The Shortage in 

the Number of Individuals 

with Post-Baccalaureate Degrees 

in Subjects Related to 

Fishery Science

REPORT TO CONGRESS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

September 2008
i

Executive Summary

The Shortage in the Number of Individuals 

with Post-Baccalaureate Degrees 

in Subjects Related to 

Fishery Science

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-91

September 2008
ii

Executive Summary

This publication may be cited as:

U.S. Dept. of Commerce and U.S. Dept. of Education. 2008. The shortage in the number of individuals 

with post-baccalaureate degrees in subjects related to fishery science. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-91, 84 p.
iii

Executive Summary

In the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 

2006, the United States Congress directed a study 

be conducted on the shortage in the number of 

individuals with post-baccalaureate degrees who 

have the ability to conduct high-quality scientific 

research in fisheries stock assessment and related 

fields (P.L. 109-479, sec. 217). To accomplish this, 

two independent studies were conducted—one to 

estimate the demand for stock assessment scientists and one to estimate the supply. This report 

presents the results of both studies.

Results from the demand study indicate that 

the market for stock assessment scientists is increasing. This is primarily due to the increased 

mandates requiring the skills of stock assessment 

scientists established under the reauthorized 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. The minimum number of 

new stock assessment scientists (individuals who 

have the ability to conduct high-quality scientific 

research in stock assessment, fishery population 

dynamics, and related fields) needed is estimated 

to be a minimum of 18–34 per year, over the next 

10 years or 180–340 nationwide, cumulative. The 

actual number is likely to be higher for a number 

of reasons discussed in the report.

Results from the supply study indicate that the 

supply of stock assessment scientists currently 

being produced by all quantitative fishery service programs nationally is severely limited due 

to insufficient numbers of faculty and graduate 

students in the discipline, among other reasons. 

Insufficient and inconsistent funding for academic scientists and dissertation research is the 

proximal cause of the shortage. It is estimated that 

approximately 16 new qualified stock assessment 

scientists are being produced, on average, in the 

entire nation each year by all U.S. institutions of 

higher education. 

Comparing results of the two studies indicates 

an overall shortage of at least 2–18 qualified stock 

assessment scientists per year or 20–180 cumulative, over the next decade, with the requirement 

tending toward the higher number. Potential 

retirements of highly experienced current staff 

will be substantial in the upcoming decade, which 

will result in declining expertise even if individuals are replaced. Thus there is an urgent need to 

hire new stock assessment scientists as soon as 

possible.

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), aware of the shortage of stock assessment scientists, has established a number 

of programs aimed at increasing the supply of 

individuals entering careers in the discipline. 

These programs are designed to address many of 

the causes of the shortage identified in the supply study and these programs are training individuals that are successfully transitive into NMFS 

positions. At the scale currently implemented, 

however, the programs in place are insufficient 

to mitigate the looming shortage. Without these 

programs, the shortage would be even greater. 

Increasing the number of graduate students 

studying stock assessment must be a major component of any strategy to increase the supply of 

stock assessment scientists. To accomplish this, 

funding must be increased. The President’s 2009 

budget includes an additional $1 million to accomplish this. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
iv

Executive Summary

As the leading employer of stock assessment 

scientists, the burden of reducing the shortage 

of stock assessment scientists largely lies with 

NMFS. The agency is now experiencing a “perfect 

storm” involving a large number of stock assessment scientist retirements, an increasing workload mandated by the reauthorized MagnusonStevens Act, and a decreasing supply of incoming 

stock assessment scientists. Producing additional 

stock assessment scientists requires time, time to 

find promising students and time to train them 

adequately. The new mandates under the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act do not allow for 

delays, which means that efforts to increase the 

supply must begin immediately. 

Institutions of higher education and the private sector can take a number of actions to share 

the responsibilities required to eliminate the 

shortage. 
v

Executive Summary

Photo: LMRCSC
vi

Executive Summary

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... vi

1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Organization of Report.................................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Literature Cited............................................................................................................................... 6

2 DEMAND REPORT............................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 11

2.3.1 National Marine Fisheries Service Science Centers.......................................................... 11

2.3.2 Fisheries Management Councils......................................................................................... 11

2.3.3 Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions.......................................................................... 11

2.3.4 State Marine Fisheries Management Agencies.................................................................. 12

2.3.5 Total Demand ........................................................................................................................ 12

2.3.6 Personnel Moves.................................................................................................................... 12

2.4 Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 13

2.5 Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 15

2.5.1 Demand at National Marine Fisheries Service Science Centers..................................... 15

2.5.2 Demand at Regional Fishery Management Councils....................................................... 15

2.5.3 Demand at Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions..................................................... 16

2.5.4 Demand at State Marine Fisheries Management Agencies.............................................. 16

2.5.5 Total Reported and Extrapolated Demand Over the Next 10 Years............................... 17

3 SUPPLY REPORT................................................................................................................................. 19

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 22

3.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 22

3.2.1 Identifying Programs at U.S. Institutions of Higher Learning ........................................ 22

3.2.2 Survey Instrument Development........................................................................................ 23

3.2.3 Survey Implementation ........................................................................................................ 24

3.3 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 25

3.3.1 General Fisheries Program Information............................................................................ 25

3.3.2 Priority for Education in Population Dynamics/Stock Assessment............................... 25

3.3.3 Current Fisheries Student Enrollment and Graduation Numbers ................................. 26

3.3.4 Quality of First-Semester Master of Science Students...................................................... 27

3.3.5 Courses and “Essential Courses” Taken by Graduate Students....................................... 27

3.4 Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 28

3.5 Literature Cited............................................................................................................................. 31

3.6 Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 32

3.6.1 Figure 1. Post-Baccalaureate Degrees Conferred.............................................................. 32
vii

Executive Summary

3.7 Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 33

3.7.1 Table 1..................................................................................................................................... 33

3.7.2 Table 2..................................................................................................................................... 34

3.7.3 Table 3..................................................................................................................................... 35

3.7.4 Table 4..................................................................................................................................... 36

3.7.5 Table 5..................................................................................................................................... 37

3.7.6 Table 6..................................................................................................................................... 39

4 COMPARISON OF DEMAND TO SUPPLY.................................................................................... 41

5 CURRENT NMFS PROGRAMS TO INCREASE SUPPLY............................................................ 45

5.1 Increasing Faculty Numbers ....................................................................................................... 47

5.1.1 Providing Support to University Faculty............................................................................ 47

5.1.2 Interacting with Neighboring Universities........................................................................ 47

5.1.3 Stationing NMFS Stock Assessment Scientists on University Campuses...................... 48

5.2 Increasing Graduate Student and Postdoctoral Associate Numbers..................................... 49

5.2.1 Supporting University Research.......................................................................................... 49

5.2.2 Providing Doctoral Fellowships.......................................................................................... 50

5.2.3 Awarding Postdoctoral Fellowships.................................................................................... 50

5.3 Improving the Quality of Incoming Graduate Students.......................................................... 50

5.3.1 Providing Undergraduate Scholarships and Internships................................................. 51

5.3.2 Strengthening Quantitative Programs at Individual Universities................................... 51

5.3.3 Identifying and Mentoring Top Undergraduates Nationally........................................... 52

5.4 Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 53

6 RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY................................................................ 55

6.1 NMFS ........................................................................................................................................... 57

6.2 Institutions of Higher Education................................................................................................ 57

6.3 The Private Sector......................................................................................................................... 58

6.4 Literature Cited............................................................................................................................. 58

7 Executive Summary: NRC 2000 Report............................................................................. 59

8 Supply Report Appendices ..................................................................................................... 65

8.1 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 67

8.2 Appendix B.................................................................................................................................... 70

8.3 Appendix C.................................................................................................................................... 77

8.4 Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 78

8.5 Appendix E.................................................................................................................................... 78

8.6 Appendix F .................................................................................................................................... 80

8.7 Appendix G ................................................................................................................................... 82
8
1

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION
2
3

1 

INTRODUCTION

In the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 

2006, the United States Congress directed a study 

be conducted on the “Shortage in the Number of 

Individuals with Post-Baccalaureate Degrees in 

Subjects Related to Fishery Science” (P.L. 109-

479, sec. 217). Specifically, section 217 of the Act 

stated: 

“(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Education shall 

collaborate to conduct a study of—

(1) whether there is a shortage in the number 

of individuals with post-baccalaureate degrees 

in subjects related to fishery science, including fishery oceanography, fishery ecology, and 

fishery anthropology, who have the ability to 

conduct high quality scientific research in 

fishery stock assessment, fishery population 

dynamics, and related fields, for government, 

nonprofit, and private sector entities;

(2) what Federal programs are available to help 

facilitate the education of students hoping to 

pursue these degrees; and

(3) what institutions of higher education, the 

private sector, and the Congress could do to 

try to increase the number of individuals with 

such post-baccalaureate degrees.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 8 months after 

the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretaries of Commerce and Education shall transmit 

a report to each committee of Congress with 

jurisdiction over the programs referred to 

in subsection (a), detailing the findings and 

recommendations of the study under this 

section.”

The discipline of stock assessment1 is critical 

to the management of fish stocks and fisheries. 

Stock assessment scientists1 develop the tools 

used to evaluate the status of fish stocks and 

fisheries and advise managers on the likely effects 

of alternative management policies (e.g., quotas, 

closed areas, fishing gear changes). They are 

critical advisors in the design of monitoring and 

research programs, which provide the input necessary for science-based management. The work 

of stock assessment scientists is essential to avoid 

overfishing of fisheries and fish stocks and to help 

develop rebuilding strategies. Neither adaptive 

management nor ecosystem-based management 

would be possible without the critical involvement of fishery stock assessment scientists. 

Individuals who have the quantitative skills required to conduct high-quality scientific research 

in stock assessment work on more than just fish 

and fisheries. Stock assessment skills are essential 

for the management of both marine and terrestrial species. Implementation of legislation such 

as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the 

Endangered Species Act requires the continual 

involvement of individuals with such skills. Stock 

assessment is a critical component of estimating 

population viability, and population dynamics 

models are often used to assess recovery strategies. 

Stock assessment scientists are employed by 

many organizations. International, federal, state, 

and tribal fisheries management agencies require 

their services. The largest U.S. and international 

employer of stock assessment scientists is NOAA’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

Other agencies, including the U.S. Fish and 

1 For the purposes of this report, with the exception of 

Chapter 3, the term “stock assessment” will be used 

to represent “stock assessment, fishery population 

dynamics, and related fields.” The term “stock assessment scientist” will be used to represent “individuals 

who have the ability to conduct high quality scientific 

research in stock assessment, fishery population dynamics, and related fields.”
4

Chapter One

 

Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, 

hire individuals with these skills as well. Resource 

stakeholders, such as commercial and recreational fishing groups, and non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs) also employ stock assessment scientists to represent and counsel them. 

Finally, environmental consulting firms may also 

hire stock assessment scientists to play a critical 

part in the development of many environmental 

impact statements. 

Over time, the management of fisheries has 

required the increased involvement of stock assessment scientists for science-based advisory 

services. Legislation has given scientists, and 

stock assessment scientists in particular, a larger 

role in the management process. Increased data 

availability and computing power have allowed 

more complex questions to be answered such as 

the ecosystem-wide impacts of fishing regulations. Over time, additional fish stocks have 

become the subject of management, increasing 

the workload of stock assessment scientists. Currently the U.S. manages 530 fish stocks nationwide, as well as 155 marine mammals and 11 

sea turtle stocks. All require specific analysis to 

track populations in response to management. 

The increasing need for the application of stock 

assessment is not unique to fish stocks or marine 

resources; this need is increasing throughout 

natural resource management as a whole.

The demand for many professions increases 

over time, and this is of no concern when the 

supply equilibrates with the demand. In the case 

of stock assessment, this may not be the case. For 

years there have been anecdotes of organizations, 

including NMFS, having difficulty finding a sufficient quantity and quality of stock assessment 

scientists to hire. University professors have 

complained of having difficulty finding incoming 

graduate students to work on stock assessment 

research projects. 

Stock assessment scientists provide the critical 

analysis necessary to ensure that commercial fishing can provide sustainable harvests year after 

year. 

Large trawl catches such as these from the North 

Pacific are monitored closely by NMFS scientists 

who collect and analyze data on fish populations.

Photo: © Natural Resources Consultants, Inc.

Photo: Allen Shimada, NMFS
5

Introduction

 

As a result of these concerns, NMFS created a 

strategy to help meet its anticipated staff needs in 

the area of stock assessment starting in the year 

2000. In that year, NMFS asked the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy 

of Sciences to convene a workshop to review 

NMFS’ plans for meeting its anticipated staff 

needs in stock assessment and social sciences. The 

executive summary from the workshop’s report 

is attached in Chapter 7 of this report. The NRC 

panel concluded, “For stock assessment scientists, 

NMFS is the primary employer and demand is 

already large relative to the total supply. NMFS’ 

anticipated expansion in this area exceeds the 

present capacity of university programs” (NRC 

2000).

Seven years have passed since the NRC panel’s 

workshop, and the demand for stock assessment 

scientists continues to increase because of changing federal legislation. With the reauthorization of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress increased 

the responsibilities of science in the fishery management process and the importance and role of 

stock assessment scientists. Section 104(a)(15) 

of the reauthorized Act requires federal fishery 

management plans to establish:

“a mechanism for specifying annual catch 

limits in the plan (including a multiyear 

plan), implementing regulations, or annual 

specifications, at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including 

measures to ensure accountability.”

Addressing this critical new requirement, along 

with new requirements in other parts of the Act, 

creates substantial new responsibilities for stock 

assessment scientists. 

The purpose of this report is to determine 

whether the anticipated supply of stock assessment scientists is sufficient to meet the anticipated demand. 

A NMFS scientist calibrates sighting equipment before going airborne on a helicopter to conduct 

surveys of seals in the Bering Sea. 

NMFS has a mandate to conduct 

assessments for 155 stocks of 

marine mammals.

Photo: NMFS
6

Chapter One

1.1 Organization of Report

The Congressional requirement seeks the following information:

(1) Whether there is a shortage in the number 

of individuals with post-baccalaureate degrees 

in subjects related to fishery science, including 

fishery oceanography, fishery ecology, and fishery 

anthropology, who have the ability to conduct 

high quality scientific research in fishery stock 

assessment, fishery population dynamics, and 

related fields, for government, nonprofit, and 

private sector entities.

Chapter 2 of this report presents a study 

conducted by NMFS on the demand for stock 

assessment scientists. Chapter 3 presents a 

study conducted by the American Fisheries 

Society on the supply of stock assessment 

scientists. Chapter 4 identifies the potential 

gaps between supply and demand. 

(2) What Federal programs are available to help 

facilitate the education of students hoping to 

pursue these degrees.

Chapter 5 of this report presents a detailed list 

of the programs NMFS and NOAA currently 

have in place to augment the supply of stock 

assessment scientists. 

(3) What institutions of higher education, the 

private sector, and the Congress could do to try 

to increase the number of individuals with such 

post-baccalaureate degrees.

Chapter 6 of this report presents recommendations regarding what more can be done to 

meet critical demand for these occupations.

1.2 Literature Cited

National Research Council (NRC) 2000. Recruiting fishery scientists: Workshop on stock assessment and social science careers. Commission 

on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. 

Ocean Studies Board. The National Academies 

Press. 26 pages (Executive Summary attached as 

Chapter 7).
7

Chapter Two

DEMAND REPORT
8
9

2

DEMAND REPORT

ESTIMATING THE ANTICIPATED DEMAND 

FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH POST-BACCALAUREATE 

DEGREES IN SUBJECTS RELATED TO FISHERY SCIENCE 

WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONDUCT HIGH QUALITY 

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN FISHERY STOCK ASSESSMENT,

 FISHERY POPULATION DYNAMICS, AND RELATED FIELDS

Jim Berkson, Ph.D.

Unit Leader and Associate Professor

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center

Recruiting, Training, and Research (RTR) Unit at Virginia Tech

Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

November 2007

2.1 Introduction

In the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act 

of 2006, the U.S. Congress directed a study be 

conducted on the “Shortage in the Number of 

Individuals with Post-Baccalaureate Degrees in 

Subjects Related to Fishery Science” (P.L. 109-

479, sec. 217). This section of the report looks at 

one component of the issue—the demand.

2.2 Methods

Scientists with expertise in fishery stock assessment are employed by management agencies 

(international, federal, state, interstate, and tribal), universities, environmental consulting firms, 

and non-governmental organizations. Given the 

limited timeframe and resources available, this 

study was restricted to a subset of the organizations that hire scientists with this background. 
10

A questionnaire was sent out to the following:

a) the six NMFS Science Centers;

b) the eight Regional Fishery Management 

Councils;

c) the three Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions; and

d) the 22 state natural resource agencies with 

marine fisheries responsibilities.

The questionnaire asked the following five questions:

1. To what degree is the need for stock assessment personnel increasing, staying the same, 

or decreasing at your Center?

2. How many new stock assessment full-time 

equivalent (FTE) positions would you create 

if resources were available to support them in 

the next 3–5 years? 5–10 years?

