S p e a k i n g
f o r
t h e
S a l m o n
WORKSHOP RECORD
May 1998
Workshop
May 8, 1998
STOCK SELECTIVE SALMON HARVESTING WORKSHOP
Held at Simon Fraser
University at Harbour
Centre, Vancouver
Addressing Conservation Needs
Sponsored by:
Fisheries and Oceans
Canada
Indian and Northern
Affairs Canada
Ministry of Fisheries BC
Continuing Studies in
Science, Simon Fraser
University
Workshop Record edited
by Patricia Gallaugher,
Director, Continuing
Studies in Science,
Simon Fraser University
Distribution of
Workshop Record
sponsored by
Fisheries Renewal BC
Westcoast Publishing Ltd.
Never before has the survival of British
Columbia’s coho salmon been so threatened.
The May 1998 report of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Pacific Stock Assessment Review
Committee (PSARC), has advised that:
• the Upper Skeena and Thompson River coho
stock aggregates are extremely depressed and
will continue to decline in the absence of
any fishing mortality under current marine
survival conditions;
• the majority of coho streams in the Strait of
Georgia and Lower Fraser River will not
reach 3 females/km (minimum conservation
requirement) in 1998 even in the absence of
fishing mortality;
• this stock aggregate is deteriorating rapidly
under current marine survival conditions
and extreme caution is warranted for this
stock aggregate;
• the cause of decline is a combination of poor
marine survival and recruitment
overfishing;
• the information points to a conservation
crisis that includes substantial risk of
biological extinction; and,
• fishing mortality will increase the rates of
decline in these populations and will
increase the risks of extinction.
Among the recommendations in recent
reports addressing the ‘coho crisis’ (e.g.,
Copes, PSARC, Fisheries and Oceans Coho
Response Team) are: the use of specially
adapted commercial gear (selective
harvesting), live release of coho, steelhead and
other weak salmon stocks, and significant
restrictions on fisheries, including bans and
reductions in coho harvest.
Many changes in the fisheries are already
underway in response to continuing
conservation pressures. Economic pressures of
changing world markets and prices and
excessive harvesting capacity have exacerbated
the situation. The current ‘coho crisis’
however may stimulate the greatest change in
fisheries yet seen. Hard-pressed commercial
fishers and the sport fishing industry both
face the challenge of successfully
implementing selective harvesting or seeing
the fishery shut down.
This one day workshop examined how stock
selective harvesting can be used as a
conservation tool. The fifty participants,
representing all harvesting sectors and science
and management, discussed policy level issues
related to selective harvesting.
A summary of the day’s discussions follows.
What is stock selective
harvesting, why is it needed and
what are the benefits?
Stock specific harvest can help to protect and
sustain weaker salmon species and stocks and
realize their production potential.
2
A stock is a
separate breeding
group of salmon,
usually defined by
species and
spawning origin.
For example,
Upper Adams,
Lower Adams,
Horsefly, Nadina,
and Bowron River
sockeye are all
separate stocks of
a single species
(sockeye).
With over 9,000 salmon stocks passing through
BC salmon fishing areas, many individual stocks
are fished together with others (mixed stock
fishery). Yet sustainable harvest rates differ
between stocks because of genetic differences,
and freshwater and ocean habitat conditions.
When stocks with different sustainable harvest
rates are fished together, they are fished to the
average rate. Below average stocks are then
overharvested and above average stocks are not
fully harvested. Overharvesting decreases future
production. Over-escapement can also decrease
future production as the result of densityinduced problems such as competition and
disease.
Managing the mixed stock fishery is further
complicated by the migratory nature of the
fishery. Salmon are often harvested in a number
of different regions along their migration route.
Each fishery takes some of the sustainable
harvest thereby impacting what can be taken in
later fisheries. This can not only affect the
differences in sustainable harvest rates between
stocks but also aggravate stock specific
management problems.
Both the size and sustainable harvest rate of
each of the stocks in a fishery affect the average
harvest rates. Large stocks have proportionately
more impact on the average harvest rates than
do small stocks. A small highly productive stock
may not significantly influence the average if it
is fished with a very large, less productive stock.
Persistent overharvest drives stocks down toward
extinction, never giving them a chance to
rebuild. This can make it very difficult to
rebuild stocks with naturally low production or
production depressed by habitat damage. For
example, while all Fraser River stocks decreased
as a result of the Hell’s Gate slide, stocks with
higher production rates have rebuilt faster than
other stocks. The fisheries on these rebuilt
stocks now tend to hold back the rebuilding of
less productive stocks. The rebuilding process
requires stock selective harvest of the more
productive stocks and/or habitat restoration and
enhancement for less productive stocks.
Stock or species selective harvest?
Stock specific or stock selective harvesting meets
the specific needs and potential of individual
salmon stocks and stock groups. When a
number of stocks are harvested together, they
get a ‘one size fits all’ harvest rate that does not
protect weak stocks, ensure longterm survival or
maximize the economic potential of the strong
stocks. Moving to more stock specific harvest
could help to address these problems.
