Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 13, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7:00 p.m. to examine matters relating to the fishing industry.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, appearing before the committee this evening are representatives of the recreational sport fishing sector of British Columbia. In B.C., tidal and fresh water recreational fishing reportedly generates an estimated $1 billion annually from more than 600,000 anglers, and more than 10,000 jobs in communities throughout the province. The sector includes hundreds of businesses from lodges, fish camps and angling guides, to marinas, tackle shops, boat retailers, motels and camp grounds.
In tidal water and in river salmon fisheries, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the day-to-day management of recreational fishing. The DFO is also responsible for protecting fish habitat. Although a wide array of species is caught, the bulk of the B.C. recreational fishing effort has traditionally focused on salmon, especially coho, chinook and steelhead.
The question of allocating the salmon resource among sports, commercial and aboriginal fishermen has been and continues to be a particularly contentious issue. Over the years, the recreational sports fishery has sought a greater share of the harvest, arguing that sports fish produce more benefits to the economy than those caught in commercial fishery. I should add that salmon farming has become another hotly debated subject in the region.
Spokespersons from the following organizations are with us here tonight. I will introduce them, and then we can hear their presentations. First, we have Mr. Maynard from the Sport Fishing Advisory Board. This is an advisory board to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The board represents individual anglers, angler organizations and recreational fishing companies in B.C. Provincial government ministers are also represented.
Mr. Wayne Harling is from the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the oldest and largest conservation organization in B.C. The federation represents some 140 fish and game clubs and over 3,000 members throughout the province.
Mr. Tom Bird is from the Sport Fishing Institute of B.C., a non-profit society governed by an elected board of directors. The institute's membership includes lodges, resorts, charter operators, guides, tackle manufacturers, distributors, tackle shops, boat manufacturers, regional airline companies and everyday anglers.
Finally, we have Ms Murphy, secretary of the Alberni Valley Sport Fishing Association. If I made any mistakes in my presentation, ladies and gentlemen, please correct me. It will not be the first time. Welcome to the committee. We look forward to your presentations and the fun part, which is mostly question and answer.
Please proceed, Mr. Maynard.
Mr. Jeremy Maynard, Chairman, Sport Fishing Advisory Board: We very much appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation and to answer any questions committee members may have. We regret that we were unable to link up with your Fisheries Committee earlier this year when you were touring the West Coast, but this opportunity is welcomed.
I have been allocated 15 minutes, but I will not take that long because the needs of the Senate committee will be better served by proceeding to questions and answers. I will sketch out a few details on the consultation process itself, so that the members of the committee will have a better understanding of how the consultation process works here in British Columbia. It is our understanding that it is a unique process in Canada. Although it is challenged and is under a lot of stress right now, essentially, the process works very well and we believe it is very valid.
The SFAB, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, is rooted in community consultation groups in about two dozen different communities throughout coastal British Columbia and on major inland rivers such as the Fraser and the Skeena in the north. Local sport fishing interests are represented on these advisory committees that meet with, historically, Fisheries and Oceans staff. Recently, there has also been a linkage between the Sport Fishing Advisory Board and the provincial Ministry of Fisheries. We are now broadening the scope of the board to more fully engage with the province.
Each of the local advisory councils is different in makeup, because each area of fishery or community fishery is different, although there are some consistent memberships. For example, there are fish and wildlife groups that are affiliated with the B.C. Wildlife Federation. These local advisory councils meet as often as is necessary and constructive. For example, my local advisory council in Campbell River meets once a month from October to May, but that is probably not typical. Usually meetings are fewer but the schedule is flexible and depends upon the needs of the fishing community. In turn, the local fishing community advisory councils represent members to the respective north and south subcommittees of the Sport Fishing Advisory Board, which meet in the spring and fall in Nanaimo for the south, and in Smithers for the north. They are joined there by representation from the principal provincial angling organizations such as the Sport Fishing Institute, B.C., the Wildlife Federation, the Fly Fishing Federation, and others, as well as members of the Pacific Salmon Commission that have been nominated from the recreational fishery. These two groups, in turn, then nominate members to the main board, which meets in Vancouver usually twice, sometimes more frequently, a year.
That is how the process works. It is a classic grassroots pyramiding system from the bottom up, and it is reflective of the needs or the wishes of the membership, and the advice is consistent from the bottom up to the department. That is the consultation process.
To a degree, we are primarily talking about the salt water fishery here, although we can touch on the fresh water fishery, specifically the anadromous fishery, which involves fish like steelhead, which come from the sea and are caught in rivers. Currently, the Sport Fishing Advisory Board has no particular responsibility in advising the province on purely fresh water fishery issues in lakes and rivers that do not have access to the sea. That is a distinction that needs to be made.
As everyone knows, there have been some significant conservation challenges for all fisheries around salmon in British Columbia, and the recreational fishery has been part of that. We have been involved in a stringent conservation regime with respect to coho, and we will make some comments about that later on. At different times, particularly this year, we have had a real conservation challenge with respect to chinook from the West Coast of Vancouver Island.
In 1994, ARA Consultants Ltd. was contracted by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans as well as several provincial ministries to do an assessment of the net worth of the recreational fishery, particularly for chinook and coho salmon, and to make a comparison with commercial fisheries. It was estimated that, in 1994, the marine recreational fishery in British Columbia generated somewhere over $700 million -- I think $720 million -- worth of economic activity.
By 1998, the B.C. Ministry of Fisheries estimated that the various management and conservation regimes had reduced economic activity to the extent that it was estimated at less than $300 million. Therefore, we have gone downhill at a rate of about $100 million each year for the four years between 1994 and 1998. We are not sure what the size of the fishery was in 1999 but, as you may be aware, there was a continuation of very restrictive fishing practices. That, to a degree, has some merit and foundation in terms of a genuine conservation effort, but the way that the management plans have come about has been problematic for the fishery. In summation, we do not know exactly what the economic size of the fishery was in 1999, but there is little confidence that the trend line has been altered. We think that, to a large degree, it is continuing in the same fashion.