3. How many stock assessment personnel are 

likely to retire at your Center in the next 3–5 

years? 5–10 years?

4. How many of your stock assessment personnel are likely to move to other positions, thus 

requiring replacements to complete their 

stock assessment duties in the next 3–5 years? 

5–10 years?

5. To what extent do stock assessment personnel 

at your Center leave to accept positions at 

other agencies or outside of government?

When ranges were given, they were entered 

as a minimum and a maximum value. When no 

answer was provided, a value of zero was entered 

by default. 

To estimate the number of full-time positions 

(FTEs) required, results from Question 2 (new 

hires to fill newly created positions) were added 

to results from Question 3 (new hires to replace 

retirees). Not all of the organizations who were 

sent questionnaires responded. To account for 

this, two estimates were calculated—one involving just the organizations responding and one 

extrapolated to account for all of the organizations sent questionnaires, including those that 

did not respond. 

Estimates were extrapolated within each 

organizational grouping individually (Councils, 

Commissions, and states). Non-respondents 

were assumed to require the average response 

within their group. For instance, if two of the 

three Interstate Commissions responded, the 

extrapolated results were calculated by assuming 

the third Commission required the average of the 

two responding Commissions. This is equivalent 

to multiplying the sum of the two Commissions 

who responded by 3/2 (1.5) to account for the 

The stock assessment process requires effective 

data collection, often at sea. Here, scientists are 

sorting a trawl catch aboard a research vessel in 

preparation for a more detailed analysis of the 

catch.

Photo: NMFS

Chapter Two
11

one Interstate Commission that did not reply. 

No extrapolations were needed for the NMFS 

Science Centers, as all six responded to the questionnaire. 

2.3 Results

2.3.1 National Marine Fisheries Service 

Science Centers

All six Science Centers responded to the 

questionnaire and all indicated that their need for 

stock assessment personnel was increasing. Most 

indicated the increased need was due to the added 

requirements of the reauthorized MagnusonStevens Act. The Pacific Island Fisheries Science 

Center also reported that, as the newest Center, 

they needed additional positions to fully establish 

a stock assessment program.

Under adequate budget scenarios, the Centers 

would create 52–54 new positions in the next 3–5 

years and 43–48 additional new positions over 

the following 5–10 years for a total of 95–102 

positions over the next decade (Section 2.5.1). 

The Centers expect 15–17 stock assessment scientists to retire in the next 3–5 years and 25–27 

to retire in the next 5–10 years (Section 2.5.1). 

Together this calls for an additional 67–71 new 

stock assessment scientists in the next 3–5 years 

and 68–75 in the next 5–10 years (Section 2.5.1). 

For the Science Centers alone, the demand is expected be between 135 and 146 new stock assessment scientists over the next 10 years. Because 

all six Centers responded, no extrapolations were 

required.

2.3.2 Fisheries Management Councils

Five of the eight Fishery Management Councils (Mid-Atlantic, Caribbean, Pacific, North 

Pacific, and Western Pacific) responded to the 

questionnaire. With the exception of the North 

Pacific, the remaining four responded that their 

need for stock assessment scientists was increasing. They pointed out that the need for highly 

trained individuals to conduct stock assessments 

was increasing, but the majority of their stock assessment work is conducted by stock assessment 

scientists employed by the NMFS Science Centers. Therefore, the majority of their demand is 

already covered in section 2.3.1 of this report. 

Regarding their own hires, the responding 

Councils expect to hire a limited number of stock 

assessment scientists (2–4) to fill new positions 

and to replace retiring personnel (Section 2.5.2). 

Extrapolating for the three Councils that did not 

respond (New England, South Atlantic, and Gulf 

of Mexico) brings the expected hires over the next 

10 years to between 4 and 7 (Section 2.5.2). 

2.3.3 Interstate Marine Fisheries 

Commissions

Two of the three Interstate Marine Fisheries 

Commissions (Atlantic States and Gulf States) 

responded to the questionnaire. Both responded 

that they had an increasing need for stock assessment scientists. The Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission specifically noted having insufficient personnel to conduct the work 

required. The Interstate Commissions rely on 

the state marine fishery management agencies 

(Section 2.3.4) and the NMFS Science Centers 

(Section 2.3.1) to conduct the vast majority of 

stock assessments involving species in their jurisdiction.

Because they do limited stock assessment 

work using their own employees, the two Commissions expect to hire 1–3 stock assessment 

scientists to fill new positions over the next 10 

years (Section 2.5.3). No retirements are expected 

during the next 10 years (Section 2.5.3).

Extrapolating to include the Pacific States 

Marine Fisheries Commission, which did not 

respond to the questionnaire, the total number 

of new stock assessment scientists needed is estimated to be between 2 and 5 over the next 10 

years (Section 2.5.3).

Demand Report
12

2.3.4 State Marine Fisheries Management 

Agencies

Responses were received from eight of the 

22 state marine fisheries management agencies 

(Connecticut, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, California, and Washington). Seven of the eight responding states (all 

except for Texas) responded that their need for 

stock assessment scientists was increasing. The 

reasons varied and included the need for new and 

updated assessments (Connecticut and California), the need for both interstate and within-state 

assessments (Virginia), losing staff to NMFS due 

to lack of competitive salaries (North Carolina), 

and the need for assessments relating to Endangered Species Act–listed species, assessments involved in litigation, and new Magnuson-Stevens 

Act requirements (Washington).

The eight responding states replied that under optimistic budget scenarios they would hire 

18–22 new full-time stock assessment scientists 

over the next 3–5 years and 8–16 over the next 

5–10 years (Section 2.5.4). Retirements would 

require the hiring of 7–10 new stock assessment 

scientists over the next 3–5 years and 7–14 over 

the next 5–10 years (Section 2.5.4). This brings 

the total hires over the next 10 years to between 

40 and 62 (Section 2.5.4).

Extrapolating for the 14 states that did not 

respond (see the list in Section 2.5.4) creates 

an estimate of between 120 and 186 new stock 

assessment scientists needed by state agencies 

within the next 10 years (Section 2.5.4). 

2.3.5 Total Demand

Of the 21 responding organizations, 19 (90.1 

percent) replied that their need for stock assessment personnel was increasing. None of the 21 

answered that their need was decreasing. 

Combining the results from the Science Centers, Councils, Commissions, and states who 

responded to the questionnaire provides an estimate of between 178 and 215 new stock assessment scientists anticipated to be hired over the 

next 10 years to (Section 2.5.5). Extrapolating to 

account for the organizations not responding to 

the questionnaire brings this estimate to between 

261 and 344 (Section 2.5.5)

2.3.6 Personnel Moves

Questions 4 and 5 inquired about stock assessment scientists moving to other positions within 

and outside of their current agency. 

Question 4 asked about the number of stock 

assessment scientists who are likely to move to 

other positions, requiring replacements to complete their stock assessment. This was interpreted 

by respondents to mean two kinds of moves: 

1) individuals who left stock assessment posi-Photo: NMFS

A scientist working in a laboratory at the NMFS 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Chapter Two
13

tions to accept other positions within the 

organization, such as management positions, 

requiring the hiring of new individuals to fill 

the vacated stock assessment positions; and 

2) those who left a stock assessment position at 

one agency location to move to a stock assessment position at another agency location. For example, if an individual left a stock 

assessment position at the NMFS Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center to take a position 

as a stock assessment scientist at the NMFS 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 

The first case creates demand, generating the 

need to hire a new stock assessment scientist. 

In the second case, the individual fills one position within the agency while vacating another, 

amounting to no change in demand, except if they 

fill positions not engaged in fishery assessment 

output. 

Responses to Question 4 indicated that stock 

assessment scientists who work for the Science 

Centers and states move to other positions frequently. Respondents indicated a range of 20–36 

stock assessment scientists moving over the next 

3–5 years and 27–36 over the next 5–10 years. Extrapolated values range from 30–63 over the next 

3–5 years and 35–52 over the next 5–10 years. It 

is important to note that recycling internal candidates for personal growth opportunities does 

not help in meeting the overall shortage.

Question 5 sought a descriptive response 

as to whether stock assessment scientists leave 

to accept positions at other agencies or outside 

of government. The responses received were 

highly dependent on the individual organization 

responding. Some organizations reported this 

rarely happens, whereas others said it was a common occurrence. Several of the states (Delaware, 

North Carolina, and California) reported high 

turnover, with employees often moving to NMFS 

because of the higher salaries paid. 

2.4 Discussion

Nineteen of 21 responding organizations (90.1 

percent) identified that their need for stock assessment scientists was increasing, largely due 

to the increased mandates associated with the 

reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act. The need 

for additional assessments on previously nonassessed fish species, more frequent updates of 

assessed stocks, and assessment-related work 

on threatened and endangered species all are 

increasing the demand.

Collectively, respondents will require between 

178 and 215 new stock assessment scientists to 

be hired over the next 10 years, which averages 

18–22 per year. The total need, as indicated by 

the extrapolated value, is estimated to be between 

261 and 344 over the next 10 years (averaging to 

26–34 per year). 

This is a substantial increase over the number 

currently employed. The NMFS Science Centers 

currently employ 90 stock assessment scientists. 

The minimum estimate of new hires needed by 

the Science Centers over the next ten years is 

135, which is 150% of the current number employed.

Estimates calculated are undoubtedly low for the 

following reasons: 

1. To focus this study, we chose to target marine fisheries management agencies. Many 

types of organizations employing stock assessment scientists were not included in the 

study. These included both state and federal 

agencies that work on inland fisheries (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, etc.) that may involve 

marine fish that swim there; federal agencies 

such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the U.S. Geological Survey; tribal fisheries management agencies; non-governmental organizations; environmental consulting 

firms; and academic institutions.

2. Employers also hire individuals with these 

Demand Report
14

unique skills to work on non-fisheries issues 

and non-fish species. For example, individuals trained to conduct stock assessments 

work with marine mammal and sea turtle 

populations. 

3. A number of stock assessment scientists 

eventually will leave their current jobs to accept non-stock-assessment positions, such 

as supervisory or management positions, requiring their replacement with new hires. Although this was incorporated into Question 

4, due to the phrasing of the question it is not 

possible to separate out those who move to 

non-stock-assessment positions from those 

who move to stock assessment positions in 

other parts of their current agency. Therefore, we know that some portion of the 47–72 

(reported) and 65–115 (extrapolated) stock 

assessment scientists likely to move to other 

positions over the next 10 years will need to 

be replaced and are not included in the estimates calculated by summing the results of 

Questions 2 and 3. 

4. As in any job sector, employers want the 

supply of potential employees to exceed the 

demand to allow for competition for the 

available jobs. The goal is not to hire the 

only qualified individual, but rather to hire 

the most qualified individual from a pool of 

qualified candidates. 

There are many possible ways to calculate 

extrapolated values. We chose to use a simple 

ratio of the total organizations sent questionnaires to those that responded, by organization 

category. Other ways to calculate this could involve weighting the organizations by their overall 

budgets, the number of species they assess, or the 

current number of stock assessment scientists 

hired. As there was no one best way to do this, 

we chose the most straightforward way. Some of 

the non-responding organizations may not have 

responded because they did not anticipate needing additional stock assessment scientists in the 

future. If that is the case, the resulting extrapolations would be high. 

Given the uncertainty associated with these 

extrapolated estimates, we have greater confidence in the number calculated by only summing 

those organizations that did respond. However, 

it should be considered a minimum estimate.

Chapter Two
15

2.5 Tables

2.5.1 Demand at National Marine Fisheries Service Science Centers

New FTE positions Retirements Subtotals Totals

3–5 Years 5–10 Years 3–5 Years 5–10 Years 3–5 Years 5–10 Years Over 10 

Year Period

Science Center Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Northeast 5 5 10 10 2 3 6 6 7 8 16 16 23 24

Southeast 12 12 4 4 3 2 3 3 15 15 7 7 22 22

Southwest 10 11 12 17 4 5 8 9 14 16 20 26 34 42

Northwest 3 4 2 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 3 4 6 8

Alaska 11 11 12 12 4 4 5 5 15 15 17 17 32 32

Pacific Islands 11 11 3 3 2 2 2 2 13 13 5 5 18 18

Total 52 54 43 48 15 17 25 27 67 71 68 75 135 146

2.5.2 Demand at Regional Fishery Management Councils

New FTE positions Retirements Subtotals Totals

3–5 Years 5–10 Years 3–5 Years 5–10 Years 3–5 Years 5–10 Years Over 10 

Year Period

Council Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Mid-Atlantic 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Caribbean 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2

Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

North Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

Western Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3 2 4

Extrapolating 

for Missing 

Responses *

0 2 2 3 0 0 2 2 0 2 4 5 4 7

* Extrapolating for Northeast, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic.

Demand Report
16

2.5.3 Demand at Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions

New FTE positions Retirements Subtotals Totals

3–5 Years 5–10 Years 3–5 Years 5–10 Years 3–5 Years 5–10 Years Over 10 

Year Period

Commission Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Atlantic States 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2

Gulf States 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

Total 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 3

Extrapolating 

for Missing 

Responses *

2 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 2 5

* Extrapolating for Pacific States.

2.5.4 Demand at State Marine Fisheries Management Agencies

New FTE positions Retirements Subtotals Totals

3–5 Years 5–10 Years 3–5 Years 5–10 Years 3–5 Years 5–10 Years Over 10 

Year Period

State Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Connecticut 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6 1 2 1 7 2 9

Delaware 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 3

Virginia 1 2 3 3 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 4 5 6

North Carolina 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2

Louisiana 5 5 2 3 1 2 2 3 6 7 4 6 10 13

Texas 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2

California 6 6 3 6 2 4 0 0 8 10 3 6 11 16

Washington 5 5 0 0 3 3 3 3 8 8 3 3 11 11

Total 18 22 8 16 7 10 7 14 25 32 15 30 40 62

Extrapolating 

for Missing 

Responses *

54 66 24 48 21 30 21 42 75 96 45 90 120 186

* Extrapolating for Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, 

Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii.

Chapter Two
17

2.5.5 Total Reported and Extrapolated Demand Over the Next 10 Years

Reported Extrapolated

Organization Min Max Min Max

Science Centers 135 146 135 146

Councils 2 4 4 7

Commissions 1 3 2 5

States 40 62 120 186

Total 178 215 261 344

Demand Report
18
19

Chapter Three

SUPPLY REPORT
20
21

3

SUPPLY REPORT

SURVEY OF INSTITUTIONS 

OF HIGHER LEARNING TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE 

SHORTAGES IN THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WITH 

POST-BACCALAUREATE DEGREES IN SUBJECTS 

RELATED TO FISHERY SCIENCE

Kevin M. Hunt

Department of Wildlife & Fisheries

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762

John C. Whitehead

Department of Economics

Appalachian State University

Boone, North Carolina 28608

Debra J. Murie

Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

University of Florida

Gainesville, Florida 32653

Thomas J. Kwak

U.S. Geological Survey

North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina 27695

Submitted exclusively to the Executive Director of the American Fisheries Society, 

the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, and the U.S. Secretary of Education

October 2007

Note that this is an independent study. The content of the study has not been altered. 

The formatting has been changed to fit that of the overall report.
22

3.1 Introduction

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), requested the Executive Director of the American Fisheries Society 

(AFS) for assistance in providing an objective 

review of graduate-level fisheries programs at 

U.S. Institutions of Higher Learning to address, 

in part, Sections (a)1 and (a)3 of the Public Law. 

The AFS Executive Director requested that we, 

as representatives of the AFS Marine Fisheries, Socioeconomics, and Education sections, 

design and implement a survey that would seek 

to answer questions raised in the reauthorized 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

3.2 Methodology

3.2.1 Identifying Programs at U.S. 

Institutions of Higher Learning

To identify institutions that would be contacted for information on their graduate programs, and to identify the number of Master 

of Science and Doctor of Philosophy students 

conferred degrees each year in fisheries science, 

we requested the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) to provide us with the list of all universities who reported any post-baccalaureate 

fisheries science graduates since the 1986-87 

academic year. From the NCES Classification of 

Instructional Programs (CIP) codes (which is the 

federal taxonomic scheme designed to support 

accurate tracking, assessment, and reporting of 

fields of study and program completions), the 

NCES promptly provided the graduate statistics 

of 11 institutions reporting post-baccalaureate 

degrees under the current “03.0301 Fishing and 

Fisheries Science and Management” CIP code 

and its predecessor codes used in the 1980s and 

1990s. Unfortunately, many universities with 

well-known fisheries science programs were not 

included in the list because they chose to report 

their fisheries science graduates under a separate 

CIP code. Therefore, to obtain an exhaustive list 

of universities with programs, we obtained the 

contact information for member universities of 

the National Association of University Fisheries 

and Wildlife Programs (NAUFWP) that were 

listed as having graduate programs in fisheries 

science. Additionally, because many of the universities in NAUFWP were Land Grant institutions in interior states, we believed we were likely 

missing some marine fisheries programs located 

at Sea Grant institutions and elsewhere in coastal 

states. We then searched the worldwide web pages 

of all public institutions in each coastal state for 

marine fisheries or fisheries-related programs. 

