Let me stress at the outset that our company, W. W. Doak,  has been fully supportive of mandatory hook and release of all large salmon, as has been the law for 18 years now. We have lost several customers over the years by arguing in favour of this legislation which, we maintain, is solidly based upon sound biology. We have also seen many anglers abandon the Miramichi to engage in the killing of large salmon in other jurisdictions, sometimes in the company of some of our most outspoken conservationists. Nonetheless, we continue to encourage only those who support the release of large salmon to come to the Miramichi.  However, we have some concerns about this new license proposal which can best be summed up under the following headings:

A few years ago the Miramichi Salmon Association actively promoted an increase in the angling harvest of grilse as a way of ensuring a higher quality of spawning output and greater angling participation. In the absence of any compelling biological argument for grilse release, those who support legislative persuasion to promote the release of grilse seem more concerned with optics than with optimization. Many who say we must be "seen to be doing our part" or who call for "peer pressure" to shame people into releasing grilse may have the luxury of treating this fishery as an "elitist diversion", but for those of us who have the Miramichi flowing through our bloodstream, the harvest of an occasional grilse is an important part of our culture and our connection with the river. The retention of a few grilse is a small price to pay in exchange for a compliant, responsible local fishery and the astute level of surveillance that such a fishery provides.

A  discussion paper considered and defeated in 2000 by the New Brunswick Council of the Atlantic Salmon Federation actually proposed a 950% price increase in the cost of a resident licence with 8 tags, accompanied by the introduction of a new low-priced "hook and release" licence. Little was said about what might be done with the windfall from such a fee hike, but perhaps that is because many realize that the cost increase might well lead to an angler decrease, making the move potentially revenue neutral. This is consistent with calls from the press and some outfitters for greater reduction in resident angler participation, which leads me to wonder if this new purist zeal is not more about "lease and re-hook" than it is about "hook and release".  Imagine the outcry if this same degree of legislative extortion were proposed for the property taxes paid by riparian owners on this river.

W. W. Doak has stood against the calls from many over the years to abolish riparian ownership on the Miramichi, arguing in favour of a mixed system and a shared resource. However when some owners publicly advocate ways that legislative coercion can be used to significantly reduce the number of local anglers on the river, it becomes much harder for us to defend their position. It seems we have some on our river who love the salmon so much that they are willing to sacrifice........what someone else has.

The introduction of such a licence also feeds the false notion that our salmon stocks are so imperiled as to require more stringent angling restrictions. This pervasive pessimism may be profitable for the conservation industry and its insatiable bureaucracy but it has discouraged many anglers from fishing in New Brunswick. We can expect to hear more calls for greater limitation of legitimate angling practices from many circles as legislation mandating the exclusive use of single, barbless hooks is already being encouraged by the N. B. Council of the ASF. To advocate squandering our limited enforcement effort by harassing those engaged in legitimate angling activities will give a greater opportunity for real poachers to do serious harm to the resource with less risk of apprehension.  To contribute in any way to the further erosion of responsible angler participation is a very dangerous approach to salmon management which will continue to have serious consequences.

The province of New Brunswick should take great pride in celebrating the rich angling heritage which has played a exemplary role in keeping the Miramichi as healthy as it continues to be. Rivers where anglers have been sacrificed and scapegoated have little left of this rich heritage and it would be a tragedy if the Miramichi were to follow their lead.

Conclusion
To gradually constrain anglers toward an eventual zero harvest fishery is unwelcome, unnecessary and unwise. I have been told by many conservationists that "nobody needs to keep a grilse." The same could be said of many activities which are permitted in a free society. When this new zeal begins to spread to other pursuits what will be the next privilege to be sacrificed on the altar of extremism?

We simply are not willing to have our store used as a place where responsible anglers are forced to defend their legal behaviour from those who feel compelled to criticize them. We remain convinced that this new licence category is a major step in a process which will marginalize, stigmatize and eventually eliminate all who wish to retain an occasional grilse, the majority of whom are local people. We contend that the level of surveillance, protection, and imputed value that this resource receives from committed, responsible anglers is worth far more than the long term spawning contribution from the small number of grilse that are harvested each year.

If New Brunswick were prepared to apply the "no harvest" rule to all natural resources then perhaps we might have a stronger case for further angling restraint. Until then, perhaps our legislative efforts might be better directed toward persuading other users to apply the same "selective harvest" methods that Atlantic salmon anglers have been employing for the past 18 years.

Back to top

"Angling is Conservation"

Written by Jerry Doak - 2001

WWDOAK.COM

     Much has been written recently about the Miramichi and the state of its legendary runs of salmon. It is a testimony to the grandeur of this river system that everyone feels compelled to have an opinion about it and it seems we are no exception. However, as Miramichiers, we understand how intricately this river is interwoven into the fabric of our lives and so, for us the stakes are very high.

     For several years we have been warning that the rhetorical excesses of many conservationists would soon result in calls by both the government and the public at large for a major reduction of our angling privileges. Although some have been quick to dismiss our concerns, a recent article in the Telegraph Journal  entitled “Salmon Anglers share the blame” clearly illustrates the precarious position into which we have been led. The publication of this editorial has provided a golden opportunity for the captains of conservation to articulate a compelling defense of responsible angling. The fact that this was not done is both tragic and telling. Angling is the primary conservation tool through which the Atlantic salmon is given the imputed value that ensures its protection and preservation. On behalf of the M. S. A., Mr. Bird should have stated, as he has done before, that the presence of responsible anglers on a watershed is still our best protection against poaching, and thus, in the best interest of practical conservation.  Regrettably, by seeking to reassure his readers that we are already practicing voluntary self restraint in addition to increasingly stringent regulations, he implicitly endorsed and invited even greater restrictions. Moreover, he did so without acknowledging that such measures only punish legitimate anglers, thereby leaving our waters vulnerable to poachers, who are now devastating some non-angled rivers in broad daylight. Speaking on behalf of the A. S. F., Bill Taylor sought to remind us of the value of anglers' contributions to the local economy and to various conservation groups. He failed, however, to identify the major contribution that an angling presence makes to the security and protection of a river system by acting as the primary, and in some cases, the only deterrent to illegal activity.

    The conservation industry continues to walk a perilously fine line. On the one hand, they must maintain their financial base by allowing anglers to assume that their best interests are being served, while at the same time preserving their tax exempt status by showing governments that they are willing to take a hard line against angling.  The prospect of large sums of government money being made available for salmon research has created an added incentive to keep up the appearance of brutal objectivity. Many have resorted to attacking angling itself, which historically has been at the very foundation of the conservation ethic.  Thus, you will find frequently such loaded phrases as “is your catch and release really catch and decease?" (Atlantic Salmon Journal, Summer 1998); references to “archaic regulations still permitting anglers in some regions to kill fish” (ASJ, Summer, 2000); or articles like this one from Dr. Fred Whoriskey (ASJ, Winter, 1998):

“In some of the rivers draining into the Bay of Fundy, anglers may have killed up to 90% of certain runs. ......If fly fishing can capture up to 90% of the fish in a river, it is a process with great potential to impact upon salmon populations”.............
“Anglers cannot afford to believe that they have no impact upon wild salmon populations, This is a collective denial that will aggravate the continuing precipitous declines in the species abundance”.

