How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?
Evidence of meeting #18 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was licences.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was licences.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
President and Managing Director, Area 23 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association
Is Mr. Gardner suggesting the creation of 350 licences for the quota shareholders in our area? Again, it boils down to capacity. There are issues about sustainability, and they are well-recognized issues.
On the transferability of quota among participants, even today you cannot temporarily transfer a quota from a traditional licence to an aboriginal licence, from an aboriginal licence to a corporate licence, or vice versa. You can make permanent transfers, so you can buy quota and own it and make that type of transfer. But you are not able to, on an interim basis, temporarily transfer a quota among any one of the three different fleets. There are three different distinct fleets within DFO right now in the quota transfer area.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Commercial Fisheries Liaison Coordinator, Unama'ki Institute of Natural Resources
On what Fred was saying about the cycle of the crab, from all the science meetings we attended, the science suggests we're at that peak right now and we're heading toward a decline.
11:25 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Crane Cove Seafoods, Eskasoni First Nation
When these allocations are listed for sale, they're not listed as licences for sale; they're listed as allocations. So they can form a licence, but then they can be sold off individually. And there have been a lot for sale recently.
As far as quota going up and down, when it goes back down we are going to make the sacrifices again. We're going to cooperate with science. First nations—and I'm sure everybody else feels this way—want it to last forever, so we're going to manage it that way. We're not going to manage it five years at a time. When it goes back down we'll adjust accordingly.
We'll always support the viability of the industry. That's our way, and we'll continue to do that. We've seen so many shutdowns of industries because nobody thought that way. Everybody thought about how far they could see the dollar bill, and not about years and years down the road. So when it goes back down we'll definitely support it and adjust.
11:30 a.m.
Consultant, Area 23 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association
At all of these annual DFO science meetings we have a series of things to talk about, like the biomass. But they also talk about the temperature of the water, the trends of the tides, and things of that nature. There are a few exhibits that we've been shown over the years from the Bedford Institute of Oceanology that a lot of the crab that ends up in this neck of the woods--notwithstanding the fact that we generate a lot out of their own home base--comes down from the gulf. Now we're seeing the gulf at a 63% cut and going lower. So if some of that tends to come to us from the gulf in the tides, then we have some sad years ahead of us.
In making decisions today, or in 2005, we have to look forward. I'm not asking for a rebuttal, but if the panel had withheld when we were at drop-dead bottom and the price was $1.35, would the decision have been the same? In that decision it's not possible that we could have been viable as a remaining fleet.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans I want to take this opportunity to thank you all for coming today, meeting with the committee, and taking the time to make presentations and answer questions from the committee members. We really do appreciate your time.
Mr. Nicholas, do you have a question?
11:30 a.m.
Commercial Fisheries Liaison Coordinator, Unama'ki Institute of Natural Resources
It was mentioned earlier that Tim Martin represents the first nations. I just want to clarify that he does not represent any first nation community.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you.
Once again, thank you on behalf of the committee.
We look forward to our next guest. We'll take a brief break while we set up for the next guest.
Thank you.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
We're ready to resume our meeting.
I would like to thank Mr. Roach for joining us this morning.
Mr. Roach, I believe you have some opening comments you'd like to make. I'll ask you to proceed. We have some time constraints we work within, and I'm sure you're well aware of them.
May 27th, 2010 / 11:50 a.m.
Greg Roach Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Nova Scotia
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing the opportunity to present today.
I'd like to bring greetings from Minister Belliveau. He's at cabinet today, but he would like to be here with me as we speak about the snow crab industry in Nova Scotia. Unfortunately, I have to fly solo today.
As you know, we have fisheries all around our coast, so I'd like to speak a little more generically. I realize you're here in the Maritimes region focusing a bit more on area 23 and 24. However, I'm going to speak to the gulf areas as well. I understand you're going to be in Moncton tomorrow, so some of the items I'm going to cover would be the types of issues you'll be dealing with tomorrow.
I'm going to speak on a number of points. First, I want to talk a bit about crab conservation. I'll talk about crab management.
I handed around some graphs and maps. I wish I had been able to get this material to you earlier. I apologize for that. It was just completed yesterday, and we couldn't get it forwarded to translation in time.
