Policy Review Committee
March 21, 2001

Subject: Report of the Policy Review Committee Concerning the Activities and Procedures Used by the Western Division American Fisheries Society (WDAFS) Bull Trout Committee in Facilitating the Development of Assessment Protocols for Bull Trout.

The WDAFS and its Bull Trout Committee were asked coordinate or facilitate the development of assessment protocols for bull trout in 1998. The purpose of this report of the Policy Review Committee is to document our review of the manner in which the Bull Trout Committee performed its assigned task. This review is done in relation to the WDAFS advocacy policy and procedures. The advocacy policy focuses on criteria to ensure that there is a valid need for an action and on a process that ensures the ability to get the job done but at the same time seeks to protect the professional credibility of the Society and the WDAFS.

The following facts must be noted and these are: 1.) the Bull Trout Committee was asked by the Division leadership to do this work; 2) the Bull Trout Committee enjoyed trust and credibility which allowed it to be affective while coordinating among a wide variety of players in this issue; and 3) this was a very complex process with a lot of overlap between WDAFS interests and private, state, and federal agency interests.

Focusing on professionalism and providing scientific based oversight contributed to the success of this effort. A good indicator of effectiveness and good communications follow-through is the satisfaction expressed by the leadership of the WDAFS as inquiries were made about the purpose of this evaluation.

So, in short, yes there was a need for this project, yes the project was done well and resulted in a desirable product that improved the credibility of all involved including the WDAFS, yes the process of facilitation and coordination used to complete the task was done within established advocacy procedures of the WDAFS, and yes the committee maintained excellent communications with and involvement of the WDAFS and its leadership.

The following are some additional comments provided by the Policy Review Committee Members.

A couple caveats to begin. First, it is obvious difficult to review a multi-year effort when I have not been even remotely associated with it. Second, you mention the overlap between AFS and interagency responsibilities. Though there certainly are some divisions between the two -- I think it is important to recognize there will always (and should) be overlap from professional/agency/personal values.

Anyway, it appears the function of the Bull Trout Committee has been to provide coordination and scientific-based oversight and recommendations. All of which appears to be exactly what AFS should be doing -- and what the Committee has done. Development of the protocols is great evidence to that.

The criteria for involvement by the EXCOM and/or the Policy Review Committee is clear. I think in this case, the "blessing" should go to the Bull Trout Committee and their process, and not specifically to any work-products they turn out. To do that would remove the purely "scientific-based" aspect. In summary, from an outside perspective, it appears the Bull Trout Committee is operating just as an AFS Committee should.

The Bull Trout Committee has been quite meticulous in following the Pacific Seabird Group method of establishing an assessment protocol and are to be commended for that. The selection of the committee members to draft the protocol has been exemplary. However, the process appears arduous and long drawn out. This is probably because a lot of strong egos, organizational biases (professional, government, corporate and general), etc. are involved.. The Society for Study of Amphibians and Reptiles and the American Society of ichthyologists and Herpetologists must have gone through a similar traumatic exercise in developing the procedures for assessing amphibians and reptiles..

Both the Seabird Group and the Bull Trout Committee appear concerned only with the contiguous Lower 48 States. The Alaska and the three Canadian provinces with bull trout populations are never mentioned and appear not to be considered. British Columbia has a very active program for monitoring bull trout and it is suspected that Alberta has a similar program. It doesn't appear that either the Yukon nor Alaska have activities directed toward monitoring bull trout populations. Will the WD AFS be recommending that these entities follow the same protocol as the Lower 48?

My concerns with the "Draft Protocol" may be academic and probably creates more problems than solutions. I do not read in the protocol criteria for vouchering which species is detected. The protocol addresses determination of presence or possible absence. It is not intended to deal with sympatric stocks one or more of which may be very difficult to identify. The protocol and most of the correspondence concern interior Lower 48 watersheds. What about coastal watersheds where both Dolly Varden and bull trout occur ( N. California to N. Washington)? This may be a side issue but could become important if anadromous bull trout still exist in the Puget Sound region. I am certain it will be important in British Columbia and Alaska. The Alaskan bull trout may be the remaining anadromous stock. This is probably should be addressed by a separate committee or subcommittee.

Again, the committee is commended for its activities to date. They tackled a very contentious issue of importance to the Western Division. I believe that their approach is both philosophically and technologically appropriate.

Dennis Tol Chair,
Policy Review Committee