The Sport Fishing Advisory Board has had tremendous concerns about the ability of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to develop a management regime for the recreational fishery in a timely fashion. With respect to chinook, in 1996, 1998, and 1999, we did not get a management regime -- the rules and regulations for the recreational fishery -- until after the season had started. Last fall the Sport Fishing Advisory Board executive met with senior DFO staff in the region to try to avoid that situation for the 2000 season. I regret to say that we have been unsuccessful in that we still do not have a "rules and regulation package" for the recreational fishery for the 2000 season, even though we are now into the middle of June. The impact on the infrastructure of the recreational fishery is becoming catastrophic, and we are at a loss to explain why the department is simply unable to come up with regulations in a timely fashion. I expect that we will explore that further.
Beyond management challenges, there are significant changes taking place in the way that the fishery is managed. For example, there have been many calls for greater management control in a local area. The Sport Fishing Advisory Board is grappling with this demand now through the West Coast of Vancouver Island pilot Aquatic Management Board process that is taking place. As a simple comment, it would be fair to say that the sport fishery -- especially the Sport Fishing Advisory Board -- is most dissatisfied with some of the specific management actions that have been taken by DFO in recent years -- the actions and the timing of the actions. However, we are still not persuaded that there is a better alternative, in terms of a management authority, than the federal government, because of the wide-ranging and complex nature of the salmon resource. In particular, we are prepared to endorse the federal government as the preferred management authority. We have some real questions about the ability of local groups to manage a wide-ranging and migratory resource.
That is a snapshot of where we are and where the fishery is at right now. We have a lot of challenges, and we feel like we are skating on very thin ice not of our own making. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Senator Robichaud: As you are aware, when the members of the committee went to the West Coast, the primary concern was aquaculture. We wanted to find out what problems exist, not only in respect of aquaculture but in respect of the commercial fishery. Can you relate what you have described to this committee to what we actually saw on the West Coast? Is there a relationship between the two? Perhaps you have other matters that you would prefer to pursue.
Ms Marilyn Murphy, Alberni Valley Sport fishing Association: I am happy to see that you have a map of Vancouver Island behind you. I am from Port Alberni on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. When you visited the West Coast area, you held meetings in the Ucluelet area with the Regional Aquatic Management Society, representatives of some First Nations, and you heard from some recreational interests. We were concerned about that because some of those in attendance professed to be representatives of the recreational interest when indeed they were not. That was our initial concern, and we were also anxious to meet with you today to express our interests.
Senator Robichaud: Was anything said at that time that you would not agree with or to which you would prefer to add your own perspective for the record?
Mr. Wayne Harling, Chair, Saltwater Fisheries Committee, B.C. Wildlife Federation: Unfortunately, we were not aware of those meetings and we were not present.
Senator Robichaud: Would you be interested in receiving a report of our findings, when we have it ready, so that you can properly comment?
Mr. Harling: Yes, we certainly would.
Mr. Maynard: I will make some additional comments on your first question. You indicated that you came out to the West Coast, first of all, to look at aquaculture and, second, to explore the concerns of the commercial fishing sector. Your question to us now is whether there are linkages between those two portions of the broad fishery and ourselves. There is no specific linkage to aquaculture from the recreational fishery. We, obviously, have an interest in it and, as a matter of record, there is now a process with the provincial government to try to advise them on the implementation of their new salmon aquaculture policy. There are numerous broad stakeholders present, and I represent the recreational fishery in that process.
Our greatest commonality is with the commercial fishing industry. The things that have affected the commercial sector have also affected us. There are, obviously, some huge differences with respect to overcapacity of harvest. The recreational fishery has no particular interest in licence retirement, except where it relates to better commercial fishing practices for salmon that will ultimately provide much better management of salmon opportunities for the recreational fishery, which is, obviously, important to us.
We also have a commonality in respect to the ocean. The Pacific Ocean has been a "hostile," for want of a better word, environment for salmon in recent years. The conservation challenges currently facing the recreational and the commercial fisheries stem from this root problem of poor ocean survival for salmon. In that regard at least, there is a commonality between the two.
A change in the ocean is not within the capacity of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We know that they are capable of many things, but changing the ocean is not one of them. It is something that we are all learning to live through. There are some grim economic consequences to what is happening, but that is the way it goes.
Mr. Harling: It would be safe to say that the Sports Fishing Advisory Board does not have a position, per se. My organization, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, participated in the salmon aquaculture review process.
There were over 40 recommendations by the committee. We took the position that if those were implemented, and only sterile Atlantic salmon were used in the rearing process, that we would have no specific objection at that time to aquaculture. If all of the recommendations of the review committee were observed, it would be a fairly safe operation.
Senator Robichaud: However, you do have a concern with raising Atlantic salmon on the West Coast?
Mr. Harling: We have a concern with raising them if the escapees are able to breed in the wild. One of our strongest recommendations is that no feral Atlantic salmon be permitted to be raised in the pens. That recommendation has not been adopted.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you.
Senator Watt: You are basically promoting commercial sports fishing. Are there any regulations prohibiting you from taking fish raised in hatcheries? Are there any regulations prohibiting you from utilizing the stocks that are man-made stock?
Mr. Harling: We would like to see the reverse. We have been pressing for a selective fishery on coho, for example, that are marked fish, fish marked with an adipose fin clip. We believe we can conduct a sports fishery on those stocks that are hatchery based, and minimize their impact on the wild stocks that are co-mingling in the ocean simply by keeping only those with an adipose fin clip.
Therefore, it works in reverse. The idea is to pump them out of the hatchery for catching and retaining and to allow the wild stock to go back to their native streams.
Mr. Tom Bird, Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of B.C.: The marked fish program is in line with the sports fishery, because of the nature of the fishery, of course. We are not a volume-based fishery. We do not go out with 25 boats, and catch 10,000 fish overnight. It is a longer process, and much more controllable.
Recreational fishing can be regulated closely simply because of numbers and the nature of the way in which we fish. If you and I went out, we might be fairly inefficient at it. We would throw a line overboard, and we might catch something, or we might not.
The marked fishery approach, that is utilizing stocks from an enhancement project or some facility, lends itself very well to the recreational fishery. It can be fundamental to the existance of that fishery.