A first step towards stock selective harvesting is
species selective harvest. In recent years
management policy has tended to go in this
direction; e.g., management of the 1997 coho
fishery. However, species selectivity does not
allow for the optimization of harvest rates for
individual stocks of a species.
Is species selectivity enough?
While species selectivity is easier to achieve than
stock selectivity and helps to address species
specific conservation challenges, it only
represents a start toward stock selective harvest.
Species selectivity does not fully address many
pressing conservation issues or necessarily realize
much of the potential for increased production.
Not going far enough to protect stocks
contributed to the current crisis. Species
selection alone is not enough to save many fish
stocks or to realize potential production.
How to harvest salmon stocks
more selectively
• Stock selective harvesting can take place
by live release of non-target species
• Information on the impacts of different
fish handling in catch and release is
essential
• All fishers need a basic education on
handling of fish for live release
Stress of capture
Regardless of gear type, selective fishing
techniques will inevitably result in stress effects
in the fish as will catch and release techniques
(see insert). Repetitive capture significantly
augments these effects. It is important to
minimize the stresses that fish face following
capture to reduce the risk of mortality or
reduction in reproductive capacity that may
result from ‘live release’. The effects of stress are
cumulative and not fully understood.
In the extreme, stress decreases disease
resistance, reduces spawning effectiveness,
reduces growth rate, increases susceptibility to
predation by reducing swimming capacity, and
overall it causes reduced survival rates. Steps to
diminish the effects of stress can reduce the risk
of mortality; eg., releasing fish in the water
instead of in the air. Survival of released fish
may also be affected by other factors including
weather, salinity, depth of capture, and the
number of predators present.
Smaller fishing areas and times
More and smaller fishing areas and times would
allow for increased stock specific harvest. For
example, dividing the Fisher-Fitzhugh midcoast area into two areas would allow the
harvesting of the Dean Channel salmon stocks
separately from the Burke Channel stocks. Local
needs and opportunities for selective fisheries
differ. Recent changes in licensing policies were
identified by participants as barriers to such
fine-tuning of fishing time and area.
Spot closure and area preserves
Spot closures and area preserves are necessary to
protect non-target stocks and juveniles. For
example, cooperative mapping of abundance of
coho or juvenile salmon would help to identify
‘hot spots’ to be avoided (e.g. the early spring
blueback (coho) fishery in upper Georgia
Strait).
Slowing down the fishery
Slowing down the fishery through measures
such as catch quotas would allow fishermen
more time to effectively live release non-target
species. Many of today’s fisheries have a ‘gold
rush’ mentality; e.g. the Johnstone Strait
sockeye fishery now harvests 10% of all fish
present each hour of fishing. It should be
noted, however, that in some cases, a quick
fishery can be used as a conservation tool to
minimize impact on certain non-target stocks.
Regulatory and policy reform
Changes in legislation and policy are needed to
facilitate new directions in management
practice and co-management partnerships,
enable changes for selectivity, and penalize
those who sell illegal gear. Licence policy is
now a barrier to having more, smaller fisheries.
Financial assistance to develop stock selective
gear would accelerate the process. Adequate
funding to assure full monitoring and
assessment is vital to proper stewardship.
Stock specific information
Collecting and sharing more information on
stock identification, run timing and migration
routes is essential. More stock identification,
by any means (DNA, tagging, other) will be
the basis for future improvements. Modeling
migration information to evaluate
management strategies would be beneficial.
Co-management partnerships
Managers and stakeholders must work together
to sustain and rebuild stocks by a combination
of more stock and species selective fisheries,
improved fisheries management, habitat
restoration, and where necessary, selective
enhancement. These stakeholders include not
only fishermen but all levels of government,
local community and conservation groups and
other interests in the fishery. Alone, no one
group can achieve all of these goals.
3
Stress factors
for salmonids
•
handling
•
confinement
•
crowding
•
air exposure
•
loss of scales
and mucous
•
strenuous
swimming
•
gill damage
•
poor water
quality
•
increased
water
temperature
Fishers contribute their knowledge of the fish
and fishing gear as well as a demonstrated
ability to be highly innovative. Fishers
determine how the fishing gear is used and
thereby the nature of the fishery. Fishers will be
impacted by changes so they have strong
incentives to develop workable solutions and
innovative fishing practices. Managers as well as
local community ‘experts’ contribute their
knowledge about the stocks, biological needs,
and habitat and ecosystem conditions.
Managers have the capability to change the
fishing times, areas and conditions for more
stock selective harvest.
4
Dialogue and cooperation between managers
and stakeholders builds trust between groups
and improves the mutual credibility of
managers and stakeholders. New mechanisms
are needed for cooperation among stakeholders
and managers and new working partnerships,
such as the West Coast Vancouver Island
Regional Aquatic Management Board, should
be explored. Managers and stakeholders need a
clear set of rules, mechanisms for accountability,
and the necessary latitude for fishermen to meet
those rules. Rules and process for sharing catch,
information about specific locations where
specific gear types can be used, and for other
opportunities, could provide more certainty.