Of the collective effort to close commercial salmon fisheries he goes on to write:

“We did that to save salmon for the benefit of the species - and not so sport fishermen could simply displace commercial fishermen”

The fact that hands so badly bitten continue to feed this kind of inflammatory exaggeration is a testimony to the commitment of conservation minded anglers who are genuinely willing to sacrifice for the salmon resource. However, by pandering to a strong “anti - angling” bias which has existed for years within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, some organizations are now persistently portraying legitimate, responsible angling as an activity which needs to be severely restricted, either voluntarily or through punitive legislation. In so doing, they have unleashed a bureaucratic bull in an environmental china shop. On the Miramichi, we have already begun to see the consequences of this, such as:

• A 50% cut in our daily catch limit in 1998
• The impulsive mid-season shutdown of all Miramichi angling past 10 AM for 10 days in August 1999, during which time poaching increased at an alarming rate.
• Intense surveillance of legitimate angling activities leading to frivolous charges and selective enforcement based more upon ease of apprehension than upon severity of infraction.
• The constant threat of closure the moment the Miramichi reaches a certain level or temperature. (We were perilously close to a closure in late June of this year, had we not received the rain when we did. Already there is increasing pressure being brought to bear by DFO to establish a protocol under which the river can be closed on very short notice in 2001)
• The shameless attempt to waste 19.5 million taxpayers dollars purchasing a few existing lodges, to establish a native outfitting industry, rather than building new native facilities at a fraction of the cost. (Based on the false premise that any additional angling pressure would be detrimental to the Miramichi.)

Those of you who love the Miramichi should consider carefully the long term implications of this situation. Now that the general public has taken up the mantra of angling curtailment, we have crossed a very dangerous line. When those who are paid handsomely to understand the intricacies of this river continually misrepresent and overstate its condition, how can we expect the public at large to know any better?  Why would such a blatant call for more severe angling restrictions come this year, right at the end of a salmon season which saw very healthy returns of fish to the Miramichi and some of the best sustained summer angling in over a decade? Moreover, DFO research confirms that our juvenile counts of both parr and fry have reached extraordinarily high levels. I would suggest that we are witnessing the rise of an entirely new approach to Atlantic salmon conservation based more upon ideology  than biology, and that should frighten us all.

For 17 angling seasons, the Miramichi has set an exemplary standard in the salmon world by releasing unharmed all large, predominantly female, Multi Sea Winter salmon. All angling participants willingly embraced this concept because it was based upon biologically sound management principles. The taking of grilse was permitted to continue for several reasons, the most notable of which was that they are 90-95% male, genetically predisposed to be small, and thus, were considered to be neither a spawning necessity nor a benefit. As Dr. Whoriskey has said, “the progeny from a grilse-salmon mating are predominantly grilse.” A few years ago, one conservation group even advocated increasing the annual harvest of grilse.  It was also understood that the surgical removal of small quantities of surplus “runt” males would act in a pre-emptive role as a safety valve to ensure that no lethal pressure were brought to bear upon the vital MSW component of the resource. Rational thinkers have always recognized that the protection of the Miramichi has depended largely upon the maintenance of an involved, committed angling presence as a primary deterrent to poaching and habitat destruction. In a province where thousands of acres of woodlands are clear-cut every year in the name of “forest management”, surely it is not unreasonable to permit the selective harvest of a few male grilse to ensure the long term survival of our large female salmon.

 Under sound management, the Miramichi has distinguished itself by continuing to thrive, in stark contrast to the siginificant declines experienced in many other non-angled rivers.  It was not until the pre-millennial panic of the late 1990’s that our “grilse complex” set in and we began to see a fixation upon this latest “sacred cow’. Some conservation newcomers, in search of fresh windmills at which to tilt, see the salvation of the grilse as the new “holy grail”, the pursuit of which has done little more than to lull the gullible into a self-congratulatory stupor. Regrettably, those of us who live here will be left to deal with the mess long after this “cause of the month” has lost its novelty.

 Even a few folks on the Miramichi, some of whom have a history of conflicts with local people, have begun to argue vigorously for legislation mandating the release of all grilse and the use of barbless, single hooks. Others have suggested massive increases in resident license fees with additional puntive charges for those who would still desire to keep a grilse.  For some, the hope is that these measures would bring a convenient reduction in the number of local anglers involved in the legal fishery and competing for open water.  However, if salmon angling becomes nothing more than an elitist diversion, this reckless course of action will take us down a dangerous path of destruction as a few of the disenfranchised seek retribution through poaching large salmon rather than angling for an occasional grilse.

 As the most significant salmon river still under the exclusive control of DFO, the Miramichi will continue to risk being irreparably damaged by the zeal of those who have “forgotten their purpose and redoubled their efforts,” until someone finally stands and says “Enough!!” It is my hope that you will become that voice by holding the conservation industry accountable for consistently placing Miramichi salmon at risk by contributing to the “continuing precipitous decline” of your angling privileges. We must challenge these organizations to publicly affirm and defend the legitimacy of angling as a primary conservation tool.  Before making your next contribution, ask your group for a written statement of their position on the conservation value of angling and tell them clearly that if they don't get the message, they don't get the money!  For years we have heard the cry “You can make a difference” which has really meant “You can make a donation.” Perhaps what is most needed now is a “collective denial” of funds until this runaway train gets back on track. Isn't it about time that someone began to work as hard for your sport as they do for your support? Organizations like Ducks Unlimited have been very successful in their conservation efforts without ever having to apologize for hunters’ activities, so why have anglers quietly allowed “salmon conservation” to be redefined in such extremist terms. Many of us, like cows in the shade of a Burger King billboard, have become so comfortable with the agents of our impending demise that we may actually be helping to prearrange our own funeral.  Perhaps a fitting epitaph might be “No grilse were harmed in the destruction of this fishery. “

 We all agree on the need to save salmon but we disagree profoundly on the methodology. The purist wants to save the salmon from angling, the realist wants to save the salmon for angling, but the pragmatist knows that you will only save the salmon through angling, and that makes all the difference in the world. Ask anyone whether Miramichi salmon would be better off if all angling were closed for 5 years and they will tell you that this resource would suffer from apathy, abuse, neglect and insignificance like so many other former salmon rivers sacrificed on the altar of conservation. The Miramichi deserves the kind of legislative stability and sensible representation that will encourage more people to participate in angling. In so doing, they will become the very essence of “practical conservation”, not for the good of the local economy, nor for the good of the participants, but for the good of the salmon itself. Remember,

There are two sides to the current dispute over aboriginal salmon fishing. Conservationists quite rightly criticize native plans to open a commercial Atlantic salmon fishery. But natives also have a valid point: a large commercial salmon fishery already exists. It is called recreational angling, and it brings revenue to both the province and outfitters. Why should natives reduce their fishing when there is no limit on the number of recreational salmon licenses that can be sold.

In 1999, the province issued 17,654 resident and 5,213 non-resident salmon angling licenses. It printed 56,000. Each entitled the bearer to catch and kill up to eight grilse (young salmon) over the whole season and to catch and release up to four fish a day.