I will repeat what Mr. Harling said because it is a crucial point. Although there are millions of fish marked, in many instances the opportunities to catch those marked fish, not wild fish or not stocks of concern, has not been forthcoming. We have been struggling for some time to get a broader approach to the marked fishery issue.
A broad approach to a marked fishery makes sense. The Americans to the south of us are marking many millions of fish. Our position is that we should be allowed to catch those marked fish. Indeed in some instances, we do not want any other fish.
We will concentrate on the marked fish. However, having that approach universally adopted by the department has been very slow.
Mr. Harling: I would like to give you an idea of the numbers. Canada has marked 7 million or 8 million fish in this brood year. The Americans have marked 32 million coho. Those fish are available to be caught. They are all hatchery fish. They are enhanced stocks, not stocks of concern by any stretch of the imagination.
Indeed, where there are hatchery operations to build up endangered stocks, they simply do not mark them. They are treated as wild, and are left alone, even though they are hatchery stock. Our mortality rate on catch and release of those fish would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5 to 10 per cent.
Ms Murphy: It is interesting that, as we speak, there is an abundance of coho off the West Coast of Vancouver Island that we do not have the opportunity to access. Sixty per cent of those stocks are fin clipped. We are foregoing those opportunities currently because of what is going on here.
Senator Watt: As promoters of sports fishing, do you believe that there is plenty of stock for commercial and sports fishing?
Mr. Maynard: Much has been made of the interface. Sometimes there is unpleasant or even hostile interface between recreational and commercial fisheries. Certainly the people that I deal with in the recreational fishery are not anti-commercial fishing except to the extent that it unduly impacts recreational fishing opportunities, and the fact that the relative values are so hugely different.
It was conclusively determined in the ARA study that the value of a chinook or a coho salmon, for example, caught in the recreational fishery as opposed to the commercial fishery, is many times greater to the Canadian public.
There are areas with an abundance of salmon, particularly sockeye, pink, and chum salmon coming back. We live in a hungry world, and there is a good food source there. It would be uncharitable, to say the least, to not harvest the fish. If it were prudent to harvest a certain percentage of those fish to provide a living for commercial fishermen and to provide a good food resource, then why not harvest them?
Recreational fishermen should not be construed as being anti-commercial fishing, except for specific issue and time circumstances.
Mr. Harling: In the heyday when we had an abundance of both coho and chinook, the recreational sector, at best, caught about 18 per cent of the coho and 27 per cent of the chinook. Even when we were fishing them to larger bag limits than we are today, in a wide-open fishery, we could not come close to catching all the available fish. Therefore, the commercial sector has caught the majority of them.
We are now in a situation where the commercial fishers are severely restricted, as are we. Those percentages have shifted, but are not periods of normal abundance. Our impact on the other species -- sockeye, chum and pink - is minimal. In the heyday, we caught about 1 per cent of each of the total allowable catches of those three species.
Indeed, under the new allocation policy, while we have priority access to coho and chinook in times of low abundance, but we will still not be getting a majority of the catch of either chinook or coho during times of high abundance.
Mr. Maynard: In the chairman's introductory remarks he characterized allocation as "contentious". Historically, it certainly has been a contentious issue. It may even be contentious on a person-to-person basis.
However, the federal government has released a salmon allocation policy that, for all intents and purposes, has settled that for the course of the foreseeable future. This is one of a suite of policies that is making up the broad new directions that then minister of Fisheries and Oceans, David Anderson, announced in the fall of 1998. Therefore, the salmon allocation policy is pretty much settled. We can discuss it further, or you can easily access the policy document from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Mr. Harling: We reached an accommodation with our commercial counterparts in which they agreed that we could have priority access. Aside from that priority access, we agreed that, in order for them to conduct their fisheries on sockeye, pinks and chums, they would certainly have access to a certain incidental catch mortality of coho and chinook in order to reach the sockeye and pinks that are abundant. Therefore, we came to an accommodation, and that became part of the allocation policy.
Ms Murphy: This is a very interesting time. The commercial sector is blaming management or policy for many of the problems that they are facing, when really, the problem is low abundance. We are having problems with the ocean and it is affecting everyone. It is difficult to blame the big black box out there when it is easy to blame management.
Senator Watt: I am from the tip of North Quebec, Ungava Bay, where we have three salmon rivers. The stock of those rivers has been very much depleted over the years. As a matter of fact, the stock is almost non-existent at this time. Have you seen Atlantic salmon in your area or further up around the Alaska area?
Mr. Maynard: I cannot speak for Alaska. Are you asking about the natural stocks, migrating?
Senator Watt: Yes.
Mr. Maynard: I have not. My understanding is that they have not moved further west, although there is recent evidence that Pacific salmon are moving further east across the Arctic shore of Canada and have been seen in locations, in the last year or two, where they have never been observed before, certainly within human lifetime.
Mr. Harling: Scientists now tell us, at least those who are conducting the research in the open ocean, that B.C. sockeye have changed their distribution in the ocean and are now bunching up against the Aleutian Islands in the winter to avoid warm water in the North Pacific. We have had situations in previous years, where sockeye stocks that were heading for the interior of British Columbia to spawn in the rivers on the Fraser, have not had the reserves to make it and so were spawning on the streams of Vancouver Island. Something is happening out there that is affecting the abundance of fish, and it is not fishing pressure.
The other major impact, of course, is habitat destruction. One of our particular stocks of fish that we are concerned about is Thompson River coho. I have seen the streams in the Thompson Basin. You could pump 10,000 coho in each one of those streams and you would not get any more back than you are getting back are now. The habitat is "toast." Salmon do not rear too well in dry riverbeds and that is what they have up there in the late summer -- dry river beds.
Senator Watt: Thank you.
The Chairman: It was pointed out that I had noted the continuing contentious allocations, but I suppose that it depends on your view, that is, whether you are on the receiving end or giving end of the policy. However, my impression was that the commercial fishery was still not entirely happy with the Anderson policy of giving priority to the recreational fishery, and that is why we raised the issue. However, I can understand why you would be supportive of the Anderson policy because he indicated that the recreation fishery would have priority, so I assume the recreational people saw it from quite a different angle. I believe that is why it was raised in these opening remarks.
