Evidence of meeting #45 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recreational.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Professor and Fisheries Biologist, Freshwater Fisheries Conservation Lab, Queen's University, As an Individual
I could add to that when the time comes.
11:50 a.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association
Okay.
We don't want to see that happen in Canada. We are not putting out fires as they are in the United States, but we're also not living separately either. We are connected to things that are going on south of the border—all around the world, but especially south of the border.
That's an access issue but also science-based. We always stress that term as much as we can. I think we all agree that sometimes decisions are made maybe politically, perhaps for popularity, or based on emotion. When it comes to fisheries—and again, Dr. Tufts, I defer to you on this—science-based research has to be the order of the day when decisions are made regarding recreational fishing. That's our position as an association.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Professor and Fisheries Biologist, Freshwater Fisheries Conservation Lab, Queen's University, As an Individual
I think the issue that Mike is speaking to, a tremendously important issue around the globe these days, is that one of the solutions that people are putting in place, and governments are putting in place to protect the world's fisheries, is protected areas. There are many areas now being developed around the world that are protected from fisheries so that areas can recover. But I think the big misconception in that area for a lot of people is that they don't understand the distinction between commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries. This is one of my areas of expertise.
Commercial fisheries have a long history of overharvest and some habitat issues, things like that, and in many cases they're not selective. Protected areas make a lot of sense to provide areas where there's no commercial fishing. However, as my research on live release has shown, there is no threat from recreational fisheries. You can release fish alive, you can decide which fish to release, managers can decide that for you—which species, which fish, which sizes of fish—and this is where the importance of live release and selective harvest and sustainability comes in.
When you have protected areas that are being proposed, and some approved, around the world, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to protect them from recreational fisheries in a lot of cases. I think this is one of the big misconceptions, because the general public doesn't always understand. To them, fisheries are fisheries, so protected areas should protect all fisheries. But if you understand the science—and this I think is where Canada has been doing well so far—if you're going to have protected areas to recover fish stocks, it makes a lot of sense in the case of some commercial fisheries but it doesn't make sense to have areas where there's no access for recreational fisheries. For recreational fisheries you can still have the economic value, but you can have a sustainable fishery anywhere you want it, because most fish can be released, or all fish can be released, and it doesn't impact on the numbers of fish in the population.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much. I understand what you're saying, Doctor, but sometimes it's not overly easy for governments to implement what you are saying, because when somebody can fish and somebody cannot, it causes difficulties. But what you're saying is absolutely correct.
You also indicated something that is of interest to me. You've done some work on the Atlantic salmon, and you tell me it's worth about $128 million. But you also stated it could be worth a couple of hundred million. I'd like you to elaborate and indicate what could take place in order to have that happen, including what governments could do. Do you need more funding, more programs, or whatever? I also believe that education, in this area and in the area that you were talking about under the recreational fishery, is so important so that the general population understands. It's not easy for governments, whatever stripe they are, to do something that's very unpopular to the rest of us.
Perhaps you could expand on that, including how you feel more education in this area would benefit your organization.
11:50 a.m.
Professor and Fisheries Biologist, Freshwater Fisheries Conservation Lab, Queen's University, As an Individual
I could speak to that.
In the case of Atlantic salmon, it's a complex issue. I think this gets back to the idea that we really need scientists—and we need some scientists mandated, in my opinion, by government—that are trying to work on some of the important issues to bring back Atlantic salmon stocks. There's a lack of understanding of what's going on with Atlantic salmon in the ocean. I think most people agree that there are serious problems going on in the ocean for Atlantic salmon and that this is affecting the numbers that come back to the rivers in eastern Canada. There are many potential reasons why that's occurring. People have suggested aquaculture in open net-pens. There are many other possibilities. But we need, first of all, the science to understand what the issues actually are—which is missing—and then we need the funding to provide the solutions.
