak years in the 1880s and 1890s, withfishermen operating from both New Jersey andDelaware. Kahnle et al. (1998), cited inASMFC (1998b), reported that coastwidelandings peaked in 1890 at an estimated levelof 7,374,449 pounds (3,348,000 kg; 3,348metric tons). Secor and Waldman (1999)placed the peak of the U.S. fishery slightlyearlier, with the largest recorded catch ofAtlantic sturgeon occurring in 1888, when U.S.landings totaled some 7.04 million pounds(3,502 tons; 3,152 metric tons). Of this latterestimate, Delaware Bay contributed 5.94million pounds (2,970 tons; 2,655 metric tons),or 75 percent of the overall U.S. catch. Catchrecords suggest a “fishing up” period in theBay during the 1880s followed by a briefperiod of peak catch levels. In 1890 sturgeonranked second in tonnage (590 metric tons) forDelaware’s state fisheries, exceeded only byAmerican shad at 680 metric tons (Secor andWaldman 1999).

Few if any regulations existed to control catchduring this initial period of heavy exploitation,and many fisheries quickly began to collapse.Catch data from the Delaware River and Bayshowed that catch declined to less than half ofits peak by 1897 (Waldman 1999). In that year,the fishery had close to 1,000 fishermendispersed among fishing camps located onscows or house boats that served as sleepingquarters and caviar processing plants, allowingcaviar to be processed rapidly. Cobb (1900,cited in Secor and Waldman 1999) reported that

two-thirds of the fish yielded marketable caviar,or “hard roe,” and males comprised only 10%of the catch. Flesh was smoked and marketeddomestically, mostly in New York City.

By 1901, Delaware and New Jersey landingsdropped to six percent of peak levels.However, as the fishery developed, themonetary value of the overall catches remainedrelatively constant, as price varied inverselywith supply. Fishermen received $9 to $12per keg of caviar in 1885, about $40 per keg in1894, and as much as $105 per keg in 1899.Most of the caviar was shipped through NewYork City to Germany in one-quarter to two-pound cans. The only attempt at regulationduring this time came in New Jersey, which in1891 forbade the keeping of individualsturgeon less than three feet long (Secor andWaldman 1999; Waldman 1999).

The crash at the end of the nineteenth centurylargely ended directed fishing for Atlanticsturgeon in the Delaware River and Bay. The“clear-cutting” of female stocks had led to anapparent recruitment failure in this onceproductive sturgeon fishery, likely leaving littleto exploit. A review of records of Atlanticsturgeon captured in the Delaware Riverestuary from 1958 through 1980, for example,showed the capture of only 130 Atlanticsturgeon over this 23-year period, includingincidental catches [Brundage and Meadows(1982), cited in Secor and Waldman (1999)].

Similar cycles occurred in other fisheries. Forexample, in the Chesapeake Bay, Marylandlandings peaked at 141,000 pounds (~64,090kg; 64 metric tons) in 1897, but fell to 8,415pounds (~3,825 kg; 3.8 metric tons) by 1901.Virginia’s catch remained strong from 1890 to1897, ranging from 584,000 to 814,000 pounds(265,455–370,000 kg; 265.5–370 metric tons),but fell to 171,000 pounds (~76,950 kg; 77metric tons) by 1901. In 1920, combinedlandings in Maryland and Virginia totaled23,000 pounds (~10,455 kg; 10.45 metric tons)(Waldman 1999).

It should be noted that some of these datacould be overestimates, as catch records for theAtlantic Ocean at the time likely did notseparate catch of Atlantic sturgeon from that ofshortnose sturgeon (Friedland 2000).However, Secor and Waldman (1999) note thatalthough shortnose sturgeon likely occurred

28

throughout much of the fishing grounds, thatspecies’ much smaller size (rarely more than44 pounds [20 kg]) makes it unlikely thatshortnose sturgeon would be taken in the 13-inch mesh gill nets typical of the time.Waldman and Secor thus assumed that onlyAtlantic sturgeon were included in thehistorical catch records they reviewed for theDelaware River and Bay.

Following the collapse of catch levels in theDelaware River and Bay and other fisheriessuch as the Chesapeake Bay, the focus of theAtlantic sturgeon fishery shifted to variousother river systems during the twentiethcentury. During the 1970s and 1980s, SouthCarolina, North Carolina, and Georgiaaccounted for nearly 80% of total U.S.landings, leading to a predictable decline instocks. By 1990, six jurisdictions prohibitedsturgeon catch: Pennsylvania, the District ofColumbia, the Potomac River FisheriesCommission, Virginia, South Carolina, andFlorida. By 1996, closures had been institutedin Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, thePotomac River, Virginia, North Carolina, SouthCarolina, and Florida. Rhode Island,Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Georgiaadopted a seven foot (2.13 meter) minimumtotal length size, designed to allow females anopportunity to spawn once before being caught(NMFS/USFWS 1998).

New York and New Jersey’s Hudson Riverpopulation of Atlantic sturgeon formed thebasis of the last viable commercial fishery.Landings averaged about 33,000 pounds(15,000 kg; 15 metric tons) per year in theearly 1980s. A rapid increase in sturgeoncatch in the Hudson, to a peak of 266,200pounds (121,000 kg; 121 metric tons) in theearly 1990s as caviar reached $100 per poundfor fishermen, led to evidence of an impendingpopulation crash. The New York fishery wassubsequently closed (ASMFC 1998b;NMFS/USFWS 1998; Waldman 1999). Table3.1.1 shows available information on U.S.landings of Atlantic sturgeon in the latter yearsof legal commercial fishing from 1962 to 1997.

The history of U.S. Atlantic sturgeon fisheriesthus suggests a cycle of “boom and bust” thatmoved from river system to river system,depleting each in turn. The tremendous catch

levels of the early years of the fishery did notrepresent a sustainable industry, but ratherrapid overexploitation. Compared to theestimated 7 million pounds or more takenannually when the Delaware Bay fishery wasat its peak in the late nineteenth century(which, as noted, may have included shortnoseas well as Atlantic sturgeon), the combinedtotal for all U.S. eastern seaboard states for the36 years from 1962 to 1997 was slightly over4.4 million pounds (approximately 2 millionkg; 2,000 metric tons), and the latter levelprompted concerns about the sustainability ofdepleted populations (NMFS/USFWS 1998;Friedland 2000; ASMFC 2001a).

In 1998 ASMFC recommended, and all easternseaboard jurisdictions imposed, a completemoratorium on catch and possession ofAtlantic sturgeon. The history and details ofthese actions are outlined in Section IV.

In Canada, Atlantic sturgeon fisheries werenever based on caviar harvest, as the supplywas too irregular to support a caviar industry.Even so, Atlantic sturgeon landings declined inCanada during periods of the twentieth centuryas they did in the United States(NMFS/USFWS 1998). Statistics on historiccatch levels in the largest Canadian fishery—the upper estuary of the St. Lawrence River—indicate that annual landings ranged between20 and 40 metric tons between 1940 and 1966.Between 1967 and 1975, however, landingsdropped to almost nothing, as sturgeon becameall but absent from the fishery. The exactcause of the disappearance of Atlantic sturgeonduring this period has not been demonstratedwith certainty, and remains a source ofconcern. It has been speculated that riverdredging, deposition of dredging material inspawning grounds, chemical pollution(especially the widespread use of pesticides),overfishing, or a combination of these factorsmay have been responsible. Catch of thespecies later rebounded, reaching more than100 metric tons in 1988 and 120 metric tons in1993, corresponding with an increase inmarket demand for Atlantic sturgeon (Caronand Tremblay 1999).

Two Atlantic sturgeon fisheries remain inCanada, the major one in Quebec’s St.Lawrence River and a minor one in NewBrunswick’s Saint John River (Caron and

29

30

Tab

le 3

.1.1

N

MF

S-R

epo

rted

U.S

.Atl

anti

c S

turg

eon

Liv

e W

eig

ht

Lan

din

gs

(in

kg

) by

Sta

te,1

962–

1997

*

Year

M

E

NH

M

A

RI

CT

N

Y

NJ

DE

M

D

VA

NC

S

C

GA

F

L

TOTA

L

1962

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

22,2

26

17,9

62

816

181

41,1

86

1963

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A N

/A

N/A

19

,641

23

,859

1,

225

0 44

,724

1964

33

0 1,

855

543

0 0

0 0

0 0

15,3

31

29,1

21

862

0 47

,745

1965

271

0 1,

488

854

0 0

0 0

0 0

34,8

81

22,4

98

1,22

5 0

61,2

17

1966

201

0 85

0 2,

022

0 0

0 0

0 0

26,7

17

19,4

14

590

0 49

,794

1967

718

0 1,

070

1,19

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 17

,463

15

,059

31

8 0

35,8

19

1968

258

01,

243

299

00

00

00

21,2

7320

,049

227

043

,348

1969

1,26

20

765

1,21

20

00

00

059

,920

18,2

8049

90

81,9

37

1970

2,81

30

647

1,33

20

00

00

054

,386

2,85

81,

633

063

,668

1971

388

082

52,

037

00

00

00

35,5

1634

,836

1,72

40

75,3

26

1972

479

01,

276

969

00

00

00

69,9

0330

,853

3,49

80

106,

977

1973

144

083

352

50

00

00

025

,334

20,1

241,

155

4548

,161

1974

167

01,

168

1,26

10

00

00

0

858

067

,099

1975

646

076

545

90

00

917

053

,418

1976

607

038

955

10

00

00

020

,770

40,0

1063

00

62,9

56

1977

2,08

60

1,43

226

50

00

00

013

,477

52,0

371,

310

105

70,7

11

1978

844

01,

884

163

00

7,36

20

00

14,4

5942

,722

4,92

611

72,3

72

1979

1,43

60

599

242

6,94

30

00

1,47

195

65,4

72

1980

1,55

90

1,06

451

15,

634

00

6,45

176

88,2

41

1981

1,49

995

1,11

927

70

05,

167

00

014

,280

41,7

1810

,183

121

74,4

59

1982

1,24

70

1,10

349

00

03,

386

043

61,

681

10,5

9945

,429

12,7

5668

77,1

95

1983

1,04

211

21,

453

743

00

7,82

90

1,25

593

38,

154

8,45

04,

561

7834

,610

1984

841

212,

358

2,93

90

013

,844

01,

740

1,89

820

,389

11,7

373,

307

059

,073

1985

645

163,

212

4,28

70

08,

835

01,

018

618

12,2

227,

002

8,46

50

46,3

21

1986

729

262,

981

3,39

90

15,5

379,

175

01,

643

09,

325

04,

036

046

,852

1987

412

345

3,06

81,

926

013

,856

9,10

00

500

06,

154

03,

568

038

,930

1988

213

536

3,02

52,

333

025

,944

5,91

10

1,08

30

3,56

30

3,34

50

45,9

53

1989

344

5424

81,

169

771

8,58

138

,615

01,

184

03,

048

02,

619

056

,632

1990

116

6425

51,

003

728

21,9

1958

,240

01,

566

03,

065

01,

876

088

,832

1991

250

482

1,35

81,

252

37,8

0753

,189

01,

828

01,

667

072

60

98,3

34

1992

00

521,

197

38,1

3861

40

00

981

058

,766

1993

290

218

457

010

,390

16,2

431,

920

00

060

40

31,3

86

1994

00

2762

23,3

0034

30

00

780

43,4

58

1995

00

201

263

317

5,79

594

00

044

60

17,3

51

1996

00

017

195

112,

421

020

60

00

106

03,

010

1997

00

024

028

40

075

00

00

038

2

Tota

ls:

21,0

561,

269

37,9

5536

,533

319,

127

181,

995

319,

127

1,52

415

,505

5,13

063

8,53

365

1,15

387

,992

780

2,00

1,71

5

* S

ourc

e:

NM

FS/U

SFW

S (

1998

).

Key

: N

/A =

Not

ava

ilab

le; M

E =

Mai

ne; N

H =

New

Ham

psh

ire; M

A =

Mas

sach

uset

ts; R

I = R

hod

e Is

land

; CT

= C

onne

ctic

ut; N

Y =

New

Yor

k; N

J =

New

Jer

sey;

DE

= D

elaw

are;

MD

= M

aryl

and

; VA

= V

irgin

ia; N

C =

Nor

th C

arol

ina;

SC

= S

outh

Car

olin

a; G

A =

Geo

rgia

; FL

= F

lorid

a

Tremblay 1999; Anon. 2001a). CurrentCanadian catch and trade levels are discussedin more detail later in this report in Section IVon Management and Regulation and in SectionV on Legal and Illegal Trade.

Conservation Status andChallenges/ThreatsIUCN listed the Atlantic sturgeon as at LowerRisk (near threatened) in its 2000 Red List,and designated the species as close to beingVulnerable (Haywood 1999; IUCN 2001). TheIUCN/SSC Sturgeon Specialist Group is in theprocess of reassessing the status of NorthAmerican sturgeon and paddlefish species andstocks for inclusion in an upcoming 2003 RedList of Threatened Species. As it currentlystands, the proposed listing for the Atlanticsturgeon is Near Threatened (R. St. Pierre,IUCN/SSC Sturgeon Specialist Group, in litt.to IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme,September 28, 2001).

The Atlantic sturgeon was first listed underCITES in 1975, when the species was placedin Appendix I. Canada, however, took areservation to the listing. In 1979, the specieswas transferred to Appendix II, and Canadawithdrew its reservation. The Atlanticsturgeon remains in Appendix II today. TheEU listed the species in its Annex B in June1997 (CITES 2001a).

In the United States, in 1988 NMFSannounced the creation of a list of candidatespecies being considered by the Secretary ofthe Department of Commerce for listing asthreatened or endangered species, but not yetthe subject of a proposed rule. NMFS addedthe Atlantic sturgeon to this list in 1991, and itremained on the revised list published in 1997(NMFS/USFWS 1998). In late 1998, the U.S.Department of Commerce decided that listingas threatened or endangered under the ESAwas not warranted at that time (Field et al.1999). In Canada, Atlantic sturgeon areprotected and managed under the FederalFisheries Act (Anon., 2001a). The species hasnot been designated as endangered, threatenedor of special concern by COSEWIC.

Potential challenges or threats to Atlanticsturgeon populations are briefly discussed below.

Historic overfishing/bycatch. There is littledoubt that past commercial catch was asignificant cause of the decline of Atlanticsturgeon stocks from historical times topresent. Papers dating back as far as 1888expressed concern about the unsustainableexploitation of the species. Whereas Atlanticsturgeon were once apparently abundant inriver systems throughout much of the species’range, the cycle of “boom-and-bust”commercial fisheries described above isgenerally believed to have contributed to itssevere depletion (NMFS/USFWS 1998;Waldman 1999).

While directed catch of Atlantic sturgeon iscurrently banned in the United States andrestricted in Canada, bycatch continues tooccur in commercial fisheries along the entireAtlantic coast. U.S. fisheries in which Atlanticsturgeon have been captured include theAmerican shad (gill nets), Atlantic cod (gillnets, incidental hook and line), bluefish (gillnets, trawl), groundfish (trawl), horseshoe crab(trawl), monkfish (gill nets), river herring (gillnets), southern shrimp (trawls), spiny dogfish(gill nets), striped bass (gill nets, pound nets),summer flounder (trawl, perhaps gill nets inNorth Carolina), weakfish (gill nets), andnortheastern and southeastern whelk (trawls).Limited bycatch of juvenile Atlantic sturgeonhas also been documented in lobster, crab, andfish pots (ASMFC 1998b).

NMFS/USFWS (1998) examined threats to theAtlantic sturgeon from bycatch in othercommercial fisheries, recreational fishing, andmortality associated with scientific research. Itfound that the types of bycatch reported inASMFC (1998b) were reported in rivers,estuaries, the near-shore ocean, and theExclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Althoughsuch bycatch can pose a threat to the species ifthe sturgeon are injured or killed while beingcaught, data on mortality from the Delawareand Hudson rivers did not indicate that bycatchwas a significant threat to species survival; itcould, however, impede recovery. TheNMFS/USFWS survey determined that moredata are needed to assess the impact of bycatchin other river populations. Because any level ofbycatch is likely to delay recovery of theAtlantic sturgeon, there is a clear need to betterdocument its extent, rate of mortality in various

31

fishing gears, and population level impact(ASMFC 1998b; NMFS/USFWS 1998).

To eliminate the incentive to keep Atlanticsturgeon obtained as bycatch, all U.S states inthe species’ range currently prohibit evenpossession of fish taken from the wild(NMFS/USFWS 1998). Canada similarlyprohibits retention of Atlantic sturgeon caughtas bycatch in gear not targeting the species(Anon. 2001a). There is no evidence thatrecreational fishing or mortality associatedwith scientific research poses a threat toAtlantic sturgeon, although the NMFS/USFWSstudy recommended that gill nets be usedsparingly to capture Atlantic sturgeon forresearch purposes (NMFS/USFWS 1998).

Habitat degradation/restricted range. Over thelast century and more, dams for hydroelectricpower generation and flood control havealtered rivers and habitat important to Atlanticsturgeon in both the United States and Canada.Dams can affect anadromous species like theAtlantic sturgeon in numerous ways. Perhapstheir greatest impact to Atlantic sturgeon is thedenial of access to upstream spawning habitat,because the species is not known to use fishpassageways successfully. Dam intakestructures can also entrain migrating sturgeon(NMFS/USFWS 1998). Suitability of riverinehabitat for spawning, which depends on annualfluctuations in water flow, can be greatlyreduced by the alteration of free-flowing riversto reservoirs, as well as changes in downstreamflows and water temperatures that areimportant cues leading to spawning behavior.Along with dams, hydroelectric power plantshave numerous potential impacts, includingaltered dissolved oxygen concentrations andtemperature, artificial destratification, waterwithdrawal, changes in sediment load andchannel morphology, acceleratedeutrophication and changes in nutrient cycling,and contamination of water and sediment [Hill(1996), cited in NMFS/USFWS (1998)].

While it is not possible to assess the impact ofdam construction on Atlantic sturgeon in riverswhere historic spawning areas are unknown,the 1998 NMFS/USFWS survey found that ofthe 25 U.S. rivers for which habitataccessibility could be quantified, only three(the Merrimack, Housatonic, and Susquehannarivers) suffered a loss of 30% or more of that

habitat to dams. The survey calculated thatdams blocked access to 10–30% of habitat onthe Kennebec, Penobscot, and Salmon Fallsrivers, and less than 10% on the Androscoggin,Sheepscot, Oyster, Connecticut, Hudson,Delaware, Potomac, Rappahannock, York,James, Neuse, Ashepoo, Combahee, Edisto,Savannah, Ogeechee, Altamaha, Satilla, and St.Marys rivers. A substantial portion of sturgeonhabitat in the Santee River was also blocked bythe Wilson Dam, although the precise amounthad not been quantified at the time of thesurvey (NMFS/USFWS 1998). Based on thisinformation, the NMFS/USFWS surveyconcluded that overall, little U.S. Atlanticsturgeon habitat has been lost to dams.

In Canada, no dams that would impedemigration of Atlantic sturgeon have beenconstructed in their St. Lawrence River range.In New Brunswick’s Saint John River,construction of the Mactaquac Dam in 1967likely prevented migrating sturgeon fromreaching possible spawning grounds upriver.However, there is little substantive informationto demonstrate a negative impact on thispopulation, perhaps because of the presence ofspawning grounds downstream from the dam.Whether the regulation of river flow by thedam has adversely affected these spawninggrounds remains unknown (Anon. 2001a).

Dredging of riverine, near-shore, and offshoreareas for commercial shipping, recreationalboating, construction, and marine mining canalso harm Atlantic sturgeon directly orindirectly. Direct impacts include fish beinglethally sucked into dredging machines or,probably less commonly, colliding withpropellers from increased boating activity.Indirect but equally significant impacts ofdredging on aquatic ecosystems and speciesinclude removal or burial of organisms,turbidity/siltation effects, contaminant releaseand uptake, noise/disturbance, alterations to thehydrodynamic regime, disruption of spawningmigrations, increased sedimentation inspawning areas, and loss of riparian habitat[Chytalo (1996), cited in NMFS/USFWS(1998)]. Dredging activities can also disturbor eliminate benthic feeding areas upon whichAtlantic sturgeon depend, and may eliminatedeep holes or alter rock substrates that areimportant habitat features for the species

32

[Smith and Clugston (1997), cited inNMFS/USFWS (1998)].

Information from Canada indicated thatextensive dredging and modification of theriverbed in the St. Lawrence River over thepast few decades to accommodate commercialvessel traffic is believed to have contributed toa major decline in Atlantic sturgeon abundancein the 1960s and 1970s, largely because ofincreased sedimentation (Anon. 2001a). In theUnited States, dredging occurs on a regularbasis in some river systems utilized by Atlanticsturgeon, such as the Connecticut River. Thespawning population of Atlantic sturgeon inthe Connecticut River is presumed extirpated;it is not clear whether dredging was acontributing factor to the extirpation, orwhether the regular dredging may impedeefforts to re-establish the species(NMFS/USFWS 1998). Overall, however, theNMFS/USFWS survey found that little or nodredging occurred in many U.S. river systemsused by Atlantic sturgeon in the recent yearsleading up to 1998. In others authorities madeefforts to minimize the impact on migratingsturgeon and other species (NMFS/USFWS1998; NMFS/National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2001a).

Pollution/water quality. Industrial activities,forestry and agricultural practices, coastaldevelopment and urbanization, and otherhuman activities can affect the quality of waterin riparian and river systems directly andindirectly, and in both near-shore and offshoreareas. Industrial activities can dischargepollutants, change water temperature and levelsof dissolved oxygen, and add excess nutrients.Forestry and agricultural practices oftenproduce erosion, and can also introducefertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and otherchemicals into water systems through run-off,and thereby promote nutrient enrichment andalteration of water flow (NMFS/USFWS 1998;Anon. 2001a). Coastal development andurbanization can result in increased storm-water discharges, non-point source pollution,and rapid erosion (NMFS/USFWS 1998).

Atlantic sturgeon may be particularlyvulnerable to such contamination because theyare benthic feeders and their long lifespanallows for bio-accumulation of heavy metalsand organochlorine compounds in their fatty

tissue. Scientific studies have indicated thattoxic metals, polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAH), pesticides, andpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can produceacute lesions, retard growth, and impairreproduction in aquatic life (NMFS/USFWS1998). Unfortunately, few studies have beenconducted specifically on the effects of suchpollutants on Atlantic sturgeon, although one1995 study suggested that certain deformitiesand ulcerations found in Atlantic sturgeon inNorth Carolina’s Brunswick River might bedue at least in part to poor water quality[Moser and Ross (1995), cited inNMFS/USFWS (1998)]. Studies ofcontaminants in shortnose sturgeon in SouthCarolina found dioxin and furans at levels thatcan adversely affect the development ofsturgeon fry [J. Iliff, NOAA, unpublished data,cited in NMFS/USFWS (1998)].

Life history characteristics/limitations. As ananadromous species, Atlantic sturgeon face anumber of conservation challenges because theyuse rivers, estuaries, bays, and the ocean atvarious times in their lifespans. This reliance onthe health of multiple habitats, plus the species’long lifespan and late age at maturation, leaveAtlantic sturgeon vulnerable to both habitatpressures and overfishing (NMFS/USFWS,1998). The relative importance of variousthreats has shifted over time, and also variesfrom population to population and from riversystem to river system.

Non-indigenous disease or competition.Concern that non-indigenous sturgeonpathogens could be introduced, most likelythrough aquaculture operations, has ledASMFC to impose restrictions on theimportation, captive propagation, andcommercial aquaculture of Atlantic sturgeon(ASMFC 1996, 2001b). This concern, andresultant limitations, terms, and enforcementand reporting requirements on these activities,are described in more detail in Section VI ofthis report on Hatcheries and CommercialAquaculture. There is also some concern thatthe aquarium industry could possibly be asource for transfer of non-indigenouspathogens or competitive non-indigenousspecies from one geographic area to another,primarily through the release of aquaria fishinto public waters (NMFS/USFWS 1998).

33

The Gulf sturgeon, also known as the Gulf ofMexico sturgeon, is endemic to the UnitedStates. There is a general consensus that thedisjunct distributions, differences in relativespleen length, distinct life historycharacteristics, and fixed differences in thecontrol region of mitochondrial DNA betweenthe Gulf sturgeon (A. o. desotoi) and theAtlantic sturgeon (A. o. oxyrinchus) justifytheir designation as separate subspecies (Onget al. 1996; Stabile et al. 1996). The UnitedStates designated the Gulf sturgeon as athreatened species under the ESA in 1991.While some details of its historic range,current distribution, and historic catch aresketchy, certain basic information has beendocumented.

Historic Range and CurrentDistributionWooley and Crateau (1985) reported that Gulfsturgeon occurred historically in most majorriver systems from the Mississippi River to theSuwannee River, Florida, and in marine watersof the central and eastern Gulf of Mexicosouth to Florida Bay. The species is believedto be reduced from historic levels, butpopulation estimates are not availablethroughout its range. Figure 2 shows thehistoric distribution of Gulf sturgeon.

Louisiana: Along with very occasionalcaptures offshore, Gulf sturgeon have beenrecorded in the Mermantau River Basin and inthe Mississippi River and its Basin. One reportfrom 1936 included a sturgeon weighing 503pounds (228.6 kg) and measuring 111 inches(282 centimeters) landed at the mouth of theMississippi River [Reynolds (1993), cited inU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States

Marine Fisheries Commission[USFWS/GSMFC] (1995)]. In the LakePontchartrain Basin, Gulf sturgeon have beenroutinely collected by Louisiana stateresearchers and commercial and recreationalfishermen in Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Borgne,and the Rigolets. For example, sturgeonmeasuring up to 86.6 inches (220 centimeters)and weighing up to 258 pounds (117.3 kg)were incidentally caught by shrimp trawlers,netters, and recreational fisheries in LakePontchartrain from 1989 to 1993. Incidentalcatches of Gulf sturgeon have also beenreported in the Tchefuncte, Tickfaw,Tangipahoa, Amite, Pearl, Middle Pearl, BogueChitto, and East Pearl rivers. Incidentalcatches and Gulf sturgeon collected in researchstudies have been similarly reported in theMississippi Sound, as well as at least oneincidentally taken fish in Biloxi Bay(USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Mississippi: Gulf sturgeon have been recordedin both Pascagoula Bay and the PascagoulaRiver, both of which are in the PascagoulaRiver Basin. Also within this basin, Gulfsturgeon have been reported in theChickasawhay, Leaf, and West Pascagoularivers, which are tributaries of the PascagoulaRiver (USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Alabama: Gulf sturgeon are also reported tobe present in the Mobile River Basin inAlabama, which includes Mobile Bay, theMobile River, and tributaries such as theTensaw, Blakely, Tombigbee, and Alabamarivers. Many of the fish reported wereincidental catches netted and released bycommercial fishermen. Incidental catches ofGulf sturgeon are believed to occur annually inthe Tombigbee River in the remaining riverine

34

3.2 Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)

Illustration by Paul Vecsei

habitat below Coffeeville Dam, and in theAlabama River in remaining habitat belowClaiborne Dam (USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Florida: Gulf sturgeon have been recorded inrecent decades in the Pensacola Bay system,which includes five interconnected estuarinebays (Pensacola, Escambia, Blackwater, East,and Little Sabina, as well as the Santa RosaSound). A Gulf sturgeon was collected inPensacola Bay in 1978. The species has sincebeen recorded in the Bay in 1994 and 2000,when researchers collected and tagged six Gulf

sturgeon. Gulf sturgeon are also known tomigrate into Escambia Bay in the fall andwinter, and may use the other estuaries in thisoverall system, although informationdocumenting their possible distribution had notbeen collected as of 2001 (USFWS/GSMFC1995; Wakeford 2001).

In addition to estuarine habitat, three primaryrivers flow into the Pensacola Bay system: theEscambia, Yellow, and Blackwater Rivers.Prior to 1980, recreational anglers in theEscambia River reported that sightings of Gulf

35

Figure 2 Historic Gulf Sturgeon Range

Source: Environment Canada (revised)

sturgeon were fairly common. That is nolonger the case, although incidental catches orcaptures by researchers were reported in 1995,1998, and 2000, and sightings have beenreported on the Conecuh River, a tributary ofthe Escambia. Landings of Gulf sturgeon wereoccasionally reported in the Yellow River priorto a 1984 moratorium on sturgeon fishing.More recently, Gulf sturgeon captures forresearch, tagging, and release were conductedby federal and state authorities or universitiesin 1993, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. ThreeGulf sturgeon were collected in the BlackwaterRiver in 1991 (USFWS/GSMFC 1995;Wakeford 2001).

Gulf sturgeon have similarly been collected byfederal, state, and university researchers inFlorida’s Choctawhatchee Bay Basin. InChoctawhatchee Bay itself, collections haveincluded one dead specimen found on a beachin the Santa Rosa Sound in 1988, 50 Gulfsturgeon collected in the eastern part of theBay off the mouths of the Indian, Cyprus, andChoctawhatchee rivers in 1992, four sturgeoncollected in Jolly Bay in 1993, 52 sturgeoncollected off the south shore of the Bay in1996, and a dead specimen found near Destinin 1999. It is believed that the Bay provides animportant habitat for Gulf sturgeonoverwintering (USFWS/GSMFC 1995;Wakeford 2001).

By far the greatest number of Gulf sturgeon inthe Choctawhatchee Bay Basin system havebeen found in the Choctawhatchee River.During tag and release studies conductedduring the first half of the 1990s, annualsightings were reported from the river belowits confluence with the Pea River in south-central Alabama, as well as in the Pea Rivertributary itself (USFWS/GSMFC 1995). Morerecently, 450 gulf sturgeon were gill-netted,tagged, and released during a 16-day period inthe fall of 1999, leading to a USFWSpopulation estimate of approximately 3,000fish for the Choctawhatchee River (Wakeford2001). An estimate published in 2000 for Gulfsturgeon older than age 2 in the river indicateda range of 1,700 to 3,000 fish [Lorio (2000),cited in R. St. Pierre, IUCN/SSC SturgeonSpecialist Group, in litt. to IUCN/SSC WildlifeTrade Programme, September 28, 2001].

St. Andrews Bay and Ecofina Creek (whichprovides the Bay’s largest inflow) may haveprovided important Gulf sturgeon habitat in thepast. Ecofina Creek is considered one ofFlorida’s most pristine waterways, and Gulfsturgeon were collected by biologists in thecreek in 1961; however, no reports of thespecies’ presence have been documented sincethe construction of a dam in 1962. Sparsereports of Gulf sturgeon have been recorded orsighted in St. Andrews Bay as recently as1999, and the St. Andrews Bay system maycontinue to provide winter feeding habitat forthe species (Wakeford 2001).

The Gulf sturgeon population in Florida’sApalachicola River (part of the largerApalachicola-Chattahootchee-Flint riversystem and the Apalachicola Bay system) oncesupported the state’s largest and economicallymost important sturgeon fishery. Prior tocompletion of the Jim Woodruff Lock andDam (JWLD) in 1957, there had been reportsof Gulf sturgeon in this system as far north asthe Flint River in Georgia. USFWS hasmonitored the Apalachicola River’s sturgeonpopulation since 1979, and collected andtagged more than 500 Gulf sturgeon belowJWLD during 1979 to 1999 (Wakeford 2001).From 1984 to 1993, the estimated annualnumber of adult fish below the dam rangedfrom 96 to 131, with a mean of 115(USFWS/GSMFC 1995). Based on morerecent collection and tagging activities, thepopulation was estimated to be 270 in 1998and 321 in 1999 (Wakeford 2001). Gulfsturgeon are also believed to inhabit theBrothers River, a tributary of the ApalachicolaRiver, before migrating to the base of JWLD tospawn. Gulf sturgeon have also been caughtby commercial gill net fishermen and shrimptrawlers in Apalachicola Bay(USFWS/GSMFC 1995; Wakeford 2001).Elsewhere in the Florida panhandle, Gulfsturgeon have been recorded in theOchlockonee River, which is part of theOchlockonee River Basin (USFWS/GSMFC1995; Wakeford 2001).

Farther east and south, the Suwannee RiverBasin is believed to support the largest andmost viable Gulf sturgeon population inFlorida. Mark and release efforts by theCaribbean Conservation Corporation from 1986

36

to 1995 produced 1,670 spring-migrating Gulfsturgeon at the mouth of the Suwannee River.USFWS/GSMFC (1995) estimated that theannual population size ranged between 2,250and 3,300 fish, with an average weight ofapproximately 40 pounds (18 kg). More recentpopulation estimates of Gulf sturgeon olderthan age two in the Suwannee River haveranged from 3,152 to 7,650 [Chapman et al.1997; Sulak and Clugston (1999), cited in R.St. Pierre, IUCN/SSC Sturgeon SpecialistGroup, in litt. to IUCN/SSC Wildlife TradeProgramme, September 28, 2001; Wakeford(2001)]. Wakeford (2001) speculated that theultimate survival of a sustainable Gulf sturgeonpopulation in Florida may depend on successfulreproduction in the Suwannee River, because itis the only major unimpounded, undiverted, andrelatively unpolluted river along thenorthwestern coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

South of the Suwannee River system,contemporary accounts of Gulf sturgeon arerare. Prior to 2002, Tampa Bay (which, asdiscussed below, once had a significant Gulfsturgeon fishery), was the site of Gulfsturgeon captures in 1987 and 1992. In March2002, a gravid female Gulf sturgeon estimatedat 40 years of age or older washed up dead inTampa Bay, prompting discussion of whetherit was in the area to spawn or was a stray fromanother system such as the Suwannee River(St. Petersburg Times 2002). Charlotte HarborBasin has also produced recorded specimensof both juvenile and adult fish, and is believedto represent the southern terminus of thespecies’ range (USFWS/GSMFC 1995;Wakeford 2001).

Ecology and HabitatLike Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon areanadromous. However, unlike Atlanticsturgeon, which spend much of their lives inmarine and near-shore waters, adult and sub-adult Gulf sturgeon are believed to spend eightto nine months each year in rivers and three tofour months in estuaries or the Gulf of Mexico,usually during winter. Juvenile Gulf sturgeonunder two years old are believed to remain inriverine habitats and estuaries year-round(USFWS 1994a; USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Based on historical examples, Gulf sturgeon arebelieved to be able to grow to a length of up to

eight or nine feet (2.4–2.7 meters) and a weightof up to 450–500 pounds (approximately200–225 kg) (USFWS/GSMFC 1995).Chapman (1999) estimated their maximumweight at 440 pounds (200 kg). Fish capturedin studies in recent decades have tended to besmaller. For example, one study from theApalachicola River estimated the age of 76sturgeon from 1982 to 1990, and found fishfrom 2 to 28 years old with lengths rangingfrom 18.5 to 89.4 inches (47 to 227 centimeters)and weights ranging from 0.4 to 200 pounds(0.2 to 90.7 kg) (USFWS/GSMFC 1995).Chapman (1999) estimated the maximumlongevity of Gulf sturgeon at 42 years.

Studies of Gulf sturgeon migration in variousrivers indicate that sub-adult and adult fishgenerally begin to migrate into rivers from theGulf when water temperatures are 15 to 20° C(59 to 68° F). At this time, from mid-Februarythrough April, some adults are sexually matureand in ripe condition. Many Gulf sturgeon arebelieved to spend summer months near themouths of springs and in cool-water habitat;sturgeon are often found congregated neardeep water holes or in areas of deeper waterwith sand and gravel substrates. Because ofthe paucity of historical biological data, it isimpossible to determine if these areasrepresent preferred historic habitat or are theonly habitat remaining following the dammingof rivers. They remain in the river systemsuntil late fall; most return to estuaries or theGulf of Mexico by mid-November or earlyDecember when surface water temperatures are18 to 23° C (about 64 to 74° F)(USFWS/GSMFC 1995; Wakeford 2001).

Although many details regarding the timing,location, and habitat requirements forspawning among Gulf sturgeon populationsremain not well known or documented, sites inthe Suwannee River where sturgeon eggs havebeen collected are characterized by river bankscomposed of limestone bluffs andoutcroppings, and the river bottom consists ofcobble, limestone, gravel, and sand (Wakeford2001). A substrate of exposed bedrockoverlain with gravel and small cobble used byspawning Gulf sturgeon has been called a“sturgeon spawning reef” [Sulak and Clugston(1999), cited in Wakeford (2001)]. Bedrockand clean gravel substrate also appear to becritical to Gulf sturgeon in their early-life-

37

history stages because they offer eggs a surfaceto adhere to and shelter for developing larvae[Sulak and Clugston (1998), cited in Wakeford(2001)]. The water depth ranges from 1.4 to7.9 meters, and water temperature ranges from18.3 to 22° C [Marchant and Shutters (1996);Sulak and Clugston (1999), both cited inWakeford (2001)]. A study by Huff [1975,cited in USFWS/GSMFC (1995)] in theSuwannee River found that sexually maturefemales ranged from 8 to 17 years old.Chapman (1999) estimated the age at maturityat 7–12 years. Fecundity is estimated at 9,000to 21,000 per kilogram of female body weight,and spawning is believed to take place for bothmales and females at intervals of from one tothree years. Egg size is estimated at 2.3 to 2.8millimeters, with eggs varying in color fromgray to brown to black (USFWS/GSMFC1995; Chapman 1999).

Analysis of mitochondrial DNA has indicatedthat there are significant differences amongsturgeon stocks in various river systems.Stabile et al. (1996) identified a minimum offour regional or river-specific populations: (1)Pearl River, Lousiana and Pascagoula River,Mississippi; (2) Escambia and Yellow rivers,Florida; (3) Choctawhatchee River, Florida;and (4) Apalachicola, Ochlockonee, andSuwannee rivers, Florida. There is also anapparent break between Apalachicola/Suwannee River populations and populationsto the west of the Apalachicola River. Thesedata suggest that Gulf sturgeon likely exhibitriver-specific fidelity and strong maternalhoming fidelity, as there are no obviousbiogeographic barriers in the Gulf of Mexico,and these seasonally migratory fish have theopportunity to move between relativelyproximate river systems. However, there isincomplete knowledge about the homingfidelity of any sturgeon species(USFWS/GSMFC 1995; Stabile et al. 1996).As with the Atlantic sturgeon, thischaracteristic could have implications fornatural re-population of river systems in whichthe species is extirpated.

Food is believed to include crabs, amphipods,isopods, midge larvae, mud shrimp, and plantmaterial. Sub-adult and adult fish apparently donot feed in freshwater riverine habitats. WhyGulf sturgeon feed for three to four months, and

then do not feed for the following eight or ninemonths, is unclear (USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Historic Fisheries/Catch LevelsLike other sturgeon species, Gulf sturgeonwere once fished heavily for caviar, meat forsmoking, and isinglass, a gelatin from theswim bladder used in jellies, wine and beerclarification, special cements, and glues(USFWS/GSMFC 1995). While there aresporadic data from some commercial riverfisheries, it is difficult to assemble an overallpicture of the level of historic catch throughoutthe species’ range.

Available data suggest that historic catch wasconcentrated in Florida, where from 1886 to1901 Gulf sturgeon catch increased steadily,from 1,500 pounds to 84,000 pounds. In 1902a peak Florida catch of 259,000 pounds(117,727 kg; ~117.7 metric tons) was reported.Catch records declined thereafter, reachingonly 3,500 pounds by 1945 (McIver 2002).

Catch records exist for some specific FloridaGulf sturgeon fisheries. For example, inTampa Bay a fishery began in 1886–1887 witha catch of 1,500 fish yielding 5,000 pounds(2,268 kg) of roe, and the following year itproduced two thousand fish and 6,300 pounds(2,858 kg) of roe. However, the fishery endedafter the 1888–1889 season, when only sevensturgeon were caught (USFWS/GSMFC 1995;Wakeford 2001). Other Florida commercialfisheries were present in the Suwannee River,the Ochlockonee River and Hitchcock Lake,the Apalachicola River, and the Pensacola BayBasin. Records indicate that these westFlorida areas were the only consistent Gulfsturgeon fisheries, with some lasting into the1980s. Among these fisheries, theApalachicola River was reported to have beenthe largest and most productive as of 1901,with 32 families fishing for Gulf sturgeoncommercially as late as the mid-1940s. Thatfishery continued with a few families into the1970s. The fishery in the Suwannee River wasreported to be limited, and lasted from 1899 to1984, when the state of Florida prohibitedcatch and possession of Gulf sturgeon. Fishfrom Hitchcock Lake and the OchlockoneeRiver were historically shipped to the town ofApalachicola for processing and sale in theNew York area. Whereas this fishery was once

38

believed to be on a scale of that of theApalachicola River, it largely ended in theearly 1970s. In the Pensacola Bay Basin,limited commercial fisheries were reported onthe Escambia and Yellow rivers prior toFlorida’s 1984 ban (USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Farther west, there are also historical reports ofa directed fishery in Alabama, where recordsof the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries(the predecessor to USFWS) indicated a catchof 100,000 pounds (45,454 kg; ~45.4 metrictons) of Gulf sturgeon in 1903. In Mississippi,according to the Mississippi Department ofWildlife, Fisheries and Parks, 24,000 pounds(10,909 kg; ~10.9 metric tons) of Gulfsturgeon were taken from the Pascagoula Riverin 1902 (McIver 2002). In Louisiana, a minorcommercial fishery for Gulf sturgeon existedin Lake Pontchartrain and its tributaries duringthe late 1960s (USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

There are presently no commercial orrecreational fisheries for the Gulf sturgeon inany part of its range.

Conservation Status andChallenges/ThreatsIUCN classified the Gulf sturgeon as Vulnerablein its 2000 Red List, and it was listed as aCITES Appendix II species in 1979 as part ofthe broader species listing for A. Oxyrinchus(CITES 2001a). The IUCN/SSC SturgeonSpecialist Group is in the process of reassessingthe status of North American sturgeon andpaddlefish species and stocks for inclusion in anupcoming 2003 Red List of Threatened Species.As of 2001, the proposed listing for the Gulfsturgeon remained as Vulnerable (F. M.Parauka, Gulf Sturgeon recovery Team Member,USFWS, cited in R. St. Pierre, IUCN/SSCSturgeon Specialist Group, in litt. to IUCN/SSCWildlife Trade Programme, September 28,2001). The European Union listed the Gulfsturgeon in Annex B in June 1997 (IUCN 2001;CITES 2001a).

The Gulf sturgeon was listed as Threatenedunder the ESA in September 1991. Pursuantto that listing, NMFS, USFWS, and GSMFCprepared a management and recovery plan(USFWS/GSMFC 1995). That plan and othersources detailed several challenges or threats tothe species.

Historic overfishing. The heavycommercialization of the late nineteenthcentury, which often went undocumented, isbelieved to have contributed significantly tothe decline of the Gulf sturgeon. As in othersturgeon fisheries, periods of substantial catchappear to have been followed by years of fewcaptures. In addition to commercial catch,“snatch-hook” recreational fisheries in Floridacontinued into the 1980s, and incidental takehas been documented in other fisheries bycommercial shrimpers, gill net fishermen, andthe industrial bottomfish fishery (for the petfood industry). Because there are no longertargeted commercial fishing operations orrecreational fishing for sturgeon allowed in anyU.S. range state or in the Gulf of Mexico, themajor current threat from exploitation is likelyto come from incidental catch(USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Habitat degradation/restricted range. As ananadromous species with distinct migratorypatterns, the Gulf sturgeon evolved withrequirements for seasonal high and low flows,temperature regimes, and other factors.Human activities such as dam construction,dredging, channel maintenance, urbandevelopment, land management, and others canaffect Gulf sturgeon habitat as they do othersturgeon species by blocking and disruptingspawning sites, increasing siltation, anderoding water quality (USFWS/GSMFC 1995;Wakeford 2001).

The effect of dams and other barriers on Gulfsturgeon is exemplified in the ApalachicolaRiver in Florida. There, sturgeon were oncebelieved to migrate as far as 200 miles (322km) upstream in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River system. Since the1957 construction of JWLD at river mile 107(river km 172), however, no tags fromextensive tagging studies have been returnedfrom Gulf sturgeon migrating upstream of thedam, and there is no evidence that the speciesmoves through the lock system. Studies inother river systems also show that some damsappear to absolutely block migration ofsturgeon, and further degrade or destroy habitatby turning estuarine habitat into freshwaterlakes. USFWS/GSMFC (1995) estimated thepercentage of remaining habitat after dam,water control structure, or sill construction at0% in the St. Andrew Bay Drainage in Florida;

39

22% in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-FlintRiver Basin; 8% in the Alabama River and12% in the Tombigbee River in the MobileBay Basin; 63% in the Pearl River (which isreduced to 10% in low water conditions by thePool Bluffs Sill at river mile 48.7); 3% in theBogue Chitto River during low waterconditions; and 15% in the Amite River.Randall and Sulak [1999, cited in Wakeford(2001)] also noted that many rivers emptyinginto northwestern Florida are impounded(Apalachicola and Ochlockonee), diverted (PeaRiver branch of the Choctawhatchee), orpolluted (Fenholloway), and thus provide onlylimited areas where sturgeon can spawn.

Along with dam construction, navigation-related activities can also affect Gulf sturgeonhabitat and spawning. In the ApalachicolaRiver, a deep, rocky area at Rock Bluff (rivermile 92.5 [river km 148.8]) frequented by Gulfsturgeon was filled with dredge spoil materialfrom a disposal site one-half mile upstream(USFWS/GSMFC 1995). Siltation anddischarges from dams have made some riversshallower, resulting in a loss of habitat thatmay have contributed to the reductions inpopulations of Gulf sturgeon in theApalachicola and Ochlockonee rivers(Wakeford 2001). Deepening channels,removing river bends, and repeated dredgingfor channel maintenance may have furthereliminated habitat in some river systemsimportant to the species. However, the impactsof such dredging on early life stage habitats ofGulf sturgeon are difficult to assess, becauseessential habitats of young-of-the-year Gulfsturgeon remain incompletely understood(USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Another source of environmental stress may bethe loss of cool water habitats important to Gulfsturgeon during summer months. Pumping orclimate-induced groundwater-level declines canreduce springflow that provides these coolwater habitats. For example, one study in theAlbany, Georgia, area estimated that about 74%of water pumped from the Upper Floridianaquifer in November 1985 (about 79 milliongallons a day) would have discharged to theFlint River under pre-development conditions.This water source is important to theApalachicola River during low-flow periods.Reduction in base-flow of the Flint River sincethe early 1970s, primarily because of

groundwater and surface irrigation withdrawals,means that this system is providing less waterto the Apalachicola River than would normallybe expected. Several springs and spring runsalong the upper Apalachicola and Flint riversalready exhibit greatly reduced flow or no flowduring periods of drought. Loss of such coolwater habitats and water sources at criticaltimes during the summer could subject Gulfsturgeon and their habitat to increased stress(USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Pollution/water quality. Pollution andcontaminants may also have contributed topopulation declines. Gulf sturgeon analyzedfrom 1985 to 1991 for pesticides and heavymetals showed concentrations of arsenic,mercury, DDT metabolites, toxaphene, PAH,and aliphatic hydrocarbons at levels sufficientto warrant concern [Bateman and Brim (1994),cited in NMFS/USFWS (1998)]. For example,arsenic, which is used in herbicides,insecticides, and fungicides and can be fatal tofish in certain metabolic forms, was found in92% of Gulf sturgeon samples at a level greaterthan the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)action limit of 0.50 parts per million. Two ormore aliphatic hydrocarbons (components ofoils, fuels, and other petroleum products) weredetected in all sturgeon tissue samples.Concentrations of PAH found in ovarian tissuesamples and eggs in the Apalachicola andSuwannee rivers could impact the developmentand survival of an undetermined percentage ofeggs, larvae, and juvenile fish. The overallimpact of these contaminants is difficult todetermine, and likely varies by river system(USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Non-indigenous disease or competition.Accidental release of non-endemic species isconsidered a threat to ecosystems where viablewild populations of Gulf sturgeon exist, orwhere the species can possibly be re-introduced. Accidental and intentional releasesof exotic species is a frequent occurrence inthe range of the Gulf sturgeon, even wherelaws or regulations prohibit it. In onefrequently cited example, white sturgeon werecaught in 1989 in Lake Weiss, Alabama, and in1992 in the Coosa River, Alabama. Thesesturgeon are believed to have been accidentallyreleased from a private fish hatchery adjacentto the Coosa River in Georgia. The State ofGeorgia confiscated the hatchery’s stock in

40

1990 (USFWS/GSMFC 1995). Introduction ofexotics is believed to pose a particular threatbecause of the documented ability of differentspecies of Acipenseridae to inter-breed andproduce hybrids that could threaten the geneticintegrity of wild populations (pers. comm.,George Benz, Southeast Aquatic ResearchInstitute [SARI], 2001). There are alsoquestions about the degree to which captivepropagation and stocking of hatchery-rearedGulf sturgeon might lead to genetic dilution ofdistinct river populations, and whether theintroduced fish might outcompete or displacenative sturgeon and other native fish species inthe ecosystem. These concerns are discussedin greater detail in Section VI of this report onHatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture.

Life history characteristics. As noted brieflyabove, the Gulf sturgeon appears to exhibit riverfidelity and is believed to be a river-specificspawner. Therefore, natural re-population ratesmay be very low or nonexistent in systemswhere the species is extirpated or significantlyreduced. While immature sturgeon occasionallymove between river systems, the long periodthey require to reach sexual maturity, and thesturgeon’s intermittent spawning cycle make itunlikely that the species can establish breedingpopulations quickly (USFWS/GSMFC 1995).This natural limitation, combined with pastfailures to protect habitat, manage waterresources, control catch, and preventenvironmental contamination, poses asignificant challenge the recovery of the species.

41

The shortnose sturgeon is a small, anadromousfish that shares many of the same rivers andestuaries inhabited by the much larger Atlanticsturgeon along the eastern coast of NorthAmerica. The two species do not, however,compete. Differences in their life cycles,seasonal movements, and habitat preferencesallow the two species to coexist. They doshare many of the same threats and challenges;the shortnose sturgeon is believed to have beena frequent casualty of past efforts to exploit themore economically valuable Atlantic sturgeon.In 1967, the shortnose sturgeon became thefirst acipenseriform species to receive federalprotection in the United States when it waslisted as endangered.

Historic Range and CurrentDistributionHistorically, shortnose sturgeon are believed tohave inhabited rivers and estuaries along nearlythe entire east coast of North America. Thenorthern extent of this range was the SaintJohn River in New Brunswick, Canada, whilethe southern part extended to the Indian Riverin Florida (NMFS 1998). Figure 3 shows therange of the shortnose sturgeon.

Similar to its range-mate, the Atlantic sturgeon,the present range of the shortnose sturgeon hascontracted somewhat from historical times.The species is now believed to consist of 19distinct population segments occurring in 25river systems, ranging from New Brunswick’sSaint John River to Florida’s St. Johns River.In a 1998 Final Recovery Plan for theShortnose Sturgeon, NMFS cited availablepopulation estimates indicating that thesmallest number of adult fish occur in the

Merrimack River in Massachusetts and theCape Fear River in North Carolina, while thelargest populations reside in the Hudson Riverin New York and the Saint John River in NewBrunswick (NMFS 1998).

Canada’s shortnose sturgeon population is largelyconcentrated in the Saint John River. A mark-recapture effort conducted in the river between1973 and 1977 produced a population estimate ofapproximately 18,000 fish [Dadswell (1979),cited in NMFS (1998)]. A more recent 1992survey found the catch-per-unit effort unchangedfrom that earlier work, indicating that thepopulation remained relatively stable into the1990s (NMFS 1998). Since 1997, a team fromthe University of New Brunswick has beenworking to determine the status of the shortnosesturgeon in the Kennebecasis River, a tributary ofthe Saint John River, including its habitat needs,population size, distribution, and spawninghabitat. Through a mark-recapture study, theteam determined that there are nearly 4,000 adultshortnose sturgeon in the Kennebecasis River.Researchers have been tracking the fish withsonic tags to learn about their movements in thishabitat through the summer, fall, and winter, andhave located the first spawning grounds.Research is continuing in order to identify crucialhabitat components (Environment Canada 2000;WWF-Canada 2001).

In the northeastern United States, a distinctshortnose sturgeon population is believed tooccur in Maine’s Penobscot River, andarchaeological data suggest that native peoplesused sturgeon from that river. However, adirected survey for shortnose sturgeonconducted in 1994 and 1995 in the PenobscotRiver at the head of the tide failed to capture

42

3.3 Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

Illustration by Paul Vecsei

any of the species. It is further believed thatdischarge rates and river depths in some of thesmall coastal rivers between the Kennebec andSaint John rivers, such as the Dennys,Machias, East Machias, and Ducktrap rivers,may not be sufficient to support shortnosesturgeon populations (NMFS 1998).

Shortnose sturgeon are known to occur in theestuarine complex formed by Maine’sSheepscot, Kennebec, and Androscoggin rivers.A sturgeon tagging effort from 1977 to 1980produced an estimate of 7,222 adults for thiscomplex. Additional tracking studies todelineate spawning habitat were performed inthe Androscoggin River in 1993. Gill net

catch-per-unit effort during that study was thehighest recorded in this area, suggesting thatthe Androscoggin population had increasedsince the earlier survey (NMFS 1998). It ishoped that the July 1999 removal of theEdwards Dam on the Kennebec River willrestore upstream access to historic habitat andspawning grounds for shortnose sturgeon andother anadromous species (Maine Rivers 2000).

Continuing south, there are no knownshortnose sturgeon populations between theAndroscoggin and Merrimack rivers, indicatingthat the species is not found in river systemssuch as the Royal, Presumpscot, Saco,Kennebunk, or York rivers. However, the

43

Figure 3 Shortnose Sturgeon Range

Source: Environment Canada (revised)

lower salinity reaches of these rivers may nothave been adequately sampled, so the completeabsence of the species is not certain. There isa small population found in the MerrimackRiver of New Hampshire and Massachusetts,estimated in the NMFS Recovery Plan to be 33adult fish. This estimate may change withfurther research (NMFS 1998).

While Dadswell et al. (1984) indicate thatshortnose sturgeon once occurred in coastalwaters in Rhode Island, eastern Connecticut,and Narragansett Bay, there are currently noknown populations between the Merrimackand Connecticut rivers. In the ConnecticutRiver, the Holyoke Dam separates thepopulation into an upriver population above thedam and a lower river group between the damand Long Island Sound. Mark-recapturestudies cited by NMFS (1998) producedestimates ranging from 297 to 714 adultsturgeon and a spawning population of 47 and98 sturgeon for the years 1992 and 1993,respectively. The mean population estimate forthe lower river was 875 adults, although thisnumber was thought to have possibly beenhigh because the lower river is not closed todownstream migration of upper river fish. Amore recent estimate for the Connecticut Riverconsidered the population to be stable at 1,200to 1,500 individuals (USFWS 2000a).

From the Connecticut River south and west, noshortnose sturgeon populations are known toexist until New York’s Hudson River. TheHudson River population, which is located onlyin the lower portion of the river from thesouthern tip of Manhattan (river mile 0) upriverto the Federal Dam at Troy (river mile 152), isbelieved to be the largest in existence, with a1995 estimate of approximately 38,000 adults[Bain et al. (1995), cited in NMFS (1998); NewYork State Department of EnvironmentalConservation (2001)]. That population figurefar surpassed one found by mark-recapturestudies conducted in 1979 and 1980, whichproduced an estimated spawning population of13,000 adults [Dovel (1979), cited in NMFS(1998)]. The larger estimate suggested a two-to four-fold increase in adult shortnose sturgeonin the Hudson River over the past decade(NMFS 1998). A more recent four-year studyestimated a Hudson River population of 56,708adult fish, more than 400% larger than theestimate for the late 1970s, indicating a

substantial level of success in this particularpopulation’s recovery (Bain et al. 2001).

No shortnose sturgeon populations are knownto occur in New Jersey coastal waters from theHudson River to the Delaware River, and notenough information about the Delaware Riverpopulation was available at the time of thisreport to accurately assess its status. Between1981 and 1984, three estimation proceduresproduced estimates ranging from 6,408 to14,080 sturgeon, but model assumptions mayhave been violated (NMFS 1998).

There is historical evidence dating back as faras the nineteenth century indicating thepresence of shortnose sturgeon populations inthe Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Areaswhere shortnose sturgeon have been capturedor observed include the Potomac River, theupper Bay near the mouth of the SusquehannaRiver, and the lower Bay near the mouths ofthe James and Rappahannock rivers (NMFS1998). Thirty-two shortnose sturgeon werecaptured by commercial fishermen inMaryland waters of the Chesapeake Baybetween January 1996 and September 1999during a reward program for Atlantic sturgeon.This is more than twice the number reportedfrom the Bay between 1876 and 1995;however, few data are available on populationdynamics, historic distributions, or movement.Information from the reward program andsonic tagging of shortnose sturgeon in theChesapeake Bay and Delaware River indicatedthat the species was primarily distributed in theupper portions of the Bay, with individualsdisplaying wandering, localized, and upstreammovements. One individual was tagged withinthe Chesapeake Bay and later relocated in theDelaware Canal and Delaware River,suggesting that the species may traverse theChesapeake and Delaware Canal, andshortnose sturgeon in the Bay may betransients from the Delaware River population(Welsh et al. 2000).

Moving into the southeastern United States,there are historic accounts but no definitiveinformation on population dynamics for thespecies in the Albemarle Sound and Roanokeand Chowan rivers, as well as the PamlicoSound and North, New, and Neuse rivers. Anextensive sampling program confirmed thepresence of shortnose sturgeon in North

44

Carolina’s Cape Fear River. The ninespecimens that were captured were all adults;no juveniles were found. Damming of theriver in the coastal plain, channelization, andthe existence of heavy industries may threatenthis population segment, which probablynumbers fewer than 50 fish [Moser and Ross(1995), cited in NMFS (1998)].

Similarly, shortnose sturgeon have beendocumented in the Winyah Bay system, whichis fed by the Waccamaw, Pee Dee, and Blackrivers; the Santee River; the Cooper River; andthe Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto rivers.However, the population status, distribution,and dynamics of all of these potentialpopulations had not been extensivelyresearched and documented at the time of thisreport (NMFS 1998).

The Savannah River along the SouthCarolina/Georgia border contains a confirmedpopulation of shortnose sturgeon, with some600 adults captured by shad fishermen andresearchers between 1984 and 1992. A highratio of adults to juveniles suggested thatrecruitment was low at the time, possiblybecause the river is dammed, and otherhydrographic conditions may have changed.Adults in the river are believed to spawn in latewinter well upriver in the approximate area ofriver miles 107 to 170 (river km 179–278), butspend the rest of the year in the vicinity of thefresh/brackish water interface [Collins andSmith (1993), cited in Collins et al., 2001).Between 1984 and 1992, approximately 97,000shortnose sturgeon of various sizes werestocked in the river to evaluate the potential forstock enhancement, and subsequent researchindicated that stocked fish accounted for 41%of all juvenile sturgeon collected (NMFS 1998).

During 1999 and 2000, 57 shortnose sturgeonwere captured during a survey undertaken toevaluate the status, distribution, and recruitmentof the species, in particular juveniles, in theSavannah River. Fifteen juveniles and 17adults were implanted with acoustictransmitters to determine their movements andhabitat utilization patterns. The study foundthat when water temperatures were less than71.6° F (22° C), juveniles concentrated in thevicinity of the intersection of the Front andMiddle rivers at river mile 18.6 (river km 31),and moved about in both these rivers. When

temperatures exceeded 71.6° F, the juvenilesmoved well upriver, concentrating especiallyaround river mile 28.5 (river km 47.5). Adultsalso moved upriver when temperatures werehigh, and during low temperatures againrelocated to the vicinity of the Front/MiddleRiver intersection. However, some adult fishalso moved further downriver almost to theriver mouth during this period. Between 1988and 1992, it had been observed that juvenilesconcentrated in Kings Island Turning Basin atriver mile 18.6 (river km 31). It appearedduring the 1999–2000 study that harbormodifications since 1992 had changed thehydrographic conditions and caused the fish tomove from that area (Collins et al. 2001).

A separate study of adult abundance in theSavannah River resulted in evidence that thepopulation in 2000 was larger than that in1992. However, this is believed to beattributable to the stock enhancement programconducted during 1985–1992 rather than tonatural expansion of the population. The lowcatch rate of juveniles during the 1999–2000survey suggests that natural recruitment is stillquite low (Collins et al. 2001).

In the undammed Ogeechee River, a survey ofshortnose sturgeon occurrence, distribution,and abundance was conducted from 1993 to1995 in the tidal portion of the river drainage,which found low abundance and a populationdominated by adults. The highest estimate forthis population in 1993 was less than 400sturgeon of all age classes combined. Sizefrequency, abundance, and catch rate dataindicated that the Ogeechee population mayhave been experiencing higher juvenilemortality rates than those found in the nearbyAltamaha River, which drains the largestwatershed east of the Mississippi River. Datacollected during studies in the early 1990sindicated that abundance in the Altamaha Riversystem did not exceed 6,055 fish of all size andage classes, and may be well below that.However, it is believed that the Altamaha Riverpopulation segment is the largest and mostviable population south of Cape Hatteras,North Carolina (NMFS 1998).

South of Georgia’s Altamaha River, shortnosesturgeon were collected in the estuaries of theSatilla and St. Marys rivers during the late1980s and early 1990s. Similarly, small

45

numbers of shortnose sturgeon were found inthe late 1970s and early 1980s in Florida’s St.Johns River. More recent surveys failed tocapture any shortnose sturgeon in the St.Marys or Satilla systems, and the current statusof the population segment in the St. JohnsRiver is unknown (NMFS 1998).

Ecology and HabitatThe shortnose sturgeon is the smallest of thethree East/Gulf coast sturgeon species in NorthAmerica. Its maximum length is about 4 feet(1.4 meters) and its maximum weight is about50 pounds (23 kg). As with the Atlanticsturgeon, its growth rate and maximum sizevary with latitude, with the fastest growthamong southern populations. The oldestknown female specimen was recorded at 67years, although males seldom exceed 30 years(NMFS/NOAA 2001b; Hochleithner andGessner 1999; Chapman 1999).

Males are estimated to reach sexual maturity at5 to 12 years of age, and females at 6 to 18years of age. It is generally believed thatnorthern populations mature more slowly thando southern populations. For example, it hasbeen estimated that females mature at age sixor even earlier in Georgia, six to seven fromSouth Carolina to New York, and at age 13 orlater in Canada’s Saint John River. Initialspawning occurs in males one to two yearsafter they reach maturity, but in females initialspawning can be delayed up to five years,especially in northern populations. Spawninggenerally takes place in cycles of 2–3 years inmales, although some may spawn every year,and 3–8 years for females, with the marginagain increasing in northern latitudes(NMFS/NOAA 2001b; Hochleithner andGessner 1999).

Spawning migrations are believed to take placein the fall, and the sturgeon overwinter neartheir spawning grounds. Although the timingof spawning varies among river systems, it isgenerally believed to take place betweenMarch and June, when the water temperatureincreases to a suitable level, and lasts forvarying lengths of time. Spawning sites arecharacterized by gravel or rocky bottoms and acurrent velocity of 1.3 to 2.0 feet per second(0.4 to 0.6 meters per second). Spawning has

also been observed in the tidal sections ofestuaries (Hochleithner and Gessner 1999).

Hochleithner and Gessner (1999) estimated thenumber of eggs per kilogram of body weightfor female shortnose sturgeon at 11,000 to12,000. Chapman (1999) provided a broaderestimate of 9,000 to 16,000. The averagediameter of ripe eggs is 3.0–3.2 mm(Hochleithner and Gessner 1999; Chapman1999). At hatching, shortnose sturgeon areapproximately 7–11 mm long and blackish-colored. In 9–12 days the young absorb theiryolk-sac and develop into larvae at about 15mm in length. At about 20 mm, larvae beginto resemble adults and probably migratedownstream, where they begin to undertake aresidency period in deep water. Juvenilesoccur in the saltwater/freshwater interface inmost rivers inhabited by the species, althoughthere are variations (NMFS 1998; Hochleithnerand Gessner 1999).

The shortnose sturgeon is similar to theAtlantic sturgeon in that it is anadromous.However, unlike the Atlantic sturgeon, theshortnose sturgeon spends most of its life cyclein slow-moving riverine waters or near-shoremarine waters rather than in the open ocean.Shortnose sturgeon populations are confinedprimarily to natal rivers and estuaries, withadults migrating seasonally into marine waters(Environment Canada 1999; Hochleithner andGessner 1999; NMFS/NOAA 2001b). Inaddition, while shortnose sturgeon appear to beestuarine anadromous in the southern portionof their range, in some northern rivers they areconsidered freshwater amphidromous, withadults living and spawning in fresh water, butregularly entering saltwater environments.Some northern populations (for example in theHudson and Connecticut rivers) also havefreshwater forms (NMFS 1998; Hochleithnerand Gessner 1999).

Shortnose sturgeon are benthic omnivores.Juveniles are believed to feed on benthicinsects and crustaceans, while molluscs andlarge crustaceans comprise the primary foodfor adults. They have also been observedfeeding off plant surfaces. Based on a highincidence of non-food items found in a studyof juveniles (Dadswell et al. 1984), researchersconcluded that juveniles randomly vacuum the

46

bottom, while adults are more selective. Thepresence of food in the gut at all times of theday indicates that shortnose sturgeon arecontinuous feeders [Dadswell (1979), cited inNMFS (1998)].

Historic Fisheries/Catch Levels There are few records of historic catch levelsfor shortnose sturgeon. In part, this is becausesturgeon catch records for the Atlantic Oceanaround the beginning of the twentieth centurydid not differentiate between shortnosesturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon (Waldman1999; Friedland 2000). The shortnosesturgeon was not a principal target of thecommercial fishery, but may have been takenfrequently as bycatch in the Atlantic sturgeonfishery. During the 1950s, the decline of allsturgeon fisheries on the East coast of NorthAmerica led to a further lack of data regardingshortnose sturgeon. By 1967, USFWS hadconcluded that the species was extirpated frommuch of its range and in danger of extinction(NMFS/NOAA 2001b).

Conservation Status andChallenges/ThreatsIUCN’s Red List 2000 listed the shortnosesturgeon as Vulnerable (IUCN 2001). Thespecies was listed in Appendix I of CITES inJanuary 1975, although Canada maintained areservation until September 1977. TheEuropean Union listed the species in Annex Ain June 1997 (CITES 2001a).

The shortnose sturgeon was listed as endangeredin the United States on March 11, 1967 (32 FR4001), and the species remained on theendangered species list when the ESA came intoforce in 1973 (NMFS 1998). In 1980, Canadaplaced the species in its “Special Concern” riskcategory (Environment Canada 2000).

Some of the major challenges to the shortnosesturgeon’s recovery are as follows.

Incidental catch and poaching. While directedfishing for shortnose sturgeon is nowprohibited in the United States, the species istaken incidentally in other fisheries along theEast coast, and may be targeted by poachers aswell. Commercial and recreational shadfisheries in the Merrimack, Connecticut,Hudson, Delaware, and Cape Fear rivers, as

well as various rivers in South Carolina andGeorgia, are known to capture shortnosesturgeon. In Georgia, the shad gillnet fisheryaccounted for 83% of reported shortnoseincidental take [Collins et al. (1996), cited inNMFS (1998)]. Moser and Ross (1993)reported that incidental take in shad netsdisrupted spawning migrations in the CapeFear River, and Weber (1996) reported thatincidental captures caused abandonment ofspawning migrations in the Ogeechee River inGeorgia (both cited in NMFS 1998). InCanada’s Saint John River estuary, shortnosesturgeon are taken incidentally in shad,salmon, striped bass, and alewife fisheries.The percentage of incidental sturgeon take inthe shad fishery is large, perhaps because thesturgeon spring migration coincides with theshad fishing season (NMFS 1998).

The impact of poaching is unknown, but may besignificant in some rivers. In 1995, two SouthCarolina fishermen were apprehended with fivepounds of shortnose sturgeon roe and two gravidfish (NMFS 1998). Illegal trade is discussed ingreater detail in Section V of this report.

Habitat degradation/restricted range. Directand indirect impacts from bridge construction,dams, dredging, and power plant reservoiroperations have all been identified asconservation challenges to shortnose sturgeonpopulations. For example, sedimentsemanating from bridge construction anddemolition projects may result in siltation indownstream spawning sites, thereby affectingegg survival. In addition, blasting during theconstruction or demolition of bridge piers canproduce shock waves that damage the species’air-bladder, leading to the risk of mortality.Mitigation efforts using an air-gap (such asdouble-wall cofferdam or bubble screen) placedaround piers and similar support structuresduring blasting may reduce this risk, but theimpact is not well documented (NMFS 1998).

Hydroelectric dams can restrict habitat, alterriver flows or temperatures necessary forsuccessful spawning and/or migration, andentrain fish in turbines. In all but onenortheastern U.S. river supporting shortnosesturgeon, the first dam on the river marks theupstream limit of the population. Theexception is the “dam-locked” populationabove the Holyoke Dam on the Connecticut

47

River. In all of these rivers, spawning sitesoccur just below the dams, leaving all lifestages vulnerable to changes in natural riverconditions caused by dam operations.Shortnose sturgeon do not appear capable ofusing fishways (ladders), but have been movedin fish lifts. This inability to move above damsto potential spawning habitats may restrictpopulation growth. Dam maintenanceactivities, such as excavations, also release siltthat can be deposited in nearby spawning sites,further degrading habitat (NMFS 1998).

Dredging to maintain navigation channels canimpact shortnose sturgeon directly byentraining them in dragarms and impellerpumps, and indirectly by destroying feedingareas, disrupting migration, and blanketingspawning habitat with fine silt. In 1991,NMFS concluded that an Army Corps ofEngineers’ dredging operation in the lowerConnecticut River was likely to jeopardize theresident shortnose sturgeon population,because the project was scheduled for earlysummer, used a hydraulic hopper dredge, andinvolved in-river dredge-spoil disposal withinhigh-use feeding areas. The impacts of suchactivities can be mitigated by changing thetiming of the project to avoid the presence ofsturgeon in the area, or using differentequipment. However, cases of shortnosesturgeon mortality in the Cape Fear River andDelaware River have demonstrated that otherdredging methods such as hydraulic pipelineand buck-and-barge operations may alsoadversely affect sturgeon (NMFS 1998).

Electric power and nuclear power plants canimpinge larger sturgeon on cooling waterintake screens and entrain larval fish. Plantconstruction and operation activities such asexcavation, dewatering, and dredging can alsoaffect sturgeon habitat by producing excessiveturbidity and destroying habitat and foodresources. Plant shutdowns to repair cloggedwater intake gates and remove decomposingplant material can also trigger low dissolvedoxygen conditions in waters downstream,leading to fish kills. Without better data oncurrent shortnose populations, it is not possibleto determine the effects of such operations andspecific impacts on local sturgeon populations(NMFS 1998).

Reservoir operations can affect shortnosesturgeon and other species downstream in twoopposite but potentially harmful ways. Onepotentially harmful operation relates tounplanned but controlled water releases thatcan diminish or reduce spawning success byartificially extending high flow periods duringperiods when water temperatures are ideal forspawning. The other potential problem is theabrupt termination of discharge periods,resulting in lethal anoxic conditionsdownstream (NMFS 1998).

In addition, during summer months shortnosesturgeon, like other sturgeon species, relievephysiological stress during periods of highwater temperatures by seeking out thermalrefuges in deep, artesian spring-fed habitats.Loss and/or manipulation of these areas mayaffect survival, especially in southern riversystems more prone to warm water conditions.As with the Gulf sturgeon, the depletion ofsubterranean aquifers in rivers such as theSavannah, Ogeechee, Satilla, and St. Marysmay impact critical habitat necessary forsurvival and lead to high mortality amongjuveniles or even the ability to supportshortnose populations at all. This maycurrently be the case in the Satilla and St.Marys rivers (NMFS 1998).

Pollution/water quality. Toxic metals, PAH,pesticides, and PCBs can produce acutelesions, growth retardation, and reproductiveimpairments in marine life. Lifespancharacteristics of the shortnose sturgeon (longlifespan, extended inhabitation of estuaries,benthic feeding) predispose the species to theeffects of long-term and repeated exposure tosuch contaminants. Unfortunately, there havebeen very few studies to assess the impact ofcontaminants on shortnose sturgeonpopulations, but it is suspected that increasedlevels of environmental contaminants areassociated with reproductive impairment,reduced egg viability, and reduced survival oflarval fish, leading to poor recruitment(NMFS 1998).

Point-source discharges (municipal wastewater,paper mill effluent, industrial and power plantcooling and wastewater) may also contribute tofurther impacts on sturgeon populations(NMFS, 1998). Pulp mill, silviculture,

48

agriculture, and sewage discharges are knownto reduce dissolved oxygen levels. Reducedwater flows from power plant shutdowns canalso produce anoxic conditions downstream.Jenkins et al. (1993), cited in NMFS (1998),reported that juvenile shortnose sturgeonexperienced high mortality rates (86%) whenexposed to extremely low dissolved oxygenlevels, while older fish exhibited increasedtolerance (< 20% mortality). It is believed thatextremely low dissolved oxygen levels mayexplain the failure to capture shortnosesturgeon in the St. Marys and Satilla riversduring recent surveys (NMFS 1998).

Non-indigenous disease or competition.Rapid increases in the abundance of non-indigenous species such as Asian clams, zebramussels, and blue and flathead catfish are

considered likely to adversely affect theabundance of shortnose sturgeon prey and/orintroduce new competitors or predators. Inaddition, introductions and transfers ofindigenous and non-indigenous sturgeons maypose genetic threats, increase competition forfood or habitat, or spread exotic diseases. Aswith the Gulf sturgeon, there is concern aboutthe introduction of west coast sturgeonspecies and the possible introduction ofdiseases previously unknown in shortnosesturgeon but highly prevalent in whitesturgeon aquaculture facilities (NMFS 1998).As described in Section VI of this report onHatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture,there are also questions about the possibleimpact on wild stocks of captive propagationand stocking programs.

49

The North American paddlefish is one of twoliving paddlefish species in the world. Theonly other member of the familyPolyodontidae is the Chinese paddlefish(Psephurus gladius), which occurs in China’sYangtze River and its tributaries in Asia. TheAmerican paddlefish has a number of commonnames, including the “spoonbill,” “spoonbillcat,” “shovelbill cat,” “duckbill cat,”“shovelnose cat,” “spoonbill sturgeon,”“spadefish,” “boneless cat,” “freshwatersturgeon,” “Chattanooga beluga,” “Americansturgeon,” and even “freshwater whale”because of its behavior as a filter feeder(Russell 1986; Anon. 2000a). The species is atthe center of the debate over the future ofNorth American Acipenseriformes because ofthe value of its caviar as a potential substitutefor Caspian Sea sturgeon roe.

Historic Range and CurrentDistributionPaddlefish were once widely distributedthroughout the Mississippi River, MissouriRiver, and adjacent Gulf Slope drainages, aswell as in the Great Lakes and some southernOntario waters in Canada (Gengerke 1986;Environment Canada 2001a). The currentdistribution of the paddlefish, while still broad,is reduced from its historic range. Majortributaries of the Mississippi and Missouririvers with paddlefish populations includesections of the Red, Arkansas, White,Tennessee, Cumberland, Ohio, Wabash,Missouri, Platte, and Yellowstone rivers(Hochleithner and Gessner 1999). Paddlefishare also present in the Mobile Bay–AlabamaRiver drainage; however, Gengerke (1986)

indicated that this population was notconsidered abundant. Data from many riversystems are too incomplete to determine anoverall abundance level or to make possibleindividual summaries of many currentpopulations. Figure 4 shows the species’historic distribution.

There has been widespread discussion anddebate about the presence and status ofpaddlefish populations in various U.S. states.Paddlefish populations today occur in at least21 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana,Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia,and Wisconsin. Paddlefish are no longerpresent in Canada, and in the United Statesnatural paddlefish populations are consideredextirpated in Maryland, New York, NorthCarolina, and Pennsylvania (Gengerke 1986;Graham 1997; Hesse and Carreiro 1997).Gengerke (1986) reported the presence of thespecies in Virginia’s Clinch River flowing intothe Norris Reservoir. However, more recentlythe state reported only historic anecdotalreports of occurrences, and the species’continued presence in Virginia is unknown(Gary Martel, Director, Fisheries Division,Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fish,in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August22, 2000). Hesse and Carreiro (1997) citedLee et al. (1980) as indicating that paddlefishmay have also been present at one time inGeorgia and Michigan. With a few exceptions,the reduction of the species’ range has beenconfined to peripheral reaches of historicpaddlefish distribution (Gengerke 1986).

50

3.4 North American Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula)

Illustration by Paul Vecsei

Hesse and Carreiro (1997) reporteddeteriorating paddlefish populations inArkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, andportions of South Dakota; stable populations inAlabama, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana,Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, NorthDakota, and Oklahoma; and populationincreases in at least portions of the species’range in Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, andTexas. Hesse and Carreiro reported that nofirm data were available on the overall statusor trends of known paddlefish populations inIllinois, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio,and Wisconsin. Tennessee did not respond tothat survey, and data were reported asinconclusive in West Virginia.

Some paddlefish populations have beenreported as increasing because of restorationprograms. Graham and Rasmussen (1999)indicated that this trend has been especially

notable in the periphery of the species’ nativerange. For example, Kansas, Louisiana, NewYork, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,Texas, and West Virginia have stockedpaddlefish to bolster natural reproduction orreclaim natural populations (although Texasrecently ceased stocking). These programs, aswell as a summary of other states that at onetime stocked paddlefish but no longer do so,are discussed in greater detail in Section VI onHatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture.

An interesting characteristic of the paddlefishconcerns the fact that, while the species isbelieved to have been extirpated from somehistorical range waters (e.g. the TombigbeeRiver, Swan Lake, Big Sioux River, LittleSioux River, Kankakee River, Lake Erie,Namakan River, Shawnee Creek, and Boisd’Arc Creek), the fish have successfullycolonized others (e.g., Smoky Hill River,

51

Figure 4 Historic Paddlefish Range

Source: Graham and Rasmussen (1999)

Wakarusa River, Turtle Creek Reservoir, JohnRedmond Reservoir, Des Moines River, BlackRiver, Harry S. Truman Reservoir, Lake of theOzarks, Salt River, Merimac River, andCurrent River) (Hesse and Carreiro 1997). AsSection VI details, some of this colonizationcan be attributed to stocking efforts.

A considerable and perhaps inevitable dispute isongoing between fisheries managers andcommercial fishermen about the status ofpaddlefish stocks in a number of states. Forexample, while states such as Alabama andLouisiana have closed their commercial fisheriesto conserve paddlefish stocks, some commercialfishermen argue that the species is abundant inmany rivers and other water bodies in thosestates and should be open to catch (pers. comm.,interviews with Tennessee commercialfishermen, 2001). Because of the significantinterest in paddlefish and the complicated natureof the debate over its present distribution andstatus, more detailed information on individualstate populations of paddlefish is included inSection IV of this report.

Ecology and HabitatThe paddlefish is readily distinguished fromother fishes by its elongated rostrum, or“paddle,” that is approximately one third thelength of its body. Newly hatched young donot have this rostrum, which starts growing inone to two weeks and is largely developed infour to five weeks. The function of therostrum is not fully understood (Russell 1986).

Paddlefish can reach up to seven feet (2.3meters) in length and about 175 pounds (80kg) in weight. Males reach sexual maturity at5–9 years of age, while females reach sexualmaturity at 8–12 years of age. Subsequentspawnings are reported in males every one totwo years and in females every two to fouryears (Hochleithner and Gessner 1999).Russell (1986) noted that fish up to 30 years ofage have been reported, and paddlefish olderthan 15 are common in many populations.Scarnecchia and Graham (1999) reported thatpaddlefish in southern U.S. stocks tend tomature faster than those in northern stocks, butthey also exhibit far shorter lifespans.

Paddlefish inhabit the moderate flow of largerivers that provide high zooplankton production(Hochleithner and Gessner 1999). In the late

1800s and early 1900s, before the large, free-flowing rivers of the Mississippi drainage werealtered, the naturally braided channels,extensive backwater areas, and oxbow lakes ofthese river systems provided ideal habitat andsupported large paddlefish populations. Adultswere usually found in the slower movingwaters of the rivers, and sometimes in smalltributaries. During spring rises, paddlefishmoved into bayous and river-lakes, where mostremained as long as the connections with therivers remained (Russell 1986).

In the roughly 100 years since damming andchannelization began in most of these majorriver systems, alterations have increased watercurrents, altered natural flow and temperatureregimes, and eliminated spawning areas,backwaters, and other preferred habitat. Inaltered rivers, paddlefish are reported toconcentrate in sheltered areas such as poolsbelow sandbars, near physical features like bigislands, or near shore irregularities where flowvelocity is reduced. They may also gather nearman-made structures such as dikes, revetments,and bridge supports, where these structures orassociated scour holes reduce current. Alongwith riverine habitat, the paddlefish is alsocommonly found in reservoirs, where thespecies often congregates near dams just belowthe spillway (Russell 1986).

Spawning migrations occur in spring at highwater, with adult paddlefish sometimestraveling hundreds of miles to reach spawninggrounds. Paddlefish are believed to require aprecise timing of events for spawning to besuccessful. Spawning itself takes place overgravel or rocky bottom from March to Junewhen water temperature, water flow, currentvelocity, light intensity, and substrate meet thebiological requirements of the species (Russell1986). Paddlefish require water temperaturesin the mid-50° F (12–18° C), a river stage of10 feet (~3 meters), and a minimum flowvelocity of 3.3 feet per second (1 meter/s).Photoperiod and water temperature controltiming, but increase in flow velocity is believedto be the triggering stimulus for spawningactivity (Russell 1986; Hochleithner andGessner 1999). Mating has been observed ingroups in the evening. Hochleithner andGessner (1999) reported a female fecundityrange of between 15,000 and 20,000 eggs perkg, with egg diameters of 3.3 to 3.9 mm.

52

Unspent eggs are reabsorbed during thedescending migration, or if correct physicalparameters for spawning are not available.Adult paddlefish move in groups immediatelyafter spawning (Russell 1986; Hochleithnerand Gessner 1999).

Paddlefish food consists primarily ofzooplankton, especially copepods and insectlarvae, which the fish catch by swimming withtheir mouths wide open. Paddlefish filter fooditems from the water through the buccalcavity, using the gill rakers (Hochleithner andGessner 1999).

Historic Fisheries/Catch LevelsPaddlefish were of little economic importanceprior to the late 1800s, although commercialcatch was significant. In 1894, approximately1 million pounds (450,000 kg; 450 metric tons)of paddlefish were taken, but the catch wasvalued at only $21,000. The fisheryconcentrated primarily upon meat, although theroe brought fishermen 35–40 cents per pound(Pasch and Alexander 1986). As excessivecatch of Atlantic and lake sturgeons led to thedecline of fisheries for those species,paddlefish became more widely valued andpursued. Pasch and Alexander (1986) andWaldman (1999) reported that landings peakedat 2.4 million pounds (~1.09 million kg; 1,000metric tons) in 1899, but then dropped to 1.4million pounds (~636,000 kg; 636 metric tons)by 1903. Russell (1986) cited Coker (1930) inreporting that the total commercial catch in1897 was 2.5 million pounds (~1.14 millionkg; 1,140 metric tons).

Paddlefish caviar reached parity with sturgeoncaviar in the first two decades of the twentiethcentury at about $1.50 to $3 per pound (~70cents to $1.35 per kg). Specific data aresporadic, but Waldman (1999) cited Pasch andAlexander (1986) to note an overall decline incatch of 30% through 1950. Gengerke (1986)reported that by 1931 catch dropped to 108 tons(216,000 pounds; 98,180 kg; ~98 metric tons), a90% drop from 1899. Catches increasedsharply during World War II when imports ofsturgeon products were reduced, and Pasch andAlexander (1986) reported that over 700,000pounds (~318,000 kg; 318 metric tons) ofpaddlefish were taken from the Wilson andWheeler reservoirs in Alabama and sold in large

city markets in 1941 and 1942. Nationwidecommercial catch for this period was notrecorded, but may have reached levels reportedearlier in the century. It is believed that somecaviar was being produced, but probably did notcommand the prices it once did (Pasch andAlexander 1986; Waldman 1999).

Between 1965 and 1975, Pasch and Alexander(1986) and Waldman (1999) estimated thatnational paddlefish catch levels were about500,000 pounds (227,000 kg; 227 metric tons)per year, while the price of roe remained lowat 25 cents to $2 per pound (~11 to 90 centsper kg). Russell (1986) cited Carlson andBonislawsky (1981) in providing an estimateof 530,000 pounds (~240,000 kg) annually,with approximately 40% of the catch in theTennessee River. Gengerke (1986) reportedthat by 1975 commercial catch in theMississippi River had declined about 95%from that reported around 1900.

It is believed that many commercial fishermenduring this period discarded roe. However, by1979 the price for salted, bulk-packed roe hadrisen to $12 to $15 per pound ($5.40 to $6.75per kg), making a gravid female worth morethan $200 for eggs alone. Fishing pressureonce again rose; for example, more than750,000 pounds (~340,000 kg; 340 metrictons) dressed weight was taken in 1980 fromreservoirs on the Cumberland and Tennesseerivers alone (Pasch and Alexander 1986;Waldman 1999).

