SH 571 National Recreatiqnal. N277 Fisheries Conference : 1990 proceedings 1989 : toward sustainable recreational fisheries. I

• i NATIONAL RECREATIONAL FISHERIES CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 1989 -

TOWARD SUSTAINABLE RECREATIONAL FISHERIES

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Recreational Fisheries Division Ottawa, Ontario Think Recycling!

Printed on recycled paper

Pensez a recycler! Published by:

Communications Directorate Department of Fisheries and Oceans Ottawa, Ontario KlA OE6

DF0/4400

©Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1990

Cat. No. Fs 23-170/1989E ISBN 0-662-17979-X

Egalement disponible en fran9ais sous le titre <>

Printed by: National Printers (Ottawa) Inc.

-- -···------PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL RECREATIONAL FISHERIES CONFERENCE 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ( i )

1. Opening Remarks 1

0 J.W. (Bud) Bird, M.P. Conference Chairperson

2. Minister's Speech 7

0 Innovative Approaches through New Partnerships Honourable Tom Siddon, P.C., M.P. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans 3. Conference Papers

0 A Public Policy Primer for Recreational Fisheries 13 David R. Clark, 'Q.C. Atlantic Salmon Federation

0 Attitudes of the Past and Visions for the Future 23 Robert H. Wright Oak Bay Marine Group

° Forging New Partnerships: Changing Roles 33 David A. Good, Ph.D. Department of Fisheries and Oceans

0 Private Corportation Promotion of Recreational 41 Fisheries Conservation David Fay Christopher Lang and Associates

0 Scientific Data Base for Recreational Fisheries 45 John M. Anderson, Ph.D Atlantic Salmon Federation

° Fisheries and Habitat Improvement 53 Walt Crawford Trout Unlimited (Ontario)

° Co-Management of Atlantic Salmon 57 Conrad Hiscock and David Tizzard Salmon Preservation Association for the waters of Newfoundland (SPAWN) TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

0 The ZEC Concept in Quebec 65 Gabriel Pelletier Federation of ZEC Managers

0 Public Awareness of Recreational Fisheries 75 Wayne Phillips Freelance Outdoor Writer 4. Summary Presentations of the Workshop Results 83 ° Factors likely to influence the biological 83 health of the resource and the growth of the recreational fishing industry Yvonne Quick Northern Frontier Visitors Association

0 Scientific Data Collection, Resource Management 87 and Fisheries and Habitat Improvement Cliff Wells Salmon Preservation Association for the waters of Newfoundland (SPAWN)

0 Enforcement, Public Awareness and Industry 90 Development John Carter Wildlife Federation 5. Analysis of Workshop Results 99 Les Dominy Department of Fisheries and Oceans 6. Reflections on the Conference Proceedings 123 J.W. (Bud) Bird, M.P. Conference Chairperson 7. Concluding Remarks 127 Peter Meyboom, Ph.D. Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

APPENDICES Appendix A - Conference Agenda 135 Appendix B - Conference Participants 139 PREFACE

This report contains the speeches, papers, workshop results and conclusions that were presented at the conference on recreational fisheries convened in , on November 7, 8 and 9, 1989.

The purpose of the conference was to seek the views of government and non-government participants on a national action agenda for recreational fisheries. In July, 1989, federal, provincial and territorial Fisheries Ministers met in Victoria, British Columbia, and agreed to pursue a sustainable fisheries policy for Canada. As part of that initiative, Ministers agreed to develop an action agenda to meet the objectives of Canada's 1988 Recreational Fisheries Policy.

The theme of the Frederiction conference was "innovative approaches through new partnerships". On the second day of the conference, participants were assigned to ten workshop groups to discuss the following subject areas:

- issues and trends facing recreational fisheries over the next ten years; - obstacles to achieving the goal of sustainable recreational fisheries; and - approaches that might be pursued to overcome obstacles.

The above subject areas formed an agenda for the discussion of six topics by each of the workshop groups, as follows:

- scientific data collection - resource management - fisheries and habitat management - enforcement - public awareness - industry development

The outcome of the presentations and workshop discussions at the conference will be used as the basis for formulating a national action agenda for sustainable recreational fisheries in Canada.

C.L. (Les) Dominy Acting Director Recreational Fisheries Fisheries and Oceans

June 1990

( i) OPENING REMARKS by J.W. (Bud) BIRD, M.P. Conference Chairperson

It is a great pleasure to welcome you to this ninth National Conference on Recreational Fishery taking place here in Fredericton the capital city of New Brunswick. My name is Bud Bird and I have been asked by the Honourable Tom Siddon to be the chairman of this conference. As some of you probably know, I have had a long and honorable privilege of serving this community in a number of ways over the past several years, first as a City Counsellor and Mayor, followed by a period when I was the Minister of Natural Resources for the province of New Brunswick, representing the city of Fredericton in the Legislative Assembly. I am now privileged to serve as the Member of Parliament for Fredericton-York-Sunbury in the House of Commons. Given my background, I know you will understand that I am very proud to welcome you to Fredericton and to participate in this conference on a subject which is of importance to us all. I thought I would go to my favorite little quotation book to find something fitting for this occasion and I found a silly little poem. (Author anonymous, just to assure you that I did not write it) . It goes as follows: "When the wind is in the East, then the fishes bite the least, when the wind is in the West, then the fishes bite the best, when the wind is in the North, then the fishes do come forth, when the wind is in the South it blows the bait in the fishes mouth". In a way recreational fishing is as simple as all that. Isaac Walton argued the reverse when he wrote that angling may be said to be so like mathematics that it can never be fully learned. I would like to repeat that New Brunswick is a most fitting and unique location to hold this national conference on recreational fishing. The people of this province place a very _high premium on the natural environment. The quality of life that we enjoy here is significantly measured by the recreational values of our fisheries, our forests, our fields, our coastlines, our lakes, our rivers, and our streams. On a national and international basis, New Brunswick is known by recreational fishermen for some of the best Atlantic salmon fishing to be found anywhere in the world. We also have some good bass fishing along with some very good trout fishing. Our salmon fishing takes place on some world famous rivers, including the Saint John which flows through this city is sometimes called the Rhine of America; the Restigouche which is known as the king of salmon rivers; and of course the vast Miramichi River which is the mother salmon river of them all. It is surprising that this is the ninth in a series of national conferences on Canada's ~ecreational fisheries and perhaps it is the most important one of all, because our job this week is to develop an agenda for action to ensure successful implementation of the recreational fisheries policy which has been developed from previous gatherings and which was adopted by Canada's fisheries Ministers in March of 1988. This conference is also critical because the national action plan for the recreationql fishery is a very essential element in Canada's overall fisheries plan for sustainable development in the coming decade of the 1900s. We must assert that it is not merely sufficient to care for our resources and our environment in terms of today's needs; we must also ensure that those resources are sustained in such a way that they will serve the needs of future generations in perpetuity. The Atlantic salmon is a good story to exemplify the conflicts to be resolved and the disciplines to be exercised in the pursuit of sustainable development. It is not yet totally a success story but it is one that should be told as a prelude to this conference. Almost from the end of the last war, our east coast salmon have been in a state of perpetual decline or so it seems to many of us. Over that period of time, the catch limits for anglers went steadily downwards, as well they should have; first from six per day to four; then from four per day to two; then the elimination of large adult salmon catches al together in some rivers; and finally a total season limit of only ten grilse, which as you know are small immature salmon. And that is not to complain, because anglers have helped to lead the conservation effort, but rather to demonstrate one measure of how dramatic the decline has been. Over those same years the commercial salmon fishery followed more slowly in reducing its catch and ultimately there was a total ban for ten years from the waters of the Maritime provinces. Some sections of Southwest Newfoundland were also closed and remain so. The ban in the Maritimes was lifted briefly for a few years but was quickly re-imposed. Maj or government expenditures have been required to buy back commercial fishing licenses in the Mari times and only a few such licenses continue to exist in New Brunswick and even if there were to be a new commercial fishery. Generally speaking, these changes were made in response to a crisis of seriously declining stocks. Yet, they did not occur easily and for the most part it was the recreational fishery which led the movement to inspire government action. In most recent years such initiatives as the salmon harvest tag and the introduction of hook and release programs for adult salmon were promoted by the recreational salmon fishery. These and other such measures are representative of the emerging innovative approaches and partnerships which will be required to bring about sustainable management of the salmon resource for years to come. As I have said, the salmon story is still far from being a

2 complete success. The Atlantic salmon continues to be over-harvested in the high seas, both by foreign countries such as Greenland and by domestic jurisdictions such as Newfoundland. Only last year was a harvest tagging system implemented by all of the interests in eastern Canada and we are still debating the implementation of firm numerical quotas to replace the so-called notional allowances which have been established for the commercial salmon program in Newfoundland. We have done some talking about river system management, but precious few commitments have yet been made in that direction. There continues to be a strong lobby among anglers for a return to killing large adult salmon, without much adequate thought really to the precedent that such action would set for an increased harvest by commercial fishing interests. The Indian food fishery remains a subject of intense debate and so it goes. There is no doubt in my mind that over the past forty years we have come close to the edge of extinction of the Atlantic salmon on more than one occasion. We have acted only just in time to prevent such a disaster and we are still a long way from the kind of comprehensive management that would result in the security of permanently sustainable development of this resource and yet that management should be, in my view, within our grasp. Sustainable development is a concept that requires resolution of conflicts as the action plan is being prepared. Before action is started, the goals and directions must be firmly committed. The targets must be measurable and attainable, and the results must be sustainable indefinitely into the future. Both economic and environment purposes must be served in absolute discipline and harmony. As we have seen the Atlantic salmon is still far from being managed in such a state of sustainable development and yet we must attain that horizon soon not just for salmon, but for all fish stocks. There is simply no question that we need an agenda for action if we are to have sustainable fisheries for the future. That is what this conference is all about: action. It is in this setting and in setting that agenda for action that we shall lay both the foundations for the recreational fishery and for our total fishery in terms of sustainable development. In preparing for this conference I looked back on how these conferences have evolved. I think it is always useful when we are deciding were to go to have a look at where we have been. And let me tell you what I found. Eight previous conferences have been held before this one. Their form and character have changed substantially since the first one in 1970. Back then we did not seem to understand a great deal about recreational fishing in Canada; there was simply very little information. So it was difficult for any of us to know for sure what approach would be successful in managing the recreational fishery. The first three conferences in fact were workshops with the objective of developing national statistics on recreational fisheries. Participants came primarily from federal, provincial and

3 territorial governments and those workshops gave us the national survey of sport fishing in 1975. The next year was one of firsts. That conference reviewed the first ever sport fishing survey. Representatives of the recreational fishing community were invited for the first time, and the first paper was presented on recreational fisheries goals and programs. The conference in 1978 expanded the number of non-government representatives and discussed plans for the 1980 sports fishing survey. The 1981 conference reviewed the results of that survey. In 1984 the conference examined provincial and territorial fishing policies. Participants recognized the need for an overall set of goals and strategies that could support provincial policies and set a national framework for cooperative action. Recommendations from that conference formed the basis for drafting a national statement on recreational fisheries. This statement was reviewed by delegates at the 1986 conference where it subsequently became Canada's recreational fisheries policy and was announced by the Honourable Tom Siddon in March of 1988. That brings us to the present day. Looking back over the past almost twenty years it seems to me that these conferences have followed a logical progression. First, we had to get the facts; federal, provincial and territorial governments co-operated to carry out national recreational surveys and I am told these surveys are an established program now every five years with plans underway for the next one in 1990. Once we had the facts, we could prove what we suspected all along, that recreational fishing is very very important to Canada. Millions of people spend millions of dollars, some say billions of dollars, to go sports fishing in this country. Unfortunately we also know that recreational fish stocks in some part of the country are seriously declining as a result of habitat degregation. Both federal and provincial governmen.ts share responsibility for recreational fisheries. So it is important that they have agreed to work together to address those problems. As well, the recreational fishing community has a vital role to play. Co-operation . is the key element underlying the entire recreational fisheries policy. That policy provides a national blueprint for governments and the recreational fishing community to carry out separate and joint initiatives for recreational fishing. Last July, when federal, provincial and territorial fisheries Ministers met in Victoria, they agreed to pursue a policy of sustainable fisheries for Canada. As part of that initiative they also agreed to develop a national action agenda to meet the goals of recreational fisheries policy.

4 Convening this national conference here in Fredericton was to be the first step and so we are here to take that step and to translate the recreational fisheries policy into action. First I think we need to consider these questions: What kind of a fishery do we want in the year 2000 and more importantly what do we want from it? What will be the state of the recreational fishing resource by the year 2000? Can our objectives be sustained? And lastly, what conflicts do we face? How can we resolve them on a sustainable basis? Once we have confronted these issues we must then get down to brass tacks and make clear recommendations for what a national action agenda should contain. There can be no doubt that we have a challenging assignment this week. One reason that it is challenging is that it is truly a national task. Another is because we need to strike a balance between general approaches and specific plans. And most importantly it is to be just more than a piece of paper. We have to guide the way by which our words can be turned into action. The recreational fisheries policy already talks about the importance of co-operation among governments, industry and citizens groups. But I am referring to something more than simply co-operation, I am talking about a new approach, about sharing leadership and decision making, about a true partnership. Each one of us in this room from either government or the private sector share a common goal: to ensure a lasting sustainable recreational fisheries for Canada. We each bring special knowledge and skills and experience to the task. we each must commit to collective responsibility for getting the job done. That leads me to the theme of this conference: "Innovative approaches through new partnerships" . We. need to craft our action agenda around those two principles. First, developing new approaches that will work, and building stronger partnerships to make them work. In so doing we should also examine our pre-conceived notions and expectations about who is supposed to do what and how. From the start we must seek decisions about who can do it and how can each of us help. Today we are going to hear from a number of well qualified people who will propose their views about the directions to be taken and the destinations to be reached. Tomorrow we will spend the day talking with each other about how to get there and then on Thursday mornipg we will register our conclusions. Finally, successfully managing sustainable fisheries requires that we confront problems ranging from specific local issues of habitat degradation and over fishing to long term global environmental trends and concerns. We need to encourage fresh attitudes to develop new techniques and to build innovative partnerships at all levels between government, industry and

5 citizen groups. That is why at this conference we shall examine both the challenges of sustainable recreational fisheries and the strategies required to meet that challenge. We shall endeavour to share a future vision and to devise an action plan to fulfill it. And so ladies and gentlemen those are the compelling imperatives that we have been called together to address in the next three days. So let us set out to do our work with interest and with intensity and let us do it well. Thank you very much.

6 MINISTER'S SPEECH INNOVATIVE APPROACHES THROUGH NEW PARTNERSHIPS by The Honourable Tom Siddon, P.C., M.P. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

I want first of all to welcome you to this Conference, and to thank you for contributing your time and energies to this work of great importance to .Canada. we have made some quiet, but nevertheless significant steps over the past few years. As recently as 1985 when I assumed this portfolio, there was, incredible as it may seem, no federal policy for the development of recreational fishing in Canada. And that was a serious lack. In the workings of government, the existence of a stated policy is a warrant for action -- It is the pre-requisite for focussed, continuing attention. we have filled that gap. And we have done so cooperatively. We have a national recreational fisheries policy today, and it closely reflects the advice and recommendations given by the sportfishing community. Earlier this year we reached another milestone. At a meeting in Victoria of fisheries ministers -­ federal, provincial and territorial, it was agreed that we should move to the next step -- the drawing up of an agenda for action to give effect to that policy. We decided that this too should be based on recommendations from the sportfishing community, and that a national conference should be convened for that purpose. And that brings us to the business at hand. You have my formal request for advice on the actions we should take in six specific areas. This is a complex sector. Progress in its development requires well-thought-out action in many fields -- in science, in resource management, in preservation of habitat, in the nuts and bolts work of conservation, in improving public understanding of all of the above -- in development of the industry itself. I need your advice on all these matters. The conclusions and recommendations you arrive at in the workshop sessions, will be consolidated into a single document soon after the Conference. After that draft has been discussed with the provincial governments, we will send the next draft back to you and others for final comment. Once the National Action Agenda has been finalized, we will publish it Canada-wide. And I should make it clear that I will not necessarily wait until then to act on every recommendation. If something you suggest can be done now, it will be done now.

7 I'm here to get your views on the Agenda and I will make no comment or suggestion on its details until the process is complete. But without violating the spirit of the process, I can tell you about some basic principles which I believe should guide us in this work.

0 The first is innovation -- a readiness to consider ways and means which have never been tried before or which have not been widely used. Not for the sake of novelty, but because in many respects this is pioneering work. Recreational fishing has been around as long as Canada has been a nation, but the project of developing it to its full potential is new. We need fresh thinking for another reason. Recreational fishing, in many ways, is an unique sector, with its own challenges, its own opportunities, its own measures of success. What works in other industries, even in other fisheries, isn't necessarily going to work in this one.

0 The second element must be partnership. The principle of synergism says 2 plus 2 can equal 5. Two organizations acting together will accomplish more than two working in isolation. We need synergism. And we won't get it automatically. Partnership has to be deliberately built into the plan at every level. Between governments and within governments. Between the public and private sector. Between private groups, between user groups, between industries, between associations.

0 Third. Our plans must be consistent with the goal of sustainable development. In this industry as in others, growth must be so planned that it does not self-destruct by undercutting the environmental base, or destroying the resource base. Sustainable development has become a worldwide goal in recent years, and Canada, under the leadership of Prime Minister Mulroney has been in the forefront of the movement to make it that. We have begun to build the institutions, the environmental round tables for instance, to make sustainable development a cooperative goal. No process in the world provides for as much independent assessment and real public consultation as does the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process. Notwithstanding this, the new legislation, which my colleague Environment Minister will be bringing before the House and which was promised in the Speech from the Throne, will strengthen even further both the right of people to be heard and the Government's commitment to build environmental sensitivity into its decision-making process. And, at the Victoria conference I mentioned a minute ago, the provincial and federal governments pledged themselves to apply this principle to development of all the fisheries.

8 Furthermore, the federal government recently unveiled a five-year program totalling $125 million which will double current federal spending on Great Lakes Programs. And just last month I announced an increase in Canada's contribution to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to ensure the continuation of the full range of Commission activities, including the Sea Lamprey Control Program.

0 Fourth. On this point I know that I am preaching to the converted -- but it needs to be said for the wider audience outside this hall. Development of the recreational fisheries must continue to be a grassroots enterprise, a movement of the people. In this field as in so many others, we have learned what works and what doesn't. What doesn't work is development by centralized government decree. What does work is action born of individual motivation and a sense of immediacy about the need to act. And these forces are essentially local. The need to conserve the stocks graduates from "concern" in a position paper to the status of a gut issue, when it relates to fish we want to catch. Environmental awareness starts at home, with concern about the air we breathe, the water we drink -- a desire to protect our favorite stream or a stretch of shore. As E.B. White put it "It is easier for a man to be loyal to his club than to his planet. The bylaws are shorter, and he is personally acquainted with the other members". This, in no way relieves governments of their responsibilities. But those responsibilities must be clearly defined. Their role is to facilitate -- to clear the way -- to create the policy and regulatory environment in which private groups and individuals can make their contribution. And that brings me to another item on my agenda. We want to see these contributions given the encouragement and recognition they deserve. We have all at one time or another said about individual acts of this kind, "That person deserves a medal". Now, they may get one. Tonight, I am announcing the establishment of a national, annual recreational fisheries award. These awards will honour achievements of the kind which contribute to the sustainable development of the recreational fisheries: in the natural and social sciences, in business development, in the promotion of cooperative efforts. The tangible expression of the award will be a medal, struck for that purpose by the Royal Canadian Mint. The competitions will be completely open. candidates can be nominated by national, provincial, territorial or community organizations, or by any three individual sponsors. The winners will be chosen by a national selection committee of distinguished from every province and territory. That committee will be chaired by Dr. Wilfred Carter, President Emeritus of the Atlantic Salmon Federation. I've arranged for an information

9 package to be distributed to everyone here this evening, complete with nomination forms. The first awards will be made in the fall of 1990. We already have a multitude of achievements, which deserve recognition. So many that if I tried to list them in any detail, it would take up the rest of the Conference. In B.C., the work of salmon enhancement is now supported by some 8,500 volunteers in nearly 1,500 community groups. B.C. anglers have also strongly supported the Chinook Conservation Program by buying the new $3.00 chinook conservation stamps in record numbers this past season. In the Atlantic region, the work of the Atlantic Salmon Federation in science, in mass communication, in lobbying for conservation, has become a model for organizations of its kind. We have the example of other groups in this region: the Environmental Resource Management Association in Newfoundland, the Salmon Association of Eastern Newfoundland, and the Salmon Preservation Association for the waters of Newfoundland. And in Quebec the Federation du saumon Atlantique du Quebec. And there's a particularly interesting example 20 kilometers from here. Last year, the Kingsclear Band decided it wanted to replace its salmon food fishery with a sport fishery. The provincial government cooperated to make this project possible. The federal government helped with funding. And I was delighted to authorize training support and the assignment of full-time wardens for the fishery. The results testify to the drawing power of Atlantic salmon. In its first year, about 200 anglers came to this new fishery. They came from all over North America. Some came from Europe and I'm told there were even some from Australia. The band is now breaking ground, for a 75-room lodge and conference centre, built around this fishery. There is an economic lesson in this story. The food fishery supported six jobs. When fully developed, the new sport fishery will support 100 full-time and part-time jobs, for guides, for lodge employees and for other fishery-related occupations. The success of this venture is a tribute to the vision and leadership of Chief Sacobie and Dr. Wilfred Carter who have worked closely together to bring it about. Speaking of tribute, there are so many people, in this room tonight and others, who have devoted their time and energy on behalf of recreational fisheries in Canada. Your presence at

10 this conference is another example of the kind of commitment to recreational fisheries conservation and development which is so valuable. The indispensable base for development is, of course, a healthy resource. In the case of Atlantic salmon, maintenance of that base is a complex and demanding challenge, one that requires the reconciliation of biological and economic realities and careful decisions about allocations. We have an Atlantic Salmon Management Plan now, which I believe achieves this balance. It's based on a recognition of the economic importance to the region of the recreational fishery. It recognizes the legitimate claim of Canadian commercial fishermen. It is fair to native fishermen. And as the plan is implemented, we will explore a river-by-river approach to management. I understand how important it is to realize the aims of this plan, not just in theory but in action and I am determined to see it work. The challenge of conservation is tough for any species -- doubly so with anadromous species. There are no easy fixes. Success will require patience and self-discipline. And here too, it will require cooperative effort. As one step in that direction we are convening a workshop of all user groups this month to deal specifically with Atlantic Salmon management issues in Newfoundland. The overall goal we share is to realize the immense potential of sportfishing in Canada. That goal is, at one level, economic and it can only be reached in the setting of a healthy economy. Over the past five years Canada has made a remarkable economic recovery. We have grown in those years through boldness and vision. We have opened new frontiers in trade. We have not hesitated to privatize where government ownership no longer made sense, we have stimulated investment in Canada, we have moved ahead with commonsense deregulation. We negotiated free trade. We have slowed the runaway growth of government spending. None of these represented the course of easy political advantage. On the contrary, in nearly every case, we headed into a furious storm. But we persevered. And ultimately, the course we had chosen won the support of a majority of Canadians. The path ahead has more challenges. The latest and greatest of these is the challenge of the second stage of tax reform, replacement of the Manufacturing Sales Tax with a Goods and Services Tax. Yes it's hard to explain the advantages of such a tax. No one likes a tax -- even a replacement tax. I don't. You don't. The best we can hope for is not enthusiasm for GST, but for a growing realism, and a recognition of the merits of this proposal. And that, I am convinced, will happen as Canadians come to understand the GST -- the essential fairness of the proposed system, the better deal it gives to people with lower incomes and its general superiority over what we have now.

11 This is not the setting in which to discuss the GST in detail. But I miss no opportunity to urge influential citizens of the kind gathered here today, to look at this proposal carefully -­ to measure the long-term benefits to Canada of getting our fiscal house in order -- and the long-term costs of maintaining the status quo. My 20 minutes are nearly up. It's all too customary, I have found, to wind up addresses like this with exhortations to heroic action -- statements which imply the rise or fall of the nation depend on the work we do here together. I'm going to avoid that kind of hyperbole. This audience doesn't need exhorting. You have demonstrated in absolutely convincing fashion for a long time, your commitment to the recreational fisheries of Canada. Nor do we need to overstate the value of sportfishing to prove the importance of building it wisely. This is a large industry and a significant contributor to the Canadian economy, and to the quality of life which makes this a good country to live in. As of 1985, our latest national recreational fishing survey shows it brought in $4. 5 billion dollars a year. Over six million people take part in recreational fishing. But sportfishing is only one section of a larger picture. Our progress depends on the use we make of all our assets, on the enterprise and environmental wisdom with which we develop all sectors of our economy. This is our sector, these are our assets, this is our part of the task. Let's do it well. Let's do it together.