Fishers believe that current gear can be
made more stock selective. They are willing
to work on making changes and to monitor,
assess, adjust, and fine-tune these changes.
Some of the possibilities identified are
described below.
Troll fisheries
Troll gear and operations can be modified for
species selective catch. Large plugs fished deep
can selectively target chinook without catching
coho. Troll gear for pinks and sockeye can be
modified to reduce chinook catch (e.g. flasher
selection, leader length, colour). Different lures
and operation of gear attract different species.
Changes can also be made for more effective
release of non-target species. Continuous
monitoring of gear, release of catch in the water,
and barbless hooks all increase the probability
that the salmon released will survive.
Tagging results indicate differences in
distribution of salmon stocks so troll fishing
time and area are key to determining the species
and stocks being harvested. In offshore areas
there is a broad mix of stocks that changes
throughout the season. In more inshore areas,
there are fewer stocks in the mix, many of them
of local origin. Often, times and areas where a
weak stock is present can be avoided. For
example, coho catch can be minimized in the
outer Caamano Sound and Juan Perez to Cape
St. James areas. On a smaller scale, migrating
stocks can be protected using spot closures.
The key to successful time and area
management and spot closures is for managers
and fishers to work together to identify problem
areas and times. With such cooperation, a
regular troll fishery could provide key
information on stock abundance and
distribution for in-season fisheries management.
With observers and frequent reporting of catch
(e.g. hailing to DFO two times per day) and
ocean information (e.g. water temperature),
there could be a better understanding of run
timing and stock distribution.
Purse seine fisheries
Time and area openings determine the stocks
that the seine fishery catches. Smaller time and
area openings and different fishing areas could
make the fisheries more stock specific. It was
suggested that areas such as the Skeena estuary
can be more stock specific but logs, debris and
fluctuations in river flow introduce additional
fishing and gear risks. Moreover, in the shallow
water seine nets dragged on the bottom impact
other species (e.g. crab stocks). In the Johnstone
Strait fishery, hot spots for interception are
identified, allowing specific brailing
requirements to be put into effect. One
participant commented that a more stringent
approach of mandatory brailing in the Strait
may result in small bags being released, with
consequent damage, rather than taking the time
to brail the catch.
Selective release of non-target species is used to
fine-tune selectivity. Selective release is primarily
accomplished by ‘brailing’ catch, sorting salmon
on deck, and holding non-target species in a
resuscitation (revival) box for subsequent
release. A preferred method would be for the
net skiff operator and crew to look for nontarget species and do direct release by dip net.
Seiners note that coho and chinook tend to stay
deep in the net, so are the last fish out thus
adding to their stress. Selective release can be
effective; for example, in the 1997 sockeye
fishery in the Skeena estuary there was a 95%
survival rate for released steelhead and 93% for
released coho.
coho catch. A shorter net and set time also
produces high quality catch with easier release
of non-target species (e.g., experiments with the
Skeena 4 inch conventional gillnet and the
Fraser 3.5 inch gillnet for tooth capture).
An innovation involving a mini-seine net in the
Skeena estuary and Babine Lake for surplus fish
was described. It was also suggested that a new
grid in the bunt of the net could allow undersize
fish to escape.
Area D Gillnetters Experiment: One participant
described the details of an experiment involving
a collaborative partnership between DFO and
the Area D gillnetters. The experiment was
conducted in 1997 to evaluate the selectivity,
and catching efficiency, of 90 mesh Alaskan
twist nets relative to conventional 60 mesh
multi-strand nets. Twelve groups of two boats
set 90 and 60 mesh nets side by side to compare
the two. The results showed that: the sockeye
catch was doubled with the Alaskan twist gear,
with no change in the percent of coho bycatch;
the rate of chinook and steelhead catch
decreased; the more transparent Alaska twist net
was better for daylight fishing; and less web or
mesh in the net made the catch more size
specific.
It was suggested that seiners could operate as
mobile traps and, with improvements in
brailing, could harvest and sort fish without
even touching them. However, this requires a
slower fishery but the time to sort could be
reduced as fishermen get used to the new
routines.
Another suggestion was that the use of a quota
system would relieve the pressure of the fishing
line up, provide some catch certainty and allow
fishers to compete on quality. However, it was
noted that quotas remain controversial amongst
seiners.
In most fishing areas, coho interception is a
small part of the catch. In 1997 each seine in
Johnstone Strait might have saved on average
two coho/day with a revival box. Revival boxes
are likely to be mandatory this year and the rate
of coho mortality could be reduced to as low as
1% depending on the catch and release
technique.
