- . Ottawa, cifmda

. . 3 .. . (1

. .

w i n I . f

. f

?

The quality of this microfiche is heavily dependent up or;^ the La qualit4 de cette microfiche depend grandement de la qualit4 qualfty of the original thesis sukitted for microfilming. Every de h th&e soumise au microfihnage, Nous avons tout fait pcwr effqrt has beerr made to ensure the highest quality of reproduo assurer une qualit4 suwieure de reproduction.

+ tionpossible. \

If pages are missingrcontact the university which granted the Sil manque'des pages, veuiller c6hmyniquer avec I'unive* degree. sit4 qui a confer4 le grade.

I - !%me pa&s may haveindistinct pint especially if the original La qualit4 dimpression de ceRaines pages peut Iaisser B pages were typed with a poor typewriter r i h or if the univer- wirer; surtout si Ies pages originales-mt &6 dactylographiees sity sent us an inferior photocopy. A I'aide d'un ruban s 4 ou-si 11universit4 n w s a-fait parvmir -

une photocopie de qualit4 infdrieure.

Previously Gyrighted materials (pkd articles, published Les ckxurnenk qui font dejA Sobj8t d'un droit d'kteur (artides tests, etc.) are not filmed. .. de revue, examens publieis, etc.) ne sont pas microfilm&.

Reproducficm in full w in part of this film is governed by the La reproduction, m&ne padiielle, de ce microfib int so&tse Canadiah Copyright Act. R.S.C. 1970, c. G30. Please read B la Loi canadine sur le droit d'autar, SRC 1970, c. 030. - the authorhation f m s which accompany this thesis. VeuiJJez prendre m n s l b e des formules dautorisation qui

'accompagnent 'cette ttthse.

THIS DISSERTATION LA TH~SE A$T6 HAS BEEN MICROFILMED * . MICROFILM~E TEUE QUE

-- -AS- -'-

*e

as a Property Rights I'ssue 1

-- DEGREE C O H W W H THESIS WAS WSENTtD / Master of Arts .: r I

G U m r P m LCOUEL CETTE THEST f i l l ~ ~ S E N J ~ E ,- . - .>.I --i

, .4'

Permission is hereby grated to NATIChlAL L I m R Y

i of the film.

The author reserves other puplication r~ghts. and w i t h 'the

thesis n a entcnsiw extracts from 11 m y hr jwcntfxl or o t t ~ c ~ .

., - *

AN EXAMINATION OF CANADA - - WITED STATES SALMON INTSRCEPTION

3 .

Name : Heat her ~ l e tcher . , 7.G

Degree : Master u f Arts * Lr

rr

Title of Thesis? A n V E x a t i o n of Canada-United States Salmon rIn~erception*as a Property Rights 'Issye

Examinxng Conanittee:

-2 -

L '7" Jbhn Richards . a External Examiner.

I j "2 . , ~ s s l s t a n t Professor d Faculty of Business Administration . " -

Sinkcin Fraser UniversXty

Date approved : - 3 + ii

*.- 7

PART1A.L COPYRIGHT LICENSE

I hereby grant to ~ i m n Fraser ~ n l v e r s i t i t e*

y thesis, proJect or extended essay (the t i t l e 'of, wh'l .%

to users *of the Sfnwwr Fraser University Librqry, and to

single copies only for such users or in resp6n.w tcp 4 a r

l ibrary of any other university, w other e+ducatl.o&i inst itutfon, on < . P

i t s om M a t t or tor one of i t s users. .t f ~ ~ r sgrsa that'permiss.ion : * ---- - - - - *

for multiple copying of th is work f w scholarlj purposes may be ~ra f l ted

by me or the Dean of Graduate Studles. It i s underslobd that copy lng *

or pub! lciltien of this .*& for t lmnt la l galn sMl t not bs allowed

T i t l e of Thesis/Project/€xtended Essay

An Examination of Canada-United S t a t e s Salnron Interception a s a 6

L

P k o p e r q Wts T u r n - - - A

. k

Author:

' . 0 4

* ;;;I ~ " 2 2 ,

Recent events have iocuss.ed ' a t t en t i on on Canada-Uni ted -Sta ter a\ t

P 1a1mn i n t e r p p t i o n . t h a t i s the ha rves t o? salmon h a t c h e h n the

w a t e r s o f one s t a t e b u i harvest&f by f isher ies i n another. The . * Y

M i ' +

a

i s& * l a te t o the basic- right? o f each c&try t o haevest salleff. t-

4 a ,

which o r i g i n a t e i n t h e i r owna wate rs . Despite new tgn t rouersy 'betwien- - h

9

the two co&'tries, the under ly inq cause of p r o b l h s asso&ateb w i t h 4

, comon proper ty resource which m i grates across 4 nternati 'gf ial

~ * . . . " J E

boundaries . The f i she r i es whi ck depend. 0% t h i s . resource .$re 'not , .:

I

subject t o the j u r i s d i x t i o n o f a u n i f i e d reso"rce.Ghagement age& %

1 *

\ w i t h \respqn 1 fty over d l 1 f isher ies , Ins-tead, the" resource i s i . ". . &. 2, of 'separate &vern,rnent r e s w e man&empnt agencies + a

ail t r y i n g to,tnawge h p a r t o f the* ftshegy and b f t e n . a t crgfss purp+oses ' . . r . ' : :. & - *C

I

o r no t f u l l y in tegrated. ~ e g b t i a t i 6 n s 'to resolve the conndn property . - .+ a"

,. $ : . .:

p r o b l ~ of, the f i she ry kave been pt&6eding. ,3oth-&e & i t e t Nations , a . - - -9 it

Law o f the* Sea conference and t h e cgnhdav- ~ n i t e d ~ t a t e d ~ s a l m n . A -

negot ia t ions have been at tempt ing t o reso lve some o f the 'corn; . &+.

4 k * #

r *

p roper ty groblems o f the f ishecy. These negot ia t ions +show some . - r . -

p m i s e but. the j b r i s d i c t i o n a l s i r u c t u r e o f t i i i s f ishery has h d e the .

I * 1 ~ ~ ' m l d ljke t o exbress iy appreciation t o R.y Morley Cnd J.D.

B % * . - h 9 o n a l d fbm Fis3er ies and 'deans, ~ n a d a ' for pro&dfng rs wit; thd &

I

s.

t G * d .li.

2 - qpportunity t o w r i t e t h i s thesis. - 'F . $;. 2 - *

a ! & B

1 G '* e c B

1 would also l i k e t o acknwl edge the assistapce t h a t ( r ice ived Yrol rqy * =

%

supervisor, D r . 'cog-es. His .cMlpnts , c r i t i c isms and pat ience have been 1. 0 -- -- -

-- i - Q

I 'dl

mosb he1 p ful'. * - *

. - -

, ' h

C T ..

.# ~. . #

. ~ - - - - Heather A, E-Letche~- - - - ~ ~~- I - & ~ ~ ~ - . ~ - -

&

P

. . . \ 3 . . -

v -

@

- - pL - - - - - - - --

38 t a m e o f Contents *-i *- ,a -

Page

~ b s t r a c i Acknowledgements

9

%#-I .' Introduct ion F

T t k Pat i f i t Salmon "F i s k r y

1; The Nature o f the Stocks ' 2. The Nature of the Fishery .+

' 3. The Caron Property tond i t ion o f the Fishery 4. The t a w of the Sea = k 5, •’kh&-&&& S&&S +%t~--Wtitm FLiflTerfeS - ,

3) .The Fraser River Fishery I

b) The k s t Coast Fishery rp

c ) The North Coast Ff sheries d) The Japanese Fishery -

The Canada-Untted .States Salmon Wegoti a t ions 1. Migration. and Intercept ion Patterns 2. Val uat ion o f ' Salmon Intercept ions 3. ,The Draf t Agreement

-

I -z". ,. t \

Conclusion r

L i s t o f Tables

Table 1: Salmon Intercept iohs by Canada and the United States 1977-1980 Average

B

2

Page

2: Relat ive Salmrt Prices Per Piece , . 7z

3: In tercept ion Val ues i n 'Equivalent Sockeye" based on 76 19@ Canadian anb bed Prices and Canadian Estimates o f - . In tercept ion - Four Year, Having Average

c z f 3 ~ & * " w * f o f ; k e + w m 78 1980 Canadian Ho lesa le Prices and Canadian Estimates ,

o f In tercept ion - Four Year Moving Average

5: Intercept ion Val k s i n 'Equivalent soikeyeM based on 8 1 1980 Southeast Alaskan Landed Prices and Canadian Estimates o f Interceptfon - Four Year Mwing Average

6: Intercept ion Val ues i n "Equivalent Sockeye" based on , 83' 1980 Washington Landkd Prices and Canadian Estimates o f In tercept ion - Four Year Uovf ng Average I

Figur2 1: ~ c h b e f e r ' s susta inable f i e l d curve and t h e + J 1 7 Associated Total. eveh he and Total Cost Curve$ -.

Southern- c i a s t & ~ r i i f s h Columbia and I.P.S.F.C. 36 Convention Haters ,

The B r i t i s h Co lGb ia - Alaska Marine Boundary 46 . v

Sockeye H ig ra t i on p a t e r n s ' 54 -

Pink Mig ra t ion Patterns -

Chum Migra t ion Patterns I. \

58

Coho Mig ra t ion Patterns 59

Chi nook M i g ra t i o n Patterns . ' 61

Saloon In tercept ions by Canada and th / Uni ted States 63 1977 - 1980 Average

-

10: I n t e ~ c e p t i o n Categories and Balances based on 1980 Canadian Landed TrT ces an4 Canadian E s t i m a t e s of- Inteccept ions - F w r Year Moving Average'

11: in te rcep t i on Categories and Balances based. on 1 9 6 Canadian Uholesale Pr ices and Canadian Estimates o f I n t e ~ c e p t i o n s - Four Year Moving Average

12: In te rcep t ion Categories and Balances based on 1980 Southeast Alaskan Landed Prices and Canadian Estimates o f I n t e r c e p t ~ g n s - Four Year h y i n g - Average

- 13: In te rcep t ion Categories and Balances based on 1980 Yashington Landed Pr ices and Canadian Estimates o f In tercept ions - Four Year Moving Average

P

I. INTRODUCJ'I ON i

'? @ 1 - i

%,- g P = A

There i s 'an ongoing controversy between Canada and the United States

concerning t h e i r respect ive r i g h t s t o harvest Pac i f i c salmon stocks. The

p a r t i c u l a r stocks o f concern are those vhich o r i g i na te i n the waters o f 'one'

country but are harvested by t he other country as they migrate through' i t s ". *

coastal j u r j s d i c t i o n . This controversy . i s fraught w i th d i f f i c u l t i e s which

have, t o date, thwart &teatpts to negotiate a. resdutioff of the s a h n 4 -

f i she r i es problems which e x i s t between Canada and the United States.

t

-?

B io log ica l fac to rs o f P a c i f i c salmon are an important determinant o f the

problems. t h a t have a r i sen and the possib le sol ut ionsa t h a t exi s t . Paci h c

salmon are anadranous, i .e. they are spawned i n f resh water but spend most o f i

t h e i r l i f e i n the ocean. ' The s ta te o f o r i g i n , where salmon are spawned, has

a r vested i n te res t i n ,thedsalmon resource because i t incurs the costs of /

mainta in ing f resh wat& sal+ hab i ta t . However, because salmon have long

migrat ions which f requent ly expose t h e m t o f i she r i es outs ide the s ta te o f - - -

o r i g i n , t h a t s t a te cannot a1 ways reap the bene f i t s which they have sought t o fl ' C

produce. The i n te r cep t i on of salmon puts ide the s ta te o f o r i g i n has been a

problem because there i s a chronic imbalance i n the l eve l o f i n te rcep t ions

between the two countr ies. The wgraphic d i s t r i b u t l o ~ ad the w j f d t t d e o f

salmon in te rcep t ions i s determined f n part, by t k mLyxtorv m=at -

salmon. Because the mig ra t ion pat terns are an important determinant of the

. P 1 ,

l o ca t i pn a d extent o f inter:eptio& i t , i s o f t en d i f f i c u l t $$&just f i s h i n g m , + + '

%

, a c t i v i t i e s t o a l t e r t h e l e v e l o f sa1mneinter&eption,.

The current f i nanc ia l p l i g h t o f &e salmon indus t ry i n Canada and t he

United States has l i m i t e d the bargaining ' f l e x i b i l i t y between the two '

B

count r ies on issues re l a ted t o the aqiustnent o f f i s h i n g ~ pat terns t o solve JO

Y* -salmon in te rcep t ion problems. Ita B r i sh Columbia. and Oregon the .

.% - Y * . t

e f f e c t s of several years of poor catches were ma$ worse by i i g h fue l costs a&- ae

and high i n t e r e s t r i t e s . Under these cikumstances there are b a c t i c a l

l i m i t s t o t he extent t o which f i she r i es i n e i t h e r country can.bt?

'=%A, The c m p l ex s t r u c t u r e of j u r i s d i c t ional' regimes which ex i s t s f o r Pacl f i c

f i s h e r i e s i n Canada and the United States. makes , t he nq )o t i a t i on o f an . in te rna t i ona l s r l m 'zqreenent d l f f i c t t l t . T k federal governpentr of anada

- 4 and the United States and the s ta te gcnter ients for Alaska, ~ a s h i n g d n and .

< & - * 6

Oregon each have j u r i s d i c t i o n over a por t ion o f t h e ~ a c i f i c s a l m n f i che r i es . $1

along the North Anerican coast. The cooperation o f a l l these par t ies i s .

required t o b r i ng about an e f f e c t i v e salmon agreement. However t h i s

cond i t i on introduces the- hold-out problem. The possibi 1 i ty e x i s t s f o r one

par ty to, w i thho ld consent as a bargaini ng st ra tegy t o obta ln addl t iona l

bene f i t s a t the expense of other par t ies .

6. - - - - - --

b e s p i t e these problems botH ~anada and the United States recognize the

po ten t ia l bene f i t s which could be rea l i zed i f a salmon agrement were

implemented: One o f tk major po ten t ia l bene f i t s concerns salmonw 3 % 9

enh9,ncement. I f the f i s h i n g patternse o f i n te rcep t ing f i s h e r i e v could be 8 . . \

adjusted t o reduce the leve l o f in tercept ions o r i f some mechanism t o . -

a canpensate f o r salmon i n te r cep t ions were developed, then many, more 3

;' enhahcement p ro j ects'woul d become a t t r a c t i v e investments because the s ta te o f

o r i g i n would be campensated f o r a l l t h e bene f i t s generated by t h e i r

investments i n salmon enhancement1 Current ly in tercepted salmon* from r

enhancement f a c i l i t i e s ar,e l o s t production t o the s ta te o f o r i g i n and a %

w ind fa l l gain t o the i n te r cep t i ng state. A second po e n t i a l bene f i t f ran a F salmon agreement. concerns danestic sakon stock management .- I f f i sh i ng

a pressure were reduced i n some o f the in tens ive i n te r cep t i on f i sher ies , more

salmon could r e tu rn t o domestic waters3.where they could be harvestedas o lder

and' l a rger f i sh , thus increasing the weight. o f the t o t a l salmon catch. ' One

fu r ther benef i t t h a t cbuld be . derived fran cooperation i n f isbe- r ies

management i s b e t t e r co e r va t i on f o r those stocks which are a t low l eve l s ' 6. -- --

due t o overharvesti ng . -

I n recent years Canada and t he un i ted States have been seeking so lu t ions

salmon f i she r i es problems on two fronts; the Law o f the Sea negot iat ions

and the Canada-United Sates salmon negotiat ions. The Law o f - t he Sea i $

negot ia t ions have been sponsored by the United Nations t o n q o t i a t

r e l a ted t o t h e development and - u t i l i z a t i o n o f the oceans resources.

and the Wi i ted S ta tes , aTong w i t h & h e r nat ions ' fran around ' the world, have

par t i c ipa ted i n these negot ia t ions and i t i s through these negot ia t ions t h a t /

both Canada and the United States have ' formulate& t h e i r respect ive nat ional

A '

f i s h e r i e s po l i c ies . The Canada-United States salmon negot ia t ions have a more, . 1

narrow1 y %defined scope. They are speci f i c a l l y concerned w i th west coast

salmon issues. The importance and the & f f i c u l t r o f these negot ia t ions can G' e J . -

be in fe r red f r an t h e - t ime and e f f o r t t h a t the two count r ies have devoted. m

Law o f t h e Sea n&ot ia t ions were cond&ted f o r almost a decade and o

Canada-United States salmon negot ia t ions have been conducted f o r 12 years. +a

This thes is w i l l examine the issues o f t h e P a c i f k salmon f i she ry a s \

they r e l a t e t o Canada-United States in tercept ion. It w i l l be shown how the < ' c

Canada-United States salmon negot ia t ions fit w i t h i n the context o f t h e Law o f

the Sea Convention t ha t was passed i n 1982 a t the end o f the Th i rd Caw o f the

Sea Conference. Regional and nat jona l concerns regarding the f i shery w i l l

a1 so be examined. This includes h i s t o r i c a l devel opments, j u r i s d i c t i o n a l

arrangements and the b i o l ogical factors of the resource. These d i scussions

w i l l show t h a t i n the case o f the Nor th American f i s h e r f o r P a c i f i c salmon Y , not on ly do the usual c m o n p r o e r t y problems e x i s t i n which the x t i o n s of

fishermen tend t o cause less than optimal production from the f i she ry but b

a1 so a second higher 1 canmon property problems ex is ts . Regulatbry #

agencies represent ing o r s ta te i n t e res t groups are also canpeting

' , f o r shares o f 2 h e resource. . Within B r i t i s h Columbia the i n te res t s o f

fishermen are represented by the department o f F isher ies and Oceans o'f the

federal government. W i t h i n r t h e United States t he Alaska ~epar&t of F i s k .

and Game, the Washington Department of Fisher lev, the Oregon Department o f 4

F ish and W i l d l i f e and t h e National Marine F isher ies Service -,represent

separate i n t e r k f s i n the salmon, resource. Together these resource - ,

management agencies regu la te the salmon f i she r i es on the P a c i f i c coast o f

North ke&ca, C n p e t i t i o n f o r shares i n the resource o f ' t h i s cm&n pool

resource e x i s t s a t a c o l l e c t i v e leve l such t h a t canifdiansL, Alaskans, e .

L

Washingtonians and Oreqonians are c o l l e c t i v e l y i n c n p t i t ion w i t h rrach other , . ?: a $ :

f o r t h e i r respect ive shares from the salmon f ishery. r

"1 11. THE PACIFIC SALHIN FISHERY

1. The Nature of the Stocks

I n North kner ica P a c i f i c salmon are spawned i n r i v e r s and streams.along \

the west coast of Canada and t he United states, i n areas .froin Alaska t o S

northern Cal i fo rn ia . There a re f i v e species o f , P a c i f i c '"Salmon, na t i ve t o '*

North America; chinook, coho, chum, pink and sockeye.' Ea& sqecies and ea ih 8

race o f each as a stock, has i d e n t i f i a b l e ,physiOlogical, and "

genet ic character-oung salmon of a1 1 s k c i & ipend t ime ggowi & i n ' *

I'

r i v e r s , lakes i n d estuar ies before t h e y move i n t o the marine enviromcpt.. %

3

They then migrate away f r an t h e i r s p a i i n g r l ve r s , i n 'mw cases *nigrat i "ng b

P: % . * - -4

beyond the j u r i a i c t i o n o f the s ta te o f o r i g i n . Depending on the2 species and *

J? i

race, t h e y sperd from 1 1 /2 to, 4 years i n the Qicean & f o p returplng; a s - $, * ' 1

mature adul ts, t o spa* I n the same r i v e r $TI r h i c h t%y were ; p d e d .

Ind iv idua l stocks of" salmon can be i d e n t i f i e d b y t h e i r ' s & w i n g l oca t i on .a - 3

r B

and spawning year. Salmon have a . f i red l i fespan such t h a t s p a n h g of any ,* v.

v ' C

8 *- I

A

t ' , i n d i v i d u d stock'-occurs i n a c y c l i c a l pat tern, every sepoM, t h i r d , f o u r t h ' o r - .

C. . '. t' * , " L . - * !

ii f t h ;ear :dependi 6 on the character i s t i$+ o f the stock. Consequently one *

7' p a r t i c u l a r spawing bed in. a r i v e r may have d i f f rek stocks .of the same ,

-- species spawnfng there i n cmsecu t l ve years. F+ instahce,' four d i f f e r e n t - . .- -l

- 3

L

/ stocks may s p a n i n one 1 ocat ion i n consecutive years, t-hen i n ' the' f i f t h year f L

' " + r z y c l e -* i s repeated w i th salmon 'frm the s d c k which spawned i n the T i r s t / / t

y e w re turn ing t o spawn. lhe ' spawning year c lass re fe r s t o a salmorl>stock by *'

t he year i n which i t was spawned. Strong and weak year classes tend t o be' 0

-perpetuated because a stock w i t h few ( o r many) spawriers w i l l tehd t o produce . 1

few ( o r many) spawners i n -subsequent 'generations. T.he strongest year' c l ass ' *

o f a r i v e r system produces a "dohinant cycle," a l lowing f o r l a rge harvests i n

the years when t h a t stock i s harvested by the f ishery. This c y c l i c a l pat tern

i s p a r t i c u l a r l y notice-able w i th a l l p ink stocks and w i t h Fraser River

sockeye .

'-order t o ensure the cant inued product iv i& o f salmon stocks, resource

managers must ensure t ha t a s u f f i c i e n t number o f adu l t salmon pass through

the f i she r i es and re tu rn t o spawn. This number o f spawners i s know as

escapement. . The propor t ion o f any stock r h i c h i s * requi red f o r ' spawning

purposes var ies accordi ng t o the physio l ogical char'acttyi s t i c s o f the stock 1

and & env i romenta l condi t ions J l i c h t h a t stock encounters. Thus the

resid"a1 propor t ion o f the stock which can be deemed the al lowable harvest

w i 11 a1 so vary between stocks. The p r k e r v a t i o n o f , the salmon resource as a

#hole requires t h a t the f i she r i es be regulated i n such a de ta i l ed -manner t h a t " * \ . x

i the n e c g s w y escapement i s achieved f o r each salmon stock. 'i-

9, - >

' B , .-

Y L d

, .. *> O - h ,

4 V 1

v C * - 'u

The migratory . patterns of p a c i f i c salmon are p a r t i c u l a r l y important 111 1

-._ r: ... , C?

the context of Canada-United States s a l y issues. Because o f t h e i r . .

.grationS, salmon stocks a r e o f ten - harvested by fi sfieries & o u t s i d e their' B

**> - x.

I

s ta te of origin.' These f i she r i esp ca1 led x in te rcep t ioq f i sher ies , tan have , . . d & f e

s i g n i f i c a n t impact -on ind iv idua l species and races o f P a c i f i c salmon. + 4:

. . 9 4 . T

Control by e i t h e r ' Canada o r t h e Uni ted s t a t e s over t he managme& o f i a l m n - 9

+ '<

stocks r h i c h o r i g i na te in t h e i r o w wateis i s r 4 b c by the extent t o r h f ch ' > Y

Tnterception f i s h e r i e s - hawes t salmon fran these stocks. *

C L

- The reason f o r the possessive a t t i t u d e by ~ a n a d g and t h e United States - I s

toward salmon stocks A i c h ' o r i g i na te i n t h r o w r i v e r s i s t h a t they must

pro tect salmon hab i t a t t o ensure the continued p r g d u c t i v i t y o f t he resource.

Salmon are p a r t i c u l a r l y vulnerable t o f resh water hab i t a t degradation.

However the fresh water resouices a1 so are needed fir - numerous other val uabl e

a c t i v i t i e s J l i c h degrade the environment as f i sh hab i ta t . A1 terqat ive, o r 1..