12 A PUBLIC POLICY PRIMER FOR RECREATIONAL FISHERIES [IF VOTING CHANGED ANYTHING, THEY'D MAKE IT ILLEGAL] by David R. Clark, Q.C. President Atlantic Salmon Federation

The theme of this Conference is Recreational Fisheries to 2000 - Innovative Approaches Through New Partnerships. According to the program, I am supposed to outline some issues and trends over the next ten years. When I was getting ready to address you today, I figured Bob Wright would do a pretty good job of speaking about trends. I also figured most of you already have a pretty good idea about the issues without a lot of elaboration from me. We are all familiar with the perils of global warming, ozone depletion, and oceanic pollution. You don't need me to tell you about habitat degradation and loss. What can I say about the need for better biological data that will not be covered by John Anderson, who is a scientist. You know as well about national and international regulatory gaps and uncommitted or inadequate enforcement. And everyone, including those in government, know there is never enough money. In the conviction, therefore, that the issues and trends will be fully explored by the conference, I decided to do it my way. After all, our purpose in the next few days is to cause changes in public policy to happen. And a conference such as this one is a certain way to touch the policy-making system. Surely, however, no one is naive enough to believe that all of the brilliant outpouring from the total mass of cerebral matter assembled in this room will produce enlightened change in the immediate aftermath of the conference. Ipso facto, you should be equally interested in the process of influencing changes in public policy as you are in the substance of change. Or at least, so I reasoned. Thus, I have decided unilaterally (I ask the conference organizers to forgive this transgression) to speak on the subject, in the most general of terms, about how public policy gets made in Canada and how policy changes can be influenced. I have taken the liberty, therefore, of retitling my address as follows: "A public policy primer, or, If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

DEFINING PUBLIC POLICY Think of the process of making public policy as a socio-political cuisinart. Feed into it society's institutions, interests, ideas and individuals. It slices, chops, blends and purees until what

13 is left is public policy the entire range of priorities, programs, rules and regulations for the peace, order and good government of society - without which chaos would spread over the land. THE INGREDIENTS OF PUBLIC POLICY Institutions

An institution is an organized pattern of behaviour which is established as a continuing part of a political system - think of parliament, cabinet, committees, crown corporations~ courts - the mechanisms which have been created to foster the making of public policy. Interests Yours, mine and everymans. Governments operate amid a tangle of interests, with people pushing and hauling in their efforts to reach private and public goals. Workers want more pay; farmers seek higher prices; businessmen demand less government interference. Some, like these, are economic. Some are social, like free-choice; others, religious, like right to life. Groups tend to grow out of interests and to, create new interests in turn. Interest groups affect, and are affected by the operations of government. The Canadian system would look very different without the business, labour, professional, environmental and other groups that exert political pressure. Ideas Men possess thoughts, it is said, but ideas possess men. They come in all shapes and sizes. They may be strong and durable, such as the belief that one-third of our society has a distinctive character (perhaps not the best choice to demonstrate the durability of an idea) or they may be superficial and short­ lived. They may be rational or irrational. Ideas may relate closely to people's economic interests like free-trade, or they may run directly counter to the material welfare of those holding the beliefs - perhaps the GST threatens Finance Minister Michael Wilson's job security more than those who oppose it. Ideas, in short, are forces that in themselves have an impact on policies. Individuals All of the above forces operate through, and are transformed by, people and their leaders. People are the engines that drive society. People mould the institutions. People share or oppose interests. And people form and promote ideas. You know that you are people - but I have news for you - contrary to popular belief, politicians are people too - so are civil servants. we all accept that they have interests - the cynical among us would describe the interests of politicians as survival and those of

14 bureaucrats as security - but that would be unfair because it falls to them to sift through, balance and referee the ideas and interests of others, and we all know the umpire is the least popular guy on the field. WHO MAKES POLICY In the final analysis, the people who hold elected office and their advisors determine the rules of peace, order and good government. But in truth, every citizen is a part of the process. In a democracy, no one can escape responsibility for government decisions - for each person holds the office of a citizen. Citizens decide who will decide. And citizens have a responsibility to help the deciders to decide right, and when they decide wrong, to choose other deciders. Too simplistic, you say - sure it is, but it is also fundamental. The thing to remember here is the system goes ghfelteshprung when the deciders get out of step with the citizens. Simeon Strunsky observed that "if you want to understand democracy, spend less time in the library with Plato and more time in the buses with the people". When the deciders get out of touch with the people, citizens will exercise their responsibility to get new ones. Believe me, I know. I was an elected official in New Brunswick when the citizens exercised their responsibility in October, 1987. The primary deciders in Canada - those who wield the most, if not unfettered, power, are the Prime Minister, his cabinet ministers and the senior political councilors and bureaucrats who advise them. In the U.S. of the Reagan Administration, you would have had to add pillow talk companions and soothsayers to this list. Of course, there are many others who play a role in the policy-making process Members of Parliament, all other bureaucrats, political parties and, of course, interest groups of citizens. HOW DOES POLICY GET MADE As the minister said to the T.V. reporter when he didn't have the answer, "That's a very good question ... ". Hardly anyone knows the answer for sure, and those who might, argue about it. can the Prime Minister dictate public policy, you ask? Do bureaucrats genuflect in reverence when he speaks? Are citizens usually fawning in their praise and appreciation of his wisdom? Not in the Canada I know. Everyone who participates in the political system is subject to limitations, controls and constraints - even the Prime Minister who can be, and often is, sacrificed on the altar of public opinion for his policy transgressions. Aldous Huxley once said that "idealism is the noble toga that political gentlemen drape over their will to power". Today, we call it pragmatism. A political system is constrained by public opinion; political strategists offer their advice to the deciders

15 with one eye on the polls. Poli tical agendas are measured for political sex appeal. Decisions are tempered by perceptions of popularity. Most politicians would not voluntarily run up the national debt to the frightening levels of the present without motivation. Over-spending takes place because the political system responds to public demarid for service which the nation cannot afford, and it lacks the will to demur because there is always another party waiting on the sidelines for whom no undertaking is too terrifying in pursuit of political office. Power corrupts? Not any longer. Covetousness for some mythical power and the fear of its loss gives life to the corruption of the spirit in a contemporary democratic system. Thus it is that policy decisions are tested for marketability. They are measured against global policy objectives and examined for foreign implications. Always the decision-makers must satisfy themselves that they can build a consensus. Public servants are bound by these same constraints and more. In the advice they give to their political masters, they must develop a sensitivity and understanding of the political pressures and agendas of the day. But they must also factor in and satisfy the lateral constraints imposed by central agencies which cross-cut the entire government. Policy ideas must meet economic, fiscal and legal tests. They cannot survive if they fail to satisfy the universal objectives of managing government spending programs and personnel. You may find this hard to believe but, in spite of the fact the national debt absorbs 30 per cent of the nation's revenues, the political and bureaucratic systems devote enormous amounts of time and creative energy trying to control and reduce the deficit. But they cannot adopt the obvious solution of higher taxes and reduced spending in the areas of health, welfare and education because this notion is not marketable. The reality for any Prime Minister who would confront the deficit seriously with workable solutions is 24 carat, bona fide, guaranteed political disaster. He would be tarred and feathered, exiled and inducted into the national rogues hall of fame for eternity, and the prospect is truly a limit on his policy-making authority. A CLOSER LOOK AT THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESS There is no simple way to generalize whether policy-making is a top-down or bottom-up process. Evidence can be found to show initiatives flow in both directions. In certain cases, policy starts at the lowest levels of line departments - what one might call suggestion box ini tia tives . In other cases, the policy process may flow downward from the Prime Minister's Office directly. In between these two extremes, it can originate with an elected member, from a political caucus, or at any level of the bureaucracy in any of the line departments, central agencies, boards or crown corporations. Ministers and senior public servants are in a position to influence the policy process,

16 although it is rare today for any single person to wield extraordinary powers so as to cause the policy-making system to bend to their will. This point can be illustrated by a snippet of dialogue from the British television show - Yes Minister. Sir Humphrey Appleby, Deputy Minister of the Department of Administration Affairs is speaking to the Right Honourable James Hacker, Minister. Sir Humphrey: "What I mean is I 'm fully seized of your aims, and of course, I will do my utmost to see that they are put into practice. To that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in a position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate, and possibly ill-conceived, action which might well have unforeseen repercussions". Minister: "You mean, no?" Sometimes, important players find themselves comfortably in charge of a particular initiative, while in other cases, like their central agency colleagues, they are caught uncomfortably in the middle. Roles and relationships become clouded when objectives come into conflict. Ministers are supposed to make policy and public servants should implement it loyally, effectively and efficiently, but ample evidence exists that senior bureaucrats are called upon to advise government on the political constraints and concerns of the Minister while serving the rest of government in a collective sense, and smart Ministers usually heed the advice of strong Deputies. The Deputy's job is made complex by a number of factors which are often in competition with one thing or another. The Deputy must attend to three voices of authority - his Minister, the Prime Minister who appointed him, and the agencies which exercise general managerial and expenditure controls. He needs to keep a number of balls in the air simultaneously which are labeled Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Human Rights Commission, Official Languages Commissioner, Auditor-General and Public Sector Labour Unions. In recent years, an endless stream of reforms and directives about labour relations, collective bargaining and new budget systems have added to the chaos. Allow me to share a quotation with you: "We trained hard . . . but every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be re-organized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by re-organizing ... and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing inefficiency and demoralization". That was written not by a public servant in Canada, but in 66 A.D. by a Roman named Petronius. A policy idea has a rough road to travel no matter how it began life or where it was conceived. Within the institutions of Parliament and the bureaucracy, it will be turned over, examined, squeezed, consumed and digested by administrators, politicians,

17 policy analysts, financial watchdogs and lawyers. Throughout the process, government is being pushed and shoved, poked and prodded by interest groups which are often engaged in deadly battle with one another to win success for an idea or to assure its failure. What better example can I give than the renewed hostilities between hostilities between pro-life and free choice that have just been ignited by Mr. Lewis' Bill to amend the Criminal Code. The complexity of this system for the consideration and formation of public policy ideas and the force and durability of competing pressures render the policy-making process difficult to function in for those who enjoy a clear view of it because they watch from within. For those who look in from the outside, and miss much of what is going on, the system is hard to understand, and nearly impossible to master. But master it you must if you wish to influence the deciders to adopt the measures of your interest - unless, of course, you subscribe to Otto Von Bismark's warning that "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them made".

LET US PREY You have an interest and a need to affect public policy to accommodate your interest, a fact which is established by your presence at this conference. Tomorrow, you may create a scheme designed to change attitudes and produce an atmosphere that is receptive to your interest. At the outset, you might need to review your own attitudes to test the feasibility of your policy idea in the context of political realities. You might need, as well, to adjust your attitudes about time and place in light of your new understanding of the limitations on responsiveness. You may find it necessary to address the attitudes of politicians and bureaucrats which reflect normal self-interest in the course of impeding your aspirations. The contrary attitudes of competing interest groups are often the most nettlesome obstructions to your objectives. The education of self and others can be slow and laborious, and patience and determination are useful traits to possess. Your task may require changing priorities, in which case, building receptive attitudes among deciders is the key. If you need only to craft an argument tailored to fit existing priori ties, the task may not require large investments of time and resources. To produce the saving of resources, the need for knowledge and understanding of the principles of policy making and influences which give them shape clearly must be satisfied. In approaching the policy-making system, think of the process as a track to be followed. The shortest and easiest to follow is the one which leads directly to the public service, because your idea fits nicely with approved policy, can be accommodated by an existing program and the necessary funding is available in the Department's budget. The absence of any of these elements

18 understandably complicates the process, but in a best case scenario, a decision can be taken at the point of contact by the program administrator, probably in consultation with an immediate superior. The middle track offers a less direct route to your destination and is more difficult to navigate. Your idea does not fit adopted policy positions and requires change. A regulatory or statutory enactment might be required to implement it. certainly, new and presently unbudgeted funding could be necessary to administer it. While you can see the need for an initiative with great clarity, it may hold nothing but terror for the deciders because a larger interest than yours disagrees with your view of the world. In fact, the deciders may think it is such a lousy idea that the force of events shunt you to the third track. This route· follows the longest path to your goal - it consumes the most time and money. And it probably holds the greatest risks for the credibility of your organization, and perhaps even for you personally. It is often adversarial and it can be emotional, but you are desperate so you decide the only way to reach the deciders is to provoke a public debate. If you can find a catalyst that can quickly cause public opinion to crystalize, like Bridget Bardot did for the European lobby to stop the harp seal cull, you can hope for dramatic results. If our salmon genetics scientists could figure out how to make the salmon cute and cuddly with large doleful eyes, we could have Canada's salmon streams teeming with fish in no time. And a final note. In the most extreme form of public opinion formation, the drama, emotion and acrimony of civil disobedience is to be avoided, in my view, because such practices are counter productive when they turn public opinion against the practitioners who covet it and strengthen the resolve of the deciders in their resistance. Provocative behaviour is often the best way to harden attitudes you wish to change. One time during the 1960 's, Ronald Reagan's limousine was surrounded by demonstrators carrying placards. They were chanting "We are the future". Reagan scribbled a message on a piece of paper and held it up to the car windows so they could read it. It said, "I'll sell my bonds". CIVILIZATION - A VICTORY OF PERSUASION OVER FORCE Success is more likely to be achieved when time and resource is dedicated to building networks along the first two tracks. For multidimensional interests, the ability to engage the political and bureaucratic systems at several levels can be profitable. Hearing is the first part of deciding, and in my experience, listening is best facilitated in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. Later this morning, David Good is going to share with you a model for cooperation and joint action through

A partnerships. I don't wish to steal his thunder except to offer

19 my support for the concept. The Atlantic Salmon Federation, in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and as of this year, the New Brunswick Salmon Growers' Association, pioneered the notion of cooperative joint activity between government and private sector interest groups. The Salmon Genetics Research Program has prospered and developed a world-class reputation over the course of 15 years of productive research. And I can tell you, the mutual respect that has grown from the association allows us to talk to one another as equals rather than as benefactor and supplicant. What can smaller interest groups do to make sure their voices are heard by the decision makers when they have trouble speaking with the authority of a group with many members, and considerable resources? Interest groups which are limited by a lack of resources and developed networks within government can network in another way. In recent years, groups and organizations have banded together to accomplish common public policy objectives invoking Tom Hayden's maxim that "A silent majority and government by the people is incompatible". Through a pooling of resources, a coalition makes possible campaigns that are beyond the reach of its individual members. Often large national organizations will take a leading role to build a coalition to take legal proceedings or to mount a regulatory intervention, trading on the belief that there is strength in numbers. When the overall strategy includes provoking public debate, the coalition can profit from a credibility enhanced by the stature of its membership. As the public policy process becomes increasingly more complex, the appeal of the coalition approach will continue to grow. Coalitions are often confrontational because they are formed out of frustration when more moderate pre-emptive lobbying is judged to have failed. They make a commitment to the third track only when everything else has failed. Networking need not provoke confrontation when smaller agencies permanently bond under an umbrella in an effort to stay on the second track. In Dr. Peter Pearse's 1988 Report to the Canadian Wildlife Federation entitled Rising to the Challenge, the formation of a national network of recreational fishing organizations is mooted. Dr. Pearse' s comprehensive report, which has examined many of the issues which will preoccupy this conference, reasons that "cohesive public participation" can only be fostered if the many recreational fishing groups in Canada cure their structural fragmentation by knitting together. In this way, a national perspective can be brought to issues of universal interest and a two-way conduit for information flowing between government and fishing groups would be achieved. Last month in Elk Grove, Illinois, leaders from about 50 recreational fishing groups formed a national coalition of freshwater sports fishing organizations for the very purpose mentioned. As an initiative quite apart from what is likely to emerge from this

20 conference, I urge the Canadian Wildlife Federation to take the lead in acting on Dr. Pearse' s recommendation. When you call, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, for one, will join your deliberations.

A FINAL THOUGHT Public concern for the heal th of the ervironment is growing. Governments are beginning to move slowly in the right direction. The near inertia which has charact~rized regulatory and enforcement progress in the past is probab~y due to the publicity generated by environmental radicals and thb fears produced by the cumulative effects of systemic limitations. Now the deciders are becoming persuaded that ordinary people are expressing grave concerns, and the cost of failing to act may exceed the cost of stronger measures to protect the environment by unacceptable margins. To paraphrase Roderick Haig-Brown, if fish are falling prey to their environment, man cannot be far behind. Among the user groups in Canada who wish to have access to the fishery, it is only the sport fishing community that has demonstrated a consistent, historical commitment to the conservation ethic. Your work at this conference is important because you bring to the discussion a balance between use and preservation. As I conclude, I would like to insert a word of caution. We, and by the collective term I mean the inhabitants of mother earth, cannot afford to engage much longer in Canada' s true national sport infinite discussion in search of consensus. If our inexhaustible supply of words soon does not produce remedial activity around the globe - in Canada that means a new primary priority for the nation - we will have no trouble keeping our head in the sand and our feet in the clay because there won't be much that is green to impede us. Having said all of that I, like Thoreau, note that a man's got to believe in something, and I believe I will go fishing -- while there's still time.

21

ATTITUDES OF THE PAST AND VISIONS FOR THE FUTURE by Robert H. Wright President Oak Bay Marine Group

This is a Pacific Salmon and that person sitting in the seventh row is a Federal Fisheries Officer. My appointed task during the next half hour is to convince you and him that there is a new vision in British Columbia and that by the year 2000 the recreational fisheries community on the west coast will have a fair and equal partnership with the huge west coast commercial fishing industry. This vision also includes the wish that the dozens of DFO personnel in the west coast region who still have a heavy bias towards the commercial sector that harvests over 90 per cent of the total allowable catch will come to realize that sports fishermen have a dream that must be nurtured. Last Thursday I was slated to be in Vancouver to observe the Rolling Stones and their worldwide Steel Wheels Extravaganza. I didn't make it. Instead I had to concentrate on something more exciting, this paper on sports fishing. So you are stuck with me for the next half hour. Incidentally, I did manage to salvage a T-shirt from the Stones for my memory chest. Many years ago I moved to Victoria on Vancouver Island after growing up on the Prairies - to be exact - born in Regina and grew up in Edmonton. To me the world consisted of perch, pickerel and j ackfish. It was great fun, particularly when I used to skip school during those warm spring days. This was my downfall. I loved to fish - it dominated my spare time. This was the beginning of the Oak Bay Marine Group. Well, it all started when I had a dream while working for a newspaper. I loved to fish and thought maybe one day I could guide rich Americans and have a small fishing business of my own. I needed financing and the only source of money was from a financial institution. You can imagine the problem of a young man trying to convince the money lenders that a fishing camp run by a neophyte was a good risk. Well, that's another story - let's just say I sold someone the Brooklyn Bridge and started down the road of entrepreneurship - what a journey.

23 Back to the dream. We recognized early the dramatic growth in popularity of outdoor leisure activities, the increasing availability of disposable income and the emphasis on the Pacific Northwest as a desirable vacation destination. We began to compile statistics from the British Columbia Ministries of Tourism and Economic Development, along with facts and figures from Statistics Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This was to determine the travel and recreational habits of residents of Western Canada and the United States. This was lesson #1 -- do your homework. I might add that this homework assisted us to seek out and know our market -- which of course is lesson #2. There are many small operations in B. C. that have been floundering during the past several years of fantastic growth. They still don't know their market. Lesson #3 and #4 are easy -- know your product and know your competition. You might say these are Wright's Four Business Commandments. They seem to have worked for us, at least I think so. We have become the largest sport fishing operation in North America. We were privileged to serve over 40,000 guests this year, and in the high season we had over 700 employees. In the past five years, we have experienced a 665 per cent growth in revenue and a 480 per cent growth in employees -- not a bad make-work program. "Our fish stories come true." This is our slogan in our marketing program, and it's true. More than 70 per cent of our guests return the following year. Tonight in Ottawa, the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology is hosting a dinner to present the National Awards for Business Excellence. I am proud to share with you that our company is one of three finalists for the Marketing Award and hope to be top gun out of 200 entries from across Canada. Sports fishing is coming of age. Let's take a closer look at applying the various lessons which helped us on the journey towards a successful business enterprise. In order to analyze the journey, we must turn the clock back to 1975 when we studied the fishing experience at Westport, Washington. It was awesome and looked like the evacuation of Dunkirk every morning as the boats left the harbour. Here was a little town at the end of a two lane highway that was totally dependent on fishing. Over 300 large boats would go out over the bar just after daylight, each carrying from six to thirty fishermen eager to hook into a scrappy Pacific Salmon.

24 It was worth thinking about duplicating this enterprise on the west Coast of Vancouver Island where in my opinion the salmon fishing was better. we studied the fishing opportunities from Mexico to Alaska, from the Ma & Pa operations to the largest. What did industry have to offer -- very little. Every 50 miles methods changed, and we found out that very few operations checked their competition during peak season. After all, they were too busy.

During this period of time, and the preceding 10 years, I continued to hone my skills as a sports fisherman, which gave me a consumer's view of the product. This was very important. Two other important factors surfaced: (a) If you located a sports fishing operation behind commercial net lines, you fish the remains of the run. In other words, the success rate drops considerably. (b) Government legislation through allocation of the run between user groups can wipe out a sports fishery as we in the sports fishery depend on expectations and opportunity. Market research revealed that sports fishermen are in all levels of the economic spectrum. Income does not necessarily indicate an interest or lack of interest in sports fishing. Bank presidents to window washers love to fish. Some have the economic ability while others must dream. It was our job to set a plan in motion to tap this lucrative market at all levels. The plan called for five quality fishing resorts strategically located in British Columbia. Let me be more precise - it was important that we offer a fishing experience for every pocketbook. To use the airline analogy: Economy Package -- Product consistency; low price; quick turnover and mass market. This became the Canadian Princess at Ucluelet. Business Class -- High energy; good product; value for the money; customer satisfaction. We believe our Painter's Lodge fits this mould.

Executive Class High end product; check average higher; customer loyalty. Our Marabell and King Salmon fit this category. First Class Exclusive; expensive product; limited entry; truly an experience. An apt description of our Charlotte Princess.

25 This plan assured that we could cover the market with a variety of quality products at a price for every pocketbook. The free enterprise road has many bumps and potholes - our road was no exception and it involved our economy package: "The Canadian Princess" - a 235' steamship located in Ucluelet. It took me almost a year to learn how to spell the name of the town. Why did we choose Ucluelet? ahead of the net lines in Juan de Fuca Strait at the end of the Queens Highway airport nearby Pacific Rim National Park, a growing area of tourism We named our ship the Canadian Princess for a good reason. Princess gave the public the idea it was a ship and Canadian because of geographic location for our U.S. market. This was just after the Iran incident when our Ambassador helped U.S. nationals escape. We were very popular. Why not capitalize on it. The operation was a miserable failure. The first season we lost $500,000 in operational costs alone. People-wise, it was a feast or famine. On a holiday weekend when the weather was good there were more people than we could handle. Two days later with the rains, we were lucky to have two guests. It was an impossible situation with a staff of 40 or 50 to keep busy. We came to the conclusion if we took the ship out to deep water and sank it we would be $500,000 a year ahead. The light went on while I was visiting Prince William Sound, in Alaska, the home of the recent oil spill. We were at a little airport in Gustavis (my washrooms are bigger!). I had chartered a small plane in from Skagway. We were astounded to see two 707 's arrive, loaded with tourists for a trip on a day boat in the Sound. They had Smokey the Bear -- that's a park warden -­ telling the tourists all about the wildlife which in my opinion was few and far between. We had more to offer. This could be the way to go. Smooth out the peaks and valleys by offering package fly-in trips. we went to a national airline to charter a Dash 7 50-passenger aircraft and decided to conduct a test for the month of September. It worked. Today, we are flying 9 flights a week with 50 passengers on each, and in 1987 we had a 99. 46 per cent occupancy rate for the season. We have built three additional on-shore accommodation buildings and now handle over 200 guests a day. The worm had turned.

26 we have added whale watching to the Canadian Princess during March and April each year, and these tours have become so popular, we book out two nearby mote~s as well. we have a fleet of 10 offshore boats with licensed skippers and engineers, and I am pleased to report several small businesses owned by local people have surrounded the Canadian Princess, including Pizza Hut, gift shops and delis. They all seem to be prospering. Needless to say, I have given up the idea of scuttling the Canadian Princess. I am a great believer that if you take something out of the land you should return something in kind. And that is just what we did at another location on the British Columbia coast. We believed the stocks of chinook salmon were being depleted by the commercial fisheries so we convinced our peers, the other 18 operators in Hakai Pass and Rivers Inlet, to contribute towards our own sport salmon hatchery at King Salmon. It worked, and last year we released over 300 thousand young chinooks which our guests will have a crack at 4 or 5 years down the road. We are now going into our fifth year of operating the hatchery, and our short-term target is one million fry annually. The fisheries department is delighted. The head of our hatchery and northern operations is with us today; I am very proud of him - Randy Wright, our Northern Operations Manager. Also in attendance is Karen Miller, our Sales and Marketing Manager. Four years ago we decided to move from individual advertising to a corporate group approach. We identified ourselves as the Oak Bay Marine Group. Our colours were dark blue and gold. We introduced a corporate logo of the jumping salmon,. designed a house flag and used the key line of "world renowned resorts". Finally, we added the slogan "our fish stories come true". We were creating a comfort zone for fishermen and it worked. For statistics and reservations, we added a large computer with 17 terminals and networked several more micros into the system. We added several printers and connected our resorts for instant information and charge. A software program was written specific to our needs, and we have added state-of-the-art telephone equipment. Believe me, no expense was spared for our central sales system. This investment has paid off. Many days we book over $100, 000 in trips and every month we are well beyond one million dolla·rs in bookings, including the cold dog days of January and February. · We have a sales team of 12 people. They receive a good basic salary plus commission, and they have their own space to work in. We have regular marketing meetings and everyone contributes.

27 Believe me, it works. A computerized record is compiled on each inquiry as to location of call, advertisement to which they are responding, time and date the call was made and whether the call resulted in a sale. In other words, we can track the results of our marketing program. Our postage is second only to the Provincial Government on Vancouver Island. We sell more fishing licenses than anyone else in B.C. Our telephone charges must equal the national debt. We have a transportation division in Vancouver with a crew of seven. They purchase supplies on request for our northern operations. All is not sweetness and light. Believe me, dealing with government today is as uncertain as walking through a mine field in Lebanon. How did we handle the ongoing problem of government bureaucrats? I hired one of the top two deputy ministers from the provincial government and made him my Vice President of Operations. I also hired a top political executive assistant, and one of his duties is to advise me politically. The government problems are now theirs. There is a positive side. DFO has recently organized a sports fishing division with a promise of seven person years and the provincial government is making small noises about following the federal government's lead. They are finally realizing the sports fishing business spells millions of dollars in economic gain for the province.

For 30 years I have been on a mission. Trying to get a fair deal from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for sports fishing. It has led to heartburn, high blood pressure and a receding hairline. As for ulcers - I am a carrier - I give them to myopic-thinking DFO personnel - I hasten to add - only the ones still living in the SO's. These are the ones who believe sports fishermen are the people who get in the way of the commercial fleet as it heads out on the ocean to harvest the salmon. Fortunately these DFO types are becoming a vanishing breed and there is hope for a new vision and new attitudes to the year 2000. At the present time - anyone in B.C. who considers expanding a sports fishing resort is treated like a sheep herder in cattle country. Let me continue for a moment on the past. Over 50% of my time is spent on problems with DFO and governments at various levels. A few examples:

28 o In 1988 DFO spent $700, 000 on a chinook conservation newspaper campaign telling people there were no chinooks in B. C. This misguided program cost our company alone 1.5 million dollars in cancelled business. They stayed home or went to Alaska. While this was going on, our commercial fishermen caught or killed nearly one million chinook, many as incidental catches. o We have been cut back drastically in our chinook sports fish limits in the strait of Georgia while the seine boats have increased their incidental catch of fish. o Again, the seines fished in Juan de Fuca Strait this year targeting on sockeye early in the season. The resulting box score 15,000 sockeye, the targeted species and 65, 000 coho (the backbone of the sport fishes) listed as incidental catch. New seine boats are being built to take place of old ones - they are modern fish killing machines. They have traded in trumpets, a necessity under the Fisheries Act, for side scan sonar. In the south we were allowed 225, 000 chinook by International Salmon Treaty but DFO reduced this quota to about 115, 000 for conservation reasons - while in the north where sports fishing is expanding, we are kept at 20, 000 while there is a surplus of chinook and the incidental catch in the seines is twice that figure. One commercial fishermen growled to me "if you want to catch fish up here, get a commercial license". DFO has been trying for ten years to put out a "Block Brothers" type of catalogue on the commercial fleet and still hasn't got to square one. What's the problem? In the sports fisherman's eyes today, allocation is a nasty word it virtually wiped out the coastal recreation fishery in Washington and Oregon. DFO wants us to fish to a finite total then shut the fishery down. Can you imagine what this does to businesses that cater to tourists? The angling business in Canada generates 4.4 billion dollars in sales annually in Canada and is growing. we survive on expectation and opportunity. Catching a fish is part of the recreational experience - filling the boat with fish is not. We must develop new attitudes among DFO on the west coast and plan for the future.

29 Finally, a look into the future. Salmon enhancement, although sounding great, can be a curse. Before you enhance, you must decide how you are going to harvest the production without wiping out weaker runs. This management strategy must still be perfected. Native land claims, if successful, will add a new and complicating dimension to West Coast salmon management. After 25 years of non-interest by three Ministries of the Provincial Government, there is now a full blown competition to represent the recreational fishing industry. You might call it a friendly takeover and we are not hostile to the idea. If the DFO can get commercial harvesting of salmon under control and set proper priorities for user groups, which I believe should be: 1) spawning escapement 2) Native food fishery 3) expectation and opportunity of sports fishing 4) any surplus taken by commercial harvesters for market then with sixteen thousand miles of beautiful coastline, an outdoor paradise could be a playground for the world. To this end, the west coast recreation community is organizing. The Sports Fishing Institute has 3,500 businesses listed directly or indirectly connected with sports fishing and the target is 6,000 before spring. Our voice will be heard. The commercial fishermen harvest around 30 million salmon a year. Properly managed, we only need a fraction of this total for the sport fishery to survive. Our market includes millions of people in the U.S.A. and we have hardly touched Europe or Japan.

Let's look at our new national policy for the recreational fishery: recreational fishing is a valuable, significant, and legitimate use of fish resources. high quality and diversity of recreational fishing opportunities. viable recreational fishing industry. tourism promotion. Recreational fishing has come of age. Now, if we could only convince our various levels of government.

30 Thank you for listening to my story, and I want to leave the fishermen in the audience with this fact, "OUR FISH STORIES DO COME TRUE".

This is our vision for the future.

Thank you.

31

FORGING NEW PARTNERSHIPS: CHANGING ROLES by David A. Good .Assistant Deputy Minister Department 0£ Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, members of the sportsfishing industry, angling associations, and provincial and federal colleagues. It is indeed a pleasure to be here this morning to address the National Recreational Fisheries Conference. I count myself fortunate to attend this my first conference particularly as I am mindful that this is the ninth such conference and that there are a number here today, no doubt, who have participated in many of these previous events. I am particularly honoured to share the podium with such two able and skilled individuals -­ Mr. David Clark, President of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, and Mr. Bob Wright, President of the Oak Bay Marine Group, who have so clearly distinguished themselves in this important area of recreational fisheries.

NEW PARTNERSHIPS I have been asked to speak on the topic "Forging New Partnerships The Changing Role of Government and Non-Government Organizations." At the outset let me say a few words about the concept of partnerships which as we all know has become increasingly fashionable term in public policy language in the past year. I view partnerships particularly between government and non-government agencies as very important, and I believe they will become increasing so in recreational fisheries. I know that some will argue that partnerships between government and non-government organizations are really an attempt by the former, increasingly strapped of financial resources, to get the latter to contribute to the costs of a particular public services. While restraint in government is undoubtedly a fact of life and will continue into the foreseeable future, I believe there are much more fundamental reasons why government and non-government organizations will be increasingly driven toward partnerships as a way of managing the recreational fisheries resource. I believe these reasons are found in the broad social and economic trends which are not only shaping recreational fisheries, but also shaping the basic relationship between government and non-government organizations across a number of policy fields. o Several trends are shaping the outlook for recreational fisheries. Indeed, these are the very trends that are shaping the entire fisheries sector over the next decade.