Among the seven U.S. states that currentlyallow commercial catch of paddlefish(Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee), declinesin commercial catch were recorded between1989 and 1997 in Illinois, Missouri, andTennessee. In Illinois the reported commercialcatch was 161,641 pounds (73,473 kg) in1989, but only 49,036 pounds (22,289 kg) in1997. Missouri’s reported landings went from56,870 pounds (25,850 kg) in 1989 to 9,790pounds (4,450 kg) in 1996, and Tennessee’sfrom 485,342 pounds (220,610 kg) in 1990 to64,704 pounds (29,411 kg) in 1996 (Todd1999). Information was not available for thisperiod for the other four states withcommercial fisheries—Arkansas, Indiana,Kentucky, and Mississippi. More recent catchinformation from these states is provided inSection IV.

53

There are several possible explanations for thedecline in reported catch levels during the1990s. A decline in the number of paddlefishis one explanation, and some states that permitcommercial fishing have taken increasinglystringent regulatory steps over the past decadeto conserve paddlefish stocks. However, itmight also be the case that the regulations andrestrictions themselves explain the lowernumbers, as states have reduced the number ofwaters where commercial fishing is allowed,reduced fishing seasons, imposed legal sizelimits on harvestable fish, and imposedrestrictions on gear size and type. In somestates, for example Tennessee, there are fewercommercial fishermen today than were activein past decades, which implies that the drop incatch might be attributable at least in part tofewer boats and reduced catch effort(TRAFFIC interviews with Tennesseecommercial fishermen, 2001). It is alsopossible that the new regulations andrestrictions provide an incentive forcommercial fishermen to under-report theiractual catch. Finally, natural populationfluctuations or environmental conditionsaffecting water levels (e.g., flooding, drought)likely play a role in annual catch numbers.

Ensuring that catch levels are sustainablepresents a challenge to state and federalfisheries managers and commercial fishermenalike. Along with contemporary catchstatistics, the relationship between regulatoryregimes and reported catch is further detailedin Section IV.

Conservation Status andChallenges/ThreatsIUCN’s Red List 2000 classifies the NorthAmerican paddlefish as Vulnerable, as assessedin 1996 (IUCN 2001). In addition, thepaddlefish was listed in Appendix II of CITES in1992, primarily because of concern about illegalcatch for the international caviar trade (Graham1997). In June 1997, the European Union listedthe paddlefish in Annex B (CITES 2001a).

The species is not listed as threatened orendangered under U.S. federal law. In 1989,USFWS was petitioned to include paddlefishon the list of threatened or endangered speciesunder the provisions of the ESA, but after

conducting a review, the agency determinedthat listing of paddlefish as threatened was notwarranted. However, because of uncertaintyabout the species’ status in parts of its range,USFWS recommended reclassifying thespecies from category 3C to category 2 underthe ESA. Category 3C includes taxa that haveproven more abundant or widespread thanpreviously believed and/or those that are notsubject to any identifiable threat. Category 2includes taxa for which information indicatesthat a proposed listing as threatened orendangered is possibly appropriate, but forwhich conclusive data are not currentlyavailable (Graham 1997).

Paddlefish conservation faces several primarychallenges.

Habitat degradation/restricted range. Man-made changes to the Mississippi Riverdrainage comprise the most obvious factorsaffecting the species’ abundance anddistribution from historical times to thepresent. Sparrowe (1986) noted that the rangeof the paddlefish includes some of the largestand most economically important river systemsin North America. River systems such as theMississippi, Missouri, and Ohio have longsupplied much of the United States with waterfor commercial, industrial, and municipal uses.

Dams constructed on mainstem streams duringthe last century have interrupted naturalspawning migrations, eliminated traditionalspawning sites, altered the natural riverinehydrograph, and dewatered streams,eliminating quiet backwaters important asnursery and feeding areas (Sparrowe 1986;Graham 1997; Graham and Rasmussen 1999).As noted above, paddlefish require a specificrange in water temperature and minimum flowvelocity to trigger spawning (Russell 1986;Hochleithner and Gessner 1999). They aretherefore sensitive to disruption or alteration ofspawning habitat. The large-scale dammingand channelization projects conducted over thelast century to modify, or “tame,” many riversfor commercial navigation, hydropowerprojects, and construction of water supplyreservoirs have largely altered the ecology ofmany of the rivers inhabited by paddlefish,cutting off spawning grounds and disruptingsedimentation transport mechanisms and river

54

hydrographs (Sparrowe 1986; Unkenholz1986; Rasmussen 1999).

Reservoir construction has created specificproblems for paddlefish populations in somecases. Sparrowe (1986) noted that paddlefishare often associated with reservoirs rather thanrivers, largely because significant fisherieshave developed in reservoirs throughout thespecies’ range. Reservoirs can benefitpaddlefish populations within them byexpanding and improving feeding areas. Insome places fisheries have boomed temporarilyfollowing dam closure as spawning runs havecongregated in the tailwaters below the dam.However, some of these fisheries later declineddrastically because of lack of recruitment, asloss of spawning habitat; blocked migrationroutes; altered water flow regimes, hydrology,and water quality; and direct kills throughoperations of hydropower facilities impactedpaddlefish populations (Sparrowe 1986;Unkenholz 1986).

In addition, Sparrowe (1986) noted thatagricultural development has contributed todramatic changes in many rivers andassociated paddlefish habitat. Mismanagementof soil resources and reduction of erosioncontrol efforts in the 1960s and 1970scontributed to soil movement and deposition,degrading many rivers. These factors alsocontributed to increased contamination ofrivers by fertilizers and pesticides.

Pollution/water quality. Pollution posesanother serious threat to paddlefishpopulations. The use of rivers as wastedisposal systems, erosion, and draining ofnaturally cleansing wetlands and floodplainsfor agricultural and other purposes all affectthe ecological integrity of rivers. Thealteration of many rivers in the MississippiRiver drainage for “slackwater” navigation hasled to toxic spills, sedimentation, and dumpingfrom dredging operations that impactpaddlefish reproduction and survival(Rasmussen 1999). Watershed developmentand industrial pollution have at times beensevere in the Ohio River and other MississippiRiver tributaries, as has the problem ofmunicipal waste (Sparrowe 1986).

The extent of river pollution and its types andsources (i.e., agriculture, pesticides, industry,urban development, sewage, etc.) obviously

vary from state to state and from river to river,and are impossible to catalogue in apublication of this scope. Suffice it to say thatmaintaining water quality at a level that cansupport paddlefish, their essential habitats, andreproduction remains a challenge throughoutthe species’ range.

Overfishing. Another potential threat topaddlefish populations comes from overfishingby commercial or sport fishermen, as well aspoaching for the caviar trade. There is anongoing debate about the severity of the threatposed by commercial catch to paddlefishpopulations, and it is difficult to documentwhether there has been a real impact onpaddlefish populations from the industry andthe caviar trade, given a lack of catch andcatch-independent data from recent years inseveral jurisdictions.

A particular long-term concern to manyconservationists, fisheries managers, biologists,and others is the prospect of widespreadcommercial harvest and trade of paddlefish roeto supply the caviar industry, in light of thedissolution of the Soviet Union and theincreasing potential for the collapse ofsturgeon stocks and fisheries in the CaspianSea. TRAFFIC has noted that, should thetrade turn to the North American paddlefish asan alternative—and there is evidence this isalready occurring—harvest of paddlefish eggsfor caviar could significantly impact whatsome biologists consider an already imperiledspecies. One example cited by Graham andRasmussen (1999) was a 1997 CITES exportpermit application to export three metric tonsof paddlefish roe from Kentucky to Japan forabout $70 per pound ($31.50 per kg; $500,000total). Their paper reported an estimate bybiologists that to produce such an amount ofroe would require the catch of nearly 1,000females, each providing approximately sevenpounds of eggs. It also included an estimatethat a commercial fishermen may have to catchand sacrifice 4 to 5 males for each female witheggs (because paddlefish cannot be easilysexed, all captured fish are sometimes killed).Based on that calculation, the paper noted thatcatch for the permit could have involved some5,000 to 6,000 paddlefish.

Exporting companies continue to submitapplications for the export of large volumes of

55

paddlefish roe, none as large as three metrictons, but several greater than one metric ton(Marie Maltese, USFWS, in litt. to TRAFFICNorth America, November 1, 2001). There isconcern among some state fisheries managersthat significantly increased paddlefish catchlevels could lead to population declines similarto those seen in now threatened or endangeredNorth American sturgeon populations.

However, there are others, particularly in thecommercial fishing community, who argue thatpaddlefish populations are abundant. In a 2001trip to Tennessee, TRAFFIC met with severalmembers of the commercial fishing communityinvolved in the catch of paddlefish. As isdetailed in Section IV of this report, many inthis community believe that the current threatto paddlefish is overblown, and that catchrestrictions and regulations are overly stringent(TRAFFIC interviews with Tennesseecommercial fishermen, 2001). Given thesometimes polar opposites in opinion over thepotential threat posed to paddlefish byoverexploitation, TRAFFIC believes thatconsensus on sustainable management willlikely prove elusive.

Poaching/illegal trade. When egg prices arehigh, paddlefish range states commonly reportoccurrences of illegal catch and trade, andenforcement of paddlefish catch limitationsbecomes more difficult (Graham and

Rasmussen 1999). Illegal trade is believed tooccur in states throughout the species range,rather than just in those states that allowcommercial catch. Poaching and illegal tradetargets the species during its most vulnerablelife stage—spawning—and takes advantage ofaggregating behavior that allows for the easytake of numerous gravid females at specific,known locations.

Responding to a request for information fromUSFWS for a CITES Significant Trade Reviewregarding the species,2 several states providedexamples from recent years of paddlefish beingpoached for roe. Additionally, in oneparticularly significant case involvingfraudulent trade, the owners of a Marylandcompany were sentenced to considerable jailtime and fined $10.3 million for selling falselylabeled paddlefish caviar as Russian caviar.That fine was the largest ever assessed for awildlife crime (USFWS 2001c). It is unclearat the time of this report whether suchinstances of substituting and mislabelingpaddlefish roe as product from the Caspian Seaare isolated instances or part of a growingphenomenon. It is also difficult to quantify theprecise extent of illegal activity involving catchand/or trade. However, it is clear thatpoaching and illegal trade could pose a threatto paddlefish populations. This issue isdiscussed in more detail in Section V.

56

2 The Significant Trade Review process is described in Section 5.2 of this report.

Also known as the sand sturgeon, hackleback,switchtail, and flathead sturgeon, theshovelnose sturgeon is a river-based speciesthat is widely distributed in the Mississippi andMissouri river systems, as well as some largertributaries. TRAFFIC has found that theshovelnose sturgeon, which is endemic to theUnited States and among the smallest of NorthAmerica’s Acipenseriformes, is oftenoverlooked in debates about catch and trade forthe caviar industry, even though commercialfisheries for the species exist in a number ofstates. Of particular concern is the lack ofhistoric and current catch data in some states,species-specific research on population statusand demographics, and adequate regulation ofcatch and trade in key parts of the shovelnosesturgeon’s range.

Historic Range and CurrentDistributionThe historic range of the shovelnose sturgeoncovered most of the Mississippi and Missouririver basins, from Montana in the north toLouisiana in the south, and from Pennsylvaniain the east to New Mexico in the west. Statesthat have reported historic shovelnose sturgeonpopulations include Alabama, Arkansas,Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, NorthCarolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming(Hesse and Carreiro 1997). Major riversystems in the overall Mississippi-Missouridrainage system with recorded shovelnosesturgeon populations include the Yellowstone,

Powder, Little Sioux, Platte, Minnesota,Chippewa, Illinois, Ohio (with Wabash),Cumberland, Nishnabotna, St. Francis, White,Arkansas, Red, and Atchafalaya (Hochleithnerand Gessner 1999). Shovelnose sturgeon alsohistorically inhabited the Mobile and Alabamariver drainages in Alabama and the Rio Grandein New Mexico and Texas (Propst 1999;Rasmussen in press). Figure 5 shows thespecies’ historic range.

Although the shovelnose sturgeon’sdistribution has not been reduced to the sameextent as that of the lake sturgeon (Acipenserfulvescens) or the pallid sturgeon(Scaphirhynchus albus), which share portionsof the shovelnose sturgeon’s range, the speciesis no longer present in large parts of its historicrange. The precise extent of range reduction—and the shovelnose sturgeon’s status within itsremaining range—is uncertain.

There is a general consensus that theshovelnose sturgeon is no longer extant in NewMexico, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania(NPSSC 1993; Hesse and Carreiro 1997;Keenlyne 1997; Propst 1999). Beyondagreement over the species’ extirpation in thosestates, however, the literature differs.

Keenlyne (1997) reported the shovelnosesturgeon being classified as extirpated inAlabama, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,Tennessee, and West Virginia, as well asendangered in Ohio and Texas, rare inMississippi, protected in North Dakota andSouth Dakota, and a species of concern inLouisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma, andWyoming. Keenlyne has noted that the speciesno longer reproduces from Gavins Point Dam

57

3.5 Shovelnose Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorhynchus)

Illustration by Paul Vecsei

to Garrison Dam on the Missouri River (K.Keenlyne, in litt. to TRAFFIC North America,February 2002).

A Hesse and Carreiro (1997) survey offisheries division administrators showed thespecies as decreasing in Alabama, Kansas,Mississippi, Ohio, and Texas; and stable inArkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, SouthDakota, and Wisconsin. In Georgia, Illinois,Louisiana, Minnesota, and Oklahoma, thespecies’ status was reported as unknown, orthere was no response to the survey. Hesseand Carreiro estimated that overall, theshovelnose sturgeon was absent from 25.4% ofthe rivers and streams that the species isbelieved to have historically inhabited.Andreasen (1999) used data from individualstate natural heritage programs, conservationdata centers, and The Nature Conservancy inrecording the shovelnose sturgeon as criticallyimperiled in Alabama, Oklahoma, andWyoming; imperiled in Illinois and Texas; andvulnerable in Arkansas, Indiana, and Kansas.

Some of the discrepancies in reports of theshovelnose sturgeon’s status where it is extantmay be attributable to differing criteria used byvarious agencies and data sources. Issuesinvolving restocking programs and thepresence of the species in only the peripheralwaters of some states may also come into play.For example, Etnier and Starnes (1993), citedin Rasmussen (in press), reported that theshovelnose sturgeon was once commonly takenin the Tennessee River system all the way tothe French Broad River on theTennessee/North Carolina border before theTennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reservoirsystem was constructed. No recent recordsexist of the species’ presence in the Tennesseeor Cumberland rivers, which would support thefinding reported by Keenlyne (1997) that theshovelnose sturgeon is considered extirpated inthe state. However, as is documented inSection IV of this report, in recent yearsTennessee fisheries managers have recordedcatch of shovelnose sturgeon in that state’sportion of the Mississippi River, whichconstitutes its far western border with Arkansas

58

Figure 5 Historic Shovelnose Sturgeon Range

Sou

rce:

US

Fish

and

Wild

life

Ser

vice

and Missouri (Tennessee Wildlife ResourcesAgency [TWRA] 2001a). Thus, while theshovelnose sturgeon may have been extirpatedfrom internal river systems it once inhabited inTennessee, it continues to be extant in thestate’s western boundary waters.

Similar issues may arise regarding the species’status in states such as West Virginia andWyoming, which have undertakenreintroduction programs for rivers where theshovelnose sturgeon may have been extirpated(Rasmussen in press). Obrecht (1996), cited inRasmussen (in press), Hesse and Carreiro(1997), and USFWS (2000h) reported that thespecies had been reintroduced into Wyoming’sBighorn and Powder rivers. The species hadbeen extirpated from the Bighorn River Basinby dams, which blocked spawning runs fromdownstream in Montana [Obrecht (1996), citedin Rasmussen (in press)]. Keenlyne (1997)also noted that West Virginia and New Mexicohad developed reintroduction plans. Moreinformation on these efforts is included inSection VI of this report.

Still, there appears to be a lack of reliable dataregarding the shovelnose sturgeon’s status inseveral states. As is shown later in this report,a fundamental lack of biological anddemographic data about the species in riversystems throughout its range has raisedimportant questions about whether currentlevels of catch and trade in shovelnose sturgeonproducts is sustainable, and especially whetherthe species could withstand an anticipatedincrease in demand for its roe in light of thedecline of the Caspian Sea fisheries.

Ecology and HabitatThe shovelnose sturgeon prefers rapid waterwith current velocities ranging from 0.66 to ~5 feet (0.2 to 1.5 meters) per second, andprefers high turbidities. The species is usuallyfound within the rapid currents of main riverchannels, and favors sand and gravel substratesto feed and spawn. Shovelnose sturgeoncommonly frequent the tailwaters below wingdams and other structures that acceleratecurrent flow in channels that are otherwiseimpeded by man-made structures (NPSSC1993; Hochleithner and Gessner 1999).

The shovelnose is a small sturgeon, reachingmaximum lengths of 3 to 4 feet (1+ meters)

and maximum weights of approximately 5 to10 pounds (2.5 to 4.5 kg) (Hochleithner andGessner 1999; Chapman 1999). It is estimatedthat sexual maturity is reached at 5 to 7 yearsof age, when the fish reach lengths of 20 and24 inches (500 and 630 mm) for males andfemales, respectively. At this age, weightsaverage 2 to 2.9 pounds (0.9 to 1.3 kg) (NPSSC1993; Chapman 1999). Maximum longevity isestimated at 27 years (Chapman 1999).

Spawning normally occurs from April to July,when adults migrate upriver to spawn overrocky substrates in rapidly flowing waterbetween 66 and 70° F (19 and 21° C).Shovelnose sturgeon eggs are glutinous, andadhere to objects in the water as they driftdownstream from the spawning ground(Rasmussen in press). The spawning intervalis not well known. Chapman (1999) reported afemale fecundity range of between 6,000 and17,000 eggs per kg, with egg diameters of 2.8to 3.5 mm. Helms (1974, cited in Rasmussenin press) reported egg counts ranging from13,908 to 51,217, with a mean average of27,592. Christenson (1975, cited inRasmussen in press) estimated egg productionat 24,404 (ranging from 10,680 to 50,971) inWisconsin shovelnose sturgeon from the RedCedar–Chippewa rivers.

Food preferences of the shovelnose sturgeonconsist largely of insect larvae, mussels,worms, and crustaceans, although vegetativematter is also consumed (NPSSC 1993).

Historic Fisheries/Catch LevelsHistorically, in the nineteenth centuryshovelnose sturgeon were not commerciallytargeted, and were often destroyed because ofdamage they might cause to nets. During theearly 1900s, however, targeted fisheriesdeveloped for their caviar—and meat forsmoking—as other sturgeon fisheries declined(Waldman 1999). Even so, the shovelnosesturgeon was not as prized as other sturgeonsor paddlefish in its range, perhaps because ofits small size and correspondingly low yield ofroe relative to other acipenseriform species.

Unfortunately, there is not a great deal of dataavailable on historic take of the species. It isknown that during parts of the twentiethcentury the species was caught in all states onthe Mississippi and Missouri rivers [Helms

59

(1974), cited in Rasmussen (in press)], and in1950 commercial catch accounted for 1.5% ofthe total catch. During the 50-year periodfrom 1947 to 1996, the highest annual totalcatch of shovelnose sturgeon in states reportingcatch figures from the upper Mississippi River(Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, andWisconsin) was 120,160 pounds (54,618 kg;~54.5 metric tons) of fish taken in 1956, thelowest was 9,445 pounds (4,293 kg; ~4.3metric tons) of fish taken in 1952, and the 50-year annual average was 21,536 kg (~23.5metric tons) of fish [UMRCC (Annually), citedin Rasmussen (in press)]. Since installation ofdams for navigation, commercial catch ofshovelnose sturgeon from the UpperMississippi River has exceeded 100,000pounds (~45,000 kg; 45 metric tons) onlytwice, in 1956 and 1958 (Rasmussen in press).

Commercial fisheries in the 1980s are believedto have concentrated in several states wherefavorable river conditions and habitats yieldedlocally abundant populations. In Arkansas, forexample, about 31,900 pounds (14,500 kg;14.5 metric tons) of fish were taken from theWhite River in the 1980s, and in Iowa 15,400pounds (7,000 kg; 7 metric tons) of fish werecaught from the Mississippi River in 1990(NPSSC 1993).

Eight states currently allow commercial catchof shovelnose sturgeon: Arkansas, Illinois,Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee,and Wisconsin. Until very recently, however,catch data from many of these states werescarce. Todd (1999) reported an estimated17,600 pounds (8,000 kg; 8 metric tons) ofwhole fish as being taken annually in Iowa.Todd (1999) also reported that the most recent10-year average for Missouri was estimated at17,435 pounds (7,925 kg; ~7.9 metric tons) offish, and a 52-year mean annual commercialcatch for the state was reported as 22,000pounds (10,000 kg; 10 metric tons) of fish.Wisconsin, where eggs cannot be harvested foruse in the caviar industry, estimated its annualcommercial catch at 1,870 pounds (850 kg) offish (Todd 1999). Reporting regulations havesince begun to tighten because of concernsexpressed by fisheries biologists. Currentcatch and roe harvest rates are discussed ingreater detail in Section IV of this report.

As of 1999, 11 states allowed sport fishing forshovelnose sturgeon: Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wisconsin, andWyoming. Little is known about approximatecatch rates. The species has limited appeal andtraditionally has not shown up in creel surveys(Mosher 1999).

Conservation Status andChallenges/ThreatsIUCN classified the shovelnose sturgeon asVulnerable in its 2000 Red List (IUCN, 2001).As of 2001, the proposed category forinclusion in the 2003 Red List of ThreatenedSpecies remained as Vulnerable (R. St. Pierre,IUCN/SSC Sturgeon Specialist Group, in litt.to IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme,November 20, 2001).

The shovelnose sturgeon was placed in CITESAppendix II in June 1997 with all othersturgeon species that were not previouslylisted. The listing became effective April 1,1998 (CITES, 2001a). Decisions adopted atCOP 10 with regard to the revision of CITESAppendices were published in the OfficialJournal of the European Communities inNovember 1997, to update the annexes toRegulation (EC) No. 338/97 accordingly(Caroline Raymakers, TRAFFIC Europe, inlitt. to TRAFFIC North America, October2001). A listing for the shovelnose sturgeon inthe EU’s Annex B entered into force on April1, 1998, concurrent with the CITES listing(CITES 2001a). The U.S. federal governmentdoes not list the shovelnose sturgeon asthreatened or endangered under the ESA. Asdiscussed later in Section IV, some individualstates classify the shovelnose sturgeon asthreatened or endangered.

Conservation challenges and potential threatsto the shovelnose sturgeon are similar to thosefor paddlefish and other sturgeon species, andinclude the following:

Habitat degradation/restricted range.Construction of locks and dams for navigationpurposes, channelization, dredging, and otheralterations in large rivers have contributedsignificantly to the decline of the species.These man-made habitat modifications blockmigration and access to spawning grounds and

60

eliminate habitat formerly used for spawning,feeding, and nursery grounds for juvenile fish.The species is no longer present within largeportions of its former range, largely becauserivers formerly inhabited by the species arenow unavailable (NPSSC 1993, Hesse andCarreiro 1997).

Alterations of stream flow can also affect foodavailability and the species’ foraging ability(Keenlyne 1997). Shortage of food may inturn delay sexual maturity or prolong theamount of time necessary to develop a fullcomplement of eggs, which can result inunnaturally extended periods between eggproduction and therefore reduced populationproductivity (K. Keenlyne, in litt. toIUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme,November 20, 2001).

Pollution/water quality. Pollution is alsobelieved to pose a threat to the shovelnosesturgeon. Ruelle and Henry (1994, cited inAnon. 2002) found that both fish and eggs canaccumulate elevated levels of contaminants. Inthe early 1990s, shovelnose sturgeon eggs fromMontana had mean selenium concentrationsbelieved to be high enough to causereproductive failure. The concentration oforganochlorines in the tissue of shovelnosesturgeon was high enough to cause the state ofMissouri to issue a human health consumptionadvisory for Missouri and Mississippi riversturgeon eggs and flesh [Birstein (1993), cited

in Anon. (1997)]. The states of Illinois,Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, and North Dakotahave also in the past issued consumptionadvisories for paddlefish and/or sturgeoncaviar caught in certain water bodies becauseof PCB, chlordane (a pesticide), and mercurycontamination (Caviar Emptor Online 2001).

Overfishing. In the past, pressure fromcommercial and recreational fishing was notconsidered a threat to the shovelnose sturgeon.This may be because of the greater valuetraditionally placed on the largeracipenseriform species found historicallythroughout the shovelnose sturgeon’s range—primarily the lake sturgeon (Acipenserfulvescens) and paddlefish (Polyodonspathula). The small size of the shovelnosesturgeon in comparison to these other speciesresults in relatively minor yields of roe perfish, although this roe produces an acceptablecaviar (NPSSC 1993).

However, commercial fishing and poaching ofshovelnose sturgeon is believed to beincreasing. Much of the information isanecdotal, but for the first time, USFWSreceived export applications in 2000 and 2001for large amounts of roe. As is discussed inSection IV, TRAFFIC is concerned about theincreased catch pressure on the species.Current management regimes in some statesmay not be adequate.

61

Endemic to the United States, the pallidsturgeon is a relatively large, freshwater fishnative to the Mississippi and Missouri riverbasins. Also known locally as the whitesturgeon (not to be confused with the Pacificcoast species), white shovelnose, whitehackleback, and rock sturgeon, the speciesshares much of its range with the shovelnosesturgeon, lake sturgeon, and paddlefish. Thepallid sturgeon was listed as endangered underthe ESA in 1990. Although a recovery plan isin place, the species continues to face threatsfrom habitat modification, lack of naturalreproduction, incidental catch, andhybridization. The pallid sturgeon is also thefocus of a significant political battle overfurther modifications to its range in the upperMississippi and Missouri rivers.

Historic Range and CurrentDistributionThe pallid sturgeon was first described in1905, from specimens collected in theMississippi River in Illinois. Historicabundance of the species is difficult to assess,but evidence suggests that it was alwaysconsidered rare. In the early 1900s, pallidsturgeon were reported to comprise only one in500 river sturgeon taken from the MississippiRiver at Grafton, Illinois (NPSSC 1993).

Because of its fairly recent identification, it isdifficult to accurately assess the full extent ofthe species’ historic range. The pallidsturgeon’s original distribution is believed toinclude the Missouri River, from Great Falls,Montana to the confluence of the MississippiRiver; the middle and lower Mississippi Riverto the Gulf of Mexico; the Yellowstone River,

from the confluence of the Bighorn Riverdownstream to the confluence of the MissouriRiver; and the lower reaches of the Kansas andPlatte rivers (NPSSC 1993; USFWS 2000b).Hochleithner and Gessner (1999) report that thespecies occurred in the Rio Grande River priorto the 1870s, and Duffy et al. (1996, cited inUSFWS 2000b) stated that the historic range ofthe pallid sturgeon’s Mississippi River rangeonce extended upstream to Keokuk, Iowa,before the river was converted into a series oflocks and dams for commercial navigation.

The current distribution of the pallid sturgeonincludes the Missouri River and theMississippi River, downstream from theMissouri River. In its 1990 final ruledetermining endangered status for the pallidsturgeon under the ESA, USFWS reportedsightings from the mouth of the MississippiRiver to the mouth of the Missouri River(1,154 river miles/1,860 river km); from themouth of the Missouri River to Fort Benton,Montana (2,065 river miles/3,330 river km);and in the lower 200 miles (320 km) of theYellowstone River. USFWS (1990) also notedthat occasional sightings were reported fromnear the mouths of large tributaries of theMississippi River, such as the Big Sunflowerand St. Francis rivers, and from majortributaries of the Missouri River, such as theKansas and Platte rivers. NPSSC (1993)reported pallid sturgeon occurrences in theAtchafalaya and Red rivers in Louisiana.

More recent information suggests that pallidsturgeon are primarily found in a few, selectareas. Since 1980, the most frequentoccurrences in the Missouri River system havebeen reported between the Marais River and Ft.Peck Reservoir in Montana; between Ft. Peck

62

3.6 Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)

Illustration by Paul Vecsei

Dam and Lake Sakakawea near Williston,North Dakota; within the lower 70 miles (113km) of the Yellowstone River downstream ofFallon, Montana; in the headwaters of LakeSharpe in South Dakota; near the mouth of thePlatte River near Plattsmouth, Nebraska; andbelow river mile 218 to the Missouri Rivermouth in Missouri. In the Mississippi River,areas of most frequent occurrence have beenreported as near Chester, Illinois, andCaruthersville, Missouri, and in the AtchafalayaRiver in Louisiana at the Old River ControlStructure, where the Atchafalaya diverges fromthe Mississippi River (USFWS 2000b).

USFWS lists states within or bordering thehistoric and current range of the pallidsturgeon as Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas,Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi,Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, SouthDakota, and Tennessee. The total extent of

the pallid sturgeon’s range has been estimatedat approximately 3,500 river miles (5,635river km) (USFWS 1990, 2000b, 2001d).Figure 6 shows the likely historic range of thepallid sturgeon.

Ecology and HabitatThe pallid sturgeon is believed to reach lengthsof six feet (1.8 meters) (Hochleithner andGessner 1999). Estimates of maximumweights cited for the species vary. USFWS(1990) described a maximum weight of closeto 85 pounds (39 kg). Hochleithner andGessner (1999) estimated approximately 100pounds (45 kg); Chapman (1999) estimated 66to 100 pounds (30 to 45 kg). It is widelybelieved that hybridization occurs naturallybetween pallid and shovelnose sturgeons(USFWS 1990, 2000b; NPSSC 1993;Hochleithner and Gessner 1999).

63

Figure 6 Historic Pallid Sturgeon Range

Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service (revised)

Until recently, little had been documentedabout the life history requirements of the pallidsturgeon. The species is known to preferturbid, free-flowing river habitats, and to favorstretches with rapid currents, swifter than thosepreferred by the shovelnose sturgeon (USFWS1990, 2000b; NPSSC 1993; Hochleithener andGessner 1999). The species is most frequentlycaught over a sand bottom, and is believed toprefer sandy substrates, particularly sanddunes. In some areas the species has also beenfound over substrates of rock or gravel. Pallidsturgeon are believed to be more specific andrestrictive in the use of microhabitat selectionthan are shovelnose sturgeon, indicating thatfeatures in these microhabitats may be moreimportant to pallid sturgeon. Bramblett (1996,cited in USFWS 2000b) found that thesemicrohabitats were diverse and dynamic. Forexample, pallid sturgeon were found to useriver reaches with sinuous channel patterns andislands and alluvial bars, which generally havemore diversity of depths, current velocities,and substrates than do relatively straightchannels without islands or alluvial bars.However, USFWS (2000b) noted that cautionmust be exercised in evaluating habitatpreference studies conducted in highly alteredriver environments, because there is no way tomeasure pallid sturgeon preferences forhabitats that no longer exist.

Spawning is believed to occur between Marchand July, depending on location (USFWS2000b). Because existing data indicate thatextremely limited natural reproduction isoccurring in wild populations, littleinformation is available to delineate precisespawning areas. Chapman (1999) reported thatpallid sturgeon reach sexual maturity at 5 to 20years of age. USFWS (2000b) cited Keenlyneand Jenkins (1993) in estimating sexualmaturity for males at 7 to 9 years of age, with2- to 3-year intervals between spawning years,and female sexual maturity at 15 to 20 years ofage, with 3- to 10-year intervals betweenspawning years. Chapman (1999) estimatedthat females have a fecundity of approximately10,000 eggs per kg of body weight, and thatpallid sturgeon eggs have a diameter of 2.5 to3.1 millimeters.

Little is known about age or growth of pallidsturgeon. Chapman (1999) estimated themaximum age of the species at 39–41 years.

However, a female pallid sturgeon agedfollowing mortality in 1998 was estimated tobe more than 50 years old, and possibly ashigh as 60 (USFWS 2000b).

Food sources of the pallid sturgeon have beenreported to include benthic macroinvertebrates,as well as lake and terrestrial invertebrates,which suggests that drifting invertebrates maybe important foraging organisms. Adult pallidsturgeon are believed to consume a greaterproportion of fish than do shovelnose sturgeon(USFWS 2000b).

Historic CatchEstimating historic catch rates for the pallidsturgeon is virtually impossible. Waldman(1999) reported that pallid sturgeon and lakesturgeon were sought after for roe during thenineteenth century, while the smallershovelnose sturgeon were often discarded asbycatch. The combined catch for lakesturgeon, pallid sturgeon, and shovelnosesturgeon was as high as 429,990 pounds(195,450 kg) in the early 1890s, but declined toless than 20,020 pounds (9,100 kg) by the1950s (Waldman 1999; USFWS 2000b). Giventhat the pallid sturgeon is believed to have beenhistorically rare, it is likely that the significantmajority of those figures document catch oflake sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon.

Conservation Status andChallenges/ThreatsIUCN listed the pallid sturgeon as Endangeredon its 2000 Red List of species (IUCN 2001).Pallid sturgeon were listed in Appendix II ofCITES at COP 10 in June 1997, along with allpreviously unlisted sturgeon species; the listingentered into effect in April 1998. Decisionsadopted at COP 10 with regard to the revisionof CITES Appendices were published in theOfficial Journal of the European Communitiesin November 1997, to update the annexes toRegulation (EC) No. 338/97 accordingly(Caroline Raymakers, TRAFFIC Europe, in litt.to TRAFFIC North America, October 2001). Alisting for the pallid sturgeon in EU Annex Bentered into effect on April 1, 1998, concurrentwith the CITES listing (CITES 2001a).

As is discussed in greater detail in Section IV,the pallid sturgeon was listed as a federallyendangered species under the ESA in 1990; a

64

recovery plan was published in 1993 (USFWS1990, 1993). The species faces continuingthreats from several sources.

Habitat degradation/restricted range. Thedecline of the pallid sturgeon followedextensive development of the Missouri andMississippi rivers during the twentieth century.Factors cited by USFWS in its 1990 Final Ruledetermining endangered status for the speciesincluded physical blocking of naturalmovements and migrations because ofconstruction of large dams; alteration of waterquality, temperature, and flow, affectingreproduction, timing of reproduction, andavailability of food sources; alteration andremoval of historic spawning habitats;decreased habitat diversity; and an overallreduction of biological productivity throughoutthe river basins.

USFWS (1993, 2000b) noted that on themainstem of the Missouri River, approximately36 percent of riverine habitat within the pallidsturgeon’s range was transformed from river tolake by construction of six massive earthendams by the Army Corps of Engineers between1926 and 1952. Another 40 percent of theriver downstream from dams has beenchannelized, and the remaining 24 percent ofriver habitat has been altered by changes inwater temperature and flow caused by damoperations. In the lower Mississippi River,levee construction from the Ohio River to theGulf of Mexico has eliminated the river’smajor natural floodway and reduced the area ofthe floodplain connected to the river by morethan 90 percent (USFWS 2000b).

These habitat changes were reflected in a sharpdrop-off of pallid sturgeon observations fromthe 1960s to the 1980s. During the 1960s, 500total observations (approximately 50 per year)were made in the entire 3,550 miles of range.Observations dropped to 209 (about 21 peryear) during the 1970s, and there were only 65observations (about 7 per year) during the1980s (USFWS 1990). The forage base for thepallid sturgeon has likely been greatly altered,thus affecting growth, reproduction, andrecruitment (NPSSC 1993).

As is discussed in greater detail in Section IV,in both the Upper Mississippi and Missouririvers, the Army Corps of Engineers hasworked with USFWS to try to mitigate the

impact of ongoing Corps projects on the pallidsturgeon. Such efforts face the significantchallenge of simultaneously enhancingconservation prospects for the pallid sturgeon(and other endangered species) whilemaintaining the navigation projects andactivities that are believed to have contributedto the species’ decline. Commercial shippingand barge operations, agricultural interests, andother commercial ventures have a large stakein maintaining both the Mississippi andMissouri rivers as transit “highways” for farmproducts and other goods, and there is strongopposition to efforts to restore the rivers tomore natural flows. Whether the Corps’conservation and mitigation projects andactivities in these river sections will provesuccessful remains unclear. The pallidsturgeon’s situation is a prime example of thetension that often accompanies efforts toconserve endangered species when therestoration activities conflict with humaneconomic activity.

Rarity/lack of natural reproduction.Corresponding to the loss and degradation ofpallid sturgeon habitat, there has been anapparent loss of natural reproduction of thespecies. Remaining riverine habitat betweendams, especially in the Missouri River fromGavins Point Dam to the headwaters,apparently does not meet spawningrequirements of the species because successfulreproduction has not been documented. It isunlikely that any natural reproduction occurredon the upper Missouri River for many yearsbecause, as of 1988, the youngest pallidsturgeon captured in the region was 10 yearsold. However, in October 1992, the LouisianaDepartment of Wildlife and Fisheries capturedtwo young pallid sturgeon, believed to be lessthan three years old, while monitoringcommercial catch of other species below theOld River Control Structure at the headwatersof the Atchafalaya River swamp (NPSSC1993). The first reported capture of a young-of-the-year pallid sturgeon did not occur in theMississippi River until 1998, and in 1998 and1999 a total of three larval pallid sturgeonwere collected in the Missouri River (USFWS1999, 2000i). Thus, spawning populations ofthe species may still be present in some areasof its range, but there is scant contemporaryevidence of the extent of such activity.

65

Overfishing. There is currently no legalcommercial or recreational take of pallidsturgeon. However, a period of observeddecline for the species in the 1950s and 1960scoincided with an increase in commercial catchof sturgeon species (USFWS 1990).Commercial harvest of paddlefish continues inseven states within the range of the pallidsturgeon, and commercial harvest of shovelnosesturgeon is allowed in eight states, whichincreases the potential for incidental take.Sport fishing for both paddlefish andshovelnose sturgeon is also permitted in anumber of pallid sturgeon range states, andmortality of pallid sturgeon as a result of illegaland incidental harvest from both commercialand sport fishing was documented during the1990s in Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, andSouth Dakota. The pallid sturgeon may also beaffected by the illegal take of eggs for thecaviar trade (USFWS 2000b).

Pollution/water quality. Pollution is believedto be an exacerbating threat to the pallidsturgeon in much of its range. Pollution of theMissouri River by organic wastes from towns,packing houses, and stockyards was evident bythe early 1900s, and increased as populationsgrew and industries were added along the river.In the Mississippi River, the presence of avariety of pollutants prompted numerous fish-harvest and consumption advisories during the1980s and 1990s from Kansas City, Missouri,to the river’s mouth, which representsapproximately 45 percent of the pallidsturgeon’s range. In addition, PCBs, cadmium,mercury, and selenium were detected atelevated levels in pallid sturgeon collectedfrom the Missouri River in North Dakota andNebraska, as were detectable concentrations ofDDE, DDT, and dieldrin (USFWS 2000b).

Further investigation is needed to assess therole of such contaminants in the decline ofpallid sturgeon populations.

Hybridization. In recent years, studies haveincreased the body of knowledge regarding thegenetic, morphologic, and habitat differencesbetween the pallid sturgeon and shovelnosesturgeon. Whereas it has been hypothesizedthat pallid sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeonare reproductively isolated in less alteredhabitats such as the upper Missouri River, andresearch has found substantial differences inhabitat use and movements between adultpallid sturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon in lessaltered habitats of the Yellowstone River, it hasbeen speculated that the loss of habitatdiversity caused by man-made alterations ofriver systems in the two species’ ranges hasinhibited naturally occurring reproductiveisolating mechanisms. As a result, naturalhybridization, backcrossing, and geneticintrogression between pallid sturgeon andshovelnose sturgeon may be reducing thegenetic divergence between the two species(USFWS 2000b). A study by Keenlyne et al.(1994, cited in USFWS 2000b) concluded thathybridization may be occurring in half theriver reaches within the range of the pallidsturgeon, that hybrids may represent a highproportion of remaining sturgeon stocks, andthat there are indications that the hybrids arefertile and reproducing. Such hybridizationcould pose a threat to the survival of pallidsturgeon through genetic swamping as thespecies continues to introgress with theshovelnose sturgeon, as well as throughcompetition for limited remaining habitat[Carlson et al. (1985); Sheehan et al. (1997),both cited in USFWS (2000b)].

66

The Alabama sturgeon, also known as theAlabama shovelnose, hackleback, buglemouthtrout, and devilfish, is a small, endangeredsturgeon species endemic to the United States.The species was once familiar to commercialfishermen; however, it is now so rare that thespecies’ future survival is in doubt. Alabamasturgeon are presently found in only one smallstretch of river in Alabama. Listed asendangered under the ESA in 2000, recoveryefforts for the species are underway.

Historic Range and CurrentDistributionThe Alabama sturgeon is believed to have onceinhabited as much as 1,000 miles (1,600 km)of the Mobile River system in Alabama andMississippi. Within this system, there isevidence that the species was historicallypresent in the Black Warrior, Tombigbee,Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, Mobile, Tensaw,and Cahaba rivers in Alabama, as well as partsof the Tombigbee River in Mississippi (Anon.1999a; USFWS 2000c).

Historical catch reports indicate that theAlabama sturgeon was once relatively commonthroughout all of these major coastal plaintributaries of the Mobile River system. Thespecies apparently existed in sufficientnumbers to support a commercial fishery at theend of the nineteenth century. Unfortunately,unregulated catch and habitat alterations arebelieved to be key contributing factors leadingto significant declines in Alabama sturgeonabundance and reduction of range over the pastcentury. The Alabama sturgeon is believed tohave disappeared from about 85 percent of itshistoric range, including the upper Tombigbee,lower Black Warrior, lower Tallapoosa, and

upper Cahaba rivers, where the species waslast reported in the 1960s. The last knownreports of Alabama sturgeon in the lowerCoosa River were around 1970, and in thelower Tombigbee River around 1975. The lastknown report of the species in the lowerCahaba River came in 1985. There is a singlerecord from 1985 of an Alabama sturgeoncaught in the Mobile-Tensaw River delta, butthere have been no reported incidental catchessince that time (Anon 2000b; USFWS 2000c).

Since 1985, all confirmed captures of Alabamasturgeon have come from a short (130 mile),free-flowing section of the Alabama Riverbelow Millers Ferry and Claiborne Locks andDams in Clarke, Monroe, and Wilcox counties,Alabama. This is the species’ only knownpresent distribution (Anon 2000b; USFWS2000c). Figure 7 shows the current range ofthe Alabama sturgeon.

Ecology and HabitatThere is little available information on the lifehistory characteristics, habitat, or ecologicalrequirements of the Alabama sturgeon. In part,this is because the species was only recentlydescribed as a species separate from theshovelnose sturgeon. While the first specimensin museum collections date from about 1880,the first mention of the fish in the scientificliterature did not come until 1955, well afterthe species’ decline had begun, and substantialalterations to historic habitat furthercontributing to its decline had occurred.Reference to the Alabama sturgeon as theAlabama shovelnose sturgeon came in 1976,and in 1991 the species was formally describedbased on a statistical comparison of relativesizes and features of morphological structures

67

3.7 Alabama Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi)

Illustration by Paul Vecsei

of Alabama and shovelnose sturgeons. Whilenot discussed in detail here, some controversycontinues about whether the Alabama sturgeonis truly a separate species from the shovelnosesturgeon (USFWS 2000c).

The Alabama sturgeon is a small, freshwatersturgeon that reaches about 31 inches (80 cm)in length and weighs 2 to 4 pounds (~1 to 2kg) at maturity. It is believed to prefer low-velocity currents and sandy or stable gravelsubstrates in flowing river channels. Verifiedcaptures have primarily occurred in largechannels of big rivers, although at least twohistoric records involved Alabama sturgeonfound in oxbow lakes (Anon 2000b; USFWS2000c). Other aspects of Alabama sturgeonlife history have been deduced by reviews ofthe spawning habits and other characteristics ofthe closely related shovelnose sturgeon(Mayden and Kuhajda 1996; Keenlyne 1997).These data suggest that Alabama sturgeon

likely migrate upstream during late winter andspring to spawn, and migrate downstream tofeeding areas in deeper, cooler waters duringthe summer (Hochleithner and Gessner 1999;USFWS 2000c).

Alabama sturgeon are believed to reach sexualmaturity at 5 to 7 years of age, and the speciesmay live up to 15 years or more. Spawningfrequency is likely influenced by food supplyavailability, but could occur every one to threeyears. Eggs are probably deposited on hardbottom substrates such as bedrock, armoredgravel, or channel training work in deep waterhabitats, and possibly in tributaries to majorrivers. The eggs require current for properdevelopment and adhere to the substrate.When the eggs hatch, the larvae become partof the river plankton, and likely drift with thecurrents. Post-larval stages have been reportedto disperse to the river bottom. Following yolkabsorption, juvenile sturgeon are believed to

68

Figure 7 Current Alabama Sturgeon Range

Alabama

Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service (revised)

begin feeding on minute planktoniccrustaceans, but soon become bottom feedersand dwellers (Anon. 2000b; USFWS 2000c).

The Alabama sturgeon’s primary food sourcesare thought to include insect larvae,supplemented by molluscs, fish, and fish roe.Organic debris and plants found in stomachcontent samples provide evidence that thespecies is an opportunistic bottom feeder(Hochleithner and Gessner 1999; Anon. 2000b;USFWS 2000c).

Historic CatchAlthough some records exist of a substantialcommercial catch of Alabama sturgeon duringthe late nineteenth century, the intermittentfrequency of reporting does not allow for anaccurate analysis of the fishery prior tocollapse. In an 1898 report to Congress, thetotal commercial catch of shovelnose sturgeonin Alabama was reported as 42,000 pounds(19,000 kg). Of this, 39,800 pounds (18,000kg) came from the Alabama River, and 2,200pounds (1,000 kg) came from the BlackWarrior River (USFWS 2000c). Waldman(1999) cites a review by Mayden and Kuhajda(1996) to point out that this 19,000 kg of“shovelnose sturgeon” may have representedapproximately 19,000 individuals given theaverage weight of the fish. USFWS (2000c)placed the figure at possibly 20,000 fish. Thelocation of that commercial catch may indicatethat the species discussed was the Alabamasturgeon, even though the species had not yetbeen taxonomically identified as such.However, it is impossible to deduce fromavailable information whether the catchincluded only Alabama sturgeon, shovelnosesturgeon, or a mixture of the two, and if so inwhat percentages.

After the 1898 report, there are few records ofcommercial catch of Alabama sturgeon. A1930 article in the Alabama Game and FishNews (cited in USFWS 2000c) reported thatthe species was not uncommon, but there wereno records of commercial catch. Despite thelack of catch records, it is believed thatcommercial fisheries may have continued toaffect the species. Keenlyne (1997) noted thatearly in the twentieth century, commercialfishermen considered shovelnose sturgeon a“nuisance” or “trash” fish, and destroyed them

when they were found in their nets. Interviewswith commercial and recreational fishermenindicated that Alabama sturgeon continued tobe taken from the Alabama River into the1980s (USFWS 2000c). All commercial andrecreational fishing for the Alabama sturgeonis currently prohibited.

Conservation Status andChallenges/ThreatsToday, the Alabama sturgeon is one of therarest fishes in North America (Anon. 1999a).The IUCN 2000 Red List designated theAlabama sturgeon as Critically Endangered(IUCN 2001). That designation is consistentwith the findings of USFWS and others thatthe Alabama sturgeon continues to face threatsto its survival from its reduced range, smallpopulation numbers, and a lack of informationdetailing its habitat and life historyrequirements that complicates recovery efforts.

The species was placed in CITES Appendix IIat COP 10 in June 1997 with all otherpreviously unlisted sturgeon species; the listingentered into effect in April 1998 (Gnam 1999;CITES 2001a). Decisions adopted at COP 10with regard to the revision of CITESAppendices were published in the OfficialJournal of the European Communities inNovember 1997, to update the annexes toRegulation (EC) No. 338/97 accordingly(Caroline Raymakers, TRAFFIC Europe, in litt.to TRAFFIC North America, October 2001). Alisting for the Alabama sturgeon in EU Annex Bentered into effect on April 1, 1998 concurrentwith the CITES listing (CITES 2001a).

In May 2000, USFWS published a Final Rulelisting the Alabama sturgeon as an endangeredspecies, bringing it under the protection of theESA (Anon. 2000b; USFWS 2000c). Thehistory of the listing decision is described ingreater detail in Section IV.

There are several historical reasons that help toexplain the decline of the Alabama sturgeon, aswell as several continuing threats to thespecies’ survival.

Overfishing. It is believed that the historicpopulation decline of the Alabama sturgeonwas initiated by unrestricted catch near the turnof the century. As was described above,similar to other sturgeon fisheries, the fishery

69

for the Alabama sturgeon initially yielded highcatch levels, followed by a rapid decline. Thedemise of the sturgeon fishery in the MobileRiver Basin befell both the Alabama and Gulfsturgeons (NPSSC 1993; Anon. 2000b;USFWS 2000c). Neither species hassignificantly rebounded in the basin, despitecontinuing bans on any catch.

Habitat degradation/restricted range. In theFinal Rule listing the Alabama sturgeon as anendangered species, USFWS noted that theAlabama sturgeon has lost much of its habitatover the past century. Navigation-relateddevelopment of the Mobile River Basinsignificantly altered extensive portions of riverchannel habitats, blocked long-distancemovements, hindered or halted migrations, andfragmented and isolated sturgeon populationsegments. It is believed that the Alabamasturgeon is currently present in no more than15% of its historic range (Anon. 2000b;USFWS 2000c).

More than 30 locks and/or dams now controlthe major rivers of the Mobile River Basin,forming a series of lakes with short, free-flowing sections between them. Within thehistoric range of the Alabama sturgeon, thereare three dams on the Alabama River, two onthe Black Warrior River, and six on theTombigbee River. These dams, built between1954 and 1979, fragment some 583 miles (933km) of riverine channel habitat essential to theAlabama sturgeon. The species’ habitatrequirements cannot be met in impoundments,where weak flows result in heavy siltation,making the impoundment bottom unsuitablefor spawning and larval and post-larvalsurvival and development. Impoundments mayalso negatively affect the bottom-dwellinginvertebrates the sturgeon feed upon (Anon.2000b; USFWS 2000c).

Prior to the widespread construction of damsin the Mobile River basin, Alabama sturgeoncould move freely between feeding areas, andfrom feeding areas to sites that favoredspawning and development of eggs and larvae(Anon. 2000b). Dams are now believed toblock the movement of Alabama sturgeonbetween these critical habitats, as well aspreventing them from reaching thermal refugiaduring hot summer months. Fragmented bythese obstacles, the species may have formed

isolated population segments, and dams mayalso preclude recolonization of suitable habitat.Furthermore, isolated population segments canbe more vulnerable to local declines in waterand habitat quality caused by poor landmanagement practices, as well as pollution(Anon 2000b; USFWS 2000c).

Along with significant construction of damsand locks during the past 50 years, most of themajor rivers in the Alabama sturgeon’s historicrange have been dredged or channelized toimprove navigation. Some rivers are routinelydredged to maintain appropriate navigationdepths when they begin to fill naturally throughsediment deposition. In comparison to naturalstretches of river, dredged and channelizedsections have reduced habitat diversity throughthe loss of shoals, removal of snags,elimination of bendways, reduction in flowheterogeneity, and other factors. Channeldredging and the destruction of shoals, shallowruns, and other feeding and spawning siteslikely has contributed to declines in the rangeand abundance of the Alabama sturgeon. Manyof these biologically disruptive activities areongoing (Anon. 2000b; USFWS 2000c).

Dams built for navigational purposes or powerproduction also affect the amount and timingof water moving through the Mobile RiverBasin. To facilitate navigation, water depthsare controlled through discharges fromupstream dams; hydroelectric powerproduction also changes flow velocities. Thesefactors alter the natural cycle and flow ofaffected rivers, impacting migratory activity,spawning, and other features of the sturgeon’slife cycle (Anon. 2000b; USFWS 2000c).

Unfortunately, the lack of knowledge of thelife history and habitat needs of the Alabamasturgeon makes it difficult to assess theimpacts of these various habitat alterations onremnant population fragments and to developrecovery strategies. It is not currently knownwhether the quantity of habitat remaining inthe lower Alabama River is adequate to meetthe species’ life history needs, nor is theredefinitive evidence regarding the potentialimpact of continuing human activities such asmaintenance dredging of navigation channels,and whether it may threaten the Alabamasturgeon’s existence (Anon. 2000b).

70

Rarity/lack of natural reproduction. TheAlabama sturgeon’s low numbers and apparentinability to offset mortality rates with currentreproduction rates is believed to pose a gravethreat to the species. Although there are nopopulation estimates for the Alabama sturgeon,steadily diminishing incidents of capture overthe past several decades indicate decliningpopulation numbers over that time. Recentcollection efforts have demonstrated its rarity.Between the spring of 1997 and the year 2000,up to four crews of professional fisheriesbiologists expended more than 4,000 manhours of fishing effort in the lower AlabamaRiver to capture Alabama sturgeon for use asbroodstock as part of a voluntary conservationplan. This effort resulted in the capture of onlyfour Alabama sturgeon. Commercial and

recreational fishermen on the river were alsointerviewed and asked to report any sturgeoncaptures to the Alabama Department ofConservation and Natural Resources(ADCNR). Only two incidental captures werereported, one of which was delivered to theADCNR. Three years of intensive fishingeffort thus resulted in the capture of only fiveAlabama sturgeon, suggesting that the speciesis extremely rare, and the collection historyindicates that the species is likely in continuingdecline. The situation raises concerns thatthere is a lack of sufficient recruitment tooffset mortality. Lack of knowledge about thelife history and ecological requirements of thespecies compound this threat by making itdifficult to devise appropriate recoverystrategies (Anon. 2000b).

71

The lake sturgeon was once widely distributed,found in much of southern Canada and theeastern half of the United States, from theGreat Lakes to the Mississippi Delta. Alsosometimes referred to as the rock sturgeon orrubbernose sturgeon, the species has beeneither extirpated or nearly so from large areasof its historic range, particularly in the UnitedStates. Whereas abundant lake sturgeonpopulations once supported importantcommercial fisheries in both the United Statesand Canada, commercial fishing is nowprohibited throughout the species’ U.S. range,and only limited sport and/or Native Americanfisheries are allowed in a few states. InCanada, limited commercial fishing continuesin Ontario and Quebec.

Historic Range and CurrentDistributionHistorically, the lake sturgeon was abundant in three major watersheds: the Great Lakes,the Mississippi River drainage, and theHudson-James Bay drainage (NPSSC 1993).The species remains relatively widespread inCanada, but its range has been significantlyreduced within the United States. Figure 8shows the current distribution of the lakesturgeon.

In Canada, the lake sturgeon’s historicdistribution included rivers and lakes in theprovinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,Ontario, and Quebec. It was found as far westas Edmonton on the North SaskatchewanRiver, as far east as St. Roch de Aulinaires onthe St. Lawrence River, as far north as the SealRiver, and as far south as Lake Erie (Houston

1987; Ferguson and Duckworth 1997;Hochleither and Gessner 1999).

In the United States, the species’ historicrange extended from the Great Lakes in thenorth, to the Missouri River in the west, toVermont and New York’s Lake Champlain inthe east, and to the mouth of the MississippiDelta in the south (Hochleither and Gessner1999). Hesse and Carreiro (1997) listedstates with historic lake sturgeon populationsas including Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois,Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.Survey data in Hesse and Carreiro alsoindicate that the species may have beenpresent in Georgia, Louisiana, NorthCarolina, North Dakota, and South Dakota,but the species’ historic status in those statesis uncertain.

The lake sturgeon’s current distribution is morelimited. In Canada, lake sturgeon continue tooccur in larger rivers and lakes from the Northand South Saskatchewan rivers in the west tothe St. Lawrence River in the east, and from theGreat Lakes in the south to Hudson Bay in thenorth. However, some populations in Canadianwaters have been greatly reduced or extirpatedover the course of the past century, in particularin Lakes Winnipeg, Ontario, and Erie (Houston1987; Ferguson and Duckworth 1997).

Lake sturgeon in the United States are todayfound primarily in the northern portion of theirU.S. range. Wisconsin, which has had an activelake sturgeon management program for nearly100 years, likely has the most abundant U.S.

72

3.8 Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)

Illustration by Paul Vecsei

population, with the largest segment in theWinnebago System (Bruch 1999). Other statesin the region where lake sturgeon populationswere once believed to be abundant now reportsignificantly reduced populations. Forexample, Michigan’s lake sturgeon populationwas estimated in 1997 to be approximately 1%of its historic size (Hay-Chmielewski andWhelan 1997). Lake sturgeon populations alsocontinue to exist in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, NewYork, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.However, as is documented in more detail inSection IV, lake sturgeon currently appear onthe threatened or endangered species lists ofseveral of these states in its northern and mid-Mississippi River range.

The lake sturgeon is believed to be entirely ornearly extirpated from most of the mid-southern to southern Mississippi Riverdrainage portion of its former range. Alabama,Arkansas, Georgia, and North Carolina

presume the species is extirpated within theirwaters (Hesse and Carreiro 1997; Stan Cook,Chief of Fisheries, ADCNR, in litt. to TeikoSaito, USFWS/OMA, August 15, 2000; AprilLayher, Biologist, Fisheries Division, ArkansasGame and Fish Commission, in litt. to TeikoSaito, USFWS/OMA, August 18, 2000;Richard M. Gennings, Chief of Fisheries,Georgia Department of Natural ResourcesWildlife Resources Division, in litt. to TeikoSaito, USFWS/OMA, August 21, 2000).Hesse and Carreiro (1997) reported the speciesas extirpated in Kentucky; however, it ispossible that fragmentary natural populationsmay still exist there and in Tennessee, wherethe species is listed as endangered (Robb Todd,Commercial Fishing Coordinator, TennesseeWildlife Resources Agency, in litt. to TeikoSaito, USFWS/OMA, August 21, 2000). Thereare no recent reports of lake sturgeon presencein the Mississippi Delta, where the lakesturgeon’s presence was probably never

73

Figure 8 Current Lake Sturgeon Range

Sou

rce:

Env

ironm

ent C

anad

a

extensive (Hesse and Carreiro 1997; USFWS,in litt. to TRAFFIC Europe, September 2000).

Ecology and HabitatLake sturgeon are normally confined tofreshwater, notwithstanding historic reports oftheir occasional presence in brackish regions ofthe St. Lawrence River and Moose River inCanada (NPSSC 1993). The lake sturgeon is alarge and long-lived fish; several reports indicatemaximum lengths over 7 feet (2.4 meters),weights reaching as much as 300 pounds (140kg), and one individual determined to be 152years of age (NPSSC 1993; Chapman 1999;Hochleithner and Gessner 1999). Moretypically, lake sturgeon are believed to reach 4 to5 feet in length (~1.5 meters), 60 to 70 poundsin weight (~30 kg), and 40 years of age(Hochleithner and Gessner 1999).

The preferred habitat of the lake sturgeon isshallow riverine and lacustrine waters with arocky or muddy substrate; the species iscommonly found in the highly productiveshoals of large lakes and rivers. Overwinteringtakes place in deep, oxygen-rich sections ofwater in large rivers or lakes. After springsnowmelt, the fish travel to smaller rivers inmixed groups of various ages and sizes.During spring migration, which can coverseveral hundred miles, the fish do not feed(Hochleithner and Gessner 1999).

Lake sturgeon are believed to reach sexualmaturity between 12 and 22 years of age inmales, and 14 to 27 years of age in females.Male lake sturgeon spawning interval has beenreported as 2 to 3 years, while females arebelieved to spawn every 4 to 6 years. Taggingprograms reveal that individual fish oftenmigrate to the same spawning grounds yearafter year, and subsequently return to the sameforaging grounds for the winter. Spawningseason depends upon the geographical range ofthe population, and lasts from April to June inmost areas. The temperature required toinitiate spawning has been recorded as 53 to66° F (12–19° C). Spawning takes place ingroups of two to three females, accompaniedby one to two males, over rocky or pebblesubstrate (Hochleithner and Gessner 1999).

Fecundity rates are reported to approach 10,000to 13,000 eggs per kg of female body weight.Egg size averages 2.5 to 3 mm in diameter.

Development of fertilized eggs takes 5–7 days at59–63° F (15–17° C). Newly hatched larvae areabout 8 mm long, and begin to consumeexogenous food after 10–14 days, after theyattain a size of about 21 mm (Chapman 1999;Hochleithner and Gessner 1999). Young ageclasses inhabit areas with a detectable currentand flat substrate composed of small gravel andcoarse sand. They are believed to be a solitaryspecies, remaining close to the substrate andspatially oriented upstream (Hochleithner andGessner 1999). Lake sturgeon grow very slowlyin the wild. It is believed that four or five yearsare usually required to reach a length of 20inches (51 cm) and a weight of 1.1 pounds 0.5kg (NPSSC 1993).

Lake sturgeon feed primarily on benthicinvertebrates such as insect larvae,oligochaetes, bivalve mollusks, snails, andcrustaceans. Small fish are alsoopportunistically consumed (Hochleithner andGessner 1999).

Historic CatchThe lake sturgeon has long been an importantcommercially and recreationally fished species.Accounts from the nineteenth century,however, indicate that this was not always thecase. Scott and Crossman (1973, cited inWaldman 1999) reported that the lake sturgeonwas once looked upon by fishermen as aworthless nuisance that destroyed gear set forother, more valuable species. Captured lakesturgeon were slaughtered and either piled onshore to be dried and then burned, fed to pigs,or used as fertilizer or fuel in steamboats onthe Detroit River. Roe was used as hog feed orfish bait.

The negative perception of the lake sturgeonbegan to change around the middle of thecentury, and by 1860 lake sturgeon werecaught for meat (fresh and smoked), eggs forcaviar, skins for leather, and swim bladders forisinglass (Waldman 1999). In 1860, a sturgeonprocessing plant was built in Sandusky, Ohiothat began marketing smoked sturgeon on alarge scale [Harkness and Dymond (1961),cited in Anon. (2000c)]. The industry grewquickly; perhaps the most intense period offishing began around 1885 in both the UnitedStates and Canada, when annual catches inLake Erie reached 5 million pounds (2.25

74

million kg) (Waldman 1999). Lake sturgeonfisheries also developed rapidly on LakesHuron, Ontario, Superior, Nipissing, andNipigon, with fisheries in the western part ofthe species’ range maturing later than easternones [Ferguson and Duckworth (1997), cited inWaldman (1999)].

As with other sturgeon species, these intensecatch levels and overexploitation led to a rapidcollapse of the fishery. Annual catch on LakeErie declined by as much as 80% by 1895. InOntario’s Lake of the Woods, landingsdeclined by 90% between 1893 and 1900(Waldman 1999). In Lake Huron, commerciallandings exceeded 996,000 pounds (453,000kg) in 1885, but declined by 56% between1893 and 1900 [Harkness and Dymond (1961),cited in Anon. (2000c)]. The catch from LakeWinnipeg and its tributaries peaked at 445 tonsin 1890, but like its eastern counterparts didnot last long, and was reduced to a mere 13tons by 1910, when the fishery was closed(Waldman 1999).

Today, catch of lake sturgeon continues, but atgreatly reduced levels. Commercial catch isprohibited in U.S. waters. Minnesota,Michigan, and Wisconsin continue to allowlimited sport catches, but the present focus ofmost U.S. management efforts is on recoveryand restoration. In Canada, only Ontario andQuebec currently allow commercial fishing.The only commercial fishery allowed in theGreat Lakes region is in the Ontario portion ofLake Huron. Sport fishing is either banned orclosely regulated in the provinces of Alberta,Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan.Details regarding catch of lake sturgeon invarious jurisdictions are provided in Section IV.

Conservation Status andChallenges/ThreatsIUCN classifies the lake sturgeon asVulnerable (IUCN 2001). The species wasplaced in CITES Appendix II at COP 10 inJune 1997 with all other previously unlistedsturgeon species; the listing entered into effectin April 1998 (CITES 2001a). Decisionsadopted at COP 10 with regard to the revisionof CITES Appendices were published in theOfficial Journal of the European Communitiesin November 1997, to update the annexes toRegulation (EC) No. 338/97 accordingly

(Caroline Raymakers, TRAFFIC Europe, inlitt. to TRAFFIC North America, October2001). A listing for the white sturgeon in EUAnnex B entered into effect on April 1, 1998concurrent with the CITES listing (CITES2001a). The lake sturgeon is not federallyprotected in either the United States or Canada.As seen in Section IV, however, it is listed asan endangered, threatened, or protected speciesin several U.S. states.

Threats to the lake sturgeon are similar tothose faced by other acipensiform species inthe Mississippi River Basin.

Overfishing. As with other North Americansturgeon species, the history of the lakesturgeon fishery demonstrates that the balancebetween conservation and catch is fragile, andoverexploitation can rapidly lead to steeppopulation declines. Although Canada’scommercial catch of the species is regulatedtoday, and the primary demand has been formeat, the increasing demand for roe for thecaviar trade could reverse progress if notmonitored carefully. This developing demandis particularly noteworthy because it has beenreported that the roe of the lake sturgeonproduces the finest caviar of any NorthAmerican species [Scott and Crossman (1973),cited in Waldman (1999)].

On a positive note, there is growing evidencethat lake sturgeon populations can recover ifsufficient numbers of adult fish and adequate,appropriate habitat are maintained. Forexample, the population in Wisconsin’s LakeWinnebago system was stable during the 1930sand 1940s, but increased after property ownersbegan stabilizing riverbanks to reduce erosion,thus increasing the amount of habitat suitable forspawning (NPSSC 1993). Wisconsin has alsodeveloped a fairly large and successful sportfishery for the species over the past few decades(Bruch 1999). State and provincial fisheriesagencies face a delicate task in balancingcommercial and recreational interest in lakesturgeon against the continuing need for strongconservation measures to promote the species’recovery and allow populations to rebuild.

Habitat degradation/restricted range. Damconstruction, channelization, dredging, andother human activities that destroy or degradesturgeon habitat pose significant managementchallenges (NPSSC 1993; Houston 1997;

75

Ferguson and Duckworth 1997). As theexample of the Lake Winnebago systemdemonstrates, lake sturgeon populations canrecover if they have access to suitablespawning and feeding grounds (NPSSC 1993;Bruch 1999). The fact that the species is nowconsidered extremely rare or extirpated inmany parts of its historic range, particularly inriver systems in the southeastern United States,can be attributed largely to widespreaddamming and other alterations in support ofnavigation and commerce in the Mississippiand Missouri river systems. Maintainingsufficient suitable habitat and spawninggrounds as development continues in theseareas presents a difficult challenge involvingnumerous public and private entities.

Pollution/water quality. Pollution fromindustrial sources, toxic spills, urban

development, sewage, erosion, and drainingand alteration of wetlands for agricultural useall affect lake sturgeon habitat. This is true inthe species’ riverine and lacustrine habitats inboth the United States and Canada. Pointsource pollution varies from system to system,but one important indicator of its effects andthe management challenges that it poses is thehealth advisories issued by many local areaslimiting or banning the consumption ofpaddlefish, sturgeon, and other fish species incertain waters (Caviar Emptor Online 2001).Like other Acipenseriformes, the lakesturgeon’s life history characteristics andfeeding behavior may leave the speciesparticularly vulnerable to bio-accumulation oforganochloride compounds.

76

Native to major rivers and nearshore watersalong the Pacific coast of the United States andCanada, the white sturgeon is the largestacipenseriform species occurring in NorthAmerica. Also known as the Pacific Sturgeon,Sacramento Sturgeon, Oregon Sturgeon, andColumbia Sturgeon, the white sturgeon can befound as far inland as Idaho and Montana.Highly valued, the white sturgeon is bothcommercially fished and prized as a sport fish.While white sturgeon populations remainrelatively abundant in some portions of theirhistoric range, the species is believed to havebeen extirpated from blocked areas in theColumbia and Snake rivers, and a number ofother landlocked populations are at risk. Thereis also a federally listed, endangered sub-population—the Kootenai River whitesturgeon. White sturgeon are commerciallyfarmed to support a caviar and meat industry,with the industry centered in California.

Historic Range and CurrentDistributionThe historic distribution of the white sturgeonincluded coastal waters and major riversystems along much of the Pacific coast, fromMexico to Alaska. Today, the historicdistribution remains fairly intact. It is believedthat the species may occur in Pacific coastalwaters (to a depth of 100 feet) as far north andwest as Alaska’s Aleutian Islands and as farsouth as Ensanada, Mexico, in Baja California.However, known spawning populationscurrently exist in only a few major riversystems between the Sacramento–San Joaquinrivers in California and the Fraser River inBritish Columbia. Smaller, non-spawning

populations may be found in other riverine andcoastal systems from California to Alaska(Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife[ODFW] 1995a; Pacific States MarineFisheries Commission [PSMFC] 1996a; B.C.Fisheries 2001a). Figure 9 shows the overallrange of the white sturgeon.

Locations of some of the most importantspawning populations of white sturgeon, andsmaller non-spawning populations, aredescribed below.

CanadaCanada’s white sturgeon population occursonly in British Columbia. Within theprovince, spawning populations are believedto have concentrated historically in three riversystems: the Fraser/Nechako, Columbia, andKootenay rivers.

Fraser/Nechako rivers. Canada’s Fraser Riveris a nonregulated river that originates in theRocky Mountains near Jasper and follows awinding course for some 825 miles (1,375 km)before emptying into the Strait of Georgia nearVancouver. The river and its tributaries drain amajor portion of British Columbia. In 1995,British Columbia initiated a five-yearassessment program to gather biological andstock status information on white sturgeon thatwould assist management and conservationefforts in the Fraser River system (RL&LEnvironmental Services 2000a).

Among the findings of the study, which wasfunded by the Habitat Conservation and TrustFund, Forest Renewal BC, and FisheriesRenewal BC, was an indication that there areat least five putative stocks of white sturgeon

77

3.9 White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)

Illustration by Paul Vecsei

in the Fraser River watershed. One stock, theLower Fraser Mainstem population, wasidentified in the lower Fraser River betweenMission, at river mile 47 (river km 78), andBristol Island at river mile 92 (river km 153).The second identified stock was the LowerFraser Canyon population, located primarily inthree main areas of the Lower Canyon sectionof the lower Fraser River from approximatelyriver mile 92.5 (river km 154) to river mile126.5 (river km 211). White sturgeonconcentrations in this river segment stretchfrom the vicinity of Hope, including theconfluence area of the Coquihalla River atriver mile 95.4 (river km 159), to betweenAlexandra Bridge and Blackwater Canyon

downstream of Hell’s Gate at river miles 120to 125 (river km 200 to 208). The thirdidentified stock was the Middle Fraserpopulation, whose boundaries weredemarcated from river mile 127 (river km 212)to river mile 474 (river km 790). Whitesturgeon in this population were broadlydistributed between Boston Bar, at river mile132 (river km 220), and Prince George at rivermile 474 (river km 790). The fourthidentified stock inhabits the upper FraserRiver above Prince George, where whitesturgeon were most commonly found near theconfluence of major tributaries (RL&LEnvironmental Services 2000a).

78

Figure 9 White Sturgeon Range

Sou

rce:

Env

ironm

ent C

anad

a (r

evis

ed)

The fifth identified stock consists of whitesturgeon populations in the Nechako River andits tributaries, most notably the Stuart River(RL&L Environmental Services 2000a). TheNechako River flows into the mainstem FraserRiver from the west in the vicinity of PrinceGeorge, and its white sturgeon population hasbeen found to be distinct from other Fraser Riverpopulations. Movement studies usingconventional tag-recapture techniques and radio-telemetry suggest that fish from this populationdo not migrate to the Fraser River. It is believedthat the unique Nechako River population is atgreater risk than other Fraser River stocks.Specifically, the Nechako River stock isdominated by larger and older fish than those ofother stocks. Most Nechako River whitesturgeon are more than 30 years old, suggestingthat the population suffers from either poorspawning success or high juvenile mortality(RL&L Environmental Services 2001a).

Overall, the 1995–1999 British Columbiaassessment program found that white sturgeondensity was highest in the lower sections of theFraser River, with population abundancegenerally declining as the geographic range ofthe stock group became more northerly.Population estimates published in the studyincluded 17,259 sturgeon in the Lower FraserMainstem stock, with a density of 368.2 fishper mile (230.1 fish/km); 976 sturgeon in theLower Fraser Canyon stock, with a density of27.4 fish per mile (17.1 fish/km); 3,745sturgeon in the Middle Fraser stock, with adensity of 10.4 fish per mile (6.5 fish/km); and571 sturgeon in the Nechako River stock, witha density of 2.4 fish per mile (1.5 fish/km).Data were not collected to determine thepopulation size and distribution of whitesturgeon in the tidal zone of the lower FraserRiver below Mission. Estimates were also notmade for the Upper Fraser stock group becauseof insufficient data collected. However, theinformation that was collected suggests that thearea is mainly used by juveniles and sub-adults, and that densities are low (RL&LEnvironmental Services 2000a).

It is believed that the northern populationsexhibit a slower growth rate and consequentlyreach sexual maturity later than do thesouthern stocks. The study noted thatlocalized movements were common for all ofthe stocks, although larger-scale movements

were observed for feeding, overwintering, andspawning. Evidence of white sturgeonmovements from the middle to lower FraserRiver through Hell’s Gate suggested geneticmixing between these stocks (RL&LEnvironmental Services 2000a).

Columbia/Kootenay rivers. Two additionaldistinct white sturgeon populations are found inthe upper Columbia and Kootenay rivers inBritish Columbia. Historically, white sturgeonwere likely to be distributed within themainstems of both of these rivers in Canada, aswell as in the larger tributaries and lakes withintheir drainages. At one time, these populationshad access to the Pacific Ocean, although it islikely that resident sub-populations were alsopresent. However, the last glaciationapproximately 10,000 years ago formed anatural barrier at Bonnington Falls on the lowerKootenay River, effectively isolating whitesturgeon in Kootenay Lake and the KootenayRiver from Columbia River populations (RL&LEnvironmental Services 2000b).

Canada’s Kootenay white sturgeon populationis contiguous with the United States’ KootenaiRiver population, and is discussed below inmore detail (see Box 2 on Kootenai RiverWhite Sturgeon). In the British Columbiaportion of the Columbia River system, damconstruction has resulted in additionalfragmentation and isolation of white sturgeonpopulations. Three dams have beenconstructed since the ratification of theColumbia River Treaty between Canada andthe United States in 1968. Two of the dams,Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam (HLK) and MicaDam, ensure that adequate storage is availableto provide the hydro-generation potential andflood control required by the treaty.Revelstoke Dam, a non-treaty dam, wasconstructed by BC Power for hydroelectricpower generation (RL&L EnvironmentalServices 2000b, 2001b).

HLK Dam, a flow regulation facilitycommissioned in 1968, is the furthestdownstream of the dams, and is located at thesouth end of Arrow Reservoir in BritishColumbia. The Columbia River downstreamfrom HLK Dam to Lake Roosevelt is one ofthe few remaining free-flowing sections of theColumbia River. This area supports a smallpopulation of white sturgeon that is consideredhighly threatened by recruitment failures likely

79

related to the effects of river regulation andindustrial development (RL&L EnvironmentalServices 2000b, 2001b).

There may also be remnant white sturgeonpopulations trapped behind or between damson the Columbia River in British Columbia,and in larger lakes and tributaries within thissystem. For example, reconnaissance surveysin 1995 and 1997 recorded the presence of apossible remnant white sturgeon population inArrow Reservoir, between HLK andRevelstoke dams. Studies conducted in 1999confirmed a white sturgeon spawning areabelow Revelstoke Dam. The only otherknown spawning area in the Columbia Riverin Canada is located below HLK Dam at theconfluence of the Pend d’Oreille andColumbia rivers (RL&L EnvironmentalServices 2000b, 2001b). As is detailed morefully in Section IV, the critically imperiledstatus of Canada’s remnant populations inboth the Columbia and Kootenay rivers hasled management authorities to undertakespecial conservation measures.

Other systems. Outside of these river systems,white sturgeon have been observed in themouth of the Cowichan and Somass rivers onVancouver Island; however, it is believed thatthese are migratory fish from the mainlandsystems, rather than separate spawningpopulations (B.C. Fisheries 2001a).

United StatesAnadromous populations of white sturgeon arebelieved to spawn only in the Columbia,Rogue, Sacramento-San Joaquin, and possiblyKlamath river systems in the United States.Resident freshwater populations are alsopresent in portions of the Columbia RiverBasin, including the Kootenai and Snake rivers(ODFW 1995a).

The Columbia River Basin. The ColumbiaRiver Basin system spans seven U.S. states aswell as the portion of British Columbiadescribed above, and contains several whitesturgeon populations. At one time, virtually allof this population had access to the PacificOcean, and may have used both freshwater andsaltwater habitats. However, a series of majorhydroelectric, flood control, irrigation waterstorage, navigation, and diversion projects,beginning downstream with the Bonneville

Dam, have effectively segmented the ColumbiaRiver Basin population into three groups: thelower Columbia River below the lowest dam,with access to the ocean; fish isolated(functionally but not genetically) betweendams; and fish in several large tributaries(Miller et al. 2001). As is described in Box 2below, one sub-population—the KootenaiRiver population of white sturgeon—isgenetically distinct from other Columbia RiverBasin populations.

The Columbia River constitutes a significantportion of the boundary between Oregon andWashington, and the two states manage whitesturgeon populations cooperatively in thesewaters. The largest, most productive whitesturgeon population in all of the species’ currentrange is located within the 145 river miles (233river km) of the lower Columbia Riverdownstream from Bonneville Dam (DeVore etal. 1999). As is discussed in more detail inSection IV, stock estimates of legally harvestablefish between 1989 and 2000 ranged from a lowof 38,100 in 1990 to a high of 202,200 in 1995.Lower stock estimates in 1999 and 2000 haveprompted fisheries agencies to consider morerestrictive catch limits and other conservationmeasures (Joint Columbia River ManagementStaff [JCRMS] 2001a). However, according toDeVore et al. (1999), it appeared that the declineof stocks evident between 1995 and 1997 wasnot a result of excessive catch in the lowerColumbia River, but was rather attributable to adecrease in recruitment to the legal-sizedpopulation and a mass emigration from theColumbia River system.

Upstream from Bonneville Dam, mainstemColumbia and Snake river dams, which arelargely impassable to white sturgeon, haveeffectively isolated inland populations inreservoir pools and river stretches betweenimpoundments. While historic populationstructure in the overall Columbia River Basinsystem is unknown, and seasonal migrationbarriers may have occurred on the mainstemrivers, it is likely that gene flow occurredbecause over their lifetimes individuals probablymoved throughout the Columbia and Snakerivers. Today such freedom of movement ismade impossible by the dams, and individualpopulation fragments may not contain genepools that are representative of the largerhistorical populations. For example, impassable

80

dams have isolated inland white sturgeon intoresident population segments in areas betweenupstream impoundments, including BonnevillePool, The Dalles Pool (Lake Celilo), the JohnDay Pool (Lake Umatilla), McNary Pool (LakeWallula), the mainstem Snake River below HellsCanyon Dam, Hells Canyon Pool, Oxbow Pool,and Brownlee Pool. Reproductive success isbelieved to be low in many of these populations,and is not believed to occur in Hells CanyonPool or Oxbow Pool (ODFW 1995a).

The Snake River has 12 dams from its mouthupstream to Shoshone Falls in Idaho. Many ofthe populations in Snake River segments havebeen extirpated, or consist only of a fewtrapped adults without significant juvenilerecruitment. White sturgeon are believed toexist in small numbers in the lower three poolsformed by Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental,and Little Goose dams. The species appears tobe more abundant in regions where free-flowing river habitat exists, such as betweenLower Granite Dam and Hells Canyon Dam,where some 75% of the river is free-flowing(Miller et al. 2001). In the upper reaches ofthe Snake River in Idaho, white sturgeon areextant, as they also are in the Salmon River.However, these populations are consideredsignificantly depleted (Idaho Department ofFish and Game [IDFG] 2000). Life historymodels are being prepared to determine therisk of extinction for white sturgeonpopulations between Shoshone Falls andLower Granite Dam on the middle Snake River(H. Jaeger, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, inlitt. to TRAFFIC International, December 10,2001). Research is also ongoing to describethe genetic structure of white sturgeonpopulations within the Columbia River Basin(T. A. Rien, Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife, in litt. to IUCN/SSC Wildlife TradeProgramme, October 31, 2001).

Sacramento-San Joaquin rivers. TheSacramento-San Joaquin River Basin drainsabout 59,000 square miles (153,000 km2) ofCalifornia’s Central Valley, and contains areproducing population of white sturgeon,primarily located in the larger SacramentoRiver as far upstream as Shasta Dam. Whitesturgeon are also believed to spawn in the SanJoaquin River (Kohlhorst et al. 1991), and thespecies may also use the Feather River as aspawning ground (Anon. 2001b). The

confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquinrivers forms a large tidal estuary containing anetwork of more than 683 miles (1,100 km) oftidal sloughs and channels. White sturgeoninhabit the estuary year-round, including SanFrancisco, San Pablo, and Suisin bays and theSacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Anon. 2001b).

Other systems. White sturgeon are believed tospawn in Oregon’s Rogue River basin and arepresent in the mainstem up to Savage RapidsDam, and in the Illinois River up to IllinoisFalls. White sturgeon are also believed tospawn in the Willamette River in Oregon, atributary of the Columbia River. Along theOregon coast, white sturgeon are found innumerous estuaries, including the NehalemRiver and Bay, Tillamook Basin, NestuccaRiver and Bay, Siletz River and Bay, YaquinaRiver and Bay, Alsea River and Bay, SuislawRiver and Bay, Umpqua Basin, Coos RiverBasin, Coquille River Basin, and Chetco Riverand Bay. These aggregations are notconsidered spawning populations; whitesturgeon in these estuaries are believed tooriginate from populations in the Fraser,Columbia, Rogue, and Sacramento-SanJoaquin systems (ODFW 1995a). Whitesturgeon are also believed to be present inbays, estuaries, and the nearshore ocean alongthe Washington coast including Gray’s Harbor,Willapa Bay, the Straits of Juan De Fuca, andthe San Juan Islands. However, white sturgeonare believed to be rare in Puget Sound and theHood Canal (PSMFC 1996a; WDFW 2001a).White sturgeon are also known to enter orinhabit the Klamath/Trinity River Basin, but itis uncertain whether this is a spawningpopulation (ODFW 1995a). The KlamathRiver is not thought to sustain a stable whitesturgeon population (M. Parsley, USGeological Survey, in litt. to IUCN/SSCWildlife Trade Programme, October 18, 2001).

Ecology and HabitatThe white sturgeon is not only the largest NorthAmerican sturgeon species, but also the largestfreshwater fish in North America, reachinglengths of close to 20 feet (>6 meters) andweights approaching 2,000 pounds (>900 kg).It is also a very long-lived fish species;Chapman (1999) estimated white sturgeonlongevity at greater than 82 years. One femalecaught in Oregon in 1991 was aged at 104

81

years. Most fish caught in recent times,however, have been much smaller and younger(NPSSC 1993; Hochleithner and Gessner 1999).

Sexual maturity is estimated to range from 10to 20 years in males, and 15 to 30 years infemales. The male spawning interval isbelieved to be one to two years, while femalesspawn every two to six years (Hochleithner

and Gessner 1999). NPSSC (1993) reportedthat spawning occurs between March and Junewhen water temperatures reach between 50 and63° F (10–17° C). Spawning in the ColumbiaRiver has been reported as occurring betweenApril and July (M. Parsley, US GeologicalSurvey, in litt. to IUCN/SSC Wildlife TradeProgramme, October 18, 2001). Since 1993,

82

The officially termed and listed “KootenaiRiver population of white sturgeon” waslisted as endangered throughout its range inthe United States and Canada on September 6,1994. This population is restricted toapproximately 168 miles (270 kilometers) ofthe Kootenai River in Idaho and Montana, andKootenay Lake in British Columbia, primarilyupstream from Cora Linn Dam at the lake’soutflow. While the population is able tomigrate freely from Kootenai Falls inMontana downstream to Kootenay Lake, anatural barrier at Bonnington Fallsdownstream of Kootenay Lake has isolatedthe Kootenai River white sturgeon from otherwhite sturgeon populations in the ColumbiaRiver Basin since the last glacial age,approximately 10,000 years ago. Figure 10shows the population’s range.

This separation produced a geneticallydistinct white sturgeon sub-population.Kootenai River white sturgeon, like otherlandlocked populations, tend to be smallerthan the anadromous fish of the lowerColumbia River. The largest white sturgeonreported from the Kootenai River basin was a350 pound (159 kg) individual, estimated at85 to 90 years of age, captured in KootenayLake in 1995. While the size or age at firstmaturity for wild white sturgeon is variable,Kootenai system females have beendocumented to mature as early as age 22, andmales are found to mature at age 16. Manyadults are believed to spend much of their lifein deep Kootenay Lake and may migrate asmuch as 71 miles (114 kilometers) up theKootenai River to spawn. Other sturgeon inthe population inhabit the upper river reaches.