Senator Perrault: It is certainly to be hoped that, at some point, peace will break out on the fishing front. Going back a great many years, I remember the constant dialogue between the sports fishermen and the commercial fishermen. The sports fishermen would say that, in terms of dollars that ultimately get to the treasury, the sports fishery is far more valuable than the commercial fishery. However, there were, of course, counter arguments from the other side. Do you meet regularly to discuss ways to resolve some of these impasses? Do you have a consultative committee that tries to cross some of these bridges of misunderstanding?
Mr. Maynard: There is not an official one, although very recently, in fact in the last few days, the department has indicated in an official release that it was looking towards developing a multi-fishery or multi-stakeholder consultation process. Perhaps that kind of dialogue will become more formalized.
Consultation between recreational and commercial salmon fishing interests readily take place on an individual basis as well as on an organizational basis. The latter applies particularly to those of us who consistently represent either recreational or commercial fishing interests, and who have shown up time and again in different management discussions and processes. Being human beings, we have come to know each other and, as a result, some very constructive discussions have taken place.
I would add that the recreational fishery was awarded priority access in years of low abundance to coho and chinook salmon only, strictly on the basis of merit. The federal government accepted the results of the ARA study that showed very clearly that the worth of a chinook or coho salmon caught in the recreational fishery, was worth many, many times more to the Canadian people than the same fish caught in the commercial fishery. The priority access was awarded solely on that basis.
Certainly, there are some hard feelings on the commercial side -- as a human being I can understand that -- however, the fact is the government, in the best interests of Canadians not just the recreational fishery, has moved beyond that. We do not have priority to sockeye, pink or chum salmon. However, we have an assured allocation of up to 5 per cent of those particular fish. As Mr. Harling said earlier, we have never caught more than 1 per cent, in any one year, of the total harvest of any of those species. We are confident that that will do us well.
Mr. Bird: There are a couple of reasons for that. It is a fact that the commercial fleet in British Columbia was grossly overcapitalized. Hence, that fleet has been reduced by approximately one half. At the same time, the policy of priority access for the primary species of chinook and coho was based not only on the fact of value, but also on the reality that, when you come into a period of low abundance, the recreational fishery is much more easily managed than the commercial fishery. When you are dealing with a very limited number of fish, it makes sense both economically and from a conservation management point of view, to acknowledge that, if there are only 10,000 fish, there cannot be a commercial and sport harvest that is manageable and/or profitable. Therefore, that decision was made.
I think everyone agrees that it was a sound management decision. The problem, of course, is that now we are suffering a "multitude of sins" -- there is a tremendous environmental impact out in the oceans that no one is fully aware of. At the same time, the commercial fleet has been reduced by one half for that same reason as well as the fact that it was overcapitalized.
We have all of these elements at this time, so there is a degree of angst, or concern, by the commercial fishery. Generally, the allocation issue is secondary to the reality of what is happening in the fishery as a whole.
Senator Perrault: As you know, many other nations are suffering from this fish crisis. The fish protein in the world has been diminishing.
I was posted to the United Nations in 1970. At that time there was constant quarrelling on our committee with respect to the Palestinian-Middle East situation. The Russians, the Americans, the British and the French agreed on one thing. They said that unless we take extreme action to protect this environment by cutting down carbon monoxide emissions and address these other problems, the world's climate would be unalterably changed by the year 2025. We are about 25 years away and, perhaps, there is now something out there affecting the very existence of fish life. One scientist has suggested that rays are coming through the hole in the ozone layer at the North Pole and killing plankton in the oceans -- plankton that ultimately get into the food chain of fish. Do you think there is anything to this?
Mr. Maynard: We are not the science branch.
Senator Perrault: You must have a theory. You said that the oceans are inhospitable, or words to that effect.
Mr. Harling: Whether or not this is a long term climatic change due to global warming, or whether it is just part of a natural cycle, I cannot say.
Mr. Maynard: We take our understanding of the impact from excellent presentations from the staff of the science branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. When a warm water event, such as El Ni<#00F1>o, makes warm water move up the west coast of North America, it inhibits the up-welling motion in the ocean. For whatever reason, cold water is much richer in nutrients than warm water. When the natural up-welling phenomenon that brings cold, nutrient-rich water out of the deep canyons of the Pacific Ocean is impeded, there are fewer groceries for fish, in this case salmon, in the water. Concurrent with the warm water, we tend to get toothy critters, such as mackerel, who are genuine predators of juvenile salmon, herring and nettle fish that come up far to the north of their usual range. In addition to there being very poor feeding for juvenile salmon, in particular, in the ocean itself, there is a whole new element of predation.
As a consequence of those two things, the ocean survival from when the little fish leave the rivers to when they return as adults two or three or five years later, depending on species, has crashed. I could give you some numbers that very clearly illustrate how the ocean is exacting a far greater effect on the health of coho salmon than we are.
In the 1980s, when ocean conditions were considered good, of every hundred coho smolts that left the river, approximately between 8 young and 14 young returned as adults to spawn. There was an ocean survival rate of 8 to 14 per cent. At the same time, we had an exploitation rate, that is to say a rate of all the fish caught of that stock by all the different fisheries -- sport, commercial and First Nations -- of between 60 per cent and 70 per cent. Of every sub-adult coho in the ocean at this time of year, by the end of the summer, between 60 young and 70 young had been caught.
In the last two years, as a result of Minister Anderson's zero mortality objective, we have gone from a 60 per cent to a 70 per cent exploitation rate to trying to achieve zero, which is impossible if people are going to keep fishing. However, we are almost there. We have achieved a 2 per cent exploitation rate on coho. However, at the same time, the ocean survival rate of coho has dropped from 8 per cent to 14 per cent to less than 2 per cent, and often times 1 per cent.
We have changed our harvest practices beyond imagination. We probably all would have sold our boats and hung up our rods eight years ago if we thought we were going to go through the things that we have gone through in the last two years. Those extraordinary measures have exacted a tremendous social and economic toll on the West Coast of Canada. Even now the fish in certain stocks and certain species are hanging on by their proverbial fingernails. It is all because of the ocean.
