KM R.-MK)N\ll/IMi IHl SAl.MDN ANU KDl 111 KKINC. I ISIll KIl.S 



tor salmon aiul nv-hcrrini;, which pnxliiccd unprccc- 

 Ucnicd ma>mcs atiJ ovcroplinustic c\|Xvtations. Al the 

 s»in\c tiriK:, the tiiiuls generated from hcence fees 

 remained unchanged, so thai the rise in hcence vahies 

 severel\ dihited the piircha.sing [X)wer of the revenues. 



ACter 1974, no more vessels were purchased for seven 

 years, though the increased licence fees continued to be 

 levied. Then. earl\ in 1981. following new reci>mmcnda- 

 tions to the Nhmster. the program was reactivated. Ihe 

 propcw;il called tor funding through a grant of $10 mil- 

 lion (roughlv equivalent to the accumulated fees intended 

 for this purpose plus interest) and through a further 

 increase in licence fees. In the end, only $2.9 million was 

 allocated for this puqxise, and its expenditure was lim- 

 ited to the remainder of the 1980-81 fiscal year. 



With these meagre funds, and only six weeks to expend 

 them, the Department endeavoured to discourage frivo- 

 lous applications for boat sales by requiring a $100 appli- 

 cation fee from any owner who sought an offer for his 

 vessel. Nevertheless, some 350 applications were received 

 — far more than could be purchased or even appraised in 

 the time available. By the end of the fiscal year, 26 vessels 

 were purchased at a cost of $2.5 million. The vessels were 

 left tied up for seven months near Vancouver and inevi- 

 tably deteriorated. They were finally auctioned by the 

 Crown Assets Development Corporation in a very weak 

 market for about $660 thou-sand. Since early 1981, buy- 

 back operations have again been suspended, apparently 

 pending the recommendations of this Commission. 



Roe-herring Liceasing 



The roe-herring industry began in 1972 after herring 

 stocks had partially recovered from a collapse in the 

 1960s and the Japanese market for roe became accessible 

 to Canadian producers. The mature fish are harvested by 

 seine and gillnet vessels in a brief spring season when the 

 roe is ripe and the fish are about to spawn. 



This new, lucrative fishery developed with startling 

 rapidity, attracting large numbers of vessels, and in 1974 

 the government attempted to control the fleet's expansion 

 by restricting the fishery to those who obtained licences 

 in that year. Anyone could obtain a licence, but to 

 discourage applicants, an unprecedented annual fee of 

 $2,000 was levied for a seine licence and $200 for a gillnet 

 licence, though Indian licences in both categories were 

 issued for $10. The Department's goal was to issue 150 

 seine and 450 gillnet licences, but this was greatly 

 exceeded: 270 seine and 1,400 gillnet licences were issued 

 initially, far in excess of the capacity required to harvest 

 the available catch. 



The roe-herring ("H") licence, in contrast to the 

 salmon licence, is issued to persons rather than vessels. 

 The licensee must designate the vessel to be used, but the 



designated vessel can be changed from year to year with- 

 out restriction on si/.e. The Department, by administra- 

 tive practice, requires that the licensee have one-third 

 interest in a designated gillnet skiff and 25 percent in a 

 designated seine vessel. But Indian licences must be 

 exercised by Indians. All licences are technically non- 

 transferable. They must be renewed every year by Janu- 

 ary 15th. but fish do not have to be landed to qualify for 

 licence renewal. In 1981, as Table 7-1 indicates, 1293 

 gillnet and 243 seine licences were issued. 



The roe-herring licensing .system has given rise to sev- 

 eral serious problems. The first and most obvious is that 

 it failed to curtail the size of the fleet to the needed capac- 

 ity. This was due partly to generous initial eligibility 

 criteria, partly to the fact that Indian licences continued 

 to be issued without limit until 1977, and partly to the 

 fact that in 1974, when restrictions were introduced, 

 those who had previously engaged in roe-herring fishing 

 could obtain a second licence, and nearly all did so. Fur- 

 thermore, only those licences issued in 1974 to first-time 

 participants were required to be exercised by the licensee; 

 those previously were not. Because of the difficulty of 

 enforcing two sets of regulations, this licensee-operator 

 rule was abandoned in 1979. 



By making licences nontransferable and requiring that 

 licences be exercised by licensees on vessels in which they 

 have ownership, the Department originally intended to 

 reduce the number of licence holders as they retired or 

 died. However, it found that prohibiting transfers to a 

 deceased licensee's spouse or next of kin was difficult, so 

 the nontransferability rule has been relaxed in these 

 cases. And, as these fishing privileges have become more 

 valuable, ways of legally circumventing the nontransfer- 

 ability rule have been found by way of leases and trust 

 holdings of the licensees' vessels. Thus, the licences are 

 effectively transferable, though at some inconvenience 

 and cost. 



Furthermore, because the licences apply to persons, 

 who can change their designated vessels, there is little to 

 restrain the growth in fishing power of the vessels used 

 and hence the expansion of the fleet's fishing capacity. In 

 this respect the licensing system has been even less 

 effective than salmon licences, being incapable of con- 

 trolling the fleet size, which is its main purpose. 



The roe-herring fishery is extraordinarily hectic due to 

 the unpredictable stocks and available catch, the massive 

 and excessive fishing power, the need to limit the fishing 

 time to the moment when the fish are about to spawn and 

 the high values at stake. It is probably the most difficult 

 of fisheries to manage; fishery officers, under extreme 

 pressure and great uncertainty, have to try to restrict 

 openings to a few minutes in many cases, during which 

 fortunes have sometimes been made. 