In the search, we sought evidence of a fisheries 

science department, or related departments not 

including “fisheries” in the name, such as biology 

or marine sciences, but that offered fisheriesrelated courses. The results of these latter efforts 

yielded a database that contained an additional 

80 universities for a total of 91 public universities 

with known or possible graduate-level fisheries 

science programs. We then sent a letter (AppenThe RV Thomas G. Thompson is the largest research vessel of the University of Washington, 

whose School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences 

graduates students with advanced degrees in 

fisheries. Some of these graduates go on to become stock-assessment scientists at NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service.

Photo: © University of Washington

Chapter Three
23

dix A) via e-mail to the head of each of those departments informing them of the pending study. 

Additionally, we advised department heads, if we 

incorrectly listed them as having a graduate-level 

fisheries science program, to respond accordingly 

and we would remove them from the list. Sixteen 

department heads responded that they did not 

have a graduate program in fisheries science. 

We assumed the remaining 75 institutions had 

a graduate-level fisheries science program, and 

they were targeted for this study.

3.2.2 Survey Instrument Development

To develop the survey instrument, we sought 

input from the AFS parent society, section 

members, university administrators, and state 

and federal agency administrators. The survey 

(Appendix B) asked heads to provide information on their graduate program in six areas: 1) 

general fisheries program information with an 

emphasis on population dynamics faculty; 2) 

level of priority of population dynamics/stock 

assessment in their program, and their ability to 

train students in same; 3) current fisheries science 

graduate student enrollment with an emphasis 

on population dynamics; 4) quality of incoming 

Master of Science students; 5) graduate course 

offerings and percentage of students taking those 

courses, including an “essential curriculum” 

required for stock assessment positions ; and 6) 

their suggestions for correcting any perceived 

shortfalls in the number of fisheries graduates 

with adequate training in population dynamics/

stock assessment from an academic and congressional perspective. 

We initially sought information on general 

fisheries program activities at institutions. First, 

we asked department heads to characterize 

whether their program was “comprehensive with 

both inland and marine components,” “strictly 

inland fisheries,” “strictly marine fisheries,” “primarily inland with some marine fisheries,” or 

“primarily marine with some inland fisheries.” 

Second, we asked department heads to indicate 

the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty, 

postdoctoral researchers, and research associates 

housed in their academic department, how many 

of the FTE faculty would be retiring in the next 5 

years, and the number of those retirees that would 

be replaced. Similarly, we asked how many of 

the FTE faculty conducted population dynamics 

research, how many of them would retire in the 

next 5 years, and the number of retiring population dynamics faculty that would be replaced. 

Third, to determine whether there was an immediate need for population dynamics faculty, 

we asked department heads “If you could hire 

two additional fisheries-related faculty members 

today, what areas of expertise would you most 

likely seek?” Fourth, we asked department heads 

if they had tried to hire any population dynamics 

faculty within the past 5 years and whether they 

were able to fill the position. Finally, we asked 

department heads whether they believed their 

programs would grow in terms of faculty in the 

next 5 years. 

Second, we asked department heads what 

level of priority (not a priority, low, medium, or 

high) graduate education in fisheries population 

dynamics/stock assessment was to them, and 

whether they believed they had all the resources 

necessary to train students in conducting population dynamics/stock assessment-related work.

Third, we sought information on current 

fisheries enrollment by asking department heads 

to indicate their current number of Master of 

Science and Doctor of Philosophy students, the 

percent of those that conduct population dynamics research for their theses/dissertations, and 

whether that percentage had “decreased,” “stayed 

the same,” or “increased” over the past decade. 

Next, we asked department heads whether they 

believed enrollment would “decrease,” “stay the 

same,” or “increase” in the next 5 years. In an 

open-ended question, we asked those who indicated “increase” to tell us why they perceived 

growth. Next, we asked department heads to 

indicate how successful they were at recruiting 

graduate students (a) to their overall program, 

and (b) capable of conducting population dynamSupply Report
24

ics research using a 5-point scale with response 

format 1 = “not at all successful,” 2 = “slightly 

successful,” 3 = “moderately successful,” 4 = “very 

successful,” and 5 = “extremely successful.”

Fourth, we sought information on the quality 

of students entering post-baccalaureate studies. 

We asked department heads to rate the aptitude 

and ability of their recent first-semester fisheries graduate students in 12 skill areas related to 

graduate student success using a 5-point scale 

with response format 1 = “very weak,” 2 = “weak,” 

3 = “adequate,” 4 = “strong,” and 5 = “very strong.” 

The 12 skill areas included aptitude in statistics, 

mathematics, modeling, fishery biology, fishery 

ecology, fishery management, fishery science, 

and population dynamics, and the ability to think 

critically, synthesize information, and effectively 

communicate verbally and in writing. Next, to 

assess whether there had been any major shifts 

in aptitude and abilities, we asked department 

heads how recent first semester graduate students 

compared to entering students in the past decade 

in each of the 12 areas using a 3-point scale where 

1 = “decreased,” 2 = “stayed the same,” and 3 = 

“increased.”

Fifth, we wanted to investigate the types of 

coursework recent fisheries-related graduate 

students completed. To do this, we initially developed a list of 32 graduate-level courses potentially 

available to fisheries students at most institutions. 

From that list, we requested the Director of the 

NMFS Office of Science and Technology to poll 

the NMFS Science Centers to devise an “essential 

curriculum” that would prepare graduates for 

employment as stock assessment scientists for the 

Federal Government. The “essential curriculum” 

included nine courses: Population Dynamics, 

Fish Ecology, Multivariate Statistics, Sampling 

Theory, Fisheries or Natural Resources Modeling, 

Bayesian Statistics, Stock Assessment, Risk and 

Decision Analysis, and Fisheries or Natural Resources Computer Programming. We then asked 

department heads to indicate whether each of the 

32 courses was available at their institution, and if 

so, the percentage of their graduate students that 

typically take each course as part of their program 

of study. If a course was offered but department 

heads did not report the percentage of students 

taking the respective course, missing values 

were replaced with the average percentage from 

respondents to calculate a nationwide enrollment estimate per course. Next, we determined 

how many institutions offered all or part of the 

“essential curriculum.”

Finally, we requested department head suggestions for correcting any perceived shortfalls 

in the number of fisheries graduates with adequate training in population dynamics/stock 

assessments from an academic and congressional 

perspective. 

3.2.3 Survey Implementation

Following procedures developed by Dillman 

(2000) for internet surveys, we sent department 

heads with fisheries-related programs (n = 75) 

a second letter via e-mail in July 2007 (Appendix A), that again included a statement on the 

purpose of the study and provided a link to the 

website containing the web-based form of the 

survey instrument. Two additional follow-up 

 

Undergraduate students from across the country attend a workshop to learn about stock assessment and the vital role it plays in conserving our marine resources.

Photo: NMFS

Chapter Three
25

e-mails were sent 10 and 25 days after the first 

request to nonrespondents. Because we encouraged department heads to be candid and asked 

information about the quality of students and 

their programs that could create negative consequences from existing students, or affect graduate 

student recruitment, we informed them that their 

answers would remain confidential and their 

institution would not be identified. All correspondence, survey instruments, and procedures 

were approved by the Mississippi State University 

Institutional Review Board for the Protection of 

Human Subjects (Docket #07-085). 

3.3 Results

3.3.1 General Fisheries Program 

 Information

Slightly over 57 percent (n = 43; number of respondents) of the 75 department heads at selected 

U.S. Institutions of Higher Learning completed 

the on-line survey. A majority (55.8 percent) of 

those responding characterized their programs 

as “strictly inland fisheries” or “primarily inland 

with some marine fisheries.” Only 23.2 percent indicated they were “strictly marine” or “primarily 

marine with some inland components,” and 20.9 

percent indicated they were “comprehensive with 

both inland and marine components.” Department heads indicated that their programs had an 

average of 6.48 full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty 

positions, 1.5 FTE postdoctoral researchers, and 

3.0 FTE research associates (not students). Combined, institutions with graduate-level fisheries 

science programs housed an average of slightly 

over 11 FTE fisheries positions in their department. Department heads indicated that an average of 2.6 FTE faculty, slightly over 40 percent of 

the FTE faculty, conducted population dynamics 

research.

When we asked department heads how many 

of their FTE faculty would be retiring in the next 

5 years, they indicated that an average of 1.42 

FTE faculty, or about 22 percent of their entire 

departmental fisheries faculty, would be retiring. 

Department heads expected that 91 percent of 

retirees would be replaced. Similarly, department 

heads indicated that they would lose an average of 

0.6 FTE, or about 21 percent, of their population 

dynamics faculty. However, they expected only 

77 percent of these positions would be replaced. 

Nevertheless, when we asked department heads 

whether they saw their fisheries program growing 

in terms of faculty in the next 5 years, 50 percent (n = 21) indicated their department would 

grow.

To determine immediate needs for faculty positions, we asked department heads to indicate the 

areas of expertise they would seek if they could 

hire two additional faculty members today. Department heads indicated that they would most 

likely seek faculty with expertise in fish ecology 

(n = 11), population dynamics (n = 10), human 

dimensions of fisheries (n = 9), aquaculture (n = 

9), fishery statistics (n = 6), and fish physiology 

(n = 6) (Section 3.7.1). Thirty-one percent (n 

= 13) of department heads indicated that they 

have tried to hire a population dynamics/stock 

assessment FTE faculty member during the past 5 

years, and 84.6 percent (n = 11) of those indicated 

they were able to hire someone fitting the job 

advertisement. Of the remaining two universities, 

one dropped their search, and the position at the 

other remained vacant until filled 5 years later.

3.3.2 Priority for Education in Population 

Dynamics/Stock Assessment

When we asked department heads the level 

of priority for graduate education in fisheries 

population dynamics/stock assessment in their 

programs, 7.3 percent (n = 3) indicated it was “not 

a priority,” 19.5 percent (n = 8) believed it was a 

“low priority,” 41.5 percent (n = 17) indicated 

it was a “medium priority,” and 31.7 percent (n 

= 13) believed it was a “high priority” in their 

programs. Additionally, 69 percent (n = 29) of 

department heads believed their program has the 

necessary resources to train students to conduct 

population dynamics/stock assessment-related 

work. Of the 30.9 percent (n = 13) department 

Supply Report
26

heads who felt their program did not have the 

necessary resources, most indicated through 

their open-ended comments (Appendix C) that 

this was a result of a lack of faculty in population 

dynamics or stock assessment. 

3.3.3 Current Fisheries Student Enrollment 

and Graduation Numbers

Department heads from fisheries science 

programs (n = 42) reported they housed an average of 22.4 graduate students (13.9 Master of 

Science and 8.5 Doctor of Philosophy students) 

in 2006-07. A plurality (47.7 percent; n = 20) of 

department heads felt that enrollment would 

“stay the same” in the next 5 years, while 45.2 

percent (n = 19) felt enrollment would increase, 

and only 7.1 percent (n = 3) believed enrollment 

would decrease. In open-ended comments, many 

of the department heads expressed that the anticipated growth in their faculty would create 

increases in the number of graduate students, 

although not necessarily in the area of fisheries 

population dynamics (Appendix D). Responding 

institutions (n = 7) using the 03.0301 “Fishing 

and Fisheries Science and Management” CIP 

code reported a current average of 36.4 graduate 

students in their programs. Extrapolating to all 

11 institutions using that CIP code, we estimated 

that these institutions currently house about 400 

graduate students. Responding institutions (n = 

36) who use other CIP codes indicated they currently had an average of 19.4 graduate students, 

or 53.3 percent of those reporting in the 03.0301 

CIP code. Extrapolating to the 64 institutions 

not using the 03.0301 CIP code, we estimated 

that these programs currently house about 1,242 

graduate students. Collectively, we estimate that 

there are currently about 1,642 graduate students 

attending U.S. Institutions of Higher Learning 

as part of a fisheries science program. Overall, 

department heads indicated that 33.2 percent of 

their graduate students conducted population 

dynamics research as part of their program of 

study. Thus, we estimate that about 545 graduate students in the United States are currently 

emphasizing population dynamics, as defined by 

individual department heads, as part of their thesis or dissertation research. Most (73.8 percent; 

n = 31) department heads felt that the percentage of graduate students conducting population 

dynamics research had “stayed the same” over 

recent years, while 9.5 percent (n = 4) felt it had 

“decreased” and 16.7 percent (n = 7) felt it had 

“increased” over recent years.

Since 1986, the 11 institutions using the 

03.0301 CIP code awarded an annual average 

of 111.5 (range = 86 to 160) post-baccalaureate 

degrees in “Fishing or Fisheries Science and 

Management,” or about 10.1 per institution annually (Section 3.6.1). With institutions that do 

not use the 03.0301 CIP code only averaging 53.3 

percent the number of graduate students as those 

reporting in the 03.0301 CIP code, we assumed 

University students at the Living Marine Resources 

Cooperative Science Center in a fisheries laboratory working on life-history studies of fishes.

Photo: LMRCSC

Chapter Three
27

they would produce only 53.3 percent of the 

graduates as well. Thus, we estimate that about 5.4 

graduate students on average are awarded postbaccalaureate degrees annually at institutions 

using another CIP code. Extrapolating to the 64 

institutions not using the 03.0301 CIP code, we 

estimated they annually produce a total of 346 

graduates. Collectively, we estimated that about 

458 post-baccalaureate degrees in fisheries science are awarded to individuals annually in the 

United States by institutions with fisheries science 

programs.

When we asked department heads their success in recruiting Master of Science and Doctor 

of Philosophy students into their programs, 66.7 

percent felt they were “very” or “extremely successful” in recruiting Master of Science students, 

and 50.0 percent felt the same for Doctor of Philosophy students (Section 3.7.2). However, only 

45 percent and 38.4 percent of department heads 

indicated that they were successful in recruiting 

Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy 

students, respectively, who were capable of conducting population dynamics research.

3.3.4 Quality of First-Semester Master of 

Science Students

When we asked department heads to rate the 

aptitude and ability of their recent first-semester 

fisheries graduate students in 12 skill areas related 

to graduate student success, incoming students 

were rated strongest in their ability in verbal 

communication skills, aptitude in fish biology 

and ecology, and their ability to think critically 

(Section 3.7.3). Most (> 50 percent) felt students 

were “adequate,” “strong,” or “very strong” in 

all areas except “aptitude in modeling” (Section 

3.7.3); 61 percent of department heads felt their 

students were “weak” or “very weak” in modeling. 

Additionally, 41.5 percent of department heads 

felt their incoming Master of Science students 

were “weak” or “very weak” in terms of “aptitude 

in population dynamics,” and 28.8 percent felt the 

same for entering students’ “aptitude in statistics.” 

Department heads felt that less than 20 percent 

of incoming graduate students were “weak” or 

“very weak” in all other aptitudes and abilities. 

Nevertheless, despite indicating some weaknesses 

of incoming graduate students, most department 

heads (> 85 percent) felt the quality of incoming 

students had “stayed the same” or “increased” 

compared to incoming students in the past 

decade (Section 3.7.4). “Aptitude in population 

dynamics” was the only skill area that exhibited 

a larger percentage decrease than increase over 

the past decade. 

3.3.5 Courses and “Essential Courses” Taken 

by Graduate Students

When we asked department heads to indicate 

courses offered at their institution and the percentage of graduate students taking those courses, 

results indicated that current students are taking 

a myriad of courses as part of their program of 

study (Section 3.7.5). Introduction to Statistics, 

Fisheries Management, Regression, Ichthyology, 

Population Dynamics, Limnology, Fish Ecology, 

Multivariate Statistics, Non-parametric Statistics, 

Fish Biology, and GIS and/or Remote Sensing 

were the top 11 courses, taken by 30 percent or 

more of all current fisheries graduate students at 

U.S. Institutions of Higher Learning. Nevertheless, only three of these courses—Population 

Dynamics, Fish Ecology, and Multivariate Statistics—were part of the “essential curriculum” 

identified by the NMFS Science Centers. 

Of the nine graduate courses in the “essential 

curriculum”, Fisheries or Natural Resources Computer Programming had the lowest enrollment, 

with only 3.5 percent of the fisheries graduate students taking the course. In order to take all nine 

of the essential courses, students would have to be 

enrolled in computer programming. Therefore, a 

maximum of 3.5 percent of the fisheries graduate 

students could be taking all nine of the courses. 

Assuming that there are about 458 students 

graduating with post-baccalaureate degrees, and 

estimating that 3.5 percent of the students take 

all nine courses, we estimate that 16 graduate 

students per year are currently being produced 

Supply Report
28

nationally who have taken the nine courses 

deemed essential by the NMFS Science Centers 

for a newly hired stock assessment scientist to be 

effective in his/her position. The small number of 

current graduate students taking courses in the 

“essential curriculum” is likely, in part, a result 

of many institutions not offering the courses 

(Section 3.7.6). Only three of the responding 

department heads indicated all nine courses were 

offered at their university, and 51 percent (n = 22) 

indicated they only offered between one and four 

of the courses at their institution. 