Gillnet fisheries
Fishing gear and operations experiments have
shown the potential for more selective
harvesting. Weedlines have reduced steelhead
by-catch. Alaska twist gillnets (90 mesh) with
weedlines have caught fewer steelhead and more
sockeye. Because Alaska twist gillnets catch
more coho from dusk to dawn, daylight only
gillnet fisheries might be employed to reduce
Recent experiments with multi-panel nets in the
Fraser River showed no increase in selectivity.
Multi-panel nets have also been experimented
with in the Skeena test fishery.
The experiment required significant funding
($340,000 - about $1,000 per licence) to cover
the costs of mandatory monitoring and this
funding was covered in full by the Area D
gillnetters themselves.
Some problems that were noted included: the
high cost to fishermen; initial fear of having
monitors on board; and the fact that although
some coho were released alive, the whole coho
catch was assumed to be killed, and therefore
counted as gillnet catch. The observer costs
could be offset in part by including a
mandatory electronic “black box” hailing system
on every boat (as is done in some Australian
fisheries). The participant noted the willingness
of this group to experiment and to continue to
make changes to reduce coho mortality.
Sport fisheries
Gear and operating changes would help to make
the sport fishery more selective. A ban on treble
5
A non-target
species or stock
is one that the
fishery is not
intended to
catch. This
usually means
that non-target
species or stocks
cannot sustain
the likely
harvest rate in
the fishery and
therefore need
protection. For
this reason,
non-target
species or stocks
should be live
released when
caught.
hooks and move to barbless single hooks would
help to allow effective live release of non-target
species. It was suggested that a ban on bait and
downriggers would reduce the harvest rate
significantly and that was preferable to reducing
bag limit. Encouraging fly-fishing and the use
of species-specific lures and methods might help
to make the catch more species specific. Release
of catch in the water would minimize stress and
significantly reduce risk of mortality, especially
for chinooks.
One participant also suggested no targeting of
coho in the sport fishery (as does the May 1998
PSARC document).
6
“It’s easier to
talk about
saving salmon
than to do
something that
will.”
Other gear
New live capture gear offers the potential for
more selective harvest. A number of selective
fishing pilot tests with alternative gear (e.g.,
beach seines, fish traps, fish wheels, dip nets,
weirs) involving both First Nations and
commercial fishermen are already underway.
Counting fences were proposed as a way to
provide stock selective harvest and self-financed
fish counts and sampling. Use of live capture
gear still must be limited by time and area to
focus on target species. It also requires careful
fish handling for successful live release of nontarget species.
As many of these alternative gears might be used
in new areas for selective harvest, additional
information on stock identification and timing
is needed. The gear, sites, operation, handling
effects on mortality, and catch would all have to
be monitored and evaluated. Participants
questioned how sites for new gears will be
allocated.
It was noted that live capture gear offers the
potential for value-added harvesting; e.g., onsite bleeding techniques; live markets, and;
fishing to market.
Perspectives on selective fishing
Speaking for the salmon
Major conservation recommendations of the
Pacific Stock Assessment Review Committee
include:
• Because of the current poor population status,
and because the risk of extinction increases
exponentially with decreasing population size,
it is recommended that no fishing mortality be
imposed on these populations
• Any non-retention fishery that catches coho
(e.g. selective mark fisheries) will confound
natural mortality with incidental fishing
mortality in 1998
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
“Conservation is paramount and cannot be
compromised.”*
“Salmon fisheries on the Pacific coast of Canada
are beginning to experience such pressures as
conservation concerns increase towards the
incidental catch of co-migrating chinook, coho and
steelhead. The adoption of more selective
harvesting methods in the commercial salmon
fishery would help reduce these concerns and,
therefore, mitigate such pressures.”*
The most severe issue facing the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans is the lack of political
support to undertake more intensive
management practices precisely when they are
most needed. Politicians and decision-makers
must commit adequate time and funding to do
the necessary scientific research and to
understand the relationships of the issues in
order to achieve ‘knife-edge’ management. It
was suggested that many of the solutions to the
problem of designing and implementing
selective fisheries should come from the
fishermen. The point was raised however that
messages from fisheries stakeholders are not
always coherent or consistent.
Despite funding constraints, management
recognizes the need to encourage selective
fisheries in low stock abundance situations.
DFO is currently evaluating proposals for pilot
selective fisheries projects in the Fraser and
Skeena Rivers and have called for more pilot
project proposals for 1998. They are
establishing a multi-sector committee to
examine those proposals. The mandate of the
committee is to assess and evaluate the pilot
projects and disseminate information to
stimulate innovation and progress. Additional
selective fisheries projects will be approved in
the future, pending funding.
“Guiding Principle: Ensure conservation of nontarget species and manage all salmon stocks to
biologically sound harvest rates.”*
“...the Department intends to use the existing
management tools to protect salmon stocks and we
are prepared to act unilaterally to accommodate
those individuals who wish to fish selectively.”*
* Discussion Paper, Selective Harvesting in the Commercial Salmon
Fisheries, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region, January
1998
First Nations
Selective fisheries are not new to B.C.’s First
Nation salmon fishermen. Traps, weirs, and
other conservation-based means of harvesting
salmon were employed for thousands of years,
before the arrival of European settlers. Rock and
wood remnants of traps and weirs dot the coast.