With the exception of 1974, recruitment of theKootenai River population of white sturgeonhas decreased since the mid-1960s. Human

activities have altered the natural flows of theKootenai River, affecting the population’sspawning, egg incubation, nursery, and rearinghabitats, and reducing the overall productivityof the Kootenai River and Kootenay Lake.The operation of Libby Dam since 1974 isconsidered to be a primary cause of continuingdeclines. When the dam began regulating theKootenai River, average spring peak flowswere reduced by more than 50 percent, andwinter flows increased by almost 300 percent.Thus, natural high spring flows necessary as acue for reproduction now occur only rarelyduring the spawning season. As a result, since1974 there has been an almost complete lackof recruitment. The population also facesthreats because of reduced biologicalproductivity, the effects of contaminants, andpossibly poor water quality. By 1997, thepopulation was estimated at approximately1,468 wild fish, with few individuals youngerthan 25 years of age.

Figure 10. Kootenai River WhiteSturgeon Range

Continued on next page

Box 2. Kootenai River White Sturgeon*

Sou

rce:

US

Fish

and

Wild

life

Ser

vice

the first recorded annual spawning in theColumbia River has consistently occurred oncemean daily water temperatures reach about 57°F (14° C), with subsequent events occurring upuntil peak water temperatures of 70° F (21° C)[Hildebrand et al. (1999), cited in CITESManagement Authority of Canada, in litt. toTRAFFIC International, November 29, 2001].Environmental factors such as day length,water current and habitat quality have alsobeen cited as important spawning cues (CITESManagement Authority of Canada, in litt. toTRAFFIC International, November 29, 2001).

Preferred spawning grounds for white sturgeonare areas of pebble and rock substrates, in deeppools, and behind ripples in swift current.White sturgeon are “broadcast” spawners.Eggs and sperm are released into rapidlyflowing water, which serves to disperse the

eggs and prevent them from clumping togetherand smothering one another, and protects theeggs from siltation which could bury them.The semi-buoyant, adhesive eggs may driftconsiderable distances downstream beforesinking and adhering to the substrate (NPSSC1993). Female fecundity has been estimated at5,000 to 23,000 eggs per kg of body weight(Chapman 1999). Hochleithner and Gessner(1999) estimated an average of ~5,600/kg.Egg diameter ranges between 2.6 and 4.0 cm(Chapman 1999).

White sturgeon prefer a diet of benthicinvertebrates such as crustaceans, insects,molluscs, and fish, including lamprey, smelt,anchovies, and salmonids. Juveniles feedprimarily on mysid shrimp, amphipods, andmolluscs (NPSSC 1993; Hochleithner andGessner 1999). Information collected from the

83

International cooperation between the UnitedStates and Canada to protect and conserve theKootenai River white sturgeon populationbegan in June 1992, with the formation of theKootenai River White Sturgeon TechnicalCommittee. The Committee, composed ofrepresentatives from several U.S. state, tribal,federal, and Canadian agencies, was formedto identify factors affecting Kootenai Riverwhite sturgeon and develop a regionalprelisting recovery strategy. After the species’listing as endangered, a recovery teamcomposed of two Canadians and eightAmericans was formed in January 1995. Theteam completed a final recovery plan for theKootenai River white sturgeon in 1998, whichwas approved by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService in late 1999. Recovery objectivesinclude the reestablishment of successfulreproduction in the wild by increasingKootenai River flows, and production ofhatchery-reared juveniles over the nextdecade, to prevent extinction. Since 1997, thewild population has been augmented with therelease of nearly 2,800 juvenile whitesturgeon reared in the Kootenai Tribal FishHatchery in Bonner’s Ferry, Idaho.

Canada continues to implement transboundaryrecovery actions on behalf of the KootenaiRiver population of white sturgeon. BritishColumbia Environment (BC Environment)

and the Canadian Department of Fisheries andOceans continue to actively participate inrecovery implementation and coordinationactivities associated with regulating flows atKootenai River hydroelectric projects tobenefit Kootenai River white sturgeon. BCEnvironment is currently conducting whitesturgeon monitoring and assessment work inKootenay Lake. These studies arecomplementary to those conducted in Idahoby the Idaho Department of Fish and Gameand the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. BCEnvironment also recently approved the useof the Kootenay Trout Hatchery near FortSteele, B.C., as a back-up or fail-safe whitesturgeon facility. Fertilized eggs have beenexported from the Kootenai Tribe Hatchery inIdaho to the Kootenay Trout Hatchery toensure that at least some juvenile sturgeonsurvive for later release into the KootenaiRiver in the event some catastrophe occurs atone of the primary hatcheries.

Flow augmentation proposals for Libby Damfor the benefit of white sturgeon may result inwater spill at some other Canadian KootenaiRiver dams. The United States and Canadacontinue to cooperate in evaluating thepotential fisheries, power production, andflood control impacts from flowaugmentation.

* Sources: USFWS (2000d); Duke (1999).

Columbia River indicates that white sturgeonare opportunistic carnivores that will feed onwhatever fish or invertebrates are seasonally orlocally available [Hildebrand et al. (1999),cited in CITES Management Authority ofCanada, in litt. to TRAFFIC International,November 29, 2001].

Historic CatchThere is historic evidence of Native Americanwhite sturgeon catch prior to Europeancolonization, for food and use as a culturalicon. The arrival of European colonists andlater incorporation of the Pacific coast regioninto the United States and Canada during thenineteenth century introduced majorcommercial fisheries that had significantimpacts on white sturgeon populations(Waldman 1999).

Among the three major river systemssupporting white sturgeon, the commercialfishery in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Basinlasted from the 1860s until 1901, thenreopened temporarily before being closedpermanently in 1917. San Francisco Baysupported the largest commercial whitesturgeon catch in the basin; most fish werecaught on setlines or “China” gang-lines inSan Francisco Bay and the lower reaches ofthe Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. Thefishery reached its peak in 1885 (1.66 millionpounds; 747,000 kg), dwindling to 300,000pounds by 1895. The fishery was closed in1901, when less than 200,000 pounds werelanded. Attempts to reopen the commercialfishery occurred in 1909, 1916, and 1917, butlow catch rates indicated that the populationhad not adequately recovered; in 1917legislation was enacted to prohibit all sturgeonfishing. Incidental take of white sturgeonassociated with other gill net fisheriescontinued despite the prohibition; therefore,legislation was enacted in 1957 that prohibitedthe use of any commercial gear that mightcapture white sturgeon in these fisheries. In1954 California opened a recreational fisheryfor white sturgeon that continues to this day(Waldman 1999). There are no NativeAmerican ceremonial or subsistence fisheriesin the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system.

The white sturgeon commercial fishingindustry developed later in the Columbia River

system. Waldman (1999) reported that thefishery began in the 1880s, and peaked in 1892when 5.5 million pounds (2.5 million kg) ofwhite sturgeon were caught, representing theequivalent of some 80,000 fish. The intense,unregulated catch led to the collapse of thelower Columbia fishery, causing fishermen totravel upriver in search of large fish, until by1899 less than 99,880 pounds (45,400 kg)were taken in the Columbia River system.Regulations setting seasons, gear, andminimum size failed to restore the stock, andthe fishery remained depressed for more than70 years. Recovery did not begin until 1950,when broodstock were protected by theenactment of a six-foot maximum size limitdesigned to protect sexually mature whitesturgeon (Beamesderfer 1999; Waldman 1999).Today, the lower Columbia River supports themost significant remaining white sturgeoncommercial fishery. This fishery is describedin greater detail in Section IV.

In Canada’s Fraser River, prior to the 1880sthe only catch of white sturgeon came fromNative American fishermen who used them forfood and trade, including trade of isinglasswith the Hudson River Company until 1866.After caviar and smoked sturgeon becamepopular in the United States and the build-upof the Fraser River salmon fishery, the whitesturgeon catch in this system peaked in 1897 at1,137,696 pounds (511,963 kg). The fisherysoon collapsed, with catch declining 20% by1900 and 93% by 1905. The collapse of thefishery created a conflict between NativeAmerican tribes and the Canadian government,which seized nets and drained a backwaterused as a primary fishing location (Waldman1999). Commercial and recreational catch andretention of white sturgeon is currentlyprohibited in British Columbia.

Conservation Status andChallenges/Threats IUCN classifies the white sturgeon as at LowerRisk (near threatened), with a separatedesignation for the Kootenai River population asEndangered (IUCN 2001). The species wasplaced in CITES Appendix II at COP 10 in June1997 with all other previously unlisted sturgeonspecies. The listing entered into effect in April1998 (CITES 2001a). Decisions adopted at

84

COP 10 with regard to the revision of CITESAppendices were published in the OfficialJournal of the European Communities inNovember 1997, to update the annexes toRegulation (EC) No. 338/97 accordingly(Caroline Raymakers, TRAFFIC Europe, in litt.to TRAFFIC North America, October 2001). Alisting for the white sturgeon in the EU’s AnnexB entered into effect on April 1, 1998 concurrentwith the CITES listing (CITES 2001a).

The white sturgeon receives no federal statusdesignation in the United States, with theexception of the Kootenai River population,which as noted above was listed as Endangeredunder the ESA on September 6, 1994 (USFWS1994b). The Canadian federal governmentlisted the white sturgeon as Vulnerable in1990, based on its limited distribution inCanada (Lane 1991). Environment Canadacurrently places the species in the risk categoryof Special Concern (Environment Canada1999). In addition, the upper Columbia Riverand Kootenay River populations are consideredcritically imperiled by provincial authorities inBritish Columbia (B.C. Fisheries 2001a).

White sturgeon populations in both Canadaand the United States face a number ofconservation challenges.

Overfishing. Excessive catch of whitesturgeon from the end of the nineteenthcentury and into the beginning of the twentiethcentury left the species seriously depletedthroughout its range (Beamesderfer 1999;Waldman 1999; Miller et al. 2001). Today,catch of white sturgeon is prohibited in Canadaand either banned or carefully regulated bymanagement agreements in the United States(B.C. Fisheries 2001a; Columbia RiverCompact 2000; Miller et al. 2001). The yearsof species recovery took place during thetwentieth century, coinciding with aninsignificant demand for North American roeduring much of this period. Wild populationscould again face increased catch pressure ifdemand increases and conservation measuresare relaxed in the United States and Canada.This is particularly true because the largeamount of roe (up to 200 pounds [90 kg]) thatcan be harvested from a single large adult fish(Waldman 1999) presents a strong economicincentive for the take of gravid females if roeprices are high.

Habitat degradation/restricted range.Although habitat conditions impactingindividual river systems and populations differ,there is general concern that habitatfragmentation caused by the construction ofdams and impoundments for hydroelectricpower, irrigation, and water diversion havesegmented many once free-flowing rivers inthe range of the white sturgeon into more orless isolated habitat pockets of varyingsuitability. Demand for water for powergeneration, irrigation, and urban populationsmeans that natural river flows are heavilymanipulated by state and regional authorities,which can affect spawning and migration runs(ODFW 1995a; B.C. Fisheries 2001a).

The effects of such activities can be especiallysevere on small or isolated populations. Forexample, alteration of the natural flows of theKootenai River are believed to have affectedthat sub-population’s spawning, eggincubation, nursery, and rearing habitats, andas noted in Box 2, have reduced the overallbiological productivity of the Kootenai Riverand Kootenay Lake (USFWS 1994b, 2000d).

Pollution/water quality. Reduction in waterquality associated with human land-usepractices such as forestry, dredging, gravelmining and other industries are also believed toimpact white sturgeon (B.C. Fisheries 2001a).Industrial pollutants and contaminants, such aschemical run-off from farms, forests, andurban and residential lands pose additionalthreats. High concentrations of contaminantshave been found in the fishes’ organs and flesh.The long life span of white sturgeon allowspollutants to concentrate in their flesh, and thebio-accumulation of PCBs and othercontaminants is believed to inhibit sturgeongrowth and decrease egg and larval survival(PSMFC 1996a).

Rarity/lack of natural reproduction/other. Inaddition to these environmental hazards, otherthreats to white sturgeon include lack ofrecruitment among isolated populations, whichcould result in extirpation; stress from multiplerecaptures in catch-and-release fisheries andthe potential for accidental mortality; and theintroduction of non-native diseases,competitors, and predators (B.C. Fisheries2001a; Miller et al. 2001; RL&LEnvironmental Services 2001a).

85

Little is known about the green sturgeon, alsoknown as the Sakhalin or sterlyad sturgeon inits Russian and Asian forms. It is smaller andless abundant than the white sturgeon, withwhich it shares some riverine and coastalhabitats. In North America, green sturgeon arecurrently confirmed to spawn in only threeriver systems in the United States. While thereare some subsistence green sturgeon fisheries,the species is not as commercially valuable asthe white sturgeon because its roe is a poorsubstitute for Caspian Sea caviar. Most likelyas a result, commercial and managementinterest in the green sturgeon appears not to beas intense as that afforded to its more valuablerange mate.

Historic Range and CurrentDistributionThe green sturgeon is native to both NorthAmerica and eastern Asia (Japan, Korea,China, and Russia). However, there has beensome debate about whether the Asian form is adistinct subspecies, Acipenser medirostrismikadoi, or even whether they are two separatespecies, Acipenser medirostris and Acipensermikadoi. In the North American waters of thePacific Ocean, green sturgeon have beencaught from the Bering Sea to Ensanada,Mexico. They are also found in rivers andestuaries from British Columbia south to theSacramento River in California (CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game [CDFG] 1995).Figure 12 shows the overall range of the greensturgeon in North America.

Sources differ on the northern limit of the greensturgeon’s North American spawning range.

NPSSC (1993) reported a “presumed”spawning population of green sturgeon inBritish Columbia’s Fraser River. Other sourcesindicate that the species is not believed tospawn in Canada or Alaska, although smallnumbers have been caught in the Fraser andSkeena rivers in British Columbia (CDFG1995). Such differences highlight the fact thatthere is very little information on the size,status, or trends of the Canadian green sturgeonpopulation (Environment Canada 2001).

In the United States, green sturgeon occursporadically throughout coastal Washington,but are not believed to spawn in anyWashington rivers (CDFG 1995; NMFS 2003).The species is particularly abundant in theColumbia River estuary, although the species isnot believed to spawn in the Columbia Riversystem (CDFG 1995). There are past accountsof the species being observed up to 135 miles(225 km) inland in the Columbia River, but itis currently believed to be found almostexclusively in the lower 36 miles (60 km) ofthe river and its estuary, and does not occurupstream of Bonneville Dam (CDFG 1995;ODFW 1995b). Summer concentrations ofgreen sturgeon have also been reported inWillapa Bay and Grays Harbor in Washington(NMFS 2003).

South of the Columbia River system, greensturgeon are likely present in all open Oregonestuaries, and there is believed to beconsiderable movement by the species up anddown the coast. Literature sources indicatethat while juvenile green sturgeon are found inseveral of Oregon’s coastal rivers, the speciesis confirmed to spawn only in the Rogue River(NPSSC 1993; CDFG 1995; ODFW 1995b;

86

3.10 Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris)

Illustration by Paul Vecsei

NMFS 2003). However, there is somesuggestion that green sturgeon may also bespawning in Oregon’s Umpqua River. Thepossibility of current spawning in the UmpquaRiver is being investigated (R. Beamesderfer,in litt. to TRAFFIC North America, August2001; NMFS 2003).

In California, green sturgeon have beencollected in small numbers in marine watersfrom the Mexican border to the Oregon border.Only a few have been reported from thesouthern California coast, with abundancegradually increasing northward of PointConception. The species is occasionally caughtin Monterey Bay. Although green sturgeonhave been found in a number of Californiarivers, spawning is believed to occur at presentonly in the Sacramento and Klamath riversystems. At one time, spawning probably tookplace in the Eel River as well (CDFG 1995).

The Sacramento River is part of the overallSan Francisco Bay system, which consists ofSan Francisco Bay, Suisin Bay, and the Deltain the Sacramento-San Joaquin River drainage.Within this system, the Sacramento Rivercontains the southernmost known spawningpopulation of green sturgeon, with spawningbelieved to occur predominantly in the upperSacramento River. There has been indirectevidence that the species may also spawn inthe Feather River, but this has not beensubstantiated to date (NMFS 2003). Greensturgeon have been reported in the mainstemSacramento River as far north as river mile 230(river km 383). It is possible that somespawning also takes place in the San JoaquinRiver based on the capture of juveniles, butthese fish could also have come from theSacramento River (CDFG 1995).

Green sturgeon are found with greaterfrequency north of San Francisco. It ispossible that historic records of sturgeoncaught in rivers between San Francisco Bayand the Klamath River refer to green sturgeon,although most early records failed to identifythe species. From the Eel River northward, itis believed that green sturgeon predominate inrivers and estuaries along the coast. Forexample, records in the Humboldt Bay system,which consists of Arcata Bay to the north andHumboldt Bay to the south, are almost

exclusively green sturgeon. Green sturgeonhave also been reported from the Mad River,although contemporary evidence of theirpresence is scant and the species would likelybe limited to the river’s estuary (CDFG 1995).

The largest reported spawning population ofgreen sturgeon occurs in the Klamath RiverBasin, which includes the Klamath River,Trinity River, and the lower portion of theSalmon River. Both adults and juveniles havebeen recorded in the mainstem Klamath River.Green sturgeon have been taken by fishermenas far inland as river mile 103 (river km 172),although the usual upstream migration isbelieved to be Ishi Pishi Falls at approximatelyriver mile 68 (river km 113). A small numberof juveniles have been taken as far upstream asriver mile 49 (river km 81), but most have beenlocated through seining operations directed atsalmonids in the tidewater (CDFG 1995).

Green sturgeon have also been recorded in theTrinity River, which enters the Klamath Riveras river mile 42 (river km 70). Adults havebeen taken yearly in a Native American fishery,and spawning migrants are believed topenetrate the Trinity River up to about rivermile 43 (river km 72). Green sturgeon havebeen reported historically in the South ForkTrinity River, a third-order stream that entersthe Trinity River above river mile 30 (river km51). However, a 1964 flood devastatedanadromous fish habitat in the sub-basin,apparently resulting in the loss of sturgeonhabitat. There have also been reports of adultgreen sturgeon being sighted in the lowerreaches of the Salmon River, a fourth-orderstream that enters the Klamath River at aboutriver mile 63 (river km 106). Upriver migrationof green sturgeon in the Salmon River isbelieved to be limited, extending only to aboutriver mile 5 (river km 8) (CDFG 1995).

North of the Klamath River Basin, greensturgeon have been captured in Lake Earlalong the coast of Del Norte County, andcoastal migrants are believed to occasionallybecome stranded in Lake Tawala, which isseparated from the ocean by a sand spit that issporadically breached by winter storms. Greensturgeon have also been reported in the SmithRiver, the northernmost river on the Californiacoast (CDFG 1995).

87

Ecology and HabitatAlthough the green sturgeon’s life history hasnot been extensively studied and documented,it is presumed to be similar to that of othersturgeon species. The species relies ondiffering habitats in streams, rivers, estuarinehabitats, and marine waters throughout its lifecycle. However, adults are believed to be moremarine than white sturgeon, and spend lesstime in estuaries or fresh water (CDFG 1995).

Little is certain about the species’ habitatrequirements. Green sturgeon have beenreported to prefer spawning in swift currentsover a substrate of large cobble, although thiscan range from clean sand to bedrock (NPSSC

1993; CDFG 1995). Similar to the whitesturgeon, green sturgeon are broadcastspawners. Eggs are externally fertilized inrelatively high water velocities, probably atdepths greater than about 10 feet (>3 meters).Chapman (1999) estimated egg diameter at3.3–3.7 mm, while CDFG (1995) estimated itat about 3.8 mm. The species’ relatively largeegg size, thin chorionic layer on the egg, andother characteristics suggest that green sturgeonrequire colder, cleaner water for spawning thando white sturgeon. Adult green sturgeon havebeen reported in the Sacramento River,presumably to spawn, when water temperaturesranged between 46 and 57° F (8–14° C). In theKlamath River, green sturgeon migration

88

Figure 11 Green Sturgeon Range

Sou

rce:

Env

ironm

ent C

anad

a (r

evis

ed)

upriver occurs between late February and lateJuly. The spawning period is believed to befrom March to July, with a peak between mid-April and mid-June (CDFG 1995).

Hochleithner and Gessner (1999) reportedsexual maturity in males at 8–10 years and infemales at 10–12 years, with intervals betweenspawnings at 2–6 years. However, neither ageat sexual maturity nor the spawning intervalsof male or female green sturgeon have beendefinitively established. Chapman (1999)estimated female fecundity at 600–1,000 eggsper kg of female body weight, and CDFG(1995) reported that female green sturgeonmay produce 60,000 to 140,000 eggs.Juveniles might spend several years in freshwater before moving to saltwater environments(NPSSC 1993; CDFG 1995; PSMFC 1996b;Hochleithner and Gessner 1999).

Age and growth information on green sturgeonis sparse, and little is known about the marinephase of this sturgeon’s life cycle except that itis highly migratory. Tagged fish are oftenrecaptured in river systems or estuarieshundreds of miles away. While longevity is notcertain, the largest fish in the Klamath Riverhave been aged at 40 years, although this maybe an underestimate. The average length at age25 is estimated at about 7 feet (~2 meters) andthe largest green sturgeon recorded weighedaround 325 pounds (159 kg) (NPSSC 1993;CDFG 1995; PSMFC 1996b; Chapman 1999).

Adult and juvenile green sturgeon are benthicfeeders, seeking out benthic invertebrates andsmall fish (NPSSC 1993). Juveniles in theSacramento-San Joaquin Delta have beenreported to feed on opossum shrimp(Neomysis mercedis) and amphipods(Corophium sp.). Stomach content analysis ofadult sturgeon captured in Washingtonrevealed a primary diet of sand lances(Ammodytes hexapterus) and callianassidshrimp. Green sturgeon in the ColumbiaRiver estuary are known to feed on anchovies,and may also feed on clams (CDFG 1995).

Historic CatchHistorically, green sturgeon were not targeted asa food fish (its flesh was once consideredpoisonous), and roe was rarely harvested.Therefore, there is little historical informationavailable on levels of directed take. As the

market perception of the green sturgeonchanged, however, some fisheries developed.The commercial catch in the lower ColumbiaRiver averaged about 200 to 500 fish annuallybetween 1941 and 1951; 1,400 fish annuallybetween 1951 and 1971; and 2,000 to 4,000 fishannually from 1971 to 1990 (CDFG 1995;Waldman 1999). By decade, CDFG (1995)reported that the annual commercial greensturgeon catch in the Columbia River estuaryaveraged 1,440 fish during the 1960s, 1,610 fishduring the 1970s, and 2,360 fish during the1980s. Records for some years indicate notablyhigh catches. In 1986, the green sturgeon catchin the Columbia River estuary was 6,000, and4,900 were taken in 1987. These catchesoccurred in a directed gill net fishery that hassince been closed (CDFG 1995).

Today, a small Native American gill net fisheryremains on the Klamath River in California.According to the oral history of Yurok tribalelders, this subsistence fishery has existedsince “historical” times—at least since the turnof the twentieth century—and quite likelyearlier (CDFG 1995; Waldman 1999).

Conservation Status andChallenges/ThreatsIUCN classified the green sturgeon asVulnerable in the Red List 2000 (IUCN 2001).The species was placed in CITES Appendix IIat COP 10 in June 1997 with all otherpreviously unlisted sturgeon species. Thelisting entered into effect in April 1998 (CITES2001a). Decisions adopted at COP 10 withregard to the revision of CITES Appendiceswere published in the Official Journal of theEuropean Communities in November 1997, toupdate the annexes to Regulation (EC) No.338/97 accordingly (Caroline Raymakers,TRAFFIC Europe, in litt. to TRAFFIC NorthAmerica, October 2001). A listing for thegreen sturgeon in the EU’s Annex B enteredinto effect on April 1, 1998 concurrent with theCITES listing (CITES 2001a).

Canada designated the green sturgeon as aSpecies of Special Concern in 1987(Environment Canada 2001). The species isnot federally protected in the United States.However, in June 2001 NMFS received apetition from the Environmental ProtectionInformation Center, Center for Biological

89

Diversity, and Waterkeepers NorthernCalifornia requesting that NMFS list the NorthAmerican green sturgeon as either anendangered or threatened species under theESA, and that it designate critical habitat forthe species concurrently with the listing. InDecember 2001, NMFS announced a findingthat the petition presented substantial scientificinformation indicating that the request may bewarranted, and undertook a status review of thegreen sturgeon to make a determination(NMFS 2001).

NMFS completed the review in January 2003.The agency determined that there are twodistinct population segments of green sturgeonthat qualify as species under the ESA (onebeing the Sacramento River population and theother being the Klamath and Rogue Riverpopulations, with the Eel River identified as thepoint of geographic separation), but that neitherwarranted listing as a threatened or endangeredspecies at the time of the review. Because ofremaining uncertainties about their populationstructure and status, NMFS decided to add bothpopulation segments to the agency’s list ofcandidate species and will re-evaluate theirstatus in five years (NMFS 2003).

Green sturgeon are believed to face severalconservation challenges or threats.

Habitat degradation/restricted range. Similarto other sturgeon species, green sturgeon aresensitive to habitat degradation or alteration intheir native rivers and estuaries. Researchindicates that water flow rates are adeterminant of green sturgeon larval survival,as is also found in other sturgeon species. It ispresumed that the species has a specific set ofwater flow, depth, and substrate requirementsfor spawning and for early life stage histories.Thus, water diversions for municipal and

industrial uses, irrigation projects, and powergeneration that reduce the amount of water inrivers likely have negative effects, becausesuitable conditions for spawning anddevelopment of young green sturgeon probablyoccur less frequently than they once did(CDFG 1995; PSMFC 1996b; EnvironmentCanada 2001). It is believed that Californiahas lost a number of green sturgeon spawningpopulations in the past several decades, forexample the Eel River and South Fork TrinityRiver populations. Other North Americanspawning populations may be at risk becauseof flow regimes affected by water projects(CDFG 1995).

Overfishing. The lack of available evidence onthe green sturgeon makes it difficult to assessthe impact of historic or current fisheries onthe species. However, it is possible that theexploitation of green sturgeon in commercial,sport, Native American, and illegal fisheries (aswell as incidental catch in fisheries nottargeting the species) may have affected thespecies’ abundance (CDFG 1995). Becausethe green sturgeon is thought not to have beenas historically abundant as the white sturgeon,even lower rates of catch may not besustainable. The uncertainty of the greensturgeon’s status, life history characteristics,and other factors raise concerns about thepotential threat of excessive catch if demandfor North American roe increases.

Pollution/Water quality. Accumulation ofPCBs and other contaminants may reducesturgeon survival, because of impacts to eggsand larvae (PSMFC 1996b; EnvironmentCanada 2001). The precise effects of toxicsubstances, from heavy metals to pesticides,are uncertain (CDFG 1995).

90

Paddlefish and sturgeon management in NorthAmerica varies widely by species, and dependslargely on distribution, conservation status,demand in commercial and/or recreationalfisheries, funding availability, and the level ofconcern among wildlife and fisheriesauthorities in specific jurisdictions.Conservation status also plays a significantrole in establishing whether species are strictlyprotected, with no catch allowed, or managedfor catch.

Sturgeon and paddlefish populations occurwithin and across so many jurisdictionalboundaries that it is difficult to adequatelydescribe their overall management. There isno such thing as a central “Sturgeon andPaddlefish Management Authority”coordinating conservation efforts for all of thespecies and agencies involved in managementand regulatory decisions. Given thedifferences among the species’ ranges,management needs, and the network of legalboundaries across which they migrate, such anapproach would be difficult, if not impossible,to coordinate. Furthermore, anadromousspecies require different managementapproaches than freshwater species, andendangered or threatened species are managedunder the strictures of individually tailoredrecovery plans.

Numerous federal, state and provincial lawsand regulations in the United States andCanada directly or indirectly addressmanagement of North American paddlefish andsturgeon species and populations. Some of thekey federal laws are summarized in Box 3. Inaddition to federal, state, and provincialagencies; commissions; and other bodiesdesignated to implement pertinent laws and

regulations, there are also several inter-jurisdictional and international commissionsthat function between states, or between theUnited States and Canada, and play a criticalrole in the management of several species.

The two Atlantic coast anadromous species(Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon) aremanaged by federal, state, and provincialauthorities within the United States andCanada. Management of the shortnosesturgeon in the United States is also subject toa recovery plan under the ESA because of thespecies’ designation as endangered. The twoanadromous Pacific coast species, whitesturgeon and green sturgeon, are managedprimarily by state and provincial authorities;however, the United States’ Columbia Riverpopulation of white sturgeon also falls underthe jurisdiction of the congressionallyestablished Columbia River Compact, as wellas a joint management agreement betweenOregon and Washington.

The endangered Alabama sturgeon and pallidsturgeon, and the threatened Gulf sturgeon, aremanaged under the protection and provisionsof the ESA, as they are indigenous to theUnited States. Paddlefish and shovelnosesturgeon, whose ranges are also limited to theUnited States, are not listed under the ESA,and populations are managed independently bythose states in whose waters they reside. Thelake sturgeon inhabits both the United Statesand Canada, but is not federally listed asendangered or threatened in either country.The species is managed by those states andprovinces in which it is found, many of whichclassify it as a threatened or endangeredspecies under state law, with input whereappropriate from the bilateral Great Lakes

91

IV. MANAGEMENT AND REGULATIONIN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

92

There are numerous federal laws that may directlyor indirectly impact the management of sturgeonand paddlefish species and populations in theUnited States and Canada. Some of these arelisted below.

United States

• The Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et.seq.) provides regional fishery managementcouncils with the authority to prepare plans forthe conservation and management of federallymanaged fisheries in the EEZ (subject toapproval by the Secretary of Commerce).

• The Lacey Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371–3378)makes it a federal crime to import, export, ortransport in interstate commerce any fish orwildlife taken in violation of a state, federal,Indian tribal, or international law.

• The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.1531–1543) provides for the conservation ofplant and animal species federally listed asthreatened or endangered.

• The Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C 791–828)provides for protection, mitigation of damages,and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources(including anadromous fish) impacted byhydroelectric facilities regulated by the FederalEnergy Resources Commission.

• The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16U.S.C. 757a–757f) authorizes the Secretaries ofInterior and Commerce to enter into cost-sharingwith states and other non-federal interests forthe conservation, development, andenhancement of the nation’s anadromous fish.

• The Atlantic Coastal Fisheries CooperativeManagement Act (16 U.S.C. 5101–5109)authorizes the Secretary of Commerce toprovide financial assistance to the AtlanticStates Marine Fisheries Commission and toAtlantic coastal states to adopt and implementfishery management plans for coastal fisheries,and allows the Secretary to impose amoratorium on all fishing for a species withinthe waters of a state found not in compliancewith the adopted plan.

• The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16U.S.C. 661–666) provides for consideration offish and wildlife habitat values in conjunctionwith federal water development activities.

• The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33U.S.C. 1251–1376—“Clean Water Act”)mandates federal protection of water quality andprovides for assessment of injury, destruction, orloss of natural resources caused by the dischargeof pollutants.

• The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires apermit from the Army Corps of Engineers toplace structures in navigable waters of theUnited States or modify a navigable stream byexcavation or filling activities.

• The National Environmental Policy Act (42U.S.C. 4321–4347) requires an environmentalreview of all federal activities.

• The Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C.1451–1464) and Estuarine Areas Act state thatfederal activities must comply withcomprehensive state planning programsestablished to enhance, protect, and utilizecoastal resources.

• The Marine Protection, Research andSanctuaries Act of 1972 and the ShoreProtection Act of 1988 protect fish habitatthrough establishment and maintenance ofmarine sanctuaries.

Canada

• The Fisheries Act allows the federal governmentto make decisions for the conservation andprotection of fish habitat essential to sustainingCanada’s freshwater and marine fisheriesresources, Canadian commercial andrecreational fisheries, and Aboriginal fisheries.

• The Wild Animal and Plant Protection andRegulation of International and InterprovincialTrade Act (WAPPRIITA) controls theinternational trade and interprovincial transportof certain wild animals and plants, as well astheir parts and derivatives, and is the Canadianlaw that implements CITES.

• The Canadian Environmental Protection Actprotects the environment, human life and healthfrom the risks associated with toxic substances,and includes sections protecting the marineenvironment from land-based pollution sources.

Box 3. Federal Laws and Regulations Relevant to Acipenseriformes in the United States and Canada*

* Sources: Buck (1995); NMFS/USFWS (1998); DFO (2000);Environment Canada (2002).

Fisheries Commission. A number of states inthe Mississippi River Basin have also joined toform the Mississippi Interstate CooperativeResource Association (MICRA), an effort tofacilitate coordination and cooperation in themanagement of species located within thegreater Mississippi River Basin.

Moreover, the purposes for which individualNorth American acipenseriform species aremanaged differ. Management efforts forspecies or populations listed as endangered orthreatened under federal, state, or provinciallaws in the United States and Canada focus onpreventing extirpation or extinction, and onspecies recovery. Management effortsregarding other, non-listed species focus on adifferent set of objectives. Elser (1986) notedthat the traditional bottom line in fisheriesmanagement has been to produce the greatestcatchable surplus for all user groups.Management must balance several approachesto reach this goal, including regulation ofcatch, protection of fish habitat, andencouragement of public support forconservation. Thus, regulations are oftendesigned to allow for survival of a fairly largenumber of breeding adults, protect smaller fishso they can reach maturity, and protect fishduring spawning season.

Fisheries authorities are subject to pressuresfrom numerous constituencies as they attemptto devise appropriate management or recoveryplans for individual sturgeon and paddlefishspecies and populations in North America.Combs (1986) observed: “Fisheries have beenregulated on the basis of politics, socialpressure, whim, and sometimes biology.”While fisheries managers at the federal, state,and provincial levels are overwhelminglydedicated to the pursuit of sound conservationand management practices, divergent and oftenconflicting opinions, goals, and interests haveled to frequent tensions among variousstakeholder groups (biologists, commercialfishermen, industry, agriculture, etc.). Suchinherent friction in the formulation of sturgeonand paddlefish management programs poses acontinual challenge to the efficacy ofmanagement efforts.

Finally, in states and provinces that continueto allow commercial and/or sport catch of

resident populations of sturgeon or paddlefish,the regulatory tools employed to manage suchcatch vary by species and by jurisdiction.Sport fishing restrictions commonly includecreel limits (to limit individual success,thereby ensuring a “fair distribution” of thecatch among participants), open and closedseasons, size limits, gear restrictions,prohibition of high-grading (removing andreleasing smaller fish from the creel so thatlarger fish can be caught without exceedingthe limit), and sanctuaries or closures ofcertain waters. Commercial restrictions ofteninclude size limits, seasons, closures ofdesignated waters, gear restrictions, and catchreporting requirements. Catch quotas havealso been used for many years, particularly insaltwater commercial fisheries. However,such quotas are only effective when sufficientdata are available on a population to setrealistic and sustainable limits (Combs 1986;Elser 1986).

The following section examines themanagement issues involved with eachspecies; federal, state, provincial, andinternational laws that apply to theirmanagement; regulatory approaches and toolsbeing used at present; and finally, who isresponsible for implementation. Two caveatsare important to note. First, the summariesincluded herein represent a “snapshot” intime. Management and regulatory regimesare not static, but rather dynamic. The mosteffective management schemes may very wellbe those that can best adapt to newinformation and circumstances. Therefore, astime passes, many of the specific regulationsand programs outlined in this report are likelyto change. Second, because TRAFFIC’sprimary focus is on sustainable take and tradeof wildlife, comparably more attention isgiven herein to those native acipenseriformspecies for which catch and trade is currentlylegal in the United States or Canada.TRAFFIC encourages readers interested inmore details on species listed as threatened orendangered, or not commonly associated withcatch and trade, to refer to the specificconservation and management plans in placeregarding those species.

93

4.1 Atlantic SturgeonThe United States and Canada manage theAtlantic sturgeon somewhat differently,although the two countries’ approaches have ahistoric similarity. The species is not listed asfederally threatened or endangered in eithercountry, but both nations have createdframeworks for cooperation between federalauthorities and state or provincial fisherymanagers. However, whereas Canadacontinues to allow a regulated catch, theUnited States has imposed a moratorium ondirected take of Atlantic sturgeon in U.S.waters. It is anticipated that this moratoriumwill be in place for several decades (ASMFC1998b; NMFS/USFWS 1998).

Canada Atlantic sturgeon and their habitat areprotected and managed in Canada under theFederal Fisheries Act (Anon. 2001a). In theMaritime provinces, jurisdiction for themanagement and regulation of Atlanticsturgeon fisheries lies with the CanadianDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).The provincial government in Quebec managesa separate Atlantic sturgeon fishery inland onthe St. Lawrence River. Managementregulations, conservation measures, andcontemporary catch levels of Atlantic sturgeonin Canada are as follows.

The Maritime Provinces

The Atlantic sturgeon fishery in theseprovinces is governed by a limited number oflicenses, season limits, gear restrictions, andminimum size limits for catchable fish. This isa “sunset” commercial fishery, in which non-transferable licenses terminate with the deathof the existing licensee, and new licenses areno longer available—no new sturgeon licenseshave been issued since the mid-1980s. In1997, there were 10 commercial licensesissued for Atlantic sturgeon in the Maritimeprovinces, nine on the Saint John River, NewBrunswick and one on the Shubenacadie River,Nova Scotia (NMFS/USFWS 1998). As of2001, there were nine licensed fishermen onthe Saint John River, and none in the Gulf ofSt. Lawrence areas of New Brunswick, NovaScotia, or Prince Edward Island (Anon.2001a). This fishery will end when all current

license holders are no longer fishing, unlessfuture measures are taken to continue thefishery (NMFS/USFWS 1998; Anon. 2001a).There are no commercial quotas for Atlanticsturgeon in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia,because, according to Canadian managementauthorities, it has been determined that there isinsufficient biological data to use quotas as amanagement tool (Anon. 2001a).

Each Atlantic sturgeon fishing licenseauthorizes specific amounts and type of gear.The legal minimum gill net mesh size is 13.2inches (33 cm), to ensure that the fisherytargets only adult Atlantic sturgeon. Theminimum size limit for catchable fish is 48inches (120 cm). The season is closed fromJune 1–30 to protect spawning fish. Atlanticsturgeon catch in the Saint John River fisheryconsists mostly of sexually mature fish,averaging 74 inches long (range 60 to 92inches) and 18 years of age (range 10 to 31years) (B. Jessop, DFO, unpublished data,cited in Anon. 2001a).

Catch levels in the fishery peaked in 1988 at44 metric tons (44,000 kg; 96,800 pounds, buthave declined in recent years (R. St. Pierre,IUCN/SSC Sturgeon Specialist Group, in litt.to IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme,September 28, 2001). Data provided by theDFO indicated that harvests between 1995 and2002 were in the range of 2.5 to 14 metric tons(2,500–14,000 kg; 5,700–30,000 pounds) (P.Hall, DFO, in litt. to TRAFFIC North America,September 28, 2001; pers. comm. R. Bradford,DFO, February 2003). In 2001, the harvestwas reported as approximately 10,000 kg(22,000 pounds), but dropped to 5,000 kg(11,000 pounds) in 2002. The drop in catch in2002 may be explained by the death of one ofthe remaining licensed fishermen, who hadaccounted for a significant proportion of thecatch in previous years (pers. comm., R.Bradford, DFO, February 2003).

Table 4.1.1 shows reported Atlantic sturgeonlandings in New Brunswick (Saint John RiverEstuary/Bay of Fundy) and Nova Scotia (Bayof Fundy/Atlantic Ocean) from 1995 through2002. The final column in the table displaysDFO statistics on the percentage of the totalyearly catch that was taken within the SaintJohn River estuary in New Brunswick. Itillustrates that the Saint John River fishery has

94

accounted for an overwhelming majority of thetotal Atlantic sturgeon catch in recent years.

Small amounts of Atlantic sturgeon bycatch(less than 0.3 tons per year) were reported inthe decade leading up to 1997 in non-sturgeonfisheries. Retention of bycatch has beenprohibited in the Maritime provinces since1995 (NMFS/USFWS 1998; Anon. 2001a).The landing of 4.2 tons of bycatch in 1998 bythe groundfish industry (coastal Bay of Fundywaters) led to charges being brought by DFO.All groundfish vessels in the region now haveconditions on their licenses specificallyprohibiting the retention of any sturgeon. Thezero bycatch rule in the region’s estuarial,coastal, and marine fisheries also helps toprotect ocean migrant sturgeon that are knownto occur in the area, and could have originseither in the Saint John River or other eastcoast populations (pers. comm., R. Bradford,DFO, February 2003).

Quebec

The Quebec Ministere de l’Environnement etde la Faune regulates an Atlantic sturgeonfishery in the St. Lawrence River, from justeast of Quebec City to about Trois-Pistoles(approximately a 90-mile [150 km] stretch).Prior to 1994, regulations designed to conserveAtlantic sturgeon stocks in the fishery limitedthe number of fishing permits to 35 and

mandated a minimum gill net mesh size(stretched) of 7.2 inches (18 cm). In 1995,Quebec established a season from May 1 toSeptember 30, and set a size limit of 40 to 68inches (100–170 cm) fork length, which wasreduced in 1996 to 40 to 60 inches (100–150cm) (NMFS/USFWS 1998; Anon. 2001a).

In the spring of 1997, in addition to themaximum size limit of 60 inches (150 cm),Quebec established a catch quota and TotalAllowable Catch (TAC) of 6,015 fish(approximately 60 metric tons). In 1998, theallowable gill net mesh size (stretched) waschanged to between 7.6 and 8.1 inches (19–20.3cm) (Anon. 2001a). Catch in the Quebecfishery is consequently composed mostly ofimmature sturgeon measuring less than 60inches (150 cm) long and 5 to 10 years of age(Caron and Tremblay 1999; Anon. 2001a).Quebec’s catch quota and TAC have graduallydeclined since 1997, as shown in Table 4.1.2.

Fisheries authorities in Quebec monitorcaptures of Atlantic sturgeon in collaborationwith commercial fishermen in an effort tomeasure the effectiveness of the newregulations. At present, the province hasdetermined that a catch level of less than 60metric tons annually is sustainable, and that theregulations have achieved this objective (Caronand Tremblay 1999; Anon. 2001a).

95

Province 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

New Brunswick 10,457 13,850 11,341 6,164 3,231 2,520 10,342 5,069

Nova Scotia 0 0 275 4,210 41 0 0 0

Total: 10,457 13,850 11,616 10,374 3,272 2,520 10,342 5,069

% taken within the Saint John River Estuary 98 99 97 59 99 95 100 100

Table 4.1.1 Atlantic Sturgeon Landings (kgs) in New Brunswick and NovaScotia, 1995–2002*

* Source: R. Bradford, DFO, in litt. to TRAFFIC North America, February 2003.

Year Catch Quota (pounds/kg) Total Allowable Catch (TAC)

1997 145,502 lb (65,476 kg) 6,015 fish

1998 108,024 lb (48,611 kg) 5,297 fish

1999 103,615 lb (46,627 kg) 5,297 fish

2000 116,843 lb (52,579 kg) 4,767 fish

Table 4.1.2 Reported Catch and Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for AtlanticSturgeon in Quebec, 1997–2000*

* Source: Anon. 2001a.

The United StatesAll U.S. Atlantic coast states have instituted amoratorium on catch and possession ofAtlantic sturgeon, eliminating the threat to thespecies from directed commercial fishing, aswell as the incentive to keep sturgeonobtained as bycatch. A brief recent history ofhow the moratorium came into being, keymanagement decisions, and additionalinformation on state conservation measuresfor Atlantic sturgeon follows.

The Atlantic States Marine FisheriesCommission (ASMFC), authorized under theterms of the Atlantic States Marine FisheriesCompact, has the authority to develop,implement, and enforce Atlantic sturgeonfisheries management plans. The purpose ofASMFC is to promote better utilization of thefisheries of the Atlantic seaboard “by thedevelopment of a joint program for thepromotion and protection of such fisheries,and by the prevention of the physical waste of the fisheries from any cause”(NMFS/USFWS 1998).

In 1990, ASMFC adopted a FisheryManagement Plan (FMP) for Atlantic sturgeon,regulating catch and coordinating stockassessments from Maine to Florida. The 1990FMP recommended that each state controlcatch by choosing one of three options: (1)adopting a minimum total length of at leastseven feet (2.13 meters) and instituting amonitoring program with mandatory reportingof commercial landings; (2) imposing amoratorium on all catch; or (3) submitting analternative plan to the ASMFC AtlanticSturgeon Plan Review Team. All east coaststates except New York and New Jersey choseone of the first two options. New York andNew Jersey instituted a five-foot (1.5 meter)minimum size limit with seasonal restrictions,quotas, mandatory reporting, and extensivemonitoring (NMFS/USFWS 1998).

In 1993, ASMFC’s original enablinglegislation was amended by Congress as theAtlantic Coastal Fisheries CooperativeManagement Act, empowering the Secretary ofCommerce to enforce mandatory complianceof FMP recommendations approved byASMFC. The Secretary was charged withimposing a catch moratorium on states that failto comply with the recommendations of

specific FMPs approved by ASMFC. In 1996,a review of the 1990 Atlantic sturgeon FMPfound that the then-current seven-footminimum size length protected only 50% ofspawning females and approximately 80% ofspawning males in the stock. Furthermore, thefive-foot minimum length adopted in NewYork and New Jersey was believed to result inrecruitment overfishing. The review also notedthat New York had exceeded its quota in 1994and 1995. By 1997, when a draft review of theFMP was compiled, most participating stateshad closed their commercial fisheries orreduced the allowable quota to zero. OnlyDelaware maintained an open fishery, stillallowing a seven-foot minimum size. The1997 FMP draft review concluded that therecommendations in the 1990 FMP would notbring about the recovery of the species, andshould be amended. Recommendations in thePlan Amendment included a complete catchmoratorium, enhanced monitoring programs,specifications concerning the role of culturedfish in stock enhancement and restorationprograms, and monitoring and commitment toreduce bycatch. The amendment to the FMPwas adopted in June 1998 (ASMFC 1998b;NMFS/USFWS 1998).

The ASMFC formalized the moratorium as amandatory compliance measure in alljurisdictions; it cannot be lifted for a spawningstock until 20 protected year classes of femalesare established. Because Atlantic sturgeonreach maturity at an average age of 18 years, itis anticipated that the moratorium will be ineffect until at least 2039 (41 years fromimplementation). Consideration to lifting themoratorium may be given in areas where fishmature at younger ages, or where statemoratoria were in effect prior to 1998(prohibitions on catch in six jurisdictions—Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, PotomacRiver Fisheries Commission, Virginia, SouthCarolina, and Florida—were in place prior to1990, and were entered into force in all otherjurisdictions during various years thereafter)(NMFS/USFWS, 1998). The moratorium alsoincludes a complete ban on the possession ofwild Atlantic sturgeon of U.S. origin or theirparts; a request to the Secretary of Commerceto ban catch and possession of Atlanticsturgeon in the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ); requirements that states assess and

96

annually report capture and mortality ofAtlantic sturgeon caught as bycatch in otherfisheries; requirements that states authorizingculture of sturgeons (Atlantic or non-indigenous) mandate that permittees takeappropriate measures to prevent escape ordisease transmission; requirements that statesreport annually to ASMFC on their habitatprotection and enforcement measures; andrequirements that states conduct periodicmonitoring of populations (ASMFC 1998b;NMFS/USFWS 1998).

Every one of the eastern coastal U.S. states hastaken legislative or regulatory action to enforcethe catch moratorium in their home waters.Thus, the 1998 moratorium is enforced understate as well as federal laws; state fisheriesmanagement agencies enforce the catchmoratorium as authorized by specific stateregulations. In addition, several states haveincluded the Atlantic sturgeon on state lists ofrare, threatened, or protected species.Delaware and Massachusetts, for example,classify the Atlantic sturgeon as a stateendangered species (Delaware Division of Fishand Wildlife 2000; Massachusetts Division ofFisheries and Wildlife 2002). Connecticut andPennsylvania classify the species as threatened(Pennsylvania Department of Conservation andNatural Resources [PDCNR] 2001a;Connecticut Department of EnvironmentalProtection 2002). Florida, North Carolina, andVirginia have designated the Atlantic sturgeonas a Species of Special Concern (Florida Fishand Wildlife Commission 1997; Le Grand etal. 2001; Roble 2001). In these states, alongwith the moratorium on catch, Atlanticsturgeon also receive the legal protectionsconferred by such designations underapplicable state statutes. Rhode Islandclassifies the Atlantic sturgeon as a “StateHistorical” species, which the state defines asnative species which have been documentedduring the last 100 years, but which arecurrently unknown to occur (Rhode IslandNatural Heritage Program 2002).

4.2 Gulf SturgeonThe Gulf sturgeon is indigenous to the UnitedStates, where management efforts aresomewhat similar to those for the Atlanticsturgeon. Management approaches for bothspecies emphasize cooperation between federal

and state authorities, including a regionalfisheries management commission. The GulfStates Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC)is responsible for the coordination ofmanagement schemes between the federalgovernment and range states for Gulf sturgeon,among other species. Catch and possession ofGulf sturgeon is illegal, as is the case for theAtlantic sturgeon. Many federal laws thatdirectly or indirectly pertain to conservation ofthe Gulf sturgeon are the same as those for theAtlantic sturgeon, as are the agencies involvedin conservation and law enforcement efforts.

A key difference in the management of theGulf sturgeon, however, is its status as athreatened species under the ESA, followingthe species’ 1991 listing. Section 6(a) of theESA provides for cooperation with affectedstates for the purpose of conserving threatenedand endangered species. The Departments ofInterior and Commerce can enter intocooperative agreements with a state, providedthe state has an established program for theconservation of the species. All four stateswithin the range of the Gulf sturgeon (Florida,Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana) haveentered into Section 6 agreements with USFWS(USFWS/GSMFC 1995). Some of the legaland regulatory steps taken by the range statesthat are most relevant to this report actuallypredate the Gulf sturgeon’s federal listing underthe ESA in 1991. For example, laws orregulations prohibiting all take of any sturgeonspecies in state waters were implemented inAlabama in 1972, in Mississippi in 1974, inFlorida in 1984, and in Louisiana in 1990(USFWS/GSMFC 1995). The Gulf sturgeon isalso listed as an endangered species inMississippi, a threatened species in Alabamaand Louisiana, and a species of special concernin Florida and Georgia (based on historicalpresence) (Florida Fish and WildlifeCommission 1997; Godwin 1999; MississippiDepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks2000a; Georgia Department of NaturalResources 2002; Louisiana Department ofWildlife & Fisheries 2002).

Additionally in 1994, 14 federal agencies,including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,the NMFS, USFWS, the Department ofDefense, the Minerals Management Service,the National Park Service, the Coast Guard,and the Environmental Protection Agency

97

signed a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) to establish a general framework forcooperation and participation in accordancewith responsibilities for the Gulf sturgeonunder the ESA. The MOU charged theinvolved federal agencies to work withinterested members of the public, states, IndianTribal governments, and local governments toprotect and manage species listed under theESA and the ecosystems upon which thosepopulations depend. That MOU also appliedto inter-agency cooperation to facilitaterecovery of the Gulf sturgeon(USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

In 1995, USFWS and the GSMFC publishedthe “Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/ManagementPlan,” which included one short-term and twolong-term objectives. The short-term objectivewas, primarily, “…to prevent further reductionof existing wild populations of Gulf sturgeonwithin the range of the subspecies.” The firstlong-term objective was “…to establishpopulation levels that would allow delisting ofthe Gulf sturgeon by management units.Management units could be delisted by 2023 ifthe required criteria are met. While thisobjective will be sought for all managementunits, it is recognized that it may not beachievable for all management units.” Thesecond long-term objective was, principally,“…to establish, following delisting, a self-sustaining population that could withstanddirected fishing pressure within managementunits. Note that the objective is not necessarilythe opening of a management unit to fishing,but rather, the development of a population thatcan sustain a fishery.” The Plan goes on tooutline recommendations for specific recoveryactions that address threats to the species(USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

In June 2002, in response to a federal courtorder, USFWS and NMFS proposed todesignate critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeonalong portions of rivers, estuaries, and themarine coastline in Alabama, Florida,Louisiana, and Mississippi. The proposalincluded portions of the following Gulf ofMexico rivers and tributaries: the Pearl andBogue Chitto rivers in Louisiana andMississippi; the Pascagoula, Leaf, Bowie, BigBlack Creek and Chickasawhay rivers inMississippi; the Escambia, Conecuh, andSepulga rivers in Alabama and Florida; the

Yellow, Blackwater, and Shoal rivers inAlabama and Florida; the Choctawhatchee andPea rivers in Florida and Alabama; theApalachicola and Brothers rivers in Florida;and the Suwannee and Withlacoochee rivers inFlorida. Estuarine and marine areas proposedfor designation included Lake Pontchartrain(east of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway),Lake Catherine, Little Lake, The Rigolets,Lake Borge, Pascagoula Bay and MississippiSound systems in Louisiana and Mississippi,and sections of the adjacent state waters withinthe Gulf of Mexico; the Pensacola Bay systemin Florida; the Choctawhatchee Bay system inFlorida; Santa Rosa Sound in Florida; near-shore Gulf of Mexico in Florida; theApalachicola Bay system in Florida; andSuwannee Sound and adjacent state waterswithin the Gulf of Mexico in Florida. Thesegeographic areas encompass approximately1,580 river miles and 2,333 square miles ofestuarine and marine habitats (USFWS 2002c).As of the time of this report, the period ofpublic hearings and public comment on theproposal had not yet been completed, and thefinal outcome of the proposed designationsremained unknown.

4.3 Shortnose SturgeonManagement of the shortnose sturgeoncombines aspects of management plans forAtlantic sturgeon and Gulf sturgeon. Similar tothe Atlantic sturgeon, the shortnose sturgeon’srange extends to portions of the Canadian andU.S. Atlantic coast, but management of thespecies differs between the two countries. Likethe Gulf sturgeon, the shortnose sturgeon isfederally protected in the United States becauseof a 1967 endangered species listing, nowadministered under the ESA.

CanadaCanadian fisheries regulations for the MaritimeProvinces continue to allow the catch of“sturgeon” by angling and by gill nets in theSaint John River, New Brunswick (the onlyCanadian river in which the species has beenlocated), but do not specify shortnose orAtlantic sturgeon. The catch season is regulatedunder the Federal Fisheries Act and theMaritime Provinces Fishery Regulations. Theseregulations mandate permits for fishermen and a

98

closed season from June 1 to June 30 (to protectspawning runs); they also prohibit fishing withany gill net with a mesh size smaller than 330mm (13.2 inches), and retention of any sturgeonmeasuring less than 120 cm (48 inches) inlength (Maritime Provinces FisheriesRegulations, SOR/93-55). There is no daily baglimit, but the minimum size restriction shouldlargely eliminate the possibility that shortnosesturgeon could be retained, given the species’relatively small size (pers. comm., R. Bradford,DFO, February 2003).

The United States All U.S. states within the current and/orhistoric range of the shortnose sturgeon haveenacted laws and regulations prohibiting takeand possession of the species. Shortnosesturgeon are also classified as an endangeredspecies under state laws in Connecticut,Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, NorthCarolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, andVirginia (Florida Fish and WildlifeCommission 1997; Maryland Department ofNatural Resources 1998; Le Grand et al. 2001;New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation 2001; PDCNR 2001b; Roble2001; Connecticut Department ofEnvironmental Protection 2002; GeorgiaDepartment of Natural Resources 2002;Massachusetts Division of Fisheries andWildlife 2002; New Hampshire Fish and GameDepartment 2002; New Jersey Division of Fishand Wildlife 2002; South Carolina Departmentof Natural Resources 2002).

The shortnose sturgeon was first listed as afederally endangered species in the UnitedStates on March 11, 1967, under the provisionsof the Endangered Species Preservation Act;the original listing notice did not cite specificreasons for the designation. Citing pollutionand overfishing as reasons for the shortnosesturgeon’s presumed decline, USFWSdetermined that the species continued to meetthe criteria for “endangered” under subsequentdefinitions specified in the 1969 EndangeredSpecies Conservation Act and the 1973 ESA(NMFS 1998). A 1973 Resource Publicationstated that shortnose sturgeon were “in peril…gone in most of the rivers of its former range[but] probably not as yet extinct” [U.S.Department of Interior (1973), cited in NMFS

(1998)]. NMFS assumed jurisdiction for thespecies under a 1974 governmentreorganization plan (NMFS 1998).

Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA required NMFS andUSFWS to develop and implement recoveryplans for threatened or endangered species,unless it was determined that such a planwould not promote species recovery. NMFSestablished the first Shortnose SturgeonRecovery Team (SSRT) in 1977 to develop arecovery plan for the species. Although a draftplan was completed by the team in 1981,NMFS elected to complete a status review forthe shortnose sturgeon before publishing afinal recovery plan (NMFS 1998).

A Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review wasdrafted in 1987. Its most significant conclusionswere a decision to change the status of theConnecticut, Delaware, and Hudson Riverpopulations to “threatened,” to delist theKennebec River system population in Maine,and to consider each shortnose sturgeonpopulation as a distinct unit under the ESAdefinition of species. NMFS received commentson the 1987 review and assembled a secondSSRT in 1988 to assess the document and reportits findings. However, the team disbandedbefore completing a report (NMFS 1998).

NMFS convened a third SSRT in 1993, and in1998 issued a “Final Recovery Plan for theShortnose Sturgeon: Acipenser brevirostrum.”The plan recognized 19 distinct populationsegments (described in Section 3.3 of thisreport above), and recommended that eachshould be managed separately for the purposesof the ESA. The decision to treat thepopulations as distinct was based on biologicaland ecological differences among them and thelack of recaptures from adjacent river systems.The SSRT considered shortnose sturgeon fromdifferent river systems to be “substantiallyreproductively isolated,” and stated that theloss of a single population could risk thepermanent loss of unique genetic informationthat is critical to the survival and recovery ofthe species. Therefore, in managing therecovery of the species, actions would beevaluated in terms of their potential tojeopardize the continued existence of eachdistinct population segment, rather than theexistence of the species throughout its range(NMFS 1998).

99

The long-term objective of the NMFS plan isto recover all of the distinct populationsegments to levels of abundance at which theyno longer require protection under the ESA. Apopulation segment could become eligible fordownlisting under the plan when it reaches aminimum population size that: (1) is largeenough to prevent extinction; and (2) wouldmake loss of genetic diversity unlikely.Determining the thresholds for such aminimum population size was identified as thefirst priority in the plan. In order to achieveand maintain minimum population size foreach population segment, the plan furtherrecognized the need to identify and protectessential habitats, and to monitor and minimizemortality (NMFS 1998).

Within that framework, the plan outlined threespecific action steps. The first was to establishlisting criteria by determining the size ofshortnose sturgeon population segments, aswell as evaluating trends in recruitment,determining the minimum habitat for shortnosesturgeon population segments, and determiningthe maximum allowable mortality forindividual population segments. The secondaction step listed was protection of shortnosesturgeon populations and habitats, through: (1)ensuring agency compliance with the ESA; (2)reducing bycatch; (3) determining if criticalhabitat designations are prudent for shortnosesturgeon population segments; (4)mitigating/eliminating the impact of adversehuman activities on population segments; (5)formulating a public education program toincrease awareness of the species and itsstatus; and (6) coordinating federal, state, andprivate efforts to implement recovery tasks.The third action step in the plan involvedrehabilitation of habitats and populationsegments, including restoring habitats and theirfunctions in the life histories of eachpopulation segment, developing a breeding andstocking protocol for shortnose sturgeon,reintroducing the species into river ecosystemswhere it had been extirpated, and assessing theneed to augment population segments throughhatchery and stocking programs. The planwent on to list 48 even more specificrecovery/research tasks, which were prioritizedin an implementation schedule reflectingrange-wide and river-specific recovery andresearch needs (NMFS 1998).

If all recovery criteria are met, the planenvisions that delisting of population segmentscould begin by 2024. The plan noted that thereis evidence some population segments arealready starting to recover (for example in theHudson River). It was also noted, however,that the plan is subject to modifications as maybe called for by new findings, changes inspecies status, and completion of specific tasksdescribed in the plan. In addition, attainmentof goals and objectives is contingent upon thepriorities of involved federal and stateagencies, as well as the availability of funding.Because the shortnose sturgeon inhabits rivers,estuaries, and marine areas along almost theentire east coast, and because there are amyriad of human activities that have thepotential to impact the species, a number ofagencies are responsible for implementingspecific parts of the plan. In addition toNMFS, in recent years these have includedagencies in the individual states in whichdistinct population segments reside, ASMFC,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the FederalHighway Administration, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, USFWS, the NuclearRegulatory Commission, and the NationalBiological Service (NMFS 1998).

4.4 North American PaddlefishPaddlefish are not federally listed as threatenedor endangered within the United States; thespecies is believed to be extirpated in Canada(Environment Canada 2001a). However,federal and state biologists have expressedgrave concerns regarding the status of thespecies within portions of its range. There arewide variations among states in the species’legal treatment and regulation of catch.Management regimes concerning paddlefishreflect differing philosophies among regulatoryauthorities and state legislatures, as well as thefact that the conservation status of the speciesvaries among the numerous states in which itoccurs. This becomes clear when examiningeach state’s catch regulations. Some statesprohibit all fishing (commercial and sport),while others allow one or both practices butregulate them to various degrees.

The imposition of commercial and sport catchregulations for paddlefish has been fairlyrecent. Louisiana was the first state to

100

establish regulations to protect paddlefish. In1914 the state established a six-month closedseason and a 12-inch minimum length toregulate catch. Nearly 25 years elapsed beforeother state agencies established regulations toprotect paddlefish broodstock from commercialoverexploitation (Combs 1986). The firstrecord of a paddlefish sport catch regulationfound by Combs (1986) was in 1951 for theOsage River, Missouri. In the decades sincethen, many other states have establishedrestrictions on sport catch to preventoverfishing.

U.S. states within the species’ range have madesome efforts to coordinate paddlefish (andsturgeon) management. Some inter-jurisdictional research projects andmanagement efforts in the Mississippi Basinhave been undertaken under the auspices ofMICRA (see Box 4). In other cases, individualstates have joined to manage certain paddlefishstocks or fisheries cooperatively (for example,Montana and North Dakota, and Nebraska andSouth Dakota). Paddlefish range states havealso moved to coordinate fishing regulations incommon boundary waters, where in the past

fishermen from two states may have shared afishery but been bound by different regulations.

In the Ohio River Basin, recognition that OhioRiver paddlefish likely represent a singlepopulation, and consideration of the value andvulnerability of paddlefish as a source ofcaviar, have prompted the development of acomprehensive and coordinated managementplan among six states (Illinois, Indiana,Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and WestVirginia) to scope a course of action forpaddlefish management within the basin.Recommendations in the plan call for states toestablish full cooperation in the managementand monitoring of paddlefish throughout theOhio River Basin; continue participation in theMICRA National Paddlefish Study; use OhioRiver broodstock in stocking programs toprotect the genetic integrity of the population;improve procedures for oversight andassessment of commercial fisheries; align sportcatch regulations among states that permit suchfisheries; and monitor retail and wholesaleprices of caviar and CITES export permits forpaddlefish (Henley et al. in press).

101

Recognizing the need for improved inter-jurisdictional management of paddlefish andother species in the late 1980s, the 28 states ofthe Mississippi River Basin created theMississippi Interstate Cooperative ResourceAgreement (MICRA) in the years between1989 and 1991. Participating states includedAlabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia,Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, WestVirginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

MICRA developed a comprehensive strategicplan in 1991 in cooperation with theAmerican Fisheries Society and the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (USFWS). In 1992,USFWS initiated development of a nationalframework for the management andconservation of sturgeon and paddlefish

species in the United States to bettercoordinate federal, state, and private effortsand reduce duplicative efforts within USFWS.While MICRA involves species beyondpaddlefish and sturgeon, the nationalframework recognized the importance ofMICRA as the mid-continent paddlefish andsturgeon coordination body for the 28Mississippi River Basin states. MICRAestablished a Paddlefish/Sturgeon Sub-Committee in the fall of 1992 to address theneeds of paddlefish and sturgeon speciesinhabiting the Basin, and to provide guidancefor their future management.

The Subcommittee developed its ownStrategic Plan in 1993, with a missionstatement to “promote the conservation,management, and enhancement of paddlefishand sturgeon resources in the MississippiRiver Basin through improved coordinationand communication among responsible

Box 4. MICRA

continued on next page

However, it remains apparent that managementstrategies for paddlefish continue to differamong states, based on the status of individualstate paddlefish populations and the relativepriority given to commercial and sport catch,protection, or restoration. Specific regulationspertaining to commercial and sport fishing alsodiffer from state to state, although there havebeen recent efforts to harmonize regulatoryregimes among many states (e.g., the OhioRiver management plan). Regulatory toolsemployed to manage commercial catch, whereit is allowed, commonly include gearrestrictions, limiting state waters in whichcatch is allowed, season limits, minimum ormaximum size restrictions, and catch reportingrequirements. Sport fishing regulations alsocommonly include gear restrictions, closingcertain waters to catch, creel limits and/orcatch quotas, season limits, minimum ormaximum size restrictions, and reportingrequirements. Table 4.4.1 summarizes some ofthe basic regulatory tools employed by rangestates to manage paddlefish fisheries.

The following summaries explain in moredetail each range state’s approach tomanagement of paddlefish, and in particular,rules regarding commercial and sport catch.

Alabama

The paddlefish is protected in the state byAlabama Regulation 220-2-.94: “It is illegal totake or attempt to take paddlefish from allpublic waters of Alabama by any method or toprocess paddlefish or any part of a paddlefish.Any paddlefish accidentally captured shall beimmediately returned to the waters fromwhence it came. This regulation does notapply to commercially packaged paddlefishproducts imported from out-of-state or topaddlefish cultured at hatchery operations orgrow out ponds permitted through theCommissioner, Department of Conservationand Natural Resources” (S. Cook, Chief ofFisheries, Alabama Department ofConservation and Natural Resources, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 15, 2000).

102

entities.” Specific goals included identifyingand prioritizing issues and concerns affectingpaddlefish and sturgeon resources in the Basinand developing a mechanism to address them;facilitating communication and coordinationamong entities responsible for paddlefish andsturgeon resource management; developing aBasin-wide information management programbased upon standard methods for collectingand reporting fishery resource data;identifying and coordinating paddlefish andsturgeon research, management, culture, andrecovery programs; facilitating Basin-wideconservation, protection, and restoration ofspecies’ habitats; seeking Basin-wideconsensus regarding paddlefish and sturgeonconservation and management throughdevelopment of uniform, compatibleregulations and policies; and increasing thepublic’s awareness of the existence ofpaddlefish and sturgeon species, appreciationof the ecological and economic importance ofthese species, and understanding of theenvironmental and human-related impacts thatthreaten their welfare and continued existence.

In 1994, MICRA changed its name from“Agreement” to “Association,” thus becomingthe Mississippi Interstate CooperativeResource Association. Its greatest challengeshave been recurring issues related to theparochial attitudes of some members and tofunding. As with any large inter-jurisdictionalgroup, MICRA must constantly face thetendency of some members to think locallyrather than Basin-wide. Given thatconservation and resource challenges arelarger than the state fish and wildlife agenciescombined, MICRA needs to continue to focuson the concept that there is strength innumbers and in unity among partners. Unlikethe coastal commissions, MICRA receives nofederal appropriations and has no realmanagement authority. It is simply a tool,designed and built by and for the states, withfederal cooperation, to improve inter-jurisdictional fishery resource managementacross the Mississippi Basin. Its future relieson the commitment, communication, andcooperation of its members.Sources: MICRA (1998); Rasmussen (1999).

Arkansas

Paddlefish are a popular commercial and sportfish in Arkansas. The state defines the speciesas a game fish, but it can be considered acommercial fish if taken with commercial gear(2000 Arkansas Fishing Regulations).Arkansas regulates its paddlefish fisherythrough a combination of gear, licensing,reporting, size, season, and closed waterrestrictions mandated by the Arkansas Gameand Fish Commission (AGFC), some of whichwere instituted beginning in 2002.

Gear restrictions limit Arkansas commercialfishermen to properly licensed drag seines,

hoop nets (with or without wings or leads),fiddler nets (without wings or leads) wherepermitted, slat traps (where permitted),trammel nets, gill nets, limb lines, set lines,trotlines, and snag lines in waters open tocommercial fishing. Fishermen must obtain acommercial tackle license for each piece ofgear used, and metal tags issued withcommercial licenses must be attached to thetackle. The minimum square bar mesh forcommercial seine nets, gill nets, and trammelnets is 3-1/2 inches. Additional restrictions orprohibitions regarding the use of certain typesof gear also apply in specified state waters(AGFC 2001a).

103

State Commercial Fishery Limit/Restrictions Sport Fishery Limit/Restrictions

Alabama No — No —

Arkansas Yes G,L,R,S,W Yes C,G,W

Illinois Yes G,R,W Yes C,G,S,W

Indiana Yes G,R,W Yes C,S

Iowa No — Yes C,G,W

Kansas No — Yes C,R,S,W

Kentucky Yes G,R,S,W Yes C,S,W

Louisiana No — No —

Minnesota No — No —

Mississippi Yes G,S,W Yes G,S

Missouri Yes G,L,R,W Yes C,G,L,S,W

Montana No — Yes C,G,Q,S

Nebraska No — Yes C,G,L,P,S,W

New York No+ — No+ —

North Carolina No+ — No+ —

North Dakota No — Yes C,Q,S

Ohio No — Yes W

Oklahoma No — Yes C,G,S

Pennsylvania No+ — No+ —

South Dakota No — Yes C,G,L,P,S,W

Tennessee Yes G,L,R,S,W Yes C,S,W

Texas No — No —

Virginia No+ — No+ —

West Virginia No — No —

Wisconsin No — No —

Table 4.4.1 Summary of Commercial and Sport Fishing ManagementRegulations for Paddlefish*

Key: C = Creel limit (sport); G = Gear restrictions; L = Minimum/maximum length restrictions; P = Managed with tag/permit system; Q = Seasonal quota (commercial)/Catch limit (sport); R = Reporting requirement; S = Limited season; W = Waters restricted.* Sources: Todd (1999); Mosher (1999); State Laws and Regulations (see state-by-state summaries in this section for more information andspecific references).+ Additional Information: New York: Natural population extirpated—reintroduction program underway (see Section 6.1 for details). NorthCarolina: Officially listed as endangered based on historical presence and possibility of remnant population; catch prohibited. Pennsylvania:Natural population extirpated—reintroduction program underway (see Section 6.1 for details. Virginia: Officially listed as threatened based onhistorical presence and possibility of remnant population; catch prohibited.

Commercial fishermen must obtain a currentResidential Commercial Fishing Permit andSportfishing License before operatingcommercial tackle. In a recent regulatorychange, as of 2002 it became illegal forcommercial fishermen (or fish farmers) topossess paddlefish, or parts thereof (includingroe), without a Resident Roe Taker/SellerPermit, a Resident Roe Taker Helper Permit,1 aResident Roe Buyer/Exporter Permit, or a Non-Resident Roe Buyer Permit, as applicable.Specifically, it became illegal to take withcommercial tackle, sell, or possess paddlefish ortheir parts without first obtaining a Resident RoeTaker/Seller Permit, in addition to a commercialfishing license. It became illegal to buy orexport paddlefish or their parts across state lineswithout first obtaining a Resident or Non-Resident Roe Buyer/Exporter Permit. Licensedcommercial fishermen who have a Resident RoeBuyer/Exporter Permit may also take paddlefishin accordance with state catch regulations. Itremains illegal for fishermen to remove roe frompaddlefish while fishing or transporting fish byboat, unless the fishermen have the gutted fish inthe boat from which the egg sacks were removedand the eggs remain uncleaned in the egg sacks(AGFC 2001a, 2001b).

Arkansas regulations spell out which statewaters are open or closed to commercialfishing. In another regulatory change, as of2002 commercial fishermen were limited to astatewide paddlefish catch season fromDecember 1 to April 30, except when usingsport fishing equipment. The state also openedthe Mississippi River, where the paddlefishseason had previously been closed fromJanuary 1 through April 30 of each year, tocatch and roe harvest during the open stateseason. In a related move, Arkansas acted toincrease the minimum length limit forpaddlefish to reflect the change in seasons.Effective November 1, 2002, the minimumlength limit of paddlefish increased to 32inches (eye to fork), and to 28 inches blocked-out (head removed behind gills). Prior to thatchange, commercial fishermen could not takepaddlefish smaller than 30 inches (eye to fork)or 24 inches (blocked-out) between Novemberand the end of February, with no length limits

imposed during the remainder of the year(AGFC 2001a, 2001b).

Commercial fishing data were not collectedfrom 1982 to 2000 because of a lack offunding and problematic data collectionmethods (A. Layher, Biologist, FisheriesDivision, AGFC, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 18, 2000). Arkansasbegan collecting data on the harvest of roe inJanuary 2002; the state reported the harvest of13,361.75 pounds (~6,074 kg; 6.074 metrictons) of paddlefish roe for the year 2002 (pers.comm., B. Posey, Commercial Fishing andMussel Biologist, AGFC, August, 2002).

Arkansas’ daily sport fishing limit is twopaddlefish per day in most places, althoughsome counties limit catch to one fish, and alsorestrict the kind of gear that can be used(AGFC 2000). Catch records are not requiredor kept for the sport fishery.

Illinois

Illinois considers paddlefish to be both acommercial and sport fish; the means of takingand purposes for which they are takendetermine the type of license required (IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resources [DNR]2001). There are no catch quotas for thecommercial catch, but the industry is restrictedto portions of the Illinois and LowerMississippi rivers, and the entire Ohio River(Illinois Administrative Code, Section 830.30).There are no size limits. Commercialfishermen may use trammel nets, gill nets, andseines in waters approved for commercialcatch of paddlefish; however, it is illegal to usetrammel nets in the Ohio River with less thanfour-inch bar mesh netting (IllinoisAdministrative Code, Section 830.40). Thestate requires commercial fishermen to reportthe undressed weight of their catch annually,and file a report for activities in the Ohio Riverby the 10th of each month following catch,whether or not they have taken any fish(Illinois Administrative Code, Section 830.90).

Prior to 1990, there was no requirement forcommercial fishermen to report the quantity ofeggs taken. The state now requires fishermento report all roe catch. Initiated by the concern

104

1 An Arkansas Roe Taker Helper Permit allows a person to operate the tackle of a licensed commercial fisherman and assistin roe catch when in the immediate presence of a Resident Roe Taker/Seller.

of state fishery managers that paddlefish roecatch may be under-reported, the stateconducted a law enforcement activity in thefall of 1999 entitled “Operation True Catch.”Under this operation, records from roe buyerswere seized and compared to recordssubmitted by commercial fishermen. Theconcerns expressed by state fishery managerswere confirmed when substantial discrepancieswere detected through this effort. Harvestreports submitted from 2000 to date arethought to be much more accurate (pers.comm., R. Maher, Illinois Department ofNatural Resources, February 2003). Table4.4.2 shows the commercial paddlefish catchreported for the years 1990 to 2001.

Illinois’ sport fishery is limited to a snaggingseason from September 15 through December15, and from March 15 through May 15,within 300 yards downstream of all locks anddams of the Illinois and Mississippi rivers inIllinois waters between Illinois and Missouri.Snagging is permitted from January 1 throughApril 15 within 500 yards of locks and damson the Mississippi River in Illinois watersbetween Illinois and Iowa. Fishermen arelimited to one pole and line device, to whichcan be attached no more than two hooks. Thesport fishing limit is two per day. Allpaddlefish that are snagged must be taken intopossession and counted into the daily baglimit; no “sorting”—high-grading—is allowed.

Once the daily limit is reached, snagging mustcease (Illinois Administrative Code, Section810.20). The state considers this fisheryminimal and insignificant, as only one area ofthe state has consistently proven productive(success is low enough at other dams that fewpeople try). Accurate data on the sport catchare not kept (Mike Conlin, Chief, Division ofFisheries, Illinois Department of NaturalResources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 23, 2000). No fish, orparts thereof (including eggs), taken by sportfishing methods (including snagging) may bebought, sold, or bartered (IllinoisAdministrative Code, Section 810.10).

Indiana

Indiana allows both commercial and sportcatch of paddlefish. Like Illinois, the statelimits waters that can be fished commerciallyto those of the Ohio River believed by fisherymanagers to have fairly abundant paddlefishpopulations. There are few gear restrictionsfor commercial fishermen; the minimum meshsize is four inches for trammel and gill nets,and one inch for seine and hoop nets.Commercial fishermen targeting paddlefishtypically use a five-inch bar mesh (pers.comm., T. Stefanavage, Indiana Department ofNatural Resources, February 2002). Catchduring the 1990s was estimated at an annualaverage of approximately 22,389 kilograms.The average harvest of eggs was estimated at

105

Year Flesh (pounds) Eggs (pounds)

1990 75,508 345

1991 57,877 86

1992 46,616 36

1993 43,783 125

1994 56,313 86

1995 48,481 124

1996 64,180 279

1997 49,367 73

1998 44,255 355

1999 64,152 423

2000 36,768 2,292

2001 43,145 607

Total: 630,445 4,831

Table 4.4.2 Commercial Paddlefish Catch in Illinois, 1990–2001*

* Source: Mike Conlin, Chief, Division of Fisheries, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 23,2000; pers. comm., R. Maher, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, February 2003.

33 kilograms, although that estimate was basedon limited information (Todd 1999). Indianapermits a sport snagging fishery for paddlefishduring a season from February 1 to May 10,with a catch limit of two fish per day; high-grading is prohibited (Mosher 1999; pers.comm., T. Stefanavage, Indiana Department ofNatural Resources, February 2002).

Iowa

Iowa does not permit commercial catch ofpaddlefish, and prohibits their commercial saleby excluding the species from the approved listof fish whose sale is legal (Iowa Code, Section482.10). The state allows sport snagging forpaddlefish, but restricts the activity. Sportcatch of paddlefish is allowed in inland statewaters and the Mississippi River year-round.There is a daily catch limit of two, and apossession limit of four (the daily catch limitrefers to the number of fish a person may havein a 24-hour period; the possession limit refersto the number of fish a person may have afterthe first day). There is no minimum lengthlimit. Paddlefish may not be taken in waters ofthe Missouri and Big Sioux rivers, or in anytributary of those rivers within 200 yardsimmediately upstream from the confluence.This regulation was put in place during theearly 1990s, in concert with similar regulationspublished by the states of Nebraska and SouthDakota, because of concerns about decliningpaddlefish numbers in the Missouri Riversystem. The state has also designated eightspecific areas that are closed to snagging year-round, including sections of the Des MoinesRiver, Cedar River, Iowa River, CharintonRiver, and the spillway area below the SpiritLake outlet (Marion Conover, Chief, FisheriesBureau, Iowa Department of NaturalResources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 14, 2000; Iowa FishingRegulations 2002).

Kansas

Kansas does not allow commercial catch ofpaddlefish. Although paddlefish are present inthe Arkansas, Kansas, Marais des Cygnes,Missouri, Neosho, and Verdigris rivers, sportcatch is allowed only at the Osawatomie Damon the Marais des Cygnes River, the ChetopaDam on the Neosho River, the Tunnel Mill

Dam on the Walnut River, and BrowningOxbow Lake that adjoins the Missouri River(Tom Mosher, Fisheries Research Coordinator,Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks[KDWP], in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA,August 17, 2000; pers. comm., T. Mosher,KDWP, September 2002).

The creel limit in the sport fishery is two fishper day, with a possession limit of six. Theseason lasts from March 15 to May 15(Mosher 1999). Except at Osawatomie Dam,each paddlefish caught is included in the creeland possession limit, and each fisherman isrequired to keep all paddlefish caught on astringer, cord, cable, or chain in a basket, sack,cage, or other holding device. At OsawatomieDam, paddlefish must be 34 inches eye to forkof tail to be legal. Furthermore, fishermenmust check their catch at a state check stationimmediately upon reaching the creel limit orcompleting the day’s fishing. Each checkedpaddlefish is tagged with a numbered tagattached to the lower jaw; fishermen mustprovide their name, address, and fishinglicense number at the check station (KansasPaddlefish Regulations, Section 115-7-1).Catch levels from 1992 to 2002 at OsawatomieDam and Chetopa Dam are summarized belowin Table 4.4.3.

Past creel surveys estimated approximately2,200 to 4,300 angler days during variousyearly seasons at Chetopa Dam, drawinganglers from other communities andcontributing to the economy of small Kansastowns. Angler days were probably muchhigher in 1999, when more than 2,000 fishwere taken (Tom Mosher, Fisheries ResearchCoordinator, KDWP, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 17, 2000). Stockingefforts during the 1990s played a significantrole in supporting these fisheries. The state’sprogram is discussed in Section VI onHatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture.

Kentucky

Kentucky permits both commercial and sportcatch of paddlefish, and regulates bothpractices. The state limits which waterscommercial fishermen may use, and allows useof commercial gear in other waters only underspecial permit. This is done through the

106

Department of Wildlife Resources’ statutoryauthority under 301 KAR 1:150, “Waters Opento Commercial Fishing.” The regulation spellsout specific streams and rivers (or partsthereof), and lakes (or parts thereof), that areopen to commercial fishing. These bodies ofwater can be opened and closed by statefisheries managers as they deem necessary toconserve the resource base or to respond toconditions. Further, the state regulates thetypes of devices that commercial fishermenmay use and where in specific water bodiesthey can and cannot be deployed (301 KAR

1:155, “Commercial Fishing Requirements”).Finally, the state requires commercialfishermen using nets to acquire a specialpermit and limits the size of gill nets (KAR1:140, “Special Commercial Fishing Permit”).Table 4.4.4 shows the catch of paddlefish forthe years 1999 to 2002 (partial total for 2002)in Kentucky waters open to commercialfishing. As the figures in the table show, theOhio River is by far the most heavily fishedriver in Kentucky, providing the vast majorityof both paddlefish flesh and roe. The increasein reported catch from 1999 to 2000 and

107

Year Chetopa Dam (# of Paddlefish Caught) Osawatomie Dam (# of Paddlefish Caught)

1992 71 4

1993 541 87

1994 325 19

1995 769 12

1996 479 11

1997 394 75

1998 800 58

1999 2,010 457

2000 98 5

2001 38 0

2002 481 19

Table 4.4.3 Recorded Angler-Caught Paddlefish at Osawatomie Dam andChetopa Dam, Kansas, 1992–2002*

* Sources: Tom Mosher, Fisheries Research Coordinator, KDWP, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 17, 2000; pers. comm., T. Mosher,KDWP, Sept. 2002.

Table 4.4.4 Commercial Catch of Paddlefish in Kentucky Waters,1999–2002 (partial)*

1999+ 2000 2001 2002++

Water Body Flesh Eggs Flesh Eggs Flesh Eggs Flesh Eggs (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)

Barkley Lake 23,178 32 16,123 22 23,083 3 19,462 62

Cumberland Lake 1,185 — 2,012 60 4,534 82 2,895 —

Cumberland River 127 — 198 4 3,061 200 1,450 7

Green River — — 60 — 4 — 138 —

Kentucky Lake 10,045 16 8,294 34 3,797 17 8,577 61

Kentucky River 3,101 446 1,876 307 2,205 243 314 35

Mississippi River 632 4 14,940 3,817 4,756 1,321 3,140 201

Ohio River 135,350 6,665 302,045 15,935 507,025 19,196 340,236 14,783

Tennessee River 696 2 1,053 — 617 2 445 14

Pond River — — 50 — — — 10 —

Rough River — — 12 — — — — —

Total: 174,314 7,165 346,663 20,179 549,082 21,064 376,667 15,163

* Source: Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources.+ Harvest totals for each license year March 1 through February 28.++ Harvest totals for March 1, 2002 through November 30, 2002.

beyond may have been influenced by increaseddemand for paddlefish caviar; however, itshould be noted that 1999 was the first yearthat fishermen were required to report theircatch, and initial compliance is believed tohave been low (pers. comm., D. Henley,Kentucky Department of Fish and WildlifeResources, December 2002).

Kentucky permits sport fishing (snagging) forpaddlefish statewide from February 1 to May10 except in locations listed in 301 KAR1:075, “Gigging, grabbing or snagging,tickling and noodling.” The exception is theTennessee River below Kentucky Lake Dam,which is open year-round and has a daily limitof 15 fish. The Ohio River and remainingareas open to snagging have no creel limitsduring the snagging season (pers. comm., D.Henley, Kentucky Department of Fish andWildlife Resources, December 2002).

Louisiana

Paddlefish have been a protected species inLouisiana since 1986, and there has been nocommercial or sport fishing for the speciessince that year. Under state law, it is illegal topossess paddlefish, sturgeon, or their parts(including roe). Violators face a maximumfine of $2,500 per violation (J. Roussel,Assistant Secretary, Office of Fisheries,Louisiana Department of Wildlife andFisheries, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 25, 2000).

Minnesota

Minnesota does not allow commercial orrecreational catch of paddlefish. The species isnot common in the state, and is believed tohave disappeared from many Minnesota waters.Under MN Statute 97C.411, paddlefish, lakesturgeon, and shovelnose sturgeon may not betaken, bought, sold, transported or possessedexcept as provided by a rule from theMinnesota Commissioner of Natural Resources.The Commissioner may only allow the takingof these fish in waters that the state boundarypasses through, and in tributaries to the St.Croix River. Any such action to open a seasonfor paddlefish appears unlikely in the nearfuture (Linda Erickson-Eastwood, FisheriesProgram Manager, Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 23, 2000).