3.4 Discussion

Based on the small percentage of fisheries 

programs at U.S. Institutions of Higher Learning 

offering all nine courses in the “essential curriculum,” and the corresponding low number (estimated to be 16) of post-baccalaureate students 

with the potential to be graduating each year 

with the necessary coursework to conduct stock 

assessment work, it appears there is a shortage 

of fisheries students with the ideal training for 

federal fisheries agencies. Further, not all graduate students enrolled at an institution offering all 

nine courses will take them. For example, each 

student taking computer programming can take 

any combination of the 32 courses presented 

among others. Additionally, not all programs 

require their students to take that many courses, 

preferring instead that they focus more on their 

research. Because of these factors it is likely that 

the number of graduates who have taken the “essential curriculum” is well below what is needed 

by the federal government and other employers. 

Whereas the number of current graduate students currently focusing on population dynamics 

as part of their thesis or dissertation research 

(estimated to be 545) makes the estimated number of students qualified to conduct stock assessments appear low, it is important to distinguish 

between population dynamics research (e.g. 

tagging studies, mark-recapture work, electroshocking/pound-netting, estimating mortality, 

age and growth) and the rigorous mathematical 

modeling associated with stock assessments. 

Specifically, not all students studying population 

dynamics go beyond the biological requisites of 

their respective study and incorporate their findings into stock assessment models. Confounding 

this, even if the number of qualified graduates was 

greater than estimated, many of those who are 

qualified to conduct stock assessments will enter 

the academic profession as faculty, postdoctoral 

researchers, and research associates; begin work 

for a state fisheries agency or in the private sector; or are international students who will take 

their skills back to their home country (non-U.S. 

citizens cannot be employed by the Federal Government, except through contract).

The underlying causes for this indicated shortage are varied and involve various components 

of the academic process and federal funding 

agencies. In open-ended comments provided 

by administrators on what institutions and the 

U.S. Congress could do to correct a perceived 

shortfall (Appendices E and F), many pointed 

to the lack of faculty and lack of funding in this 

area from the Federal Government. This shortage can lead to numerous secondary problems 

including non-quantitative programs of study, 

and the perception among students that research 

 

Graduate students studying fisheries population dynamics at Virginia Tech.

Photo: Virginia Tech

Chapter Three
29

in this area is unimportant. Department heads 

also indicated the de-emphasis of quantitative 

courses at the undergraduate level as a hindrance 

to producing future stock assessment scientists. 

From an economic perspective, a shortage in a 

labor market exists when there is excess demand 

for labor. Over time, a shortage will be bid away as 

compensation rises. Employers who wish to hire 

workers will offer higher compensation. With the 

higher compensation, additional employees will 

offer their services. With increasing employees 

and fewer employers seeking employees at the 

higher compensation, the shortage will be bid 

away. The only way a persistent shortage will exist is if compensation is not flexible upwards or if 

there are other labor market rigidities (Mankiw 

2007). 

The results of this survey provide some clues 

about these additional labor market rigidities. 

First, there are likely some barriers on the supply side of the market. Graduate programs are 

increasingly recruiting from a pool of students 

who are underprepared for graduate school and 

the statistical and modeling rigor of population 

dynamics and stock assessment. Students with a 

lack of mathematical training will be discouraged 

when faced with the daunting challenge of the 

quantitative courses necessary for stock assessment training. This is a limitation to the supply 

side of the market. It is unclear from the results 

of this survey whether additional incentives 

provided to graduate students, such as research 

support, would increase the number of population dynamics researchers trained in graduate 

programs. On the demand side of the market, 

there may be institutional rigidities that limit 

employers’ ability to increase compensation offers 

when faced with a shortage. Much of the demand 

for fisheries scientists is in the public sector where 

the federal and state governments have pay scales 

and other employment restrictions. Relaxation 

of these restrictions might lead to higher salaries 

and incentive for graduate students to pursue 

training in population dynamics and stock assessment. 

Despite the bleak prognosis alluded to above, 

qualified students likely exist or are trainable to 

work in this area. Many fisheries science graduate students probably have some of the courses 

desired by the Federal Government, as well as 

other related courses. Further, it is important to 

understand that there are alternate mechanisms 

available for students to learn the material contained within the “essential curriculum” outside 

of a classroom. Many students learn through 

hands-on graduate research assistantships, and 

undergraduate students can gain knowledge 

through internship opportunities with professionals who know the material and how it is applied. We also know that graduate students must 

be capable of learning material independently 

and spend much of their time doing so. At this 

point in their careers, they cannot expect to learn 

everything needed in the classroom. For this 

reason, we would expect the number of students 

who know the material contained in the essential 

curriculum to be higher than purely the number 

who have taken formal essential courses. Further, 

some recent Ph.D. recipients may have taken 

some of the “essential curriculum” elsewhere as 

part of their Master of Science program. However, quantifying that information would have 

required having a record of graduate courses 

completed by each recent Ph.D. recipient in the 

United States, which was well beyond the scope 

of this study.

In an international workshop convened in 

2001, leaders in government, industry, academia, 

and NGOs developed eight consensus strategies 

and recommendations significant to development 

of training capacity for future fisheries professionals at international, national, and regional scales 

(Jodice et al. 2002). Those strategies included 

identifying the gaps between those supplying and 

demanding management training. Our survey 

and report constitute an important contribution 

toward that goal for meeting the demand for 

quantitative fisheries scientists by Institutions of 

Higher Learning in the United States. Now that 

some of the gaps have been identified, future challenges will involve elucidating a more in-depth 

Supply Report
30

understanding of the reasons and mechanisms 

for the imbalance and developing strategies to 

mitigate that condition. 

In addition to graduate students being informed by administrators upon enrollment as to 

the career potential as a stock assessment scientist if they were to take a quantitatively oriented 

program, open-ended comments provided by department heads (Appendices E and F) indicated 

numerous suggestions for increasing graduates 

in this area. Along with increased funding to 

support faculty, research, and students, other suggestions included bolstering math and statistics 

courses in undergraduate curricula, recruiting 

students from mathematics or statistics programs 

who may have a career interest in fisheries or 

natural resources or developing joint degree 

programs, and doing a better job at identifying 

qualified students as early as possible (especially 

in undergraduate programs) and getting them 

into quantitatively oriented degree programs. 

Also, more undergraduate and graduate internships with federal stock assessment scientists 

were suggested by department heads. This, along 

with possible increases in funding and curriculum changes, may help to increase the number 

of institutions where population dynamics and 

stock assessment education is viewed as a high 

priority. A 1991 survey of state fish and wildlife 

agency employees revealed a strong correlation 

between education and the perception of a subject’s importance, suggesting that universities 

are able to influence the direction of the fisheries 

profession considerably (Adelman et al. 1994).

Creative partnerships should be developed 

that capitalize on the close ties between universities and federal fisheries management agencies, 

including NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey. Additionally, as customers of Institutions 

of Higher Learning, NOAA and other federal 

fisheries agencies need to make their academic 

needs known and work with the institutions to 

make sure essential courses are offered at each 

institution with a fisheries program—marine or 

inland. Nevertheless, whereas population dynamics in inland and marine fisheries may share 

some common characteristics (e.g., estimating 

mortality, age and growth, age at maturity), stock 

assessments may not. Inland fisheries scientists 

often estimate abundance in specific lakes using 

either CPUE (block netting or creel surveys) or 

tagging studies (invariably closed assumption 

versus the open assumption used in most marine 

fisheries). This may be to regulate the fisheries 

via length limits and bag limits, or to estimate 

stocking densities. However, other than large 

lake and river systems (i.e., the Great Lakes), 

these scientists typically do not use stock assessment methods common to marine fisheries. As 

suggested by one department head, institutions 

need to work creatively to “engage NOAA/NMFS 

and other agency scientists as courtesy faculty 

and graduate committee members,” and/or offer 

marine fisheries stock assessment workshops for 

faculty at primarily inland fisheries programs. 

Whereas the U.S. Department of Education 

has devised a comprehensive taxonomic scheme 

A NMFS stock-assessment scientist teaching an 

undergraduate student from the University of 

Florida how to assess the status of bluefin tuna 

populations using a computer application.

Photo: Virginia Tech

Chapter Three
31

(CIP codes) for institutions to report graduates 

in as fine a detail as possible, many institutions 

with fisheries science programs report their 

graduating fisheries students in a non-fisheries 

CIP code. Based on conversations with department heads, it appears each institution has its own 

reason for reporting fisheries graduates where 

they do. For example, some fisheries programs 

developed within an existing forestry, wildlife, or 

marine sciences program, and those CIP codes 

are used based on precedent. Others report their 

fisheries students under a “natural resources” 

CIP code that allows the university to promote 

their broader strengths. Regardless, the ability 

of institutions to decide what CIP codes they 

report for their graduates defeats the intent of the 

Department of Education’s taxonomic scheme to 

accurately track fields of study, at least in this case. 

What at first appeared to be a simple request from 

the U.S. Congress—to document the number of 

fisheries science graduates produced annually—

turned into a month-long “fishing expedition” 

just to identify probable institutions with fisheries 

science programs, let alone answer the questions 

posed by Congress. 

Institutions that do not report fisheries 

students using the CIP code for fisheries may 

unknowingly be putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage in student recruitment efforts, 

and possibly are affecting nationwide fisheries 

student recruitment. Through the course of our 

internet searches for fisheries programs, it became apparent that the 11 institutions using the 

fisheries CIP code were consistently identified 

more than others on various commercial and 

federal career and degree-related websites. It 

appears that many of these services use the CIP 

codes to direct students with interests in fisheries 

to appropriate institutions. Also, having only 11 

institutions nationwide being identified as having fisheries programs in many searches, some 

college-bound students may get the impression 

the field is smaller or more specialized than it is, 

is not available in their state, and is either very 

competitive or, worse, not important. Institutions 

of Higher Learning and the Federal Government 

must work cooperatively to further the fisheries 

science profession as a viable career option if they 

expect programs to prosper and vacancies to be 

filled in the future.

We assert that the results of this survey are 

as accurate as possible given the limitations and 

challenges described above. The results presented 

herein, quantitative and otherwise, depended 

upon the diligence of respective department 

heads to compile the best data available and to 

report their perceptions related to subjective 

questions to most accurately represent the condition at their institution. Further complicating the 

survey environment is that, in some universities, 

the fisheries program and its faculty and students 

may be located among multiple departments or 

other administrative units. However, while complications in obtaining results and minor inconsistencies in them may exist, the overall trends 

revealed are consistent and suggest that there are 

low numbers of quantitatively educated fisheries 

graduates with sufficient training to fill employment needs in stock assessment positions.

3.5 Literature Cited

Adelman, I. R., D. J. Schmidly, and Y. Cohen. 

1994. Educational needs of fisheries and wildlife 

professionals: results of a survey. Fisheries 19(11): 

17–25.

Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: 

the tailored design method. John Wiley and Sons, 

Inc., New York. 

Jodice, L. W., G. Sylvia, M. Harte, S. Hanna, and 

K. Stokes. 2002. The Training Managers for 21st 

Century Fisheries Initiative: summary and recommendations from the inaugural international 

workshop. Proceedings of the IIFET 2002 Conference, Wellington, New Zealand. Oregon State 

University, Newport, Oregon.

Mankiw, N. G. 2007. Principles of economics, 

4th edition. Thomson Southwestern, Florence, 

Kentucky.

Supply Report
32

3.6 Figures

3.6.1 Figure 1. Post-Baccalaureate Degrees Conferred

Post-baccalaureate degrees conferred in “Fishing and Fisheries Science & Management” (CIP code 

03.0301) by degree-granting institutions: United States, academic years 1986–87 through 2004–05 

(n = 11). Data come from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 

1986–87 through 2004–05, “Completions Survey” (IPEDS-C:87:99), and Fall 2000 through Fall 2005 

(Completions component).

Number of U.S. Post-baccalaureate Degrees Conferred

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1986-

87

1987-

88

1988-

89

1989-

90

1990-

91

1991-

92

1992-

93

1993-

94

1994-

95

1995-

96

1996-

97

1997-

98

1999-

2000

2000-

01

2001-

02

2002-

03

2003-

04

2004-

05

YEAR

NUMBER

03.0301 Fishing and Fisheries (Sciences and Management)

Chapter Three

Number of U.S. Post-Baccalaureate Degrees Conferred
33

3.7 Tables

3.7.1 Table 1

Fisheries department heads (n = 43 a

) responses to “If your department could hire two additional 

fisheries-related faculty members today, what areas of expertise would you most likely seek?” Ranked 

by the number of times mentioned.

Category Sub-category Number of times mentioned

Fish ecology

General fish ecology

Lower trophic levels

Freshwater fish ecology

Marine fish ecology

11

6

2

2

1

Population dynamics General

Marine fisheries

10

9

1

Human dimensions General human dimensions

Policy

9

8

1

Aquaculture

General aquaculture

Fish health/disease

Non-game aquaculture

9

5

3

1

Fisheries statistics 6

Fish physiology 6

Toxicology 5

Fisheries management General fish management

Marine fish management

4

3

1

Modeling 3

Population genetics 3

Ichthyology 3

Economics 3

Marine conservation 2

Limnology 2

Fisheries extension 2

Water quality 2

Marine fisheries 2

Aquatic entomology 1

Invasive species 1

Acoustics 1

Fisheries oceanography 1

a n missing = 2

Supply Report
34

3.7.2 Table 2

Fisheries department heads (n = 43) responses to “How successful are you at recruiting students into 

your Master of Science and Ph.D. program in general, and recruiting students capable of conducting 

population dynamics research?”

Item by Degree Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Mean b

Master of Science

Successful in recruiting M.S. 

students in general (n = 42) a 0.0 7.1 26.2 50.0 16.7 3.76

Successful in recruiting M.S. 

students capable of conducting 

population dynamics research 

(n = 40)

0.0 20.0 35.0 40.0 5.0 3.30

Ph.D. Level

Successful in recruiting Ph.D. 

students in general (n = 40) 2.5 10.0 37.5 40.0 10.0 3.45

Successful in recruiting Ph.D. 

students capable of conducting 

population dynamics research 

(n = 39)

2.6 20.5 38.5 33.3 5.1 3.18

a number missing for each item = 43 – sample size.

b mean based on response format where 1 = “not at all successful”; 2 = “slightly successful”; 3 = “moderately successful”; 4 = “very successful”; 

5 = “extremely successful”.

Chapter Three
35

3.7.3 Table 3

Fisheries department heads (n = 43) responses to “Please indicate the degree of weakness/strength 

of your recent first semester Master of Science students in each of the following areas.” Ranked by 

mean score.

APTITUDE 

Sample 

Size a Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong

Very 

Strong Mean b

Ability in verbal communication 41 0.0 0.0 51.2 43.9 4.9 3.54

Aptitude in fishery biology 41 0.0 9.8 36.6 46.3 7.3 3.51

Aptitude in fishery ecology 40 0.0 5.0 50.0 40.0 5.0 3.45

Ability to think critically 41 0.0 7.3 46.3 43.9 2.5 3.41

Ability in synthesizing information 41 0.0 9.8 53.7 31.7 4.8 3.32

Aptitude in fishery management 41 2.4 9.8 51.2 31.2 2.4 3.24

Aptitude in fishery science 41 2.4 14.6 43.9 36.6 2.5 3.22

Ability in written communication 41 0.0 17.1 61.0 21.9 0.0 3.05

Aptitude in mathematics 41 0.0 19.5 70.7 7.3 2.5 2.93

Aptitude in statistics 41 2.4 24.4 58.6 12.2 2.4 2.88

Aptitude in population dynamics 41 4.9 36.6 46.3 9.8 2.4 2.68

Aptitude in modeling 41 7.3 53.7 29.3 7.3 2.4 2.44

a number missing for each item = 43 – sample size.

b mean based on response format where 1 = “very weak”; 2 = “weak”; 3 = “adequate”; 4 = “strong”; 5 = “very strong.”

Supply Report
36

3.7.4 Table 4

 Fisheries department heads (n = 43) responses to “Please indicate the degree of weakness/strength 

of your recent first semester Master of Science students in each of the following areas compared to 

students in the past decade” Ranked by mean score.

APTITUDE

Sample 

Size a Decreased Stayed the 

Same Increased Mean b

Aptitude in fishery ecology 40 2.5 72.5 25.0 2.23

Aptitude in statistics 41 2.4 75.6 22.0 2.20

Aptitude in modeling 41 2.4 75.6 22.0 2.20

Ability in verbal communication 41 4.9 70.7 24.4 2.20

Aptitude in fishery biology 41 2.4 80.5 17.1 2.15

Ability in synthesizing information 41 9.8 68.3 21.9 2.12

Aptitude in fishery science 41 2.4 85.4 12.2 2.10

Aptitude in fishery management 39 5.1 82.1 12.8 2.08

Ability in written communication 40 12.5 70.0 17.5 2.05

Ability to think critically 41 12.2 70.7 17.1 2.05

Aptitude in mathematics 41 9.8 80.4 9.8 2.00

Aptitude in population dynamics 41 14.6 78.1 7.3 1.93

a number missing for each item = 43 – sample size.

b mean based on response format where 1 = “decreased”; 2 = “stayed the same”; 3 = “increased.”

