Revisiting the challenge: perspectives on Canada’s freshwater fisheries policies three decades after the Pearse Report

On the topic of recreational fisheries, Pearse (1988) offered recommendations that are summarized here: managers should shift to managing angler demands instead of straining to meet certain problematic expectations; managers should acknowledge recreational fisher heterogeneity and incorporate it as a central consideration; recreational fishers should play more prominent roles in funding management (i.e., through licensing) and supporting conservation; fishing regulations and licensing should be tailored to meet local and (or) fishery-specific needs and be both manageable and understandable from the perspective of anglers; competitive sportfishing should be managed to prevent overexploitation and instill conservation ethics; and commerce related to recreational fisheries should be monitored and considered more closely by managers (e.g., as a management tool).

Troublesome angler expectations, debates about the cost and regulation of fishing, and issues related to management capacity still abound in recreational fisheries. Funding and regulation are limited by numerous factors, such as political instability and the (un)willingness of participants to pay for and (or) support management actions. Regulations must be complex to meet fishery-specific needs and yet, simple enough for users to understand (Cooke et al. 2016b). Recreational fishery managers face a significant geographic and logistical challenge in trying to manage a multitude of widespread fisheries, with relatively small agencies and limited resources. Management is also complicated by the exceptional social and ecological complexity of recreational fisheries: recreational anglers are a very heterogeneous user group (Beardmore et al. 2015), whose impacts on freshwater fisheries are often complex and difficult to discern (e.g., due to cryptic fisheries mortality and complex angler behaviour; Post et al. 2002).

Compared to some other recreational activities (e.g., downhill skiing), the costs of angling in Canada remain relatively low. This is both a strength and a weakness of recreational fisheries. Appreciation for recreational fishery value and significance has grown in the last 30 years, as researchers have recognized the significant socioeconomic and other values associated with recreational fishing (Arlinghaus and Cooke 2009; Cooke et al. 2016b). Managers, researchers, and anglers should align their efforts in pursuit of a common goal: ensuring that the documented benefits of recreational fisheries (e.g., angler stewardship, increased well-being; Tufts et al. 2015) outweigh their costs. Researchers should continue their efforts to accurately account for and balance these costs and benefits and to provide information on the human dimensions of recreational fisheries to ensure sustainable use and maximize socioeconomic benefits. This could not have been quantified if not for long-term national surveys of recreational anglers in Canada conducted at 5-year intervals (see Brownscombe et al. 2014); this important survey should continue. Although most natural resource management agencies have biological science capacity, similar capacity related to the human dimensions (e.g., social science, economics; Bennett et al. 2017) is often lacking. Human dimensions are particularly salient to recreational fisheries (Hunt et al. 2013), but have applications across all sectors and issues. Resource-management agencies in provinces such as Ontario and British Columbia now employ research scientists who may focus on various “human” questions (e.g., angler preferences, recreational boating spatial patterns; Hunt et al. 2019). Such work provides timely and valuable insight on recreational exploitation, angler preferences and heterogeneity, emergent problems, and the potential for users to conserve and support management of freshwater fisheries. The aforementioned recreational fishing survey is one example of progress in this area, but the ways in which recreational anglers are incorporated in fisheries management remain unscientific in many instances (e.g., hand-picking stakeholders for consultation, nonprobabilistic collection of fishery user data). Internal capacity for human dimensions research should be increased in recognition of these facts.

Liberal exploitation by recreational anglers was enabled in the past by many historically abundant inland fisheries, but this is increasingly untenable and has led to the collapse of some inland fisheries (Post et al. 2002). Managers should consider experimenting with different input and output controls (see limited-entry licensing; Jeanson et al. 2021) where the sustainability of open-access recreational use is uncertain or unlikely (see Cox et al. 2002). Where possible, managers may increase capacity by decentralizing selective parts of recreational fishery management and enabling recreational anglers to assume more responsibility for freshwater fishery health (e.g., participation in fisheries advisory councils, assuming stewardship roles; Elmer et al. 2017). Recreational anglers should play a strong supporting role in fisheries management and may do so passively (e.g., by purchasing a license and complying fully with regulations) or actively (e.g., engaging in stewardship, adopting informal regulations; Cooke et al. 2013a). Each group must contribute actively to the change(s) that they wish to see in recreational fisheries (Elmer et al. 2017).

Pearse recognized that Indigenous fishing rights are complex and poorly defined—a “crazy quilt” as he described it. This section of the Pearse Report attempted to focus on individual subsistence fisheries, although small-scale Indigenous commercial fisheries (so-called moderate livelihood fisheries) are somewhat intertwined. Pearse went into considerable depth outlining the history of Indigenous fishing rights incorporated in the Constitution, the Indian Act, the Fisheries Act, provincial law, comprehensive land agreements, and the many treaties that Canada has signed with Indigenous Peoples. His recommendations sought the clarification of fishing rights in legislature, development of interim agreements, and the promotion of resource co-management.

