52 SAl MONll) INHANCl MJ NT 



Working Ciroups a>nMstmg Dllcdcial and provincial sen- 

 ior management bu>logists. distnct supervisors, and a 

 hahital protection division representative, have been 

 established tor three areas: north coast, south coast ami 

 Fraser River. These groups assess whethei piodiiction 

 from specific enhancement pnyects can be etVcctively 

 managed without adverse impacts on the other stt)cks, 

 and recon\mend changes to the projects as appropriate. 

 The biological planning unit o{' the Saimonid Flnhance- 

 ment Program works closely vvith the Geographic Work- 

 ing Groups to try to resolve manageability prtiblems. The 

 stcKks to be enhanced are expected to be manageable as 

 discrete units at the anticipated levels of production. 



Despite the planning eflbrts, many believe that poten- 

 tial stock interaction problems are understated. Whether 

 this is the case cannot be determined at present as the 

 first adults from the Phase I program are just now enter- 

 ing the fisheries. 



Experience elsewhere has been mixed in this regard. In 

 Japan a major hatchery program has been deliberately 

 pursued at the expense of limited wild stocks. We could 

 pursue that course, but I have no hesitation in concluding 

 that we should not since we have a much richer endow- 

 ment of natural stocks and opportunities for developing 

 them. Instead we need a system that will ct)mplement the 

 management and development of our natural or wild 

 stocks. Other jurisdictions have attempted to do this, but 

 with inconsistent success. In Oregon, stocks have 

 declined following what was an apparently successful 

 hatchery program. Some fear that wild stocks have been 

 displaced by hatchery -reared ones. 



Most of us agree we have a "echo problem." 

 Generally stated, the problem is that our 

 coho salmon populations have slumped to the 

 level we had almost 20 years ago after an 

 apparently successful hatchery program had 

 increased them to a record high in 1976. 

 There is no simple explanation for, or solu- 

 tion to, the coho production problem." 



The cause of this phenomenon is apparently compli- 

 cated by oceanographic and other changes, and some 

 biologists doubt that a similar outcome is likely in Can- 

 ada. But other experience is not reassuring. Recent inves- 

 tigations into hatchery production in the State of Wash- 

 ington have revealed a wide range of stock interactions. 

 One study indicates that natural productivity has been 

 directly and adversely affected by hatchery output, caus- 

 ing major production losses.'- 



In Canada, the findings from recent reviews of the 

 Babine Lake Development Project (a pre-enhancement 

 program project completed in the late 1960s) are equally 

 disturbing. This project was designed to take advantage 

 of underutilized rearing capacity for juvenile sockeye in 



H.ibinc [..ikc, but the impacts ot harvesting the enhanceil 

 production on other stocks in the Skeena River system 

 were apparentiv not consKlcretl. I he tacilities are now 

 operating very successfully with respect to the goals of 

 increased smolt output. But the increased fishing for the 

 enhanced stcKks has had significant effects on natural 

 sttK'ks, including other populations of .sockeye, chinook 

 and steelhead." Disturbingly, overall salmon harvests 

 seem to have increased very little. 



Some have suggested that very strong sockeye runs in 

 1981 indicate that this project may yet prove successful. 

 But sockeye runs were uniformly strong in 1981, so it is 

 not clear that the strength of the Skeena runs can be 

 attributed to the Babine Project. In any event, the Babine 

 Project was undertaken over a decade ago, and it is 

 doubtful that any project involving a 10-year wait before 

 benefits are realized would be found to be economically 

 viable in a preproject evaluation. 



To suggest that we still cannot assess the Babine 

 Project's contribution to production raises serious ques- 

 tions about our ability to evaluate, let alone predict, the 

 benefits of any of our enhancement projects. Similar 

 questions regarding mixed exploitation of natural and 

 enhanced stocks in Barkley Sound have been raised, and 

 while the data do not permit conclusive responses, they 

 are nevertheless disturbing.''* 



We cannot yet judge whether the more recent enhance- 

 ment projects, which have been planned using criteria 

 different from those of the earlier projects, will add to 

 stock interaction difficulties since information will just 

 begin to come in this year. TTie question does leave me 

 seriously concerned, however, particularly in view of the 

 present weaknesses in the management of salmon har- 

 vests, addressed in Chapter 4. Major improvements will 

 be required to correct these weaknesses, and they will not 

 be effected quickly. I am driven to the conclusion that 

 our ability to produce salmon has outstripped our ability 

 to manage the harvests in a way that will ensure that the 

 benefits of the new production will be realized. 



Artificia] versus natural enhancement An equally lively 

 controversy surrounds the program's current emphasis on 

 big projects and the production of "artificial" stocks par- 

 ticularly from large-scale hatcheries: 



Today, the key debate within the salmon 

 enhancement field is whether to launch the 

 large scale projects and its attendant artificial 

 stocks or to concentrate on massive compre- 

 hensive small scale rehabilitation . . . .'^ 



From the beginning, major engineering projects were 

 emphasized, as Table 5-3 indicates. There are several rea- 

 sons for this. First, large hatcheries and other artificial 

 facilities are vei^ productive. By controlling waterflows 



