Toward More
Effective
Management
Lord Ronald said nothing; he flung himself from the room, flung himself
upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
STEPHEN LEACOCK
isheries management has been a bit like Leacock’s nobleman, charging off in all directions. We
need a steadier hand on the reins and a clearer sense of where we are going.
In preceding chapters, I make several recommendations for managing recreational, native, and
commercial fisheries. In this chapter, I try to bring the strands together in some general approaches to
management that I think we must adopt to meet the problem of deteriorating fisheries in most of the
country.
We have to think of three kinds of management: managing the fishing, managing the water habitat
in which the fish live and grow, and managing the stocks of fish. The amount of fishing permitted affects
the size of stocks, and quality of habitat affects their productivity, so the three types of management must
be closely integrated.
It is also true that although these three kinds of management are interdependent, each also has its
own scientific base and data, and its own regulatory methods. Each has its own problems.
When we speak of managing habitat and stocks, we are talking about the management of the supply
of fish. When we turn to management of fishing, we are talking about the management of demand. In this
chapter, I consider the general objectives of fisheries management and then take up the problems of each
type of management — of fishing, of habitat, and of fish stocks. Finally I have a word on managerial
integration, or getting the act together. In chapter nine, we discuss the organizational and enforcement
systems that are needed to put sound management principles and methods into practice.
Management objectives
110
Managing fishing
Fish habitat management
Stock management
Integrating stock and habitat management
Co-ordinating management efforts
110
114
119
122
123
A Nuv,i Scuta DefutlnuuU nt f a i t M u n j y ihti
The three kinds of management
Management objectives Fisheries managers must start with objectives making clear what
kind of fishery they are striving for. Objectives should take into account both the demands and
preferences of fishermen and the biological capabilities of each fishery. As I stress in earlier
chapters, it is not just fish we are after, but good fishing experiences. That means different
things to different recreational fishermen, as well as to native and commercial fishermen.
Fisheries plans reflecting the diversity of fishermen’s demands should be
prepared for each region. Plans should set objectives for the type of fishing,
abundance, and yields for each important species or stock in each fishery to
be managed and for the type and extent of habitat required.
Decentralized administration, is a
step in the right direction.
here by Ontario's 48 districts,
To be practical, that does not mean that management plans must be designed for all of the
tens of thousands of lakes and streams in the country. It does mean, however, that fisheries
agencies, in consultation with fishing groups, should begin a more systematic approach to
planning the kinds of fishing to be provided in each region. Regional plans should designate
waters to be reserved for commercial, native, or recreational trophy and wilderness fishing; for
fly-fishing or put-and-take fishing; and for fisheries licensed to fishing groups for management.
Ontario provincial fisheries officials recently started this kind of planning in the 48
districts of the province. They are producing plans for each of the kinds of fishing lake found in
each district, identifying the types of fishery to be managed in each. The planning takes
advantage of logging road development to help control access. The first two districts to have
plans were Owen Sound and Kirkland Lake, but approved plans were expected in all of them by
April 1989. The sooner this type of planning is undertaken throughout Canada, the greater will
be the opportunity for integrated resource management and the easier it will be to reorganize
fishing patterns.
Managing fishing Fishing has to be regulated for three reasons:
■to ensure that fishermen do not catch more fish than the stocks
can sustain;
■ to allocate the catch among competing uses and users; and
• to protect the quality of fishing.
Allocation Fisheries management employs four types of allocation:
■water is allocated between fish production and other uses,
many of which conflict with fish production;
■fish are allocated between escapement to reproduce and
availability to be caught, that is, between conservation and
harvest;
■the potential catch is allocated between competing recreational, native, and commercial fisheries;1
* potential catches are allocated among different categories of
fishermen within each fishing sector, and among individual
H A. Regier and A.P Grima. "Fishery Resource Allocation An
Exploratory Essay." n »
110 Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 42. 4 (1985). p 848.
IlSnCnnen.
The first type of allocation is thus one of water, not of fish, and is necessary because
competition for water is a serious problem in some parts of the country, not only for drinking,
irrigation, and hydroelectric power, but also for boating, swimming, and other recreation. 2 The
different types of allocation and the techniques used to put them into effect are shown
schematically in Figure 8.1.
Types and
techniques
of allocation
Figure 8-1
Water
Allocating water Most provinces assign a relatively low priority to the use of water for fish
production. Their usual water priorities are in the following order: domestic, municipal, industrial,
irrigation, recreation and conservation, and mineral recovery.5 Some of these can of course be
compatible with fish production. In the habitat management section of this chapter, I suggest better
ways of recognizing fisheries needs in integrated resource management planning.
Allocating Ash Allocating fish to keep stocks reproducing themselves, or escapement, is
achieved by limiting catches and permitting fish to escape to spawn. Stringent controls on
catches of Atlantic salmon in the Maritime provinces and of steelhead on the Pacific coast are
examples of escapement measures, as are seasonal closures, catch quotas, and other controls in
managing other fisheries.