Mississippi

Mississippi allows commercial catch ofpaddlefish, which are classified in Section 49-7-1 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 [the Code]as “nongame gross fish.” However, thecommercial fishing season is closed fromNovember 1 to April 30 of each year. Becausethe timing of the seasonal closure coincideswith the paddlefish spawning season,paddlefish roe is not harvested in Mississippi,and the state does not keep catch records.During the closed season it is illegal to fish for,take, or have in possession paddlefish or theirparts, including eggs (roe) (MississippiDepartment of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks[MDWFP] 2000b). Section 49-7-90 of theCode further stipulates that any person whotakes or possesses a paddlefish in violation ofthe law or who commits waste by discardingany parts of a paddlefish into state waters maybe guilty of a Class I violation. Section 49-7-141 of the Code specifies that the penalty forsuch a violation is a fine of $2,000–$5,000,five days in county jail, and forfeiture of allhunting, trapping, and fishing privileges for aperiod of not less than 12 months. It is alsoillegal to sell any non-game gross fish withouta valid freshwater commercial fishing license($30 for residents; $200 for nonresidents).

In addition to restricting the legal fishingseason, Mississippi restricts the types of gearthat commercial fishermen may use to catchpaddlefish and other nongame gross fish (e.g.,seine nets are banned; trotlines, snag lines,hoop nets, barrel nets, trammel nets, and gillnets are restricted in size and use).Commercial fishermen must purchase a $3equipment tag for each piece of gear. Thestate has also closed certain state waters to alltypes of freshwater commercial fishing gear,and in other state waters specifically restrictsthe types of gear allowed. Mississippi has notestablished minimum or maximum sizerestrictions for paddlefish (MDWFP 2000b).

The state also allows a two-month sportsnagging season in October and November ofeach year, with a creel limit of two fish perday. Sport fishermen are restricted to the useof legal commercial gear (pers. comm., D.Riecke, MDWFP, September 2002).

108

Missouri

Missouri allows commercial catch of paddlefishin the Mississippi River, with restrictions.Commercial fishermen must obtain a permitthat costs $25 for residents and $200 for non-residents. In addition, each permittee must tageach net, seine, or group of 50 hooks forjuglines, trotlines, bank lines, limb lines, orthrowlines under a set fee schedule. These tagsare not transferable and tagged equipment mustbe attended personally by the permittee or byanother licensed commercial fishermanauthorized in writing by the permittee as anassistant. A licensed commercial fishermanmust be present in each boat (Wildlife Code ofMissouri, 3CSR10-10.720).

There are no catch quotas for paddlefish.There are, however, restrictions on what statewaters may be fished, size limits, and gearrestrictions. Paddlefish cannot be takencommercially on the Missouri River or on thatpart of the Saint Francis River that forms theboundary between Arkansas and Missouri. Inthe Mississippi River fishery, the minimumlength limit is 24 inches, measured from eyeto fork of tail, and the head and tail mustremain attached to the fish while oncommercial waters. Commercial fishing gearcannot be used or set within 300 yards of anyspillway, lock, dam, or the mouth of anytributary stream or ditch. In addition, theminimum bar measure for seines, gill nets,and trammel nets is two inches (when wet);

the minimum bar measure for hoop nets andwings is 1-1/2 inches (when wet); and hooksattached to trotlines or throwlines must be atleast two feet apart (Wildlife Code ofMissouri, 3CSR10-10.725).

All commercial fishermen must submit amonthly report on a form provided by theDepartment of Conservation, showing the placeof origin and the quantity and species of fishtaken during the preceding month. The formmust be filed even if no fish are taken, andpermit renewal is conditional on receipt by theDepartment of Conservation of satisfactorymonthly reports (Wildlife Code of Missouri,3CSR10-10.727). Table 4.4.5 shows Missouripaddlefish catches from 1992 to 2001. The statehas not monitored the harvest of roe, so data areavailable only on the total pounds caught.

Missouri also permits sport fishing forpaddlefish from March 15 through April 30,except on the Mississippi River, where theseason is March 15 through May 15 andSeptember 15 through December 15. Thedaily creel limit is two fish. Permitted fishingmethods include pole and line, snagging,grabbing, trotline, throwline, limb line, bankline, jug line, and falconry. The minimumlength limit is 24 inches, measured from theeye to the fork of the tail. On Lake of theOzarks and its tributaries, Table Rock Lakeand its tributaries, and Truman Lake and itstributaries, the minimum length is 34 inches.Paddlefish eggs from sport fishing may not be

109

Table 4.4.5 Missouri Commercial Paddlefish Catch, Mississippi River,1992–2001*

Year Catch (lbs)

1992 5,520

1993 2,324

1994 9,729

1995 6,418

1996 4,483

1997 8,285

1998 5,167

1999 8,675

2000 13,481

2001 18,732

* Source: Kim Graham, Missouri Department of Conservation, in litt. to USFWS/OMA, August 2000; pers. comm., V. Travnichek, MissouriDepartment of Conservation, February 2003.

bought, sold, offered for sale, or transported,and paddlefish or parts thereof (including eggs)cannot be used for bait. In addition, paddlefishmay not be taken from restricted zones listedby the state as closed to fishing and snagging,or possessed on certain waters designated bythe state (Wildlife Code of Missouri, Section3CSR10-6.525).

Montana

Paddlefish are classified as a game fish inMontana. The state allows snag fishing forthe species and the sale of paddlefish roe ascaviar. Commercial fishing is not permitted,but Montana’s paddlefish managementprogram (along with North Dakota’s) includesa roe donation program that sells caviarharvested from sport fishing through anonprofit corporation.

General regulations that apply to catch ofpaddlefish in all Montana waters include arequirement that every angler, regardless of age,must purchase a proper conservation license,fishing license, and paddlefish tags, which mustbe in the angler’s immediate possession whilefishing. Each angler must also cast for, hook,and reel in his or her own paddlefish; it isillegal for another person to do so. Anglersmust immediately tag paddlefish with their owntag; any tag locked shut prior to attachment, orany altered or modified tag, shall be voided. Ifan angler cuts up a paddlefish, he/she mustkeep the part of the back and dorsal fin towhich the tag is attached and sealed to the fish;tags must remain with the processed fish untilconsumption (Montana Eastern Fishing DistrictSpecial Regulations, 2000).

Other Montana catch regulations for paddlefishdiffer according to water body. In the MissouriRiver upstream from Fort Peck Dam, the stateallows a year-round season with a limit of twopaddlefish per season. Downstream from FortPeck Dam, the Missouri River paddlefishfishery is managed in conjunction with NorthDakota. In 1994, Montana and North Dakotainstituted the Yellowstone-SakakaweaPaddlefish Management Plan, which establishedgoals and objectives for a sustainablerecreational catch consistent with the productivecapacity of the stock. In recent years, theagreement established a maximum harvest of1,500 paddlefish taken per state per year;

however, in late 2002 North Dakota andMontana anticipated adopting arecommendation to lower the harvest cap to1,000 fish per state per year, based on evidenceof a slow decline in the overall estimated stockof 30,000 adult paddlefish (see also summaryfor North Dakota below). In this fishery,Montana regulations allow a maximum annualcatch of one paddlefish per season, and theMontana Department of Fish, Wildlife andParks may close the season with 48 hours noticein any year in which it appears that the harvestcap may be significantly exceeded. In additionto snagging, paddlefish may be harvested usinghook and line and/or bow and arrow in the FortPeck Dredge Cuts (Montana Eastern FishingDistrict Special Regulations, 2000). There isalso a limited, one paddlefish per season fisheryon the Yellowstone River (this fishery allowscatch-and-release only on Wednesdays andSundays between 3 p.m. and 9 p.m.) (L.Peterman, Administrator, Fisheries Division,Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 21, 2000).

Table 4.4.6 summarizes the estimated annualcatch of paddlefish in Montana from 1992through 2002.

A 1997 survey of paddlefish anglers reportedthat 73% favored catch-and-releaseopportunities, and that an estimated 3,000anglers snagged for paddlefish annually.Based on a 1993 survey, approximately 35% ofanglers in Montana were non-residents. Fewanglers were motivated to snag a paddlefish toobtain eggs for caviar (L. Peterman,Administrator, Fisheries Division, MontanaFish, Wildlife and Parks, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 21, 2000).

An unusual feature of Montana’s program isthe paddlefish roe donation program, whichwas established through a Memorandum ofUnderstanding between the state and theGlendive Area Chamber of Commerce andAgriculture. Under this program, a nonprofitcorporation was established to take donationsof eggs from recreational fishermen. The eggsare then processed and sold, and by law 40percent of the proceeds are applied towardpaddlefish management programs (MontanaFish and Wildlife Statutes, 87-4-601[d][i]).During the 1990s, annual roe productionaveraged 3,337.66 pounds; the average gross

110

annual income of the venture was $138,488over the same period. The Montana roedonation program, and a companion programunderway in North Dakota, are the only onesof this type in the United States, andMontana’s has become increasingly importantto the Glendive Chamber of Commerce (L.Peterman, Administrator, Fisheries Division,Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 21, 2000).

Nebraska/South Dakota

Neither Nebraska nor South Dakota allowscommercial catch of paddlefish, but the twostates jointly manage a sport fishery and so arecombined here. Paddlefish are classified as asport fish in both states. There are twocontrolled seasons—an archery season during

16 days in the middle of July and a 30-daysnagging season in October. These are on theMissouri River below Gavins Point Dam alongthe two states’ common boundary. Table 4.4.7shows the sport catch from the snaggingseason for 1992 to 2002, along with themanagement strategy for the fishery.

As Table 4.4.7 shows, from 1992 through 1996the season was managed by a quota system thatallowed for a 30-day season or a catch of 1,600fish, whichever came first. During this period,the catch quota was reached in six days orfewer in two out of the five years. Beginningin 1997, management of the paddlefish catchswitched to a tag/permit system. Between 1997and 1999, the two states issued a total of 2,250tags per year. Beginning in 2000 the number oftags issued was increased to 2,800 per year

111

Table 4.4.7 Sport Catch from South Dakota/Nebraska Snagging, 1992–2002*

Year # of Paddlefish Caught Management

1992 1,000 Managed with 1,600 fish quota

1993 1,529 Managed with 1,600 fish quota

1994 1,568 Managed with 1,600 fish quota

1995 2,200 Managed with 1,600 fish quota

1996 1,828 Managed with 1,600 fish quota

1997 948 Managed with tag/permit system

1998 1,125 Managed with tag/permit system

1999 1,334 Managed with tag/permit system

2000 943 Managed with tag/permit system

2001 1,030 Managed with tag/permit system

2002 732 Managed with tag/permit system

* Source: Clifton Stone, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Reservoir Fisheries, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, in litt. toRosemarie Gnam, USFWS/OMA, August 25, 2000; pers. comm, C. Stone, January 2003.

Table 4.4.6 Paddlefish Catch Data in Montana, 1992–2002*

Year # of Paddlefish Caught

1992 1,016

1993 2,746

1994 1,031

1995 2,543

1996 1,942

1997 1,575

1998 967

1999 1,986

2000 666

2001 360

2002 682

* Source: Larry Peterman, Administrator, Fisheries Division, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 21,2000; pers. comm, K. McDonald, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, September 2002.

(1,400 per state). The snag fishery is alsomanaged with a protected slot limit of 35 to 45inches from the eye to the fork of the tail (i.e.,anglers have to release any paddlefish thatmeasures from 35- to 45-inches from the eye tothe fork of the tail). Snagging is allowed from7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily (Clifton Stone,Senior Wildlife Biologist, Reservoir Fisheries,South Dakota Department of Game, Fish andParks, in litt. to Rosemarie Gnam,USFWS/OMA, August 25, 2000; pers. comm,C. Stone, South Dakota Department of Game,Fish and Parks, January 2003).

Along with the snag fishery, Nebraska andSouth Dakota estimate that another 100–150paddlefish are harvested annually during a Julyarchery season. During this season paddlefisharchery anglers can fish from sunrise to sunset(Clifton Stone, Senior Wildlife Biologist,Reservoir Fisheries, South Dakota Departmentof Game, Fish and Parks, in litt. to RosemarieGnam, USFWS/OMA, August 25, 2000). Thetag quota for the archery season is a maximumof 550 tags (275 per state) (pers. comm., C.Stone, South Dakota Department of Game,Fish and Parks, January 2003).

New York

Paddlefish were historically present in theAllegheny River in southwestern New York,but were extirpated by the early 1900s. As of2000, the species had no official status orspecial protection in the state. As is detailed inSection VI on Hatcheries and CommercialAquaculture, in 1998 New York initiated arestoration plan through stocking. Should theprogram show a meaningful rate of survival,

the state anticipated possible action to prohibitharvest in 2002 (P. Festa, New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation,in. litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August22, 2000).

North Dakota

With Montana, North Dakota manages thepaddlefish as a game species under theYellowstone-Sakakawea PaddlefishManagement Plan. In recent years there hasbeen a harvest cap of 1,500 paddlefish takenper state per year; however, in late 2002 NorthDakota and Montana were expected to adopt arecommendation to lower the harvest cap to1,000 fish per year, based on evidence of aslow decline in the overall estimated stock of30,000 adult paddlefish. The paddlefishseason runs May 1–31, unless there is an in-season closure (as was the case in 2001 and2002). Only snagging is permitted; there is nocatch-and-release (pers. comm., G. Power,North Dakota Game and Fish Department,September 2002). Table 4.4.8 shows theannual paddlefish catch from 1995 to 2002.

The state has an MOU in place with anonprofit corporation, North Star Caviar, toprocess and sell eggs, with 25% of the netproceeds reverting to research andmanagement of stocks (G. Power, FisheriesDivision, North Dakota Game and FishDepartment, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 22, 2000). Table 4.4.9shows annual paddlefish/roe donation andcaviar production from North Star Caviar forthe years 1993–2002.

112

Table 4.4.8 North Dakota Paddlefish Catch, 1995-2002*

Year # of Paddlefish Caught

1995 1,724

1996 975

1997 800

1998 1,970

1999 1,309

2000 2,205

2001 1,566

2002 1,364

Average: 1,489

* Sources: G. Power, Fisheries Division, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 22, 2000; pers.comm., G. Power, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, September 2002.

Ohio

Ohio’s paddlefish population is limited indistribution and relatively rare. Paddlefishwere listed as an endangered species in Ohiofrom 1974 until 1987, when the species wasrelisted as threatened, a status that does notautomatically bar all fishing. There is nocommercial fishery in Ohio, however, andrecreational anglers cannot take paddlefishwithin 1,000 feet downstream of four largedams in the state (G. Isbell, ExecutiveAdministrator, Fish Management andResearch, Ohio Department of NaturalResources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 15, 2000).

Oklahoma

Oklahoma does not permit commercial fishingfor paddlefish. The state allows a sport catch,with restrictions. There are three seasons. Thefirst is from January 1 to March 14, when thecreel limit is one fish per day, and catch-and-release is permitted by use of rod and reel andtrotline only. The second, from March 15through May 15, has a creel limit of three fishper day. During this season catch-and-releasefishermen may use any method except atrotline, other fishermen may keep what theycatch to the daily limit of three and then ceasefishing, and trotliners may keep all fish untilreaching the daily limit of three, then releaseall others immediately. The third season, from

May 16 through December 31, reverts to acatch limit of one per day, with catch-and-release fishing restricted to use of rod and reeland trotlines. This fishery is believed to beimportant to the state because of the highnumber of participating fishermen from in-state and out-of-state (Kim E. Erickson, Chief,Fisheries Division, Oklahoma Department ofWildlife Conservation, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 28, 2000; Oklahoma2002 Fishing Guide).

Other special regulations in the state include aprohibition on culling (i.e., high-grading), anda requirement that persons in possession ofpaddlefish keep their catch separate anddistinctly identifiable from others’ (plainlylabeled with taker’s name and address). Noperson may possess 50 or more pounds of raw,unprocessed, and frozen paddlefish eggs, orfive pounds or more of processed paddlefisheggs. Also, no person may ship into or out of,transport into or out of, have in possessionwith the intent to so transport, or cause to beremoved from the state raw unprocessed orprocessed paddlefish eggs, unless they are in asolid, frozen state (Kim E. Erickson, Chief,Fisheries Division, Oklahoma Department ofWildlife Conservation, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 28, 2000; Oklahoma2002 Fishing Guide).

Another aspect of Oklahoma’s managementefforts is a program to reintroduce paddlefish

113

Table 4.4.9 Annual Paddlefish/Roe Donation and Caviar Production, NorthStar Caviar, 1993–2002*

Total Total 70+ lb Total Green Eggs Total Total Males Females Females Fish (lbs) Caviar (lbs)

1993 596 541 222 1,137 5,820 3,710

1994 377 480 221 857 4,917 2,274

1995 587 564 282 1,151 6,538 3,958

1996 307 339 172 646 3,589 2,290

1997 320 301 139 621 3,388 1,659

1998 745 708 345 1,453 9,098 4,026

1999 498 449 218 947 5,901 2,640

2000 805 739 366 1,544 8,454 3,052

2001 801 603 284 1,404 7,132 2,935

2002 853 449 193 1,302 5,342 3,466

Totals 5,889 5,173 2,442 11,062 60,179 30,010

Averages 589 517 244 1,106 6,018 3,001

* Source: pers. comm., G. Power, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, September 2002.

to state waters. This program is discussed inSection VI under Hatcheries and CommercialAquaculture.

Pennsylvania

While natural paddlefish populations arebelieved to have been extirpated inPennsylvania, the state is engaged in a long-term restoration effort in the major rivers in thewest of the state, primarily the Allegheny andOhio. The effort centers on stockingfingerlings to establish a spawning populationthat can then be managed on a self-sustainingbasis. The effort has been ongoing for longenough that it is possible that individuals ofone year-class have reached sexual maturity.These may not be taken by commercial orsport fishermen. The prohibition on catch willcontinue until assessment work is done todetermine the existence and extent of naturalreproduction (Richard Snyder, Chief, Divisionof Fisheries Management, Pennsylvania Fishand Boat Commission, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 15, 2000).Pennsylvania’s paddlefish restoration programis described in greater detail in Section VI onHatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture.

Tennessee

Tennessee allows commercial catch ofpaddlefish, and closely regulates the practice.The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency’s(TWRA) management of commercial fisherieshas changed significantly over the past decade.Prior to 1993, there were no special regulationsregarding paddlefish. Then, from 1993 to1998, the state closed the commercial catchseason from February 16 through April 15, andbanned possession of paddlefish during thattime unless they were taken legally prior to theseason closure. Wholesale fish dealersimporting paddlefish flesh or eggs into thestate during the closed season were required tohave bills of lading denoting pounds of flesh oreggs, name of supplier, supplier’s address, anddate of import (TWRA 2000).

In 1998 and 1999, commercial fishermen wererequired to obtain a free Paddlefish Permitfrom TWRA to catch paddlefish in statewaters, which could be obtained by writtenrequest. Sequentially numbered tags, whichfishermen had to secure to caught paddlefish,were issued to Permit holders, and the closed

season was modified to include February 16through April 14 and May 1 through October31. A minimum length requirement of 30inches (eye to fork) was introduced, andcommercial fishermen had to tag paddlefish asinstructed by the state and provide requestedinformation and lower jaw samples to TWRA.The tag had to remain on the paddlefish untilthe fish reached the final stage of processing,and fishermen marketing out of state had toprovide TWRA with requested information onforms provided. Wholesale fish dealersimporting paddlefish or parts thereof duringthe closed season had to have bills of ladingdenoting pounds of flesh or eggs, name ofsupplier, supplier’s address, and date of import.Those purchasing paddlefish or eggs had toprovide requested information and sometimesroe samples to TWRA (TWRA 2000).

Since 1999, commercial fishermen have beenrequired to obtain a free Paddlefish Permit fromTWRA prior to taking paddlefish from statewaters, in addition to purchasing either a $125Resident Commercial Fishing License(Resident “Helpers”—anyone assisting thefisherman in the boat—must also purchase a$125 license) or a $500 NonresidentCommercial Fishing License (Nonresident“Helpers” must also purchase a $500 license).Such permits can be obtained by writtenrequest. The closed season was furthermodified in 1999 to include the period fromApril 24 through October 31, with possessionbeing illegal during closed season unless thepaddlefish was previously taken during thelegal season. Those persons in possession ofpaddlefish during the closed season must alsohave in their possession bills of lading denotingpounds of flesh or eggs (or both), name andaddress of supplier/fisherman, and date of catchor date obtained. The minimum length limitwas increased to 32 inches eye to fork, or ifblocked (with the tail still on the fish), to aminimum of 24 inches from the fork of the tailto the flesh behind the gill arch (measuredalong the side of the fish) (TWRA 2000).

Tennessee commercial fishing regulations for2003–2004 contain some further modifications.The closed season now includes the periodfrom April 24 to November 14. The minimumlength limit is 34 inches eye to fork, or 25inches from the fork of the tail to the fleshbehind the gill arch if blocked (measured along

114

the side of the fish). Paddlefish less than 34inches must be returned immediately to thewater, and paddlefish larger than 34 inchesmay not be possessed alive away from thewaters where they were caught (TWRA 2003).

For 2003–2004, a 2-inch portion of ovary mustremain in each paddlefish caught while on thewater or immediately adjacent to the waterwhere it was taken. Any paddlefish and/orshovelnose sturgeon from which eggs are takenmust be kept. The cutting or mutilation ofpaddlefish or shovelnose sturgeon to check foreggs is prohibited. Paddlefish eggs removedfrom ovaries must be kept in separatecontainers—eggs from only one fish percontainer. Paddlefish may not be kept aliveexcept for approved aquaculture purposes. Forspecies management purposes, TWRA mayrequire paddlefish and/or sturgeon permitholders to affix sequentially numbered tags topaddlefish and sturgeon caught. Commercialfishermen harvesting paddlefish or partsthereof from the state’s waters must tagpaddlefish as instructed by TWRA and providerequested information and samples to TWRA.Tags, when required, must remain on thepaddlefish and sturgeon until the fish is in thefinal stage of processing (TWRA 2003).

Paddlefish and sturgeon or parts thereof takenfrom state waters and sold in-state must bemarketed to a licensed wholesale fish dealer.Commercial fishermen and wholesale fishdealers are required to submit reports toTWRA on forms provided. Commercialfishermen marketing outside of Tennesseemust provide TWRA with a commercial fishexport form and any additional requestedinformation on forms provided by TWRA;copies of the export form must be submitted toTWRA monthly. Prior to sale to an in-statewholesale fish dealer or being marketedoutside of Tennessee, paddlefish andshovelnose sturgeon carcasses may not bealtered in a manner that the length of the fishcannot be determined (TWRA 2003).

Wholesale fish dealers, private individuals, andbusinesses importing paddlefish and sturgeonor parts thereof must have bills of ladingdenoting pounds of flesh or eggs (both ifapplicable), name and address of supplier, anddate of import. Wholesale fish dealers, privateindividuals, and businesses importing or

purchasing paddlefish and/or eggs forcommercial purposes must issue a commercialfish receipt to the commercial fishermen andprovide requested information and samples toTWRA. Wholesale fish dealers must submitcopies of the receipts to TWRA monthly, andare further required to maintain sale records,including receipts, available for audit. Theserecords must contain the quantity of fish oreggs sold and the buyer’s address, includingcity, state, and country (TWRA 2003).

In addition to those regulations, Tennesseerestricts the number of state waters open tocommercial fishing, and restricts the type andsize of gear (nets) that may be used incommercial catch. The number and percentageof state waters closed to commercial fishinghas been a point of frustration for manyTennessee commercial fishermen (TRAFFICinterviews with Tennessee commercialfishermen, 2001). In November 2002,Guntersville Reservoir was reopened to thecommercial harvest of paddlefish. Table4.4.10 shows the commercial catch ofpaddlefish in Tennessee from 1990 to 2001(data for 2001 are preliminary).

Along with commercial catch, Tennesseepermits sport fishing for paddlefish, limited toa season from March 1 through March 15 onthe Cherokee Reservoir. The daily creel limitis one fish, and any paddlefish taken or partsthereof may not be sold. Prior to the currentsport fishing regulation, a two-year moratoriumon sport fishing had been imposed to allowtime for law enforcement to investigate andcorrect paddlefish violations. In the pastseveral years the sport catch of paddlefish hasbeen negligible, with no noticeable impact onthe population (Robert Todd, CommercialFishing Coordinator, Tennessee WildlifeResources Agency, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 21, 2001).

Texas

Texas, which considers the paddlefish asthreatened under state law, has protected thespecies since 1977. No catch or trade ispermitted. Historically, paddlefish inhabitedthe Red River’s tributaries, including theSulphur River, Big Cypress Bayou, the SabineRiver, the Neches River, the Angelina River,the Trinity River, and the San Jacinto River.The Texas Department of Wildlife and Parks

115

undertook a significant restoration effort bystocking paddlefish from 1989 to 2000 (TexasDepartment of Wildlife and Parks 2002a,2002b). This program is discussed in moredetail in Section VI on Hatcheries andCommercial Aquaculture.

West Virginia

The paddlefish is on West Virginia’s RareSpecies List, with very few believed to exist inthe state. Catch or possession is prohibited,and any fish caught must be returned to thewater immediately (West Virginia FishingRegulations 2001). As is discussed in moredetail in Section VI on Hatcheries andCommercial Aquaculture, the state has stockedpaddlefish for several years in an effort torecover the population.

Wisconsin

The paddlefish is classified as a threatenedspecies in Wisconsin. Catch or possession ofthe species is prohibited (Karl Scheidegger,Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,in litt. to Rosemarie Gnam, USFWS/OMA,August 17, 2000).

4.5 Shovelnose SturgeonThe shovelnose sturgeon is indigenous to theUnited States, and has not been designated asthreatened or endangered by the federalgovernment. In the past, management of

shovelnose sturgeon catch by state authoritieshas often been less carefully monitored andregulated than has catch of paddlefish injurisdictions where it is allowed, primarilybecause the species has typically been lookedupon as fairly common in many states. Also,the shovelnose sturgeon has only recentlybecome particularly valuable for thecommercial trade, given its small size and lowyield of roe per fish.

TRAFFIC’s research for this report raisedseveral points of concern that might indicatethat closer attention needs to be paid to thepossible impact of commercial or sport catchof shovelnose sturgeon in the future. First, thelack of comprehensive data on past shovelnosecatch levels means that there is no baselineagainst which to compare current catch rates.Furthermore, some states that allowcommercial fishing initiated regulations tomonitor the catch only recently. That theshovelnose sturgeon has received comparablyless attention than other acipenseriform speciesmight not pose a problem as long as thespecies remains of secondary commercialinterest. Yet in the event of a collapse inCaspian Sea sturgeon stocks, shovelnosesturgeon, like other North American species,could generate much more interest as apossible substitute source of caviar, and anylack of effective monitoring and regulationcould prove costly.

116

Year Paddlefish Catch/Flesh (lbs) Egg Harvest (lbs)

1990 486,444 —+

1991 104,997 —+

1992 133,253 187

1993 118,793 1,597

1994 130,551 1,247

1995 125,882 1,506

1996 64,852 140

1997 89,292 626

1998 53,426 1,886

1999 54,892 3,096

2000 192,644 26,354

2001++ 185,816 21,092

Table 4.4.10 Estimated Paddlefish Catch/Egg Harvest in Tennessee,1990–2001*

* Source: TWRA (2001); pers. comm., R. Todd, TWRA, February 2003.+ 1990–1991 commercial fishing surveys did not request catch information regarding eggs.++ Preliminary estimate.

Second, the fact that the shovelnose sturgeon isa small, low-yielding species could workagainst it if fishing pressure intensifies.Informal estimates indicate that it requires fiveto six shovelnose sturgeon to produce theequivalent amount of roe that can be harvestedfrom a single gravid paddlefish (pers. comm.,interviews with Tennessee commercialfishermen, 2001). This means that generatingsufficient roe to sustain a profitablecommercial fishery requires the taking ofseveral times more shovelnose sturgeon thanpaddlefish or other, larger sturgeon species.

Third, the fact that the shovelnose sturgeon isnow cut off from historical spawning riversand habitat in several states and river systemsor has had its habitat degraded has led to thespecies’ being considered “locally abundant” inonly about 75% of its historic range (NPSSC1993; Hesse and Carreiro 1997). Thus, theimpact of increased commercial fishing wouldlikely be concentrated in certain areas andpopulations. Because the actual abundance ofthe species has not been closely documentedand a sustainable rate of catch has not beendefinitively calculated, TRAFFIC is concernedthat sharply intensified pressure on the speciescould result in the kind of population declinesseen in other North American sturgeonfisheries in the past.

The following summaries explain in moredetail the different approaches to managementand catch in those states with extant (and insome cases possible) shovelnose sturgeonpopulations.

Alabama

As noted in section 3.5, the status of theshovelnose sturgeon in Alabama is uncertain.However, regarding catch, Alabama closed itswaters to all catch of any sturgeon species in1972 (USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Arkansas

Arkansas permits commercial and recreationalfishing for shovelnose sturgeon. Commercialfishing regulations regarding gear restrictionsare the same as those required for paddlefishthat were detailed in Section 4.4 (e.g.,commercial fishermen may use only properlylicensed and approved equipment; prohibitionsregarding the use of certain types of gear apply

in specified state waters; etc.). Also, as withpaddlefish, commercial fishermen must obtaina Residential Commercial Fishing Permit andSportfishing License before operatingcommercial tackle to take shovelnose sturgeon,and as of 2002 it became illegal forcommercial fishermen (or fish farmers) to take,possess, or sell shovelnose sturgeon, or partsthereof (including roe), without a Resident RoeTaker/Seller Permit, a Resident Roe TakerHelper Permit, a Resident Roe Buyer/ExporterPermit, or a Non-Resident Roe Buyer Permit,as appropriate (AGFC 2001a).

Commercial catch of shovelnose sturgeon isrestricted to a season from November 1 toApril 30. It remains illegal to commerciallytake or possess sturgeon from the MississippiRiver, including the Arkansas River up to Dam#2, and the White River to Montgomery PointLock and Dam, as well as in other specifiedwaters closed to commercial fishing (AGFC2001a, 2001b; pers. comm., B. Posey,Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,September 2002).

Commercial fishing data on shovelnosesturgeon were not collected from 1982 to 2000(April Layher, Biologist, Fisheries Division,Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, in litt.to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 18,2000). Arkansas began collecting data on roeharvest in 2002; the state reported the harvestof 186.71 pounds (~84.7 kg) of shovelnosesturgeon roe in 2002 (pers. comm., B. Posey,Commercial Fishing and Mussel Biologist,AGFC, August, 2002).

Sport catch of shovelnose sturgeon is allowedbetween November 1 and April 30, concurrentwith the commercial season (pers. comm., B.Posey, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,September 2002). Information detailing theextent of sport catch is not available.

Illinois

Commercial fishing for shovelnose sturgeon islegal in Illinois. There are no catch quotas.There is, however, a gear restriction that makesit illegal to use trammel nets in the Ohio Riverwith less than four-inch bar mesh netting(Illinois Administrative Code, Section 810.20).The state requires commercial fishermen toreport the undressed weight of their catchannually, and in the Ohio River by the 10th of

117

each month following catch, whether or notthey have taken any fish (IllinoisAdministrative Code, Section 830). Prior to1990, there was no requirement to report thequantity of eggs taken. Table 4.5.1 shows thecommercial shovelnose catch and roe harvestreported for the years 1990 to 2001.

Indiana

Indiana allows both commercial and sportfishing for shovelnose sturgeon. Until recently,the state did not maintain catch records for thecommercial fishery, which is concentrated inthe Wabash River bordering Illinois. Indianadid provide information on shovelnosesturgeon catch for 1998 and 1999, with thecaveat that because shovelnose sturgeoncatches are not reported as a separate categoryin the state’s interior waters, the figures shouldbe considered as minimums. The catchesreported by the state were 53 pounds (total

weight) in 1998, and 1,626 pounds (totalweight) in 1999. Preliminary data for 2000indicated a catch of 469 pounds (total weight)(pers. comm., T. Stefanavage, IndianaDepartment of Natural Resources, February2002). Indiana also permits a year-round sportfishery; information was not available on catch(Mosher 1999).

Iowa

Iowa allows both commercial and sport fishingfor shovelnose sturgeon. There is nocommercial catch quota. Todd (1999) reportedthat an estimated 8,000 kg (17,600 pounds) ofshovelnose sturgeon was caught annually inIowa into the 1990s. Table 4.5.2 shows Iowa’sreported commercial catch of shovelnosesturgeon from 1998–2002 (data for roe harvestare available only for 2002).

Iowa also has a year-round sport fishery forshovelnose sturgeon. There is no daily catch

118

Table 4.5.1 Commercial Shovelnose Sturgeon Catch/Roe Harvest in Illinois,1990–2001*

Year Flesh (pounds) Eggs (pounds)

1990 8,853 47

1991 14,067 155

1992 10,129 152

1993 19,657 221

1994 29,807 0

1995 22,580 125

1996 17,728 249

1997 27,980 234

1998 33,423 782

1999 47,236 3,529

2000 41,035 4,978

2001 65,462 8,197

Total: 337,957 18,227

* Source: Mike Conlin, Chief, Division of Fisheries, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, in litt. to Teiko Saito, Office of ManagementAuthority, USFWS, August 23, 2000; pers. comm., R. Maher, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, February 2003.

Table 4.5.2 Iowa Commercial Catch of Shovelnose Sturgeon, 1998-2002*

Year Shovelnose Sturgeon (lbs) Roe (ibs)

1998 19,919 Data not recorded or required

1999 14,016 Data not recorded or required

2000 28,676 Data not recorded or required

2001 26,168 Data not recorded or required

2002 28,203 235

* Source: Boland 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002.

limit, possession limit, or minimum lengthlimit for the species. The state does notrequire fishermen to report sport-caughtshovelnose sturgeon, so data are not availableon the number taken annually (Mosher 1999;Iowa Fishing Regulations 2002).

Kansas

There is no commercial fishery for shovelnosesturgeon in Kansas. Sport fishing is allowedyear-round, but little data are available aboutcatch levels (Mosher 1999).

Kentucky

Commercial catch of shovelnose sturgeon ispermitted in Kentucky, and catch records havebeen required of commercial fishermen since1999. Sport fishing is also permitted, butfishermen are not required to report their catch(Mosher 1999). Table 4.5.3 shows commercialcatch of shovelnose sturgeon in Kentuckywaters from 1999 through 2002 (data from2002 are partial).

Louisiana

Catch or possession of any sturgeon species, orparts of any sturgeon species, have been illegal inLouisiana since 1990 (USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

Minnesota

There is no commercial catch of shovelnosesturgeon in Minnesota (Todd 1999). Sportfishing is permitted only in the state’sboundary waters with Wisconsin, downstreamfrom Red Wing Dam. There is no closedseason or minimum size restriction; there is a

10-fish per day possession limit, and high-grading is illegal. Minnesota allows nosturgeon fishing in inland waters of the state,or in boundary waters with North Dakota orSouth Dakota (Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources [DNR] 2002a).

Mississippi

All Mississippi waters have been closed to thecommercial catch of all sturgeon species since1974. Mississippi waters are also closed tosport fishing for shovelnose sturgeon(USFWS/GSMFC 1995; Mosher 1999;MDWFP 2000b).

Missouri

Missouri allows commercial fishing ofshovelnose sturgeon, and reported a ten-yearaverage annual catch of 7,925 kg (17,435pounds) as of 1998. A 52-year mean annualcommercial catch of shovelnose sturgeon inMissouri was reported to have been 10,000 kg(22,000 pounds) (Todd 1999). More recentdata indicate that the catch increasedsignificantly in 2001. Table 4.5.4 showsMissouri shovelnose sturgeon catches from1999 to 2001 in the Missouri and Mississippirivers. The state has not monitored the harvestof roe, so data are available only on the totalpounds caught.

Requirements for commercial permits, fees foruse of nets and other gear, gear restrictions,waters closed to snagging or commercialfishing, and reporting requirements are thesame as those for paddlefish (see section 4.4).In addition, in the Missouri River, the part of

119

Table 4.5.3 Commercial Catch of Shovelnose Sturgeon in Kentucky Waters,1999–2002 (partial)*

1999+ 2000 2001 2002++

Water Body Flesh Eggs Flesh Eggs Flesh Eggs Flesh Eggs (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)

Barkley Lake 2 — 1,300 — — — — —

Kentucky Lake — — — — 100 — — —

Mississippi River 25 — 9,938 527 13,059 1,021 8,324 731

Ohio River 1,070 101 2,349 287 5,308 500 5,511 269

Tennessee River — — 25 — 30 — — —

Total: 1,097 101 13,612 814 18,497 1,521 13,835 1,000

* Source: Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources.+ Harvest totals for each license year March 1 through February 28.++ Harvest totals for March 1, 2002 through November 30, 2002.

the St. Francis River that forms the borderbetween Missouri and Arkansas, and most ofthe state’s portion of the Mississippi River,shovelnose sturgeon longer than 30 inches(measured from tip of snout to fork of tail) maynot be possessed or transported duringcommercial fishing operations. Such fish mustbe returned to the water unharmed immediatelyafter being caught (Wildlife Code of Missouri,3CSR10-10.725). The state permits year-roundsport fishing for the species (Mosher 1999).

Montana

Montana does not permit commercial fishingof shovelnose sturgeon. It does permit sportfishing, with a daily creel limit of five per day(Mosher 1999).

Nebraska

The shovelnose sturgeon is classified as a sportfish in Nebraska. There is no commercialcatch allowed. Sport fishing is permitted ininland waters and waters of the Missouri Riverdownstream from the mouth of the Big SiouxRiver only. The state has established a dailybag limit of 10 fish, and a possession limit of20 fish (Nebraska Fisheries regulations,Chapter 2.006 “Sport Fishing Regulations”).

North Dakota

There is no commercial or sport fishery forshovelnose sturgeon in North Dakota (Todd1999; Mosher 1999).

Ohio

The shovelnose sturgeon is listed as anendangered species in the state of Ohio.Therefore, no take or trade is permitted (OhioCode, Section 1501:31-23-01 “SpecialEndangered Wild Animal Regulations”). As isdiscussed in more detail in Section VI onHatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture, onecomponent of the state’s management plan for

the species has involved captive propagation ofshovelnose sturgeon for reintroduction purposes.

Oklahoma

The shovelnose sturgeon is classified as a sportfish in Oklahoma. There is no daily creel limitor minimum size limit on catch (Oklahoma2002 Fishing Guide).

South Dakota

The state prohibits any catch of all sturgeonspecies by commercial or sport methods (Todd1999; Mosher 1999).

Tennessee

Tennessee allows both commercial and sportfishing for shovelnose sturgeon. Like manyother states, prior to 1998 the state did notkeep commercial catch records or impose anyspecial regulations. In 1998, Tennesseeadopted new regulations covering bothpaddlefish and shovelnose sturgeon. Prior to2002, commercial catch regulations forshovelnose sturgeon were the same as thosethat covered paddlefish, with the exception thatthere were no size limits for shovelnosesturgeon. In November of 2002 the TennesseeWildlife Resources Commission prohibited thepossession of shovelnose sturgeon greater than30 inches in length (TWRA 2003). Many ofthe reporting requirements and restrictions onthe sale, importation and exportation ofshovelnose sturgeon (including roe) are thesame as those for paddlefish (see section 4.4).

Catch for 1998, the first year of reporting, wasreported by fishermen to be 236 pounds of fishand 4 pounds of eggs. In 1999, the reportedcatch grew to 1,040 pounds of fish and 385pounds of eggs (TWRA 2001). There was noreported commercial catch of shovelnosesturgeon from Tennessee waters during 2000.In 2001, the preliminary estimated commercialcatch of shovelnose sturgeon was 3,023 pounds

120

Table 4.5.4 Missouri Commercial Shovelnose Sturgeon Catch (lbs), 1999–2001*

Year Mississippi River Missouri River

1999 12,183 7,472

2000 17,544 5,850

2001 65,128 12,370

* Source: pers. comm., V. Travnichek, Missouri Department of Conservation, February 2003.

of fish and 926 pounds of eggs (pers. comm., R.Todd, TWRA, February 2003). Tennessee alsoallows sport catch of the species (Mosher 1999).

Texas

The shovelnose sturgeon is listed as athreatened species in Texas. No commercial orsport catch is permitted (Todd 1999; Mosher1999; TDPW 2002a).

West Virginia

The shovelnose sturgeon is a protected speciesin West Virginia; there is no commercial orsport fishing (pers. comm., C. O’Bara, WestVirginia Division of Natural Resources,January 2003). As is discussed in more detailin Section VI on Hatcheries and CommercialAquaculture, one component of the state’smanagement plan for the species involvesstocking shovelnose sturgeon.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin allows commercial catch ofshovelnose sturgeon, and as of 1998 reportedan average annual catch of approximately 850kilograms (1,870 pounds) (Todd 1999). Thestate also permits a year-round sport fishery(Mosher 1999).

Wyoming

The shovelnose sturgeon is classified as agame fish in Wyoming. The state permits sportfishing for the species year-round, except asprescribed for specifically designated waters ordrainages. There is a daily creel limit of twofish; snagging is illegal. It is also illegal tosell, barter, dispose of, abandon, or obtain bysale or barter any edible portion of any gamefish in Wyoming (2002 through 2003Wyoming Fishing Regulations). As isdiscussed in more detail in Section VI onHatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture,Wyoming’s management plan for the specieshas included stocking of shovelnose sturgeon.

4.6 Pallid SturgeonThe pallid sturgeon is listed as an endangeredspecies under the ESA, and is also designatedas endangered in all U.S. states throughout itsrange. There is no commercial or sport catchpermitted in any state. As is discussed inSection VI under Hatcheries and Commercial

Aquaculture, current management strategiesfor the species at both the federal and statelevels are largely focused on captivepropagation efforts until habitat restoration andrecovery efforts show some success inrestoring natural reproduction.

The National Audubon Society first petitionedUSFWS to list the pallid sturgeon as anendangered species in 1978. That petition wasdenied for lack of sufficient evidence of threats.In 1982, USFWS included the pallid sturgeon ina notice of review for species underconsideration for listing as endangered orthreatened. In 1988, the Dakota Chapter of theSierra Club petitioned the USFWS to list thepallid sturgeon as an endangered species; apositive finding was made in that year, andpublished in 1989. In October, 1990, a FinalRule was published listing the pallid sturgeon asan endangered species under the ESA (USFWS1990). USFWS published a recovery plan forthe pallid sturgeon in 1993 (USFWS 1993).

Conservation and management plans for thepallid sturgeon, as well as for the endangeredpiping plover and least tern, are the subject ofpolitical battles regarding navigation projectsand seasonal water flow issues affecting criticalhabitat in the upper reaches of the Mississippiand Missouri rivers. Section 7 of the ESArequires all federal agencies to assist in theconservation of listed species, and to consultwith USFWS when activities they fund, permit,or undertake may have adverse effects onthreatened or endangered plants or animals(USFWS 2001e). Section 7 consultations werenecessary for the pallid sturgeon and otherendangered species dependent upon the UpperMississippi and Missouri rivers because ofongoing and planned navigation projects andactivities proposed by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USFWS 2000e–g). The biologicalopinions and Reasonable and PrudentAlternatives (RPA) issued by USFWS areillustrative of the process, and highlight currentchallenges facing management and recovery ofthe pallid sturgeon.

In May 2000, USFWS released a BiologicalOpinion on the continued operation andmaintenance of the Upper Mississippi Rivernavigation channel and associated locks anddams over the next 50 years. Working with theArmy Corps of Engineers, USFWS studied the

121

river from Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Cairo,Illinois. USFWS examined potential impactson indigenous threatened and endangeredspecies from the lock and dam systemoperation; channel maintenance, dredging, andmaterial disposal; construction andmaintenance of channel training structures; andother activities, including navigation. TheBiological Opinion found that these activitiesjeopardized the pallid sturgeon because habitatdegradation would continue (MICRA 2000;USFWS 2000e, 2000f).

The Upper Mississippi RPA issued by USFWSincluded implementation of a long-term habitatrestoration program and a pallid sturgeonhabitat/life history study in the Mississippi Riveras a way to protect endangered and threatenedspecies in the area while allowing other activitiessuch as commercial navigation to take place(MICRA 2000; USFWS 2000e, 2000f).

The Army Corps of Engineers completedplanning for the Pallid Sturgeon Habitat andPopulation Demographics Study, and the studywas initiated in Summer of 2002. As of theend of 2002, information had been collectedfor 14 pallid sturgeon. A habitat map (basedon bottom bathymetry), a stone-dike inventoryof the Middle Mississippi River (lower 200miles of the Upper Mississippi River), and aside-channel restoration plan have beencompleted. In addition, as of the beginning of2003 the Corps was in the process ofcompleting a historical, comparativegeomorphological map of the MiddleMississippi River. This information, as well asinformation from the habitat and demographicsstudy, will be integrated into a Pallid SturgeonRestoration and Conservation Plan that willguide future habitat restoration as the Corpsmoves into implementing a long-term habitatrestoration program. In the interim, the Corpsis completing short term habitat restorationprojects (e.g., pilot projects) for the benefit ofpallid sturgeon (pers. comm., J. Collins,USFWS, January 2003).

In 2001 and 2002, the Corps also completed aneffort for adding woody debris piles andstructures to the river. It is almost certain thatthese structures will attract numerousinvertebrates and fish, but they are alsoanticipated to provide flow and depth diversity.In 2003, the Corps plans to construct a chevron

dike with an associated sand island andcomplete habitat improvements in one of thefew remaining side channels (pers. comm., J.Collins, USFWS, January 2003).

In November 2000, USFWS and the ArmyCorps of Engineers released another BiologicalOpinion regarding the potential forconservation of endangered species in theMissouri River, while continuing operation ofMissouri River dams and reservoirs andconducting a bank stabilization and navigationproject and other related operations in theKansas River tributary reservoirs. USFWSconcluded that continuation of presentoperations was likely to jeopardize the pallidsturgeon and other endangered species in theecosystem, and detailed conservation actionsnecessary to return the Missouri River to amore natural river system in an RPA (USFWS2000b, 2000g).

The Missouri RPA contained five parts, whichin concert were designed to eliminate jeopardyto the pallid sturgeon and other species. Theparts included: (1) Flow enhancement byimplementing a spring rise every third year anda summer draw-down from Gavins Point Damin order to restore spawning cues for fish;maintaining and developing sandbar habitat,enhancing aquatic habitat by connecting themain channel to backwaters and side channels;and a spring release from Fort Peck Dam toprovide spawning cues and increase theamount of warm water habitat for pallidsturgeon and other native fish; (2) Restoration,enhancement, and conservation of a portion ofhistoric habitat in riverine sections that benefitthe pallid sturgeon and other species, with agoal of 20–30 acres of shallow waters permile; (3) Unbalanced system regulation ofthree upper reservoirs, when runoff conditionspermit, by holding one reservoir at low levels,one at average levels, and one rising on athree-year rotation (primarily for listed ternsand plovers); (4) implementation of anadaptive management process that allowsefficient modification/implementation ofactions in response to new information orchanging environmental conditions; and (5) anincrease in pallid sturgeon propagation andaugmentation efforts while habitat andhydrology improvements are beingimplemented (USFWS 2000b, 2000g).

122

In October 2001, the Army Corps of Engineerssent a letter to USFWS documenting their planto respond to the Missouri River BiologicalOpinion. In November 2001 the Corps andUSFWS met and agreed that the Corps wasmaking sufficient progress in meeting themilestones identified in the biological opinionto implement elements of the RPA. In January2002, the National Academy of Sciences’National Research Council issued a report onthe status of the Missouri River ecosystemwhich affirmed the direction of the biologicalopinion (Collins 2002).

As of the end of 2002, USFWS was back informal consultation with the Corps on issuesrelated to the future operation of the river(pers. comm., M. Olson, USFWS, January2003). There is some concern that this re-initiation of formal consultation betweenUSFWS and the Corps may indicate areluctance on the part of the Corps to followthrough with implementation of the RPA.

The ultimate success of management andrecovery efforts for pallid sturgeon in both theMississippi and Missouri rivers are not likelyto become apparent for some time. Inaddition, it should be noted that the course andimplementation of ongoing and plannedrecovery efforts, RPAs, and Army Corps ofEngineers projects are contingent upon theprovision of funding through congressionalappropriations, as well as on political will atthe state and federal levels.

4.7 Alabama SturgeonBecause it is a federally endangered specieslisted under the ESA in 2000, both state andfederal authorities have managementresponsibilities for the Alabama sturgeon. Bothof the species’ U.S. historic range states,Alabama and Mississippi, have closed theirwaters to any commercial or sport catch ofsturgeon species (USFWS/GSMFC 1995). Inaddition, Alabama classifies the Alabamasturgeon—which it officially designates as the“Alabama shovelnose sturgeon”—as a protectednongame species. Under Alabama NongameSpecies Regulation 220-2.92, it is illegal to “take,capture, kill, or attempt to take, capture or kill,possess, sell, trade for anything of monetaryvalue, or offer to sell or trade for anything ofmonetary value” such species without a scientific

collection permit or written permit from theCommissioner of the Alabama Department ofConservation and Natural Resources [ADCNR].Mississippi classifies the “Alabama shovelnosesturgeon” as a state endangered species; however,the Alabama sturgeon is believed to be currentlyextant only in portions of the lower AlabamaRiver in three counties in Alabama (Anon.2000b, MDWFP 2000b).

At the federal level, the Alabama sturgeon wasincluded in Federal Register notices of reviewfor ESA candidate species in 1982, 1985,1989, and 1991. The 1982 and 1985 noticeslisted the Alabama sturgeon as a category 2candidate species, while the 1989 and 1991notices listed it as a category 1 species. In1993, USFWS published a proposed rule to listthe Alabama sturgeon as endangered, with aproposed designation of critical habitat. Afterone extension of the deadline, in December1994 USFWS withdrew the proposed rule onthe basis of insufficient evidence that theAlabama sturgeon continued to exist. InSeptember 1997, after the capture of foursturgeon confirmed the species’ continuedexistence, USFWS reclassified the Alabamasturgeon as a candidate species. In March1999, USFWS published another proposed ruleto list the species as endangered; the listing didnot include the proposed designation of criticalhabitat. The Final Rule designating the speciesas endangered under the ESA was published inthe Federal Register on May 5, 2000 (Anon.2000b; USFWS 2000c).

Prior to the final ESA listing, in early 1997 acollaborative, public/private effort was initiatedto conserve the Alabama sturgeon. Because theprimary threats facing the species were believedto be its small numbers and inability to offsetmortality rates through natural reproduction,the immediate focus of the effort was to preventthe Alabama sturgeon’s extinction through acaptive breeding program and release ofpropagated fish. Other objectives of the planincluded habitat restoration and research todetermine life history information on thespecies to facilitate effective conservation andmanagement of remaining Alabama sturgeonpopulations. The ADCNR implemented thisvoluntary conservation plan with theparticipation and/or endorsement of otheragencies and groups, including USFWS, theArmy Corps of Engineers, the Alabama-

123

Tombigbee Rivers Coalition, the GeologicalSurvey of Alabama, and the Mobile RiverBasin Coalition (Anon. 2000b).

In February 2000, USFWS, ADCNR, the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, and the Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition signed “AConservation Agreement for the AlabamaSturgeon (Scaphirynchus suttkusi)” and “AConservation Strategy for the AlabamaSturgeon (Scaphirynchus suttkusi).” TheAgreement and Strategy were developed toexpedite conservation measures designed toensure the continued existence and recovery ofthe Alabama sturgeon, consistent with itslisting under the ESA, and to continue andexpand the activities outlined in the 1997voluntary conservation plan (Anon. 2000b).

The broad goal of the agreement is toeliminate or significantly reduce current threatsto the Alabama sturgeon. Specificconservation and management steps envisionedunder the Agreement and Strategy included thefollowing: (1) capture and maintain Alabamasturgeon broodstock for hatchery propagation;(2) develop and maintain hatchery and holdingfacilities and techniques for the species; (3)implement an intensive culture program; (4)protect existing occupied habitat; (5) conducthabitat studies; (6) conduct studies and developinformation on life history and habitatparameters, and apply this information tooccupied habitat and population managementstrategies; (7) apply research results to improveoccupied habitat conditions; (8) augment theAlabama sturgeon population in the lowerAlabama River; (9) reintroduce the species intosuitable portions of its current occupiedhabitat, where appropriate; (10) establish aprocess for information transfer between theinvolved parties and the interested public; and(11) use genetic techniques in the managementof the propagation process to ensure geneticdiversity (Anon. 2000b; USFWS 2000c).

Several of these conservation and managementactivities are in the process of beingimplemented. For example, efforts to collectbroodstock have been underway since 1997,coordinated by ADCNR. Hatchery facilitieshave been constructed, and equipmentpurchased to hold and propagate Alabamasturgeon at the ADCNR Marion State Fish

Hatchery. Numerous federal and state actionsand regulatory activities have been reviewedfor effects on the Alabama sturgeon. Preydensity studies and larval and young-of-yearfish surveys have been conducted in the lowerAlabama River (Anon. 2000b).

The term of the 2000 Agreement was 10 years,with funding for implementation of both theAgreement and the Strategy envisioned asbeing provided by a mixture of federal, state,and private sources (Anon. 2000b). As withother endangered species, the futureimplementation of management andconservation activities set forth in theAgreement and Strategy are dependent uponappropriations and, where applicable, theavailability of nongovernmental funding.

4.8 Lake SturgeonLake sturgeon populations exist in both Canadaand the United States; neither country hasdesignated the species as federally threatenedor endangered. The management structure forthe species is similar to that for the paddlefishand shovelnose sturgeon. A key difference,however, is that the species also falls under thejurisdiction of an international body, the GreatLakes Fisheries Commission, in addition tostate and provincial management authorities.

The Great Lakes Fisheries Commission(GLFC) was established in 1955 by theConvention on Great Lakes Fisheries betweenthe United States and Canada. Its primaryresponsibility is to develop coordinatedresearch programs in the Great Lakes andrecommend measures that permit themaximum sustained productivity of stocks offish species of common concern. It is alsocharged with formulating and implementing aprogram to eradicate or minimize non-nativesea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes.The Commission supports the work of severalcommittees and boards that focus on themanagement of various fisheries, and arecomposed of state, provincial, tribal, andfederal officials whose duties involve multi-jurisdictional fishery management. TheCommission assists in the coordination ofmanagement and law enforcement effortsbetween jurisdictions in the United States andCanada regarding the lake sturgeon (GLFC

124

2000). Beyond that level of internationalcoordination, summaries of the lake sturgeonmanagement regimes in Canada and the UnitedStates are provided below.

CanadaCanadian lake sturgeon populations areprotected and managed under the FederalFisheries Act in each province in which theyoccur. The following describes themanagement and catch regulations set byprovincial authorities.

Alberta

Alberta contains only two lake sturgeonpopulations. One population, which is locatedin the South Saskatchewan River system, isbelieved to be relatively stable, although it isestimated at fewer than 5,000 fish. The otherpopulation resides in the North SaskatchewanRiver system. This population is consideredvulnerable, with possibly fewer than 1,000 fish(Alberta Government 1997–2001).

Significant catch pressure by gill net and longline prior to 1940 is believed to have causedthe near extirpation of lake sturgeonpopulations in Alberta. The province closedall commercial and sport fishing for the speciesbetween 1940 and 1968, which allowedpopulations to recover enough to reopen aclosely regulated sport fishery. However, thecumulative catch from the reopened sportfishery is believed to have influenced thenumber of lake sturgeon that survive to olderages. The majority of sturgeon caught areimmature fish under the age of 12, measuringless than 40 inches (100 cm) and weighing lessthan 20 pounds (9 kg). Sturgeon over 60pounds (27 kg) are reported only occasionally(Alberta Government 1997–2001).

Alberta approved a Lake SturgeonManagement Plan in November 1996; the planentered into full effect on April 1, 1997. Priorto implementation of the plan, regulations inthe sport fishery allowed catch of two sturgeonper year greater than 40 inches (100 cm) inlength. While it was believed that such alimitation was succeeding in maintaining thelake sturgeon populations, it was no longerpromoting species recovery because ofincreased fishing pressure (AlbertaGovernment 1997–2001).

In 1996, Alberta surveyed sturgeon anglers fortheir input into management of the species.Based largely on that input, a key managementobjective became “to manage sturgeonpopulations to continue their recovery andproduce more fish, as well as larger sizes andolder ages of fish.” Differences in fish-usepatterns between the North SaskatchewanRiver system and the South SaskatchewanRiver system, coupled with the differentabundance levels of lake sturgeon in the tworiver systems, indicated that the two systemsshould be managed separately (AlbertaGovernment 1997–2001).

Under sport fishing regulations in place since1997, there is a zero catch limit in the NorthSaskatchewan River; the fishery is catch-and-release only. Catch is still allowed in theSouth Saskatchewan River and its tributaries,including the Oldman, Bow, and Red Deerrivers. A Sturgeon fishing license is required,which is valid for the take of one sturgeon peryear. There is no separate Indian fishery in theprovince. People registered as Indians underthe Indian Act must obtain a sturgeon fishinglicense to keep a lake sturgeon. A minimumsize limit of 52 inches (130 cm) is now inplace, reflecting angler preference for largerather than small sturgeon, and an estimate thatfemale lake sturgeon reach sexual maturity at52 to 56 inches (130–140 cm) in length. Lakesturgeon can be retained only between June 16and March 31; catch-and-release fishing ispermitted between April 1 and June 15, butretention is prohibited to protect spawningruns. Bowfishing and spearfishing for lakesturgeon is prohibited. Each sturgeon keptmust be tagged immediately (the tag isprovided with the sturgeon fishing license) andthe tag may not be removed until the fish isprepared for taxidermy or consumption(Alberta Government 1997–2001, 2001).

Manitoba

The few remaining commercial lake sturgeonfisheries in Manitoba closed during the 1990s,when the catch level and value decreasedsignificantly. The province imposed apossession limit of zero in 1995 (CITESManagement Authority of Canada, in litt. toTRAFFIC Europe, August 2000). Table 4.8.1shows catch levels and value during the yearsleading up to the closure.

125

There is no commercial or sport catch of lakesturgeon at present. Catch-and-release fishingis still legal in many rivers, as is aboriginalsubsistence fishing (Manitoba Conservation2001b). Management efforts have begun inseveral rivers with the cooperation of FirstNations tribes (CITES Management Authorityof Canada, in litt. to TRAFFIC Europe,August 2000).

Ontario

Ontario allows both commercial and sportfishing for lake sturgeon. Table 4.8.2 showsthe total reported lake sturgeon commercialcatch for Ontario from 1994 to 1999 (AlMurray, MNR Lake Erie Management Unit, inlitt. to Robert Jones, DFO, August 30, 2000).

Commercial catch quotas were allocated in1984 based on annual performance byindividual fishermen from 1978 to 1982. Lake

sturgeon are commercially fished in LakeHuron, Lake Nipigon, Lake St. Clair,Namakan Lake, Rainy Lake, and the SeineRiver. Lakes Huron and St. Clair are shared byboth Canada and the United States.Commercial catch of lake sturgeon, however, isallowed only in Ontario waters. Ontario’s catchquota for the years 1998–2000 was 25,417pounds (11,553 kg) (P. Hall, DFO, in litt. toTRAFFIC North America, September 28,2001). As indicated in Table 4.8.2, catch levelsin recent years were well within these quotas.

Since 1995 a Lake Sturgeon AssessmentProgramme has been implemented, includingpopulation abundance estimates and tagging toidentify movements and verify ages. Allcommercial fishermen in Ontario are requiredto fill out a daily catch report, and theinformation in these reports is compiled in theOntario Commercial Fish Catch Information

126

Table 4.8.1 Production and Value of Lake Sturgeon Fisheries in Manitoba,1985–1996*

Commercial Fishing Production

Year Production (kg) Value ($CAD 2001)

1985/86 5,650 N/A

1986/87 4,750 N/A

1987/88 5,300 N/A

1988/89 7,400 N/A

1989/90 7,150 N/A

1990/91 4,100 46,718

1991/92 3,650 30,294

1992/93 1,600 12,070

1993/94 200 3,408

1994/95 500 3,651

1995/96 N/A 3,782

Average: 4,030 $9,992

Key: N/A = Not available.* Source: Manitoba Conservation (2001a).

Table 4.8.2 Ontario Commercial Catch of Lake Sturgeon, 1994–1999*

Year Total Catch (pounds) Total Value ($CAD)

1994 18,362 41,681

1995 10,988 26,229

1996 12,668 30,399

1997 13,206 35,906

1998 14,696 38,684

1999 13,746 N/A

Key: N/A = Not available.* Source: Al Murray, MNR Lake Erie Management Unit, in litt. to Robert Jones, DFO, August 30, 2000.

System (CFHIS). A management plan will beimplemented after sufficient data are collected.In the meantime, quotas will not increase, butmay decrease based on data analysis. Datafrom CFHIS showing a breakdown of catch bywater body are available for 1998 and 1999,and are shown in Table 4.8.3.

Ontario also allows sport fishing for lakesturgeon. Statistics from a DFO survey ofrecreational fishing in Canada for the year2000 recorded the catch of 53,313 sturgeon inOntario. Because the lake sturgeon is the onlysturgeon species extant in the province, thesefigures are presumably for lake sturgeon. Thedata indicated that of the sturgeon caught,5,379 were retained (DFO 2002a, 2002b).

Quebec

Quebec allows sport and commercial fishingfor lake sturgeon. The commercial gill netseason begins after spawning on June 14, andlasts until October 31. Therefore, there is noharvest of roe. The minimum size limit is 45cm (18 inches), measured as the distance from

the posterior edge of the branchial slit to theposterior joint of the dorsal fin (EnvironmentCanada 2000). Commercial catch must betagged as soon as fish are caught, and remaintagged until processed for humanconsumption. The province issues a specifiednumber of tags to each commercial fishermanto enforce catch limits (CITES ManagementAuthority of Canada, in litt. to TRAFFICEurope, August 2000).

As shown in Table 4.8.4, Quebec’s commerciallake sturgeon catch averaged approximately207,000 kg (~455,400 pounds) per yearbetween 1986 and 1994. The highest catchduring this period was 246,000 kg (541,200pounds) in 1987, and the lowest catch was158,000 kg (347,600 pounds) in 1989.

More recent information indicates that thesecatch levels have remained fairly steady. In1997, commercial catch in Quebec’s rivers andlakes totaled 208,714 kilograms (459,171pounds), with approximately 96% of the catchcoming from the St. Lawrence River, wherethere were 77 licensed fishermen (DFO, in litt.

127

Table 4.8.3 Ontario Commercial Catch of Lake Sturgeon by Fishery, 1998–1999*

Total Catch 1998 (pounds) 1999 (pounds)

Lake Huron 10,644 10,444

Lake Nipigon 52 82

Lake St. Clair 1,746 1,665

Namakan Lake 1,575 1,070

Rainy Lake 391 223

Seine River 40 262

* Source: Al Murray, MNR Lake Erie Management Unit, in litt. to Robert Jones, DFO, August 30, 2000.

Year Commercial Catch (kg)

1986 184,000

1987 246,000

1988 173,000

1989 158,000

1990 222,000

1991 217,000

1992 223,000

1993 225,000

1994 214,000

Average: 206,800

Table 4.8.4 Quebec Commercial Catch of Lake Sturgeon, 1986–1994*

* Source: P. Dumont, in litt. to TRAFFIC Europe, 1995.

to the CITES Management Authority ofCanada, June 9, 2000). In 1998, Quebecreported a commercial lake sturgeon catch of458,864 pounds (208,575 kg), and in 1999 theprovince reported a catch of 394,695 pounds(179,407 kg) (P. Hall, DFO, in litt. to TRAFFICNorth America, September 28, 2001).

Beginning in 1999, Quebec established catchquotas and a system of Total Allowable Catch(TAC) on the province’s lake sturgeon fishery.In 1999, the catch quota was set at 441,000pounds (200,455 kg), with a TAC of 30,433fish. In 2000 the catch quota was set at382,800 pounds (174,000 kg), with a TAC of24,345 fish (P. Hall, DFO, in litt. to TRAFFICNorth America, September 28, 2001).

The catch and possession limit in Quebec’ssport fishery is one per day. The sport fisheryis believed to consist of a few hundred fish peryear taken in the Montreal area (CITESManagement Authority of Canada, in litt. toTRAFFIC Europe, August 2000).

Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan has a commercial lake sturgeonquota of 4,500 kilograms (9,900 pounds) onthe lower Saskatchewan River. However,declining catches led to a provincially imposedmoratorium that has been in place since 1996(CITES Management Authority of Canada, inlitt. to TRAFFIC Europe, August 2000).Although retention of lake sturgeon caught bysport anglers has not been permitted since1999, DFO data indicated that catch-and-release fishing continued. Catch and retentionrecords from the DFO showed the catch of4,193 sturgeon in Saskatchewan in the year2000, with none retained (DFO 2002a, 2002b).Because the lake sturgeon is the only sturgeonspecies extant in Saskatchewan, these statisticsare presumably for lake sturgeon. A multi-agency study of habitat, fish migration, andabundance is underway (CITES ManagementAuthority of Canada, in litt. to TRAFFICEurope, August 2000).

The United StatesRegulations regarding commercial and sportcatch of lake sturgeon are the responsibility ofindividual states. The following summariesdescribe the lake sturgeon management and

catch regulations of U.S. states within thespecies’ range.

Alabama

Lake sturgeon are presumed to be extirpatedfrom the state, based on the lack of any recentcollections (Stan Cook, Chief of Fisheries,Alabama Department of Conservation andNatural Resources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 15, 2000).

Arkansas

Lake sturgeon are reported to have onceinhabited Arkansas waters. However, thespecies is believed to have been extirpated longago (April Layher, Biologist, FisheriesDivision, Arkansas Game and FishCommission, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 18, 2000).

Illinois

The lake sturgeon is classified as anendangered species in Illinois (IllinoisAdministrative Code, 1010.30). Nocommercial or recreational catch is permitted(Mosher 1999; Todd 1999; Mike Conlin Chief,Division of Fisheries, Illinois Department ofNatural Resources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 23, 2000).

Indiana

The lake sturgeon is classified as anendangered species in Indiana (Indiana DNR2001). No commercial or sport catch ispermitted (Mosher 1999; Todd 1999).

Iowa

A small population of lake sturgeon is found inthe Mississippi River in Iowa waters. Thespecies is on Iowa’s endangered species list, andno commercial or sport catch is permitted.Under the Iowa Code, Section 481 B.5,“Prohibitions,” a person may not “take, possess,transport, import, export, process, sell or offerfor sale, buy or offer to buy, nor shall a commonor contract carrier transport or receive forshipment, any species of fish, plants, orwildlife…” that appear on the state’s list ofspecies determined to be endangered orthreatened within the state, as well as federallythreatened or endangered species, whetherindigenous to the United States or foreign

128

(Marion Conover, Chief, Fisheries Bureau, IowaDepartment of Natural Resources, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 14, 2000).

Kansas

Lake sturgeon in Kansas are currently limitedto the Missouri River and possibly the lowerKansas River. There is no commercial seasonfor the species; however, as of 2000 those whocaught lake sturgeon incidentally by legalmeans in other fisheries were not prohibitedfrom keeping them (T. Mosher, FisheriesResearch Coordinator, Kansas Department ofWildlife and Parks, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 17, 2000).

Kentucky

Lake sturgeon are included on the Species inKentucky List published by the KentuckyDepartment of Fish and Wildlife Resources(KDFWR 2002), although the species’ status inthe state is uncertain. Recent reports of lakesturgeon seen in Kentucky waters come mainlyfrom the western portion of the state, in theOhio and Mississippi rivers, where the fishmost likely come from Missouri stockings.However, one fish collected by the KDFWR instate waters had a tag placed on it by biologistsworking with lake sturgeon populations stillexisting in the White River Drainage (atributary of the Wabash River) (pers. comm.,D. Henley, KDFWR, January 2003). There isno commercial or sport fishery for lakesturgeon in Kentucky (Mosher 1999; Todd1999). By law, commercial anglers arerequired to release any lake sturgeon caught inKentucky waters. While this law has not beenactively enforced in the past, the state issending flyers with new commercial fishinglicenses stating that this regulation will beenforced beginning in March 2003 (pers.comm., D. Henley, KDFWR, January 2003).

Louisiana

There are no contemporary accounts of lakesturgeon in Louisiana. Even if there were, ithas been illegal to catch or possess anysturgeon species or its body parts since 1990(USFWS/GSMFC 1995; John Roussel,Assistant Secretary, Office of Fisheries,Louisiana Department of Wildlife andFisheries, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 25, 2000).

Michigan

Commercial catch of lake sturgeon inMichigan has been prohibited since the 1950s,and according to state officials will remainclosed (Gary Whelan, Fish ProductionManager, Michigan Department of NaturalResources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 29, 2000). The specieshas been listed as threatened under theMichigan Endangered Species Act since 1994.

In 1997, the state published a Lake SturgeonRehabilitation Strategy. Its primary goal wasto conserve and rehabilitate self-sustainingpopulations of lake sturgeon to a level thatwould permit delisting from its threatenedstatus. There were three sub-goals: (1) wherepopulations now exist, conserve or rehabilitateself-sustaining lake sturgeon populations; (2)where populations have been extirpated, re-establish self-sustaining lake sturgeonpopulations when possible to their knownformer range; and (3) where opportunitiesarise, re-establish self-sustaining lake sturgeonpopulations in waters with appropriate habitatand within their suspected former range (Hay-Chmielewski and Whelan 1997).

In April 1999, Michigan changed itsregulations for sport fishing to significantlyreduce mortality of lake sturgeon and allow foran increased rate of population recovery. Priorto 1999 most of the state was open to sportcatch with a minimum size limit of 50 inchesand an annual catch of one fish per licensedfisherman. Open seasons varied among bodiesof water.

More recently, sport fishing has been allowedin only five areas (Menominee River, BlackLake, Otsego Lake, Lake St. Clair, and the St.Clair River). Catch-and-release fishing isallowed in Great Lakes waters and all otherinland waters from July 16 to March 31, butretention is prohibited, with a penalty of$1,500 per illegal sturgeon on top of penaltiesfor illegal take of a threatened species (GaryWhelan, Fish Production Manager, MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 29, 2000;2002 Michigan Fishing Guide).

On the Menominee River, which bordersWisconsin, there are alternating seasons. In2000, the fishery was open from September 2

129

to November 1 for hook-and-line fishing witha 70-inch minimum size restriction and apossession limit of one fish per season. In2001 the fishery was open for the same seasonwith a minimum size restriction of 50 inchesand a possession limit of one fish per season.This regulation strategy is expected to continueto alternate in future years. All anglers musthave a free tag to fish and all fish must beregistered (Gary Whelan, Fish ProductionManager, Michigan Department of NaturalResources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 29, 2000).

The Black Lake (Cheboygan County) fishery isa spear fishery that has a total quota of fivefish per year with a minimum size of 36inches. This is a strictly regulated fishery withonly five tags issued for each fish remaining inthe quota and a season lasting only two weeksduring the last part of February. Otsego Lake(Otsego County) is open year-round to catchwith a 42-inch minimum size restriction and anannual possession limit of one fish perfisherman. A free locking tag is required andall fish must be registered. Lake St. Clair andthe St. Clair River (St. Clair and Macombcounties) are open from July 16 to September30 with a slot length restriction of 42–50inches and an annual possession limit of onefish. All anglers must obtain a locking tag andregister all fish (Gary Whelan, Fish ProductionManager, Michigan Department of NaturalResources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 29, 2000; 2002Michigan Fishing Guide).

Under this system, the cumulative Michigansport catch in all fisheries has been between 15and 105 fish statewide annually, with a totalcatch weight of between 600 and 4,200pounds. The annual catch in the Menomineefishery is 55 to 90 fish over the 50-inchminimum size limit and is likely to be 1–3 fish

over the 70-inch minimum size limit. TheBlack Lake catch can be no more than five fishannually under the quota system, the OtsegoLake catch is usually one to five fish annually,and the St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair fishery isapproximately five fish annually (GaryWhelan, Fish Production Manager, MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 29, 2000).

Michigan’s lake sturgeon management strategyalso involves captive propagation and stockingin selected waters. These activities arediscussed in Section VI under Hatcheries andCommercial Aquaculture.

Minnesota

Minnesota does not permit commercial catch oflake sturgeon. The state allows, but closelyregulates, a sport fishery for the species inMinnesota-Canada border waters and somewaters on the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. Nosport catch is permitted on inland waters, inMinnesota-North Dakota or Minnesota-SouthDakota border waters, or in the St. Louis River.

In recent years, Minnesota’s managementstrategy for the species has included a targetcatch of 7,600 pounds per year in Minnesota-Canada border waters, with the catch set at75% of potential yield to allow recovery (L.Erickson-Eastwood, Fisheries ProgramManager, Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 23, 2000). A summaryof catch for lake sturgeon in the state from1996 to 2000 is summarized in Table 4.8.5.

Restrictions for the Minnesota-Canada borderfishery began to tighten in 2001 in response toincreasingly heavy fishing pressure. Forexample, in 2000 the fishing season was closedfrom May 15–June 30 to protect spawning runs,and there was a minimum legal size limit of 45

130

Year Catch (lbs)

1996 222

1997 1,395

1998 8,636

1999 5,124

2000 9,309

Table 4.8.5 Minnesota Sport Catch of Lake Sturgeon, 1996–2000*

* Source: L. Erickson-Eastwood, Fisheries Program Manager, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA,August 23, 2000.

inches (L. Erickson-Eastwood, FisheriesProgram Manager, Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 23, 2000). By contrast,in 2002 the fishing season was closed from May1–June 30, and rather than only a minimum sizelimit, there was a legal size slot limit of 45–55inches (Minnesota DNR 2002a). Fishermen areallowed to keep one fish per license year. In late2002, Minnesota DNR announced a proposal tofurther restrict catch of lake sturgeon inCanadian border waters by issuing harvest tagsto state residents. Under the proposal,Minnesota DNR would issue 300 harvest tags tostate residents through a lottery that would allowthe catch and possession of one lake sturgeonper tag. Anglers without a tag would still beable to practice catch-and release fishing(Minnesota DNR 2002b). The outcome of thatproposal had not yet been determined at the timeof the writing of this report.

In Minnesota-Wisconsin border waters, lakesturgeon may be fished from September 7through October 15 on the St. Croix River,from Taylor Falls Dam downstream to themouth at Prescott, Wisconsin. The possessionlimit is one sturgeon per licensed fishermanper season, and the minimum size allowed is50 inches (Minnesota DNR 2002a).

Minnesota’s lake sturgeon managementstrategy also involves stocking. Theseactivities are discussed in Section VI underHatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture.

Missouri

The lake sturgeon is classified as anendangered species in Missouri; the stateallows no commercial or sport catch (Mosher1999; Todd 1999; Missouri Department ofConservation 2002). The state has activelypromoted and supported efforts to re-establishthe species through stocking in the Missouriand Mississippi rivers. These activities arediscussed in Section VI under Hatcheries andCommercial Aquaculture.

Nebraska

The lake sturgeon is classified as a threatenedspecies in Nebraska, where the species may befound in inland waters and waters of theMissouri River. There is no commercial orsport catch allowed (Nebraska AdministrativeCode, Title 163, Chapter 4.004).

New York

The lake sturgeon is classified as a threatenedspecies in New York (New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation[NYS/DEC] 1999). All catch or possession isillegal except under license or permit from theNew York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation (Section 11-0535 EnvironmentalConservation Law of the State of New York; Part182 Title 6, Codes, Rules and Regulations of theState of New York [NYCRR]). Licenses areavailable for the importation of lake sturgeoncarcasses and the processing of imported lakesturgeon (6NYCRR Section 182.7).

The Department has conducted a lake sturgeonrecovery program since 1994. The program hasincluded rearing and stocking lake sturgeonfingerlings in selected target restoration waterssince 1995 (NYS/DEC 1999; Patrick Festa,Inland Fisheries Management Section,Department of Environmental Conservation, inlitt. to Teiko Saito USFWS/OMA, August 22,2000). This program is described in greaterdetail in Section VI under Hatcheries andCommercial Aquaculture.

Ohio

The lake sturgeon has been listed as anendangered species in the state of Ohio since1974 (Gary Isbell, Executive Administrator,Fish Management and Research, OhioDepartment of Natural Resources, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 15, 2000).No take or trade is permitted as per OhioCode, Section 1501:31-23-01, “SpecialEndangered Wild Animal Regulations.” It isillegal to possess lake sturgeon taken fromOhio waters in Lake Erie (Kevin Ramsey, LakeErie Law Enforcement Supervisor, OhioDepartment of Natural Resources Divison ofWildlife, in litt. to Andrea Gaski,USFWS/OMA, September 11, 2000).

Pennsylvania

The lake sturgeon is classified as anendangered species in Pennsylvania (PDCNR2002). Catching, killing, possessing,importing to or exporting from, selling,offering for sale or purchasing of the species orits parts is illegal in the state without a specialpermit. Lake sturgeon are most likely to befound in Pennsylvania waters in Lake Erie,where small specimens occasionally show up

131

in the trapnets of the few commercialfishermen permitted to fish those waters. Byregulation the fish must be releasedimmediately (Richard Snyder, Chief, Divisionof Fisheries Management, Pennsylvania Fishand Boat Commission, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 15, 2000).

South Dakota

South Dakota considers the lake sturgeon tooccur only occasionally in the state. The lakesturgeon is not legally classified as threatened orendangered by South Dakota, but it is includedon a list of rare, threatened, or endangeredanimals (South Dakota Department of Game,Fish and Parks 2002). There is no catch; SouthDakota prohibits any catch of all sturgeonspecies by either sport or commercial methods(Clifton Stone, Senior Wildlife Biologist,Reservoir Fisheries, South Dakota Departmentof Game, Fish and Parks, in litt. to RosemarieGnam, USFWS/OMA, August 25, 2000).

Tennessee

The lake sturgeon is classified as anendangered species in Tennessee. It is illegalto catch them commercially or for sport.Populations of lake sturgeon in the state arebelieved to be very small, and probably existonly because of restoration efforts throughstocking by the Tennessee Valley Authority(TVA) and a recent cooperative effort betweenthe Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency(TWRA), TVA, USFWS, the University ofTennessee, the Tennessee Aquarium, theSoutheast Aquatic Research Institute, WorldWildlife Fund, and Conservation Fisheries, Inc.(Robert Todd, Commercial FishingCoordinator, Tennessee Wildlife ResourcesAgency, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA,August 21, 2001). In this effort, lake sturgeonare being stocked in the French Broad Riverabove Knoxville, from whence they mightmigrate to other waters (pers. comm., George

Benz, SARI, 2001). This program is discussedin greater detail in Section VI.

Vermont

In Vermont, lake sturgeon are found only inLake Champlain. The fishery for lake sturgeonwas closed in 1967, and the Vermont Agencyof Natural Resources (VANR) placed thespecies on the state endangered species list in1987. It is illegal to take or possess lakesturgeon without an endangered species permitissued by the Secretary of VANR (ChetMacKenzie, VANR, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 30, 2000).

Wisconsin

Wisconsin allows only sport fishing for lakesturgeon. The state has established two differentseasons, a spear fishery in Lake Winnebago thatbegins in February and a hook and line seasonfrom the first Saturday in September throughOctober 15. The Lake Winnebago spear fisheryis managed under a quota system, and the seasonis closed immediately at the end of the next dayafter 80% of the quota is reached. Quotanumbers as of 2000 were 400 adult females, 400juvenile females, and 2,150 males. Under thequota system in place, once 320 adult femalesare caught, the season closes at 6:00 p.m. on thefollowing day. There is also a 36-inch minimumlength restriction, and fishermen must purchase a$10 sturgeon spearing tag. In the hook and linefishery there is a 50- to 70-inch minimum lengthrestriction depending on location, and anglersmust apply for a free tag (Karl Scheidegger,Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, inlitt. to Rosemarie Gnam, USFWS/OMA, August17, 2000). Table 4.8.6 shows the catch totals forthe spring spear season and hook and line seasonfrom 1998 through 2000.

Wisconsin’s lake sturgeon managementstrategy also involves stocking. Theseactivities are discussed in Section VI underHatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture.

132

Table 4.8.6 Wisconsin Sport Catch of Lake Sturgeon, 1998–2000*

Year Spear Season Hook and Line Season

1998 2,051 314

1999 1,484 347

2000 2,517 N/A

Key: N/A = Not available.* Source: Karl Scheidegger, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in litt to Rosemarie Gnam, USFWS/OMA, August 17, 2000.

4.9 White SturgeonThe white sturgeon receives no federalprotection in the United States, with theexception of the Kootenai River population thatwas listed as endangered in the United Stateson September 6, 1994 (USFWS 1994b). Asnoted in Section 3.9, the Canadian governmentlisted the white sturgeon as Vulnerable in 1990,based on its limited distribution in Canada;Environment Canada currently places thespecies in the risk category of Special Concern(Lane 1991; Environment Canada 1999).Management strategies and conservationmeasures vary at the provincial and state levelsin Canada and the United States.

CanadaWhite sturgeon are extant only in CanadianPacific coastal waters and in BritishColumbia’s Fraser River system. The speciesis primarily managed by the British ColumbiaMinistry of Environment, Lands and Parks(BCMELP). The Canadian DFO sharesresponsibilities for the species in its coastaland marine habitats (B.C. Fisheries 2001a;Environment Canada 1999). Prior to the 1990Vulnerable listing by COSEWIC, DFOclassified the white sturgeon as both acommercial and a sport fish. Provincialmanagement of the species has changedconsiderably over the last two decades.

British Columbia

The white sturgeon was fished for sport inBritish Columbia in the 1980s and into thebeginning of the 1990s, long after the historiccommercial fishery for the species hadcollapsed. In 1985, more than 1,000 specialpermits were issued for the lower Fraser RiverValley, and requests for sturgeon sportfishingguiding licenses were reported to be increasingin the province (Environment Canada 1999).

During this period, regulations varied byregion within the province. Sport fishermenwere allowed to catch one sturgeon per day(either white or green sturgeon) in the LowerMainland region of the Fraser River, and onesturgeon per year in the Thompson-Nicola,Kootenay, Caribou, Skeena, and Omenica-Peace regions. The minimum size restrictionsin all of these regions was 40 inches (100 cm);there was an 80-inch (200 cm) maximum size

limit in the Lower Mainland Fraser andOmenica-Peace regions. DFO sport fishingregulations in marine and coastal watersallowed one sturgeon per day, with minimumsize set at 40 inches (100 cm). White andgreen sturgeon were not separated. It becameillegal to sell sport-caught sturgeon in 1975(Lane 1991).

Commercial catches during this period werelimited to freshwater; commercial fishermenholding certain classes of licenses could take thespecies. There were no specific regulationsregarding incidental take of sturgeon in theFraser River gill net salmon fishery (Lane 1991).

Subsequent to its classification as Vulnerableby COSEWIC, however, the B.C. ConservationData Centre listed the white sturgeon asImperiled, placing it on the province’s Red List.Three populations (Nechako, upper Columbia,and Kootenay), are now classified under theprovince’s highest possible threat ranking ofCritically Imperiled (B.C. Fisheries 2001a).

In 1994, British Columbia closed the FraserRiver fishery and banned the possession orretention of white sturgeon (RL&LEnvironmental Services 2000a). The onlyremaining “catch” of white sturgeon in BritishColumbia has been in catch-and-releasefisheries. Data from the DFO document thecapture and release of 1,430 white sturgeon in1998 and 255 white sturgeon in 1999 in theHarrison, Chehalis, Nicomen-Norrish, Staveand Vedder-Chilliwack sport fisheries. Asignificant majority of these fish were takenand released in the Harrison River (DFO 2001).

While such catch-and-release fisheries are stillallowed in some segments and tributaries ofthe Fraser River, the practice is increasinglyrestricted. As of September 7, 2000, anglingfor sturgeon is no longer permitted in theNechako River or its tributaries, including theStuart River. Similar action was previouslytaken on behalf of the Kootenay/upperColumbia River populations (RL&LEnvironmental Services 2001a).

White sturgeon management in BritishColumbia currently focuses on the developmentof recovery plans to stabilize the remainingpopulation(s) and prevent further declines oreven extinction among some distinct populationsegments. The long-term goal is to restore

133

abundant, self-sustaining populations to eachwatershed. To date, recovery plans havefocused on: (1) research to identify and addressthe reasons for the decline of British Columbiawhite sturgeon populations so that these factorscan be mitigated and populations restored to aself-sustaining state (RL&L EnvironmentalServices 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001b); and (2)an interim goal to preserve the remaining genepool through conservation fish culture, toprevent further loss to the population (B.C.Fisheries 2001a). British Columbia’s hatcheryprogram is discussed in greater detail in SectionVI on Hatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture.