- - -- -

cunpefi ng uses for ' these r i v e r s i n c l i d e danest ic. water supply, i r r i g a t i o n , <'

hydro-e lec t r ic generation, f o r e s t r y and waste disposal . I f ' t h i s hab i t a t i s

t o be maintained f o r the salmon resource,' t~ s ta te o r o r i g i n must bear * the 1

burden o f r espons ib i l i t y . The oppor tun j ty costs of maintain ing and .

preserving salmon hab i t a t can be very high. Unless the salmon resource

generates s u f f i c i e n t benef i ts t o the s ta te o f o r i g i n , a f t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s

may be undertaken to the detriment Qf an impmta~t ~ewwable r-. , i,

2. The" Npture o f the Fishery , " . . -

<

4

4

a - The salmon resource has 1 ong : be'en important %to canmuni t i e s on, the I w,

. Paci f i c .coast. of * Canada and t h e un:iteh States. The nature o f the s a l m

fi shery has ' changed i n response &' new techno1 ogi$ and increased demands , .

placed on t he resource but the .f ishery remains an important indqst ry i n many f

communities.

- There are three major cqnponents of thepsalmon a s h e r y i n Canada and the

f - United States; the c a n e r c i a 1 f ishery, t he n a t i j e f i3shery and the sports , . / -80

f i shery. They have each devel oped independent1 y consequent1 y they have .w4

d i f f e r e n t 1 egal s ta tus a.M they use d i f f e r e n t methods to harvest salmn.

4

The commercial f i shery has t h e greatest impact on Pac i f i c salmon -- , * -. stocks. I n t h i s f i she ry three gear types are i n canmon use. Seine and

g i l l n e t gears use nets t o harvest salmon while t r o l l gear, uses m u l t i p l e "hooks -

on l i nes . I n 1980 the canbined Canadian and American canmercial salmon catch - 8

was 728 m i l l i o n pounds w i th a landed value o f a29 m i l l i o n Canadian (Canada, 7 -

1980a; Canada, 1983b; United States, 1980). The United States caught 84% o f

t he landed weight caught by t he c k e r c i a1 f l e e t , most o f which was taken i n

Alaska. B f i t i s h Columbia f isher ies caught 114 m i l l i o n pounds o f salmon w i th I,

, a landed val w' o f $117 p i 1 1 ion. Overal l , -

5 .Z% o f the t o t a l ccmpercial salmon catch

whiQ o f f i ~ i a1 in te rcep t ion data are ava i l

f o r 18.6% of 'the commercially caught salmon h i c h or ig inated in+ Canadian -

waters (Tech. Canm. on Salmon In tercept ions, 1980; Canada,. 1980a; Mi ted 4

,

States, 1980). It i s important " t o note t ha t i n t e r cep t i on catch fates vary by ". region, species and gear type and t h a t i n sane cases 100% of t h e catch i s

a t t r i b u t a b l e t o i n t e r cep t i on .- % I

0

The na t i ve f i sher ies i n Canada and the United States. d i f f e r

- subs tan t ia l l y . I n Canada na t i ves are allowed t o m a i n t a k food f i sher ies . " -.

Trad i t i ona l f i sh i ng techniques which inc lude a va r i e t y o f nets, t raps, weirs, .p

barbed hooks and spears a-re usua l l y used (Lyons, 1969). Because most o f t he

Canadian na t i ve food f i s h e r i e s are conducted i n f resh watgr, they l o not *

B

d

' 4

i n te rcep t salmon from k e r i c a n r i ve rs . There a h a1 so Canadfan nat ives, who &Y

. r"

p a r t i c i p a t e i n the commercial f i she ry but they do not rece ive any special - , 6

f i sh ing p r i v i l eges and are considered t o be par t o f t h e c m e r c i 8 . f ishery. , , +fl

P

I n the United States nat ives have been a l located a lega l ent i t lement t o pa r t

o f t he resource. As a r e s u l t of t h e 1980 Uni ted States %i s t r i c t Court- Treaty- - %

Indian a1 1 ocat ion case ( "Bo ld t Decision") native.:Indians i n ~asb fng ton ' are L '

- 4w e n t i t l e d t o 50% of the salmon catch o f t h a t state. American na t tve fishermen

* p a r t i c i p a t e i n the commercial f i shery t o harvest t h e i i.* salrn.on a1 location-. ,.

s

Due t o the s ize and l oca t i on o f t h i s f i she ry s i g n i f j c a n t quan' t i t ies o f a*

Canadian salmon -are taken but these are considered t o be part o f the k e r i c a n * . -Ib

-,-'

cqnmerci a1 f i shery . <v

The sports f i shery was l a r g e l y ' ignored u n t i l recently,, al thoygh i t s 1 - -

regional importance i s now recognized. I n both Canada and the Uni-ted States

there i s a pa t te rn of intense sport f i sh ing i n same areas and very l i t t l e i n - -

others. Most sport f i s h i n g i s concentrated i n protected in"sde waters and ,' 9

consequently the sport f i she ry has much less impact on salmon in te rcep t ions

. I , , + s.

. < . \ . - ,

- 3

1

:+ * - . . c 0 -

- I

>. a , . . - . d o " - - - - , - - -- PAP- A

I .

, 8;

f "-

. t , - I - > . d - "8- , * 4

2 = P '

, than .ther*car@ercial f ishery. The Juan de Fuca and Georgia S t r a i t 'sport

r. e &-,-' *- < * -

f i s h e r i e s iinterc*ept\ m e salmon than any other r e c r e s t i 6 n n f isher ies but a

k ' *.. . - 1

accur%;e s t a t i s t i c s ace not ' a,vaibl ab1,e. ' , Pub1 i c a t i o n of ~anad ian recreat ional d

*

t . .sal&n .catch s t a t i s r i cs ' -yasqdi scontinued i n 1977 &en it was found thbt those , **

I I

F ta " t i s t i c s h e r e from lo& to ZOO% l ow. (Argue, ' ~ o u r s e l y & ~ a r r i s , 1977). gy -

L

. . ' 1980 tanadipn :author1 t ie% h+ i d i t i a t e d two * p r & r a s . t o gather sport catch i'

.? * in format ion but they -re both i n t h e i r prel iminary stages (MacGregor, 1982;

6 % -,

- W Consult i ng, 1881 ) . Censeqtmt ly accwa-te ' s p o r t c&eh data are no$ -

Y

-

' ava i lab le f o r the Canadian fishery. (h tbe t Jn i~ed States s ide estknates o f 9

recreat iona l salmon in te rcep t ions have been provided f o r sane aveas but not g .

f o r Juan. de Fuca S t r a i t . ~ecause of the m i s s i o n s and e r ro rs i n . the I % " .

r e t rea t i ona l catch data, any s t a t i s t i c s t h a t do e x i s t cann'ot be corkidered

re1 i able.

- <, a

The .agnitude and d i v e r s i t y o f the salmon f i sher ies i n Canada and. the

United States . demands carefu l reso ce management pract ices i n order t o - Y B

maintain the p r y l u c t i v i t y o f the salmon resource. I t i a the r o l e o f resource . .

managers t o regulate the salmon . f isher ies t o ensure t h a t escapement l e v e l s -c - 3

t are s u f f i c i e n t l y ' h igh t o guarantee t h e maintenance o f the resource. This i s

achieved by a va r i e t y of* regula tory measures concerning the pro tec t ion of

f i sher ies hab i ta t and the operat ion of--the f isher ies . Fisttei-ies h a b i t a t " - -

, .. , in f i v e r systems. Because the h a b i t a t requirements o f salmon are fairl; we1 1

- understood these regyT'ations are reas~nab l y easy t o design. However i t i s ' *.

much more d i f f i c u l t t o design f i sheries .management regulat ions r h i c h w i l l

a .

achieve the desired escapements because minor changes i n the t iming and rake o f salmon migrat ions can requi re substant ia l changes i n t h e des i r

,patterns. There are r e s t r i c t i o n s on the type and specifics n of f ish ing '

gear,that may be used. Also there are r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e t ime and- locat ion C

C

o f f isher ies . Uhen resource managers a1 low f i s h i n g to occur, i t i s ~ e f e r r e d I

to as an opening, ' i n the f i shery are designed t o d f rec t f i sh ing

e f f o r t on spec i f i c accordance w i t h the desired -h&rvest l eve l s t h a t

have been determined for those stocks. Mare e f f e c t i v e control --?a

management can be maintained i f f i sh ing e f f o r t i s d i rected4 t o areas near the

mouths o f r i ve rs . The ind iv idua l stocks tend t o becane concentrated as they

re tu rn ' t o t h e i r spawning r i v e r s consequently resource managers can be more

se lec t i ve regarding t he extent of f ish ing e f f o r t t h a t they wish to al low on

spec i f i c stocks. F ish ing near r i v e r mouths i s a lso desirable-because the -

salmon caught tKere have r e a c h 4 t h e i r maximum weight,

\ b

S e l e c t i v i t y of fi sh i ng e f f o r t i s important because i ndiv idual salmon

stocks have d i f fe ren t p roduc t i v i t y rates. ~ 6 e r e f o r e a weaker stock w i l l

requ i re a much la rger propor t ion of i t s populat ion to* escape t o spaw i n

order t o maintain the stock. F isher ies r h i c h operate away from r i v e r mouths .. frequent ly harvest sever toget her and i f these d i f ferent stocks can

w i thstand d i f ferent 1 eve1 s o f expl o i tation-, "mixed stock managementu probl ems e

can arise. When a f i she ry catches f i s h frm stocks w i t h df f f e ren t - - . - - - - - --

sustainable harvest rates, resource managers are forced .to choose between

overgxp lo i t ing s m stocks and underexploi t ing'other stocks; The imp l i ca t ion f

of overexp lo i ta t ion i s stock deplet ion, whi le the imp1 i c a t i o n o f f

underexpl o i t a t ion i s unused resource potent i a1 . I

I n the context o f Canada-Un i ted States salmon Sntercept ions, mixed stock

f j she r i es are an issue o f concern. I n a mixed stock f i shery which harvests

salmon stocks from Canada and the United States there w i l l - be a tendency t oo .

overexp lo i t stocks subject t o in te rcep t ion because resource managers are more

concerned about managing the resource of domestic stocks f o r danestfc users - . 1

and less concerned about conserving fo'r;eign stocks f o r fore ign users. When

the intercepted stocks cons t i t u te a la rge propor t ion o f the t o t a l catch //

resource managers w i l l have l i t t l e incent ive t o r e s t r a i n t he catch o f t h e i r

f ishery . Even khen the intercepted stocks cons t i t u te a small propor t ion o f

t o t a l catch overexp lo i ta t ion can occur. I f the intercepted salmon are f ran

low p roduc t i v i t y stocks and they are caught wi th h i gh p roduc t i v i t y danestic

salmon stocks, resource managers , w i l l tend t o al low f i sh ing e f f o r t t o occur

.a t the leve l appropriate f o r the domestic stocks.

The j u r i s d i c t i o n a l regimes by which the salmon fi sheries are mdnaged are

not the s a w i n Canada and the United States. I n Canada the federal

government has j u r i sd i c t i on over i t s coastal watets. and the econanic a c t i v i t y

t h a t takes, place there. The prov inc i a1 goverrment has 1 i m i ted j u r i sd'ict icm"u

over f i sheries which occur i n B r i t i s h Columbia; they are p r ima r i l y

,responsible f o r inland, fresh water, sport f i sher ies which have l i t t l e

bearing on salmon in te rcep t ion issues. Thus there i s one leve l . o f government' -

i n Canada w i t h r e s p o n s i b i l i t y over the issues re la ted t o salmon - - - - - -- - - - ----- --

intercepti.on. I n the United States the s i t u a t i o n i s much more canplex.

Ind iv idua l s ta te g o v e r m n t s have f i sheries j u r i s d i c t ion over those waters

w i t h i n three mi les o f the coast l ine, Llhi le the knerican federal government

has f i sher ies j u r i s d i c t i o n over waters which extend f ran three mi les t o 200

--

mi les from the coast1 ine. I n the United States; t h e federal goverrmnent and : the s ta te goverments f o r Alaska, Washington and Oregon a l l have'sane d i r e c t

j u r i s d i c t i o n over f i stteries i n ~ o l v i n g salmon in tercept ion. I

P

a

I n the context o f Canada-United States negot ia t ions not on ly i s

q s h w i e s j u r i s d i c t i o n an important concern but so i s the t r e a t y making power.- %

o f these governments. I n Canada only the federal government can negot iate -

L i n te rna t iona l t rea t ies . I n t h e Uni ted States both the federal and s ta te

governments can negot ia te in te rna t iona l treaties: State governments can on1 y . -

negot iate t r e a t i e s concerning matters t h a t are d i r e c t l y w i t h i n t h e i r

j u r i s d i c t i o n but the federal government hat i n te rna t iona l t r e a t y making $wer

over a l l other matters and over those matters o f nat iona l concern as

speci f ied i n the United States5 Const i tut ion. ~ k r a f o r e the United States - federal government has 1 egal author i ty - , t o overr ide t he ob ject ions o f

ind iv idua l states regarding mafters o f nat ional concern. However the

p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r issue i s such t h a t t h e Uni ted States

- federal government would not want t o impose a f isher ies t r e a t y o f a regional

nature when ob ject ions f r an s ta te au tho r i t i es exi st. Because the cooperat i on -

o f s ta te au tho r i t i es nould be required t o implenient a salmon f i she r i es

t rea ty , t h e 1 ack o f support o f a s ta te could pose a major problem.' When so

few s ta tes are d i r e c i l y ioncerned w i th the negot ia t ion o f an in te rna t iona l - -

t r e a t y the coopera$ion o f each s ta te becunes an important issue and i t i s - - - - - - -

unl i kel y t h a t a negotiated agreement between c a d i & and h e r i c a n

a u t h o r i t i e s would be passed by ' the United States federal government

unanimous consent of the concerned states. Consequently the approval

s ta te w i th j u r i s d i c t i o n over Paci f i c salmon f i sher ies i s necessary.

wf t hout

o f each

3 - a

This j u r i s d i c t t o n a l - s t r uc tu re poses some problems f o r coastwide

management o f t h e salmon resource. With in each j u r i s d i c t i o n a l area, an

i nd i v i dua l government o r i t s agencies has the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o manage the ,

f i shery i n t h a t area. E f f e c t i v e coastwide f i she r i es management requi res the

aireement o f a l l . the government bodies w i th j u r i s d i c t i o n over salmon

f i sher ies . I n t he absence of agreement,. r i val reg iona l i n t e r e s t s ac t i ng -

through t h e i r separate j u r i s d i c t i o n s have i n h i b i t e d coastwide management o f

the resource.

3. The Common Property Condi t ion o f t h e Fishery

The stocks o f P a c i f i c salmon whi-ch o r i g i n a t e i n North American r i v e r s 7

and streams cons t i t u t e a pool o f resources which are exp lo i ted i n cbtmnon by -

f i s h e r i e s from Canada and t he Uni ted States. With respect t o most f i s h e r i e s -

resources, i t i s d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible t o es tab l i sh unambiguous and

enforceable proper ty r i g h t s f o r i nd i v i dua l s and t h i s ' i s c e r t a i n l y t h e case,

w i t h the P a c i f i c salmon resource. U i t h the exception o f some small

aquacul t u r a l operations i nd i v i dua l s cannot e f f e c t i v e l y 1 ay .claim t o a p o r t i o n

o f the salmon resource because i t i s not f eas ib l e t o prevent o ther I

i nd i v i dua l s from harvest ing t h a t po r t i on o f t h e resource. The common

property cond i t i on which e x i s t s i n the f i shery i s a cond i t i on marked by the

absence of proper ty r igh ts .

-The common proper ty aspect o f t h e resource i s responsible f o r many o f

t h e chronic p f o b l ~ s that are ~~ i n f i -shwies thfoacghwt tbe world.

Because o f the lack o f spec i f i ed property r i gh t s , t k leve l o f f i s h i n g e f f o r t

t h a t w i l l be produced exceeds t h a t which would maximize the we1 fa re o f I

society as a whole. M. Schaefer (1957) and H.S. Gordon (1954) i n i t i a t e d I , 0

theore t i ca l discussions on t h i s t op i c wi th t k i r papers on t& produc t i v i t y

o f f i she r i es resources and the imp1 Scat ions o f canmon property. , .

Schaefer examined the re la t i onsh ip between inputs and t h e resu l t an t - '\

\ productiow i n the f ishery, a f i sher ies production function. The inputs are

measured i n standard u n i t s of e f f b r t such as boat days o r f i sh ing days; each 4

u n i t o f e f f o r t isi= assumed t o be i den t i ca t t o a l l other u n i t s o f e f f o r t . C

Prqduction , measured i n terms o f . f i s h caught, depends on t he growth capact ty

o f the f i s h stocks. The ra te o f growth o f the f i s h stocks var ies according

' t o p o p u l a t i o n s i z e . As populat ion

stocks wi 11 increase to a maximum

f o m u l a t ions o f possible growth

1 i te ra tu re (Clark, l976), they are

Maxirnun populat ion s ize o f the

s ize increases, t h e r a t e of growth o f ' f i s h

and therea f te r decreases. ( A 1 though other

funct ions have been considered i n t h e

not re levant t o Pac i f i c salmon f isher ies .)

f i s h stock, the natura l - equ i l ibrium, i s

associated w i th no growth i n the f i s h stocks. Flo f i sh ing e f f o r t can be

sustained a t t ha t populat ion leve l . Howeverc a t lower populat ion -levels, t h e

na tu ra l .growth r a t e o f the f ishery w i l l determine the catch r a t e t h a t the

f i sh stocks can sustain, f requent ly referred t o as'sustainable catch o r

sustainable y i e l d (see Figure l a ) . I n terms o f the f i she r i es ;reduction

funct ion, successive increments i n f i sh ing e f f o r t w i l 7 increase catch t o a

t o decreases i n the sustainable y i e l d o f the f ishery.

It should be noted t ha t the -observed y i e l d and e f f o r t I n a p a r t i c u l a r

f i shery w i l l rarely. correspond t o the sustainable y i e l d -e f fo r t r e l a t i o n s h i p t

- L

described i n the Schaefer analysi s. This i s becpuse the Schaeffer curve i s P

an e.stimated long &I average re la t ipqphip . anda an events i n nature w i l l =

i n t e r f e r e wi th t h i s formal y i e l d - e f f o r t re1 at ionship. However more important

i s t h e discrepancy between t he t heo re t i ca l shor t run and long run

y i e l d - e f f o r t re la t ionsh ips . I f e f f o r t increases i n a f i she ry t h a t was a t an .a

+% equ i l i b r i u n sustainable y i e l d pos i t ion, one would expect to see a short run

increase i n catch idme the s t t s t a i ~ a b l e yi*etd cwvc . However as the

populat ion o f the -- f i s h stock i s drawn-down by t h i s increased leve l o f f i s h i n g "

e f f o r t , the y i e l d i n l a t e r years would drop down t o the leve l ind icated by

the sustainable y i e l d curve. I f resource managers wished t o r e v i t a l i z e a

f i she ry by rebu i ld ing f i sh stock leve ls , one w u l d ~ expect t h a t a reduct ion i n

f i sh i ng e f f o r t would r e s u l t i n a shor t run adjustment path t h a t had catches ,

l ess than t ha t ind icated by the sustainable y i e l d o curve.

-* -- >--

=-

The Schaefer sustainable y i e l d curve can be used as the bas is o f an L

e c o n n i c analysis. If the production of a f i she ry i s not so la rge as i o

a f f e c t pr ice, then the sustainable y i e l d curve can be d i r e c t l y tr'ansformed

i n t o a t o t a l revenue curve. The associated t o t a l cos t curve f o r t he f i she ry

w i l l be a l i n e a r func t ion because it has been assumed tha t the m i t s o f

e f f o r t are stanrtard, i .em there i s a standard cost f o r a l l mits o f e f f o r t or +'

a pe r f ec t l y coape t i t i ve markt for inputs Figure-lh), k of v.

e f f o r t , econmic ren ts generated by the f ishery w i l l be t h e d i f fe rence

between t o t a l revenues and t o t a l costs. A t the i n t e r sec t i on o f the t o t a l

Y-

rf. - * -' < - 17 -

\ . L

< - L-

F i g u r e l a : s c h a e f e r ' r sus ta inab le y i e l d c u r i e and- t h e -Associated Tota l ,..- 9 . . Revenue and Tota l Cost Curves .... Y

C

l a .

lb.

4 t

revenue and t o t a l cost curves (E3), sometimes c a l l e d the ,bionomic t r

x

e q u i l i b r i u m , p r y u c t i o n i n t h e f i s h e r y w i l l no t generate any economic pents . - , *

The economic r e n t s i n t he f ishefy wi.11 be maximized a t the p o i n t where the i-

d i f f e r e n c e between the t o t a l revenue and t o t a l - cos t curves i s - t h e greates t .

Th is i s known as t h e maximum econanic y i e l d (M.E.Y.) and i t occut$ a t Ep A t c

t h i s p o i n t the ' n e t b e n e f i t s t o s o c i e t y from the f i s h e r y are maximized.

.* r. '=--, 1. .

* x - .- I~-:- an' open. access f i shery an equi 1 ib r ium leve l o f

- - '-1

" s ; . . i , =

'.. * : . - determined' + , by, the costs and revenues faced by f i shermen.

ji .. * "

C

U'ld o$crrr a t .the po in t h e r e t o t a l revenues equal t o t a l

e f f o r t w i l l r

r h i s equi 1 i b r i um ' . costs ( E ~ ) , the

opi imal - because C =. . .

2 :. :.bfoncmic. e&j l ibr ium? Tpis open access equ i l ibr ium i s not A+. k

," . ' nei\t%ei the b i o l og i ca l po ten t ia l (M.S.Y.) nor the econanic po ten t ia l (H.E.Y.) i - 5 Y - o f LC tg resohrce , i s maxinil z& Potent i a1 net benef i ts which the resource

. I- * * F ,J

. G could y & l d . w i l l not be real ized. A t any po in t t o the l e f t o f the biondmic i *

6quil ibr%m t o t a l revenue ' w i l l be greater than t o t a l costs and because a l l -;i

4.

' u n i t s o f e f f o r t are standard each boat i n the f i she ry w i l l earn $ p r o f i t . r' . .>

* I . Under f hese' circ"mstances addi t iona l u n i t s o f e f f o r t w i l l be a t t r ac ted t o the

f;shery u n t i i po ten t ia l econanic rents are dissipated. A t any po in t t o - ' ,

- * % t h e r i g h t of the b i o n h i c equ i l i b r i u n t o t a l costs exceed t o t a l revenues and '> . .

- 0 ' net l o s s e i wil.1 'be cannron Chroughout the industry. A reduct ion o f f i sh ing

f ,- I P

. . - 4

- i

$ - e f f b ~ t wdld : be a n i i t i p a t e d ~ i n respon ' . , - b

. +. 'the i n d h s t t j . TM- cause o f t h i s s ~ b o ~ t i ~ l a i equ i l i b r ium i s tne canmon . . !?

; ; 'prape;ty n a t u r i ?. ' b f - , the reiource. When. the indus t ry experiences p r o f i t s , * . _ d

i n d i v i j u 3 ~ ~ % l ; ~ a d y ' ~ r t ~ c i p a t i n g * i n the f i she ry are not able t o r e s t r i c t - - add i t iona l r en t - d i ss i pa t f ?g f i sh ing e f f o r t f ron occurr ing, It can be seen

2 ,+ ' -. t ha t the cmond,pPoper ty - aspec fo f ' f i sher ies i s ) d i r e c t l y l i nked w i t h the poor

1 / 0 5 -. economic performance a@ the h igh l eve l s o f resource exp lo i t a t i on t h a t are

5 ,

~,cmnnori t o the Indust ry .

L *

L imi ted en t ry has, been advocabd asa a sol u t i o * t o some o f the problems L . 3

associaled .wi th the f ishery . It was thought t h a t l imi ' ta t ions placed on the %

c a p i t a l 'and' labour inputs i n . the f i shery wo,uld reduce the l e ~ e l o f resource .