In many — if not most — freshwater fisheries in Canada, however, the catches are not
carefully regulated at all. Agencies fix seasons, size limits, and bag limits for fishermen for a
whole province or territory, but the catch in individual lakes and streams is largely uncontrolled.
Allocation among fishing groups The absence of clear allocation causes some of the most
awkward and contentious problems for fisheries managers, since conflicts are likely wherever
recreational, native, or commercial fishermen use the same body of water. Systematic and explicit
allocation of the available catch becomes more and more necessary as competition for fish
increases.
Examples of conflict, sometimes intense, are over walleye in Lake Ontario, Rainy Lake, and
Lake of the Woods in Ontario; lake trout in the Prairie provinces; and Arctic char in the northern
territories. But in most parts of Canada little progress has been made in allocating fish to various
groups. The problem is usually left to local managers’ discretion or dealt with only indirectly
through regulation of fishing. At worst, it is ignored. The federal government contributes neither
overall policy nor good example.
Because of the tradition of free access to fish, the imposition of explicit allocations on
particular fisheries or groups is potentially disruptive. Fishermen find it hard to accept the idea of
limits on fish productivity, even harder to accept restrictions on their own catch in the interest of
somebody else’s.4 Nevertheless, wherever resources are fully exploited, someone can have more
only if someone else has less.
Wherever recreational, native, and commercial fishermen compete for
the same fish, governments should allocate specific shares of the
available catch to each group after ensuring that enough fish escape for
conservation purposes.
This recommendation complements my earlier proposals for specifying the authorized
catches of native bands and individual commercial fishermen. The resulting allocations for
individual fisheries should be incorporated into the regional fisheries plans proposed above.
1.
Peter H. Pearse. F. Bertrand, and J W. Mactaren, Currents of Change: Final Report of the Inquiry on Federal Water Policy (Ottawa: Environment
Canada. 198b), p. 181.
2.
3.
Beamish.
Healey, and Griggs, Freshwater Fisheries, pp.82. 83.
Regier and Grima, "Fishery Resource Allocation." p 846
Allocated between fisheries and competing uses
Techniques used
Water licensing and use
regulations Habitat management
policies
Competing uses
Fisheries
Fish allocated between harvests and stock
maintenance
Techniques used
Catch quotas • Closures
• Restrictions on
fishing methods and
harvests bte fish
Stock maintenance
Harvests
Allocated among fishing groups
Techniques used
Licensing • Group
quotas • Selective
closures • Selective
restrictions on fishing
methods and
harvestabte fish
Fishing groups
Allocated among individual fishermen
Techniques used
Bag limits • Restrictions on fishing methods
• Limited entry • Pricing
Individual fishermen
In many jurisdictions, priorities for allocations between fishing groups have been announced.
These usually place native people first, but the priority accorded other groups varies from place to
place. In my view, after conservation requirements and die needs of those holding special rights
have been satisfied, allocation should proceed on the basis of economic and social values.
Experience in ocean fisheries suggests that one of the fairest and most acceptable ways of
introducing allocations is to base them on the catches of the competing groups in recent years.
Allocations will have to be altered as needs and conditions change. Inevitably, governments find
this difficult, because it means taking away from one group what is given to another. If allocations
are transferable, however, transactions among groups can accomplish reallocation without
government involvement. The resource is reallocated to its most valuable use because those who
value it most highly buy more quotas, to the advantage of all.
At present, of course, most fishermen do not hold quota rights, and market values are not
allowed to emerge. In freshwater recreational fisheries, aggregate quotas are not used, and
exclusive rights of access to individual fisheries are rare. As noted in chapter six, the quantity of
fish that native people are entitled to take under aboriginal and treat}' rights is usually vague, and
not transferable. The introduction of transferable commercial quotas in some jurisdictions,
however, has allowed markets to allocate fish between fishermen. Extension of the principle to
recreational fisheries is certainly possible. Voluntary transfers could occur among groups to
improve allocation as conditions changed. It would also be useful in determining the value of
commercial and sportfishing rights.
Governments should examine introducing transferable catch quotas to make it
possible for competing groups to negotiate mutually advantageous reallocations.
The importance of user participation and consultative arrangements in designing such innovations is
stressed in chapter 11. In chapter 10,1 recommend research to establish the economic and social
benefits of competing water uses and different types of fishing.
Allocation among fishermen Allocation is the area where I believe some of the most significant
improvements in recreational fishing policy can be made, although allocating fish among individual
fishermen is especially complicated, as noted in chapter five. Allocation among fishermen is needed
not only in fisheries under heavy demand, but also in remote ones where the objective is to
maintain trophy fishing or other special kinds of fishing.
Once a total permissible catch has been set, many methods exist for allocating catches among
individuals:
First-come-first-served Fishermen buy licences and fish freely until the permissible catch is
reached. Then the fishery is closed, disrupting the operation of commercial sportfishing
establishments.