Mr. Harling: Yet, underlying that reduction in ocean survival is the longer-term degradation of fresh water habitat. It is a two-pronged attack.
We have historically high levels of predators, such as seals on this coast right now. When stocks are down and they come back to the rivers and must delay in the estuary for a month, waiting for water to come up a small stream, seals can do a number on them. A seal consumes four to six pounds of food a day. They feed exclusively on salmon about 14 days or 15 days a year.
There are about 60,000 seals in the Strait of Georgia basin alone, and almost 200,000 seals on a coast-wide basis. That will give you an idea of the kind of damage that these predators can do.
We have convinced the department to engage in a limited cull near Courtenay. The stocks are returning quite nicely from having removed about 40 animals.
We are not suggesting that there should be a massive cull on seals. That would be ridiculous, but there are certain site-specific areas where, if a small number were removed, we would get a good bang for the buck in terms of additional returns of fish to that stream.
Senator Perrault: That is a good idea. Thank you.
The Chairman: As you mentioned the seal problem, I saw a lot of nodding heads around this table. I think you had a very receptive group listening to your comments. You might want to look at a recreational seal harvest.
Mr. Harling: The First Nations traditionally harvested seals, and it would be good to see them do that again.
The Chairman: It sounds good to me.
I have a quick question on angling. If you catch a fish and release it, does it not somehow damage the fish? Does it survive, or does it die?
Mr. Bird: I will answer that only because I have some authority in this area. In a former life, I was a biologist with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and we did, particularly in the late 1980s and early 1990s -- and it is ongoing -- numerous studies on survival rates of salmon. A legal size salmon, particularly chinook and coho, that we tested, and we tested hundreds, had a survival rate in the 90 per cent range -- that is, a sport-caught, recreational-caught fish.
Mr. Harling: There are some exceptional site-specific circumstances where the mortality rate can be higher, but it depends on the type of fishing method that you are using. It also depends on the specific area being fished. Generally, in tidal waters, I think the survival figures are 7 per cent to 10 per cent for coho and 12 per cent to 15 per cent for chinook. The major reason for the cause of death is that they get the hook caught in the gills or in the tongue. They simply bleed to death. It is not a problem from the handling of them. That does not seem to hurt them.
Mr. Bird: When you think about it, these fish survive seals, killer whales, rocks, nets, spears and everything else. They are meant to survive. With any care at all, they survive well.
Senator Mahovlich: In 1998 I visited the Queen Charlotte Islands where there was an abundance of fish. We all caught our two fish, the limit we were allowed to keep. The fishery was regulated, and I was pleased to see how the regulations were being implemented. I believe a spring salmon that someone on our party caught was 54 pounds -- a very healthy fish.
Do the whales have any effect on the fishery? I am told that there is now an abundance of whales. Do you know anything about that?
Mr. Harling: Grey whales are plankton eaters. There is competition for an available food source, but there is not a predator-prey relationship. There is, however, with the orcas.
There are several pods of orcas, one of which is a straight mammal eater. Thus, they eat the seals and the sea lions. There are another couple pods of orcas that eat primarily salmon, and primarily chinook. They have been around for a long time, and their numbers have not really increased. As a matter of fact, the numbers are decreasing in some of those pods.
Mr. Bird: It is not a problem.
Mr. Harling: It is not a problem that has changed a great deal. You notice that when the supply of fish is low, then, of course, the predators are going to take a higher percentage of what is available. The percentage impact on the resource goes up. The only increase in predators has been the significant increase in the seal population. In 1970, there were about 10,000 seals coast-wide. Now there are almost 200,000 seals.
Senator Mahovlich: There must be a balance kept out there. We may have to do away with some seals.
Mr. Harling: You mentioned that you were restricted to two fish. We are doing better than that this year, at Langara and in several cases on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The number is still two fish, only one of which may be more than 77 centimetres. The idea is to protect the females with the eggs.
There are all sorts of ways of manipulating the sport catch, the bag limits, and the size limits to curtail our catch but still allow us the expectation and the opportunity of fishing, with minimal impact on the stocks of concern.
The Chairman: Senator Mahovlich fondly looked back on his days of fishing when we were out in British Columbia some weeks ago.
Before we go to a second round of questions, I have a quick question. You referred to some of the groups that we met when we were on the West Coast. One of the subjects put to us by the Regional Aquatic Management Society was that they wished to explain to us a new process of allocation, which included licensing, I suppose. They wanted to explain a way of allocating fish, a community-based approach versus the privatization model being promoted by the department. Incidentally, the department's approach has not had, depending on which side you are coming from, much success on the East Coast.
That group wanted to present to us a model, whereby, rather than allocating the stocks to private interests they would be allocated to community interests. One of my initial impressions was it might actually be more beneficial to the recreational and sports fishery were it not privatized but rather that it be left in community management. I now have the impression that you do not agree with this model. Do I understand correctly, that you would prefer a privatization model rather than the other model?
Mr. Maynard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if for our benefit you could characterize what you mean by privatization. To be honest, privatization is not a word that is used, that I am aware at least, in the context of discussions of salmon or halibut.
The Chairman: Yes, this would be the individual vessel quotas, individual transferable quotas. It would be quotas that are either allocated to a fishing vessel or attached to a fishing licence that permits the person to buy up the stocks. This has not been done in the salmon fishery. It is not completely along the continuum yet. It has been done mostly with the groundfish fishery, and I think some other stocks.
Mr. Maynard: You are correct. Yes, it is halibut and black cod primarily. Sport fishermen do not fish for black cod because they are generally in water that is too deep. However, there is a keen interest in the recreational fishery for halibut, so there is an example there of how it might work with salmon. We take the position that fisheries resources, for example, are held in trust for the public, to be managed for the public. With the appropriate licence, one may have access to those resources.
So far that I am aware, there has been no impact on the recreational fishery for halibut, which takes an average of about 600,000 to 800,000 pounds of halibut per year alone, of the individual vessel quota system for commercial halibut fishermen. There may be some concerns, but I am not aware of them; nor do I believe that my friends here are aware of any. We are not aware of any substantive discussions that have taken place with respect to moving the individual vessel quota system into salmon.