L . * ' a . * . f"! 19, - . i m 6 . .

4 I .

I

> > . 4. ' , r

O r . f i a * ' I

I i a - _ e * . a

C . <

@ d

I * .P expl o i t i i t i o n and simul taneousky +leadA-to h p r o v e d economic perfordance o f t he :

.* . - B r , ' - ' A \

i ndbustry, I n ,l%8 a, 1 hi t e d 1 i c e n c i ng scheme waj,4ntr 'bduced:.~~ Canada's west * - C

coast salmon f i shgry Copes 8 Cook, 1981). l$~ .mechanisms 'were developed t o 6 6 - , I h * ' '

r e s t r i c t f i s h i n g e f f o r t . F i r s t , vessel3 w i t h -@or qatch records , *re barred -,

r a 'Yi x'

@ ' from i b t h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e cmme,rci'a? f i s k r y . .becond, t h e g ivermient , , , . .

. * I

bought c m e r c i a l l f i s 3 i n g vks ie ls ; ' thys remdvilxl -them f r q n the i n d u s t m , . > ,' * r

t using increased 1 icencq .fees t o ' f i n a n t e - t h e drogram.:' Cond i t ions i n t h e *' ., .

salmon f l e e t q u i c k l y changed 'in. re&nse t o t h e "buy-back" program. The . ' f

expected value o f f u tu re improvem@nts i n tb econmic per?ormance o f - C t he L+. - i n d u s t r y was 'cap1 t a l i zed , i n "esse l 1 ice%& vahe;'.- . ~ o n s e ~ k n t l ~ 1 icenc%

va l ues escal h e d Bnd i t became more* e x k n s i v e . t o "k&y-b&tl' vessels. A f t e r \ -

t h e s i z e o f t h e f l k e t was rd luced by onlyU5% t h e 6 p r o g r a m was disbanded ' -

because i t became too expensive t o co&i n w t o purchase .vessel s. a$ 1

8 1 ..

- *

The experience of t h e -1 icence 1 i m i t a t i o n program i n ' $he Cahaclian,, salmon a

& .

i n d u s t r y has h i g h l i g h t e d t h e probl&s that face attempts t o r a t i o h a l i z e 'a r:

I,

c m o n proper ty f i shery.% When somi * fac tors o f j r o d u c t i 6 n a;e regul ated , i J

other f a c t o r s of p roduct ion w i l l teni l > t o :expand as the, ~ o n d m i c prospects o f a

t he i nd "s t r y improve. A1 though t h e number o f vessel s' in tk ~ a n a b i a n salmon

f l e k was reduced by 51, f i s h i n g , capac i ty 'was; no t reduced by' t h e s a i e P ,

+ ' p ropor t ion . P a r t i c i p a n t s i n the e x i s t i n g i i s h e r y increqsed t h q 'h'arvesting 7. -

capac i t y o f t h e i r opera t ions by i n t roduc ing t e c k i c a l imphovements to. t h e t r '

.. . ' Q b :

vessel s and thus increased the - i r .cap1 t a l tnvestment i n the .fi stfery. Through 'i - *

5

t h i s p r o ~ e s s o f c a p i t a l investment p o t e n t i a1 e c & n i c ren ts which m"ighf have

been der ived from the f i s h e r y were d iss ipa ted. The t o f t h e l i c e n c i n g F

b

l i t e r a t u r e (Fraser, 1977; .hearse and Milen, 1979). ~ r & e ~ examined t h e s?

, . 1

nature of ren t d i ss i pa t i on l h i l e Pgarse and Milen a c t u a l l y estimated the 1 . . '

extent D f r en t d iss ipat ion. Pearse and, Ui len found tha? although t h e c a p i t a l ' +, tx -

val w o f the f i shing f l e e t grey ,under the 1-icencing and "buy-back' piogr'an, . ; i

the r a t e - o f growth o f 'cdp i ta l . I n t h e i r&st ry &; r&s t r i&d i nd i ca t i ng t h a t . - 6, " r , 7

resource managers 'can e f f&$ at . l eqs t p p r t i a1 econmic ' ra$ional i r a t i o n i n t h e .

f i sh i rQ i ndustry. ' .

In

consider

r a t i o n a l

the

the

i zat

R

cdntext ,o f ' Paci f i c . s a l q i f i shei ies, aresoucce managers must a .

2 i' " b

f i sher ies - w i t h i n t h e i t j u r i s d i c t i o n andt.those 'beyond. ' con chi^ L ,-

ion o f

d i r e c t i n g ' 'fi shi ng

The cooperat ion

the i6dus t ry . , i s not simply a $ r o b l m . o f c o n t r o l l i n g anda b , . . ' . J I

rv 7 < .

a c t i v i t y ' !$in the !of one- lega l j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' . , II I . . . - ,

o f i n te rcep t ing eri.,e< i s neGqssary . i f ; a. % * .+ ' I -

canprehensi ve resource mana&ment s t ra tegy i s . td: be ,*imp1 emkhted . .~hu; 'the t t - - 3

r . s t ruc tu re of the f i sher ies and the inherent) r e l a t i ons which @s t .bet%wen the

* : , > - ' . various j u r i s d i c t i o n s becane an important cons idera t ion i f :the iss,ue o f

$ I + 1 . . . eeastwide .fi sheries management i s t o be addressed. % re

, *

I I 0 / - . .

.- I

h he r e l a t i onsh ip between organizat iona l s t r u c t w e aqd funct tob has been \ 6 5 , - - 9 :- ,-

examined b y ' Buchanan and ' Tul lock. I n t h e case where "untramrnelled 1

i nd i v i dua l i s t it behaviour of persons w i l l create important s p i l 1 over e f fect,su

(Buchanan and' Tullock, 1965, p. 59) we can expect t o 1 see swne fw. of

organizat ional s t r uc tu re merge t o reduce t he negat ive impact o f

ex te rna l i t i e s . It i s suggested t ha t i n the absence of c o l l e c t i v e =ti-on,

which would correspond t o u n i f i e d management o f the salmon f ishery , vo lun ta ry I'

contractual arraqgements w i l l a r i se. The format ion .of t h e In te rna t iona l , . -

Pac i f i c "~almon F isher ies Commission, (I.P.s.F.C.), and the resource

management agencies i n the various j u r i s d i c t i o n s can be v i p d as such

contractual arrangements uhich a1 l e v i a t e some o f the external i t i e s h i c h

occur w i t h i n the salmon f ishery . . ,.

Buchanan and Tu l lock (1965) " note t h a t i f unanimous consent i s a

'necessary condi t ion, t he costs o f agreement r i s e sharply s ince any

pa r t i c i pan t then has t he oppor tun i ty t o exp lo i t h i s bargaining pos i t ion.

However w i th in the Canada-United States salmon negot ia t ions unanimity would

on ly be required amongst - the government agencies responsible fo r salmon

resource management i n order t o achieve a canprehensive management strategy.

Support o f a l l the ind iv idua l pa r t i c i pan t s i n the f i she ry i s not necessary

because government agencies have regu la tory au tho r i t y -over the ind iv idua l

pa r t i c i pan t s i n t h e i r respect ive f i sher ies . Therefore, w i t h i n each f ishery , 5

canpl i ance w i t h any negot i ated agreement- could be enforced by the appropri a te

goverrment agency. This requirement o f unanimity between resource management /'

agencies i s much less s t r ingen t than uranimity between a l l

the f i she ry and there fo re the prospects o f a settlement are bet ter . ver

because there i s no i n t e r n a t onal enforcement s t u ~ t u r e , the sustained support b. o f both count r ies and the th tee s ta tes and t h e i r respect ive resource

management agencies would be necessary t o assure the c w t i ~ u i t y of a - negotiated settlement.

5, , I n the ~ a c i ? i c salmon f i shery i t i s c lea r t h a t the canmon property

aspect of the resource has led t o h igh l eve l s o f e f f o r t i n the f i shery w i th e

4 the consequence t h a t ne i t he r the b i o l og i ca l nor the econanic po ten t ia l o f the - resource has been optimized. The reso lu t i on o f t h i s problen i s not -easy i n ,

t

any f i s h e r y but i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r circumstance the s i t u a t i o n i s canpl i ca ted .

by the j u r i sd ic t iona l s t ruc ture .

4. The Law o f t he Sea

While ,Canada and t h e United States have debated s$lmon i n te r cep t i on

i ssuesr, worl d-wide negot ia t ions have been proceeding concerning the.

development o f ocean resources. The Th i rd Law of t h e Sea Conference (UNCLOS

111) s ta r t ed i n 1973 and has run' over a long ser ies o f i nd iv idua l sessions,

the l a s t of which was i n 1983. At t h a t session the terms o f the t rea ty ,

known as the United Nations convention- on the Law o f the Sea, were f i na l i zed

and 117 count r ies signed t h e t rea ty . -

-.. The ocean's resources are recognized as being very valuable. However

- the open-access, common property nature o f most o f these resources presented

the p o s s i b i l i t y o f chaot ic resource exp lo i ta t ion . During the e a r l y 1970s, 3

and 12 m i l e t e r r i t o r i a l l i m i t s were c m o n and thus the e x p l o i t a t i o n o f t h e -

resources which ex is ted seaward o f these boundaries was l a rge l y unregulated. -

'\ The -onsl aughta o f d l s tant water f i shing f l e e t s harvest ing coastal resources

was a-threatening r e a l i t y . I n response t o t he concern o f many nat ions about \

-

the prospects. o f uncontrol 1 ed expl o i t a t i o n of ocean resources, UNCLOS I I I was P

D

i n i t i a t e d , Topics o f d iscussiun included a l l aspects cff the econanic

- development and d t i l i z a t i o n of ocedn resources, F isher ies management was a

major concern and much o f the t r e a t y addresses f i she r i es problems,

UNCLOS I, I 1 and I 1 1 a1 1 cont r ibuted t o the development o f in te rna t iona l

f i she r i es pol i c y pos i t ions by Canada and t h e United States, However UNCLOS

I 1 1 1 ed t o de ta i led examination o f the in te rna t iona l pol i c y considerations

3 regarding anadranous species. A t UNCLOS 111 most o f the nat ions wi th

important salmon f i sher ies presented pol i c y papers on t h e i r nat ional

pos i t ions regarding anadranous species. Two major perspectives could be '\

i d e n t i f i e d ; t h a t o f s ta tes o f o r i g i n and t h a t o f in te rcep t ing states!d

Canada's pos i t ion r e f l e c t s the s ta te o f o r i g i n arguments. The United S t a q s '

stand r e f l e c t s i t s d u a l i s t i c pos i t i on as both a s ta te o f a r i g i n and as an

in te rcep t i ng state. -

B

Canada o r i g i n a l l y advocated a strong s ta te o f o r i g i n pos i t ion s t a t i n g

t h a t "coastal states should' have exclusive r i g h t s f o r the management and 1

harvest ing o f anadrcmous species, such as [salmon, throughout the i r . 'migratory

range" (Canada, 1973; Beesley, 1972). This impl ies t h a t anqdromous species ) .

would not be exp lo i ted by open access f isher ies , whdch i s the s i t u a t i o n which

had existed i n the high seas f isher ies . However ' t h i s strong s ta te o f o r i g i n

stand was relaxed when Canada conceded " the r i g h t o f other s ta tes t o f i s h f o r .

these species &en such f i s h are found i n t h e i r o w waters, subject t o

agreement w i th the s ta te of or ig in." Author i ty over anadranous stocks by t h e

s ta te o f o r i g i n would de af fected by a 200 mi le coastal f i she r i es i;_

j u r i s d i c t i o n i n which anadromous f i s h e r i e s would operate, a t o t a l ban o n h igh

seas anadromous f i she r i es , and i n the case i n which anadromous species a re

harvested w i t h i n the coastal j u r i s d i c t i o n o f s ta tes other than the s t a t e o f

o r i g i n , b i l a t e r a l arrangements between t he two coun t r ies were t o be made.

. J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r s t a te o f o r i g i n r i g h t s was based on t he costs borne by t he

s t a t e o f o r i g i n t o maintain and enhance salmon production.

Countries i ncu r considerabl costs i n producing salmon - f o r example costs o f research t o enhance product ion o f f i s h i n f resh w t e r , of impesing severe wgu la t i ons t o assure spawning escapements, o f main ta in ing spawning grounds i n product ive condi t ion, of b u i l d i n g special f a c i l i t i e s t o increase production, of prevent ing pol l u t i o n and o f foregoing a l t e rna te uses o f water. These costs are borne by the count r ies where t he salmon spawn.

- (Shepard, 1973). I

The statement r e l a t i n g t he s t a t e o f o r i g i n t o the country where salmon spawn

was important i n the context o f transboundary r ivers, These r i v e r s f l o w frm

Canadian

s t a t e of

t o those

r i ve rs .

t e r r i t o r y , through American t e r r i t o r y t o t he sea. By de f i n i ng the - -

o r i g i n i n terms o f the spawning locat ion, Canada was c la iming r i g h t s

salmon stocks which spawn i n the Canadian- po r t i on o f transboundary

It can be seen t h a t Canada's stand regarding t h e proposed area o f . .-

f i s h e r i e s j u r i s d i c t i o n and the r i g h t s concerning anadromous species wot~ld ,

A advance Canada's own p o s i t i o n as a coastal state.

The United s a t e s p o s i t i o n a t UNCLOS - I11 was based on i n t e r e s t s i n a

broader scope o f a c t i v i t i e s than was the case - f o r Canada.

Canadian a t t en t i on tends t o focus upon waters located w i t h i n 4. several hundred mi les of i t s shores, whereas the United States

maintains a more global perspect ive i n t he formation o f i t s Q

*

- X - -? - d

7. .T --* . - " d - . -

'- marit ime po l ic ies . This d i f fe rence i s re f lec ted, f o r example, 'in the apparent greater concern i n t he United States than i n Canada t o maximize the freedan o f navigat ion and t o guarantee the secur i t y o f

-- investments made o f f fore ign costs. (Logan, 1974, p.2). I -

.. . ,F

Although t h e United States was searching f o r ce r ta in extensions o f coastal , *

power, i t a1 so wanted t o preserve i t s access t o marine resources e l sewhere on

t h e g l obe. F u r t h e m r e nav igat iona l and m i l i t a r y ' fac to rs were important t o

the United States' p o s i t i a n as an in te rna t iona l power. I n regard t o

, f i sher ies issues, 'however, the Canadian and- American pos i t ions wepe q u i t e

c l ose. I n 1977, Canada and the United States a1 ang w i t h many ather coastal -

states claimed f i she r i es j u r i s d i c t i o n s over waters w i t h i n 200 mi les o f t h e

coast. These nations claimed primary harvesting and f i sheries management

r i g h t s i n these waters. This major step, ,,extending t he f i she r i es

j u r i s d i c t i o n o f coastal states brought most o f the world's important

f i she r i es under the d i r e c t ~ u r i s d i c t ion of ,sovereign states. Thus t h e - -

coastal f i she r i es j u r i s d i c t i o n of Canada and the un i ted &ates was basical- ly

s imi lar , However there i s some d i f fe rence regarding the pos i t i on o f

countr ies on anadromous species. The United States proposed to r e s t r

seas anadranous f i sher ies seaward of the narrow t e r r i t o r i a1 waters o f

states (U.S. 1974). Thi s discrepancy has been s t m a r i r e d -by Copes :

the t w

i c t h igh

coast a1 *

(Uni ted States) would a1 1 ow u t i 1 i zat ion by coastal states through whose t e r r i t o r as salmon p a s s e d , x i n g f o r cooperation w i th states i g i n , but not conceding primacy o f i n t e r e s t t o s ta tes of o r ig in . By l i m i t i n g in te rcep t ion r i g h t s t o the t e r r i t o r i a l seas of coastal states, ra ther than t o t h e i r exclusive econanic zones, t h e United States would gain maximum &antage. U.S. inW-tt~rn csf CanadIan salmon can be ef fec ted f u l l y w i t h i n t'he U.S. t e r r i t o r i a l sea, whi le p r o h i b i t i o n o f salmon f i sh ing beyond 12 m i of the coast o f o ther countr ies would plaqe U.S. salmon stocks a t less r i s k . (Copes, 1977, p. 242). I ..

The most s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rence between /

the two count r ies i s t h e i r pos i t i ons f a,

t e r r i t o r i a l waters outs ide the s ta te o f

the anadromous f i s h e r i e s pl i c i e s o f

on the i n te r cep t i on o f salmon i n

o r i g i n .

The events t h a t l ed t o the i n i t i a t i o n o f UNCLOS 111, prompted countr ies

t o seek sol u t ions t o t h e cmhon property problems o f the oceans' resources. '

The pos i t i ons put forward by Canada and the United States concerning b

f i she r i es were s i m i l a r i n nature t o the pos i t ions advocated by most o f t h e -

coastal states present a t the conference. I n general' the so lu t ions t h a t were

presented, vested sane form o f proper ty r i g h t s i n the hands o f coastal s ta tes

which could establ i sh and enforce f i sher i es management programs.

The Law of the Sea Convention t ha t was f i n a l l y approved r e f l e c t s t h i s -

c m n approach which has c u m t o be seen as t h e most reasonabte so1 &ion t o * -

the i n te rna t i ona l cannon property problems o f f he f i sher ies . One o f the v -

major ob ject ives of coastal s ta tes has been to award j u r i s d i c t i o n over

coastal f i sher i es t o coastal states. A1 though m i l a te ra l claims o f extended /

j u r i sd i c t i on have a1 ready been proclaimed widely, t he convent ion w i l l make - t h i s t r e a t y law. Under the terms o f the t r e a t y the area o f extended

? , , '

j u r i s d i c t i o n o f coastal s ta tes i s defined as t he exclusive econanic mne.

The exctusive econanic zone i s an are beyond and adjacent t o -

- the t e r r i t o r i a l sea, subject t o the spec i f i c .legal regime ~~~ iR W, tmckr the -rtgtrts and ,

T -

j u r i s d i c t i o n s o f the coastal Sta te and the r i g h t s and freedans . . + o f other States are governed by t he re levant prov is ions o f t h i s

Convention. (Uni ted Nations, 1982, a r t 1 c l e 55 ). -

a The dimensions of the exc lus ive economic zone are l i m i t e d t o 200 mi les f r an

$he coast.

The exclusive economic zone sha l l not extend beyond 200 nau t i ca l %mi les from the basel ines from which the breadth o f the t e r r i t o r ' i a l sea i s measured. (Uni ted Nations, 1982, a r t i c l e 5<7).

i. -i

The coastal s ta te i s awarded sovereign r i g h t s over t he f i she r i es i n i t s

excl us ive economic zone and jw,isdiction over f i she r i es management. b

4

I n the exc lus ive economic zone, t h e coastal Sta te has: - -

( a ) s o v e r e i g n r i g h t s fo r the purpose o f exp lor ing and exp lo i t i ng , conserving and managing the na tu ra l resources, whether l i v i n g o r non-l iving, o f the sea-bed and subsoi l and the superjacent waters, and w i t h regard other a c t i v i t i e s f o r the economic e x p l o i t a t i o n an8 explora t ion o f .the zone, such as the production o f energy f ran t he water, cur rents and winds;

( b ) j u r i s d i c t i o n as provided f o r i n the re levant prov is ions o f .,

t h i s Convention w i th regard to: . . . the p ro tec t ion and , preservat ion of the marine envirorment; (United Nations, 1982, a r t i c l e 56).

~ n a d r k u s species are considered r s a special case i n t h e Law o f the *% -

Sea Convention because mig ra t ion between f resh wate i - hpb i t a t and tk high

seas of some of these species creates special problems. Salmon provide t he \ . primary example o f t h i s . It was seen t h a t the r i g h t s and j u r i s d i c t i o n s

0

associated w i th the exclusive economic zone would not provide adequate

p ro tec t ion f o r anadromous species. Therefore a separate a r t i c l e o f the

t r ea t y was draf ted t o consider the unique circunstances o f these stocks. The

s ta te o f o r i g i n i s recognized as having special i n t e r e s t i n these stocks even

when they migrate outs ide the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the s ta te o f o r i g i n .

States i n h o s e r i v e r s anadranous stocks o r j g i n a t e sha l l have the primary i n t e r e s t i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r such stocks. -(United Nations, 1982, a r t i c l e 66).

I n most cases the operat ion of anadromous f i she r i es i s r e s t r i c t e d to the . waters o f excl us i ve econanic zones. Where d i ~ t a n t water - f i sher ies a1 ready

ex i s t , they may continue t o operate i f economic d i s l o c a t i o n would r e s u l t f rau

t h e i r termination. However, no new d i s t a n t water 'anadromous f i she r i es may be,

devel oped. /

-<..

F isher ies for anadromous stocks sha l l be conducted on ly i n waters landwards o f the outer , l i m i t s o f exclusive econanic zones, except i n cases vhere t h i s prov is ion would r e s u l t i n econanic d i s l oca t i on for a State other than the State o f o r i g i n . With respect to. such f i sh ing beyond the outer l i m i t s o f the excl$ire econanic zone, Stptes concerned sha l l main ta in consu l ta t ions w i t h a view t o g h i e v i n g agreement on terms and condi t ions of such f i s h i n g g i v i ng due regard t o t he conservat ion r 'equirwents and needs of the State o f o r i g i n i n respect o f these stocks. (Uni ted Nakions, 1982, a r t i c l e 66).

Se/ Regarding the issue o f salmon in tercept ions which occur w i t h i n t he f i s h e r i e s

j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a s ta te outs ide the s ta te o f o r i g i n , the t r e a t y takes an

intermediate stand. Nei ther the s ta te o f o r i g i n nor the i n te r cep t i ng s t a t e

i s awarded the sole j u r i s d i c t i o n t o determine how those stocks sha l l be

harvested.

I n cases where-anadhmous stocks migrate i n t o or through the waters landwards of the outer ldmi ts of the exc lus ive . k o n m i c zone o f a State other than t he State o f o r i g i n , such State sha l l

2 co-operate w i t h the State of o r i g i n w i th regard t o the conservation and management of such stocks. ( M i t e d Nations, 1982, a r t i c l e 66).

Under the terms of the convention the s ta te o f o r i g i n i s chdrged 'wi+h the

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t he conservation of anadraous stocks. -In consul t a t ion

w i t h other states r h i c h b r v e s t i t s anadranous stocks, the s ta te o f o r i g i n

may dk tem ine the rota1 al lowable catch f o r i t s stock? ard the s ta te o f

o r i g i n must ensure appropr iate regu l ta t ions e x i s t w i t h i n i t s o m

j u r i s d i c t i o n . I

1

+- zone and f o r f i sh i hg o f i t s stocks The s ta te o f o r i g i n may, a f t e r . . . f ish ing these stocks,

/ Many o f the /object ives of the' respect ive f i sheries p o l i c i e s expressed by

* -- Canada and t h e United States a t the e a r l y sessiorts of ttNCtOS 111 have atready = .

been accomplished. The 200 m i l e f i she r i es j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r coastal states i s t <

a r e a l i t y . F u r t h e m r e the ppec ia l i n t e r e s t o f the State o f o r i g i n regarding

anadromous stocks has b/ en formal ly recognized i n the Law o f the Sea

\. Convention. Although. e x i s t i n g d i s t an t water anadrmous f i she r i es have no t / been barred, f u r t he r growth i n t h i s area i s not a l loned under the terms o f /' the t r e a t y and as w i l l be explained l a t e r , one o f the la rges t d i s t an t water

salmon f l ee t s , t h a t of Japan, v o l u n t a r i l y operates under more ~ e s t r i c t i v /

regulat ions. ,(iegarding sane of t he other issues, Canada a d t he / /

s t a t i s are'much c loser than they w r e a t ,the s t a r t o f UNCLOS /

Canada-Uni t ed States salmon negot ia t ions the issues of salmon i n t cept ion i n p/ t e r r i t o r i a l waters of a &ate other than the s ta te o f e&i.n, and the

ent i t lement of Canada and t h e United States t o the salmon production o f

p ro t i s i ons o f the Law o f the Sea convention. The

t,he Law o f t h e Sea Convention, T.A. Clingan; was Z

assures - . . . excl usive r i g h t t o marine resources -

United States iontknds t h a t sane sect ions ( o f t h e

*

Uni ted States' delegate t o

quoted : "h i s t o r i c pract i c e %

200 m i l es from coast. The,

Law of t he Sea Convention)

codi fy customary pract ice." (New York Times, 10 Dec. 1982). h o n g s t the

. v sections o f the convention t h a t were mentioned were those re l a ted t o t h e

sovereign r i g h t s ov& waters 12 mi les from the coast a d the exc lus ive r i g h t s

t o f i s h and harvest other resources f o r ZOO miles f ran t he toast . Thus i t

can be seen t h a t both Canada and the United States have accepted

f i sher ies aspects o f t h e ~ l a w o f t h e Sea Convention. %.