The challenges surrounding Indigenous fisheries 30 years ago remain today, as the tangled legislation pertaining to Indigenous fishing rights has changed very little. For example, Pearse described difficulties of relying on the courts to settle disputes, where vague legal definitions and excruciatingly slow processes can often lead to unpredictable outcomes. Although the Supreme Court has upheld Indigenous fishing rights in numerous landmark cases since Pearse’s Report was published (see Sutherland 2000; reviewed in Casteneda et al. 2020), Indigenous Peoples should not have to undergo legal scrutiny every time their fishing methods come into question. We recognize that the decentralized legal framework for individual fishing rights has made it challenging to produce Canada-wide changes; however, little progress has been made to clarify vague definitions in the legislation for those seeking a “moderate livelihood”. Fortunately, recent amendments to the Fisheries Act in 2019 include a provision to address violations outside of the courts using alternative measures agreements (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2021).

We recommend continued support of local (and meaningful!) co-management agreements (and institutions) that acknowledge Indigenous People’s right to fisheries management (Popp et al. 2019). We strongly recommend that cooperative management actions are considered proactively and preemptively in areas where Indigenous fisheries overlap with other sectors. Additionally, fisheries professionals should be better updated on these rights and sovereignty and should also be equipped with skills to engage in a respectful and meaningful way (see Wong et al. 2020), consistent with the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP; un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html). The National Indigenous Fisheries Institute conducted a two-phase external review of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) Indigenous programs, 2017–2019, and there are many similarities to Pearse’s final recommendations concerning co-management, relationship building, and recognition of rights. We strongly suggest that policy-makers involved with interim agreements consider the findings of both Phase 1 and 2 Indigenous Program Review Reports provided by the National Indigenous Fisheries Institute (indigenousfisheries.ca/en/indigenous-program-review/) and also adhere to the guidance in UNDRIP (see Gomez Isa 2019). We would also suggest that those involved in inland fisheries research and management consider “Two-Eyed Seeing” as a guiding framework for their research (Reid et al. 2020), which encourages unified perspectives from both Indigenous and western knowledge systems, for the benefit of all (Barlett et al. 2012). Such approaches are increasingly being used in the context of freshwater fisheries in Canada (Alexander et al. 2021), yet Indigenous knowledge is still not fully embraced by fisheries practitioners (Kadykalo et al. 2021), which is alarming.

Canada’s freshwater commercial fishing industry was and continues to be composed of relatively few fishers (compared to the recreational sector where there are millions of participants) that account for most commercial harvest (Casteneda et al. 2020). This industry provides job opportunities in regions that have limited economic activity. It is closely regulated by provincial/territorial and federal agencies, and all individuals participating in commercial activities must have a license and adhere to strict catch quotas. Fishers that are part of the Freshwater Fish Market Corporation (FFMC) have exclusive rights to process and market fish. Pearse was aware of the monopolization of the FFMC and mentions that this corporation is under continuous debate. The FFMC sets a price for each species caught prior to the beginning of the season and pays fisherman 80% of the total value. The overall objective of Canadian commercial fisheries policy is to create maximum contribution to the economy, social welfare, and income for those employed. Attention is needed to ensure the industry maintains productivity, quality, and maximum value for the catch. By-catch is of concern, but does not occur to the same damaging extent in all freshwater systems (reviewed in Raby et al. 2011) and Pearse broadly reviewed methods that might reduce by-catch.

The production of fish by means of aquaculture was recognized by Pearse as an important and growing industry in Canada’s fresh waters (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2019), supporting Indigenous, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Aquaculture can allow for fisheries operations to be better controlled, safer, and closer to markets. The Canadian government provides funding to aid in the development of environmentally safe aquaculture facilities (i.e., the Fisheries and Aquaculture Clean Technology Program). However, these benefits do come with inherent risks, including holding-impoundment accidents allowing the release of domestic fish into the wild stocks (see Patterson and Blanchfield 2013 for example from Lake Huron) and the release of harmful waste into the ecosystem (Ellis 1996; Naylor et al. 2005), both of which are significantly reduced by shifting to closed-containment aquaculture. Suggestions made by Pearse were to create additional fishing rights to improve the sector’s economic performance and that support was needed for the development of commercial and the aquaculture industries in remote areas.

The issues surrounding by-catch warrant further investigation and mitigation (Raby et al. 2011) as does the spread of aquatic invasive species via bait harvest and sale (Drake and Mandrak 2014; Hunt et al. 2020). Science-based policies to mitigate by-catch issues and to ensure a responsible and sustainable bait fish industry are sorely needed in jurisdictions where such activities are not prohibited. Quebec has banned the use of live baitfish in inland waters, apparently without a discernible negative effect on recreational fishing experiences. Marketing of fish harvested in Canadian waters should continue to target the global market, but also ensure fisheries are not subject to overcapacity. There are also opportunities to better capitalize on freshwater fish as a local source of safe food for consumers in Canada. Moreover, there is a need and opportunity to implement fisheries ecolabelling and sustainable certification programs in fresh water (see Cooke et al. 2011) given their relative success in the marine realm (e.g., Ponte 2012).

