'Conservation must be shared by air
• These are edited excerpts from questions on fisheries administration put to Pacific regional fisheries director Rod Hourston by delegates to the UFAWU convention after he had given his annual review to them on January 28. Space limitations preclude publication of the full text of the two-hour exchange.
Bill Procopation (UFAWU Fraser Valley organizer): My question, asked on behalf of the Fraser River District Council and the Fraser River locals, is this: why do the regulations always seem to be aimed at starving out the Fraser River fishermen — people who have traditionally fished the river most of their lives, who in the past have fished five days, four days, three days, two days, one day a week, and now occasionally get a chance to fish 12 hours in a week, if at all?
Last year, for example, a new regulation gave no fishing time for springs. The reason, they were needed for conservation.
Hardly any fishing time for sockeye in the river, needed for conservation! Practically no fishing time for coho, needed for conservation! No fishing time for late fall chums, needed-for conservation!
Now proposed new regulations for spring salmon allow two days' fishing in one week and then completely closure the next.
Why is the Fraser fisherman carrying the major part if not the whole brunt of conservation on all species of fish returning to the river?
Hourston — That question covers a lot of fishing ground. There were some special restrictions put on chinooks last year, the same restrictions we have had to put on chinooks in the northern areas of the Skeena.
The reason is that our Chinook salmon are just not getting back to the spawning ground.
One answer, of course, is that they are being exploited in other areas. I think the troll fishery is one such area. But you must remember that the salmon are intercepted in Johnstone Strait and in Juan de Fuca.
Looking at the question of net fishing between the Fraser River and Johnstone Strait and Area 20, we always have problems and we can never win in deciding how much fishing time the fleet should have in Juan de Fuca, for example, and how much time in the Fraser.
I often wonder whether you can really make it alone on the Fraser River. I know the high line fishermen I come across are prepared to travel to other areas to fish where the runs are big.
There are others, of course, who can't do that and they fish the Fraser I think if you are realistic in viewing this increase of exploitation in other areas, you will recognize this problem on the Fraser.
The other problem is the gillnetter who can fish both areas . . . who can fish the Fraser, who can fish Area 21 if it's open, who can fish Johnstone Strait. I know in looking at our regulations, we try our damndest to make sure we don't allow this to happen, that a gillnetter can fish Area 21 and nip in to the Fraser, but sometimes we can't avoid it.
I think the Fraser in recent years has been pretty good to us in sockeye but it hasn't been very good to us in the last number of pink salmon cycles. This is one of the problems, to get the Fraser producing pink salmon.
As I mentioned in my talk, 300
6/ THE FISHERMAN — F
million fry went out last spring which is the highest ever recorded, I think. Yet the commission is predicting a return of only five or six million.
When I look at the old records of what the Fraser River produced, 20 million pink salmon, I don't understand why it isn't producing now, unless it's the damage to the estuary and that sort of thing. I think if we can get back into higher pink production on the Fraser, the gillnetters who live there should do better.
Procopation — The only thing we are concerned with is that if there is to be conservation, it must be shared by all, not put on the backs of the Fraser River fishermen.
Edgar Birch (Ladner): Since we now have a lot of brine tankers, they have been able to go to Bristol Bay to bring back fish in fairly good condition to B.C. Packers in Steveston. But we haven't heard a boo about any possible fisheries on the Stikine or the Taku which could also bring back these fish to Steveston in just as good a shape.
How is it that we haven't heard a boo out of your department on two Canadian rivers which haven't been touched by Canadian fishermen?
Are you anticipating a fishery on either one of these rivers in the next year or two?
Hourston: In reference to your remark about Bristol Bay, actually those sockeye were not in good condition by the time we got them down, and there were problems in bringing them down. As for the Taku and Stikine, the Stikine did have an experimental fishery a few years ago, but one of the biggest problems was the cost of transportation, which was done by air.
However, there is road to the Stikine. You can go down through Terrace on the road and we actually have had an inquiry from the Telegraph Creek people as to whether we would consider a small salmon fishery on the Stikine.
We are quite in favor of fishing the Stikine if it can be done
economically and, of course, from the position of requesting the Americans to cut back on their fishery and recognize our spawning requirements.
We are looking favorably at the request, although there are some aspects we want to explore further, whether it should be only an Indian fishery and that sort of thing. But we have nothing against fishing on the Canadian side of the Stikine. On the Taku, we have no plans.
Birch — My second question has to do with the pink fry and why they haven't returned in the past six years we have had the Roberts Bank causeway in operation.
The pinks seem to return to Mission Bridge in fair numbers but from there on the poor survival rate has always been given as an excuse. Is there a possibility that the river is too polluted from there on and is there a possibility that the Roberts Bank causeway has had something to do with survival in the estuary?
Why hasn't the fisheries department opened up the Roberts Bank causeway with a series of bridges or done anything about the dead water area lost to the estuary in between the Roberts Bank causeway and the Tsawwassen causeway?
Hourston: Surprisingly enough, the reports I have had indicate that the area in between the two causeways is fairly productive. These reports arise out of the study on the Vancouver Airport and the Roberts Bank superport I spoke about earlier. I agree that the lack of some really good pink salmon returns is disturbing.
The other thing the boys have found out in studying the Fraser estuary is the extent of the recovery of land over the years. The figure I heard was that about 70 percent of the wet lands of the Fraser estuary are now behind dikes. Maybe this is the reason. I don't know.
