54 SAIMOMD IMIAM IMINI 



come Kick as ailulls in suH'icicnt numbers to 

 make the (>peration ostensibly profitable 

 using short term ami narrow criteria. 



When the evaluation of hatcheries is 

 expanded to consider their impact in the long 

 term on vsild stiKks most hatchery operations 

 are still highly suspect. In addition to the con- 

 scious and unconsci(.)Us selection o\' fish of 

 particular kinds with its genetic implications 

 for future generations the release of hatchery 

 fish in large numbers has major ecological 

 impacts on wild fish stiicks."* 



Large-scale projects do not always result in artificial 

 stocks of course. Major fishway projects improve access 

 to natural spawning grounds. However, the most promis- 

 ing have already been built, and the scope for additional 

 projects e-)f this kind is limited. 



In any event, testimony at the Commission's public 

 hearings has revealed strong and widespread support for 

 a shift in emphasis toward protection and rehabilitation 

 of wild stocks, and more balanced enhancement by 

 means of more numerous and geographically dispersed 

 projects aimed at stream rehabilitation and improvement. 



In addition to the concerns expressed above, many 

 advocate small-scale projects to enhance natural stocks 

 because they lend themselves better to public participa- 

 tion. The involvement of volunteers has already been 

 noted, and spokesmen for commercial and sportfishing 

 groups have indicated that potentially many others 

 would like to participate in enhancement work. School- 

 children and environmental organizations have also 

 proven that they can be useful as volunteers, and 

 enhancement work by prisoners has been demonstrated 

 to be constructive rehabilitative work. This kind of broad 

 public involvement could make a substantial contribu- 

 tion not only to resource development but also to more 

 sensitive public attitudes toward fish and their environ- 

 mental requirements. 



However, because benefits of this kind of enhancement 

 are not as readily quantifiable as the highly visible pro- 

 duction from a hatchery or spawning channel, and 

 because small projects, too, are vulnerable to risks — a 

 sudden freshet, for example, can undo months of rehabil- 

 itative work on a stream — some have suggested that 

 smaller projects receive lower priority. 



As a result of these concerns about the orientation of 

 the enhancement program, the direction of expenditures 

 has changed considerably from the original pattern. 

 Table 5-3 shows that the allocation to major projects has 

 been significantly reduced and the allocation to minor 

 and community development projects significantly 

 increased. 



While both large facilities and small projects likely 

 have a place in a well-ilesigncd program, there is no obvi- 

 ous, simple an.swer as ti) how they should be balanced. 

 Rather than continue the debate about what is appropri- 

 ate, it would be more productive to ensure that project 

 evaluations are rigorous and comprehensive, that all 

 benefits and costs are adequately considered, including 

 those that are ditlicult to quantify, and that appropriate 

 allowances are made for risk. In the long run, the fishery 

 will be best served by selecting tho.se projects that gen- 

 erate the highest excess of benefits over costs regardless 

 of their type. If the criteria for ranking projects are 

 sound, the evaluations are rigorous and comprehensive, 

 and project surveillance ensures that they are based on 

 realistic projections, the result should be the "appropri- 

 ate" mix of facilities. 



Species balance A number of commentators have crit- 

 icized the distribution of enhancement eflx^rt among the 

 salmonid species. Sport fishermen, particularly, have sug- 

 gested that certain species, especially chinook, coho, 

 steelhead and cutthroat trout, have received short shrift 

 in favour of the more exclusively commercial species. 

 And commercial trollers have complained that the tradi- 

 tional net-caught species have received excessive empha- 

 sis. 



Table 5-1 compares the initial targets set for each spe- 

 cies with the expected production. Apparently, some 

 funds originally intended for chum production were 

 redirected toward producing coho, chinook and sockeye. 

 Chinook production has been given increased priority 

 because of the current depressed state of some major chi- 

 nook stocks, and current plans involve enhancing almost 

 all Strait of Georgia chinook stocks. 



The increase in expectations for sockeye is conspicu- 

 ous, and is due almost entirely to the lake enrichment 

 projects. Enrichment projects are expected to show very 

 high productivity at very low cost; thus sockeye are now 

 expected to account for 39 percent of the enhanced pro- 

 duction in Phase I at less than 10 percent of the total cost. 

 The relatively modest original targets for coho and chi- 

 nook salmon, and steelhead and cutthroat trout are now 

 expected to be exceeded also. Production of chum and 

 pink salmon is now expected to fall well short of the 

 original targets, however. Of course, the question of how 

 appropriate the original targets were is still open and war- 

 rants careful review in future planning, and as circum- 

 stances change so will the most advantageous pattern of 

 enhancement. 



As noted earlier, the purchasing power of the funds 

 available for enhancement has been eroded by almost 

 half; in this light the currently projected production of all 

 species exceeds expectations by a considerable margin 

 except for chum and pink salmon. 