I think in the past one of the problems that we as humans have had is that we tend to go to the first quick fix. In fisheries, a lot of the time the first quick fix has been to just provide more hatcheries. Many studies have now shown that hatcheries aren't always the solution and that, really, if you don't understand what the problem is and if you don't fix things like habitat issues, then hatcheries won't solve the problem. In fact, they may cause more of a problem.
With Atlantic salmon, I think we need the science to understand where the issues are, and then we need efforts. For example—here's a subtle difference—instead of a hatchery simply pumping more fish into a river, in some cases around the world these days we have hatcheries that are preserving particular genetic stocks, strains of fish that are particular to certain rivers. We could do that, for example, on the east coast of Canada, trying to keep those genetics around, trying to use those then as a base to provide fish to go back to the rivers that they were native to, and keep the genetic diversity we have until we figure out what the problems are.
From that I think you can see that there are more complex issues that really require full-time Ph.D. scientists working on those problems.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
I want to thank you for the excellent information for the committee. Basically you're telling us that we need people to tell us what the problem is first. If you know what the problem is, possibly you can do something about it. Also, you're telling us that probably hatcheries are not all the answer, that fish can reproduce themselves if we take care of the ecosystem itself.
I think that's basically what you're trying to tell the committee.
11:55 a.m.
Professor and Fisheries Biologist, Freshwater Fisheries Conservation Lab, Queen's University, As an Individual
Absolutely.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
You also mentioned steelhead on the west coast. Is it basically the same way with the steelhead on the west coast, that the economic value could be improved? Is that what you meant, Doctor?
11:55 a.m.
Professor and Fisheries Biologist, Freshwater Fisheries Conservation Lab, Queen's University, As an Individual
Yes, sorry, that's what I meant to say.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Okay. Thank you very much.
In Alberta the commercial fishery has been stopped. Could you comment on that and respond on how it's helped, or not helped, or revived the species?
11:55 a.m.
Professor and Fisheries Biologist, Freshwater Fisheries Conservation Lab, Queen's University, As an Individual
I could speak to that in some ways. I'm not an expert on the status of stocks in Alberta, but I can say that in many different instances when commercial fisheries have been stopped, although it takes some time, you'll get a rebuilding of the population. In some cases, for example, walleye can be over 20 years old.
It could take some years to get the kinds of numbers that we would like to see back in the fishery, but I can't think of too many reasons or situations why, in an inland fishery like that, reducing the harvest from commercial fisheries would have anything but a positive impact.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
May 7th, 2015 / 11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Great.
Thank you to both of our witnesses for appearing today. We've certainly heard a lot of similar comments from many of our witnesses in terms of the dollars invested by conservation groups, angling groups in particular, back into stream and fisheries restoration and habitat. It was interesting, actually, to hear some commentary that was I think new in terms of the value or potential challenges with hatcheries being the default go-to. So that certainly was important for us to hear. It's great to have a little bit different input into this study as we start to move forward now.
I'm going to ask you both, in terms of very specific recommendations, if you had your choice of one or two that you would make to this committee to move forward, what would they be? I say that in light of the one realization that a good portion of fisheries management falls in the hands of provincial governments. Is there anything specific we can do to partner up with our provincial counterparts so as not to step on their toes in terms of that inland fisheries piece? It is the same with wildlife: we have a certain federal role, but always it seems to be provincially dominated.
If both had an opportunity, or had a specific recommendation for the committee, what would those be as we go forward?
Noon
Professor and Fisheries Biologist, Freshwater Fisheries Conservation Lab, Queen's University, As an Individual
Maybe I could answer that first. I would like to point out that one of the things that has been missing in a lot of the different initiatives in the past that would, I believe, do wonders here is that the funding that becomes available to try to enhance different fisheries across the country needs to have a piece that is associated with science. And so, as you're speaking, if you were to consider making funding available, for example, as a partnership between perhaps federal and provincial groups and scientists, that would help. It should not just be directed towards one particular fishery. I think the thing that's maybe missing here is that some of the things that are found out in science don't just apply to one particular fishery; they apply to all fisheries. I think a lot of the funding ends up being directed towards particular geographical areas or fisheries. It often doesn't have a science component. I think when science is done well, it doesn't apply to one situation, it applies to all situations.
