9491

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9491
• Author: Snyder, D. E.
• Title: Electrofishing and Its Harmful Effects on Fish.
• USFW Year: 2003.
• USFW - Doc Type: Denver.
• Copyright Material: NO

SNYDER 7

Fig. 3. Bent back in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) caused by electrofishing. (Photograph provided by and
reproduced with permission of M.S. Quinton via w.A. Fredenberg, Montana Department ofFish, Wildlife, and Parks.)

intended to minimize injuries (established in 1986 and 1997,
respectively), and Michigan was revising its electrofishing
policy to include a section to the same end. Alaska, Idaho,
Minnesota, New York, and Wyoming have unofficial
policies or guidelines to minimize electrofishing injuries.
With regard to electro fishing in waters inhabited by
threatened or endangered species, Miskimmin and Paul
(1997b) reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
allows use of only DC or PDC, prohibits spiked wavefonns,
and requires records of pertinent water quality parameters
and electrofisher settings. Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Canadian Department of Fisheries and
Oceans offer courses on electrofishing that include
consideration of adverse effects and ways to minimize
them (e.g., Kolz et aI., 1998). Many provincial or state
(e.g., Colorado) and federal fishery workers are required
or encouraged to take these courses. Some states have
or are developing their own training programs and
manuals (e.g., Wyoming; Meyer and Miller, 1995).
In California, where coho salmon and steelhead (sea-
run rainbow trout) were listed throughout the state in
1996 as threatened or endangered Evolutionarily
Significant Units under the federal Endangered Species
Act, there is serious concern about the legal and ethical
use of electrofishing for population surveys, monitoring,
and scientific investigations (Nielsen, 1998). Nielsen
(1998) reported that in response to these concerns, a
workshop was convened in Ukiah, California, on 10
February 1998 by 48 federal, state, academic, tribal,
industrial (timber), and fisheries-consultant organizations
to discuss electrofishing guidelines and protocols. A draft
of general recommendations from that meeting was still
under review late in 1998, but Nielsen (1998) expressed

concern that the recommendations would be inadequate
to effectively limit use of electrofishing under any set of
circumstances. Noting that the effective size of some
salmon and trout populations or evolutionarily significant
units can be very small (frequently less than 25 breeding
pairs), she advocated requiring use of other, non-invasive,
study methods when the cumulative effects of
electrofishing over time might significantly reduce a
population's ability to persist or result in loss of unique
components in the genetic diversity ofthe species. Nielsen
(1998) concluded by suggesting that "the American
Fisheries Society should develop a set of guidelines for
least-invasive sampling methodologies and adopt a policy
on the ethical use of electrofishing. . . ." These guidelines
and criteria could then be used by federal and state
agencies to strictly (and unifonnly) regulate potentially
harmful electrofishing activities under their jurisdiction.
Manufacturers of electro fishing gear are obviously
concerned about adverse impacts as well. They have a
vested interest in the technique and have begun
developing and marketing equipment intended to reduce
electrofishing injuries. As examples, see the
advertisements on both sides of the back cover of
Fisheries 16(6), November-December 1991. One is for
Coffelt Manufacturing's CPS (Complex Pulse System, a
patented pulse train of three square pulses at 240 Hz
repeated 15 times per second), which was specifically
developed to reduce spinal injuries. The other
advertisement is for Smith-Root, Inc.'s P.O.W.
(Programmable Output Wavefonns) unit, that allows users
to select from a very wide range ofpattems or wavefonns,
including pulse trains, some of which are likely to be less
harmful than others (Meyer and Miller, 1995). More