5. Canada - Uni ted Staf es Rela t ions Concerning Salmon ,F isher ies .

the

There has been a s izeable west coast canmerci a1 salmon f i shery ' in Canada

and the United States since the l a s t quarter o f the nineteenth century. It

soon became apparent tha t , due t o j o i n t exp lo i t a t i on o f salmon stocks, a

\co-operati ve management and conservation programs between Canada and the * i

United States would be necessary t o achieve the optimal u t i l i z a t - i o n o f t he

resource. Both Canada and the United States have long. understood the nature I

o f the impacts o f thei'r respect ive f i she r i es on salmon stocks which o r i g i n a t e

i n the waters o f * the other country. It w i l l be shown t h a t the problems

associated w i th salmon in te rcep t ion have been studied almost as 1 ong as _.

salmon i n te r cep t i on f i she r i es hawe existed. A l t h o ~ both sides Snwe been

anxious t o reach agreement, a reso lu t ion t o the salmon i n te r cep t ion problems,

I n the ear ly .h is t5 i$ -~of t h e f i s h e r y n e i t h e r Canada nor t h e Uni ted Sta tes

had. a cmprehenr iv< s t r a t e g y f o r t he development o f t h e i r - f i s h e r i e s .

Problems t h a t arose were-dea l t w i t h on a case by case basis. Consequently

t h e geograph ica l ly d i f f u s e salmon f i s h e r y has had d i s t i n c t reg iona l . 4

developments.. T rea t ies have been signed and h i s t o r i c a l p r k e d e n t s se t

w i thout adequate cons ide ra t i on o f t h e i r long term imp1 i c a t i o n s . W.C.

MacKenzie c r i t i c i z e d Canadian f i s h e r i e s po l i cy , s t a t i n g : "Lacking a l ong

range perspect ive the approach has teqded t o be d i s j o i n t e d l y incremental , the

o b j e c t i v e s k i ~ g ' i n f e r r e d f r a n e x i s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s ." (Mac~enzie, 1974,

p.1705). coastwide salmon f i s h e r i e s management does not e x i s t and i f 9 t i s

t o be developed cons ide ra t i on w i l l have t o be given t o t h e reg iona l aspects

o f t he f i shery. ;= *

CaRada-Un i ted

basis. ' Important

the Fraser River ,

S ta tes . f i shery re1 a t i o n s w i l l be presented on a reg iona l

salmon i n t e r c e p t i o n f i s h e r i e s ex i s t on t h e approa&es t o

o f f t he west coast o f Vancouver I s l a n d and i n the n o r t h

coast-panhandle area. The r o l e of f o re ign salmon f i s h e r i e s , those o ther t h a n .

Canadian o r American, G i l l be examined b r i e f l y . F i n a l l y t h e Qgroader na t iona l

p o s i t i o n s n o c advocated by Canada and t h e Uni ted States ;ill be presented.

- b

a) The Fraser River Fishery

The Frase-r River i s the la rges t salmon producing r i v e r on the North

American coast. Both t he Canadian and Arnerican f i she r i es have depended on

the salmon stocks from t h i s r i v e r f o r many decades. In tens ive in tercepz ion

f i she r i es began i n t he nineteenth century and by 1899 t he catch of Fraser

River sockeye by Pmerican f i sher ies exceeded the Canadian Fraser River catch

(Lyons, 1969). Since t h a t t ime a. combination o f habi ta dest ruct ion, ) -

' competing use f o r the water resources and in tens ive harvesting h a v e , l d t o a

major dec l ine i n the p roduc t i v i t y of Fraser River runs. This has resu l ted i n

numerous att&npt s t o rehabi l i t a t e Fraser River salmon stocks.

Excess f i sh i ng capaci ty i n r e l a t i o n t o

resource has been i d e n t i f i e d a t the t u r n

Canadian f i she r i eg harvest ing Fraser River -

concentrated i n t he mouth o f t h e r i v e r whi le

i n Juan de Fuca S t r a i t and the nor th end

i

the product ive capacity o f the

o f t h e century (Lyons, 1969).

stocks t r a d i t i o n a l l y have been.

American f i she r i es have operated

of Puget Sound (see Figure 1).

Because,most o f the Rraser River salmon stocks usua l l y r e tu rn through Juan. de

Fuca S t r a i t the Pmerican f i she r i es had the f i r s t opportuni ty t o harvest

salmon re tu rn ing t o the Fraser River t o spawn. The Fraser sockeye have a

strong four year c y c l i c a l pat tern. In the ea r l y h i s to ry o f the Fraser River

f i shery both Canadian and Pmerican fishermen d i d well on t h e daninant cyc le

years, 1893, 1897 and 1901 but dur ing the in terven ing years Canadian

fishermen suf fered because they were second i n l i n e t o catch the f i s h

(Shepard, 2980). f

/

iss satisfaction w i t h t h e performance of t h e Fraser R iver f i s h e r y

p r e c i p i t a t e d t h e . formation o f t h e Pr ince Carmission i n 1905 (Lyons, 1969.). '

-1

This Canadian commission was es tab l ished to examine the Canadian f i s h i n g I

i n d u s t r y on t h e P a c i f i c coast and t o make recanmendations f o r i t s *

improvement. The f i n a l repo r t o f t h e canmission s ta ted t h a t i n t e r n a t i o n a l

r e g u l a t i ~ n s governing t h e Canadian and American f i s h e r i e s were requ i red f o r v

the management o f Fraser R ive r ' sockeye stocks. Then i n 1908 t h e Bryce Root

Treaty, s'igned by t h e Un i ted States and by B r i t a i n on behalf o f Canada, f

estab l i shed the In te r ' na t i ona l F i sher ies Canmission. The I n t e r n a t i o n a l f--

A F i sher ies C m i ss ion wrote t e g u l a t ions f o r t h e p r o t e c t ion and preservat ion o f

a l l harvested f i s h species which were t o tie app l ied 'uni formly t o - the

fi sher ies o f both count r ies . However t h e Uni ted States refused t o ' imp1 ement

the regu la t i ons and consequently Canada withdrew from the t r e a t y i n 1914. a

The f i r s t s i g n i f i c a n t attempt a t j o i n t f i s h e r i e s management had f a i l e d .

This f a i l u r e t o manage i n t e n s i v e f i s h i n g e f f o r t soon was fo l lowed by

major h a b i t a t d e s t r u c t i o n on the I r a s e r R iver . The 1913 H e l l ' s Gate s l i d e

destroyed much o f t h e spawning p o t e n t i a1 o f t h e upper Fraser R ive r system. -..

. The s l i d e made upstream salmon m i g r a t i o n very d i f f i c u l t and prevented a l a r g e h

p r o p o r t i o n of t h e Fraser R iver sockeye frm r e t u r n i n g t o t h e i r spawning

grounbs. t o reproduce. Desp i te attempts by Canada to c l e a r the s l i d e , i t

became apparent du r ing t h e next few years t h a t sockeye stocks were not going

tor recover na tu ra l 1y. C m e r c i a1 1 and i ng s o f sockeye were severe1 y

depressed. P r i o r t o t h e a s l i d e , daninant cyc le years h6d produced more thki 4"

I

10 m i l 1 i o n sockeye but a f t e r t he s l i d e , daninant cyc le years produced fewer

than 5 m i l l i o n pieces (Pearse, 1982, p.11 a n d p.283).' The devast ingV e f fec ts

of t h e H e l l ' s Gate s l i d e worsened t h e problems o f t h e Fraser R iver salmon

fi shery. It was obvious t h a t new r e s t r i c t i o n s on the ~a 'nad ian and American

f i s h e r i e s were requ i red even t o main ta in t h e new lower stock leve ls . However /'

progress i n nego t ia t i ons was s l ow. Ao agr-ent c o n c e h i n g j o i n t management

o f t h e f i she ry was f i n a l l y signed i n 1929 but i t was no t * i m p l ~ n t e d u n t i l '

1937. The agreement provided f o r the c r e a t i o n o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a c i f i c

Salmon F ishe r ies Canmission (I.P.S.F.C.) which had j u r i s d i c t i o n over Fraser

R ive r sockeye stocks. I n 1% 7, p ink salmon were inc luded i n the terms o f t h e

agreement. The agreement s p e c i f i e d t h a t Canada and t h e Uni ted States would

share the management and enhancement cos ts f o r ' Fraser R i v e r sockeye and p ink '

salmon. I n ' exchange, t h e Un i ted States was e n t i t l e d t o 50% o f t h e sockeye

and p ink catch i n the waters adjacent t o the Fraser ~ i v e ? , k n o w ds

convention waters (see F igu re 2) . Th is second- attempt a t j o i n t management o f ,

Fraser R iver salmon stocks was very s low t o b r i n g about- an e f f e c t i v e

management regime bu t i t r e s u l t e d i n a long term agreement which i s s t i l l

opera t ive .

Canada has becane i n c r e a s i n g l y f r u s t r a t e d about the i n e q u i t y o f the

f i s h e r i e s management on the Fraser River. Although f ' inanci a1 expenses

associated w i t h f i s h e r i e s management have been shared between r the two ,

count r ies , Canada alone has borne t h e econamic cos ts o f foregone development

o p p o r t u n i t i e s . The Fraser R l ver has Smportant hydro-elect.r ic potent i a1 kh ich - has not been developed. Furthermore, Canada has assumed a11 t h e c'osts , -

associated w i t h main ta in ing the q u a l i t y o f water o f the Fraser R iver . Th is

F i g u r e 2: Southern Coastal B r i t i s h Columbia and I

I.P.S.F.C. convent ion waters

includes r e s t r i c t i n g f o res t r y a c t i - v i t i e s and cont ro l l i 'ng waste d i sposal . A

- ( large po r t i on of these addi t iona l costs can be d i r e c t l y a t t r i b i l t e d t o the'

preservat ion o f the salmon resoucce an4 the United States has not shared the

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r these costs.

Aside frm the issue of costs which have

%

. a

not been s h a r k equal ly,

Canadians have expressed concern about the f i s h e r - - i e s management regime on the

Fraser River. The I.P.S.F.C. does not have a mandate t o deal w i th mixed

stock problems concerning chinook, coho and chum. Chinook shocks espec ia l l y '

are suf fkr ing dec l in ing escapement on the Fraser River. This s i t u a t i o n

requ i res f i she r i es management act ion. However possib le act ions b y Caeadian

a u t h o r i t i e s are l i m i t e d by the au tho r i t y of t he I.P.S.F.C. During the t ime

when sockeye and p ink salmon are re tu rn ing to the Fraser River the

I.P.S,F.C. has j u r i s d i c t i o n over the Can ian and American f i she r i es w i t h i n 7 convention waters. These fi sheries are managed according t o the harvestable

v ." y i e l d s o f sockeye and pink salmon. Chinook salmon cannot withstand t h e

1 - harvest ra tes vhich have been designated f o r sockeye and pink. Consequently

Fraser River chinook stocks have decl ined due t o overexpl o i t a t ion.

The management s t ra teg ies o f t h e I.P.S.F.C. have been c m p l icated by the

Bo ld t dec is ion i n Washington state. This cour t case' a l located 50% o f the I

s ta te ' s catch t o Native, Indians. Because t h e Pmerican Native f l e e t i s not so

e f f e c t i v e as the res t o f the f l e e t , the re have been addi t jana? f f sher ies

openings on Fraser River stocks f o r American Native fishermen. This &

increased the harvest r a t e ,on l a t e re tu rn ing stocks o f Fraser River salmon

and d i srupted management s t ra teg ies vhich have been care fu l 1 y designed around

th b io log i ca l t h i n $ schedules o f the salnon stocks t h e 5050

s p l i t of sockeyg and pink catches between Canada and \

been maintained but Canadian fi,sherhen resent add i t iona l openings t o 4

a c c m o d a t e h e r i c a n danestic a1 l oca t i on problems, especi a1 1y vhen those

openings may i n t e r f e r e w i t h management s t ra teg ies f o r chum, coho ,and chinook.

8 II

The Canadian p o s i t i o n regarding the Fraser R i t e r f i shery i s t h a t the 5

United States has a1 ready been compensated m p l y f o r any con t r i bu t i ons they

have made. The Canadian side has assumed a large share o f the t o t a l costs

associated w i t h the f i shery and they have not received canmensurate rj

benef i ts . The Qni ted States has been a l located 50% o f the Fraser River

sockeye and pink catch although they do not bear 50% o f the associated

costs. I n addi t ion, Pmericans harvest a la rge inc iden ta l catch o f coho, chum A-;"

and chi nook. Under t h i s regime stock management has becane a prLoblem. The &f+ ;-5- ' , -=

Canadian side would l i k e to reorganize t he management o f the ~ r & & .River

f i s h e r y so t ha t a1 1 salmon species w i l l be given adequate ~ ~ o n s i d e r a t i o h i n

the formulat ion o f annual f i sh i ng plans.

consu l ta t i ve mechani sins between Canada >

a, add i t iona l f i she r i es openings w i l l not

American domestic a1 l oca t i on requirements.

F ~ r t h e m r e they would l i k e b e t t e r

and the United States so t ha t

have t o be made t o accommodate

M i t h b e t t e r in format ion regarding

the s ize and c a p a b i l i t i e s o f the f i sh i ng f l e e t , t h e I.P.S.F.C. could improve

i t s annual f i sh i ng plans f o r convention area waters so t h a t add i t iona l a

%

f i she r i es openings would not have t o be' made l a t e r i n the season. Then l a t e

re tu rn ing f i sh stocks would not suf fer increased f i s h i n g pressures t o . .

accmmodate the requ i red 50:50 Canada-Uni t ed States salmon 'a1 1 ocat ion ., - .. ?-

The Anerican p o s i t i o n ma in ta ins ' tha t the .Fraser River i s a special case

and any negot ia t ions must consider t h e i r ent i t lement t o Fraser River stocks.

7 They are p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned about the Canadian catch of Fraser River

salmon ii areas outs ide the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the I.P.S.F.C. Fran 1978 t o 1981

there was a high "d ive rs ion ra teu i n salmon migrat ion pat terns such t h a t 80% 8

of re turn ing Fraser River stocks came through Johnstone S t r a i t ra ther than

through Juan de Fuca S t r a i t (see Figure Z ) . . . This migrat ion' route sub jects a-

the Fraser River stocks t o much more intense Canadian f i sh i ng e f f o r t i n 4

Johnstone S t r a i t than would be the case o f f the west coast o f Vancouvelr~,

rsland. Because salmon spent much less t ime i n convention waters, kneFican F3 t

fishermen had reduced access t o Fraser River s t ~ c k s . The United States . B

+ i +

L > Q

argued t ha t the high d i ve rs i on r a t e a l l ev i a ted some o f the i nequ i t i es t h a t B

had developed. It should be noted, 'however, t h a t b i o l o g i s t s do not have any

explanat ion f o r t h i s unprecedented change i n m ig ra t ion patterns. Although . the Fraser River salmon migrat ion patter,n reverted t o i t s more normal course

through Juan de Fuca S t r a i t i n 1982, i t remains' uncerta in h a t w i l l happen i n

the fu ture . I f t he d ive rs ion r a t e should rever t t o the pre-1978 leve l ,

Canada's i n t e r cep t i on p s i t i o n w i 11 be substant ia l l y w & h ~ than t h a t o f the

United States.

The Fraser River continues t o be an important element o f any b i l a t e r a l

d i scussions concerning salmon. This r e f l e c t s t he magnitude o f t h i s

i n t e r cep t i on f ishery . Because the f i s h e r y has been so important t o Canada

. and t he Uni ted. States, there has been more cooperatiod concerning the

managehent and developnent o f the Fraser River f i she ry than any o ther f i she ry

on the coast. This f ishery has involved lega l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements

whi ch do not ex i s t e l sewhere. Any f u t u r e devel opments w i 11 have 'to consider -

t he canp lex i t i es o f the ex i s t i ng f i she r i es management s t ruc ture .

b ) The West Coast T r o l l Fi-shery

I n the south, Canada's t r o l l f l e e t which operates o f f the west coast has

becane' &%her contentious issue. A l a rge percentage o f the catch o f t h i s

I - f i shery o r ig ina tes i n American r i ve r s . The area o f f Vancouver Is land i s a

r i c h feeding ground f o r salmon and i t a t t r a c t s chinook stocks from the

Columbia River. The t r o l l f l e e t , which uses a c m e r c i a l hook and l i n e gear

type, main1 y harvests ch i nook and coho. Consequently Canada has intercepted

an annual average o f 650,000 pieces o f chinook from Washington and Oregon - .

r i v e r s i n recent years (Tech. C a n . on Salmon ~ n t e r c e b t i o n s , 1977-80). Not

o n l y ' i s t h i s species h igh ly valued as a c m e r c i a l product but these

p a r t i c u l a r stocks warrant speci a1 considerat ion because o f conservation

problems. Columbia River chinook stocks are severely depressed and American .

a u t h o r i t i e s consider Canadian in te rcep t ions t o be par t o f the cause. .

. Unt i l . the < l a t e 195'0s the re were no uniform r e s t r i c t i o n s on o f f shore

salmon f i she r i es by Canada and t h e United Sfates. These f i she r i es tend t o

harvest mixed stocks. On the west coast o f Vancouver I s1 and, the f i shery

harvests salmon f ran both Canadian and American r i ve rs . The inherent

problems o f f i sh i ng stocks w i t h d i f f e r e n t sustainable harvest ra tes was -

'( - canpl icated by the in te rcep t ion issue. . Both count r ies recognized t p a t

of fshore f i she r i es create mixed stock management problems w i t h in te rna t iona l /

imp1 icat ions. Fisher ies, which harvest salmon a t o r near t he mouth o f a

r i v e r L concentrate on fewer stocks a t any one t ime and a l low more se lec t i ve

harvesting. Furthermore these inshore f i sheries tend t o have 1 ower salmon

,- in te r cep t i on rates. Thus' the two count r ies together could improve t h e i r

. cont ro l over the management o f domestic f i s h stocks by r e s t r i c t i n g t h e i r

f i she r i es t o inshore areas. I n 1957 Canada and the United States agreed t o a

"sur f l i n e " beyond .which net f i she r i es were prohibi ted. The purpose o f t h i s

r e s t r i c t i o n was t o promote b e t t e r management o f the f i she ry and t o reduce

salmon intercept ions. However, the t r o l l f l e e t was not inc luded i n the terms

o f the agreement and t h i s f i she ry has continued t o harvest - h e r i c a n salmon

stocks.

Since extended j u r i s d i c t i o n s were proclaimed by Canada and t he United

States, e f f o r t by the west coast t r o l l f l e e t has i n t e n s i f i e d i n the area west

o f Vancouver Is land due t o changing j u r i s d i c t i o n a l reyimes. The salmon t r o l l

f l e e t i s h i gh l y mobile and t r a d i t i o n a l l y Canadian t r o l l e r s f ished o f f the

coast of Washington, B r i t i s h Columbia and Alaska. A f t e r Canada and t h e

,

United States extended t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n over coastal waters, the fishermen

o f each country were barred f r a n areas o f f &he coast o f t h e other country

where they had t r a d i t i o n a l l y f ished.

U n t i l 1964 both Canada and the United States .claimed j u r i s d i c t i o n on ly

over a th ree m i l e t e r r i t o r i a l l i m i t . This allowed t he t r o l l f l e e t

considerable freedom o f movemnnt t o f i s h anyhe re o f f the North Pmerican

coast l ine. I n 1964 Canada u n i l a t e r a l l y extended i t s f i s h e r i e s j u r i sd i c t i on - //

tb-12 mi les and ' i n 1970 the United States fol lowed s u i t . This ac t i on was +%

taken p r ima r i l y t o r e s t r i c t t he developnent o f new fore ign f i she r i es and not

t o change the status quo w i th respect t o the two countr ies. To preserve some

o f t h e i r t r ad i t i o i r a l f i sher ies , Canada and t h e United States allowed

rec iproca l f i sh i ng r i g h t s i n l i m i t e d areas i n the 3 t o 12 m i l e zone. The --, d-s,

Canadian t r o l l f l e e t was allowed t o continue f i s h i y outs ide t h e 3 m i l e

t e r r i t o r i a l 1 i m i t o f f the Washington coast1 i n e and American t r o l l e r s were

allo;e;(. t o f i s h beyond Canada's 3 m i l e l i m i t f r an mid Vancouver I s land

southward. No rec iproca l agreement was made on the nor th coast and I

consequently the Canadian t r o l l e r s were r e s t r i c t e d f ran f i s h i n g i n t h e newly

+ claimed A1 askan waters.

I n 1977 j u r i s d i c t i o n s were extended again. Both Canada and the United

States declared a 200 m i l e f i sh i ng zone but Canada also extended i t s

t e r r i t o r i a l l i m i t s t o 12 mi les. . The two countr ies could not agree on the

issue o f rnaintain i ng t r a d i t i o n a l f i she r i es so Canadian t r o l l e e Are excluded

from f i s h i n g anywhere o f f t he Un i ted Sta tes coast1 i ne . Th is development led

t o more intense f i s h i n g e f f o r t by ~ a n a d i a n t r d l l e r s along t h e B r i t i s h

Columbia coast. Due t o the abundance o f h e r i c a n salmon stocks on the

f i s h i n g grounds d o f f Vancouver I s 1 and, i n t e r c e p t i o n s have increased i n t h i s I

area. A1 though t h i s may appear to be a newly expanded i n t e r c e p t i o n f i she ry , t

i t should be remembered t h a t Canadian t r o l l e r s p rev ious l y harvested h e r i c a n

' s tocks o f f Washington and Alaska. Now these fishermen have re located and

- they operate i n Canadian waters. The developqwnt o f t h e west coast t r o l l

f i s h e r y has caused concern t o Americans about the impact o f Canadian t r o l l e r s

H on Col umbia R iver chinook stocks. However, Canadian t r o l l e r s have reduced

access t o the resource h e n campared w i t h t h e s i t u a t i o n vhich ex is ted before

extended j u r i s d i c t i o n -because they have been denied access t o f i s h i n g areas

which now a re under American j u r i s d i c t i o n . 4

c ) Nor th Coast F i she r ies

.3

The geography o f t he n o r t h coast canpl i c a t e s the salmon i n t e r c e p t i o n

issue. As i n t h e case o f t he south coast, Canadian f i s h e r i e s i n t e r c e p t . salmon from American r i v e r s and American f i s h e r i e s i n t e r c e p t salmon f ran \

L

Canadian r i v e r s . However some r i v e r s are o f a transboundary character. The

S t i k i n e , Taku, I s k u t and Alsek Rivers f l o w f r a n the Yukon T e r r i t o r i e s and

r t h e r n B r i t i s h Columbia through south-east Alaska t o t h e Gu l f o f Alaska and

u r t h e r n o r t h the Yukon River f l ons from Can,adals Yukon through cen t ra l

Alaska t o t h e Ber ing Sea. To reach t h e i r s p a w i n g r i v e r , salmon stocks f ran

a1 1 o f these transboundary r iver !? must pass through American ' waters h e r e

they are sub jec t t o i n te rcep t ion . Although Canada and t h e Unit,ed Sta tes I

share - the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f ma in ta in ing the f resh water habit ,bt - I on the i '. I

transboundary r i v e r s , Canada's coasta l ' f i sher ies have no access: t o harves t 1 i

stocks from these r i v e r s but small r i v e r f i s h e r i e s have q k e n t l y been 1

developed on t h e Canadian p o r t i o n o f sane transboundary r i v e r s .,

Salmon stocks from B r i t i s h Columbia's no r th coast r i v e r s . such as t h e

Nass and Skeena, a l so are a f fec ted by heavy in te rcep t ions . For the purpose

- o f ' ha rves t i ng Canadian salmon stocks f r a n these r i v e r s , t h e combinat ion o f

geographic and m ig ra to ry f a c t o r s put Canada i n a disadvantageous p s i t i o n 0 .

r e l a t i v e t o t h e Uni ted States.

