us MARKllllKI \M) (X I AN RAN( IIINC! 



Uirs \\A\c ciicoimtcicd a variety o\ problcnis; none have 

 yet been able to sustain their planned lUitput; and tew 

 have profited." Presently one ocean ranching venture is 

 operatini; in California, on the same basis as those in 

 Oregon. 



Alaska's approach to ocean ranching is quite ditVerent. 

 There, legislation in 1974 authorized private hatchery 

 operations by nonprofit corporations for the primary pur- 

 pof^c of producing sahiion tor the established ct)minercial 

 fishery. The facilities are to be located in areas where the 

 returning salmon can be reasonably segregated from 

 natural stocks. ITie fish are exploited by the commercial 

 fleet, and special harvest areas are established near the 

 production facilities. Harvests in these areas are con- 

 trolled by the hatchery operators, who are permitted to 

 take enough fish to cover their costs. It there are any 

 surplus stiK'ks iince these ct>sts have been met. the area 

 must be opened \o the commercial fleet. So far six such 

 corporations have been established, only two of which 

 have produced substantial numbers offish. The state gov- 

 ernment has provided tinancial assistance; and, in at 

 least one case, revenues from fish sales have been supple- 

 mented with voluntary assessments on fishermen and 

 matching funds from processors. 



The State of Washington, like Canada, has so far not 

 authorized any private ocean ranching ventures. But 

 salmon from this region have been introduced for ocean 

 ranching projects as far away as Chile.' My review of the 

 experience so far with salmon ranching has raised several 

 concerns. One is the uncertainty of success in obtaining 

 sufficient returns offish to make the ventures profitable.* 

 Another has to do with biological questions about the 

 selection of brood stocks, genetic impacts on wild stocks 

 and the spread of diseases. These are parallel to concerns 

 about the Salmonid Enhancement Program reviewed in 

 Chapter 5, and because experience is so limited they are 

 very difficult to evaluate. Another is about whether large 

 populations of artificially produced fish can be harvested 

 without adverse effects on natural stocks mixed with 

 them. 



Directions for Policy Development 



The approaches taken in the United States do not, in 

 my opinion, offer satisfactory models for Canadian pol- 

 icy development. In both Alaska and Oregon, operations 

 are hampered because they are not given any special 

 privileges over the fish produced. Objections to such ven- 

 tures having exclusive harvesting rights near their facili- 

 ties have been influential in Oregon, and apparently 

 explain Washington's reluctance to approve any ocean 

 ranching so far. And in Alaska, harvesting by the facility 

 operators is restricted to the level required to cover costs. 



These policies aggravate two problems: they lower the 



financial returns and increase the risk to ranching opera- 

 iKMis, and they impose more fishing on mixed stt)cks. To 

 minimi/e interference with natural salmon stocks, the 

 enhanced slocks should be harvested as close to the pro- 

 duction facility as possible. In my judgement, two t)ther 

 characteristics of U.S. apprt)aches should be avoided here 

 also: one is their emphasis on large-scale operations 

 (which aggravate biological and fishing pri)blems); and 

 the other is their exclusive concern with artificial produc- 

 tion. 



1 am receptive to proposals for ocean ranching made 

 by participants in the Commission's hearings, since they, 

 by and large, met these concerns and embodied other 

 desirable features as well.'' First, most proposals involve 

 small-.scale operations at sites to be carefully selected on 

 the basis of criteria developed by the Department. 



... the approach proposed here assumes that 

 DF'O will still have authority for the biologi- 

 cal control of ... projects; this responsibility 

 will not be left in the hands of private par- 

 ties.'" 



Second, the proposals call not only for opportunities 

 for private development of hatcheries but also for oppor- 

 tunities and responsibilities in habitat management and 

 enhancement: 



. . .with the important additional feature that 

 adults would be the product of enhanced 

 natural systems, with habitat and stock man- 

 agement governed by SEP standards and 

 objectives at all times." 



It seems likely therefore, that if salmon 

 ranching is to be introduced, it should be 

 coupled with stream enhancement and that 

 individual sites be limited in size.'" 



Third, they allow for some of the enhanced fish to be 

 taken in the traditional common-property fishery, so that 

 the established commercial fleet will benefit from these 

 operations. 



It is likely that many fish . . . would be caught 

 externally in common property fisheries 

 eLsewhere ... to be attractive to the private 

 investor it is only necessary that sufficient fish 

 return to be caught in the designated fishery 

 and yield an acceptable return on 

 investment. . . .'^ 



Finally, through licensing arrangements that enable the 

 operator to control the catch in a terminal area, these 

 proposals provide opportunities to harvest the fish in the 

 most economic way possible. 



. . . there would be a clear incentive to harvest 

 fish at least possible cost, which the licence 