Tight bag limits To prevent the permissible catch from being exceeded, individual bag limits
are tightened as the number of fishermen grows. Catch-and-release rules are an extreme example of
this approach. It accommodates more fishermen, but it allows the quality of fishing to deteriorate.
Restricted fishing methods Restrictions on bait, gear, boating equipment and so on are
applied to reduce fishing success in order to hold the total catch within the target.
Again, this approach accommodates all fishermen but narrows fishing opportunities. Flyfishing
only, and barbless-hook rules are examples.
Limited entry A limited number of fishermen are authorized to fish, thereby controlling
fishing pressure. With fewer fishermen, less restrictive controls on bag limits, fishing methods,
and open seasons are needed. Limited-entry licensing in the Dean River steelhead fishery in
British Columbia is an example. Or, private groups licensed to manage bodies of water may
regulate access and catches. Fishing leases in New Brunswick are an example.
Pricing Access fees are raised to reduce numbers of fishermen. The daily fees levied by
local ZECs (Zones d'exploitation controlee) in Quebec have this effect.
Two or more of the above methods are commonly combined. Each has different
implications for fisheries management and enforcement. Attention must be given to choosing the
allocation methods best suited to the circumstances and objectives of particular fisheries.
Regional fisheries plans could prescribe differing techniques to provide for a variety of fishing.
Methods of managing the catch of individual recreational fishermen should
be selected to meet the particular objectives of
each fishery.
In the past, fisheries agencies have attempted to limit sportfishermen’s catches through
increasingly stringent bag limits and gear restrictions, thereby rationing the catch over growing
numbers of fishermen. In the interests of quality and diversity, controlling the numbers of
fishermen in some fisheries would be preferable, using the methods of pricing or various types of
limited entry.
Control of numbers serves two important purposes. It eliminates the need for more
stringent controls on catches, allowing more attractive fishing opportunities for some fishermen.
It is also a way of preventing crowding. As we see in chapter five, many people regard seclusion
as an important part of their enjoyment of fishing.
In Canada, the tradition of unrestricted access to recreational fishing is deeply entrenched
and should be maintained for most fisheries. Recreational fishermen should have opportunities to
fish with no restrictions other than the requirement of a fishing licence in every part of the
country. At the same time, however, there is room for other fisheries to offer special
opportunities by rationing access.
Managed directly by governmental agencies, limited entry involves a heavy
administrative burden in issuing permits and scheduling fishermen. But it is undoubtedly
an effective means of protecting the quality of special fishing opportunities. Special access
fees can also ration numbers, but the manipulation of fees for this purpose is an awkward
task for public agencies. This approach may be more suitable for use by private groups and
local bodies such as Quebec’s ZECs that are delegated to manage fisheries.
In chapter five, I propose experimenting with licensing arrangements that assign
management responsibilities and fishing rights in specific fisheries to fishing groups or
others. This approach not only facilitates control of access but also enables fishermen and other
interested groups to take part in management.
De/Hitmeni ol fisheries JIK I
Ooa/R. C.MHiHintcJtmm
DtUHittiHml ill Hmjniiuil
IlliknlliJl t xpjnmni
Controls are one way of providing the
kind of seclusion that many fishermen
enjoy. This is something that many are
prepared to pay a premium for.
Techniques for regulating the numbers of fishermen permitted access to
particular fisheries should be explored in order to provide special fishing
opportunities.
These special fisheries should be designed not to restrict fishing opportunities but to broaden
them. They should I*' organized democratically and equitably.
Fish habitat management When we speak of fish habitat management we really mean managing
Hi’ KIuhJi; >1 /iif-vimi'iV .iml f’.ut .
Habitat conservation means preventing damaging and unsightly uses of land and water.
man’s industrial and other uses of water environments to avoid or minimize damage to fish stocks.
We also mean improving water environments to make them better places for fish to live and
reproduce.
Habitat conservation, or maintenance, is aimed at protecting the productive capacity of existing
fish habitat by regulating water and land users whose activities affect the quality and quantity of
water. Examples are laws that set maximum discharges of pollutants into a river, or limit water
diversions from a stream.
Habitat restoration, or rehabilitation, means repairing damage to fish habitat to make it again
habitable for fish and the food they eat. Examples are removing log jams, reconstructing eroded
riverbanks, or placing rocks and logs in streams to provide shelter for fish and to aerate the water.
Habitat development, or enhancement, means increasing the productive capacity of existing
habitat or creating new habitat for fish. Examples arc building spawning channels along rivers,
constructing fish ladders around waterfalls or other barriers that normally keep fish from using the
upper reaches of a river, or adding nutrients to lakes to give fish more food.
Policy development In 1986, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans adopted a
(•. t.hlrjr.
Habitat restoration involves efforts to restore waters to their former productive capacity.
Habitat development means improving existing habitat, or creating new habitat for fish.
Logs prevent stream bank collapse and erosion.