Problems were recognized e a r l y i n t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e n o r t h coast

f i s h e r y . Over - f i sh ing of s p e c i f i c stocks was not iced-dur in 'g t h e per iod I900

t o 1905 (Lyons, 1968). I n response t o t h i s t h r e a t t o salmon stocks a l l

B r i t i s h 011 umbl'a f i s h e r i e s n o r t h o f Vancouver I s land were barred from using B

motor boats. However t h e r e s t r i c t i o n c o n f i s h i n g e f f i c i e n c y d i d no t l a s t and

. n o r t h coast f i s h e r i e s cont inued t o develop.

No substant ive b i 1 a t e r a l f i shing arrangements- between B r i t i sh Columbia

and Alaska were made u n t i l 1957 when- Canada and t h e Uni ted States negot ia ted -

\

t h e " s u r f l ine' . As mentfonecl p rev ious ly , the purpose o f t h i s agreement was

t o r e s t r i c t ne t f i s h e r i e s t o inshore o r te rmina l areas where i n t e r c e p t i o n s

would be much lower. Unfor tunate ly . t h e " s u r f Tine" agreement l e d t o

controvet-sy. Through a m i sunderstandi ng, A1 aska d i d not present cha r t s o f '

i t s proposed s u r f l i n e s a t the negot ia t ions . Canada signed the .ag remen t a.nd )

l a t e r discovered Idkt Alaska had set i t s s u r f l i n e 'a t t h e 3 m i l e l i m i t e'

7

h e r e a s Canada, Washington and Oregon had determined the i r . s u r f l i n e s ' by

", drawing 1 i n e q f r a n headland t o headland (Logan, 1969). Alaska, the re fo re ,

\ could cont inue t o f i s h i n h i g h i n t e r c e p t i o n areas u n r e s t r i c t e d by t h e s u r f *

1 ine. Canada was p a r t i c u l a r l y c r i t i c a l o f Alaska's ' Noyes 1s la rd f i s h e r y

which was found t o be. an i n t e n s i v e i n t -e rcep t ion f i shing area. A f t e r f u r t h e r . -

negot ia t ions , Canada and t h e Un i ted States were unable t o reso lve t h e issue.

Both p a r t i e s then claimed the r i g h t t o ad jus t t h e i r n e t f i s h i n g ' l i n e i(

u n i l a t e r a l l y . Thus, t h e s u r f l i n e agreement was n u l l i f i - e d but, .both &J

c o u n t r i e s have cont inued t o operate t h e i r net-. f i -sher ies w i t h i n the l i m i t s *

s p e c i f i e d i n the agreement and t h e Alaskan Noyes I s l a n d f i s h e r y cont inues t o

i n t e r c e p t salmon from Canadian r i v e r s .

Another unresolved issue between Canada and the Uni ted Sta tes concerns

t h e mar i t ime boundary. The proclamations o f extended j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e t w

coun t r i es dur ing the 1960s and 1970s resu l ted i n a boundary d i i P u t e i n t h e ,

waters between south-eastern Alaska and B r i t i sh Columbia. Canada c la ims t h a t '

t h e boundary should be the AB l i n e , which was a r b i t r a t e d i n 1903. The u n i t e d

States would l i k e t o e s t a b l i s h a new boundary which would be drawn

e q u i d i s t a n t between the land masses o f t he two coun t r i es (see F igure 3 ) .

This d i spu te i s not under a c t i v e n e g o t i a t i o n 'pending t h e o u t c m e o f another

-. boundary d i s p u t e on the eas t coas t . U n t i l t j e bouhdar ies . a re reso lved ,

r e g u l a t i o n s i n t h e d i spu ted area w i l l be enforced on a f l a g s h i p bas is , t h a t - .

i s Canadian r e y u l a t i o n s w i 11 be appl i e d t o Canadian vessel s and American

F i g u r e 3: The B r i t i sh Col umbia-A1 aska Marine Boundary

-k Source: P.Copes, B r i t i s h Columbia F i s h e r i e s and t h e 200 m i l e l i m i t , Mar ine - , pol>cy , J u l y 1980 p.210

r

r e g u l a t i o n s w i l l be appl id t o American vessel s. I t should be po in ted 'out

t h a t t h i s boundary d i s p u t e i s no t c r i t i c a l t o t he salmon i n t e r c e p t i o n issues

- s ince t h e r e i s no major salmon f i s h e r y i n the area.

/

Alaskan f i s h e r i e s r h i c h harvest salmon from transboundary r i v e r s a r e a

much g rea te r concern t o Canadian i n t e r e s t s . Substant ia l salmon runs e x i s t i n t >

some p i v e r s J I i c h f lm f r u n no r the rn B r i t i s h Columbia, through south-east

a Alaska ( t h e panhandle), t o the sea. P r i o r t o extended f isherSes j u r i s d i c t i o n

and i t s 200 m i l e l i m i t s Canadian fishermen were able t o ca tch some o f these

salmon which o r i g i n a t e d i n Canadian p o r t i o n s o f t h e transboundary r i v e r s .

The c l osure of A1 askan waters exc l uded Canadian f i shermen from t r a d i t i o n a l

f i s h e r i e s and prevented them frm catch ing salmon f rom Canadian po r t i ons o f

these r i v e r s . The Un i ted Sta tes has pointed out t h a t bo th coun t r i es must

cooperate t o - ma in ta in these r i v e r s t h e r e f o r e the salmon product ion f r a n

transboundary r i v e r s should be a ' t t r ibuted j o i n t l y t o Ca'nada and the Uni ted

States. The speci f i c c r e d i t share9 have been the sub jec t o f nego t i a t i on . I n

recent years Canada has i n i t i a t e d i n - r i v e r canmercial f i s h e r i e s on the i I

S t i k i n e and Taku R ivers s o t h a t Canada cou ld b e n e f i d f r a n sane o f t h e salmon

p roduc t i on f ran i t s transboundary r i v e r s . t

Canada' a1 so c la ims e n t i t

R iver which i s a major salmon

T e r r i t o r i e s th rough c e n t r a l

lement t o a share o f t he product ion o f t he Yukon

produc i ry r i v e r . I t f lows from Canada's Yukon 7--

l 3

Alaska t o the Bering Sea. C u r r e n t l y Canada I

I

d--

rece i ves ' minimal I bene f i t f r a n t h e product ion o f t h i s r i v e r . However t h e

p o t e n t i a l for i n - r i v e r f i s h e r i e s e x i s t s i f more salmon were al lowed t o rea th

the upper sec t i on o f the r i v e r . Alaska i s not anxious t o nego t i a te t h i s

-v ' i ssge because they a1 ready have d i f f i cu l t y a r b i t r a t i n g between e thn i c groups

which f i s h t h e Yukon R iver i n Alaska and they do not want t o fo rce \

r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e i r I n d i a n and I n u i t people t o b e n e f i t Canadians.

The m ig ra to ry p a t t e r n of salmon g i v e Alaskan f i sher ies an i n t r i n s i c

advantage over Canadian f i s h e r i e s . For a l l species Alaska i s able t o

i n t e r c e p t inore salmon from Canadian r i v e r s than Canxla i s ab le to i n t e r c e p t

f r a n Alaskan r i v e r s (Tech. C m . on Salmon ;nterceptrons, 197?-1980!.. I

6 -

Consequently Alaska has a s t r a t e g i c barga in ing advantage. From the Aiaskan

perspect ive there is l i t t l e t o be galned frm salmon n e y o t l a t ~ o n s . Canada, St

Washington and Oregon would, l i k e t o see a r e s t r ~ c t i o n o f f ~ s h e r l e s ? n

south-east Alaska t o h e l p a l l e v i a t e ifttefisiwe f i s h i n g e f f o r t on declining

ch i nook stocks. However any corresponding r e s t r i c t i o n s Sy Canada, Llashington

and Oregon w i l l have l i t t l e impact on r e t u r n s t o the Alaskan f i she ry . The

same s i t u a t i o n does not e x i s t i n the " south, between Canada and tne ' 3

Washi nyton-Oregon fi sher ies. or chinook 'm c o b Canada i n t e r c e p t s more

salmon f ran Washington and Oregon r i v e r s than Washington and Oregon i n t e r c e p t

from Canadian r i v e r s . On t h e other hand, Washington . i n t e r c e p t i o n s o f

Canadian stocks o f sockeye , p i nk and chum exceed Canadian i n t e r c e p t ions o f

' those species from American r i v e r s south of Canada,. The Alaskans have

d i splayed some re1 uctance t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l salmon nego t ia t i ons

because t h e i r i n t e r e s t s are not c l o s e l y a1 igned w i t h t h e r e s t of t h e h e r i c a n

con t i ngen t .

d ) The Japanese F i s h e r y

I

Canada and the Un i ted Sta tes take most o f the ca tch of Nor th h e r i c a n

stocks o f P a c ~ f i c salmon. However because many +n stocks migra te i n t o

t h e mid no r th P a c i f i c Ocean they a re p o t e n t i a l l y suscep t i b le $0 harvest by 1

h igh seas f i s h e r i e s of t h i r d coun t r i qs . Japan t r a d i t i o n a l l y has had a h igh -

seas f ~ s h i n g f l e e t i n tne n o r t h P a c i f i c a i c h harvested salmon stocks from

A s i a and N o r t h America, However t h i s f i s h e r y - h a s been r e s t r i c t e d s ince

1952. Under the terms of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Nor th P a c i f i c F i she r ies

Convention, Japan barred i t s h igh seas salmon f i s h e r i e s f r a n o p e h t i n g eas t

o f 175" West. La te r

r e s t r i c t i ng Japanese

Japan has taken 3%

based on the number

the abs ten t i on l i n e was moved to 175 ' East, thus f u r t h e r

fishing a c t i v i t y . It has been est imated t h a t o v e r a l l

o f the t o t a l harvest o f Nor th American salmon stocks,

o f pieces caught dur ing t M p e r i o d 1354-1968 (Fred in , ,

' 1931 1 . The Japanese f i s h e r y predominant ly harves ts sockeye from Nor th

America; t h e o ther species, chinook, c o b , chum and p ink are v i r t u a l l y 8

u n a f f e c t d by t h ~ s d i s t a n t water f i she ry . Japan's ca tch o f sockeye was found

. t o be i l l (35 ,OO7,OOCl pieces) of t h e sockeye ca&h of North American stocks

(F red in , ,1971). Most o f t he Nor th Prnerican salmon taken by Japan o r i g i n a t e

i n - A l a s k a , . Yi thout t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s o f t h e ~ n t e r n a t i o n a l North P a c i f i c

F i s h e r i e s Convention the Japanese f i s h e r y cou ld have harvested w e n more

W r t h h c r i c a n salmon. Since Japan l e g a l l y can withdraw f r a n t h i s agreement

w i t h one y e a r ' s n o t i c e , the cont inued cooperat ion o f Japan i s an important

f a c t o r f o r 1 ong term resource management of North American sockeye *stocks.

The d e c l a r a t i o n o f the 200 m i l e l i m i t has l i m i t e d o the r c o u n t r i e s f r a n * .

developing h igh seas salmon f i s h e r i e s because they cou ld take salmon o n l y

ou ts ide the 200 m i l e l i m i t . The 200 m i l * l i m i t co l r ta ins a l a r g e pa r t o f the

areas o f h igh stock concent ra t ion . ~ h m t h e remaining f i s h i n g r r e r , t h a t

rrhich i s beyond ,the 200 m i l e l i m i t s o f coastaT s ta tes , salmon a r e l & s

1 abundant. To d a e , o ther c o u n t r i e s have expressed l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n

developing new high seas salmon f i s h e r i e s and now the new Law o f the Sea

convent ion p r o h i b i t s the i n i t i a t i o n o f h igh seas salmon f i s h e r i e s .

S

I I I , ME CANADA-UNITED SPATES S A L W N NEGOTIATIONS

Negot iat ions between Canada ' and the ~ n i ted States concerning t h e i r \

respect ive r i g h t s and obl i ga t ions i n exp lo i t i ng the salmon resource have been

pursued since 1971. The most contentious issue has been the i n te r cep t i on of

salmon wh&h o r i g i na te i n the waters o i t he other country. Although sane I

l eve l o f i n te rcep t ion ' i s v i r t u a l l y unavoidable because o f the - i n te rn ing1 i n g

= o f salmon stocks t h a t occurs dur ing migrat ion, cu r ren t l y each country cou ld

redirect i t s f i she r i es t o reduce the quant i ty o f salmon in tercept ions.

Howeyer i t has proved very d i f f i c u l t t o negot iate mutual l y acceptable plans

t o adjust the salmon f i sh i ng pat terns o f the two countr ies.

1, Migrat ion' and In tercept i o n Patterns

The v u l n e r a b i l i t y o f i nd iv idua l .salmon stocks t o i n t e r cep t i on f i she r i es

i s determined by t h e i r migrat ion pattern. These migratory pat terns are a

. c r i t i c a l fac tor i n the explanat ion a f the . l o c a t i o n and magnitude o f

i n te rcep t ions by Canada and the United States. - T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and

q u a n t i f i c a t i o n o f i n te rcep t ions has been an important i s s w i n the salmon

negot ia t ions because these data have been the basis of the proposals by each

country f o r revised f i sh i ng plans. Not su rp r i s ing ly , the two sides have had J

c u l t y reaching consensus on the estimates o f salmon in te rcep t ion .

The only thorough record - o f i n te rcep t ions was -made by t he Technical

t t e e on Salmon In tercept ions. This camnittee o f Canadian and American

s c i e n t i s t s was es tab l ished t o prepare an o f f i c i a l record o f Canadian and

American salmon in te rcep t ions . The two sides could not reach consensus on

t h e i -ntercept ion est imates. Consequently the dat'a r e o o r t s o f t he canmi t t e e

show Canadian and American est imates o f salmoff i n t e r c e p t i o n by species,

f i s h i n g gear, l 'ocat ion and' year. Several sources r a r e used t o est imate

salmon in te rcep t ions . Extensive salmon tagging s tud ies were conducted i n

1957 and these s tud ies were used t o est imate the p ropor t i on o f i n te rcep ted

salmon which were caught i n the f i she r ies . I n t e r c e p t i o n est imates a r e

c a l c u l a t e d on t h i s p ropor t i ona l bas is f o r most o f the f i s h e r i e s . However

same sockeye and p ink i n t e r c e p t i o n est imates are 'not ca l cu la ted t h i s way.

The I.P.S.F.C. c a l c u l a t i o n s o f sockeye i n t e r c e p t i o n are used f o r the Canadian

catch o f f i s h from Washington r i v e r s and

from Canadian r i v e r s . Estimates of odd

f i s h e r i e s of s a h w ? frm Washington,

est imates o f cdd year p ink i n t e r c e p t i o n

the Washi ngton-Oregon catch o f f i sh

year p ink i n t e r c e p t i o n by Canadian

e Oregon a d C a t i f u r n i a r i ve rs . and

by Uashington Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a

f i s h e r i e s of salmon fran Canadian r i v e r s are ca l cu la ted by b i o l o g i c a l

ode!s o f the pink f i s h e r i e s . For w e n year p ink stocks i t i s -

assumed t h a t Canadian f i s h e r i e s i n t e r c e p t no salmon f r a n ~ a s h i n ~ t o n , Oregon

o r C a l i f o r n i a and t h a t a1 1 p inks caught by Washington, Oregon and C a l i f o r n i a

f i s h e r i e s cane from Canadian r i v e r s .

D e f i n i t i v e i n t e r c e p t i o n s t a t i s t i c s do not ex i s t . The extensive

b i o l o g i c a l s tud ies t h a t a re necessary t o c a l c u l a t e accurate i n t e r c e p t i o n

s t a t i s t i c s have n o t h e e n conducted. Therefore t h e q u a l i t y o f data i n t h e ,

r e p o r t s o f the Technical Canmi t t e e on Salmon I n t e r c e p t i ons has frequent1 y

-.

been c r i t i c i z e d . The t a g y i n g s t u d i e s on which most o f t h e i n t e r c e p t i o n

es t imates a r e based a r e no longer t h o u g h q o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f c u r r e n t

c o n d i t i o n s i n t he f ishery.. Changing d s a l m stock s t reng ths has, been common 1

i n recent years due t o t h e ex tens i ve development o f salmon enhancement

f a c i l i t i e s i n Canada and the Un i ted Sta tes and also due t o changes. i n t h e

s t reng ths o f some n a t u r a l stocks. These f a c t o r s have' chang;d t h e p r o p o r t i o n ,

o f domestic and non-domestic salmon t h a t a re being caught i n many f i s h e r i e s .

However updated i n fo rma t ion on salmon ' i n t e r c e p t i o n r a t e s i s o n l y ' a v a i l a b l e on

ct very l i m i t e d bas is and--the new est imates a re no t un i fo rmly accepted by both

Canada and t h e Un i ted b ta tes . Although i t i s recognized t h a t t h e r e p o r t s o f

t h e Tecnn1cal L o m l t t e e o f Salmon Interceptions are l e s s than p e r f e c t , they

estimates of salmon I n t e r c e p t l o n w e t ne most

dva i lab le .

complete s tandard ized

The f o l l o w i n y d i scuss ion o f m ig ra t i o n and subsequent i n t e r c e p t i o n s uses

t h e Canadian est imates o f salmon i n t e r c e p t i o n as presented ' i n t h e r e p o r t s o f .

t h e Technical Comni t t e e of Salmon In te rcep t i ons . The Canadian est imates o f

salmon i n t e r c e p t i o n s a re i d e n t i c a l t o t he American est imdtes f o r a l a r g e

+ p o r t i o n of t h e t o t a l est imated salmon i n t e r c e p t i o n catch. The i d e n t i c a l .d

est imates i s l u d e those f o r f i s h e r i e s under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e ,

I .P.S.F.C. which a re * ,the l a r g e s t i n t p r c e p t i o n f i s h e r i e s on 2 t h e coast. t!

Although t h e d i f f e r e n c e s u i n t h e Canadl%. and American est imates o f salmon "9 .-

i n t e r c e p t i o n a re s i g n i f i c d n t f o r some s t @ ~ ~ , p re l im ina ry r e s u l t s from a new 5 . .e

j o i n t Canada-United States salmon tagg ing program i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e Canadian

es t imates o f salmon i n t e r c e p t i o n i n n o r t h coast areas have'been more accura te

than t h e American est imates.

a) Sockeye Salmon

. .

Major s tocks o f Nor th h e r i c a n sockeye can be found i n r i v e r s from

A laska 's B r i s t o l Bay, south t o t h e F raser R i v e r (Groot, undated). A f t e r

l e a v i n g t h e i r spawning r i v e r s , sockeye f o l l o w t h e Subarc t i c Cur ren t t o the

Gul f o f Alaska where t h e y spend up t o t h r e e w i n t e r s a t sea. Th i s spec ies has

t h e most wide ranging m i g r a t o r y p a t t e r n s o f t he P a c i f i c salmon; i t i s no t

uncommon f o r sockeye t o c ross t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l da te l i n e (180' west

l a t i t u d e ) . I n d i v i d u a l stocks o f sockeye r e t u r n across t he G u l f o f Alaska as

th ree , f o u r o r f i v e year o l ds t o t h e i r parent r i v e r s where t h e y spawn. .

F i g u r e 4: Sockeye M i g r a t i o n Pa t t e rns

Source: C. Groot , - The I n c r e d i b l e Salmonids, Paci f i c B i o l o g i c a l S ta t i on ,

Canada, F i s h e r i e s and Oceans.

It i s no t l i k e l y t h a t sockeye i n t e r c e p t i o n s between Canad? and the

Uni t e d States w i l l ever be balanced. Al though c u r r e n t sockeye i n t e r c e p t i o n s . .

by t h e Un i ted S ta tes cou ld be reduced, i t i s no t reasonable t o a n t i c i p a t e

d r a s t i c c u t s i n t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h e r i e s s imp ly t o balance sockeye

i n t e r c e p t i o n s . On the Canadian s ide, t h e r e i s l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r any

increase i n t h e i n t e r c e p t i o n o f sockeye from American r i v e r s . The m i g r a t i o n

p a t t e r n and r e s u l t a n t i n t e r c e p t i o n imbalances f o r sockeye c l e a r l y show t h a t

i n t e r c e p t i o n e q u i t y w i l l no t be achieved w i t h i n i n d i v i d u a l spec ies groups.

b ) Pink Salmon

F i g u r e 5 : P ink M i g r a t i o n Pa t t e rns

Source: C.Groot , The I n c r e d i b l e Salmonids Paci f i c B i o l og i ca l S t a t i o n , --' Canada, F i she r i es and Oceans,

The geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h i s species canbined w i t h i t s . m ig ra t ion

pat terns preclude Canadian fishermen f ran i n te r cep t i ng any s i g n i f i c a n t

quan t i t i e s o f Anerican soheye. ' I n the north, small q u a n t i t k s o f Alaskan

sockeye stocks pass through Canadian waters. I n the south, on ly minor

- populat ions of sockeye e x i s t i n Washington. c%acJa1 s t o t a l sockeye

in te rcep t ion has averaged 24,000 pieces per annun for the per iod 1977 t o 1980 8 . '

(Tech. C m . on Salmon In tercept ions, 1977-1980).

The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f Canadian sockeye a1 lo rn h iyh i n te r cep t i on catches by

h e r i c a n f i sheries. Sockeye r e t u r n i n ~ ) to northern B r i t i sh Columbia r i v e r s

pass thkough coastal fisheq'ies i n southeast Alaska. Frm 1977 t o 1980, 38.2% P

o f the sockeye caught by canmercial f i she r i es i n southeast Alaska o r ig ina ted

i n B r i t i s h Columbia r i v e r s , t h a t i s an annual average i n te r cep t i on catch o f * \

5- 488,000 p i k e s (Tech. C m . on Salmon Intercept ions, 19774980). In the

south, the s i t u a t i o n i s even more dramat i t . The Fraser River i s one o f the

1 argest sockeye producing systems and h e r i c a n f i sher ies have depended

heav i l y on t h ~ s run. The annual average in te rcep t ion catch by h e r i c a n

f i sher ies for 1977-1980 was 1,331,000 pieces. During t h i s per iod 98.7% o f

the sockeye caught by Washington and Oregon f i sher ies or ig inated i n Canadian

r i v e r s (Tech. C m . on Salmon In tercept ions, 1977-1980). Thus t o t a l sockeye %

i n te rcep t ions by knerican f i sher ies for t h i s per iod *re 1,819,000 pieces per

annum which accounts f o r 7.5% o f the tot.al catch of Canadian s a c k s stacks

(Tech. Canm. on Salmon In tercept ions, ,1977-1980; Canada, 1977a-1980a). 3

Nor th Rnerican p ink salmon have breeding grounds from the MacKenzie

River i n t h e no r th t o Cal4 farn iaf lhe south, al though no major stocks e x i s t

south of Puget Sound. They have the shor test 1 i f e cyc le o f a,ly o f the

P a c i f i c salmon, on l y tu, years, and t h i s i s r e f l e c i e d i n many o f t h e

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h i s species. Although they are the most abundant o f a l l

the salmon, - they are smal ler a d l ess valuable than other species. Also,

t h e i r ocean m i g r a t i o n of 12 t o 18 months i s not as wide ranging as t h a t o f

sockeye. f t i s an i n t e r e s t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of pink salmon t h a t very few

r i v e r systems have both stocks t h a t spawn i n odd years and stocks t h a t spawn

i n even years. General ly even year. stocks are found i n more n o r t h e r l y areas -

and Ddd year stocks i n more souther ly areas.