33 As part of the outlook for the fisheries and oceans sector, senior professional staff in the department recently identified five major trends: heightened public concern with the environment (sustainable development) increasingly diverse fishing clientele e.g. commercial, recreational, native greater public involvement in decision-making processes escalating allocation conflicts among user groups, and increased importance of science and technology. o Rather than consider all these trends, I want to focus this morning on one single phenomenon that I consider to be extraordinarily significant, not only in terms of the recreational fisheries sector but also in terms of the changing relationship between government and non-government organizations. I believe that this trend deals with the fundamental relationship between citizens and governments and in some respects speaks to the very issue of governance in our pluralistic society. o Specifically, I will address what I have called the rise of the regionally concentrated, single purpose, special interest group. My apologies for the excessively long expression, but I do believe that each component is important and mutually reinforcing. What do I mean? Let me start with special interest group. special interest group - What I mean is that the issue or concern is genuinely special to the particular group in the sense that the group views its concerns as legitimately special, requiring special treatment usually by government. By logical extension, special interests view only their interests as special and nobody elses. Examples of special interests include, animal rights advocates, pro-lifers, advocates for free choice, inshore fishermen, deficit eliminators. single purpose - What I mean by single purpose is that one single issue is more important to the group than any other issue. It is what political theorists call a "lexical preference" in the sense that there is one single preference that dominates all others. The implications of single purpose or single issue means that the group is most reluctant to seek compromise and tradeoff across the issues. The more narrow or special the interests, the more difficult it is to reach consensus. regionally concentrated Simply put, this is the ability to mobilize political support within our democratic system o.f representative government which is

34 based upon geographic representation. In short, representative government is geographically based Members of Parliament, regional caucuses, Premiers, Members of Legislative Assemblies, mayors and councillors - and it is from this geographic basis that influence is marshalled and brought to bear on policy decisions. o Not all special interest groups are single purpose. Some have broader purposes than others. Not all are regionally concentrated. Some enjoy a constituency which is non-geographic. However, when these three distinct forces converge - which is almost always the case on fisheries issues and sometimes the case in recreational fisheries - the resultant force is of such magnitude as to measure high up on the scale. My purpose is not to paint recreational fisheries interests with a broad brush to imply that somehow like regionally concentrated, single purpose, special interest groups they are inherently unmanageable. Rather, it is to position recreational fisheries in the context of broader forces and in so doing more clearly identify our changing roles and opportunities for partnerships. o For purposes of my presentation this morning, I want to deal with these regionally concentrated, single purpose, special interest groups (call them special interest groups, for short} from two perspectives. the rise of such special interest groups, and the implications for the changing roles of government and non-government organizations in the area of recreational fisheries.

RISE OF THE REGIONALLY CONCENTRATED SINGLE PURPOSE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP o The increasing importance of the special interest group is being propelled by a number of forces that are deeply embedded in the central processes of social, economic and technological change. While it is always difficult to speculate on future trends, let me list a few significant ones and draw out their implications in the recreational fisheries sector. o We are witnessing extremely rapid changes in technology in what has been popularly referred to as "the information society" . This new technology - ranging from the computer to the fax machine to the cellular telephone has led to dramatic improvements in the ability of groups and individuals to acquire, convert, and process both hard

35 data and soft intelligence into information, and in turn, information 1intoI advice and knowledge for decision-making. Such data atj.d information conversions as you know so well are speedy and reliable. Compared to a decade or two ago, these conver~ions can be made at relatively low cost. The new technology is empowering interest groups with information and data that in turn leads directly to advice and influence on decision-making. With the simple fax machine a : carefully crafted letter commenting the implications I for the recreational fisheries community of a fisheries aliocation can arrive on the Minister's desk with lightening speed - and certainly faster than the bureaucracy can expect tio gain the Minister' s ear on all but the most urgent and important of issues. I I o If there is : one field of public policy where reliable data and information is important it is the management of recreational! fish stocks. Knowing the size and health of the stock aslwell as the catch is essential. I believe that data compile~ by recreational fisheries interest groups will and must be~ome a more important source of informati'on and

advice upon 1 which to base fisheries management decisions. John Andersqn from the Atlantic Salmon Federation will no doubt have more to say this afternoon on the whole area of scientific ~ata collection and new partnerships between yourself and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which will be requ~red for mutual advantage.

I o Secondly, ttlere is an increasing emphasis on consultation; there is less secrecy within government; and more open styles of ~overning are emerging. This trend is firmly established and is increasing. It is no longer possible nor desirable, : if it ever was, to make policy without consultation:. The role of advisory groups in the recreational! fisheries - for example, organizations like the

B. C. Sports j Fishing Advisory Board, the Ontario Fisheries Advisory Council, the Atlantic Salmon Advisory Board, the Fish: and Wildlife Advisory Committee to name a few - will become 1 more important. The challenge for government and the Department is to learn better how to interact, consult andi work together with these and other advisory groups. I I I o Thirdly, I believe we will be seeing increasingly sharper

limits on ! the classical, hierarchical, bureaucratic structure o~ organizations. Downsizing in the public and private sectors are beginning to reduce unnecessary or redundant layers within organizations. There is a greater reliance fO:r advice and information from task forces, special ad : hoc groups, special committees, and emerging networks. 'rhe government needs to learn how to listen to and deal wit~ multiple voices. For example, in Newfoundland alone, a few years ago, salmon anglers could only

36 participate in the Atlantic Salmon Federation; then "SPAWN" and "SAEN" and "ERMA" were formed, and now the Salmonid Council of Newfoundland and Labrador has emerged. o Finally, many interest groups are becoming increasingly sophisticated and skillful in their use of the courts and the media. we are seeing and will continue to see an increasing number of claims by special interests for court orders to require the Minister or the Department to do something (i.e. , a mandamus) or not to do something (an injunction) or simply for a statement by the court that the Minister might do something (a declaration). With regard to the media, special interests know that the media reports what it hears. And special interests are becoming very skilled in putting their facts and arguments to the media and thereby shaping public opinion.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DFO & NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN RECREATIONAL FISHERIES Let me now turn to the implications of all this for recreational fisheries organizations and DFO. The emergence of sophisticated and articulate interests in the recreational fisheries implies a changing role for the operations of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In short, I believe it requires establishing new partnerships and, in some cases reinvigorating old ones that exist between the department and recreational fisheries organizations. Often in the face of intense regional and special interest pressures, the tendency for government is to retreat, to pull back, to sink into its shell. This is particularly the case in a period of fiscal restraint. When it comes to recreational fisheries, I do not believe the department can shirk its responsibilities. It cannot avoid recreational fisheries interests; on the contrary it must actively engage them. Firstly, the department recognizes recreational fisheries as an essential and vital part of fisheries management. That implies, I think, that we need a change some of the ways we have done · things in the past. To complement our national focus, the department is has appointed dedicated Recreational Fisheries Coordinators at a senior level in each of our six regions. Most of them are with is here today. Their key task is to ensure that recreational interests are heard and those interests integrated into the day to day fisheries management decision-making process. Secondly, I need hardly point out how important it is that we get the analysis right before decisions are taken. Here, I believe that partnerships between the department and recreational fisheries interest groups is the way to go. For fisheries managers to get the facts right they need to rely more and more on you, your expertise and your associations. This ranges all the way from the development and implementation of the national

37 ' I recreational ~isheries surveys to determining, with organizations, ljike the B.C. Sportfishing Advisory Board, the most reliable and cost-effective means for measuring fishina effort targetted : on chinook salmon. I believe we need to build and · expand our 1common history of partnerships which has been reflected in sue~ joint projects as the salmon genetics research program and the salmon rehabilitation initiatives of the Atlantic Salmon Federation. I

I Partnership implies consultation and working together. When it comes to data and analysis for recreational fisheries I believe this requires scrutiny, challenge and justification. We need to create opportuni~ies for DFO and recreational fisheries interests to consider tog~ther in a rational and calm manner, ways to improve the reliability of key data and information. I Many of the recreational fisheries organizations represented here today have been: successful because they have been able to mobilize countle~s volunteers to put their time and effort to the task of conserving and developing the recreational fisheries resource. The 1 love that volunteers have for recreational fishing, their d!edication to the task and their intimate local knowledge make tµem an extraordinary valuable human resource. I believe the challenge for you is to share with governments your knowledge on the skillful use of volunteers and through partnership withigovernments to teach us how to tap jointly this pool of dedication, expertise and goodwill. I Thirdly, I do not consider consultation and consensus building in the recreational: fisheries area to be an easy task. But it is increasingly more important. Achieving even rudimentary levels of consensus is ~ifficult with strong special interests, be they the commercial jsector, native claimants or the recreational fisheries communti..ty. Arguing the special interest clearly and rationally will I be important. in determining outcomes. But equally important, if not more so, is the need to articulate clearly the special interest as part of the common interest; to demonstrate that: the single purpose can be accommodated with the public purpose, :and to show how regional interests link to the national interesjt. Here I believe that recreational fisheries may have an adv~ntage over other competing claimants. You can build upon the cpmmon interest - a solid record of leadership in conservation. and: protection which is so critical to sustainable recreational fis~eries. You can speak to the public purpose by mobilizing a dedicated network of volunteers. And you can evoke the national interest as represented in the six million Canadians and 2,400 outfitters who are part of the recreational fishery in every region of ~he country. I I Let me conclud~ by returning to the concept of regionally concentrated, s~ngle purpose, special interest groups. The dominant view among most political scientists is that such groups are leading to increased fragmentation within society and that

38 the major challenge for governing is to reassert and develop the forces of integration. I do not take this extreme and pessimistic view when it comes to recreational fisheries. I am more optimistic because I believe that the recreational fisheries community and government, can and will develop new partnerships to ensure the sustained development of this important resource. I-believe the challenge for all of us over the next several days will be to think out how new partnerships can be put in place to pursue our mutual objectives across the range of activities that characterize recreational fisheries.

39

PRIVATE CORPORATION PROMOTION OF RECREATIONAL FISHERIES CONSERVATION by David Fay Christopher Lang and Associates

I am here today to provide you with some insight as to how you can benefit from working with private corporations. Corporations can provide financial assistance and public exposure to the program you have in place or are developing to preserve streams, rivers, and lakes so that recreational fishing can be enjoyed for many years to come. For their part, corporations are interested in becoming involved for two reasons: firstly, to improve their image and secondly, to sell products. I will use the Seagram Catch and Release Fishing promotion as an example of how this has proven to be successful. Never before have environmental issues and the preservation of Canada's outdoor heritage been so important and topical. From acid rain and pollutants to overharvesting and the greenhouse effect, these issues are faced by Canadians almost on a daily basis. At the same time, enjoyment of and participation in outdoor activities is at an all-time high. The environment has become an issue around which corporations can develop products and promotions. This has resulted because consumers and retailers are starting to become aware of the severity of the environmental problem. From Loblaws' Green Products to Proctor and Gamble's Enviro Packs to Petro Canada's recent Save The Wildlife promotion, consumers are being presented with programs and products skewed toward the environment. This presents an opportunity for fish and wildlife conservation groups. Corporations are prepared to lend financial support to assist in the development of programs and to generate awareness of the programs with the consumer. As an event marketing agency, it is our job to align our clients with events or programs that reach their consumers and ultimately assist in attaining volume sales and meeting their financial goals. Seagrams became involved in fishing for a number of reasons. First and foremost the promoted brand, Five Star Canadian Whiskey, and fishermen are synonomous. Targetting a program at fisherman made perfect sense as they tend to consume a great deal of the product. Secondly, after speaking to people at Fisheries

41 I I I I and Oceans Canada, as well as people at various provincial wildlife associations, we were advised that Catch and Release fishing was becdming increasingly popular. We felt that the approach of promQting the conservation of the sport had a good association with ithe environment. I I we had to convinqe senior management at Seagram that this was not just another "me ~oo" fishing program. Many other distillers and breweries run fisihing programs on a yearly basis. Their programs primarily promot6 the catching of the biggest fish and are attractive to wihat I call "sport" fishermen. Our sources indicate that "r~creational" fishermen represent over 80 per cent of active fishermen. Our program had a big advantage as it was targetted to an qverwhelming percentage of fishermen. I Once a theme was !decided on, we developed a three phase promotion designed to reach an audience that we felt would help us achieve our established pbjectives. The first phase of the program was launched in April of this year; the second ran in July and the third phase just :concluded at the end of October.

I we set the follo~ing objectives for the program: I I 1. Increase sa]es and share of Five star Canadian Whiskey I I 2. Secure incremental shelf and display space in-store ! I I 3. Make the public aware that Seagram was contributing to fisheries r~source conservation

I The initial phas~ of the program included the following elements: I I 1. ~ million neckhangers with Catch and Release tips I 2. 300,000 on packI jig-a-whopper fishing lures I 3. In-store baqkerI cards and displays I 4. A national: newspaper and campaign promoting Catch and Release I I I 5. Articles i~ selected fishing publications promoting the benefits of :catch and Release fishing 6. A press kit: to 200 selected outdoor writers from across the country : I The first phase: of the promotion was very successful. The feedback from co~sumers, salesforce, wildlife federations and the liquor boards was very favourable. The sales results exceeded the objectives tfuatI were established. The only negative feedback stemmed from the fact that we used barbed hooks.

42 The second phase of the program was a sweepstakes promotion which offered consumers a chance to win fishing related prizes such as: 1. Trips to Great Bear Lake 2. Boat and motor 3. 35 mm underwater cameras 4. Rods, reels, tackle boxes and lures This phase of the program was promoted through: 1. In-store displays and point of purchase pick-ups. 2. Press kits to outdoor writers 3 . Pamphlets The third phase of the program and the one which should be of greatest interest to you was the donation program. Under this program Seagram agreed to provide financial support to assist in the development of fishing conservation programs in return for the provincial federations' assistance in promoting Five Star's participation with its members. In a province like Ontario, where there are 70, 000 members in the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the impact on sales can be quite significant. As far as the donation is concerned, we established a base of over $20,000 to the participatory provinces. Each province had an opportunity to receive additional funds if the October sales of Five Star exceeded that of the previous year. In addition to receiving the financial support, the conservation programs were identified on the point of sale material in the liquor stores. There was a mailing address for consumers to write to, should they want further information on the programs. All in all, Catch and Release Fishing received a great deal of awareness with this program. In return for this support, we requested that the provinces provide us with the following: o Mention of the program in newsletters and magazines, identifying the conservation initiative selected o Display of Seagram Catch and Release program within a booth at sportsmen shows o Mention of Catch and Release in any direct mail campaigns undertaken within the province

43 I o Provision of names and mailing address of tourist lodges within the :province

I Seagram is not 1 the only corporation that has an interest in getting involved in programs such as these. Canadian Tire, Canada's largest seller of fishing and outdoor equipment has recently expres~ed interest in developing a program which is targetted at f is',hing.

I While Seagrams : and Canadian Tire are examples of large corporation tha~ run programs on a national basis, there may be opportunities tJo align yourself with regional companies to develop mutually beneficial programs. Anyone from a local sporting goods store to a nationally operated corporation like Canadian Tire :is interested in programs that will provide awareness and ul1timately1 move more product off the shelves. I I As we head into the 1990s, the environment will continue to be important to :canadians. This in turn should present you with more opportunities to align yourself with corporations as they continue to looJ

44 SCIENTIFIC DATA BASE FOR RECREATIONAL FISHERIES by J.M. Anderson, Ph.D. Vice-President of Operations Atlantic Salmon Federation

Introduction

To the extent that anecdotes describe and data define, the former may highlight the need for management of recreational fisheries, but it is the latter upon which effective management is based. The challenge, of course, is in obtaining the right kind of data on the fish and their habitat. Physical constraints on the ability to collect data is often a technical challenge. But the most daunting challenge is the intellectual one of knowing how to interpret the collected data so that the ultimate goal management of fish supply can be achieved through stock assessment, forecasting, and understanding of ecological interactions. Knowing what· data to collect, being able to collect them, and knowing what to do with the data after they are collected, obviously depend upon scientific research. In looking at the scientific support system in Canada for recreational fisheries, Pearse (1988) observed that Canadian fisheries science is high by international standards but meagre in relation to the vast recreational fisheries resource to be managed. It is also meagre in relation to the value of the resource which, according to Tuomi, is twice that of the commercial fisheries in the case of Atlantic salmon (Tuomi, 1987). Pearse recommended that scientific support be strengthened and made several suggestions for improving the institutional framework for fisheries research in Canada. I, too, have some recommendations for improving the fisheries research enterprise in Canada. They are made in the context of two specific problems for Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, but I believe they have general application.

Forecasting

The ~ssence of fisheries management is the provision to managers of accurate forecasts of the supply of fish so that rational regulations can be set. In the case of rivers (or lakes), ideally each should have its own set of harvest regulations, reflecting the unique set of factors controlling fish productivity in each water system. Such an approach is gaining support for Atlantic salmon. Instead of geographically-

45 I encompassing redulations, it is proposed that regulations be established for each major watershed. Regulations for harvesting would be dictated by the biological circumstances for each watershed, (Anon~ 1989 (a)). I I It is through providing sufficient eggs for the next generation that regulations: ultimately are effective. For Atlantic salmon the number of :adults required for optimum spawning can be calculated with '1reasonable accuracy (Prouzet and Dumas, 1988). But that is onlyi one half of the management regulation equation.

The other half i 1s knowing how many adults will actually return. While predicting 1smolt pro"duction from a known number of spawners is reasonably acFurate, the same cannot be said for forecasting adult returns from smolt production. variation in sea survival, in other words, is much greater than freshwater survival. I I What little quanFitative data exist indicate that less than half of the variatio41 in adult returns can be explained by smol t production (Chadwick, 1988). Fishing mortality must be responsible for some of the variation, but it is almost certainly natural mortality that is responsible for most of the variation in survival rateis during the marine phase of the salmon's life history. Envirohmental purturbations are the most logical cause of variation in: natural mortality. Sea-surface temperatures, affecting postsmplts probably directly through growth rates and indirectly thro~gh food supply, are the prime environmental suspects (Reddin, 1988); but other environmental factors are likely involved as well. I I In times of low istock abundance, when blanket, tough regulations are in force, fo~ecasts for returns which miss the mark are more a source of f~stration for the scientists than a cause for concern by managers since the regulations, probably considered Draconian by all users of the resource, are not amenable to change. As stocks begin to recover, however, the need increases for accurate retprn forecasts. And most importantly, watershed management of 1 Atlantic salmon absolutely requires good predictions of r$turns if the system is to work. There is, therefpre, an urgent need to shed light on the "black box" which engulfs the smolt when they leave the rivers. The physical and biO:logical factors controlling marine survival are probably no mdre complicated than those involved in the freshwater phase',. It is the formidable logistical challenges facing the phys~cal and biological oceanographers at sea which sets our understanding of the two environments apart. I It is recommendedI that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans increase its research efforts on the marine survival of salmon. The Bedford Instii..tute of Oceanography on the east coast, a.nd the Institute of Ocean Sciences on the west coast, have key roles to play.

46 While the users of the salmon generally recognize that it is their interests which conservation-oriented regulations ultimately are meant to serve, they do not always appreciate the importance of research and development in the formulation of effective regulations. This misperception of the utility of science and technology is not, of course, restricted to fisheries. For Atlantic salmon, however, this will likely change if watershed management is introduced. It proposed that all important management issues seasons, quotas, allocations, access, enhancement action, level of surplus, harvesting techniques, etc. - be decided upon by watershed committees with strong representation from the local users of the salmon resource. The importance of fisheries science to effective management will quickly become apparent to lay members of watershed committees. Interactive involvement of the users of the salmon resource in science-based decision making may help to increase .public awareness of the importance of research and development of management of the recreational fisheries. It is recommended that when users of the salmon resource are involved in management activities, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans make an effort to get their input into the setting of research and development priorities. Interactions Between Aquaculture Stocks and Wild Stocks The explosive growth of commercial aquaculture has raised widespread concern about potential adverse interactions between aqua cul tu re stocks and wild stocks. Salmon have come in for particular attention (Anderson, 1988). The basis for concern is threefold: introduction and transfer of diseases from farmed fish to wild fish (and vice versa) presence of farmed fish affecting behaviour of wild fish genetic dilution of gene pools of wild fish Genetic effects pose the greatest threat since, if real, they are permanent. The concern is that aquaculture escapees will mate with native wild stocks and introduce into the gene pool of the latter gene combinations ill suited for survival in the local environment. Actually, this is not a new problem. It has been around for more than 100 years - since the first salmon hatchery was established in Germany in 1852 - through the stocking of rivers with juvenile salmon for public enhancement purposes. An example of the potential danger of introgression through stocking non-indigenous salmon in enhancement programs has been described by Altukhov (1981). Between 1964 and 1971, 350 million fertilized chum salmon (Onchorynchus keta) eggs were transferred

47 from the Kalininka River to the Naiba River on Sakhalin Island (near Japan} in the USSR. A genetic shift towards characteristics of1 the Kalininka fish started by 1969. By 1985, the Naiba River population was virtually extinct, caused, it was concluded, by 1a massive genetic migration of non-adapted genotypes. Evidence for Atlantic salmon, similar to that for the Naiba River chums, is lacking, although Bailey (1987} has shown that experimental crossing between two salmon stocks produced offspring with 1 reduced horning ability, presumably due to impairment of genetic components of migration behaviour. Also, Thorpe (1988} has pointed out that since the genetic variation is Salrno species is 1very much greater than for Onchorynchus species, the possibility of1 doing genetic damage by introducing non-native genes into loca~ stocks of Atlantic salmon should be of some concern to Atla!}tic salmon managers, al though it can be argued that, if Atlantic salmon are more variable within stocks, they should be more r~silient to the effects of introgression. The threat of ',damaging introgression through indiscriminate transfers of enh?ncement stocks has now greatly diminished. With the recognition1 that each river has its own unique and genetically disdrete stock of salmon, it is now general policy that broodstock : for enhancement purposes come from the river itself to be sto~ked. This significantly reduces the possibility of deleterious g!enetic introgression. It also ensures that the broodstock have: had to undergo successfully the rigours of natural selection in at least the marine phase of their life history. It is the sud~en surge in commercial aquaculture which has increased concern about the genetic implications of interactions between aquaculture and wild stocks. Not only are natural selection pressures greatly reduced at all life stages, thus promoting the survival of individuals which would normally be selected out by ~nature, but genetic change is actively promoted through selecti~e breeding, so that even if the initial stock came from the a;rea where the commercial operation is located, escapees from the operation would, in a few generations, be genotypically qu~te different from their wild progenitors.

', It has been estimated by the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization that, on average, 15 per cent of Atlantic salmon held in sea cages escape accidently (Anon, 1988). In Norway it has been estimated that at least 700,000 salmon escaped from sea cages in 1988, approximately the same number as the total wild salmon run (Anon:, 1989 ( b} } . At a projected world production of 165,000 metric ~ons (MT} of Atlantic salmon in 1989 (Anderson, 1989}, there ar~ perhaps as many as 6 million stray salmon in the North Atlan~ic, mostly off Norway and Scotland (9 lbs. was used as the avevage weight). For Canada, where Atlantic salmon production in 19:89 is estimated at 4,500 MT (Anderson, 1989), a comparable calculation gives an estimated number of escapees of 165,000. Since the total number of wild salmon returning to

48 spawn in Atlantic Canada is only about one million (Ritter and Porter, 1980) , the current number of escapees may be only a modest 15 per cent of the wild population in Canada. In fact, however, the effective percentage of escapees is much larger. Virtually all of the east coast salmon production is from the Bay of Fundy where, by my calculations, the total natural runs of salmon amount to less than 50, 000 annually. Using the NASCO escape rate of 15 per cent make the number of escapees more than three times the number of wild salmon. Based on the number of smelts which went into the sea cages this spring (2.5 million), a production of 10,000 MT is forecast for the Bay of Fundy in 1990. In the near future, production should reach 20, 000 MT, at which level escapees could outnumber wild salmon by an overwhelming fifteen to one. The NASCO escape rate, based on European experience, is, I believe, too high for the Bay of Fundy. Here an estimate of 5 per cent is more appropriate. But even at this conservative rate, the number of escapees would still outnumber the wild stocks by almost five to one. On the west coast, total farmed salmon production by the year 2000 is forecast at SD,000 MT (Anon, 1989 (c)), composed mostly of coho salmon, O~ kisutch, and chinook salmon, O. tshawytscha. Reliable data were not available on the number of wild coho and chinook salmon returning t

49 females, which :obviates concern over threats to the genetic integrity of wild stocks from aquaculture escapees. For reasons of cost, and currently because of biological matters (e.g. slower growth of sterile fish compared to growth of fertile, non-sexually mature fish), the aquaculture industry on its own is unlikely to move: vigorously into the use of sterile stocks. Yet it is clear that the potential for damage to wild stocks is escalating rapidly. Action needs to be taken now. I It is recommendedI that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans give high pri0rity to research in the area of genetic interactions between aquaculture and wild stocks. I I It is also recommended that the appropriate federal and provincial gove~nment departments give active and immediate consideration tp the formulation of regulations designed to minimize the risk of genetic damage in wild stocks caused by the inadvertent release of aquaculture fish. I I In view of the 1 aquaculture industry's central position in the issue of interachtions between wild and aquaculture stocks, the industry should ibe directly involved in the design, conduct and financing of appropriate research in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. An example of such an arrangement on f:he east coast is the Salmon Genetics Research Program, administered by the Atlantic Salmon Federation, but funded jointly b¥ the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the New Brunswick Salmon Growers' Association, and the Federation. On the west coast, :the recently-formed British Columbia Aquaculture Research and De~elopment Council seems to be a promising vehicle for promoting coilaborative research. I I It is recommended that government funding for research into the area of bio1og1ca1 interactions between aquaculture and wild stocks promote direct involvement by, and government collaboration with, the aquaculture industry itself.

50 REFERENCES

Altukhov, Y.P. 1981 The Stock Concept from the Viewpoint of Population Genetics. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 38: 123-128 .Anderson, J.M. 1988 Effects of Aquaculture on Salmon Management, In: Present and Future Atlantic Salmon Management. pp 83-92. Editor R.H. Stroud, Atlantic Salmon Federation, Ipswich, Mass., and National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc. Savannah, Georgia Anderson, J.M. 1989 Farmed to Success. Atlantic Salmon Journal 38(3): 36-37 Anon, 1988 Potential Impacts of Salmon Farming on Wild Stocks. NASCO Paper CNL (88)21, Edinburgh Anon, 1989(a) Securing the Atlantic Salmon's Future: A Long-Term Management Policy for the Atlantic Salmon. Atlantic Salmon Federation, St. Andrews, N.B. Anon, 1989 (b) Possible Development of Codes of Practice to Minimize Threats to Wild Stocks. NASCO Paper CNL(89)23, Edinburgh Anon, 19 8 9 ( c) Long Term Production Outlook for the Canadian Aquaculture Industry. Dept. Fisheries and Oceans pub., Economic and Commercial Analysis Rept. No. 13, Ottawa Anon, 1989 (d) Report of Dublin Meeting on Genetic Threats to Wild Stocks from Salmon Aquaculture, NASCO Paper CNL(89)19, Edinburgh Bailey, J.K. 1987 Canadian Sea Ranching Program (east coast), In EIFAC/FAO Symposium on Selection, Hybridization and Genetic Engineering in Aquaculture. Editor K. Tiews, Heenemann, Berlin Chadwick, E.M.F. 1988 Relationship between Atlantic Salmon Smol ts and Adults in Canadian Rivers. In: Atlantic Salmon: Planning for the Future, pp. 301-324. Editors Mills and Figgins, Timber Press, Portland, Oregon Pearse, P.H. 1988 Rising to the Challenge. Report of Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa

51 Prouzet, P. and 1988 Measurement of Atlantic Salmon Spawning Dumas, J. Escapement. In: Atlantic Salmon: Planning for the Future, pp. 325-344. Editors Mills and Figgins, Timber Press, Portland, Oregon Reddin, D.C. 1988 Ocean Life of Atlantic Salmon in the Northwest Atlantic. In: Atlantic Salmon: Planning for the Future, pp. 483-511. Editors Mills and Figgins, Timber Press, Portland, Oregon Ritter, J.A. and 1980 Issues and Promises for Atlantic Salmon Porter, T.R. Management in Canada, In: Atlantic Salmon: Its Future. Editor A.E.J. Went, Fishing News Books Ltd., Farnham, England Thorpe, J.E. 1988 Salmon Enhancement: Stock Discreteness and Choice of Material for Stocking. In: Atlantic Salmon: Planning for the Future, pp. 373-388. Editors Mills and Figgins, Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. Tuomi, A.L.W. 1987 Canada's Atlantic Salmon Recreational Fisheries and Their Future: An Economic Overview. Spec. Pub. 14, Atlantic Salmon Federation, St. Andrews, N.B.

