V> SAl MONin J NMANCIMI NT 



the tcilcral gDvcnimciit has clearly tailcil Id prevent 

 invcsinient in excess (ishing capacity, llie uidicated eco- 

 nomic benefits ot the enhancement program must, there- 

 tore, be regarded as i>nly potential, to be realized only il 

 ertective means are found to control wastetui investment 

 in fishing capacity. 



I view this failure to control investment as the most 

 direct threat to the program's economic success. I have 

 already expres.sed my conclusion that our ability to 

 enhance fish stix'ks has outstripped our ability to manage 

 the harvests .so as to realize the full benetits of that 

 enhancement. But even if our ability to harvest the stt)cks 

 more discretely is developed, the enhanced production 

 will be wasted if the ptnential benefits are dissipated by 

 costly investment in redundant fishing capacity. The 

 same concern about the enhancement program has been 

 expressed in a recent study undertaken for the Economic 

 Council of Canada: 



These potential benefits will be realized, in 

 the words of the Program's information 

 branch "... assuming that additional capital 

 inputs will be disciplined" ... it is doubtful 

 that the present regulations in the fishery can 

 achieve this di.scipline .... This being so, 

 there is fear that the net benefits of the Pro- 

 gram to society will be negative." 



The danger is also recognized by fishermen who sup- 

 port the enhancement effort: 



... an increase of total fish stocks without 

 other restrictions (on the fleet) will only post- 

 pone the problem and result again in dissipa- 

 tion of the resource into further investment.''' 



The threat that the program will yield a negative net 

 benefit indicates the urgency of controlling the capacity 

 of the fishing fleet. 



Thus, my anxiety about resource enhancement con- 

 verges with my concern for an effective policy for regulat- 

 ing commercial fisheries. A licensing and fleet develop- 

 ment policy that will reverse past trends and reconcile 

 fishing capacity with the available resources, desirable in 

 itself, is also a condition for the success of enhancement 

 efforts. 



In Chapter 9 I propose a fleet rationalization policy 

 that would pave the way for beneficial enhancement. 

 Without it, or some effective alternative, enhancement as 

 an economic development program is bound to fail. 



The "enhancement-through-management'"' alternative 



The economics of enhancement are not independent of 

 the opportunities for producing the fish in other ways. A 

 basic tenet in economics is that project output cannot be 

 valued more highly than the cost of producing it by the 



least cost alternative means. 1 he ciiliaiicciiicnt program 

 evaluations have implicitly assumed that active enhance- 

 ment is the only means by which increased production 

 will be achieveil. But in many areas salmon production 

 has been increaseil, not by new enhancement facilities, 

 but througli careful management of harvests and escape- 

 ments. The International F'acific Salmon FMshcries Com- 

 mission has rebuilt sockeye and pink stocks in the F''raser 

 River in part through stock management.-'' In the early 

 1960s, increased escapements through restrictions on the 

 commercial catch were apparently successful in bringing 

 about a recovery of chum stocks in southern British 

 Columbia.'" And, as I have noted in Chapter 2, the .sock- 

 eye and pink .salmon stcx'ks have increa.sed remarkably in 

 Alaska following restrictions on the commercial harvests. 

 Participants at the Commission's hearings have urged 

 that a similar approach be taken to accelerate stock resto- 

 ration here: 



Fulfilling the commitment to the fish means 

 sacrifices by all user groups. Fish populations 

 must be built up. Enhancement and good 

 management practices will help. However, 

 the only effective way to quickly rebuild the 

 fish population is to dramatically increase the 

 supply of fish on the spawning grounds.'' 



Recently the enhancement staff have considered 

 enhancement through management as a means of 

 increased salmon production. In 1979 they assessed the 

 status of Rivers Inlet sockeye and determined that the 

 spawning and rearing habitats could support consider- 

 ably larger stocks. Subsequently, their economic analyses 

 indicated that the values foregone by reducing harvests in 

 the short run would be more than compensated for by the 

 resulting increases in catches in the long run. Indeed, the 

 analyses indicated that the sacrifice in catches in the 

 short term may yield a very high return (by the enhance- 

 ment program's benefit-cost criteria). The Department 

 has since proceeded with an experimental enhancement- 

 through-management program for Rivers Inlet sockeye, 

 which appears promising. 



While the measures taken in Rivers Inlet carmot be 

 applied coastwide, the approach has much to recommend 

 it. Indeed, the basic principle of managing the fisheries to 

 produce maximum yields applies generally. In this single 

 case where the analysis has been done, the rehabilitation 

 of stocks through greater escapement appears very cost 

 effective. It also puts the bulk of the costs (in terms of 

 foregone catches) on the beneficiaries. And I have no 

 hesitation in asserting that this kind of natural rehabilita- 

 tion should be preferred over artificial enhancement on 

 grounds of biological vigour of the stocks, resilience and 

 low risk. 