These numbers don’t tell the whole story. The province encourages anglers to release their catch and return all their salmon tags unused. This conservation ethic is shared by the province’s angling organizations and the majority of individual anglers. According to a provincial Fish and Wildlife spokesman “the vast majority” of salmon anglers keep no more than one or 2 fish a season. Indeed, many anglers conscientiously release every fish.

That being the case, it is difficult to understand why the size of New Brunswick’s recreational salmon fishery has not been reduced. The anglers, the province and Ottawa all recognize that salmon stocks are in trouble. Why not limit the number of fish anglers can kill?

A hook-and-release only fishery is not the solution. Hook-and-release angling still kills some fish, spawners as well as grilse. And, unlike tagged, kept grilse, the number of fish killed by the hook-and-release fishery cannot be tracked. If the overall goal is conservation of dwindling salmon stocks, New Brunswick must reduce the total number of salmon killed - which ultimately means reducing the number of fishermen, not just the number of fish they can keep.

It is time the province and DFO applied the strategy currently used for moose hunting to salmon angling: reduce the overall number of salmon tags available to anglers and hold a lottery for licenses, allotting a set number of licenses to each healthy watershed. The number of licenses available could be increased or decreased as salmon returns allow.

The day is fast approaching when there will be no salmon fishing in New Brunswick. Anglers, aboriginal fishermen and fisheries managers have a choice: they can reduce fishing now and put every possible effort into improving the salmon’s chances of survival or they can continue to fish and argue with each other until the last salmon dies.

Which fishing story would you rather tell your grandchildren?

A response to the Telegraph Journal editorial from J. W. (Bud) Bird,
chairman of the Miramichi Salmon Association   (Back)

Miramichi Association supports safe angling

 We wish to commend the Telegraph Journal for the thoughtful editorials which have appeared on your opinion page over the past couple of days.
 In the same constructive spirit with which we have read your comments, may we respond to your proposal with regard to salmon tags and a license lottery.
 While we respect your views that salmon anglers must share the blame and the responsibility for the state of the salmon resource, a great deal of progress has been made by the angling community over recent years to do just exactly what you are recommending: that is , to control the extent of recreational fishing opportunities is a rational manner to match the availability of the salmon resource.
There is strong evidence of this, as follows:
Where salmon runs in certain rivers have failed to support a recreational harvest under reasonable management criteria, then those rivers have been closed to all fishing opportunities, the main existing example being the entire St. John River watershed.
For many decades, in the interest of long-term sustainability of salmon stocks in all rivers, there have been established major stretches of totally closed waters, which are sanctuary areas for spawning. These are located in the headwaters of rivers like the Miramichi (above the barrier protection pools at Juniper, Dungarvon and the Northwest), and the Restigouche (above key points on the Upsalquitch, the Little Main and the Kedgwick.)
 These closed areas constitute a major element of recreational fishing opportunities within the province of New Brunswick and justly so, in the interest of conservation.
 There currently are major areas of Crown angling waters that are managed in a tightly controlled manner to limit recreational fishing. Numerous Crown Reserve stretches are available to residents only on an annual lottery basis which strictly limits the number of rods for every given stretch every day.
 Several of these Crown Reserve stretches have been further limited to hook-and-release only, such as the North Pole Stream.
 Other major stretches of Crown water have been auctioned and leased on a long-term basis and specified limits are imposed upon the number of anglers allowed to fish at any one time.
 There are also many stretches of open Crown water, as well as extensive private ownership, where it is more difficult to control or limit recreational fishing access given the basic rights of all citizens to use and enjoy common public property or their own lands. However, what has been applied generally to these circumstances, as well as to restricted waters, is a season license limit for any angler of only eight grilse tags with daily restrictions on the use of them.
 The existence of the harvest tagging system, which was originally introduced in New Brunswick for the first time anywhere in 1980, ensures an absolute control on the number of tags issued, and on the legal possession of harvested fish. Therefore, far more preferable than a license lottery would be a reduction in the number of tags available on a seasonal or daily basis as conservation may require.
 Unfortunately, the federal decision to remove the tagging of aquaculture fish several years ago seriously compromised the harvest tagging program: nevertheless, the tagging still works reasonably well in controlling the recreational harvest.
 Frankly, we do not share your views about hook-and-release fishing, because we believe this approach has been well demonstrated as a significant solution to conservation needs, if not necessarily a perfect one.
 The practice of hook-and-release has been promoted vigorously for years now and is being used extensively by virtually all anglers as they seek to enjoy the sport of fishing in a spirit that is far more important than merely killing fish. It  has now become almost a basic element in New Brunswick’s angling culture that there is a double reward to be experienced by first hooking a fish and then returning it safely to the water.
 While, as you suggest, there is some risk of mortality associated with hook-and-release  fishing, it has been scientifically demonstrated to be minimal, perhaps less than five percent overall and can be made almost totally effective with the use of barbless, single hooks and proper release techniques.
 More and more, anglers today are using flies with the barbs crimped or cut off, and the result is not only safe release of deliberately hooked salmon but also of accidentally hooked small fish. Furthermore, there are tight limits even to catch and release, only four fish per day in the regular season and there is intense peer pressure to ensure that those limits are respected.
 We also do not share your view that the number of angling participants must be reduced as in your analogy with moose hunting.
 Simply put, angling can be practised indefinitely without killing the resource, whereas moose hunting provides no such option. In fact, one of the great values of recreational fishing is that it can be sustained as a non destructive activity by any angler who wishes to do so.
 Based on all of the foregoing considerations, we would respectfully submit that there is no real need to place all salmon angling opportunities on a lottery system.
 In our view, it is important that open public water be maintained and that privately owned fishing rights be respected. If salmon resource management requires a reduction in tags for each license, then that flexibility continues to exist in the present system.
 As we have endeavoured to point out, the recreational fishery has been acting on the principles of your suggestions for more than two decades and continues to move forward voluntarily with initiatives to cope with the serious state of the salmon resource.
 For example, the concept of total watershed management is now being introduced on the Miramichi and elsewhere in New Brunswick bringing together both Federal and Provincial authorities in concert with conservation groups such as the MSA and similar stakeholders.
 There can be no doubt that further restraints will be introduced in the recreational fishery if the condition of the stocks warrants such action in a comprehensive management plan.

