tx>l lO ()BJlt'IIV^5 



nicnl and fish will ci>ntinuc to lose under a 

 continuation of the reactive system.' 



At present, who amongst us can truthfully say 

 what IS the objective of the tishenes'.'"' 



What has been lacking is a comprehensive 

 long-temi plan that .specifies particular 

 goals. ..." 



The mynad of special problems that are fac- 

 ing the Pacific tishenes ttxlay . . . have ansen 

 from a lack of policy and firm practices. . . .'' 



Another frequent complaint was that policy decisions 

 are often p*xirl\ diKumented and fail to demonstrate that 

 those who promulgated the policy prop<^)sals have an ade- 

 quate understanding of the issues. Policies presented are 

 often quickly changed apparently in light of facts that 

 were not taken into account during policy formulation. 



The cut, chop and change approach has cast doubts on 

 the competence of Departmental stafT. has led increas- 

 ingly to a lack of public confidence in the Department's 

 capacity to manage the resource and has opened the 

 administration to partisan pressure from groups who 

 know that Departmental policy statements can be 

 changed if enough protest is raised. 



This lack of direction has been a source of frustration 

 to fishermen attempting to plan their affairs in an orderly 

 way. 



One plea often heard from processors, fisher- 

 men, recreational and other interests is for a 

 consistent and long-run policy by govern- 

 ment. What government calls "creative ad 

 hocery" in policy formulation continuously 

 frustrates those who are required to make 

 decisions in the investment of their finances 

 and labour in the industry. It is one thing to 

 change the rules of the game and it is quite 

 another to keep moving the goal fX)sts.' 



In addition, the credibility of the government's policy 

 making in recent years has been repeatedly undermined 

 by announcements and decisions that are not acted upon. 

 Examples, discussed later in this report, include commit- 

 ments to devote licence fee increases to fleet reduction; to 

 eliminate subsidies on vessel construction; to levy 

 charges to recover the cost of salmonid enhancement; 

 and repeated declarations that royalties would be levied 

 on salmon this year. Not all these changes were wel- 

 comed by those who would be most affected, but the fact 

 that they were not acted upon destroys confidence in the 

 government's dedication to fisheries management. 



Fisheries authorities must, of course, retain some flexi- 

 bility because of the unpredictability of fish stocks, eco- 

 nomic conditions and other factors; but the uncertainty 



about regulatory intervention must be minimi/cii and the 

 long-term goals atul niethtxls to be used m achieving 

 them made clear. 



A clearly articulated policy is also required by the asers 

 and regulators of other resources. Becau.se the fish 

 resources of the Pacific coast, particularly salmon, are so 

 afiected by t)ther activities, fisheries objectives must be 

 specified, at least in broad terms, in order to assess 

 whether they can be reconciled with developmental plans 

 for other resource industnes. This is essential, also, for 

 those who manage the fisheries; otherwise they can only 

 guess at the criteria they should use in making decisions 

 which inevitably leads to inconsistency and criticism. 

 Finally, articulated policy objectives provide the neces- 

 sary framework for designing appropriate and consistent 

 regulations and administrative procedures. 



Policy Objectives 



I present here the general objectives that provide the 

 framework for my recommendations in subsequent chap- 

 ters. For the most part, these objectives build upon the 

 broad policy goals set out in my terms of reference, 

 reproduced in Appendix A. 



Resource conservation Fisheries policy must first and 

 foremost ensure that the resource is properly protected 

 and, whenever advantageous, enhanced. This obviously 

 calls for careful regulation of the level and form of har- 

 vesting. Equally important, it calls for the protection of 

 the freshwater and marine habitat upon which our major 

 stocks depend. In addition, it implies a need for institu- 

 tional and financial arrangements that will allow us to 

 take advantage of opportunities for enhancement. And 

 finally, it requires sufficient data and research to ensure 

 that all these activities are carried out effectively. 



Maximizing tlte benefits of resource use This means 

 ensuring that the resources available for harvesting 

 "make the highest possible contribution to the economic 

 and social development of the people of Canada, espe- 

 cially of those resident on the Pacific coast of Canada, 

 recognizing that this contribution may be realized in eco- 

 nomic, recreational and other social forms."* This 

 requires that the resources are allocated to those who can 

 make the most valuable use of them and that whoever 

 uses the resources does use them in the most beneficial 

 way. 



The first requirement is the most difficult to meet. 

 Because of the common property nature of the fisheries 

 and the need to constrain the total catch within biological 

 limits, various groups that compete for the catch are pre- 

 occupied with their shares; this gives rise to the pervasive 

 allocation problem, and is the source of "gear wars." 

 Since the values generated by commercial, Indian and 

 recreational users are so different, solutions to this prob- 



