1% nil SIX)RI \ ISMI R"* 



licensing of guides for hunting and freshwater fishing by 

 the British C\>luMibia fish and Wildhfc Hraiuh, was fre- 

 quently suggested in the ComniissiDn's pubhc hearings 

 and meetings. I"he arguments most frequently used ti) 

 support this ptisition are as follows: it would identity 

 those involved in guiding and improve communicatK)n 

 and a sense of professii>nalism ami>ng them; it would 

 provide a vehicle. thr(.>ugh suspension or cancellation, for 

 enforcing safety rules and fishing regulations; it ct>uld be 

 used as a device for establishmg standards of service and 

 qualifications; and it could be a means of raising revenue. 

 But as others have pointed out, the Department of Trans- 

 port regulations already cover matters of safety, other 

 means are available for enforcing fishing regulations, and 

 the other issues are mainly the business of guides them- 

 selves. Furthermore, easily available and even casual 

 guiding services are a valuable adjunct to the tourist 

 industry and provide considerable summer employment, 

 which few would want curtailed. 



In addition, the licensing of charterboat operations, 

 already recommended, will go a long way toward identi- 

 fying the size and scope of the guiding fraternity. Insofar 

 as they operate as employees of licensed operators, and 

 the operators are responsible for ensuring that regula- 

 tions are obeyed and the necessary logbook information 

 recorded and reported, I can see no useful purpose to be 

 served by licensing guides as well. To do so would add an 

 unnecessary administrative burden and expense to the 

 Department and, in the eyes of some anglers, it might 

 imply that the Department has approved the 

 qualifications of guides, an implication the Department 

 should avoid. However, any voluntary organization of 

 guides, as long as it is not aimed at restricting competi- 

 tion, should be encouraged. For these reasons I have con- 

 cluded that the Department should not become involved 

 in licensing sfx)rtfishing guides, at least at the present 

 time. 



Sportfish Regulations 



In addition to licences and general bag limits, the 

 Department has developed a host of regulations regard- 

 ing the fishing gear sportsmen may use, the size of fish 

 they may keep, areas they may fish and so on. All of these 

 were discussed at length in my public hearings. Because 

 the usefulness of such measures varies with circum- 

 stances, and because we know so little about their 

 impacts, I make no specific recommendations. 



Sportfishing regulations of this kind should be designed 

 to protect the stocks from destructive fishing methods. 

 Beyond this, I make no specific recommendations about 

 them, because they should be applied discriminatingly 

 and invoked or modified in consultation with the 

 sportfishing community. Later in this chapter I propose a 

 temporary ceiling on the aggregate sport catch, and these 



regulations should be considered as means of comple- 

 menting that objective. ITie tbllowmg comments consist 

 of relevant observations that have arisen from my investi- 

 gations. 



S/xtl c/(«siirts In areas where immature salmon con- 

 gregate or where mature adults concentrate as they 

 approach spawning grounds, uncontrolled fishing can be 

 very destructive to the stocks and so the policy of closing 

 such areas is justified. During the last couple of years the 

 Department has invoked spot closures more frequently 

 and more discriminatingly for both commercial fishing 

 and sportfishing. 



Some commentators at the Commission's hearings 

 have advocated much more flexible use of spot closures, 

 particularly to protect concentrations of immature fish, 

 including temporary "mini-closures" where schools of 

 young fish pause on their migration routes. The scope for 

 such measures is limited, however, by practical consider- 

 ations. Hitherto, the Department's power to invoke clo- 

 sures has been constrained by a legal requirement to 

 describe and authorize a closed area in a formal regula- 

 tion passed by the federal Cabinet through an Order-in- 

 Council and an advertisement in the Canada Gazette. In 

 Chapter 4 I propose that this impediment be eliminated. 

 But other obstacles remain. Closed areas must be readily 

 identifiable by all fishermen, so their boundaries must be 

 marked by recognizable natural geographical features or 

 artificial markers. The latter are inevitably costly, espe- 

 cially for temporary purposes. More problematical is the 

 need to inform all sport fishermen of areas closed, not 

 just the local fishermen but also those who might be pass- 

 ing through. 



Sportfishing management could undoubtedly be 

 improved by greater use of spot closures in appropriate 

 circumstances, and the opportunities may be increased 

 through cooperative arrangements with local sportfishing 

 organizations in certain areas. But practical difficulties 

 limit the feasibility of imposing many small, temporary 

 closures that might otherwise be desirable. 



Size restrictions Size restrictions can prescribe either 

 minimum or maximum sizes offish that may be retained; 

 but apart from certain special rules governing river 

 fishing, only the former have been applied on the Pacific 

 coast. The minimum size limits of 45 cm (18 inches) for 

 Chinook salmon and 30 cm (12 inches) for other species 

 are intended to be conservation measures to protect 

 immature fish. But whether they are beneficial is ques- 

 tionable. The limited evidence available here and in the 

 United States indicates a high mortality among fish 

 released and that mortality is highest among small fish, 

 especially when they are handled and unhooked by inex- 

 pert fishermen. As long as a daily bag limit applies, total 

 fish mortality might actually be reduced by permitting 



