I consider it both an honor and a privilege to be invited to address this particular conference. I appear before you with a variety of emotions. You see, a number of years ago I inquired about possible membership in this distinguished organization and was informed that I was not qualified -- perhaps after I conclude my remarks, you will understand why.

The letterhead on your official stationery bears the IAAAM logo -very artistically presented in the form of five fish -- fish, if you will -- and yet, much of the practice of your membership deals more with aquatic mammals than it does with fish. What an interesting paradox! I asked a number of you who your organization served and more than one or two of you referred to yourselves as "born a-gain dolphin chasers." That is interesting, especially since you have fish so prominently displayed on your logo. However, the chairman of this session informed me that it is not five fish but rather one copepod, three fish and one octopus. I'd say that that is even worse. Where the devil are the dolphins? I shall say more about this later.

As keynote speaker, I feel free to assume considerable license to meddle, interfere and intrude into domain that might otherwise be off limits to me. Throughout my deliberations in the areas I might address, it struck me that the name of your group might more appropriately be the "International Association of Aquatic Animal Health," rather than of aquatic animal medicine. Medicine implies the healing arts as practiced only by physicians and veterinarians. To a certain degree that is true, but you are not that kind of a group. You are a health oriented group. I offer to you that you should be the IAAAH, and I suggest such a change for your consideration.

Aquaculture, zoological preserves, parks and gardens, aquariums, fish farming, mariculture, fishery resources, and wildlife resources all involve aquatic animal health problems -- medicine problems, if you wish, but you are really talking about health. Medicines such as chemicals and drugs are used to correct errors of management. I have believed this all my life and throughout my career in fish disease work. I have heard nothing here in the past few days that change my mind. This broad spectrum of private, state and federal activities spans the world. Included are such diverse animals as killer whales, seals, salmon, catfish, shrimp, oysters, pet fish, sea urchins and a host of others.

It is no wonder, then, that health services to the aquatic animal field are being provided from a variety of sources. In some areas, such service is provided by self-taught individuals lacking formal academic training, but who, because of their long experience and close involvement with a given species, are considered to be authorities. Other areas have traditionally been serviced by veterinarians. All sorts of variations in credentials are found between these extremes. I have heard, to my dismay, parochial remarks to the effect that "they should not be doing so" or "get those guys out." At the present time, such an attitude is unwarranted. The IAAAM is an organization dedicated to the provision of health services, not just the practice of medicine.

When the various cultural or husbandry fields first began, trained and qualified expertise in the related health field simply was not available. There were no formal avenues through which academic and professional training could be obtained. Furthermore, the potential income from a private veterinary practice in subject areas was nonexistent so there was no impetus for Colleges of Veterinary Medicine to initiate and develop curricula that would train servicing professionals. To a significant degree, this situation unfortunately persists to this day, even though significant industries now exist in aquaculture.

As an example, consider my own situation. I chose fish health as my career field and set out to become trained for such work. My undergraduate training was in Biology with emphasis on a Pre-Med program. My graduate degrees are in Zoology with major emphasis on parasitology, having fishery biology and veterinary pathology as minor areas. My search (in 1956) for an appropriate school led me to Iowa State University because of existing strong programs in parasitology, fisheries, and veterinary science. Even so, a degree in fish health, per se, did not exist. It was only after much negotiation with the Dean of the Graduate College, the Deans of the various colleges and the involved department heads that I was allowed to put together a graduate program that would prepare me for the work I wished to do. Although I finally achieved the training I sought, my degrees were designated to be in parasitology, not fish health.

In addition to the administrative hurdles, my own graduate committee was concerned as to where I would find employment or establish a practice. Their concerns were well founded. Fortunately, at the time I received my degree the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was seeking a trained individual to develop a program of research in fish health at a new fish farming experiment station in Arkansas. That was to be the only professional fish health position to open in the next several years. During that time period, a few fish health positions in existence were at Leetown, West Virginia and Seattle, Washington -- both federal fish health laboratories. Like myself, the professionals at those stations had put together their own specialized training program in order to equip themselves for a career in fish health.

A similar situation existed at many zoos. Veterinary services were available if the animal species involved was one of the large herbivores. Exotic species, such as bears, turtles, snakes, and even monkeys, would not be considered by local veterinarians. You can realize how desperate the curator of the zoo in Little Rock, Arkansas had become when he called my laboratory to see if I would help him with disease problems among his snake population. He had successively been turned down by local veterinarians, the State Animal Health Laboratory, the University of Arkansas Medical College and local physicians. There simply were no trained people available.

Professionals in aquatic animal health were few and far between -and still are. The scientific meetings we attended and our membership in societies reflected related fields in microbiology, parasitology, zoology, human or veterinary medicine, fishery biology of wildlife biology. Usually, less than a dozen scientists interested in aquatic animal health of any area would be present at a given conference. Although we often presented papers at scientific meetings, we generally were speaking only to each other. Disease in aquatic animals was recognized as a problem but was largely ignored by the rest of the research community.

