14(1 \\\l SI-ORI I ISMl RV 



and, through the SfH)rt lish Advisory Board, proposed 

 an alternative >>even-pt)inl plan, which the> maintained 

 would make the same eonlribution to etiiiUH)k esca[X'- 

 ment with less adverse impact on sportfishing opportuni- 

 ties and on supp^irtmi; imlustries. A moraloruim was put 

 on the announced changes (except tor the prohibition on 

 downriggers without quick-releases and the Fraser River 

 closure) while the counterproposal was discussed. The 

 latter was subsequently adopted. 



The current regulations governing salmon fishing in 

 tidal waters include a daily bag limit of four salnu)n, t)nly 

 two of which may be chmtx)k during the winter period 

 (December 1st to March 31st). The possession limit is 

 two daily bag limits, or eight salmon. An annual bag limit 

 of 30 Chinook is enforced by means of a punchcard sys- 

 tem. Regulations govern the number of lines that may be 

 fished from a boat, and downriggers without quick- 

 release devices are prohibited. The minimum size limit 

 for Chinook salmon is 45 cm (18 inches) and 30 cm (12 

 inches) for other species. 



In addition to these broad regulations, special restric- 

 tions have been imposed on the size and number of fish 

 that may be taken in certain areas, and provisions have 

 been made for sfx)t closures for conservation purposes. 



Earlier this year, new restrictions were announced as 

 part of a program to "halt the decline in chinook salmon 

 stocks in British Columbia . . ."" Ojupled with measures 

 to restrain further the commercial catch of this species, 

 reduced bag limits for sportsmen were imposed in north- 

 em waters. 



My investigations have revealed that there is currently 

 no monitoring program of the kind needed to identify the 

 impact of such regulatory measures. So their effectiveness 

 is unknown. And the analysis on which the recent restric- 

 tions on SfXJrt fishermen were based was rudimentary at 

 best. 



We are left with little to judge the efficacy of 

 sportfishing regulations in meeting their objectives. 

 Moreover, the effect of the new controls will take years to 

 assess and I fear that in any event, the Department lacks 

 the base-line data needed to measure their impact. 



This void of reliable data generates much of the con- 

 tentiousness of sportfishing policy. The majority of sport 

 fishermen, and certainly most sportfishing organizations, 

 are clearly willing to accept the controls needed to con- 

 serve the resources on which their recreation depends. 

 But equally clearly, they will be receptive to such mea- 

 sures only if there are reasonable grounds for believing 

 they are necessary and will have the desired effect. Until 

 the Department has better information to support 

 changes in regulations, it will remain vulnerable to criti- 

 cism and obstruction. Without the support and 



confidence of the sportfishing community, both resource 

 management and sportfishing opportunities arc likely to 

 suffer. 



PRIORI litis FOR SPORTFISHING POLICY 



I turn now from our present position to directions for 

 the future. We clearly face both challenge and opportu- 

 nity: the challenge of coping with intensifying competi- 

 tion for salmon among commercial, recreational and 

 native Indian user groups; and the opportunity to 

 develop a clearly defined policy that reflects the needs of 

 each competing group. 



Priority must be given to the development of a reliable 

 information system upon which effective management 

 decisions can be based. In the meantime, sportfishing 

 policy should be cautiously conservative and as uncom- 

 plicated as possible. It should be designed as a ba,se to 

 which refinements can be added as information accumu- 

 lates about the resources and the impacts of fishing. This, 

 in the long run, should provide scope for a richer diver- 

 sity of sportfishing opportunities. 



Sportfishing in Fisheries Policy 



Until relatively recently, sportfishing was of little con- 

 sequence to resource managers. But recent expansion of 

 sportfishing, in conjunction with intensifying demands on 

 the resource from other users, has created a need for a 

 coherent sportfishing policy. The Department has begun 

 to recognize this, but its approach to sportfishing remains 

 awkwardly integrated with overall fisheries policy. In the 

 Department's words: 



The broad objective of recreational fishery 

 management is to accommodate as far as pos- 

 sible the needs of the growing recreational 

 fishery without major negative impacts on the 

 other user groups.''' 



This rather vague and reluctant attitude is inadequate 

 in view of the present numbers of sport fishermen, the 

 importance of sportfishing and its heavy demands on cer- 

 tain stocks. With the present competition for the avail- 

 able harvest, the sport catch must inevitably encroach on 

 that of other groups, and vice versa. 



Sportfishing organizations commonly perceive that 

 sportfishing receives short shrift from the Department: 



It is quite obvious that the Department does 

 not have a recreational fishery policy. They 

 do not recognize sport fishermen as legitimate 

 users of the resource . . . ." 



Support for this criticism is plentiful: the Department has 

 never had a sportfishing branch; the statistical series on 

 sport catches was abandoned a few years ago; currently 

 only two or three of the Department's staff" are concerned 