Chapter Three
37

3.7.5 Table 5

Fisheries department heads (n = 43) responses to “Please indicate which of the following graduatelevel courses are offered by your university, and, if so, what is the percentage of your fisheries-related 

graduate students (M.S. and Ph.D.) that typically take each course?” Ranked by the percentage of 

U.S. fisheries students taking course (unweighted). Bolded courses are those indicated by NMFS Science Centers as essential courses in preparing students to conduct high-level quantitative population 

dynamics/stock assessments for the federal government and elsewhere.

Course

Percent of 

universities that 

offer course

Percent of fisheries 

graduate students 

who take course 

where offered

Percent of all U.S. 

fisheries graduate 

students who 

take course

Introduction to statistics 93.0 87.1 81.0

Fisheries management 86.1 59.7 51.4

Regression 83.7 55.3 46.3

Ichthyology 81.4 52.2 42.5

Population dynamics 72.1 54.2 39.1

Fish ecology 60.5 57.0 34.5

Multivariate statistics 93.0 37.1 34.5

Limnology 76.7 42.7 32.8

Fish biology 58.1 56.2 32.7

Nonparametric statistics 76.7 41.1 31.5

GIS and/or remote sensing 81.4 38.3 31.2

Fisheries science 48.8 56.3 27.5

Introduction to probability 63.4 42.0 26.6

Sampling theory 60.5 34.8 21.1

Fisheries or natural resources statistics 39.5 51.9 20.5

Technical writing 53.5 34.5 18.5

Fisheries or natural resource modeling 53.5 34.2 18.3

Fish physiology 46.5 32.2 15.0

Probability theory 55.8 25.8 14.4

Supply Report
38

Table 5. Continued

Course

Percent of 

universities that 

offer course

Percent of fisheries 

graduate students 

who take course 

where offered

Percent of all U.S. 

fisheries graduate 

students who 

take course

Population biology 33.3 40.0 13.2

Water quality 51.1 25.6 13.1

Bayesian statistics 48.8 26.9 13.1

Differential equations 79.1 15.8 12.5

Human dimensions of fisheries 48.8 25.3 12.3

Stock assessment 30.2 37.5 11.3

Economics 69.8 15.1 10.5

Fisheries or natural resources economics 37.2 22.8 8.5

Linear algebra 79.1 9.8 7.8

Numerical analysis 57.1 11.5 6.6

Risk and decision analysis 44.2 14.1 6.2

Fisheries or natural resources computer 

programming 14.0 25.0 3.5

Anthropology 46.5 7.2 3.4

Fisheries or natural resources anthropology 9.3 10.0 0.9

Chapter Three
39

3.7.6 Table 6

Number of U.S. Institutions of Higher Learning that have curricula including the entire nine-course 

“essential curriculum” identified by NMFS Science Centers (population biology, fish ecology, multivariate statistics, sampling theory, fisheries modeling, Bayesian statistics, stock assessment, risk and 

decision analysis, and fisheries computer programming) or portions thereof (n = 43).

Number of NMFS Science Center 

Curriculum Courses Offered by Institution Number Percent

Nine 3 7.0

Eight 4 9.3

Seven 3 7.0

Six 6 14.0

Five 5 11.7

Four 9 20.9

Three 3 6.9

Two 9 20.9

One 1 2.3

Total 43 100.0

Supply Report
40
41

Chapter Four

COMPARISON OF 

DEMAND TO SUPPLY
42
43

4 

COMPARISON OF 

DEMAND TO SUPPLY

Results from the Demand Report (Section 

2.3) indicate the demand for stock assessment 

scientists is increasing. This is primarily due to 

the increased mandates requiring the skills of 

stock assessment scientists established under 

the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act (Section 2.3). The minimum number of new stock 

assessment scientists needed (individuals who 

have the ability to conduct high-quality scientific 

research in stock assessment, fishery population 

dynamics, and related fields) is estimated to be 

approximately 180–340 over the next 10 years 

(Section 2.3.5). This number is likely a minimum, 

for a number of reasons (Section 2.4).

This is a substantial increase over the number 

currently employed. The NMFS Science Centers 

currently employ 90 stock assessment scientists. 

The minimum estimate of new hires needed by 

the Science Centers over the next ten years is 

135, which is 150% of the current number employed.

Results from the Supply Report indicate that 

the supply of stock assessment scientists is limited 

due to a number of reasons involving faculty, 

graduate students, and undergraduate students. 

The current proportion of faculty working 

on population dynamics in the departments 

surveyed is expected to decrease in the foreseeable future. Department Heads reported that the 

faculty being hired to replace retiring faculty, 

and those hired to fill new positions, will not be 

found in the field of population dynamics in the 

same proportion as currently found, in favor of 

other disciplines (Section 3.3.1). This is particularly disheartening because Department Heads 

mentioned in their comments that one of the 

greatest impediments to producing individuals 

capable of conducting stock assessment work was 

the lack of available faculty knowledgeable about 

the discipline (Section 3.3.2 and Appendix C). 

The lack of population dynamics faculty translates to a lack of graduate course offerings. Only 

7 percent of the schools surveyed offered all nine 

courses deemed essential by the NMFS Science 

Centers. Only 27 percent offered seven or more 

of those courses (Section 3.7.6). Without the 

availability of most of the listed courses, students 

are receiving a subset of the tools they need to effectively enter careers in stock assessment which 

requires additional on-the-job training to meet 

the standards of the discipline.

The quality of undergraduate students entering the graduate programs is also a major 

concern. Department Heads reported that their 

incoming graduate students were weakest in 

the quantitative disciplines of math, statistics, 

population dynamics, and modeling, in that order (Section 3.7.3)—all essential building blocks 

to conduct stock assessments. In addition, the 

Department Heads reported that, compared to Photo: Virginia Tech

A NMFS port agent demonstrating otolith-sampling techniques to students attending a workshop in Key West, Florida. Otoliths are calcium 

structures in fish ears, and develop growth rings 

that are used to tell the age of a fish.
44

incoming students over the past decade, current 

incoming students were stronger in all disciplines 

listed, with the exception of math (as strong as in 

the past) and population dynamics (weaker than 

in the past) (Section 3.7.4). In addition, Departments are having a tougher time finding graduate students capable of working on population 

dynamics than graduate students overall (Section 

3.3.3). 

The Supply Report estimated that approximately 160 new stock assessment scientists are 

expected to be produced over the next ten years 

by institutions of higher education (Section 

3.3.5). Many assumptions were made in order to 

estimate this number and the true value could be 

higher or lower. 

Comparing results of the two studies indicates 

that over the next ten years there will be a demand 

for approximately 180–340 new stock assessment 

scientists (which is likely low) and a supply of 

approximately 160 per year. This indicates an 

overall shortage of at least 20–180 over the next 

decade.

Top: Students take a field trip to a fish processing house to learn about fisheries first-hand.

Bottom: Recruiting stock assessment scientists 

requires finding students with strong quantitative and computer skills and interests, as well as 

a solid background in ecology.

Photo: NMFS Photo: NMFS

Chapter Four
45

Chapter Five

CURRENT

 NMFS PROGRAMS 

TO INCREASE SUPPLY
46
47

5

CURRENT NMFS PROGRAMS 

TO INCREASE SUPPLY

The NMFS, aware of the potential supply/

demand problem, has already established a number of programs aimed at increasing the number 

of individuals with post-baccalaureate degrees 

who have the ability to conduct high-quality 

scientific research in fishery stock assessment, 

fishery population dynamics, and related fields, 

for government, nonprofit, and private sector 

entities.

5.1 Increasing Faculty Numbers

As part of the Supply Study, 31 percent of the 

Department Heads responded that they did not 

have the resources necessary to train students for 

population dynamics/stock assessment-related 

work (Section 3.3.2). These individuals were 

then asked, “What resources would be required 

to do so?” In response, 12 of 13 responded that 

they needed additional faculty with expertise in 

the discipline (Section 3.3.2 and Appendix C). 

Training the next generation of stock assessment scientists requires knowledgeable faculty. 

NMFS has implemented a number of programs 

to increase the number of faculty available to 

university students.

5.1.1 Providing Support to University 

Faculty

Adding new faculty, replacing retiring faculty, 

and/or keeping existing faculty requires funding. 

NMFS provides funding for university-employed 

faculty by supporting NMFS-related research. 

Through competitive research opportunities, 

NMFS provides grants and contracts to universities to receive specific research products. In 

many cases, the agency pays for the faculty time 

involved in the project. This serves the agency 

in two ways. First, the agency receives a needed 

research product. Second, by providing partial 

support for a faculty member, less support is 

required from the university, making it easier for 

the university to employ the faculty member. In 

this way, the agency provides the funding leverage needed for universities to add new, replace 

retiring, or keep existing stock assessment faculty. 

In the process, the agency increases not only the 

faculty available to conduct research, but the 

faculty available to teach, advise, and mentor as 

well. NMFS supports stock assessment faculty in 

this way at universities around the country. 

5.1.2 Interacting with Neighboring 

Universities 

The majority of NMFS Science Centers and 

Labs are located near universities with strong 

fisheries programs. In most cases strong relationships have developed between the universities 

and the Centers and Labs, encouraging interaction between NMFS and university scientists.

Many agency stock assessment scientists have 

been appointed as courtesy or adjunct faculty at 

neighboring universities. These individuals may 

serve on graduate supervisory committees, supervise graduate students, and teach sections of 

courses or entire courses. This interaction serves 

to add faculty expertise to the university, without 

removing a stock assessment position away from 

its Science Center or Lab. 

Examples include relationships between the 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center and the University of Miami, the Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center and the University of Washington, and 

the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and the 

University of Massachusetts. In each case, NMFS 

stock assessment scientists have courtesy or adjunct appointments at the universities, teaching 

and supervising graduate students and interacting with the university community. 

Proximity makes this interaction extremely 

easy to initiate and maintain. Agency scientists 

can easily walk or drive to the university campuses regularly. Logistical issues are minimal as 
48

positions do not need to be relocated and universities do not need to provide office space.

It is important to note that a NMFS stock assessment scientist who spends time each week 

performing university duties cannot spend as 

much time performing standard agency stock 

assessment duties. For instance, if an individual is 

teaching and performing other university-related 

duties 15 hours a week, then only 25 hours a 

week are available for what would be considered 

normal work for a NMFS stock assessment scientist FTE stationed at a NMFS Science Center or 

Lab who is not working with a university. Thus, 

while benefiting the supply side by assisting in 

the training of new stock assessment scientists, 

this scenario also costs regarding demand, as the 

university duties takes time away from regular 

agency stock assessment duties.

5.1.3 Stationing NMFS Stock Assessment 

Scientists on University Campuses

NMFS is also stationing a number of stock 

assessment scientists on select college and university campuses with strong fisheries programs 

around the country. This serves two primary 

purposes. First, it allows NMFS to augment the 

number of university educators with stock assessment expertise and, second, it allows NMFS stock 

assessment scientists to interact more closely with 

university researchers, creating collaborations 

and sharing information. 

The stock assessment scientists are normally 

given courtesy or adjunct faculty status at the 

universities and are able to perform many of the 

same duties as full time university-employed 

faculty, including teaching courses, supervising 

graduate students, leading seminars, etc. At the 

same time, these individuals can continue to perform many duties for the agency such as working 

on stock assessments, conducting research, and 

serving on technical committees.

Examples include NMFS stock assessment 

scientists stationed at Virginia Tech and at the 

University of Massachusetts–Dartmouth. The 

NMFS scientists teach stock assessment–related 

courses and supervise graduate students, while 

working on a number of ongoing projects for the 

agency. Just as importantly, the scientists interact 

regularly with the faculty and students of the 

universities, creating new research collaborations 

and participating in key information transfer 

between the agency and university on a scale 

not possible without being physically located 

on-site. 

The process of stationing a NMFS employee 

on a university campus is much more complicated 

A NMFS scientist teaching at Virginia Tech, a university with a program in fisheries science that 

graduates students with degrees and experience suitable for work in the field of fisheries 

stock assessment.

Photo: Virginia Tech

Chapter Five
49

than the process of interacting with a neighboring 

university. The agency’s personnel department 

must change the position description reflecting 

the position’s location, and negotiations must take 

place with each university regarding logistics such 

as office space. 

As with the case of interacting with a neighboring university, time spent by agency stock 

assessment scientist duties on university-related 

duties reduces the amount of time available to 

conduct agency-related stock assessment duties.

5.2 Increasing Graduate Student and Postdoctoral Associate Numbers

Increasing the supply of individuals with 

post-baccalaureate degrees capable of conducting stock assessments to the agency requires 

increasing the number of individuals receiving 

post-baccalaureate degrees in related fields. In 

the supply survey, a number of Department 

Heads reported that additional funding support 

is needed to admit more graduate students into 

their programs (Appendices E and F). 

NMFS has a long history of supporting graduate students and postdoctoral associates, specifically those conducting research related to the 

needs of the agency. This benefits the agency in 

a number of ways including: 1) needed research 

is completed, often in a very cost-effective manner; 2) interactions with graduate students and 

postdoctoral associates bring new ideas, new collaborations, and new approaches to the agency’s 

work; and 3) it plays a major role in training new 

stock assessment scientists by providing realworld problems to work on, the kind that the 

graduate students and postdoctoral associates 

will be working on when they begin their NMFS 

careers. 

NMFS uses two general approaches to increase 

the number of graduate students and postdoctoral associates. In both cases, the agency issues 

grants and contracts to universities to conduct 

research. In the first approach a university and/

or faculty member is the target of the funding, 

and graduate students and/or postdoctoral associates are hired by the university to become part 

or all of the mechanism by which the research is 

completed. In the second case, the agency seeks 

out top graduate students and postdoctoral associates and their research ideas, and once identified, provides the funding needed to conduct the 

research. 

Providing support for graduate students and 

postdoctoral associates not only provides the 

means for getting critical research completed, but 

also allows the individuals supported to complete 

coursework, including the essential courses identified in the Supply Report (Section 3.2.2). 

5.2.1 Supporting University Research 

As reported in Section 5.1.1, NMFS provides 

funding to universities to conduct agency-related 

research. The standard procedure is for universities to first compete to receive funding to 

conduct research critical to the agency’s needs. 

In the majority of cases, proposals are submitted 

by faculty and proposals are evaluated based on 

quality of the ideas presented, the background of 

the faculty member, the reputation of the university, and other factors. Once a university and its 

faculty member are awarded research funding, 

often the next step is to hire one or more graduate 

students and postdoctoral associates to conduct 

all or part of the actual research. In many cases, 

the agency does not know the specific graduate 

students and/or postdoctoral associates who will 

be working on the research before the funding is 

awarded, usually because they are not hired until 

the funding is received, and the award is based on 

the ideas and reputation of the faculty member 

who submitted the proposal.

Over time the graduate students and/or 

postdoctoral associates conduct all or part of 

the research. Graduate students take courses, 

ideally including the essential courses available 

at the university. Learning takes place by conCurrent NMFS Programs to Increase Supply
50

ducting the research, and this experience also 

helps prepare these individuals for careers in the 

discipline.

NMFS supports graduate students and postdoctoral associates in this way at universities 

around the country, including those mentioned 

in Section 5.1.1. 

5.2.2 Providing Doctoral Fellowships

In addition to NMFS’ general approach of supporting graduate students by awarding research 

grants and contracts to universities, described in 

Section 5.2.1 above, NMFS also has a program 

that seeks out exceptional individuals to support 

through their doctoral studies. NMFS, working 

with the Sea Grant College Program, has established the NMFS–Sea Grant Joint Graduate 

Fellowship Program in Population Dynamics 

and Marine Resource Economics. Students apply 

for the program and applications are judged according to a number of factors, including: 1) the 

student’s abilities and experience, 2) the student’s 

doctoral research proposal, and 3) the university 

and agency scientists who have agreed to mentor 

the student. The Fellowship program is for doctoral students only, and provides full funding for 

3 years of study. 

This program allows the agency to identify and 

target top doctoral candidates, support the students’ work on critically needed agency research, 

and give these top students the opportunity to 

take the essential coursework available. Ultimately, it is hoped that the individuals supported 

by the program will stay in the discipline. This 

program allows the agency to be very proactive 

regarding the supply/demand issue, by actively 

selecting and supporting students who show the 

greatest potential to succeed in the field. To date, 

12 recipients of these Fellowships have completed 

their studies. Of those whose employment is 

known, approximately two-thirds now work for 

NMFS and one-third work in academia. 

NOAA also has a Graduate Sciences Program 

(GSP), an effort under the NOAA Educational 

Partnership Program, that offers between two 

years (masters candidates) to four years (doctoral 

students) of NOAA-related research and training 

to college students pursuing graduate study at 

minority serving institutions in math, science, 

technical, or other NOAA-related fields. The 

program is designed to improve NOAA’s outreach 

and recruitment efforts of under-represented 

individuals in NOAA’s scientific mission-related 

occupational fields, such as fishery biology. 