Overa l l American i n t e r c e p t i o n s of pink salmon a re almost 2 1J2 t imes as .

great as Canadlan interiept ions. However, i n ihe nor th i n t e r c e p t ions . were

almost balanced f o r the per iod 1377 t o 1980. Alaska harvested an average o f

660,000 pinks, per ;ear which had o r i g i n a t e d i n B r i t i s h ~ o l h b i a r i v e r s , and

\ '

3 r i t i sh f o l upbia in te rcepted 6 3 1 ,O'W pinks trm A1 askan r i v e r s ( ~ e c h . C m .

on Salmon In te rcept ions , 1977-1980). I n the south, the pink i n t e r c e p t i o n

slt,uation i s s i m i l a r to tha t bf sockeye. There are on l y minor stocks d i c h

o r i g i n a t e south o f Puget Sound and Washi ngton f i sheries . depend heav i l y on

Faaser g i v e r p i n k stocks. A t o t a l o f 95% o f the pink's caught by Washington b

f i sneries o r i g i n a t e d in B r i t i s h Columbia r i v e r s . Washington f i s h e r i e s

l l t e r c e p t e d an average of 1,607300 pieces per year dur ing the p e i i o d 1977 t o

:380 canpared t o 322,000 pieces j n t e r c e p t e l by Canadian f i s h e r i e s f r a n

r i a s ~ i y t o n and Orgion stocks (Tech. Comm. on Salmon In te rcep t i ons , ?

The ba lance f o r p ink salmon i n d i c a t e s t h a t Americans have g rea te r

i n t e r c e p t i o n s than Canadian f i s h e r i e s bu t i t should be n o t 4 t h a t t h e t w o . .

boundary areas, B r i t i sh Col umbia-A1 aska and B r i t i s h Columbia-Washington, do

no t d i s p l a y sirni 1 a r i n t e r c e p t i o n pa t te rns .

c ) Chum Salmon

Nor th American chum salmon s p a w i n r i v e r s fran t h e MacKenzie i n t h e

n o r t h , t o the Columbia i n the sou.th. Because a d u l t spawners d e t e r i o r a t e

r a p i d l y i n f r esh waters they do no t u s u a l l y m ig ra te f a r i n l a n d bu t they. do

have ex tens i ve ocean m ig ra t i ons . B r i t i sh Col umbi a chum. a re found i n t he G u l f

o f Alaska where t hey i n t e r m i n g l e w i t h s tocks from Alaska and t h e Yukon.

Consequently, t h e y a r e f r equen t l y caught i n mixed s tock f i sher ies .

F i g u r e 6: Chum, M i g r a t i o n - Pa t t e rns

Source: C. Groot , The I n c r e d i b l e - _ _ _ _ $ Salmonids P a c i f i e B i o l a g i c a l S t a t i o n ,

Canada, F i she r i es and Oceans.

The Un i t ed S ta tes i n t e r c e p t s more salmon than Canada f o r a1 1 o f ttae

spec ies which are p r e d m i n a n t l y caught by n e t gears, These i n c l u d e sockeye,

p i nk and chum. O f the chum produced 'in B r i t i s h Columbia r i v e r s , A laska

f i s h e r i e s took an average annual ca t ch o f 111,000 pieces f o r the pe r i od 1977

t o 1980 and Washington f i s h e r i e s i n t e r c e p t e d an average o f 193,000 p i cces per

year d u r i n g t h i s per iod. To ta l chum i n t e r c e p t i o n s by Canadian f j sher ies were

181,000 p ieces p r annum f o r the per-iod 1977 t o 3980 ('Tech. Cmnr. on Salmon

I n t e r c e p t i o n s , 1977-1980). Thus, chum i n t e r c e p t i o n s by h r ~ e r i c a n f i s h e r i e s

exceeded those o f Canadian f i s h e r i e s by 124,000 p ieces per armurn dur ing t h i s

t ime,

d ) Coho Salmon

F i g u r e 7: Coho M i g r a t i o n Pa t t e rns

Canada, F i she r i es and Oceans.

I n Mrth k e r i c a , coho spawning hab i ta t can be' fomd i n r i v e r s 'fm

western Alaska t o Cal i forn ia. Coho stocks tend t o s p n d nore t i n e i n fr'esh -

m t e r than pjnk or chm stocks. They do not move to the ocean' until they are

one t o tr, years o f age and they do not have' extensive ocean migrat ions. .

'

L' Although m e coho move t h the subarctic cur rent through the '6ul f of Y! - - - - -- - t - -

Alaska, others bo mt. . The mre southerly stocks tend to haw shorter

migra t ion w i th randm dispersal . ' *

-c - - ---- -

%

The intercq@ion pa t te rn t h a t r esu l t s frm these migrat ions i s

c haracter i zed by c l osel y bal anced 1 eve1 s of coho i ntercept ion by Canadi an and

American f i sheries. Coho in tercept& by B r i t i sh Col d i a f i sher ies averaged

895,000 pieces per year for the per iod 1977 t o 1980. host of these were

taken off the vest coast of Vancouver Island. h e r i c a n f i sher ies intercepted - - - -

an annual average of 878,000 pieces of coho for the s a m period. Washington

f i she r i es harvested an annual weragc catch of 546,000 pieces f ran B r i t i s h

c- Columbia r i v e r s f o r the per iod 1977 t o 1980 wi th t k i r in te rcep t ion

f i she r i es concentrated i n Juan de $ F U C ~ ! S t r a i t . Alaska f i sher ies in te rcep t

coho stocks frm northern Z r i t i s h Columbia r i ve rs . An average o f 332,000

coho per p a r e r e intercepted during the 1977-1980 G r i o d (Tech. Cmm. on

Salmon Intercept ions, i9?7-f980). Although the leve l o f coho in tercept ions -- --

by the tw countr ies i s very close, t h e B r i t i s h Columbia-Washingtrn and the --

Bpi t i sh Col mbi a-Alaska regional balances are not so c lose ly a1 igned and the

i m p a c t of i n te rcep t ion f i sherics on ind iv idua l r i v e r systems var ies great ly . '

e) Chinook Salmon

. . The geographic d i s t r i b u t

t h a t o f coho; i n Nor th h e r '

i o n o f chinook spawn-ing r i v e r s i s similars t o

i c a chinook reproduce i n r i v e r s frcm western

Alaska t o C a l i f o r n i a . Youvag chinook spend varyinq length5 of t i m e tip t o one

year i n f resh water before starting the i r rnlgrat ion, General ' 8 3 4 , chinook d o

not m ig ra te extensively throughout t k e Gulf of A laska . Rather t h ey m i g r a t e

along t h e North American eoast l ' ine and are usual ly cataght w i t h i n 5 0 n ~ i l e s of

shore. I n d i v i d u a l stocks returr~ t o spawn between the age sf 2 and 7 years,

F i g u r e 8: Chinook M i g r a t i o n P a t t e r n s

A1 '1 o f B ~ i t l s h Columb-ia" chinook ' rn te rcep t ions cme Frm Masl l ington o r

Oregon r i v e r s , F i s h e r i e s on the west coast o f Vancouver* Island have a h i g h

inatercept lon r a t e w i t h 75% t o 80% o f t h e i r chinook catch o r i g i n a t i n g ia:

0

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -

h e r i c a n r i ve rs . On aver*e, Canadian f idher ies intercepted -654,000 pieces

per annm. from 1977 t o 1980 whi le kaerican f i she r i es in tercepted 314,000 -

p ieces~ (Tech. C m . on sainton Intercept ions, 1977-1980). I n conparison with.

other species, the n&r ical l eve l o f chinook in tercept ions i s not .

outstanding. HOwver, there are other concerns. It i s a h igh ly val ued - - - - --

- ~ ~ r e * i n both thc; c a e r c i a l and sport f i she r i es and therefore i t s

importance i s not accurately ref lected i n terns o f the number o f pieces

intercepted. F u r t h e m r e , s e r i 06 s conservation concerns exi s t f o r bath - - - - -

Canadian and American chinook stocks. ~ o n s e ~ u & n t l ~ chinook in te rcep t ion

f i sher ies are perce,iv& t o be probleraatic.

It i s apparent t h a t in tercept ions continue t o be important t o Canadian

and American salmon f isher ies. In recent years Canada and the Unit& States

ham t i a a canbtned average a-n-33--fitWcepttioT-CatChTK29 mi11 ion salmn,

o f a i c h C a n a d i a n f i stceries intercepted 2.70 m i l l i o n pieces and b e r i c a n L

fisherjes in tercepted 5.58 n i l l i o n pieces (see Table 1). I f each country

on1 1 harvested dmest i c s tocks Canada could potent i a1 1 y take an addi t ional r

2.88 n i l t i o n p i e c e s per year. This a u l d q v e a substant ia l impact on b

Sanad:an f i s h e r i e s s l w e the to ta l catch by B r i t i s h Co lmb ia 's camerc ia l

s a i m f 7 - t a w i n g the period 1977 t o 1980 was 22-65 m i l l ion pieces per .

Figure 9 : Salmon Intercept ions by Canada and the United S t a t e s 1977-1980

t > a 5 1 0 1: Salmon I n t e r c e p t i o n s by Canada and

A l a x mtdh. i

Catch ca tch of

1 j of C d n . Alaskan ' S t o c k s

t Stocks

I

-

!$iistr.,Ore. 8 !Cal i f . Catch o f

C n d . ! % Q C ~ S

the - - -Un4 - - - t& - States 1977-1980

Cdn . Tota l U.S. Catch of Catch Wash .,Ore o f Cdn,

& C a l f Stocks Stocks

0

Catch o f 'J.S.

Stocks

However because o f mixed stock salmon fi.sheries, ne i ther Canada nor tb -- -- - -- --

Uni ted States i s capable of t o t a l l y e l i ~ i n a t i ng i n te rcep t ion f i she r i es

without .severe d i s rup t i on to tanmercial fi sheries. Such d is rup t ion would be 0 .

unacceptable to the f i sh ing indus t f ies and. governnents o f both countries.

Although both countr ies would l i k e to reduce the negative impacts t h a t

i n te r cep t i on f isher ies hare on t k i r o n salmon stocks, management - - - - - - ---

au tho r i t i es are c n d l l l n g t o make d ras t i c cuts t o t h e i r respect ive f isher les . "

A reso lu t ion t o the problems created by i n te r cep t i on f i sher ies must -- - - - - - - -- - -

consider tradeoffs between the f isher ies of the two countries. Adjustment o f

current f ish ing patterns by both countr ies could be used t o a1 l e v i a t e f ish ing

pressures on salmon stocks subject t o intercept ion. Thus a Rare equi table

overa l l balance might be achieved. M ieve r , i t has been shuwn tha t salmon

migrat ion patterns w i l l not a l low the two countr ies t o a l t e r t h e i r f i sh ing- - - - - - - - - - - 1

patterns t o achieve balanced in te rcep t ion catches for each specirs between

Alaska and B r i t i s h Columbia i n t h e 4 o r t h and betreeo Hashington and B r i t i s h

Columbia i n the south. .

The pos i t i on advocated by Canada i s t ha t the Raerican f isher ies have b

h i s t o r i c a l l y in tercepted mre salmon from' canadla'n2 r i v e r s than Canadian

f i sher ies have intercepted frm American r i ve rs . This long term imbalance , - ,--

between ttw ~ M I countr ies has resul ted i n a s i t k t i o n i n *ich Canadian

f i s h e r i e s harvest less ,ssalmon than the t o t a l catch generated by Canadian

r ivers . The Canadian salmon resource i s not producing the n e i benefits t o .L

Canadians t h a t coul d reasonably be expected fra, t h i s resource. Cancldian J

> - - -

Industry and government o f f i c i a l s would l i k e t o *negot iate a more equitable

balance between the t w ' c o u n t r i e s . It i s of ten percetved t h a t Canada i s i n a

raak bargaining pos i t i on r e l a t i v e to>he United States because both Alaskan

and Wasli ngtonian f i sheries are geographical l y 1 ocated i n pos i t ions M e r e

they can i n f l i c t heavy in te rcep t ion catches on Canadian stocks. However -

Canada i s not w i t hout - recourse. Jn years o f htgh dltvers-ion Tanadi anp--- -

f i she r i es can harvest a substant ia l po r t ion o f the Fra fer R iver stocks before 9

those stocks enter convention waters. Thus convention area catch i s rGyced - - - - --- - -

and the corresponding American ent i t lement i s a1 so reduced. I n years h e n

the major por t ion of the Fraser River stocks re tu rn through Juan de Fuca a

s t r a i t Canadian f i she r i es could also increase t h e i r harvest o f those stocks

before they- e"ter the convention waters by a1 low i ng increesed f i sh ing o f f t h e

*s t coast o f ~ancouver I s1 and. This could ea d 1 y be accanpl ished by moving

the sw f 1 h e ettt &I d+ewh+ P k e - t t e t ~ - t b ~ - ~ ~ ~ t - ~

coast of Vancouver Island. It should be pointed out, however- t ha t these

techniques for applying pressure on the United States w i l l also have \

consequences f o r Canadian danest i c fi sheries rnanqkent . These i t r a teg jeP

involve the deve lop~ent of mixed stock salmon f i sheries M i c h would cause

considerable d i f f i c u l t y f o r the management o f dmes t i c f isher ies .

considered but a1 so the va l uationp of these catches and t h e i r regional

bistribtrtim. L

The va luat ion of Canadian and American salmon in tercept ions appears t o

be a simple way o f determining the overal l .balance . o f in tercept ions t h a t

e x i s t s

decept

States

salmon

between the two ;ountries. The apparent s i m p l i c i t y o f the concept i s

ive. he evaluat ion of-salmon intercept-ions-by €Mta;QbbRd khe-thited - - " -

has been' h i gh l y controvers ia l .- D l sagreenent on the re1 a t i v e val ue o f

has been so b i t t e r as t o cause the- d i sso lu t i on o f one negot ia t ing

negotiated. It i s an i s s h which i s fraught with canp lex i t ies , most o f which

have been subject t o heated dispute.

The evaluat ion of Canadian and American 'salmon in tercept ions has been - e x m i ned extensively ~ n h _ - _ d i f f e r e n t m P t h n d c e h

proposed. There i s considerabl-e va r i a t i on i n the bal ance o f in tercept ions

between the two countr ies depending on the methodology and the pos i t i on - I I

advocated ,by e i t he r country has bee6 infl'uenced by the resu1.t~.

I

The c m o n approach t o "61 uing salmon applies e i t h e r landed o r do lesa l ' e

pr ices t o catch. D i f f i c u l t i e s a r i se i n the valuat ion of sa lmn in tercept ions

because there i s Q m ---a --of-*

d i f f e r e n t currencies, d i f f e r e n t i n f l a t i o n rates and d i f f e r e n t pr ices for

Alaska, British Cdllrabia and Uashitegt9a B-C- &#I& WweepH& *

b d ances Aave 'been impeded by argments about a1 1 these factors.

- An econmica l t y s i gn i f i cdn t method o f , 'val W i o n u 1 d inrci lve tb

- - - - --

ca l cu la t i on o f the net benef i ts generated by the' resource, which i s a

d i f.f icul t process both conceptual l y and anpi r k a l ly. ~ o t h Canada and the

United States appeared more anxious t o develop a valuat ion technique which

would support t h e i r respect ive in te res ts than . they were t o ca lcu la te the . *

economic value o f the resource. Even today i t i s not possible t o canpitre - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - -- - - - -

<

Canasian and American cal cu la t ions o f the econanic val ue o f tC salmon -

resource because the necessary data are not ava i l able.

The Canadian pos i t i on advocated t ha t wholesale pr ices should be used t o

eval uate salmon in tercept ions because they incorporate the fu l l range o f

benef i ts generated by the salmon industry. Not only are t h e landed pr ices 0 -

included but also the bonuses paid t o vessel owners and the i*ncrq,ental value -' -

o f processibng are considered. Canadian negot iators r a t i o n a l i zed t h e i r . - - - -- --

pos i t i on by arguing t h a t since Canada exports most o f i t s salmon, the .

wholesale val ue represents the f u l l va l IS t o the country, The Un i t ed States -

has opposed t h i s approach saying t ha t only the bene f i t s paid d i r e c t l y t o

f ishernen should be considered fo r the purpose of evaluat ing sa lmn

in tercept ions.

The appl i c a t i o n of rho1 esal e pr ices t o estimates o f salmon in tercept i on - 3 - - - -----

catches, as opposed t o landed prices, would be advantageous to the Canadian - - -A -

pos i t ion . The reason for t h i s i s re la ted to the species o f catch by each

country and the value added i n processing associated w i th t h e i r respectJve - in tercept i o n catches. eanadi an fi shemen in tercept mre Unf ted States bound

J 1

sockeye*and pink. Chinook and coho tend t o be sold f r e s h / f r o m and haw. a j

. "

m a l l increment i n value from landed to rholesale prices, rhereas t& onet :

caught species such as sockeye and pink are more frequently canned and they , - - % -

have .. a la rger increment i n v a l k frm landed h o l e s a l e prices. The

* . imp l i ca t ion o f t h i s i s t ha t the use of wholesale prices w i l l value Canadian .

- - - - - -

i ntercept i on catc he5 1 a ~ r r e l a t i v e to h e r i c a n ln&ception catcher. thur

would be the case if landed prices were employed. Thus Canadian negot iators

could be expected t o demand more r e s t r i c t i v e fi sh.ing pract ices i n the United "

- L-- - - - -- .- - - -- ---

States i n order t o reduce the imbalance of salmon intercept ions b e t ~ the Ih

two countr ies.

O n P

The United States pos i t ion maintained t h l t the value of salmon "

4

in tercept ions should be based on the price' paid dlrectiy to f l s h r r e n , t i e --- - -- --

1 anded price. knerican negot iators proposed a concept re fer red t o as reverse

p r l c ing , - in which the landed pr fce of the s ta te of o r l g i n would be applied t o

the in tercept ion catches of each country. As part of t h i s p r i c i ng system f t

was proposed that the actual weight of in tercept ion catches should not be . -

used, rather the e l g h t should re f lec t the e i g h t o f the catch had i t been -7

caught l a t e r by darest ic f fsheries. Thys salmon inte&eptod by Canada w u l d d

b e vat ued using e i t he r Alaska o r Yashington landed pr ices and average wejghts -- - ---

*hlch correspond to those i n thc & l a s k i a& Yashim~ton f isher ies. S i n f l a r l y E

- -

American harvest of Canadian stocks would be val wd using Canadian landed 9

pr ices and the average '*eight per of salmon caught i n d ' w s t i c Canadian - -

f i sheries.

* -- - - -- - -- - - a-

Canadian interests coul'd not accept' the Aaoertcan proposal f o r reverse - - - - - -- -- -

pricing. It *(as f e l t t o be blased against the Cahadian 'flskrfcs. (h; o f

the Carydian c w e r n s regarding reverse f ic ing .is.. tha t Canada ' t e ~ s to ' 1 u .

intercept less na tu re s a l m .than the :!.hit& States does; '- The chinooks

hariested by the Canadian n3t" coast trol l fisherr usual lj are not at . t h e i r . 4 ' - ,'P

maximm size whereas the catch oT Fraser River salmon QyT-knerican f t s k r i e s

, . e s t i n a t k . ~anadia* intercept lons b;y '.a <sub<Fanti al ' factor ' but

- I '

previous1 y, t h e use of landed prices insteal . of' iikot+sale .:@4cer- &qfrrl t o - ., k r Z P - . 'B # ' - =?? 6

favour tbe her ican . p s i t i o n . The r e f a d v r value o f k e r i c a n interceptions - '- . *- q e. c - a

t o Canadian interceptions would be less. I f t h e @

twe'si-r wpo i e --- ve , % * .* * * =

baljhces 'are important a d th% ~ i t d Stat+es mu16 want *to.- * -- 4

o f . i t s intercept ion harvesisr re1 a t i k -@ Canadaa' & y using landed pkjces.

4 6 - k

-A

0 3

It i s c lear that* the evalw)+on of salmon in te rcqk ions i s c a p l e x .

- .

date. But tn tk-nea =. d a t a a d o i c e must be mixi e between 1) . . J ' *

-continued -relia'ke on' old data or the xievelopent of new subjective and

conten't i -ok edtlmates. I n this t h e s i s the older data have been u&.' The 1.

f

.

F

e i d - pr-i-C-1-ng af+Triterception c a l z k % T s e v e n more d i f f i c u l t . The twotsldes have -

1

not resolved whether landed or wholesale pr ices should be used, u h i q of t h e '

sets o f pr ices f ran ~ i a s k a , B r i t i s h

Furt hemre c mpari sons

I

shou'l d . tk used o r . I .

/" 1

betueefi countr ies , how the pr ices should- be appl ted. * .

and over t ime must a lso consider i f i f l a t i o n ra tes and the changing . '

Can

Un i .?

ada-Mi ted States exchange-rate, &t gs not s t q w i s h j €mad6 b R E C t h e - - - -

I

ted States haye not been able to resolve the p r i c i ng questions f o r salmon - .

intercept ions. * -

9 Q

Since t h e d i s s o l u t i o n of one session o f -the salmon negot ia t ions over the L

p r i c i n g and w a l uat ion o f salmon interceptions,, these issues have not been

negotiated between Canada and the United States. The apprqach t ha t has been -

taken has been to negotiate f i sh ing strategies. These f i sh ing str;t&ies

have irnpl i c i t t radeoffs between the f i sher ies o f e d c h c o u n ~ ~ b l b - t h a r e i ~ r &

' not been expl i c i t discussion o f any.. pa r t i cu l ar p r i c ing system associated w i t h

the t radeof fs. iv

I

- ~ e ~ a r d l e s s of i t s ccmplexity i t was important to Canada tha t sane

, c b p f e h e n r i b l e method o f eval uat ing a1 te rna t i ve proposal s be devel oped.

' Since the basic purpose o f b i l a t e r a l s a l m negotlat lons i s to f a c i l i t a t e B, .

adAustlaents t o f i sh i ng H t t e r n s Ki t h i n e x h c ~ m t r ~ ! + M

i s a valuable tool t o e t e m i n e t k accep tab i l i t y various f f ~ h ~ n g . , .

st rategies. For thi-s reason an evaluat ion techniqw- was developed f o r tb - - 2 .

