RIVERS INLET: AN ECO-SYSTEM IN CRISIS
Sponsored by Fisheries
Renewal BC
Written by
Ron MacLeod, former
Director General,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
For more information about
the Speaking for the Salmon
Series, please visit our website
at
http://www.sfu.ca/cstudies/science
Introduction
Rivers Inlet sockeye were almost
wiped out in 1999 – less than
3,600 spawners were counted.
Also, the chinook and chum runs
to the Wannock River were
failures. As a consequence,
many grizzly bears starved to
death and others had to be shot
to protect children in Owikeno
Village. The seals and eagles
departed the area earlier than
usual. The impact on organisms
and micro-organisms is
unmeasured.
This disaster is the culmination
of a trend of decline that started
in the early 1970's, accelerated
in the early 1990's, and ended up
in the 1999 collapse. Indeed, so
great was the impact of the
collapse that it can be
reasonably said that what
occurred is an eco-system
implosion. Whether the situation
can be corrected or whether a
different eco-system will prevail
in future is a moot point.
the juvenile salmonids and with
predators that frequent the
estuary of the Wannock.
Unfortunately, nothing is known
about these relationships or
interactions.
Background
The annual Rivers Inlet sockeye
population averaged about 1.5
million fish during the first 90
years of the commercial fishery,
i.e. 1884-1974. The average
annual catch was just over 1.0
million with the balance to
escapement. The commercial
fishery began in the final week
of June and lasted until the end
of July. In the 1950's and 1960's
as many as 1150 gillnet vessels
would fish the peak of a run.
What happened? Can anything
be done?
Sockeye escapement normally
schools at the head of Rivers
Inlet and enters Owikeno Lake
between July 28th and August
4th. In some [very few] years,
however, escapement is
continuous from the onset of the
fishery. This vagary makes
estimation of escapement in the
marine sanctuary problematic.
While this paper features
sockeye, it is clear that as a
result of the collapse of the
Owikeno watershed eco-system
other species such as coho,
chinook and chums will require
assistance if they are to survive.
Moreover, there is bound to be a
symbiotic relationship between
Once in Owikeno Lake, sockeye
enter their natal spawning rivers
or move onto their lake beach
spawning areas between the last
week of August and early
December. In other words,
sockeye escapements mill about
in the lake from three weeks to
three-plus months. The
-1-
progression of spawning is
generally from the head of the
lake to the outlet, a distance of
about 35 miles. The Indian1
River at the head of the lake
receives the first spawners and
the Wannock at the lake outlet
receives the last spawners.
The lake is silted for much of the
year by a number of glacial
tributaries. Autumn freshets
capable of raising the lake level
12 feet within 24 hours are not
uncommon. Estimating the total
number of spawners under these
conditions is an imperfect
undertaking. Spawning ground
surveys were conducted
according to a schedule that
endured from 1930 until about
1992 at which time Fisheries and
Oceans dropped its lead role and
significant participation.
Guardians were once employed
in Owikeno Lake from July
through October to do stream
work and to monitor spawning
grounds. The local fishery
officer would spend a week in
early to mid September
surveying the spawning beds.
The fishery officer would later
conduct a major survey [with
industry participation] in the
period October 6th -18th. This
schedule of surveys, like the
guardians and fishery officer, is
no more.
These surveys would view about
11 streams and lakeshore
spawning areas. Year in and year
out, the most consistent producer
was probably the Shumahalt
River; a glacial fed stream.
Fishery Inspector Charles Lord
at the close of his seventeen-year
term in Rivers Inlet identified
1
The names used to identify places in
the watershed have varied over the
years. Sometimes the aboriginal name
was used, sometimes an English version
of the name. I use the names that were
commonly used when I was a fishery
officer in Rivers Inlet in 1959-63.
the Shumahalt as the primary
spawning stream in the
watershed; the writer, with four
years of spawning surveys,
agrees with this assessment.
In the period 1911-1937, the
Dominion Government operated
a sockeye hatchery in the
Owikeno watershed. On
occasion, chinook eggs were
also incubated. Hatchery records
are stored at the Nanaimo
Biological Station.
In the years 1951 through 1954
D.R. Foskett conducted an
investigation in Owikeno Lake
to determine whether the lake
could support a larger fry
population than previously, and,
whether a large escapement was
needed to fertilize the lake. His
report was published in the
Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada,
15(5), p 867-889, 1958. Foskett
suggested that the very small
size of the smolts, averaging
about 2 grams, argued against a
larger population. Also, that a
less valuable fertilizer might
possibly be substituted if further
research supported the
hypothesis that sockeye
carcasses are essential for
fertilization of the lake. No
scientific research of
consequence has been conducted
since Foskett's time.