The Chairman: A group has promoted it. If I remember correctly, the Fraser Institute has promoted IVQs or ITQs -- what we refer to on the East Coast as privatization, but on the West Coast it is called IVQs. The Fraser Institute has in fact promoted that virtually every fishery could be privatized. Are you aware of the Fraser Institute position?
Mr. Maynard: No. The Fraser institute, to be fair, is a social political advocacy group of a fairly right-wing persuasion. It does not surprise me. I do not have any argument against them, but I suspect that they have not looked at this from a sport fishing perspective. I would be interested to know their thoughts on a sport or recreational fishery. The two are simply very different. As Mr. Bird said earlier, the recreational fishery is not abundance-driven; it is opportunity-driven.
The Chairman: The impression I have from the Fraser Institute is that if it walks, privatize it; if it doesn't, bury it.
Mr. Harling: From my own organization's standpoint, we would be adamantly opposed to IVQs in the salmon fishery. We are not happy with them.
The Chairman: That was going to be my next question. Is there any chance whatsoever that the sports fishery could be placed in some kind of an IVQ or ITQ system? Could it be privatized, such that outfitter could buy another outfitter and be allocated his one or two or three fish? Is this theoretically possible? If so, would it not be wise to talk with the RAMs people, at least from that vantage point, to look at the issue?
Mr. Maynard: You could look at the issue, but you run the significant risk of disenfranchising the Canadian public from the fishery. If that is the objective, fine, go ahead, but I submit that that would not be in the best interests of the Canadian public.
The Chairman: I would tend to agree with you on that point.
Ms Murphy: Salmon are a highly migratory species. How can a highly migratory species that goes through international waters and is the common property of all Canadians, for the benefit of all Canadians, be allocated to a coastal community? That is almost excluding other Canadians who could buy fishing licences for a potential right of access to fish.
The Chairman: Salmon is not one of the only fish to swim. As a famous prime minister said one day, the problem with fish is that they swim. However, that has not stopped some of the privatization promotion that has been going on in Canada for some years now.
Senator Robichaud: You talked briefly about seals. Often, when we are told about problems with stocks, we hear about seals. You said that the number of seals has constantly increased on the West Coast. There is no harvest, I understand. I suppose that their natural predators are not as numerous as they once were, therefore, the number is just expanding.
Mr. Maynard: That is correct. The only real natural predator of seals, as we understand it, is orcas. As Mr. Harling referred earlier, there are different populations of orcas. The orcas that are called transients are primarily a mammal eater, seal and sea lion eater. There is an entire resident population that are usually on inside waters, from Victoria up the east coast of Vancouver Island, in the summer time that are primarily fish eaters. I have been curious myself.
I am a long-time, independent, sport fishing guide based in Campbell River on the East Coast of Vancouver Island, and I am on the water a fair bit. I have watched this veritable explosion of seals over the last 20 years. I am curious as to why there has not been a commensurate explosion in the number of transients orcas, because there is a tonne of food for them.
Mr. Harling: My information suggests that that segment of the orca population has been increasing somewhat and that the fish-eating population of the orcas has been declining.
Mr. Bird: The problem will be the delay factor. If we could sit around for 150 years, the orca population would climb and the seals, if they continue at the present rate, would probably develop a disease problem, because they are exploding in the gulf. However, we do not have the time, unfortunately. We find ourselves in the position of managing salmon and not seals.
As I think Mr. Harling said, our position has been very strong. We are not talking about eradication; rather we are talking about specific areas and specific problems that can be addressed. The problem with waiting for nature, as you well know, is that you and I will not be around to watch it happen.
Senator Robichaud: Managing salmon stocks would have to combine with managing seal stocks also; otherwise, it is a futile effort, is it not ?
Mr. Harling: Until now, with the very limited example of the Puntledge River at Courtenay, on the east coast of the island, there has not been a proper assessment of the abundance of seals in various estuaries. One of the streams, Black Creek, north of Courtenay, is the coho-indicator stream. The department uses it as an indicator stream to assess abundance of coho.
The stream is not big and, often, the returning fish can sit there for a couple of weeks waiting for the water to make its way up. Of course, if there are 100 seals in the mouth of the river and the fish are just sitting there, the seals eat a good portion of those waiting fish. That throws the estimate of survival rate in the ocean into a cocked hat. It may happen that, one year, the water is sufficient and the fish are able to go straight up the river, reducing that predation level, whereas in other years the fish may have to wait as long as a month. That length of time would be enough to just about demolish the fish population. That is the problem we have had in many East Coast Vancouver Island streams, and I presume elsewhere, as well.
Senator Robichaud: You mentioned earlier, "enhancement," whereby some people in sport fishing were catching fish that had been grown -- not natural stock. Would you tell me a little bit more about that? Who does that, how, and why is it not being done more by people such as you?
Mr. Harling: It is being done by people such as me. There are a number of community-based enhancement facilities, where local fish and game clubs or enhancement societies produce a quantity of chinook, coho and other species from small streams. They use a hatchery facility as a satellite hatchery. The department runs some fairly extensive facilities.
One of the problems that we will have to deal with under the salmon enhancement review process is the reduction in funding that the department has decided the process will be forced to take on. A few years ago, that money amounted to approximately $40 million; now, it is down to $23 million, and dropping by about $3 million per year. That creates an awful lot of pressure to close some of these hatcheries. However, we believe that now is not the time to start closing hatcheries -- when you have been trying to enhance stocks that have been hit by ocean survival and lost freshwater habitat. That is the other problem that we will face, shortly.
Mr. Maynard: There is a review process that is taking place right now on the West Coast. The department has just brought out a new policy on wild salmon. They have linked with that a public review of what is known here on the West Coast as the Salmonid Enhancement Program, which, by any objective standard, I think has been very successful.
It is the view of virtually everyone associated with salmon fishing -- and this view is shared by many people in the field staff level of the department of Fisheries and Oceans -- that, quite frankly, the present federal government is out to gut the salmon enhancement program.