5.2.3 Awarding Postdoctoral Fellowships

Similar to the program described above for 

doctoral students, NMFS participates in a program that identifies and provides support for 

exceptional postdoctoral associates. The National 

Academy of Sciences/National Research Council 

Postdoctoral Fellowship Program provides advanced training for highly qualified postdoctoral 

associates and visiting scientists, while enhancing 

the research conducted in federal labs. This program provides research awards in the labs of over 

30 federal sponsors. NOAA awards 80 of these 

Fellowships each year across all of its line offices, 

with only a fraction awarded to postdoctoral associates focusing on stock assessment. The Fellowships cost $68,000 to $85,000 per student per 

year, and are awarded for 1 year and renewable for 

up to 3 years. This is another program in which 

NMFS is able to select and support individuals 

who demonstrate the greatest potential to succeed 

in the field. 

5.3 Improving the Quality of Incoming

Graduate Students

The issues of concern raised in the Supply 

Report were not limited to faculty, graduate 

students, and postdoctoral associates. The issues 

begin at an earlier stage—the undergraduate level. 

Department Heads surveyed for the Supply Report indicated they were having a tougher time 

finding graduate students to work on population 

dynamics than graduate students overall (Section 

3.3.3). They also reported their incoming graduChapter Five
51

ate students were weakest in the quantitative disciplines of math, statistics, population dynamics, 

and modeling, in that order (Section 3.7.3)—all 

of which are essential building blocks required 

to conduct stock assessments. In addition, the 

Department Heads reported when comparing 

incoming students over the past decade, current 

incoming students were stronger in all disciplines 

listed, with the exception of math (as strong as in 

the past) and population dynamics (weaker than 

in the past) (Section 3.7.4). 

When the Department Heads were asked, 

“What, if anything, could Institutions of Higher 

Learning do to try to increase the number of 

students with adequate training in population 

dynamics/stock assessments?” several mentioned 

improving the quality of undergraduate education, specifically quantitative training (Appendix 

E). Respondents also recommended the discipline be better promoted as being important and 

interesting (Appendix E).

NMFS has implemented a number of programs specifically designed to improve the quality of incoming graduate students. The agency 

is applying existing scholarship and internship 

programs to identify and train top quantitative 

students. In another approach, NMFS stock 

assessment scientists are working with university undergraduate programs to assist in their 

quantitative training. A newly created program 

specifically identifies and works with strong 

quantitative students from around the country. 

All of these programs not only strengthen the 

skills of incoming graduate students, but also 

allow NMFS to identify undergraduate students 

who are most deserving of agency support as 

graduate students.

5.3.1 Providing Undergraduate 

Scholarships and Internships

NMFS, through its parent agency NOAA, 

offers a number of scholarship and internship 

programs aimed at identifying, supporting, and 

recruiting undergraduate students potentially 

interested in disciplines found within NMFS. 

While not specifically limited to students with 

interests related to stock assessment, these programs offer an excellent opportunity to provide 

support to students with the potential to excel in 

the discipline. 

Scholarship programs offer tuition and stipends, allowing students to pursue their studies 

while reducing their concerns regarding the costs 

of higher education. Students can spend more of 

their time on their studies as a result. Internships 

provide students with opportunities to work 

with NMFS scientists at NMFS facilities, where 

they can learn first-hand about how the material taught in the classroom is applied in the real 

world.

The NOAA Undergraduate Scholarship program targets students attending Minority Serving 

Institutions and provides 2 years of funding for 

each student and a 10-week summer internship. 

The Ernest F. Hollings Undergraduate Scholarships Program is designed to increase undergraduate training in the disciplines applied by 

NOAA and to recruit and prepare students for 

public service careers with NOAA. It provides 

up to 2 years of funding for each student, along 

with a 10-week internship.

5.3.2 Strengthening Quantitative 

Programs at Individual Universities 

NMFS is working with a number of universities around the country to improve the quantitative training in undergraduate fisheries-related 

programs. As presented in the Supply Report 

(Section 3.3.2 and Appendix C) and discussed 

earlier (Section 5.1), Department Heads suggested that increasing the number of faculty 

with quantitative/stock assessment training was 

needed to more effectively educate students. 

One way to do this is to increase the number of 

faculty available through the use of NMFS stock 

assessment scientists on campus. As is the case 

with graduate training, NMFS is working with 

Current NMFS Programs to Increase Supply
52

universities located close to Science Centers and 

Labs through regular interaction with agency 

stock assessment scientists (Section 5.1.2), and 

is stationing agency stock assessment scientists 

at universities with excellent fisheries-related 

undergraduate programs (Section 5.1.3). 

The focus of the interaction with undergraduate students is usually much broader than that 

with graduate students. Agency scientists work 

to increase the quantitative content within the 

undergraduate curriculum. Efforts are made to 

increase students’ interest in quantitative subjects. 

Increasing the number of quantitative courses 

offered, the rigor of quantitative courses offered, 

and/or creating internship and research opportunities for undergraduates may all be part of the 

program.

Programs have been set up at universities 

close to NMFS Science Centers and Labs, such 

as the University of California–Santa Cruz, and 

at universities where NMFS scientists have been 

stationed, such as at Humboldt State University. It 

is common for agency stock assessment scientists 

who are stationed at a university to work with 

both undergraduate and graduate students. 

5.3.3 Identifying and Mentoring Top 

Undergraduates Nationally

Working with a number of specific universities 

(Section 5.3.2) is one way to reach undergraduate 

students, particularly if those universities produce a large number of strong, fisheries-related 

majors on a regular basis. However, undergraduate students with great potential to enter graduate 

school and careers in stock assessment do not 

only attend universities with ongoing relationships with NMFS. They may attend small liberal 

arts schools where there are few or no applied 

science courses. They may attend a university that 

only occasionally turns out a strong quantitative 

student. Undergraduates who have great potential 

may also be enrolled in majors other than fisheries, such as environmental science, conservation 

biology, marine science, or ecology. 

NMFS has created the Population Dynamics Recruiting Program to work with students 

from across the country who have outstanding 

potential to succeed in the discipline of stock assessment. The program’s goals are to (1) identify 

top students from around the country, (2) teach 

them about the role stock assessment biology and 

stock assessment scientists play in the world of 

marine resources management, and (3) mentor 

them into graduate school and beyond. Students 

apply to participate in the program’s week-long 

workshops and extended summer programs. 

Students gain quantitative skills while they 

participate in the program. While being mentored, they are also encouraged to take specific 

courses as undergraduates that will best prepare 

them to enter graduate school to conduct stock 

assessment research. The program focuses on 

a small number of outstanding students from 

across the country. As a result, the quantity and 

quality of students entering the stock assessment 

pipeline are increased. 

A promising fisheries student collecting data 

from a monkfish at the Living Marine Resources 

Cooperative Science Center at the University of 

Maryland, Eastern Shore.

Photo: LMRCSC

Chapter Five
53

5.4 Discussion

 

Recognizing the insufficient supply of individuals with post-baccalaureate degrees capable of 

doing stock assessment research, NMFS has been 

involved in a diverse set of activities designed to 

increase the supply with varying degrees of success.

At the scale currently implemented, the programs in place are not sufficient to eliminate the 

shortage. While the programs are positive contributions toward resolving the problem, the shortage of stock assessment scientists reported in this 

document include the current contributions of 

all of the NMFS programs presented in Sections 

5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. Without these programs, the 

shortage would be even greater. 

As shown in both the results of NRC Workshop 

in 2000 (Chapter 7) and the current Demand Report (Section 2.5.5), NMFS is the primary hiring 

source for stock assessment scientists. Because of 

this, NMFS has a special obligation to ensure that 

the supply of stock assessment scientists is sufficient to meet the expected demand. The current 

amount of funding allocated for these efforts will 

not meet the needs identified.

NMFS has established partially successful 

programs to increase the number of faculty 

(Section 5.1), increase the number of graduate 

students and postdoctoral associates (Section 

5.2), and improve the quality of incoming graduate students (Section 5.3). The scope of many of 

these programs is limited at the present time. A 

few examples are provided below.

Stationing NMFS stock assessment scientists 

at universities increases the number of faculty 

with these abilities, but it also takes time away 

from the scientists’ usual agency duties (Section 

5.1.3). While this helps with the supply side of the 

problem, it adds to the demand side. Because of 

the agency’s increasing workload for its stock assessment scientists, the agency is severely limited 

as to how many of its current stock assessment 

scientists can assist with faculty duties. 

The NMFS–Sea Grant Joint Graduate Fellowship Program in Population Dynamics (Section 

5.2.2) is a highly effective program, identifying 

and supporting top doctoral students focused on 

the discipline of stock assessment. Currently, two 

to three new fellowships are given out each year. 

Participants in this program have a very high 

likelihood of entering the profession. Increasing the number of students awarded fellowships 

would increase the supply of stock assessment 

scientists being produced, and as a result, the 

current shortage would be reduced.

The Population Dynamics Recruiting Program identifies, trains, and mentors undergraduate students demonstrating potential to enter 

graduate school and careers in stock assessment 

(Section 5.3.3). As a result, it improves the quality 

of incoming graduate students bound for research 

in stock assessment. It currently works with a 

maximum of 15 top undergraduate students per 

year from around the country. The number of 

excellent students applying exceeds the number 

who can be admitted into the program. In addition, because the students are undergraduates and 

unsure of their futures, not all those admitted will 

enter graduate school to study stock assessment. 

Increasing the scale of the program to work with 

more students would increase the number and 

quality of incoming graduate students in this 

discipline. 

With successful programs in place to increase 

the supply of stock assessment scientists, the 

primary issue becomes scale of the programs. 

Development of an overall strategy will require 

identifying the most effective combination of 

programs currently in place and the resources 

necessary to implement the strategy at a scale 

sufficient to eliminate the current and anticipated 

shortage of stock assessment scientists. 

Current NMFS Programs to Increase Supply
54
55

Chapter Six

RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO INCREASE 

THE SUPPLY
56
57

6 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY

This chapter will suggest recommendations 

that NMFS, institutions of higher education, and 

the private sector can do to increase the supply 

of stock assessment scientists.

6.1 NMFS

Increasing the number of graduate students 

studying stock assessment must be a major component of any strategy to increase the supply of 

stock assessment scientists. To accomplish this, 

funding must be increased. The President’s 2009 

budget includes an additional $1 million for 

graduate population dynamics fellowships, which 

have proven to be extremely successful (Section 

5.2.2). 

NMFS should also strengthen cooperative 

programs with colleges and universities with 

the capacity to train stock assessment scientists. 

NMFS can help increase the number of faculty 

teaching stock assessment by increasing funding 

to universities and by increasing the participation 

of NMFS stock assessment scientists on university campuses.

By improving partnerships with undergraduate institutions, NMFS can improve the quantitative background required of incoming stock 

assessment graduate students. This will also 

introduce the discipline and the agency to greater 

numbers of students.

As the leading employer of stock assessment 

scientists, the burden of reducing the shortage 

of stock assessment scientists largely lies with 

NMFS. The agency is now experiencing a “perfect 

storm” involving a large number of stock assessment scientist retirements, an increasing workload mandated by the reauthorized MagnusonStevens Act, and a decreasing supply of incoming 

stock assessment scientists. Producing additional 

stock assessment scientists requires time, time to 

find promising students and time to train them 

adequately. The new mandates under the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act do not allow for 

delays, which means that efforts to increase the 

supply must begin immediately. 

6.2 Institutions of Higher Education

Institutions of higher education can share the 

responsibilities of increasing faculty numbers, 

increasing graduate student and postdoctoral 

associate numbers, and improving the overall 

quality of incoming graduate students.

Department Heads may be misinterpreting 

the demand side of stock assessment as a growth 

industry. While most said it was a medium or 

high priority (Section 3.3.2), stock assessment 

faculty numbers are likely to decrease (Section 

3.3.1). The results of this study indicate there is 

an increase in the workload for scientists in this 

discipline and a clear need for new graduates in 

the discipline (Section 2.3.5). As a result, it is 

likely that funding for universities conducting research in this discipline will increase. Department 

Students learning about population dynamics 

from a NMFS professor teaching at a cooperative program.

Photo: Virginia Tech
58

Heads should reconsider their plans concerning 

replacing faculty and new hires, allowing more 

stock assessment scientists to be hired. Perhaps 

distribution of this report to the participating 

universities will encourage them to consider 

changing their plans.

Many universities have funding available for 

graduate and postdoctoral research assistantships and teaching assistantships to help support 

graduate students and postdoctoral associates, 

either partially or in full. Department Heads 

should consider allocating more of this funding to 

individuals within the discipline of stock assessment, leveraging additional federal funding to 

train new stock assessment scientists. Universities 

that can share the support of graduate students 

and postdoctoral associates with NMFS will allow 

NMFS’ funding to go further.

Institutions of higher education must place a 

higher priority on their quantitative training at 

the undergraduate level. As reported in the Supply Report, incoming graduate students are weakest in the quantitative skills (Section 3.7.3), and 

their math and population dynamics skills are the 

only ones that have not improved over the past 

decade (Section 3.7.4). The discipline of stock 

assessment is neither the first nor only discipline 

to notice a decline in the quality of quantitative 

education in the U.S. system of higher education. 

There has been an ongoing multidisciplinary call 

to improve undergraduate Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education nationally (NRC 1996; NSF 1996). Stock 

assessment is only one of many disciplines seeing 

the effects of decreased performance from incoming graduate students in quantitative fields. 

6.3 The Private Sector

In the context of this report, the private sector 

is viewed as including the fishing industry, nongovernmental organizations, and environmental 

consulting firms. Stock assessment scientists are 

employed by each of these, and therefore the private sector adds to the demand but not the supply. 

As reported earlier (Section 2.4), the demand for 

stock assessment scientists by the private sector 

was not included in the estimates provided by 

the Demand Report. The private sector can be 

thought of as competitors for the limited supply 

of stock assessment scientists available. 

The private sector can help reduce the shortage 

of stock assessment scientists by doing many of 

the things NMFS is doing. Private sector stock 

assessment scientists can work with universities, 

helping teach courses and serving on graduates 

committees. The private sector can also provide 

funding for research, fellowships, and internship 

opportunities, even perhaps endowed faculty 

chairs. The costs for training do not have to be 

borne solely by the Federal Government.

The creativity of the private sector may lead 

to new programs to facilitate increasing the supply of and/or decreasing the demand for stock 

assessment scientists. 

6.4 Literature Cited

National Research Council (NRC) 1996. From 

Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in 

Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Washington, DC. National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation (NSF) 1996. Shaping 

the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate 

Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, 

and Technology. Arlington, VA.

Chapter Six
59

Chapter Seven

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

NRC 2000 REPORT
60
61

7 

Executive Summary: 

NRC 2000 Report

Excerpted from the National Research Council 

(NRC) 2000 Report: Recruiting fishery scientists: 

Workshop on stock assessment and social science 

careers. Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. Ocean Studies Board. The 

National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=10000

“The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) employs many fishery scientists with 

diverse skills. The agency finds that the supply 

of fishery biologists is adequate to meet most of 

its demand. However, increasing demands on 

the agency to understand fish populations and 

the social and economic conditions in fishing 

communities have created a need for additional 

experts in the fields of fisheries stock assessment 

and social sciences.

NMFS has developed plans for meeting its 

anticipated staff needs in stock assessment and 

social sciences and asked the National Research 

Council (NRC) to convene a workshop to discuss 

the plans and suggest other actions the agency 

might take to ensure an adequate supply of experts in these fields. Approximately 30 individuals gathered in Woods Hole, Massachusetts on 

July 17, 2000 under the auspices of the NRC’s 

Ocean Studies Board to discuss NMFS’ plans. 

This document summarizes the presentations 

and discussions at that one-day workshop. No 

attempt was made to reach consensus among 

the participants; thus, the suggestions recorded 

in this summary represent the personal views of 

workshop participants, as summarized by NRC 

staff.

Information was presented by NMFS at the 

workshop about their need to hire additional 

individuals in stock assessment and social sciences. NMFS proposed several actions to boost 

recruitment and retention of NMFS employees, 

including

•	developing targeted recruitment programs and 

cooperative arrangements with universities;

•	enhancing continuing education opportunities 

for NMFS employees;

•	increasing recruitment of individuals from 

related fields;

•	increasing diversity; and

•	building capacity in minority-serving institutions.

A number of bottlenecks, differing by institution, constrain enrollment in graduate schools. 

At the most basic level, some universities do not 

receive enough applications from individuals 

with relevant skills who can meet their entry 

requirements. In some cases, universities cannot provide financial support at the beginning 

of a student’s graduate education, even though 

such support could be forthcoming later when 

the student possesses greater skills that could be 

applied to his or her advisor’s research projects. 

In other universities, both funding and qualified 

applicants are available, but either the number of 

faculty or the infrastructural support limit the 

expansion of fisheries education programs. Foreign students often bring financial support with 

them and can surmount the other bottlenecks, 

but are ineligible for employment by NMFS and 

other federal agencies after graduation until they 

become permanent residents or U.S. citizens.