You see around Nova Scotia we have the gulf activity in areas 12, 12F, 19, and former area 18, which is now included in area 12. In the Maritimes region, we have in Sydney Bight 20 to 22, and then along the outer coast areas 23 and 24, and in the southern Nova Scotia area, 4X. I'm going to talk about the management approaches and some of the issues in each of those areas. Of course I'm going to talk about the economic importance to the province.
Snow crab has been, in roughly the last ten years, in the top three and sometimes four fisheries in Nova Scotia. It's been as high as two. Our biggest fishery, of course, is lobster. It's usually valued anywhere from $300 million to $500 million, but in the last few years snow crab is anywhere from second, third, or fourth most important fishery for the province.
I did hand around a graphic as well to give a little information on the value and the landings. You can see that the landings would range anywhere from about 12,000 tonnes provincially up to roughly 20,000 tonnes provincially. The value is where you'll find the real extremes, and you'll see anywhere from about $34 million to in the order of $122 million. I know you're going to be talking a lot about the resource during your hearings, but in Nova Scotia the impact on the price has been far more extreme on the impact on our communities, and even on the resource. The snow crab resource goes up and down, but the dramatic change in the price, largely because of exchange rates and our reliance on the U.S., has had a huge impact on our coastal community and our fishermen.
A little bit about conservation.... You probably touched on this a bit this morning. I'd like to stress that we are very fortunate in dealing with snow crab that they have a number of built-in conservation measures. First, and most importantly, the reproduction is largely protected in snow crab. We don't direct or land female crabs. The size limit and their distribution will largely protect them from the fishery. Males will not be harvested or targeted before they mature and reach terminal molt. Therefore, the males get a chance to reproduce at least once, and depending on how many are left behind after each harvest year, they'll have multiple reproductions. There's a group of crabs that mature but never reach legal size. They're known as pygmies in the industry. They are always going to be there to reproduce. So we have a situation we're very fortunate with. Fish population can have reproductive potential of a virgin biomass. The females are there, they're reproducing, and they're able to contribute to future stocks.
Now there are some concerns in the scientific community that maybe just removing males could have an impact on reproductive potential. That's a could; that's a possibility. I think it deserves some research, but by and large we would wish to have such a scenario in lobster, in groundfish, and some of the other fisheries, and be able to say we don't target any females, that all males finish their growth and are able to reproduce. So it is a very good situation for stock reproduction.
Also from a conservation perspective, I talked about the terminal-moult males. They finish their growth before they enter the fishery. They reach a terminal moult. Initially they're soft-shell crab, then in about a year they recover to be a good hard-shell crab. They're good quality for one or two years, and then their quality deteriorates and they're going to die. You have two to four years to be able to harvest these crabs—after that they're gone. So the idea of leaving large numbers there for long-term harvest is untenable. We don't have that luxury in snow crab. From a biological perspective, it's a good stock to be able to fish.
There are a couple of key areas. The protection of white crab, the moulted crab, is key, particularly those that moult to the size that are terminal and can be caught. It's imperative that we allow those to be left on the bottom without damage until they recover and they're able to serve the fishery. Those are your valuable crabs for the following year. Most fisheries have protocols that protect white crab.
Good science is also key. The trawl survey has been applied successfully in the snow crab fishery. We're fortunate. It's probably some of the best fishery science we have for stock assessment. However, let's not be overconfident. It is a tool. It's not 100% accurate. There are ranges in the estimations. The number we always talk about is the one that's in the middle, but depending on how many samples are done there's quite a range. Still, we are fortunate to have this trawl survey data for managing this fishery.
Enforcement is a priority, particularly for conservation, when we deal with going over lines. It's probably more of an issue in the gulf, where there are so many different fishing areas. In Scotia-Fundy the landing of the quota is an issue. There's a concern with overharvesting. They have to make sure that the landings are monitored properly to ensure that the quotas are actually followed and not abused. These are key points for our conservation.
I want to talk a little about management. I think there should be some flexibility in management, particularly on things like exploitation rights. I know that you're going to hear tomorrow about the precautionary approach. You're going to hear about the overharvest in area 12 and the need for a dramatic reduction this year. That's a legitimate perception. At the same time, it's a bit like motherhood. People talk about how a stock is going down fast, so we have to take drastic measures. It's hard to argue against that.