52 FISHERIES AND HABITAT IMPROVEMENT by ., Walt Crawford Trout Unlimited Canada Grand River (Ontario) Chapter

The Grand River Chapter of Trout Unlimited Canada is a cold water conservation group dedicated to the enhancement and preservation of trout and salmon habitat. Our chapter is located in south west Ontario on the Grand River, which is 186 miles long, flowing through a large urban area with· a total population of 650 ,000 people. Some of the slides which you will be seeing are a sampling of the rehabilitative project work in the Grand River basin. These projects include dam removals, the in-filling of in-stream ponds, bank stabilization and other site specific works that are effective, but small in scope and generally initiated by local government agencies. Concurrently, a few land developers, supported by innovative consultants, are endeavouring to initiate small scale, environmentally sound works. By using infiltration methods for storm water management during the construction of Idlewood Estates in the town of Conestoga, an intermittent stream benefitted from the re-establishment of stabilized base flows and temperatures. The result: a healthy population of self-sustaining brook trout. Approvals from various government agencies took ten years. River Oak Estates was initiated by an aggregate producer. This project involved.the reclamation, for estate lot housing, of an exhausted gravel extraction site. A cold water pond was created by collecting springs and upwellings to form a successful trout population. The overflow from the pond sustains a warm water pond on the Grand River flood plain. This structure provides much needed spawning and nursery habitat for a variety of warm water game fish species. Approvals were obtained in three years. Other projects, similar in that they attempt to enhance the environment within the context of land development, are also going ahead. Approval times are gradually improving as bureaucrats become more receptive to new ideas. On another front, non-government organizations were able to perform some site- specific rehabilitative works and assist the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources with their stocking programs. This work was restricted to a few tributaries of the Grand River.

53 In essence, we haveI three distinct groups: I o local gover.tlments;

I o private ind4stry; and o non-governm~nt organizations I These three groups usually work towards a common, but ill-defined goal, frequentlyiwithout coordination. The projects are small in scope and very :difficult to execute due to lack of funding, ineffective communication and bureaucratic concern over jurisdiction. ~esults, although beneficial, were insignificant in comparison tc;> the rapidly increasing rate of environmental deterioration. Enormous pressures are being brought to bear on

1 already strained 1 infrastructures and support systems. Losses are sometimes the result of lack of time for sound planning. As evidenced by the: state of our environment generally, and aquatic habitat specifically, we have not done a good job to date. We are all responsi~le for this failing. I Loss of habitat) dwindling fish stocks, angler dissatisfaction and bureaucraticlfrustrations are just symptoms of the problem we have created by : meddling with a very complex ecosystem. The results are unacceptable to us all. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, dorl' t fix it." It wasn't broke in pre-settlement times, but we sure fixed it. We must endeavour to return the system to a l~vel as close as possible to pre-settlement conditions. But~ we can only achieve the solution together.

I Through the ini~iative of the Mayor and Council of the City of Waterloo, working in conjunction with Trout Unlimited volunteers, Laurel Creek, a 115 mile long stream will be rehabilitated. Our goal is to retur* this system to pre-settlement conditions. I The system is :a complex mixture of heavily urbanized and industrial areas, agricultural and recreational zone and idle land that is s~ated for development. By involving all the stakeholders ( i .I e. private sector, approval agencies and the public) in the e:stablishment of goals, the approval time will be shortened with a! reduction in carrying costs for the developers. This money has ~een committed for rehabilitation of the system. Further funds w.iJll be provided by an increase in lot levies of about $60 per hcbusing unit. Estimated cost for the project is $20 million. : I I As I speak, two :large developers along with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the City of Ki ~chener are meeting to develop a plan to allow development to proceed on Strasburg Creek in such a way that the

54 system will be rehabilitated and enhanced. The goal is a natural enclave about eight miles long in an urban environment. Cost for enhancement will be recovered utilizing similar strategies as those for Laurel Creek. Both endeavours are based on system level planning, recognizing the uniqueness of each wa.tershed, and are only possible through the focussed efforts of a partnership. The Grand River Conservation Authority, working with Preston Sand and Gravel are undertaking the creation of a wetland complex at Snyder Flats on the Grand River. This 96 hectare initiative was made possible by combining sound environmental planning with a below the water table aggregate extraction process. Through the extraction of a resource in high demand in Southern Ontario, a riverine habitat is being created. This is financed through royal ties and by the savings resulting from performing restorative efforts simultaneously with the extraction programs. In 1942, Shand Dam was constructed on the Grand River for flood control purposes. It was retrofitted in the early 1950s to produce electricity. The bottom draw structure then created a cold water environment for approximately 20 km downstream. This area was not utilized as trout habitat due to lack of funds and bureaucratic oversight. Through the joint efforts of Trout Unlimited, Ministry of Natural Resources and the Grand River Conservation Authority, 105 brown trout yearlings were introduced. The fish were sampled after five months and evidenced a 140 per cent growth rate. Over the next five years, 100,000 yearlings will be introduced and 4,000 square metres of spawning habitat constructed, that being the only constraint now to a self-sustaining brown trout population. These projects are ambitious, large in scale and demonstrate innovative ways to achieve our goal of habitat improvement or reclamation, while allowing Canada to continue to grow and prosper on a sustainable basis. They demonstrate that we can change the way we do business, change the way we interact and change our attitudes. By a change in attitudes and perceptions we can pool our resources and expertise to effect positive change. Let us form a partnership based on trust, based on the recognition that we will encounter problems along the way, but we will solve them jointly and based on honesty. Let's roll up our sleeves and get the job done.

55

CO-MANAGEMENT OF THE ATLANTIC SALMON by Conrad Hiscock and David Tizzard Salmon Preservation Association for the Waters of Newfoundland (SPAWN)

A. INTRODUCTION: Fish and Fantasy In his classic book, The Compleat Angler, the eminent outdoorsman, Izaak Walton, wrote in 1653, "The time that a man spends fishing is not counted against the time he has to spend on this earth. " It is no wonder, then, that so many persons have enjoyed the recreational activity of angling all over the world for centuries. If recreational fishing is such an enjoyable sport, then angling with a fly for the Atlantic salmon must be the ultimate in fishing experiences. Joseph Bates, Jr. in his book, Atlantic Salmon and Flies and Fishing is quoted, "The Atlantic salmon is the world's most exciting and challenging fish!" Indeed, the ancient Romans fished the Atlantic salmon in Great Britain and named the fish Salmo salar, which translated means 'the leaper'. Bing Crosby often flew to Reykjavik to fish the Laxa River in Iceland and, in the eighteenth century, Sir David Kirke fished for Atlantic salmon on the Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland using artificial flies tied from hair from the tails of his Herefords. If so many people are imbued with the enjoyment, challenge and mystique of the Atlantic salmon, it is no wonder that they have become concerned about the depletion of the resource in the North Atlantic Ocean and, in particular, in Newfoundland. It is as a result of these concerns that a determination was made by proponents of the recreational fishery that something had to be done. This was recognized in 1986, at the Federal Provincial Task Force on Salmon Management, which recommended greater public participation in future salmon management.

At that time resource co-management was defined as "the meaningful participation in the creation and, where possible, the implementation of management policy."

B. SPAWN: A Proactive Partner

SPAWN is an acronym for the Salmon Preservation Association for the Waters of Newfoundland. It was organized in 19i9 by a group of western Newfoundland anglers who were concerned about the decline of Atlantic salmon stocks. In 1981 SPAWN became involved

57 I I I in the manageme.Q.t process through the establishment of Zonal Management Commi -t;:tees. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans utilized SPAWN t0 contribute the views of recreational fishermen to their planning process. I I During the past : decade, this co-operative relationship matured significantly and is developing into a potential co-management partnership. T~is paper will identify SPAWN' s experience in resource co-management and will describe its current initiative in a new and innovative approach to enhance and manage the Humber River ecosystem. : I The following initiatives will demonstrate SPAWN'S experience in resource co-management: I (a) Stock Asses~1 ment I I 1. joint funding by DFO/SPAWN and voluntary support by SPAWN :of a counting fence at Fishcell's River in western Newfoundland I I 2. partic~pation by DFO/SPAWN in a creel census in the

Humber 1 River, which is a major element in a DFO design~d enhanced stock assessment of the Humber River

( b) Enhancement i I I 1. the blasting of an obstruction at Southwest Brook to allow ~he passage of spawning runs I 2. the d~velopment of a specific fishway design and enhanc~ment strategy to enhance the Humber River salmon run to', the unutilized spawning area above the Main Falls. 1 I I 3. the promotion and utilization of habitat restoration (river ',clean-up) through SPAWN's project management and DFO funding I I ( c) Enforcement , 1. continuing consultation by DFO with SPAWN to design and implement an Auxiliary Fishery Officer Program I I 2. SPAWN'~ employment of river monitors to provide survei~lance assistance to DFO (d) Environmental Protection I I 1. implementing a "Don't Be Mean: Keep It Clean" campaign

58 2. SPAWN taking a proactive role in defining environmental issues (e) Management 1. SPAWN' s direct participation in defining recreational fishing seasons, closed areas, etc. 2. SPAWN' s participation in an experimental 'catch and release' project at Western Arm Brook 3. DFO' s consultations with SPAWN in the development of river quotas for selected streams in western Newfoundland 4. SPAWN'S participation in the establishment of a western Newfoundland Recreational Fishery Advisory Committee c. BACKGROUND: Ecosystem The Humber River is over 150 kilometers long and has a drainage area of over 7000 square kilometers. The Bay of Islands is a series of deep fiords including Humber Arm, Good Arm, North Arm, and Penguin Arm. In addition to the Humber, there are a number of other rivers, including Cook's Brook, Hughes Brook and Goose Arm River that flow into the Bay of Islands. The spawning potential of the Humber River for Atlantic salmon is among the highest of all Canadian east coast rivers. The Humber River is world famous and contains a run of very large, multi-sea-winter salmon. One angler officially recorded taking a fish that weighed 38 pounds from the Humber River during the last season before a "grilse only" regulation became law. The Bay of Islands-Humber River ecosystem was chosen as the target for this resource co-management project because of its importance and its potential as well as the problems facing the Atlantic salmon resource. Fish habitat throughout the entire system has been adversely affected during the 20th century due to many reasons including log driving, construction of dwellings along the river banks, and the dumping of raw sewage and industrial waste. Combined with the increasing demands by the commercial and recreational users, the future of the Atlantic salmon is at risk. The consequence of this is having a negative effect on the economy of the area and the province in general.

59 D. ORGANIZATION: A Will and a Way ! I Problems with resource management are omnipresent and it was with a solution in m:tnd that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Directors of SPAWN organized a resource co-ma*agement committee with SPAWN providing the leadership by asting as its Chairman. I I The resource 1 co-management committee was organized with representation• 1fromI the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the pr0vincial Department of Tourism, the provincial Department of Development, regional development associations and an aquaculturist currently employed in the region. I I Terms of refer~nce for the committee were developed giving the core working g~oup the authority to add members from other government departmentsI including municipal councils, industry and other proactive:interest groups as the need presented itself. I I Indeed, a numb~r of interest groups have been organized in the Humber Valley-B*y of Islands area as a result of concerns for the future of the !Atlantic salmon resource. Regional development associations haf.'e been involved in many projects over the past decade. :

I In organizing :the resource co-management committee, it was recognized that: these groups would have to be kept informed of the activities1 of the committee in order to ensure optimum benefits without duplication of effort.

I As part of the; process, the need for a study to determine the specific strat~gic goals was recognized as one of the most important parts1 of the whole process. Effective communications between the re:source co-management committee and the various groups would al~o be key to the success of the project. I A Steering Committee has been appointed and it has adopted the responsibility to co-ordinate the direction of the study and the projects that ~ill be planned, implemented and delivered by the various groups I involved in the implementation stages. The committee has applied for funding from various sources. I I I E. PROJECT OBfJECTIVES: A Results-Oriented Initiative I Project objectiwesI were established and include: I 1.0 ASSES'SMENT

60 1.1 Current and Past Enhancement and Habitat Projects Hughes Brook North Brook Steady Brook Humber Arm Environmental Committee

1.2 Habitat River Clean-up Obstructions stream surveys

1.3 Salmon Stock Creel census Scale sampling Electrofishing Counting fences 1.4 Quotas (commercial and recreational)

Numbers allocated Numbers caught

2.0 STRATEGIES 2.1 Enhancement Habitat clean-up and restoration Removal of obstructions, barriers Restocking Adult transfers 2.2 Management Licensing Enforcement Quotas Season duration Allocation of areas for commercial harvest Management Committee Commercial development and control in sports fishery In order to influence a better management policy for the Atlantic salmon resource, it is recognized that there are two major reasons for the decline: 1. overharvesting by all user groups 2. habitat alteration and destruction

61 rt is also recognized that in order for any management plan to succeed, it has to fulfill the following requirements: I 1. it has:to be based on accurate biological advice 2. it has: to be understood and accepted by those to whom it is

P. LESSONS LEARNED: Much Done But More To Do

It is evident t~at through co-operative arrangements much can be achieved. Th~ experience of DFO with SPAWN and other organizations su~h as the Bay of Islands North Shore Development Association, through its project at Hughes Brook, will attest to I these past perfo~mances and successes. However, much more has to be achieved. Continuance of stock depletion is evidence enough that past management plans have not been completely : successful. This is further evident by the increasing cynicism towards the federal government, its officials and by criticisms of volunteer organizations such as SPAWN. I I

I G. KEY ISSUES AND OBSTACLES IN CO-OPERATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT i I I The Atlantic salmon continues to play a very important role in the economic and: recreational lifestyles of not only Newfoundland but all of Atlantic Canada. In 1988, 3, 432 commercial salmon fishermen (3,240; in NF) harvested 1,327 metric tons of flesh valued at $4,000~000. Further, the recreational fishery employed over 2,500 in the outfitting business and anglers spent a total of $35,000,000 t6 enjoy their recreation. Combined with acyelerated political pressures, including the call for the resignation of the Minister of Fisheries, there is a growing friction between resource users. In particular, recreational fishermen do not see themselves in bed with the commercial harv~sters. Governments are having problems with jurisdictions, tfhe Fisheries Act is federal legislation, the Wildlife Act is 'provincial and there is only token co-operation between enforcement agencies. All this leads to lack of trust, a continuance of stock depletion and the continuance of the lack of a commitment to a results-oriented approach designed to solve the major prqblems. '

62 H. BENEFITS OF RESULTS-ORIENTED RESOURCE CO-MANAGEMENT: Visions £or the 21st Century A natural evolution to SPAWN'S expanding involvement is the accepting a leadership role in the development and management of the Bay of Islands-Humber River ecosystem. The potential benefits to salmon management with the successful implementation of this project will be significant. Anticipated benefits include: 1. Enhanced stock assessment and the development of techniques to improve forecasting for other systems

2. Defined sharing arrangements between user groups and increased economic and recreational returns from an enhanced stock

3. Optimum economic benefits to ancillary groups, i.e. , ecotourists, canoeists, outfitters, etc. 4. Minimizing interception of Non-Humber salmon by redefining commercial salmon fishing patterns 5. Promotion of the non-consumptive utilization of the resource 6. Enhanced public involvement and increased awareness of resource conservation principles and objectives. If, as a result of this process, there is increased goodwill between governments, industry and resource users, it is likely that SPAWN' s strategy to enhance and manage the Atlantic salmon resource in the Bay of Islands-Humber River will succeed. The commitment of the staff of the western Newfoundland office of DFO in the past have demonstrated their interest and intent to a sincere and productive initiative. The success of this initiative is dependent upon the commitment and participation of all the partners in this strategy. SPAWN'S commitment to organize and co-ordinate this process is real and the organization is dedicated to providing a leadership role. Benefits of this long term development and management strategy and its many projects will accrue to all resource users and may be used as a model in other parts of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. Nevertheless, the commitment of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans cannot be overlooked. They must support this approach in thought, word and deed.

They, too, have to be a "real partner in the process."

63

THE ZEC CONCEPT IN QUEBEC by Gabriei Peiietier President Federation of ZEC Managers of Quebea

INTRODUCTION Controlled Exploitation Zones (ZECs) are established by the Government of Quebec, on the recommendation of the Minister of Recreation, Fish and Game, when the Minister is concerned that, without a control in addition to that provided by the basic hunting or fishing regulations, wildlife will be overharvested in a given territory. ZECs are managed by non-profit associations, through management delegation, under a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Recreation, Fish and Game (MLCP).

ZECs IN A NUTSHELL The ZEC concept is based on four major principles that dictate the responsibilities of the non-profit management organizations: 1. Wildlife conservation . Management organizations must ensure that fish and wildlife harvesting is monitored and controlled along with user demand. 2. Accessibility to resources . Organizations must ensure equal access to anyone who would like to make recreational use of fish and wildlife. 3. Participation of users . ZECs are democratic entities managed and administered by volunteer users who live in the surrounding area.

4. Self-financing of operations . Self-generated income, primarily from membership cards and the sale of hunting and fishing packages and day passes, enables most ZECs to finance themselves. Fees are established democratically, with this objective in mind. Each ZEC is managed, on a voluntary basis, by a duly incorporated non-profit association. Representatives are democratically elected to the management association at the annual meeting of user-members. Members of the board of directors are first and foremost hunters and fishermen who take charge of all wildlife

65 I I I management in the territory. Anyone wishing to become a member may do so by si~ply submitting an application to the management association of the ZEC concerned. I I ZECs are usuall1y located in territories where there is enough fish and wildlife to satisfy the demand of hunters and fishermen. Their activities must nevertheless be closely monitored to pr~vent overharvesting, including, if necessary, the adoption of mor~ stringent regulations than existing ones. In fact, every effort is being made to ensure proper fish and wildlife management and the sustainability of resources. Finally, this t~pe of management allows all users to benefit from the natural resources of Quebec.

THREE TYPES OF ZECS

I' In the province: of Quebec, there are seventy-one ZECs covering a total of 44, 112: square kilometres and 674 kilometres of salmon rivers. They' are categorized according to the activities practised on the territory: sixty-one hunting and fishing ZECs; nine for salmon fishing ; and one for hunting waterfowl. They are located near urban or rural centres and are generally very accessible. : ZECs for hunting and fishing are found in all administrative regions of Quebec, except in northern or New Quebec. Users may harvest brook tirout, lake trout, northern pike, walleye, moose, white-tailed deer, black bear and small game. I I ZECs for salmon: fishing provide fly-fishing enthusiasts with the opportunity to :fish salmon while discovering the beauty of the country in the Gaspe, Saguenay or North Shore regions. There is also secondary fishing of anadromous brook trout (sea trout) in these regions. 1

The Oie-Blanche~de-Montmagny ZEC, located on the battures of the st Lawrence in Montmagny, provides waterfowl enthusiasts with the opportunity to ~unt snow geese and various waterfowl species. With the objective of making fish and wildlife accessible to everyone, ZECs Iplso open their• doors to nature lovers who prefer observation to hunting. Those who wish to observe the habits of animals in the!ir natural habitat will benefit from excellent observation are~s in ZECs. These territories are also suitable for hiking entl}usiasts or those attracted to Quebec plant life for its beauty and the flavour of its wild fruit and mushrooms.

66 THE ROLE OF USERS users may, depending on their interest, become one-year members of the management association of the ZEC that they frequent. As members, they will be able to participate in the activities of the management association, and by exercising their right to vote at the annual meeting, they ensure participation in the decision-making process for ZEC operations such as rate setting, habitat protection and the types of services off~red. The privilege of membership assumes its full importance at the general meeting when the management association votes on the application · of new regulatory powers pursuant to the implementation of the new legislation adopted in the Legislative Assembly in 1988. At this same meeting, user members may be elected as administrators within the management association and thereby increase their participation in resource management. As members, they also enjoy certain benefits such as hunting packages, fishing packages and annual family packages. All ZEC users must assume certain responsibilities, such as: respecting hunting and fishing laws and regulations; complying with directives and codes of ethics adopted by the fish and wildlife management association; participating actively in resource conservation by declaring the exact quantity of game and fish captured, the place they were captured, and the number of days of hunting and fishing.

PROCEDURES FOR HUNTING AND FISHING IN A ZEC Individuals who enter a wildlife management area should, when so required by the management association, register at a check station. A copy of the proof of registration issued by the organization should be kept during the entire stay so that it can be presented on request to the conservation officer or a deputy conservation officer. This copy must be surrendered at the exit. In the ZECs for hunting and fishing, user members and non-members may pursue any animal or fish and they are not required to make reservations for their activities. In ZECs for salmon fishing, fishermen members or non-members must make reservations for their activities in limited-access areas. Users who wish to hunt in waterfowl ZECs must comply with a number of additional rules. Reservations must be made in advance in order to be able to hunt at a particular time. Also, waterfowl hunters in the ZEC must hunt from a blind installed by

67 the management qrganization and identified on the registration form. Furthermote, waterfowl hunters must comply with the dates indicated on the:form.

I NEW REGULATIONS GOVERNING ZECS I

I The new terms 1of the Act respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife enable the government to considerably expand the powers of ZEC management associations. ' I These new powers~ the object of which is better fish and wildlife management and : greater control of poaching, will enable management associations to improve conservation. However, strict rules such as that requiring the management association to obtain two thirds of the members ' votes at the general meeting, will delineate this autonomy in order to ensure that the rights of users are respec:ted in wildlife management. Also, members who participate in t~e annual meetings shall be notified at least ten days before the ~eeting and will receive a copy of the proposed regulations with:this notification. Members attending the general meeting could therefore be asked to vote on measur~s such ps user registration procedures, the division of the ZEC into hunting or fishing sectors, and quotas for moose hunti1p.g when there is risk of overharvesting the species. Finally, all management association regulations adopted pursuant to the: new legislation must be posted at the check station and a copy must be sent on request to all members who engage in activities in the management area. I

POACHING A.ND ENFORCEMENT

I Wildlife conservation must be everyone's concern. Non-compliance with regulations;can cause irreparable damage to wildlife. This is why hunting 1 and fishing enthusiasts must be aware that poaching threate*s the future of some species, and could result in the deterioration of hunting and fishing territories in the long term. : I

ZEC management 1,associations, in their concern for the sound management of fish and wildlife resources, co-operate with wildlife conserv:ation officers to augment regular surveillance and enforcement.: Individuals who do not comply with the Act are liable to substantial fines. However, volunteer associations and managers rely on the sense of belonging and respect felt by hunters and anglers to make these territories an agreeable place to enjoy the pleasures of hunting and fishing.

68 USER SATISFACTION ZECs have proven to be a popular and accessible concept among hunters and fishermen in Quebec. There is awareness of the existence of ZECs, large numbers of users have memberships, and usage is high as seen by the extremely high attendance rate (more than sixty person days per km2) . Moreover, the annual fee of less than $100 is fair compared to other alternatives for outdoor recreation, and the physical ease of access has contributed to the popularity of ZECs. The absence of user quotas, the possibility of participation by non-ZEC members and standard regulations are some of the elements that contribute to making this accessibility non-discriminatory. There is dissatisfaction, however, among some groups with respect to accessibility, for example, among trout anglers in May and June and among big game hunters. Some thought is warranted, therefore, in terms of the services offered and the daily fees and packages, to limiting access at certain periods in order to improve the experience for some activities. It appears that the concept of ZECs remains vague among the population at large. The identity problem may lie in the confusion people have between thinking of ZECs as a structure on one hand or an enterprise on the other; its mission is not clear, nor is its management methods and objectives. It is sometimes perceived as a product, and sometimes as a service. ZECs are often seen as being under the relatively close supervision of the government fish and game department and its managers . It is not clear to many people whether they are supposed to be cost-effective and financially self-sufficient. People do not seem to be aware of the financial obligations of ZECs. The only exception is that people seem to have a better perception of the economic impact generated in the case of salmon ZECs.

FINANCING The financial health of management associations is excellent, for both the wildlife and salmon ZECs. The government assistance they have enjoyed is in part responsible, as is the latitude they have had in rate-setting since 1982. Fish and wildlife ZECs have successfully self-financed their operations; at the same time, increased fees have helped in some situations to bring the fishing pressure to a more conservative level. ZECs for salmon fishing have not as yet become self-financed.

69 CONSERVATION AND: PROTECTION I With respect t6 maintaining the level of fish and wildlife utilization, harvesting of brook trout is generally stable. Following very ;strong pressure at the outset, an upward fee adjustment in recent years was probably one of the factors that contributed to : bringing the average harvesting rates to 64% overall. : I I With regard to : user satisfaction, the quality of hunting and fishing received: the lowest rates for ZECs ( 72%) , a rate similar to that found inl a survey of users of eighteen ZECs in 1978. I I The objective for control and enforcement does not seem to have been achieved, 1 primarily because of the inability of the surveillance sy~tem to counter user concealment, an inadequate exchange of ihformation or insufficient surveillance and monitoring. $pecific operational control procedures seem, however, to be applied on a fairly wide scale basis, particularly with regard to S;easonal reports, lake closures, exclusive use of salmon flies and1 the absence of a bow-and-arrow hunting season. i I Finally, in terms of fish and wildlife habitat conservation, although the ZEC: associations have not been assigned any specific targets, they d0 become involved to the extent . they are able. The hundreds of: stream projects completed by associations have certainly contributed to the fish and wildlife conservation objective. The deterioration of the environment that can be observed is not :related to the existence of ZECs, but to external factors over which managers have no control. I • I Repressive enforcement is frequently advocated as a miracle solution for the abuses and violations that can be found in ZECs. Only the; conservation officers would inspire sufficient "fear" in people to comply with regulations: their official image would be a; sign of authority. Their absence is often cited when users compl~ain about insufficient enforcement in ZECs.

I Users appreciat€1 the presence of non-government deputies but are unhappy with t.t:ieir lack of power. Controlling entry is an important basiq:: measure that must be expanded further. After-the-fact , surveillance and enforcement is considered inefficient, however, because it does not take certain practices into account, such as falsely declaring the origin of one's catches. Users :say they want more control, but at the same time they get around ',it so they can be like everyone else, be part of the brotherhood: of "real" hunters and fishermen. Control, surveillance and enforcement are the most visible and most criticized parts of the ZEC concept, except in salmon ZECs, according to ourI surveys of users. Basic data collection is supposedly disto~ted.

70 PARTICIPATION OP USERS At first glance, one would be inclined to believe that this objective had not been reached: most users are not regular members, financial advantages are generally sought by those who are members, the non-government deputies are generally paid employees, and so on. However, with regard to management of the ZEC territories, there is real and concrete participation; it is simply being expressed increasingly through paid employees. Boards of directors operate similarly to many systems: decisions are made and execution is delegated by the board. There are not many people who can devote more than one day a month to this type of volunteer work. The attendance rate at general meetings shows, however, some interest on the part of the members in the practical conditions of their activities. Al though certain members who participate more directly are relied on, supervision is indeed carried out, and the general meeting assumes its proper function as a vehicle of participation. According to survey results, users consider that the participation objective has not been achieved. Members see themselves primarily as regular users. Membership is seen as an economic advantage; members try to appropriate space for their exclusive use within the ZEC. They say they are concerned about fish and wildlife conservation, but they often hide a personal agenda for appropriating territory. Casual users (non-members) are therefore seen as intruders and invaders. Relations in the ZEC are therefore characterized by space claims: the tendency to appropriate a harvesting territory is legitimized by habit and regularity. It turns out that membership is therefore used primarily for personal purposes: there are few or no group requirements for users. And yet, being responsible for fish and wildlife conservation and getting involved in management is one of the duties of the user.