I think we are satisfied that 300 million pink fry went out last year, so the problem seems to be either in that estuary or somewhere in the Gulf of Georgia, but I must confess we don't yet understand it.
Birch: Still on the question of the Roberts Bank causeway, six years ago, under the conservation provisions of the fisheries department, a claim was put in for $150,000 to compensate the crab fishermen for the loss of the crab fishing in the Roberts Bank area. At that time you said you weren't sure whether there would be a loss due to the Roberts Bank causeway.
Since the Roberts Bank causeway has been in place for five or six years and we fish five or six-year-old crabs, and since
the crab catch in that area has been steadily decreasing for the past two years, is it possible to reopen that claim?
Houston: I remember we talked about that claim, but I don't know what happened to it.
I suppose the building of the causeway was the start of our concern for the estuaries. Now, when we look at the question, it is obvious that if you dredge and fill, as was the case with the causeway and will be the case with the superports, there is a direct loss of productive grounds — and the loss adds up. That first problem of the causeway and the superport initiated the studies of estuaries, from Squamish where they wanted to pave over the estuary for a bulk shipment terminal for the B.C. Railway, to the Nanaimo estuary, to the Cowichan estuary.
As a result of these first studies we have been able to appreciate how important they are and, up to the moment, to prevent any further losses. But we still have facing us the international airport, plans for expansion of the superport and the proposal to build a ferry terminal for the B.C. Ferries system on the north arm.
I think any of us involved in estuarial problems now are convinced that any encroachment means a direct loss of production.
Jack Higgin (Deep Bay): Edgar Birch has dealt to some extent with the question I had in mind, but it certainly would appear that the department's biologists are starting to grapple with the question of the estuaries.
One report which appeared about six weeks ago seemed to me to be fairly alarming. The report was to the effect that at the present time there are some eight rivers on the coast which are endangered to the point that the fish in them could be lost if corrective action is not taken.
The Courtenay River was one of those named and certainly when you look at what is happening to that river, there's little wonder that it is being put on the endangered list.
Have you considered establishment of an estuary commission or a body such as they have in some of the U.S. states which could survey rivers and determine which of them, regardless of what proposals for development are made, must be maintained free of pollution?
Are there rivers on which your department is taking the stand there must be no more industry, no more pollution, that these rivers must be saved? And are you really concerned with cleaning up some of those rivers which conceivably could be saved for fish?
I think you realize the importance of this problem, but what
Richard Morgan photo
• UFAWU small boat vice-president Edgar Birch (left) continues his discussion of Fraser River estuarial problems with Pacific regional fisheries director Rod Hourston during a coffee break.
EBRUARY 7, 1975
concretely are you doing to deal with it?
Hourston: We know the 10 most important estuaries in B.C. and we are in the process of publishing the data on everything we have learned about them. As far as I am concerned, enough is known about these estuaries right now to establish that if we lose them, we lose our salmon — not all species, but two of the species.
No authority has been set up to look at these estuaries. I am a little nervous about authorities in some ways, because when you set up an authority you usually include someone from fisheries, someone from industry and someone from the municipality, so you usually get a mixed view and you have to give up.
You have got the Fishery Act, you have got the fish; that's the weapon we need, as far as we're concerned. Jack Davis saved the Squamish estuary when it was going to the B.C. Railway, and I think we know enough now to understand we can't give up any more estuaries without losing out.
Ed Regnery (Skidegate): I would like to know if the fisheries department has taken over the floats administration, and how it is that the transport department is charging for wharfage?
Hourston: Under the small craft harbors which we took over, government wharves were divided into those administered by MOT and those to be administered by Fisheries.
The basis of the division is whether they are used solely for commercial and recreational boats or whether they are a mix. If they are a mix or if they are purely commercial boats, then the MOT administers them. We haven't finished dividing up the wharves yet and I can't tell you offhand the number in B.C. for which Fisheries is responsible.
Regnery: We would like to know whether the Queen Charlotte wharves have been taken over by Fisheries because the fishermen are being billed two cents a foot per day for tying up at the floats. So far only the commercial fishermen are being billed. Some of them haven't even got their boats tied up, but they are still being billed.
Hourston: I don't know. I will have to find out.
John Daly (Pender Harbor): Last spring you told us about this dual licence system and I think we sent back some constructive reasons for opposing it and yet without the usual consultation, we hear you attempted to push this through again by order in council recently.
Jack Davis has departed from the scene now and I can't say we lament his departure, but we are still limited by his licence plan — the tonnage apparently is growing, although the numbers theoretically are limited.
At the same time, there are over 300,000 sport fishermen who are unlimited and unlicensed and they are becoming more mobile all the time.
Something like 40 VHF phones and 40 even white line sounders were sold in Pender Harbor this summer to so-called sport fishermen. Their boats are getting bigger — every shipyard is full of boats being built for them — and their speeds range from 15 to 35 knots.
We who are paying the licences and taking the closures feel that this is an extremely discriminatory attempt to limit our efforts to fish in the gulf and in the northern area when there is no limitation on this growing sport fleet.
I would also like you to tell us where you think the line ends between the so-called sport fishermen vying for $25,000 fishing derby prizes and commercial fishermen paying licences to earn a living.
Hourston: We know that commercial fishermen and especially the union people are going to object as a matter of principle to any regulation that will in any way reduce their opportunity to fish salmon. I understand that and understand why you feel that way.
Of course we discussed the proposal of the two-licence system in the gulf — we followed
Concluded on page 7