In the 1960's and 1970's
particularly, Fisheries and
Oceans' investigative biologists
conducted lake studies, taking
fry samples on a scheduled
regime; they also monitored
some streams and conducted
stream repair work.
Some Salient Factors
A number of thoughts are
presented that may or may not be
pertinent to unraveling the
mystery of: What Happened?. In
no way is this speculation
-2-
intended to be a substitute for the
scientific approach. Eco-system
research is vital. However, it is
not any more vital than
immediate measures to deal with
the sockeye survival issue.
Research alone will only serve as
a post mortem on Rivers Inlet
sockeye unless concurrent steps
are taken to deal with the critical
survival issue.
Rivers Inlet sockeye were fished
almost exclusively by gillnets
until the late 1960's. From that
time seiners operating in Hakai
Pass and Fitzugh Sound in some
years made significant catches of
Rivers Inlet sockeye.
Interceptions by gillnets fishing
off McInnis Island [Bella Bella
area] were also known to occur.
Other distant-water interceptions
were keyed to whether returning
Rivers Inlet sockeye followed a
southerly or a more westerly
marine route.
About the mid-1950's there was
a significant change in the
quality of gillnets that improved
catching power. No
compensatory conservation
measures were taken until 1962
when the fishing boundary was
moved seaward about a mile. By
that time, further technological
advances such as fish finders
and improved nets, had probably
more than cancelled the intended
beneficial effect of the boundary
movement. On the other hand, a
number of short strikes by
fishermen in this period did tend
to offset improved catch
efficiency to some degree, as did
reductions in the number of days
fished per week. However, in
hindsight the trend is clear:
quantum improvements in catch
efficiency outstripping modest
conservation measures. The
uncertain assessment of
spawning in the glacial and often
volatile Owikeno watershed
undoubtedly helped to obscure
the negative impacts of the
catch-efficiency trend.
Logging in the Owikeno
watershed began in the early
1970's. Since then, watersheds
of substantial importance to
spawning sockeye have been
logged, some to their
headwaters. More or less
concurrently, regular biological
investigations in the watershed
were terminated. The
opportunity to develop baseline
information for assessing
changes in the watershed was
sacrificed. Consequently,
important salmon life-history
and baseline ecological
information is not available. It
would be unwise to assume,
however, that the ecology of the
system has not been affected by
removal of forest cover on such
a large scale as occurred and
continues to occur. Certainly,
the hydrology of logged
tributaries and, therefore, of the
lake itself have been altered.
Changes in patterns of water
flows have been noted. A
reasonable question that springs
to mind is: did such changes
have a negative effect on the
lake feeding areas of fry and
smolts and, if so, was/is the
quality of juveniles affected?
Since the lifting of the bounty on
seal noses in the mid-1960's, the
population of seals in Owikeno
watershed has bloomed. From
an estimate of 20-30 animals in
the early 1960's the population
grew to about 600 by the early
1990's and has fluctuated
downward in latter years. With a
captive food supply available for
up to 3 months and no predators
of consequence in the lake, it is
not
surprising that the seal
population blossomed.
Rivers Inlet sockeye are a mix of
four and five year fish with an
average weight of about 5.5 lbs.
to 5.7 lbs. In the record
production year, 1968, when 1.8
million sockeye were caught, the
average weight was about 6.8
lbs. Although the evidence is
clouded by the selectivity of
gillnet gear and the mixed age
composition of sockeye
escapements, there seems to
have been a trend of decreasing
size over the long term. The
effect of smaller fish is
consequential: lower fecundity,
smaller eggs; shallower redds
more prone to predation and
disruption; fry and smolts less
able to cope with predation,
environmental shifts and the
transition from fresh to salt
water. Also, more adult salmon
are needed by predators such as
bears and seals to satisfy their
nutritional needs.
It is not known what happens to
sockeye smolts when they hit the
estuary of the Wannock River
and are first exposed to salt
water. No studies have ever been
done on this aspect of their life
history.
Nothing is known of the effects,
if any, of exotic predators such
as mackerel that invade Rivers
Inlet during warm water periods.
Whether they supplement or
supplant the substantial native
juvenile black cod predation is
unknown. No studies have ever
been done on inshore marine
predation.
Summing Up
Speculation won't provide
answers to a complex ecological
mystery nor save the remnant
populations of sockeye and other
-3-
salmonids. However, a cycle of
events can be perceived even if a
trigger or triggers that set the
decline of the Rivers Inlet
sockeye in motion are beyond
present comprehension.