United StatesSimilar to the ASMFC on the U.S. easternseaboard, there is a Pacific Coast MarineFisheries Commission (PSMFC), which wasestablished as an interstate compact agency in1947. The goal of PSMFC is “to promote andsupport policies and actions directed at theconservation, development, and managementof fishery resources of mutual concern tomember states through a coordinated regionalapproach to research, monitoring andutilization.” Member states are California,Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (PSMFC2000). Unlike the situation with ASMFC andAtlantic sturgeon, however, PSMFC does nothave regulatory authority over Pacific coaststurgeon. U.S. populations of white sturgeonare managed by the range states in which theyreside, and in the case of the Columbia River,through a congressionally established compactand interstate agreements. The followingsummaries describe U.S. state managementprograms for white sturgeon, with a focus oncommercial and sport catch regulations.

Alaska

Alaska classifies the white sturgeon as acommercial fish for purposes of taxation, andprovides a species code for tax returns onlandings (Alaska Department of Revenue2001). However, there is not believed to besignificant directed commercial or sport fishingfor the white sturgeon in the state.

Oregon/Washington

White sturgeon management efforts in Oregonand Washington concentrate on the ColumbiaRiver system, which forms a major portion of

the boundary between the two states.Following the collapse of white sturgeonstocks in the late nineteenth century, theColumbia River commercial sturgeon fisheryunderwent numerous regulatory changes.These began with a ban on sturgeon sales from1899 to 1908. Beginning in 1909, the ruleswere relaxed to permit the sale of sturgeon,although such sales were limited to salmonseasons only. Sturgeon setlines were allowedin the mid-1970s, but were phased out by themid-1980s. Targeted sturgeon gill net seasonsreplaced the setline seasons in the mid-1980s,but were subsequently eliminated in 1989.Annual catch guidelines were adoptedbeginning in 1993 (Joint Columbia RiverManagement Staff [JCRMS] 2000, 2001a).

Since 1989, lower Columbia River whitesturgeon fisheries (below Bonneville Dam),both commercial and recreational, have beenmanaged for optimum sustained yield (OSY), amanagement model designed to optimize catchwhile allowing the lower Columbia whitesturgeon population to rebuild (Beamesderfer1999; JCRMS 2001a). Management actionstaken between 1985 and 1996 to restrict catchrates consistent with the OSY principleincluded (1) increasing the minimum size limitin recreational fisheries; (2) lowering themaximum size limit in all fisheries; (3)reducing the daily and annual catch limits forrecreational fisheries; and (4) adopting catchguidelines for commercial fisheries (JCRMS2000, 2001a).

During the period from 1985 through 1996,size and catch limits changed frequently. In1985, sport regulations permitted a daily catchlimit of three fish between 36 and 72 inches,with no annual catch limit. By 1996, sportregulations permitted a daily catch limit ofonly one fish between 42 and 66 inches, with a10–fish annual limit. Largely because of theincreasingly restrictive regulations, sport catchdeclined from a peak of 62,400 fish in 1987 toa low of 17,300 fish in 1990. Since 1992 sportcatch has ranged between 33,500 and 45,100,in response to a rebounding population andcontinuing regulatory changes. Concurrently,commercial catch declined from a peak of11,600 in 1986 to a low of 3,800 in 1991because of reductions in fishing opportunities(JCRMS 2000, 2001a).

134

In October 1996, the Directors of the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) andthe Washington Department of Fish andWildlife (WDFW) signed the first Joint StateAgreement on sturgeon fishing; themanagement plan was titled, “The OlympiaAccord on Columbia River Sturgeon FisheryManagement.” It contained a variety of fisheryregulations, including: (1) size limits forrecreational and commercial fisheries; (2) dailyand annual catch limits for recreationalanglers; (3) gear restrictions for recreationalfisheries; and (4) the allowance of targetsturgeon seasons in the commercial fishery.The maximum size limit for white sturgeon,which had been reduced twice from 72 inchesto 66 inches in 1993, was further reduced to 60inches in 1997. However, the cornerstone ofthe plan was the adoption of a three-yearaverage catchable number to ensure that thefisheries did not exceed OSY limits. Anannual catchable number of 67,300 whitesturgeon was initially adopted for the period1997 to 1999, with an allocation of 80%(53,840 fish) for recreational fisheries and 20%(13,460 fish) for commercial fisheries. Othermanagement actions enacted included a 9 -3/4inch maximum mesh size limit to reduce thecapture of oversize sturgeon in commercialfisheries and a 9-inch minimum mesh sizelimit for targeted commercial sturgeonfisheries to minimize bycatch of non-targetedspecies (JCRMS 2001a).

The Olympia Accord allowed for modificationsif new information suggested that changeswere warranted. During the spring of 1999,abundance estimates from tagging efforts in1996 and 1997 were less than expected.Therefore, the catchable number was reducedto 50,000 beginning with the 1999 fisheries.The allocation of 80% for recreational fisheriesand 20% for commercial fisheries remainedunchanged (JCRMS 2001a).

Commercial catch of white sturgeon in fishingzones in the lower Columbia River is alsosubject to the framework of the ColumbiaRiver Compact, which is charged bycongressional and statutory authority to adoptcommercial fishing seasons and regulations.The Compact’s membership includes theOregon and Washington fish and wildlifeagency directors, acting on behalf of theOregon Fish and Wildlife Commission

(OFWC) and the Washington Fish and WildlifeCommission (WFWC). In addition, theColumbia River treaty tribes have authority toregulate treaty Indian fisheries. Whenaddressing commercial seasons for speciesunder its jurisdiction, including sturgeon, theCompact must consider the effects of thecommercial fishery on escapement, treatyrights, and sport fisheries, as well as thepotential impact on ESA-listed species. Whilethe Compact has no authority to adopt sportfishing rules or seasons, it has an inherentresponsibility to consider the equitableallocation of limited resources among users(JCRMS 2001b).

In February 2000, the directors of ODFW andWDFW agreed to extend the Joint StateAgreement for an additional three-year period,from 2000 to 2002. Therefore, the lowerColumbia river fishery continued to bemanaged under the new “Joint StateAgreement on Columbia River SturgeonFishery Management.” Commercial fishingalso falls under the overall framework of theColumbia River Compact (Columbia RiverCompact 2000; JCRMS 2001a). Major tenetsof the new management agreement included:(1) continuation of management based on anOSY approach; (2) absent significant update,annual catchable number averages of 50,000for the three-year period; (3) allocation of 80%for recreational fisheries and 20% forcommercial fisheries; (4) targeted commercialseasons as necessary to provide access to theallocation and maximize economic benefitsconsistent with conservation objectives; (5) acommercial size limit of 48 to 60 inches; and(6) a recreational slot limit of 42 to 60 inches,with a catch limit of one per day and 10 peryear, plus a requirement that barbless hooks beused (Columbia River Compact 2000; JCRMS2001a, 2001b).

The determination of the catch limit for whitesturgeon is largely based upon surveysconducted by authorities designated under theAgreement to monitor stocks in the lowerColumbia River system. Annual abundanceestimates have been produced since 1989, withthe exception of 1994. Table 4.9.1 shows theestimated abundance of catchable whitesturgeon in the lower Columbia River from1989 to 2001. In addition, general indices ofabundance of sublegal (less than 42 inches)

135

and oversized (greater than 60 inches) sturgeonwere believed to be strong as of 2001; theoverall population of white sturgeon greaterthan two feet in length is believed to exceed 1million fish (JCRMS 2001a, 2001b, 2002).

These abundance estimates indicate that thetotal number of catchable-size white sturgeon(42 to 60 inches) increased from fewer than50,000 in 1991 to more than 200,000 in 1995,an increase of more than 400% (JCRMS 2000,2001a). The average from 1995 to 2000 was164,000 fish. The majority of the increaseoccurred in the 42- to 48-inch size group.There is evidence that the 1996 and 1997harvestable population estimates werenegatively impacted by a mass emigration ofwhite sturgeon from the lower Columbia River(DeVore et al. 1999; JCRMS 2001a). Tagrecoveries from outside of the Columbia Riversystem indicated that the emigration began in1996, and further data suggested that thesewhite sturgeon returned to the lower ColumbiaRiver within a couple of years. However, it isbelieved that a second group of white sturgeonemigrated from the Columbia River in 1999(JCRMS 2001a). The exact causes for theseemigrations are unknown.

Actual catches of white sturgeon in the lowerColumbia River have fluctuated under variousmanagement schemes during the past severaldecades. Table 4.9.2 shows the commercial

and sport catches for the years 1977 to 2002,along with the percentages of catch attributableto commercial and sport fisheries.

As shown in Table 4.9.3, a comparison ofactual catch compared to catch guidelinesshows that the guidelines have been exceededin both the commercial and sport fisheries insome years, while in other years actual catchhas been below the catch guidelines (unit ofmeasure = number of fish).

In recent years, fisheries authorities haveaddressed in two principal ways the issue ofcatches that exceeded catch guidelines. First,Joint Columbia River Management Staff haverequired that any overages (catch over theguidelines) from one year be applied to thefollowing year’s catch quota. For example,overages from the 2000 fisheries were appliedto the 2001 catch guidelines, resulting in anadjusted 2001 catch limit of 39,500 whitesturgeon for sport fisheries and 9,100 whitesturgeon for commercial fisheries (JCRMS2001b). Commercial landings in 2001exceeded the 9,100 catch limit by 210 whitesturgeon, and the sport catch exceeded the39,500 catch limit by 700 white sturgeon(JCRMS 2002). According to a Joint StaffReport for the Columbia River Compact, basedon a December 12, 2001 catch update, 2002sport fisheries were to be managed for a catchtarget of 36,500, not to exceed 38,500, and

136

Table 4.9.1 Estimated Abundance of Catchable White Sturgeon in the LowerColumbia River, 1989–2001*

Total Length Interval (inches)

Year 42–48 48–60 42–60

1989 32,500 16,800 49,300

1990 26,100 12,000 38,100

1991 32,900 11,700 44,600

1992 59,900 8,700 68,600

1993 85,000 14,200 99,200

1994 N/A N/A N/A

1995 143,200 59,000 202,200

1996 131,700 33,500 165,200

1997 123,700 33,400 157,100

1998 161,600 24,700 186,300

1999 116,800 17,600 134,400

2000 119,200 17,000 136,200

2001 100,200 22,400 122,600

Key: N/A = Not availabl3* Source: Columbia River Compact (2002b)

commercial fisheries were to be managed for acatch target of 9,200, not to exceed 9,700(Columbia River Compact 2002a).

Second, as the Joint Agreement allows, fisherymanagers have authority to adjust regulationsas needed to comply with managementguidelines. In 2001, for example, fisherymanagers implemented temporary rules thatprohibited retention of sturgeon in somemanagement zones once catch guidelines weremet, and introduced more restrictive legal sizelimitations for specific sport fisheries. Fisherymanagers may also adjust seasons in bothcommercial and sport fisheries to reduce orincrease fishing opportunities as necessary tocomply with targets. Finally, regulatorsanticipated that additional mesh sizerestrictions might be also adopted to ensure

that Select Area fisheries target salmon ratherthan white sturgeon (Columbia River Compact2001; JCRMS 2001a, 2001b).

Data gathered during 2001 indicated that theoverall quota of 50,000 white sturgeon mightnot be appropriate for future fisheries, and thatadditional catch reductions might be requiredfor both sport and commercial fisheries(ODFW 2001b; JCRMS 2001a, 2001b). In theopinion of the Joint Columbia RiverManagement Staff, abundance estimates for1997 to 2000 suggested that the level of 50,000catchable fish might be excessive. However,the staff’s report noted contradictory evidence.Improved catch rates in 2001 as compared tothe period 1997–2000 might have indicated anincrease in abundance. In addition, the reportnoted that abundance estimates for 1999 and

137

Table 4.9.2 Commercial and Sport Catch of White Sturgeon in the LowerColumbia River and Percentages, 1977–2002*

Year Commercial+,† Sport+ Total+ % Commercial % Sport

1977 9,700 25,800 35,500 27 73

1978 9,800 30,400 40,200 24 76

1979 20,500 31,400 51,900 39 61

1980 9,400 27,000 36,400 26 74

1981 14,900 27,200 42,100 35 65

1982 11,600 25,100 36,700 32 68

1983 12,400 36,000 48,400 26 74

1984 17,500 42,000 59,500 29 71

1985 8,400 43,800 52,200 16 84

1986 11,600 49,800 61,400 19 81

1987 9,700 62,400 72,100 13 87

1988 6,800 43,100 49,900 14 86

1989 5,000 25,400 30,400 16 84

1990 5,300 17,300 22,600 23 77

1991 3,800 22,700 26,500 14 86

1992 6,200 40,100 46,300 13 87

1993 8,100 37,900 46,000 18 82

1994 6,400 33,500 39,900 16 84

1995 6,200 45,100 51,300 12 88

1996 8,400 42,800 51,200 16 84

1997 12,800 38,200 51,000 25 75

1998 13,900 41,600 55,500 25 75

1999 9,500 39,800 49,300 20 80

2000 10,900 40,500 51,400 21 79

2001 9,300 41,200 50,500 18 82

2002# 9,800 37,500 47,300 21 79

Key: + Unit of Measure = Number of fish.† Includes Youngs Bay (1979–present) and other Select Area landings (1998–present).# Preliminary.

* Source: JCRMS (2002).

2000 are likely low because of changes intagging operations during those years.Specifically, in 1999 and 2000 taggingoperations occurred primarily during May andJune, while previous tagging operationsoccurred from May through August. Estimatesbased on May and June tag groups aretypically lower than abundance estimates basedon July and August tag groups, and it wasfurther noted that 1999 and 2000 taggingoperations overemphasized the estuarycomponent of the white sturgeon population,so that only a portion of the total populationswas estimated. Tagging operations wereexpanded in 2001 to address this bias (JCRMS2001a). In 2002, Oregon also reported that itwas asking sport anglers in several coastalestuaries to cooperate in an ongoing sturgeonmigration and residence study by returningtags with the date and location the fish wascaught, the length of the fish, and whether itwas kept or released (ODFW 2002).

Because of the contradictory evidence, because2002 represented the end of the 2000–2002Joint State Agreement, and because the 2001abundance estimate was not yet available,fishery managers chose not to modify thecatchable number or sport/commercialallocation for 2002 (JCRMS 2002). However,

in more recent action the Oregon andWashington Fish and Wildlife Commissionsdecided to lower the number of white sturgeonthat can be caught annually from 50,000 to40,000 for the years 2003–2005. This planmay be modified if new information suggeststhat a change is warranted. The allocationbetween sport and commercial fisheriesremains the same at 80% (32,000 fish) forsport fishing and 20% (8,000 fish) forcommercial fisheries (Columbia RiverCompact 2002b).

White sturgeon fisheries also exist in theColumbia River upstream from Bonneville Dam.White sturgeon fisheries between BonnevilleDam and McNary Dam (Management Zone 6)consist of Treaty Indian commercial andsubsistence fisheries, as well as non-Indian sportfisheries. Treaty Indian commercial fishingincludes hook and line, setline, and gill netfisheries, while non-Indian fisheries arerestricted to hook and line only. Treaty Indianfishers may take white sturgeon for subsistencepurposes year-round (JCRMS 2001a).

White sturgeon stock assessments areconducted periodically in some reservoirs, or“pools,” above Bonneville Dam, to monitor theeffects of hydro-system mitigation activities

138

Table 4.9.3 Commercial Catch of White Sturgeon by Season, Annual SportCatch, and Comparisons to Catch Guidelines, 1993–2002*

Seasons 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002†

Mainstem Commercial

Winter 990 2,990 0 800 2,710 2,680 1,780 2,260 3,060 2,790

August 0 0 0 0 1,740 2,540 2,770 2,490 4,720 1,390

Early Fall 0 0 0 330 140 90 60 300 1,020 370

Late Fall 7,010 3,380 5,980 6,580 7,790 8,060 4,180 5,130 0 4,240

Mainstem Subtotal 8,000 6,370 5,980 7,710 12,380 13,370 8,790 10,180 8,800 8,790

Select Area Commercial

Spring/Summer 32 31 114 581 351 355 523 540 490 630

Fall 17 4 65 110 96 171 194 160 20 340

Select Area Subtotal 49 35 179 691 447 526 717 690 510 970

All Commercial

Commercial Total 8,100 6,400 6,200 8,400 12,800 13,900 9,500 10,870 9,310 9,760

Catch Guideline 6,000 6,000 8,000 8,000 13,460 13,460 10,000 10,000 9,100 9,800

Lower Columbia Sport

Sport Total 37,900 33,500 45,100 42,800 38,200 41,600 39,800 40,500 40,200 37,500

Catch Guideline — — — — 53,840 53,840 40,000 40,000 39,500 38,500

Key: † = Preliminary; sport catch projected for November 23 through December 31, 2002.* Source: JCRMS (2002).

and OSY catch strategies. Populationestimates are derived from mark-recaptureefforts involving sampling with gill nets andset lines. Estimates in different pools are notmeasured in the same years, making directcomparisons difficult. Table 4.9.4 showsabundance estimates for white sturgeonbetween three and six feet in length forsampled pools in Management Zone 6 duringsurveyed years.

Similar to the lower Columbia River fishery,regulations in the Zone 6 management areadeveloped and changed over a period of years.White sturgeon catch in Zone 6 peaked in 1987,with a commercial catch of 11,100 fish and asport catch of 6,700 fish. In that year, concernsabout increasing catch rates and declining whitesturgeon abundance prompted the creation of aSturgeon Management Task Force (SMTF).The SMTF, composed of representatives fromOregon, Washington, and the Columbia Rivertreaty Indian tribes (Nez Perce, Umatilla, WarmSprings, and Yakama), reviewed the status ofwhite sturgeon in the management area andrecommended that (1) treaty Indian seasons beshortened; and (2) the minimum size limit inthe sport fishery be moved up. Theserecommendations took effect in 1988. TreatyIndian setline seasons were reduced from 10 to4 months, and sturgeon sales were generallylimited to winter seasons. Sport fisheriesadopted a two-fish daily catch limit and a 40-to 72-inch size limit restriction, which reducedsport catch by 40% (JCRMS 2001a).

Since 1991, catch guidelines recommended bythe SMTF have entered into effect for bothtreaty Indian commercial fisheries andrecreational fisheries in Zone 6. From 1991 to1996, guidelines for treaty Indian commercialfisheries were 1,250 for Bonneville Pool, 300

for The Dalles Pool, and 100 for John DayPool. Guidelines for recreational fisheriesduring this period were 1,350 for BonnevillePool, 100 in The Dalles Pool, and 100 in JohnDay Pool. Management plans includedproviding treaty Indian subsistence catchaccountability and limiting sturgeon sales infisheries to levels consistent with the catchreduction plan. In 1994, retention of sturgeonin Zone 6 sport fisheries was prohibited for thefirst time when catch was projected to exceedSMTF guidelines. Such closures have beenenacted every year since 1994; sport anglersmay continue to fish for white sturgeon andthen release them unharmed when catchguidelines are reached and retention isprohibited (JCRMS 2001a).

In 1997, the SMTF agreed to adopt pool-specific management with catch guidelinesbased on the OSY principle. These guidelineswere designed to allow for adequate survival ofjuvenile sturgeon to increase the number ofcatchable and broodstock fish. After analyzingZone 6 white sturgeon stocks, the states andtribes decided to reduce the maximum sizelimit to 60 inches, and established new OSYcatch guidelines. Revised catch guidelines fortreaty Indian commercial fisheries were 1,300for Bonneville Pool, 400 in The Dalles Pool,and 1,160 in John Day Pool; sport fisheryguidelines became 1,520 in Bonneville Pool,200 in The Dalles Pool, and 560 in John DayPool (JCRMS 2001a).

During the period 1998 to 2000, additionaldata from The Dalles Pool led to an increase incatch guidelines, to 1,000–1,200 for treatyIndian commercial fisheries and 600–800 forsport fisheries. In 2001, the guidelines werereevaluated and the SMTF agreed to a level of1,100 for treaty Indian commercial fisheries

139

Bonneville Pool The Dalles Pool John Day Pool

Years Abundance Estimate Years Abundance Estimate Years Abundance Estimate

1976–78 5,400 1987 18,900 1990 2,200

1989 17,900 1988 6,300 1996 24,100

1994 19,800 1994 6,500 2001 13,900

1999 39,700 1997 46,800

Table 4.9.4 Annual 3- to 6-foot Abundance Estimates by Pool in the Zone 6Management Area of the Columbia River*

* Source: JCRMS (2002).

and 700 for sport fisheries (JCRMS 2001a).These guidelines were expected to remainconstant in 2002 for Bonneville Pool and TheDalles Pool; however, based on the most recentpopulation estimate, guidelines for John DayPool for 2002 were reduced to 165 in the sportfishery and 335 in the treaty Indian fishery(Columbia River Compact 2002a). Sturgeonsize limits were 48 to 60 inches in treatyIndian fisheries, 48 to 60 inches in sportfisheries in The Dalles and John Day pools,and 42 to 60 inches in Bonneville Pool sportfisheries (JCRMS 2001a).

Although the overall allocation isapproximately 50-50 between sport and Indianfisheries, reservoir-specific guidelines areshaped to meet fishery demands. For example,the sport fishery is allowed a greater share of

the Bonneville Pool catch while the TreatyIndian fishery receives a greater share of thecatch in The Dalles and John Day pools.Treaty Indian fishermen may also continue totake sturgeon for subsistence purposes aftercommercial seasons have ended. Thesubsistence catch is monitored by the YakamaIndian Nation, and annually averages fewerthan 300 sturgeon. This portion of the catch isnot included in the catch guidelines (JCRMS2001a). Table 4.9.5 shows the evolution ofcatch estimates and guidelines for Zone 6fisheries during the period 1991 to 2002.

The guidelines and regulations outlined abovedemonstrate the careful and activemanagement of the white sturgeon fishery inthe Columbia River states, both in the lowerColumbia River and in the Zone 6

140

Table 4.9.5 Annual Catch Estimates and Guidelines for Commercial and SportFisheries in the Zone 6 Management Area, 1991–2002*

Bonneville Pool The Dalles Pool John Day Pool

Year Catch Guideline Catch Guideline Catch Guideline

Commercial Fisheries

1991 1,000 1,250 460 300 40 100

1992 1,150 1,250 430 300 20 100

1993 1,420 1,250 500 300 10 100

1994 1,180 1,250 310 300 120 100

1995 1,420 1,250 310 300 310 100

1996 1,000 1,250 230 300 360 100

1997 1,850 1,300 500 400 1,260 1,160

1998 1,460 1,300 1,100 1,000–2,000 1,100 1,160

1999 1,280 1,300 1,050 1,000–2,000 760 1,160

2000 1,180 1,300 1,340 1,000–2,000 790 1,160

2001 1,287 1,300 1,499 1,100 759 1,160

2002+ 432 1,300 1,138 1,100 322 335

Sport Fisheries

1991 2,270 1,350 200 100 150 100

1992 1,720 1,350 140 100 150 100

1993 2,310 1,350 160 100 140 100

1994 2,220 1,350 160 100 240 100

1995 1,370 1,350 50 100 90 100

1996 1,360 1,350 60 100 80 100

1997 1,470 1,520 180 200 480 560

1998 1,630 1,520 860 600–800 600 560

1999 1,240 1,520 690 600–800 400 560

2000 1,260 1,520 810 600–800 430 560

2001 1,430 1,520 660 700 220 560

2002+ 1,334 1,520 715 700 154 165

Key: + Preliminary. Commercial catch in Bonneville Pool reflects catch through November 3, 2002; sport catch for Bonneville Pool reflectscatch through October 31, 2002. * Source: JCRMS (2002).

management area. It is important to note thatthe information summarized herein reflects thestate of affairs as of late 2002; regulations andcatch guidelines may very well undergo furtherreview and adjustments. For the most currentinformation on management and regulation ofthe Columbia River white sturgeon fisheries,readers should refer to the periodic reports ofthe Joint Columbia River Management Staff,the Columbia River Compact, and to updateson the administrative rules for the fisheriesissued by the states of Oregon and Washington.

There is also some directed commercial fishingfor white sturgeon in coastal marine waters.For example, Washington scheduled a fisheryfor white sturgeon from November 6 toNovember 30, 2001, in Willapa Bay, subject toan overall quota of 1,037 fish, includingcatches during earlier salmon fisheries(WDFW 2001b, 2001c).

Idaho

Catch-and-release angling restrictions have beenin place for white sturgeon on the Snake River inIdaho since 1984 (Miller et al. 2001). There isno catch season for white sturgeon. Any whitesturgeon that is caught may not be removed fromthe water and must be released immediately.Barbless hooks are required at all times (IdahoDepartment of Fish and Game 2000; IdahoAdministrative Code IDAPA 13.01.11).

Montana

Montana has prohibited commercial and sportfishing for white sturgeon since 1979 (Miller etal. 2001). Take and/or possession of whitesturgeon is illegal in Montana (MontanaFishing Regulations 2002-2003).

California

As discussed in Section 3.9, California has notallowed commercial catch of wild whitesturgeon since 1917. The state also prohibitsthe purchase, sale, or possession of a wholesturgeon or any parts thereof, including eggs,in any place where fish are sold (CaliforniaFish and Game Code, Sections 7370,8370–8403). There is an exception to thisprohibition in the case of white sturgeon rearedin approved and permitted aquaculturefacilities in the state, which is described ingreater detail in Section VI on Hatcheries andCommercial Aquaculture.

In freshwater fisheries, sport fishermen maytake white sturgeon year-round, except forclosures listed under special regulations.Recent closures have encompassed the SpecialNorth Coast District Sturgeon Closure(Humboldt, Del Norte, Trinity, and Siskiyoucounties), where it is illegal to take anysturgeon at any time. In open areas, sportanglers may keep one fish between 46 inchesand 72 inches (115–183 cm) per day. Thesturgeon must voluntarily take the bait or lurein its mouth. No sturgeon can be taken bytrolling or snagging. In addition, fish must belanded without use of a gaff, and no person canuse any type of firearm to land a sturgeon(California Department of Fish and Game[CDFG] 2000a).

Marine sport fisheries are open all year, withthe same size restriction, daily bag limit, andmethods of take that apply to the freshwatersport fishery. Sturgeon may not be takenbetween January 1 and March 15 in the portionof San Francisco Bay that includes thefollowing boundaries: a direct line betweenPoint Chauncy (National Marine FisheriesLaboratory) and Point Richmond, the SanFrancisco–Oakland Bay Bridge and a directline between Point Lobos and Point Bonita(CDFG 2000b).

4.10 Green SturgeonDirected take of green sturgeon is not asprevalent as that for white sturgeon. While thespecies is exploited commercially in someareas, its catch is banned in Canada andrestricted in the United States. The species ismore likely to be taken incidentally thanintentionally.

CanadaCanada designated the green sturgeon as aspecies of Special Concern in 1987. In BritishColumbia, the only Canadian province in thespecies’ range, catch or possession of greensturgeon is prohibited under the FederalFisheries Act. Because of the “disagreeable”odor and taste of the species’ flesh and roe,green sturgeon were not traditionally caught indirected commercial fisheries in BritishColumbia (Environment Canada 2001).

141

United StatesThe green sturgeon is not federally protected inthe United States, although, as discussed inSection 3.10 above, in 2001 a petition wassubmitted to list the species under the ESA.Similar to white sturgeon, specific rules for itscatch and management fall under the jurisdictionof Pacific coast states and treaty fisheries.

Alaska

Alaska classifies the green sturgeon as acommercial fish for purposes of taxation, andprovides a species code for tax returns onlandings (Alaska Department of Revenue2001). However, there is not believed to besignificant directed commercial or sport fishingfor green sturgeon in the state.

California

California designates the green sturgeon as aSpecies of Special Concern (CDFG 1995).Commercial catch of the green sturgeon isprohibited in the Sacramento–San JoaquinRiver Basin. A small Native American

subsistence fishery continues in the KlamathRiver, although catch figures are not available(Waldman 1999). There is not believed to be adirected sport catch for the species.

Oregon/Washington

Directed commercial fishing for green sturgeonis not permitted in the Columbia River system.Green sturgeon may, however, be takenincidentally during other commercial seasonssuch as white sturgeon fisheries, provided thelevel does not exceed levels observed in pastfisheries. The commercial slot limit for greensturgeon in these fisheries is 48 to 66 inches(Columbia River Compact 2000). There arenot believed to be directed sport fisheries forgreen sturgeon. However, the species may betaken during seasons for white sturgeon. Sportfishery regulations include a slot limit of 42 to60 inches, one sturgeon per day and 10sturgeon per year catch limits, and required useof barbless hooks (Columbia River Compact2000). Table 4.10.1 shows commercial andsport catch of green sturgeon in the ColumbiaRiver from 1977 to 2002.

142

143

Table 4.10.1 Commercial and Sport Catch of Green Sturgeon in the LowerColumbia River, 1977–2002*

Year Commercial Sport Total

1977 800 0 800

1978 1,700 0 1,700

1979 1,200 0 1,200

1980 1,700 0 1,700

1981 200 0 200

1982 800 0 800

1983 700 100 800

1984 2,700 100 2,800

1985 1,600 500 2,100

1986 6,000 400 6,400

1987 4,900 200 5,100

1988 3,300 100 3,400

1989 1,700 100 1,800

1990 2,200 100 2,300

1991 3,200 <100 3,200

1992 2,200 100 2,300

1993 2,200 <100 2,200

1994 200 100 300

1995 400 <100 400

1996 600 100 700

1997 1,600 <100 1,600

1998 700 100 800

1999 800 100 900

2000 1,200 <100 1,200

2001 300 100 400

2002+ 200 <100 200

Key: + Preliminary.* Source: JCRMS (2002).

North American paddlefish and sturgeonspecies have become increasingly prominent inrecent domestic and international discussionsregarding the caviar trade, particularly sinceconcerns began to develop over thedeteriorating situation in the Caspian Seafisheries. These discussions have involvedboth the caviar trade generally and individualNorth American species specifically.

As described in previous sections, thecommercial history of North Americanpaddlefish and sturgeon has been characterizedby brief periods of intense catch, followed byyears of little or no commercial fishing andtrade activity because of significant declines instocks. Recent decades evidenced a lull in thetrade of North American Acipenseriformes,attributable to depletion of the resource, theready availability of caviar from foreignsources, and legal protections instituted toconserve several species.

Uncertainty over the future availability ofcaviar from the traditionally caviar-richCaspian Sea region, however, has led toconcerns that the lull in demand for, and tradeof, North American Acipenseriformes hasended. As early as the mid-1970s, fisheriesexperts and conservationists noted declines inpopulations of all six Caspian Sea species,especially those considered most commerciallyvaluable: the beluga (Huso huso), Russian(Acipenser gueldenstaedtii), and stellate(Acipenser stellatus) sturgeons. When theSoviet Union dissolved in 1991, economictroubles, political unrest, and a breakdown oflaw and order further affected the Caspian Seafisheries and management efforts, leading toconcerns that a complete collapse of thefishery was possible. One of the firstindications of the renewed attention to trade ofNorth American acipenseriform species camein 1992, when the Parties to CITES listed thepaddlefish in Appendix II. In 1998, the Partieswent further, placing all of the world’spreviously unlisted Acipenseriformes inAppendix II.

This section briefly reviews the global caviarmarket, to provide an overall context for theinternational trade environment and the rolethat North American species have played in itto date. It then reviews recent CITES decisionsregarding paddlefish and sturgeon, theimplementation of these decisions in the UnitedStates and Canada, and potential impacts toNorth American species as a result of shiftingcaviar markets and changes in the tradeenvironment. It also discusses what is knownabout the legal domestic market for NorthAmerican paddlefish and sturgeon products, aswell as developments in international marketsand trade in these species. Finally, it considersthe extent of illegal trade in North Americanacipenseriform species, and how increaseddemand and trade pressures might affect theirconservation and management.

Not all North American Acipenseriformes arecommercially fished. Therefore, regardinglegal trade, the focus herein falls heavily on aspecific subset of species. In the UnitedStates, native Acipensiformes allowed incommercial trade include primarily thepaddlefish, white sturgeon and shovelnosesturgeon. Canada limits commercial catch andtrade of native species to the Atlantic sturgeonand lake sturgeon. There is no legalcommercial trade of Gulf sturgeon, shortnosesturgeon, Alabama sturgeon, or pallid sturgeon,although there have been exports of thesespecies for purposes of scientific research.Limited catch and trade of the green sturgeonis allowed in certain U.S. states, though thegreen sturgeon is considered the leastcommercially valuable of all North Americanacipenseriform species.

5.1 The Global Caviar TradeSeveral products derived from sturgeon andpaddlefish are involved in international trade.These include both caviar and non-caviarcommodities (meat for consumption, live fishfor the aquarium or ornamental industry, fry orfertilized eggs to supply aquaculture facilities).

145

V. LEGAL AND ILLEGAL TRADE

Among these products, caviar has for manyyears been by far the most significant item inthe international trade, measured both byvolume and by value.

Although the caviar of at least 10 species ofsturgeon and paddlefish has been reported intrade, available information suggests that thevast majority of caviar in the global market isderived from just a few species, overwhelminglyfrom the Caspian Sea basin. For example, in1998 the stellate sturgeon (A. stellatus)accounted for 48 percent of the caviar in trade,and the Russian sturgeon (A. gueldenstaedtii)accounted for a further 31 percent (TRAFFICInternational 2001). Together, caviar from thesetwo species constituted almost 80 percent of theworld market.

In addition, a small number of nationsdominate the caviar trade at both the exportand import levels. As of 1998, approximately99 percent of the caviar supply came fromseven countries, with more than 90 percentoriginating from the Caspian Sea basin. Thelargest suppliers were Iran (49 percent) and theRussian Federation (32 percent). Amongconsuming nations in 1998, 96 percent of thecaviar was imported by just 12 countries, with95 percent destined for EU nations, Japan,Switzerland, and the United States. More than50 percent of the trade went to EU nationsalone (TRAFFIC Europe 2001; TRAFFICInternational 2001).

A comparison of statistics on worldwide catchand production (i.e., aquaculture) of sturgeonto import data from major consuming nationsreveals two seemingly contradictory trends.Table 5.1.1 shows worldwide sturgeon catchand production per country between 1981 and1995, and indicates a steady decline in theCaspian Sea fisheries that have long sustainedthe bulk of the caviar trade. Table 5.1.2summarizes caviar imports by the UnitedStates, Japan, and the EU between 1990 and2000. While the table does not reflect the totalvolume of the global caviar market, imports bythese nations are believed to comprise the vastmajority of the overall market. The tableshows that imports of caviar during the earlypart of the 1990s actually increased, despitethe drop in Caspian Sea sturgeon production,before also beginning a trend of significantdecline toward the end of that decade.

The statistics in these tables, as well as datafrom other sources, illustrate several features ofthe global caviar trade that figure prominently inany discussion of trade in North AmericanAcipenseriformes. The most salient points forthe purposes of this report are as follows.

1. Although catch and production from theCaspian Sea declined significantly duringthe 1980s and 1990s, this fishery continuedto overwhelm all other sources. According tothe data shown in Table 5.1.1, annual catch andproduction of sturgeon evidenced a steadydecline during the 1980s, from approximately29,080 metric tons (31,988 tons; 63,976,000pounds) in 1981, to 19,707 metric tons (21,678tons; 43,356,000 pounds) in 1989. Worldwidecatch and production of sturgeon dropped evenfurther between 1990 and 1995, when itreached only 6,600 metric tons (7,260 tons;14,520,000 pounds).

In 1981 Caspian Sea basin fisheries in theformer Soviet Union (and subsequently Russiaand the newly independent states of Azerbaijanand Kazakhstan), along with Iran, accountedfor approximately 94 percent of worldwidecatch and production. Non-Caspian Seanations bordering the Mediterranean and Blackseas accounted for approximately 3 percent, asdid North America. In 1995, despite steepdeclines, Caspian Sea fisheries continued toproduce approximately 75 percent of theworld’s total catch and production of sturgeon.Nations bordering the Mediterranean andBlack seas accounted for approximately 13percent of the 1995 world total, and acombination of North America and someEuropean aquaculture operations producedapproximately 12 percent (Raymakers 1999).

More recent statistics from 1998 indicate thatcatch and production of sturgeon in 1998 haddropped further to a total of 5,748 metric tons(6,323 tons; 12,645,600 pounds), of which3,714 metric tons (4,085.4 tons; 8,170,800pounds) came from wild sources and 2,034metric tons (2,237.4 tons; 4,474,800 pounds)came from farmed sturgeon and paddlefish.Although the reported production of farmedsturgeon in 1998 almost doubled from a 1995estimate of 1,142 metric tons (1,256 tons;2,512,400 pounds), as of 1999 caviar productionfrom commercial aquaculture remained at lessthan 15 metric tons (16.5 tons; 33,000 pounds),

146

147

Tab

le 5

.1.1

Wo

rld

Stu

rgeo

n C

atch

an

d P

rod

uct

ion

per

Co

un

try

in M

etri

c To

ns,

1981

–199

5*

Co

un

try

Are

a19

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

95

Aze

rbai

jan

Cas

pian

Sea

0

00

00

00

218

120

7310

810

698

9510

0

Chi

na+

and

othe

r

—

——

—33

135

167

160

135

—20

4040

2747

Iran

in

land

wat

ers

1,

496

1,45

01,

288

1,55

71,

650

1,69

01,

759

1,85

12,

051

2,64

53,

036

2,69

21,

710

1,70

01,

500

Kaz

akhs

tan

(e.g

.Am

ur

00

00

00

03,

181

3,18

13,

130

1,76

61,

705

1,10

963

556

3

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Riv

er B

asin

)—

——

——

——

14,9

0012

,681

10,7

778,

648

7,92

83,

847

3,44

82,

736

US

SR

25

,602

24,6

3024

,240

22,8

1121

,485

20,4

4319

,674

——

——

——

——

Tota

l27

,098

26,0

8025

,528

24,3

6823

,168

22,2

6821

,600

20,3

1018

,348

16,6

2513

,578

12,4

716,

804

5,90

54,

946

Bul

garia

Dan

ube

2123

259

68

71

1313

812

1010

15

Rom

ania

Riv

er B

asin

1616

3525

1911

817

70

02

22

9

Slo

vaki

aan

d ot

her

0

0

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Ukr

aine

inla

nd w

ater

s

0

00

00

00

179

150

8318

810

55

Tota

l37

3960

3425

1915

197

170

9626

2222

1730

Bul

garia

2827

113

322

140

150

00

00

0

Rom

ania

Med

iterr

anea

n54

4841

5637

3132

1819

415

1317

65

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

and

Bla

ck S

ea—

——

——

——

520

492

895

891

878

904

1,01

267

3

US

SR

850

1,07

41,

330

1,43

41,

287

1,37

41,

317

——

——

——

——

Turk

ey

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Ukr

aine

00

00

00

029

7698

8815

928

422

714

2

Tota

l93

21,

149

1,38

21,

493

1,32

71,

427

1,36

356

760

299

799

41,

050

1,20

51,

245

820

Can

ada

Inla

nd w

ater

s12

011

110

414

511

030

2525

328

625

323

325

226

728

129

4

Can

ada

Atla

ntic

2110

910

4320

2018

513

1814

181

100

2

Can

ada

Pac

ific

108

38

86

55

89

35

32

4

Est

onia

†In

land

wat

ers

0

00

00

00

00

00

08

37

Fran

ce†

Inla

nd w

ater

s

00

00

010

1010

1010

1020

140

150

160

Italy

†In

land

wat

ers

0

00

00

00

00

250

300

350

310

333

250

US

AIn

land

wat

ers

502

898

614

598

640

662

692

00

00

00

00

US

A†

Inla

nd w

ater

s36

032

132

148

023

254

651

931

423

227

720

122

021

714

714

7

US

AA

tlant

ic0

00

00

00

00

00

00

150

Gra

nd

To

tal

29,0

8028

,616

28,0

2127

,136

25,5

5324

,988

24,2

4921

,394

19,7

0718

,520

15,3

6314

,404

9,05

78,

198

6,66

0

Key

: + D

ata

from

Chi

nese

res

earc

her,

bas

ed o

n ca

viar

pro

duc

tion

in th

e A

mur

Riv

er B

asin

.†

Aq

uacu

lture

op

erat

ions

sin

ce th

e la

te 1

980s

; in

som

e co

untr

ies

alm

ost t

he e

ntire

pro

duc

tion

is fr

om a

rtifi

cial

bre

edin

g fa

cilit

ies.

*

Sou

rce:

R

aym

aker

s (1

999)

.

which represented a small fraction of theamount of caviar produced from wild sources(TRAFFIC International 2001). In addition, itis clear that the Caspian Sea continued tocomprise the bulk of catch and production, withfigures measuring in the thousands of metrictons. As was seen in Section IV, commercialcatch of native Acipenseriformes in NorthAmerican fisheries are measured at most in thetens or hundreds of metric tons in even thelargest commercial fisheries.

2. The decline in caviar trade is far lowerproportionally than the decline inworldwide sturgeon catch and productionover the past two decades. It is remarkablethat, despite the steep and steady decline inworldwide catch and production of sturgeonthroughout the 1980s and 1990s that wasevidenced above, caviar imports remainedstrong into the mid-1990s. According to thedata in tables 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, cumulativecaviar imports by the EU, Japan, and theUnited States actually rose from 272 metrictons in 1990 to a peak of 383 metric tons in1993, an increase of some 40 percent, despite acorresponding decrease in worldwide sturgeoncatch and production during the same period ofsome 50 percent, from 18,520 metric tons in1990 to 9,057 metric tons in 1993. It should

be noted that imports of caviar by the majorconsuming countries did then decline in thelate 1990s and 2000 when compared to thepeak years of the early to mid-1990s(especially for EU nations), but overall, thestatistics suggest that the level of internationaltrade in caviar remained relatively stableduring much of the 1990s despite the sharpdecline in sturgeon catch and production.

3. The United States appears to beconsuming an increasing proportion of theworld’s caviar production. As shown in Table5.1.2, aggregate caviar imports among themajor consumers declined by some 44 percentbetween 1995 and 2000, but that drop wasaccounted for by the EU and Japan. Asdocumented previously by Hoover (1999),imports by the United States continued toincrease during most of this period, peaking in1999 at 99 metric tons. Although U.S. importsdeclined to 74 metric tons in 2000, that levelwas still some 34 percent greater than it hadbeen in 1995. Whereas in 1995 the UnitedStates accounted for less than 17 percent of themarket among major importing nations, in 2000it accounted for slightly more than 40 percent.

4. The volume of the international caviartrade in recent years raises questions aboutthe extent to which North American

148

Volumes per Importer (metric tons)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Avg.

USA 60 32 54 59 61 54 81 79 76 99 74 729 66

Japan 58 51 55 60 58 71 63 58 43 35 29 579 53

EU 154 210 202 264 190 201 150 146 138 130 80 1,865 170

Total 272 293 311 383 307 326 294 283 257 263 184 3,173 288

Total Value (US$1,000)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Avg.

USA 5,280 3,072 5,400 6,726 6,222 6,372 8,019 12,166 15,245 22,287 19,309 110,078 10,007

Japan 14,732 12,342 14,575 14,520 13,944 18,886 21,924 17,052 15,975 11,205 11,866 167,021 15,184

EU 35,112 44,310 43,632 40,128 38,793 34,572 27,150 32,850 31,082 33,645 29,997 391,272 35,570

Total 55,124 59,724 63,607 61,374 58,959 59,830 57,093 62,068 62,302 67,118 61,172 668,371 60,761

Unit Value (US$/kg)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Avg. US$/kg

USA 88 96 100 114 102 118 99 154 196 225 259 141

Japan 254 242 265 242 249 266 348 294 374 352 404 299

EU 228 211 216 152 193 172 181 225 249 260 387 225

Table 5.1.2 Reported Caviar Imports by Selected Major Importers, 1990–2000*

* Source: TRAFFIC Europe (2001).

sturgeon and paddlefish populations mightbe able to serve as substitutes for CaspianSea caviar. As shown in Section IV, NorthAmerican commercial fisheries produce arelatively limited amount of acipenseriform roe,and there are biological, ecological, and legalconstraints on how much roe North Americanspecies can produce for the caviar trade.Examples of such constraints include thefollowing: (1) previous experience in NorthAmerican sturgeon and paddlefish fisheries, inwhich periods of intensive exploitation werefollowed by a collapse in stocks, suggests thatNorth American acipenseriform populations aresensitive to high levels of catch; (2) manyNorth American acipenseriform species andpopulations have yet to rebound from pastoverfishing, and their recovery has beenconstrained by habitat loss and degradation,their unique life history characteristics, andother biological and ecological factors; (3)although harvest of roe from some NorthAmerican Acipenseriformes has increased inthe past few years, the amounts producedremain a fraction of the overall volume of thecaviar trade; (4) commercial aquaculture inNorth America has not yet developed to a pointwhere it is producing enough roe to replacewild sources (see Section VI for morediscussion on this topic); (5) therefore, at leastin the near term, any increase in roe productionfrom North American acipenseriform specieswould have to come from the wild; and (6) inresponse to concerns about the sustainability ofcatch levels, some jurisdictions are adoptingmore stringent regulations regarding catch ofnative acipenseriform species. As is detailed inSection 5.3, these factors may apply toindividual North American species differently.Yet, cumulatively, it is difficult to imagine inthe near term how North American roeproduction could increase enough to substitutefor Caspian Sea sources in a global caviar tradethat involves volumes several multiples abovewhat North America is currently producing.

5. The declared value of caviar increasedsignificantly during the 1990s, althoughincreases in major import markets wereuneven. As was shown in Table 5.1.2, the

mean declared value of caviar imported intothe United States was US$88 per kg in 1990,US$154 per kg in 1997, and US$259 per kg in2000. Comparable values declared for theseyears for the EU were US$228 per kg in 1990,US$225 per kg in 1997, and US$387 per kg in2000. Japan reported the highest mean valuesfor caviar imports, at US$254 per kg in 1990,US$294 per kg in 1997, and US$404 per kg in2000 (TRAFFIC Europe 2001). These figureswould appear to indicate that demand forcaviar remains strong in major markets, withprices increasing as the volume of supplyavailable for imports has fallen. As is detailedbelow in Section 5.3, this phenomenon seemsto apply to exports of North American caviaras well; reported values of exports ofpaddlefish and white sturgeon roe haveincreased over the past several years. Should itcontinue, this trend will likely have seriousimplications for management of NorthAmerican acipenseriform species involved inthe trade, as rising caviar prices increase theincentives for catch and trade.

6. The different valuations of caviar inmajor import markets also illustrate thatthere is no established, global price for thecommodity. Prices appear to be dictated bywhat each individual market will bear. As isexplained in more detail in Section 5.3, thisholds true for North American exports ofcaviar as well. For example, valuations ofreported U.S. exports of product identified byTRAFFIC as paddlefish caviar to Japan aresignificantly higher than are those to othercountries or customers.

Unfortunately, long-term price and exporttrends for products from some North AmericanAcipenseriformes are difficult to establish,because commercial international trade in thesespecies did not come under regulation byCITES until 1998. Therefore, precise USFWSexport data are available only since that time.The next section discusses how recent CITESdecisions have affected the international caviartrade, and in particular the legal internationaltrade in North American paddlefish andsturgeon products.

149

5.2 CITES and North AmericanAcipenseriformes

The CITES FrameworkCommercial international trade in manywildlife species is conducted within theframework of CITES.1 As a general rule,species that are considered abundant and notthreatened by trade are not listed in the CITESappendices, and trade in them is not regulatedunder the Convention. However, an exceptionto this general principle is made for so-called“look-alike” species. These are defined inArticle II, paragraph 2(b) of the Convention asspecies that must be subject to regulation inorder that trade in CITES Appendix II speciesof similar appearance be brought undereffective control (CITES 2001b).2

Prior to 1997, only four of the world’s 27acipenseriform species were listed in theCITES appendices (TRAFFIC International2001). Beginning in 1997, a series ofdecisions led to the listing of all of the world’sAcipenseriformes in the CITES appendices,and consequently to changes in theprerequisites for international trade. A briefreview of some of the major actions taken onbehalf of sturgeon and paddlefish, and thereasoning behind them, follows.

CITES COP 10. At the Tenth Meeting of theConference of the Parties (COP) to CITES,held in Zimbabwe in June 1997, Germanypresented a proposal to include all previouslyunlisted acipenseriform species in theConvention’s Appendix II. While someCaspian Sea species were listed on their ownmerits under Article II, paragraph 2(a) of theConvention,3 in most cases the justification forthe species’ listings was the “look-alike”provision (i.e., because of the similarity ofappearance of caviar from these species to thatof the Caspian Sea species) (Gnam 1999). Theimpetus for the proposal was to curtail theillegal trade in caviar, and to ensure sustainableuse and management of wild sturgeon species,particularly those of the Caspian Sea. The

Parties to CITES adopted the proposal byconsensus, but delayed its entry into effect untilApril 1, 1998, in recognition of the fact thatpreparations to implement the decision wouldrequire time (Gnam 1999; Raymakers 1999).

The principal effect of the 1997 decision as itrelated to North American Acipenseriformeswas to place the Alabama sturgeon, pallidsturgeon, lake sturgeon (which had been listedin Appendix II from 1975 to 1983, thenremoved from the appendices), shovelnosesturgeon, white sturgeon, and green sturgeonunder the umbrella of Appendix II’sprotections against illegal or unsustainableinternational trade. The shortnose sturgeonhad already been listed as an Appendix Ispecies in 1975, and the Atlantic sturgeon andpaddlefish were listed on Appendix II in 1979and 1992, respectively, under the criteria ofArticle II, paragraph 2(a). The 1979 decisionto include the Atlantic sturgeon (including theGulf sturgeon subspecies) on Appendix II hadactually downlisted the species from a 1975Appendix I designation to which Canada hadtaken a reservation (CITES 2001a).

The parties also adopted a resolution (CITESResolution Conf. 10.12), that was lateramended, recommending a specific set ofactions to strengthen international anddomestic regulations (in range states) regardingthe catch and trade of Acipenseriformes. Themost relevant of these recommendations asthey related to North American sturgeon andpaddlefish species included the following: (1)that Parties consider the harmonization of theirnational legislation related to personalexemptions for caviar, with the goal of limitingthe personal effects exemption allowed underCITES to no more than 250 grams per person;(2) that range states of acipenseriform speciesincluded in Appendix II in accordance withArticle II, paragraph 2(a) consider thefeasibility of establishing annual export quotas;(3) that the CITES Secretariat consult withother pertinent bodies and experts to explorethe development of a uniform marking systemfor acipenseriform parts and derivatives, as

150

1 A general overview of CITES can be found in Section II of this report.2 The Convention text does not specifically mention similarity of appearance, but that is the common interpretation.3 Species listed under CITES Article II, paragraph 2(a) are defined in the Convention text as “all species which although

not necessarily now threatened with extinction may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject tostrict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival” (CITES 2001b).

well as aquaculture stocks; and (4) that theCITES Animals Committee consider includingAcipenseriformes in its review of significanttrade (discussed in greater detail below)(CITES 2001c).

The species listings and recommendationsinitially adopted at COP 10 directly affectedthe ways in which the United States andCanada would thereafter conduct internationaltrade in native acipenseriform species.Perhaps most important, all exports of NorthAmerican sturgeon and paddlefish, or theirparts or derivatives, would have to meet CITESpermitting requirements after April 1, 1998.The recommendation that range states adoptexport quotas also raised some difficult issuesfor the United States and Canada, given thegenerally decentralized nature of speciesmanagement in the two countries.

In a meeting organized in Moscow by theCITES Secretariat in January 1998, the UnitedStates and Canada met with the major caviarimporting and exporting countries to discussimplementation of the 1997 CITES listing ofAcipenseriformes. Some progress was made,but crucial issues such as the recommendationto establish export quotas for North Americanspecies remained unresolved. An issue ofparticular contention was with regard to thefact that neither the United States nor Canadanormally use export quotas for sturgeon or (inthe case of the United States) paddlefishproducts (USFWS 1998).

CITES Decision 11.58. At the Eleventh CITESCOP, held in Gigiri, Kenya, in April 2000, theParties took further actions to implement someof the recommendations made at COP 10.Specifically, the Parties adopted Decision11.58, which stated: “Starting from 1 January2001, range states should declare coordinatedintergovernmental level annual export andcatch quotas per basin, or biogeographicalregion where appropriate, for all commercialtrade in specimens of Acipenseriformes.

Parties should inform the Secretariat prior to31 December of the preceding year. Partiesthat fail to inform the Secretariat willautomatically be treated as having a zero quotafor the following year” (CITES 2001d).

In February 2001, the CITES Secretariat issueda Notification to the Parties (No. 2001/005)concerning “Catch and Export Quotas forAcipenseriformes for 2001.” It reiterated thatin cases where two or more governments allowexport of specimens originating in the samebasin or biogeographical region, “…catch andexport quotas should be coordinated at theintergovernmental level and communicated tothe Secretariat for the Year 2001 before 31December 2000. In the absence of suchinformation it will be taken that the exportquotas concerned are zero. Endemicspecies/populations/stocks exploited by a singlecountry within its territorial waters are notcovered by Decision 11.58 and need not bedeclared. The same applies to specimensproduced through aquaculture” (CITES 2001e).

Decision 11.58 created a dilemma for theUnited States and Canada because the twocountries manage catch of the species inquestion differently, and also because the issueof federal legal authority to establishnationwide quotas is unclear. In both countries,with the exception of federally protectedspecies, individual states or provinces arecharged with the responsibility to set catchquotas or restrictions on trade of nativeAcipenseriformes. The various limitationsimposed by these jurisdictions may indicate tonational CITES Management Authorities howmuch sturgeon and paddlefish product is likelyto be produced in aggregate and made availablefor possible legal export. However, movingbeyond that level of collaboration among state,provincial, and federal authorities to theestablishment of national export quotas may notbe legally feasible.4

151

4 The USFWS has on several occasions asserted that it has no legal authority to impose export quotas for sturgeon andpaddlefish. However, no specific legal authority has been cited as a bar to federal imposition of export quotas. TRAFFICwas unable, through its own research and attempts to clarify this position with the U.S. Department of Interior Office ofthe Solicitor, to verify that such a legal bar does exist (pers. comm., C. Hoover, TRAFFIC North America, August 2002).Further, there have been examples where the USFWS has imposed quotas on the import or export of wildlife, includingspecies traditionally regulated by the states. One such example is box turtles of the genus Terrapene, when the genus wasincluded on CITES Appendix II in 1995. FWS established an export quota for one year before imposing a zero quota,which remains in place. In fact, the zero quota was challenged in court and FWS’ authority to impose that quota wasupheld. It remains unclear how establishment of export quotas for sturgeon or paddlefish would be treated differently.

Additionally, there are five North Americansturgeon species that currently share the samebasin or biogeographical region: the Atlanticsturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, lake sturgeon,white sturgeon, and green sturgeon. Thepaddlefish is classified as extirpated in Canada;therefore, for CITES purposes it is treated as aspecies endemic to the United States (S.Lieberman, Chief, USFWS/DMA, in litt. toWillem Wijnstekers, Secretary General, CITESSecretariat, 2001). Of the aforementioned fivesturgeon species, Canada allows commercialcatch and international trade of Atlanticsturgeon and lake sturgeon, while the UnitedStates does not. Conversely, the United Statespermits the commercial catch and trade ofwhite sturgeon and green sturgeon, which iscurrently prohibited in Canada. Neithercountry permits commercial trade of theshortnose sturgeon, and there is nodocumented international trade of greensturgeon (S. Lieberman, Chief, USFWS/DMA,in litt. to Willem Wijnstekers, SecretaryGeneral, CITES Secretariat, 2001; L. Maltby,Director, Species at Risk Branch, CanadianWildlife Service [CWS], in litt. to WillemWijnstekers, Secretary General, CITESSecretariat, January 25, 2001).

Thus, establishing intergovernmental exportquotas for North American Acipenseriformesthat are in trade is problematic, because thelists of species commercially fished in theUnited States and Canada are mutuallyexclusive. Further complicating the situation,the United States permits commercial catchand trade of paddlefish, but USFWS has notedthat, as an endemic species, intergovernmentalquotas cannot be established and the UnitedStates is not required to submit an export quotato the CITES Secretariat under the language ofDecision 11.58 (S. Lieberman, Chief,USFWS/DMA, in litt. to Willem Wijnstekers,Secretary General, CITES Secretariat, 2001).

Notification 2001/005 addressed the issue ofpaddlefish by referring to CITES ResolutionConf. 10.12 (Rev.), stating: “Quotascommunicated for endemic species and captivebreeding operations (aquaculture)are…considered to be communicated inaccordance with paragraph (f) of Resolution

Conf. 10.12 (Rev.) and will be publishedseparately with voluntary quotas for otherspecies” (CITES 2001e). Paragraph (f) of theapplicable resolution read, in turn, “that rangeStates of sturgeon species included in AppendixII in accordance with Article II, paragraph 2(a),consider the feasibility of establishing annualexport quotas for sturgeon specimens and, ifthey are established, communicate such quotasto the Secretariat” (CITES 2001c).5 Therefore,because the paddlefish was included inAppendix II based on Article II, paragraph 2(a)of the Convention, the language of theresolution would indicate that the United Statesshould consider the feasibility of establishingexport quotas for the species.

Notification 2001/005 also included aparagraph inviting countries that do not usequotas as a means to limit exports, because ofspecific administrative or legal requirementsapplicable in those countries, to provideexplanatory statements (CITES 2001e). Inresponse, both the United States and Canadasent letters to the CITES Secretariat.

The United States’ letter noted that commercialexport is ongoing for only three native speciesof Acipenseriformes: paddlefish, whitesturgeon, and shovelnose sturgeon. Becausethe paddlefish and shovelnose sturgeon areendemic species, the United States indicatedthat intergovernmental quotas cannot be set,and are not required, under the language ofDecision 11.58. Furthermore, the UnitedStates noted that because many commerciallytraded products of paddlefish and whitesturgeon can originate from captivepropagation (e.g., live eggs, fry, caviar, meat),these products are exempt from theestablishment of export quotas for aquacultureproduction. However, the United Statesattempted to provide the Secretariat withinformation on expected export levels from allsources, “in the spirit of open communicationand data sharing” (S. Lieberman, Chief,USFWS/DMA, in litt. to Willem Wijnstekers,Secretary General, CITES Secretariat, 2001).

The United States’ letter did not directlyaddress the issue raised in Resolution Conf.10.12 (Rev.), that, since the paddlefish is aspecies listed under Article II, paragraph 2(a),

152

5 Although the language of the resolution referred to “sturgeon,” it also defined sturgeon as “Acipenseriformes,” therebyincluding the paddlefish.

the United States should consider thefeasibility of establishing export quotas for it.The letter detailed what were termed“expected export levels” of native sturgeon andpaddlefish species in a table. Table 5.2.1duplicates the one sent by USFWS to theCITES Secretariat.

Canada’s letter noted that Canada does nothave catch quotas or other regulations for theaffected species which are exported from thecountry, i.e., the lake sturgeon and Atlanticsturgeon. However, “to comply with the spiritof the decision,” Canada provided figures forthe Secretariat to use as export quotas for theyear 2001. Canada also indicated possiblelevels of export of live animals, although thiswas not required under Decision 11.58 becauseall of these originated from aquaculturefacilities (L. Maltby, Director, Species at RiskBranch, CWS, in litt. to Willem Wijnstekers,Secretary General, CITES Secretariat, January25, 2001). The specific export levels indicatedfor each species are provided in Section 5.3.

CITES Resolution Conf. 11.13. Pursuant toanother of the recommendations made in

CITES Resolution Conf 10.12, at COP 11 theParties also adopted Resolution 11.13 toestablish a universal labeling system for theidentification of caviar. Recognizing thatillegal trade is a potential threat toacipenseriform species, and undermines effortsto manage sturgeon resources on a sustainablebasis, Resolution Conf. 11.13 recommendedthe introduction of a uniform marking systemfor any container6 entering international tradewith more than the 249 grams of caviarallowed for personal use. Specifically, therecommendation called for a non-reusablelabel that would include, at a minimum, thegrade of caviar (e.g., Beluga, Sevruga, Osetra),a standard species code, and a unique serialnumber for the shipment consisting of the two-letter code for the country of origin, the year ofcatch, and a unique number corresponding tothe processing plant and lot identificationnumber for the caviar. Along with specificrecommendations for ways in which Partiesand the CITES Secretariat can use such alabeling standard to guard against illegal trade,the resolution also recommended that Partiesestablish a registration or licensing system (or

153

Table 5.2.1 Expected Export Levels of Native Acipenseriformes from theUnited States*

Species Commercial Trade Product 2001 Expected Source Permitted? Exports

Shortnose sturgeon No

Atlantic and Gulf sturgeon No

Lake sturgeon No

Pallid sturgeon No

Alabama sturgeon No

Shovelnose sturgeon Yes Meat None+ WildCaviar 0.5mt Wild

Green sturgeon Yes† No documented None+Intl’ Trade

White sturgeon Yes† Meat 3mt Wild22mt Captive Propagation

Caviar 3.5mt Captive Propagation

Paddlefish Yes Caviar 7.7mt Wild0.25mt Captive Propagation

Meat 3mt Captive Propagation0.5mt Wild

Live Eggs 2 million Captive Propagation

Key: + No specimens exported from the United States since taxon was listed in 1998.† Although the United States permits commercial catch of this species, Canada has banned its possession and retention. Therefore, no

intergovernmental catch or export quota can be established.* Source: Susan Lieberman, Chief, USFWS/DMA, in litt. to Willem Wijnstekers, Secretary General, CITES Secretariat, 2001.

6 Any tin, jar, or box into which caviar is directly packed.

both) for importers and exporters of caviarwhere legally possible. The resolution calledfor these procedures to be put in place forexports for 2001 (CITES 2001f).

A working group was formed to examine andclarify concerns related to the resolution, and inDecember 2000, the group submitted a reportto the CITES Animals Committee emphasizingthat the resolution was intended to apply onlyto commercial shipments and not personaleffects. The original labeling requirement inResolution Conf. 11.13 also applied only toexports, not re-exports. In April 2002, arecommendation was made to the AnimalsCommittee to amend the resolution to expandthe labeling requirement to explicitly cover re-exports as well (CITES 2002a). A newresolution adopted at COP 12 in 2002 does callfor a labeling system to apply to re-exports andalso calls for Parties to implement labelingsystems for domestic trade as well. Thisresolution was scheduled to come into effect inearly 2003 (pers. comm., Craig Hoover,TRAFFIC North America, December 2002).

There is some hope that clear guidelines foruniversal labeling will lead to better tradecontrols and assist efforts to ensure thatconsumers are not buying caviar obtainedoutside of legal channels (Raymakers 2001).The type of uniform labeling standardenvisioned under CITES Resolution Conf.11.13 could potentially benefit North Americansturgeon and paddlefish in trade. Intentionalmislabeling of North American caviar asRussian product is a law enforcement concernthat became particularly evident after a U.S.caviar company and several individuals wereconvicted for the practice, and received thelargest fine in the history of U.S. wildlife lawenforcement as well as substantial prisonsentences. This case is discussed in greaterdetail in Section 5.4. Of course, manyquestions remain to be addressed about howsuch a system could work within the state andprovincial management structures of the UnitedStates and Canada, where fishermen andcommercial aquaculture ventures operate undera variety of regulatory regimes. In addition,while a universal marking system could beextremely helpful, it is only one of many stepsnecessary to curb illegal caviar trade.

Although no universal labeling systemcovering all major importing and exportingcountries and acipenseriform species in tradehad been implemented as of the summer of2002, some progress has been made. Forexample, Romania has been implementing alabeling system since 2001. Based on CITESprovisions adopted at COP 11, an EUregulation in effect since January 2002 nowprohibits the importation of unlabeled caviar.Several other countries, including Bulgaria,China, Iran, and Russia, have also provided theCITES Secretariat with their labeling regimes.Some countries started to implement theregimes in 2002 in order to comply withResolution Conf. 11.13 and thereby be allowedto export their caviar to the EU (pers. comm.,C. Raymakers, TRAFFIC Europe, August2002). Presumably, U.S. or Canadian exportsof caviar from native acipenseriform speciescould be prohibited if these countries do notalso come into compliance.

CITES Significant Trade Review. TheSignificant Trade Review process wasestablished under CITES Resolution Conf. 8.9to assess the Parties’ compliance with theconditions for trade in Appendix II species, inparticular the implementation of non-detrimentfindings made prior to issuing export permits incountries of origin. This ongoing project aimsto identify taxa that may be adversely affectedby international trade at either the global orlocal level. Surveys of species identified forpossible review are submitted to the CITESAnimals Committee, which then creates a listof “candidate species.” Once a species isapproved, consultants compile detailed reviewsincorporating both biological and trade data,and the Animals Committee then assigns thespecies to one of three recommendedcategories: (1) species for which the availableinformation indicates that the provisions ofArticle IV of the CITES convention are notbeing implemented; (2) species for which it isnot clear whether the provisions of Article IVof the Convention are being implemented; and(3) species for which the level of trade isevidently not a problem. The AnimalsCommittee uses the information to assist in itssubsequent country or species-specificrecommendations of appropriate measures toadequately maintain and conserve targeted

154

species in their native range (Anon. 2001c;TRAFFIC International 2001; CITES 2002b).

CITES Resolution Conf. 10.12 of 1997recommended that all Acipenseriformes beconsidered for review. In 2000, TRAFFIC, incooperation with the IUCN/SSC WildlifeTrade Programme, agreed to undertake areview of 10 Appendix II species of sturgeonand paddlefish that are subject to significantlevels of international trade. The first twoNorth American species reviewed were theNorth American paddlefish and the lakesturgeon. The information received helped toframe issues for discussion at the CITESAnimals Committee meeting in December2000, and provided a valuable body ofknowledge for those interested in sturgeonconservation and management. Both thepaddlefish and lake sturgeon wererecommended at that time for Category 2.

In April 2002, however, the AnimalsCommittee concluded that Canada’s answers toseveral questions and recommendationsregarding the Canada population of lakesturgeon were insufficient. The failure tosupply a sufficient response led the Committeeto move the Canada population to Category 1,until Canada complies with the questions andrecommendations posed to it. At the time ofthis writing, the CITES Secretariat was stillawaiting Canada’s response. If Canadaresponds in a way that satisfies the AnimalsCommittee, it is anticipated that the specieswill be moved to Category 3 (pers. comm.,Craig Hoover, TRAFFIC North America,September 2002).

In 2001, TRAFFIC again worked with theIUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme and theCITES Secretariat to review three more NorthAmerican Acipenseriformes: the Atlanticsturgeon, shovelnose sturgeon, and whitesturgeon. Draft reviews were sent to theCITES Secretariat in January 2002, and inApril 2002 the Animals Committeerecommended placement of the white sturgeonin Category 3. Because of lingering questionsabout their status in trade, the Atlanticsturgeon and shovelnose sturgeon wererecommended for split classifications. TheAtlantic sturgeon was recommended forCategory 2 / 3, and the shovelnose sturgeon

for Category 1 / 2 (CITES 2002c). It isuncertain whether any further North Americanacipenseriform species will be reviewed,especially because all of those that figureprominently in trade have now been covered.

5.3 Legal TradeWith the above introduction to the globalcaviar trade, and with the CITES frameworkfor trade in Acipenseriformes in mind, thissection examines recent levels of legal trade inNorth American sturgeon and paddlefish, bothdomestically and internationally. Aspreviously noted, in the United States, there isno legal catch or trade of the endemic Gulfsturgeon, Alabama sturgeon, and pallidsturgeon. The United States also prohibits anycatch or trade of domestic stocks of Atlanticsturgeon or shortnose sturgeon, and no U.S.state currently allows commercial catch of lakesturgeon. U.S. domestic trade of greensturgeon is not considered significant; there areno documented export markets. Canadaprohibits commercial catch and trade ofdomestic stocks of shortnose sturgeon, whitesturgeon, and green sturgeon. Thus, the NorthAmerican acipenseriform species that figuresignificantly in domestic and internationaltrade are the paddlefish, shovelnose sturgeon,and white sturgeon in the United States, andthe lake sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon inCanada. (Table 2.3.1 earlier in this reportprovided an overall summary of the currentdomestic and export trade status of nativestocks of North American Acipenseriformes intheir range countries.)

Although the list of Acipenseriformes forwhich the United States and Canada permitcommercial catch and trade from indigenousstocks is mutually exclusive, there is sometrade between the two countries involvingthese species. The United States has long beena market for Atlantic sturgeon and lakesturgeon products from Canada, and Canadahas served as a market for white sturgeon and,to a lesser degree, paddlefish products from theUnited States. Therefore, it would not beaccurate to say that either country prohibitstrade in these species altogether. Each countrydefines the legality of trade in domestic andexport markets for its own acipenseriform

155

stocks, and regulates trade between the twocountries through CITES. An overview ofgeneral CITES permitting requirements in theUnited States and Canada is provided in Box5. How specific permitting requirements haveapplied to exports of various North AmericanAcipenseriformes in recent years is discussedin the species summaries below.

Atlantic SturgeonThe United States and Canada manage trade ofAtlantic sturgeon differently. Canada allowscatch of native stocks of Atlantic sturgeon,subject to catch quotas and other regulations.

The United States prohibits all commercialcatch and trade involving domestic stocks.The only U.S. trade in the species originatesfrom the Canadian fisheries.

CanadaThe primary product of Canadian Atlanticsturgeon fisheries is meat. It was believedhistorically that sustaining a caviar industry inCanada’s Atlantic sturgeon fishery was difficultbecause of the uncertainty of spawning runs(NMFS/USFWS 1998). As was discussed inSection IV, the largest contemporary Atlanticsturgeon fishery in Canada—in Quebec’s St.

156

Commercial international trade in CITESAppendix II species is allowed only if exportpermits are obtained. Provision of suchpermits is subject to findings by nationalManagement Authorities that trade is notdetrimental to the species’ survival in thewild, and that the species to be exported waslegally acquired.

In the United States, USFWS is the primaryagency responsible for CITESimplementation. The USFWS Division ofManagement Authority (DMA) processesapplications for CITES permits and makes thefindings of legal acquisition necessary for theexportation of products or specimens coveredby the Convention. The Division of ScientificAuthority (DSA) assesses whether or notexports are detrimental to the survival ofCITES-listed species, and is responsible forall scientific findings required under theConvention.7

The Canadian permit system for exports ofCITES-listed wildlife species differssomewhat from that of the United States.Similar to the United States, in Canadajurisdiction over wildlife management isdivided among the federal, provincial, andterritorial governments. However, whereasU.S. CITES export permits are issuedexclusively by USFWS, CITES management

in Canada is shared among the federal,provincial, and territorial governments. TheCanadian National CITES ManagementAuthority is part of the Canadian WildlifeService (CWS), within Environment Canada.In addition, there is a Management Authoritywithin the federal Department of Fisheriesand Oceans (DFO) and 12 provincial andterritorial Management Authorities.

CWS issues export permits for species notregulated by the provinces or territories or,when necessary, on behalf of the province.DFO is responsible for issuing export permitsfor species covered by the federal FisheriesAct. These include marine mammals, fish,and marine invertebrates. DFO issues permitsfrom regional offices across the country,coordinated by the CITES Administratorlocated in Manitoba. DFO has begun issuingmultiple-use permits, which are pre-authorized permits given to industries tocomplete. A limited number of permits areprovided to industries (primarily sturgeonprocessors) and copies must be returned toDFO. DFO does not handle CITES importpermits, and has no enforcement powers;those matters remain with CWS.

BOX 5. General CITES Permitting RequirementsIin the United States and Canada

Sources: Gnam (1999); CITES (2000); Environment Canada(2000); pers. comm, P. Hall, DFO, September 2001; pers.comm., E. Cooper, TRAFFIC North America CanadaRepresentative, August 2002.

7 The names of these two offices changed recently. Prior to the year 2000, they were referred to as the Office ofManagement Authority (OMA) and the Office of Scientific Authority (OSA), respectively.

Lawrence River—is now subject to maximumlegal size limits designed to protect sexuallymature fish. Caron and Tremblay (1999) alsonoted that sexually mature adult sturgeon arebelieved to use the deepest parts of the estuaryin sectors that are not regularly exploited bycommercial fishermen, and are largely absentfrom recent capture records. Commercialcatch is limited in the smaller Atlantic sturgeonfishery in the Maritime Provinces, currentlyconsisting of only a few licensed fishermen ina “sunset” fishery (i.e., the fishery will closewhen current license holders cease fishingbecause no new licenses are being issued)(Anon. 2001a).

Domestic trade. Between 1997 and 2000,Canada reported the cumulative catch ofapproximately 242.8 metric tons (242,780 kg;534,116 pounds) of Atlantic sturgeon in theQuebec and Nova Scotia/New Brunswickfisheries (Anon. 2001a). During the sameperiod, an examination of Canadian exportdata showed that Canada reported a totalexport of approximately 47.6 metric tons(47,647 kg; 105,051 pounds) of meat tovarious importing countries. The discrepancybetween catch and export data may indicate adegree of domestic demand. However, becauseit is not possible to make a direct comparisonbetween the catch and export figures (catchfigures measure whole fish, while the exportsrecord only the weight of the meat), TRAFFICwas unable to quantify the extent of thedomestic market.

Export markets. In response to CITESNotification 2001/005, Canada submitted thefollowing figures for the CITES Secretariat touse as export quotas for 2001: 58,000 kg ofmeat and 500 kg of caviar (L. Maltby,Director, Species at Risk Branch, CWS, in litt.to W. Wijnstekers, Secretary General, CITESSecretariat, January 25, 2001). Non-detriment findings for wild-caught sturgeonproducts are based on their being withinsustainable catch limits, as defined byapplicable quotas (Anon. 2001a).

For many years the largest importer ofCanadian Atlantic sturgeon products has beenthe United States (Anon. 2001a). This mayremain the case; however, the ASMFCrecommendation that imposed a moratoriumon U.S. catch and trade of Atlantic sturgeon,

and parallel state actions to ban catch andpossession of the species, may have eliminatedsome of the market. For example, respondingto the 2000 CITES Significant Trade Reviewregarding Atlantic sturgeon, Canada reportedthat declining catches in the Saint John River,New Brunswick in 1999 and 2000 were largelybelieved to be the result of the closure ofparticular U.S. markets to Atlantic sturgeonimports (Anon. 2001a). Other importingnations for Canadian Atlantic sturgeon meatwere France and Israel. A summary ofCanadian exports of Atlantic sturgeon productsin recent years is shown in Table 5.3.1.

Canada also indicated a possible export of1,000 kg of live Atlantic sturgeon (L. Maltby,Director, Species at Risk Branch, CWS, in litt.to W. Wijnstekers, Secretary General, CITESSecretariat, January 25, 2001). Actual exportlevels for the period between 1997 and 2000show the transfer of live specimens of Atlanticsturgeon to the United States, Italy, Germany,and Austria. These exports were not reportedby weight, so it was not possible to determinehow they might match against the suggestedexport quota reported for 2001. All of thereported exports came from New Brunswick;non-detriment findings were based on the factthat they had originated from live-capturebreeding operations, and did not represent takefrom wild stocks (Anon. 2001a). There wereno live exports from Quebec during thisperiod. A summary of these exports are shownin Table 5.3.2.

The United StatesThe United States does not permit commercialcatch or trade of Atlantic sturgeon fromdomestic stocks. TRAFFIC found only onerecord of a noncommercial export for scientificresearch purposes between 1998 and 2001, ashipment of three specimens to Germany inMay 1999 (TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LawEnforcement Management Information System[LEMIS] data, February 19, 2002).

Gulf SturgeonThere is no legal commercial trade of Gulfsturgeon, domestic or international. TRAFFICfound only one record of an export forscientific research purposes between 1998 and2001, a shipment of three specimens to

157

Germany in May, 1999. This export wasrecorded as occurring on the same day that thethree specimens of Atlantic sturgeonmentioned above were shipped, and involvedthe same export applicant and importing party(TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data,February 19, 2002).

Shortnose SturgeonThe United States does not permitcommercial catch or trade of shortnosesturgeon, and TRAFFIC did not find anyrecords of exports for scientific purposes(TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data,February 19, 2002). Canada also does notpermit commercial trade of shortnosesturgeon. There have been exports forscientific purposes in recent years, but thenumber of these is believed to be very small(pers. comm., P. Hall, DFO, December 2001).

Paddlefish The United States is the only source ofpaddlefish products from native stocks. Thereis demand for U.S. paddlefish roe, meat, andother products (fertilized eggs, fry, live fish),both domestically and internationally. Inaddition, some countries to which the UnitedStates exported live eggs or fry in previousyears have recently begun to submit exportquotas of their own for some products derivedfrom paddlefish.

Domestic trade. While the full extent of thedomestic market for paddlefish is not known(such internal trade is not closely tracked orregulated), it is believed that the primaryproduct in trade is caviar processed frompaddlefish roe. In the spring of 2001,paddlefish roe brought fishermen US$40 toUS$50 per pound in Tennessee, and processedcaviar sold by small domestic producers sold

158

Table 5.3.1 Canadian Commercial Atlantic Sturgeon Export Summary,1996–2000 (Product from Wild Sturgeon Only)*

CITES Export Product Cumulative Weight Destination Provincial Catch QuotaPermits Issued of Commercial Export Market and/or TAC

1996 8 Meat 49,477 lb (22,645 kg) United States Quota/TAC system not in effect

1997+ 2 Meat 40,891 lb (18,545 kg) United States Quebec: 145,530 lb(65,488 kg) quota/TAC6,015 fish; Nova Scotia/New Brunswick: No quotaor TAC set by provinces

1998† 4 Meat 17,589 lb (7,959 kg) United States Quebec: 128,067 lb (57,630 kg) quota/TAC

1 Meat 66 lb (42.67 kg) France 5,297 fish; Nova Scotia/ 1 Body 28 lb (12.6 kg) Israel New Brunswick: No quota

or TAC set by provinces

1999# 1 Meat 14,350 lb (6,508 kg) United States Quebec: 128,067 lb 2 Meat 20,152 lb (9,160 kg) Israel (57,630 kg) quota/TAC

5,297 fish; Nova Scotia/New Brunswick: No quotaor TAC set by provinces

2000‡ 3 Meat 12,003 lb (5,432 kg) United States Quebec: 115,261 lb N/A£ Caviar 1 lb (0.45 kg) United States (51,867 kg) quota/TAC

4,767 fish; Nova Scotia/New Brunswick: No quotaor TAC set by provinces

Key: + Records indicate that both of these exports originated from the Quebec fishery.† Records indicate that the four meat exports to the United States originated from the Quebec fishery. The exports to France and Israel

originated in the Nova Scotia/New Brunswick fishery.# Records indicate that the one export of 14,350 lb to the United States originated from the Quebec fishery. The exports to Israel

originated in the Nova Scotia/New Brunswick fishery.‡ Records indicate that all three meat exports originated from the Nova Scotia/New Brunswick fishery.£ No separate permit—exported on the same permit as a shipment of meat.

* Sources: Anon (2001a); P. Hall, DFO, in litt. to TRAFFIC North America, September 28 and November 8, 2001.

for US$9.50 to US$10 per ounce(approximately US$150 to US$160 perpound). In some domestic markets it wasreported to command as much as US$15 toUS$16 per ounce (TRAFFIC interviews withTennessee fishermen/wholesalers/retailers,2001). A TRAFFIC review of commercialInternet sites in 2002 found paddlefish caviaradvertised at US$9.90 to US$12 per ounce(US$159.20–US$192 per pound; US$350.25–US$422.40 per kg).8 There is also asmall domestic market for paddlefish meat.While the amount of paddlefish roe caughtwould indicate that enough fish are being takento supply at least a regional meat market, thetrue market appears to be for the roe.

As described in Section 4.4, states that allowcommercial catch of paddlefish includeArkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee(Mississippi’s fishery is closed during the roeseason). Some of the markets for paddlefishroe may be local. However, much of thepaddlefish roe produced in commercial

fisheries is believed to be exported out-of-state.In addition, Montana and North Dakota areencouraging the consumption of locallyproduced paddlefish caviar as a managementstrategy, through the establishment of nonprofitcorporations that process and sell paddlefishroe taken in sport fisheries. A portion of thenet proceeds from the sale of Montana andNorth Dakota’s paddlefish roe are directed tofurther paddlefish research and management,as well as community-based grant programs tobenefit local priorities (L. Peterman,Administrator, Fisheries Division, MontanaFish, Wildlife and Parks, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 21, 2000; G. Power,Fisheries Division, North Dakota Game andFish Department, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 22, 2000).

An analysis of domestic roe production frompaddlefish compared to caviar import statisticssuggests that paddlefish roe constituted arelatively small share of the overall caviarmarket in the United States into the late 1990s.For example, in 1999 the cumulative legal

159

8 Because prices are not static, and TRAFFIC does not endorse individual retail operations, the specific Web sites reviewedare not included here. Readers interested in the subject can review which retailers are selling paddlefish roe, and currentprices, through a Web search using the key words “caviar” and “paddlefish.”

Total CITES Commercial Scientific Live Animal CommentsExport Permits Export of Research Exports/Purpose

Issued Product Export of Live Omitted Animals

1997 1 0 1 0 1000 fingerlings to Austria. Permitissued for captive bred stock, exportedfor scientific research.

1998 5 0 5 0 2 research exports totaling 600hatchlings: 100 to Italy, 500 to Germany.2 research exports totaling 110fingerlings to the United States.1 export of 4,500 ~1-month old fry forresearch to Germany.

1999 3 0 0 3 1 export of 4,000 fertilized eggs toGermany; three 50g jars of caviarshipped on permit.1 export of 6,000 sack fry to the UnitedStates.1 export of 2,800 live two-month old fryto the United States.

2000 3 0 0 3 2 exports, each of 1,300 live Larvae, tothe United States.1 export of 500 live larvae to Italy.

Table 5.3.2 Canadian Exports of Atlantic Sturgeon (Hatchery-Reared LiveFish), 1997–2000*

* Source: P. Hall, DFO, in litt. to TRAFFIC North America, September 28 and November 8, 2001.

reported harvest of roe for the states of Illinois(423 pounds), Kentucky (7,165 pounds), andTennessee (3,096 pounds) amounted to a totalof 10,684 pounds (4,807 kg; ~4.8 metric tons).If that amount were doubled, tripled, or evenquadrupled to account for the lack of harvestdata available from other states, likely shortfallsin the amount of roe reported by commercialfishermen, and caviar from sources such as theMontana and North Dakota roe donationprograms, the amount of paddlefish caviarproduced domestically still would not havenearly approached the volume of recordedimports of caviar for 1999, which totaled 99metric tons (TRAFFIC Europe 2001).

Unfortunately, the lack of complete andcontemporary data on paddlefish roe harvestsin some U.S. states in recent years has made itimpossible to accurately estimate the totalcurrent volume of U.S. paddlefish roeproduction, and therefore the full volume ofthe domestic market. It should be noted thatsignificantly higher paddlefish roe harvestsreported from 2000 to 2002 in states wherefigures are available suggest that domesticproduction of paddlefish caviar has increasedsubstantially (part of the increase may beaccounted for simply by more stringentreporting requirements and improvedenforcement). As detailed in Section 4.4,Tennessee reported the harvest of 26,354pounds of roe in 2000 and a preliminaryestimate of 21,092 pounds of roe in 2001;Kentucky reported the harvest of 20,179pounds of roe in 2000, 21,064 pounds in 2001,and 15,163 pounds of roe for the months fromMarch through November 2002; Illinoisreported the harvest of 2,292 pounds of roe in2000 and 607 pounds of roe in 2001; andArkansas reported the harvest of some 13,362pounds of roe in 2002. It may be that thepercentage of the U.S. caviar market beingserved by domestic paddlefish roe hasincreased. However, making a precisedetermination is not possible pending theavailability of further data on roe harvests,current volumes of caviar imports, and theamount of domestic roe being exported.

Export Markets. Export records suggest thatthe focus and volume of the external marketfor North American paddlefish products shifted

significantly beginning in 2000. Between1995 and 1999, the commodities derived frompaddlefish that were most frequently exportedfrom the United States were live products,predominantly viable eggs or fry. There alsoappeared to be some exports of live fish for theaquarium or ornamental fish trade. Beginningin 2000, caviar became the predominant exportcommodity; however, it is worth noting thatthe level of caviar exports fell well within theparameters of the anticipated exports reportedby USFWS to the CITES Secretariat in 2001,in response to CITES Decision 11.58.

In 1995, five shipments totaling 87,000unspecified units identified as “eggs” werereported in USFWS export records, whichTRAFFIC identified as most likely being liveeggs based on their low valuation. There werealso 10 shipments of “live” product, totaling32,104 unspecified units that may haveincluded live eggs, fry, or fish. In 1996 therewere three exports totaling 40,000 “eggs,” aswell as 16 “live” shipments totaling 80,464live eggs, fry, or fish. In 1997, six exportstotaling 187,000 “eggs” were reported, as were11 exports totaling units of 235,300 “live”eggs, fry, or fish. In 1998, reported exportsincluded two shipments totaling 180,000“eggs,” and six shipments totaling 23,440unspecified “live” units. In 1999, there wereno reported exports of “eggs,” but there werefour exports totaling 245,000 units of “live”product. Markets for these products includedAsia (China, Japan, Taiwan), Europe (France,Great Britain, Italy, Romania, Greece,Hungary, Germany, Russia), Israel, andMexico. Small commercial shipments of meatwere also exported to Canada during thisperiod. The overall value of the trade in eachof these products appeared to be limited. Inaddition, in 1998 and 1999 there were twononcommercial exports of biologicalspecimens to Russia and Germany (TRAFFICAnalysis of USFWS LEMIS data, 2001).

