Evidence of meeting #112 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ocean.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
The time is up. We've gone over.
We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for five minutes or less, please.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start off with Chief Pitka.
The moratorium is for five years with no fishing on the Yukon River. Is that correct?
4:25 p.m.
Chief, Beaver Village Council
No, it's seven years if we don't make escapement of 71,000 on the Yukon River.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
For seven years there's no fishing on the river.
When we spoke about this at one of our previous sessions, I believe it was Chief Frost who provided the answer. We asked the question, what about at the mouth of the river? What about out in the ocean before the fish reach the river?
The term she used was “abundance”. It suggests that we could do an awful lot to control fishing up and down the Yukon, but if the fish are being intercepted before they make it to the river, then we have a big problem.
Professor Westley, would that be your take as well?
4:25 p.m.
Lowell A. Wakefield Chair, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks
It stands to reason that, if fish are being caught before they get to the river, they're not going to make it farther upstream and to the spawning ground, so absolutely. I mean, the real point is that, in these times when there's real scarcity, populations are struggling to have enough spawners such that they are able to produce enough offspring to replace themselves. It is true that, functionally, every fish matters.
It is also similarly true that every fish that is caught in bycatch or intercepted might not make it back to the river itself, so there are some truisms in all of the parts here. That's why there is accounting for where the fish would have been going using genetics, taking into account that, if it were a young fish, that fish might not have been maturing this year or even next year to do the accounting of how many would have made it back. There are complications on the end, but all I know—and I think people would agree here—is that in these times of real crisis, every fish that didn't make it back to the river is a real loss, and we need to get really serious about trying to ensure that every fish makes it.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
In testimony for various studies over the years—and some of us have been on this committee for a few years—we've skated over the issue of the Alaska fishery and the process by which Alaska fishers intercept a lot of fish headed to British Columbia, Washington state and perhaps even Oregon. With the evidence that interception is potentially one of the difficulties salmon are facing on the Yukon River, what can you say about the State of Alaska's management of the ocean fishery?
4:25 p.m.
Lowell A. Wakefield Chair, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks
I guess what I would say is that all fisheries at some level are mixed-stock fisheries, so even within the river, you get different populations that are mixed up heading upriver. In the ocean, it gets bigger, harder and messier.
I'm someone who has trained in fisheries and understands, and I'm a lifelong Alaskan, so I try to find and take pride in the successes that Alaska has had in fisheries. My biggest concerns for Alaska and fisheries in Alaskan management are about the large-scale marine fisheries that are inherently mixed stocks of other areas, other places in Alaska and other countries. Those are the fisheries that I have the most concern about, and I think those are the ones that are causing Alaska big issues, and I think they need to be put under the microscope more. I don't know what else to say.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you for that.
Mr. Curtis, based on your observations, etc., have we basically fished the big fish to extinction and all we're left now is the genetics to produce smaller fish?
4:30 p.m.
Documentarian and Fisherman, As an Individual
I would say, with current data and the current situation, yes. I am hopeful, though, that, with the seven-year moratorium, we might see some returns of some of these larger fish.
There was a study in 2008 at Rampart Rapids, when there was a closure of the fishery at the mouth and of commercial fishing along the river. The size of salmon escaping up that area was proven to be considerably larger, with more females. These are numbers that are readily available through the study that was done. I think it's an example of possibly where we need to go with the moratorium and to do low-to-no-harm monitoring of what happens over these seven years to see about those impacts.
I stay focused on that because that is really where my experience lies, on this river in this region on this side of the border, and so I'm hopeful, but yes, it's not looking good.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Hardie.
We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes or less, please.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Curtis, you talked about overfishing and factory vessels. We see them returning to Quebec right now under the principle of historic shares in the redfish fishery.
This is of great concern to us, because it was the factory vessels that deteriorated the biomass 30 years ago. Now they're up and running again, fishing for bycatch. We're even wondering whether their owners aren't more interested in bycatch than in redfish itself.
In a context where many species are at risk, including chinook salmon, are factory vessels still part of the modern way of fishing? Do we need to rethink the way we fish our resource in general?
4:30 p.m.
Documentarian and Fisherman, As an Individual
Absolutely, I think so and, as I've mentioned, on the river but also on the ocean. New technologies and new fishing techniques both provide for the ability to better target species for mixed fisheries and prevent bycatch, but at the same time that also increases the efficiency of the catch, so that has long-term impacts.