Initially, growth in the aquatic animal health field was slow -- so slow that some of us wondered if our field of scientific endeavor would ever be recognized. Perhaps aquatic animal health specialists were, in the words of the late Asa Chandler, "like orchids, requiring long and careful nurturing, being slow to develop, but when they come to flower, they are rare and beautiful, scientifically speaking, and usually slow in going to seed."

Since the late 1950's, the situation has changed. Aquatic animal health has attracted top quality scientists in bacteriology, virology, parasitology, veterinary medicine, physiology, epidemiology and a host of other fields. As the interest and numbers grew, the seeds of professional organizations related to the several aspects of aquatic animal health were planted.

The IAAAM was formed in 1968 and embraced primarily specialists in zoological parks, zoos and related areas. At the outset, only DVM's (veterinarians) were accepted for membership. I am pleased to learn that this has recently been changed to permit membership by non-DVM's, if they are contributors to the field of aquatic animal medicine.

At approximately the time the IAAAM formed, fish health specialists were holding informal workshops around the country, where attempts were being made to organize their own professional group related to diseases of freshwater fishes. The Fish Health Section of the American Fisheries Society was formed in 1971. Membership required that potential members also belong to the American Fisheries Society. This requirement has become a significant stumbling block to development of the broad base of scientific expertise that should be reflected in the Fish Health Section. Efforts are under way to have this requirement removed.

Look around yourself today -- we've come a long way, baby!! In less than 20 years, professional organizations, such as IAAAM, now exist in relation to the several areas of interest. This organization and the Fish Health Section include several hundred names on their membership rolls that represent top expertise in their fields. Also, a number of colleges and universities now offer courses related to aquatic animal health. Thus, the picture is rosier than ever before -- or is it?

It is understandable that original efforts toward organizing professional groups followed narrow, highly specialized interests. The time has come for a re-evaluation of the limits set when the several organizations were formed. The need for chemical and drug registrations for the specialized uses in aquatic animal health requires closer coordination between the several fields of use. Likewise, the relationship of aquatic animal health practices to federal and state Veterinary Practices Acts should be clarified.

Unfortunately, the very growth that fostered increased professional specialization has also created greater separations between aquatic animal health professionals. Your own IAAAM limited its membership to licensed DVM's, while the Fish Health Section required that its members also belong to the American Fisheries Society. Instead of a decrease in parochialism as the field of aquatic animal health grew, sharper demarcation and greater separation seem to have developed. It is time to put aside such isolationism; time to take full advantage of the expertise found among our colleagues; and time to overhaul the academic and bureaucratic barriers to the practice of aquatic animal health. All factions of aquatic animal health are involved, and probably equally guilty.

I have advocated for a number of years the broadening of curricula at universities and veterinary colleges to offer degree options in the fish health field. Only in the last two years has there been any indication that the concept may be realized. At the University of Georgia, veterinary students now have an option to include fish physiology, fish diseases and fish culture in their DVM program. Conversely, students in fish and wildlife management are permitted to enroll in selected courses at the veterinary college. To a lesser degree, exchanges and interactions of a similar nature are developing on several other campuses. I would hope that wildlife biology and veterinary medicine are working along similar lines. This sort of interaction can be accomplished with no increases in staff and no increases in budget, and yet would result in a distinct broadening of the curriculum if we will just remove some of the parochial lines that we have traditionally set.

Desirable as such developments and cross-fertilization may be, the situation is not without pitfalls. The potential for establishing a successful veterinary practice based solely on aquatic animal health is minimal at this time -- even if there were no federal, state or university services available. I have every confidence that the foreseeable future will provide opportunities for such a career, but it is still some time away.

On the other hand, non-DVM students who attempt to pursue a career in aquatic animal health may find themselves disenfranchised by existing laws and regulations. Federal and state Veterinary Practices Acts clearly include aquatic animal health within their domain. If the laws were to be rigidly enforced, nearly all of the present fish health specialists and many of the other aquatic animal health specialists would be enjoined from activities in diagnosis and treatment.

Professionals in aquatic animal health can thus be caught in a no-man's land between constraints, lack of adequate curricula to become trained and the lack of financial remuneration, despite the fact that they are probably the most qualified people to practice aquatic animal health. Currently-licensed veterinarians did not have opportunities when they were in school to study the peculiarities of fish anatomy and physiology, nor the unique environmental requirements of fish, nor the opportunity to learn about the culture systems required by the various types of fish and crustaceans. Veterinarians, merely because they hold the legal franchise, should not expect their fishery clients to bear the expense of mistakes made while they gain the experience and knowledge to satisfactorily treat aquatic animals. This deficiency, coupled with the lack of financial reward, has caused veterinarians throughout the country to be reluctant to become involved in fish health. Conversely, the parasitologists, virologists, bacteriologists and fishery biologists who have developed a special expertise in fish health could legally be denied the opportunity to provide the needed services.

While I have little -knowledge about aquatic mammals, the same may be true regarding the physiologists, virologists, etc. who work in that field. Thus, we are caught in a situation where there is nothing to justify a veterinarian for putting his professional stature on the line when he can't get paid for doing so. On the other hand, people qualified to provide the needed service can be legally enjoined from doing so. A "Catch22" situation exists. In the meantime, the aquaculture industry is crying for service but cannot afford to pay for it. I think that eventually the time will come when fees can be charged which will warrant veterinary service. In the meantime, a way must be found to answer the need.