J. W. (Bud) Bird
Chairman
Miramichi Salmon Association

 I am writing to comment on your editorials of October 11 and 12, “On Native rights – and wrongs” and  “Salmon anglers share the blame.”
I appreciate and welcome your recognition that conservation of wild salmon is of tremendous importance to all New Brunswickers and ultimately all Canadians.
 The Atlantic Salmon Federation is of the firm belief that all Canadians must cooperate to save this precious and very vulnerable species. In fact, ASF, our regional councils and local river associations are working closely with many native communities in Atlantic Canada to further our mutual salmon conservation objectives.
 Since the early 1980’s, the Atlantic Salmon Federation has promoted “Live release” of all large predominately egg-bearing salmon in all fisheries in Canada.
 There is growing recognition by anglers, natives and government of the importance of selective harvest and live release. This can be accomplished through carefully managed catch and release fisheries for all anglers and trapnet fisheries for all natives which allow the safe release of all large spawners.
 An important action for government to save Atlantic salmon is the immediate implementation of community watershed partnerships, which would involve representatives of the whole community surrounding our rivers in conservation programs.
 Natives, industry, conservation organizations and anglers must be cooperative stewards of the wild Atlantic salmon and the rivers the salmon inhabit.
 The wild Atlantic salmon is a species which contributes significantly to the economy of eastern Canadians through the recreational fishery and to the food and ceremonial requirements of natives.
 The Department of Fisheries and Oceans must manage all fisheries, including the recreational fishery and native fisheries on the precautionary principle, but it must also devolve some of the decision making to river communities who are the ultimate beneficiaries of healthy watersheds and healthy fish populations.
 Like the salmon, the recreational and native fisheries rely on a pristine and healthy environment.
 The Atlantic Salmon Federation is carrying out a major public education and awareness program urging recreational salmon fishermen to safely release both grilse and large salmon. Our program has achieved tremendous success with many anglers releasing all their grilse as well as large salmon.
 Anglers are very involved in conservation. Many of them spend their time and money enhancing and restoring salmon populations and protecting their freshwater and marine environments. They assist us in carrying out education programs such as our Fish Friends program, which teaches conservation principles to students in grades 4, 5, and 6.
 More than 800 schools in eastern Canada and New England including all native schools in Atlantic Canada deliver Fish Friends.
 Thank you for your thoughtful editorials.
 The Atlantic Salmon Federation will continue to urge the government of Canada to implement community watershed management to facilitate dialogue among all people in eastern Canada to conserve the species and to regulate fisheries to ensure healthy runs of wild Atlantic salmon for the benefit of all Canadians.

Bill Taylor
President
Atlantic Salmon Federation

Note: In recent years, the ASF has received  a total of 5.9 million from the Federal Government :

"The Federal Government is spending nearly $100 million on the restoration of Pacific salmon to boost the recreational fishery on the west coast. The need is just as great in Atlantic Canada" Stephen Chase - VP Atlantic Salmon Federation           The Barbless Butterfly - Summer 2000

"Wild Atlantic salmon need your help. Governments must ante up more money for conservation and restoration of Atlantic salmon and their habitat. Please voice your support for saving these wild creatures so important to eastern Canada's history, social fabric and economy.........
Fisheries and Oceans Canada has seen fit to make a major investment of $400 million for a five - year plan to restore and enhance Pacific salmon on the west coast,  100 million of which is directed to wild salmon enhancement and conservation, habitat restoration and development of effective watershed management processes.
ASF and the biological station of DFO in St. Andrews NB have been developing the technology to track salmon in the Bay of Fundy to assess the impact of various suspected causes of mortality. ASF has contributed $500,000.00 (from private contributions) to this vital research that may well hold the key to the wild Atlantic salmon's survival.
DFO must now provide the leadership and funding required to continue that work and ensure its success."

Is your catch and release really catch and decease?

    "The kyped buck was bright, full bodied and classically proportioned. Resuscitated and released, presumably after thrashing, running and leaping for freedom, he should have continued upstream to sire yet another generation. Instead, his carrion carcass, like some gruesome riverborn roadkill, besmirched the bouldered shore of a Miramichi rapid downriver from where he must have been hooked and played.
    Accident? No cuts or bruises indicated trauma.
    Disease? No disfiguration or discolouration suggested infection.
    Ironically, what probably killed this fish was kindness. Anglers who sincerely profess to be committed to releasing caught salmon (in the delusory assumption that these fish automatically will survive and reproduce) are all too often ensuring, by well meaning but often meagre and misdirected effort, that their fish will wind up on shoreline rocks rather than upriver redds."

Jack Fallon - Summer 1998
The Atlantic Salmon  Journal

Note: Once you get past the hysteria of the first few paragraphs,  the writer does go on to suggest some very constructive precautions to be taken in the safe releasing of Atlantic salmon.

And who better to literally put their money where their mouths are than the ASF? The organization should take the lead in urging a five - year moratorium on all Atlantic Salmon angling by everybody who really cares about the species. To do otherwise at this late point is woefully inadequate and weak.

Andrew Stout
President Emritus of the New England Salmon Association
Letter to the editor of the Atlantic Salmon Journal - Autumn 1998
 

It is a well known fact that the Miramichi no longer has a Salmon run that is sufficient to sustain a sport fishery. It is time that this river be closed or that the taking of even Grilse be prohibited.
Jim Kaye, Editor - United Fly Tyers Roundtable Newsletter  - December 1999
 
 

.........But the river system renowned as the greatest salmon waters in the world appears dangerously close to losing the fish that made it famous.
    “The Miramichi has dodged the other bullets that are hitting other rivers." said Bill Taylor, president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation.  "But now the river is being hit like all the others. Its getting everyone's attention now.”
    Art Lee, a veteran angler from New York ........says......"most of his fellow anglers aren't likely to support a dying river"  "A significant percentage are going to abandon it altogether," he said.
The Globe and Mail - Thursday, Jan. 15, 1998

    In recent weeks ASF has brought the salmon's plight to the attention of millions of people through the media. Headlines from the New York Times and Canada's Globe and Mail and a host of other newspapers, radio and television reports have warned of the Atlantic salmon's demise. The federation is urging governments at the highest levels in strongest terms to take immediate action; to eliminate the remaining commercial fisheries and to undertake the research needed to redress the suspected problems associated with the declining health of the North Atlantic marine ecosystem.

    ASF is also calling upon all anglers, wherever they fish, to voluntarily release both large salmon and grilse until stocks recover. Salmon populations are well below the levels needed to sustain healthy runs, it is critical that every salmon that survives its ocean migration reaches the spawning grounds. With ocean mortality at an all-time high, we must optimize production in our rivers. Anglers can make a tangible contribution towards conserving and rebuilding the salmon populations on their river by practising catch and release. While the contribution made by an individual angler may appear a mere gesture, the combined contributions of all salmon anglers releasing all the salmon and grilse they catch is huge. Catch and release fishing isn't about allocation, or even personal sacrifice, it's about saving one of Nature's most wondrous species.

If we are to demand, with credibility, the necessary remedies, then we must be seen to be doing our part.

Bill Taylor, President  ASF
Atlantic Salmon Journal - Spring 1998

Revisionist History and the Conservaton-Minded Angler - by Fred Whoriskey
Atlantic Salmon and the Miramichi River - Phillip Lee
Atlantics Still on the Decline (ASF) - June 25, 1999
What is killing the North Atlantic salmon?
NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION (NASCO)  Opening Statement by the Atlantic Salmon Federation
The incredible, disappearing salmon  October 11, 1999   By Marilyn Bauer
Atlantic Salmon On The Decrease In The Miramichi River
Group Is Seeking Total Protection for Atlantic Salmon (May 21, 1998)
Atlantic Salmon Is Facing Possible Extinction (Dec. 14, 1997)
Miramichi River that once was angler's paradise now  puzzles scientists: Where are the fish?