So one recommendation from me would be to have personnel in the federal government who might have expertise as scientists in recreational fisheries that could apply across the country. Perhaps they could partner some of those people to work on issues associated with provinces in particular areas that could affect particular fisheries. That's a really important part that I think has been missing.
Noon
Managing Director, Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association
I think it comes down to one word, “communication”, whether you're communicating, as Dr. Tufts said, by sharing information from the federal government or the federal researchers with the provincial counterparts or communicating with the industry. Quite often we as an association feel left out. That's why, again, we were thrilled to be invited to testify before the committee today.
If I had a couple of wishes on a list that I could submit, one would be more communication with the industry. We're on the front lines. We're Canadian Tire. We're seeing people buy fishing tackle. We're manufacturers. We're promoters. We deal with Canadians on a first-hand basis through national fishing week and other events.
So we have a lot to offer. We have a lot that we can communicate back to you, and I hope we have done that today as well. But that would be my one big wish: more communication between the industry and the government.
Noon
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Thank you. You both made very good points.
What do you see as the largest challenge facing fisheries in Canada today?
Noon
Professor and Fisheries Biologist, Freshwater Fisheries Conservation Lab, Queen's University, As an Individual
I can maybe speak to that.
I think in my world there's a global misunderstanding about the distinctions between recreational fisheries and commercial fisheries. The vast majority of the population doesn't understand that distinction, and would be willing to close areas to fisheries entirely, in their understanding, for conservation, whereas really, I believe we need to promote people to go out and recognize how important those fisheries are to them, in the case of recreational fisheries, and become linked to them in a very strong way by participating and by using them.
As I've seen over the years, a child holding for the first time a fish that they just caught, releasing it, having a bit of an understanding of how that's sustainable use, or even taking a few medium-sized fish home to eat and understanding that that's a sustainable use of a resource that has natural capital and you're living off the interest—those are the kinds of messages we need to get out. It's not to just close down entire wilderness areas and aquatic areas to participation. That would be the worst threat we could do, because then we'll lose habitat, then we'll have invasive species in there, and we'll have nobody on the watch.
12:05 p.m.
Managing Director, Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association
I totally agree with Dr. Tufts. I think one of the biggest challenges to recreational fishing is the next generation.
You know, I've heard that the CFL suffered by losing touch with a generation of kids. A whole generation—I think my kids would be that age—started following the NFL as opposed to the CFL. We have to continue to market recreational fishing and its benefits to the next generation. As Dr. Tufts said earlier, those who use the resource are the ones who roll up their sleeves and work to protect it. They put their dollars in, they put their time in, and they volunteer hours.
I think one challenge for us is that, if we don't convert, if you will, the next generation to the joys and the benefits of recreational fishing, we could lose a whole generation who just won't care when they're in their twenties and thirties and busy with life. Plus, there are the distractions of electronics that we all know about. We need to market to kids for recreational fishing.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT
Good. I still have a bit of time.
Thank you both for those points. It's interesting when we look at the numbers. Some of us have known them for a long time. They're staggering in terms of both GDP contribution and participation hours, and then, of course, the subsequent conservation benefits that come from angling groups and organizations.
It's interesting, though. Maybe you have some insight into why this would be the case; I know you've touched on the marketing piece a little bit. You can go into most shops and see fishing poles. You see them in Canadian Tire and in sports stores; and fishing is well branded in magazines. But when we speak with fishing groups, which we do a lot of, and we tell them that more Canadians fish than play golf and hockey combined, even anglers are stunned by these metrics.
Is it just so overt that we take it for granted? Or what are we missing in terms of even angling groups not understanding the impact they themselves have on all these fields?