However, we have to keep in mind that we're talking about exploitation rights on a small percentage of the population out there. We don't fish any females. We don't fish any juvenile males. We only fish the terminal-moult male crabs, the large males. When you talk about an exploitation rate of 50%, people think it's very aggressive. But you have to realize that probably 75% of the population is not even in the mix to be harvested. It's 50% of the available biomass, or 20% of the available biomass—males that have finished their growth and are now terminal. That's a message I'd like you to take from me today. When people are talking about exploitation, they're not talking about the whole population. It's just a small fraction that you fish.
I believe that, within limits, the industry should be given some flexibility in choosing their exploitation rights. There should be a range that's considered reasonable. The long and short of it is that if you take them this year, they're not going to be there next year. But a number of those are going to die through natural mortality. You can't leave them there for long periods of time, so you want to find the balance of some stability and responsible management with utilizing the terminal molts that are available as the pulses come through the fishery, because it is a pulse resource. I've seen them cycle in the gulf. That fishery is a mature fishery, has been there since the early seventies. They've cycled up and down. It's a relatively newer fishery in the outer coast of Nova Scotia, but the same cycles are there.
I also want to mention the precautionary approach in management. I'm all for precautionary measurements and being responsible resource managers in our fishery. We have to manage for sustainability, but if we get to the point where we're doing it on principle rather than really good scientific reasons, then I have some concerns. I fear that's sometimes the case with snow crab, that people just give the motherhood notion out there that stocks are way down so we have to cut back on our harvest. It could be a very natural cycle. There's nothing we're going to do. So if we have a very small biomass, we can do our best to work through it from the fishery, or stand back, maybe be very conservative on the harvest approach, and watch as they are going to die within one or two years anyway through natural causes.
So again, it's almost sacrilegious to talk like this, but I'm putting it on the table, just for your consideration.
Quickly, I'll go through the areas. Area 12, 18, and 12F has been the most productive crab zone in the Maritimes. It has the longest commercial history. It was explored—Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick—in the mid-sixties. It was established as a commercial fishery in the late sixties or early seventies in New Brunswick and Quebec, and in the early seventies in Cape Breton, and later in Prince Edward Island. It has followed very cyclical landings. I recall, I believe it was in the late eighties, when the TAC was 7,000 tonnes. So that was quite a shocker at the time. I remember in the mid-eighties, the landings, before TAC management, were in the order of 32,000 tonnes. So the stock has cycled up and down, and since science has done the trawl survey, it has been very apparent. You can see the waves of year classes moving through that fishery. So it has gone up and down.
On old area 18, you're going to hear a number of different perspectives tomorrow. One is the mismanagement from an allocation perspective. You will hear from traditional area 12 folks. Part of that concern was the movement of the P.E.I. areas into the full area 12 fishery, and of area 18. Area 18 is a Nova Scotia area, and that is of significant interest to us. That area is a very productive area as well and has had a long history of white crab. So basically there was a lot of recruitment and growth in the area, and the crab would move out into the larger gulf area, so to speak. So the decision was made for area 18 to combine, to take their crab that is traditionally produced in area 18 and put it in the bigger pot and join with area 12. That enabled the area 18 fishery to stabilize on the white crab problems. It was a very good deal for the resource, and it was a good management decision for the area 18 fishermen.
It's the same situation for the area 25 and 26 fishermen in Prince Edward Island. So some will argue that it was part of the problem in area 12. Well, as I mentioned, the area 18 merger came with the resource that they brought into the bigger pool. So it really had no impact on the other fishermen but was able to stabilize the fishery in area 18. So it was a good thing.
Area 12F is a fringe area up in northern Cape Breton, a very small fishery, with localized crab that would have died there had they not been harvested in the area. So it's not very big but it's very important for the few fishermen who are in that area, and as in all other areas, the big issue for the economy up there is the prices.
Area 19 has been fished since the sixties. It's a highly productive area. If you look on your charts, that's the area off Cheticamp and there have been cyclical fisheries through that time. That fishery expanded from six inshore licences to 180 inshore licences, and contrary to many other areas, this was largely industry-led. They put forward various plans to include multi-species fishermen, largely the lobster fishermen.