Competition for salmon eventually displaced
aboriginal fishermen, and the most selective
harvesting methods, around the turn of the
century. In-river selective fisheries were replaced
by gillnets, gaffs, and other non-selective means.
Today, however, many First Nation fishermen
are readopting traditional selective harvesting
techniques. Most live near rivers and terminal
areas where it is easiest to capture and sort
individual stocks of salmon. This selective
fishing gear also facilitates gathering of data on
timing, size and genetics of returning salmon
stocks. However, for conservation reasons, many
First Nations people who could harvest
selectively have not exercised their Section 35.1
constitutional rights to harvest coho during the
current coho crisis.
Examples of First Nations selective fishing
projects:
Nisga’a (Nass River)
The Nisga’a, located on B.C.’s northern Nass
River, began developing a fishwheel fishery in
1995, borrowing from designs proved effective
in the Yukon. The Nisga’a currently operate
four fishwheels and harvest a majority of their
Nass sockeye selectively. The wheels are
calibrated against each other to provide quality
data on Nass salmon.
Gitksan, Lake Babine, and Other Skeena River
First Nations
Approximately 350,000 Skeena sockeye, 22% of
the total Canadian catch of Skeena sockeye,
were harvested by selective means in 1997,
mainly by Skeena First Nations.
Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council (Vancouver
Island)
The Opetchesaht and Tseshaht bands (Port
Alberni) of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council
deploy an in-river “mosquito fleet” of small
seiners to catch most of their sockeye (Somass
River). Concerns about summer steelhead
prompted a release and monitoring program.
An aboriginal monitor reports to the BC
Ministry of Fisheries.
T’Sou-ke First Nation (Vancouver Island)
T’Sou-ke fishermen have experimented for
three years with a marine trap or “reef net.” The
trap is located near Sooke on Vancouver Island,
in a traditional trap site. The T’Sou-ke say they
are excited to use traditional gear, and cite the
benefits of live harvest (selectivity and quality
considerations), stock assessment, and fixed
location, which simplifies catch monitoring and
enforcement.
7
8
Fraser River
Selective fishery pilot projects are in place
throughout the Fraser River, most of recent
origin. The LheidliT’enneh (Prince George) use
a three-basket aluminum fishwheel for up-river
sockeye assessment. They selectively release
stocks of concern (Bowron sockeye), and retain
some chinook (whose populations are
healthier). To the Southwest, band elders have
asked the Nicola Watershed Stewardship and
Fisheries Authority to ban gillnets and construct
weirs, for terminal harvesting of chinook.
Lakahahmen First Nation (lower Fraser)
traditional fisherman Joe Seymour is also using
a fishwheel, owned by the Provincial Fisheries
Branch, to tag steelhead and sturgeon. Just
downstream at Pitt Meadows, the Katzie Indian
Band have spent three years experimenting with
beach-seines, in a partnership with nonaboriginal Fraser River gillnetters. Those
gillnetters and the Lakahahmen have applied to
build a floating, mobile fish trap. Other bands
are also talking about accelerating the
development of selective fishing, with many
citing inducements of the current coho crisis,
and additional opportunities for employment in
stock assessment.
Commercial sport fishing
In this section, a manager of a northern mid-coast
commercial sport fishing lodge, averaging 700 to 800
clients a season, shares his perspective on selective
fishing. The lodge is located in a coastal region facing a
downturn in its resource-based economy. Those impacts,
and potential, further conservation restrictions, present
additional challenges to this industry.
Consumer confidence [in the sport fishery] has
declined. Many sport fishermen are now
heading to Alaska. Anglers are just not willing
to spend $3,000, and not take home a fish.
The public recognizes there is a conservation
problem with coho. This commercial sport
fishing representative suggested there are two
ways to deal with conservation problems. The
first is to limit catches, but that is not great for
consumer confidence. The second is to use gear
restrictions to reduce catch and increase
selectivity. For instance, one option is to ban
bait. Bait makes it too easy to catch salmon and
maybe the commercial sport fishing industry
should be making it harder for fishers to get a
limit. What happened to the days when skill
was more important [than numbers of fish]?
Bag limits could also be made up of various
species to avoid weak stocks like coho. A client
may say, ‘I could have taken eight fish, but I
didn’t.’ We should also consider banning
downriggers and treble hooks. A ban on trebles,
and a move towards single barbless hooks,
would help make it easier to release non-target
species. Another option is flyfishing for seabass
and coho, a tackle which involves a significant
skill level.
These changes require instilling a conservation
ethic in guides and customers as well as
educating them on how to handle and release
fish so as to reduce the stress of capture. This is
the key to successful selective harvest in the
sport fishery. The fishery also needs careful
monitoring, recording and reporting. The
fishers must understand that if they don’t help
conserve stocks, their fishery will be closed
down.