Canadian delegitt ian &idr eliminated raany of tbe mmcesswy a n @ i c & b , - -

' i n determining interceptlo? b i l r n c e s k t m n &anadit a d the' Unit-ed States. ., - . . r( r r . - . e

Thi s new eval w t i o n technique thereforer was b a d on re1 at ' ive plces r a t h e r L '

\

. , than absolute prices. It ~ l i a t i n a t e s sme o f t.,he obstacles .twith uhich

, . . -. n&ot i a t o r s p rev ious ly have birest l ed . Iofl a t i o n and &change -;ates becme +

L i r r e l e v a n t i h an ana lys i s basal on r e l a t i v e prices, - -Lhe relatiwe p i c e s p y - -

. -

*hich were dev,el oped used the average val ue of one c d m e r c i a l l y caught

siinj.l;r , t o connodi t y money; 'an e a r l i e r sophist {caged

tu&od/ ty money and re1 a t i r e p ' i ces ,,arc- l d i s funct ional t h w *

- used, in modern econanies bu t a l l of tk f u n t t i o n s o f money

the bargain ing process between Canagia and the ~ i i t e d States. There are four . '

main funct ions of money? I t i s used as, a s to re o f valw, a med im o f --

excha,nge, a sxandard of val'ue and a standard o f exchange. For the salmon I ' "

negot iat7ons the p r - i v r y concern i s i t s r o l e as a standard o f val ue a d a u @5r

, system based on re1 a t i v e va lues can f u l fi 1 1 ? t h a t func t ion as we1 1 as money. . a

BecauseE sockeye const i t u t e a. ma jor i n te rcep t i o n category, - they e r e ' ,

selected as the basis of canparison o r nuneraire, However, any other species

could have served the function, Ln Fnitial a n a l a - i ~ , t b re la tip^ v a t t s L

of other species was determined b,yl r e f e r r i m to landed pr ices. bwles o f -ar

J r e l a t j v e p r i c e s based on 1980 Canadian pr ices per piece are provided. These

r e l a t i v e p r i c e s indicate that a chinook rmrld be eqcliuak+ to M6 sdwye

- - - - - - -- - -

and t h a t a pink' a u l d be val ued a t 0 1 2 sockeyk. The d i f fe rences r e f l e c t . . qua1 i t y and s i ze va r ia t i ons .

B

able 2 R e l a t i v e S b l m n Pr l ces Pei Piece

sources : B r i t l sh Col urnbi $ Catch S t 6 t k s t i cs )980, Fisher ies and ~ & a n ~ , Canada, 1980, - c4 -i *. -

<

- -,.

"

LA Worksheets, S t a t i s t i c s ' U n i t , F isher ies and Oceans, Canada ( unpubl i shed) ; ' , .

/=

P a d ~ S Q R , w a - G w - - f - , ---7 . -

c m u n i c a t ion; P / 5

' Dale Yard, U a s h l q t o n ..Department of F isher ies , #ersonal . , b

camtunication. . . ", ?s

, 2

r

e b -

For t h i s analys is , i n t e r c e p t i o n s :,havy.,been 'grouped i n 9 - f i v e c a t q l o r i e q . ' a "4 >

based on the or.igin of fi sh and the in te rcep t fng c'ountry: ,

' * A . . Interc,ept ions by ~ l a i k a . f i s k O r i e s of .sa lmon o r i g i n a t i n g i n B r i t i s h

Celwhio Gwst& +eFs; * I r - - - - - - --

'(I

0 . I n te rcep t i ons by Alaska fi A r i e s o f s .a lnonzor i { inat ing i n Canadian b. t-

-

€afi&iaft t a M R e l a t i v e Pr ices ,

Canadian Who1 esal e Re1 t i v e Pr ices 3B

' S.E. ATasRa Land& el a t i v e P r i c e s

' Yashi ngton ~ a n d e d R e l a t i v e Pr ices - -

-

ch i nook

3.36 C

2.23

-= -

4.K .'

v

2.60. - ,-

*

Coho

Q

1.16

0,94

1.43

1 ,01 --

Chum

- -

1.87-

1.38 8 A -

1.71

'e r L

1 ;16 o i l 8 - -00 I .

c

Sockeye

~ - - - - -

1 .OO i 1 '

1 .oo - -- --

Pink

~L

0.32

0.44 -

.

~ -------

-

- 73 - =x -a

- - - 1 -- - - - - -- -- . '

C. I n te rcep t i ons - by Canadian fi sheries o f salmon o r i g i n a t i u i n Alask* e

r i v e r s .

D. I n te rcep t i ons by Canadian fi sher ies o f s a l m o n o r i g i n a t i n g i n r f

F h i n g t o n , Oregon and Cal i f o r n i a r i v e r s , =

- -- -- - - - - - - - - -

- by k s h i ngton, Oregon and Cal i f o r n i a f i s h e r i e i o f

salmon o r i g i n a t i n g i n B r i t i s h Columbia r i v e r s . a

.+

It should be noted t h a t product ion frun, -the- ~ u k o ) ~ i & r i s not included. II -->

Although the Yukon R iver i s a major salmon producing r i v e r s y s t m , l i t t l e

b i o l og ica l asse.ssment work has been conduct&. Therefore t h e extent of

Canadian conf r ibu t ions t o t h i s r l v e r system has not been q u a n t i f i e d but i s x

C

t height to- be csnsiderable. Therefore est imates o f h e r ican i n t e r c e p t ions . - --

w i l l be1biaped dornward by the ex ten t t o r h i c h the Canadian p o r t i b n o f the! I

Yukon R ive r con t r i bu tes t o American salmon f i sheries.

-- . , . . ' .

F igu re 10a shows a four year moving average o f i n t e r c e e t i o n s by t h e

categor ies p rev ious l y i d e n t i fi ed . In te rcep t i ons me eval uiited using the -

average landed weight per piece and a r e l a t i v e p r l c i n g s y s t m based o n 1980, ..% . ~ a n a d i a " landed r e l a t i v e pr ices. The u n i t o f measurement can be t h d u i h t o f L - --

7

. as one "equiv'alent sockeye." T h i s ' approach i s usefu l frm the f i s h e r i e s ,+-

-

management perspect ive because i t . expresses the balance i n t e r h of 6

:

q u a n t i t i e s o f f i s h which i s t h e basis on which adjustments' t6 ' f i s h e r i e s are

made. F igu re 10b shows the corresponding balances. + Any p o i n t abovvi the w

h o r i zontal ax i st i ndicates Pmwican i n t e r c e p t ions exceeding Canadian, wh i le

- p o i n t s be1 ow the kri r o n t a l ax i r i r td ica te ~ a n a d i a n ~ ~ ~ n t e r c e ~ t i o n s exceeding

, =

American,- ABE-CD i s t h e ove ra l l balance, not consider* ng' t h e Yukon River , -

which:shom h e r i c a n i n t @ i c e p t i o n s * minus t o t 2 &nad i an i n t e r c e p t ions. The .

balance - exc l ud i ng transboundary r i v e r s i s shown by t h e 1 i n e marked AE-CD. - 8 .

The-nor thern and southern balances are AB-C and E-0 respectively, - - - -

"1: D

- -

I n t e r c e p t i o n bal ances based on 1980 Canadian rho1 esal e p r i ces i n d i c a t e

a l a r g e r Uni ted Sta tes debt te Canada tbqn those based on la&& -. 3 ' . .

examjnat ion o f these i n t e r c e p t i o n val ues (see" F igure 1 l a ) reveal s t h a t 2 - .* categor ies A, B, C and E are s i m i l a r t o f i g u r e 10a bu t category D, based~pon

4

i wholesale r e l a t i v e pr ices , i s much lower than category D based on land&d 9 +

2 2

r e l a t i v e pr ices. Because category D (Canadian i n t e r c e p t ions o f salmon :fr&' w

, p a r t i cu l 'a r l y the southern b h ance . shows a . much 1 arger d i screpancy between 3 .

P .

A

Canadian and American - i n t e r c e p t i o n s (see F igure l l b ) .

r r

* *a. ' 3

These two va lua t i ons . have been based on F a n x i a n p r i c e data. . An

- examination based on American p r i ces i s a1 so wa.rranted. Un fo r t i qh te l y .. .- 4 4

? f

corresponding wholesale data a re ,not a v a i l ab le f o r the Uni ted States because ? F - . f X "

wholesale values by species are not publ ished. f o r a l l drad~a ~ y p r s . -

- -L T h e ~ e f o r e on ly landed pr&es can be used: f o r c a n s r i s o n . I f $he, data w e r ~

a - ava i l ab le i t i s expected t h a t the use of, American wholesale p r ices would - I B .

improve Canada's bargain ing p s i t f o n i n 'canparison w i tk evalua-t ions based on 3 .

- j

American 1 anded pbices . *

The val ue o f category D salmon in te rcep t i ons increased re1 ative to a1 1

' other i n t e r c e p t i g n categor ies when 1980 southcast Alaska landed Oprices a re .

B used (see F igure 12a). The. imp1 i c a t i o n s .of a h igh value fo r Canadian

in tercept ions. i n category D are negat ive balances i n the south and lower - *. 9 : o v e r a l l United States debt to Canada (see F igure 1Zb). - Horaver, *hen 1980

-- - -- -

~ & h i i ? ~ t o n landed pr ices weie employed t h e value o f a1 1 categor ies were lower f

than e i t h e r the Canadian o r Alaska landed p r i c e ca& (sea Figureh13a and %

* 13b). The d t f fe rence i n i n te rcep t i ons between Canada arrd the, ~kriied' 'states

* i s s l i g h t l y louer than the Canadian land& pr ices case f o r most .years. ,

- ?

3 I -

An examination of tbese d i f f e r e n t p r i c i n g systems shows t h a t i n most - .

cases t h e ove ra l l balance of i n te rcep t i ons has favoured t h e b i t @ States. r~ I

The o n l y instance when o v e r a l l Canadian i n te rcep t i ons exceeded h e r d c a n

i n t e r c e p t i o n s occurreif d u r l n g t h e p e r i ~ ~ % K - 1 9 7 1 and 1969-1972 when -

c a l c u l a t i o n s were based on Alaska landed pr ices. The regiona? balances show

t h a t ' f o r nor thern f l sher ies, t he average i n t e r c e p t ions . by t h e M i ted

+ States exceeded Canadian i n te rcep t i ons ( AB-C) regardless o f the under1 y i ng i%i

p d c e ser ies.

t h a t Canadian : ' .

i n t e r c e p t ions. ?

r

Howev'er i n the south, t he ' i n t e r c e p t i o n balance (E-0) shows-.

i n t e r c e p t i o n s have frequent1 j exceeded United ~ t a e s -

Interception Bal drlco5 Figure

AB-C

ABE- CD

AE- CD

0 0 ~ 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 O O Q O O O O O O O O 000~0000000 ' = . A - L * + L d _ . I A* f

crr a, n*

d u - -

- -- ---- .a -- - F l g u ~ : 3a: I n tP t -~ep t : o l l Ldf I ytr,lea bdsed OH 1980 Washington Landed Prices

and C . l t m b L L u s of- In te t.epi)t I P Year - 'Ave rdgc

I o o o o ooooo I k,,,& 00000 ! taooo~oooooc, I

ooooooooooo

- - - - a I

Qr - m u - s ',

This set o f va lua t ions g ives a perspect ive o f the magnitude o f -

\- - - - --

a"p"

i n t e r c e p t i o n balances us ing var ious sets o f r e l a t i v e pr fces as t h e basis for

- the ca lcu la t i ons . P a r t i c u l a r l y i n recent. years, i t appears t h a t Anerican

i n t e r c e p t ions have exceeded Canadian i n t e r c e p t ions, a1 t hough t h e extent o f 1

i n t e r c e p t i o n imbal ances va r ies subs tan t ia l l y depending on tk re1 a t i v e p r i ces I

t h a t are used. This approach t o va lua t i on has t h e advantage t h a t i t avoids - - - - - - - - - -

' problems associated w i t h f l u c t u a t i o n s i n ' the exchmge r a t e s and di f fereat -r*

). 3

, i n f l a t i o n r a t e s i n the two countr igs. F u r t h e m r e .the r e l a t i v e p r i c e between - ,

- - salmon s @ c i e s has been q u i t e s tab le and i s expected t o ranain so f o r the C -_ . - - - - - - - - -

-

next'decade, t he re fo re changes i n t h e base-year used t o determine t h e r e l a t i v e P .

pr i ces are not expected t o change the anal y s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y ( DeVoretz, 1982; 0 -

Canada, 1970b-1980b). >>

J d

For the purpose of the salmon negot ia t ions , t h e r e i s no e x i s t i n g p r i c i n g > --

- scheme *hich cou ld be de&i&ftobe-acceptabley-aandthe United Stqtes a

f o r ana lys is of a l l salmon f i she r ies . However t h i s need not be a major - A

impediment t o the progress of negot ia t ion$. The d i r e c t i o n o f negot ia t ions

appears t o be toward t h e n e g o t i a t i o n of actual f i s h i n g plans i n which each

- s ide would be requi red- t o make commitments concerning tk salmon harvest by

t h e i r r e s p e t t i v e fi sheries. For Canadian purposes duch proposals can be

analyzed t o show the e f f e c t on i n t e r c e p t i o n bal ances. An eval ua t i on based on \ - - - - - - - +- - r e l d W v e p r i c e 5 can be useful i n determining t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f these types

7 -

o f proposal s,

I f t h e two c o u n t r i e s e v e n t u a l l y came t o an agreement, t h e imp l i ed

r e l a t i v e p r i c e s i n these t r a d e o f f s w i l l p robab ly no t r e p l i c a t e t h e r e l a t i v e

p r i c e s t h a t e x i s t i n any o f t h e p r i c i n g schemes t h a t have a l r eady been

examined. I n t h e past when Canada and t h e Un i ted S ta tes unsuccessfu l1y

at tempted t o nego t i a t e a p r i c i n g system, poss ib l e op t i ons t h a t were

cons idered were con f i ned t o e x i s t i n g p r i c i n g schemes i n t h e two coun t r i es .

However t h e r e i s no i nhe ren t reason f o r such l i m i t a t i o n s . The app rmch t h a t

i s now being taken i n t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s a l lows much g rea te r f l e x i b i l i t y and

t h e r e f o r e may make i t e a s i e r t o r eso l ve t he issues.

3. The D r a f t Agreement

I n December 1982 t h e n e g o t i a t o r s f o r Canada and the United Sta tes , ;? cng

w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r ep resen ta t i ves frm government and i n d u s t r y , reached a

ve rba l agreement concerning t he management o f Paci f i c salmon. The p rec i se

terms were l a t e r ' f i n a l i z e d and i n i t i a l l e d by t h e n e g o t i a t o r s so t h a t t h e y

cou ld be submi t ted t o t he governments o f each coun t r y f o r s i gna tu re and

r a t i f i c a t i o n . I n e a r l y 1983 i t appeared t h a t a salmon t r e a t y between Canada

and t he Un i t ed S ta tes was imminent.

The d r a f t agreement speci f i e d t he p r i n c i p l e s t h a t would gu ide management

programs and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e arrangements which would be u s 4 t o implement

those programs. The two bas i c p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e d r a f t agreement inc luded t h e

f o l l o w i n g o b l i g a t i o n s by Canada and t h e Un i t ed States:

(To) p reven t o v e r f i shing and p rov ide f o r optimum product ion; and ( t o ) p rov ide f o r each coun t r y r e c e i v i n g b e n e f i t s equ i va len t t o i t s t o t a l salmon p roduc t ion ( ~ a n a d a , 1982).

Recognizing t h a t the e l i m i n a t i o n o f salmon i n t e r c e p t i o n s was no t

f eas ib l e , these p r i n c i p l e s were w r i t t e n t o ensure t h a t each coun t r y cou ld be

f u l l y compensated f o r i t s own product ion. However, i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e

j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s of Canada and t h e Un i ted States on t h e transboundary

r i v e r s which f l o w th rough Alaska 's panhandle, i t was agreed t h a t the Un i ted

States should be c r e d i t e d w i t h 37 1 /2% o f these r i v e r s and Canada w i t h t h e

remaining 62 1/2%. I t would be expected t h a t i n exchange f o r American ca tch

o f Canadian salmon, t h a t Canadian f i s h e r i e s would be al lowed t o harves t

salmon stocks which o r i g i n a t e d i n American r i v e r s . However i n t he con tex t o f

a nego t ia ted se t t lement expl i c i t cons ide ra t i on would be g iven t o t he t i m i n g

and harvest o f i n t e r c e p t i o n catches.

The s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s concerning the management o f salmon i n t e r c e p t i o n by

Canada and t h e Un i ted States f o r t h e 1983 and 1984 f i s h i n g seasons were

i nc l uded i n an annex t o the main agreement. It was hoped t h a t t h i s would

demonstrate t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e two c o u n t r i e s t o address i ssues o f mutual

concern w i t h i n the salmon f i she ry . While the bas ic goal o f having each

coun t r y harvest . salmon equ i va len t t o i t s own product ion was i d e n t i f i e d , i t

was recognized t h a t achievement o f t h i s goal should be phased i n over t ime.

The most impor tan t concerns f o r t h e 1983 and 1984 seasons were t h e coastwide

chinook conserva t ion problem, t he harvest by Canadian f i s h e r i e s opera t ing on

t n e transboundary r i vers, t h e harves t by A1 askan f i s h e r j e s ope ra t i ng i n t h e .

n o r t h coast boundary area and t h e 1 i m i t a t i o n o f Un i t ed s t a t e s e n t i t l e m e n t t o

sockeye and p ink s tocks i n t h e Convfntion Area. A l lowab le ca tch by species - .

was i d e n t i f i e d f o r each o f . these f i s h e r i e s . It was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t i n *

I

f u t u r e years t h e s p e c i f i c d e t a i 1 s of f i s p e r i e s management concern ing s a h o n

. i n t e r c e p t i o n would be r e s o b e d through t h e admini s t r a t i ve arrangements

e s t a b l i s h e d under t h e terms of t h e agreemeht.

The d i f f i , c u l t i e s t h a t bo th Canada and t h e Un i t ed S ta tes face making l ong

term agreements c o n c e r n i n h f i sher ies a r e we1 1 understood.. Because o f t h e '

aver changing na tu re o f & t h e P a c i f i c salmon f i cshery n e i t h e r s i d e i s w i l l i n g T o - _ 0 - make major 1 ong te rm commitments concern ing t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e f i s h e r i e s . For - t h i s reason t h e d r a f t agreement. was designed t o e s t a b l i s h an ongoing

admi n i s t r a t i ve s t r u c t u r e t o hand1 e ~ a n i d a - ~ n i t e d Sta tes sa l mon i n t e r c e p t i on *

issues. . Under t h e terms o f t he d r a f t agreement' a s e r i e s o f panels would be

es tab l i s h e d t o d e a l ' w i t h s p e c i f i c r eg iona l i s s u e s o f t h e salmon f i sher ies : .

These panels would r e p o r t t o a body known as t h e Commission which would' have ,

t had coastwi de responsi b i 1 i t i es f o r i n t e r c e p t i o n issues. Three panels were e

~ designated; a nor thecn panel f o r salmon o r i g i n a t i n g i n r i v e r s ' n o r t h o f Cap . - 4

I t a u t i o n ' (see F igu re 2) , a Fraser R i ve r panel f q r sockeye and p?nk salmon i n .

. - t h e area now known as t h e Convention waters and a southern panel f o r o t h e r - ~

salmon o r i g i n a i i n g i n r i v e r s south o f Cape ~ a u t i ' o n . - Under t h i s agreement t h e

.S.F.C. would be d i s s o l v e d and t h e Fraser R i v e r Panel would t ake over much

i t s responsi b i 1 i t i es. Issues ' o f concern t o more than one- panel were t o b e / .

reso lved by a j o i n t k i t i n g o f those panels. I n any case %which cou ld no t be

, . resolved by ind iv idua l o r j o i n t panels, representative; f ran each- side w u l d

.submit a report t o the Casmission. .Under t h i s managewnt regime the seasonal

*adjustments t o the f isher ies would be r k o l v e d by the panel s jf t h reference

t o the basic pr inc ip les o f the agreement and if necessary wi th input fran t h e

The spec i f ic deta i ls , as they re la ted to annual ' f i sh ing plans fo r

Canadian and American f isher ies f o r 1983 and 1984 were included i n an annex ' .

t o $he d r a f t agreement. Conservation of endangers chinook stocks i n Camcla - - -

and the United States was an important consideration i n these annual plans.

It was proposed tha t the harvest r a t e of chinooks should be reduced $y 25% i n

most f i sher ies which would have a substantial impact on the Alaskan and

Canadian t r o l l f i sheries. Fo l l owi ng an in ter im agreement between Canada and

the United States covering the 1982 and 1383 f i sh ing seasons, i t was hoped - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -

tha t under the terms o f the d r a f t agreement t ha t the two countr ies could

conduct a major cooperative chi nook conservation program.

This chinook conservation program has emerged as a major obstacle t o the

implementation o f the d ra f t agreement. A newly elected government i n Alaska

withdrew support from the negotiated agreement because i t was ' f e l t that the .

in le res ts o f the Alaskan f isher ies would not be served well by the terms of - - - - - --- -- - ------

the d r a f t agreement. Two issues present ma$or problems t o the haskan - - - - - - - - - - -

author i t ies. F i r s t , Alaska i s demanding an increa& i n i t s - s p e c i f * & chinook

catch level and second, A1 aska wants Canada" to , re f ra in f ran devel oping

cunmercial f i sher ies on Caqadian port ions of the St ik ine and Taku ~ i v e r s

(Canada 1983a). Canada has attempted to salvage the agreement but i s not

w i l l i n g t o t o t a l l y concede to Alaska's demands, Uhi le Canada has offered tot ..: fu r ther reduce i t s chinook catch t o levels, lower than tho& speci f ied i n the

- d i k f t agreement, Canada i s not M l l i n g t o g ive up i t s r i g h t s t o trwsboundary $

r ivers . &e Canadian H i n i s t w - o f efsherles, P ier re De Bane, has been quoted:.

It would mean tha t t he Unit& States rather than Canad? wovlb be given the primary i n te res t i n and respons ib i l i t y f o r salmon spawed i n Canadian r ivers . ' Such an arrangement would be contrary t o the pcovisions o f tk Law o f the Sea Convention regarding anadrmous stocks ( Canada , 1983a) .

It would-, appear t h a t f u r t he r concessions by e i t h e r side are not

i m & i a t e l forthcaning and tha t consequently the 1983 f i shing season wi. l l

not be governed by a coastwide cooperative f isher ies management regime such .

as has existed under the in te r im fish;hes agreement f o r 1981 and 1982.

I V . CONCLUSION "

The Canadian -and American salmon f isher ies, i n c m o n , harvest the North

American stocks o f Paci f ic salmon. The salmon migrat ion patterns and the

sharing of management respons ib i l i t i es i n some areas p i n t to the canplex

interdepencies t ha t ex is t w i th jn the salmon fishery. T k salmon f isher ies o f

the two countries are inex t r i cab ly - intertwined. - - - - - - - Because - -- - - - i t - - - i s - --- no tgoss ib le -- I

t o separate the Canadian - - -- - share - - o f - the resource frm the Anerlcan share and -

because i t i s even d i f f i c u l t t o determine appropriate shares, i t i s c lear

t ha t a cooperative f i sher ies management regime i s required.

' _ - - - -

Wi th in each o f the f i s h e r i e s o f Canada, Alaska, Washington and Oregon,

canmon proper ty probl ehs ex i st. Canpeti ng resource users i n these f i s h e r i e s -

s t r i v e t o maximize t h e i r own net benef i t s frm the resource w i t h l i t t l e

cons idera t ion of the e f f e c t s o f t h e i r f i s h t n g a c t i v i t i e s on other resource *

users. As resource management p rac t ices have becane more s t r i n g e n t t o

prevent the esca la t fon of e f f o r t i n the f isher ies, c o n f l i c t s between user

groups have a r i $en. The c n n e r c i a1 f l e e t . c a n p r i g d of . se i kc, g i 1 1 n e t and i

*.f

t r o l l vessels, along w i t h ' the recreat ionr i 'and n a t i v e food f i s h e r i e s a l l a re ;rj

vy ing f o r increased shares wf t h i n s the Canadian salmon fi,sheries. I n the A

Uni ted States t h e a l l o c a t i o n between sane o f the user groups has been +

determined by , the j u d i c i a r y . I n both countr ies, f i s h e r i e s rrlanagement i

agencies have attempted t o r i i t i o n a l i z e f i sherfes w i t h i n 4wir respect ive

j u r i s d i c t i o n s . They have attempted t o r e d i r e c t the harvest and improve the

economic performance o f t he f l e e t . The s p e c i f i c -procedures employed I n each

j u r i s d i c t i o n vary but through the numerous goverment agencies' i n Canada and

t h e Un i ted States, a patchwork regu la to ry regime has evolved. The success o f i

these agencies, i n terms o f c o n t r o l l i n g t h e i r respec t ive f i she r ies , has not

been uniform. This r e f l e c t s v a r i a t i o n s I-n t h e degree o f d i f f i c u l t y t o

regu la te danesttc f i s h e r i e s and i t r e f l e c t s v a r i a t i o n s i n the i ncen t i ve t o

regu la te t.bose danest i c f i she r ies .

h the P a c i f i c 'satmen fSsfnwy, e-e~tflle~ asp&- - --

resource are pervasive. Throughout the organizat ional s t r u c t u r e o f industry '

they i n f l uence thC b e h a v i m of at1 p a r t t c i p i m t s in the f f s M y ard even t h e .