By contrast, the primary export in terms ofboth value and volume in 2000 appeared to becaviar. TRAFFIC based this conclusion on theprice per unit of volume indicated in the exportdata. LEMIS records for 2000 showed at least17 exports of eggs, presumably caviar, toJapan, Germany, Canada, and Uruguay. These

160

shipments totaled approximately 3,310 kg(7,328 pounds; 3.31 metric tons), and werevalued at slightly over US$1 million, withmore than 97 percent of the export volumedestined for Japan. Based upon the valuationof the exports, prices for caviar exported toJapan ranged from US$180 to US$360 per kg(US$81 to US$162 per pound), with a medianprice for all of the exports of US$309 per kg(US$139 per pound) (TRAFFIC analysis ofUSFWS LEMIS data, February 19, 2002).

Exports to other countries in 2000 that wereidentified by TRAFFIC as caviar appeared tobe valued much lower. An export to Canadawas valued at US$122 per kg (US$55 perpound), an export to Germany was valued at

US$160 per kg (US$72 per pound), and anexport to Uruguay was valued at US$154 perkg (US$69 per pound). One other export ofeggs to Germany was also presumably caviar,but there was not enough information in theLEMIS data to determine a valuation.Additionally, two small shipments of caviar toJapan and Uruguay were recorded as havingbeen seized (TRAFFIC analysis of USFWSLEMIS data, February 19, 2002).

Although caviar appeared to replace liveproducts as the major paddlefish export in2000, data indicated that shipments of liveproducts continued, destined for China,Romania, Germany, Bulgaria, and Israel.Export records showed at least seven

161

Box 6 TRAFFIC Analysis of LEMIS Data

Much of the information in this reportregarding U.S. exports of sturgeon andpaddlefish products was derived fromTRAFFIC’s analysis of data in USFWS’ LawEnforcement Management InformationSystem (LEMIS), a database that recordsUSFWS import and export data. All wildlife(with a small number of exceptions) importedto or exported from the United States must bedeclared on a Fish and Wildlife Declarationform. The data contained on this form arecompiled in LEMIS, which is separate fromtrade data compiled by other agencies such asthe U.S. Customs Service. LEMIS data aregenerally recorded at the species level,including all CITES-listed species and manynon-CITES species as well.

In some instances, the data reported inLEMIS on U.S. imports and exports of nativeAcipenseriformes and their products provedhard to interpret. TRAFFIC found, forexample, that with very few exceptionsLEMIS records the export of both caviar andlive eggs under the generic wildlifedescription (the product in trade) of “eggs.”Thus, it was hard at a glance to differentiatebetween exports of caviar and exports of liveeggs destined for research or aquacultureprograms in other countries, and required anexamination of the declared value and unit ofmeasure of each export and, in someinstances, an analysis of the value per unit-of-

volume of each export in order to categorizethe shipments.

TRAFFIC further found that the unit ofvolume recorded for many exports was “NO”(i.e., number), without distinguishing whetherthat reflected, for example, the number ofeggs, number of live fry, or number ofcontainers of unspecified volume beingexported. Specific cases in which the unit ofvolume recorded in the database precluded adetermination about the nature of the exportare noted in the text of this section.

There were also instances where exports ofU.S. sturgeon or paddlefish appeared to havebeen mistakenly recorded as imports (e.g.,where an “import” indicated that the countryof origin of the wildlife was the United States,and the country of “export” had received noprior shipments of U.S. acipenseriformproducts and was not believed to have anyaquaculture of the species in question).TRAFFIC examined these shipments andreclassified some on a case-by-case basis.

Overall, the LEMIS system proved veryhelpful in providing data critical for thisreport. Suggestions on how the system mightbe improved to make it more user-friendlyand how its ability may be enhanced toprovide more precise information are includedin the recommendations in Section VII.

Source: TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data, 2002.

shipments identified as “eggs” that weredetermined by TRAFFIC to be live eggs basedon their valuation. These exports totaled251,500 unspecified numerical units, with anaggregate value of US$31,150, far below anyrational market value for caviar. Furthermore,whereas all of the exports identified byTRAFFIC as being caviar originated from wildsources, all of the live exports were reported tooriginate from first-generation farmed sources.As of 2000, it was not believed that U.S.commercial aquaculture operations involvingpaddlefish had developed to a point wheresignificant volumes of processed caviar werebeing produced. TRAFFIC was unable todetermine the precise nature of one export of15 kg of “eggs” to Japan, valued at US$100(TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data,February 19, 2002).

Partial export records from 2001 suggest thatthe external market for caviar from paddlefishroe expanded to more countries, although notall data for that year were available at the timeof this report. Exports identified by TRAFFICas caviar numbered at least 19, with five othersidentified as almost certainly being caviar,based upon the reported quantity and value, aswell as the exporting and importingcompanies. The first 19 exports identified ascaviar totaled approximately 767 kg (1,687pounds), and had a reported aggregate value ofUS$279,651. The second five exports thatTRAFFIC identified as caviar had an aggregatevalue of $15,326; however, the fact that thereported units were unspecified in the dataprecluded TRAFFIC from determining a priceby kilogram or pound (TRAFFIC analysis ofUSFWS LEMIS data, February 19, 2002).Whether the overall export market forpaddlefish roe increased in 2001 could not bedetermined given the lack of complete data forthe year; however, TRAFFIC would note thatthe United States indicated an expected exportlevel of 7.7 metric tons of paddlefish caviarfrom wild sources, and 0.25 metric tons fromcaptive propagation, to the CITES Secretariatin response to Notification 2001/005. Table5.3.3 summarizes recorded legal U.S. exportsof paddlefish products from the United Statesin 2000 and 2001; records for 2001 are partial.

In addition to the shift to caviar as thepredominant export product in 2000 and 2001,

three other possible trends also emerged fromthe data available for 2001. First, according tothese data, TRAFFIC concluded that therewere more destination markets reported forpaddlefish caviar in 2001 than had beenevident in 2000. While Japan remained themost significant importer, records also showedexports to Turkey, Greece, Chile, South Africa,Great Britain, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy,Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates.

Second, export records indicated that many ofthe importing parties appeared to be cruiselines, suggesting that importing destinationswere likely points of embarkation or ports ofcall for cruise ships. Whether such tradecontinues to be a significant emerging marketfor American paddlefish caviar remains to bedetermined, pending the availability of furtherexport data (TRAFFIC analysis of USFWSLEMIS data, February 19, 2002).

Third, the price of paddlefish roe increased insome export markets in 2001 compared with2000. Although some reported exports werevalued at as little as US$233 per kg (US$105per pound), others, particularly to Japan, werevalued much higher. The average reportedvalue of eight exports to Japan in 2001, whichtotaled 585 kg (1,287 pounds), was US$526 perkg (US$237 per pound). Values of individualshipments ranged from as low as US$265 perkg (US$119 per pound), to as high as US$905per kg (US$407 per pound). Further data from2001 and 2002 will be needed to determinewhether a trend of increasing prices becomesevident in other markets. However, TRAFFICnoted that the value of individual exports variedwidely within the same time period. Exports tosome markets were valued significantly higherthan concurrent exports to other markets,suggesting that the price of paddlefish caviarwas determined more by what the marketwould bear in importing countries than it wasby a steady increase in prices over time(TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data,February 19, 2002).

Exports of products other than caviar alsocontinued in 2001, although the partial natureof the data available for that year precludedTRAFFIC from determining its full volume.Reported exports included a small quantity ofmeat to Ukraine, as well as exports of productidentified as “eggs” or “live” product to China.

162

These latter exports to China totaled 580,500unspecified units. TRAFFIC was unable todetermine with precision how many of theseexports may have comprised fertilized eggs,live fry, or possibly a combination of both(TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data,February 19, 2002).

TRAFFIC noticed one peculiarity in theUSFWS export data for 2001 that were shownin Table 5.3.3. In late 2000, the EuropeanUnion (EU) temporarily suspended all importsof paddlefish products from the United States,yet exports of paddlefish products to EUcountries were recorded by USFWS as havingoccurred during the term of the suspension.The EU import suspension followed the 2000

Significant Trade Review on paddlefish, and asubsequent finding from the EU’s ScientificReview Group (SRG) that there was notenough information on which to base non-detriment findings. As noted in Section IV,commercial catch of paddlefish in the UnitedStates is regulated by state rather than byfederal authorities. Individual states decidewhether commercial catch will be permitted,whether there will be quotas or otherrestrictions, and how fishermen are required toreport their catch. Specific reasons for theimport suspension included the lack of anational quota on catch, inconsistencies in statelaws and regulations regarding legal catch andtrade of paddlefish, and concern that some

163

Table 5.3.3 Legal Exports of Paddlefish Products from the United States,2000–2001 (partial)*

Year Number Product Total Unit Value Source Destination Purposeof Exports Quantity (US$)

2000 14 Caviar 3,151 kg 974,903 W Japan T1 Eggs 15 kg 100 W Japan T1 Caviar 46 NO 5,324 W Germany T1 Caviar 2,350 gm 376 W Germany T1 Caviar 114,600 gm 17,620 W Uruguay T1 Caviar 63 kg 7,700 W Canada T3 Live Eggs 156,500 NO 15,950 F China T1 Live Eggs 50,000 NO 8,000 F Romania T1 Live Eggs 25,000 NO 4,000 F Germany T1 Live Eggs 10,000 NO 1,600 F Bulgaria T1 Live Eggs 10,000 NO 1,600 F Israel T

2001 8 Caviar 585 kg 236,075 W Japan T2 Caviar 29 kg 6,984 W Turkey T1 Caviar 24 NO 2,328 W Greece T1 Caviar 5 kg 1,920 W Unspecified T1 Caviar 19,056 gm 4,586 W Chile T1 Caviar 9,504 gm 2,328 W South Africa T1 Caviar 4,752 gm 1,154 W Great Britain T1 Caviar 24 NO 2,328 W Belgium T1 Caviar 60 NO 5,820 W Spain T1 Caviar 34 NO 3,298 W Italy T1 Caviar 19 kg 4,656 W Italy T1 Caviar 23,814 gm 5,280 W Italy T1 Caviar 10 kg 2,328 W UAE T1 Caviar 4,764 gm 1,164 W UAE T1 Caviar 57 kg 13,176 W Singapore T1 Caviar 16 NO 1,552 W France T1 Meat 60 kg 95 W Ukraine T3 Live Eggs 524,500 NO 32,690 F China T1 Live 56,000 NO 5,600 C China T

Key: NO = Number—could indicate number of eggs or other; W = wild; F = first generation; C = captive-bred; T = commercial trade.

* Source: TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data, February 19, 2002.

states have not monitored catch levelscarefully. The EU import suspension, whichdid not affect the legal international trade ofother North American acipenseriform speciesor exports of paddlefish to non-EU countries,was lifted on July 18, 2001 (SRG 2001).Exports identified by TRAFFIC as paddlefishcaviar, based on their relative volume andvalue, were recorded to Great Britain in May2001, to Italy in both May and June 2001, andto Greece in April 2001, all before the importsuspension ended. TRAFFIC was unable todetermine whether these exports indicate aproblem with enforcement, or whetherexceptions were made to allow the shipmentsto enter the EU (TRAFFIC analysis of USFWSLEMIS data, February 19, 2002).

Finally, TRAFFIC noted that some of thenations shown in export records as destinationsfor U.S. paddlefish products between 1995 and2001 have established quotas for the export ofpaddlefish products. In 2001, the CzechRepublic, Hungary, and Russia submitted exportquotas for fingerlings, live fish, or fertilizedeggs from aquaculture operations. The CzechRepublic submitted an export quota of 100,000fingerlings from aquaculture, Hungarysubmitted an export quota of 1,000 live fishfrom aquaculture, and Russia submitted a quotaof 5 kg of fertilized live eggs from Armenianaquaculture, to be re-exported from the RussianFederation. Russia also submitted an exportquota for 5 kg of live eggs in 2000. This mayindicate that some of the exports of Americanpaddlefish eggs and fingerlings documentedabove over the years have been used to establishaquaculture operations that are now capable ofsupplying eggs and fry for the export market(CITES 2001g).

CITES permits. The USFWS process to obtaina CITES permit to export paddlefish productsof wild origin, including findings of non-detriment and legal acquisition, involves theprovision and review of information on severalaspects of the catch, and the fishermen andwholesalers/brokers involved. When applyingfor a CITES export permit, USFWS requiresthe following to determine legal acquisition:(1) documents to show legal possession of theroe from the time it is harvested until finalownership by the applicant (i.e.,documentation of legal catch by fishermen, billof sale to broker/wholesaler, bill of sale from

broker to exporter); (2) a copy of a validcommercial fishing license (in states whereapplicable, also a copy of a valid paddlefishpermit); (3) the date and location of the catch(e.g., boat ramp, or nearest town, or river milemarker); and (4) the type of gear used. Whenan application is received, USFWS/DMAcontacts the appropriate state agency to ensurethat all catch was conducted in compliancewith state regulations (Charles Hamilton,USFWS, in litt. to Andrea Gaski, USFWS,August 30, 2000).

The CITES permit process is a source ofsignificant contention. Fishermen andwholesalers have noted to TRAFFIC that theprocess can be lengthy—sometimes takingmonths—which they noted can make itdifficult for exporters who are dealing with aperishable product to effectively engage ininternational trade. In interviews andconversations with TRAFFIC, numerousindividuals who have sought export permitsfrom USFWS protested that the amount oftime and paperwork involved before a permit isgranted or denied posed a significant obstacleto developing an export market for U.S.paddlefish products (TRAFFIC interviews withcommercial fishermen and wholesalers, 2001).

However, USFWS notes that the reason theprocess becomes lengthy in most cases isbecause the applicant has been unable tosupply adequate documentation for USFWS tomake a finding of legal acquisition and/or non-detriment. USFWS frequently must undertakenumerous communications with the applicant,requesting documentation that was notsubmitted with the application (Marie Maltese,USFWS, in litt. to TRAFFIC North America,January 2002).

Furthermore, as was shown in Section IV,paddlefish catch is regulated by the states, withwidely varying requirements regarding catchreporting, gear restrictions, open and closedwaters, etc. Rules can vary even within riversystems. Therefore, findings of legalacquisition and non-detriment require thatUSFWS coordinate with the states to do athorough job of investigating the origin andchain of custody of the paddlefish involved onan individual basis. TRAFFIC concluded afterreviewing several CITES permit applicationsfor paddlefish roe that each one tells its own

164

story. It is impossible to generalize aboutwhether delays in the process should beprimarily attributed to the bureaucratic process,to the failure of commercial interests to fullyunderstand and readily comply with permitrequirements, or simply to the fact that issuingCITES permits promptly can be difficult whenthere are so many factors and disparate stateregulatory regimes involved.

The permit process has in some cases beenmade somewhat easier. For example, in April2000, USFWS/OSA (now USFWS/DSA)issued a memorandum to USFWS/OMA (nowUSFWS/DMA), providing general advice forthe export of paddlefish roe obtained from theGlendive Paddlefish Caviar Project in Montanaand Gold Star Caviar in North Dakota. Thememorandum indicated a non-detrimentfinding for the cooperative sustainablepaddlefish sport fishery in those states as it ismanaged under the MOUs between theGlendive Chamber of Commerce and theMontana Department of Fish, Wildlife andParks and between the Williston Area Chamberof Commerce and the North Dakota Game andFish Department. Essentially, as long as thestates and their private partners maintain theterms of their respective MOUs, USFWS isinclined to make a finding of non-detriment.Rather than having to investigate every saleindividually, this mechanism provides a way tospeed up the application process, withoutcompromising the conservation of the species(Susan Lieberman, Chief, USFWS/OSA, inlitt. to Chief, USFWS/OMA, April 4, 2000).

Shovelnose SturgeonShovelnose sturgeon are endemic to the UnitedStates, which is the only source of this speciesin trade. Tracking down trade statistics for theshovelnose sturgeon has proven difficult, forreasons detailed below.

Domestic trade. Shovelnose sturgeon caviar isproduced in a fashion similar to that ofpaddlefish caviar in several U.S. states, butusually in far smaller quantities. Unfortunately,states have not traditionally regulatedshovelnose sturgeon catch (commercial or

sport) as closely as they regulate paddlefishcatch. That makes it difficult to obtain anaccurate picture of the scope of the domesticmarket and trade during recent years, and hasalso complicated the work of USFWS CITESpermitting authorities when making findings ofnon-detriment and legal acquisition.

Shovelnose sturgeon caviar is being sold bysmall retailers in states such as Tennessee,Kentucky, and Illinois. However, from theavailable information, it is impossible to trackthe total amount of caviar being produced, orwhere it is being marketed and solddomestically. In the spring of 2001, fishermenappeared to be receiving US$40–50 per poundfor shovelnose sturgeon roe, with the caviarretailing for around US$10 per ounce.Shovelnose meat can be smoked and sold, butmost consumption appears to be local(TRAFFIC interviews with Tennesseefishermen/wholesalers, 2001). As withpaddlefish, a 2002 TRAFFIC review ofcommercial Internet sites advertisingshovelnose sturgeon (also marketed as“hackleback”) roe found prices in the range ofUS$9.95 to US $12 per ounce(US$159.20–US$192 per pound; US$350.25–US$422.40 per kg).9

Export markets. It is believed that the specieshas not traditionally played a significant role ininternational trade. Prior to 1998, there are nodata available on exports of shovelnosesturgeon roe or meat. There was a record ofone 1996 shipment, involving 10 items of livewild-caught specimens valued at US$10, to theSolomon Islands. A 1997 transaction involved80 live, wild-caught specimens, valued atUS$200, shipped to Japan (pers. comm., CraigHoover, TRAFFIC North America, 2001).

A review of USFWS LEMIS records from1998 to 2001 revealed only four exportsinvolving shovelnose sturgeon. These includedtwo shipments of specimens for scientificresearch in 1998 (three specimens to Russiaand six to Germany), one shipment of threescientific specimens to Germany in 1999, and asingle export of an unspecified amount ofcaviar, valued at US$185, to the Philippines in

165

9 Web sites reviewed for shovelnose sturgeon roe were the same as those reviewed for paddlefish; the specific Web sitesreviewed are not included here. Readers interested in the subject can review which retailers are selling shovelnosesturgeon roe, and current prices, through a Web search using the key words “caviar” and “paddlefish” or “hackleback.”

1999, likely to a cruise ship (TRAFFICanalysis of USFWS LEMIS data, February 19,2002). The isolated nature of these exportsprecludes an attempt to identify anysubstantive patterns in the export trade.

The lack of export records may be attributableto the fact that the shovelnose sturgeon was notcovered under CITES until the 1998 decisionto list all acipenseriform species in AppendixII. Because fish for human or animalconsumption that is not CITES-listed does nothave to be declared to USFWS, it is possiblethere was some pre-1998 trade for which thereare no data (pers. comm., C. Hoover,TRAFFIC North America, 2001). Asdiscussed in Sections III and IV above, it isalso worth noting that most commercialfishermen traditionally regarded shovelnosesturgeon as a “trash” fish, yielding such asmall amount of roe that it was considered notreally worth targeting when a fishing effortfocused on paddlefish would likely prove farmore profitable.

The submission of CITES permit applicationsin 2000 and 2001 for shovelnose sturgeon roesuggests that caviar dealers may have begun toseek export markets for shovelnose sturgeoncaviar. A review of several CITES permitapplications from 2000 and 2001, obtainedunder the Freedom of Information Act, showedthat USFWS received export applications forshovelnose sturgeon roe, yet LEMIS dataobtained in 2002 included only the one verysmall export from 1999 mentioned above.

While the volumes of shovelnose sturgeon roebeing harvested and processed for caviarappear to remain only a fraction of those forpaddlefish, prices for North American roe maybe rising enough that even small volumes arenow worth the effort to process and sell,sometimes in conjunction with larger volumesof paddlefish roe. The possible emergence ofsuch a market has generated concern amongconservationists and federal and stateauthorities regarding the adequacy of currentmanagement regimes in many states to ensurethat shovelnose sturgeon catch remains withinsustainable levels.

An example of this came in a January 2000application to export an undetermined amount

of shovelnose sturgeon roe, some of it reportedas being taken in Illinois waters of the WabashRiver. USFWS discussions with biologistsfrom the state of Illinois indicated thatshovelnose sturgeon populations wereconsidered fairly healthy, and that there was anopen fishery in the Wabash River, with nocatch limits for the species. However, USFWSnoted that there was also no specificinformation regarding the species’ abundancein the river, which had not been considered aproblem because there were no indications of amarket for shovelnose sturgeon roe before1999. In that year, according to USFWS, totalharvest of roe reported to the state exceeded4,000 pounds10 (2,500 pounds by onecommercial party) in the Wabash River alone.State biologists were unable to determinewhether or not the catch level needed toproduce this volume of roe was detrimentalbecause of a lack of population studies onshovelnose sturgeon (USFWS CITES PermitApplication no. 18899).

USFWS made some calculations, noting thesmall size of the species, the limited amount ofroe that can be harvested from a single female(less than 1 pound; on average 0.5 pound), anda sex ratio for the species of four males foreach female. Because the sexes aremorphometrically similar, it is impossible totell them apart visually. By those calculations,USFWS estimated that more than 8,000 maturefish may have been caught to produce theamount of roe reported by the applicant (notincluding juveniles possibly taken as bycatch).Although USFWS made a finding of non-detriment, based upon the lack of substantialinformation from state authorities indicatingthat the export of this shovelnose roe would bedetrimental, it expressed strong concerns aboutwhether the number of shovelnose sturgeonderived from the fishery would be sustainableif catch levels remained unchecked (USFWSCITES Permit Application no. 18899).

TRAFFIC remains concerned that few studieshave been done to document shovelnosesturgeon abundance in states and riversthroughout their range, and whether the speciescan withstand the increasing levels of catchand trade that seem to be occurring in several

166

10 The state reported a harvest of 3,529 pounds of roe for the CITES Significant Trade Review.

fisheries. It may be that the species isabundant, but the history of sturgeon andpaddlefish fisheries generally in North Americawould suggest caution.

Fortunately, enough concern has been raisedabout shovelnose sturgeon catch, partly becauseof the application previously discussed, thatmany of the states that allow commercialfishing are beginning to look into the status ofthe fish and tightening catch regulations.However, according to USFWS, during the2001 catch season there was very littleshovelnose sturgeon roe on export applications;it would appear that most fishers are continuingto rely on the larger yields from paddlefish(Marie Maltese, USFWS/DMA, in litt. toTRAFFIC North America, January 2002).

Pallid SturgeonThere is no legal commercial trade of thepallid sturgeon, which is designated asendangered under the ESA in 1990. Catch isprohibited. Records show only three exportsof pallid sturgeon between 1998 and 2001,with all of these occurring in 1998. Theseexports included nine specimens exported toGermany, and three specimens exported toRussia, all for purposes of scientific research(TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data,February 19, 2002).

Alabama SturgeonThere is no legal commercial trade of theAlabama sturgeon, which was designated as anendangered species under the ESA in 2000.Catch is prohibited. There are no records ofexports for scientific research purposesbetween 1998 and 2001 (TRAFFIC analysis ofUSFWS LEMIS data, February 19, 2002).

Lake SturgeonSome Canadian provinces permit commercialand sport catch of native stocks of lakesturgeon, subject to catch quotas, creel limitsin sport fisheries, and other applicableregulations. No U.S. states allow commercialcatch, and those that allow sport catch regulatethe practice. Therefore, Canada is the onlysource of commercially caught lake sturgeon in

trade; U.S. commercial trade in the speciesoriginates from the Canadian fisheries.

CanadaCanada’s commercial lake sturgeon industry iscurrently centered in the fisheries of Quebecand Ontario. As was shown in Section IVabove, Quebec reported catch of approximately460,000 pounds (208,714 kg; ~208.7 metrictons) of lake sturgeon in both 1997 and 1998,and 394,695 pounds (177,613 kg; ~177.6 metrictons) in 1999 (P. Hall, DFO, in litt. to TRAFFICNorth America, September 28, 2001). Ontarioproduced only 10,000–15,000 pounds(5,000–7,000 kg; 5–7 metric tons) of lakesturgeon annually during the late 1990s (AlMurray, MNR Lake Erie Management Unit, inlitt. to Robert Jones, DFO, August 30, 2000).

Domestic trade. Similar to the case withAtlantic sturgeon, a comparison of catch datawith reported exports suggests a domesticmarket in Canada for lake sturgeon products.For example, in 1998, lake sturgeon fisheries inOntario and Quebec reported a cumulativecatch of 473,560 pounds (213,102 kg; ~213.1metric tons) of fish. Canada reported theexport of 86,265 pounds (39,034 kg; ~39metric tons) of commercial lake sturgeonexports, presumably meat, in 1998. In 1999,exports rose to 131,191 pounds (59,363 kg;~59.4 metric tons), while catch in Quebec alonewas reported as 408,441 pounds (185,655 kg;~185.7 metric tons) (Al Murray, MNR LakeErie Management Unit, in litt. to Robert Jones,DFO, August 30, 2000; P. Hall, DFO, in litt. toTRAFFIC North America, September 28,2001). Even after accounting for the differencebetween reported catch (whole fish) andexports (meat), these figures suggest that athere is a likely domestic market for lakesturgeon, primarily meat, although TRAFFICwas unable to determine its precise extent.

Prices for lake sturgeon reportedly variedamong water bodies. For example, in Ontarioin 1998, lake sturgeon caught in Lake Huronwere reported to bring $2.65 per pound,whereas lake sturgeon taken from Rainy Lakebrought $1.75 per pound. The average priceamong the six water bodies recorded (LakeHuron, Lake Nipigon, Lake St. Clair, Namakan

167

Lake, Rainy Lake, and the Seine River) wasabout $2 per pound. In 1999, prices for thesesix water bodies varied from $1.79 per poundto $2.75 per pound. Because Lake Huronproduced approximately 75 percent of the lakesturgeon caught in each of these years, most ofthe product reaching the market attracted thehigher prices (Al Murray, MNR Lake ErieManagement Unit, in litt. to Robert Jones,DFO, August 30, 2000).

Export markets. Pursuant to Decision 11.58, inJanuary 2001, Canada reported to the CITESSecretariat that although Canada does notnormally use export quotas for sturgeonproducts, figures of 170,000 kg (374,000pounds; 170 metric tons) of meat and 500 kg(1,100 pounds; 0.5 metric tons) of caviar couldbe used as such by CITES (L. Maltby, Director,Species at Risk Branch, CWS, in litt. to WillemWijnstekers, Secretary General, CITESSecretariat, January 25, 2001). The 170,000 kgof meat indicated as an export quota parallelsthe combined catch quotas for Ontario andQuebec in 2000; actual exports in recent yearshave been much lower. Table 5.3.4 summarizesreported lake sturgeon exports from Canadaduring the years 1998 to 2000. Because thelake sturgeon was not listed in CITESAppendix II until 1998, exports for prior yearswere not recorded in CITES trade data.

Based upon an analysis of available Canadianfisheries and export data, and import data fromthe United States—a large importer of

Canadian lake sturgeon exports—the mostsignificant export market appears to be for lakesturgeon meat. Between 1998 and 2000, theUnited States reported 23 imports of Canadianlake sturgeon meat. Nineteen of these imports,totaling 60,615 kg (133,353 pounds; ~60.6metric tons), were valued at US$470,243 (anaverage of US$3.53 per pound). Four otherexports of an unspecified volume of 3,175units were valued at US$72,807.

One market for Canadian lake sturgeon meat isNew York state. Oddly, responding to the 2000CITES Significant Trade Review, New Yorkreported importing approximately 150,000pounds (~68,000 kg) in 1999, which issignificantly more than was indicated inUSFWS records for the entire United States.Canadian lake sturgeon meat, principally fromQuebec’s St. Lawrence fishery, supports anactive sturgeon processing smoke houseindustry and market in the New York City area(Patrick Festa, Inland Fisheries ManagementSection, New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, in litt. to TeikoSaito USFWS/OMA, August 22, 2000).

Table 5.3.5 summarizes U.S. imports of lakesturgeon meat and other products from Canadaduring the years 1998 to 2000. Data for theyear 2001 were incomplete at the time of thisreport.

In its 2001 letter to the CITES Secretariat inresponse to Notification 2001/005, CWS also

168

Table 5.3.4 Canadian Lake Sturgeon Commercial Export Summary, 1998–2000(Product from Wild Sturgeon Only)*

Year Province Number of Cumulative Weight Provincial Catch Comments Commercial of Commercial Quota and/or TAC*

Export Export

1998 Ontario 2 2,706 lb (1,224.4 kg) 25,417 lb (11,438 kg) Total catch 14,696 lb (6,613 kg)

Quebec 10 83,559 lb (37,810 kg) No TAC set Total catch 458,864 lb (206,489 kg)

1999 Ontario 4 6,777 lb (3,067 kg) 25,417 lb (11,438 kg) Total catch 13,746 lb (6,248 kg)

Quebec 13 124,414 lb (56,296 kg) 441,000 lb quota; Total catch 394,695 lb (177,613 kg)TAC 30,433 fish

2000 Ontario 2 7,268 lb (3,289 kg) 25,417 lb (11,438 kg) N/A

Quebec 21 133,667 lb (60,483 kg) 352,800 lb quota;TAC 24,345 fish

Key: TAC = Total Allowable Catch; N/A = Not available.* Source: Al Murray, MNR Lake Erie Management Unit, in litt. to Robert Jones, DFO, August 30, 2000; P. Hall, DFO, in litt. to TRAFFIC North

America, September 28, 2001.

indicated the possible export of 500 kg (1,100pounds) of caviar (L. Maltby, Director, Speciesat Risk Branch, CWS, in litt. to W.Wijnstekers, Secretary General, CITESSecretariat, January 25, 2001). This does notmean that the Canadian government expects asignificant export market in the near future.Historically, lake sturgeon caviar commanded ahigh price during the early years of thefisheries in the nineteenth century; however,comparative information on recent prices orexports is lacking.

Finally, Canada reported to the CITESSecretariat the possible export of 1,000 kg oflive animals in 2001, but noted that exports oflive lake sturgeon originate in aquaculturefacilities, and therefore are exempt fromDecision 11.58 (L. Maltby, Director, Species atRisk Branch, CWS, in litt. to W. Wijnstekers,Secretary General, CITES Secretariat, January25, 2001).

Actual exports of live lake sturgeon productsduring the period 1997 to 2000 appeared to bemuch lower than the 1,000 kg reported aspossible for 2001. A total of four CITESpermits were issued in 1999 and 2000, ofwhich three were used. Exports included livefry and fertilized eggs to the United States forpurposes of propagation or reintroduction intothe wild. These were recorded asnoncommercial, scientific exports. Becausethey were recorded by numerical unit (i.e.,

number of eggs or fry) rather than by weight, itwas not possible to determine how they mightcompare to possible export levels reported for2001. Table 5.3.6 summarizes Canadianscientific lake sturgeon exports between 1997and 2000.

The United StatesThere is no legal commercial trade of lakesturgeon from U.S. populations. Michigan,Minnesota, and Wisconsin are the only U.S.states with significant lake sturgeon sportfisheries, but not all of these states permit tradeof fish taken by sport anglers. In addition, thenumber of lake sturgeon caught in states thatallow the sale of sport-caught fish are toosmall to sustain a commercial industry.Therefore, it is believed that the overwhelmingbulk of lake sturgeon and lake sturgeonproducts in trade in the United Statesoriginated in Canadian fisheries.

Domestic trade. Because lake sturgeon areclassified as threatened or endangered bymany states within the species’ historic range,the legal trade in lake sturgeon or theirproducts is more restricted than that of otherNorth American Acipenseriformes such as thepaddlefish, shovelnose sturgeon, and whitesturgeon. In fact, of 10 U.S. states polled in a1998 survey, just four reported allowing tradein lake sturgeon flesh and caviar, and onlythree permitted trade in live lake sturgeon asornamental fish—in the aquarium industry or

169

Year Number of Product Total Unit Value (US$) Source Purpose Imports Quantity

1998 5 Meat 18,170 kg 132,681 W T

1999 6+ Meat 28,392 kg 197,477 W T

2 Meat 271 NO 27,020 W T

2 Trophy 2 NO 0 W N

1 Live 250,000 NO 2,500 W T

2000 8 Meat 14,053 kg 140,085 W T

2 Meat 2,904 NO 45,787 W T

3 Spec. 31 NO 0 W N

Table 5.3.5 U.S. Imports of Canadian Lake Sturgeon Products, 1998–2001(partial)*

+ U.S. import data also record one seizure of 1,163 kg of meat, valued at $8,847, from an unspecified source in Canada.Key: NO = Unit Unspecified—could indicate numerical unit or other; W = wild; T = commercial trade; N = Noncommercial;

Spec. = specimens.* Source: TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data.

170

Total CITES Commercial Scientific Live Animal CommentsExport Permits Export of Research Exports/

Issued Product Export of PurposeLive Animals Omitted

1997 0 0 0 0 Species not CITES-listed in 1997; no exportsrecorded.

1998 0 0 0 0 No live exports recorded in 1998.

1999 2 0 2 0 1 export of 50,000 captive-propagated Ontariofry to the U.S. for introduction to the wild; 1export of 50,000 fertilized eggs, captive-propagated from Ontario to U.S. forintroduction to the wild.

2000 2 0 2 0 1 export of 40,000 live fry from Ontario,captive-bred, exported to U.S. for propagationand re-introduction; 1 permit issued but notused for 20,000 live eggs.

Table 5.3.6 Canadian Scientific Exports of Lake Sturgeon (Hatchery-RearedLive Fish), 1997–2000*

* Source: P. Hall, DFO, in litt. to TRAFFIC North America, September 28 and November 8, 2001.

Table 5.3.7 Legal Trade of Lake Sturgeon in the United States*

State Permits Legal Trade of Flesh and Caviar Permits Legal Trade in Live Lake Sturgeon

Illinois No No

Indiana No No

Iowa No No

Michigan Yes Yes

Minnesota Yes Yes

Missouri No No

New York Yes Yes

Ohio Yes No

Tennessee No No

Wisconsin No No

* Source: Bruch (1999).

otherwise (Bruch, 1999). Table 5.3.7 showsthe results of the poll among participatingU.S. states.

Among states with lake sturgeon sport fisheriesin 2000, Michigan reported a likely market forsmoked sturgeon and caviar within the state,but had no data on its size. The state alsoreported no knowledge of anyone selling lakesturgeon or products imported from out of state(Gary Whelan, Fish Production Manager,Michigan Department of Natural Resources, inlitt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 29,2000). Minnesota trade in lake sturgeon isbelieved to have diminished in recent yearsbecause of lack of viable eggs available fromcommercial sources. There is a potential that

licensed aquatic farms may be able to producea viable egg source in the future, but at presentlocal consumption is based on sport catchwhere the fishing season is open, and includestributaries of the upper St. Croix and the Rainyrivers (L. Erickson-Eastwood, FisheriesProgram Manager, Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 23, 2000). Wisconsindoes not allow legal trade of lake sturgeonflesh or caviar (Bruch 1999).

As noted previously, the state of New York hasbeen a major market for imported Canadianlake sturgeon meat. The lake sturgeon isclassified as a threatened species in New York;to import or process lake sturgeon requires a

license. An Importer License, which costs$150, allows the holder to import legally takenlake sturgeon into New York, subject to certainrequirements specified in New York law under“Special Rules: lake sturgeon (Acipenserfulvescens).” These include the following: (1)the importer must have a certificate ofinspection from the source jurisdictionattesting to the fact that the fish were takenlegally; (2) each lake sturgeon must have avalid tag attached; (3) the fish must be packedin sealed containers, with valid labels; and (4)the importer must keep specific records for twoyears on each shipment. A Processor Licenseis required for those who process legallyimported lake sturgeon in New York State.Processors must also meet a number of specificrequirements to obtain and keep their licenses,including maintaining records on each lakesturgeon shipment (6 NYCRR, Part 182.7).

Export markets. In recent years, the UnitedStates has reported a small number of exportsof lake sturgeon or products derived from thespecies. In 1998, the United States exported1,120 live fish to Taiwan (560 from the wildand 560 from a captive breeding source), aswell as scientific specimens to Germany (6)and Russia (3). There was also one 1998record of an export to Russia of 279 kg of lakesturgeon meat, valued at US$6,300, whichoriginated in Canada. In 1999 there was asingle record of an export of three scientificspecimens to Germany. There were no recordsof lake sturgeon exports from the United Statesin 2000, and data from 2001 were partial(TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data,February 19, 2002).

White SturgeonThe only source of commercial trade in whitesturgeon is the United States. Canada allowsno commercial trade in white sturgeonproducts from domestic sources. In the UnitedStates, use and trade of white sturgeoncurrently centers on fresh or processed meatand caviar for U.S. sale or export.

CanadaIn 1994, British Columbia closed the FraserRiver fishery and banned the possession orretention of indigenous white sturgeon in theprovince (RL&L Environmental Services

2000a). One exception regards live eggs andfry of the endangered population of KootenaiRiver white sturgeon, which are imported andexported by Canada as part of hatchery-basedrecovery efforts. In 2000, Canada reported theexport of two shipments of live product to theUnited States, consisting of 1,500 liveyearlings and 50,000 live larvae. The purposeof the exports was recorded as captive breeding(P. Hall, DFO, in litt. to Traffic International,November 2001).

Although British Columbia has bannedpossession or retention of native whitesturgeon, the province allows the importationof white sturgeon products from the UnitedStates with proper CITES documentation.Canada, including British Columbia, hasserved as a significant market for commercialwhite sturgeon products from the UnitedStates, primarily meat, during some recentyears. Prior to 1999, U.S. export recordsfurther indicate that Canada was a market forlive white sturgeon for the aquarium orornamental fish trade (TRAFFIC analysis ofUSFWS LEMIS data, February 19, 2002).Such trade is documented in more detail belowas part of the U.S. export market.

The United StatesAs was detailed in Section IV, most U.S.commercial fishing for white sturgeon occurswithin the Columbia River system in Oregonand Washington. However, the vast majorityof the Columbia River catch is allocated tosport fisheries (Beamesderfer 1999; DeVore etal. 1999; JCRMS 2001a). In addition, eggsales from lower Columbia River commercialand sport-caught sturgeon are currentlyprohibited (R. Beamesderfer, in litt. toTRAFFIC North America, September 2001).While California, Idaho, and Montana do notallow commercial catch of white sturgeon,another primary source of white sturgeonproducts in trade is commercial aquaculture,which to date has concentrated in California.

Domestic markets. Based upon the significantdisparity between the amount of whitesturgeon being caught from the wild orproduced through aquaculture in the UnitedStates, and the fairly limited amounts of meatand caviar that have reportedly been exportedin recent years, TRAFFIC has concluded that

171

for the most part, the market for these productsis domestic. For example, regarding meat, in1999 and 2000 the Columbia Rivercommercial fishery reported the cumulativecatch of 20,400 white sturgeon (JCRMS2001a). An undetermined amount was alsoproduced through commercial aquaculture inCalifornia. U.S. export records for these twoyears (shown below under export markets)reported the total export of only 3,792 kg(8,342 pounds) of white sturgeon from bothwild and farmed sources. Furthermore,Beamesderfer (1999) estimated the value of thecommercial catch of white sturgeon in thelower Columbia River alone at approximately$275,000 in 1997, when 12,800 fish werecaught. By contrast, the combined value ofexports for 1999 and 2000 from both wild andfarmed sources was $32,630 (TRAFFICanalysis of USFWS LEMIS data, February 19,2002). These figures suggested to TRAFFICthat the bulk of the volume and value of themarket for white sturgeon meat were foundinside the United States.

Similarly, most caviar production from whitesturgeon appeared to be consumeddomestically. Because there is at present nolegal trade in white sturgeon caviar from wildsturgeon in British Columbia, Washington,Oregon, or California, all legal caviar from thespecies can be presumed to originate fromcommercial aquaculture.

The largest commercial aquaculture operationproducing white sturgeon products (caviar andmeat) is Stolt Sea Farm (a component of amultinational corporation), based in Elverta,California. Stolt Sea Farm produces caviarunder the Sterling label, and also sells wholewhite sturgeon averaging 16 pounds. As of thefall of 2001, roe products included SterlingClassic Caviar (US$30 per ounce), SterlingPremium Caviar (US$36 per ounce), SterlingRoyal Black Caviar (US$45 per ounce), andSterling Imperial Caviar (US$45 per ounce)(Stolt Sea Farm 2001a). Prices for at leastsome of these products rose in 2002, whenSterling Classic Caviar was being marketed forUS$35 per ounce, and Sterling Premium Caviarwas being marketed for US$42 per ounce; 2002prices for the other two products, which werenot in stock at the time of this report, wereunavailable (Stolt Sea Farm 2002).

U.S. companies that rear white sturgeoncommercially have been working to build bothdomestic and international markets for theirwhite sturgeon products as alternatives toCaspian Sea caviar. White sturgeon caviar istouted as being similar to Caspian Seavarieties. For example, Stolt’s Sterling ClassicCaviar is marketed as “comparable to the bestOsetra caviar,” and Sterling Premium Caviar issaid, by the company, to be “similar topremium Beluga” (Stolt Sea Farm 2001a).Because domestic trade is not regulated, it wasnot possible to determine the level of domesticdemand for these products.

Export trade. Similar to paddlefish, the exportmarket for white sturgeon products appears tohave undergone important changes in recentyears. Available data indicate that exportmarkets for white sturgeon products within thepast five years have included fry, fingerlings, andeggs for commercial aquaculture; live fish forthe aquarium and ornamental trade oraquaculture; fresh or processed meat; and caviar.Table 5.3.8 summarizes U.S. export data for1997 through 2001 (data for 2001 are partial).

As Table 5.3.8 indicates, little data areavailable regarding U.S. exports of meat orcaviar from white sturgeon prior to 1998, thefirst year in which all sturgeon exportsrequired a valid CITES permit. Severalexports reported in 1996 involved livespecimens, and a review of U.S. export datashowed 15 exports of live sturgeon in 1997.Based upon an analysis of USFWS exportdata, 13 of these exports appeared to involvethe sale of live specimens for the commercialaquarium or ornamental fish trade in Canadaand Mexico. One export appeared to involvethe sale of live eggs or fry to Taiwan, whileanother appeared to be the noncommercialtransport of live fish to a public aquarium inJapan (TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMISdata, February 19, 2002).

During 1998 and 1999, the principal whitesturgeon export product recorded was meat.However, because such shipments did not haveto be reported prior to 1998, these exports mayhave represented the continuation of existingbusiness relationships. Some trade in live fish,presumably for the aquarium or ornamentalindustry, also continued in 1998 with Canadaand Mexico. During these years, USFWS

172

173

Table 5.3.8 U.S. Exports of White Sturgeon Products, 1997–2001 (partial)*

Year Number Product Total Unit Value (US$) Source Destination Purpose of Exports Quantity

1997 6 Live 253 NO 322 W Canada T

1 Live 6 NO 0 C Japan N

5 Live 300 NO 340 W Mexico T

2 Live 125 NO 79 C Mexico T

1 Live 3,000 NO 4,800 C Taiwan T

1998 10 Meat 526 kg 4,305 F Canada T

1 Meat 90 kg 600 C Canada T

1 Meat 90 kg 650 F Taiwan T

6 Live 225 NO 381 W Canada T

4 Live 115 NO 176 W Mexico T

1 Eggs 1 kg 375 F Sweden T

1 Eggs 2 kg 570 W Germany T

1 Eggs 88 kg 7,774 C Russia T

1 Spec. 6 NO 0 O Germany N

1 Spec. 3 NO 0 O Russia N

1 Unsp. 18 kg 0 F Taiwan ?

1999 27 Meat 1,674 kg 15,752 F Canada T

3 Meat 181 kg 1,766 C Canada T

1 Meat 107 kg 1,034 F Taiwan T

2 Meat 71 kg 460 W Taiwan T

1 Meat 1,691 kg 13,048 W Great Britain T

1 Eggs 23 kg 223 F Canada T

4 Live Eggs 80,000 NO 0 W Canada N

1 Spec. 3 NO 0 W Germany N

2000 1 Meat 68 kg 570 W Canada T

2 Live Eggs 20,000 NO 0 W Canada N

2001 1 Meat 150 kg 1,480 F France T

1 Eggs 199 kg 87,863 F France T

1 Eggs 97 kg 34,004 F France T

1 Eggs 1 NO 63 W Canada ?

1 Eggs 430 gm 126 F Great Britain T

1 Eggs 3 kg 243 F Japan T

1 Eggs 5 kg 3,925 F Singapore T

1 Eggs 480 gm 227 F Belgium T

5 Live Eggs 50,000 NO 0 W Canada N

Key: NO = Number—could indicate number of eggs or other; W = wild; F = first generation; C = captive-bred; T = commercial trade; N = Noncommercial; Spec. = specimens; Unsp. = Unspecified.

* Source: TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data.

export data show 44 exports of meat, fromboth wild and farmed sources, totaling 4,430kg (9,746 pounds), with an aggregate value of$37,615. The primary consuming country wasCanada, although meat was also exported toGreat Britain and Taiwan. Reported values ofexported meat shipments to various countriesranged from approximately US$6.50 to US$10per kg (US$3 to $4.50 per pound). There werealso three reported exports in 1998 of smallamounts of what was presumably caviar, basedon the recorded value, destined for Germany,Russia, and Sweden (TRAFFIC analysis ofUSFWS LEMIS data, February 19, 2002).

After 1999, the export of live white sturgeonproducts was prohibited by the USFWS/DSAbecause of disease transmission concerns,which ended shipments for the aquarium orornamental fish trade (Marie Maltese, USFWS,in litt. to TRAFFIC North America, January2002). USFWS export data also showed verylimited exports of meat and caviar in 2000 and2001. LEMIS records reviewed in early 2002showed only one reported export of whitesturgeon meat to Canada in 2000; in fact, thatwas the only commercial export of any whitesturgeon product recorded for that year. Partialdata from 2001 also showed only one meatexport, to France, and six exports of eggs, fiveof which were identified by TRAFFIC as caviarbased upon their value by volume. Importingcountries included France, Great Britain,Belgium, and Singapore (TRAFFIC analysis ofUSFWS LEMIS data, February 19, 2002).

Stolt Sea Farm, which has been the largestexporter of white sturgeon products, explainedthe lack of exports in 2000 and 2001.According to the company, USFWS stoppedgranting export permits in 2001 after theagency raised questions about the source of thecompany’s broodstock. Although the issue hassince been resolved, the company believes thatit may take some time to rebuild the customerbase (pers. comm., P. Struffenegger, Stolt SeaFarm, 2002).

In addition to commercial exports, the UnitedStates exported significant numbers of livewhite sturgeon eggs to Canada between 1999and 2001 as part of recovery efforts for theKootenai River white sturgeon population.These noncommercial shipments included80,000 eggs in 1999, 20,000 eggs in 2000, and

50,000 eggs in 2001 (TRAFFIC analysis ofUSFWS LEMIS data, February 19, 2002). Aswas discussed in Section 3.9 of this report, theUnited States and Canada have engaged incooperative efforts to recover the KootenaiRiver white sturgeon population since its listingas an endangered species under the ESA in1999. As part of the recovery effort, theKootenai Tribe of Idaho has transferred liveeggs to the British Columbia Ministry ofEnvironment (BCME), and beginning in 2000,BCME began to transfer live larvae or yearlingfish back to the United States. These shipmentsfall outside of the USFWS prohibition ofcommercial trade of live white sturgeon.

Finally, LEMIS records indicate that the UnitedStates has imported, as well as exported, whitesturgeon products in recent years. For example,in 1998, the United States reported fourshipments of white sturgeon meat from GreatBritain, originating from the wild, to a hotel inLas Vegas. Interestingly, the British Companyinvolved was the same one that had earlierreceived a much larger shipment of whitesturgeon meat, also originating from wildsources, from the United States. TRAFFICspeculates that this was a re-import of sturgeonmeat that was smoked in Great Britain and thenresold to the U.S. hotel. LEMIS data alsorecorded a small shipment of eggs, likelycaviar, from a ranched source in Italy in 1999.As is discussed in more detail in Section VI onHatcheries and Commercial Aquaculture, Italyis the only country outside of the United Statesthat is currently believed to have successfullyestablished a commercial aquaculture operationinvolving white sturgeon. In 1999 and 2000,LEMIS data also recorded the re-import of fiveshipments of Kootenai River white sturgeonfrom hatcheries in British Columbia. Table5.3.9 shows white sturgeon imports between1998 and 2001 (partial).

Green SturgeonBritish Columbia, the only Canadian provincein which the species is extant, prohibits thepossession or retention of green sturgeon. TheUnited States allows some limited catch,primarily in Native American fisheries, but thevolume is believed to be fairly limited. Thereis not thought to be a significant marketoutside of the Native American community for

174

green sturgeon meat or caviar, and there is nodocumented international trade in the species(S. Lieberman, Chief, USFWS/DMA, in litt. toWillem Wijnstekers, Secretary General, CITESSecretariat, 2001).

5.4. Illegal TradeBy its very nature, illegal trade in wildlife andwildlife parts is difficult to document. What isknown is often anecdotal, or is derived fromrecords of arrests and convictions. Undercoveroperations to detect and prosecute thoseinvolved in the illegal trade of paddlefish andsturgeon products are routinely carried out bystate, provincial, and federal authorities, butinformation on these activities is not availableuntil their successful conclusion. Thefollowing summarizes some of what is known,or suspected, about the illegal trade, and isdrawn from a variety of sources.

Illegal trade is believed to concentrate on a fewacipenseriform species in North America, inboth the United States and Canada. Mostconcern has been expressed about thepaddlefish, although there have also beenaccounts of illegal take and trade involving theAtlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, pallidsturgeon, lake sturgeon, shovelnose sturgeon,and white sturgeon. Illegal activities involvingthe green sturgeon most likely involve sportfishing violations (use of illegal gear, violationof size restrictions, possession of fish abovethe creel limit, etc.) incidental to white

sturgeon fisheries. There is not believed to besignificant poaching of green sturgeon forcommercial sale.

Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose SturgeonCases of illegal catch and trade have beenreported involving shortnose and Atlanticsturgeon. For example, in 1995, two SouthCarolina fishermen were apprehended with fivepounds of shortnose sturgeon roe and twogravid fish (NMFS 1998). In 1999, fourpeople in Virginia were charged with taking atotal of 98 Atlantic sturgeon from the JamesRiver, in violation of the state’s prohibition oncatch, possession, or sale of the species.Under Virginia law, each of the defendantsfaced misdemeanor charges that carry amaximum penalty of one year in jail and a$2,000 fine (Anon. 1999b). However, casesinvolving these species are believed to berelatively isolated incidents rather than widelyorganized activities. Poaching is believed tobe more prevalent where legal markets existfrom imports, commercial catch, orcommercial aquaculture (NMFS 1998).

Paddlefish and Shovelnose SturgeonPaddlefish and shovelnose sturgeon arediscussed together in this section becausecommercial fisheries for these speciesgenerally occur in the same states, and fishers

175

Table 5.3.9 Reported U.S. White Sturgeon Imports, 1998–2001 (partial)*

Year Number Product Total Unit Value (US$) Source Country Purpose of Imports Quantity

1998 4 Meat 240 kg 12,613 W Great Britain T

1999 1 Eggs 150 gm 374 R Italy T

2000 4 Live 10,000 NO 0 W Canada N

1 Live 698 NO 0 F Canada N

1 Live 600 NO 0 F Canada N

1 Live 750 NO 0 F Canada N

2001 1+ Live 100 NO 230 C Hong Kong T

1 Live 1,555 NO 0 F Canada N

+ Recorded in LEMIS under the Disposition “A.” TRAFFIC surmised that this was likely a shipment of live fish that were seized as an illegalimport.

Key: NO = Number—could indicate number of eggs or other; W = wild; F = first generation; C = captive-bred; R = ranched; T = commercialtrade; N = noncommercial trade (in this case these are Kootenai River fish re-imported from back-up hatcheries in Canada).

* Source: TRAFFIC analysis of USFWS LEMIS data, February 19, 2002.

involved in illegal catch and trade may targetboth species.

Responding to questions regarding illegal tradeof paddlefish for the CITES Significant TradeReview in 2000, wildlife conservation agenciesin U.S. range states provided a variety ofreplies. Arkansas, where legal trade is allowedbut has not been closely monitored in the past,and Ohio and Alabama, where trade isprohibited, responded that there were noreports of poaching and that state authoritieswere unaware of poaching activities.Wisconsin also reported no known poachingactivity, but did note the prosecution of acommercial fisherman for killing more than 60paddlefish in nets that were set to catch otherspecies. The violation in that case was “wasteof a state resource” (K. Scheidegger,Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,in litt. to Rosemarie Gnam, USFWS/OMA,August 17, 2000). South Dakota reported notbeing aware of poaching activity, and furthernoted that its population had too few matureindividuals to attract poachers at the time ofthe inquiry (C. Stone, Senior WildlifeBiologist, Reservoir Fisheries, South DakotaDepartment of Game, Fish and Parks, in litt. toRosemarie Gnam, USFWS/OMA, August 25,2000). North Dakota reported very little illegalactivity (Greg Power, Fisheries Division, NorthDakota Game and Fish Department, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 22, 2000).Montana noted that while the state isconcerned about the potential for illegalactivity, and enforcement efforts are ongoing,no illegal activity had been documented.Montana has cited individuals for over-harvest,high-grading, and other fishing violations (L.Peterman, Administrator, Fisheries Division,Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 21, 2000).

Kansas reported that while it is likely thatillegal catch takes place, the state was notaware of major poaching activities (T. Mosher,Fisheries Research Coordinator, KansasDepartment of Wildlife and Parks, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 17, 2000).Illinois reported that suspected illegal activitieswere believed to focus on under-reporting ofcommercial catch (M. Conlin, Chief, Divisionof Fisheries, Illinois Department of NaturalResources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 23, 2000).

Among states that reported illegal activity,Iowa noted that local law enforcementpersonnel participated in an investigation tocrack down on illegal practices related to theselling of fish and game along the MissouriRiver. Some of this activity may have involvedpaddlefish and/or shovelnose sturgeon. Thestate reported that officials were unaware ofillegal activities elsewhere in the state (MarionConover, Chief, Fisheries Bureau, IowaDepartment of Natural Resources, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 14, 2000).Nebraska also reported that there were knownpaddlefish and sturgeon poaching activities onthe Missouri River (Don Gablehouse,Administrator, Fisheries Division, NebraskaGame and Parks Commission, in litt. toRosemarie Gnam, USFWS/OMA, August 21,2000). Nebraska press reports from 2000detail a two-year investigation into illegal saleand transportation of wildlife along theMissouri River border that resulted in theissuance of citations to 30 people for nearly200 wildlife violations, some involvingpaddlefish poaching. The investigation wasinitiated because of concern among wildlifeagencies that paddlefish were being takenillegally for caviar or purchased from sportfishermen during the October open sportseason. There was also concern about theimpact poaching may have on endangeredspecies such as the pallid sturgeon (OmahaWorld Herald, July 20, 2000).

Tennessee reported in 2000 that lawenforcement efforts to determine the impact ofpoaching on paddlefish populations resulted intwo commercial fishing violations, two illegalgear violations, and 11 sport fishing violationsfor taking paddlefish during closed seasons.The state indicated that poaching appeared tobe light to moderate during the closed season,but less information was available regardingviolations during the open season becauseenforcement personnel during that period areregularly focused on regulating huntingactivities (Robert Todd, Commercial FishingCoordinator, Tennessee Wildlife ResourcesAgency, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA,August 21, 2001).

More recently, however, three individuals fromTennessee were prosecuted and found guilty onMay 16, 2002 in a significant case involvingviolations of the Lacey Act and conspiracy to

176

violate the Lacey Act related to illegal catchand trade of paddlefish roe. Charges includedpurchasing paddlefish caviar that washarvested from fish caught during closedTennessee seasons and in closed waters, sale ofcaviar in interstate commerce that was taken inviolation of state laws, purchasing fish withoutbeing licensed as a wholesale fish dealer by theState of Tennessee, and creating falsedocuments to conceal the identities offishermen and locations where the paddlefisheggs were taken. USFWS special agents andwildlife investigators from TWRA workedtogether to prepare the case. Officers of theKentucky Department of Fish and WildlifeResources and the Alabama Division ofWildlife and Freshwater Resources assisted inthe investigation (USFWS 2002d).

Their joint investigation determined that over8,400 pounds (3,818 kg) of paddlefish caviar,with an estimated black market value ofUS$483,000 (far lower than the ultimate retailvalue), were illegally taken and sold ininterstate commerce by participants in theconspiracy. Two of the individuals involved,Frank and Carolyn Hale, doing business asRoyaloff Caviar of Savannah, Tennessee, werefound guilty of six felony violations of theLacey Act and conspiracy to violate the LaceyAct. The third individual, Wendy Haney-Melson, daughter of Frank and Carolyn Hale,was found guilty of conspiracy to violate theLacey Act for her role in creating falsedocuments and purchasing paddlefish caviartaken during closed seasons and in closedwaters. Sentencing, originally scheduled forAugust 12, 2002, was delayed until at leastSpring of 2003, so the ultimate disposition ofthe case is not known at the time of this report.This was the fifth conviction resulting from anintensive investigation into illegal paddlefishtrade by USFWS and state agencies in theSoutheast (USFWS 2002d).

Louisiana responded to the 2000 CITESSignificant Trade review process that poachingactivities are always a possibility because of thepotential for making large amounts ofunreported money in the illicit caviar trade. Thestate’s respondent noted an anecdote relayed bythe Chief of Tennessee Fisheries to theLouisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,of a man who wanted a permit from Tennessee

to transport, and then export, 5,000 pounds ofpaddlefish roe per month. When asked thesource, the man said “Louisiana” (John Roussel,Assistant Secretary, Office of Fisheries,Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August25, 2000). It is impossible to substantiate thetruth of this story; however, it is typical of theanecdotes and rumors that abound concerningroe fisheries.

Mississippi responded that there is knownillegal catch of paddlefish in the state, and lawenforcement cases were pending at the time ofthe inquiry. Apprehension of suspects,however, has proved difficult, as the activity isorganized and highly secretive. Poaching andillegal catch in Mississippi may be acontinuing problem, but the full extent ofillegal activity is unknown.

Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma did notrespond directly to the question regardingillegal trade. A TRAFFIC review of newsitems in Oklahoma did turn up cases ofdocumented illegal activity. In July 2000, forexample, Oklahoma wildlife officialsexpressed concern that increasing prices forcaviar might be enticing poachers to illegallycatch and sell paddlefish roe, citing an incidentin which more than 40 fish were found thathad been slit open in search of roe, in onenight (The Journal, United Kingdom, July 15,2000). A 2001 case involved eight Claremore,Oklahoma, area residents, who were arrestedon state and federal charges for illegal take andcommercialization of paddlefish, following ajoint investigation between USFWS and theOklahoma Department of WildlifeConservation. Four people were charged withconspiring from February to June 2000 to takeexcessive amounts of paddlefish fromOklahoma lakes and rivers, and arranging forthe eggs to be iced and transported across statelines into Arkansas. Two of the defendantswere further charged on May 17, 2000 withtransporting 150 pounds of paddlefish eggsacross state lines. Federal charges in the caseincluded conspiracy, aiding and abetting, andviolations of the Lacey Act. Four additionalpeople were arrested on state charges, becausewildlife law enforcement officers documentedapproximately 120 state wildlife violations,including snagging in a restricted area,

177

abandoning paddlefish without proper disposal,and exceeding the legal limit for the species(USFWS 2001f; Tulsa World 2001).

Beyond poaching and illegal trade ofpaddlefish and shovelnose sturgeon in theMississippi Basin, another illegal activityinvolving mislabeling of paddlefish andshovelnose caviar has begun to raise seriousconcerns among wildlife managementagencies, law enforcement officials, andconservationists. To date, the largest exampleand conviction of this practice came to light in2000, when the owner and several employeesof Maryland-based U.S. Caviar & Caviar, Ltd.(hereinafter, U.S. Caviar) pleaded guilty tomultiple counts of conspiracy, smuggling,making false statements, submitting falsewildlife records, mail fraud, and violations ofthe Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act.

The activities, all federal felony charges, fellinto two categories. In the first set ofviolations, U.S. Caviar admitted importingtons of black market caviar into the UnitedStates from the United Arab Emirates usingforged Russian caviar labels. The labelsmade it appear as if the roe had beenproduced and exported by a large, legitimateRussian caviar supplier, when in fact it hadbeen smuggled out of Russia and othercountries bordering the Caspian Sea. Theforged labels (at least 5,000) were producedat U.S. Caviar’s Rockville, Maryland,headquarters, and sent to the United ArabEmirates for use on caviar shipments to theUnited States. The company and its co-defendants forged wildlife documents,including Russian health certificates, tofurther authenticate their shipments, whichwere accompanied by false CITES permits,customs documents, invoices, and packinglists. In 1998 alone, U.S. Caviar importedapproximately 18,000 pounds (9 tons; 8.1metric tons) of caviar from the United ArabEmirates using false labels and documents.U.S. Caviar also smuggled authentic RussianBeluga caviar into the United States bylabeling the tins as less valuable caviar, filingfalse declarations, and using false invoicesunderstating the value of the caviar to avoidpaying the higher customs duty required(USFWS 2001g).

In the second set of violations, U.S. Caviar andits co-defendants operated a mail fraud schemethat sold mislabeled North American roe toU.S. customers as Russian Sevruga caviar, ahighly prized and more expensive Caspian Searoe. DNA tests conducted by the USFWSNational Fish and Wildlife ForensicsLaboratory in Ashland, Oregon confirmed thatthe purported “Russian” caviar was reallypaddlefish and shovelnose sturgeon roe fromsources in the Mississippi River Basin. Bilkedcustomers included major airlines, gourmetgrocery chains, and cruise lines.

U.S. Caviar pleaded guilty to 22 federalcharges. Hossein Lolavar, U.S. Caviar’s ownerand president, pleaded guilty to 12 federalcharges. Lolavar was sentenced to 41 monthsin federal prison, U.S. Caviar’s sales managerreceived a 21-month sentence, and thepresident of the caviar export firm operatingout of the United Arab Emirates received 15months in prison. In addition, U.S. Caviar wasfined US$10.4 million, the largest fine everimposed in the United States for a wildlifetrafficking case (USFWS 2001c).

Smuggling Russian caviar is disturbing, butcertainly not unique. In two other cases,decided in 1999 and 2001, individuals werefound guilty of, or pleaded guilty to, illegallybringing thousands of pounds of Caspian Seacaviar into the United States. In the 2001 case,a Russian citizen was caught attempting tosmuggle 1,700 pounds of caviar in containersmislabeled as dried fish (USFWS 1999a,2001g). The difference in the U.S. Caviar casewas the intentional use of paddlefish andshovelnose sturgeon as substitutes for moreexpensive and highly prized Russian caviar.

In a similar case, the U.S. Justice Departmentrecently announced the sentencing of AlfredYazbak, the President and owner ofConnoisseur Brands Ltd., for conspiring tosmuggle protected sturgeon caviar and sellingfalsely labeled caviar to retail food companies.A USFWS special agent posing as a buyer fora gourmet food store purchased caviar fromConnoisseur, which upon testing proved to bepaddlefish roe. Yazbak received a sentence oftwo years in prison, an individual fine ofUS$26,404, and was ordered to payUS$23,594 in restitution for unpaid customs

178

duties for the smuggled caviar (a combinedtotal of US$50,000). New York–basedConnoisseur Brands was ordered to pay acriminal fine of US$110,000, which included acommunity service payment of US$25,000 tothe Fish and Wildlife Foundation for thepreservation and restoration of sturgeon andpaddlefish (TRAFFIC North America 2002).

As previously noted, a contributing factor thatmakes the mislabeling of roe lucrative is thedifference in value between caviar from NorthAmerican species and those of Caspian Seaspecies. In 2001 caviar from paddlefish andshovelnose sturgeon retailed in legal marketsfor approximately $10 per ounce. Caviar frompremium Caspian Sea sturgeon, on the otherhand, can retail for well over $100 per ounce.Thus, selling mislabeled North Americancaviar can significantly multiply the profits forthose involved in the crime. It is not fullyknown whether the cases cited above areisolated incidents or part of more commonschemes to exploit North American species andsell their roe under false pretenses. If it is acommon occurrence, the economic incentivesto catch paddlefish, shovelnose sturgeon, andother North American species for sale underfalse Caspian Sea labels would pose yetanother threat to North American populations.Fortunately, the USFWS National Fish andWildlife Forensic Laboratory continues torefine its methods for typing caviar to species,using DNA analysis, so that samples of falselylabeled caviar may be quickly detected whentested (Fain 1999).

Lake SturgeonAlthough most of the illegal trade in the mid-to southern Mississippi River basin in theUnited States appears to involve paddlefish andshovelnose sturgeon, in the northern reaches ofthe basin and in the Great Lakes region, therehave also been recorded cases of illegal catchand trade involving lake sturgeon.

Responding to the 2000 CITES SignificantTrade Review inquiry, almost all of the statesmentioned previously in the species’ historicsouthern range either had no records of illegalcatch or trade of lake sturgeon, or reported thatany such activity was most likely incidental tothe illegal catch of other species. The lack of

significant illegal trade is believed to reflectthe decrease in stocks throughout much of thelake sturgeon’s range, which would make itunlucrative as a specific target for poachers.

In the northern segment of the lake sturgeon’sU.S. range, Ohio reported no known poachingor illegal trade activities in Ohio’s portion ofLake Erie. Michigan reported known illegalcatch activities, particularly in spawning areas.The areas with the greatest illegal activity werereported to be Michigan’s St. Clair River, theBlack River upstream from Black Lake, andthe Sturgeon River in Baraga County,Michigan. State authorities noted thatDepartment of Natural Resources personnelare taking active measures to enforceregulations, and are also actively seeking thehelp of citizen volunteers such as the“Sturgeon for Tomorrow” group, located onthe Black River (Gary Whelan, FishProduction Manager, Michigan Department ofNatural Resources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 29, 2000). TheSturgeon for Tomorrow initiative has beenactive since 1977. Under the initiative,volunteer guards observe spawning sites for24-hour shifts during the spring spawning runs,to provide a significant deterrent to poachingactivities (Bruch 1999).

In spring 2000, the Michigan Department ofNatural Resources (DNR) arrested andsuccessfully prosecuted three individuals forillegally taking three lake sturgeon from theSturgeon River. Two of the defendants eachreceived a sentence of 30 days in jail, and werebarred from obtaining a fishing license for sevenyears. Each was also ordered to pay $1,500 inrestitution and $1,200 in fines and court costs.The third defendant, who described the eventsto authorities, received a sentence of 10 days injail, was ordered to pay $750 in restitution and$1,200 in fines and court costs, and lost theright to obtain a fishing license for four years(Nancy Auer, in litt. to Andrea Gaski,USFWS/DMA, September 11, 2000). In thespring of 2001, a man pleaded guilty to taking alake sturgeon from Lake St. Clair, in an areaknown as “the sturgeon hole,” and later hiding itin his car. For taking a sturgeon during theclosed season, he received a $2,000 fine, wasordered to pay $1,500 in restitution, and wassentenced to 30 days in jail. It is not known

179

whether these are isolated incidents, butMichigan DNR noted that similar enforcementefforts continue. The stiff penalties in thesecases indicate that the Michigan judicial systemviews lake sturgeon poaching as a seriousoffense (The Macomb Daily 2001).

Minnesota reported that state authorities believethat illegal activities do occur, but their extentwas unknown. A summary of violationsbetween 1997 and 2000 included threesummonses and five warnings for fishingwithout a license; one summons and twowarnings for fishing during a closed season;one summons for fishing with illegal equipmentor in an illegal manner; two summonses fortaking fish below the legal length limit; onewarning for no license in possession; threesummonses and one warning for fishing in aclosed area; and one summons for exceedingthe legal length limit (Linda Erickson-Eastwood, Fisheries Program Manager,Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, inlitt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 23,2000). There were no documented lawenforcement cases or prosecutions involvingillegal lake sturgeon trade.

Wisconsin reported no known cases of illegalcatch or trade of lake sturgeon as of 2000.

Unfortunately, very little information isavailable about illegal take and trade of lakesturgeon in Canadian waters. None of theprovinces contacted for the 2000 CITESSignificant Trade review provided data on thesubject. A 2002 inquiry to DFO byTRAFFIC’s Canadian representative alsoindicated that illegal catch and trade have notbeen raised as a major concern or threatregarding lake sturgeon (pers. comm., E.Cooper, TRAFFIC North America CanadaRepresentative, August 29, 2002).

To date, there have been no known cases oflake sturgeon roe being mislabeled and sold asCaspian Sea or other sturgeon caviar. Thismay be because the primary current market forlake sturgeon involves meat rather than roe.However, given the high value placed on lakesturgeon caviar historically, and the growingdemand for North American caviar, thiscircumstance may change and should bemonitored.

White SturgeonDocumented illegal activities involving whitesturgeon in recent years are largely categorizedas fisheries violations in both the United Statesand Canada, although there have been cases ofillegal trade.

In California, for example, there has beenperiodic evidence of poachers targeting gravidfemale white sturgeon for their roe in theSacramento-San Joaquin River Basin. As farback as the mid-1980s, law enforcementofficials noted the take of oversized whitesturgeon from the Columbia River’s BonnevillePool, presumably for roe. In a significant U.S.case in 1993, two Washington state fishermenand a New Jersey caviar distributor wereindicted for illegally harvesting 3,200 poundsof Columbia River caviar, worth at leastUS$2.5 million, and selling it to a distributingcompany in New Jersey. This caviar, suppliedfrom illegally caught sturgeon over a five-yearperiod, equaled the entire state of Washington’slegal caviar take, which was estimated duringthose years at approximately 650 poundsannually. Charges were eventually droppedagainst one of the fishermen, while the other,who testified on behalf of the state, pled guiltyto violating the Lacey Act and received asentence of eight months in prison and aUS$2,500 fine. The owner of the distributingcompany was found guilty of obstruction ofjustice and misdemeanor violations of theLacey Act, and was sentenced to 18 months inprison and a US$4,000 fine. His companyreceived a US$20,000 fine (Hoover 1996).

In Canada, recent press reports discussedseveral cases of illegal trade and/or possession,although there were no documentedconnections to the caviar trade. In one case, arestaurant was fined $7,000 for illegally buyingwhite sturgeon after a customer reported thefish on the restaurant’s menu. In another case,a couple was charged with illegal possession ofwhite sturgeon, after three fish were found intheir vehicle during a traffic stop; the largestfish was almost 6 feet long and weighed 45kilograms (99 pounds) (The Vancouver Sun2001). A Vancouver resident was ordered topay $5,000CAD in yet another case, afterpleading guilty to one count of illegalpossession of sturgeon. The guilty plea

180

resulted from a joint investigation of sturgeonpoaching on the Fraser River by local districtconservation officers and the Canadian DFO.On September 13, 2000, night surveillance ofset lines in the Fraser River resulted in theseizure of six live sturgeon and the arrest oftwo individuals (M2 Presswire 2000, 2001).

Overall, illegal trade has not appeared topresent a significant problem for the

management of wild white sturgeonpopulations to date. However, the recentincrease in demand for the roe of NorthAmerican sturgeon species as an alternative toimported caviar may target some NorthAmerican species, and requires vigilantmonitoring of catch and trade of all species bythe law enforcement community.

181

Captive propagation and commercialaquaculture have come to play a central role indiscussions of how best to conserve NorthAmerican paddlefish and sturgeon species. Asdiscussed here, captive propagation andcommercial aquaculture are separate, distinctactivities. In this document, captivepropagation refers to efforts to spawn and rearthreatened, endangered, vulnerable, orgenetically valuable fish species for scientificstudy, reintroduction, restoration, or stockingprograms. It is conducted primarily, but notexclusively, by state and federal fish hatcheriesand research facilities.1 Commercialaquaculture, sometimes referred to as “fishfarming,” propagates and raises fish primarilyfor commercial purposes as an addition oralternative to wild catch, and is conductedprimarily by private companies or individuals.

To date, the majority of both captivepropagation and commercial aquacultureactivities in North America have taken place inthe United States. Federal fish hatcheriesacross the continental United States areengaged in captive propagation of NorthAmerican Acipenseriformes, as well asresearch and other activities to promote theirconservation. The USFWS Fisheries Programand National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS)have been involved in the captive propagationof nine native acipenseriform species: theAlabama sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulfsturgeon, lake sturgeon, paddlefish,shovelnose sturgeon, pallid sturgeon,shortnose sturgeon, and white sturgeon. Anumber of state fish hatcheries are alsoengaged in captive propagation efforts, mostcommonly involving paddlefish and lakesturgeon, which are generally geared towardefforts to restore or reintroduce these speciesthrough stocking operations in selected waters.Commercial aquaculture ventures in theUnited States concentrate primarily on thepaddlefish and white sturgeon, although some

operations target lake sturgeon, and approvalwas recently granted for an Atlantic sturgeonoperation in Florida.

In Canada, in recent years the BritishColumbia Ministry of Environment hasundertaken hatchery-based efforts to restoreendangered white sturgeon stocks, includingproviding facilities to rear specimens of theU.S. population of Kootenai River whitesturgeon. Manitoba and Saskatchewan haveconducted some limited propagation and/orstocking of lake sturgeon in selected areas.Commercial aquaculture of Atlantic sturgeon isunderway in New Brunswick, and there arecommercial operations licensed to rear lakesturgeon in Ontario. There have also beenrecent indications of interest in commerciallyrearing white sturgeon in British Columbia.

As of 2001, there was no known captivepropagation or commercial aquaculture ofgreen sturgeon in the United States or Canada.As noted in previous sections, this species isnot well understood and not consideredparticularly valuable commercially. There aregreen sturgeon in captivity, but activitiesinvolving these fish appear to be focused onbasic research.

This section summarizes the status of variouscaptive propagation programs and commercialaquaculture ventures in the United States andCanada. It also examines some of the issuesconcerning roles and possible effects that bothpractices may have on the conservation,management, and trade in wild NorthAmerican Acipenseriformes.

6.1 Captive PropagationIn the United States, USFWS, state fishhatcheries, and private and public partners areengaged in numerous initiatives to propagatepaddlefish and sturgeon species in captivity forreintroduction, restoration, and research

183

VI. HATCHERIES ANDCOMMERCIAL AQUACULTURE

1 University research and scientific programs are not extensively addressed here.

purposes. Some of these activities are the soleresponsibility of specific agencies, while othersare joint projects involving public agencies andprivate entities. In Canada, captivepropagation of sturgeon falls primarily underthe jurisdiction of provincial wildlife andfisheries agencies.

Federal involvement in captive propagationwithin the United States is largely managedunder the purview of the USFWS FisheriesProgram, which comprises a network ofFisheries Management Offices and the NFHS.Together they provide on-the-ground fisheriesexpertise and management capabilitynationwide. Fisheries Program activitiesoperate under six priorities: recovery of ESA-listed and candidate aquatic species;restoration of depleted aquatic populations topreclude formal listing; restoration of inter-jurisdictional fisheries and aquatic ecosystems;management of inter-jurisdictional fisheries;fulfilling mitigation responsibilities; andproviding USFWS management assistance toNative American tribes and for USFWSproperty. The NFHS includes 66 FishHatcheries, seven Fish Technology Centers(FTC), and nine Fish Health Centers (FHC).FTCs and FHCs provide technical support toFish Hatcheries and other federal, state, andprivate partners in the recovery and restorationof sturgeon and other species. Together, thesecomponents play several roles in restoringsturgeon and paddlefish, including: (1)propagating imperiled sturgeon in captivity toproduce genetically appropriate fish forreintroduction; (2) developing technologies forholding, propagating, and conducting post-stock evaluations of imperiled species; (3)providing fish health diagnostics for bothhatchery-reared and imperiled wild sturgeonpopulations; and (4) maintaining imperiledsturgeon in refugia until conditions are suitablefor their reintroduction into the wild(Andreasen 1999).

For this report, USFWS provided TRAFFICwith a summary of projects regarding sturgeonand paddlefish in Fiscal Year (FY) 20002

undertaken by the Fisheries Program(USFWS/Fisheries Information System [FIS]2001). TRAFFIC also reviewed information

provided for the CITES Significant TradeReviews of several North AmericanAcipenseriformes and other reports anddocuments to compile the informationpresented herein, as well as surveying state,provincial, and federal fisheries agencies bytelephone as necessary to answer questionsabout specific species and programs. It shouldbe noted that the species summaries below aremerely a thumbnail sketch of the many wide-ranging and complex activities conducted forthe captive propagation of sturgeon andpaddlefish in North America. They areincluded here to illustrate the importance ofcaptive propagation programs to theconservation of several North Americanacipenseriform species. As in other sections ofthis report, TRAFFIC devotes particularattention to species that are in trade. Becausecaptive propagation of sturgeon is lessprevalent in Canada (e.g., there is no captivepropagation or stocking of Atlantic andshortnose sturgeon), several of the speciessummaries also tend to focus on U.S.activities. Some of the potential benefits anddrawbacks of captive propagation programs forNorth American sturgeon and paddlefishspecies are briefly discussed in Section 6.3.

Atlantic Sturgeon In the United States, one of the managementobjectives in the 1990 ASMFC FisheryManagement Plan (FMP) for Atlantic sturgeonwas to “enhance and restore Atlantic sturgeonstocks.” To that end, the FMP included threespecific recommendations: (1) encourage anexpanded aquaculture effort to developtechniques to rear Atlantic sturgeon andevaluate hatchery fish for stock restoration; (2)encourage aquaculture research to identify andcontrol early life stage diseases, synchronizespawning times of males and females, andreduce handling stress problems; and (3)establish an aquaculture and stockingcommittee to provide guidelines foraquaculture and restoration stocking ofsturgeon (ASMFC 1996, 1998b).

In response to the first two recommendations,the USFWS Northeast Fishery Center (NEFC)in Lamar, Pennsylvania, initiated Atlantic

184

2 The U.S. Fiscal Year runs from October 1 to September 30 of each year. FY 2000 began in October 1999 and ended inSeptember 2000.

sturgeon propagation research in 1991. Incollaboration with the National BiologicalService Laboratory—which has since becomethe U.S. Geological Survey, BiologicalResources Division—in Wellsborough,Pennsylvania, and others, NEFC collectedbroodfish from the Hudson River in 1991 andagain from 1993 through 1996. Sub-adultAtlantic sturgeon were also held on-site atLamar beginning in 1991, and males from thissource were induced to spermiate in 1997.Adult handling, hauling, and holding capacity,as well as short-term sperm preservationtechniques were refined, and hormone-inducedspawning with surgical removal of eggs,fertilization, egg de-adhesion and incubation,and larval and juvenile culture methods wereadapted and modified from techniquesdeveloped for white sturgeon (ASMFC 1998b).Experimental sturgeon culture was alsoconducted during the 1990s by USFWS andthe National Biological Service at sites inMassachusetts, Virginia, and South Carolina(ASMFC 1996).

Small numbers of Atlantic sturgeon wereproduced during the 1990s at the LamarNEFC, and contributed to numerouscooperative research studies. Work includedinvestigations on feed types and feeding rates,desirable rearing densities and water qualityparameters, disease challenges and treatments,and marking studies. Juvenile sturgeon notnecessary for research were stocked with statepermission into the Hudson River in 1994(5,000 at approximately three months of age)and the Nanticoke River in Maryland in 1996(3,500 at one year of age). All fish weremarked with coded wire tags, and the HudsonRiver fish were also fin-clipped. Althoughthese were not considered “restoration”stockings, the fish have provided usefulinformation about movements, distribution,and growth of young sturgeon. The relativefrequency of cultured and wild fish in HudsonRiver juvenile collections was also used todocument low natural recruitment levels in thatriver (ASMFC 1998b).

Also in 1991, in response to the thirdrecommendation of the 1990 FMP, an AtlanticSturgeon Aquaculture and Stocking Committee(ASASC) was established. The Committeepresented 34 recommendations related to the

culture and stocking of Atlantic sturgeon to theASMFC Management and Science Committeein 1992 in a report titled “RecommendationsConcerning the Culture and Stocking of AtlanticSturgeon” [ASMFC (1992), cited in ASMFC(1998b)]. These were grouped into six generalcategories, including aquaculture research anddevelopment; collection of broodstock andrelease of cultured progeny; translocation ofsturgeons and inadvertent spread of diseases;introduction of non-native sturgeons forcommercial aquaculture; collection andarchiving of tissue samples for genetic analysis;and monitoring and effectiveness of restorationprograms (ASMFC 1998b).

Many of the recommendations in the 1992report encouraged state and federal agencies todevelop techniques for broodfish collection andholding, induced spawning and spermpreservation, incubation, hatching, and rearingof Atlantic sturgeon. Recommendations forstocking the cultured fish or excess wildbroodfish, however, were cautious because ofconcerns about maintaining the genetic integrityof wild stocks, maintaining effective breedingpopulations, and preventing genetically harmfulinbreeding. The recommendations included thefollowing: (1) if management units are definedby river, then genetic integrity of stocks withinriver basins should be maintained by stockingonly progeny of native broodstock; (2) if geneticsubstructure exists, then restoration programsshould employ only genetically compatiblestocking (i.e., reintroduction of progeny culturedfrom one stock into waters inhabited by thatsame stock); (3) if native broodstock no longerexist, or are in such low abundance as topreclude effective collection, priority should begiven to stocking fish from adjacent,hydrologically similar river systems; (4)broodstock should be collected at times and innumbers that do not unduly stress the nativepopulation, yet adequately represent theinherent variation of that stock; and (5) anadequate, effective breeding population sizeshould be maintained to the extent possible inculturing Atlantic sturgeon for restorationpurposes so that the genetic integrity of the localrecipient stock is maintained (ASMFC 1996).

In a follow up to that report, the ASASCprepared, and in 1996 presented, an ASMFCBreeding and Stocking Protocol for Cultured

185

Atlantic Sturgeon. Its purpose was to furtherreview and recommend culture and stockingstrategies for Atlantic sturgeon, based upon theearlier identified need to more completelyevaluate the role of captive propagation andaquaculture in Atlantic sturgeon recovery(ASMFC 1996).

The 1996 protocol made eight specificrecommendations that built upon those made inthe 1992 report. These included, in sum andsubstance, the following:

• Whenever possible, use broodfish from thesame river in which stocking will occur.When this is not possible, the source ofbroodfish used to culture progeny shouldbe taken from the same regional groupingas the area being stocked.

• With regard to stocking programs, highestpriority should be given to populationsperceived to be extirpated, and a secondarypriority should be given to populationsexhibiting little, if any, naturalreproduction.

• The minimum generation effectivepopulation size of broodfish used in culturefor stocking programs should be 100 (withan inbreeding rate of 0.50%), year-classeffective population sizes should be at leastsix (preferably three of each sex, althoughyear-class effective population sizes of sixor greater may be obtained usingunbalanced sex ratios), but sperm frommultiple male spawners should not bemixed for artificial fertilization.

• Fishery agencies involved with stockingprograms for Atlantic sturgeon shouldcommit to the necessary number of yearsof stocking to achieve the targetedgeneration effective population size.

• If fewer breeding fish are available thanprescribed in recommendation 3, theirprogeny may be used for captive research(i.e., not released into public waters) orprovided to private aquaculture interests forcaptive use.

• Broodfish should be spawned only once,and healthy survivors should be externallymarked and returned to their river of originwhenever feasible.

• In order to avoid gene swamping fromsmall numbers of breeding pairs, numbersof progeny stocked from individual matingsin any one year should be within 50% ofeach other, not to exceed 50,000 fish perpair for each receiving water, and all fishdestined for stocking should be distinctivelymarked or tagged to at least indicate releaselocation, time, and parental origin.

• Management jurisdictions involved inculture and stocking programs for Atlanticsturgeon for research or restorationpurposes should annually monitor thestatus of their populations and the effectsof stocking, provide a detailed proposal toASMFC for review and approval, andreport monitoring results to ASMFC byJuly 1 of each year (ASMFC 1996).

• The 1996 ASMFC protocol also included atable outlining suggested potential Atlanticsturgeon donor stocks, and receiving rivers,along the U.S. Atlantic coast, which isrecreated in Table 6.1.1.

Since 1996, research has continued on theculture and captive propagation of Atlanticsturgeon. As of FY 2000, USFWS studies inFlorida facilities were testing reformulatedfeeds that support high levels of growth andsurvival of Atlantic and Gulf sturgeon. Foodwas produced at the Bozeman FTC in Montanaand shipped to cooperators for use in agreedupon studies. Work also continued at theLamar FTC in Pennsylvania to develop culturetechnology and determine growth and survivalof fry and fingerling Atlantic sturgeon reared atvarious stocking densities and fed various diets(USFWS/FIS 2001).

