108 RATION M l/IN(! IMl SAI MON AND R( )l HIKKINC IISIIIRIIS 



ot the three ge.ir sectors iii the eotHrnereial sahnon hsherv 

 and iheretore eoiild not agiee iiih)ii speeilic leconimenda- 

 tionsmits 1980 report." 



For the riK'-hernng fishery, the Department has osten- 

 sibly aspired during the last 4 years to allocate 5.*^ percent 

 of the catch to the seme fleet and 45 percent to the gillnet 

 fleet. But the managers of" this fishery have never been 

 able to prinide sii high a percentage to the seine sector. 

 mamly because findmg stocks m the required condition 

 and available for seining is often difficult, t^ch sector's 

 share has been closer to half in recent years. 



In my Preliminary Report I reported that in spite of 

 much support among fishermen who testified at my hear- 

 ings for catch allocation, I was not prepared, at that time, 

 to recommend that the Department prescribe the share to 

 be taken by each sector of the fleet, though I would 

 reconsider the matter in my final report. In the meantime, 

 I proposed only that the Department attempt to maintain 

 roughly the allocations that have been achieved in recent 

 years, leaving open opportunities for change in the light 

 of fleet rationalization and other events. 



My hesitations at the time of writing my Preliminary 

 Report reflected, in part, a concern that we could not say 

 how salmon could best be harvested in the long term 

 after the fleets were rationalized, and that a catch alloca- 

 tion formula might well lock in a pattern of harvesting 

 that would soon become obsolete yet difficult to change. 

 More importantly, I was concerned that catch allocation 

 was unmanageable. Advocates of the policy underesti- 

 mate, in my judgement, the difficulty of apportioning the 

 catch among the gear sectors in these two fisheries 

 according to prescribed targets, and I was not prepared 

 to recommend a policy that might well be impossible to 

 implement effectively and that could aggravate friction 

 between the industry and the Department. 



Experience in the roe-herring fishery has demonstrated 

 the Department's inability to meet such targets where 

 there is only one species and two sectors of the fleet. For 

 the salmon fishery, with three gear sectors, a large num- 

 ber of combination vessels, and five major species of fish 

 all of difTering values and susceptibilities to particular 

 gear, the problems would be magnified considerably. 



Since writing my Preliminary Report, 1 have had an 

 opportunity to discuss this question further with fisher- 

 men and others. I remain convinced that the Department 

 cannot be expected to meet allocation targets with preci- 

 sion, and that failure to do so would become a new 

 source of friction. However, it has also become clear that 

 the absence of policy on this matter creates uncertainty 

 and apprehensions that are major obstacles to policy 

 change. Moreover, as I pointed out in Chapter 4, the 

 pressures on officials in charge of managing fishing oper- 

 ations are exacerbated by a vague allocation policy, and 



attempts to placate competing groups sometimes result in 

 overfishing. 



In the context of the broad program of reorganization 

 proposed in this report, I have concluded that each com- 

 peting sector needs to be assured that it will share in the 

 benefits of fleet rationali/iition. This implies some sort of 

 catch-allocation policy, but not necessarily the fixed 

 catch shares for gear sectors that have dominated discus- 

 sion of this issue hitherto. Indeed, in the context of 

 significant fleet reduction, that approach could become 

 quite inequitable. If shares were fixed by gear category, 

 and one category were reduced faster than the others 

 with the cost borne by all, the remaining licensees in that 

 sector would enjoy disproportionate benefits. 



The important thing, after all, is to ensure that all par- 

 ticipants will share the benefits. I therefore recommend a 

 simpler criterion for allocation policy: 



8. The Department should endeavour to allocate the 

 catch among gear sectors of the salnM)n and roe- 

 herring fleets so that the average catch per licensee in 

 each sector increases in equal proportion as fleet 

 reduction proceeds. 



To implement this policy, the average catch of all licen- 

 sees in each gear sector of the salmon and roe-herring 

 fleets during the past five years should be calculated. The 

 Department's target for future years should be an equal 

 percentage increase (or decrease) from this base among 

 the gear sectors in each fishery. So if the average catch of 

 salmon seiners increases, the average catch of trollers and 

 gillnetters should rise in the same proportion. For these 

 purposes catches should be measured simply by weight, 

 with no separate targets for each species of salmon. In 

 determining average catches, combination boats should 

 be counted in the gear sector in which they harvest most 

 of their catch. 



It should be made clear that the targets are not binding 

 commitments on the part of the Department, and that 

 only if the targets are missed by a significant margin in 

 any year, will compensating adjustments be made in the 

 following year. The base catches and targets should be 

 determined separately for each of the three licensing 

 areas for roe-herring, and coastwide for salmon. When 

 area licensing is introduced for salmon (as recommended 

 below), the base catches for salmon should be recalcu- 

 lated for each area. 



Area licensing In the preceding chapter I proposed 

 that the coast be divided into three logical regions for 

 management and licensing purposes: the north, south 

 and west zones. Licensing in the roe-herring fishery is 

 already based on these areas, and in view of the two 

 years' experience with this system and the advice this 

 Commission has received on this matter from fishermen 