We're also facing fisheries on the high seas. These fish know no boundaries. As has been mentioned, they're mixed stocks. There are fish heading into open water, high seas, where we have no controls. There are many fisheries that are happening out there, which we have no data from and have no control over as well. I think, for the high seas—and there's been some commentary about this, both scientific and legal—that there needs to be some consideration given for international agreements to better manage fisheries and/or eliminate fisheries in the high seas and to keep fisheries within exclusive economic zones so that each country can properly manage these impacts you're talking about.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Madame Desbiens.
We now go back to Mr. Green again for two and a half minutes or less, please.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Chief Pitka, can you please explain to the committee, going back to the limited harvesting opportunities for educational and ceremonial purposes, how you think the Alaska Department of Fish and Game should be engaging with you on this issue?
4:30 p.m.
Chief, Beaver Village Council
As of right now, I asked for an application to fill out for a culture camp we're having this summer to teach children and students in our area survival skills and camp skills. I haven't had a response yet, but they told me it sparked a huge discussion—I'm not necessarily sure what that means. We were looking for a camp permit to take five or 10 fish. I'm not sure what they thought about it, but I still don't have the permit. That's where my current [Inaudible—Editor] in having the State of Alaska able to affect the potlatch take for ceremonial use of salmon.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I defer to the fact that we may have some different agreements, both by treaty and by law, through Canada to the States, but I think that your input's important.
You mentioned timelines and the timeliness of approvals and exemptions. I'm wondering if you've given thought to how these exemptions to the suspension of the fishing can be developed and applied. Are there other recommendations we should be considering at this committee that might be helpful for, say, the Yukon first nations and others?
4:35 p.m.
Chief, Beaver Village Council
Yes. I think one thing that Canada can do is make sure that those particular uses are protected on both sides of the border and that the language is stronger, because right now it says it's at the discretion of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the State of Alaska. Obviously....
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's very helpful.
To go back to the subsistence harvesting, can you just talk about some of the externalities? I understand that part of the blame was put there, but I just want to give you the opportunity to close out with some thoughts on that.
4:35 p.m.
Chief, Beaver Village Council
The responsibility of conservation has been put on the back of the upper Yukon River for so long, and we just feel blamed consistently by the Canadian side and the State of Alaska managers for the decline in the fisheries when it wasn't necessarily our fault. We are not taking billions of pounds of biomass out of the ocean.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you so much for your time here, and congratulations again on your graduation.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Green.
We now go to Mr. Arnold, for five minutes or less, please.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I go back to you, Mr. Westley, on some of your comments regarding other forms of mortality, and that there are more hazards in the marine environment and so on. You also talked about having control over hatchery releases. Can you elaborate a little further on the hatchery releases? Are those releases in-river releases or is the Alaska state hatching fish and then releasing them, actually, into the ocean or into estuaries? Can you inform the committee a little on that, please?
4:35 p.m.
Lowell A. Wakefield Chair, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks
The Alaska perspective when it comes to hatcheries is that the large hatchery programs in Alaska are of two species, pink salmon and chum salmon, and primarily in two regions of Alaska. This is in south central Alaska in Prince William Sound and then southeast Alaska. Pink salmon are produced in Prince William Sound and chum salmon are produced in southeast Alaska.
Between those two species, over two billion juvenile fish are not released in rivers. They are released in the nearshore areas close to rivers, but they're actually purposely released away from major wild-stock rivers. They're designed to be separate from those wild stocks. There are no large-scale hatchery releases into the Bering Sea from Alaska that would be interacting with Yukon River chinook.
The hatchery fish that Yukon River chinook would be interacting with primarily would be Asian chum salmon from Hokkaido. The data are really, really poor from Russia. It's really not clear what Russia is producing, but it would be hatchery fish from places like Sakhalin Island in Russia, and then lots of wild production, wild chum salmon and wild pink salmon, from places like Kamchatka. Those are competing with Yukon chinook.
Simply put, the Alaska releases of hatchery fish interacting with Yukon River chinook I think is less of a concern, but hatchery fish in general in the Bering Sea in the north Pacific is an issue.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
Can that be determined by sampling of the returning fish to the river? If those fish are out there for the same period of time they used to be and they're coming back smaller, I can see that there would be a correlation drawn there. Has that science been done to see if the fish just aren't growing to size in the same amount of time, or if they're being harvested, or if there's other mortality before they're reaching that large size? Which would it be? Has the science been done?