Each of the 180 fishermen can have anywhere from three traps to 26 traps. So there are quotas associated with traps. They have an industry-designed management plan that is quite unique, which shares the resources but allows transferability as well. It's a summer fishery, so they do multiple fisheries. The do lobster and then snow crab, and they have a white crab protocol to protect their resource.
Area 19 is relatively small compared to area 12. It's a very dynamic area as far as movement of snow crab goes. So there are crabs coming in and going out. The fall survey in a small area such as area 19 is not very good for predicting what you're going to have in a fishery the following summer. That's the biggest issue in area 19, and I hope you hear about that tomorrow.
The way the industry has gotten around that in the last few years is to have a spring survey. Basically, when the crabs are harvested out in summer, then there's mobility of crabs--they mix around. In a small area such as area 19, a little bit of movement can make a dramatic impact on the biomass that's available for the fishery, and that movement can take place largely after the trawl survey. So the spring survey, which takes place just before the fishery, gives an accurate scientific assessment of what's available in area 19.
There's some talk that the 2010 fishery will not have a spring survey in area 19. There's a connection with area 12. The area 12 industry is asking why there are special deals for 19. Area 19 is unique. It has a unique set of circumstances, so that spring survey is essential. They also have a long-term co-management plan. They've been probably the most cooperative group of fishermen, for any species, I've observed as far as working with DFO to come together with a collective fishing plan over multiple years goes. They've been doing this for over a decade in area 19. That plan has a range for exploitation rates. It has a season range, and it spells out how they're going to manage that fishery.
The other message that “we just did something to area 12, so now we're going to do it to you in area 19 as well” causes concern. You have an industry group that has cooperated fully with DFO and will potentially be punished because of issues in another area. So it is essential to have the spring survey to set an accurate biomass level for the 2010 fishery and to maintain that long-standing co-management plan that has been agreed to between DFO and the industry. Time is running out, so I'm hopeful that you folks in the committee may be able to influence that survey that's needed within the next several weeks and will be able to maintain the good relationship and the positive fishery that we have in area 19.
Just turning briefly to the outer coast of Nova Scotia, in areas 20 to 22 there is relatively low productivity. It's important for the number of multi-species fishermen who are there, but it's been a challenge, particularly with low prices.
You've heard a lot about areas 23 and 24 today. Those opened up in the mid-1970s. There's been a huge expansion in the last ten years. These are very large areas, so there's a concern that the province is on some of the sub-areas. Initially, when the areas opened up, there were areas 23A, 23B, 23C, and 23D, and a slope area--you probably heard about that--and the same was true in area 24. When the fishery was changed about five years back, the sub-areas were removed. Back at the time when we made our presentation, we said we would like to see the sub-areas maintained at least until there was another tool to ensure distribution of fishing effort throughout the area.
Regarding the crab population, as I mentioned, you can harvest the terminal-molt crab only in a certain window. If they reach terminal molt and people are not fishing them, then there's lost opportunity, and fishermen will crowd in on areas that are easiest to get to. That becomes a real problem with low prices. You're going to try to spend as little money as you can to harvest your resource, so there's concern about lost opportunity in areas 23 and 24 for crab that may not be harvested because of these distant areas.
Also, there is a concern that as crabs age from a terminal molt they grow barnacles on their shells. So an issue we need to address in areas 23 and 24 is some kind of a protocol that will accommodate for this. If fishermen are bringing in crab that are lower quality, the price will be lower. And if the processors are saying that on that crab they're going to lose 10% because they have to scrape the barnacles off and they will lose the quality, that becomes an issue. So the way around that is to have a protocol that will allow some adjustment for barnacled crab. It's done in Newfoundland, so it would be the same thing in this region, to have an adjustment for the weight if it's barnacled crab.
The alternative will be high-grading so people will take only the best-quality crab. Then, of course, the older crab is discarded. It is going to be an economic opportunity lost to the fishery.
You've heard about the access issues. I'm sure that's one of the main reasons you're here. Minister Belliveau has heard both sides, and both sides are passionate about their position. In this fishery and in several others he has put forward the concept of a tribunal to be an independent arbitrator of these sorts of disputes. If you recall the Fisheries Act--the last two attempts at that--that concept was in there and it probably will be there again when the Fisheries Act is reintroduced. We've had a few goes at this, and we still haven't got a new Fisheries Act. So what the minister would like to see is a tribunal mechanism set up to deal with disputes such as access in crab fisheries and in others to hear both perspectives and then put forward a balanced and objective position.
