I'd like to thank the members of the committee, and in particular my MP, Pat Finnigan, for the invitation to appear before you today. I'm not speaking to you on behalf of any organization, but rather on behalf of the people of the Miramichi. We had previously been left out of some discussions that had forced a massive change in our relationship with the river, and so we very much appreciate the opportunity to address this committee.
The Miramichi has been my family's home for 200 years, and my family's work for 70 years. I have personally depended on the health of the salmon resource for 39 years of my adult life, and with my son now involved, and his two sons toddling about, you can understand why our family might take this issue quite seriously.
As a child growing up in my father's tackle shop, I encountered people from all over North America who could go anywhere they wished, but they chose to come to my river. That gave me an early understanding of how important the Atlantic salmon is to the identity of the Miramichi Valley and its people.
While I know that the scope of your mandate is broad, I make no apology for the narrowness of my focus. I've been called “salmo-centric” and, like the salmon itself, I am a product of my home waters, and indelibly imprinted by the river of my birth.
The Miramichi is not well served by a management strategy that lumps all rivers together under a blanket policy. It both needs and deserves a more targeted approach tailored to its particular set of unique characteristics. The Miramichi river system comprises of four distinct rivers, all of which have their own estuary and their own management challenges. It sustains a comparatively healthy and diverse population of wild Atlantic salmon, which, like all creatures, are cyclical in nature. Although the hatchery does play a role, it is not hatchery-dependent in the way we sometimes think of other rivers. It provides a thriving and challenging salmon fishery, which is a source of employment for some, a source of enjoyment for many, and at times a source of frustration for all.
It supports a highly developed angling infrastructure, which plays a primary role as a strong incentive for wise management of a valuable resource. It balances the interests of private riparian owners and their essential revenue stream with the local angler who has the river flowing through his bloodstream. It remains a persistently healthy watershed, despite concerns about encroachment by the forest industry. Its stellar reputation makes it a target for those who quickly exploit its name to amplify the shock value of any perceived downturn in salmon stocks.
The resilience of the Miramichi salmon run also makes it an attractive setting for those attempting to rescue or recreate a resource with some assurance of success. It enjoys a healthy mix of both one-sea winter grilse, approximately 90% of which are male, and the multi-sea winter salmon, about 85% of which are female. It has an exemplary record of practical management and selective harvest, which has only recently been disrupted.
Over the years, participation in the Miramichi salmon fishery has been based on an over-arching principle of mutual respect: respect for the value of the non-resident fishery and for those whom it employs; respect for the reputation of the Miramichi, which attracts visitors from around the world; respect for the salmon resource and its cultural and economic significance to all Miramichiers; respect for the rights of first nations to a sustainable harvest; respect for fisheries regulations based upon sound science and practical considerations; respect by residents for private property rights that limit access to the most productive salmon pools through riparian ownership; and lastly, respect by visitors and guests for the local resident fishery and its unique attachment to the salmon resource.
It is the dramatic decline in this respect, in consideration for the local fishery, that is the greatest concern to me, not as a businessman, nor as a fisherman, but as a Miramichier. This decline began to surface in the mid-1990s as the direct result of a number of factors, which I can outline later if you wish. It found its voice in a book published 20 years ago, which quoted one prominent conservationist as saying, “There isn't enough room for everybody who wants to go salmon fishing, and I don't know where you draw the dividing line unless it's the people who can afford to pay their way.”
In our store, we gradually began to hear talk of the need to release grilse, coupled with references to local anglers as “meat men” or “fish killers”. By 1998, a strategy of peer pressure began to invade the fishery, and lines of division were clearly drawn. Private lodges and clubs were encouraged, and sometimes bullied, into adopting live release of grilse under the threat of censure if they failed to comply. In 2002, the province introduced a live-release licence, even though people were already free to release their grilse by choice, and bound to release their salmon by law. In 2015, DFO finally bowed to this pressure and is now being urged to continue this zero-harvest strategy indefinitely.
