We all look to government fish biologists and managers to provide some leadership and recommendations on our sport. But over the years, I have come to realize that more often than not, government staff do not contribute much to discussions on how best to manage the resource. I presume that this is because one of their prime mandates is to represent the views of the resource users - in other words to follow rather than lead.

The problem with letting the consumers "manage" a fish resource - especially when there is little or no data on escapements and survival - is that the decisions being made are not logical ones, they merely reflect the values and desires of the majority of committee members. Facts are supposed to be concrete and quantitative, values are the product of one's teaching, philosophy, morals, and ethics. Several ethical beliefs systems are recognized, and it is worth understanding what these are because it may help you better understand why it is sometimes so hard for fish managers and the public to reach a consensus.

Anglers who believe humans have dominion over fish, birds and everything on Earth ascribe to a human-centred value system. Nature is to be used for humanity's convenience, and to be used in a manner that will help society achieve industrial progress and prosperity - the sooner the better. It is assumed God will take care of the needs of the plants and animals. More often than not, the result of this management strategy is the rapid depletion of finite natural resources.

There are anglers who believe that there are just two things in the world: people and natural resources. They believe natural resources like fish stocks are to be used by people in a manner which benefits the greatest number of people for the longest period of time. Each coastal watershed is viewed as being not much more than a storehouse of goods that are specially created to satisfy the needs of profit driven men and women. This is where the multiple use concept comes from. People who ascribe to this Utilitarian Resource Conservation Ethic believe nature consists of a collection of bits of matter which can be manipulated for the good of humans.

These people sincerely believe trees can be grown like cabbages, fish stocks can be scooped up from the ocean, and fish can be raised in hatcheries ad infinitum. Unfortunately, it is a simplistic view of nature. The coastal ecosystem in the Pacific Northwest has proved to be much more complex than anyone imagined, and that is why humans have been unable to manage the resources in a truly sustainable or renewable fashion. The long term consequences of our managing our resources according to the Utilitarian Resource Conservation Ethic is only now becoming apparent.

There are anglers who believe that the relationship between soil, water, plant and animal are far more intricate, integrated and complex than most people realize. They are aware that nature is more than a "collection of externally-related useful, useless, and noxious species" which inhabit our
streams, valleys, and mountains. They realize that you cannot wipe out a species (eg a competing predator), or impose massive changes (eg clearcut logging, seine-boat fishing, or introduce a non-native species) without inducing unexpected disruptions or reactions that will ripple through the
coastal ecosystem, often with unpredictable results.

According to this Evolutionary-Ecological Ethic, "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." Change, be it climatic, successional, seasonal, and evolutionary is recognized by people who ascribe to this value system, but induced changes are to be minimized whenever and wherever possible.

There is another philosophy, and people who ascribe to this philosophy are increasingly being found on fishery committees. According to this philosophy nature is a place to fulfill spiritual needs, or a place one can escape to, for healing, rest and relaxation. Those who hold that view are ascribing to a Preservationist moral philosophy. Catching a fish, to these people, is of less importance than being able to get out and enjoy the experience of fishing in a beautiful place.

The main problem with this philosophy is that it fails to recognize that change is inherent in all systems, and leads some to argue, invariably, for the developent of sanctuaries, where no fishing is allowed. Advocates of sanctuaries believe that there should be places where wilderness is preserved, and nature is allowed to function in a harmonious balance without interference by humans. Sometimes it may be the only way to save an area, but I can't imagine a world where one can never fish. To me , sanctuary is sort of like a cathedral with its doors locked. It may be preserved, but can it truely be said to be functioning if nobody worships there?

There has never been a more critical time for people to reach consensus on many of our Pacific coastal salmon and trout species. Stocks are disappearing because people - who are increasing in numbers - are killing too many fish, and destroying too much spawning and juvenile rearing habitat as they build places of commerce and residences. Government biologists are letting this happen because there is too much bureaucracy and too little political will to see that the environment is protected; because they are pulled in all directions by people with a variety of conflicting motives, because they don't have enough funds in their budgets to do the job properly, and because they fail to admit fishery management is a very inexact science. The stated mandate of government biologists (both provincial and federal) is to protect and maintain native stocks by preserving genetic, habitat and ecosystem diversity.

In reality the actual mandate seems to be a political one - keep the voting population happy for as long as possible. You can’t do that by imposing catch and release regulations, or bringing in bait bans or designating lakes and rivers for fly fishing only. That always leads to complaints from noisy fishermen who can’t imagine not killing their catch.

What we end up with is a system in which fisheries biologists are led by politicians and the public. No wonder so many of our stocks are in decline and so few rivers, lakes or streams are as productive as they naturally should be.