Gulf Sturgeon Successful captive propagation of Gulfsturgeon was first accomplished in 1989 at aportable hatchery located on the SuwanneeRiver and at the Welaka NFH in Florida. Theproject, a joint effort involving USFWS, theCaribbean Conservation Corperation (CCC),and the University of California at Davis,employed hormone-induced ovulation andspawning to produce 5,000 fry for fisheryresearch. In 1989, artificial feeding programsfor Gulf sturgeon were also developed at the

186

Welaka NFH and at the Warm SpringsRegional Fisheries Center in Georgia. In 1990,1991, and 1992, the University of Florida,USFWS, and CCC again induced spawningand produced approximately 60,000 further fryfor fish culture programs. In 1992 and 1993,captive propagation efforts also took place atthe National Biological Service, SoutheasternBiological Science Center in Gainesville,Florida (USFWS/GSMFC 1995). Captivepropagation and research continued at some ofthese facilities throughout the 1990s.

The 1995 Gulf Sturgeon Management/Recovery Plan recognized the potentialbenefits of captive propagation for the species,but, as is the case with other North Americansturgeons, also recognized the need for cautionand clear protocols in the development ofcaptive propagation programs. Among therecommendations in the plan was one thatencouraged state, federal, andnongovernmental agencies to continue todevelop culture techniques for Gulf sturgeon,in accordance with Gulf Sturgeon HatcheryGuidelines, protocols in the Hatchery Manualfor White Sturgeon addressed in the plan, andfederal and state laws and regulations. The

plan further noted the need to identify thephysical, chemical, and biological parametersnecessary to maintain the growth, health, andsurvival of captive-reared Gulf sturgeon, aswell as the need to identify and test externalmarkers or techniques to differentiate betweenwild and hatchery-produced fish(USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

The 1995 plan was similarly cautious on thequestion of stocking hatchery-reared Gulfsturgeon as a component of the species’recovery effort. The plan recommendedassessing whether such stocking would benefitthe overall recovery of the Gulf sturgeon, andconducting an evaluation of whether rivers thatmight be stocked have suitable habitat tosupport stocked fish, natural reproduction, andany progeny. It further noted that stockingshould be secondary to other recovery effortsthat identify essential sturgeon habitats andemphasize habitat restoration, and that Gulfstates resource management agencies, GSMFC,USFWS, NMFS, nongovernmentalorganizations, universities, and other involvedresearchers should prepare a hatchery andculture operations plan relating to stockingpolicy and guidelines. As with other sturgeon

187

Table 6.1.1 Suggested Atlantic Sturgeon Donor Broodfish Populations forUse in Culture and Stocking Programs in Select Atlantic CoastTributaries*

Donor Stocks Receiving Rivers Priority

Saint John River Kennebec High

Androscoggin High

Other ME/NH rivers High

Merrimack High High

Hudson River Hudson Low

Connecticut, Long Island Tributaries High

Delaware High

Chesapeake Bay High

Delaware River Chesapeake Bay and tributaries High

Delaware High

Cape Fear, other NC, Altamaha, Cape Fear, other NC High

ACE Basin, Winyah Bay system St. Marys, Savannah High

Altamaha, Ogeechee, Satilla Medium

Waccamaw/PeeDee Medium

Ashepoo, Combahee, Edisto High

Santee, St. John High

* Source: ASMFC (1996).

species, the plan was sensitive to the need tomaintain the genetic integrity of both wild andhatchery-reared stocks (USFWS/GSMFC 1995).

In a report for the Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission, Wakeford (2001)noted that discussions were ongoing about thepros and cons of a stocking program for Gulfsturgeon in Florida. The report pointed to adifficult conundrum for the fisheries agenciesinvolved. Stocking in order to restore Gulfsturgeon populations would be feasible only ifbroodstock could be obtained withoutdepleting the native Gulf sturgeon populationto the point that natural reproduction isaffected; however, it cannot be assumed thatsmall populations can be completely restoredor rehabilitated through natural reproductionalone. Furthermore, stocking can besuccessful only if habitats are present for Gulfsturgeon in all life history stages, if thehatchery-reared sturgeon survive andreproduce, if the introduced fish do notoutcompete or displace native sturgeon andother native fish species in the ecosystem, andif hatchery-reared sturgeon to be stocked aregenetically appropriate for the river systemsand physically healthy. Wakeford reported thata Florida Sturgeon Culture Risk AssessmentWorkshop in 2000 led to a “popular opinion”that a State of Florida Stock Restoration Planis needed for native sturgeon species,consistent with their overall recovery plans.

While many issues and questions remain underconsideration, work has proceeded on captivepropagation of Gulf sturgeon. USFWS/FIS(2001) reported that, as of FY 2000, theWelaka NFH in Florida held 1,200 Gulfsturgeon,3 of two year-classes, for futurebroodstock, captive propagation, and researchneeds. Efforts were underway to determinemigration patterns and habitat preference typesfor the Suwanee River wild population throughthe use of sonic and radio tags which areplaced on sturgeon that are captured and thenreleased. Tag retention has been a majorconcern. Therefore, 10 sturgeon of the 1995year-class have been used in a tag retentionstudy in cooperation with the Panama CityFisheries Resource Office (FRO). These fishwere tagged with various experimental

fasteners placed on different body locations;retention rates are being monitored. Lengthand weight differences between tagged anduntagged fish are also being recorded. Inaddition, 45 fish from the 1995 year-class arebeing raised to determine the rate of sexualmaturation in a hatchery environment(USFWS/FIS 2001).

In 2001, other reported captive Gulf sturgeonpopulations included 570 at the University ofFlorida at Gainesville, 596 at the University ofFlorida in Blountstown, 7 at the Lowry ParkZoo in Tampa, and 4 at the Florida Aquariumin Tampa (Wakeford 2001). Also as of 2000,Louisiana was searching for broodstock tobegin captive propagation of Gulf sturgeon forrecovery purposes (J. Roussel, AssistantSecretary, Office of Fisheries, LouisianaDepartment of Wildlife and Fisheries, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 25, 2000).

Shortnose Sturgeon The December 1998 NMFS Final RecoveryPlan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum) included severalrecommendations related to captivepropagation and stocking. The firstrecommendation recognized the need todevelop a breeding and stocking protocol forthe species, to ensure that the best possiblepractices are used in the production of fish forstocking should NMFS determine that it isneeded for recovery purposes. Because theshortnose sturgeon is an ESA-listed species,the plan noted that such a protocol must beconsistent with NMFS policy on artificialpropagation of threatened and endangeredspecies under the ESA. Furthermore, NMFSrecommended that procedures should followthe 1992 Breeding and Stocking Protocol forCultured Atlantic Sturgeon, that culturepractices should follow known naturalconditions, and that donor stocks should becarefully selected to best match the life historyof the fish from the recipient river system andminimize impacts of stocked fish that strayinto areas where wild shortnose sturgeon occur(NMFS 1998).

The 1998 recovery plan also recommendedconsideration of reintroducing captive-

188

3 Wakeford (2001) reported that Welaka NFH had 1,156 Gulf sturgeon.

propagated shortnose sturgeon into riversystems where the species is extirpated (ormay be so rare that the population isfunctionally extirpated). To guide such efforts,first steps would be to establish the minimumpopulation size below which restoration wouldbe considered, and to determine that sufficienthabitat is available for all life stages if NMFSconcludes that reintroduction is appropriate.All stocked fish should be tagged to allowmonitoring of survival, distribution, movementpatterns, growth, and reproduction. The planemphasized that reintroductions should beconducted only when funds are available tomonitor the success of the restoration effort(NMFS 1998).

Finally, the 1998 recovery plan recommendedassessing the need for augmenting extantshortnose sturgeon population segments withstocked fish, but only under very specificcircumstances. Similar to other sturgeonspecies, NMFS noted that “the tremendouspotential for damage to the genetic architectureof existing population segments demands thatextreme caution be used in augmentationefforts” (NMFS 1998). Therefore, accordingto the recovery plan, if a shortnose sturgeonpopulation segment is found to have anunusually low abundance of spawning adultsor juveniles, relative to available criticalhabitat, causes for the low abundance shouldbe determined. If the problem is found torelate to a correctable habitat condition, theproblem should be remedied in a timelymanner to prevent extirpation. Short-termstocking of captive-propagated fish should beused to augment an existing population whendoing so is the only reasonable manipulationthat can prevent loss of the population.

Furthermore, the NMFS plan supportedshortnose sturgeon stock augmentation onlyunder a specific set of circumstances: (1) anNMFS-approved breeding and stockingprotocol is available to guide programs; (2) anexisting population segment is in imminentdanger of extirpation; (3) essential habitats arefunctional but inaccessible to shortnosesturgeon; (4) an obstruction to movementcannot be removed in time to preventextirpation; (5) cultured fish from the natalpopulation are available; (6) short-termstocking is the only reasonable measure to

prevent loss of the population segment; and (7)any stocking effort has been approved byNMFS and a recovery implementation team.Also, in contrast to the 1996 Breeding andStocking Protocol for Atlantic Sturgeon,stocking of shortnose sturgeon should beconducted for only a brief period to minimizepotential effects of stocked fish on the wildstock, during which time a high priority wouldbe placed on minimizing or eliminating thefactors that caused the low populationabundance. In addition, all stocked fish mustbe tagged to enable future identification and toallow comparisons of the population dynamicsand behavior of stocked fish to wild shortnosesturgeon (NMFS 1998)

It should be noted that stocking of shortnosesturgeon has occurred prior to preparation andpublication of the 1998 recovery plan. Forexample, from 1984 to 1992 approximately97,000 shortnose sturgeon of various sizes(19% tagged) were stocked in the SavannahRiver along the South Carolina/Georgia border,to evaluate the potential for stock enhancement[Smith and Jenkins (1991), cited in NMFS(1998)]. A 2000 study of adult shortnosesturgeon in the Savannah River suggested thatthe river’s population was much higher than ithad been in 1992, which was attributed to thestock enhancement program rather than toimproved recruitment (Collins et al. 2001).Natural recruitment was believed to haveremained low, primarily as a result of adultbycatch in shad and shrimp fisheries, andwater quality degradation in the nursery habitatof juveniles [Collins et al. (2000), cited inCollins et al. (2001)].

Recently, Welaka NFH in Florida has workedwith the state of Florida to determine thefeasibility of recovering shortnose sturgeon inthe St. Johns River. The shortnose sturgeonhad a historical population in the river, whichis believed to be extirpated. The elimination ofthe net fishery in inland waters and theproposed removal of a dam that blocks historicspawning areas have generated interestbetween USFWS and the state for restoring thespecies within its native range. Activities up toFY 2000 centered around obtaining the permitsrequired to work with shortnose sturgeon, aswell as the development of a river samplingprotocol to determine if any remnant

189

populations survive in the river. The protocolwas developed by NMFS, and work began inFY 2001 (USFWS/FIS 2001).

Also, in FY 2000, Bears Bluff NFH in SouthCarolina produced 103,000 shortnose sturgeonfry for research efforts that included: (1)completion of a captive shortnose sturgeonspawning and conditioning protocol; (2)continuing the development of a protocol forthe production of triploid sturgeon to be usedas sentinel fish; (3) continuing thedevelopment of cryopreservation techniquesfor shortnose sturgeon; (4) developinganesthetic techniques for brood sturgeon; (5)testing a new egg hatching and fingerlingrearing system; (6) testing new broodstockfeeds and evaluating behavioral response tonew feeds; and (7) testing new feeds andfeeding regimes for a shortnose sturgeon fryand egg development/fertility study(USFWS/FIS 2001).

Orangeburg NFH, also in South Carolina,maintained 3,000 captive shortnose sturgeonbroodstock during FY 2000 for research anddevelopment purposes. In addition, the WarmSprings FHC evaluated new anesthetic andculture techniques for sturgeon species, anddeveloped methodologies for collecting necessaryphysiological data (USFWS/FIS 2001).

PaddlefishUSFWS captive propagation activitiesinvolving paddlefish have taken place at NFHSfacilities in a number of states, with anemphasis on restoring particular strains to riverswhose populations are depleted or face possibleextirpation. As of FY 2000, multiple USFWSprojects were underway in Arkansas, Louisiana,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico,Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas; some ofthe activities were conducted jointly with statewildlife agencies. In addition, several stateshave carried out independent paddlefishrestoration or stocking programs.

Several USFWS facilities have participated inefforts to conserve and restore a paddlefishpopulation in the Red River of Texas andOklahoma that is thought to face potentialextirpation. In FY 2000, Inks Dam NFH inTexas produced 381 Red River strainpaddlefish that were taken to Tishomingo NFHin Oklahoma, where they were marked and

later released into Lake Texoma-Red River. Inanother project, Tishomingo NFH released10,000 paddlefish into the upper reaches of theRed River in an effort to reestablish thepopulation above Denison Dam (LakeTexoma), and provided fry to other hatcheriesfor rearing. Paddlefish were considered locallyextirpated in this stretch of water, and FY 2000was the second year of propagating paddlefishfor the area. Post-stocking sampling indicatedthat the hatchery-reared fish were doing well inthe restoration area (USFWS/FIS 2001).

The Tishomingo FRO has made a concertedeffort to assist in recovery efforts for Red Riverstrain paddlefish. With the cooperation of afew knowledgeable anglers, in FY 2000 theFRO located and, with the help of personnelfrom the Tishomingo NFH, captured severalmature paddlefish ready to spawn. These werespawned at Natchitoches NFH in Louisiana,and the progeny were distributed to otherhatcheries for rearing. Uvalde NFH in Texasalso reared 14,792 Red River strain paddlefishand stocked them into the Red River habitatabove Lake Texoma. These fish were theprogeny of adults collected by the TishomingoFRO and spawned at Natchitoches NFH. AtUvalde, fish were raised to 12 inches andtagged using a coded wire inserted in therostrum prior to release. USFWS estimatedtag retention at 88% (USFWS/FIS 2001).

Tishomingo NFH also released 2,000paddlefish of the Arkansas River strain intoOolagah Lake in an effort to reestablish thepopulation above Oolagah Dam in theArkansas River drainage. FY 2000 was theseventh year of propagating this population ofpaddlefish, considered extirpated, forrestoration efforts. Post-stocking samplingindicated that the hatchery-reared fish weredoing well. Mora NFH and FTC in NewMexico assisted Tishomingo NFH in thedevelopment of a water conditioning system toprevent losses caused by high levels of iron inculture water and to provide paddlefish forrestoration efforts. Also in FY 2000, NeoshoNFH in Missouri contributed to the effort byproducing, tagging, and stocking 2,500 10-inchpaddlefish as part of the restoration programfor the Oolagah Federal Reservoir, as well asshipping over 700,000 eggs and fry to otherfacilities (USFWS/FIS 2001).

190

Private John Allen NFH in Mississippiproduced 8,300 paddlefish fingerlings in FY2000 which were provided to the LouisianaDepartment of Wildlife for stocking in theMermentau River system in southwestLouisiana. Of these, 3,892 fish were stockedat 10 inches, and the remainder transferred toMammoth Springs NFH in Arkansas(USFWS/FIS 2001).

Using MICRA guidelines, Mammoth SpringNFH also worked to develop advancedspawning and rearing techniques forpaddlefish. Mammoth Spring is responsiblefor a MICRA paddlefish productioncommitment for the states of Arkansas,Missouri, and Louisiana, as well as providingadditional fish for research. The purpose ofthe production commitment was to enablestocking in reservoirs linked to tributaries ofthe Mississippi River. Over the past severalyears, the hatchery has been so successful inproducing paddlefish that it was one of theleading hatcheries for the species. In FY 2000,Mammoth Spring NFH stocked 38,460 12-inchpaddlefish in Beaver Reservoir to supportpaddlefish restoration programs in the lowerMississippi River Basin, raised 5,000paddlefish for the Mermantau River inLouisiana, and provided 30 sub-adult fish tothe Army Corps of Engineers Research Lab forstream flow studies (USFWS/FIS 2001).

Natchitoches NFH in Louisiana spawned RedRiver stock for the first time in FY 2000, andsupplied fry to Mammoth Spring NFH, PrivateJohn Allen NFH, and Tishomingo NFH (seeabove), as well as Booker Fowler State FishHatchery (SFH) in Louisiana. FY 2000activities included distributing 313,509paddlefish fry to the three NFHs for grow-out,distributing 31,385 advanced paddlefishfingerlings to one NFH and Booker FowlerSFH, and distributing 12,008 10-inch taggedpaddlefish (USFWS/FIS 2001).

In recent years, Gavins Point NFH in SouthDakota has accomplished spawning, eggincubation, hatching, intensive and extensiverearing, and stocking of paddlefish. Ongoingprojects as of FY 2000 included tagging, dietand nutritional studies, disease identificationand treatment, monitoring, photographicdocumentation, skeletal development studies,public awareness and outreach programs, and

cooperative research. In FY 2000, 2,702fingerlings were stocked in the Missouri River,and 150,000 fry were provided to LinesvilleSFH for Ohio River restoration efforts. Anadditional 684 fingerlings and 107,568 eggswere provided for research, public outreach, andgenetic studies. The Bozeman FHC in Montanamonitors captive stock propagated at GavinsPoint NFH for regulated fish pathogens beforethe hatchery conducted any releases. The FHChas also performed monitoring and diagnosticson free-ranging paddlefish in the upper MissouriRiver Basin (USFWS/FIS 2001).

At the state level, captive propagation orstocking efforts to restore or enhancepaddlefish populations have taken place in anumber of jurisdictions in the past twodecades, often in collaboration with USFWS.Hesse and Carreiro (1997) reported that duringthe early and mid-1990s, states with stockingprograms included Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana,Missouri, New York, North Dakota, Ohio(1992), Pennsylvania (from 1991 through1995), South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.As reported in their survey, Alabama, Illinois,Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi,Montana, Nebraska, and Wisconsin did notemploy captive propagation or stocking ofpaddlefish as a management tool during thisperiod, although some of these states may havehad programs earlier.

Stocking programs during the survey periodwere substantial in some states. For example,between 1989 and 1996, 1,027,328 paddlefishwere stocked in Texas rivers, including theTrinity River, Neches/Angelina River, SabineRiver, Big Cypress Bayou, and Sulphur River(Hesse and Carreiro 1997). When combinedwith the USFWS efforts to restore the RedRiver strain of paddlefish in Texas, it wouldappear that the state’s paddlefish restorationprogram during the 1990s was based largely onstocking. In other states, stocking was farmore limited. Hesse and Carreiro reported, forinstance, that Ohio stocked paddlefish only in1992, while Arkansas had a limited stockingprogram that was considered a secondarypriority to habitat restoration.

In late 2002 and early 2003, TRAFFICconducted a telephone survey of state andprovincial fisheries and wildlife agencies in theUnited States and Canada to inquire about the

191

status of captive propagation and stockingprograms for native Acipenseriformes.4 Thesurvey found that some U.S. states that hadstocked paddlefish prior to or during the 1990shave ceased such activities. Among the statesthat had reported rearing and stockingpaddlefish in the Hesse and Carreiro (1997)survey, TRAFFIC found no stocking currentlytaking place in Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri,North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas(which discontinued stocking in 2000)(TRAFFIC telephone survey of state fish andwildlife agencies, 2002–2003).

Information provided for TRAFFIC’s survey,state responses to the 2000 CITES SignificantTrade Review, and data from other sourcesindicate that captive propagation and/orstocking programs involving paddlefish areongoing in Louisiana, Kansas, Oklahoma,New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, andWest Virginia.

Responding to the 2000 CITES SignificantTrade Review for paddlefish, Louisianareported the continuation of its long-termprogram to propagate paddlefish for restorationpurposes, in cooperation with USFWS. Statepropagation efforts have been centered at theBooker Fowler SFH in Woodworth, Louisiana,with fish produced being reintroduced intoportions of their range where they are nolonger found, or where population declines areevident (J. Roussel, Assistant Secretary, Officeof Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Wildlifeand Fisheries, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 25, 2000). As of 2002,the state reported the production of some50,000 to 100,000 paddlefish per year (pers.comm., B. Reed, Louisiana Department ofWildlife and Fisheries, September 2002). TheLouisiana Inland Fish Division has alsoparticipated actively in a large-scale, basin-wide tagging study being undertaken under theauspices of MICRA (J. Roussel, AssistantSecretary, Office of Fisheries, LouisianaDepartment of Wildlife and Fisheries, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 25, 2000).

Kansas reported rearing paddlefish forrestoration purposes at the Milford FishHatchery in Junction City, Kansas during theyears 1992 to 2000, with broodstock obtained

from Missouri and Oklahoma. State policyrequired that the fish be obtained from thenearest existing stock for restoration, and allstocked fish had to have coded wire tagsfollowing procedures established by theMICRA paddlefish/sturgeon subcommittee.The state reported that the Arkansas Riverpopulation is the result of stocking efforts inKaw River, Oklahoma, by the KansasDepartment of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP)and the Oklahoma Department of WildlifeConservation; some of the fish reared at theMilford Hatchery originated from broodstockcollected at Grand Lake, Oklahoma (T.Mosher, Fisheries Research Coordinator,KDWP, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA,August 17, 2000).

The state also has two paddlefish populationsegments in the Kansas River. The populationbelow the Bowersock Dam at Lawrence,Kansas is a combination of naturally occurringfish from the Missouri River and stocked fishthat escaped from Turtle Creek Reservoir. Thebrood source for these fish was the Blind PonyHatchery operated by the Missouri Departmentof Conservation; young were reared at theMilford Hatchery in Kansas. Similarly, theMarais des Cygnes population resulted fromspawning runs from Truman Reservoir,Missouri. Where once this populationreproduced naturally, today it is maintainedprimarily through stocking by the MissouriDepartment of Conservation. In most years,movement is blocked by the Osawotomie Dam,but paddlefish have been recorded upstreamduring high flood years. The state’s NeoshoRiver population, like that in the Kansas River,can also be divided into two segments. In1995 and 2000, the KDWP stocked paddlefishinto the John Redmond Reservoir, wherelimited reproduction has been recorded. Thebroodstock for these paddlefish came fromGrand Lake, Oklahoma and were raised at theMilford Hatchery. There is also a secondpopulation that migrates from Grand Lake intothe lower Neosho River, where the snag fisherysummarized in Section IV takes place (T.Mosher, Fisheries Research Coordinator,KDWP, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA,August 17, 2000).

192

4 U.S. states and Canadian provinces surveyed by TRAFFIC are listed at the end of the References section of this report.

Table 6.1.2 summarizes paddlefish stocking bythe KDWP in Kansas and Oklahoma from1992 through 2000. Kansas has not stockedpaddlefish since 2000. The state has continuedto try to rear fish at the Milford Hatchery, buthas had poor survival rates of eggs and youngduring the past few years (pers. comm., T.Mosher, KDWP, September, 2002).

Oklahoma also reported use of captivepropagation and stocking of paddlefish as anessential conservation and management tool.As noted above, Oklahoma is working withboth the federal government and neighboringstates such as Kansas to reintroduce nativepaddlefish strains back into portions of theirrange where they have been extirpated or arerare. Table 6.1.3 summarizes recentreintroduction efforts in Oklahoma.

Both New York and Pennsylvania haveemployed captive propagation and stocking torestore paddlefish populations to waters inwhich the species has been consideredextirpated. In New York, where the specieswas believed extirpated by the early 1900s, arestoration program based on stocking ofpaddlefish fingerlings was initiated in 1998. Atotal of 713 paddlefish were stocked in NewYork between 1998 and 2000, and in 2001 thestate reported stocking 1,878 paddlefish inKinzua Reservoir. Stocking was expected tocontinue at least through 2002 (Henley et al. inpress; NYS/DEC 2002a). If there turns out tobe a meaningful rate of survival of the stockedfish, the state anticipates taking measures toprohibit harvest of the species (Patrick Festa,Inland Fisheries Management Section,

193

Table 6.1.2 Paddlefish Stocking by Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parksin Kansas and Oklahoma, 1992–2000*

Location Year Number Source

Arkansas River, OK 1992 10,150 Blind Pony, MO

Arkansas River, OK 1992 7,850 Tishimingo National Fish Hatchery

Turtle Creek Reservoir 1992 4,267 Blind Pony, MO

Arkansas River, OK 1993 681 Gavins Pt. National Fish Hatchery

Arkansas River, OK 1993 11,004 Blind Pony, MO

Arkansas River, OK 1994 10,458 Tishimingo National Fish Hatchery

Turtle Creek Reservoir 1994 6,460 Blind Pony, MO

Turtle Creek Reservoir 1995 5,470 Blind Pony, MO

John Redmond Reservoir 1995 726 Blind Pony, MO

John Redmond Reservoir 2000 7,100 Grand Lake, OK

* Source: T. Mosher, Fisheries Research Coordinator, KDWP, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 17, 2000.

Table 6.1.3 Oklahoma Reservoirs with Paddlefish Reintroduced*

Number of Paddlefish Reintroduced by Reservoir

Year Kaw Reservoir Oologah Reservoir Texhoma Reservoir

1992 18,890 — —

1993 25,185 — —

1994 16,750 — —

1995 2,013 5,974 —

1996 — 112 —

1997 — 10,719 —

1998 — 2,037 —

1999 — 8,837 5,757

2000 — 3,450 20,846

* Source: Kim E. Erickson, Chief, Fisheries Division, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA,August 28, 2000.

Department of Environmental Conservation, inlitt. to Teiko Saito USFWS/OMA, August 22,2000). Experimental culture of paddlefish isunderway at the Oneida SFH in OswegoCounty (NYS/DEC 2002b).

Pennsylvania, which reported the lastdocumentation of native paddlefish in 1919,has continued a long-term restoration programfor paddlefish in the major rivers of westernPennsylvania, primarily the Allegheny andOhio Rivers. Begun in 1991, the program hasreceived paddlefish fry from the Gavins PointNFH in South Dakota. The fish are grown outat the Linesville Fish Culture Station, taggedwith coded wire, and released. Between 1991and 2001, the Pennsylvania Fish and BoatCommission stocked 70,417 paddlefish in theupper reaches of the Ohio and Allegheny rivers

(Parr 1999; Henley et al. in press). The efforthas centered on establishing a spawningpopulation and then managing it on a self-sustaining basis. Given the number of yearsthat the program has been underway, it ispossible that individuals have reached sexualmaturity (Richard Snyder, Chief, Division ofFisheries Management, Pennsylvania Fish andBoat Commission, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 15, 2000).

South Dakota has undertaken an active, long-term stocking program in the Missouri Riversystem. As shown in Table 6.1.4, between1985 and 1992 the state regularly stockedfingerlings and fry in several water bodies.Since 1993, South Dakota stockings haveconcentrated on the release of fingerlings intothe Francis Case Reservoir.

194

Table 6.1.4 South Dakota Paddlefish Stockings, 1985–2002*

Year Water Body Size Number Stocked

1985 Francis Case Fingerling 27,316White River Fingerling 24,000

1986 Francis Case Fingerling 39,845White River Fingerling 12,350

Ft. Randall Tailwaters Fingerling 5,000

1987 Lewis and Clark Fingerling 8,500

1988 Francis Case Fry 400,000White River Fry 680,000

Lewis and Clark Fingerling 22,212

1989 Lewis and Clark Fingerling 19,980Ft. Randall Tailwaters Fingerling 20,000

1990 Francis Case Fry 180,000Francis Case Fingerling 3,418

Ft. Randall Tailwaters Fingerling 17,257

1991 Francis Case Fingerling 49,460Lewis and Clark Fingerling 24,690

1992 Francis Case Fingerling 20,218Ft. Randall Tailwaters Fingerling 17,980

Lewis and Clark Fingerling Fingerling 3,439

1993 Francis Case Fingerling 23,310

1994 Francis Case Fingerling 21,394

1995 Francis Case Fingerling 28,934

1996 Francis Case Fingerling 11,731

1997 Francis Case Fingerling 13,810

1998 Francis Case Fingerling 13,271

1999 Francis Case Fingerling 32,646

2000 Francis Case Fingerling 2,702

2001 Francis Case Fingerling 538

2002 Francis Case Fingerling 1,597

* Source: C. Stone, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, in litt. to TRAFFIC North America, January 2003.

West Virginia began stocking paddlefish in1992 as a component of recovery efforts forthe species, which is considered rare in thestate. The West Virginia Division of NaturalResources has conducted these stockings withthe goal of restoring paddlefish to levels thatwill permit sport fishing (Henley et al. inpress). In recent years paddlefish have beenreleased in the Ohio, Kanawha, andMonongahela rivers. In 2000 and 2001,paddlefish stocking concentrated in the OhioRiver (309 paddlefish in 2000; 267 paddlefishin 2001). In 2002, 4,386 paddlefish werestocked by the state, including 2,171 in theOhio River, 2,009 in the Kanawha River, and206 in the Monongahela River (pers. comm.,C. O’Bara, West Virginia Division of NaturalResources, January 2003).

Shovelnose SturgeonCaptive propagation of shovelnose sturgeonhas not been a priority for the USFWSFisheries Program. USFWS interest inshovelnose sturgeon has primarily involvedtheir use as a surrogate for pallid sturgeon inresearch on iridoviruses, in the development ofculture techniques, and in studies on thegenetic distinction and hybridization ofsturgeon species of the genus Scaphirhynchus(USFWS 2000h; USFWS/FIS 2001).

Shovelnose sturgeon have, however, beenpropagated at Gavins Point NFH, NatchitochesNFH, and Garrison Dam NFH. Hesse andCarreiro (1997) reported that the Gavins PointNFH broodstock originated in the MissouriRiver reach between Lewis and Clark Lake andthe Yellowstone River; the Natchitoches NFHbroodstock came from the Old River ControlComplex (ORCC) in Louisiana; and theGarrison Dam NFH broodstock came from theMissouri and Yellowstone Rivers.

One state with an active stocking program hasbeen Wyoming, where efforts haveconcentrated within the Big Horn Basin.Figures provided by the Wyoming Departmentof Game and Fish show the cumulativestocking of 375,000 fry between 1996 and1998; 10,177 fingerlings in 1997 and 1998;and 3,384 juveniles from 1996 to 1998. In2002 the state stocked 1,300 juveniles in theBig Horn River. Normal stocking has occurredeither in the Big Horn River from Worland to

Big Horn Lake or in the Nowood River severalmiles up from the confluence with the BigHorn River (pers. comm., S. Yekel, WyomingDepartment of Game and Fish, January 2003).Hesse and Carreiro (1997) also reported thestocking of fry from the Garrison Dam NFHinto the Powder River in the 1990s.Shovelnose sturgeon produced fromYellowstone River broodstock and reared atGavins Point NFH that were stocked into theBig Horn River in 1998 were reported to bedoing well based on growth rates andrecaptures that suggested a wide distribution(USFWS 2000h). Wyoming will continue tostock shovelnose sturgeon as part of a five toseven year program, subject to the availabilityof fish from hatcheries (pers. comm., S. Yekel,Wyoming Department of Game and Fish,January 2003).

West Virginia began stocking shovelnosesturgeon in 2002, when 40 fish were releasedin the Kanawha River. The source of thebroodstock was the Wabash River. The stateanticipates continuing to stock shovelnosesturgeon in future years (pers. comm., C.O’Bara, West Virginia Division of NaturalResources, January 2003).

Ohio is also propagating shovelnose sturgeon,which are listed as a state endangered species,for reintroduction purposes (pers. comm., R.Sanders, Ohio Department of NaturalResources, September 2002).

Alabama Sturgeon One of the stated goals of the ConservationAgreement for the Alabama Sturgeon(Scaphirynchus suttkusi), signed in February2000 (see Section IV of this report for details)was to restore and maintain sufficient numbersof Alabama sturgeon in the lower Alabama Riverso as to ensure its long-term survival, byincreasing the number of sturgeon throughhatchery propagation and augmentation (Anon.2000b). The agreement recognized that thespecies’ depressed population size and anapparent inability to offset mortality rates withnatural reproduction, likely caused by thedestruction or modification of its habitat, posed agrave threat to the Alabama sturgeon’s survival.

As part of the recovery strategy for theAlabama sturgeon, federal, state, and

195

nongovernmental partners agreed to workcooperatively to collect broodstock andimplement a hatchery program to produceyoung that can be stocked throughout theirhistoric range. Partners in the effort includedUSFWS, the Alabama Department ofConservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR)Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, theAlabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition, andothers (Anon. 2000b).

Ongoing work at Warm Springs NFH inGeorgia to improve and refine spawning andculture techniques for paddlefish and sturgeonspecies, including the Alabama sturgeon, hasbeen part of the recovery effort (USFWS/FIS2001). Since 1997, ADCNR has coordinatedan intensive effort to collect broodstock, whichresulted in the capture of four Alabamasturgeon for captive propagation purposes fromthe late 1990s to 2001 (Anon. 1999a, 2000b;Moss 2001). Fish collected have been held atthe Marion SFH, which was modified tomaintain and propagate Alabama sturgeon. Amature male and female sturgeon collectedduring 1997 were induced to spawn in March1999. The female produced more than 4,000eggs, but the male failed to produce sperm andthe fertilization attempt was unsuccessful. Thecaptive female died in April 1999, and as of2000 two males remained in captivity (Anon.2000b). Collection and captive propagationefforts continue to be central to the species’recovery strategy.

Pallid Sturgeon Until recently, there was no confirmedreproduction in remnant wild pallid sturgeonpopulations. The first-ever reported capture ofa young-of-the-year pallid sturgeon did notoccur until July 1998 in the Mississippi Riversouth of Cape Girardeau, Missouri (USFWS1999b). In 1998 and 1999, a total of threelarval pallid sturgeon were collected in thelower Missouri River; this was the firstdocumented evidence of natural reproductionin that river section (USFWS 2000h). Giventhe scant evidence of wild reproduction,species research and captive propagation havebeen considered essential to the continuedexistence of the species.

The first successful hatchery rearing of pallidsturgeon progeny occurred in 1992. The 1993USFWS Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Planexplicitly endorsed captive propagation as arecovery tool. The plan called for thedevelopment of a pallid sturgeon propagationand stocking program; a tagging protocol forstocked fish; and the provision of financialresources to hatcheries for structuralmodifications, operations, and maintenance. Italso called for research into methods toimprove spawning, culture, and rearing ofpallid sturgeon in hatcheries, as well asconducting reintroduction/augmentationprograms in accordance with a stocking planapproved by federal and state authorities. Aswith other sturgeon species, the planemphasized that “maintenance of geneticfitness must not be compromised throughstocking efforts.” These steps were part of anoverall short-term recovery objective to preventspecies extinction by establishing at least threecaptive broodstock populations in separatehatcheries by 1998 (USFWS 1993).

USFWS, in conjunction with state wildlifeagencies and other partners, has activelyengaged in pallid sturgeon captive propagationand stocking efforts since the publication ofthe recovery plan. The primary NFHs involvedin the captive rearing of pallid sturgeon havebeen Natchitoches in Louisiana, Gavins Pointin South Dakota, and Garrison Dam in NorthDakota. Missouri’s Blind Pony SFH has alsobeen actively involved in rearing and stockingcaptive-propagated pallid sturgeon (USFWS1999b, 2000h, 2002e).

States that have stocked pallid sturgeon as partof research and recovery efforts includeLouisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, NorthDakota, and South Dakota. For example,approximately 7,000 pallid sturgeon fingerlingsreared at Blind Pony hatchery in 1992 werestocked into the Missouri and Mississippi riversin 1994. An additional 3,000 pallid sturgeonfrom the same hatchery were stocked into thesame rivers in 1997. In 1997 and 1998,hatchery- reared pallid sturgeon were alsoreleased into the Platte River in Nebraska, theMissouri River above Fort Peck Reservoir, theLower Yellowstone River and the MissouriRiver between Lake Sakakawea and Fort PeckDam, and the Lower Mississippi River near the

196

ORCC in Concordia Parish, Louisiana(USFWS 1999b, 2000h, 2002e).

While reintroduction and augmentationprojects continued into 1999 and 2000, thediscovery of an iridovirus in shovelnosesturgeon at the Gavins Point NFH and pallidsturgeon at the Garrison Dam NFH in thoseyears created serious concerns and hamperedthe recovery effort. Both the 1999 and 2000year-classes of pallid sturgeon spawned andcultured at the Garrison Dam NFH weredestroyed in the spring of 2001 because of thevirus. Fortunately, pallid sturgeon spawned atthe Gavins Point NFH during these years didnot experience any disease problems, whichallowed limited stocking to continue in theLower Missouri and Yellowstone rivers in 2000(USFWS 2000h, 2002e). However, thediscovery of the iridovirus points to the needfor caution and careful monitoring of captivepropagation and stocking efforts.

Lake Sturgeon Similar to paddlefish, captive propagation andstocking of lake sturgeon has been employed asa management or recovery tool by some U.S.states within the species’ range, but not all.Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York,Tennessee, and Wisconsin have been particularlyactive in captive propagation efforts or stockingprograms. In Ohio, some lake sturgeon arebeing reared at Ohio State University, but thesefish are not being released because they are notfrom the same strain as native stocks (pers.comm., R. Sanders, Ohio Department of NaturalResources, September 2002).

Michigan produces lake sturgeon only at theWolf Lake Fish Hatchery in Mattawan,Michigan. All eggs in the state’s program areobtained from wild stocks that are consideredto be in good condition from a populationperspective. Since 1995, the MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources (DNR) hasbeen working to determine the genetic stockstructure of Michigan’s lake sturgeonpopulations, and this has been largelycompleted with the assistance of MichiganState University. Currently, only fish fromappropriate genetic stocks are planted inMichigan waters (pers. comm., G. Whelan,Fish Production Manager, Michigan DNR,February 2003).

During the period 1990 to 2001, the state’s fishstocking database recorded 23 releases,totaling 79,407 lake sturgeon, into 10Michigan water bodies in nine counties.According to the database, releases occurredfrom 1990 through 1995, and then again from1998 through 2001. The size of the fishreleased varied, ranging from an average of2.68 inches (5,137 fish released in MullettLake in 1990) to 15.8 inches (12 fish releasedinto the Ontonagon River in 2001).Information from the database, supplementedby further data provided by the MichiganDNR, also show the strains of lake sturgeonreleased since 1994, which included BlackLake–Cheboygan County, MenomineeRiver–Menominee County, SturgeonRiver–Baraga County, and the St. ClairRiver–St. Clair County (Michigan DNR 2002;pers. comm., G. Whelan, Fish ProductionManager, Michigan DNR, February 2003).Table 6.1.5 shows Michigan stockings of lakesturgeon during the years 1990–2001.

Minnesota has been involved in a cooperativeprogram to restock the St. Louis River nearDuluth. The broodstock came from aMichigan source connected to Lake Superior.Restocking efforts have also involvedtransferring juvenile lake sturgeon from theRainy River to the Otter Tail River and BigDetroit Lake in Minnesota (Linda Erickson-Eastwood, Fisheries Program Manager,Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August23, 2000). In 1998, the state of Minnesotastocked 25 adult lake sturgeon into Big DetroitLake and 172 adults into the Otter Tail River(Minnesota DNR 2002).

In the late 1990s, USFWS and the White EarthIndian Reservation also worked with FirstNations partners in Ontario to restock WhiteEarth and Round Lakes in Minnesota withfingerling lake sturgeon. The source of the fishwas the Canadian waters of the Rainy River(Linda Erickson-Eastwood, Fisheries ProgramManager, Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 23, 2000).

Records provided by Missouri reported thestocking of approximately 164,000 lakesturgeon in the Mississippi and Missouri riversbetween 1984 and 2000. According to a lake

197

sturgeon stocking history provided by theMissouri Department of Conservation,stockings of lake sturgeon over six inches longtook place in 1984 (12,279 fish), 1985 (373fish), 1986 (10,763 fish), 1988 (9,503 fish),1989 (47 fish), 1990 (11,000 fish), 1991(15,103 fish), 1992 (11,036 fish), 1993 (8,514fish), 1994 (21,088 fish), 1995 (35,164 fish),and 1996 (9,012 fish). In addition, thestocking history showed stockings of lakesturgeon under six inches in 1984, 1985, 1992,1993, and 1995. The predominant source ofthese fish appeared to be lake sturgeon eggsprovided regularly to the Blind Pony SFH bythe Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources (Kim Graham, Missouri Departmentof Conservation, in litt. USFWS/OMA, August2000; USFWS 2000h).

The New York Department of EnvironmentalConservation has worked with USFWS andothers to use captive propagation of lakesturgeon to reestablish populations in selectedtributaries of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence

River, including the Oswegatchie River, BlackLake, the St. Regis River, Oneida Lake, andCayuga Lake. Survival rates among releasedlake sturgeon has been reported as high, andpopulations are believed to be building. Lakesturgeon eggs for this program are collectedfrom wild stocks in the St. Lawrence River.The state does not maintain a captivebroodstock, although some experimental cultureof lake sturgeon has been conducted at theOneida SFH in Oswego County (NYS/DEC1999, 2002a; Patrick Festa, Inland FisheriesManagement Section, Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, in litt. to TeikoSaito USFWS/OMA, August 22, 2000).

Pittsford NFH in Vermont has participated inNew York’s effort by rearing St. LawrenceRiver strain lake sturgeon for the restorationprogram in the St. Lawrence River and itstributaries in the state of New York. These fishhave not been released in Vermont waters(Chet MacKenzie, Vermont Department of Fishand Wildlife, in litt. to Teiko Saito,

198

Table 6.1.5 Michigan Stocking of Lake Sturgeon, 1990–2001*

Year County Water Body Strain Number Average Length

1990 Cheboygan Mullett Lake N/A 5,137 2.68Cheboygan Burt Lake N/A 5,010 3.36

Luce Big Manastique Lake N/A 6,898 3.40

1991 Delta Lake Michigan N/A 4 10.60Otsego Otsego Lake N/A 7,062 2.72

1992 Otsego Otsego Lake N/A 2,751 5.44

1993 Luce Big Manastique Lake N/A 7,636 4.24Otsego Otsego Lake N/A 1,998 3.96Otsego Otsego Lake N/A 1,998 4.96

1994 Dickinson Menominee River Menominee River 12 11.72Dickinson Menominee River Menominee River 412 7.12

1995 Dickinson Menominee River Menominee River 478 5.60Dickinson Menominee River Menominee River 4,494 7.64Dickinson Menominee River Menominee River 9,900 6.08

1996 — — — — —

1997 — — — — —

1998 Baraga Sturgeon River Sturgeon River 700 4.76Ontonagon Ontonagon River Sturgeon River 6,065 4.76

1999 Menominee Menominee River Menominee River 591 12.72Ontonagon Ontonagon River Sturgeon River 2,820 5.32

St. Clair St. Clair River St. Clair River 3,565 5.32

2000 Ontonagon Ontonagon River Sturgeon River 7,518 8.00

2001 Cheboygan Black River Black Lake 890 5.80Ontonagon Ontonagon River Sturgeon River 12 15.80Ontonagon Ontonagon River Sturgeon River 3,456 8.48

Key: N/A = Not available.* Source: Michigan DNR (2002); pers. comm., G. Whelan, Fish Production Manager, Michigan DNR, February 2003.

USFWS/OMA, August 30, 2000). PittsfordNFH has also investigated new lake sturgeonculture techniques and starter diet success withlake sturgeon fry (USFWS/FIS 2001).

Tennessee’s lake sturgeon restoration project,which has been based on captive propagation,is an example of broad-based public-privatecollaboration. The Tennessee Aquarium andits research unit, SARI, are cooperating withUSFWS, the World Wildlife Fund, theTennessee Valley Authority (TVA), theTennessee Wildlife Resources Agency(TWRA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),and the Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources in an effort to reintroduce lakesturgeon to a portion of its native habitat innortheastern Tennessee.

It is believed that lake sturgeon were oncecommon in the Tennessee River system [Etnierand Starnes (1993), cited by Benz (2001)],with location records as far upriver as theNorth Carolina portion of the French BroadRiver. Since the mid-1900s, there are only ahandful of lake sturgeon records from theTennessee River system, and most specimensseen during the last decade probably representsome of the Wisconsin-origin eggs that werehatched and subsequently released (over 3,850individuals) into the Clinch River above NorrisReservoir by the Tennessee Valley Authority(TVA) in 1992 (pers. comm., C. Saylor, TVA,cited by Benz 2001).

In recent years, a number of favorableconditions have made it possible to considerreestablishing lake sturgeon in the upperTennessee River system. For example, fishingis now more tightly regulated, water qualitywithin the Tennessee River has improvedthroughout the past few decades, and there is anappropriate stock of lake sturgeon available todrive reintroduction efforts. Also,governmental and non-governmental agenciesand organizations dedicated program resourcesfor a reintroduction project (Benz 2001).

A 1998 pilot project marked the beginning of along-term lake sturgeon reintroductionprogram with a primary objective ofestablishing a self-sustaining population oflake sturgeon within the upper Tennessee Riversystem. The decision to use Wisconsin-originlake sturgeon for reintroduction purposes inthis system was based on factors related to

availability, genetic representation within theupper Tennessee River system, and the lack ofavailability of lake sturgeon from closer waters(Benz 2001).

During the years 1998 through 2001, sturgeoneggs obtained from Wisconsin were hatchedand reared in spring-fed raceways at the SARIfacility in Cohutta, Georgia. The program’sfirst sizable fish releases took place during thesummer of 2000, when 1,200 one-year-old lakesturgeon were stocked into the French BroadRiver. All fish were marked with internal wiretags. As of 2001, no sightings of deadsturgeon were reported from the stretch of riverwhere the fish were released, and two taggedsturgeon were captured during limitedsampling aimed at documenting the survival ofthis cohort (Benz 2001).

During 1999 and 2000, several dozen juvenilesturgeon were also implanted with radio tagsand released into the French Broad River tobegin gathering information regarding survivaland habitat use. In FY 2000, Warm SpringsNFH participated by providing 24 lakesturgeon to Tennessee TechnologicalUniversity and SARI for this biotelemetrystudy in the lower French Broad River,Tennessee (USFWS/FIS 2001). These studieshave indicated high survival rates of taggedfish. The sturgeon also appear capable ofutilizing a lengthy stretch of habitat within theupper Tennessee River system (Benz 2001).

In Wisconsin, the White Rose hatcherypropagates several lots of sturgeon fromdifferent water bodies for restoration purposes.Under state regulations, fish can only bestocked into the same basin—no inter-basintransfers are allowed in the state. However, aspreviously summarized, lake sturgeon fromWisconsin are used in restocking programs inother states such as Missouri and Tennessee(Benz 2001). Along with the state hatchery, inFY 2000, Neosho NFH produced, tagged, andstocked 3,000 six-inch lake sturgeon as part ofa restoration effort for Legend Lake on theMenominee Indian Nation Reservation inWisconsin. This was a cooperative effort withthe Genoa NFH and the LaCrosse FRO inWisconsin. Genoa NFH also produced about5,000 lake sturgeon of the Wolf River strainand released them in waters on MenomineeIndian Nation lands, transferred 15,000 lake

199

sturgeon fry to Neosho NFH for use in thatfacility’s propagation program, and transferred25,000 lake sturgeon eggs to the UpperMidwest Environmental Science Center inLaCrosse, Wisconsin (USFWS/FIS 2001).

In Canada, TRAFFIC’s 2002–2003 telephonesurvey of fish culture specialists and hatcherymanagers in provinces within the range of thelake sturgeon found limited captivepropagation and stocking. TRAFFIC’s surveyfound no captive propagation or stocking oflake sturgeon currently underway in Alberta,Ontario, or Quebec. In recent yearsSaskatchewan has conducted some limitedstocking of lake sturgeon in the CumberlandDelta area of the Saskatchewan River system,including 32,900 fry stocked in 1999, and 300fingerlings and 22,000 fry stocked in 2000. Todate, the fish have come from hatcheries inManitoba, but the province plans on beginninga program to rear lake sturgeon in the summerof 2003 (pers. comm., J. Banks, SaskatchewanDepartment of Environment, January 2003).Manitoba reported some limited captivepropagation and stocking in northernprovincial waters, often in conjunction witheducational efforts and a componentemphasizing the traditional cultural value oflake sturgeon (pers. comm., B. Scaife,Manitoba Conservation, February 2003).

White Sturgeon In FY 2000, Abernathy National SalmonTechnical Center in Washington caught wildadult Columbia River sturgeon for use asbroodstock. The adults were released afterspawning. Fish produced from this effort willbe used to restore declining Columbia Riverpopulations. In FY 2000, the Idaho FHCsuccessfully spawned 5 female and 11 maleKootenai River white sturgeon, and assisted inthe release of eight family groups to promoterecovery efforts (USFWS/FIS 2001).

Several cooperative initiatives have also beenconducted with public and private partners topromote recovery of the Kootenai Riverpopulation of white sturgeon. The primaryactivities have taken place in Idaho and BritishColumbia, where the Idaho Department of Fishand Game, the B.C. Ministry of Environment,the B.C. Ministry of Fisheries, and theKootenai Tribe, together with federal

authorities, are collaborating on thepropagation and stocking of white sturgeon inthe Kootenai River. As seen in Section 5.3 ofthis report under Legal Trade, in 1999 theKootenai Tribe exported some 80,000 fertilizedeggs to British Columbia managementauthorities who are involved in a cooperativecaptive propagation and recovery program withU.S. management authorities.

The Idaho FHC is also a cooperating partner ina program funded by the Bonneville PowerAdministration to prevent extinction, preserveremaining genetic variability, and rebuild thenatural age class structure of the KootenaiRiver white sturgeon population. Idaho FHCis working with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho tocollect samples from spawning adult sturgeon,as well as monitoring and pre-release sampleson juvenile sturgeon. Idaho FHC played asignificant role in the release of brood-year(BY) 1995 juveniles (the first release) and thetransfer of half of the BY 1999 eggs to a back-up hatchery in Canada to protect againstcatastrophic losses. Idaho FHC alsoextensively sampled wild fish in the KootenaiRiver drainage in addition to the captive fish tosatisfy Canadian concerns and requirementsfor the safe release and transfer of sturgeon(Idaho FHC 2001).

The involvement of provincial authorities inBritish Columbia in captive propagation ofwhite sturgeon has been a fairly recentdevelopment. Traditionally, the primary roleof the provincial Fish Culture Section wasproduction of salmonid species for recreationalfisheries. However, there are now two projectsunderway to support species recovery for thewhite sturgeon: the Kootenay River SturgeonConservation Hatchery and the ColumbiaRiver Sturgeon Conservation Hatchery. Inaddition, the Nechako River White SturgeonRecovery initiative is considering aconservation fish culture component to assistin recovery efforts (B.C. Fisheries 2001b).

6.2 Commercial AquacultureBased upon information reported for CITESSignificant Trade Reviews of various NorthAmerican paddlefish and sturgeon species,TRAFFIC’s 2002–2003 telephone survey ofstate and provincial wildlife and fisheriesagencies in the United States and Canada, and

200

other sources, TRAFFIC has found thatcommercial aquaculture ventures involvingNorth American Acipenseriformes areconcentrated primarily in the United States.Commercial operations in a few states in theMississippi Basin focus mostly on paddlefish.There is also believed to be some activityinvolving lake sturgeon in Minnesota, andpossibly shovelnose sturgeon in Illinois. Otheroperations, principally in California, rear whitesturgeon. In 2001, the ASMFC for the firsttime approved an application to begin acommercial aquaculture operation involvingAtlantic sturgeon in Florida. TRAFFIC foundno commercial aquaculture underway for Gulf,shortnose, Alabama, pallid, or green sturgeon.

Commercial aquaculture of Acipenseriformesis less common in Canada. There is somecommercial aquaculture involving Atlanticsturgeon in the Maritime provinces, andinterest has been growing regardingcommercial aquaculture for white sturgeon inBritish Columbia. There are also commercialoperations licensed to rear lake sturgeon inOntario, as well as some aquaculture that hasbeen conducted there by First Nations tribes.

Table 6.2.1 summarizes commercial aquacultureof paddlefish, lake sturgeon, white sturgeon, andAtlantic sturgeon in the United States andCanada. It should be noted as an importantcaveat that the table records a “yes” for thepresence of commercial aquaculture in statesand provinces that have licensed operations forthe indicated species. As is explained in moredetail in the species summaries that follow, it isnot clear that all such jurisdictions actually havecommercial operations that are actively rearingthe species in question.

Atlantic SturgeonAs of 2001, the only source of commerciallyreared Atlantic sturgeon was in the Canadianprovince of New Brunswick. As noted inSection V on Legal and Illegal Trade, livespecimens have been exported in recent years.

In the United States, in 2001 the ASMFCapproved an exemption to allow the importationof non-indigenous Atlantic sturgeon fingerlingsfrom Canada into the state of Florida. The saleof live fingerlings, cultured from eggs taken

from wild Atlantic sturgeon broodfishpopulations in the Saint John River system inNew Brunswick, will involve a joint initiativebetween the Canadian Sturgeon ConservationCentre (previously known as the CanadianCaviar Company), academic researchers, andseveral private aquaculturalists. Production ofAtlantic sturgeon as domestic foodfish andcaviar for the United States is the primaryintent. International sales are an option, solong as such transactions are accompanied byCITES permits for export (ASMFC 2001c;Anon. 2001a).

Paddlefish In response to the 2000 CITES SignificantTrade Review inquiry for paddlefish, themajority of states within and outside of thepresent range of the species reported that theyhad no private or commercial aquaculture ofpaddlefish as of that year. Outside of thespecies’ range, negative responses came fromConnecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho,Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, SouthCarolina, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.Arizona indicated that, although the state liesoutside of the native range of North AmericanAcipenseriformes, there had been instances ofpaddlefish aquaculture in the past half century.The state was unaware of any presentoccurrences (L. Riley, Chief of Fisheries,Arizona Department of Game and Fish, in litt.to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 25,2000). Georgia reported that a privateaquaculturalist was holding a few adults forexperimental breeding purposes, but hadproduced no paddlefish for sale or trade (R.Gennings, Chief of Fisheries, GeorgiaDepartment of Natural Resources, WildlifeDivision, in litt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA,August 21, 2000). Hawaii reported someexperimental culture of unspecified “sturgeon”species (M. Fujimoto, Acting Administrator,Hawaii Department of Land and NaturalResources Division of Aquatic Resources, inlitt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 14,2000). The remainder of U.S. states outside ofthe paddlefish’s range did not respond to theSignificant Trade Review inquiry.

Within the range of the paddlefish, Arkansas,Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Oklahoma,

201

Tennessee, and Wisconsin reported no privateor commercial aquaculture as of 2000.Kansas, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, andSouth Dakota reported that those states werenot aware of any such efforts. North Dakota

reported that the state prohibits commercialpaddlefish aquaculture. Illinois, Kentucky, andMissouri indicated that there was ongoingcommercial aquaculture of paddlefish.Information on the subject was not provided in

202

Table 6.2.1 Summary of Commercial Aquaculture for Paddlefish andsturgeon Species in the United States and Canada, 2002*

State Paddlefish Lake sturgeon White Sturgeon Atlantic Sturgeon

Alabama No No No No

Arkansas No No No No

California No No Yes No

Florida No No No Yes

Georgia Yes No No No

Idaho No No Yes No

Illinois Yes No No No

Indiana No No No No

Iowa No No No No

Kansas No No No No

Kentucky Yes No No No

Louisiana No No No No

Michigan No No No No

Minnesota No Yes No No

Mississippi No No No No

Missouri Yes No No No

Montana No No No No

Nebraska No No Yes No

New York No No No No

North Dakota No No No No

Ohio Yes No No No

Oklahoma No No No No

Oregon No No Yes No

Pennsylvania No No No No

South Dakota No No No No

Tennessee Yes No No No

Vermont No No No No

Washington No No No No

West Virginia No No No No

Wisconsin No No No No

Alberta No No No No

Brit. Columbia No No Yes No

Manitoba No No No No

New Brunswick No No No Yes

Nova Scotia No No No No

Ontario No Yes No No

PEI No No No No

Quebec No No No No

Saskatchewan No No No No

* Compiled by TRAFFIC North America from various literature, in litt. correspondence, and personal communications. More details andspecific references are included in the species summaries below.

the responses of state authorities fromAlabama, Iowa, Mississippi, and Nebraska.Indiana and West Virginia did not respond tothe CITES inquiry.

Among states that reported commercialpaddlefish aquaculture for the 2000 SignificantTrade Review, Illinois noted that while thepaddlefish was an approved aquaculturespecies, the amount of aquaculture activityinvolving the species was insignificant andcould best be described as a few experimentalgrowers (Mike Conlin, Chief, Division ofFisheries, Illinois Department of NaturalResources, in litt. to Teiko Saito,USFWS/OMA, August 23, 2000). Missourihad four registered commercial aquacultureoperations that reported having paddlefish asof 1998 (Missouri Department of Conservation1998). The state with the greatest number ofreported commercial paddlefish aquaculturefacilities in 2000 was Kentucky, whichreported six commercial propagators for theCITES Significant Trade Review (P. Pfeiffer,Director, Division of Fisheries, KentuckyDepartment of Fish and Wildlife Resources, inlitt. to Teiko Saito, USFWS/OMA, August 16,2000). None of these facilities, however, werereported to have reached a point where theywere producing caviar for the market.

In 2002 and early 2003, TRAFFIC surveyedstate fisheries agencies within the present orhistoric range of the paddlefish by telephone toupdate the information previously provided,and to determine whether the situation hadchanged significantly. TRAFFIC also soughtinformation on licensing and regulationsregarding commercial aquaculture ofpaddlefish. This question was prompted by thenumber of states that in 2000 reported being“not aware” of such activity, which suggestedthat commercial aquaculture of paddlefish wasnot regulated closely enough in somejurisdictions for there to be certainty.

The results of TRAFFIC’s telephone surveywere substantially similar to informationprovided by state authorities for the 2000CITES Significant Trade Review. Askedwhether there was believed to be commercialaquaculture of paddlefish ongoing within thestate, TRAFFIC received negative responsesfrom fisheries and wildlife agencies inAlabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota (where suchactivity is illegal), Oklahoma, South Dakota,Texas, and Wisconsin (TRAFFIC telephonesurvey of state and provincial fisheries andwildlife agencies, 2002–2003).

TRAFFIC received positive responses fromIllinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, andTennessee. Illinois reported that there are ninefacilities in the state with permits; however,three of these are owned by the sameindividual and another is a research institutionaffiliated with a state university. Therefore, thenumber of commercial paddlefish operations ismore accurately five. Illinois also reported thatthere has been one operation licensed to rearshovelnose sturgeon, although whether it isactually doing so is uncertain. Kentuckyreported that there are several commercialoperations licensed to rear paddlefish, but it isunclear how many of these may actually havethe fish. Missouri has at least one fairlysignificant commercial operation rearingpaddlefish, and publishes a list of fish dealerslicensed to rear and sell farmed paddlefish inthe state. Ohio reported one approvedcommercial operation rearing paddlefish,licensed through the Ohio Division of Wildlife.Tennessee licensed its first private paddlefishaquaculture operation in 2001. Along withthese states, Georgia also reported that therewere six companies or individuals with valid,unexpired licenses to produce, sell, or holdpaddlefish, but none are believed to becurrently rearing or selling paddlefish in thestate (TRAFFIC telephone survey of state andprovincial fisheries and wildlife agencies,2002–2003).

Unfortunately, as had been surmised, it provedimpossible from the information available todetermine with certainty exactly how manyprivate or commercial operations might berearing paddlefish in the United States.TRAFFIC’s telephone survey found that not allstates require species-specific licenses orpermits from state fish and wildlife agenciesfor the practice. Several states (e.g., Arkansas,Iowa, Kansas, and Texas) employ generalaquaculture permits for approved species,using what are sometimes referred to as“clean” lists. In other states (e.g., Alabamaand Mississippi), aquaculture of native speciessuch as paddlefish falls under the regulatory

203

purview of state agriculture agencies ratherthan fisheries or wildlife agencies (TRAFFICtelephone survey of state and provincialfisheries and wildlife agencies, 2002–2003).

TRAFFIC’s survey therefore found asomewhat paradoxical situation. On the onehand, in some states that reported licensedcommercial aquaculture operations involvingpaddlefish, it was not possible to determinehow many operations (if any) actually have thefish. On the other hand, in some other stateswhere state fisheries agencies reported thatthey did not believe that such activities wereunderway, it is not out of the realm ofpossibility (nor would it necessarily be illegal)for there to be commercial aquacultureoperations that are rearing paddlefish. As isdiscussed in section 6.3 below, and again laterin the conclusions and recommendations ofthis report, the lack of specific informationabout, and oversight of, commercial paddlefishaquaculture in some U.S. states is of concernto TRAFFIC.

One other initiative is worth noting for thepurposes of this report. In addition to theaforementioned commercial aquacultureoperations, there has been a proposal to“reservoir ranch” paddlefish in Kentuckywaters. This idea differs somewhat from otheraquaculture initiatives in that it would usepublic waters and be financed at least in partby the state. The concept is to stock certainreservoirs in Kentucky with 12–14 inch femalepaddlefish, and then allow them to grow outnaturally over a period of years. For example,a 2,000 acre reservoir could be stocked with20,000 paddlefish over a 10-year period. Atthe close of the period, after fish had matured,fishermen that are approved by the state wouldfish out the waters to sell the roe and otherproducts; a portion of the proceeds would beallotted to continuing the stocking program.According to the proposal, after 10 yearspublic investment would end; if the programinvolved enough bodies of water, the proposedprogram could eventually fund itself. Theproposal anticipates benefits to the fishermenand other private participants involved, as wellas to wild paddlefish populations because ofthe development of an alternative source of roe(pers. comm., S. Mims, Kentucky StateUniversity, 2001).

In the spring of 2002, the Kentucky statelegislature passed a joint resolution entitled“Reservoir Ranching HJR 210,” thatauthorized and directed Kentucky StateUniversity, in cooperation with the KentuckyAquaculture Task Force and the KentuckyDepartment of Fish and Wildlife Resources, toconduct a series of public meetings and a mail-out survey relating to public support andregulation of reservoir ranching of paddlefishin Kentucky public waters. In January 2003, afinal report on the implementation of theresolution presented arguments in favor of theconcept and survey results indicating a degreeof public support among those polled. Thereport also outlined concerns expressed by theKentucky Department of Fish and WildlifeResources about the use of public lakes inKentucky for a private, commercial enterprise,as well as concerns about the biological,economic and social impacts of the proposal(Kentucky State University et al. 2003).Whether Kentucky will proceed with reservoirranching is unknown at the time of this report.

Lake Sturgeon Information provided for the 2000 CITESSignificant Trade Review, as well as forTRAFFIC’s 2002–2003 telephone survey ofstate and provincial fisheries and wildlifeagencies, confirmed the presence ofcommercial aquaculture operations involvinglake sturgeon only in Minnesota in the UnitedStates, and Ontario in Canada.

Responding to the 2000 CITES SignificantTrade Review for lake sturgeon, Minnesotareported three licensed aquaculture farmsfocusing on the species. Only one operationwas believed to have a mature population.That operation obtained 75 juvenile sturgeonfrom the First Nations Manitou Tribe inOntario; the source of the fish was the RainyRiver (Linda Erickson-Eastwood, in litt. toTeiko Saito, USFWS for Significant TradeReview, August 23, 2000). Among other statesin the lake sturgeon’s historic range, Alabama,Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, NewYork, Tennessee, and Vermont reported nocommercial aquaculture operations involvingthe species in their responses to USFWS.Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, and South Dakotawere unaware of anyone culturing lake

204

sturgeon privately. Wisconsin reported thatcommercial rearing was prohibited, althoughindustry was working to change the law.Pennsylvania reported that commercialaquaculture of lake sturgeon was illegalwithout a special permit.

During the same 2002–2003 telephone surveyin which TRAFFIC attempted to determinewhether there was more recent information oncommercial aquaculture of paddlefish,TRAFFIC also inquired about ongoing or newinitiatives regarding lake sturgeon. AmongU.S. states surveyed, only Minnesotaconfirmed the continuing presence ofcommercial aquaculture operations licensed tohave lake sturgeon. Responses indicated thatthere is no ongoing commercial aquaculture ofthe species in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, WestVirginia, and Wisconsin. North Dakota andWisconsin further reported that state lawsprohibit any commercial aquaculture of lakesturgeon (TRAFFIC telephone survey of stateand provincial fisheries agencies, 2002–2003).

Somewhat similar to the debate over reservoirranching of paddlefish in Kentucky, it is worthnoting that there has been a debate overWisconsin’s prohibition on commercialaquaculture of lake sturgeon. The debate hasrevealed two distinct philosophies in the statetoward private aquaculture of the species. Thefirst is supported primarily by the WisconsinAquaculture Association (WAA), whichbelieves that lake sturgeon are a marketable andpotentially lucrative fish that could and shouldbe reared commercially in the state, especiallyin light of growing demand for domestic caviarand meat precipitated by the decline of CaspianSea fisheries. The other is supported by theWisconsin Department of Natural Resources(DNR) and the Sturgeon ManagementAssessment Team (SMAT), which advocatekeeping the current commercial prohibition inplace, but would support involving privateaquaculture in the propagation of lake sturgeonfor research and rehabilitation purposes.

In a December 2000 report to the WisconsinState Legislature, the Wisconsin Department ofAgriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

(DATCP) and Wisconsin DNR outlined thepros and cons of five options for the legislatureto consider. These options included:

• Continuing the status quo (i.e., no privateaquaculture);

• Creation of a Wisconsin Lake SturgeonAquaculture Agreement (WLSAA) andcooperative partnership agreement thatwould allow propagation by privatecommercial operations for research andrehabilitation purposes, but not for caviar,meat, or aquarium sales;

• Organization and establishment of a LakeSturgeon Commercial Management Boardthat would be given statutory authority todetermine conditions for the operation ofpublic and private commercial lakesturgeon operations in Wisconsin,including public hatcheries;

• Development of a Wisconsin LakeSturgeon Commercialization Pilot Projectthat would allow a specified number ofcommercial operations to participate withSMAT in research and rehabilitationactivities, and also to sell a predeterminednumber of lake sturgeon at the operator’sdiscretion; and

• Full legalization of commercial activities(Wisconsin DATCP and Wisconsin DNR2000).

Whether Wisconsin will relax its currentprohibition on private and commercialaquaculture of lake sturgeon is unknown at thetime of this report. However, the Wisconsindebate is illustrative of the occasional tensionthat arises between private interests and theirsupporters on the one hand, who want toexplore the full commercial potential of thefish, and on the other hand those whoseprimary concern is the conservation of wildlake sturgeon populations. For the lattergroup, concerns such as the potential for illegallaundering of wild roe, illegal stocking,accidental releases, genetic mixing, and issuesrelated to fish health outweigh the potentialbenefits of commercial aquaculture. As withthe case of reservoir ranching of paddlefish inKentucky, debate is likely to continue withinstates such as Wisconsin over the relativemerits and drawbacks of commercialaquaculture for lake sturgeon.

205

In Canada, TRAFFIC found indications ofongoing commercial aquaculture of lakesturgeon only in Ontario, which reported twooperations licensed to have the species.However, similar to the case of commercialaquaculture of paddlefish in some U.S. states,Ontario cautioned that the issuance of licensesapproving commercial aquaculture did notnecessarily indicate that the operationsinvolved were actively rearing lake sturgeon.Ontario also reported that there has been somecommercial aquaculture of lake sturgeoncarried out in the province by First Nationsgroups. The status of such operations wasuncertain; the facilities do not need approval orlicensing from provincial authorities if they areon sovereign tribal lands (pers. comm., M.Muschett, Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources, February 2003).

Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, and Saskatchewanreported no commercial aquaculture of lakesturgeon. In addition, Alberta, Manitoba, andSaskatchewan noted that commercialaquaculture of sturgeon would requireprovincial approval and a license; lakesturgeon are not currently on any of theseprovince’s approved species lists. Actionwould be needed at the provincial level to putpolicies and regulations into place beforelicensing any commercial operations (e.g., inManitoba the current ban on possession of lakesturgeon would have to be modified).Although some interest has been expressed, itwould likely take some time to assess the prosand cons of lake sturgeon aquaculture, and toconduct the risk assessment protocolsnecessary to satisfy provincial authorities aboutissues such as water discharge, escapement,genetic mixing, and other potentialenvironmental consequences and impacts onwild lake sturgeon populations (TRAFFICtelephone survey of state and provincialfisheries agencies, 2002–2003).

White SturgeonCommercial aquaculture of white sturgeon is atits most advanced state in California, whereroe and meat are produced at several facilities.The exact level of overall production isdifficult to pin down. Secor et al. (2000)reported that production of white sturgeon bytwo U.S. companies exceeded 900 metric tons

(990 tons), a level equivalent to peak historicallandings for the species. Stolt Sea Farm,believed to be the largest producer ofcommercially farmed white sturgeon, reportedproduction of 182 tons (163.8 metric tons) inthe year 2000 (Stolt Sea Farm 2001b).

Regarding caviar production, an articlepublished in 1999 reported that Stolt Sea Farmhad produced 3,000 pounds (1.35 metric tons)of caviar for that year, and aspired to increaseproduction to at least 10 tons (9 metric tons)within five years (Wine Spectator 1999). Morerecent information from the company suggeststhat its caviar production is indeed rising.Stolt Sea Farm estimated that total caviarproduction for the state was approximately8,000 pounds (3,636 kg) in 2000, and 7,000pounds (3,182 kg) in 2001. In 2002, Stolt SeaFarm estimated that its production would be10,000 pounds (4,545 kg) (pers. comm., P.Struffenegger, Stolt Sea Farm, 2002).

As of 2001, Oregon had one legal operatorwho is permitted to take up to six females peryear. Fertilized eggs are surgically removed,and the fish are then returned to the wild.Offspring, which at one time providedbroodstock to California, now go toaquariums or for ornamental pond use. Priorto legislative action in the late 1980s thatplaced a moratorium on further permits, therewere two such operations, but one has sinceceased (pers. comm., K. Melcher, ODFW,June 2001; R. Beamesderfer, S. P. Cramer &Associates, in litt. to TRAFFIC NorthAmerica, September 2001).

Other white sturgeon aquaculture activities inthe U.S. Pacific Northwest include a Collegeof Southern Idaho research program incooperation with the state of Idaho, and anaquaculture feasibility research programimplemented by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission working withAbernathy Hatchery (R. Beamesderfer, S. P.Cramer & Associates, in litt. to TRAFFICNorth America, September 2001). It is notbelieved that any of these programs havedeveloped to the point where they areproducing significant amounts of caviar.

Outside of the Pacific Northwest, TRAFFICfound only one current case of white sturgeonbeing held privately. In the course of

206

TRAFFIC’s 2002–2003 telephone surveyregarding commercial aquaculture ofpaddlefish and lake sturgeon, Nebraskareported the presence of one operation believedto be rearing white sturgeon in that state (pers.comm. G. Mestl, Nebraska Game and ParksCommission, January 2003).

Commercial aquaculture of white sturgeonremains in the initial stages in BritishColumbia. In 2000, two companies obtainedgovernment permits to raise white sturgeoncommercially (Malaspina University 2000). Itis too early to predict the future viability ofthese endeavors. B.C. government data recordthat white sturgeon are being cultured inlimited or experimental quantities only (B.C.Fisheries 2001c).

6.3 DiscussionCaptive rearing of North AmericanAcipenseriformes, whether for purposes ofrecovery, restoration, stocking, or commercialaquaculture, raises a number of complex issuesand challenges regarding the conservation ofnative species. Some of the conservationissues involved pertain to captive propagationand commercial aquaculture equally; othersapply specifically to one or the other of theseactivities. For example, whereas the potentialfor accidental releases and diseasetransmission concerns both commercialaquaculture and captive propagation facilities,captive propagation programs that focus on thedeliberate release of fish must also addressissues such as the impact on endemicpopulations of ecological and geneticinteractions, habitat availability, and otherrelated factors. The following discusses someof these issues, as well as the benefits anddrawbacks of both captive propagation andcommercial aquaculture.

Captive PropagationAs was detailed in Section 6.1, captivepropagation of paddlefish and sturgeon speciesby government fish and wildlife agencies iswidespread in North America, and the UnitedStates in particular. Carefully managed, suchprograms can convey both conservation andeconomic benefits, as well as providing thebasis for research to better understandacipenseriform species. Captive propagation

programs, however, are not a panacea for allthe threats and challenges facing wild sturgeonand paddlefish populations, and cannot fullyreplace in situ conservation programs.

General benefits of captive propagation andstocking programs can include assisting in therecovery of acipenseriform populations thathave been depleted by habitat loss, pollution,overfishing, and other factors. Such programscan supplement weak year-classes, aid in therecovery of endangered or threatened species,and increase our knowledge of wild stocks[Leber (1999), cited in Wakeford (2001)].

The specific reasons behind captivepropagation initiatives for North AmericanAcipenseriformes, and the potential benefits,vary by species. For species such as thepaddlefish and lake sturgeon, captivepropagation and stocking programs allowfisheries managers to reintroduce the speciesinto areas of historic distribution, returngenetic strains to waters where they are eitherlocally extirpated or nearly so, and can help tomaintain populations that are abundant enoughto sustain sport (and possibly evencommercial) fisheries. For example, captivepropagation programs in Kansas andOklahoma have used captive-bred paddlefish torepopulate some rivers and lakes where damshave blocked natural migration; at the sametime both states are developing these waters aseconomically beneficial recreational fisheries.Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin arepursuing similar management strategies for thelake sturgeon, and Tennessee is in the earlystages of trying to restore a population of lakesturgeon to waters from which naturalpopulations disappeared years ago.

Along the U.S. East Coast and Gulf of Mexico,captive propagation programs underway for theAtlantic, Gulf, and shortnose sturgeons maysimilarly help to restore these species to riverswhere populations are extirpated or severelydepleted and may not be capable of recoverywithout stocking for reintroduction oraugmentation purposes. These initiatives areintegral to federal and state recovery efforts forthe ESA-listed shortnose and Gulf sturgeons,as well as for the non-listed, yet depleted, U.S.populations of Atlantic sturgeon. Recoveryplans for the Gulf and shortnose sturgeonsemphasize a goal of being able to de-list the

207

species within the next several decades. Long-term goals for the Atlantic and Gulf sturgeonsinclude the restoration of spawning stocks topopulation levels that can support sustainablefisheries (USFWS/GSMFC 1995; ASMFC1998b; NMFS 1998).

For other North American sturgeon species orsub-populations, captive propagation may proveto be the only way to prevent extinction. Suchis the case with the Alabama and pallidsturgeons, for which there is little or nocontemporary evidence of natural reproductionwithin these species’ historic ranges. TheKootenai, Nechako, and Upper Columbia Riverpopulations of white sturgeon provide examplesof genetically distinct sub-populations thatcould disappear unless captive propagationefforts to promote their recovery succeed.

Notwithstanding the many potential dividends,however, using captive propagation as arecovery or restoration tool is neither a simplematter nor an overall solution to the challengesfacing conservation of North AmericanAcipenseriformes. There are significantobstacles to overcome if captive propagationand stocking programs are to succeed. Thereare also many unanswered questions regardingthe efficacy of such programs, particularly inlight of how much remains unknown aboutacipenseriform species.

Obstacles, risks, and questions related tocaptive propagation programs fall into severalcategories. One group of concerns regards thetwin imperatives of maintaining the geneticintegrity and variability of sturgeon andpaddlefish populations. Tringali and Leber(1999, cited in Wakeford 2001) describedhazards that lower the genetic diversity innative populations, including those posed bythe transfer of exogenous genes by hatchery-reared sturgeon into populations of wildsturgeon, those stemming from geneticchanges in the hatchery population regardlessof the source of broodstock, and those relatedto the genetic swamping of natural populationsby successful stock enhancement. Secor et al.(2000) noted that there are importantunanswered questions about the efficiency withwhich stocked fish recruit into an endemicbreeding population or initiate their ownspawning populations, as well as importantissues related to the ecological and genetic

consequences of their interactions with wildsturgeon. Negative impacts to endemicpopulations because of competition for futuregenetic contributions should also be consideredwith regard to large releases of juveniles fromlimited parentage (Secor et al. 2000).

The conservatism and caution indicated inbreeding and stocking protocols for speciessuch as the Atlantic, Gulf, shortnose, and whitesturgeons, as well as the care that state andfederal authorities have shown in attempting tolimit stocking of lake sturgeon and paddlefishstrains exclusively to their own native watersystems when possible, suggest that U.S.authorities engaged in captive propagation aresensitive to such considerations. Even so, andnotwithstanding the protocols established toaddress genetic concerns (e.g., use of broodfishfrom the same strains or rivers in whichstocking will occur whenever possible,obtaining an adequate effective population sizeof broodfish to maintain genetic diversity,avoiding gene swamping from small numbersof breeding pairs, etc.), some possible impactsof captive propagation and stocking cannot bedefinitively predicted.

For example, it remains uncertain whether, andto what degree, hatchery-reared sturgeon maydevelop the “homing” behaviors believed to bepresent in wild populations, or conversely towhat degree captive-propagated fish may“stray” from the rivers into which they arestocked. This subject is especially important asit regards captive propagation and stockingprograms for anadromous species such as theAtlantic, Gulf, shortnose, and white sturgeons.Secor et al. (2000) noted that homing isperhaps the most difficult ecological issuerelated to sturgeon restoration because, with theexception of salmonids, homing mechanismsand behaviors are poorly understood in fishes.Because of long generation times, homing willbe especially difficult to understand forsturgeons; it remains unknown whetherhatchery-produced juveniles will return asadults to systems into which they were stockedas many as 5 to 25 years previously.Furthermore, straying by captive-propagatedsturgeon away from waters into which they arestocked could contribute to genetic andecological impacts to adjacent, possiblydepleted, populations (Secor et al. 2000).

208

How to promote imprinting behavior istherefore an important concern if stocking ofhatchery-reared sturgeon is to succeed inenhancing or restoring the population of aparticular river (Wakeford 2001). Wakefordcited preliminary data for stocked shortnosesturgeon as indicating that the fish tend to strayif they are stocked at ages greater than oneyear, and speculated that the sturgeon by thatage may have already been imprinted withwater from the hatchery. Under this theory, thesturgeon may attempt to return to the hatcherywhen it is time to spawn, rather than to theriver into which they are transplanted. Thisraises difficult issues, because it suggests thatin order for hatchery fish to imprint on theriver into which they are stocked, they musteither be stocked prior to the age of imprinting(which in species such as the Gulf sturgeonlikely occurs at a very early stage), or thehatchery must use water from the river intowhich the fish will be stocked. Stocking priorto imprinting reduces the probability ofsurvival, and can interfere with the evaluationof the stocking program’s success becausemarking very young fish for futureidentification is difficult. Using water from thetarget river presents the issue of disease,parasites, and larval predators in raw surfacewaters that can interfere with survival in thehatchery, while treating such water prior tohatchery use may alter its usefulness forimprinting (Wakeford 2001).

Another category of concern regarding captivepropagation and stocking programs for NorthAmerican Acipenseriformes regards diseasetransmission. Despite precautions taken athatcheries to prevent the introduction ofdangerous pathogens to wild populations,captive propagated fish could still introducedisease to wild stocks. Many sturgeonpathogens that affect fish in culture arewidespread, and understanding of suchdiseases is incomplete (Wakeford 2001). Asdetailed above, the discovery of an iridovirusin captive pallid sturgeon necessitated thedestruction of entire year-classes of fish. Thatsituation provided an instance in which carefulmonitoring detected and eliminated a potentialthreat to wild populations had the fish beenreleased, as well as a cautionary tale about thedangers of disease in even closely monitoredfederal hatcheries.

There is also a potential for the accidentalrelease of fish from hatcheries which, alongwith disease concerns, raises questions ofdiluting wild genetic strains and increasingcompetition for food or habitat. Suchconsiderations need to be weighed against therisk of extirpation in sturgeon populations ifstocking is not attempted (Wakeford 2001).

Finally, captive propagation and stockingcannot substitute for habitat conservation andother measures to benefit wild populations.Secor et al. (2000) cited Kozhin (1964) innoting that natural reproduction should bepreserved because hatcheries cannot replace allproperties of natal populations, which arecharacterized by complex age structures, andmigrations and feeding behaviors. They furthernoted that in systems where sturgeons aredepleted or extirpated, an important issue iswhether there is sufficient habitat for spawning,feeding, environmental and predation refugia,and migration. As that paper concisely stated:“It would be a waste of resources to stockmillions of juveniles and have no spawninghabitats for them to return to as adults.”Migration corridors are a principal problem inrestoring both sturgeon and paddlefishpopulations because fish ladders and othermitigation measures have proved ineffective inpassing sturgeons through dams and otherbarriers. Another important consideration inNorth American systems is the introduction ofexotic piscivores in many systems (e.g.,largemouth bass and channel catfish in theChesapeake Bay system) which could decimatepopulations of stocked sturgeon released at asmall size (Secor et al. 2000).

Recovery, restoration, or stocking programs forAcipenseriformes must therefore occurconcurrently with measures to recover orrestore lost or degraded habitats. Whetherwater quality, food availability, and spawninghabitat are capable of supporting stocked fishcan be examined through ecologicalassessments, small-scale experimental releases(to assess losses of stocked fish to predation,competitive interaction with endemic sturgeonsand other fishes, and other possibleconstraints), and evaluation of the impact ofstocked fish on wild acipenseriformpopulations and other fishes in the receivingwaters (Secor et al. 2000; Wakeford 2001). In

209

many systems where sturgeons are extirpated,deliberate releases may be the only means toevaluate whether the species can continue toundertake feeding, migration, homing, andspawning (Secor et al. 2000).

TRAFFIC’s intention in observing thesechallenges is not to diminish the value ofcaptive propagation programs for theconservation of North America’s sturgeon andpaddlefish. In the near term, captivepropagation is vital to many nativeacipenseriform species and populations. Atremendous amount of consideration and workhas clearly gone into developing captivepropagation techniques, protocols, and stockingplans to maximize the benefits to the speciesinvolved while trying to minimize the risks toendemic populations. However, the long-termprospects for all of the species involved willultimately depend upon the restoration andmaintenance of natural habitat, so that fishreintroduced into the wild will have an adequateforage base, the ability to migrate seasonally,and access to productive spawning grounds. Iftoo large a percentage of available resourcesgoes toward development of captive propagationprograms, and not enough attention is paid toissues such as the damming of rivers, riverchannelization, pollution, and other fundamentalecological challenges, captive breeding maybecome an end in itself as prospects forrecovery and reintroduction dwindle.

Commercial AquacultureCommercial aquaculture of many fish specieshas been controversial for some time.Between 1987 and 1997, global production offarmed fish more than doubled in weight andvalue, and in 2000 accounted for more thanone-quarter of all fish (and shellfish) consumedby humans (Naylor et al. 2000). On the onehand, some have argued that commercialaquaculture production can compensate for theshortfall in harvests as fisheries deteriorate, orthat fish farming can help to restore wildpopulations by relieving pressure on capturefisheries. On the other hand, it has also beennoted that potential damage to ocean, coastal,and riverine resources through habitatdestruction, waste disposal, exotic species andpathogen invasions, and large fish-meal andfish-oil requirements needed to produce farmed

fish may further deplete wild fisheries stocks.Naylor et al. (2000) pointed to a centralparadox: commercial aquaculture is a possiblesolution, but may also be a contributing factor,to the collapse of fisheries stocks worldwide.

Determining the potential benefits anddrawbacks of commercial aquaculture ofacipenseriform species in North America, andthe linkages between sturgeon and paddlefishfarming and conservation of wild stocks, maybe even more complex than for othercommonly farmed fish species such as salmon,shrimp, carp, tilapia, and catfish. Thesespecies and others tend to be farmed eithercommercially to produce medium- to high-value commodities for regional or global foodmarkets, or by family and cooperative farms toproduce low-value food sources for householdsubsistence or local markets (Naylor et al.2000). Commercial aquaculture of sturgeonand paddlefish is primarily focused on adifferent purpose, the production of a very highvalue (per unit of volume) luxury item—caviar—for a small set of consumers who canafford it. Even the production of meat fromfarmed sturgeon tends to be directed to arelatively limited gourmet market.

The strongest argument in favor of commercialaquaculture of sturgeon and paddlefish is that itmay benefit wild populations by providing analternative source of roe and meat forconsumption. It is also conceivable thatcommercial aquaculture of Acipenseriformescould alleviate demand for illegally harvestedcaviar (Secor et al. 2000). In North America,operations such as those in California involvingwhite sturgeon indicate that large-scale farmingof sturgeon can produce significant amounts ofmeat, and there is potential for significant roeproduction. Once successfully established, ithas been theorized that such operations willneed only small infusions of broodstock fromwild sources.

Given concerns about the potential collapse ofthe Caspian Sea fisheries that have longproduced the vast majority of caviar for theworld market, and the additional pressure thatsuch an occurrence would likely place onNorth American species, commercialaquaculture could therefore prove to be avaluable future source of caviar. Even in theCaspian Sea basin, hatchery reared fish supply

210

a significant proportion of sturgeon stocks.After the 1962 completion of the VolgogradDam on the Volga River significantly reducedhabitat availability and spawning grounds, theSoviet Union launched an intensive sturgeonranching program to maintain stocks andproduction. In 2000 it was estimated that, ofthe three most valuable commercial species,hatcheries accounted for 26–28% of Russiansturgeon stocks, 30% of stellate sturgeonstocks, and more than 90% of the stock ofbeluga sturgeon (Secor et al. 2000).

