Thank you very much.
My name is Dr. Darryl Smith. On behalf of the Alberta Fish and Game Association, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans regarding recreational fishing in Canada.
My background is as a long-time angler, volunteer, and advocate for responsible resource and land use planning. I am currently the Alberta Fish and Game Association provincial fish chair. My home is in the Peace River region of northwestern Alberta.
As a bit of background, the Alberta Fish and Game Association is the largest and oldest conservation organization in Alberta. It represents more than 24,000 anglers, hunters, and conservationists. At our core is the sustainable use of both our fish and our wildlife and the protection of the habitat they require.
We believe there must be a change in the focus of the direction we're presently going in to manage our fishery resource, if we are to see improvements in recreational fishing opportunities. There are two primary reasons for this concern. The first is societal and is related to the changing attitudes and choices of Canadians in what is, I guess, an increasingly urban society. The second is our failure collectively to deal with the cumulative impacts on the environment from all use, whether from recreation, agriculture, industry, urban growth, or infrastructure needs.
In his 1998 report Rising to the challenge: A new policy for Canada's freshwater fisheries, Dr. Peter H. Pearse stated that he was concerned not just to correct the deficiencies of the past, but to suggest the kind of changes we should be making to provide for the needs of coming generations.
Many of the recommendations from the report have been enacted, particularly in the area of regulation, management, and allocation of the fishery resource. But today the real determinant in the health of fisheries is maintenance of the productivity of the aquatic ecosystem.
Alberta is really a study in progress, as nowhere else in Canada are we seeing so many changes or impacts occurring societally, economically, and environmentally at the same time. I've been fortunate to travel right across this country, including through the northern territories, and the changes here, this having been my home since I was born, are quite amazing.
Today the reality is that the vast majority of Canadians live in urban environments. Alberta is no different, with more than 80% of its citizens now taking up residence in urban centres. A utopian viewpoint has developed, in that many residents have a very limited understanding of what fuels the economy or even where food comes from.
From a fisheries perspective, Alberta faces challenges due to a complex web of circumstances that set it apart from the rest of Canada. This results in a high risk to sustainability for many fish species. Despite the risks, there is no indication that other jurisdictions would have made radically different choices to balance societal, economic, and environmental pressures if faced with the same circumstances.
Regulatory change aimed at the angler is only effective where the productive capacity within the ecosystem is not compromised. The use of catch and release regulations to allow for stock recovery comes with real concerns. It has become a panacea and a front-line action that delays or masks other long-term impacts that must be addressed beyond angling. In fact, in Alberta they're about to say “Let's close down the fisheries” without addressing the fact that we have coal mines, forestry, and oil and gas development on the same landscape. Without having places to fish, it will be a real problem.
Catch and release has another dimension in that it transitions angling into solely a pastime. As angling becomes diminished, we perpetuate the myth that the fish on our table come from the supermarket. Compounding this is that urban settings have many competing leisure and lifestyle activities. Access to angling opportunity in such settings is often extremely limited. The relevance of angling and participation in the future should be of great concern to all of us.
Fish populations continue to decline. In Alberta the listing of bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, Athabasca rainbow trout, and Arctic grayling, as species that are either threatened or endangered, despite the fact that limited or no harvest regulations have existed on these species for up to 25 years, shows us that the necessary environmental stewardship across all government policies has not actually been effective. I guess the most disturbing thing is that numerous strategies and policies clearly show what the problems are, but we haven't fulfilled the actions necessary to achieve the objectives.
The vision of intensive and focused management where fish and their habitat are the priority across large geographical spaces that are simultaneously undergoing rapid change or development is an ideal, but it is really not based in reality. Trying to achieve this, as has been sort of the focus in Alberta, has led to the result that even most productive fisheries in this province are under threat. What I am proposing will be heresy to some in the scientific community who, like their urban counterparts, have become trapped in a utopian viewpoint.
What we're suggesting is that the focus must shift to the few remaining intact and productive aquatic ecosystems. This is not about orphaning other systems, because they will still be managed under the best practice philosophy of the past and the landscape approach. What it will ensure is that at least refuge populations are established as we rethink our approach to dealing with cumulative effects.
The policy and direction changes required to deal with cumulative effects include the following: develop watershed-based land use and water management plans; apply the highest level of protection to riparian and littoral zones; develop habitat banks; establish offsetting requirements for all developments, including even those that are a result of urban expansion; establish compensation programs for landowners to maintain habitat; provide effective and non-competing program management across all government agencies—DFO, provincial, municipalities, right across the board; and put a total emphasis and commitment on prevention of impacts, compliance monitoring, and remediation enforcement of current standards.
I don't think we see a problem with the standards that exist; it's just that we're not using those standards the way we should be. Essentially this means that habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement become a priority in the way we approach fisheries management in the future. The current model revolves around single-species action plans with little visibility when we have other competing priorities. Without healthy aquatic ecosystems that maintain their productivity, fish populations, whether naturalized or native, are at risk.
This brings us back to the area of relevance of angling in the future. Dr. Pearse in his report lists no fewer than nine recommendations to increase the public participation of anglers in fisheries management. In Alberta, the angling constituency has largely been shut out of playing a role. We must focus on our increasing urban demographics to ensure that people have access to fishing opportunity in their communities supported by policies and programs that preserve our angling heritage.
The decision-making process has become overly bureaucratic and often extends over multiple years. Anglers' viewpoints appear lost and of no importance. The frustration level among anglers is at a boiling point, particularly in this province. Anglers deserve to play a role in policy development and priority setting if we are serious about the future of our angling heritage.
It's not just about integrating policy across all levels of government; it's also about integrating the needs and priorities of anglers and fish into this policy. Essentially, without habitat that maintains its productivity there will be no fish or anglers. I ask you, are we prepared to make such a trade-off?
Thank you.