A series of open houses is taking place around the province right now. In fact, there is an open house in my home community of Campbell River tomorrow night. The recreational fishing interests and stewardship groups are preparing to send the government a very strong message that now is not the time to reduce funding to the salmon enhancement program, both from the perspective of community stewardship and enhancement efforts and from the principal mainframe hatcheries that are run by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Our view is that, obviously, in an ideal world we would all be dealing with wild fish only, but we do not live in an ideal world. We believe that there is much to be said for enhancement. With one notable exception, the studies that have been done by NGOs and those done internally by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have shown clearly that for every dollar invested by the salmon enhancement program between $1.20 and $1.60 is generated in a positive sense for Canada. Thus, we believe that it is a program that pays for itself very well. We are hopeful that it will continue in a meaningful way and not just be a shell game.
Mr. Harling: To give you an example, in the lower Fraser Valley, of the salmon streams that used to be productive fully about 95 per cent of those are now either threatened or endangered. Only about 4.5 to 5 per cent of them are considered "wild rivers". Most of these are located behind dams or on steep slopes and are not fish-producing rivers in the first place.
As Mr. Maynard said, in a perfect world, yes, we would scrap the salmon enhancement program and just have wild fish. The problem, however, is that it is not a perfect world. There is no question that in some of those systems, in the Lower Fraser Valley and the Thompson Basin on the East Coast of Vancouver Island, the choice will be hatchery-produced fish or no fish. It is just that simple.
Mr. Maynard: I have a supplementary comment, if I may, to follow up on an item discussed earlier. Mr. Bird referred to the selected marked fishery for coho. Coho are, to a large degree -- certainly historically -- the bread and butter fish for the recreational fishery, especially in southern British Columbia, in the Strait of Georgia area and the west coast of Vancouver Island. They have been particularly hard hit by the problems of both destruction and alteration of freshwater habitat, because, of all salmon, they have one of the longest freshwater phases of their lifecycle before they move out to sea. Hence, they are very vulnerable vis-à-vis the alteration and destruction of the freshwater habitat. Also, coho has suffered probably more than any other single salmon species from poor ocean survival associated with the El Ni<#00F1>o events of the mid- to late 1990s. Thus, the recreational fishery and, in fairness, the commercial fishery for coho has been hard hit.
Tied up with this is the allocation policy that has allowed the recreational fishery to win in terms of coho. We have higher access after the needs of conservation and First Nations food fisheries are met. The recreational fishery has priority over commercial fishing.
For the last two years, there has been a zero mortality objective for coho stocks of acute concern, which are generally characterized as from the Thompson River, a major southern interior tributary river of the Fraser, and Upper Skeena in northern British Columbia. In general, wild stock coho, particularly in southern British Columbia, are also in trouble. Although those have been the two focus groups, wild coho, in general, are not doing well.
The recreational fishery generally acknowledges that, and we have no desire to catch the last wild coho from a given river. We are very supportive of management measures that will allow wild coho to rebuild. It is probably fair to say that the overwhelming number of volunteers in all the community stewardship efforts throughout British Columbia, which are run through the salmon enhancements program that we referred to, are from the recreational fishery, simply because there are more recreational fishermen than any other fishery sector.
At the same time, we need fish for the recreational fishery to sustain itself. We are not only trying to sustain the fish, but we are trying to sustain the fishery.
As I mentioned earlier, the shrinkage has been dramatic in the economic activity in the recreational sector. It has diminished from over $700 million a year to less than $300 million a year, during a four-year period. That shrinkage is probably still happening. We do not know what has occurred in the last year and one-half.
To return to the original point, hatchery origin coho are important, in our view, in terms of giving anglers an opportunity to fish for something that we think is not threatened. These fish are identified by a little fin on the back, called the adipose fin, that is clipped off. It does no harm to the fish, as this fin serves no useful purpose.
We have been working since 1992 or 1993 to get this program implemented by the department. There has been much internal resistance, I think it is fair to say, from certain elements within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There have been some challenges, too. However, these have been worked out.
For the last couple of years, the juveniles have been marked in the hatcheries. They have had this little fin clipped, and they are now out at sea. These fish are to be used as a management tool. We are hoping that for the year 2000, a broad-scale selected marked fishery for coho will be implemented by the department. The fish are there. The fishery needs those fish to sustain itself, if it is not going to collapse further. Right now, we are in a waiting mode.
This is another example of the fact that we do not have regulations for the recreational fishery, even though the fishery is well underway.
Mr. Harling: Indeed, that information has to be in place by January 2001, because that is when most of the lodges begin promoting their business. We have had reports cancellations, because the fishery is so unpredictable. One fellow told me that he had cancellations of about $40,000 worth of business. That hurts, and it is because the department has not got its act together or come up with a fishing plan. It is still delayed. I do not think we will see it until July, to be honest with you. They are so busy reorganizing the West Coast department and attending management meetings that they do not have time to manage the fishery.
Ms Murphy: If I may add something to what Mr. Maynard mentioned a moment ago. He mentioned the precautionary approach to conservation. There is a new suite of measures that has come out of the Oceans Act; they have to do with integrated management. Thus far, the only principle that seems to be hitting the ground, or the water here, is the precautionary approach. The concept of sustainability and a type of management that evolves and derives more scientific information are not happening. We are feeling the pinch of the precautionary approach to conservation without any type of support for sustainability.
Mr. Maynard: If it would be useful to your committee, we could give examples of the social and economic consequences of some of the management regimes that have taken place in the last couple of years.
Senator Robichaud: It would certainly be helpful if you were to summarize that for us.
Mr. Maynard: As we said earlier, Minister Anderson in 1998 took a radical departure for the management of coho. He said that there would not be any retention of coho by any fisherman anywhere in British Columbia during 1998. This became known as the zero-mortality objective. It has evolved into a straitjacket for all fishermen, be they recreational, commercial, or First Nations. Although we fully acknowledge that there are some conservation issues with coho, and particularly acute conservation issues with some individual stocks, the consequences of that zero-mortality objective have been astronomical.
