THE SPORT FISHERY 197 



fishermen to keep small fish and mcluding them m their 

 bag limits. 



Several factors are relevant to whether this is the case: 

 the frequency of hooking "shakers" relative to "keepers"; 

 the mortality rate of released, undersized fish; the normal 

 survival rate of juvenile fish to their adult stage; and the 

 numbers of small fish that would be kept by fishermen if 

 they were permitted to do so. As with so many 

 sportfishing questions, little data is available on these 

 relationships, but it may well be that size limits combined 

 with bag limits have a perverse effect on overall fish mor- 

 tality. 



Size restrictions also reduce the diversity of 

 sportfishing opportunities. 



Various sized fish also appeal to various 

 anglers. The thrill of a child with a fish of any 

 size and the desire of many elderly anglers to 

 retain just a couple of grilse to satisfy their 

 modest appetites and demands comes to 

 mind. So does the desire of the expert to 

 catch a large fish and together with that 

 expertise, the ability to relea.se small fish 

 unharmed. ... An open-ended, voluntary 

 release, no size limit fishery would not have 

 an adverse effect on salmon stocks in the 

 aggregate; it would enhance the recreational 

 opportunity and experience for many anglers 

 and it would constitute a simple solution to a 

 needlessly complex and over-exaggerated 

 problem that can not be proven to exist.-'' 



Compulsory retention of all fish caught has been sug- 

 gested, but this would be unenforceable, and bag limits 

 would encourage violations. On the other hand, volun- 

 tary retention of any fish would undoubtedly reduce the 

 enforcement burden and increase the satisfaction of 

 many casual sport fishermen. So in the absence of evi- 

 dence that size restrictions serve a useful conservation 

 purpose, they might best be abolished in favour of more 

 effective measures such as spot closures in areas where 

 juvenile fish are concentrated. 



Gear restrictions Restrictions on certain kinds of 

 fishing gear such as barbed hooks, treble hooks and 

 downriggers are highly controversial, and the arguments 

 in favour of them vary. Some suggest that certain types of 

 gear should be banned because they are not sporting. The 

 government should avoid regulations based on such ethi- 

 cal judgements: they are inevitably subjective, and they 

 discriminate against those who fish by certain 

 methods and in certain conditions as well as against less 

 experienced fishermen, who may nevertheless gain great 

 satisfaction from catching fish. 



Others advocate such restnctions in order to reduce the 

 sport catch. Any gear restrictions undoubtedly tend to 

 reduce fishing success, but since other means of control 

 are available, such as licence fees and bag limits, it is 

 questionable whether this objective should be pursued by 

 making it more difficult to catch fish. 



Still others argue that restrictions on gear, such as 

 treble and barbed hooks, will reduce the mortality of 

 released undersized fish, which is the purpose of the barb- 

 less hook rule imposed on commercial trollers last year. 

 This latter case is persuasive; treble and barbed hooks 

 are often extremely difficult to remove without mortal 

 damage to a small fish. The justification for prohibiting 

 such gear is particularly strong given mimmum size limits 

 for landed fish. But even without size limits, since most 

 fishermen will choose to release small fish, prohibiting 

 barbed or treble hooks may be justified. 



Restrictions on river fishing The freshwater salmon 

 sport fishery is an important component in the range of 

 sportfishing opportunities. In recent years much heavier 

 restrictions have been placed on sportfishing in freshwa- 

 ter rivers and streams than have been imposed on ocean 

 fishing for the same fish. Sportfishing for chinook salmon 

 is now prohibited in major parts of the Skeena and Fraser 

 river systems, for example, and no sportfishing for pink, 

 chum or sockeye salmon is permitted in any nontidal 

 waters. 



Sportfishing policy should aim at providing opportuni- 

 ties wherever they generate the greatest recreational 

 value, and the rarer and more esoteric experience of river 

 fishing for salmon and steelhead suggests that some fish 

 allocated for this activity will generate higher recreational 

 value than the same fish caught at sea. 



The disproportionate restrictions on river fishing 

 undoubtedly reflect concern for conserving spawners. But 

 fish caught at sea are also potential spawners, notwith- 

 standing their different survival rates to the spawning 

 beds. In designing controls, therefore, account should be 

 taken not only of the relative impact on the stocks of 

 taking fish at sea and in rivers, but also of the relative 

 value of sportfishing opportunities. 



A SHORT-TERM STRATEGY FOR MANAGING 

 THE SPORT nSHERY 



Earlier in this chapter I suggested that maximizing the 

 economic and social benefits from our fish resources calls 

 for allocating the available catch between the sport 

 fishery and other fisheries in proportions that will gen- 

 erate the greatest value. I have also pointed to the dis- 

 turbing void of reliable information about sportfishing 

 that prevents the necessary evaluations from being made. 

 Nevertheless, we know that sportfishing depends mainly 

 on Chinook and coho salmon, that sportsmen take a large 