EVOLUTION OP THE ZEC CONCEPT With regard to different problems encountered over the years, it is essential, now that we have obtained some basic authority and confidence in our management practice, to work toward changing attitudes. In future, fishing should be essentially considered as "recreational". It should no longer be occasions for tournaments or competitions. Within ZECs, this type of competitive harvesting has gone the way of private clubs. With ZECs, fishing

71 I

I has become a family activity, and also a good reason to get some fresh air. We still have to work toward decreasing the importance of "quotas". It is as healthy to get some fresh air as to eat fish. ,

' IN CAUDA VENENUH ' The ultra-conservatism of the federal legislation and regulations is another aspe~t, specifically pertaining to federal-provincial relations, thati undermines hopes for management delegation and user involvement. The rigid attitude of government officials stifles any new:activity. I I For example, how can we as administrators of ZECs properly manage fishing and respect the productive capacities of lakes when our employer, the provincial fish and game agency, has no direct management power over freshwater fishing? I I The best example of administrative sclerosis that we have experienced is ,the one-year delay in the application of a new regulation conc~rning the use of baitfish in lakes and rivers in Quebec. Such c0nstraints take us back to the time of Galileo who had to obtain -tjhe Pope' s permission to say: "But it does move" . As a result of this existing regulation, we are doomed to inertia; it shoilild be torn up. ' Another proble~ that appears to be unsolvable, apparently as a result of the chronic inability of some government employees to speak to other~, is the delegation of enforcement power to our deputy conservation officers. This has been a bone of contention for eight years; both provincial and federal government officials have taken a sqlid stand on their positions and have ceased all talks. During 1 that time, we have been asked to provide water, fish and wildlife with proper protection. I I For more than: eight years we have told our employer, the provincial fish 1 and game agency, that our non-government deputies do not have enough power. For more than eight years we have been told the federal legislation has to be amended to give them that power. We certainly must amend it if we want to reduce the powers specified in federal law that make our deputies no more than pint-sized: game officers. I At the federal : level, the people at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans tell us that there is no need to amend the legislation; our management associations need only recommend candidates with the usual guarantees and each fish and wildlife management area will have enough game officers to implement the protection objectives deemed useful or necessary. And this has been going on for eight years - eight years that our deputies, and to a greater extent, our managers, have been demobilized and

72 destabilized by this administrative 'guerilla warfare. The effect of such sterile attitudes is to turn: the deepest motivations into extreme disillusionment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The province of Quebec has innovated and delegated; can the federal government do likewise? I say yes, and am pleased to see that the organizers of this national conference have already firmly inscribed the notion of "recreational fishing" in their vocabulary, something which the Quebec ministers and government officials are still slow in doing. All we need to do is to find a way to make concessions on regulations and reach an agreement so that our fish and wildlife conservation deputies can become full partners in protection.

73

PUBLIC AWARENESS OP RECREATIONAL FISHERIES ISSUES by WAYNE PHILLIPS Freelance Outdoor Writer and Fisherman Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

I am honored to have this opportunity to address such a distinguished group of people. The future and well being of recreational fishing across Canada rests in your hands. It is not often that a fisherman or a writer has a chance to speak to those who make important decisions. Everyone has a bias and I would like to make mine clear before I go any further. Minister Siddon mentioned at the last conference that he has fished in the Meadow Lake region of Saskatchewan and this is also where I began my fishing. Until 1984 I was just another angling fanatic who fished whenever possible and joined groups that promoted angling and the conservation of our fish stocks. In the fall of 1984 I began to write weekly fishing column for the star-Phoenix in Saskatoon. Since that time I have been published in several magazines, mostly Canadian. My comments are based upon my personal experiences as a fisherman, as well as my work as a writer. As a writer, I have many responsibilities that are similar to those who work in fisheries. I promote angling and do my best to help people enjoy fishing success, all the while being careful that fish stocks are conserved as much as possible. It is a never ending dilemma. The issue of public awareness revolves around why people fish in the first place. Most people fish for fun or recreation. Those who travel to exotic places like the East Arm of Great Slave Lake, God's River or the Miramichi River might also fish for adventure. But, for most, angling is for enjoyment. Some people find day-to-day living, especially in urban situations, too stressful and turn to pursuits like fishing to break free from tension and stress. I suspect this reason for fishing will continue to attract more anglers in the future. People also fish to be a part of the natural environment. Being in the outdoors is refreshing. water, either in lakes, reservoirs or streams, brings a contentment to people. The ancient Greeks were pantheists who believed the gods were everywhere and even a part of nature like animals or trees. Part of the love of the natural environment stems from the idea of it being very special.

75 Lastly, many men~ in our society still need to fill the primordial urge to supply food for their families. This urge is often met by bringing home some fish to eat. This is natural and an essential part o~ the fishing mystique.

I To meet the pre~sure that the every-growing number of anglers is putting on f ish stocks everywhere, there are several programs 1 of which I am aw~re that deserve mention.

I In Saskatchewan : the recent years of drought have been an added burden to alli forms of life dependent on the aquatic environment. Tq keep walleye stocks high, the stocking program has built rearing ponds in four different locations. These ponds are built with money from the Saskatchewan Fish Enhancement Fund, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation and the efforts of local groups. On several small stocked trout lakes, aeration systems keep oxygen levets up so trout can survive the winter. Fisheries Branch has insti;tuted a program to gather as much information as they can from 1anglers who go after sturgeon. More must be

learned quickly ! about fish like sturgeon if we want to continue to fish for them. There is also talk of making the grayling a special "Heritag~ Fish" to both promote and protect it. I The Saskatchewan Research Council has done a lot of work in the area of hatche:ITies. Using a special filtration system that utilizes bacter.ia, it can successfully use filtered water in a hatchery. I I When it came time to run a gas line across Lake Diefenbaker, rather than digging a trench, a new vertical drilling process allowed for the installation of the line with almost no environmental damage to the lake or its shore. Things like this are very encouralging. I Fly fishing group;s like the Saskatchewan Fly fishers and its member clubs, the Kilpatrick and Flatland Flyfishers, are making their impact felt. R~ght now this group is working with the Fisheries Branch to do some reclamation work on the Swan River. This group has also propos~d the establishment of a fish enhancement fund, lower limits on :fish, and other conservation measures. The fish enhancement fund and lower limits now exist in Saskatchewan. These organizationsI also carry on teaching programs throughout the year. When: a grayling study was conducted, the Kilpatricks provided castin;g instruction and flies to help researchers capture grayling:. An annual fishing report of members is sent to Fisheries Brand1 in an effort to provide information on how lakes

1

"have fished". 1 Many lakes that show high numbers when they are test netted oft~n do not provide successful angling. This is just another example of how fishing groups can aid in the preservation of ~ood angling.

76 The single most important item aiding angling in Saskatchewan has been the establishment of the Fish Enhancement Fund. This is another example of the "user pay" concept like Trout Unlimited or Ducks Unlimited. Across Canada there are countless examples of effective programs. In Alberta the fencing of sections of Stauffer Creek have dramatically improved the fishing. Trout Unlimited's ongoing fight to protect rivers from the threat of damming lets government know how many people feel. When I first visited the Northwest Territories to fish in the late Seventies, I was very impressed that the Angling Guide stressed using barbless lures. Someday I hope to fish Ontario streams for the steelhead that now swim there. To troll for the introduced salmon is also a dream many anglers share. And what fisherman does not picture fishing a river in the Maritimes for the fabled Atlantic salmon. The Canadian Wildlife Federation has sponsored the publication of two very important documents. The Beamish and Pearse Reports are valuable examinations of a resource in serious trouble. Individuals all over Canada are working to maintain our fishing. Bill Bennet, who established Treeline Lodge on Nuel tin Lake in Manitoba, is the kind of farsighted person who comes to mind. working with Hawkins Taxidermists, he developed a line of replica mounts so that the giant lakers can be returned to Nuel tin's waters rather than being kept. The effort has gone so far that now even the backboards on the mounts are synthetic. It has been very pleasant to see a new force in the fight for fish preservation in Canada. This newcomer is surprising indeed. Seagram's is taking a different tack from most breweries and distilleries. Many just promote fish derbies, but Seagram's has begun a catch and release program. There are displays with their products and interesting giveaways. They are giving money to promote catch and release programs and have a good brochure listing releasing techniques and featuring tips for better photos of fish. However, the program falls short in one promotional idea. They are giving away a special Jig-A-Whopper lure in a folder that promotes using a "barbless, bronzed single hook", but the hook in the package has a barb on it. This one oversight flaws what I feel is an important new approach to angling promotion by corporations. Despite many apparent success stories, there are still many obstacles to a brighter future for fish in Canada. Four key areas I see are: a lack of clear usage goals, shortage of funds, the "real 11 worth of the resource is not considered and the resource is often not utilized to its fullest potential.

77 Almost everywhere, usage goals remain hazy at best. On one hand you have the development and recreational group and on the other you have the natural and no development group. To be realistic, you need both. Carefully considered policies can allow both to have their wishes. In Saskatchewan a dispute is currently being waged around the Rafferty Alameda Project. Here you have government and many citizens from the surrounding area favouring the dam while the Canadian Wildlife Federation, SCRAP (Stop Construction of the Rafferty Alameda Project) and the powerful Sierra Club oppose the dam. At its 1988 conference the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation passed a motion opposing the project and this issue threatened to tear the organization apart. The issue is being fought on political grounds rather than the environmental grounds it should be fought on. The eighties have been marked as a decade of difficult economic times. Maclean' s magazine covered the growth of taxes showing that in 1969, 39 per cent of a consumer's dollar went toward taxes. By 1979 it had risen to 45 per cent and by this year it would probably hit 50 per cent. It seems that taxes are rising constantly, yet there never seems to be any money for recreational fisheries. Money for research is almost unheard of. Governments, provincially and federally, do not seem to be fully aware or concerned enough to devote reasonable sums of money to securing a bright future for this resource. For too long, government has relied on the efforts of wildlife groups, angling clubs and angling fanatics for support, rather than take the resource as seriously as they should. The "real" worth of the fish resource is difficult to ascertain. According to Teddi Brown of Outdoor Canada magazine, fishing adds at least $4 billion dollars annually to the Canadian economy. She also adds that one out of every four Canadians fishes. This fall, two newspaper reports caught my eye. Both of the stories reported abuses to the fishing resource. In Saskatchewan, three men were fined $13,800 for illegally selling 353 kilograms of wild meat and 204 kilograms of fish. In British Columbia an American couple was caught with eleven times their limit of salmon. As a ·defence, they said that they were not keeping the salmon for themselves, but were giving them away to friends. Their fine was $2, 000 and a ban from fishing for 16 months. Also, we find the resource is not utilized to its best potential. A few years ago I went to San Mateo, near San Francisco, to take in the Sportsman's Exposition that is held there annually. Three Saskatchewan outfitters had booths at the show promoting their lodges. The most successful at attracting customers was the one who appealed most to the fishermen of the area. Californian anglers are more conservation minded than most

78 and also like to flyfish which is why lodges in British Columbia and Alaska that emphasised flyf ishing were turning down customers because they were already fully booked. One Saskatchewan outfitter did not sell a single package at the show. I believe this was due to the fact that he was not fully aware of what he could offer potential customers. Further I do not know if anyone can picture the potential that recreational fishing has all over Canada. There are many things to be learned from public perception and public involvement in fisheries. In the United States the Future Fishing Foundation is an organization made up of government agencies and fishing tackle manufacturers who have banded together to promote fishing. Their slogan of "Get kids hooked on fishing not drugs" is becoming more common every day as the fight against drugs continues. Here in Canada we have a new organization, Fish Futures Incorporated, that is also trying to raise the profile of fishing. All agencies, especially governments, have to be more aware of the public's growing skepticism and cynicism. The Rafferty Alameda Project in Saskatchewan is a good example of how the public reacts to what it considers vital issues. This project will ensure that future government projects all across Canada will be more carefully considered for all possible implications. More public participation can help prevent such controversies. In Saskatchewan, the province has established a Fisheries Advisory Committee. After serving a term on this board, I know that the public has a chance to become involved with government planning. In the future we need more public input, as the Pearse Report suggested. All across western Canada there is a new form of agriculture that is attracting more and more partnerships. I am talking about aquaculture, or fish farming. Hopefully this type of farming is becoming popular everywhere in Canada. This is very important because the fish that aquaculture produces is helping to take pressure off natural fish stocks since it provides fish for the table. I think this aspect of aquaculture was not really planned and it just happened, but I do feel this makes for a fuller use of our existing environment without doing any harm to it. Personal angling experiences in Montana and Yellowstone Park have changed my attitudes toward resource management and utilization. Officials and administrators of our Canadian parks, both federal and provincial, should visit Yellowstone Park to witness first hand what careful management of a fragile resource can bring. Thousands of anglers come to the park to fish for cutthroat trout on the Yellowstone River at Buffalo Ford. A "no kill" limit has been imposed. Only bar bless artificial lures or flies are allowed and bait is forbidden. Barring a catastrophe, this resource should last forever.

79 The Madison River, in the park and in Montana, faces unbelievable pressure. Several years back Dick McGuire, a fishing guide, and Charles Brooks, a well known fishing writer, approached Richard Vincent, the fisheries biologist for the area, about a new approach. Since the stocking of hatchery fish has stopped, the angling quality of the Madison has risen to where it is once again considered one of the finest trout streams anywhere. It is bold new policies and initiatives that will restore greatness to many of our slumping fishing waters. Much closer to home, all you have to do is read the works of the immortal fishing writer, Roderick Haig-Brown, to gain a love of the environment and a desire to protect it. As a member of both the Outdoor Writers of Canada and the Outdoor Writers of America, I believe I have several obligations to fulfill. I must help anglers increase their enjoyment. This can be done by teaching new techniques. Information from government agencies must also be reported. Sensationalism and information overloads must be avoided at all costs. Conservation should not be a bitter pill to swallow. Fisheries Departments should be allies of all outdoor writers. The most frustrating area for me personally as a writer is the almost total lack of contact from Canadian lodge owners and outfitters, as well as Canadian fishing tackle manufacturers. The Americans involved in this business are very concerned with trying to keep writers informed, while in Canada this is definitely not the case. I would like to make the following recommendations. We must have a fully informed public. There is a lot of media hype, both in print and on television, that is confusing people. Here are some clippings from our local paper regarding the Great Lakes.

The headlines read- Great Lakes in 11 grim 11 shape, Eliminating toxins from lakes "unrealistic" and "No proof" lakes' pollution affecting health, Beatty says. Which of these articles do I believe? Edmonton is proposing a new landfill be used near the North Saskatchewan River. Many people downstream, mainly those in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, are very concerned and want to have input in the decision. This example shows the new levels of sophisticated awareness the public has reached. While we still have what many, especially politicians, believe to be "professional" protesters who fight every change, we now appear to have people who are very willing to protect individual concerns. I think this is a positive step. We must push everyone into making a commitment to responsible use of the resource. This includes governments, individuals, industry, both manufacturing and resource related, and

80 agriculture. Many users of the resource are already concerned with the state of the resource's health, so a commitment in this area might be all that is needed. The importance of the Beamish and Pearse Reports can not be understated. These reports are painting a very real picture of the resource that has drawn all of us together for this conference. Our resource is in trouble and we must accept this as fact if we. hope to restore it to its fullest potential. stocking programs should also be reexamined in many areas. The books The Trout and the Stream and The Living River by Charles Brooks propose interesting and highly successful new stocking strategies. The many works of Roderick Haig-Brown are recognised all over the world as being extremely important, yet I feel they are almost neglected by Canadians. Habitat protection must become a primary concern of all. The fishing resource is a public trust that must not be abused. Political decisions have to be made in light of this trust. Our future lies with the youth of Canada. Educational programs in our schools must reflect more of a concern for the environment. In Saskatchewan the CORE curriculum is being implemented. Here is a perfect opportunity to include resource and environmental studies. A recent Angus Reid study showed that Canadians are hardly concerned about the issues that environmentalists tell us could be catastrophic. As a high school teacher in Saskatchewan, I know that many students, especially those bound for university, spend 75 per cent of their last year in school studying only math and science. But very little of that time is spent dealing with environmental or resource concerns. We must make young people more aware of their environment by spending more time examining current issues in the sciences in schools. Since fish are usually not very visible to us and live in an environment that is alien to us, we often forget about them. A reversal of this type of thinking would benefit the resource greatly. It is also imperative that the recreational angler accept full responsibility for his actions. For far too long we recreational anglers have shifted the blame for declining fish stocks onto the commercial and native fishermen. It is time to stop blaming and start sharing responsibility. Besnard Lake, in my province, suffered a collapse of the walleye stocks six years after it became accessible by a road. This lake is approximately 19,663 hectares, so by no means is it a small

81 lake. The only change to fishing pressure was the influx of recreational fishermen and more commercial fishermen using the lake. In closing, I would like to leave you with a positive image. On October 21 and 22, our flyfishing club went north of La Ronge to fish at a small lake that is stocked with splake and rainbow trout. With us there were four members who had just joined. Soon after beginning fishing on Saturday morning they started using gang trolls and spinners. rather than flies. At the end of the day they had kept their limit, many of which were very small fish. When a young member of our club asked why, he was told there had been a lot of fish that were bleeding and had to be kept. Most of the long time club members had just kept enough fish to eat for dinner.

On the way back to Saskatoon on Sunday afternoon, this same sixteen-year-old made an interesting remark about the attitude toward the fish that these four had displayed. He felt they had been rather thoughtless and unnecessarily greedy when it came to keeping all the fish, rather than releasing the majority like the rest of us. I find the responsible attitude of this young man most reassuring when I think about the future of fishing in Canada.

82 SUMMARY PRESENTATIONS OF THE WORKSHOP RESULTS

Chairman (Mr. Bud Bird, M.P.) Welcome to our closing session. The first summary presenter will be Yvonne Quick of the Northern Frontier Visitors Association, who will address the first two questions on the workshop agenda. Those first two questions focussed on the major factors likely to influence (a) the biological health of recreational fish stocks over the next ten years, and (b) the growth of the recreational fishing industry during that same time period. Yvonne Quick (Northwest Territories) Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, after reading over the reports last night I think that all of the people in this room must have extra sensory perception because they were all on a similar track. So I am not going to take up too much of your time. I was asked to deal with the challenges facing recreational fisheries in Canada and I want to report first of all on the major factors expected to influence the biological health of fish stocks over the next ten years. All ten groups reported that pollution and habitat loss were going to be the main problems. This will include everything from mills, mines, logging, cattle grazing and hydro development, to pesticide accumulation, ozone depletion, global warming and other factors. Everyone also agreed that we were over-harvesting our resources as a result of the fishing pressure by commercial, domestic and native groups. There was a consistent need expressed for good conservation programs. Another thing that everyone seemed to mention was the continued development of aquaculture and fish -stocking programs and the threat to the genetic integrity that may lead to stock collapse. The workshop groups frequently referred to the lack of political will to address the problems, along with the need for integration, coordination, and cooperation between departments, governments and industry. Knowledge, information and databases are required and must be available. Funding is needed for research and one group specifically mentioned the lack of research on river fisheries. We need more information on global environmental change and on how it is going to affect us. Several groups mentioned a lack of respect for the laws and regulations. This was pertaining to environment regulations as well as fishing. The groups all seemed to realize that there is a limited enforcement capability and said it is difficult to respect the law when others nearby are not doing that. There was discussion on the cost of enforcement, and there was some discussion on the need to explain to judges how fragile our industry is, so that when they are setting fines, they have a better appreciation of the situation.

83 For the second workshop question (the major factors likely to influence the growth of recreational fishing in the next ten years), availability of fish was the main issue. Assuming that stocks will be available, the groups stressed the need for management, regulation, education, data, cooperation, communication, sustainable resource development and habitat management. We have to be able to strengthen our scientific knowledge base and to have better coordination of programs between government departments. Cooperation between all levels of government and the industry is needed, as is the need for public awareness programs so that citizens know and understand what our objectives are.. All workshop groups mentioned that in the next few years human populations will increase. With more free time and more discretionary money, additional pressure will be put on the resource. On the positive side, the growth potential for business is evident. We need long term planning, stability in our management and conservation programs, and even diversity in some of the fisheries programs. We need to improve the ethics of the angler and the way to do this is through education, to show him why he should not be taking more than the legal allowable limit of fish. We need to have trust in our co-workers in the industry and in government and to start working together. Young people need to be brought into the program. Someone said, "get hooked on fishing and not on drugs". Let us start them on a program of that type. We need a national voice for recreational fisheries. The future should bring higher quality products, better qualified entrepreneurs, education programs for the training of entrepreneurs as well as for general public awareness. We need to resolve aboriginal claims that could have a significant impact on fisheries resources in some areas. In the N. w. T., our organization has a person who deals directly with the negotiating team so that we can protect what we have and ensure that we have a future. But the general consensus of the group was that opportunities in recreational fisheries are unlimited. There's unlimited growth potential in Canada. Managing the recreational fishery is managing an industry that is full of opportunity. Now is the time to capitalize. And the mandate is there in the programs and in the reports that you have, it is there for the government programs to be implemented and I think that we should just see that the government does this. Thank you. Are there any questions or comments?

84 David Narver (British Columbia) I have a question about your last statement of unlimited growth opportunities across Canada. I don't think our group would have agreed with that. There must be some strong modifiers on any statement that we have unlimited potential and opportunity for growth in recreational fisheries. Yvonne Quick (Northwest Territories) In our group we were talking about the fact that there really are unlimited opportunities within the recreational fishing industry and that doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to deplete the resource. In the NWT with its large system of lakes, anglers have voluntarily reduced their catch - where it used to be 5 fish per day they are now down to 2. There are many lodges that operate on catch and release. So if you take a program like that into consideration, there can be growth opportunities. David Rimmer (Alberta) I'd like to comment on the same subject. If you follow that statement through to its conclusion, one also has to take into account that it's not only the resource itself, the fish that we're talking about, but it is also the experience of angling. In reality you can accommodate only so many anglers on a particular river or lake at a given point in time. So I think we should state that there are, in fact, many opportunities for increasing the sport of recreational fishing, but the term "unlimited" must be qualified. Yvonne Quick (Northwest Territories) I have to agree with you because there will be licensing requirements and the fisheries agency is not going to license ten people on a lake that can sustain only one or two operations. John Peacock (Yukon) In our group the question of the need to reduce catch limits was discussed. We felt that this would be necessary if we are going to have a sustainable harvest. If everybody is permitted to take, as in the Yukon, six lake trout, we are simply not going to have a resource in the future. We have to educate the public that it will not be possible to continue to take your limit, because the limit is set way too high. Part of our problem is the inability to change the regulations on a quick and expedient basis. It takes two or three years sometimes to get changes approved.

85 Yvonne Quick (Northwest Territories) I agree with you and perhaps your association or your own lodges should set their own catch lirni t. There are examples of this happening in Yukon as well as in the Territories. John Peacock (Yukon) We do, but that doesn't prevent other people from corning in and taking their limit out of the same waters. If a local fisherman wants to go fishing with us, we would have to tell him or her about our catch and release rules, and they respond, "Well, to hell with you, I' 11 go into your lake but I' 11 charter another operator so that I can bring home my limit, because I'm not going to pay you for the fishing experience and not fill my freezer". Until we lower the limits to a reasonable level, consistent with sound conservation practices, it's very difficult for the lodges to enforce a voluntary conservaton program. We need a system similar to Manitoba where the lodge operator and the government negotiate a reasonable catch lirni t for the lake and it then applies to everybody. Yvonne Quick (Northwest Territories) Well we have a good association in the NWT and we work very closely with our fisheries department and if we can give you any support in that we certainly will. Frank Hussey (British Columbia)

I know that there is a lot of talk about opportunities and that there are angling experiences to be developed but within the resource sector there are many operators working at less than 100 per cent occupancy. There is probably an opportunity to improve the marketing of the product to bring up the occupancy rates of the existing capacity. I believe that has to be coordinated with the growth of the angling opportunities. Gabriel Pelletier (Quebec) The final communique makes mention of many things but I think that nine workshops out of ten mentioned the fact that it would be important to establish strong partnerships with roles and responsibilities delegated not only to private companies and outfitters but to users as well. I don't find anything like this in your comments. Yvonne Quick (Northwest Territories)

Yes I believe I did, where I said that we should have cooperation and coordination between all governments, federal, provincial, territorial, as well as local user groups and the industry.

86 Gabriel Pelletier (Quebec) How far does this go? Would this commit users to participation in management? Yvonne Quick (Northwest Territories) You are going to have to talk with the people who are involved in those programs. Chairman (Bud Bird, M.P.) Yvonne, thank you very much on behalf of the conference for the work of summarizing that part of our workshops. Those first two questions were intended to address the challenge and the major factors that will influence our fish stocks and the recreational fishing industry in the future. I sincerely appreciate your efforts and your participation. The next summary presenter will address the questions on scientific data collection, resource management, and fisheries and habitat improvement. Cliff Wells is the president of SPAWN, the Salmon Preservation Association for the waters of Newfoundland. Cliff Wells (Newfoundland) The main thing that came through during the discussions on question three (scientific data collection) was the need for funding, and it was mentioned in one form or another by all of the groups. The second thing that appeared was the lack of trust in scientific data, which was something that surprised me, but it was mentioned. Thirdly, the workshop groups recognized the need for a clear management plan with regard to collection of scientific data. Fourthly, the reluctance of biologists to make clear statements on any particular issue, and the difficulty we all have trying to pin scientists down was raised as a problem. Fifthly, most groups were unanimous that it is the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to provide fisheries research. However, the recreational user groups have a responsibility too.

In the solutions, the workshops said that~society had to put more money into the scientific data collection. There has to be more cooperation between the the database, and both have to collaborate in identifying the priori ties for the data that is required. One wise comment said, "The expenses for research and development should be regarded as an investment for future". To illustrate what user groups do, in 1989 SPAWN purchased a state-of-the-art salmon counter to use on our salmon counting

87 project on Fishells River, which is a river that has been accepted by DFO as an indicator river for salmon management purposes.

With regard to resource management (question 4), there were as many statements on its status, as there are problems with it. There was a general feeling that there was a lack of management of the recreational fishery resource. Goals are not clearly stated, and workshop groups used Newfoundland as an example, where if the resource was being managed properly, there wouldn't be uncontrolled commercial salmon fishing with an unlimited number of tags, and you would not have a trout population suffering from total lack of attention and funding. There are jurisdictional problems in resource management that workshop groups felt need to be addressed; the resource is not given the full recognition that it deserves. There is conflict between user groups that must be addressed. There is a mind set in Fisheries and Oceans on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts that commercial fishing is a sacred cow and that attitude must be changed. With regard to solutions, user groups must have a legitime voice in the management of the resource. That was common throughout the comments that we received. There has to be greater public awareness of what the plan should be, and what the objectives are. We have to resolve jurisdictional problems by beginning to transfer some authority to regulate at a local level. Turning now to fisheries and habitat improvement (question 5), we have to develop management plans that properly address the problem stated and spell out clear goals. Seven out of ten workshops groups felt that inadequate funding was an obstacle to fisheries and habitat improvement and some of this money was needed for proper assessment, education, scientific data base, stock restoration, and other purposes. People are also of the view that the lack of firm commitment by governments to improve the recreational fisheries through proper management of the resource is a serious problem. There is not enough being done to improve public awareness on this subject. Every group addressed the problem of pollution and its deadly effects on our fish. Examples of this were cited as follows: the heavy industries producing acid rain; raw sewage being dumped into our fisheries waters by cities; logging companies clear cutting down to the edges of our lakes and rivers; and the release of contaminants into fish bearing waters. With respect to solutions, we need better funding arrangements to address the problems. We need to develop a clear policy on the management of the recreational fishery with input again from the user groups. We need to improve public education on this subject and to make the information available to the general public in a

88 language that they can understand. We need to clear up the environmental problems we have and make the polluters responsible for the mess that they have created, by requiring them to be part of the solution. Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? Tom Protheroe (British Columbia)

I would like to make a comment with respect to the pollution issue. Something that came out in our group is that we cannot expect the citizens of Canada and the recreational fishermen as individuals to deal with pollution when neither the federal nor provincial governments are showing the way. For example, why don't we make the municipalities and industries locate their intakes below their outfalls. Daryl Guignion (Prince Edward Island) I would like to tell this conference about our experience in Prince Edward Island with land use issues and conservation problems. we have probably encountered many of the problems that are common to other provinces, and we have been trying to find solutions to them for quite some time. Land use issues are very prominent in a place where 90 per cent of the province is owned by private citizens. I would like to offer a bit of advice, having had over 20 years experience in this particular area. Each province has to develop a conservation strategy in which every government agency along with the general public adopt a goal of sustainable development within ari integrated process. Until we develop that, we are going to be in trouble in the recreational fishery and in other sectors, so I would urge people here to become involved in the development of conservation strategies. Ben Hubert (Northwest Territories) I'd like to comment on your opening statement on research funding. We all need more science and we all need more knowledge with which to manage our resources. But I think we have to gear the research to the knowledge we need, which in my view is management research. In the case of Great Bear Lake, there were always more questions to be asked as part of the research program, so the committee finally asked for the scientist's best estimate regarding the allowable harvest. It wasn't until that point that we got limits for the lodges. With that in hand we started an active and very thorough monitoring program. so I think monitoring the catch is a very important element that the researchers do not often consider to be research. However, it is essential for managing the resource.