Thus, for the last two years there have been what are called red zones in the Strait of Juan de Fuco, on the southwestern shore of Vancouver Island. A red zone means that no salmon fishing can take place in that area -- no salmon fishing by anyone, including First Nations, commercial, and recreational.
The objective for that particular red zone was to save as many Thompson River coho as possible. Had the recreational fishery been allowed to fish in the red zone, with a strict non-retention of coho rule -- that is, if you caught a coho you had to let it go and, as Mr. Bird said earlier, their survival rates are generally very high -- the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has estimated that the number of Thompson-origin coho that would have died through catch-and-release mortality is between 7 fish and 15 fish per year.
The number of fish that returned to the Thompson River last year was in the order of 16,000, and the forecast for Thompson River fish returning this year is 20,000. We submit that you cannot measure the difference of 7 fish to 15 fish in a return of 16,000. The economic impact has been calculated by this same Department of Fisheries and Oceans as being in the order of $20 million or more for each year in the recreational fishery alone in that small portion of southwestern Vancouver Island. That gives you an idea of the rigorous and harsh reality that the recreational fishery infrastructure has been dealing with in the West Coast. We submit that it is excessive.
We are pleased to hear that the present Minister Dhaliwal has indicated recently that there will be greater flexibility in coho management. He has apparently lifted the red zones in southwestern Vancouver Island and the area where Senator Mahovlich was fishing two years ago, Langara.
However, the red zone on the Fraser River itself still exists. Fisheries and Oceans has just created a huge new red zone for chinook on the west coast of Vancouver Island. We are not out of the woods yet on that one.
We are hopeful that the working definition of flexibility in coho management for the year 2000 fishery will be the implementation of the selected marked fishery for coho that we referred to just a few minutes ago.
The Chairman: Earlier on, we were talking about the individual transferable quotas. If I recall correctly, we discussed this topic during the privatization study that we did a couple of years ago. I will need to reread the testimony from that time.
If I recall correctly, scientists from one of the universities were proposing individual transferable fishing rights. In this arrangement, one would have a fishing right that one could sell to another fisher. This could be amassed into what they called an "individual fishing right."
I must reread the testimony of the time. It became convoluted with scientific terms, and I think I probably shut off at that point. When scientists get too complicated, I tend to zone out. I will reread it. If I can find it, I would like to send it to you, if I might.
Mr. Harling: I would appreciate receiving it.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your participation tonight. It has been extremely helpful to us. You said to Senator Robichaud that you have some information for us. Please send it. We would like to have it as part of our official records of the testimony of the committee.
We have already received some information from the British Columbia ministry. If there is anything that you think might be useful to our deliberations and in helping us prepare a report for this fall, please send it on to us. We would like to incorporate it.
Any final comments before we wrap up?
Mr. Harling: You mentioned that the B.C. Wildlife Federation had 3,000 members province-wide. It is 30,000 members.
The Chairman: That is a big difference.
Mr. Harling: I am neither the chairman nor the president of the federation. I simply chair one of their tidal water fisheries committees.
The Chairman: We hope to see you in the future, when we are next in British Columbia. We will make sure that you are called.
The Chairman: Members, we are moving to something else in a few minutes. We are waiting for a couple of people to join us.
I want to take this opportunity for motions. We should have a motion that the material provided by the sports fishing industry be tabled as an exhibit with the committee clerk. I would entertain such a motion.
Senator Watt: I so move.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The second motion relates to a letter from the Fisheries Committee to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans requesting a follow-up on the progress of the first recommendation on the report, "Privatization and Quota Licensing." I believe that you have a copy of the letter before you. If you are in agreement, senators, I would like to send the letter. If you prefer to have more time to read it, we can wait until the fall, or our next meeting.
Senator Robichaud: I think that is a good idea.
The Chairman: That could be done by the steering committee rather than the whole committee.
Senator Watt: Let the steering committee do it.
The Chairman: All right. We might want some more. The genesis of this is that the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters asked to see me the other day about the follow-up. In reviewing some of the material that we have dealt with, we realized that we have been waiting for answers to some of the questions asked.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: It seems to me a better idea to do that than to shelve a report with recommendations on which people were consulted extensively.
Senator Comeau: Yes, I would like to start using that approach from time to time so that our work is not forgotten.
[English]
The Chairman: Members of the committee, I would like to move on to something different, now.
[Translation]
I want to point out to members of the committee that this is Senator Perry Poirier's last night with us. We are sorry that his stay with us was so short, and I say that sincerely. We are all proud of your contribution to the committee's work, and your active participation, as well as your sense of humour and friendship, will be missed. Even though your stay at the Senate was far too short, you have our best wishes as well as our thanks for your contribution.
Senator Perry Poirier: Thank you very much.
Senator Comeau: That being said, I would now like to officially present you with a plaque we obtained during our trip on the West Coast. This plaque is being presented to you as a tribute. It says: "August 23,2000, to the Honourable Senator Melvin Perry Poirier, on the occasion of his retirement from the Senate and in recognition of his valuable contribution to the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries."
I know you had noticed this scene and it is the one we chose for you. I would also like to thank Mrs. Poirier for having shared her husband with us so often.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: On a more serious note, Senator Perry, the fisheries committee, because you work on the West Coast in particular, decided to make a trophy for you, especially when you notice the P.E.I. whale out there. This sculpture is for you, and I present it on behalf of the Fisheries Committee. It is the first Prince Edward Island whale, discovered by the Honourable Melvin Perry Poirier on March 30, 2000, Tofino, Vancouver. Congratulations. Thank you very much.
Senator Perry Poirier: I had it in mind that this would be noticed. However, Senator Mahovlich did not want to believe me.
Senator Mahovlich: I think he is still out there.
Senator Perry Poirier: I think he will be for a while.
The Chairman: Senator Perry, do you want to contribute to the record?
Senator Perry Poirier: I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to work with them.
Senator Perrault: You should have been here 20 years sooner.
The Chairman: We have a card for you, as well, signed by each committee member. I mean it very seriously, Senator Perry -- you have been much appreciated by the committee and it has been a very special privilege for all of us. Thank you very much.
Senator Perry Poirier: Thank you for your comments. They are really appreciated.
The committee adjourned.