M8 ENFORCIMEIMT 



Early in I'JSl, the hours of operation were turi.iilcd to 

 Monday to f-ridiiy t'roni 8:(K)a.ni. to nmlmght. I able !<>- 

 3 indicates that, by elmiinating manning on the Zenith 

 number over weekends and holidays and evenings, it 

 misses over one-halt of potential callers. Therelore, I 

 make the following recommendation: 



1. T<) oiKxmra}^' and facilitate rcportiiifj of violations by 

 tht' ^•neral public. tlK- ()bst'r>e. Record and Re|X)rt 

 f*n>j;raiii sIhmiUI be cxpiuidcii witli appropriate pub- 

 licit), tt) sc\eu days a week, ei^ht a.nu to midnight 

 daily. 



With a 24-hour radio service in place to support the 

 fishery entbrcement officers (recommended below) there 

 should be no need for specialized telephone operators to 

 take these calls, and the program could be expanded to 

 24 hours a day. Radio operators could take them, or at 

 least those during the afternoon and graveyard shifts. 



Bounties Under a long-standing federal regulation, 

 when information from a nongovernmental informant 

 leads to successful prosecution and conviction under the 

 Fisheries Act or regulations, the informant is entitled to 

 half of the proceeds from any penalty or forfeiture aris- 

 ing.^ The Department has not publicized this regulation 

 widely, perhaps because they fear that publicity would 

 encourage over-zealous citizens to abuse the legislation; 

 but since a bounty is paid only upon a conviction, fears 

 of this nature are unfounded. This is a useful tool, and 

 therefore should be retained. 



2. Bounties for fisheries prosecutions should be retained 

 and the public should be encouraged to report viola- 

 tions. 



Voluntary Compliance 



Under current policy, the Department of Fisheries and 

 Oceans relies heavily on what it calls "credible voluntary 

 deterrence" as a vehicle for enforcement: 



The p)olicy of the Department is to effectively 

 protect fisheries resources in line with 

 national and regional conservation require- 

 ments. Present policy calls for the controlling 

 features of the management plan to be devel- 

 oped in cooperation with the fisherman/user 

 . . . whenever practical. In this way a set of 

 credible voluntary deterrences will be the first 

 line of control. When ignored or when these 

 deterrences fail to produce the desired results, 

 the plan will of necessity fall back on statu- 

 tory controls. The application of these con- 

 trols becomes the responsibility of the depart- 

 ment through its enforcement stafT.'' 



The Department's reliance on this vehicle to fulfill its 

 enforcement mandate is misplaced, overly optimistic and 



pienialuic It will woik only among individuals who are 

 prci.lis[i*>scd to obey the law, whether through fear of 

 punishment, social pressure, or moral obligation. At this 

 time, none of these conditions prevail. The enforcement 

 efl'ort mounted by the IX-partment is InsufTicient to pro- 

 duce any signilicant fear of punishment. And many 

 fishermen do not consider illegal fishing activity to be 

 wrong, partly because they believe fish are cheap and 

 plentiful. So they feel no moral obligation to obey the law 

 nor are they responsive to public pressure. Accordingly, I 

 have concluded that heavy reliance on voluntary compli- 

 ance is misplaced. 



3. The Department should abandon its vague and inap- 

 propriate credible voluntary deterrence policy as its 

 primary aim in enforcement and replacx" it with a vig- 

 orous and well-organized enforcement capability in 

 line with the recommendatioas made below. 



Enforcement Personnel and Organization 



One hundred and twenty-five fishery officers, posted 

 throughout British Columbia and Yukon, are responsible 

 for the day-to-day enforcement activities in their areas. 

 Since 1977, many of these officials have received one 

 month of special enforcement training at the R.C.M.P. 

 Training Academy in Regina. In addition, 19 inspection 

 field officers are concerned with enforcing fish processing 

 standards as described in Chapter 13. Up to 50 patrol- 

 men and fish guardians are hired each season, and 150 

 ship's oflficers and crew are employed as support staff for 

 enforcement at sea and in rivers and estuaries near the 

 coast. 



Fishery officers are accountable to their respective dis- 

 trict supervisors, and each of the 10 supervisors is in turn 

 accountable to one of the 3 area managers. These area 

 managers report to the Director of the Field Services 

 Branch in Vancouver headquarters. 



Enforcement personnel at Vancouver headquarters 

 provide support services to fishery officers and others 

 who are concerned with enforcement activities, but they 

 have no direct responsibility for, or control over, enforce- 

 ment in the field. They include a chief of field services 

 systems, a staff officer in fisheries regulations, a chief 

 enforcement officer, an intelligence officer and a court 

 liaison officer. A ticketing offences coordinating officer 

 may join them in the near future. This unit is responsible 

 to the Chief of the Management Services Division, who 

 in turn reports to the Director of the Field Services 

 Branch. Thus, the director provides the formal organiza- 

 tional link between headquarters enforcement personnel 

 and field staff. 



In Ottawa, a National Director of Enforcement was 

 appointed in 1979, whose main role is to assess regional 

 enforcement activities with a view to developing national 