The supply and demand situation differs for 

stock assessment and social scientists. For stock 

assessment scientists, NMFS is the primary employer and demand is already large relative to 

the total supply. NMFS’ anticipated expansion 

in this area exceeds the present capacity of university programs. On the other hand, NMFS is 

a minor employer of social scientists; thus, even 

relatively large changes in NMFS hiring decisions 

would add only a few slots and have a relatively 

small effect on the overall pool of social scientists 

available. NMFS’ anticipated expansion in this 
62

 

area could probably be accommodated with little 

difficulty. A caveat, however, is that relatively few 

social scientists focus on fisheries and thus would 

require some persuasion to enter the field and 

time to learn the nuances of fishery issues.

Some suggestions for reducing the total demand for qualified scientists (including those at 

the Ph.D., Master’s, and Bachelor’s levels) may 

include 1) decreasing the regulatory requirements 

for fisheries; 2) managing more cautiously (e.g., 

setting lower total allowable catches) so that less 

information and analyses are needed; 3) developing and implementing management methods that 

require less stock assessment and social science 

advice; or 4) increasing technological capabilities for performing analyses without increasing 

staff levels. Another way to reduce the demand 

for stock assessment and social scientists within 

NMFS—and possibly total demand—would be to 

contract out a greater percentage of stock assessment and social science analyses to universities 

or private consultants.

However, most of the workshop discussions 

focused on ways to increase the supply of stock 

assessment and social scientists in the event that 

NMFS receives funding for its plans. Workshop 

participants considered both traditional and 

more innovative approaches. Traditional approaches included increasing the availability of 

graduate and post-doctoral fellowships, funding 

faculty positions in universities, sponsoring programs to reach undergraduates, placing NMFS 

employees in academic institutions, and disseminating information about career and employment 

opportunities more broadly. NMFS already is 

using many of these approaches and has made 

progress in targeted graduate fellowships for 

stock assessment science and fisheries economics, and in offering NRC and other post-doctoral 

fellowships to bring new individuals into NMFS 

laboratories. Many participants felt that NMFS 

could make additional progress using these traditional approaches.

As suggested by some participants, the most 

obvious approach to attract more stock assessment and social scientists to NMFS would be to 

offer higher salaries for individuals with these 

specialties. This is a particular need for stock 

assessment scientists because their quantitative 

skills enable them to find work in other, more 

lucrative, professions. If salaries cannot be increased to competitive levels, non-monetary 

incentives could be offered to make up for the 

salary differences. Examples include travel to 

professional meetings, support for individual 

career development, funding and release time to 

conduct research, and exposure to national-level 

policy and projects.

Some of the shortfall in qualified employees 

can be met by hiring individuals from related 

fields with similar skills, but these individuals 

often require additional training to acquaint them 

A fisheries student holds a newly hatched sea 

turtle. Stock assessment of sea turtle populations is an important part of NMFS science. 

Photo: NMFS

Chapter Seven
63

with problems specific to marine fisheries. As an 

alternative, intensive retraining of qualified staff 

might help reduce the current shortfall.

Other less obvious, but potentially productive, approaches to meeting NMFS staffing needs 

could include working through scientific societies 

to find individuals in the academic or consulting 

communities who could fulfill NMFS’ analysis 

needs, employing foreign scientists as guest 

researchers, nurturing applied mathematical 

ecology and population dynamics programs in 

universities, and sponsoring programs to reach 

high school students in an effort to influence their 

college careers.”

Executive Summary: NRC 2000 Report
64
65

Chapter Eight

SUPPLY REPORT 

APPENDICES
66
67

8

SUPPLY REPORT APPENDICES

8.1 Appendix A

Correspondence with University Department Heads Regarding the Survey

INTRODUCTORY EMAIL – LETTER #1

Dear [Department Head Name Inserted Here]:

I am writing to inform you of a congressionally-mandated survey of Fisheries Programs in U.S. 

Institutions of Higher Education that I am conducting for the U.S. Congress through the American 

Fisheries Society. This study was mandated in the recent re-authorization of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (see attached). In general, the survey is designed to 

determine “whether there is a shortage in the number of individuals with post-baccalaureate degrees in the subjects related to fishery science, including fishery oceanography, fishery ecology, 

and fishery anthropology, who have the ability to conduct high quality scientific research in fishery 

stock assessment, fishery population dynamics, and related fields, for government, non-profit, 

and private sector entities.” Specifically, the survey is designed to 1) characterize your program 2) 

assess the quality of recent incoming graduate students, 3) assess courses your graduate students 

take as part of their program, and 4) get your comments on what could be done by academic 

institutions and the U.S. Congress to increase the number of students capable of conducting 

population dynamics and stock assessment work for various entities.

The U.S. Congress has given a very short deadline for this study to be completed and I must have 

a preliminary report on survey results by the end of August, 2007. To facilitate timely completion 

of the survey, I will be sending you another email in about a week directing you to a web-based 

survey. Additionally, I am providing you now with a copy of the questionnaire (see attached) for 

a “heads-up” so that you may look up any needed information. With the exception of a few questions (Question #23 specifically), most of the information needed should be “top of mind” in your 

capacity as department head or chair. If needed information is not readily-available, your best 

estimate will suffice. The web-based survey will take about 20-30 minutes to complete. Although 

voluntary, I hope you will see the importance of this study for the future of fishery science programs in the United States. You may skip any items that you do not wish to answer.

If you do not have a graduate program, there is no need to complete the on-line survey. Please 

reply to this message and inform me you do not have a graduate program in fisheries science and 

I will remove you from the mailing list. For further questions about this project, feel free to contact 

me via email (kmhunt@cfr.msstate.edu) or by phone (662) 325-0989. For additional information 

regarding human participation in research, please feel free to contact the MSU Regulatory Compliance Office at (662) 325-5220.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Kevin M. Hunt, Ph.D., Associate Professor & Director, Human Dimensions & Conservation Law Enforcement Laboratory, Forest & Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University, Mississippi 

State, MS 39762-9690.
68

SURVEY EMAIL – LETTER #2

Dear [Department Head Name Inserted Here]:

As per my email last week, I am seeking your assistance in completing a survey of Fisheries Programs in U.S. Institutions of Higher Education that I am conducting for the U.S. Congress through 

the American Fisheries Society. The survey is designed to 1) characterize your program 2) assess 

the quality of recent incoming graduate students, 3) assess courses your graduate students take 

as part of their program, and 4) get your comments on what could be done by academic institutions and the U.S. Congress to increase the number of students capable of conducting population 

dynamics and stock assessment work for various entities. All of your responses will be securely 

encrypted through the latest web technology, and results will be grouped together with other 

institutions in an unidentifiable manner. As such, please be as candid as possible in your responses 

to questions. If the U.S. Congress is to assist in any necessary improvements to fisheries programs, 

your honest assessment is essential in this regard. 

The webpage link below will take you to the survey. Upon getting there, insert the following 

number into the password box:

[password number inserted here]

After doing so, you will be taken to the survey. Instructions for navigating through the survey are 

provided on the first page of the survey. Additionally, the confirmation/submittal page you are 

directed to after completing the survey is printable if you desire to keep your answers for your 

records. The survey should take about 20-30 minutes to complete and is completely voluntary, 

but I hope you will see the value of the survey for the future of fishery science education in the 

United States. You may skip any items that you do not wish to answer. I will be sending reminders 

every 10 days because of the short deadline imposed by the U.S. Congress. Please try to complete 

your survey by August 15th or sooner if at all possible.

I have I have tried to make the survey instrument as user friendly as possible, but if you run into 

any difficulties whatsoever, please contact me immediately by responding to this email or by calling me at (662) 325-0989. For additional information regarding human participation in research, 

please feel free to contact the MSU Regulatory Compliance Office at (662)325-5220.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Website survey link: http://hdclel.cfr.msstate.edu/AFS/login.htm

Chapter Eight
69

REMINDER EMAILS – LETTER #3 & 4

Dear [Department Head Name Inserted Here]:

About 10 days ago, I sent you a request to complete a survey of Fisheries Programs in U.S. Institutions of Higher Education. As of today, I have not yet received a completed survey from you. I 

have currently heard from [x %] of institutions with fisheries programs, but I need to hear from 

the remainder for this study to be successful. 

Conducted for the U.S. Congress through the American Fisheries Society, this survey is designed 

to 1) characterize your program 2) assess the quality of recent incoming graduate students, 3) 

assess courses your graduate students take as part of their program, and 4) get your comments 

on what could be done by academic institutions and the U.S. Congress to increase the number 

of students capable of conducting population dynamics and stock assessment work for various 

entities. All of your responses will be securely encrypted through the latest web technology, and 

results will be grouped together with other institutions in an unidentifiable manner. 

The webpage link below will take you to the survey. Upon getting there, insert the following 

number into the password box:

[password number inserted here]

After doing so, you will be taken to the survey. Instructions for navigating through the survey 

are provided on the first page of the survey. The survey should take only about 20-30 minutes 

to complete and is completely voluntary, but I hope you will see the value of the survey for the 

future of fishery science education in the United States. You may skip any items that you do not 

wish to answer.

If you run into any difficulties with the survey whatsoever, please contact me immediately by 

responding to this email or by calling me at (662) 325-0989. For additional information regarding human participation in research, please feel free to contact the MSU Regulatory Compliance 

Office at (662)325-5220.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Website survey link: http://hdclel.cfr.msstate.edu/AFS/login.htm

Supply Report Appendices
70

8.2. Appendix B

Survey Instrument Sent to Department Heads

SURVEY OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE SHORTAGES 

IN THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WITH POST-BACCALAUREATE DEGREES 

IN SUBJECTS RELATED TO FISHERY SCIENCE

In the most recent re-authorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the United 

States Congress expressed concern about a potential decline in the number of fishery scientists graduating from 

U.S. academic institutions and commissioned this study to determine “whether there is a shortage in the number 

of individuals with post-baccalaureate degrees in the subjects related to fishery science, including fishery oceanography, fishery ecology, and fishery anthropology, who have the ability to conduct high quality scientific research in 

fishery stock assessment, fishery population dynamics, and related fields, for government, non-profit, and private 

sector entities.”

The below survey is designed to help answer the questions posed by the U.S. Congress. I have obtained information 

from National Center on Education Statistics which documents the number of degrees awarded in fisheries-related 

programs from 1985-2005, so I will only ask some brief questions on fisheries enrollment within your department 

and will follow-up with you personally as necessary. The remainder of the survey is designed to 1) characterize your 

program 2) assess the quality of recent incoming graduate students, 3) assess courses your graduate students take 

as part of their program, and 4) get your comments on what could be done by academic institutions and the U.S. 

Congress to increase the number of students capable of conducting population dynamics and stock assessment 

work for various entities.

Fisheries Program Information

1. Which of the following best characterizes your fisheries-related program?

 A. COMPREHENSIVE WITH BOTH INLAND AND MARINE COMPONENTS

 B. STRICTLY INLAND FISHERIES

 C. PRIMARILY INLAND WITH SOME MARINE FISHERIES

 D. PRIMARILY MARINE WITH SOME INLAND FISHERIES

 E. STRICTLY MARINE FISHERIES

2. How many fisheries-related full-time equivalent (FTE) positions are housed in your department?

 ____________________ FTE FACULTY (TEACHING, RESEARCH, and/or EXTENSION)

 ____________________ FTE POST-DOCS

 ____________________ FTE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES (NON-STUDENT)

Chapter Eight
71

3. Of the number of FTE FACULTY listed in Question #2, how many do you anticipate retiring in the next five years?

 ____________________ FTE FACULTY RETIRING IN NEXT 5 YEARS

4. Of the number of RETIRING FTE FACULTY listed in Question #3, how many of these retiring faculty do you anticipate 

replacing soon after their retirement?

 ___________________ FTE FACULTY REPLACEMENTS 

5. Of the number of FTE FACULTY listed in Question #2, how many conduct population dynamics-related research?

 ____________________ NUMBER OF FACULTY WHO CONDUCT POPULATION 

 DYNAMICS-RELATED RESEARCH

6. Of the number of POPULATIONS DYNAMICS FACULTY listed in Question #5, how many do you anticipate retiring 

in the next five years?

 ____________________ FTE POPULATION DYNAMICS FACULTY RETIRING 

 IN NEXT 5 YEARS

7. Of the number of RETIRING POPULATION DYNAMICS FACULTY listed in Question #6, how many of these retiring 

faculty do you anticipate replacing soon after their retirement?

 ___________________ POPULATIONS DYNAMICS FACULTY REPLACEMENTS 

8. Do you see your departmental fisheries program growing in terms of number of faculty in the next five years?

 A. YES

 B. NO

9. If your department could hire two additional fisheries-related faculty members today, what areas of expertise 

would you most likely seek? 

 ___________________________________ POSITION 1 

 

 ___________________________________ POSITION 2

Supply Report Appendices
72

10. Have you tried to hire a population dynamics FTE faculty member during the past five years?

A. YES – Please go to Question #11

B. NO – Please go to Question #14

11. If yes, were you able to hire someone who fit your job advertisement?

A. YES – Please go to Question #14 

B. NO – Please go to Question #12

12. If no, did the population dynamics position go vacant?

A. YES – Please go to Question #13

B. NO – Please go to Question #14

13. If yes, how many years did this position remain vacant?

A. Less than one year

B. Between one and two years

C. Between two and three years

D. Between three and four years

E. Five years

Entering Student Quality

14. The following is a list of skill sets and abilities which are often instrumental in the success of fishery-related 

graduate students. In terms of aptitude, please indicate the degree of weakness/strength of your recent first 

semester Masters of Science fisheries students in each of the following:

A. Aptitude in statistics Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

B. Aptitude in mathematics Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

C. Aptitude in modeling Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

D. Aptitude in fishery biology Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

E. Aptitude in fishery ecology Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

F. Aptitude in fishery management Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

G. Aptitude in fishery science Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

H. Aptitude in population dynamics Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

I. Ability to think critically Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

J. Ability in synthesizing information Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

K. Ability in written communication Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

L. Ability in verbal communication Very Weak Weak Adequate Strong Very Strong

Chapter Eight
73

15. For these same skill sets and abilities, please indicate whether the skill level of your recent first semester Masters 

of Science fisheries students has decreased, stayed the same, or increased over the past decade.

A. Aptitude in statistics Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

B. Aptitude in mathematics Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

C. Aptitude in modeling Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

D. Aptitude in fishery biology Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

E. Aptitude in fishery ecology Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

F. Aptitude in fishery management Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

G. Aptitude in fishery science Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

H. Aptitude in population dynamics Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

I. Ability to think critically Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

J. Ability in synthesizing information Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

K. Ability in written communication Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

L. Ability in verbal communication Decreased Stayed the Same Increased

Fisheries Student Enrollment and Support

16. What is the current enrollment of M.S. and Ph.D. fisheries-related students in your program?

____________ M.S.

____________ Ph.D.

17. What percentage of your fisheries-related M.S. and Ph.D. students conduct population dynamics-related research 

for their theses/dissertations?

____________ PERCENT

Has that percentage decreased, stayed the same, or increased over recent years?

A. DECREASED

B. STAYED THE SAME

C. INCREASED

Supply Report Appendices
74

18. Do you believe the enrollment of M.S. and Ph.D. fisheries students in your program will decrease, stay the same, 

or increase in the next five years? 

A. DECREASE

B. STAY THE SAME – Please go to Question #19

C. INCREASE

If you perceive enrollment will decrease, what are your primary concerns that led to this assessment OR if you 

feel it will increase why, and what specific areas of fisheries do you see growing?

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________

19. How successful are you at recruiting students in general into your Masters of Science fisheries program? 

A. NOT AT ALL SUCCESSFUL

B. SLIGHTLY SUCCESSFUL

C. MODERATELY SUCCESSFUL

D. VERY SUCCESSFUL

E. EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL

20. How successful are you at recruiting students capable of conductive population dynamics research into your 

Masters of Science fisheries program? 

A. NOT AT ALL SUCCESSFUL

B. SLIGHTLY SUCCESSFUL

C. MODERATELY SUCCESSFUL

D. VERY SUCCESSFUL

E. EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL

21. How successful are you at recruiting students in general into your Doctor of Philosophy fisheries program? 

A. NOT AT ALL SUCCESSFUL

B. SLIGHTLY SUCCESSFUL

C. MODERATELY SUCCESSFUL

D. VERY SUCCESSFUL

E. EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL

Chapter Eight
75

22. How successful are you at recruiting students capable of conductive population dynamics research into your 

Doctor of Philosophy fisheries program? 

A. NOT AT ALL SUCCESSFUL

B. SLIGHTLY SUCCESSFUL

C. MODERATELY SUCCESSFUL

D. VERY SUCCESSFUL

E. EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL

Fisheries Education

23. Please indicate which of the following graduate level courses are offered by your department or elsewhere on 

campus, and, if so, what is the percentage of your fisheries-related graduate students (M.S. and Ph.D.) that typically take each course. If a course is offered at the department level and elsewhere, please check departmental 

offering. If the course is not offered at your university, please leave blank.

