Concept:
Our first exposure to the push for legislative entrenchment of grilse release came in 1997. My initial response was that it would constitute a tacit admission of angler guilt for the perceived “precipitous decline" of salmon stocks which might lead to negative publicity and punitive legislation. I think the events of the past few years bear this out and we are now more firmly convinced that unnecessary regulatory restrictions discourage responsible anglers and thereby undermine the very foundation of conservation itself.
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. Cost:
It is unlikely that a new "hook and release" licence would have been offered at a reduced cost from the present fee since to do so would be unnecessarily revenue negative. Some jurisdictions must significantly devalue their "hook and release" licences to sell them at all whereas the Miramichi continues to have a good number of people willing to pay full price for "hook and release" privileges as they now exist. Thus, why introduce another category if it is not intended to be a springboard from which to launch future price increases for existing licenses?
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. Consequences:
Under the present structure, all anglers are free to release both salmon and grilse and many of us have been doing so for years. In fact, since 1998, anglers have been seriously penalized for retaining a grilse by being unfairly barred from even "hook and release" fishing for the rest of the day. Instead of correcting this major impediment to the fishery, anglers are now forced to declare their harvesting intentions at the time of their licence purchase, thereby subjecting their legal activity to invasive scrutiny and possible criticism. Many anglers, some of whom have little other opportunity to claim moral superiority, have already attempted to further marginalize those who wish to keep an occasional grilse by implying that conservation can only be achieved through total hook and release. By creating a vehicle from which moral superiority can be asserted, the province has set in motion a process through which legal anglers will be made to feel like poachers and this may lead a dangerous few to begin acting the part.
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
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.
|
 |
|||||