This participant does not believe in
conventional catch and release fishing for
chinook. People haul the fish out of the water
for a photo opportunity [inducing additional
stress]. One alternative to this was described
where the fish is not removed from the water
after capture. Instead its size is estimated and it
is released in the water. Then at the end of the
year, the angler who released the biggest fish
gets $560 US and a same-sized fiberglass replica
of their fish. Another example of an incentive to
release fish is to give the customers tags for each
fish in their bag limit and then to place each
unused tag into a draw for a free fishing trip.
Another possibility is to keep other species
caught, or provide commercially caught sockeye
to the customers to take home.
Commercial sport fishing representatives might
also look at spot closures to provide special
protection to stocks, species and juveniles and
winter closures could help to protect stocks and
reduce overall harvests.
The sport fishery is a “divided fishery” with
competition between the sport fishing industry
(those selling the resource/experience) and the
“Mom and Pop” fishery (recreational). The
“Mom and Pop” fishery has “less need and
desire” to kill salmon.
Commercial fishing industry
Fishers need more certainty; for example, there
are still no allocations or fishing plans in place
when the salmon fishing season is only weeks
away. Fishers are willing to adapt in order to
stay in the industry and they believe that
current gear can be made more stock selective
(see above). They are willing to work with
management on devising and implementing
changes and to monitor, assess, and adjust these
changes. However, one problem identified is the
question of equity between gear types and
harvesters. For example, it was noted by one
member of the industry that the “commercial
sector is going to great extremes to conserve
coho, but 75% of the coho in the south were
killed by a directed sport fishery in 1997”. One
participant noted that “DFO holds the key to
creating incentives that foster cooperative
behaviour and eases the introduction of
change.”
Incentives to encourage change
Incentives are required to encourage fishers to
harvest more selectively. As one participant
stated, “Without incentives, the alternative is
reliance on the ‘big stick’ of regulation which
works only when enforcement is consistent and
fair.” Incentives can be either negative or
positive. Industry participants described the
threat of not being able to fish, a negative
incentive, as the most powerful of all reasons for
change. Others emphasized the need for
conservation (threat of species or stock loss) as a
key incentive for change.
Fisheries managers currently have the
opportunity to adopt a positive incentives
approach, fostering cooperative behaviour and
easing the discomfort of change. This requires
clear commitment and support from DFO for
those showing leadership in the development
and implementation of selective harvesting
techniques. Without DFO support, leaders who
do show leadership risk losing the support of
their own constituents. Uncertainty was
expressed as to whether the necessary
commitment and support currently exists:
“DFO’s commitment to moving selective
fisheries practices forward remains shrouded in
doubt.”
Ways that fisheries managers can provide
positive incentives and evidence of their
commitment to selective harvesting include
funding (economic incentives) and assistance
with the development of markets and product
labelling for selectively harvested products, as
well as subsidies or loans for gear
experimentation. It was felt that the process of
obtaining scientific permits for selective harvest
experiments was restrictive and could be
streamlined. Several management changes that
could provide incentives for selective harvest in
the form of increased catches and catch values
were also discussed. For example, slowing down
the fishery might increase catch quality, and
therefore catch value, without decreasing catch
quantity. Community-based management can
provide incentives for stewardship of local
stocks and habitat, encouraging local
enhancement/ocean ranching to create alternate
stock selective fisheries and, therefore, greater
quantities of the fish harvest.
Incentives for accurate reporting of by-catch
were also discussed. Fishers are now penalized
with catch reductions or closures when by-catch
is reported. An agreement is needed on how
catch results will be used. Positive behaviour
should be reinforced, not punished.
While incentives can go a long way towards
ensuring that selective harvesting methods are
put into practice, regulation and enforcement
will also be important to ensure fairness and
equity as changes in harvesting practices are
introduced. More information is also needed;
for example, information on harvesting,
handling and marketing for quality, and
evaluation of the economic and conservation
trade offs between an ocean-based fishery and
fisheries closer to the spawning grounds.
“Polarization
kills political
will.”
9
Requirements for implementing
stock selective harvesting
1. Instill the conservation ethic
All harvesters and managers must understand
the need for conservation. Without the resource
there is no fishery. The promised Pacific
Fisheries Resource Conservation Council will
‘speak for the fish’ and communicate
conservation concerns to all stakeholders and
the general public.
10
All harvesters
and managers
must understand
the need for
conservation.
2. Education for change
Education is necessary to facilitate changes to
more selective harvesting techniques. Education
can be accomplished, in part, through dialogue
among stakeholders (e.g. Skeena Watershed
Committee model). Politicians (and senior
bureaucrats) require a better understanding of
the issues and, therefore, must be part of the
dialogue. However, the difficulty of getting
these stakeholders to participate was recognized
and the question ‘How do you get politicians
and government decision-makers into a room
long enough for them to understand the
problems?’ was raised. One way to be heard by
decision-makers is to provide a consistent story
that addresses the divergent viewpoints of
different groups.