89 Dick McMaster (British Columbia) I wanted to propose three solutions to deal with the matter of industrial polluters and wildlife poachers that would really put some teeth into our laws. First, make company directors, executive officers and mangers, personally responsible and liable for corporate decisions taken by their companies that result in pollution. Second, eliminate any kind of government grants, write-offs and development funds going to industries that are known to be polluters, yet are still receiving the write-offs on those grants. Finally, find an easier way for the public to take polluters to court, because there appears to be a lack of political will to prosecute large companies that are polluters and in many cases local constraint on bringing poachers to justice. Chairman (Mr. Bud Bird, M.P.) On behalf of the conference I would like to thank Cliff Wells very much for his valuable summary presentation. Our next presenter is John Carter from British Columbia who will address the final three questions from our workshop agenda: 1) enforcement, 2) public awareness and 3) industry development. John Carter (British Columbia) Thank you Mr. Chairman and good morning ladies and gentlemen. I represent the British Columbia Wildlife Federation where I serve as the Chairman of the Inland Fisheries Committee, as well as the Canadian Wildlife Federation where I've just recently been honoured with the role of chairing their fisheries committee. I too would like to congratulate the delegates to this conference for the thoroughness with which the workshops were conducted. I think we have covered most of the bases and also I noticed that a common thread seems to exist through all the workshops. My first topic was Enforcement, the obstacles that exist and what steps can be taken to overcome those obstacles. First and foremost, and almost every workshop mentioned this, there is a perceived lack of government will to enforce and to prosecute offenders. The feeling seemed to emerge that there may be a will to prosecute individuals but when it comes to big corporations, we fall down on the job. There is not enough deterrance and it is not recognized publicly. Many criminals apparently feel there is little chance of apprehension and they go about their business with that thought in mind. Also, there is the realization that fines are inadequate and therefore fail to provide a deterrent. We talked about enforcement, resource limitations and the fact that government agencies do not have the staff to do the job in many cases. We hear time and time again of situations where conservation officers sit at home with their vehicles parked outside, because they don't have enough gasoline to get out and enforce the laws of the land. I know that happens in my province

90 and I imagine it happens elsewhere. Poor public education and awareness contribute to our problems with enforcement. Organized Organized crime elements _are very efficient and hard to deal with. Organized poacher gangs operate by night under cover of darkness making it even more difficult. There is a perceived lack of respect for the law in many cases, combined with low morale among conservation officers in some areas. so what are the solutions? The main one, addressing the main problem, is that the concerned public have to get together and work to bring pressure to bear on politicians and government so that they begin to get serious about enforcing our laws, increasing penal ties and getting the job done. The deterrent process was criticized in seven workshops and several suggestions came forward. One suggestion was that we should consider taking the fisheries enforcement laws out of the criminal court system and placing them in the administrative court system, as in the United states. In that country, they have a travelling judge who goes around the country hearing nothing but infractions dealing with fish and wildlife violations. There is also a need to strengthen laws in Canada. The way it is right now, if someone goes into a stream and removes gravel then it has to be proven that fisheries habitat was damaged and several people mentioned the need to strengthen the laws to the extent that it would be illegal even to go into a salmon bearing stream for the purpose of removing gravel. There is a strong indication that laws need strengthening and that enforcement should be increased. There is also a need for better communications amongst the public and amongst conservation officers in terms of working together. Several workshops expressed frustration, especially the people from Ontario and the Prairies, about the heavy emphasis on salmon during the conference. My friend Derek Stanley from Saskatchewan stated that he will never catch a Atlantic Salmon in Saskatchewan, but I would just encourage you to be patient Derek. It is not impossible, because I know out in Washington and Oregon it is possible to catch an Atlantic salmon. If it can happen in Oregon, it can happen in Saskatchewan I'm sure. Several workshops referred to aquaculture as a genetic timebomb and I think we all know what that means. Also it was suggested widely that the bureaucrats know the problem exists but that the politician doesn't want to know. Public awareness was the second question that I dealt with and in our workshop we had a little problem with that term. It was suggested that the title should not be Public Awareness but Public Appreciation or even Public Involvement. Again, there appears to be a lack of government will to involve the public, to fund programs that involve the public and to deciminate information in a meaningful way. Mention was made of a lack of

91 trust among the various sectors: government, industry and the public. There also appears to be a lack of will to deal with controversial subjects and in keeping with that, a tendency to want to tackle easy problems that don't cause too much consternation. In many cases, delegates mentioned that users are not consulted on complex problems and that the big issues are not being dealt with. As for solutions, almost every workshop came up with the same ideas. There were a few variations of course, but it was felt that we need to develop an effective mechanism to organize, fund, develop and deliver better public involvement programs and this would intail less purely government decision making, and more decision making involving the public, including the outfitting industry and the general angling community. We need to adopt a partnership approach and this would include more public advisory groups, more public management boards and more joint public/ industry/government cooperative ventures. Funding sources must be found to get the public truly involved. We mentioned special licenses that could be used to generate more revenue, such as non-profit foundations using fish stamps, as we have in British Columbia. Other examples include trust funds, special conservation group credit cards, corporate solicitations and the redirection of government revenue back into fish management. There is also the need to revise the federal Financial Administrative Act to make it possible to do some of these things now. We talked about the ZEC concept and its success in Quebec and the need utilize public sector initiatives. When most of you arrived at this conference, a copy of Pearse Report on Freshwater Fisheries (1988) was included in your kits. The Canadian Wildlife Federation which I represent, spent about four and half years and several hundred thousand dollars producing the Beamish Report and then the Pearse Report, and I was somewhat disappointed that it did not form an important part of this conference. We hope to rectify that in the future. Delegates also stressed the need to insure that whatever programs governments initiate enjoy public support. It often happens that a scientific committee or an individual politician will move forward on a new initiative with no guarantee of public support for things that are being proposed. In terms of public involvement, two main things arose. One was the situation in the Pacific coast, which Bob Wright mentioned, and I see that as a barometer of our problems. Here we have a situation where the salmon fishery is probably the most dynamic recreational fishery in Canada, worth as much or more in dollar value as the commercial fishery, and yet the recreational salmon fishery is forced to exist on four percent of the total catch of salmon. Now if we can't rectify those inadequacies, then I feel that the public will have a difficult time taking on new partnerships and taking any new initiatives seriously. When I heard our colleagues in Newfoundland talking about their problems with the

92 Atlantic salmon, I couldn't help think about the dialogue I've heard for the last five or .more years in British Columbia and it sounded so very similar. The percentages might be a little different but the problems are not very different at all. Mention was made in one of the previous reports of the lack of a national voice for recreational fishermen. That was mentioned repeatedly in the workshops and I think it's fair to say that something has to be done about that and I think our chairman mentioned at one time Isaac Wal ton's quotation where he said, "that which is everybody business is nobody's business". I infer from this that we all have to do a little better job of organizing ourselves and making our concerns heard across Canada. My last subject is Industry Development and the amount of information that came forward on this subject outweighs the others. The obstacles identified were a lack of government will, shortages of fish, and the lack of equal recognition of both the commercial fishery and the recreational fishery. Pollution, water quality, habitat degredation, aesthetics (clear cutting and logging in visual areas) were also raised as obstacles to the industry. Jurisdictional problems came up with respect to the provincial/federal situation on regulations where the potential for growth of the recreational fishery may be impaired somewhat. Delegates also talked about their problems with the bankers and a few other things, including taxation problems, education, inadequate data collection, and the need for government assistance to allow the industry to do a better job marketing. Solutions were very similar in most workshops. Many people identified the need for an adequate allocation of fish to the recreational fishing industry. I know some people don't like the word allocation. I use it very loosely here referring more to an assurance that there will be fish available and a fair share of them for the recreational fishery. There needs to be a greater priority placed on the recreational fishery; teeth must be put into habitat protection laws; and federal legislation should be amended where necessary to give the provinces more control in getting the job done. Mention was made of the need for better planning and the development of special fisheries such as the possibility of Atlantic salmon in Saskatchewan. Better partnerships are needed with more emphasis on demand management. The social value of recreational fishing is not being recognized. The workshops also mentioned the danger of inaction. We all know that we have had conferences before, but there is a perception amongst the public that despite our best intentions, the action forthcoming from these conference isn't too evident. Let us hope that this will be an exception. The common thread seems to be a lack of government will and I hope we can overcome that.

93 Someone mentioned the need for a level plain field and I think we can all agree with that. There was mention that of the need for a national voice for recreational fishing. Very recently the Board of Directors of the Canadian Wildlife Federation passed a resolution authorizing the hiring of a professional fisheries staff person. It is possible that within the next year or so, a National Recreational Fisheries Conference might be organized by the users. I think it will be very useful and could add something to the whole process by proposing solutions and taking a more active role. I hope to see the Canadian Wildlife Federation play more of a leading role. I'm not saying that the Federation necessarily should be the national voice for recreational fishermen but somebody from the private sector ought to take the lead. Perhaps we should look at the example that was given by one of our lead speakers in this conference, that of a coalition of recreational fisheries groups recently formed in the United States. So, I hope the Canadian Wildlife Federation will at least help organize that concept. I would invite any of you to talk to me during the remaining part of this conference if you have any views on this topic. Thank you for your attention. Are there any questions or comments? Don Pike (Alberta) There is one point that struck me while talking to people throughout this conference. I refer to the concern regarding the role of Fisheries and Oceans in the protection of our fisheries across Canada. There is no question in the provinces of British Columbia, the Maritimes and Newfoundland that the federal government has a major role to play. When you move inland and you become landlocked as we are in Alberta, I think the question becomes a little more problematic, particularly when you look at the time it takes for some of the negotiations that go on to transfer responsibility to the provinces. I would just like to say that from the perspective of Trout Unlimited, the federal Fisheries Act is the best thing we've got going. It's about the only thing we've got that is perceived to have enough clout to cause the provincial administration to pause in some of the actions that they want to undertake. From that perspective, there is federal role for fisheries. The other concern I have about conferences like this is that it often ends up being the converted talking to the converted. You mentioned the question of what is going to come out of this conference and are we going to see something go ahead. Certainly we from Trout Unlimited would be.most interested in any efforts from the Canadian Wildlife Federation to organize a recreational users conference. What strikes me though is that we are missing a lot of the key actors at these conferences. There were no loggers here. There were no farmers here. There were no manufacturing industry people here. Somebody has to have the

94 authority to take that the message back to these other people and to make it clear that is it no longer satisfactory for a fish to be classed simply as a miscellaneous user of water. That doesn't strike us as being quite fair. I've got one comment to make on taxation. The governments, whether they are provincial or federal, have been looking to the private and non-profit sector to take on more and more responsibility for carrying out programs. Trout Unlimited is an example of a group that exists essentially because we moved into a vacuum created by governments. What disturbs me is that you cannot then turn around and change the tax laws so that it becomes more and more difficult for people to donate money. You can't have it both ways. You cannot withdraw from the field and at the same time hamstring the ability of non-profit organizations to raise funds. I have some suggestions about what we might want to do in Canada with respect about charitable donations, and I would be happy to talk to somebody about it in Ottawa. As a last comment, I think Fisheries and Oceans is to be congratulated for the conference itself. I hope its not another three years before we have another one. But this conference was very well organized and I'd like to thank the organizers for inviting us. Tom Protheroe (British Columbia) I would also like to thank the Minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for putting on this conference. It seems to me that if you want to have a sustainable recreational fishery in Canada, utilized in the best interest both socially and economically to benefit the people of Canada, two very important things have to take place. One of them is a greater sensitization of government itself to the role of recreational fishery, not only in words, but also by action. Secondly, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has some wonderful people within it, and some people who work very hard for recreational fisheries. However, the department still today protects the buffalo hunter attitude of the commercial fishing industry. These two messages have got to come out of this conference: a larger sensitization of governments to our issues and a real attempt by Department of Fisheries and Oceans to recognize who we are and what the resource is worth. Ted Wagner (Yukon) I sit on the Wildlife Management Board in Yukon and I would like to take a moment to describe it for your benefit. S~veral people have asked me how our board works and have encouraged me to tell you about it. I think this would come under the heading of Public Participation.

95 We have a unique situation in the Yukon Territory that is similar only to the Northwest Territories. Our Wildlife Management Board is actually a forerunner of the body that will eventually be responsible for all wildlife related issues in the territory, once our land claims are settled. The board is composed of 12 people, six of whom are appointed through the government and six of whom are appointed by the Council for Yukon Indians. Anyone who plans to bring about any change that is likely to affect fish or wildlife, must bring their proposal to the Wildlife Management Board for approval. Last night I was visiting with several of you, talking about your problem with Atlantic salmon. It is my belief that if there had been a management board similar to ours thirty years ago, you would not have the problems that you now have with Atlantic Salmon in Eastern Canada today. Any individual who wants to bring about any change, even if it is the Minister himself, must come to that management board. In fact, at our last meeting, Minister did appear as a proponent for a proposed regulation change. The board has the power to subpoena witnesses, whoever it feels it needs to talk to to make a reasonable decision on the proposal. After the board arrives at a decision, it sends a written recommendation to the Minister, and the Minister then has 30 days to respond. If he doesn't agree to implement the recommendation of the Board, he must respond in writing, giving his reasons. We have just recently been blessed with the addition of Mr. Don Toews to our management staff as our Director of Fisheries. One of the first comments that he made to me, was that he is excited about working in the Yukon, because the public is now thoroughly involved in decisions that affect living natural resources. Wilfred Carter (New Brunswick)

Mr. Chairman, I'm probably out of order, and I' 11 have to ask your indulgence to make this comment, because it doesn't pertain to the workshop questions. Unfortunately I missed the summary of the first three questions, and I would like to make an observation on something which I think should be of general concern to this meeting. I don't know if you realize it but, last night as we slept, approximately 30,000 miles of driftnet was strip-mining the worlds oceans. There was a resolution proposed in the United Nations earlier last week, by the United States, encouraging all countries of the world to support a moratorium on driftnetting. I would like to urge this conference go on record as supporting ·that U.N. resolution, and encouraging the Government of Canada to support the international effort to abolish driftnetting.

96 Louis Arsenault (New Brunswick) In New Brunswick, if things continue, as they have for the past ten or twenty years, there will be no trout in this province by the year 2000. It is the legal responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to manage trout stocks in this province and it is time that they begin to take these responsibilities seriously. The Federal Government should do something to help trout stocks in this province, or delegate that part of their current responsibility to the Provincial Government. Robert Bishop (Newfoundland) This is more in the way of a comment than a question. I am here representing the Salmon Association of Eastern Newfoundland known as SAEN. The conservation groups of Newfoundland came to this conference with an agenda different from that presented to us by the organizers. I want to say how much we appreciate this conference and the way other people from across the country have been willing to accept the amount of time that has been taken up here on salmon issues. I also appreciate the way that our friends from British Columbia have supported us and shown that they have similar problems and how they are beginning to find solutions. We now have a lot more conviction that the recreational salmon interest in Newfoundland will be the way of the future. Paul Naftel (Saskatchewan) I do appreciate the argument for a more balanced approach to other species, and I like to try to remain a little open minded on such questions. I recognize that there is a thing called salmon, and just to set the record straight for my colleague from British Columbia, I am going to try to verify whether we do actually have Atlantic salmon in Saskatchewan.

97

ANALYSIS OF WORKSHOP RESULTS

by Les Dominy Recreational Fisheries Division Economic and Commerical Analysis Directorate Department of Fisheries and Oceans

On the second day of the conference, attendees were assigned to one of ten workshop groups, each of which spent the entire day discussing a series of 14 questions.

THE CHALLENGE Question 1: What major factors are likely to influence the biological health of recreational fish stocks over the next ten years? Responses: 1. Degradation of aquatic environmental quality, loss of wetlands and fish habitat, along with climate change were identified by all ten workshop groups as serious factors that will continue to affect fish stocks in the coming years. 2. Overfishing by anglers, commercial fishermen and natives was identified by eight of the groups as a serious factor. 3. Weakening of the gene pool of wild fish stocks through continued genetic manipulation and the release and escape of hatchery-reared fish was raised as another serious factor by seven of the workshop groups. 4. The potential transmission of disease from aquaculture and hatchery operations to wild fish stocks was raised by six of the workshop groups. 5. Three of the groups mentioned the following three factors as being likely to influence the biological health of fish stocks: (a) the introduction of exotic fish species, (b) the lack of stock assessment capability, limited data on which to base management decisions, and limited awareness· of the effects of change, and (c) limited political will to take action to protect habitat.

99 6. Two workshop groups referred to insufficient government funding as a factor impeding action on the biological health of recreational fisheries. 7. The following factors were mentioned only by single workshop groups as having the potential to influence the biological health of fish stocks: (a) Enhancement programs have a positive influence by producing more fish, restoring and improving habitat, and raising public awareness. (b) Commercial fishing effort that harvests enhanced stocks in mixed fisheries, thereby leading to greater pressure on weaker stocks of recreational fish species, is a problem on the Pacific coast. ( c) Lack of cooperation and coordination among governments and departments. (d) Inadequate federal/provincial arrangements for recreational fisheries management. (e) Limited enforcement capability.

Question 2: What major factors are likely to influence the growth of the recreational fishing industry over the next ten years? Responses:

1. Seven of the ten workshop groups concluded that the growth of the recreational fishing industry would be influenced in the future by the greater demands of global tourism and by an aging Canadian population with more leisure time and increased disposable income; these factors would place more pressure on fish stocks, thereby making it difficult to manage the fisheries resource on a sustainable basis.

2. Six of the workshop groups identified marketing, limited capitalization, and weak entrepreneurial ability as key factors likely to influence future industry growth. 3. Five of the workshop groups agreed that the following three factors would have an important influence on the industry in future years:

100 (a) The need to improve government and public awareness of the significant economic and social importance of recreational fisheries, so that the growth potential in certain regions of Canada may be realized within a positive regulatory framework.

( b) The need to improve 'the diversity of recreational fishing experience to respond to client demand.

( c) Degradation of habitat and environmental quality, leading to reduced stock abundance and decreased angler enjoyment, thereby seriously undermining the positive appeal of angling. 4. Unsettled native land claims were seen as a key issue that will continue to affect recreational fisheries resource utilization patterns by four of the workshop groups. s. Three of the workshop groups saw conflicts among commercial, native and recreational fishermen in some parts of Canada, and the need to restructure historical sharing patterns, as a serious impediment to future growth in the recreational fishing industry. 6. At least two of the workshop groups felt that the following factors would influence the recreational fishing industry in the future: (a) Emergence of animal rights groups and the potential growth of an antifishing movement to counter some negative aspects portrayed by some recreational fishing tournaments. (b) Increased levels of taxation, higher interest rates and a stronger Canadian dollar could all affect domestic and foreign participation rates in recreational fishing.

7. The following factors were mentioned by only one of the ten workshop groups: (a) Reduced fishing opportunities through loss of access to the shoreline due to government privatization and private ownership.

( b) The current growing interest in fly fishing for salmonids may cause some adjustments within the industry. ( c) The need to clarify jurisdiction questions between the federal government and the provinces and territories.

101 ( d) Governments need to issue balanced public statements about the state and heal th of the fisheries resource to avoid alarming recreational fishermen. (e) Canadian exclusion from some areas as a result of foreign investment in lodges and northern land tracts. (f) Governments need to devise ways to return to fisheries agencies those revenues collected as a result· of recreational fishing activities. ( g) Co-management participation in setting long term objectives for recreational fisheries would help to frame things positively, rather than as proscriptive regulations.

THE STRATEGY

Question 3 (Part 1): Scientific Data Collection What obstacles exist to obtaining the scientific information necessary for effective conservation and improvement of recreational fish stocks? Responses:! I 1. EiJht of ten workshop groups concluded that, with few exc;eptions, Canadian federal and provincial governments are not investing enough public funds in either fisheries biology or ,stock assessment research and as a result the data base is of1en lacking for management purposes. 2. Seven of the ten workshop groups agreed that the recreational fishing community has little trust in government fisheries management decisions, in part because many biologists fail to involve anglers in establishing research. priorities and in data collection programs. 3. Four of the ten groups stated that government biologists and regulators must make more effort to explain the nature of their work to anglers and to the general public so that the link between science and regulations may be understood.

4. Three of the workshop groups felt that the refusal by biologists to take action because of an insistance on "further study" is a problem; the workshops would prefer more adaptive approaches and a willingness to take decisions on a "best judgement" basis.

102 s. Two workshop groups concluded that there is insufficient coordination of data collection programs between government agencies. 6. The following points were raised by single workshop groups: (a) There is insufficient participation in recreational fisheries research by provincial governments. (b) The public lacks a sense of ownership in the fisheries resource. (c) Rivers receive inadequate attention from government research studies. (d) Inefficiencies in research sometimes caused by government jurisdictional disputes. (e) Frequently, both private and government groups fail to remain committed to multi-year cooperative projects.

Question 3 (Part 2): Scientific Data Collection What steps can citizen groups, industry and governments take together to overcome obstacles? Responses:

1. All ten workshop groups believe there is significant scope for government fisheries agencies to involve volunteers from local user groups in the collection of data. 2. Five of the groups concluded that it was govern..ment's responsibility to manage data collection programs and that additional funds should be provided, either by reallocation or through tax surcharges on recreational equipment, so that a long term commitment could be made and that some incentive might be offered to cooperating user groups. 3. Four workshop groups felt that it was imperative to establish research priorities through strategic planning by government agencies, with the full involvement of user groups in cooperative efforts. 4. Three of the workshop groups concluded that the results of research and stock assessment studies need to be explained to users in laymen's terms, so that greater trust may be established.

103 s. Two workshop groups concluded that the following steps were important: (a) Other institutions such as universities might be utilized better to assist in data collection. (b) A proportion of the funds collected from fishing licence sales should be designated for scientific data collection. 6. Single workshop groups reported the following steps for consideration: (a) Data reporting systems could be integrated as an obligation of fishing licence purchase. (b) Standardized approaches, improved data collection expertise and enhanced biological knowledge could result from government training programs for volunteers. ( c) User groups expect decisions to flow from scientific studies, not deferrals, and they would therefore prefer incremental decisions rather than no decision, combined with a greater use of trends and statistical ranges in lieu of absolute values, where the latter are not available. (d) More attention should be given to determining the economic value of recreational fisheries.

Question 4 (Part 1): Resource Management What obstacles exist to developing resource management plans that ensure a high quality and diversity of fishing opportunities for anglers? Responses:

1. Seven of the ten workshop groups expressed concern about the perceived lack of fairness in the allocation of stocks among various user groups, and that federal fishery managers show a bias toward commercial fisheries. 2. Similarly, seven of the ten groups stated that confusion about federal/provincial jurisdiction for freshwater fisheries continued to be a serious obstacle for effective resource management.

104 3. Five of the workshop groups expressed concern that many government agencies had no mechanisms to establish integrated strategic and tactical goals and priorities within a planning framework.

4. Inadequate consultation between government managers and the resource users was raised as a serious problem by four of the workshop groups; as a result, bureaucrats and scientists are seen to be taking decisions in isolation. 5. Three of the workshop groups raised the following topics as obstacles to effective resource management: (a) Due to historic ·lack of federal government attention, the recreational fishery is not well understood by fisheries managers; status quo management is therefore a common approach. (b) There is lack of flexibility in the federally-controlled regulatory process to allow desirable and timely management adjustments. (c) There is insufficient scientific information on the status of local recreational species; such data should form the basis of any management plan. 6. Two of the workshop groups raised the following topics as additional obstacles:

(a) During the stock allocation process, recreational fisheries are usually at a disadvantage compared to commercial fisheries. ( b) Centralized control and decision-making by government agencies often ignores local concerns for more effective resource management. (c) The lack of a single national organization to represent recreational fisheries interests is an impediment to better resource management decisions.

7. Single workshop groups reported the following obstacles to resource management for consideration: (a) Insecurity is created by unsettled native land claims. (b) There are restrictions on the rights of individuals or groups of people to intervene in a court proceeding or to take prosecution action respecting a recreational fishing concern.

105 ( c) Absence of targetted government funds for recreational fisheries development results in uneven and often inadequate government programs. (d) Commercial recreational fishing operations should be provided with a permit to use a portion of the fisheries resource for their benefit.

Question 4 (Part 2): Resource Management What steps can citizen groups, industry and governments take together to overcome obstacles to effective resource management? Responses: 1. Seven of the ten workshop groups felt that resource management decisions could be significantly improved by increasing local autonomy, decentralizing management authority to the managers and users in watersheds and lakes, and sharing the responsibility for recreational fisheries management. 2. Six of the groups concluded that the details and benefits of proposed resource management plans should be explained to users and the general public by means of increased public education and open meetings. 3. Six of the groups also proposed that regularized and legally sanctioned integrated planning processes for recreational fisheries be established by government agencies in order to involve the user groups and to identify goals, opportunities and priorities for action. 4. Three of the ten workshop groups concluded that a national association should be formed to represent recreational fisheries management issues in Canada. 5. Two of the workshop groups suggested the following solutions: (a) Private individuals and groups should be given the right to press charges and take other enforcement action in support of recreational fisheries management. (b) The federal government should streamline the process for approving fishery regulations so that response time is shortened. (c) Recreational fisheries should be given legitimate status in the Fisheries Act in order to allow for fairer treatment during the allocation process.

106 6. The following possible steps to overcome resource management obstacles were mentioned by single workshop groups: (a) Government agencies should provide training programs for employees and volunteers involved in managing recreational fisheries. ( b) Recreational fisheries managers should shift the emphasis to demand rather than supply management as well as looking at the potential for experimental or adaptive management approaches.

( c) Government agencies should increase the profile of recreational fisheries with the bureaucratic hierarchy; specifically DFO should either create the post of ADM, Recreational Fisheries, or have the Director of Recreational Fisheries report directly to the Deputy Minister. (d) DFO should define the principles to be used in recreational fisheries management plans, including such things as conservation, accessibility, enhancement and economic implications. (e) Politicians should show leadership_ and a willingness to act to achieve future benefits rather than simply to maintain the status quo. ( f) The federal government should phase out the commercial fishery for valued recreational species and replace it with aquaculture. ( g) Ownership of the resource should be vested in user groups. (h) Government fisheries agencies need to improve interagency cooperation and information sharing.

( i) The following priority allocations should be established for valued recreational species: ( 1 ) spawning escapement, (2) natives, (3) recreational fisheries, (4) remainder to commercial harvest. (j) Legal or constitutional changes are needed to allow for effective delegation of fisheries management authority from the federal government. (k) Recreational fishing operations should be licenced by a government fisheries agency on the condition that they develop a resource management plan.

107 Question 5 (Part 1): Fisheries and Habitat Improvement What obstacles exist to improving the quantity and quality of fish stocks and their habitat? Responses: 1. Eight of the ten workshop groups indicated that serious and continuing degradation of water quality and fish habitat from local and transboundary sources was an impediment to improvement work. 2. Seven of the ten groups concluded that the lack of resources to carry out assessments of fish stocks and their supporting habitats was a major obstacle to resource improvement work. 3. Three of the groups felt that the following factors formed obstacles to resource improvement: (a) Confusion in the minds of administrators, politicians and the users about the importance and value of the recreational fishing activity. (b) Lack of effective resource planning, public consultation and public awareness so that improvement opportunities can be identified for recreational fisheries. (c) Administrative intransigence and a failure by government officials to apply. available laws, regulations and policies.

4. Two workshop groups concluded that the following factors should be considered as obstacles: (a) It is unwise to proceed with enhancement projects unless effective means of controlling excessive commercial harvesting were first found and used. ( b) There is a dangerous perception by the general public that biological productivity of the fishery resource is without limits. 5. A number of other concerns were raised by single workshop groups:

(a) It is difficult to find sources of disease-free native fish for use in stocking programs. ( b) The general public is not aware that they can take action as individuals to protect fish habitat by laying charges.

108 (c) There tends to be too much reliance on hatchery stocking as a means of improving the fishery.

( d) The escape of aquaculture raised fish has the potential to cause genetic damage to native fish populations. (e) There is a lack of public awareness of habitat and water pollution impacts. (f) stock production planning is not practiced by most fisheries agencies. (g) There is insufficient political will to enforce the habitat provisions of provincial and federal fisheries legislation. (h) The ambiguity surrounding legislative mandates and government jurisdiction sometimes results in inaction respecting fisheries and habitat improvement. ( i) Lack of follow-up project evaluation was seen as an obstacle to improving project design. (j) There is inadequate long-term funding for fisheries and habitat restoration, combined with inappropriate funding criteria and restrictions on disbursements. (k} There is insufficient government capacity for extension services to organize and manage volunteer groups.