Those perspectives may change from year to year, as you've heard around here. What may have happened in some areas in 1990 or in 2005 in the case of snow crab may be different in 2010. We usually always talk about resource. As I mentioned, the price factor is critical.
Finally, the processing is an extremely important industry in eastern Nova Scotia--crab processing. What's really hurting us are the exchange rates in the U.S. and the economic downturn in the U.S. In Canada, particularly in the fish industry, we can't dictate exchange rates, but what we can do is try to expand our market so we don't have all our eggs in one basket. They're having trouble in Europe. In Asia, we're into Japan with snow crab, and there are great opportunities in China, so we have to explore that.
In Europe, Marine Stewardship Council certification is key in some areas. There is an interest that's developing here in eastern Nova Scotia for snow crab. The province has basically financed a number of MSC activities in other fisheries, and we're prepared to help in the snow crab fishery as well. We think that is critical to get into new markets in Europe. So if the industry is prepared to move in that direction, we are prepared to work with them.
Landing gluts are a problem for the processing sector, as well as quality. So that's either white crab, which is largely managed by the industry, or barnacles, which need to be addressed, as I mentioned.
Unfortunately, we still have the processor-harvester disputes on pricing, and there is a lot of distrust. We see these two sectors as industry partners out in the much larger global marketplace, and again, we would like to encourage or assist in any way we can to improve those trust levels and have the two sectors work as partners.
So those are my not so brief remarks. I thank you for giving an opportunity to put our perspective on the table.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Roach, for appearing.
I have four questions. My first question leads off where you finished, on price setting. We heard a lot of it in Newfoundland yesterday. What role does your government play in price setting, in where we're to with the price in Nova Scotia? Just give a little bit more detail around that.
The second question is on the processing side. Are you comfortable with the number of processing facilities that are in the province right now? Is there a need to reduce the number of processing facilities?
Third question: do you believe that the number of harvesters needs to be reduced and taken out of the industry?
My fourth question is on interprovincial competition for a product. Is that an issue? Is that something that would benefit or not benefit your province?
12:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Nova Scotia
Starting with price setting, Nova Scotia does not have a price-setting mechanism. This is a total harvester-buyer arrangement. We do not intervene in any way with any legislative price mechanism or system to negotiate prices.
Historically, we have had serious issues on price setting and our pricing of crab. We've actually had a task group with industry, and both the processors and the harvesters sat down and worked on trying to resolve some of these issues. We resolved the immediate ones, not the long-term ones. There will always be questions about whether the prices are fair. We will have the harvesters' concern that they're too low, the processors' concern that they simply can't make any money at some of the prices. But by and large, it's a free enterprise system on pricing in Nova Scotia.
On the processing facilities, there are probably in the order of a dozen plants that are geared up to process snow crab in Nova Scotia. I'd have to count around the province, but there are probably seven or eight of them that are active now.
Again, as a province we don't dictate where and how crab processing should be established. We don't give government money to establish a crab plant, for example. If someone came in and said this community has landed all kinds of crab, and we want to build a crab plant here, so give us so much money.... We do license the crab plants, but we don't actively go out there and try to build plants. We don't actively go and try to remove them. I guess some of the business forces have made that happen.
We only had a couple of crab plants in Nova Scotia. Then particularly with the huge expansion in area 23 and 24, a lot of people saw opportunities and built plants. Some of them have come and gone, and others are surviving and providing very important employment in the community.
On the number of harvesters, the example of probably the extreme is when I spoke about area 19. There are 180 fishermen there. If it was crab alone, there's no way this area would support those. But if the approach is a multi-species-type fishery with supplement lobster and what little groundfish is left--not much any more--maybe some herring and some other fisheries.... There is some transferability within that fishery where you could buy more traps, but not more than.... You can't eliminate a three-trapper, basically. That three-trapper has to be transferred to a new fisherman. So the fishermen themselves set up a system where there's still an opportunity for a young fisherman to get in at a low price and a low trap number and in time work his way up.