 

A. Fisheries Management Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

B. Fisheries Science Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

C. Fish Ecology Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

D. Fish Biology Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

E. Fish Physiology Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

F. Ichthyology Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

G. Limnology Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

H. Water Quality Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

I. Population Biology Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

J. Population Dynamics Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

K. Stock Assessment Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

L. Introduction to Statistics Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

M. Regression Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

N. Non-Parametric Statistics Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

O. Multivariate Statistics Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

P. Bayesian Statistics Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

Q. Introduction to Probability Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

R. Probability Theory Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

S. Sampling Theory Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

T. Fisheries or Natural Resource

Specific Statistics Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

U. Economics Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

V. Fisheries or Natural Resource

Specific Economics Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

W. Risk and Decision Analysis

X. Anthropology Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

Y. Fisheries or Natural Resource

Specific Anthropology Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

Z. Human Dimensions of Fisheries

or Natural Resources Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

Supply Report Appendices
76

AA. Differential Equations Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

BB. Linear Algebra Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

CC. Numerical Analysis Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

DD. GIS and/or Remote Sensing Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

EE. Fisheries or Natural Resource

Specific Computer Programming Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

FF. Fisheries or Natural Resource

Specific Modeling Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

GG. Technical Writing Dept. Offering Elsewhere ____ % of students taking 

24. What level of priority is graduate education in fisheries population dynamics/stock assessment in your program? 

A. NOT A PRIORITY

B. LOW PRIORITY

C. MEDIUM PRIORITY

D. HIGH PRIORITY

25. Do you believe your program has the resources necessary to train students to conduct population dynamics/

stock assessment-related work? 

A. YES – Please go to Question #26

B. NO 

If NO, what resources would be required to enable your program to train students to conduct population dynamics/stock assessment-related work?

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

Increasing Students with Adequate Training in Population Dynamics & Stock Assessments

26. What, if anything, could institutions of higher education do to try to increase the number of individuals with 

adequate training in population dynamics/stock assessments?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter Eight
77

27. What, if anything, could the U.S. Congress do to try to increase the number of individuals with adequate training 

in population dynamics/stock assessments?

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

28. Is there anything else you would like to share with us about the status or future of fisheries education in the 

United States? 

______________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________

8.3 Appendix C

Open-ended Responses of Department Heads (n = 13) Who Felt They Didn’t Have the Resources 

Necessary to Train Students for Population Dynamics/Stock Assessment-Related Work to, “What 

resources would be required to do so?”

•	“A faculty member whose expertise is population dynamics”

•	“Faculty expertise”

•	“Additional faculty position.”

•	“More of a dept. emphasis on fisheries”

•	“Additional faculty”

•	“We’re fine on individual species/local bio/eco/mgmt, but have less opportunity for genetics

and broader areas of inquiry. Needed: more faculty.”

•	“Additional faculty position focuses primarily on pop. dynamics”

•	“Need more specific courses on population dynamics and modeling. Of these, modeling is the

greater need.”

•	“Additional faculty and additional graduate course offerings”

•	“Affirmative answer is contingent on projected new faculty hires.”

•	“Faculty with skills and research interests in that area.”

•	“We need more faculty in the program to fully train our students due to recent faculty retirements.”

•	“Faculty members in this area”

Supply Report Appendices
78

8.4 Appendix D

Open-ended Responses of Department Heads (n = 9) to, “Why do you think graduate student 

enrollment will increase?”

•	“New faculty member and change in another faculty member’sresponsibility from extension to

research”

•	“Two very new faculty members will add graduate students over the next few years.”

•	“We have a new program, only 5 years old. We work cooperatively with the fishing industries

of New England and with state and Federal scientists. The mission of our department is to educate and conduct research in the interdisciplinary sciences related to the interactions between 

marine organisms and marine environments. This covers a wide range of categories including 

field exploration, laboratory experiments, theoretical research and modeling.”

•	“We have new programs in Great Lakes Ecology that should result in more enrollment”

•	“Change in focus of at least one faculty member to fisheries. Aquatic/fish population restoration

a) Expect new faculty hires in fisheries oceanography, population dynamics, and fisheries extension.

b) A new fellowship available for the first time this year will help to attract students.”

• 	“We will increase the number of faculty during the next five years, expecting more research in

the whole aquatic ecosystem, including how it relates to fisheries. However if we are able to hire 

new faculty we would hope to increase our graduate enrollment, however research dollars to 

fund assistantships would be critical.”

•	“I believe numbers will increase because one of the retirees, who has not had studentsrecently,

will be replaced by a faculty member who will have students. In addition, our new fisheries faculty position (recently filled) will increase the numbers as his research program develops.”

•	“More faculty with expertise in this area and with increased funding”

•	“Enrollment will increase as young faculty truly develop their research programs in fisheries

population dynamics and landscape-scale fish ecology.”

8.5 Appendix E

Open-ended Responses of Department Heads (n = 30) to “What, if anything, could Institutions of 

Higher Learning do to try to increase the number of students with adequate training in population dynamics/stock assessments?”

Chapter Eight
79

•	“Better quantitative training”

•	“Not viewed as a major focus or need at our university”

•	“Provide competitive, well-funded graduate fellowshipstargeted on prospective students with

strong backgrounds in quantitative biology/ecology. Increase rigor of math, modeling and statistics requirements for undergraduate majors in natural resources.”

•	“Continue to replace faculty as they retire.”

•	“Better promote this area and better educate students concerning the link between population

dynamics/stock assessment and conservation/sustainability. Far more students would be interested if they appreciated this link instead of just thinking of this area as one for “math nerds”.”

•	“Increase the math curriculum in UG programs”

•	“Highlight utility ofpopulationdynamicsto current news-making topicssuch as MPAs, ecosystem

management and endangered species”

•	“Hire faculty with that expertise / work creatively to engage NOAA NMFS and other agency scientists as courtesy faculty and graduate committee members / provide students with internship 

opportunities with agencies”

•	“Additional faculty, to pursue more diverse sources of research funding”

•	“Devote more funds.”

•	“Add relevant faculty positions.”

•	“I don’t know”

•	“Focus on the basics in ecology, mathematics, and statistics during undergraduate (including

natural resources programs). Make sure that students following a natural resources track embrace 

rather than avoid a watered down, non-scientific curriculum. Courses in policy and administration need to be offered and mandated at the graduate level. The students must understand the 

constraints under which population models and stock assessments will [be conducted]”

•	“Increased support, funding for RA’s and field programs. Increased involvement with NOAA

(CMER program) and fishery councils.”

•	“Funding for graduate assistantships/fellowships”

•	“Increase use of mathematics throughout undergraduate programs in fisheries and biology,

increase awareness among advisors that fisheries is a field that emphasizes mathematical and 

statistical applications. This is both to direct appropriate students to the major at UG level and 

to direct quantitatively trained graduates toward fishery programs.”

•	“Increased graduate funding, increased faculty funding”

•	“It’s not the institution but what employers want. Also, it is based on what funding is obtained

and the objectives of that funding, if it has pop dynamics objectives, then it becomes a priority.”

•	“Hire faculty with that expertise and bolster and support their fisheries departments and program.”

Supply Report Appendices
80

•	“Build strong supporting infrastructure (faculty and curricula),recruittalented students, provide

competitive student support”

•	“Offershort-courses and/or workshopsthatfocusspecifically on fish population dynamicsissues

including examples from local, regional, national, and international fisheries.

a) Provide additional resources for graduate student support.

b) Increase faculty trained in those areas.” 

•	“Introductory courses that emphasize challenges and significance of fisheries resources”

•	“Hire more faculty in this area”

•	“Provide greater amounts of in-house graduate student support.”

•	“Provide graduate stipends and research funding in this area”

•	“Provide more faculty positions.”

•	“Reallocate faculty FTE’s to this area of research/teaching. Offer more assistantships in this area

and greater undergraduate exposure. We have the ability to recruit students with the aptitude to 

take on projects in population dynamics, what we lack are the faculty and resources to conduct 

such research.”

•	“Increased salaries for these state and federal positions”

•	“Identifying promising candidates in fisheries, ecology, biology, math and statistics programs

and interest them in the field, perhaps by means of targeted workshops or short courses”

•	“Allocate more faculty positions to these areas (since faculty are the ones training graduate

students)”

8.6 Appendix F

Open-ended Responses of Department Heads (n = 31) to “What, if anything, could the U.S. Congress 

do to try to increase the number of individuals with adequate training in population dynamics/

stock assessments?”

• 	“Train more potential faculty and create more jobs. The perception is that most pop dynamics 

experts choose to work at NMFS rather than academia”

•	“Fund USGS Units”

•	“Provide special funding thru NSF to provide undergrad. & grad. fellowships for students with

aptitude and attitude for this kind of work. If someone funds it, they will come.”

•	“Provide scholarships”

•	“Fund graduate research in the area of population dynamics.”

•	“Support special undergraduate training programs, as at Virginia Tech this year. Allow affiliated

Chapter Eight
81

NOAA employees, posted at academic institutions, to have a greater role in university teaching, 

specifically in this area, to enhance the faculty resources with this kind of expertise.”

•	“Increase funding in specific math tracks in UG”

•	“Support funding for fisheries research, create an USDA NRI competition for stock-assessment.

Repopulate the USGS Cooperative fish and wildlife research units with population dynamics 

people”

•	“Recognize the seriousness of the problem and provide real funding commensurate with its

importance to hire the necessary faculty and support students on national fellowships”

•	“Fund research, graduate student fellowships”

•	“Provide fundsto partner university and federal and state fisheries agenciesto fund both a faculty

position and support Ph.D. level students”

•	“Provide base funding and competitive funding to support research.”

•	“Provide funds to hire faculty within the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit program

within the USGS. Currently vacant positions are not being refilled due to lack of funds.”

•	“Specifically provide research opportunities, at the national level for non-sport fish related (i.e.,

commercial fisheries) issues...similar to the current level of DJ-WB funding. This is particularly 

germane to large rivers, the Great Lakes, and estuarine systems. State agencies typically do not 

support stock assessment research in these sorts of systems and the federal government provides 

limited opportunities.”

•	“Increased support for field based research and statistical analyses”

•	“Increase fellowship programsforsuch undergraduate students, enhance funding for center’s of

excellence and require them to offer rigorous course work in math/stats, population dynamics 

and stock assessment.”

•	“Develop specific scholarship and research fellowship programs for students in stock assessment”

•	“Ensure that funding for research in fisheries goes to the land grants which would enable such

graduate programs to flourish and train such individuals. Research funding stays with USFWS. 

Also, NSF and NRI programs are elitist and largely ignore applied programs such as fisheries”

•	“FUND federal programs that facilitate fisheries education (e.g., USGS Cooperative Research

Units, Agricultural Research Stations, federal research funding programs such as Federal Aid in 

Sport Fish Restoration and State [Wildlife Grants])”

•	“Increase scholarship and internship programs, support workshop efforts”

•	“Provide incentives(e.g., financial, future employment orinternships, etc.) forstudents completing assessment programs.

a) Provide additional resources for graduate student research. At present funding sources for 

population dynamics research is severely limited in the mid-Atlantic.

b) Support federal jobs (e.g., USFWS, Co-op Units, NRL post-docs).”

Supply Report Appendices
82

•	“Promote scholarships in support of students and programs”

•	“Develop a program for funding for graduate fellows and postdoctoral fellows in population

dynamics/stock assessment.”

•	“Provide more funding for research that includes graduate assistantship stipends”

•	“Develop a Graduate Training Grants program that would enable universities to increase the

level of support to grad students working in this area.”

•	“Funding for stipends and research. More support for the USGS fisheries and wildlife cooperative programs in this area which would help with graduate education.”

•	“Increase the funding forthe Cooperative Fish andWildlife ResearchUnits. Provide more research

funding specifically targeted to fisheries and wildlife programs; when such funding is put in other 

places and is supposed to be directed at us it seldom gets to us.”

•	“Provide funding for research in this area. Without funding new graduate students will move

toward biology, management, ecology, etc. and later move on with these backgrounds and 

interests. Those who end up as faculty will do research/teach courses in those same areas.”

•	“Provide graduate stipends and increased fishery-related grant funding”

•	“At Virginia Tech (VT), we have a pilot program that we call the NMFS-VT Research, Training and

Recruitment Unit hat identifies and trains students in the sorts of skills in which you express 

interest. NMFS has but limited funding. Congress might consider supporting creation of such 

units in other regions, perhaps the northeast, northwest, and perhaps elsewhere.” 

•	“Increase research funding in this area (funding will attract research projects and thus graduate 

students)”

8.7 Appendix G

Open-ended Responses of Department Heads (n = 14) to, “Is there anything else you would like 

to share with us about the status or future of fisheries education in the United States?”

•	“Yes.The status of fisheriesscience here in theU.S. has never been as high—and,thusthe quality

of our fisheries- education programs never as good—asin Canada. Maybe thatis because fisheries have always been more important to Canadians than to U.S. citizens. Also, it may be because 

Canadian public schools still teach rigorous math and science courses. Fisheries education (even 

at top programs like Univ. British Columbia) must become more systemic, if the big problems 

like habitat degradation/loss and global climate change are going to be effectively addressed 

by future fisheries scientists. That means more emphasis on mechanism, quantification, and 

synthesis. It also means better skills in teamwork and communication. Finally, the survey exhibits 

strong bias toward population dynamics at the expense of mechanistic (physiology, toxicology) 

and genetic research. The word “genetics” does not appear in this document--not even in the 

extensive “relevant-coursework” area. Apparently fisheries genetics or training in the field seems 

to be of even minimal Re HSU - We offer MS degree only, hence few of our courses are formally 

taught at the graduate level .(see earlier course listings) although they are typically taught to 

Chapter Eight
83

seniors and graduate students (e.g., our fishery management class). All of our MS students must 

take Ichthyology, Population Dynamics and Fishery Management.”

•	“The trick for the future will be to re-cast stock assessment as useful for current and emerging

paradigms, and to down play the association with the checkered past of marine fisheries management and commercial fishing.”

•	“Vital area of education but it is generally ignored/relegated to the bottom of some funding

agencies. Some departments/faculties have an inherent disdain for the applied science - I keep 

hearing it referred to in disparaging terms as simply “fish counting””

•	“Many of our fisheries-related Master’s students come from the state Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute (FL FWRI) and are paired with faculty who do basic research in specialized aspects of 

ichthyology (fish physiology, fish sensory biology, fish trophic ecology using stable isotopes). 

This pairing is often a mismatch between the needs of FWRI and the needs of the faculty for their 

research programs. There are more potential students from FWRI than can be handled by our 

current faculty. Also, as your line of questioning suggests, these students are often have fantastic 

knowledge bases from experience in the field, but are often weak or very weak in basic statistics 

and mathematical abilities. It seems to me that if the goal is to develop population modelers, 

then we are probably focusing on the wrong pool of people. We also need to attract students 

into the field from students with strong mathematical”

•	“The focus of many programs hasshifted to basic ecology,so fewerstudents have a background

in stock assessment and population dynamics necessary to be a successful fisheries manager. 

Increasing funding for management based and applied research is critical to accomplish the 

goal of preparing students for the profession”

•	“Fisheries programs and students with an interest in fisheries in general seem to be declining

nationwide, although this has not yet affected our program.”

•	“I believe field research is a critical component of graduate training and must be strengthened.

This should be done in cooperation with the fishing industries and other interest groups.”

•	“There are too few incoming fishery graduate students with strong aptitude and high level of

training in quantitative areas. Many of the strongest quantitative fishery graduate students migrate from other disciplines but do not have well rounded background in fisheries. Recruiting 

some of these students as undergraduates would be beneficial. Many graduate students avoid 

quantitative course work during their programs only to discover it is essential to their professional work and career. Ideally this awareness needs to be instilled during the UG years or early 

in graduate [school]” 

•	“It is becoming more holistic and environmental and less technical to stock assessment alone.”

•	“The field of Fisheries may be suffering from an image problem, where those not well acquainted

with the field perceive it as less scientific than related fields, such as ecology or conservation 

biology. This may affect quality of recruited students. The field of fisheries has evolved and advanced steadily to be broad, relevant, rigorous, and highly scientific, but the general perception 

of the field has not evolved with the science and programs.”

•	“Lack of commitment by NOAA to academic research and graduate student training in fisheries

is the principal impediment. Papers in Science and general coverage of fisheries is increasing; 

Supply Report Appendices
84

promoting ecosystem based fisheries assessment and management will stimulate educational 

opportunities”

•	“The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit program desperately needs to be expanded.

Doubling that program would go a long way to solving many federal education and research 

problems in wildlife and fisheries.”

•	“Few go into this field because of the low starting salaries. Unless this changes fewer will enter

the field.”

•	“The development and recruitment of individuals with expertise in the areas of fisheries that

you identify with regard to the needs for support of the MSFCMA is a real need. If government 

invests now, we can meet the need for trained fisheries professionals. If not, we as a society will 

not be able to manage our fisheries effectively.” 

Chapter Eight