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.