, - -- - --

goverment agencies responsible f o r managing the f i shcAes. - A t a l l l e ve l s o f

the indust ry the par t ic ipants , both the fishennen and t h e g o v e r m n t agencies

ape concerned w i th t h e i r r $ Q e c t i v e shares o f the resource. They have much A

less concern wi th the impact' o f t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s on t h e other resource

users. The c m o n *property problems which e x i s t a t the leve l o f ind iv idua l

fishennen canpeting w i th e w otber c a n h e a l lev ia ted through egu ls t ion by H resource management agencies. However the higher leve l o f mon property

problems $hat ex i s t between c m p e t i ng government agencies are much more",

di f f4cut t t o ~est~tw because there ts go~enr i r rg borfy *ch has the -

au thor i t y or mandate t o manage the salmon resource as a whole. The

cooperation o f a1 1 the government agencies involved w i t h the f i shery i s -

required t o imp1 ement e f f e c t i v e resource management s t ra teg ies . I

The j u r i sd ic t iona l s t ruc ture t h a t ex1 s$s does not pramate e f f i c ien t

fi sheries management. The geographic area o f . Canadian fi sheries j u r i s d i c t i o n

i s s i tuated between a canbinat ion o f Anerican s ta te and federal j u r i s d i c t i o n s

t o the nor th arjd t o the south. The f isher ies management agencies i n each

j u r i sd i c t ional area are responsible fo r t h e i r o w f i shery ; they represent

loca l i n t e res t s ra ther than the in te reh ts o f the coastwide f isher ies . The L

migrat ions o f salmon stocks prevent resource managers frm designing improved

resource management st rategies which nil 1 have exact ly c m ~ n s a t i n g gains_and -

losses t o the f i sher ies of each J " r i s d i c t i o n i ~ l area. The conbinatton o f ' t h e

b i o l ogical l y *determined migra t ion patterns o f salmon and the rq l i ona l i zed 2

perspective o f resource managers have made ' t radeof fs beteen repions wry

goverment resource canpeti t ion occurs, ,sol u t ions to ~esource management t

problems w i 11 not emerge easi 1 y. Thi s inter-government resource c m p e t i t i o n

almost d i r e c t l y pa ra l l e l s the i n t e r - f i s h e m n canpet i t ion t ha t ex is ts a t a

lower rung on the ladder. +

This hierarchy o f c-on property problems creates some serious concerns

f o r the management o f the nest coast salmon f isher ies. It has been show

e x p l o i t ~ t i o n i n which ne i ther the b io log ica l nor the economic potent ia l o f 5.

the resource w i l l be maximized. I n the context o f the divided j u r i s d i c t i o n

o f Paci Pic salmon f isher ies, resource management agencies tend t o deal w i th

those aspects o f the problem which w i l l d i r e c t l y bene f i t domestic f isher ies. *

Those c m o n property probl ens which involve several - - j u r i sd i c t ions - - are much

morec d i f f i c u l t to resolve. The leve l o f cooperation t ha t i s required t o

negot iate coastwide f i sher ies managenrent st rategies has been a major %

impediment to agreement. A1 though bechnical ly the Canadian and American

federal governnent could negotiate a salmon dgreewnt w i t h o h t he consent o f I

the other resource management agencies i n Alaska, Washington and Oregon, t h i s p

would never happen. The ch ie f negotiator for the United States has stated

t h a t he would not support any agreement without the consent o f the delegates - - - - - - - - -

fran each state. F u r t h e m r e i t i s the perception o f .,an . . author i ty on - - -

American law tha t the United States federal goverment would not want t o I

impose i t s author i ty over s ta te g o v e r m n t s on t h i s par t i cu la r issue ( k ~ a e , ,

$5

3983). . Consequently the n w o t i a t i n g power of the i n d i v l d s t a t e s I n the '*

Canada-Uni ted States sa l ibn negotiat ions i s much, greater than it < . otherd se

' 6 would, be because the chief negot iator and the federal goverment i n the

United States have impl i c i t l y rel inquished sane o f t h e i r au thor i t y to t h e

s ta te goverrments. -

\

From a ?egal , perspective the United States federal government could . $.-

negotiate d i r e c t l y yi t h the Canadian federal government. but for po l l t i c a l

reasons i t has chosen hot t o do th is . Thus the Canada-United States 3 l m o n -

- 2

negotiat ions have been forced t o Consider much more than the respect ive

shares o f the salmon. resource t o A i c h each country should be e n t i t l e d . The

United States federal goverrment ,has abdicated any respons ib i l i t y fo r r

determining the appropriate in te rna l a l locat ion. o f the United States share o f

t he resource. Consequently decisions regard1 ng the a1 1 ocat ion o f t h e United I - - -

States share of the salmon resource between a1 1 t h e - k e r i c a n j u r i sbict ions

must be reached by consensus. The agreement a f -each'one o f , the states wi th

salmon f i sher ies j u r i s d i c t i o n i s required t o br ing about "an agreement between

Canada and t he United States. Unanimity amongst the government agencies

responsible f o r salmon resource management has been necessary i n order t o

impl ement a canprehensi ve management strategy.

A Canada-Uni ted States

interested par t jes F a n b o t h

salmon management st rategx

- - - - - - -

salmon agreement has long been sought by I

- - - countries. An agreement w i t h a canprehensive

offers thec prospects o f , improved resource

management and conservation along w i th greater rapport between the respurce -- - - -- - -- - - - -

management agencies o f the two countries. Th(! i n te r im agreement concernhg \

the management o f ,intercept i on salmon f i sheries, d i c h was operat ive during t

t he 1981 and 1982 f i shery seasons, had q ra i sed the hopes o f many t ha t an

ongoing t r e a t y could be negotiated between c&adae=and the 1 0

*k "

However despite the apparent success o f the in te r im agreement the negot iat ion '23

o f a long& term t rea t y has encountered d i f f i c u l t i e s . - rn <

.*

The f a i l u r e o f the nq lo t ia ted salmon agree&& to moue towardsa %

- - : -

r a t i f i c a t i o n can be a t t r i bu ted t o problems caused by $he j u r i s d i c t i o n a l Q b

st ruc ture o f the industry. The party t o t agreement wit@he. greatest e

1 everage over the issue o f concern beciank a holdout, demanding morr! on their ' n . \

I '*

own behalf a t the expense'of others. a .. ~ h s l t a wi tM rew frcq the agreement P

because the chjnook conservation progran wv d i n g t o impose. a but& on * r

-

A1 askan fi sheries and there' was 1 f t € l e coiiipensaTJon t o Alasla -for t h i c - TOSS-. h, \

A1 aska had both the i ncent i ve ,and' the o p p o r t ~ i t y to' hold out for more.' Thi s

r e f l e c t s an ongoing problem tha t w i l l ' cont'nue to ex i s t even i f a t rea ty a I ,&.

could be r a t i f i e d . The nature o f the resource i s 'such t ha t the p o s s i b i l i t y a

e @

o f one par ty holding out on any spec i f i c i s s w w i l l always exist, f 6 * - z * e

\ Consequently the ongoing management o f the salmon resource w i l l never fo l low +% * 0

an easy course. - However the fac t tha t the two countr ies were able t o \

* \ - 1 #=

, d e ,

negot iate d- imp1 enent two -years of joint -managanent o f the- splm& ftshary - -;- --

b E $. %i *:

~ ie t i tes - tha t toctpemt&--m- +re ~ n i b l e . + h C

~ e s p i f e the canmn pro.pert nature- o f the res ke, it. conti*nhes t o be very . i f t l

->

va l m b t e and it i s stila capat$e o f ' ytetcting a very large cat&; It -has beem .

X

A @ - 95 - 4.

L -.$.

, ";" 4%

- - --

recognized i n both Canada-and the ~ n i & d ~ t a t e s . t h i k * i f the harvest df salmon '' . $

- - -- ---

7

could be t a k n e c o n i l c a ~ l y, wi t t~ou t too mpch e f f o r t &re' :auld betb s large - t

surpl us y i e l d in, trd form o f resource rent ' rh ich c w l d bdth 'increase .

fi sheken's i n c d s and provide revenue fo r the goverr&t& Forcth is reason C

fi shemen and resource managers w i l l contin& t h e i r e f f b r t s t o negotiate i

Sj .

canprehensive salmon maaage&ent s t r a t h i e s even though the recent ' salladn

agreement has nag been implemerrted. P

% -

Since the s t a r t of ' UNCLOS 1 1 1 , ~ both Canada and the 'uni ted states have , 5

r e v i sed t h e i r poT tc ies regardi hg anadri5iiius f f s heries . r dif ferences i n the basic pr inc ip les- tha the two, countries qre "

advocating concerni&j t h e i r respective r i g h t s and obl igat ions as they r e l a t e .* - t o anadrmous f isherfes. Both Canada and the United states 'recognize the

i

s peci a1 conce n o f s ta tes - o f ' .o r ig in regarding anadranousa species,. J ,

if ferences o f optnion have existed ktween%att&k+ a d tk--tfrr+w S t d e s -ov& *

the spec i f ic de ta i l s mncerning the implementittion o f t h i s pr inc ip le . il

3:

I n

I n i t i a l l y the& two countr'les did, not agree on the detetminatio.n o f the ' \ 5

- s ta te o f o r i g i n as i t related t o the salmon prgduction o f transboundary

r i v e r s . Can adg no longer advocates tha t the s ta te o f o r i g i n should be

defined by the spawning locat ion o f salmon stocks and ha; recogrlized the

,agree on an apppopriate sharing fonnula fo r the: production of t h e i . .

transboundaky r i v e r s in so&heast .Alaska+ ALtbwgh ~b.&a oor&p&-

rivers,' t h i s posjt ion 4s not re f l ec ted i n sta~ements made a t the federal

level i n the Uni tedAtates gmermnent Were it was stated that the r i g h t of a 7 . 5

2 . country t o conduct f isher ies i n i t s onh t e r r i t o r f a l waters i s part of *,

customary internat ional law.

The continued par t i c ipa t ion o f Canada and the United States i n the ' f l C

1nfeGational Nor th Pacific ' ~i f h h s C m i sr ion indicates : an imp1 i c i t

acceptftnce of the Japanese d is tant water fishery. Distant water salmon - - - -

- +

ffsheries ,have not beeh abolfshed as Canada and the United States had

o r l g i n p l l y proposed. ~ns tead Cankla, the United States and Japan together

m n i t o 6 and rqu1a- i~ f ishery t o control i t s impact on North knerican

stocks of Paci f ic salnojd,

,- ,\,

- -- --

1% i o clear that 9 t w a l pol i c y level , there are no major issues 1

concef'ni ng, the interception of salmon which separate t @ Canadian and

k e r i c a n positions. The one obstacle to agreenent i s the regionalized

perspective of th; Anerican delegation. he nature df the resource i s such !

t ha t improved resource management strategies require that the catch by

Alaskan f isher ies be res t r i c ted t o benefi t stocks from Canada, Washington and -

Oregon and that the catch by Canadian f isher ies be rest r ic ted t o benefit - -- - - - - -

stocks frcm Washington and Oregon. The port ion of t h e r e s o u r c e which --

I.originates i n Canadian r i vers c a n benef i t fran res t r i c t ions imposed i n

Alaska. Simi lar ly the port ion o f the resource which originates i n Washing$on

and Oregon r ivers can benefit fran rest r ic t ions imposed i n Canada. ~ l t h o u i h

1 - B 0

- 9 7 - . r ii - -

a 4' * .

+ - A

-- -- - -- - --

fi shing strategies cgn be &vised J i c h i n w e equi yhlent r es t r i c t i ons on c v -

Canada and the United States, there h i s been an imp1 itit tradeoff w&n t h e 4%

United States between the in te res ts o f Alaska and those o f Washington and

, Oregon. Alaska has been asked t o forego i t s harvest of a port fan o f t h e G

salmon resource without canpensation bile Uakhington and Oregon forego very .

l j t t l e but receive the very substantial benef i ts generated by f i sh ing

r e s t r i c t i o n s i n both Alaska and Canada. -It

6

f.

Washington-Oregon has prevented a negotiated settlement between the two \

countr ies from being r a t i f i e d , The canplexi t ies o f the j u r i sd i c t i ona l

st ructure w i th in the United States along wi th the inherent imbalance i n the

d i s t r i b u t i o n o f salmon intercept ions make it very d i f f i c u l t t o ' n$ot iate an

accept able agreement ' which d l l simul tanemsly satj rfy- represelltatlves frm %

Canada, the United States, A1 aska, Washington and Oregon,

The future success of , negotiat ions may require tha t the ?ope o f the 6

negotiat ions be broadened t o incorporate more than changes i n the f i sh ing

patterns. The, f l on o f benefi t s from improved resource management st rategies

i s fran north to south. Consequently the benef i ts generated by & t t e r

resource management on bal ance benefi t Wa_shi ngton and Oregon a t the ex pen&

of Alaska. A reso lu t ion -- - t o the* r g i o n a l - - problems wi th in the salmon

f i sheries may require tha t Alaska be canpensated f o r i t s loss by Washington

and Oregon.

t

8 - BIBLIOGRAPHY

&

Argue, A.M., Jo Coursely and G O D . Harr is (19.77). Prel iminary Revision o f *

b and Juan de Fuca S t r a i t ~ i h a l Salmon Sport Catch tp 1Pm;lR?fr'e7.Tes and Envi r o h e n t Canada , Vancouver, '*

6

Beesley, 3.A. (1972). Statement by . J.A. Beesley, Representative o f - , Canada to the ~ n i w Nations Seabed' C m i t t e e (Preparatory C m i t t e e f o r the Third Law o f the Sea Conference), Sub-Canmittet! I I, New York, 15 March 1972. Department o f External A f f h r s , Ottam,

/

Buchanan, Janes M a and 6ordon Tul lock (1965). The Calculus o f Consent, Ann Arbor Paperbacks , Universi ty o f Mchigan Press. \

Canada, 6overnment of (1983a). No Progress Bade on P a c i f i c Salmon Treaty \ D i s a s s 1 0 ~ 5 - ~ F i s k k s a& I k w , x ess s

21, 1983.

(1983b). Bank - o f Canada Review - May 1983, Bank o f Canada, Ottawa. 1 c

(1982). A D r a f t , Framework Agreement Between Canada and the United States for Management of P a c i f - c c F isher ies and Oceans, In tornat ion 0 u i

/

( 1980). Technical and Econq i c Rationale o f an In te rna t ina F i sheries and Oceans, Annex N, Cablnet S u h i ssfon - ( unpubli sh

(1976) . Pol i c y f o r Canada' s Conalerci a1 Fisheries, Fisheries and Marine Services - Department of Environment, Ottawa.

(1973). t h i r d Uni ted Nations Conference . on the Law o f the Sea, (Bluebook), Deparbent of External Af fa i rs , Ottawa.

(1980, 1979, 1978 and 1977). 1A Yorksheets, Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, ( unpubl i shed).

(1980a, 1979a, 1978a, and l977a). B r i t i s h Columbia Catch S ta t i s t i c s , F i sheri es and Oceans, Vancouver.

(1980b, 1979.b. 1978b. 1977b. 1976b. 1975b, 1974b. 1973b, 1972b, 1971b and IWOb). Fisheries S t a t i s t i c s of B r i t i s h CoTumbfa, Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver.

\

Clark, Col in Y. (1976). Mathematical Biseconmics and the Optimal Manayanent o f Renewable Resources, John ~ m n s , New York.

Copes, Prrz tva l (1980) ,%riti sh C07thbia Fisheries -a* t& 200-Mile C k i t ' , b

Marine Pol icy, July. , I, i -

(1981). nF isher ies-Explo i ta t ion O f f Canadb's ~ e s t Co of National Policyu, Papers o f the Regional-Science 46.

(1981) . 'Fi Cheries on Canada's Paci f i c Coast : The ~mdact of. Extended- Ju r i sd i c t i on on Expl o i t a t i o n Pat.ternsn, Ocean Management: V O ~ . ~ 6. \ a

(1972). Eaternational.' F isher ies - Resource Management; A Pos i t ion f o r Canada, report \prepared for F i sheries Service, Envi rqnnent Canada, Government a f Canada, (unpubl i shed) i 1,

\ (1979). "The Evolut ion of Marine Fisheries po l i cy i n Canpda", Journal o f Business Ac4ini s t ra t ion, Vol . 11-1. I

\

Y (1981). "The Impact of UNCLOS I 1 1 on the Management o f the World's Fisheries*, Marine Policy, July, \ Ocean D e v e l o p n t and Internat ional Law, Yo1 . 4-3.

\ - (1977). 'The Law of the Sea and Management o f Anadrotnous Fi,sh S t ~ c k s " , \ \ '

\ \ . Copes, Parr ival and B.A. Cook (1981). ' ~ a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of Canada's Pacl i c ri Hal i b u t Fi shery" . I n s t i t u t e o f F i sheries

Simon Fraser Universi ty, 81-12. . -

DeVoretz, D. (1982). "Price Project ions for 1978-ZOO?", report prepared fo r Fi sberi es Czmadzt, ttnpttbt ished.

Analysi s M scuss\an Pa'per, I

Canadian Salmon and Oceans,

DPA Consulting, (1981). 1980-81 Georgia S t r a i t Sport f i shing Creel ' Survey, report prepared f a r Fisheries and Oceans, Goverment o\ kanada, Vancouver, (unpubl i shed) . \

\

I- - ' Fraser, 6 . Alex. (1977). Licence L im i ta t ign i n the B r i t i s h ColtmbialSalmon Envi ronment Canada, Go ;##; . verment o f Canada, Tech.

Fredin, R.A. (1971). Ocean Distr i ,but ion of Salmon and Their Vu lnerab i l i t y To High Seas F i sh i , report p r e p a r m o r the United States Section o f the Intennat ional h Paci f"ic F i sheries C m i ssion, Nat ion31 Marine F i sheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric h i n i s t ra t ion, - s

- -- Department of €-rce, 6.OYefment of Weed States.

GoEdoa, k & a(u54-L "Tbe+€m&€ ~ 8 f ~ ~ ~ Resource", Journal of Pol i t i c a l Economy, Vol . 62.

, '

Got1 ieb, A l l an and Char1 es Dal fen (1973). "National J u r l s d i c t i o n and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Respons ib i l i t y : New Canadian Approaches t o . In te r r ia t i o n a l Law", Anerican Journal o f I n te rna t i ona l Law, Vol . 67.

p L

Groot , C. (undated). The I n c r e d i b l e Salmonids, P a c i f i c Bi l 'ogical S ta t ion , F isher ies and Oceans, Government of Canada (panphlet) .

-.

a, Vancouver. a J

Johnson, parbaaa and Mark Zacher (1977). Canadian Foreign Pol i c y and The Law o f t h e Sea, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h CO~I i

3

Johnson, David B. and Dennis E. Logue (1976). "U.S. Economic I n t e r e s t s i n t h e Law of t h e Sea IssuesH, i n Ryan h a c h e r and' Richard Sweeney (eds.)

; U .S. I n t e r e s t s and A l te rna t ives , h e r i c a n Enterpr ise i c Pol i c y Research, Washington, D.C.

ohs son, D.R. and W.R. Hourston (1972). Report o f t h e ~or rmi tkee on Salmon EvaTuations, Canada-United States ConsuTtations on SaTmon Problems o f Mutual Concern, unpubl i shed.

% Larson, Paul (1981). ' personal c m u n i c a t i o n , ~1.aska Department o f F ish and

Game, October 29.' '

Logan, Roderick M. (1974). Canada, Un i ted States, and The T h i r d Law o fs the Sea Conference. Canadian-American Tanmi t t e e swnsored bv C-D, Howe a - - .- r - - - - .I - - - - I n s t i t u t e and Nat ional Planning ~ s s o ~ i a t i o n . ,

(1969). "Geography and Salmon: The b y e s I s land C o n f l i c t , 1957-1967", Journal o f the West, Vol. 8.

Lyons, Cice l y (1969). Salmon, O h Heritage, M i t che l 1 Press, Vancouver.

MacGregor, M. (1982). The T i d a l Spor t f i sh ing D i a r y program - Report on the . P i l o t Years 1979-80, F isher ies a a Oceans, Vancouver, (unpublished).

MacKenzie ,,.. W.C. (197%). "Conceptual Aspects o f S t ra teg ic P1 anning f o r F j sher ies Management and Development", Journal o f F i sher ies Research Board Canada, Vol . 31-10.

+ %

McRae, D. (1983). . personal canmunication, Un ive rs i t y o f ~ r i t i sh Columbia Facu l ty o f law, June 21.

f lew York Times (1982). December 10, p. 11.

(1982). December 11, p e l .

Osgaod, Robert E. (1976). "UrS. ~ e c u r i t ~ I n t e r e s t s and the Lnw af tbe Sea", i n Ryan Pnacher 5and Richard Sweeney (eds .) The Law o f t h e 'Sea; U.S. ~ n t e r e s t s and A1 t e r n a t i v e s ,a h e r i c a n ~ n t e r p z se I n s t i t u t e f o r Pub1 i c P o l i c y Research, Washington, D,;C.

Paci f i c ~i shery Management .counci l ' (1981-). Proposed Plan f o r Managina the 1981 salmon ~ i s h e r i e s . off t h e .coast o f Ca l i f o rn ia , 0 r - - and m-x Oceanic and Atmos~her ic ~ d m i n i s t ramon, Por t and.

Pearse, Peter H. (1981). C o n f l i c t and Opportuni ty - Toward a New Pol i Canada's P a c i f i c F isher ies, Canmission on * P a c i f i c F isher ies P l7zzGE7

(1982). ~ u r n i n g t h e T ide - A New P o l i c y f o r Canada's P a c i f i c F isher ies, Canmission on P a c i f i c F isher ies Pol icy, Vancouver.

k . ' .

Pearse, Peter H e and Jaiqes Wilen (1979). "Impact o f Canada's Paci f ic 'Salmon F lee t Control Program", Journal of F isher ies Revarch Board Canada,

Schaefer, M.B. (1957). Some Considerations o f Populat ion Dynapics and Economics i n Re la t i on t o the knagement o f t he Commercial Marine F i sher ies", Journal o f f i sher ies Research board Canada, Vol . 14.

Shepard, Michael P . (1973) . Lay o f t h e Sea Conference 1973, F i she r ies For Anadromous Fish, ~i sheries Research Board o f Canada, Government o f can a ia . (1980). he Canada/Uni t ed States I n t e r c e p t i o n Problem 1879-197 9, Annex I I Cabinet Submi ss i on, unpubl i shed. \

Technical Committee on Salmon In te rcep t ions ( 1.967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972,1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980). Report o f the Technical Committee on Salmon In te rcept ions , Urns.-Canada Consultat ions on Salmon ~ r m e m s o f Mutual Concern, u r n shed.

United . Nations (1982). Uni ted Nat ions Convention on t h e Law o f t h e Sea, T h i r d Conference on the Law o f the Sea, IVff

United States, Government o f (1974). D r a f t A r t i c l e s f o r a C Economic Zone and the Cont inenta l Shelf. Conference on Law o f t h e r e a , U.N. Doc. Mconf . 6Z/c.2./1.47

E

(1981). F isher ies o f t h e Un i ted States 1980, National Oceanic and ~ tmospher i e -

Ward, Dale (1982). - . personal c m u n i c a t i o n , Washington Department o f F i sheries.