Perceived threats can often lead to the sacrifice of real liberties, and when personal preference becomes public policy, thought is seldom given to the people whose lives are most affected.
Consider DFO's cavalier decision to ban the use of double hooks last year, which lacked any scientific data to support the decision. The cost to individual anglers was severe, and to fly shops like mine who employ people all winter to produce flies for sale in the summer, it amounted to a $17,000 uncompensated loss, literally overnight. Imagine our frustration when it was discovered, after the season, that a variation order was never written to enforce it.
In 2010 DFO introduced a mid-season ban on grilse retention for the Northwest and Little Southwest Miramichi Rivers, which was later expanded to a season-wide restriction. In the six years since, no other measures have been taken to help those two rivers, and no study has been conducted to show any benefit from this measure, nor has any been called for.
In 2015 DFO chose to extend this to the Main Southwest Miramichi, and this has produced a dramatic exodus of local anglers from our river and with them goes an astute level of surveillance, participation, and protection. This is only partially reflected in the 44% decline in resident salmon licence sales, but more starkly visible in the empty pools where local people normally gather during the most productive weeks of the season.
Miramichiers know a thing or two about salmon and we're not easily fooled. Miramichiers know that our grilse don't go to Greenland, but our large salmon do. We've been releasing large salmon for 32 years, but with very little exemplary value. When a bully steals your lunch, the solution is not to stop taking your lunch.
We also know that salmon don't feed in fresh water, so their willingness to take a fly is not governed by appetite. As a result, it's not uncommon to fish for several days without hooking a fish. Everyone agrees that angling is not the problem, but restricting it seems to be the only solution.
We know that angling interception rates are very low, and the percentage of female grilse is even lower, all of which underlines the minimal impact of permitting a grilse retention fishery. The Miramichi has traditionally been able to support this fishery, and there is no reason to assume that it cannot continue to do so.
We know that the estuary of the Northwest Miramichi is being used as a breeding ground for a rampant and voracious population of striped bass, effectively putting our smolts through a meat grinder before they even have time to face the challenges of the open ocean.
We know that DFO continues to squander a perfect opportunity to develop a first nations commercial harvest of striped bass contingent upon the elimination of monofilament gill nets and switching to the exclusive use of trap nets for grilse.
We know that every other threat, whether seal, striped bass, cormorants, mergansers, sea birds, Greenland, St. Pierre and Miquelon, gaspereau nets, or gill nets all appear to be untouchable. We have grown tired of being the only touchable, just as a dog grows tired of being kicked by a man trying to look tough.
We know that DFO has failed to provide accurate adult population assessments. Counting facilities are often affected by high water events and produce highly unreliable estimates of current stocks. It is a disgrace that the cost of new electronic counters must be underwritten by the private sector, but their sizable investment underlies how little confidence is placed in current stock assessment data.
We know that the desire to produce as many smolts as possible by over-saturation of the habitat carries with it a strong risk of diminishing returns. There is good reason to suspect that our poor smolt survival at sea may be related to increased juvenile densities at home.
We know that DFO fails to understand that a permissible harvest does not translate into an actual harvest. Unlike a commercial fishery, angling is based upon a voluntary response considerably less lethal in its method. Regardless of the number of tags issued, angler retention averages far less than one per licence.
Finally, we know that DFO seems to operate on the assumption that anything natural is good, and anything that is anthropogenic is bad. Forest fires are natural, but we still fight them. Diseases are natural, but we still treat them. Man is a steward of nature, not an intruder. This stewardship requires wise use and hands-on engagement, not distant worship.
Miramichiers lives are not enriched so much by monetary gain as by an attachment to nature that fastens us here despite efforts to peel us away. To casually disrupt this connection is no small matter and one that should only be taken with the great care and sound science. We have seen little evidence of either one, and on behalf of the people of Miramichi, I would suggest that it's high time we did.
Thank you.