|
than fishery nranagernent- On the b1'est
<br />Coast, their govertunent had began its
<br />hatcherysystcmin 1894,conccntt~tting
<br />on socke~re sahnorr. $y about 193;5, it
<br />was clear that the hatcheries tr•ere not
<br />~~~orking well and, heaeeen 193f~ and
<br />1938, all of the sockeye hatcheries were
<br />closed; apparently the non-sockeye fa-
<br />cilities either were closed or given to
<br />British Columbia.
<br />~-Vestern Canada's hiatus in federal
<br />fish propagation lasted into the 1950x.
<br />Then heg<-n the building of salmon
<br />spawning channels-artificial su•eams
<br />haying gravel becis.:'lrrd in the mid-
<br />19i0s ahatchery push resumed with a
<br />vengeance. Mavhe instiuttional memory
<br />w•as short. Probably there tivas faith in
<br />new technology. Obviously; public dis-
<br />satistaction with fishing had pressed.
<br />~~ a~
<br />~ 7;i'
<br />~5 ~ ,~'
<br />C,
<br />~,~,,
<br />:;~~_ ~
<br />f A" ~„„
<br />x
<br />~- ~ ~. ~
<br />i;~ ~ ~
<br />.~ ~ 4 ~k~
<br />:~
<br />Same old story: hatcheries instead of
<br />cures.
<br />By 1990, Canada's SEP had spent
<br />over X480 million and kas consuming
<br />an annual budget ofover X40 million. It
<br />was releasing over 550 million salmon
<br />tmd trout annually. From this, they offi-
<br />cially expect around six million to re-
<br />turn as adults and about two million to
<br />he harvested-a return of four tenths
<br />of one percent and aper-fish cost of
<br />over X20, exclusive of fishing and mar-
<br />keting expenses.
<br />The signs of biological success are
<br />mixed. "the return from one of SEP's
<br />main efforts, Chinook ;salmon hatcher-
<br />ies, indicate this part of the program
<br />has not produced clcsired results. The
<br />record is better f~~r coho salmon, and
<br />productionofttreothersalmon (chum,
<br />pink and sockeye] looks
<br />promising. But SEP doesn't
<br />"° -i U`~~ really knotiti•.~fter 1-1 years,
<br />^" they still haven't adequately
<br />evaluated their program.
<br />i< r~ ' They plunged into full-scale
<br />~~ ' production with too little in-
<br />yestigation of the uncertain-
<br />~k'r, ties that are now tripping
<br />~;
<br />~•~`~; them up.
<br />`~~ ~ r ~: ~~ There is little word vet on
<br />p` how the massive SEP produc-
<br />{" uon affects wild stocks. But
<br />~` - t ~ ,fir , _ ,..~ ....a. _ _._
<br />~#s~`s;t ~ s~
<br />- ~"*~
<br />YOU KNOW POLITICIANS! ~ ~ ~~
<br />The Canadian Federal Department ~"~` ~~
<br />of Fisheries and Oceans' Mtge Pacific a, -~i"r°'~'
<br />salmonid hatchery system, prestunptu ~~ -,
<br />oush~c~~lledtheSalnxmidEnhancement ~Y~L,~y~/ '
<br />fie. i.;" tom' 1 S£ "_- `:
<br />Program (SEP), has 30 federal hatchet ~, ~ - ~ ,
<br />ies, interlinkecf provincial hatcheries. - ~~-' r ~.• ~ ;t
<br />dozcnsofcoopc•ratiyecommunittreat= _,.y _ ~`°
<br />ingfaciliucs, anti sc yeral artificial spaw~r k 'Y
<br />ing channels. Thet e is also a program of ~ ' ~~,.. ~ ~~~
<br />a~ ~, 'v ;..F ,.bt
<br />lake ferulvation and a minor stream ~ r~ .-~
<br />habitat effort-• As brochures tell iC "too -.~,
<br />w r ,...
<br />many fish were }rarvested...rivers were d,..-4`.~S as .,..
<br />polluted, darns constructed and spawn `°.~` ~ }. , '~,~ '~~ -
<br />~; ^"``~.
<br />ingbedsdestroyed... Fishermen noticed '~ •N_
<br />that there were fewer and fe~,•er fish. B~ _
<br />the 1970s everyone kne~,~ the problem ~-
<br />~~as serious. Public meetings pmducecl ~ ``,;~
<br />agreement; aFederal-Provincial pro- ,~a~ ,~ ;~.,
<br />.._
<br />gram to rebuild stocks was needed. ~ ~-' ~~:'~
<br />AVOIDABLE DESTRUCTION OF WILD
<br />FISN HABITAT: PARTS OF CLEAR CREEK
<br />IN OREGON'S JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN.
<br />THE ONE BELOW IS OVERGRAZED AND
<br />APPARENTLY DREDGED STRAIGHT, THE
<br />ONE AT LEFT HAS A HEALTHY RIPARIAN
<br />ZONE AND STREAM CHANNEL.
<br />STOCKING HATCHERY FISH CAN'T CURE
<br />THIS PROBLEM-AND DIVERTS
<br />EFFORT AWAY FROM WHAT IS NEEDED:
<br />PROPER MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN
<br />ACTIVITIES IN THE WATERSHED.
<br />AI:Tt-~1S l99'' TROCT
<br />
|