70 RFM \K( H \N|) INIORMAMON 



Brai\ch aiimiall> reviews aiul rcdcMgiis its research plans, 

 but only inlernally. s<) that those with direct management 

 respi>nsibilities are rarely involved. Conversely, research- 

 ers have little to do with planning the investigative work 

 of held biologists. In short, present arrangements tail to 

 provide a system lor communicating to researchers the 

 problems faced by resource managers, identifying the 

 questions that can be answered by research, assigning 

 priorities to them, and organizing the research etlort to 

 meet management requirements most efficiently. To 

 alleviate these deficiencies, I recommenti 



7. ITk- IX'partmeiU slutnld <tr}jaiiize a regular procevs for 

 n.'\ie»iiis rest-arch acti\ities and revising priorities 

 with l\w a(hicf of IX'partnRMital nunagcrs and outside 

 scioiitists. and aiiiiuall\ re|K)rt its rtsearch activities 

 and plans for public inforniation and for appraisal by 

 the Pacific FislKTies Council (see Chapter 17). 



The present organiziUional structure for research is 

 awkward, with its centres of responsibility being geo- 

 graphically scattered. In Chapter 19 I propose that these 

 arrangements be thoroughly examined in the context of a 

 general financial and administrative review of the 

 Department. 



That review should include also the appropriate role of 

 the Department's Freshwater Institute in research in the 

 Pacific region. I understand that the institute, based in 

 Winnipeg, is concerned with freshwater fisheries manage- 

 ment research, but that it does not address problems in 

 the Pacific region. Yet the fresh waters of this region that 

 support salmon are probably the most productive in Can- 

 ada, and certainly warrant high research priority, espe- 

 cially in respect of habitat management. 



It remains to comment briefly on the relations between 

 the Department and other groups involved in fisheries 

 research. In Chapter 4 I referred to the work of the Inter- 

 national Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission and to the 

 opportunities for improving communication among those 

 concerned with Fraser River salmon fisheries. Fisheries 

 research is conducted at British Columbia's three public 

 universities, and indeed in most other major universities 

 in Canada. Recently, following a long period of little con- 

 tact, the Research Branch has begun to cultivate closer 

 relationships with university scientists by providing 

 research support and post-doctoral fellowships at the 

 branch's research laboratories. TTiese developments oflfer 

 scope for mutually advantageous research and should be 

 encouraged. The newly formed Fisheries and Oceans 

 Research Advisory Council offers a medium for fostering 

 cooperation between governmental researchers and aca- 

 demic scientists as well as those involved in investigations 

 and data collection in the private sector. 



In recent years, federal departments have been encour- 

 aged to contract out research, and both the Research 



Branch ami the Saliuoiiid I .nh.iiiccinciil Program now 

 spend considerable sums on contractcil research. For 

 many investigations, this arrangement has worked well, 

 relieving the Department ol the necessity of maintaining 

 specialized staff for temporary needs. It has al.so pro- 

 moted the development of fisheries expertise in private 

 consulting firms. But this policy should be pursued cau- 

 tiously. Governmental limitations on staff may create 

 pressures for contracting out research beyond the level at 

 which it is most economical to do so or at the cost of 

 quality. And the Department must maintain sufficient 

 well-informed, in-house expertise to sustain a viable 

 research capability and especially to ensure continuity in 

 accumulating the basic information needed for biological 

 studies. 



Finally. I emphasize the importance of documenting 

 and publishing research findings. This provides the essen- 

 tial means of communicating findings and for critically 

 reviewing research quality. I have also advocated the 

 publication of an annual review of the Department's 

 research program. This, with advice from the Fisheries 

 and Oceans Research Advisory Council and the Pacific 

 Fisheries Council, will contribute to both the quality and 

 relevance of the research eflbrt. 



CONCLUSION 



Eariy in this chapter I noted that the personnel and 

 budget devoted to fisheries research in the region is con- 

 siderable. Although I have proposed strengthening the 

 research effort in certain respects, I do not mean to imply 

 that research resources must necessarily be increased. I 

 have found so many deficiencies in the way the Depart- 

 ment organizes its research and determines its priorities 

 that, until the resources are assessed, the scientific needs 

 of management are identified, and the administrative 

 organization is reviewed, the adequacy of current provi- 

 sions cannot be judged. 



My review of the Department's research effort suggests 

 that its standards of biological science have generally 

 been high. But having passed through several phases, the 

 research program has recently drifted away from its for- 

 mer close links with resource management. This has 

 resulted partly from deliberate decisions and partly from 

 recurrent administrative reorganizations. The Depart- 

 ment now appears to recognize the need to overcome this 

 isolation and to integrate its research more closely with 

 management requirements. My recommendations are 

 aimed at hastening this process and at improving the 

 scientific foundation for fisheries management. 



Because of the rapid developments in Pacific fisheries 

 and the multitude of problems that now must be 

 resolved, the task of reorienting scientific research and 

 information programs should be addressed immediately. 