ATLANTIC SALMON CRISIS REQUIRES POWERFUL PARTNERSHIPS

ASF Press release:  November 18, 1997

St. Andrews...The Atlantic Salmon Federation is leading a world-wide coalition of conservation organizations, seeking to save the remaining populations of Atlantic salmon throughout the North Atlantic. Joseph F. Cullman 3rd of New York called on the World Wildlife Fund today, at a meeting of its Marine Leadership Committee, in Washington, D.C., to join the Atlantic Salmon Federation in a coalition to address the Atlantic salmon crisis. Mr. Cullman, a conservation leader, is Chairman Emeritus of the Atlantic Salmon Federation and a Director of the World Wildlife Fund. He also asked the World Wildlife Fund to support a resolution, which the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Salmon Federation passed at a meeting held on November 13 in New York. The resolution calls for all salmon anglers to adopt voluntary catch and release for both large salmon and grilse until salmon populations recover.

Bill Taylor, President of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, said. "The World Wildlife Fund will be a tremendous help both from the aspect of the organization's size and influence, and its knowledge of the marine ecosystem. The problems the Atlantic salmon are facing are not unique to that species and go beyond overfishing to the disruption of the food chain and the breakdown of the marine ecosystem. Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund are integral to our cause. The World Wildlife Fund is positioned to act quickly when conservation emergencies, such as the one facing Atlantic salmon now, arise."

Mr. Taylor continued, "Most of our Directors developed their passion for Atlantic salmon on the rivers, fishing for them. They realize that drastic action is required to reduce the mortality of the precious salmon that are remaining. Therefore, our board is calling on anglers everywhere to join them in setting an example by releasing all salmon so that they can continue their journey to the spawning beds, regardless of regulations that allow retention. The Atlantic Salmon Federation will intensify its catch and release education program to reach as many anglers as possible, explaining the need for catch and release, the proper techniques to achieve maximum survival, and the research that confirms that a released fish does survive to spawn."

RESOLUTION ENDORSED BY ASF (U.S.) DIRECTORS NOVEMBER 13, 1997

THE ATLANTIC SALMON IS IN CRISIS, AND STOCKS ARE THE LOWEST IN RECORDED HISTORY.

    THE ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION CALLS UPON SALMON ANGLERS WHEREVER THEY MAY FISH TO PRACTICE CATCH AND RELEASE OF LARGE SALMON AND GRILSE UNTIL ATLANTIC SALMON STOCKS HAVE RECOVERED.

    THE ATLANTIC SALMON FEDERATION (ASF) IS LEADING A WORLD-WIDE COALITION OF CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS, SEEKING TO
ADDRESS THE CRISIS SITUATION IN ATLANTIC SALMON STOCKS.

WWF CAN HELP BY:
 

2. PARTICIPATING IN THE ASF-LED COALITION TO ADDRESS THE ATLANTIC SALMON CRISIS

The Canadian Federal minister of Fisheries & Oceans (himself a recreational angler) and the New Brunswick Natural Resources minister (a keen salmon fisherman) both flew kites early in the new year, publicly speculating that an interim extension of mandatory catch and release to all salmon, whether multi or one sea-winter fish (grilse), may be a consideration as a mitigating measure in the face of extremely low ocean survival numbers last year.

Federal Fisheries Minister David Anderson told a national media reporter his options included mandatory catch-and-release of both grilse and salmon across the entire sportfishing industry; and a moratorium on the remaining Canadian commercial fishery.

And New Brunswick's Alan Graham told the Saint John Telegraph Journal if he could be convinced it would help, he would support a temporary ban on killing grilse in his province were the federal minister to implement it.

Already reeling from devastatingly low runs, closed rivers and a badly damaged outfitting industry, many anglers in Nova Scotia have become resigned to bad, then worse, news in recent years and there is already some spontaneous support for total catch and release with some anglers sending their unused tags back to the government to make a point.

Loudest objection to the concept of mandatory catch and release of grilse can be expected to come from Newfoundland & Labrador where stocks are arguably least affected, (although runs were down there last year as elsewhere) and where the primarily resident angler sport fishery is, as yet at least, much less inclined towards hook and release.

Elsewhere, however, initial reaction to the concept suggested a spectrum of response from firm support, through cautious reticence from an economic perspective, to outright opposition. Others suggest a cautious approach, warning against knee-jerk responses, in case 1997 turns out to be nothing more than a biological anomaly.

So, whatever happens legislatively this year, it is abundantly clear that the numbers for salmon returns to North America in 1998 will be of historical significance to the future of both an important species, and an ancient sport.
ASF Conservation Notebook
SPRING 1998 ~ VOL. 47 NO. 1

METHINKS THOU DOTH PROTECT TOO MUCH!
The crisis of confidence in Miramichi salmon management

Written by Jerry Doak - Summer of 1998

WWDOAK.COM

The following points may be of help in summarizing
the general content of this essay.

• To overstate the severity of a crisis is to undermine the credibility of future warnings.
• Spreading panic through rhetorical excess leads to reactionary measures, not precautionary measures.
• Management has become more symptomatic and less systematic in its approach.
• Calling for more voluntary restrictions on angling makes the angler look like a predator.
• Anglers who rush to take credit for the solution are also inviting blame for the problem.
• The pressure to release grilse creates the impression of a crisis and discourages angling which in turn errodes conservation.
  
• Grilse retention is a necessary safety valve to ensure the continued survival of the more valuable MSW salmon resource.
• To disenfranchise people by restricting angling involvement invites a dangerous backlash.
• Declining angler presence will lead inevitably to increased poaching opportunities.
• To strain angler relations over insignificant matters threatens future cooperation on more crucial concerns.
• Nuisance regulations will target and penalize legitimate anglers, thus driving people away.
• To waste enforcement efforts on trivial infractions will lead to the rise of more serious threats.
• Impractical and unenforceable regulations increase the likelihood of a total closure of the river.
• Expansionist hatchery programs may impede the natural development of wild stocks and could lead to behavioral confusion.
• The desire for more conservation revenue threatens the reputation and the biology of the river.
• The conservation industry has begun to work at cross purposes to the angling industry.

Over this past winter ('98) of discontent, much has been written and spoken about the plight of the Atlantic Salmon in the Miramichi river system. Perhaps it is a testimony to this river's grand reputation that people have made it such a conspicuous target of widespread factual distortion but as a Miramichier, I find this most unsettling. In a national article on January 15, the Globe and Mail quoted a leading conservationist as saying "The Miramichi has dodged the other bullets that are hitting other rivers. But now the river is being hit like all the others. It's getting everyone's attention now." The same article carried the somber warning that "anglers aren't likely to support a dying river." Because of my long time involvement in the fly fishing industry, I have watched with great interest as self-proclaimed authorities from various agencies have waxed eloquent about what must be done to the Miramichi to avert an oncoming crisis and while there is great passion and persuasion, there is a serious lack of precision. It has been said that "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it" and although some have tried to justify the deliberate sacrifice of the Miramichi's reputation for the worthy cause of reducing some interceptory commercial fisheries, the madness in this method has left our river sadly misrepresented.