Yet, before concluding that commercialaquaculture will prove beneficial toconservation of North AmericanAcipenseriformes, a number of issues andquestions must be addressed. Some of thetopics involved parallel those discussed aboveregarding captive propagation and stockingprograms. For example, commercialaquaculture also carries risks related totransmission of disease, accidental release (andsubsequent interactions of farmed fish withwild ones) and environmental damage causedby plant construction and discharges. Diseaseand accidental release are key problems thathave been identified for alligator, salmon, andother farming and aquaculture activities (Secoret al. 2000).

In addition, unlike captive propagationprograms conducted by public authorities,commercial aquaculture also poses a potentialthreat to wild acipenseriform populationsthrough deliberate release of fish in non-nativewaters. Whereas captive propagation programsoperate under strict stocking protocols, and areintended to reintroduce or augment wildstocks, commercial aquaculture is a largelyprivate economic activity that is not necessarilyconstrained by the same interest in maintainingthe genetic integrity of wild populations.

There are several possible reasons for thedeliberate release of sturgeon or paddlefish fromprivate aquaculture facilities. It has been notedthat commercial sturgeon aquaculture requires asignificant amount of start-up capital, as well asa long lead-time between establishment andproduction, necessitated by the sturgeon’slengthy life cycle. These factors suggest thatsuccessful commercial aquaculture initiativesinvolving Acipenseriformes are likely to remainlimited in number and involve only companies

with ample investment capital. Additionally, thepractice conveys a significant degree ofeconomic risk, since fish production is stronglyrelated to maintenance of water quality, andplant failures can result in large losses of fishdespite previous investments in their production(Secor et al. 2000). If rising demand for NorthAmerican caviar leads to a surge in interest incommercial sturgeon or paddlefish aquaculture,there is no guarantee that all such operationswill succeed economically, and, for those thatmay not, there may be a financial incentive tocut losses by dumping fish stocks and movingon to other business.

The likelihood of detrimental introductionsrises where imports and commercialaquaculture of exotic species are allowed orfacilitated, even when laws or regulations existthat prohibit release of non-native species.Accidental or intentional releases by privateaquaculture facilities or aquarists tiring of theirhobby have been documented, and highlightthe risks. The release of white sturgeon inAlabama and Georgia waters during the 1980s,for example, prompted fisheries authorities toban the commercial propagation of the speciesin those states’ waters. White sturgeon incaptivity are known to harbor two herpesviruses, Herpes I and Herpes II, as well aswhite sturgeon iridovirus, in their early lifestages (Secor et al. 2000; Wakeford 2001; pers.comm., P. Struffeneger, Stolt Sea Farm, 2002).Should further white sturgeon aquaculturedevelop in regions where depleted populationsof sturgeons reside, transmission of thesediseases could further deplete thosepopulations (Secor et al. 2000). Recoveryplans for the Atlantic, Gulf, and shortnosesturgeons all note the susceptibility of thesespecies to sturgeon viruses endozootic to thewest coast, and the need to diligently protectagainst accidental or deliberate releases(USFWS/GSMFC 1995; NMFS/USFWS 1998;NMFS 1998).

In addition to disease issues, introduction ofnon-native species or genetically differentstrains of native species could have asignificant impact on wild stocks throughcompetition or hybridization. Hybridizationbetween separate species is well known anddocumented for sturgeon, and many hybridsare reproductively viable (USFWS/GSMFC1995; NMFS 1998; Secor et al. 2000; pers.

211

comm., G. Benz, SARI, 2001). Even if thefarmed sturgeon set loose are of the samespecies, releases could cause deleteriouseffects to adjacent endemic populationsbecause of ecological and genetic interactions(Secor et al. 2000).

Beyond those issues, TRAFFIC also hasconcerns related to law enforcement and illegaltrade. For species such as the Atlanticsturgeon, lake sturgeon and paddlefish, it isstill too early to determine whethercommercial aquaculture is truly viable.Commercial aquaculture of Atlantic sturgeonin Canada and the United States remains at arelatively small or experimental scale. Thereare questions about whether the lake sturgeon,with its slow growth rate and very late age atsexual maturity, is an economically feasiblespecies for commercial aquaculture. Nopaddlefish operations have yet reached a stagewhere captive-bred fish are producingsignificant amounts of caviar for thecommercial market; the main product to datehas been fertilized eggs and fry for research orthe establishment of new aquacultureoperations in North America and abroad. Todate, caviar and meat products coming fromcompanies that may be engaged in commercialaquaculture of paddlefish are believed to haveactually come from the wild. It is not certainwhat percentage of fertilized eggs and live frycurrently marketed by aquaculture facilitiesmay also be derived from wild stocks. As wasnoted in section 6.2, there are even questionsabout whether some registered facilities areraising paddlefish at all. It is likely to be someyears before such operations develop to thepoint that their true potential and impact canbe measured.

In this atmosphere, the danger arises thatcommercial aquaculture operations, if notcarefully monitored, have the potential to serveas laundering facilities for illegally taken orobtained paddlefish or sturgeon products.TRAFFIC is further concerned that in severalstates, wildlife and fisheries agencies have notyet developed regulatory plans to exercisecareful oversight of the industry, or, in somestates, do not have regulatory jurisdiction overcommercial aquaculture activities for speciesthat are not considered endangered orthreatened. While there are indications thatstates are increasingly concerned about this

issue, as of the time of this report it is unclearwhat specific remedial steps might be taken.The existing regulatory and information gapson this subject may represent a loophole forpotential or actual abuse.

Of particular concern to TRAFFIC is that thelack of tight regulatory monitoring ofpaddlefish aquaculture in some U.S. states maycreate a loophole for illegal trade. In certainstates the situation is exacerbated by theseparation of regulatory oversight ofcommercial aquaculture from that ofcommercial and recreational fisheries. As wasdiscussed in Section V, in past decadespaddlefish roe was not in high demand, andtherefore commercial aquaculture for theproduction of paddlefish caviar may not havebeen economically viable. As demand andprices for paddlefish roe have risen in recentyears, so too have the prospects for commercialaquaculture to become a profitable supplementto roe from wild-caught fish. Without closerscrutiny from regulatory authorities, however, itwill be impossible to determine that all caviarreported from commercial facilities has actuallybeen farmed, rather than having been producedfrom wild sources.

Finally, TRAFFIC questions the premise thatcommercial aquaculture is likely to substantiallyrelieve pressure on wild North Americanacipenseriform populations from capturefisheries. Naylor et al. (2000) noted that despitesignificant increases in farm production ofsalmon, worldwide catches of wild salmonactually rose by 27% between 1988 and 1997,even as international prices for four of the fivemain wild species (chinook, coho, pink, andchum) declined by 30–50%. Similarly, wildcapture of hake and haddock remained stableduring the 1990s despite rapid growth inalternatively farmed fish such as tilapia. Thatstudy found little obvious effect of aquacultureproduction on capture rates of wild fish, andsurmised that the ability of the aquaculturesector to replace or provide market alternativesfor wild catches depends significantly on theeconomics and policies of fisheries.

In the case of North AmericanAcipenseriformes, TRAFFIC likewise doubtsthat commercial aquaculture will have asignificant impact on the demand for caviarfrom wild sources, at least in the near term. As

212

was discussed in the review of the globalcaviar trade in Section 5.1, North Americanimports of sturgeon caviar into the U.S. alonefar surpassed domestic roe production fromwild and farmed sources combined during thelate 1990s and 2000. For North America toproduce enough roe to meet only its ownapparent market demand for caviar (shouldimports decrease dramatically) would require asignificant increase in domestic productionfrom all sources.

In the short term, the ability of commercialaquaculture to contribute substantially to suchan increase in production appears unlikely. Asnoted above, the estimate for caviar productionfrom the largest farmed source, white sturgeonin California, was only 10,000 pounds for2002, and significant production from otherspecies remains some time distant. Proposedconcepts such as “reservoir ranching,” whichmore closely resembles the Russian model ofrearing and stocking large numbers ofAcipenseriformes for later harvest, could helpto increase production within 8 to 10 years.Proponents argue that reservoir ranching aspracticed in other parts of the world has shownevidence of being a low-input, sustainable,nonpolluting stock enhancement productionsystem for growing food fish. However, suchproposals generate their own biologicalconcerns (e.g., the potential effects on theaquatic food chain, increased competitionamong fish species in various life stages for alimited food supply, the impact of paddlefishgill net harvests on other sport fish), as well asquestions about whether it is appropriate to usepublic waters to support private aquaculture(Kentucky State University et al. 2003). Inaddition, like other stocking programs,reservoir ranching initiatives must be sensitiveto genetic and disease considerations. For

example, while rearing and releasing largenumbers of paddlefish for future harvest intoclosed reservoirs in their native range in theMississippi River Basin may turn out to befeasible, it would clearly be a poor idea toallow the release of non-native species (e.g.,white sturgeon) into east coast or MississippiRiver drainage systems for commercialpurposes, given the issues of ecologicalimpact, disease transmission, andhybridization.

As with captive propagation, TRAFFIC doesnot raise these issues to argue against thecommercial aquaculture of North Americanpaddlefish and sturgeon. Whether or notcommercial aquaculture of these speciesshould be allowed is no longer a question. Thepractice already exists, and, properly managedand overseen, can provide a legal source ofdomestic meat and caviar as an alternative towild catch. TRAFFIC seeks to point out thatcommercial aquaculture is likely to provideonly a supplement to, rather than areplacement for, such commercial catch.Furthermore, it is likely to be increasinglyimportant for North American jurisdictions toestablish and follow strict policies, protocols,and regulations regarding commercialaquaculture of sturgeon and paddlefish, as theyhave for captive propagation of several NorthAmerican sturgeon species, to prevent harm towild populations. Assuming that demand forcaviar from domestic acipenseriform specieswill continue to rise in light of uncertaintiesabout the situation in the Caspian Sea,incentives for individuals or companies to getinto the business will likely increase, and it isimperative that wildlife authorities be in aposition to address potential negative as wellas positive consequences.

213

North America’s sturgeon and paddlefish facean uncertain future. While no native specieshas yet become extinct, all face significantchallenges to their long-term survival becauseof the negative consequences of humanactivities (e.g., overfishing, habitat degradationor alteration, pollution, etc.). Although thespecific impacts vary among individualspecies, conservation of remaining stocks willrequire careful attention to the ecologicalneeds, unique life history characteristics, andsensitivity to catch exhibited by these fish.

This section summarizes the informationgathered by TRAFFIC for this report; outlinesTRAFFIC’s general conclusions; and presentsa set of recommendations regarding theconservation, management, and trade of NorthAmerican paddlefish and sturgeon.

7.1 SpeciesStatus/ConservationChallenges

Summary/Conclusions• IUCN lists all but two North American

acipenseriform species as vulnerable orcritically endangered. The United States andCanada also classify several species orindividual populations as endangered,threatened, or in need of special protection.The species listed in each of these twocountries, however, differ.

• In the United States, three sturgeon speciesand one subpopulation (the shortnosesturgeon, Alabama sturgeon, pallid sturgeon,and Kootenai population of white sturgeon)are listed as endangered under the ESA. TheAlabama sturgeon, pallid sturgeon, andKootenai River white sturgeon face the veryreal possibility of extinction, at least in thewild, because of poor natural recruitment.The Gulf sturgeon is listed as a threatenedspecies under the ESA.

• In Canada, the shortnose sturgeon, whitesturgeon, and green sturgeon are classifiedfederally as species of special concern.White sturgeon and green sturgeonpopulations are further classified asimperiled or critically imperiled by theprovince of British Columbia, which is theonly Canadian jurisdiction inhabited bythese species.

• Available information differs greatlyregarding the status, life histories, andecological needs of North Americanacipenseriform species. While moreresearch is needed on all species, TRAFFICnoted a lack of available data for the greensturgeon in particular. In late 2001, the U.S.government was petitioned to list the speciesas threatened or endangered under the ESA.The subsequent NMFS review during 2002found that there are two distinct populationsegments of green sturgeon, and that thespecies may currently spawn in as few asthree river systems in Oregon and California.NMFS concluded, however, that an ESAlisting is not warranted at the present time.

• TRAFFIC also noted a lack of data on thestatus and abundance of the shovelnosesturgeon in many portions of its range. Inthe past, the species was often considered anuisance or “trash” fish, and its managementand conservation have often received lessattention than have other acipenseriformspecies such as paddlefish, lake sturgeon,and pallid sturgeon that share major portionsof its range.

• Throughout North America, over the pastcentury or more, the needs of humanpopulations for navigation, powergeneration, flood control, irrigation, andwaste disposal have changed the flow andtemperature regimes, sedimentation levels,and even the very courses of vital rivers thatpaddlefish and sturgeon inhabit. Damming,channelization, dredging, pollution, andother anthropogenic modifications of North

215

VII. CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS

America’s river systems have reduced thehistoric range of all North AmericanAcipenseriformes, and every species has lostspawning grounds. Some species that oncehad broad distribution patterns and couldmigrate freely now exist only in isolated orsegmented sub-populations, with uncertainlong-term consequences to their geneticvariability and long-term viability.

• It is also clear that North America’s sturgeonand paddlefish species continue to suffer theeffects of past overfishing. Historical catchlevels indicate that most of these specieswere at one time abundant in their nativewaters; the only species believed to havealways been rare is the pallid sturgeon. Yet,even though most of the commercialfisheries peaked at the end of the nineteenthcentury, or early in the twentieth century,North America’s paddlefish and sturgeonspecies have yet to rebound to historicpopulation levels. Factors including longlives, slow rate of sexual maturation andreproduction, and loss of spawning habitatcombine to ensure that full recovery will bea very protracted process—if it is possible atall for some species.

• Under these circumstances, there is no quickor easy way to recover North AmericanAcipenseriformes to levels where they mightsustain significantly increased commercialcatch for caviar, meat, or other products.Even those species that are relativelyabundant and currently sustain somecommercial catch and trade (paddlefish,shovelnose sturgeon, and white sturgeon inthe United States; Atlantic sturgeon and lakesturgeon in Canada) will likely requireconservative management to ensure theircontinued viability.

Recommendations• States and provinces that have not already

done so should conduct immediatebiological surveys of their current sturgeonand paddlefish populations. In the UnitedStates, a range-wide stock assessment isespecially important for the shovelnosesturgeon, which, while considered in manystates to be locally abundant, has often notbeen carefully monitored.

• In states with commercial fisheries, suchpopulation surveys should be undertakencooperatively among federal, state, andprovincial fisheries biologists andcommercial fishermen, to ensure to theextent possible that there is consensusamong these often divergent interest groupsabout the state of the resource base. Inresearching this report, TRAFFIC notedoften very different opinions between statemanagement authorities and commercialfishermen regarding the status of stocks,particularly of paddlefish, in various statesand water bodies. TRAFFIC urges fisheriesmanagers to include the commercial fishingindustry in efforts to determine stock andsustainable catch levels.

• Although the NMFS 2002 status review ofthe green sturgeon found that listing as athreatened or endangered species of the ESAis not warranted at the present time, furtherscientific review is needed to clarify itsstatus, precise life history, spawning areas,and habitat needs. While the green sturgeonis not considered a major species in trade,the possibility that the species may belimited to as few as three remainingspawning rivers certainly warrantsadditional measures to identify and conserveremaining habitat that is critical to thespecies’ continuing viability.

7.2 Management andRegulation

Summary/Conclusions• The ways in which individual North

American acipenseriform species are legallyclassified vary at the federal, state, orprovincial levels in the United States andCanada, as do the purposes for which theyare managed.

• In the United States, the ESA-listed Gulfsturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Alabamasturgeon, pallid sturgeon, and KootenaiRiver population of white sturgeon aresubject to recovery plans and/or federal/statecooperative agreements as mandated underthat law. These species generally alsoreceive protection under endangered speciesstatutes in the states they inhabit.

216

• Commercial and sport catch of Atlanticsturgeon has been prohibited in all U.S.waters since 1998, under a moratoriumrecommended by the Atlantic States MarineFisheries Commission.

• U.S. populations of the paddlefish,shovelnose sturgeon, white sturgeon, andgreen sturgeon are commercially andrecreationally fished in some but not all ofthe range states these species inhabit.

• Paddlefish may be commercially caught inseven of the 21 states in which the species isextant, and may be sport-caught in 15 states;catch regulations differ by state. Reportedpaddlefish catch and roe harvest increasedsignificantly in some states in recent years.Part of the increase may be due to moreaggressive enforcement of reportingrequirements. However, contemporary,comprehensive data on paddlefish catch androe harvest are not available for all states.

• Shovelnose sturgeon may be commerciallyfished in eight range states, and sport fishingis legal in 14 states; catch regulations differby state. As with paddlefish, reported harvestof roe increased significantly in some statesin recent years, but comprehensive data arenot available for all states.

• Oregon and Washington allow bothcommercial and sport catch of whitesturgeon. Since 1989, the primary whitesturgeon fishery in the lower Columbia Riverhas been managed for optimum sustainedyield (OSY). Since 1996, Oregon andWashington have managed the fishery undera joint state agreement; the commercialfishery is also subject to the framework of thecongressionally established Columbia RiverCompact. The determination of annual catchlimits and other restrictions is largely basedupon surveys and abundance estimates ofwhite sturgeon stocks. California allows onlysport catch of white sturgeon.

• Oregon and Washington do not allowdirected commercial catch of green sturgeon,but do allow green sturgeon caught in othercommercial fisheries to be kept, and alsoallow sport fishing. California allows sportfishing and some catch of green sturgeon inNative American fisheries.

• The lake sturgeon is classified as athreatened or endangered species in many ofthe species’ U.S. range states. No stateallows commercial fishing for lake sturgeon,but three states (Michigan, Minnesota, andWisconsin) allow limited sport catch.

• In Canada, commercial and recreationalfishing for Atlantic sturgeon is legal in theMaritime provinces and in Quebec. The“sunset” fishery in the Maritime provinces isunder the jurisdiction of the Department ofFisheries and Oceans, and is regulatedthrough a seasonal closure to protectspawning populations, a minimum size limit,and gear restrictions. Maritime fishingregulations do not preclude the catch ofshortnose sturgeon, although the minimumsize restriction makes legal retentionunlikely. The Quebec fishery is managed byprovincial authorities; regulatory restrictionsinclude limiting the number of licensedfishermen, a catch quota, a slot limit on legalfish, gear restrictions, and a seasonal closure.

• Quebec and Ontario were the only Canadianprovinces with active commercial fisheriesfor lake sturgeon as of 2002, and bothprovinces have established catch quotas andreporting requirements. Saskatchewan has afederal lake sturgeon quota, but nocommercial fishing is allowed under aprovincial moratorium. Alberta, Ontario,and Quebec allow sport catch of lakesturgeon, while Manitoba and Saskatchewando not (although there is some catch-and-release fishing).

• Canadian stocks of white sturgeon and greensturgeon have been classified as species ofspecial concern by COSEWIC, and variouspopulation segments are further classified asimperiled or critically imperiled by theprovincial government of British Columbia.There is no commercial or sport catchallowed for either species, although BritishColumbia has allowed limited catch-and-release fishing for white sturgeon in somesegments or tributaries of the Fraser.

• Many U.S. states and Canadian provinceshave tightened regulations governingcommercial and sport catch in recent years.However, the management regimes thatapply to some North American

217

acipenseriform species and populations inNorth America continue to be those thatwere developed during years of moderatemarket demand for domestic caviar. Inrecent decades, prices for caviar from NorthAmerican species were relatively lowcompared to those for imported Caspian Seaspecies, which served to diminish theincentives for fishermen, wholesalers, andretailers to exploit native species. Recentprice trends for caviar from North Americanspecies suggest that this situation ischanging, and management approaches musttake these changes into account.

• A review of the adequacy of currentregulations is particularly urgent for thoseacipenseriform species with populations thatare abundant enough to support commercialand/or sport catch, i.e., paddlefish, shovelnosesturgeon, and white sturgeon in the UnitedStates, and lake sturgeon and Atlanticsturgeon in Canada. Management agenciesneed to ensure that catch of these speciesremains at a level that is sustainable if thesespecies are to exist long into the future.

• In the United States, although some stateshave moved to make their regulations moreconsistent in recent years, there appears to bea continuing lack of coordination or overallregulatory strategy among jurisdictionsconcerning paddlefish and/or sturgeonpopulations. This becomes apparent whenexamining regulatory regimes pertaining topaddlefish and shovelnose sturgeonmanagement and catch in the Mississippi andMissouri river basins, where even stateswhose borders are defined by commonfishing waters sometimes employ differentregulatory requirements and restrictions.

Recommendations• All U.S. states that allow commercial catch

of paddlefish or sturgeon should implementregulations requiring, at a minimum, thereporting of all catch and harvest of roe tostate fisheries agencies. Lack of closemonitoring of catch levels may not havebeen a problem during years in whichmarket demand for North American caviarwas low, but history suggests thatoverfishing can quickly become a problem

and lead to significant population declinesduring periods of high demand. TRAFFICurges all jurisdictions that allow the catch ofthese species to review their regulations anddetermine whether they are adequate to facea situation of increasing demand andexploitation.

• Furthermore, U.S. states that allow catch ofpaddlefish or sturgeon should work toharmonize their regulatory regimes to theextent possible. This is especially true in theMississippi and Missouri river basins, whereneighboring states often share river or otherwater boundaries with paddlefish andsturgeon populations. Standardization offishing seasons, length limits, gearrestrictions, and reporting requirements acrossstate borders, and especially in commonwaters, would serve to eliminate a potentialloophole in state enforcement efforts.

• TRAFFIC is particularly concerned aboutthe long-term sustainability of commercialfishing for shovelnose sturgeon.Historically, there has been a lack ofresearch and baseline data in many states onpopulation status and abundance, criticalhabitat, reproduction, and sustainable catchrate. States that currently allow commercialfishing of shovelnose sturgeon, but have notconducted thorough research and surveys oftheir populations to determine whether thespecies can withstand increased catch,should consider restricting or evensuspending commercial fishing forshovelnose sturgeon until such research andsurveys can be completed.

• In the Canadian Maritime provinces,fisheries regulations for sturgeon should bereviewed and clarified regarding catch andtrade of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon.Current regulations refer only to the catch of“sturgeon.” While the 120 cm (48 inch)minimum size restriction in the fishery shouldlargely preclude the catch of shortnosesturgeon, it can be presumed that any legal-size shortnose sturgeon caught would be avery large, sexually mature specimen, whoseremoval from the population could haveimplications for the breeding population.DFO should consider clarifying theregulations to specify whether or not catch ofshortnose sturgeon is to be allowed.

218

• Every state and province that allows sportcatch of paddlefish or sturgeon should adoptregulations that include a reportingrequirement for fish caught, such asrequiring the physical check-in of fish takenwith fisheries authorities, or some othertype of reporting requirement. This isespecially important for U.S. states thatcurrently allow the sport catch of paddlefishand shovelnose sturgeon without reportingrequirements. Given the need for betterinformation about the abundance andcomposition of stocks of these species— i.e.,average size, age, sex, etc.—mandatoryreporting could provide useful baselineinformation to fisheries managers.

7.3 Legal and Illegal Trade

Summary/Conclusions• It is unlikely that roe from North American

paddlefish and sturgeon species could fullyreplace the domestic and internationaldemand for caviar currently being served byCaspian Sea species on a sustainable basis.Over the course of the 1990s, the UnitedStates alone imported an average of 66metric tons of caviar annually, in addition towhat was produced domestically. U.S.Caviar imports peaked in 1999 at 99 metrictons, then declined to 74 metric tons in2000. Caviar imports reported by theEuropean Union and Japan during the sameperiod averaged more than 200 metric tonsannually, although in 2000 the figure wasonly 109 metric tons. Should the availabilityof caviar from the primary sources in theCaspian Sea decrease significantly becauseof a collapse in the fisheries, reductions inquotas, or increased regulation ofinternational trade, it is highly doubtful thatwild populations of North Americansturgeon provide a resource base broadenough to sustain that level of demand.Domestic roe production from all sources(wild and farmed) would have to increase byseveral multiples to approach the level ofCaspian Sea production.

• Data are not available to precisely quantifythe extent of domestic markets for caviar,meat, or other products from NorthAmerican paddlefish and sturgeon. InCanada, a comparison of domestic catch

versus export records suggests a degree ofdomestic demand for Atlantic sturgeon andlake sturgeon. In the United States, there aredomestic markets for caviar from paddlefish,shovelnose sturgeon, and white sturgeon, aswell as some demand for meat.

• A review of USFWS LEMIS data from thelate 1990s into 2001 shows that there areexport markets for U.S. sturgeon andpaddlefish products. The principal species ininternational trade were paddlefish and whitesturgeon. CITES data from Canada showedexport markets for sturgeon products,primarily meat, from Atlantic sturgeon andlake sturgeon. The principal external marketfor Canadian sturgeon products in recentyears has been the United States.

• The price of U.S. paddlefish roe in exportmarkets increased in 2001 compared with2000. However, the value of individualexports varied widely, with exports to somemarkets valued significantly higher thanconcurrent exports to other markets. Furtherdata will be needed to determine whetherthere is a clear trend of increasing prices.

• Overall, CITES implementation forAcipenseriformes has proceeded fairlysmoothly in the United States and Canada.However, the decentralized nature of themanagement and regulatory systems in bothcountries has presented obstacles incomplying with decisions and resolutions ofCITES, such as the decision calling for thereporting of annual export quotas. Betterstandardization of catch regulations andreporting requirements as outlined abovecould improve the situation.

• Paddlefish and sturgeon roe and meat areperishable products. While carefulinvestigation of export permit applicationsremains critical, finding ways to streamlinethe permit process is also important to ensurethat legally harvested products can reach theirdestination markets in optimal condition.

• The United States and Canada couldpotentially benefit from the development of auniform labeling requirement as called for inCITES Resolution Conf. 11.13. Presumably,North American caviar exports to theEuropean Union could be prohibited if thetwo countries do not come into compliance.

219

• Evidence of poaching and illegal tradeindicates that these practices involve manyspecies and numerous jurisdictions. In someareas, illegal activity appears to be fairlylocalized and sporadic. In other places,particularly the Mississippi and Missouri riverbasins, there are disturbing reports of moreorganized poaching and illegal trade ringstargeting paddlefish and sturgeon species.

• TRAFFIC is particularly concerned overrecent reports of North American paddlefishand sturgeon roe being falsely labeled andsold as Caspian Sea caviar. Recent lawenforcement cases (e.g., the Maryland caseof the U.S. Caviar and Caviar Company)suggest that this practice can be quitelucrative and injurious to customers buyingfalse product at significantly inflated prices.It is not clear at this time whether thesecases represent isolated incidents, or areindicative of a broader new phenomenon inthe illegal caviar trade in North America.Further investigation of this matter should bea priority for law enforcement officials.

Recommendations • U.S. and Canadian CITES management

authorities need to work with states andprovinces that allow the commercial catch ofpaddlefish or sturgeon to investigate ways toincrease compliance with recent CITESresolutions and decisions, such as thereporting of annual export quotas. Such astep might be accomplished cooperatively inthe United States if all states were to developconsistent catch regulations and reportingrequirement. In this way federal CITESmanagement authorities could determinetrue national catch figures for these specieswithout violating the sovereignty of statesand provinces over local fisheriesmanagement.

• CITES management authorities in the UnitedStates and Canada should investigate waysto streamline the system for issuing exportpermits for sturgeon and paddlefishproducts. This could be done in cooperationwith state fisheries authorities to identifycandidates for general findings of non-detriment, as is currently the case for the roedonation programs in Montana and NorthDakota. Participants should be required to

agree to a protocol for regular inspection oraudit of facilities and records to ensurecompliance.

• CITES management authorities in the UnitedStates and Canada should work with theCITES Secretariat, the Animals Committee,and other parties to implement the uniformlabeling system adopted by the CITESParties to the extent that such a system willaccomplish the twin goals of improvingdetection of illegal product and streamliningthe permit process for legal product to moveinto and out of North America.

• Law enforcement authorities should beprovided with resources to fund specialoperations and undercover investigationsinto poaching and illegal trade activities.

• States and provinces that permit the sportcatch of paddlefish or sturgeon shouldinvestigate the feasibility of roe donationprograms such as the ones operational inMontana and North Dakota as a way to bothincrease the utilization of fish routinely takenand also to generate funds for conservationand management. Such programs couldincrease the volume of paddlefish andsturgeon products in legal trade withoutincreasing current commercial catch levels.Possible candidates for such programs couldbe sport fisheries for paddlefish andshovelnose sturgeon in some states in theMississippi and Missouri river basins, lakesturgeon in Canada, and white sturgeon inthe U.S. Pacific northwest.

7.4 Captive Propagation andCommercial Aquaculture

Summary/Conclusions• Captive propagation by federal, state,

provincial, and public-private cooperativeinitiatives can be a vital component ofcurrent paddlefish and sturgeon managementand recovery strategies. For the pallidsturgeon and Alabama sturgeon, captivepropagation may represent the only hope forlong-term species survival. For otherspecies, captive propagation and stockinghave proved critical to the reintroduction ofspecies into areas from which they had beenextirpated, or in the maintenance of

220

populations sufficient to support sport orcommercial catches.

• North American commercial aquaculture isnot yet at a point where it is producingsignificant enough amounts of caviar toreplace or significantly reduce demand forroe from wild-caught or imported sources.Commercial production of white sturgeon isat its most advanced state in California,where caviar production as of 2002 wasestimated at about 10,000 pounds (4.5 metrictons). To date, there has been no significantproduction of caviar from commerciallyfarmed Atlantic sturgeon, paddlefish,shovelnose sturgeon, or lake sturgeon; themain products of enterprises involving thesespecies have been fertilized eggs and fry.

• Both of the above activities, commercialaquaculture in particular, can becontroversial. Issues confronting captivepropagation and restoration efforts includecompromising wild genetic stocks,introduction of non-native diseases into wildpopulations, broodstock procurement,hybridization, disposition of broodstock andsurplus stock, and accidental release ofhatchery-reared fish. Commercialaquaculture facilities must also address theseconcerns. Law enforcement agencies arefurther concerned that commercialaquaculture facilities may be an avenue tolaunder illegally taken or obtained wild roethat is misrepresented as aquaculture productfor distribution into the legal market.

• Regulatory requirements regardingcommercial aquaculture differ. There arefederal restrictions that relate to specificspecies, such as aquaculture of Atlanticsturgeon in ASMFC states. At the state andprovincial level, some jurisdictions prohibitthe private aquaculture of sturgeon andpaddlefish, others allow but closely restrictand monitor commercial aquacultureventures, and still others allow the practicewith little oversight. In the absence of acomprehensive oversight system, it isdifficult to determine the precise number ofcommercial aquaculture ventures involvingpaddlefish and sturgeon in North America.Complicating the issue are Native Americanand First Nations captive propagation andcommercial aquaculture facilities in the

United States and Canada that are subject tospecific laws and treaties between thesovereign tribes and the respective state,provincial, and federal authorities.

• Further development of commercialaquaculture could provide benefits to wildpaddlefish and sturgeon populations byproviding an alternative source of roe andmeat. However, the expansion ofcommercial aquaculture requires carefulregulation and oversight to preventaccidental escapes, introduction of non-native species, disease transmission, dilutionof wild genetic stocks, hybridization, and thepotential for illegal laundering of wild roeinto legal markets.

• To ensure that commercial aquaculture meetsits goals of providing caviar and otherproducts for North American andinternational markets while benefiting theconservation of wild populations, strictregulatory protocols and monitoringprocedures are needed for the industry.

Recommendations • The U.S. and Canadian federal governments

and those states and provinces that allow thecommercial aquaculture of paddlefish and/orsturgeon species should immediately conducta complete inventory of all such facilitiesand operations. Basic information to gatherincludes the species currently under culture,the amount of pond acreage undercultivation, current and anticipatedproduction amounts and timetables, and themarkets being served. Such informationwould help fisheries managers torealistically assess current actual productionlevels of roe and meat, and how much islikely to be produced and marketed in theshort and long terms. It would also providea mechanism to help authorities prevent theillegal laundering of roe or meat from wildpopulations through such facilities.

• Where the following is not already the case,jurisdiction over rules and regulationsgoverning commercial aquaculture ofAcipenseriformes should be given to stateand provincial fisheries agencies, ratherthan agriculture or other departments,throughout the United States and Canada.This would recognize that, unlike other fish

221

that may be commercially farmed, wildpopulations of native paddlefish andsturgeon face unique conservationchallenges, and the production of caviarfrom such operations is closely linked toproduction from commercial fisheries.Providing authority over commercialaquaculture to the fisheries agencies that arealready the primary public stewards of wildsturgeon and paddlefish populations wouldalso better centralize information on catchand production levels in individualjurisdictions, and thereby facilitate efforts todetect and eliminate illegal laundering ofwild-caught roe through commercialaquaculture operations.

• Fisheries authorities should develop a clearset of guidelines regarding the placementand operational requirements foraquaculture facilities to prevent any escapeof cultured fish that could lead to

transmission of non-native diseases,hybridization, or the genetic dilution of wildpopulations. Past instances of unintentionalor intentional release of cultured sturgeon(e.g., the case of white sturgeon found inGeorgia rivers) demonstrate that theindustry needs to be carefully regulated toavoid any such future incidents.

• Fisheries authorities should also considerthe pros and cons of proposals such asreservoir ranching in closed water bodies asa way to increase the production ofcommercially valuable species withoutimpacting wild populations. Such ideas mayor may not prove ecologically andeconomically feasible and sustainable, butgiven the likely increase in demand forcaviar from North American species,innovative ideas to meet market demandsneed to be explored.

222

Literature CitedAGFC. 2001a. Turtling, turtle farmer, commercial fishing and closure regulations (Updated

December 2001). Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas.

AGFC. 2001b. Important changes regarding the regulations for the commercial harvest ofpaddlefish (spoonbill), sturgeon and bowfin (grinnel). Arkansas Game and FishCommission, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Alaska Department of Revenue. 2001. 2001 fishery resource landing tax return. State of AlaskaDepartment of Revenue, Tax Division, Juneau, Alaska.

Alberta Government. 1997–2001. Alberta’s lake sturgeon management plan. Internet:www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/fishing/strgnpln.html. Viewed February 19, 2002.

Alberta Government. 2001. 2001 Alberta guide to sportfishing regulations. Internet:www.albertaoutdoorsmen.ca/fishingregs/prov_wide_regs.html. Viewed February 19, 2002.

Andreasen, L. 1999. Captive propagation as a recovery tool for North American sturgeon. InProceedings of the symposium on the harvest, trade and conservation of North Americanpaddlefish and sturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga, TN, D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz,and C. M. Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington,D.C., USA.

Anon. 1997. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, Harare, Zimbabwe, 9–20 June 1997.Proposal to amend the Appendices pursuant to CITES Resolution Conf. 9.24. Submitted bythe CITES Management Authorities of Germany and the United States of America.

Anon. 1999a. Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirynchus suttkusi). Endangered Species Bulletin, May/June1999. Internet: www.nativefish.org/Articles/AL_Shovelnose.htm. Viewed April 20, 2001.

Anon. 1999b. Four charged in catch and sale of sturgeon. TRAFFIC North America Newsletter2(2), September 1999. Traffic North America, Washington, D.C.

Anon. 2000a. The ancient fish - Spoonbill or paddlefish. Internet:www.trumaninfoguide.com/GeneralDoc/paddleFish.html.

Anon. 2000b. Conservation agreement and strategy for the Alabama sturgeon, Scaphirhynchussuttkusi. Paper detailing an agreement and strategy between the Alabama Department ofConservation and Natural Resources, United States Department of the Interior, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, and Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition, February 8, 2000.

Anon. 2000c. Lake sturgeon project: Overview. Internet: www.fws.gov/r3pao/p_sturg.htm.Viewed September 8, 2000.

Anon. 2001a. Acipenser oxyrhynchus. Paper prepared by Environment Canada and transmitted toTRAFFIC International for 2001 CITES Significant Trade Review.

Anon. 2001b. White sturgeon – Acipenser transmontanus (Richardson). Internet:http://elib.cs.berkely.edu/kopec/tr9/html/sp-white-sturgeon.html. Viewed October 8, 2001.

Anon. 2001c. Phase IV survey on CITES Appendix II taxa subject to significant levels of trade.IUCN/SSC Trade Programme paper provided to TRAFFIC North America, August 2001.

223

REFERENCES

ASMFC. 1992. Recommendations concerning the culture and stocking of Atlantic sturgeon. Spec.Rep. No. 22. December 1992. 20 pp. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,Washington, D.C.

ASMFC. 1996. ASMFC breeding and stocking protocol for cultured Atlantic sturgeon. FisheryManagement Report No. 68 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,Washington, D.C.

ASMFC. 1998a. American shad and Atlantic sturgeon stock assessment peer review: Terms ofreference and advisory report. Publication of ASMFC pursuant to National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration Award No. NA87FG0025. Washington, D.C.

ASMFC. 1998b. Amendment 1 to the interstate fishery management plan for Atlantic sturgeon.Fishery Management Report No. 31 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,Washington, D.C.

ASMFC. 2001a. Atlantic sturgeon. Internet: www.asmfc.org/Programs/Fish%20Mgnt/Sturgeon.Viewed June 26, 2001.

ASMFC. 2001b. ASMFC terms, limitations, enforcement and reporting requirements for thepurposes of permitting importation of non-indigenous Atlantic sturgeon and the developmentof private aquaculture facilities. Fishery Management Report No. 31b of the Atlantic StatesMarine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.

ASMFC. 2001c. Addendum I to Amendment 1 of the interstate fishery management plan forAtlantic sturgeon. Fishery Management Report No. 31a of the Atlantic States MarineFisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.

Bain, M. B., S. Nack, and J. G. Knight. 1995. Population status of shortnose sturgeon in theHudson River. Phase 1 Project Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North AtlanticDivision. New York, New York.

Bain, M. B., K. Mills, P. Sullivan, N. Haley, D. L. Peterson, and K. K. Arend. 2001. Shortnosesturgeon of the Hudson River: An endangered species recovery success. Abstract #951317755-74. American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. Internet:www.ecu.edu/org/afs/st_louis/abssturgeon/r951317755-74.htm. Viewed October 17, 2001.

Bateman, D. H., and M. S. Brim. 1994. Environmental contaminants in Gulf sturgeon of northwestFlorida 1985–1991. USFWS Pub. No. PCFO-EC 94-09. Panama City, Florida. 23 pp.

B.C. Fisheries. 2001a. White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) in British Columbia. Internet:www.bcfisheries.gov.bc.ca/fishhabitats/Sturgeon/Sturgeon.htm.

B.C. Fisheries. 2001b. Conservation fish culture for white sturgeon. Internet:www.bcfisheries.gov.bc.ca/fishhabitats/Sturgeon/Culture.htm. Viewed September 25, 2001.

B.C. Fisheries. 2001c. Aquaculture: British Columbia aquaculture harvests and values, 1997–1999.Internet: www.bcfisheries.gov.bc.ca/stats/statistics-aqua.htm. Viewed October 8, 2001.

Beamesderfer, R. 1999. Management and trade in Pacific sturgeon. In Proceedings of thesymposium on the harvest, trade and conservation of North American paddlefish andsturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M.Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.,

Benz, G. W. 2001. Overview of the upper Tennessee River system lake sturgeon reintroductionprogram. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute and Tennessee Aquarium, Chattanooga,Tenn. E-mail to D. Williamson, June 2001.

Birstein, V. J. 1993. Draft application to CITES: Order Acipenseriformes. Unpublished.

Boland, T. 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002. Commercial fishing report. Iowa Department of NaturalResources, Bureau of Fisheries. Bellevue Fisheries Station, Bellevue, Iowa.

224

Bramblett, R. G. 1996. Habitat and movements of pallid and shovelnose sturgeon in theYellowstone and Missouri rivers, Montana and North Dakota. Ph.d. dissertation. MontanaState University, Bozeman, Montana. 210 pp.

Bruch, R. M. 1999. Management and trade of lake sturgeon in North America. In Proceedings ofthe symposium on the harvest, trade and conservation of North American paddlefish andsturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M.Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Brundage, H. M., III, and R. E. Meadows. 1982. The Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus, inthe Delaware River estuary. Fishery Bulletin 80:337-343.

Buck, E. H. 1995. Summaries of major laws implemented by the National Marine FisheriesService. Congressional Research Service Issue Brief for Congress. The National Councilfor Science and the Environment, Washington, D.C.

Carlson, D. M. and P. S. Bonislawsky. 1981. The paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) fisheries of themidwestern United States. Fisheries 6(2): 17–22, 26–27.

Carlson, D. M., W. L. Pflieger, L. Trial, and P. S. Haverland. 1985. Distribution, biology, andhybridization of Scaphirhynchus albus and S. platorynchus in the Missouri and Mississippirivers. Environmental Biology of Fishes 14(1): 51–59.

Caron, F. and S. Tremblay. 1999. Structure and management of an exploited population of Atlanticsturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) in the St. Lawrence Estuary, Quebec, Canada. J. Appl.Ichthyol. 15: 153–156.

Caviar Emptor Online. 2001. Implications for sturgeon populations in the United States. Internet:www.caviaremptor.org/uspops.html. Viewed March 30, 2001.

CDFG. 1995. Fish species of special concern in California, green sturgeon. Internet:www.dfg.ca.gov/hcp…pecy+fish&query+acipenser%20medirostris

CDFG. 2000a. Fishing regulations for 2000-2002. Chapter 2, Article 4. Species Regulations,Section 5.80, Sturgeon.

CDFG. 2000b. Fishing regulations for 2000-2002. Chapter 4, Article 1. Ocean Fishing, Section27.90, Sturgeon; Section 27.95, Sturgeon Closure.

Chapman, F. A. 1999. Overview of life histories and challenges to North American species. InProceedings of the symposium on the harvest, trade and conservation of North Americanpaddlefish and sturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz,and C. M. Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Chapman, F. A., C. S. Hartless, and S. H. Carr. 1997. Population size estimates of sturgeon in theSuwanee River, Florida. Gulf of Mexico Science 2: 88-91.

Christenson, L. M. 1975. The shovelnose sturgeon, Scaphirynchus platorynchus (Rafinesque), inthe Red Cedar-Chippewa river system, Wisconsin. Wis. Dept. Nat. Res. Rep. 82. 23 pp.

Chytalo, K. 1996. Summary of Long Island Sound dredging windows strategy workshop. InManagement of Atlantic coastal marine fish habitat: Proceedings of a workshop for habitatmanagers. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series #2.

CITES. 2000. What is CITES? Internet: www.cites.org/CITES/eng/what-is.shtml.

CITES. 2001a. Species database. Internet: www.cites.org.

CITES. 2001b. Convention text. Internet: www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml.

CITES. 2001c. Resolution Conf. 10.12 (Rev.). Conservation of sturgeons. Internet:www.cites.org/eng/resols/10/10_12.shtml. Viewed March 4, 2002.

CITES. 2001d. Cites Decision 11.58. Regarding trade in sturgeons and paddlefish. Internet:www.cites.org.

225

CITES. 2001e. Notification to the Parties 2001/005. Catch and export quotas for acipenseriformesfor 2001. Internet: www.cites.org.

CITES. 2001f. Resolution Conf. 11.13. Universal labelling system for the identification of caviar.Internet: www.cites.org/eng/resols/11/11_13.shtml. Viewed July 6, 2001.

CITES. 2001g. Notification to the Parties 2001/019. Export quotas for specimens of speciesincluded in the CITES appendices for 2001.

CITES. 2002a. Universal labelling system for the identification of caviar: Proposed amendments toResolution Conf. 11.13. AC18 Doc. 15.2. Eighteenth Meeting of the Animals Committee,San Jose, Costa Rica, 8–12 April 2002.

CITES. 2002b. Implementation of Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.): The significant trade reviewprocess. AC 17 Inf. 1, August 2001.

CITES. 2002c. Implementation of Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.) (Decision 11.106). Progress on theimplementation of the review of significant trade (Phases IV and V). AC 18 Doc. 7.1.Eighteenth Meeting of the Animals Committee, San Jose, Costa Rica, 8–12 April 2002.Internet: www.cites.org/eng/cttee/animals/18/E18-07-1.pdf.

Cobb, J. N. 1900. The sturgeon fishery of Delaware River and Bay. Report of the Commissioner,U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries 25: 369–381.

Coker, R. E. 1930. Keokuk Dam and the fisheries of the upper Mississippi River. Bulletin of theUnited States Bureau of Fisheries 45 (1929):87–139.

Collins, M. R. and T. I. J. Smith. 1993. Characteristics of the adult segment of the Savannah Riverpopulation of shortnose sturgeon. Proc. Annu. Conf. SEAFWA 47: 485–491.

Collins, M. R., S. G. Rogers, and T. I. J. Smith. 1996. Bycatch of sturgeons along the southernAtlantic coast of the USA. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 24-29.

Collins, M. R., S. G. Rogers, T. I. J. Smith, and M. L. Moser. 2000. Primary factors affectingsturgeon populations in the southeastern United States: Fishing mortality and degradation ofessential habitats. Bulletin of Marine Sciences 66(3): 917–928.

Collins, M. R., W. C. Post, and D. C. Rust. 2001. Distribution of shortnose sturgeon in the lowerSavannah River. Final report to Georgia Ports Authority. South Carolina Department ofNatural Resources, Charleston, SC. 21 pp.

Collins, R. L. 2002. Implementation of the November 2000 Missouri River operations biologicalopinion and status of the Missouri River master manual study. In Pallid sturgeon recoveryupdate, R. Wilson (ed.). Issue No. 12, February 2002. USFWS, Bismarck, North Dakota.

Columbia River Compact. 2000. Joint staff report: Winter fact sheet No. 1, December 18, 2000.

Columbia River Compact. 2001. Joint staff report: Winter fact sheet No. 1. December 12, 2001.

Columbia River Compact. 2002a. Joint staff report: Winter fact sheet No. 2. January 31, 2002.

Columbia River Compact. 2002b. Joint staff report: Winter fact sheet No. 1. December 18, 2002.

Combs, D. L. 1986. The role of regulations in managing paddlefish populations. In The paddlefish:Status, management and propagation, J. G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T. R. Russell (eds.).Special publication No. 7, North Central Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,Md., pp. 68–76.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Endangered, threatened and specialconcern fish. Internet: www.dep.state.ct.us/cgnhs/nddb/fish.htm. Viewed August 2002.

COSEWIC. 2001. Terms and risk categories. Internet: www.cosewic.gc.ca/cosewic/Terms.cfm.Viewed June 1, 2001.

226

Dadswell, M. J. 1979. Biology and population characteristics of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenserbrevirostrum LeSueur 1818 (Osteichthyes: Acipenseridae), in the Saint John River estuary,New Brunswick, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57: 2186–2210.

Dadswell, M. J., B. D. Taubert, T. S. Squiers, D. Marchette, and J. Buckley. 1984. Synopsis ofbiological data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report NMFS 14, Washington, D.C.

Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Endangered species of Delaware (effective June 12,2000). Internet: www.dnrec.state.de.us/fw/telist.htm. Viewed August 2002.

De Meulenaer, T. and C. Raymakers. 1996. Sturgeons of the Caspian Sea and the InternationalCaviar Trade. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 71 pp.

DeVore, J., B. James, and R. Beamesderfer. 1999. Draft lower Columbia River white sturgeoncurrent stock status and management implications. Internet:www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/whtsturg.htm.

DFO. 2000. Legislative basis for the protection of fish habitat. Internet:www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Publicatione.htm#oceans. Viewed August, 2002.

DFO. 2001. 1995-1999 estimates. Internet: www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/frd/Reports/Creel/historical.htm. Viewed September 2001.

DFO. 2002a. Survey of recreational fishing in Canada: Total and average catch by species inCanada in 2000, by jurisdiction. Internet: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/statistics/RECFISH/new2002/catch_e.htm. ViewedJanuary 2003.

DFO. 2002b. Survey of recreational fishing in Canada: Total and average retention by species inCanada in 2000, by jurisdiction. Internet: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/statistics/RECFISH/new2002/retain_e.htm. ViewedJanuary 2003.

Dovel, W. L. 1979. The biology and management of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon of the HudsonRiver. Final report to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.Albany, New York.

Duffy, W. G., C. R. Berry, and K. D. Keenlyne. 1996. Biology of the pallid sturgeon with anannotated bibliography through 1994. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,Technical Bulletin 5. South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota.

Duke, S. (ed.). 1999. Kootenai River white sturgeon recovery update: Recent recovery, research,monitoring and management activities. Issue Number 3, November, 1999. USFWS, Boise,Idaho.

Elser, A. A. 1986. An overview of current management practices for paddlefish fisheries. In Thepaddlefish: Status, management and propagation, J. G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T.R.Russell (eds.). Special Publication No. 7, North Central Division, American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Md., pp. 62–67.

Environment Canada. 1999. Species at risk in Canada – White sturgeon. Internet:www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca. Viewed March 21, 2001.

Environment Canada. 2000. Species at risk in Canada – Shortnose sturgeon. Internet:www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca. Viewed March 21, 2001.

Environment Canada. 2001a. Species at risk in Canada – Paddlefish. Internet:www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca. Viewed November 13, 2002.

Environment Canada. 2001b. Species at risk in Canada – Green sturgeon. Internet:www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca. Viewed May 7, 2001.

227

Environment Canada. 2002. Environmental acts and regulations. Internet:www3.ec.gc.ca/EnviroRegs. Viewed August 2002.

Environment News Service. 2001. Caviar smuggler pleads guilty. Environment News Service,March 30, 2001.

Etnier, D. A. and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Knoxville, Tenn.: The University ofTennessee Press.

European Union. 2001. Community legislation in force – Document 397R0338: CouncilRegulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild faunaand flora by regulating trade therein. Internet: www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1997/en_397R0338.html.

Fain, S. 1999. Forensics and caviar identification (Abstract). In Proceedings of the symposium onthe harvest, trade and conservation of North American paddlefish and sturgeon, May 7–8,1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M. Hoover (eds.).TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Ferguson, M. M. and G. A. Duckworth. 1997. The status and distribution of lake sturgeon,Acipenser fulvescens, in the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec: Agenetic perspective. In Sturgeon biodiversity and conservation, V. Birstein, J. R. Waldman,and W. E. Bemis (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:299-309.

Field, J. D., W. Laney, W. Andrews, K. McKown, P. Perra, T. Smith, R. St. Pierre, J. Markham, R.Rhodes. 1999. Management of Atlantic sturgeon. In Proceedings of the symposium on theharvest, trade and conservation of North American paddlefish and sturgeon, May 7–8, 1998,Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M. Hoover (eds.). TRAFFICNorth America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C., USA.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 1997. Florida’s endangered species,threatened species and species of special concern. Internet:www.floridaconservation.org/pubs/endangered.html. Viewed August 2002.

Friedland, K. 2000. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. Internet:www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsyn/af/sturgeon/. Viewed March 16, 2001.

Gengerke, T. A. 1986. Distribution and abundance of paddlefish in the United States. In Thepaddlefish: Status, management and propagation, J. G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T.R.Russell (eds.). Special Publication No. 7, North Central Division, American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Md., p. 22–35.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Special concern animal species in Georgia.Internet: www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/specialconcernanimals.asp. ViewedAugust 2002.

Gnam, R. 1999. Implementation of 1997 CITES listing made effective April 1, 1998. InProceedings of the symposium on the harvest, trade and conservation of North Americanpaddlefish and sturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz,and C. M. Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Godwin. J. 1999. Threatened and endangered fish of Alabama. TREASURED Forests, Spring,1999. Internet: www.forestry.state.al.us/publica…dangered/endangered_fish_of_Alabama.htm. Viewed August 22, 2002.

Graham, L. K. 1997. Contemporary status of the North American paddlefish, Polyodon spathula.In Sturgeon biodiversity and conservation, V. Birstein, J. R. Waldman, and W. E. Bemis(eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Environmental Biology ofFishes 48:279–289.

228

Graham, L. K. and J. L. Rasmussen. 1999. A MICRA perspective on closing paddlefish andsturgeon commercial fisheries. In Proceedings of the symposium on the harvest, trade andconservation of North American paddlefish and sturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga,Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M. Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC NorthAmerica/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. 2000. Internet: www.glfc.org.

Harkness, W. J. K. and J. R. Dymond. 1961. The lake sturgeon – The history of its fishery andproblems of conservation. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Fish and WildlifeBranch.

Hay-Chmielewski, L., and G. Whelan (eds.). 1997. Lake sturgeon rehabilitation strategy. FisheriesDivision Special Report, Number 18. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing,Mich., 51 pp.

Haywood, M. 1999. Sturgeon and paddlefish and their current conservation status. In Proceedingsof the symposium on the harvest, trade and conservation of North American paddlefish andsturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M.Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Helms, D. R. 1974. Shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirynchus platorynchus) in the navigationalimpoundments of the Upper Mississippi River. Ia. Conserv. Comm., Fish. Sec. Tech. Ser.No. 74-3. 68 pp.

Henley, D., L. Frankland, S. Hale, C. O’Bara, and T. Stefanavage. In press. The case for multi-jurisdictional management of Ohio River paddlefish. Proceedings of the Annual Conferenceof the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 55: 243-256.

Hesse, L .W. and J. R. Carreiro. 1997. The status of paddlefish, pallid sturgeon, lake sturgeon, andshovelnose sturgeon. Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association, Bettendorf,Iowa, 52 pp.

Hildebrand, L., C. McLeod, and S. McKenzie. 1999. Status and management of white sturgeon inthe Columbia River in British Columbia, Canada: An overview. J. Appl. Icthyol. 15 (1999):164–172.

Hill, J. 1996. Environmental considerations in licensing hydropower projects: Policies andpractices at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. American Fisheries SocietySymposium 16: 190–199.

Hochleithner, M. and J. Gessner. 1999. The sturgeons and paddlefishes (Acipenseriformes) of theworld: Biology and aquaculture. Kitzbuehel, Austria: Aquatech Publications.

Hoover, C. M. 1996. Sturgeon, paddlefish, and the U.S. caviar fishery. TRAFFIC USA Newsletter15(4). December. Washington, D.C.

Hoover, C. M. 1999. Import and Export of sturgeon and paddlefish in the United States. InProceedings of the symposium on the harvest, trade and conservation of North Americanpaddlefish and sturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz,and C. M. Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Houston, J. J. 1987. Status of the lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in Canada. Canadian FieldNaturalist 101(2): 171–185.

Huff, J. A. 1975. Life history of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi inSuwanee River, Florida. Mar. Res. Publ. No. 16. 32 pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2000. Idaho 2000 and 2001 fishing seasons and rulesincluding steelhead. 2nd edition, updated July 2000.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2001. Kootenai River fisheries recovery investigations,January–March 2001.

229

Idaho Fish Health Center (IFHC). 2001. Internet: www.idfishhealth.fws.gov/kootenai.htm.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2001. 2001 Illinois fishing information, effectiveApril 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2001. Indiana’s endangered wildlife: Fish.Internet: www.ai.org/dnr/fishwild/nongame/fish.htm.

IUCN. 2000. The 2000 IUCN Red List of threatened species: 1994 Categories and Criteria.Internet: www.redlist.org/categories_criteria.html.

IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List 2000 database. Internet: www.redlist.org.

Jenkins, W. E., T. I. J. Smith, L. D. Heyward, and D. M. Knott. 1993. Tolerance of shortnosesturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, juveniles to different salinity and dissolved oxygenconcentrations. Proceedings of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,Atlanta, Georgia.

Joint Columbia River Management Staff. 2000. Joint staff report concerning commercial seasonsfor sturgeon and smelt in 2001. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, November 29, 2000.

Joint Columbia River Management Staff. 2001a. Joint staff report concerning commercial seasonsfor sturgeon and smelt in 2002. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, November 27, 2001.

Joint Columbia River Management Staff. 2001b. Joint staff report concerning the 2001 in-rivercommercial harvest of Columbia River fall chinook salmon, summer steelhead, cohosalmon, and sturgeon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, August 2, 2001.

Joint Columbia River Management Staff. 2002. Joint staff report concerning commercial seasonsfor sturgeon and smelt in 2003. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife, December 3, 2002.

Kahnle, A. W., K. A. Hattala, K. A. McKown, C. A. Shirey, M. R. Collins, T. S. Squiers, Jr., D. H.Secor, J. A. Musick and T. Savoy. 1998. Stock status of Atlantic sturgeon of Atlantic coastestuaries. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. 141 p.

Keenlyne, K. D. and L. G. Jenkins. 1993. Age at sexual maturity of the pallid sturgeon.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121: 139-140.

Keenlyne, K. D., L. K. Graham, and B. C. Reed. 1994. Hybridization between the pallid andshovelnose sturgeons. Proc. South Dakota Academy of Science 73: 59-66.

Keenlyne, K. D. 1997. Life history and status of the shovelnose sturgeon, Scaphirhynchasplatorhynchus. In Sturgeon biodiversity and conservation, V. Birstein, J. R. Waldman, andW. E. Bemis (eds.), Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 291–298.

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources [KDFWR]. 2002. Species in Kentucky.Internet: www.kfwis.state.ky.us/KFWIS/SpeciesInfo/SpeciesList.htm. Viewed February 20,2002.

Kentucky State University, Kentucky Aquaculture Task Force, and Kentucky Department of Fish andWildlife Resources. 2003. Final report: The implementation of reservoir ranchingresolution HJR 210. Presented to the Interim Joint Committee on Agriculture and NaturalResources, Frankfort, Kentucky, January 29, 2003. 7 pp.

Kohlhorst, D. W., L. W. Botsford, J. S. Brennan, and G. M. Caillet. 1991. Aspects of the structureand dynamics of an exploited central California population of white sturgeon (Acipensertransmontanus). In Acipenser, actes du premier colloque international sur l’esturgeon, P.Williot (ed.). CEMAGREF, Bordeaux, France. pp. 277–293.

230

Kozhin, N. I. 1964. Sturgeons of the USSR and their reproduction. In Sturgeons of the southernseas of the USSR. VNIRO Proceedings 52. VNIRO Publishers, Moscow, USSR, pp. 32–59(in Russian).

Lane, E. D. 1991. Status of the White Sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus, in Canada. TheCanadian Field Naturalist 105: 161–168.

Leber, K. M. 1999. Rationale for an experimental approach to stock enhancement. In StockEnhancement and Sea Ranching, B. R. Howell, E. Moksness, and T. Svasand, eds. FishingNews Books, Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, England. pp. 63–75

Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980.Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. Publication #1980-12, North CarolinaBiological Survey, North Carolina State Museum of Natural History.

Le Grand, H. E., S. P. Hall, and J. P. Finnegan. 2001. Natural heritage program list of the rareanimal species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division ofParks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Lorio, W. 2000. Proceedings of the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) statusof the subspecies workshop. Mississippi State University, Stennis Space Center, Miss.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2002. Species listed as threatened (T) andendangered (E) in Louisiana. Internet:www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/index.asp?cn=lawwlf&pid=693. Viewed August 2002.

M2 Presswire. 2000. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks: Sturgeon poaching results inthe arrest of two individuals. M2 Communications Ltd., September 22, 2000.

M2 Presswire. 2001. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks: Vancouver resident pleadsguilty to sturgeon poaching. M2 Communications Ltd., March 29, 2001.

Macomb Daily. 2001. Macomb County roundup. June 30, 2001. Macomb County, Michigan.

Maine Rivers. 2000. Shortnose sturgeon. Internet: www.mainerivers.org/species/sturgeon.htm.Viewed October 17, 2001.

Malaspina University-College. 2000. News release: Gina the sturgeon gives birth to an industry.August 15, 2000.

Manitoba Conservation. 2001a. A profile of Manitoba’s commercial fishery. ManitobaConservation, Fisheries Branch, Winnipeg, Manitoba, June 20, 2001.

Manitoba Conservation. 2001b. 2001 Manitoba anglers’ guide—Rules and regulations. Internet:www.gov.mb.ca/natres/fish/guide/limits.html. Viewed February 19, 2002.

Marchant, R. S. and M. K. Shutters. 1996. Artificial substrates collect Gulf sturgeon eggs. NorthAmerican Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 445–447.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1998. Maryland’s endangered animals. Internet:www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/rtea.html. Viewed August 2002.

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 2002. Massachusetts list of endangered,threatened and special concern species. Internet:www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/nhrare.htm. Viewed August 2002.

Mayden, R. L. and B. R. Kuhajda. 1996. Systematics, taxonomy, and conservation status of theendangered Alabama sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus suttkusi, Williams and Clemmer(Actinoperygii, Acipenseridae). Copeia 1996: 241–273.

McIver, K. L. 2002. Gulf sturgeon. Alabama’s TREASURED Forests, Spring 2002.

MDWFP. 2000a. Public Notice No. 3357.001, November 27, 2000. Mississippi Department ofWildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Division of Wildlife and Fisheries, Jackson, Mississippi.

231

MDWFP. 2000b. Public Notice Number 2999.003. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheriesand Parks, Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife, Jackson, Mississippi.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources [DNR]. 2002. Michigan fish stocking database.Internet: www.MICHIGANDNR.COM/FISH/fishstock.asp. Viewed May 30, 2002.

MICRA. 2000. Mussel and sturgeon in jeopardy. River Crossings 9:3 (May/June).

MICRA. 1998. Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Agreement (MICRA). Internet:www.aa015.msc.nbs.gov.

Miller, A. I., T. D. Counihan, M. J. Parsley, and L. G. Beckman. 2001. Columbia River WhiteSturgeon. Internet: www.biology.usgs.gov.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [DNR]. 2002a. 2002 Minnesota Fishing Regulations,effective March 1, 2002–February 23, 2003.

Minnesota DNR. 2002b. DNR requests comments on proposed lake sturgeon restrictions. NewsRelease November 20, 2002. Internet:www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/releases/index.html?id=1037808984. Viewed November 22,2002.

Minnesota DNR. 2002c. Stocking report: Minnesota DNR. Internet:www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/sho. Viewed May 30, 2002.

Missouri Department of Conservation Fisheries Division. 1998. 1998 Missouri fish dealerdirectory. Jefferson City, Mo.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 2002. Lake sturgeon. Missouri Fish and WildlifeInformation System. Internet:www.conservation.st…s/search.cgi?record=0100179&MATCH=exact. Viewed September2002.

Moser, M. L. and S. W. Ross. 1993. Distribution and movements of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostrum) and other anadromous fishes of the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina.Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina.

Moser, M. L. and S. W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shortnose and Atlanticsturgeons in the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the AmericanFisheries Society 124: 225–234.

Mosher, T. D. 1999. Sturgeon and paddlefish sportfishing in North America. In Proceedings of thesymposium on the harvest, trade and conservation of North American paddlefish andsturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M.Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Moss, J. L. 2001. Alabama’s Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries studies rare fish.Internet: www.dcnr.state.al.us/agfd/FNAStudiesRare.html. Viewed May 23, 2001.

Musick, J. A. 1999. Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. American FisheriesSociety Symposium 23:1-10.

Naylor, R. L., R. J. Goldburg, J. N. Primavera, N. Kautsky, M. C. M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, J.Lubchenco, H. Mooney, and M. Truell. 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies.Nature, Vol. 405, 29 June.

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife of NewHampshire. Internet: www.wildlife.state.nh.us/nongameendlist.htm. Viewed August 2002.

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Endangered and threatened wildlife of NewJersey. Internet: www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/tandespp.htm. Viewed August 2002.

232

NMFS. 1998. Recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by theShortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service. SilverSpring, Md. 104 pp.

NMFS. 2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 90-day finding for a petition to listNorth American green sturgeon as threatened or endangered under the Endangered SpeciesAct. In the Federal Register, December 14, 2001, Volume 66, Number 241, pp.64793–64795.

NMFS. 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to listNorth American green sturgeon as a threatened or endangered species. In the FederalRegister, January 29, 2003, Volume 68, Number 19, pp. 4433–4441.

NMFS/NOAA. 2001a. Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhincus oxyrhincus). Internet:www.nmfs.noaa.gov. Viewed March 16, 2001.

NMFS/NOAA. 2001b. Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Internet:www.nmfs.noaa.gov. Viewed March 16, 2001.

NMFS/USFWS. 1998. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus).Washington, D.C.

NPSSC. 1993. Framework for the management of conservation of paddlefish and sturgeon speciesin the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C. 12 pp. + app.

NYS/DEC. 1999. Lake sturgeon fact sheet. Internet:www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/lakestur.html. Viewed May 23, 2001.

NYS/DEC. 2001. Shortnose sturgeon fact sheet. Internet:@www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/shnostur.html. Viewed October 17,2001.

NYS/DEC. 2002a. NYSDEC 2001 Fish Stocking Lists.@www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/fish/sk01catt.html. Viewed May 15, 2002.

NYS/DEC. 2002b. A look at DEC fish hatcheries. Internet:www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/fish/99fish.htm. Viewed May 15, 2002.

Obrecht, J. 1996. Shovelnose sturgeon reintroduced to Bighorn Basin. Wyoming Game and FishNews, Cheyenne, Wyo.

ODFW. 1995a. White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus): Species overview. Internet:www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/Research&Reports/WildFish/CHAPTER6.html.

ODFW. 1995b. Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris): Species overview and status. Internet:@www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/Research&Reports/WildFish/CHAPTER6.html.

ODFW. 2001. 2001 rule changes for fishing and hunting in Oregon. Internet:www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/Regulations/2001_temprules.htm.

ODFW. 2002. Anglers contribute to sturgeon research. ODFW News Release, January 30, 2002.Internet:www.chinook.dfw.state.us:80/public/NewsArc/2002News/January/January/013102bnew.htm.Viewed February 14, 2002.

Omaha World Herald. 2000. Wildlife agencies ticket 30 people after probe. Omaha World HeraldJuly 20, 2000. Omaha, Nebraska.

Ong, T-L., J. Stabile, I. Wirgin, and J. R. Waldman. 1996. Genetic divergence between Acipenseroxyrinchus oxyrinchus and A. o. desotoi as assessed by mitochondrial sequencing analysis.Copeia 1996(2): 464–469.

Parr, D. 1999. Progress with paddlefish restoration. Internet:www.sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/jf99?padlfish.htm. Viewed May 15, 2002.

233

Pasch, R. W. and C. M. Alexander. 1986. Effects of commercial fishing on paddlefish populations.In The paddlefish: status, management and propagation, J. G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T.R. Russell (eds.). Special Publication No. 7, North Central Division, American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Md.

PDCNR. 2001a. Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus). Internet:www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/asturg.htm. Viewed October 2001.

PDCNR. 2001b. Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Internet:www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/ssturg.htm. Viewed October 2001.

PDCNR. 2002. Current status of Pennsylvania fishes adopted by the Pennsylvania Fish and BoatCommission July 18, 1999. Internet: www.dcnr.state.pa.us/pabs/fish_table_2.htm. ViewedFebruary 20, 2002.

Propst, D. L. 1999. Threatened and endangered fishes of New Mexico. Tech. Rpt. No. 1, NewMexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 84 pp.

PSMFC. 1996a. White sturgeon. Internet: www.psmfc.org/habitat/edu_wsturg_fact.html. ViewedMarch 20, 2001.

PSMFC. 1996b. Green sturgeon. Internet: www.psmfc.org. Viewed March 20, 2001.

PSMFC. 2000. Welcome to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Internet:www.psmfc.org. Viewed May 8, 2001.

Randall, M. T. and K. J. Sulak. 1999. Locating and characterizing the nursery habitat of young-of-the-year threatened Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River ecosystem, Florida. QuarterlyReport to the Florida Nongame Wildlife Program, Florida Game and Freshwater FishCommission, Project #95125. 12 pp.

Rasmussen, J. L. 1999. What is MICRA and why does it work? In Proceedings of the symposiumon the harvest, trade and conservation of North American paddlefish and sturgeon, May 7–8,1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M. Hoover (eds.).TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Rasmussen, J. L. In press. Shovelnose sturgeon. UMRCC fisheries compendium. UpperMississippi River Conservation Committee, 4469 - 48th Avenue Court, Rock Island, Ill.

Raymakers, C. 1999. Trade in sturgeons from the Caspian Sea. In Proceedings of the symposiumon the harvest, trade and conservation of North American paddlefish and sturgeon, May 7–8,1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M. Hoover (eds.).TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Raymakers, C. 2001. CITES Significant Trade Review process on sturgeon and paddlefishunderway. TRAFFIC Dispatches No. 16, March, 2001. TRAFFIC International,Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Reynolds, C. R. 1993. Gulf sturgeon sightings, historic and recent—a summary of publicresponses. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Panama City, Florida. 40 pp.

Rhode Island Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Rare native animals of Rhode Island. Rhode IslandDepartment of Environmental Management, Providence, Rhode Island. 9 pp.

RL&L Environmental Services, Ltd. 2000a. Fraser River White Sturgeon Monitoring Program—Comprehensive Report (1995 to 1999). Final report prepared for BC Fisheries. RL&LReport No. 815F. 92 pp. + app.

RL&L Environmental Services, Ltd. 2000b. A summary of white sturgeon investigations in isolatedwaterbodies within the Columbia River Basin in B.C., 1995 to 1999. Report prepared forthe B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Nelson, B.C. RL&L Report No. 755F.31 pp. + 6 app.

234

RL&L Environmental Services, Ltd. 2001a. Backgrounder: Nechako River white sturgeon.Internet:www.bcfisheries.gov.bc/fishhabitats/Sturgeon/Nechako/white_sturgeon_Nechako.pdf.

RL&L Environmental Services, Ltd. 2001b. White sturgeon investigations in Arrow Reservoir andthe Columbia River, B.C., 2000 study results. Data report prepared for B.C. Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks, Nelson, B.C. RL&L Report No. 840F. 23 pp. + 4 app.

Roble, S. M. 2001. Natural heritage resources of Virginia: Rare animal species. Natural HeritageTechnical Report 01-16. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division ofNatural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia. 33 pp.

Rogers, S. G., P. H. Flournoy, and W. Weber. 1994. Status and restoration of Atlantic sturgeon inGeorgia. Final report to NMFS for grants NA16FA0098-01, -02, and -03.

Ruelle, R. and C. Henry. 1994. Life history observations and contaminants evaluation ofshovelnose sturgeon. USFWS, Pierre, South Dakota.

Russell, T. R. 1986. Biology and life history of paddlefish—A review. In The paddlefish: Status,management and propagation, J. G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T. R. Russell (eds.). SpecialPublication No. 7, North Central Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md.

Scarnecchia, D. L. and L. K. Graham. 1999. Paddlefish life history and challenges facingpaddlefish in North America. In Proceedings of the symposium on the harvest, trade andconservation of North American paddlefish and sturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga,Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M. Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC NorthAmerica/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Scott, W. B. and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board ofCanada, Bulletin 184:966.

Secor, D. H. and J. R. Waldman. 1999. Historical abundance of Delaware Bay Atlantic sturgeonand potential rate of recovery. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23: 203–216.

Secor, D. H., V. Areflev, A. Nikolaev, and A. Sharov. 2000. Restoration of sturgeons: Lessons fromthe Caspian Sea sturgeon ranching programme. Fish and Fisheries 2000(1): 215–230.

Sheehan, R. J., R. C. Heidinger, K. L. Hurley, and M. A. Schmidt. 1997. Middle Mississippi Riverpallid sturgeon habitat use project: Year 2 annual progress report, December, 1997.Fisheries Research Laboratory and Department of Zoology. Southern Illinois University atCarbondale, Carbondale, Illinois.

Smith, T. I. J., and W. E. Jenkins. 1991. Development of a shortnose sturgeon, Acipenserbrevirostrum, stock enhancement program in North America. In Centre National duMachinisme Agricole du Genie Rural des Eaux et des Forets (CEMAGREF), E. Willot (ed.).pp. 329-336.

Smith, T. I. J. and J. P. Clugston. 1997. Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenseroxyrinchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 335–346.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2002. South Carolina rare, threatened andendangered species inventory: All species found in South Carolina. Internet:www.dnr.state.sc.us/pls/heritage/county_species.list?pcounty=all. Viewed August 2002.

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 2002. Rare, threatened or endangered animalstracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program, March 15, 2002. Internet:www.state.sd.us/gfp/Diversity/RareAnimal.htm#FISH. Viewed November 2002.

Sparrowe, R. D. 1986. Threats to paddlefish habitat. In The paddlefish: Status, management andpropagation, J. G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T. R. Russell (eds.). Special Publication No.7, North Central Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md, pp. 36–45.

235

SRG. 2001. Short summary of conclusions of the 20th meeting of the Scientific Review Group ontrade in wild fauna and flora. Meeting held in Brussels, July 18, 2001.

St. Petersburg Times. 2002. What was a sturgeon doing in Tampa Bay? St. Petersburg, Florida,March 19, 2002.

Stabile, J., J. R. Waldman, F. Parauka, and I. Wirgin. 1996. Stock structure and homing fidelity inGulf of Mexico sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) based on restriction fragmentlength polymorphism and sequence analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Genetics 144: 767–775(October 1996).

Stolt Sea Farm. 2001a. Caviar products and prices. Internet: www.sterlingcaviar.com. ViewedOctober 11, 2001.

Stolt Sea Farm. 2001b. Annual report. Internet: www.sterlingcaviar.com.

Stolt Sea Farm. 2002. Caviar products and prices. Internet: www.sterlingcaviar.com. Viewed April3, 2002.

Sulak, K. J. and J. P. Clugston. 1998. Early life history stages of the Gulf sturgeon in the SuwaneeRiver, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: 758–771.

Sulak, K. J. and J. P. Clugston. 1999. Recent advances in life history of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon,Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi, in the Suwannee River, Florida, USA: A synopsis. Journal ofApplied Ichthyology 15:116–128.

Texas Department of Wildlife and Parks. 2002a. Texas threatened and endangered fishes. Internet:www.tpdw.state.tx.us/nature/endang/animals/aquatic.htm. Viewed February 22, 2002.

Texas Department of Wildlife and Parks. 2002b. Paddlefish. Internet: www.tpdw.state.tx.us/expltx/eft/nasa/species/paddlefish.htm. Viewed February 22, 2002.

The Journal. 2000. World round-up. Newcastle Chronicle & Journal Ltd., Newcastle, UK, July 15,2000.

Todd, R. 1999. Sturgeon and paddlefish commercial fishery in North America. In Proceedings ofthe symposium on the harvest, trade and conservation of North American paddlefish andsturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M.Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

TRAFFIC Europe. 2001. World Caviar Imports 1990–2000. Prepared by Traffic Europe, June2001. Internet: www.traffic.org.

TRAFFIC International. 2001. Sturgeon and paddlefish: Two years after the entry into force oftheir inclusion in CITES Appendix II. Internet: www.traffic.org.

TRAFFIC North America. 2002. Fishy business. TRAFFIC North America Bulletin, Volume 5(1)(March). Washington, D.C.

Tringali, M. D. and K. M. Leber. 1999. Genetic considerations during the experimental andexpanded phases of snook stock enhancement. Bulletin of Natural Resources, AquacultureSupplement 1:109–119.

Tulsa World. 2001. Federal case hatches from paddlefish eggs. The Tulsa World, April 12, 2001,Tulsa, Oklahoma.

TWRA. 2000. History of Paddlefish Regulations in Tennessee. Handout provided to TRAFFIC byTWRA, Nashville, Tennessee.

TWRA. 2001. Commercial harvest of paddlefish, paddlefish eggs, sturgeon, and sturgeon eggs inTennessee by year. Data printouts provided to TRAFFIC by R. Todd, TWRA, Nashville,Tennessee.

236

TWRA. 2003. Tennessee commercial fishing. Synopsis of commercial fishing regulations validfrom March 1, 2003 through February 28, 2004. Internet:www.state.tn.us/twra/fish/fishmain.html. Viewed February 5, 2003.

UMRCC Annually. Proceedings of the annual Upper Mississippi Conservation Committeebeginning with the first annual meeting, January 26, 1945. Upper Mississippi RiverConservation Committee, 4469 - 48th Avenue Court, Rock Island, Illinois.

Unkenholz, D. G. 1986. Effects of dams and other alterations on paddlefish sport fisheries. In Thepaddlefish: Status, management and propagation, J. G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T. R.Russell (eds.). Special Publication No. 7, North Central Division, American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Md., pp. 54–61.

U. S. Department of Interior. 1973. Threatened wildlife of the United States. Resource Publication114, March 1973. Washington, D.C.

USFWS. 1990. Final rule. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination ofendangered status for the pallid sturgeon. Internet: www.ecos.fws.gov/tess/frdocs/ 1990/90-20974.html. Viewed May 23, 2001.

USFWS. 1993. Pallid sturgeon recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, NorthDakota. 55 pp.

USFWS. 1994a. Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi). U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceDivision of Endangered Species: Species accounts. Internet: www.endangered.fws.gov.Viewed June 1, 2001.

USFWS. 1994b. Final rule. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination ofendangered status for the Kootenai River population of the white sturgeon. Internet:www.endangered.fws.gov/r/fr94549.html. Viewed June 1, 2001.

USFWS. 1998. Conservation of sturgeon and paddlefish species in the United States. Paperpresented at the CITES Secretariat-sponsored meeting on sturgeon, Moscow, RussianFederation, January 19–23, 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office Of ManagementAuthority, Arlington, Va., 8 pp.

USFWS. 1999a. Caviar smuggling convictions show U.S. resolve to protect imperiled fish.USFWS news release, November 4, 1999.

USFWS. 1999b. Pallid sturgeon recovery update. Issue No. 10. (May). Internet:www.r6.fws.gov/moriver/update99.htm. Viewed October 19, 2001.

USFWS. 2000a. Fish facts—Shortnose sturgeon. Connecticut River Coordinator’s Office, February22, 2000. Internet: www.fws.gov/r5crc/fish/zf_abcr.html. Viewed October 17, 2001.

USFWS. 2000b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion on the operation of the MissouriRiver main stem reservoir system, operation and maintenance of the Missouri River bankstabilization and navigation project, and operation of the Kansas River reservoir system.Internet: www.nwd.usace.army.mil.

USFWS. 2000c. Final rule. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Final rule to list theAlabama sturgeon as endangered. Federal Register Online via GPO Access, Internet:www.wais.access.gpo.gov.

USFWS. 2000d. The Kootenai River population of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus).Internet: www.endangered.fws.gov/features/sturgeon/.

USFWS. 2000e. Upper Mississippi River biological opinion. Internet:www.fws.gov/r3pao/pdf/umrfinal.pdf.

USFWS. 2000f. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers determine measures toconserve endangered species on the Upper Mississippi River. News release May 18, 2000.

237

USFWS. 2000g. Agencies announce release of Missouri River biological opinion. News release,November 30, 2000.

USFWS. 2000h. Larval pallid sturgeon collected in the lower Missouri River. Pallid sturgeonrecovery update, S. Krentz (ed.). Issue No. 11 (December).

USFWS. 2001a. ESA Basics. Internet: www.endangered.fws.gov.

USFWS. 2001b. The Endangered Species Act of 1973: A summary of the ESA and ImplementationActivities. Internet: www.endangered.fws.gov/esasum.html.

USFWS. 2001c. Caviar company, corporate officers sentenced for illegal trade, fraud scheme;landmark fine assessed. News release February 21, 2001.

USFWS. 2001d. Pallid sturgeon: Species profile as of October 19, 2001. Internet:www.ecos.fws.gov/species_profile.html?spcode=E06X. Viewed October 19, 2001.

USFWS. 2001e. Endangered Species Act: Section 7 consultation. Internet:midwest.fws.gov/Endangered/Section%207/section7.html. Viewed October 19, 2001.

USFWS. 2001f. Paddlefish poaching investigation yields arrests. News release, April 17, 2001.

USFWS. 2001g. Caviar smuggler pleads guilty: Wildlife inspectors found 1,700 pounds inmislabeled containers. News Release, March 30, 2001.

USFWS. 2002a. Fish and Wildlife Service asks for public comments on its proposal to list Belugasturgeon as endangered. USFWS News Release, July 31, 2002.

USFWS. 2002b. U.S. listed vertebrate animal species listed by taxonomic group. Threatened andEndangered Species System (TESS). @ www.ecos.fws.gov. Viewed June 3, 2002.

USFWS. 2002c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service proposedesignation of critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. News release, June 6, 2002.

USFWS. 2002d. Tennessee fish dealers guilty of federal wildlife violations. News release no. 02-042, May 21, 2002.

USFWS. 2002e. Pallid sturgeon recovery update, R. Wilson (ed.). Issue No. 12 (February).

USFWS/FIS. 2001. Accomplishments module 2000: Primary species benefited report; imperiledspecies module: Basic report. Provided to TRAFFIC by USFWS Division of FishHatcheries, Arlington, Va.

USFWS/GSMFC. 1995. Gulf sturgeon recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta,Georgia. 170 pp.

Vancouver Sun. 2001. Pair charged after police find sturgeon in car trunk: It’s illegal to harvestspecies, which is listed vulnerable. Pacific Press Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., April 28, 2001, p.B2.

Van Eenemmaam, J. P., S. I. Doroshov, G. P. Moberg, J. G. Watson, D. S. Moore, and J. Linares.1996. Reproductive conditions of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) in theHudson River. Estuaries 19: 769–777.

Wakeford, A. 2001. State of Florida conservation plan for Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchusdesotoi). Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-8. Florida Fish andWildlife Conservation Commission, St. Petersburg, Florida. 100 pp.

Waldman, J. R., J. T. Hart, and I. I. Wirgin. 1996. Stock composition of the New York BightAtlantic sturgeon fishery based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Transactions of theAmerican Fisheries Society 125: 364–371.

Waldman, J. R. and I. I. Wirgin. 1998. Status and restoration options for Atlantic sturgeon in NorthAmerica. Conservation Biology 12(3): 631–638.

238

Waldman, J. R. 1999. Caviar trade in North America: An historical perspective. In Proceedings ofthe symposium on the harvest, trade and conservation of North American paddlefish andsturgeon, May 7–8, 1998, Chattanooga, Tenn., D. F. Williamson, G. W. Benz, and C. M.Hoover (eds.). TRAFFIC North America/World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

WDFW. 2001a. Fishing in Washington: Sport fishing rules. 2001–2002 pamphlet edition.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW. 2001b. Commercial fishing. Year 2001 Willapa Bay fishery management framework—Objectives and intent. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

WDFW. 2001c. Commercial fishing. Proposed Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay salmon fisheries for2001. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Weber, W. 1996. Population size and habitat use of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, inthe Ogeechee River system, Georgia. Masters Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens,Georgia.

Welsh, S. A., J. E. Skjeveland, and M. F. Mangold. 2000. Occurrence, distribution, and movementof shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. Abstractfrom the 2000 Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society Midyear Meeting heldin Savannah, Georgia. Internet: www.sdafs/org/meetings/00sdafs/atlantic/welsh1.htm.Viewed October 17, 2001.

Wirgin, I. I., J. E. Stable, and J. R. Waldman. 1997. Molecular analysis in the conservation ofsturgeons and paddlefish. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 385–398.

Wirgin, I., J. R. Waldman, J. Rosko, R. Gross, M. R. Collins, S. G. Rogers, and J. Stabile. 2000.Genetic structure of Atlantic sturgeon populations based on mitochondrial DNA controlregion sequences. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129: 476–486.

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection [DATCP] and WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources [DNR]. 2000. Regulatory options for the commercialrearing of lake sturgeon. Report to the Legislature, Madison, Wisconsin, December 2000.73 pp.

Wooley, C. M., and E. J. Crateau. 1985. Movement, microhabitat, exploitation, and management ofGulf of Mexico sturgeon, Apalachicola River, Florida. N. American Journal of FishManagement 5: 590–605.

WWF-Canada. 2001. Endangered species recovery fund: Shortnose sturgeon. Internet:www.wwfcanada./org/en/cons_pgms/ESRF/NewBrunswick.asp.

239

TRAFFIC Telephone Survey of State and Provincial Fisheries andWildlife Agencies, 2002–2003

In late 2002 and early 2003, TRAFFIC contacted the following agencies and individuals bytelephone to inquire about the status of captive propagation, stocking, and commercial aquaculturepertaining to North American paddlefish and sturgeon in the United States and Canada.

Alabama: Stan Cook, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Arkansas: Bill Posey, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

Georgia: Ted Hendrickx, Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Illinois: Steve Shults, Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Indiana: Brant Fisher, Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Iowa: John Pitlo, Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Kansas: Tom Mosher, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks

Kentucky: Doug Henley, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

Louisiana: Bobby Reed, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Michigan: Gary Whelan, Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Minnesota: Linda Erickson-Eastwood, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Mississippi: Dennis Riecke, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and parks

Missouri: Vince Travnichek, Missouri Department of Conservation

Montana: Ken MacDonald, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Nebraska: Gerald Mestl, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

North Dakota: Greg Power, North Dakota Game and Fish Department

Ohio: Randy Sanders, Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Oklahoma: Brent Bristow, USFWS

South Dakota: Cliff Stone, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks

Tennessee: Rob Todd, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Texas: Bob Betsill, Texas Department of Wildlife and Parks

West Virginia: Chris O’Bara, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources

Wisconsin: Ron Bruch, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wyoming: Steve Yekel, Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Alberta: Jim Wagner, Alberta Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development

Manitoba: Barbara Scaife, Manitoba Conservation

Ontario: Mark Muschett and Scott Watson, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Quebec: Eric Gilbert, Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development,Fisheries & Oceans Canada; Daniel Hatin, Societe de la Faune et des Parcsdu Quebec

Saskatchewan: Jerry Banks, Saskatchewan Department of Environment

240