Education and training are required in areas
such as fish stress factors and ways to minimize
stress in all fisheries. Training sessions, videos
and television (e.g. Knowledge Network) could
be used to provide education on topics such as
brailing and fish handling techniques and to
instill a conservation ethic among fishers, sports
guides and customers. Training sessions could
be made mandatory among guides, vessel
owners and crew. Monitoring, assessment and
partnership building are further areas where
education is needed. It is most important that
information be shared regarding what works
and what doesn’t.
3. Scientific research, monitoring and
assessment
The effectiveness of efforts to achieve selective
harvesting must be assessed, both in terms of
impact on target escapements and the cost
effectiveness of alternative approaches. More
resources are needed, however, for adequate
research, monitoring and assessment, including:
more people walking the streams; more
indicator streams; better escapement data;
studies on the effects of catch and release on
reproduction and growth; information on
compliance (both in the fishery and habitat
protection), ESSR (Excess Salmon to Spawning
Requirements) fisheries, by-catch and induced
mortality. Validated data are required but
observers are costly. Mobile monitors and
controlled experiments, rather than monitoring
the entire fleet, were suggested. A Conservation
Council that speaks for the fish and fish habitat
is needed. Finally, it was noted that some
selective fisheries can provide assessment data
and, therefore, contribute to monitoring and
assessment improvements.
4. Partnerships
Fishers can’t realize required levels of stock
selective harvest by themselves. Both managers
and fishers have a role to play and must work
together. Managers must work to achieve
selectivity by time and area of openings. Fishers
must work to achieve selectivity by fishing gear
and operations. Together they can work to
identify stocks and unique stock migration
behavior that would help to achieve more stock
selective harvest.
5. Innovation on the part of the harvesters
Fishermen have a demonstrated track record of
innovative solutions to fishing challenges.
Applying their energy, knowledge and
innovation to creating more stock selective
fisheries will be successful beyond our current
expectations.
6. Adaptive management: learn by doing
Fishers and managers are entering new ground
with stock selective harvesting. They must work
together to learn together. They must learn
from whatever is done and share the knowledge.
7. Local stewardship
For effective sustainable salmon management,
local interests are important partners. They have
a large influence on the salmon habitat and
thereby on production. They also provide local
infrastructure for the various fishers and their
service industries. To continue these services
they need incentives in the form of some return
from the local salmon stocks. This doesn’t
necessarily mean a catch quota or control of
local fisheries. It does mean being part of the
co-management partnership so that they have a
say in how stocks are managed. Fisher and
community involvement in monitoring is
needed. But as one coastal community
participant noted, “high unemployment means
low volunteering” and therefore funding should
be available to facilitate community
participation in these activities.
8. Leadership
Leaders are emerging within the stakeholder
groups and these leaders are prepared to work
with management in implementing
conservation-oriented changes. However, as one
participant noted, the need for leadership from
DFO is first and foremost.
“Fishermen can do much and are willing to do
much to encourage compliance but, in the end,
they must have the consistent and active support of
the regulatory agency if they are to be effective. In
short, DFO can only gain by actively supporting
those in the various fishing communities who see
the need for new ways of conducting fisheries and
who are willing to develop and test innovative
ways to get the job done. What appears to be
missing is a strong, clear signal of active support
from DFO decision-makers.”
9. Evaluation
Monitoring to ensure fairness and equity in
openings, and evaluation of the results of
selective fishery experiments are critical. In
addition, scientific experiments must be
conducted to assess the stress effects of
additional handling on survival and spawning
success. Finally, results of all experiments should
be communicated in a transparent manner to all
fishers.
Acknowledgements
The steering committee wishes to thank all of
the participants of the workshop who donated
their time, contributed their perspectives built
from personal experience, and openly talked
about change. We also wish to thank Bob
Brown of Simon Fraser University for skillfully
moderating the day’s discussions (which were
frequently controversial) and to acknowledge
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for
making available in advance of the workshop
their initial discussion paper on selective
fisheries. Thanks also to Allen Wood
Consulting for program development assistance,
to Kelly Vodden and Peter Panek of Simon
Fraser University for rapporteuring, to Wilson
Nam of Continuing Studies at Simon Fraser
University for design and desktop publishing,
and to Ron MacLeod for reviewing the final
draft of the workshop record.
Craig Orr, Kelly Vodden, Allen Wood and
Laurie Wood assisted with compilation of the
proceedings and preparation of the workshop
record. Craig Orr compiled the selected
references.
Workshop Steering Committee
Patricia Gallaugher, Director, Continuing
Studies in Science, Simon Fraser University
Craig Orr, Conservation Consultant
Allen Wood, Allen Wood Consulting Ltd.
11
Stock Selective Salmon Harvesting
Selected references
Coho crisis
Copes, Parzival. May, 1998. Coping with the
Coho Crisis: a Conservation-Minded,
Stakeholder-Sensitive and CommunityOriented Strategy. A report to the British
Columbia Ministry of Fisheries.