Question 5 (Part 2): Fisheries and Habitat Improvement What steps can citizens' groups, industry and governments take together to overcome the obstacles to improving recreational fisheries and its supporting habitat? Responses:

1 . Eight of the ten workshop groups concluded that the most important step would be for government fisheries agencies to enforce aggressively the habitat provisions of federal and provincial legislation, to achieve an objective of no net loss of habitat and wherever possible net gain of habitat, as a cost of industrial development. 2. Six of the groups emphasized the importance for government agencies to develop integrated resource plans in collaboration with the general public and competing water and

109 land users, toward the goal of sustainable development for all natural resources. 3. Four of the groups raised the following points: (a) Restoration and improvement projects required substantial government and non-government funding, from sources such as fishing licence fees, conservation stamps/surcharges, lotteries and volunteer group fund­ raising. (b) More studies and demonstration projects should be conducted by government agencies on impact assessments, habitat inventories, development of standards for habitat protection and the production of base line data on productive natural habitat. ( c) Both government agencies and user groups should place their first priority on the improvement of the resource through natural and semi-natural means, rather than through hatchery stocking. 4. Three workshop groups concluded that public awareness and education were critical to successful habitat and fisheries improvement projects. 5. Two of the groups felt that governments should agree to publish a clear statement clarifying respective agency responsibility centres for the administration of legislative mandates. 6. Single workshop groups proposed the following steps: (a) Through the resource planning process, fishery managers should place emphasis on natural, self-sustaining stocks, particularly in areas where there is a low level of industrial activity. (b) "Put and take" fisheries should be considered for urban and surburban areas. ( c) The federal government should proceed with an Atlantic salmon enhancement program. (d) Special conferences and workshops should be organized to allow for the exchange of information and experience on fisheries and habitat improvement. (e) A manual of fisheries and habitat improvement techniques should be published.

110 (f) Governments should withdraw from enhancement projects in cases where the harvesting control capability and fisheries management schemes cannot cope with the increased fish runs.

( g) Fish health regulations need to be strengthened to regulate the potential ill effects of aquaculture operations on natural stocks. (h) Fisheries agencies should focus their attention on the formulation of imaginative fish stock production plans using the natural environment and natural fish runs.

Question 6 (Part 1): Enforcement What obstacles exist to obtaining full compliance with fisheries and habitat protection laws and regulations? Responses:

1. Nine of the ten workshop groups stated that insufficient human and financial resources to carry out enforcement activities posed a serious obstacle in most jurisdictions. 2. Six of the workshop groups concluded that there was a lack of political will to enforce existing laws, particularly for habitat protection, and that this resulted in unfairness and inconsistency. 3. Six of the workshop groups also felt that there is a serious lack of · understanding by the public and by industrial developers of the value of fisheries resources and of the purpose and contents of regulations.

4. Four of the workshop groups raised the following obstacles: (a) Public involvement and demand for action to address violations of fisheries and habitat protection laws is inconsistent across Canada. (b) Jurisdictional confusion among governments leads to frustration and inaction. (c) There is a lack of sufficient deterrents in many of the laws and regulations. 5. Two workshop groups concluded that the following obstacles should be addressed:

111 (a) There is a lack of fair enforcement policies and procedures that results in too much discretion by government officials. (b) The ability to modify or create new regulations is far too slow. (c) Regulations are often unnecessarily complex and at times unenforceable. 6. Single workshop groups raised the following concerns: (a) Judges sometimes fail to set appropriate levels of fines for fisheries and habitat violations. (b} The forest industry displays an apparent lack of sensitivity for fish habitat protection.

Question 6 (Part 2): Enforcement What steps can citizen groups, industry and governments take together to overcome the obstacles identified forenforcement? Responses: 1. Seven of the ten workshop groups concluded that there is a continuing need for public education on the implications of non-compliance with fisheries regulations in terms of both economic and biological consequences.

2. Seven of the workshops also concluded that there was considerable merit in encouraging the establishment of "crime stoppers" and "report-a-poacher" programs using local media support (public service announcements) to involve the general public as well as anglers in enforcement. 3. Six workshop groups felt that existing penalties do not offer a sufficient deterrent and they argued that fines should be higher.

4. Four of the workshop groups raised the following steps for consideration: (a) Fisheries agencies should initiate an education process for judges and prosecutors regarding the value of fisheries resources. (b) Fisheries agencies should spend as much effort on explaining regulations as they do formulating them.

112 s. Three workshop groups raised the following points: (a) There is a need for auxiliary groups of enforcement officers in local areas, drawn from the membership of angling and hunting organizations. (b) Greater interagency cooperation should be encouraged so that more cross-appointments are made to increase the ranks of enforcement officers and to raise awareness. 6. Two workshop groups raised the following points: (a) Increased public control and management (for example, using the ZEC model from Quebec), would improve and toughen up enforcement programs for local areas. ( b) Greater reliance should be placed on "conditions of approval" to improve habitat enforcement.

7. Single workshop groups proposed the following steps for consideration: (a) Greater cooperation with resource development and production companies should be encouraged. (b) Government agencies need to establish policies and procedures and provide training for officials who make decisions on prosecution matters. ( c) Legal agents available to. fisheries staff should be selected on the basis of experience with the subject matter. (d) The federal government should streamline the process and shorten the time required to process regulations. ( e) Resource tribunals to deal with enforcement violations might be established in provinces. ( f) Increased use of tag systems would ( i) create a price per fish and (ii) make it easier to prosecute illegal possession. (g) Modify use of Capital Cost Allowance in corporate income tax so that firms in receipt: of an allowance, but who were not in compliance wi thl legal habitat protection requirements, would be required to use a portion of their allowance toward achieving compliance.

(h) Enforcement resources should ~e focused strategically on major problem situations arid areas, as opposed to

113 spreading them diffusely throughout a region or province. (i) Better equipment and more officers need to be provided.

( j ) The "polluter pays" principle should be established in legislation. ( k) Authority should be decentralized so that regulations may be enacted and enforced in regions.

( 1) Private groups should sponsor media announcements encouraging volunteer compliance and reporting of violations by the general public. (m) Anti-litter regulations need better enforcement along watercourses. (n) Stronger regulations are needed to control disruptive boat use in angling waters.

Question 7 (Part 1): Public Awareness What obstacles exist to achieving greater public appreciation for the value of recreational fisheries and the importance of using the resource and its habitat wisely? Responses:

1. Seven of the ten workshop groups concluded that Canada lacks a well-defined and cooperative national approach and commitment by government and non-government groups to promoting the importance of the recreational fishery as a fundamental component of the fisheries sector. 2. Four of the workshop groups felt that media will not focus attention on recreational fisheries unless there is a disaster or a serious controversy; as a result, the positive values do not get fair coverage. 3. Three workshop groups raised the following concerns: (a) The public image of recreational fisheries is one of a frontier attitude where anglers take as many large fish as possible, while displaying at times poor angler ethics. (b) There are to few government communications officers combined with a lack of communication expertise in volunteer groups.

114 (c) There is a lack of consultation between resource specialists and the general public; as a result the general public fails to appreciate that recreational fishing is a serious economic and social activity.

4. Two workshop groups felt that the following factors represent important obstacles: (a) There is a poor understanding about the connection between the health of the environment and the health of the fisheries. ( b) There is insufficient economic valuation information describing recreational fisheries. (c) Elementary and secondary schools fail to provide a strong appreciation of recreational fisheries values. 5. Single workshop groups raised the following points: (a) Effective public information campaigns can be very costly. ( b) Users of the resource do not understand the rationale behind fisheries regulations. (c) Canada does not market recreational fisheries to obtain their full economic value. (d) The general public does not appreciate the income opportunities associated with recreational fisheries. ( e) Anglers do not understand that, by discarding fishing lines, plastic rings and other forms of plastic, they become part of the environmental problem. ( f) The manufacturing industry can also be part of the environmental problem by inappropriate advertising, for example, showing recreational vehicles driving through streams. ( g) There is often insufficient biological information to support public awareness programs. (h) Television shows promoting recreational fishing sometimes display poor conservation practice.

115 Question 7 (Part 2): Public Awareness What steps can citizen groups, industry and governments take together to overcome the obstacles to effective public awareness? Responses: 1. Five of the ten workshop groups concluded that public awareness messages about recreational fisheries issues should be developed and presented by the conservation interest groups r as opposed to government agencies r targeting primarily on local and regional situatiqns.

2. Four of the workshop groups agreed that awareness messages should focus on educational programs in public schools and on involving children in fisheries and habitat conservation projects.

3. Three of the workshop groups suggested . the following steps for consideration: (a) Place more emphasis on public involvement in conservation activities as a means of increasing awareness. (b) Distribute awareness information to outdoor writers and other environmental writers, as well as to the general media.

( c) Capitalize on the connections that public interest groups have with corporations and well known "personalities" to get the message delivered more effectively. (d) Develop a national awareness campaign with a theme such as personal involvement or family outdoor experience. (Campaign could be modelled on "Participaction")

( e) Establish a national foundation, with appropriate funding from all sectors, to produce and promote awareness information. (f) Develop and promote an angler's code of ethics.

4. Two workshop groups suggested the following points: (a) Integrate aquatic habitat conservation values with recreational fisheries messages as a constant theme. (b) Appeal to individual commitment: "You can make a difference".

116 (c) Place the emphasis in the message on the fishing activity, the habitat and the outdoors, rather than on the economic value. (d) Amend government financial legislation so that the revenue from angling licences can be accessed for use by fisheries agencies in public awareness programs. 5. Single workshop groups raised the following points: (a) Commercial shopping malls are good locations to present awareness information to the public. (b) Selected fishery officers and conservation officers should be trained to communicate public awareness.

( c) MPs and DFO staff need to understand that fishing expectations and opportunities are as important to anglers as the fishing experience itself. ( d) The outfitting industry should insist on enforceable licencing standards as a means of improving credibility and raising public awareness. (e) Interest groups and government agencies should encourage catch and release and the manufacture and use of barbless hooks in support of fisheries conservation.

Question 8 (Part 1): Industry Development What obstacles to growth exist in the recreational fishing industry? Responses:

1. Seven of the ten workshop groups concluded that there is too much fragmentation of responsibility between governments and the industry, and that Canada lacks a unified voice for recreational fisheries. 2. On a related topic, seven of the groups felt that Canada lacks a government support program and a national policy for the recreational fisheries industry. 3. Six workshop groups raised the following two factors as obstacles to growth: (a) Growth is impeded in some areas because of poor understanding of the fish stocks and resultant poor management of the resource leading to diminished supplies of fish.

117 (b) Habitat degradation and reduced water quality as a result of such things as poor logging practices and acid rain were also seen as obstacles to growth.

4. Five workshop groups concluded that the absence of long term management plans including objectives and allocation priorities and improved legislation, as opposed to the current practice of ad hoc intervention, was an impediment to industry growth in many areas of Canada. 5. On another topic, five workshop groups expressed concern about the future continuity and certainty of access to wilderness areas and property tenure in the face of emerging conflicts with native groups and competing resource development interests.

6. Four workshop groups raised the following two topics as potential obstacles to growth:

(a) Disproportionate allocation of certain stocks to competing commercial fisheries interests to the detriment of recreational fisheries. ( b) Failure to conduct market research and to promote the recreational fishing experience.

7. Three workshop groups raised the following factors: (a) The economic importance of the recreational fishing experience is often poorly understood. (b) There is an absence of industry standards of service and facilities in many areas of Canada, combined with customer complaints about poor service provided by lodges.

( c) Difficulty is often experienced by entrepreneurs in obtaining capital funds to develop recreational fisheries business. 8. Two workshop groups raised the following issues: (a) There is insufficient cooperation to promote recreational fishing between government agencies responsible for tourism and fisheries. (b) Government agencies devote insufficient program resources to enforcement and many of the regulations are overly complex.

118 (c) There is inadequate government funding for recreational fisheries management programs. 9. The following other points were raised by single workshop groups: (a) There is a lack of easy access to non-consumptive uses of fisheries (fish watching). ( b) Business operations devoted to recreational fisheries are unique - they are usually remote and they have a relatively short season over which to amortize capital costs. (c) The tidal water recreational fishery is under-developed in Canada. (d) Business operations also suffer because of complex and unrealistic business and building regulations, as well as the lack of relevant business training. (e) Government bureaucrats may act as a constraint to growth in the recreational fishing industry.

Question 8 (Part 2): Industry Development What steps can citizen groups, industry and governments take together to overcome obstacles? Responses:

1. Four of the ten workshop groups concluded that outfitters across Canada should form a national association that would represent the industry in a professional manner, act as a conscience and develop standards of service. 2. Three workshop groups felt that the following steps ought to be taken: (a) Governments should decentralize authority in order to address the problem of regulating an industry that is located in remote areas.

( b) Governments should take steps to promote public awareness of the industry and to assist industry in developing a national organization. (c) The industry should promote itself through active marketing campaigns.

119 (d) Industry should become more actively involved with government programs to enhance the fisheries resource and its habitat as well as to promote ecological awareness. 3. Two workshop groups concluded that the following steps were important:

(a) Governments and the industry should combine forces to expand the socio-economic data base for recreational fisheries. (b) Industry growth plans for recreational fisheries in many parts of Canada need to be developed through industry leadership with government cooperation. ( c) Governments should close marginal commercial fisheries that compete for recreational species such as for Atlantic salmon in Newfoundland, where such closure can be justified. (d) Outfitters in recreational fisheries industry should do more to promote tourism. ( e) Governments and industry are urged to encourage catch and release among anglers as a means of limiting fish stock depletion. (f) Outfitting businesses should be able to qualify for favourable government loans.

4. Several other i terns were mentioned by only single workshop groups, as follows: (a) Native people should be encouraged to get involved in recreational fishing businesses. (b) Outfitters should diversify their operations to ensure that they offer more than just fishing opportunities during part of the season. ( c) Tourism Canada needs to be convinced that recreational fishing has growth potential. ( d) The federal Fisheries Act should be amended either to transfer the authority for inland fisheries to the provinces or to specify federal responsibilities and programs for recreational fishing.

120 (e) Angling licence holders and other private citizens should be given an explicit means to take enforcement action against violators of the Fisheries Act. (f) Steps should be taken to teach novice city-people how to fish. (g) Governments should provide tenure and long range resource management to selected fisheries in Canada as a means of enhancing long term business security.

121

REFLECTIONS ON THE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

by J.W. (Bud) Bird, M.P. Conferenoe Chairperson

I would now like to commence this last session of the conference by expressing my sincere appreciation to all concerned for their attention, cooperation and for the good spirit which has been evident at this conference. I have not seen any gathering where Federal and Provincial and Territorial Government representatives have come together with private sector industry and conservati'on organizations in a better spirit of common accord. I think we will see accomplishments flow from our efforts here. With your indulgence, I would now like to give you my view of what I think we have accomplished here. · This conference has talked about an agenda for action, and Lowell said that every man feels instinctively that all the beautiful sentiments in the world weigh less than a single lovely action. The record of the proceedings will provide all of the recommendations that have been made and the commentaries, but sooner or later we do have to pull it into a cohesive action plan. I think that, first of all, delegates have recognized that the agenda for action starts with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It is time to convert DFO talk into action and to truly recognize the value and the significance and the priority of the recreational fishery in terms of dollars and of laws and of deeds. I think that perhaps the best expression of the view of this conference about DFO's position was the comment that DFO is thirty years too old for this conference. That struck me as a very chilling and stark expression of where this conference sees the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to the recreational fishery. I must say that there is probably some over-statement in what I have just said about the department because a lot of action has been taken. I would draw your attention to a recent report dated October, 1989, published by the department, entitled: "Recreational Fishing: A Service Industry Profile". It is an economic analysis that demonstrates the value of the $4.5 billion recreational fishery in Canada, perhaps better than any other single document. It talks about $2.5 billion in fishing tackle and equipment and accessories and it talks about $2.0 billion in goods and services. It is a definitive document that is suitable

123 for discussion with your bankers, your municipal and provincial government representatives, your Chambers of Commerce, your Boards of Trade, and your service clubs. This is a document that can become a living instrument of action. So therefore, without dampening in any way the call on DFO to truly recognize the recreational fishery, it must be said that some good things have been done. The fisheries conservation organizations at this conference have made the point that a national perspective must be realized. In some fashion the excellent regional and specific interest structures such as the Atlantic Salmon Federation and Trout Unlimited Canada and many others must be given a larger national voice by some means such as coalition, affiliation or the creation of a new organization. This would enable the broad national perspective for recreational fishing to be expressed, while at the same time, as David Good said in his presentation to us, allow for diverse regional interests to be brought forward and acted upon in terms of local application. we have to examine the excellent ZEC organizations in Quebec that appear to have been provided with some substantial authority by the provincial government for the management of both the resource and the environment in their "Zones d'Exploitation Controllee". I was struck in reading the report of the 1986 Recreational Fisheries Conference by the discussion of that time about money and the acceptance that there is a bottom to that pit of government money and that there is a need for private sector and the non-governmental organizations to find alternate ways of funding. There were discussions at that meeting about foundations and how they could be organized to provide special fundings for a great many projects. I believe John Carter referred to Foundations and Trusts and that sort of thing in his summary earlier today. In terms of partnerships, I must mention that there are federal government partnership mechanisms available now in the form of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the Western Economic Diversification Office. In addition, there is the new Environmental Partners Fund sponsored by the Department of Environment. There are some opportunities to seize and I would recommend that you do so. In several of the commentaries at this conference, we have heard expressions of concern and dismay that Native Indians were not a part of this Conference. I believe the message is clear: Native Indians must be partners in the recreational fishery of Canada as full participants. I think the Kingsclear example near Fredericton is perhaps a good model to use as guidance.

124 We also talked in this conference about the non-dollar values of fishing. I sat in on some of your workshops where delegates were talking about values such as being in touch with nature and the living experience of going fishing, I believe that brings us to another partner in this equation: the common canadian, who is after all the owner of the resource. When we talk in the context of unlimited potential, we must also realize that the recreation fishery in Canada is more than a industry; it is of immense personal · and social value to average canadians and we have to find ways to engage more citizens in the pursuit of recreational fishing. I suggest as one example, among others, the New Brunswick Crown Reserve Salmon Angling system where portions of the waters of that Province are reserved for the common angler. We talked about the sustainability of the fisheries resource as the theme of this conference. According to several workshops, one of the things we have to do is to plan for the future in a way that allows for the resolution of conflicts, and for the identification of what we want from the resource. I think Bob Wright brought up the futility of embarking on enhancement programs and enhancement investments when harvesting disciplines have not yet been put in place. We got to think about tomorrow's generations and ensure that we leave the resource in such a condition that they will be able to put it to their use and enjoyment. There is no question to the opportunities for recreational fisheries in Canada, outweigh the obstacles and I'd like to just leave you with this last of my conference homilies: Whatever we do, we must approach it with resolve and with conviction and with enthusiasm. I'd like to say to you that the messages I have received here I will try to take back to those groups where I may have some influence in Ottawa, such as the solution that Wilfred Carter has proposed about driftnetting to which I detected a consensus among delegates. I would urge all of you to go back and address, not only the concept of sustained recreational fishing, but also the concept of sustainable development of our entire magnificent natural environment. Do this with conviction and with enthusiasm because nothing is so contagious as enthusiasm: it moves stones, it charms brutes. Enthusiasm is the genius of sincerity and truth which accomplishes no victories without either of them. so ladies and gentlemen thank you very, very much for your attention. Mesdames et Messieurs, merci beaucoup de votre attention et de votre cooperation les trois semaines passe.

125

CONCLUDING REMARKS by Dr. Peter Meyboom Deputy Minister Department of Fisheries and Oceans

It is a pleasure to speak to you at the end of your deliberations. First of all, I would like to make some general comments about the conference themes, followed by some specific comments on the things I have learned this morning. Three years ago I addressed the same conference in Toronto, at which time I made a number of promises. I would like to tell you what we have done to implement those promises. Finally, I will take a brief look into the future. The theme of this conference is "Developing new attitudes and building stronger partnerships" . Sometimes I wish that I was a private consultant, selling my services to people who wanted my advice on how to do business with the government. We all have to learn that the most important thing about the federal government or any government for that matter is that they make decisions on the basis of consensus not on the basis of decree, nor on the basis of black magic. To get consensus you have to consult, but then people say you are too slow. I agree it is slow, but at the same time it ensures fairness, and I'll come back to fairness in a minute. Another universal fear is that, although we are all concerned individually about threats to the natural environment, we feel helpless because we are unable to do anything about it collectively. This can be explained as follows: collectively we are forced into certain economic decisions, summarized beautifully by Professor Hardin, a number of years ago in an essay called "The Tragedy.Of The Commons". The skill in making decisions and the skill in making proposals on your part is how to avoid the tragedy of the commons. I would like to take a moment to recount the story quickly, for those of you who may not know about the tragedy. It concerns the common grazing grounds for domestic animals in a village, where every farmer has one sheep or one cow and as the village increases in size, the number of livestock increases. At a certain point, there is not enough grass for the animals and every individual farmer is faced with a choice: either to add one more animal or not. The dilemma is that there is not enough grass to sustain a larger herd and each individual farmer says: I know that for the common good I should not add more animals to the herd and yet I know at the same time that by adding one more I will get the full benefit of that one

127 animal, while the disadvantage of my additional animal will be shared by all. So each farmer is economically compelled to consider buying another animal and adding it to the herd. The inevitable outcome is that both the herd and the commons will die. This scenario may be applied to many environmental problems and any renewable resource exploitation problem. Therefore whatever proposal we develop or whatever decisions are being made have to keep in mind how to deal with the tragedy of the commons. I also referred a moment ago to universal demands. The most persistant demand heard by government representatives is demand for more money, to do research, to do enforcement, to do other things in the public interest. The fact of the matter is, there is no more money and that has to be realized. On one hand, countries as rich as our own are saying we don't want to have more taxes, so we will reduce government expenditures. You cannot then turn around and then say, "But not from my sector". Yet there is no money. We are going through a time of extraordinary fiscal restraint. Every thousand dollars that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is spending is thought about and deliberated and discussed. You wouldn't believe how much time I'm spending right now on the expenditure of very small amounts of money from the total departmental budget of $ 600,000,000. So I want to stress to all of you that we are living in a period of financial restraint and I'm not going to repeat all of the speeches that the Minister of Finance has been making about this subject, but it is a reality. It doesn't mean that we are not going to do our utmost to reallocate a bit here and a bit there but to simply say "more money for research, more money for science" that is simply not the way that we are doing things at the moment in Ottawa. It is not possible, it is not responsible. We have to be realistic to survive economically as a nation. Another universal demand is for more science and I love it, because I'm a scientist myself, and I'm always impressed with the confidence and the trust people have in science. There are exceptions, of course, but there is a dilemma. This morning when one presenter said "more science", another said "we don't trust the data". Science is only liked and trusted as long as it gives one the information that one hopes for. But if it doesn't give one that information, we become disenchanted and we say that the scientists have let us down. The scientists have not let us down; they have discovered the truth. Twenty years ago, scientists didn't know that smoking caused lung cancer but once these linkages became known people started living with that reality. And the same goes for fish stocks. They have discovered the truth about northern cod: 2J3KL cod off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland is in trouble right now with enormous repercussions for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

128 so we will do everything possible to increase the research. We will do whatever we can in collaboration with the universities and with you, because you too are part of the scientific network that we need. Every fisherman in this country, commercial, recreational or native, is part of a scientific partnership that we will have to build up. I .have extraordinary faith in volunteer organizations. I have seen what they can do in terms of dedication of time, in terms of knowledge about the subject, in terms of love for their subject, and in terms of fund-raising capabilities. So I am saying we will respond to your demand for more science but at the same time it is not going to be a one way street because, again, we can't afford that. The next thing I want to talk about is your constant theme that there is a lack of political will. There is no lack of political will, believe me. What you perceive to be a lack of political will is in fact the underlying fairness of a democratic system. It works this way: every dollar the government gives to one group, or every ounce of attention it gives to one group, it cannot give that same dollar and that same ounce of attention to another group. Accordingly, it is not fair in my view, to speak as one of you did about the commercial fishery in Canada having a "buffalo hunter mentality". Forgive me, but you can't do that. Commercial fishermen have invested money in boats just like you have money invested in gear and in lodges. These people are small businessmen trying to make a living from the fishery just like some of you. And you cannot simply say that they are buffalo hunters and dismiss them. You have to learn to live with them, and they have to learn to live with you, which is just as difficult. But it has to be done. I spoke earlier about consensus. You cannot simply say, "Shut down commercial salmon fishing in Newfoundland and give us all the fish." I know you are not saying that, but that is how it will be perceived if you are not careful. Please do not misunderstand me. I have a lot of sympathy for volunteer organizations. I believe they are an extraordinary cornerstone of our democratic system. I have met with them, particularly over the last few months in Newfoundland. I know what the problems are with respect to Newfoundland salmon and my first advice to the anglers was to gather around the table with everybody, all the users and all the government representatives. One of the speakers this morning said, "I see British Columbia as a barometer of our problems with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans". I disagree with him because I see British Columbia as the reverse: a barometer of our solutions. Two years ago the recreational fishermen in British Columbia were taking out newspaper advertisements condemning the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Now we are working together - the commercial fishermen and the recreational fishermen, and even some of the native fishermen's groups. Solutions have been found or are being found.

129 Yesterday afternoon, I met Bob Wright of the Oak Bay Marine Group for a few minutes in Ottawa after he had received a gold medal from the federal industry department for small business excellence in marketing. He didn't receive government grants and he didn't ask for the impossible, but he had vision and guts. He has made millions of dollars and he will probably continue to do it. I was pleased to congratulate him because he exemplifies the kind of dedication that is needed to succeed. Last week there was an international conference of Ministers of the Environment in Noordwij k, Holland. The purpose of that particular conference was to come to grips with the problems of global warming and the greenhouse effect. Holland and some other smaller European countries made the proposition that nations should set an absolute level of carbon dioxide emissions from the earth. That resolution was not accepted. The big industrial nations including the United states, the United Kingdom and Japan opposed the resolution and the resulting consensus was a great deal less powerful. Mr. Bouchard, Canada's Minister of the Environment, was asked during a telephone interview, "Aren't you disappointed, Mr. Minister?" Mr. Bouchard demonstrated exactly the point I was talking about earlier. He replied, "Politics is the art of the possible and we have something now, a common understanding that C02 is part of the problem of the warming trend. We have an understanding that we are going to begin to put controls on it. That is something that didn't exist last week and it exists now." It is the same for these conferences. We make progress one step at a time. I don't propose to talk any further about unlimited growth. I think it is a dangerous concept because it creates expectations that eventually are going to be shattered. And I am very happy that some speakers agreed with me. I now want to talk about the Fisheries Act for a minute. I believe one of the speakers earlier today said that the laws have to be changed so that removal of gravel in a spawning stream becomes an offence under the Fisheries Act. Well, the fact of the matter is that it is. The Act states clearly in Section 35 that no person can tinker with habitat unless he or she is authorized to do so. Now why is it then that people think that the Act has to be strengthened? Well it has to do with delegation. The federal government has delegated the administration of freshwater fisheries to a number of provinces. That includes the delegation of certain sections related to habitat. Now, my rhetorical question is, "How are the provinces using those habitat-related sections if it comes to a choice between building a new industrial plant or protecting the gravel bed in some stream?" I don't know what the choice is in all instances. I do know that in British Columbia, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans examines every culvert that is proposed and every spawning stream that is being altered, and we lay charges

130 if the work is not done correctly. The Province of British Columbia is exceedingly diligent in referring all those proposals to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and our technical staff and fishery officers are examining those referrals. The habitat protection sections of the Act are available and they are strong. The question is: "how are those sections being administered by those who believe they currently have unfettered responsibility for all parts of the Act?" That is going to be a very important and potentially difficult debate in the years to come. I can assure you that the federal government will take its responsibility seriously. We will have to do it cooperatively, but the point is that you cannot ignore Sections 35 and 37 and the other habitat sections. The jurisdiction for fisheries is very clear in the Constitution. Fisheries remains a clear federal responsibility, and I promise you that we will take that seriously. I would like to make a brief comment on driftnets. We have negotiated with the Koreans to have observers on board their driftnet ships. We have an agreement with Japan to have observers on board their driftnet ships. We have witnessed the Pacific driftnet fishery this summer with one of our research ships and we have learned a great deal about that fishery. It is an horrendously powerful killing machine, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is extremely concerned about it. So is the Province of British Columbia because some of the fish that migrates from Canadian waters across the Pacific is being intercepted by these driftnets. It has been called biological strip mining. I don't know whether you have seen the television clip on driftnets. It's a gruesome story. They catch everything including birds, mammals, fish - everything. Then they cast overboard whatever they don't need. I would now like to look back quickly at the promises I made three years ago. I promised continuity. I promised you that we would not lose track of recreational fisheries, and I think we have kept that promise. On the subject of shared decision-making, we are in that process right now and I don't have to elaborate on it. I've met with many of you in groups. In some areas, things have gone better than in other areas. There is a success story on the west coast of Newfoundland and the man who is responsible for that success story is somewhere in the audience, one of our officers, Jack Marshall, the area manager. Jack is a hero in the eyes of many of you, and justifiably so, because he has, by innovative and energetic means, created an atmosphere of cooperation and at the same time he has strengthened enforcement even though we have very limited resources. He called on the RCMP and he called on the provincial wildlife officers and there were teams put

131 together ahd the system is working marvelously to the satisfaction of everyone. We have not done that yet on the east coast of Newfoundland, but we will. · The same is true of British Columbia where there were also a lot of complaints about inadequate enforcement. That too is changing, because we are just as determined to make it a success as you are. I promised this conference three years ago that the national policy recommendations for recreational fisheries would be put before a meeting of First Ministers. That was done and the First Ministers accepted those recommendations as a national policy and it has taken on a life of its own. People were saying at first, "These are all general motherhood statements." But now all of a sudden, I see people taking sentences out of that policy, as people do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they say, "Here is a sentence that makes sense to us, this is what we think it means, and this is what we want to do with it." Something new is now growing up around it. Three years ago you expressed concern about habitat. Since then, our Minister adopted the habitat policy and released it through Parliament. The father of that policy, Les Dominy, is here today and he is currently acting as the Director of the Recreational Fisheries in Jane Quiring's absence. The other day the Chairman of an Advisory Council to the Minister said to me, "You know, that habitat policy is an interesting policy because it is so deceptively simple, yet around it has grown a whole industry, an industry of remedial measures, an industry of developing habitat banks as we have in the Fraser River for achieving "no net loss" of estuary habitat, and new activities such as the negotiation of integrated management plans." Many of these things are happening simply because of the ingenuity of people. The habitat banking concept, came about because of the inventiveness of Otto Langer, a DFO area habitat manager in British Columbia. The most important concept that I would like to leave with you, however, is the notion of your own power. rt is one thing to say that the federal government should do this and the provincial government should do that. Most people, when they want to do something, feel powerless. They say, "I can't do it. There are regulations against it. There are rules against it. I don't have money. Perhaps somebody else should do it. " However, in psychology there is a concept called empowering oneself to act. You say, "This is what we want to do and that is what we are going to do, notwithstanding the fact there is no money and notwithstanding the fact that there are shortcomings in the administration. But we will do it. We are determined to do it!" That notion of empowering yourself to act is something I would like to stress because that is what I am preaching to our own officers. Some of them are faster at understanding what that

132 means. Jack Marshall is an example. Eventually it will all be done that way because it will be on the basis of ingenuity and determination that we will find the solutions to all the problems that you have put on the table. After we leave this conference today, Les Dominy is going to draft the action plan. He will consult with all of you. That is another thing. We always consult and then you complain that we are slow. But when we don't consult, you ask us why we did not seek your views. Finally, people have been reminding us that there are more species than salmon in Canada's recreational fisheries. Well, I for one have learned that. Jane Quiring felt that it would be very useful to have a poster to summarize our collective interest and our collective concern. I would like to show you the result. we put the entire recreational fishery of Canada on one piece of paper in the form of a large poster . You will all get a copy. We hope that you will distribute this through your provincial licence vendors. It will be widely used. We hope to do more with it. The individual art work could be used to illustrate a little album to explain the particular habits of our recreational fish. That book could be sold or distributed with sports fishing licences. Les Dominy will consult you on how that can best be done. The recreational fish on this poster show that there are many more species than just salmon involved.