114
commendable and much-needed new policy on habitat management. It suggests a framework for
overcoming the awkwardness of the existing habitat protection legislation, noted in chapter four. It
sets out the long-term goal of net gain, that is, of enabling fish habitats to grow more fish than they
do now. Policy objectives are to be achieved by using all three of the methods outlined above —
conservation, restoration, and development.
The new Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat, adopted after several years of preparation
and sporadic consultation with government agencies and private interest groups, should lead to more
consistent administration of habitat programs. Under the conservation principle of no net loss, the
policy states that it will always be preferable to avoid habitat loss. When this is not possible,
replacement of lost habitat is a second preference. Only when these two options are exhausted will
the department consider permitting a developer to compensate for lost habitat by artificial means,
such as building a hatchery to replace lost natural stocks. Costs in all cases will be borne by the
disturber of the fish habitat.
The new guidelines call for restoration or development of habitat wherever social and
economic benefits can be realized. The eight means to be used are protection and compliance;
integrated resource planning; research; public consultation; public education; co-operative action;
habitat improvement; and monitoring.
The policy will apply to habitats in those parts of Canada where the department administers
the Fisheries Act. In most provinces, where habitat is administered by provincial agencies, the
department will encourage provincial agencies to apply the policy,
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should press ahead with putting the
new habitat management policy into effect by
■ preparing habitat management plans for areas under federal
jurisdiction, clearly setting out fish production targets against which
potential losses from development can be measured;
• negotiating agreements with other levels of government to define
common resource management goals and guidelines for habitat
replacement, restoration, and development;
• establishing habitat steering committees where required for major
development projects.
btannj
preferably under formal agreements with the federal government.
The new policy is expressed in general terms and leaves some important questions
unanswered. For example, at what point would the department move from encouraging to
actually compelling a developer to redesign a proposed project by enforcing the prohibiting
sections of the Fisheries Act ? What is meant by the provision requiring “like for like”
compensation for lost habitat? Moreover, the policy statement appears to be preoccupied with
no net loss and the maintenance aspects of habitat management; relatively little attention is
given to rehabilitation and enhancement, which are essential to achieving the objective of net
gain.
Nevertheless, the policy points in the right direction and should be implemented. So far,
progress has been slow.
- ‘"^'' Oceans. Communications
Once the new policy is implemented, experience and time will tell whether it is adequate to
achieve improved freshwater fish habitat.
Governmental efforts in habitat and other forms of fisheries management must be reinforced,
as I urge in chapter 11, by a wide range of opportunities for public participation. In that chapter I
mention the desirability of creating an independent national recreational fisheries institute which
would have improved management of fish habitat as one one of its concerns.
Also needed is an effective regional delivery system for habitat programs. The Fish Habitat
Improvement Centre, established in Moncton under the Canada-New Brunswick Economic
Regional Development Agreement in co-operation with the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation, is
an attractive example. A network of such centres co-ordinated at the national level would be a
powerful system for habitat improvement.
Integrated resource management The term integrated resource management — so popular
nowadays among managers — means recognizing that because land and water support a variety of
resource uses, we must find ways of reconciling them. We must strive to involve competitive users
in their management and minimize conflict among them.
Because the federal government does not have jurisdiction over land, water, and other natural
resources in the provinces, it cannot protect fish habitat by licensing, leasing, or similar
arrangements. It must rely on the strong and comprehensive punitive provisions of the Fisheries
Act described in chapter four. Many federal and provincial managers who participated in our
inquiry emphasized the importance of retaining the clout of these provisions. I agree. But
application of the act should be clarified, particularly under Section 31, which prohibits damage to
fish habitat but takes no account of other legitimate
Fish locks function like locks on navigable waterways.
Policy framework for fish habitat management
OBJECTIVE
Net gain of productive capacity lor fisheries resources
Fish Habitat
Fish Habitat
Fish Habitat
Restoration
Conservation
Development
GUIDING PRINCIPLE: No net loss of productive capacity
INTEGRATE!) PLANNING FOR FISH HABITAT MANAGEMENT
V
1.
2.
3.
4.
Implementation Strategies
Protection and Compliance
5. Public Information & Education
Integrated Resource Planning 6. Cooperative Action
Research
7. Improvement
Public Consultation
8. Monitoring
I PROCEDURES TO APPLY THE NO NET LOSS GUIDING PRINCIPLE 1 Source: DfO Policy lor the Management ol Fish Habitat
water users. The new habitat management policy, described above, endorses the principle of integrated
management, indicating that the federal fisheries department is trying to overcome the limitations of the
legislation.
The Fisheries Act should be amended to accommodate integrated resource
management.
Federal and provincial agencies must co-ordinate their efforts to put integrated resource management
into effect. During our inquiry, we heard that there are often “loo many actors and no one in charge” —
innumerable agencies and levels that must be consulted but confusion over who can decide. For example, to
obtain a timber cutting licence, a logging company may be faced with agencies responsible for forestry,
fisheries, wildlife, environmental protection and impact assessment, which all have their say on the conditions
of the licence. There is often confusion as to whether responsibility for consultation lies with the company or
the licensing agency. Sometimes, to expedite matters, the company ends up going to each agency
independently for approval.