In considering the consequences of speaking publicly on such a contentious matter, it would be temptingly convenient to say nothing and let the events unfold as they may. I also recognize that anything I do say will risk being met with the insulting suspicion of a conflict of interest which only serves to reveal serious unfamiliarity with the true nature of our business activities. Nonetheless, the points which need to be made are far too important to be dismissed on that basis and although it would probably be in my short term best interest to remain silent, I can no longer stand aside and watch things develop as they have. Of additional concern is the fact that many of the key players in these events are both friends and customers, some of whom I have known and respected for many years. Thus it is that I will restrict my discussion to policies and positions, and I would stress at the outset that this is in no way intended to be a criticism of personalities or individuals.

Several of our customers have asked how things could get so far out of hand in such a short time, and to a large extent, we must all share the blame for this. In a an era of the "short attention span" and the "sound byte", few people are willing to invest the time to give this issue the consideration it deserves and there is a great temptation to leave it to those who seem to know best. However, this has proven to be unwise in that those who seem to know a little are not always willing to learn a little more. This has led to a "Ready, Fire, Aim" kind of management in which dissenting opinions are quickly dismissed. Perhaps the old maxim should be updated by saying "If you want something done hastily, get a busy person to do it." However, the treasure of the Miramichi deserves more than quickly conceived and poorly considered band-aid solutions. It requires an overall strategy which looks at the long term interests of the river, its people and the angling industry which it supports and by which it is supported.

During the spring of 1997, we began to hear supposedly scientific predictions of large returns of salmon to the Miramichi, all of which were greeted with enthusiasm. A few outdoor writers were also quick to climb aboard the wagon of great expectations, all of which made the reality of 1997 that much more disappointing. As the runs began to manifest themselves, it became increasingly clear that this was at best an average year or at worst, a little below average. Considering the fact that an average run of salmon on the Miramichi is several times greater than that of most other salmon rivers in the world, one might think that we should be grateful for the fish we did receive last season. However, as if to illustrate the truth of the old saying "blessed is the man who does not expect much for he shall not be disappointed" disappointment began to set in among many anglers. The assumption was that since the predictions were not fulfilled, there must be a serious problem, not with the accuracy of the predictions, but with the state of the Atlantic Salmon as a whole. The experiences of several other rivers seemed to corroborate this assumption and after a few days of myopic assessment and pessimistic pondering, some anglers began to speculate that we were in the early stages of a serious decline.

It has always troubled me how quickly people jump to conclusions about the entire river system based solely upon the anecdotal evidence of their own limited perspective but this is certainly nothing new. Many overlook the fact that Atlantic Salmon runs have always been cyclical in nature and are historically prone to statistical oscillations. Instead, with the issue still in the novelty phase, last fall some anglers began to make some bold assertions about what must be done to fix this newly discovered problem. Before long some were suggesting the possibility of releasing all grilse, arguing that since they don't keep them anyway, then nobody should be allowed to do so. This notion quickly took on a life of its own and before its long term implications were even considered, the whim had wormed its way into some influential circles. Regrettably, in the salmon world we seem increasingly bent on following a "herd mentality" whereby once an idea has been put forth, people seem ready to accept it without stopping to question where it leads or what it accomplishes. Unlike lemmings, humans are equipped with the ability to ask "Why" but this question has been conspicuously absent as we plunge toward a new management paradigm.

It must be recognized at the outset that a significant majority of our grilse on the Miramichi are male. Some would even insist that male grilse make up as high as 95% of the run. Through increasing the pressure on anglers to release these fish, we are creating the impression that something of lasting value is being accomplished when in fact it is not. By elevating the visceral above the cerebral, we have embraced a management strategy in which the emotions drive the notions and this is leading us to some dangerous consequences. A few years ago, a test for academic achievement was conducted among students from various parts of the world. The North American students finished seventh, but in the portion of the test which measured how the students felt about their performance before being told their score, they came first. Sadly, we live in an era where people are encouraged to feel good about performing poorly, and it seems the world of conservation is no different. To make people feel good about doing something useless may be good public relations, but when they finally realize that this is not based on sound biology, they will be all the more suspicious of other steps which may need to be taken in the future. Credibility is easy to lose and hard to regain.

Some anglers voluntarily release all their fish which is an admirable demonstration of their devotion to the river. However, to turn these personal gestures of good will into a blanket prohibition of all grilse retention zealously imposes a legal constraint which has no compelling biological justification. Moreover, to call publicly for peer pressure to be brought to bear on any angler who does retain a fish will have the same chilling effect on the angling industry as did the smear tactics and snobbish propaganda of the 1970's black salmon taboo.

It should also be clearly understood that the Miramichi salmon angling industry is not predicated upon the killing of any fish. For 15 years, unlike on many salmon rivers, Miramichi anglers have been releasing all fish over 25 inches, thus preserving both the large female salmon and their large male counterparts. We have led the way in salmon conservation and, despite cutbacks in enforcement efforts, we have had exceptionally high angler compliance with any conservation measure which is scientifically sound. This fact has been overlooked by those who are still looking around for token gestures and deeper cuts so that we can be seen to be doing even more. It is hard to overlook the hypocrisy when many of these same people who advocate further cutbacks on the Miramichi regularly fish on other rivers where adult female salmon are still being killed by anglers every day.

The carefully devised strategy of the past 15 years has been based upon the elimination of both angling and commercial harvesting of large brood stock in the hopes that they would produce ever increasing numbers of large multi sea winter (MSW) offspring. In actual fact, this has been happening and the Miramichi has seen generally healthy runs of MSW fish since this policy was instituted. We have also had excellent juvenile counts over the past number of years. Since our spawning escapement is clearly not at risk, what then is the rationale for advocating mandatory hook and release of a fish which is not vital to the future of the river? Might this be part of an effort to discourage the local resident's involvement in the fishery and preserve it only for an elitist diversion or is this just a coincidence? Since many consider the grilse to be genetically predisposed to be a smaller fish, would it not be better to have more salmon and fewer grilse on the spawning beds. Perhaps this is why just a few years ago, one of our major conservation groups publicly called for an increased harvest of grilse from the Miramichi, just as the same group is now willing to embrace mandatory hook and release. So much for consistency.

Would those who insist that the grilse is an essential part of our spawning mix also support the use of grilse to fertilize the eggs used for their satellite rearing tanks? Quite likely they would not, since most biologists seem to agree that the ideal spawning mix is salmon with salmon. Why then are we bent upon saturating the spawning process with increasing numbers of grilse when it cannot be proven to be a biological necessity. I recognize that a large male salmon will fend off an intrusive grilse from the spawning bed, but whether he can successfully fend off a disproportionately high number of grilse is another matter. Nobody is advocating a wholesale slaughter of grilse, but a controlled modest harvest of a few per year is certainly sustainable and, I would contend, actually beneficial. From a salmonid "fund management" perspective, to invest a small percentage of surplus biological capital to preserve and increase the overall long-term performance of the river makes perfect sense and to do otherwise is to be grilse wise and salmon foolish. Conversely, to deliberately introduce a wave of panic among the various players in the market is to place the entire process at risk.