I would like to thank the participants to this conference, for telling us all the things you have told us. We will take action and we will show you what the action agenda is going to look like. We will seek refinements from you. I promise organizations such as SPAWN and SAEN and others, particularly in Newfoundland at the moment where there is difficulty with their salmon stock, that we will be with you, and we will help you, without being unfair to other user groups. I welcome the suggestion that the next conference might be organized by a non-government group. I think that would be marvellous and we will come and criticize you for a change. I would like to thank a few people before I wind up. First of all, I would like to thank Jane Quiring for organizing all of this, with the help of Les Dominy. I am enormously grateful for their work. I also want to thank Karen Woldike for her professional efforts, and Elizabeth Hession who, with the help of Jennifer Bishop, typed and photocopied through the night to produce all the reports from your workshops. I would like to thank Ron Crowley for his leadership and guidance in getting all of the work done. Finally, I would like to thank Bud Bird for being such an inspiring and enthusiastic Chairman. When he spoke, you know, I said to myself, "Boy, what enthusiasm!" And that is always nice to see in a person. I have been told that you did a superb job, sir, in chairing this meeting, in drawing

133 out the essence of every presentation, in smoothing over harsh points if there were any, in creating a group feeling. Of course that is the skill of the politician, and you are a skillful one, Mr. Bird. Thank you very much for agreeing to chair this conference. To show our appreciation, I would like you to receive this first recreational fisheries poster as our gift. That concludes my remarks. Thank you for your kind attention.

134 November 6. 1989 19:00 - 21:00 Reception (cash bar) and Registration

November 7. 1989 08:30 - 09:00 Registration

09:00 - 09:30 Opening Remarks Bud Bird, M.P. 0 Purpose of conference Conference chairman

09:30 - 10:15 Recreational Fisheries to 2000 David Clark, Q.C. 0 Issues and trends over the next President ten years Atlantic Salmon Federation 10:15 - 10:30 Coffee

10:30 - 11: 15 The Recreational Fishing Industry Robert Wright to 2000 President 0 Issues and trends over the next Oak Bay Marine Group ten years

11:15 - 12:00 Forging New Partnerships David Good 0 The changing role of government Assistant Deputy and non-government organizations Minister, Policy and Program Planning, DFO

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch Speaker: David Fay Christopher Lang and Associates Toronto

14:00 - 14:20 Scientific Data Collection John Anderson 0 challenges Atlantic Salmon 0 opportunities Federation 0 recommended action New Brunswick 135 14:20 - 14:40 Resource Co-Management Conrad Hiscock 0 challenges Salmon Preservation 0 opportunities Association for the 0 recommended action Waters of Newfoundland

14:40 - 15:00 Fisheries and Habitat Improvement Walt Crawford 0 challenges Trout Unlimited 0 opportunities Ontario 0 recommended action

15:00 - 15:30 Coffee

15:30 - 16:00 Enforcement Gabriel Pelletier 0 challenges Federation of 0 opportunities ZEC Managers 0 recommended action Quebec

16:00 - 16:30 Public Awareness Wayne Phillips 0 challenges Freelance Outdoor 0 opportunities Writer 0 recommended action Saskatchewan

16:30 - 16:45 Instructions for the next day's Les Dominy workshops A/Director Recreational Fisheries Fisheries and Oceans 18:00 - 19:00 Reception (cash bar)

19:00 - 22:00 Dinner Speaker: Hon. Tom Siddon Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

November 8, 1989

EXPIQRitl; JDF.AS: 'llIE ProPQSAU; 09:00 - 16:30 Workshop discussions (See Tab G for (working lunch provided) workshop participants)

136 16:30 - 18:30 Workshop rapporteurs prepare workshop conclusions

18:00 - 19:00 Conference chairman and summary presenters meet to review discussion highlights with workshop chairpersons

18:30 - 20:00 Reception (cash bar) 20:00 - 22:30 Dinner Speaker and Host: Hon. Morris Green Minister of Natural Resources New Brunswick

November 9. 1989

A SHARED VISION: THE PLAN 09: 00 - 10: 15 Summary presenters provide Yvonne Quick workshop conclusions and Northern Frontier recommendations Visitors• Association Cliff Wells Salmon Preservation Association of the Waters of Newfoundland John Carter Canadian Wildlife Federation 10:15 - 10:30 Coffee 10:30 11:00 Next Steps in Developing the Peter Meyboom National Action Agenda Deputy Minister Fisheries and Oceans 11: 00 - 11: 30 Conference closing Bud Bird Conference chairman

137

APPENDIX B Non-Government Representatives!Representants du secteur prive New£oundland and Labrador!Terre-Neuve et Labrador Mr. Tom Humphrey Mr. Robert Bishop President Salmon Association of Eastern Salmonid Council of Newfoundland Newfoundland and Labrador P.O. Box 1522, Station "C" Box 1421, Station "C" St. John's, Newfoundland St. John's, Newfoundland AlC 5N8 AlC SNS

(709) 639-8479 (H) ( 709) 722-5960 (W) - (709) 639-9201 (W) (709) 368-3421 (H)

Mr. Jack Cooper Mr. Dave Tizzard Labrador Outfitters Association Enhancement Committee P.O. Box 340, Station "B" SPAWN Happy Valley, Labrador 15 Stuart Street AOP lEO Corner Brook, Newfoundland A2H 6R8

(709) 896-2891 (W) (709) 637-4286 (W) (709) 896-3024 (H)

Dr. Lawrence F. Felt Mr. Cliff Wells Atlantic Salmon Advisory Board President 51 New Cove Road SPAWN St. John's, Newfoundland P.O. Box 924 AlA 3B9 Corner Brook, Newfoundland A2H 6J2

(709) 737-8862 (W) (709) 634-3008 (H) (709) 754-0401 (H) (709) 637-2363 (W)

139 Prince Edward Island/Ile-du-Prince-Edouard Ms. Shirley Bennett Mr. Daryl Guignion North Lake Tuna Charters President, Morell River Incorporated Management Co-op Incorporation North Lake, Prince Edward Island R.R. #2, Green Meadows COA lKO Morell, Prince Edward Island COA lSO

(902) 357-2055 (H)(W) (902) 961-2986 (H) (902) 566-0301 (W)

140 Nova Scotia/Nouvelle-Ecosse

Mr. Perry Munro Mr. Carl Purcell Chairman of the Fish Committee Nova Scotia Salmon Association Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation P.O. Box 523 R.R. #2 Halifax, Nova Scotia Wolfville, Nova Scotia B3J 2R7 BOP lXO

(902) 542-2658 (W) (902) 865-8814 (W) (902) 466-3024 (H)

Mr. Robert Fraser Mr. Tom Pinfold Gardner Pinfold Consulting Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Economist P.O. Box 3120 P.O. Box 3120 Halifax South Halifax South Halifax, Nova Scotia Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3G6 B3J 3G6

(902) 421-1720 (W) (902) 421-1720 (W)

141 New BrUilSWick/Nouveau-Brunswick Mr. Jack Fenety Mr. David R. Clark President President, Atlantic Salmon Miramichi Salmon Association Federation 742 MacLaren Avenue 123 Charlotte Street Fredericton, New Brunswick Fredericton, New Brunswick E3A 3L5 E3B 1L3

(506) 472-7650 (H) (506) 529-8889 (W) (506) 453-9197 (H)

Mr. Alex Mills Mr. Fred Wheaton New Brunswick Outfitters New Brunswick Wildlife Association Federation Old River Lodge, Greene Road 56 Drummond Street Doaktown, New Brunswick Moncton, New Brunswick EOC lGO ElA 2Z2

(506) 365-2253 (W) (506) 382-3507 (H) (506) 365-4547 (H) (506) 857-4231 (W)

Dr. John Anderson Mr. Gordon Gregory Vice President Atlantic Salmon Federation Operations 365 Wright Street Atlantic Salmon Federation Fredericton, New Brunswick P.O. Box 429 E3B 2E3 St. Andrews, New Brunswick EOG 2XO

(506) 529-8889 (W) (506) 454-5130 (W) (506) 529-3478 (H) (506) 454-9481 (H) (506) 529-4438 (FAX)

Dr. Wilfred M. Carter Mr. Louis Arseneau President Emeritus President Atlantic Salmon Federation Nepisiguit Trout Protection P.O. Box 429 Association St. Andrews, New Brunswick 507 St. Peters Avenue EOG 2XO Bathurst, New Brunswick E2A 2Y5

(506) 529-8889 (W) (506) 548-5712 (H) (506) 529-3901 (H) (506) 547-2075 (W)

142

---·------·---· New Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick

Mrs. Vicki Mills President New Brunswick Council Atlantic Salmon Federation Old River Lodge, Greene Road Doaktown, New Brunswick EOC lGO

(506) 365-2253 (W) (506) 365-4547 (H)

143 Quebec/Quebec M. Jacques Marchand M. Gabriel Pelletier President, Federation des President, Federation des pourvoyeurs du Quebec gestionnaires de ZEC C.P. 100, 2064, Chemin St. Louis Messines (Quebec) Sillery (Quebec) JOX 2JO GlT 1P4

(819) 465-2941 (418) 682-5173 (W) (418) 688-9890 (H) (418) 648-1163 (FAX)

Dr. Alex T. Bielak Mr. Claude Lassus Executive Director Professeur de l'Universite Atlantic Salmon Federation de Quebec a Rimouski 1435 Saint-Alexandre Department de biologie Suite 1030 300 Allee de Ursulines Montreal (Quebec) Rimouski (Quebec) H3A 2G4 G5L 3Al

(514) 842-8059 (418) 724-1612 (W)

144 Ontario/Ontario

Mr. Terry Smeltzer Mr. Robert Merkel Second Vice President Third Vice President Ontario Federation of Anglers Northern Ontario Outfitters and Hunters Association 169 Charlotte Street P.O. Box 1140 Peterborough, Ontario North Bay, Ontario K9J 6Y5 PlB 8K4

(705) 748-6324 (W) (705) 472-5552 (W) (705) 342-5811 (H)

Mr. David Angas Mr. Kenneth w. Cox President, Canadian National National Program Coordinator Sport Fishing Foundation Wildlife Habitat Canada 30 Vinyl Court 1704 Carling Avenue Woodbridge, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario L4L 4A3 K2A 1C7

(416) 851-7421 (W) (613) 722-2090 (W) (416) 847-0343 (H) (613) 226-6114 (H)

Ms. Theresa Aniskowicz Mr. Walt Crawford Coordinator of Conservation Trout Unlimited Canada Programs Grand River Chapter Canadian Nature Federation 35A Shirk Place 453 Sussex Drive Kitchener, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario N2K 1R3 KlN 6Z4

(613) 238-6154 (W) (519) 623-4639 (W) (819) 647-3906 (H) (519) 843-5580 (H)

Mr. Gary Blundell Dr. Jon Planck Fisheries Manager Trout Unlimited Canada Canadian Wildlife Federation Grand River Chapter 1673 Carling Avenue 35A Shirk Place Ottawa, Ontario Kitchener, Ontario K2A 3Zl N2K 1R3

(613) 725-2191 (W) (519) 885-5440 (W) (613) 725-3695 (H) (519) 743-1780 (H)

145 Ontario/Ontario Mr. David Fay Christopher Lang & Associates 2 Bloor Street West Suite 1902 Toronto, Ontario M4W 3E2

(416) 927-0060

146 Manitoba/Manitoba

Mr. Gerry Maryniuk Mr. Glen Grist Fisheries Chairman Executive Director Manitoba Wildlife Federation Fish Futures Incorporated 1770 Notre Dame Avenue Box 27051 Winnipeg, Manitoba Lombard Postal Station R3E 3K2 Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 3Kl

(204) 633-5967 (W) (204) 896-0351 (204) 878-2094 (H)

Mr. Steve Ramsey Mrs. Del Baird Swan Valley Sports Fishing Chairman of the Fisheries Association Committee P.O. Box 120 Greenstone Community Futures Swan River, Manitoba Incorporated ROL lZO P.O. Box 98 Flin Flon, Manitoba R8A 1M6 (204) 734-3424 (H)

(204) 687-6967

147 Saskatchewan/Saskatchewan

Mr. Wayne Phillips Mr. Derek Stanley Freelance Outdoor Writer President 808 University Drive Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation Saskatoon, Saskatchewan R.R. #1 S7N OJ6 Tisdale, Saskatchewan SOE lTO

(306) 242-0750 (H) (306) 873-5472 (H) (306) 934-5858 (W)

148 Alberta/Alberta

Mr. Darryl Smith Mr. Don Pike Zone Director General Manager Alberta Fish & Game Association Trout Unlimited Canada P.O. Box 1650 P.O. Box 6270 Valleyview, Alberta Station 'D' TOH 3NO Calgary, Alberta T2P 2C8

(403) 524-4454 (H) (403) 221-8363 (W) (403) 524-3864 (W)

Mr. Peter Chenier Vice President Bow River Fishing Guides Association P.O. Box 15, Site 9, RR#l DeWinton, Alberta TOL OXO

( 403) 256-9020 (W) (H)

149 British Columbia/Colombie-Britannique

Mr. John Carter Mr. Dick McMaster Chairman, Fish Committee British Columbia Interior Fishing Canadian & British Columbia Camp Operators Association Wildlife Federation P.O. Box 3301 5659 - 176th street Karnloops, British Columbia Surrey, British Columbia V2C 6B9 V3S 4C5

(604) 372-4471 (W) (604) 828-1553 (H) (604) 573-3000 (H)

Mr. Dan Sewell Mr. Robert H. Wright Chairman Sport Fishing Advisory Board Sport Fishing Advisory Board c/o Oak Bay Marina 6695 Nelson Avenue, Horshoe Bay 1327 Beach Drive West Vancouver, British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia V7W 2B2 V8S 2N4

(604) 921-7461 (604) 598-3366 ( 604) 921-7121

Mr. Torn Protheroe Mr. Barrie Wilbee Sport Fishing Advisory Board Sport Fishing Advisory Board R.R. #4, Churchill Drive B.C. Motel & Resorts Association Terrace, British Columbia P.O. Box 153 V8G 4V2 Madeira Park, British Columbia VON 2HO

(604) 635-7997 (H) (604) 883-2456 (604) 638-1116 (W)

150 Northwest Territories!Territoires du Nord-Ouest

Ms. Yvonne Quick Northern Frontier Visitors Association P.O. Box 866 Yellowknife, Northwest Territories XlA 2N6

(403) 873-4036 (H) (W)

151 Yukon/Yukon

Mr. Ted Wagner Mr. Niels Jacobsen Yukon Fish and Wildlife Yukon Fish & Game Association Management Board P.O. Box 4686 35 Hart Crescent Whitehorse, Yukon Whitehorse, Yukon YlA 3V7 YlA 4R2

(403) 668-2971 (H) (403) 667-6327 (403) 667-2514 (W)

Mr. John Peacock Peacock's Yukon Camp Ltd. 77 Alsek Road Whitehorse, Yukon YlA 3K5

(403) 667-2846

152 Provincial and Territorial Government Representatives/ Representants des gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux

Mr. Don Toews Mr. Worth Hayden Chief Director, Fisheries Branch Recreational Fisheries & Habitat Department of Natural Resources Department of Renewable Resources P.O. Box 20 P.O. Box 2703 1495 St. James Street Whitehorse, Yukon Winnipeg, Manitoba YlA 2C6 R3H OW9

(403) 667-5117 (W) (204) 945-7814 (403) 667-6942 (H)

Dr. David Narver M. Yvon cote Director Chef du Service de la faune Recreational Fisheries Branch aguatique Ministry of the Environment and Ministere du Loisir, de la Chasse Parks et de la Peche 780 Blanchard Street 150 est boulevard Saint-Cyrille Victoria, British Columbia Quebec (Quebec) V8V 1X5 GlR 4Yl

(604) 387-9711 (W) (418) 643-5382 (W) (604) 592-3662 (H) (418) 627-0742 (H)

Mr. Paul Naftel Mr. David Rimmer Director of Fisheries Recreational Fisheries Department of Parks and Management Coordinator Renewable Resources Fisheries Branch 3211 Albert Street Department of Forestry, Lands Regina, Saskatchewan and Wildlife S4S 5W6 9945 - 108 street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2G6 (306) 787-2884 (W) (306) 586-6169 (H) (403) 427-6732 (W)

Mr. Nilam Bedi Economist Fisheries Branch Ministry of Natural Resources Room 2347, Whitney Block Toronto, Ontario M7A 1W3

(416) 965-7885 (W)

153 Provincial and Territorial Goverl11llent Representatives/ Representants des gouvernements provinciaux et territoriaux

Mr. Mal Redmond Mr. Alan Godfrey Director Fish and Wildlife Fish Management Department of the Environment Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 2000 and Energy Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island Fish & Wildlife Branch ClA 7N8 Upper Regent Street Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5Hl

(506) 453-2440 (W) (902) 368-4684 (506) 454-5163 (H)

Mr. Lincoln MacLeod Mr. Friend Herring Director Manager Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries Extension Division Department of Fisheries Department of Fisheries and P.O. Box 700 Aquaculture Pictou, Nova Scotia P.O. Box 2000 BOK lHO Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island ClA 7N8 (902) 485-8991 ( 902) 368-5264 (W) (902) 424-4560 (Halifax) (902) 368-5240 (W)

Ms. Nancy Adams Mr. Gaetan Hamel Recreational Fisheries Biologist Chef du service de ZEC Aquaculture & Inland Fisheries Ministere du Loisir, de la chasse Department of Fisheries et de la Peche P.O. Box 700 150 est Boulevard Saint-Cyrille Pictou, Nova Scotia 4ieme etage BOK lHO Quebec (Quebec) GlR 4Yl

(902) 485-5056 (W) (418) 643-0009 (W) (902) 485-8992 (H)

Mr. Frank Hussey Mr. Ken Zelt Manager of Sport Fishing - Manager Resort Development Fisheries Management Section Tourism Development Branch Department of Forestry, Lands Ministry of Regional Development and Wildlife 712 Yates Street 9945 - 108 Street Victoria, British Columbia Edmonton, Alberta V8V 1X5 T5K 2G6

(604) 387-1534 (W) (407) 427-6730 (W) (604) 479-3438 (H)

154 Provincial and Territorial Government Representatives/ Representants des gouvernements provinaiaux et territoriaux

Mr. Tom Pettigrew Mr. Randy Wright Regional Biologist Sport Fishing Advisory Board Fish & Wildlife Branch c/o Oak Bay Marina Department of Natural Resources 1327 Beach Drive and Energy Victoria, British Columbia P.O. Box 150 V8S 2N4 Hampton, New Brunswick EOG lZO

Mr. Ed LeBlanc Mr. Bill Ensor Fisheries Biologist Product Manager Department of Natural Resources Fish & Hunt New Brunswick and Energy Tourism New Brunswick 21 Costigan Street P.O. Box 12345 Edmundston, New Brunswick Fredericton, New Brunswick E3V 1W7 E3B 5C3

Mr. Norman Prentice Fisheries Biologist Department of Natural Resources and Energy 21 Costigan Street Edmundston, New Brunswick E3V 1W7

Mr. John Gilbert Habitat Protection Biologist Department of Natural Resources and Energy Fish & Wildlife Branch Upper Regent Street Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5Hl

Mr. Peter Cronin Department of Natural Resources and Energy R.R. #6 Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 4X7

155 Other Federal Departments!Autres Hinisteres Federaux

Mr. David McBurney Ms. Elizabeth Morris Senior Resource Protection Senior Analyst Biologist, Natural Resources Product Development Branch, Canadian Parks Service Tourism Canada Environment Canada 235 Queen Street Terrasses de la Chaudiere 4th Floor East 10 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario KlA OHS KlA OH3

(819) 994-5531 (W) (613) 954-3969 (W) (819) 827-3751 (H)

Mr. Steven Fenety Mr. Michael Edwards Regional Director for Inlands Development Officer waters Directorate Atlantic Canada Opportunities Atlantic Region Agency Environment Canada P.O. Box 578 4th Floor, Queen's Square Fredericton, New Brunswick 44 Alderney Drive E3B 5A6 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 2N6

(902) 426-6050 (W) (506) 452-2438 (W) (902) 465-4796 (H) (506) 459-8181 (H)

George Lindsey Environment Canada P.O. Box 400 527 Queen Street Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 4Z9

156 Department of Fisheries g Ooeans!Ministere des Peohes et des Oceans Honourable Thomas E. Siddon Mr. Les Dominy Minister Acting Director Fisheries and Oceans Recreational Fisheries Station 1526 Fisheries and Oceans 200 Kent Street Station 1134 Ottawa, Ontario 200 Kent Street KlA OE6 Ottawa, Ontario KlA OE6

(613) 992-3474 (W) (613) 993-1876 (W)

Dr. Peter Meyboom Ms. Karen Woldike Deputy Minister Senior Analyst Fisheries and Oceans Recreational Fisheries Station 1578 Fisheries and Oceans 200 Kent Street Station 1134 Ottawa, Ontario 200 Kent Street KlA OE6 Ottawa, Ontario· KlA OE6

(613) 993-2200 (W) (613) 993-2536 (W)

Mr. David A. Good Ms. Elizabeth Hession Assistant Deputy Minister Secretary Policy and Program Planning Recreational Fisheries Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries and Oceans Station 1580 Station 1134 200 Kent Street 200 Kent Street Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario KlA OE6 KlA OE6

(613) 993-1808 (W) (613) 993-1820 (W)

Dr. Ron w. Crowley Director General E~onomic and Commercial Analysis Directorate Fisheries and Oceans Station 1162 Ottawa, Ontario KlA OE6

(613) 993-1914 (W)

157 Department 0£ Fisheries & Oceans!Ministere des Peches et des Oceans (cont'd) Mr. Tom Bird Mr. Terry Gjernes Chief, Recreational Fisheries Recreational Fisheries Research Fisheries and Oceans Biologist 555 west Hastings Biological Science Branch Vancouver, British Columbia Fisheries and Oceans V6B 5G3 Pacific Biological Station Hammond Bay Road Nanaimo, British Columbia V9T 3Bl

(604) 666-0017 (W) (604) 756-7222 (W) (604) 274-2805 (H) (604) 758-4254 (H)

Mr. Wayne Shinners Mr. Clarence F. Fisher Assistant Deputy Minister Director, Program Coordination & Atlantic Fisheries Economics Branch & Recreational Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries Coordinator Station 1504 Fisheries and Oceans 200 Kent Street NAFC, White Hills Ottawa, Ontario P.O. Box 5667 KlA OE6 St. John's, Newfoundland AlC 5Xl

(709) 772-4446 (W) (613) 993-0610 (W) (709) 722-6711 (H)

Mr. David Balfour Mr. Bill Otway . Director Recreational Fisheries Ombudsman Sector Policy & Coordination Pacific Region Pacific and Freshwater Fisheries Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries and Oceans 555 West Hastings Station 1182 Vancouver, British Columbia 200 Kent Street V6B 5G3 Ottawa, Ontario KlA OE6

(613) 993-2574 (W) (604) 666-2768 (W) (613) 728-1420 (H) (604) 942-7316 (H) Mr. Larry Anthony Mr. Al Lill Recreational Fisheries Director Coordinator Fisheries Branch Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries and Oceans Gulf Region Pacific Region P.O. Box 5030 400-555 West Hastings Moncton, New Brunswick Vancouver, British Columbia ElC 9B6 V6B 5G3

(506) 857-6255 (604) 666-0751 (W) (604) 980-4366 (H) 158 Department of Fisheries & Oceans!Ministere des Peches et des Oceans (cont'd)

Mr. Greg Stevens Mr. Normand Dugas Senior Advisor Area Manager Freshwater & Anadromous Fish Eastern New Brunswick Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries and Oceans Scotia-Fundy Region Gulf Region P.O. Box 550 P.O. Box 1670 Halifax, Nova Scotia Tracadie, New Brunswick B3J 2S7 ElC 9B6

(902) 426-5433 (W) ( 506) 395-6 321 (W) (902) 275-5281 (H) (506) 336-4140 (H)

Mr. Paul Sutherland Mr. Ted Gaudet Director General Regional Director General Central and Arctic Region Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries and Oceans Gulf Region 501 University Crescent P.O. Box 5030 Winnipeg, Manitoba Moncton, New Brunswick R3T 2N6 ElC 9B6

(204) 983-5117 (W) (506) 857-7750 (W) (204) 261-7640 (H)

Mr:. Ben Hubert Dr. Ted Cowan Chairman, Great Bear Lake Economic Analyst Management Committee Fisheries and Oceans c/o Fisheries and Oceans 867 Lakeshore Road P.O. Box 2310 Burlington, Ontario Yellowknife L7R 4A6 Northwest Territories XlA 2P7

(403) 920-6636 (416) 336-6011

Mr. Maurice Levesque Mr. John Moores Chief Statistics Officer Resource Management Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries and Oceans P.O. Box 5667 Gulf Region St. John's, Newfoundland P.O. Box 5030 AlC 5Xl Moncton, New Brunswick ElC 9B6

(506) 857-7780 (W) (709) 770-2350 (506) 382-5218 (H)

159 Department of Fisheries & Oceans!Ministere des Peches et des Oceans (cont'd)

David Moshenko Area Manager, South­ Central Arctic, Central and Arctic Regions Fisheries and Oceans P.O. Box 2310 Yellowknife, Northwest Territories XlA 2P7

(403) 920-6636 (W) (403) 873-5258 (H)

Mr. Ray Finn Chief, Habitat Management Division Fisheries and Oceans P.O. Box 5667 St. John's, Newfoundland AlC 5Xl

(709) 772-2442 (709) 739-5232

Mr. Larry Marshall Assessment Biologist Fisheries and Oceans Scotia-Fundy P.O. Box 550 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2S7

(902) 426-3605 (902) 426-7841

Mr. Jack Marshall Area Manager Fisheries and Oceans 4 Herald Avenue P.O. Box 2009 Corner Brook, Newfoundland A2H 6Z6

(709) 637-4333

160