The division of control over fish, land, water, and other resources between the federal and provincial
governments lies at the root of much of the difficulty. The federal and provincial managers we heard from
during our inquiry stressed the importance of better co-ordination of regulation and management.
One approach to better integration would be more formal planning. The regional fisheries plans I
proposed earlier should be accompanied by fish habitat management plans identifying the habitat required to
support the desired fisher}', the measures needed to protect it, an arrangement for integrated planning with
other water users, and restoration or enhancement objectives.
The referral system described in chapter four is one way in which integrated management already
occurs. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans handles several thousand referrals each year — an activity
that takes up the bulk of the habitat staff’s time and resources. Furthermore, all referrals are processed in
roughly the same way, regardless of how small or large the proposed project. This requires an enormous
amount of time and paperwork, creating backlogs and frustration, preventing managers from devoting their
efforts to the projects and impacts that really count.
Referral systems could be streamlined by preparing guidelines that would make it clear to applicants
what habitat protection measures are expected, and to managers what the criteria for approval should be. The
new British Columbia Coastal Fish and Forestry Guidelines are an example. The criteria should enable federal
fisheries staff to sift out the referrals that do not pose serious threats to fish habitat, thereby preventing those
applicants from clogging up the process.
The proposed guidelines should be designed to meet the complaint of developers that without any
means of obtaining formal approval for a project, they are vulnerable to prosecution as a result of
departmental policy shifts, changes of personnel, and political whim, even if their projects appeared initially
to have departmental sanction.
The law cannot spell out what constitutes unacceptable damage, since this differs in each case. But the
law allows for regulations that could set out an approval process under which fisheries personnel would judge
an application according to the best knowledge available. If the proposal were acceptable, a permit would be
issued specifying the conditions under which the project could go ahead.
Regulations should be adopted under the Fisheries Act to authorize activities that
affect fish habitat. The approval arrangements should be co-ordinated with the
licensing and permitting processes in each province and territory.
The appropriate authorities should still have discretion to halt development, or change conditions in the
permit, to prevent unforeseen impacts.
Co-ordination with established licensing processes will simplify administration, lighten the regulatory
burden, and require developers to seek only one approval per project.
Regulations could provide for exemptions for minor projects where the approval process would not be
worth the paperwork. One possibility would be to activate the process only upon the request of either the
developer or the department. Alternatively, the regulations could specify criteria under which approval would
be required, such as the type or size of project, how much water was being diverted, and what sorts of
physical impact were expected. Any of these alternatives would enable fisheries interests to be considered
within a clearer and more effective framework of integrated resource management.
A step in this direction has been taken in Newfoundland. There, resource developers must apply to the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans for a habitat authorization when they apply for other permits and
licences from provincial and regional authorities. The authorization sets out the conditions for carrying out
development and outlines what would constitute an offence under the Fisheries Act. It has no legal effect,
however, and depends on voluntary rather than mandatory compliance. The developer is still liable to
prosecution under Section 31 if the project causes habitat damage, even if an authorization has been obtained.
Whatever the approach, those using fish habitat areas for other purposes should be responsible for
protecting them. Federal policy adheres to the principle that measures needed to protect, restore, or
compensate for damage to habitat should be paid for by the developers or other resource users that cause the
damage. This could be linked to the approval process.
The responsibilities of developers for conservation of fish habitat should be attached to
development permits and licences.
Rehabilitation and enhancement projects Fisheries managers have put close to a hundred years of effort into
repairing damage to fish habitats and helping nature make them more productive.
Small-scale projects are widespread. They use relatively inexpensive techniques such as stream-bed
erosion control, removal of logs and other obstructions, installation of deflectors to increase current flows and
improve the oxygen supply, removal of silt, and provision of shade to reduce water temperatures. Larger
scale projects include fishways and fish ladders to help fish bypass natural and man-made dams, falls, and
diversions.
Except for fishways opening new habitat, the success of these projects is not clear, as there have been
few, if any, definitive ‘before and after’ studies. Adding nutrients to lakes to provide more food to freshwater
stocks is showing promise, although scientists still find it difficult to separate the effect of the enrichment
Periy Mmuo
from environmental variables they cannot control.
Small-scale projects are widespread.
t-v
- ■ J« :
117
Most government enhancement projects have social and economic goals other than simply increasing
the productive capacity of habitat. For example, the west coast Salmonid Enhancement Program, started in
1977 under an agreement between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the British Columbia
environment department, is intended “to preserve, rehabilitate and enhance natural salmonid stocks” as a
means of achieving a variety of economic and social goals: jobs, economic opportunities for native people
and small communities, and additional recreational and commercial opportunities. It is supervised by a board
of federal, provincial, and non-governmental members. We return to it later as an example of combined
habitat and stock management.