By publicly calling for mandatory hook and release of grilse the river is exposed to several threats. It will seriously damage the already vulnerable outfitting industry which will lessen the number of people who derive their living from the resource. This in turn devalues the river and changes the way in which it is viewed by the people who live here. In short, when the golden eggs stop coming, the goose's days are numbered. As people are increasingly disenfranchised from their river through unnecessary restrictions, a dangerous few will vent their frustration on the resource itself by poaching and when they do, they will quite likely no longer be content with a grilse. If we unwittingly create a climate in which female salmon are placed at risk for the sake of saving male grilse, the end result will be worse than the first and we could easily undo all of the good that has been done here over the past 15 years.

Furthermore, to advocate a total hook and release fishery is to wave a red flag in the china shop of the Miramichi and invite more governmental restriction on the angling effort as a whole, just as we have seen this year. In an effort to congratulate ourselves for our willingness to bear the brunt of the conservation thrust, we have unwittingly portrayed ourselves as a significant predator, and moreover, one who is easily restrained because of our history of compliance with the law. Have we become so inflated in our own estimation that we seriously think we are able to harvest with a fly rod enough grilse from this river system so as to disrupt the spawning escapement? That sounds like an exaggerated sales pitch from a tackle salesman rather than the scholarly opinion of a fisheries management strategist. How long will it be before we see a total ban on the use of all "green machine" salmon flies as well?

We must abandon the temptation to seek symptomatic solutions and began to pursue a systematic approach to Atlantic Salmon Management. The dangers of symptomatic solutions is perhaps best illustrated by the story of the family who went picking wild mushrooms and while preparing their meal, they dropped a couple which were quickly eaten by the family cat. After supper, they noticed that the cat was in obvious internal distress and so they concluded that the mushrooms must have been poison. After spending the night in the hospital having their stomachs pumped they were surprised to find upon returning home that the cat had given birth to a litter of kittens.

Symptomatic management would also seem to be the motivation behind the effort to make the use of barbless hooks mandatory. One organization did irreparable damage to the outfitting industry by prematurely announcing in its newsletter that barbless hooks were required for this season. A flood of calls and cancellations ensued and even many of those who would have been willing to comply were scared off by wondering how disastrous must be the state of the river to warrant such an extreme measure. Others are calling for the banning of double hooks, without ever considering the frustration and cost to the average angler, many of whom have accumulated a valuable collection of flies over the years which could be rendered illegal with one indifferent stroke of the pen.

Perhaps the best illustration of this new level of lunacy is the previously unheard of concept of fishing with hookless flies "where the only action will be the swirl of a visible raise." I was made aware of this practice a while ago but I was so embarrassed for the people participating in it that I vowed not be the first one to publicize it. However, as the previous quote will indicate, it has been recently documented elsewhere and must now be exposed for the folly that it is. This illustrates better than anything the "pointless" nature of these inventions as we continue to "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." Is the next step to suggest that we can ensure good water levels throughout the summer if we would just stop taking showers? For what past excesses are we trying to atone by our new-found obsession with these punitive proposals? Perhaps we should be trading our fishing vests for hair shirts.

Some go so far as to say that small doubles are acceptable but larger ones should be made illegal. Although this conveniently accommodates their own hook preferences, it also reinforces the ambivalence and the impracticality of the meddlesome mind set and begs the question "Do we really want to squander our enforcement efforts by harassing legitimate anglers and ignoring poachers?" There is an old legal maxim which reads "De Minumis lex non curat" - The law does not concern itself with trifles. If you waste your time chasing jay walkers, don't be surprised if thugs take over the streets and the same is true of the river. Is it not time to seriously consider whether the salmon is more threatened "by hook or by crook"?

At the present time, we have 8 Federal Fisheries Officers on the entire Miramichi watershed and yet, rather than calling for more protection, our conservation groups are calling for more nuisance legislation. Moreover, there is a persistent notion within DFO that a river which is completely closed is safer than one which is open and the mere mention of some of these ideas is enough to trigger that extremism. Although we fully recognize that the best protection any river could have is the presence of concerned anglers in every pool, this view is not shared by DFO. The more tedious and unenforceable the regulations become, the greater the argument from the enforcement personnel for total closure and if and when this happens, those who started this madness must be held fully responsible. When you keep yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, don't blame the firemen for getting you wet and furthermore, don't expect them to come again if there is no fire the first time.

We should not be surprised when we find increased efforts on the part of government to restrict all angling, including hook and release. The Saint John River system is a painful reminder of how easily one moves from hook and release to total closure and how quickly DFO can invent a rationale for doing so. I have encountered many people who are of the opinion that conservation in its purest form can only come when there is no angling activity on the river at all, which demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the reality of the Miramichi. If we declare total hook and release to be a conservation necessity, we should not be taken aback by the extremist reaction we invite as all angling activities are brought under increasingly negative scrutiny. One recent article embracing the notion of mandatory hook and release also made two references to "injured grilse." While serious hook injury is an extreme rarity, is it not obvious that such misleading references add fuel to the growing effort to restrict all angling?

For many years the Miramichi has benefited from legislative stability and the angling industry has been able to develop accordingly. However, in the atmosphere of chronic regulatory uncertainty which now exists, there is a pervasive pessimism which is driving many property owners to reconsider the long term value of their investment. Governments are also encouraging outfitters to diversify their interests in favour of more eco-tourism and other outdoor adventures as a way of reducing their dependence upon the salmon. This carries with it the added danger of reducing the responsibility of government to properly manage the salmon resource which in turn places the river at even greater risk. It is quite likely that with continued confusion, significant stretches of water may be placed on the market, making the Miramichi the only salmon river in North America where it is theoretically possible to unilaterally acquire the majority ownership of a priceless resource. It will be an interesting study over the next few years to consider who is selling and who is buying - and at what cost.

One must also consider the role of the media in this process of devaluation and the shamefully inadequate coverage of this past winter certainly raises some serious questions. With all the journalistic balance of Oprah at a Burger King, the media swarmed to the scent of a crisis and before long, some of the local papers were spouting statistics which were laughably inaccurate. Rather than investigating or considering that the figures might be suspect, they churned out story after story with catchy words like "Plunged", "Plummeted" and "Free-fall" to describe the state of salmon on the "once - great Miramichi." Although the reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated, nothing succeeds like excess and so the journalists pressed on in their "relentless pursuit of perception." With disgraceful slothfulness, they faithfully reproduced each press release, without ever stopping to question its accuracy or its agenda. Over the winter months, I was contacted by several members of both the print and broadcast media, during which time it became clear that, although these reporters were made aware of serious inaccuracies, they were not going to change the nature of their story. Moreover, in some articles, the plagiarism was so blatant that even printing errors were mirrored from one paper to the next, leading us to suggest that some journalists should be known as repeaters rather than reporters.

There was a time when the Miramichi was largely ignored by the press and we were the better for it. More recently, however, it has become the focus of increased media exploitation and it has been far from beneficial. People with limited perspective and little first hand knowledge of the issues are being given a larger platform from which to confuse mythology with methodology and the hysteria this has generated increases the pressure on governments to be driven more by optics than by sound management principles.

