44 FISHERIFS MANAGFMF.NT 



ANM'AI. FAAIA'AIION AM) Kl VIKW 



At prescnl ihcrc arc no priniMi>ns tor diKunicnting 

 and evaluating management decisions. LMtimately, this is 

 the crcatesl deficiency m the present fishery management 

 system. Without written assessments on the status i>t the 

 stocks, continuing compilations of catch and escapement 

 data, and appraisals of the etrects of regulati>r\ changes, 

 it IS not possible to objectively evaluate the success or 

 failure of management decisions. Managers are unable to 

 learn from their own and others' mistakes; cntical 

 appraisal of performance is restricted; and duplication of 

 effort results. The overall etTect is retarded progress in 

 developing management capabilities. 



As the steward of Canada's fish resources the Depart- 

 ment has a responsibility to report t)n its activities, to 

 dcKument and evaluate its past season's program, to 

 explain actions proposed for the ensuing season, to con- 

 sult with fishing groups affected and to publish its plans. I 

 therefore recommend that — 



10. The Department should Implement an annual review 

 and consultation as part of the process of f(»miulatirig 

 nuina^MiKMit plaas for each fishery. Tliis sliould 

 include — 



i) An annual scientific assessment of the status of 

 the stocks and of the effects of the fisheries upon 

 them. 



ii) An evaluation of the preceding year's fishing plan 

 including the changes made to it, estimates of 

 catches of major stocks and spawning escape- 

 ments. 



iii) A re\iew of this information with the relevant 

 fisherv advisory committee (see Chapter 17), and 

 subsequent preparation of a fishing plan for the 

 next season indicating the targets for catches and 

 spawning escapements in each fishery. 



The Department must assemble this information for 

 management purposes in any event. By systematically 

 publishing it in the way proposed, the Department would 

 provide the documentation needed for meaningful con- 

 sultations with fishing groups prior to designing final pre- 

 season plans. With efficient procedures for in-season data 

 collection, much of the documentation can be routinely 

 compiled by the computer once the appropriate format 

 has been established, without adding an onerous burden 

 in report preparation. 



The innovations I have recommended above will com- 

 plement reforms I propose in later chapters relating to 

 the organization of research (Chapter 6), administration 

 (Chapter 19), and consultation (Chapter 17). The general 

 objective is to provide a clear and consistent structure for 

 decision making with guidelines and terms of reference at 

 each level in order to eliminate the present vague goals 

 and ambiguous responsibilities. 



ii.siiiNc; ()R(;ani/aii()N 



Management ol bolli the salmon aiul roe-herring 

 fisheries is coinplKalcd by several distinctive fleets that 

 compete (or the available catch and a variety of ways of 

 harvesting. In the roe-herring fishery the gillnel and seine 

 fleets harvest with different gear and in difl'erent loca- 

 tions, aiul controversy surrounds their biological and 

 economic implications. For salmon, the issue is even 

 more complicated, because a wider variety of gear is used 

 and the fish can be taken in different places along their 

 migratory routes. A particularly sharp debate focuses on 

 where and when salmon should be caught; and although 

 this question has no single answer, it deserves brief com- 

 mentary here. 



Ideally each salmon stock would be fished and man- 

 aged separately, according to its specific yield capabilities 

 and spawning requirements. But most salmon fisheries 

 involve mixtures of stocks migrating through an area. 

 The fisheries generally fall into three general harvesting 

 patterns: sequential fisheries, where stocks are fished at 

 several points along their migration routes; terminal 

 fisheries, where stocks are harvested as they congregate 

 near spawning strearas; and .sport and troll fisheries, 

 which operate on diffuse and changing mixtures of 

 stocks, with complex relationships associated with migra- 

 tion and maturation patterns. 



For stock management purposes, the sequential fishing 

 pattern is the most manageable because it provides a 

 sequence of opportunities to reassess abundance and to 

 adjust catches and escapements. However, few fisheries 

 now are managed in this way because knowledge about 

 the composition of the stocks is weak. But with improved 

 information many more stocks would be amenable to this 

 type of harvesting and management. 



The terminal fishing pattern implies different things to 

 different people. To some, it means harvesting the stocks 

 as they arrive at their spawning sites, which in some cases 

 are hundreds of miles upstream. Indian fisheries are 

 sometimes of this kind, and some hatcheries also harvest 

 excess stocks in this way. To others, it means harvesting 

 the fish at the mouths of rivers as they leave the sea. And 

 to others, it means simply moving the commercial fleet 

 further inshore. 



Support for terminal fisheries generally rests on three 

 grounds. First, they improve the economy of fishing by 

 eliminating the need for a large ofl'"shore fleet. Second, 

 they enable more discriminating management and har- 

 vesting of discrete stocks as they approach their spawning 

 grounds. Third, they confine the catch to mature fish and, 

 hence, increase production. 



However, terminal fisheries present certain difl^iculties. 

 A fishery at the mouth of a river does not always enable 

 fishing of discrete stocks. On large rivers such as the 