It has worked fairly well. The question is if it can survive the low prices that we've experienced in the last couple of years. That's a real concern. I'm sure industry, when they're faced with that, will have to deal with that in area 19.
In the other areas, the outer coast, 20 to 22, it's tough going, because landings are very low, but it's a multi-species fishery set-up there, so crab is a contribution.
The set-up in area 23 and 24, all the new players came in groups, as you've heard, rather than as individuals. So that dramatically reduced the number of fishing enterprises that could be out there, which kept the capacity down. There is some transferability there as well.
With interprovincial competition, we have open borders and movement of crab in the Maritimes. We have a problem with Newfoundland. We have a situation where there is a restriction of movement of crab, unprocessed crab, from Newfoundland to anywhere else. We asked the Newfoundland government multiple times to remove that to have unrestricted movement of crab and other fish products. But it's a priority policy area for Newfoundland, so we haven't been successful there.
So we have one restriction when it comes to movement of fish, and that's on crab in Newfoundland and Quebec. It is basically a countermeasure, because our industry was being hurt so badly by one-way movement of crab. We used the interprovincial trade agreement, the clause that states that if one jurisdiction has a barrier, another jurisdiction can use the same one if your industry is being hurt. These are the only restrictions we have. Other than that, we have interprovincial trade in all fish, and in the Maritimes for snow crab.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Mr. Chair, I have one more question.
You talked about new fishers and young people getting into the industry. Do you see a lot of that happening? Are there any barriers, and has your government put in place any incentives to help young fishers get into the industry? It is quite costly.
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Nova Scotia
Yes. The largest barrier is access to capital. In Nova Scotia, the traditional way to get in has been through private financing from another processor, another fisherman, and they're commonly known as trust agreements. Trust agreements, in their own right.... If it's just a money arrangement, it's not that big a deal. But the problem for many who were very strong supporters of owner-operator were the controlling trust agreements, where you were really an employee rather than an independent fisherman. Those are gone now, but still, access to capital is the big problem.
In Nova Scotia, our Fisheriesand Aquaculture Loan Board started a program last June. We have independent capital that we lend to fishermen on a kind of mortgage time period of up to 20 years and we take the licence as collateral. We lend directly to new entrants and for new species. If a first-time fisherman wants to buy a licence, he could get access to that loan board capital. Or if a fisherman who bought a lobster licence, or has a lobster licence, wants to buy a crab licence--he never had one before and is a first-time entrant to a crab fishery--he could get that loan to expand his enterprise to be viable.
There's no free money. But our loan board is providing fair, independent capital, with terms that allow fishermen to survive over longer periods of time, and not pay back within seven years or whatever.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
On the issue of science, I take what you're saying. Science for shellfish, for crab in particular, where you directly target or harvest males, is a special circumstance that is not well understood by the general public. It's hard to communicate contrary opinions about the actual status of the stock, because we do live in a world where science is somewhat sacrosanct, we'll say.
With that being said, do you agree with the science that led to the 63% cut in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence?
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Nova Scotia
That's a tough one. I'll tell you, I've worked with scientists for many years. I participated in CAFSAC. I participated in the RAP sessions for decades. If I had been at those meetings this year, I would have been fairly aggressively arguing, why do we have these precautionary concepts? What are we really trying to do here?
If you were to introduce conservative measures at the start of a pulse and ask if we could spread this over four years, and then you were to slack back on the conservation, I would be a little more supportive of that approach. To be on the tail end of it.... I would have liked to see the numbers--what are we going to get from our productivity for the fishery out of this?
Some will say you have to keep these terminal-molt males around a long time for reproductive purposes. I mentioned earlier the reproductive strategies the stock has. Females can even have multiple clutches from one reproductive activity. The numbers in invertebrates, the number of larvae produced for.... The strategy is to make billions of them, with the idea that a small fraction will survive into the future.
In terms of this idea that we have to have every male hanging around for a long time to do the deed, I would love to have some good science that says yes, that's what we need. I was told of people who have seen videos of reproductive activity where multiple males competing can do quite a bit of damage trying to pull females from other males. These are real observations, versus this concept that maybe we need all the males.
The way it was, you'd make those points within the scientific RAP sessions. I wasn't there, so I really can't say whether or not I agree with them. But I would have argued those other points I made here.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative