RATIONALIZING THE SALMON AND ROE-HERRING FISHERIES 103 



every second year (one fish is sufficient). The exception is 

 the "original B" licences for which landings must be 

 recorded every year. Temporary licences can be renewed 

 only for a limited period (though the ultimate life of 

 "appeal B" licences is unclear). An ordinary licence can 

 at any time be converted to a temporary licence at the 

 option of the licensee. 



Several restrictions apply to the gear that may be used. 

 In 1977 a moratorium on new seine vessels was imposed, 

 although it has not been altogether effective. In 1981. a 

 form of area licensing for troll vessels was introduced 

 that required each licensee to elect to fish either inside or 

 outside the Strait of Georgia; those that choose the Strait 

 are restricted in their freedom to use other gear. 



The annual fee, payable upon renewal of licences, var- 

 ies with licence category as follows: 



ordinary licences 

 vessels less than 30 feet (9.14 m) 

 vessels greater than 30 feet (9. 14 m) 



but less than 15 tons (42.45 m^) 

 vessels greater than 15 tons (42.45 m^) 



Indian licences 



temporary licences 



$200 



$400 

 $800 

 $ 20 

 $ 20 



Ordinary licences are transferred automatically with 

 the vessel; other transfers can be made only with the 

 consent of the Minister. Indian licences are now transfer- 

 able only among status Indians. "Downgraded B" and 

 "appeal B" licences are transferable, but "original B" 

 licences are not. 



Replacement rules The provisions for replacing 

 licensed vessels are as follows. Ordinary' and Indian 

 licensed vessels may be replaced upon the prior approval 

 of the Director General (or, failing that, the approval of 

 the Minister on appeal), subject to foot-for-foot and ton- 

 for-ton replacement restrictions. That is. a replacement 

 vessel must not exceed the vessel replaced in terms of 

 either length or tonnage. As mentioned, temporary 

 licences do not permit the vessel to be replaced. Finally, a 

 new seine vessel can be introduced only if another seine 

 vessel is retired. 



Despite the Department's efforts to tighten the rules 

 since vessel replacements were first restricted, serious 

 problems remain. The most fundamental of these calls 

 into question the adequacy of using hold capacity and 

 length as reliable measures of vessel fishing power. A 

 comprehensive measure of fishing capacity would include 

 a host of other contributing factors, such as engine 

 power, hull design, electronic apparatus and power 

 devices for deploying gear. But, as 1 explained in Chapter 

 7, simultaneous restrictions on all the dimensions of 

 fishing power would be virtually impossible to administer 

 and enforce. 



Even the present ton-for-ton and foot-for-foot replace- 

 ment rules, which apply to only a couple of the fishing 

 capacity dimensions, are difficult to enforce. First, 85 per- 

 cent of all salmon vessels have a capacity of less than 15 

 tons and are therefore not required to be surveyed under 

 ship's registry requirements of the Department of Trans- 

 port. So the Department can only apply the foot-for-foot 

 restriction. Second, when an unregistered vessel is 

 replaced by a registered vessel, the Department relies on 

 a length-to-tonnage conversion table. Because the length 

 of a vessel is only one factor among many that determine 

 its tonnage, the relationships in this table are somewhat 

 arbitrary. 



Third, even for registered vessels, net tonnage is an 

 unreliable indicator of hold capacity, since it includes 

 other elements of interior vessel space as well. Marine 

 architects can design a vessel to meet tonnage constraints 

 while increasing hold capacity. Furthermore, classifying 

 space in the hold inevitably involves subjective judge- 

 ments. Thus, a replacement vessel can, in fact, have a 

 greater hold capacity than that of the replaced vessel 

 even though their surveyed net tonnages are the same. 



These weaknesses in fishing vessel replacement rules 

 are serious, since they fail to limit the physical size of the 

 fleet. Nor do they prevent new capital investment in ves- 

 sel improvements, gear and equipment. Thus, they have 

 done little to alleviate the salmon fishery's fundamental 

 economic problem. 



Buy-back operations When the salmon fleet control 

 program was introduced in 1969. restrictive licensing was 

 intended to control further expansion of the fleet. Subse- 

 quently, a short-lived buy-back scheme was introduced in 

 197 1 to reduce the fleet by purchasing and retiring vessels 

 with ordinary licences. Funds were to be provided by 

 licence fees, which were doubled specifically for this pur- 

 pose (except temporary and Indian licences, since these 

 vessels were not to be eligible for purchase under the buy- 

 back program). 



A special buy-back committee, consisting of Depart- 

 mental personnel and industry representatives, was 

 struck to carry out the buy-back operation. During the 

 ensuing three years, 362 vessels were purchased, stripped 

 of their licences, and resold at auction under a covenant 

 that prohibited them from engaging further in commer- 

 cial fishing on Canada's Pacific coast. Some $6 million 

 was spent on acquiring vessels during this period; of this, 

 $3.4 million came from licence revenues and $2.6 million 

 from resale of vessels at auction. 



Between 1972 and 1974 the market value of salmon 

 licences increased dramatically from about $250 per 

 licensed ton to roughly $7,000. Although buy-back pur- 

 chases were said to drive up these prices, the main cause 

 was undoubtedly the bumper harvests and record prices 