PSARC Advisory Document 98-3. May 1998.
Report of the PSARC Salmon Subcommittee
Meeting April 27 - May 1, 1998 and the
Steering Committee Meeting May 4, 1998. M.
Stocker and D. Peacock, ed.
Coho Response Team Final Report. Fisheries
and Oceans Canada. See website: <http://
www.pac.dfo.ca/pac/comm/pages/
cohoresponse/cohoresp.htm>
General
Anonymous. January 1998. Selective harvesting
in the Commercial Salmon Fisheries. Fisheries
and Oceans Canada. 10 p.
Drouin, M. June 1997. Selective Fishing and
Alternate Fishing Techniques: Bycatch
Concerns in the Commercial Salmon Fishery. T.
Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation and
United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union.
37 p.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. November 1996.
The Fishing Industry of Canada: Code of
Conduct For Responsible Fishing Operations.
Industry Steering Group Draft Code.
Mikkelsen, J. January 1997. 1996 Review of
Research and Development Projects Conducted
by the UBC Mechanical Engineering
Department in the Area of Selective Harvesting
Methods for Use in British Columbia River
Systems. 9 p.
Steelhead Society of B.C. 1996. Going
Backward—to go Forward: Why Selective LiveHarvesting is Vital to the Survival of Pacific
Salmon. 12 p.
Selective Harvesting Workshop. April 1995.
Skeena Watershed Committee Workshop
Proceedings.
Nets
Traps
Anonymous. October 1996. Testing on Chums
Shows Worth of Tooth/Tangle net. The
Fisherman.
T’sou-ke First Nation Salmon Trap
Development Program. 1995. T’sou-ke First
Nation. 13 p.
Petrunia, M. January 1997. A Tooth Net
Fishery: Report on Scientific License #96.149.
Prepared for Fisheries and Oceans, New
Westminster. 7 p.
Ministry of Environment. 1996. 1996 Lower
Sumas River Selective Harvest Fishery Project.
1p.
1997b. Tooth Net Tagging Experiment: Report
on Scientific License # 97.55. Prepared for
Fisheries and Oceans, New Westminster. 59 p.
Thomas, J. O. & Associates Ltd. September,
1996. Seine Release Mortality Study Summary
Report. Prepared for Fisheries and Oceans,
Prince Rupert. 9 p.
February 1997. Evaluation of Selective Salmon
Fisheries in the Lower Fraser River. Prepared for
Fisheries and Oceans. 59 p.
1997 Fraser River Modified Gillnet Study Final
Report. Prepared for the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 14 p.
Fishwheels
Donaldson, I. and F. Cramer. 1971. Fishwheels
of the Columbia. Binfords and Mort, Portland,
OR. 124 p.
Meehan, W.R. 1961. Use of a Fishwheel in
Salmon Research and Management. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 90:490-494.
Mikkelsen, J. November, 1995. Design and
Construction of a Fish Lead for a Kitselas
Canyon Fishwheel. Prepared for Fisheries
Research and Development Section, Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, and Kitselas
Band Council, Terrace, B.C. 13 p.
January 1997. Lower Fraser Fishwheel
Initiative. Progress Report #1. Prepared for
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,
Surrey.
Nyce, H. January 1998. Nisga’a Fisheries
Program. Speaking for the Salmon. Proceedings
of a Workshop hosted by Simon Fraser
University and the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries
Commission. P. Gallaugher and L. Wood, ed.
Quality considerations and valueadded
Holmes, A. W. April 1982. Salmon Quality
Considerations for Fisheries Management.
Fisheries and Oceans.
Holmes, W. 1995. Physiology and Quality of
In-river Caught Fish. In Skeena Watershed
Committee Workshop Proceedings.
Nikiforuk, A. October 1996. The Empty Net
Syndrome. Canadian Business. 99-109.
Petrunia, M. January 1997. Tooth Net Fishery:
Report on Scientific License #96.149. Prepared
for Fisheries and Oceans, New Westminster. 7p.
Sport fishing
Gjernes, T., A. Kronlund and T. Mulligan.
1993. Mortality of Chinook and Coho Salmon
in Their First Year of Ocean Life Following
Catch and Release by Anglers. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 13: 524-539.
Hooton, R. 1987. Catch and Release as a
Management Strategy for Steelhead in British
Columbia. In R. Barnhart and T. Roelofs,
editors. Catch-and-release Fishing: A Decade of
Experience. Humbolt State University, Arcata.
Vincent-Lang, D., M. Alexandersdottir and D.
McBride. 1993. Mortality of Coho Salmon
Caught and Released Using Sport Tackle in the
Little Sustina River, Alaska. Fisheries Research
15: 339-356.
(Notice to readers: Additional References from
readers are welcomed and will be considered for
use in a planned future workshop. Please send
to: Continuing Studies in Science, 8888
University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 or by
fax at (604)291-3851 or by e-mail to:
laurie_wood@sfu.ca).