The present fisheries and oceans minister has announced the establishment of three foundations aimed
at enhancing salmon stocks in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Great Lakes regions. So far, only the Pacific salmon
foundation has received a financial commitment and been given an intended start-up date. But Pacific salmon
contribute little to freshwater fishing. Whatever the
success of this kind of initiative, it is limited to only
Pacific salmon species and thereby fractures efforts to
raise awareness and funding on behalf of all fisheries. I
think national and comprehensive approach is needed
to stock and habitat enhancement. I return to this topic
in chapter 11 in discussing the recommendation for a
national recreational fisheries institute.
►The symbol for the
Salmonid Enhancement
Program
International co-operation Several
participants in this inquiry urged that attention be given to impacts on fish and their habitats resulting from
international or global phenomena. The list includes acid rain, the ‘greenhouse’ warming effect on world
climates, and persistent, hazardous wastes — problems of general environmental concern. Clearly, all those
interested in freshwater fisheries should join the effort to find w'ays of dealing with these problems cooperatively to safeguard our fisheries, our habitat, and our natural environment.
Here in North America, the International Joint Commission deals with issues and disputes over the
waterways that Canada shares with the United States, recommending regulatory action to each federal
government and developing water quality standards and guidelines to meet the water needs of each country.
In recent years, the commission has been particularly active in managing the water problems of the Great
Lakes, but has also been involved in settling disputes over shared waterways such as the St. Croix River in
the east and the Columbia in the west. It has proved its worth to both countries.
Canada is a party to many other international organizations concerned with environmental questions
that relate to the health of our freshwater fisheries. These give us an opportunity to learn from others, on the
one hand, and to press for international measures required to preserve the fisheries on the other.
The Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces should vigorously
promote international co-operation in controlling hazardous wastes, acid rain, and
other pollutants of air
and water.
International Waterways
During the last few years, Canada has played an active role in the United Nations World
Commission on Environment and Development, the Brundtland Commission. The theme of the
commission's 1987 report, Our Common Future, is sustainable development, drawing attention
to the need to develop long-range strategies for resource use in order to husband them for future
generations and to protect the global environment. This accords with the conclusions and
proposals in this report as well, and I urge all governments to build upon the recommendations of
the Brundtland Commission.8
Stock management Stock management is usually aimed at achieving and maintaining the size
A
it
Algal mats which Iiourish in acidified
waters deplete oxygen levels.
of fish populations and the composition of species that can yield the best catch over time, given the
productive capacity of the habitat and the biological capabilities of the various species being managed. Only
the fisheries of less accessible waters can still be managed using conservation as the sole stock-management
approach. In contrast, recreational fisheries in several regions are sustained only by major hatchery
programs.
Fisheries managers must know exactly what kind of fishery, or mix of fisheries, they want to
provide. Their efforts to arrange the necessary supply of fish must combine stock management
with management of habitat and fishing pressure. They need the participation of the public to do
the job effectively, as I outline in chapter 11.
Even though the fundamental productivity of a water body may be limited, there is usually a
range of choices which can be made about the types of fish to be produced and the yield to be
achieved. Managers must make these choices deliberately, rather than let them be made by default.
Natural stocks can be maintained or supplemented. They can be replaced by new strains or species.
They can be managed to produce a small catch of trophy fish or a large yield of smaller fish. And
so on.
Stocking with hatchery fish Stocking of hatchery-grown fish, whether from native stocks or
exotics (species from other watersheds), is the most common technique employed by managers to
supplement the supply of fish. Unfortunately, user expectations and public
5.
Umted Nations. The World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future (New York Oxlord University Press. 1987).
pressures often influence the location and extent of stocking more than biological or
socioeconomic advice.
Stocking is undertaken to restore depleted self-sustaining populations, for example, lake trout
in the Great Lakes or some Pacific salmon stocks in British Columbia. It is used to augment natural
populations annually so as to sustain heavier fishing pressure than the unaided wild stocks could
bear, for example, walleye and white-fish in Saskatchewan. Stocking can populate newly created or
previously inaccessible waters, such as the Prairie reservoirs created by hydroelectric developments
and the upper reaches of some Newfoundland rivers. It can put fish into waters that support their
growth but lack suitable spawning habitat, for example trout lakes in the interior of British
Columbia. Transfers of adult fish from nearby waters arc sometimes used to achieve the same ends.
Stocking results are best if the newly planted stocks are carefully matched to the physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of the receiving waters. Many ill-designed stocking programs, on the
other hand, have brought no returns to the fisheries.