What can be done to resolve these impasses? Certainly, this is not a time for isolationism or parochialism. Al] professionals, DVM's and non-DVM's alike, have much to contribute to the advancement of aquatic animal health. None of the papers presented here were out of place, whether they were on the anatomy of the retina of the dolphin, the treatment of mycotic diseases of turtles or diseases of fish. To me, they all belonged, and contributed to our professional growth. The need for exchanges of data is greater than ever before -- not just from a health services standpoint, but from many other standpoints. The requirement that all drugs and chemicals used on animals produced for food, or otherwise applied in aquatic environments, be property registered involves expensive and lengthy research efforts. It is imperative that duplication in research be avoided, and that the greatest use of generated data be provided. You heard Dr. Hewitt of the FDA say that their new philosophy on minor uses and minor species will allow the extrapolation of data back and forth between related species. This certainly should be encouraged at all levels, whether it be bacteria of dolphins, bacteria of crabs or bacteria of fish. We ought to be taking a look at how we do our research, how we can interact and how we can conduct the required studies in concert rather than along parallel lines.

Colleges, universities and veterinary colleges should explore ways to broaden their curricula to provide options to add aquatic animal health training in both DVM and graduate degree programs. In many cases, a degree in Aquatic Animal Health or a DVM with an Aquatic Animal Health specialization should be possible without the need for increasing faculty or budgets. I offer the program at the University of Georgia as an example of a start in this direction.

The questions of the apparent legal status of non-DVM aquatic animal health specialists must be resolved. Some years ago, I became involved in efforts to resolve this thorny question. Dr. Richard Stroud, your President-Elect, was then a student at Oregon State University and was involved in those same efforts. Initially, we were at the forefront of the two opposing forces, but eventually joined sides and pursued this problem at length. Dr. Stroud headed a committee who canvassed every state veterinary organization. The committee asked: (1) "Does the problem of non-licensed health specialists exist in your state?"; (2) "Are people who are practicing fish health in violation of the state Veterinary Practices Act?"; and 3) "What do you think should be done to resolve this problem?" I personally contacted the deans of veterinary colleges and presidents of state chapters of the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) in 11 states seeking opinions, advice and counsel on how the problem could be resolved. Some respondents quoted chapter and verse of the Veterinary Practices Act; namely, "read the code to them, and get the Attorney General to prohibit such practices." Others said their state was indifferent and ignored the aquatic animal health field. A few, like the Dean of the Veterinary College at Purdue University, had sound, constructive suggestions. He suggested that states might issue temporary waivers of their Veterinary Practices Act to qualified aquatic animal health specialists. Such waivers could be limited to perhaps five years, and given only to qualified individuals who were certified by a board of professional examiners. At such a time when DVM services were available, further issuance of waivers would cease. To me, this seems to be a rational, logical solution to the problem.

In response to requests from state fishery agencies for the identification of qualified personnel to perform inspections and to certify fish stocks as free of designated diseases, the fish health section developed and put into practice a certification program for such individuals. This is a rigorous program in which over 50% of the applicants have not passed. Although some complain that requirements are too rigorous, it is a very sound program. A similar professional certification procedure to develop certification of diagnostic and treatment capability is also being promulgated. If the latter program proves viable, it could provide a mechanism under which temporary waivers to the Veterinary Practices Act might be granted to certified aquatic animal health specialists.

The concept of closer coordination and possible integration of the aquatic animal sciences and veterinary programs should not be taken lightly or ignored. A recent survey entitled the Arthur J. Lyttle Report (1977) predicted a 20% overage in the number of trained veterinarians as compared to the anticipated openings. If this proves true, aquatic animal health may be a viable field for the excess students to consider.

In my opinion, professionals in the fish health field would not object to the assumption of fish health responsibilities by DVM's, if curricula were developed to provide for their proper training in the fish health field. Much of the concern I have heard from fish health specialists centers not on the ability of DVM's to diagnose and prescribe, but rather on their lack of knowledge and understanding of the significance and implications of the many environmental variables that affect the safety and efficacy of fish disease treatments. While some workers may fear disenfranchisement, it would see that only a summary action prohibiting their involvement would concern the majority of present fish health professionals.

This invitation to address the IAAAM conference, in my opinion, represents an important first step toward the sharing of data and knowledge of common interest, and toward bringing together researchers in the aquatic animal health field. It seems that the time is right to propose a national or international meeting in 1980 or 1981 at which all facets of aquatic animal health would be represented. The IAAAM, the Fish Health Section, the World Mariculture Society, the Wildlife Disease Association, the Fish Culture Section and perhaps others in microbiology, parasitology and virology might be interested in participation in such a meeting.

I compliment you on the successes that have been achieved, and on the very fine meeting you have had. I look forward to a mutually beneficial and exciting future through scientific interaction in aquatic animal health.