Assume an unperceived trend of
decline in spawning populations
because of overfishing. In any
given year, the direct
consequence could be either
innocuous or significant,
depending on the importance of
sockeye carcasses for fertilizing
the lake and other factors that
ultimately influence survival
rates at different life stages.
Add into the mix loss of
productivity resulting from
logging. This change might be
felt at life stages in the spawning
streams, in the lake rearing
areas, in the estuary and at the
adult stage. [In fisheries on
returning adults there will tend
to be a managerial lag-time in
compensating for decreased
productivity from logged
watersheds.]
Throw into the mix smaller
spawners with fewer and smaller
eggs and weaker fry and smolts.
This change could significantly
increase mortality during early
life stages.
Allow for a constant level of
predation by bears with more
fish taken for food to offset
smaller sized sockeye.
Factor in a seal population that
increases very greatly in
numbers over a 30-year period.
The impact on diminishing
sockeye escapements that are
captive in the lake for three
months could be substantial.
Add in three unjustifiable years
of commercial fishing in the
1990's to 'sample' returning
sockeye stocks. Fisheries and
Oceans Canada authorized these
fisheries even after it was clear
that the population was in a
severe decline.
Salt the mix with failure to
monitor the habitat and the
sockeye.
The result? A latter day tragedy.
What is needed?
•Leadership
•A survival strategy
•Protection of returning sockeye
from any possible intercepting
fisheries
•Close monitoring of abundance
and spawning
•Biological investigations to
monitor juvenile freshwater and
estuarine stages
•Protection from excessive
animal predation
•In selected cases, an
enhancement boost
•Sustained, long-term scientific
research.
•A project management regime
that will treat the eco-system,
not just the salmon
•Money over a long enough
period to do what is necessary to
do, i.e. a commitment for not
less than ten years [two five-year
sockeye and chinook cycles].
What process?
The Save Our Fish Foundation,
of which I am a member, has
called on the federal and
provincial governments to enter
into a Memorandum of
Agreement to launch a joint
response by establishing a wellfunded [see Financial, below]
Rivers Inlet Management
Committee whose Chair would
be from outside of government.
1. Immediately initiate projects
to promote survival and eventual
restoration of fish and wildlife
stocks and habitat.
2. Establish a capital fund for
remedial measures.
3. Launch a 10-year,
comprehensive, ecological study
to:
•generate enough improvement
in the level of understanding
about how the Owikeno
watershed system works to
prevent further losses and to
restore stocks to safe and
sustainable levels;
•create models of the watershed
ecosystem to depict its past,
present and most probable
future;
•develop an integrated
management system to best
ensure sustainable yield from the
waters and the forests to the
benefit of the fisheries, the
wildlife and the people who
utilize these renewable natural
resources.
people supplemented with some
government agency staff.
The Rivers Inlet Management
Committee should be supported
by a Technical sub-committee
seconded from government
agencies and an Advisory subcommittee drawn from the
aboriginal, environmental,
recreational and commercial
communities of interest.
It is essential that there should
be a well-planned and carefully
implemented program based on
a long-term financial
commitment. Short-term project
funding can supplement but, of
itself, can not get the job done
as, by definition, it does not
provide for the level of
continuity that will be critical to
success.
Following a detailed review of
progress, funding for an
additional 5-year period should
follow.
The rate of logging in the
salmon bearing tributaries of
Owikeno Lake should be
substantially slowed down and
the rate of reforestation
accelerated.
The Rivers Inlet Management
Committee membership should
include a majority of
knowledgeable non-government
The Committee would:
-4-
The Rivers Inlet Management
Committee should be required to
report annually to Ministers and
the public.
Financial
Costs could be in the order of
$14 to $16 million over a 10year period, including $3 million
for capital expenditures.
Funding for the first 5 years
should be in the order of $9
million in anticipation of capital
expenditures for remedial
measures.
In conclusion
The decline of Rivers Inlet has
been apparent for some years.
The 1999 eco-system collapse is
on record. Only the fishermeninspired Rivers Inlet Restoration
Society has come forward with a
stage one survival plan. Whether
it will gain full governmental
support is a moot point at this
time. As of the end of April,
Fisheries and Oceans have not
indicated whether they will
intervene with a survival
program, let alone restoration.
It would seem that the Rivers
Inlet eco-system is not the only
system that has collapsed.
Map of Rivers Inlet Area
-5-
Map of Coast of British Columbia
-6-