While there has been an eagerness in the media to perpetuate this panic, we have seen no investigation into the inconsistencies of the statistics of the past few years. No questions have been publicly raised about the reliability of the Millerton counting facility and its short history dating back to 1994. For example, on the Main Southwest Miramichi, the June 30 grilse returns as indicated by the Millerton trap were 32 in '94, 17 in '95, 242 in '96, 35 in '97 and 31 in '98. Why then was '97 reported as an 80% decline without ever questioning what factors led to '96 being so abnormally high. Such wild oscillations in interceptory statistical data do little to instill confidence in the scientific basis for policy decisions. (Incidentally, as of July 15, the figures are 287 in '94, 454 in '95, 806 in '96, 140 in '97, and 223 in '98. The salmon count as of July 15 is 28 in '94, 85 in '95, 192 in '96, 27 in '97, and 61 in '98.) It should also be noted that the Millerton trap intercepts a small and varying percentage of the total population which makes it even less of an exact count. Add to this the fluctuations in water height and temperature, as well as recent upstream construction, siltation, etc. and you have many factors which seriously undermine its credibility. What is perhaps most appalling is the fact that once all the data was in and a mid- winter scientific "peer review" process was conducted, all the preliminary stock assessments were revised upward but these new figures were not reported, even though a press conference was held to make them public. Link to Miramichi Salmon Returns Data

Another long term concern has to do with the increasing preoccupation with hatcheries and enhancement programs on the Miramichi. Despite the fact that our juvenile counts are at a very high level, we continue to insult the river by deliberately fostering the impression that the future of the Miramichi is dependent upon the feeble efforts of a hatchery. We have been blessed to live on the largest natural incubator of Atlantic Salmon in the world and yet we seem to be increasingly preoccupied with disrupting the delicate genetic balance of the salmon resource by intrusive means. A couple of years ago an article appeared in one of our newspapers which discussed the concept of "maximizing the output of the river" comparing it to the reforestation efforts of the lumber industry. However, unlike trees, salmon do not spend their entire lives in one environment. In our greed and our impatience, we run a serious risk of altering the formation of some complex behavioral characteristics while we fumble toward the future. How much of a salmon's natural instinct is developed during its fresh water experience as a par and how much of their navigational ability is acquired through the search for food and the struggle for survival? Might we not seriously impede this process by spoon feeding and coddling par through the expansionist zeal of the satellite rearing program? If fiberglass were really better than Miramichi gravel, then surely any river could have a run of salmon like the Miramichi. The fact that they do not shows the long term failure of hatchery enhancement in general. Many rivers which have no wild fish left would give anything to have even 1% of the Miramichi's natural salmon population. Why then do we have more attention being paid to hatchery technology and less to nature? Would not the hundreds of large fish which are milked for these programs each year not be better left where nature intended them?

It should be understood that the present total optimum hatchery production capability is one half of one percent of the total spawning output of the Miramichi river system. However, many people have been duped into thinking that the hatchery is essential to the survival of the Miramichi, partially because the press has been suggesting exactly that for quite some time. I would also stress that I am not opposed to the hatchery as an insurance measure to correct possible environmental damage to an area which might occur from time to time. As a research facility, it also serves a useful function and just as with the initial satellite rearing sites, I recognize some value to the careful study of salmon under various conditions but until we can answer more questions than we raise, I would contend that it is time to say "Tanks, but no tanks."

Strangely enough, just as I was trying to find some way to articulate my concern about this issue, I received in the mail a conservation newsletter which said it far better than I could have hoped to. It contained an ad which read "Now, instead of complaining about a lack of salmon and brook trout in a particular area, you can do something about it!" (emphasis theirs). "By making a charitable donation ........... a particular stretch of the Miramichi River can be stocked with young salmon or brook trout from the Miramichi Fish Hatchery.........." The ad ends by saying, "Adult Salmon need to be collected this summer for spawning so don't delay in placing your order."

Apparently, more than just the salmon are being milked! Who would be so presumptuous as to suggest tampering with the natural cycles of the Miramichi and training its fish to satisfy our selfish demand for instant gratification like some school of "Stepford Wives"? How can this kind of nonsense pass for conservation? The role of conservation is to conserve, not con some and serve others. Surely if one wishes to fish in a stocked pond, there are several from which to choose. The Miramichi, however, has a world wide reputation as a river with spectacular runs of wild Atlantic salmon whose sophisticated palate offers the ultimate angling challenge. For years anglers have understood that "The degree of accomplishment is directly proportional to the degree of difficulty" and so it must continue to be. As Henry Van Dyke once wrote "Such elaborate precautions to ensure good luck extract all the spice from the sport of angling." To be blunt, if salmon fishing doesn't teach you patience, then you are not a salmon fisherman and no amount of cheque writing can make you one. To entertain for a moment the thought of forcing this majestic river to produce beyond its natural abundance is to cross a line of greed which must be clearly drawn. Greed always loses what it seeks to increase and ultimately, it destroys everything in its path, whether it be a fish, a forest, a field, a family, a friend, a fortune or a future,

The cause of conservation has always been near and dear to the heart of the Miramichi. We have led the way on many initiatives and so we should, as this is an exemplary river. However, we must approach with great caution the disturbing trend toward the generation of funds at any cost which is invading the tranquility of this river system. For years the Miramichi has sustained the development of a multimillion dollar angling industry, employing hundreds of local residents. The awareness and value which that industry has brought to the resource have served to elevate the salmon to a status which has demanded and received careful management and attention. We have also seen rivers which have not had a significant salmon angling industry and as a result, many have been mismanaged into oblivion, all under the watchful umbrella of some benevolent organizations who were in and of themselves, unable to stop the downward spiral. In light of so many conservation disappointments over the past few years, it would almost seem that there might be a significant public relations benefit in taking credit for fixing something that is not yet broken, as long as you can convince people that it needs fixing. Whatever the motivation, we are now seeing the development of a self sustaining and somewhat self serving conservation industry which is generating increasing amounts of revenue from the panic of the people. In so doing, it is now working directly at cross purposes with the angling industry and each of us must decide which effort is in the long term best interest of the Miramichi.

This past winter, a biologist employed by a conservation group used some rather unscientific language to describe the state of the Atlantic Salmon when he compared it to an airplane disaster with no black box to tell us what happened. He went on to say that it was his hope that with enough of an outcry, the government might allocate some research dollars to study the matter further. One cannot help but wonder who'll be the first in line with an outstretched hand when the government gravy train rolls by.

There is an old middle-management technique of assuring job security by creating problems which only you are qualified to solve and this strategy has been flourishing in the conservation industry. The more complex the issues seem to be, the more likely people are to say "Here's 50 bucks, you figure it out." In dinner after dinner, that is exactly what has been happening as guilt ridden fishermen do penance for a pittance in the pursuit of angling absolution. With the blessing of governments and anglers alike, both coffers and egos have swollen, and nobody seems ready to impose any accountability. I recently heard a conservationist say publicly that "The real value of a salmon is the money it can raise for conservation." Tell that to an unemployed guide with a net in his barn and no warden in sight and see if he understands your value system. Explain that to the Miramichi when its salmon are once again imperiled by short sighted policies and myopic management.

It has been said that had there been a set of binoculars in the crow's nest of the Titanic, the tragedy might have been averted. Perhaps its time to turn our attention away from rearranging deck chairs and on to more serious matters.

Back to top