RESEARCH AND INFORMATION 67 



i) Requiring those who collect the data in the field 

 to d(Kiinient the methods they use in estimating 

 spamiiiig. 



ii) Developing a central data system to systemati- 

 cally collate and store spawning records. 



iii) Developing new and coasistent techniques for 

 estimating spawning activity. 



iv) Assemhling historical information on salmon 

 spawning for particular streams and publishing 

 the results in close liaison with tlie intergovern- 

 mental aquatic habitat inventorv program (rec- 

 onuiK'uded in Oiapter 3). 



The central data system proposed here should comple- 

 ment the management information system proposed in 

 Chapter 4. The strengthened programs should be devel- 

 oped cooperatively between research and management 

 staff so that the resultant data will be of greatest utility 

 for both research and regulation. 



In Chapter 4 I pointed to the need to improve measure- 

 ments of the abundance of salmon and hernng runs dur- 

 ing the fishing season through such methods as test 

 fishing and electronic detection. These, too. should be 

 designed jointly by researchers and fishery managers. 



Professional Review 



A major flaw in the information system for managing 

 the .salmon fishery is the absence of routine analysis and 

 reports on the condition of the stocks. Most of the infor- 

 mation collected thus remains unutilized and inaccessi- 

 ble. Individual managers sometimes make their own 

 assessments, but others have no opportunity to partici- 

 pate in the process. And because the findings are never 

 documented, others cannot judge the results. 



Systematic scientific assessments of all the information 

 available should be an integral part of annual reviews of 

 the salmon fisheries recommended in Chapter 4. Regular 

 peer reviews by the Department's professional biologists 

 would enable them to focus their collective expertise to 

 interpreting the available information for management 

 planning; bring more rigor to assessments that are now 

 disjointed, incomplete and inconsistent; and assist in 

 identifying research priorities. I therefore recommend — 



5. In preparing its annual reviews (reconuuended in 

 Chapter 4), the Department should conduct a 

 scientific as.ses^sment of the stocks and of the infer- 

 ences drawn for management purposes. Tliis review 

 should involve — 



i) Sunmiarizing research findings and collating sta- 

 tistical information on catches, fisiiing effort, 

 escapements and sampling. 



ii) Organizing a reWew of tfiis information by the 

 Department's professional staff and other scien- 

 tists. Tlie review should appraise the condition 

 and potential of the stocks, and the effects of 

 fishing, environmental changes and (wliere appli- 

 cable) enhancement. 



iii) Preparing a statement of consolidated advice 

 regarding the consequences of alternative man- 

 agement strategies for consideration b> senior 

 administrators. 



in making this recommendation I have been influenced 

 by the highly successful arrangements along these lines 

 on the Atlantic coast. There, scientists of the Depart- 

 ment's Research Branch work with a formal govern- 

 mental scientific committee, the Canadian Atlantic Fish- 

 eries Scientific Advisory Committee, which — 



... is responsible for providing scientific 

 advice to the Atlantic Fisheries Management 

 Committee on the management, including the 

 full range of conservation measures taking 

 into account economic objectives, of all 

 stcKks of interest or potential interest to 

 Atlantic coast fishermen. Resource manage- 

 ment advice will be provided in accordance 

 with specific fisheries management objectives 

 and strategies and will normally be published 

 as a matter of routine.' 



Thus specialized scientists, sometimes including 

 experts outside the Department, annually assess each of 

 the major stocks. Their reports summarize the available 

 data on abundance and prcxJuctivity. assess the conse- 

 quences of harxesting at various rates, and comment on 

 special management problems and research needs. Their 

 reports are reviewed by a steering committee and consoli- 

 dated for presentation to the Department's senior mana- 

 gers according to its calendar of consultative and regula- 

 tory activity. This process ensures that the best profes- 

 sional advice is brought to bear on management 

 strategies; that management decisions are made in the 

 context of full and publicly visible assessments of their 

 biological implications; and that research priorities are 

 identified and focused on management problems. 



On the Pacific coast, the provisions for stock assess- 

 ments are more rudimentary. The International Pacific 

 Halibut Commission annually reviews the halibut stocks 

 in this wav. but the Department's efforts are limited to 

 groundfish. (Similar reviews of herring have been dor- 

 mant tor several years.) The groundfish reviews are 

 apparently thorough, but the biologists do not provide 

 appraisals of alternative management strategies. This is a 

 serious deficiency, because it effectively takes decisions 

 out of the hands of senior administrators and others who 

 should make the final decisions about catch targets and 