Put-and-take and put-grow-and-take fisheries are used by managers to provide fishing in
otherwise sparsely inhabited waters, often to accommodate intensive fishing near population centres,
and also to divert exploitation away from vulnerable naturally reproducing stocks. An example is the
stocking of Pacific salmon and brown and rainbow trout in the Great Lakes to absorb the pressure
that would otherwise be put on the stocks of lake trout that are being rebuilt. These techniques are of
particular value in areas where the demand clearly exceeds the self-sustaining capacity of particular
water bodies. Examples include the creation of new fisheries for rainbow trout in southern British
Columbia lakes, for rainbow trout and walleye in Saskatchewan reservoirs, and for trout within the
urban areas of Halifax and Sydney, Nova Scotia. Put-and-take strategies in natural waters must be
carefully considered, since overstocking can place a heavy burden on forage.
120
I
Continuing debate surrounds the practice of introducing new and exotic species of fish. We
now have a good deal of experience, in Canada and other countries, of supplementing natural
stocks of both game and commercial species. Greatly improved fishing has resulted in some
instances, such as those listed above. There have also been problems. The stocking of Pacific
salmon in the Great Lakes is believed by some to have reduced forage for native species. The
increasingly common appearance in rivers flowing into the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic
Ocean of Pacific salmon and steelhead trout released in the United States and the Great Lakes is
raising concern about competition between the intruders and native Atlantic salmon. Moreover, it
may be that the greatest success with fish stocking programs is achieved in situations where natural
fish communities are in disarray because of man-imposed stresses. They may not work as well as a
supplement to thriving natural stocks.
Genetically different stocks of fish released into the same habitat — for example, among the
lake trout in the Great Lakes — differ in behaviour and even survival. Releasing larger fish, such as
those grown in hatcheries in British Columbia using heated water, seems to result in better survival
rates, but also appears to raise the proportion of ‘jacks’ (young males) among returning chinook
and coho salmon, lowering the value of the returns. There is concern that exploitation of strong
runs of enhanced stocks, together with weak runs of wild fish, will ultimately lead to the collapse of
the wild stocks.
A related problem is the inbreeding of fish that occurs when hatcheries produce generation
after generation of fish from the same stock. After a few generations such fish have a narrow
genetic base, become susceptible to disease and lose their ability to adapt to environmental change.
To prevent these problems, British Columbia has adopted a commendable policy, almost unique in
North America, of obtaining eggs for hatchery stock entirely from fish taken from the wild.
Controversy also exists over the long-term value of stocking programs because of the danger
of unreasonably inflating user expectations and dependence of the various fisheries upon the
continuation of expensive stocking operations. The long-term effects of replacement of wild by
artificially reared stocks and the dilution of wild gene pools by hatchery fish genes are imperfectiy
understood but could have serious consequences.
In my view, the concerns about these means of supplementing natural fish production are well
founded. Stocking should never be used casually or indiscriminately. Similarly, a close eye should
be kept on the related practice of aquaculture, which is discussed in chapter seven. Nevertheless,
hatchery stocking is well established in Canada. It has made fishing much better in many places,
and could do the same in many more.
Stocking of hatchery fish should be used cautiously, according to plans and
objectives for particular fisheries, with careful attention to possible biological
and ecological effects.
Stocking should not be adopted as a way of making up for deficiencies in the management of
natural stocks. Indeed, wherever habitat realities and fisheries plans allow for choice, preference
should be given to the perpetuation and wise use of natural stocks. Stocking cannot be expected on
its own to reverse the declining trend in Canada’s freshwater fish populations, but must be used in
conjunction with other management methods discussed in this report.
Regulation of fishing The limitation of fishing, discussed earlier in this chapter, can contribute to
the management of fish stocks by affecting the size of stocks and the mix of species. Bag limits,
closures, and other controls can be used to favour one species over ;ni(ilh(T. Size1 limits can help
l<> maintain the* productive capacity of particular stocks and the quality of yields. General
regulations of this kind are often the only management controls available to fisheries managers in
Canada, especially in remote regions. Their use raises two problems. First, managers rarely have
the information about biological relationships between stocks and yields and the productivity of
lakes and streams that they need to apply the controls effectively. Second, the regulations need to
be fitted to the unique conditions of each fishery, but seldom are.
Catch-and-release programs have been introduced in many regions to enable the
continuation of fishing without seriously reducing abundance after bag limits are reached. They
have proved most effective in maintaining the health of fish populations in tightly regulated
specialist fisheries, such as those for steelhead trout in British Columbia, muskellunge in Ontario,
and Atlantic salmon in eastern Canada, and where they have been introduced by northern lodge
operators to protect fragile trophy fisheries for lake trout and northern pike.
Predator control Management techniques are often adopted to increase fish stocks, especially
where demand is heavy. Control of predators and competitors of favoured slocks is used to
improve the growth or survival of selected species. Chapter one tells how the invader sea lamprey
in the Great Lakes was reduced to about 10 per cent of former numbers by the application of a
lampricide in spawning streams. Some jurisdictions practise lake reclamation, a euphemism for the
wholesale poisoning of fish in selected lakes to eliminate unwanted species such as suckers,
sunfish and stunted yellow perch, to be followed by restocking with more acceptable ones, usually
brook or rainbow trout.
An experimental program was earned out in recent years on the Ristigouche River in New
Brunswick to reduce the number of merganser ducks, a predator of young salmon. Refuges and
sanctuaries, usually from human predators, have been successfully used to protect particularly
vulnerable fish populations, especially during spawning runs. Stock management merges into
habitat management in activities we have already described. Water flows are modified, nutrients
are added to infertile lakes, artificial spawning channels are built, spawning grounds and migration
routes are protected and improved, and other habitat management activities are employed directly
to serve the objectives of fish stock management.
Integrating stock and habitat management The Salmonid Enhancement Program
mentioned above illustrates how managers must combine habitat and stock management to
foster the productivity of stocks.
Phase I of the program officially ended in 1984, having achieved some of its objectives. For
example, hatcheries built under the program now provide 11 per cent of the British Columbia
catch of coho and chinook salmon. This is expected to rise to 33 per cent over the next five to 10
years if production targets are met in Phase II. Governments took three years, however, to decide
on spending in the second phase. Finally, in July 1987, Ottawa announced it would spend $208
million to increase west coast salmon and steelhead stocks over five years, $100 million less than
had originally been promised for Phase II. With present expenditure patterns, more than half of
this funding will be swallowed up in operating the existing hatcheries and maintaining present
levels of enhancement. Few
resources would be left for systematic monitoring and assessing of results, or for creative
experimentation and designing of alternative enhancement techniques.
While many other government enhancement projects are underway in other parts of the
country, few have the benefit of such a formal and concerted commitment by both levels of
government. The B.C. program deals, however, with enhancement of only salmon and steelhead
and cutthroat trout, and is limited to one province and one territory. Only part of the program is
directed at habitat enhancement.
Many observers believe this program has put too much emphasis on hatchery techniques,
especially big hatcheries, rather than on habitat improvements and enhancement of natural stocks.
Their concerns parallel the general concern about stocking discussed above. Hatchery stocks can
be much more heavily fished because few are needed for escapement; thus natural stocks that
mingle with them may be overfished and depleted. And what about survival of hatchery fish in the
ocean? Production of juvenile Chinook salmon from west coast hatcheries has increased steadily
since the early 1970s, but returns of mature fish have shown no consistent increase since 1980 and
were disastrously low in some areas in 1987.
These and other reservations about hatchery enhancement methods emphasize the need for
careful evaluation of results as the program develops.
The Salmonid Enhancement Program should be reoriented to put more emphasis on
■ rehabilitating natural stocks through habitat improvement,
rather than through expanding hatcheries;
« meeting specific management objectives for particular fisheries;
■ evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the program from both a
scientific and socio-economic standpoint.
Co-ordinating management efforts It is clear from the preceding discussion that
governments must integrate the management of fishing, fish habitat, and fish stocks, since each
type of management complements the other. But from what we learned in our inquiry, these three
aspects of the fisheries are in many respects administered quite independently.
At the federal level, fishing and habitat management are carried out separately, often with
little liaison to ensure that both abide by the same objectives and strategies.
Furthermore, in coastal regions, provincial management of freshwater fisheries is quite
independent of federal management of anadromous fish habitat. Provincial management of the
environmental factors that influence habitat may not mesh with federal goals for the maintenance
of fish stocks.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans could improve integration of habitat and fisheries
management by providing clear, common objectives for fish production — actual numbers of a
certain species to be reached within a certain time period for particular stocks and areas. In the
1982 report of the Commission on Pacific Fisheries, for example, I suggested that the department
set fish production targets as long-term management objectives and that these targets be based on
improved information and professional judgements about productive capacity of the habitat.6
This approach is now being followed to some degree in managing the five species of Pacific salmon. Salmon resource
management plans have been prepared for major
6,?earse, Turning me we. p.24.
areas of the Pacific coast. They try to take into consideration the status of the stocks and habitat, the fishing pressures
(mostly in salt water), and conflicts with other resource uses. A major purpose is to identify options for future stock and
habitat enhancement measures under the Salmonid Enhancement Program. Such a comprehensive approach to developing
and meshing plans for fish stocks with plans for habitat needs to be taken in managing the country’s freshwater fisheries as
well.
It is also encouraging that the department’s new habitat management policy recognizes the need to integrate stock and
habitat policy in proposing the preparation of area habitat management plans. These would mesh appropriate habitat
measures with production targets for stocks in designated areas. These good intentions must be put into practice.
Regional fisheries plans should include appropriate habitat management and
enhancement measures as well as stock improvement measures to be undertaken
to meet fishing targets. Allocation and other fisheries measures should be reviewed
to ensure they are consistent with these integrated plans.
The activities of managing fishing, fish habitats, and fish stocks have evolved quite separately in Canada over the
years. This is quite understandable, but it is now time to bring them together. To make this newly integrated fisheries
management more effective, we have to review and strengthen the organization of both government and non-government
agencies and find new ways for them to interact. I deal with this subject in the following chapters.