Canadian freshwater aquaculture facilities should focus their attention on innovations that promote the production of this closed-containment aquaculture facilities, rather than operations in open waterbodies. Moving operations towards this closed-containment method of aquaculture will provide fish for market while reducing the environmental risks present with the current open-water aquaculture operations (Ellis 1996; Naylor et al. 2005).

The recommendations in this section intended to weave together those made in the previous recreational, Indigenous, and commercial sections of the Pearse Report. People, place, and fishes were and continue to be intertwined, and Pearse advocated that their management should be too. The amount of fishing permitted affects stock size, which is dependent on the productivity of their habitat. As stressed in earlier sections, not just fish, but also good fishing experiences need to be considered. The complexities of a multilayered management system are as alive today as they were in the 1980s and are discussed in more detail in the next section. As such, we very much echo Pearse’s recommendations here.

We concur with Pearse regarding the need to better integrate the management of people, place, and fishes, and we would add that policies should include quantitative targets to facilitate assessment of the efficiency of new policies. Although legislation protecting fish habitat has recently been updated to prevent future habitat loss (Hasler et al. 2021), there are insufficient policies and funding (e.g., federal Habitat Stewardship Program) to adequately address the current degraded state of fish habitat in many areas. There is an urgent need to identify effective habitat restoration strategies to ensure wise use of limited financial resources. In general, there is also a need for management agencies to adopt evidence-based approaches to fisheries management that rely on robust evidence synthesis (Cooke et al. 2017), structured decision-making (Irwin et al. 2011), and other forms of decision science (see Bower et al. 2018) rather than relying on institutional traditions and norms (see Young et al. 2016). This approach has been adopted by DFO via their Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat process, but most of those activities are marine in focus. Similar decision-making processes are needed at other levels of government given the potential for open science and transparency in decision-making to enhance management (Roche et al. 2022).

The recommendations from this section of the Pearse Report sought the reorganization of freshwater fisheries administration, mainly through the amendment of the constitution to give primary jurisdiction of freshwater fisheries to provincial/territorial legislation. In addition, Pearse highlighted the effectiveness of self-compliance programs when addressing the public. Presently, the federal government primarily manages freshwater habitat (i.e., through the Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program; dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/ffhpp-ppph-eng.html), whereas provincial and territorial governments are largely responsible for harvest and land-use management. However, the potential revisitation of government policy through election cycles remains a constraint when trying to improve fisheries administration in the long term (Hasler et al. 2021). Furthermore, many waterways connect interprovincially or internationally with the United States, and in these cases, primary provincial control becomes difficult, and federal governance is often favoured, including via nonbinding treaties for international waters. Ultimately, the recommendations that Pearse proposed in terms of the organization and administration of freshwater fisheries continue to be relevant in the present day and have yet to be achieved nationwide.

It continues to be evident that provincial and territorial governments (as well as co-management agreements with Indigenous governments) are more appropriate administrators of freshwater fisheries than the federal government. Therefore, we recommend that the federal government explore the idea of more formalized delegation agreements with provincial/territorial governments where appropriate. Governments should also provide evidence-based regulations and policies to prioritize the protection of riparian and shoreline habitats (e.g., guidance on details such as widths of buffers), which are equally important in maintaining freshwater ecosystems. Watershed-based land-use planning should also limit land-use alteration beyond thresholds demonstrated to affect freshwater ecosystems. In addition, governments should continue to advocate soft management and self-compliance programs to manage recreational fisheries, although there still is a need for oversight and accountability. With the Canada Water Agency currently in development (see thenarwhal.ca/opinion-canada-water-agency-protect-freshwater/), it will be important to consider if and how water quality and quantity are considered in the context of fisheries resources, while also trying to understand how yet another agency fits into the multi-scalar governance patchwork.

The scientific-support recommendations from the Pearse Report focused on the need to increase research capacity within governments, to better explain values of fisheries and management via increased in-house effort, university/college training, and an independent fisheries advisory commission. Since the Pearse Report, government agencies have continued to generate applied research (to varying extents based on internal capacity and resources) to support freshwater fisheries management, with growing reliance on external partners (e.g., in academia, industry, Indigenous organizations, and the NGO sector). There have been increasing numbers of partnerships and co-advising of graduate students between governments and universities, mainly supported by Tri-Agency funding, Genome Canada, and Canada Foundation for Innovation, with additional funding from government agencies, industry, and NGOs. There are also a growing number of examples of well-funded pan-Canadian research networks and initiatives focused on generating actionable knowledge to support freshwater fisheries management (e.g., GenFish gen-fish.ca/; FishCAST fishcast.ca/; Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Business-Entreprise/How-Comment/Networks-Reseaux/CAISN-CAISN_eng.asp). Pearse stated that government science should examine social and economic fisheries values, and this recommendation remains highly relevant. The last scientific-support recommendation, that an independent fisheries advisory committee should be appointed, has not been achieved; however, other commissions have aimed at filling this gap on smaller spatial scales (such as Great Lakes Fishery Commission or Pacific Salmon Commission). To this day, producing knowledge to examine fisheries remains multifaceted for many reasons, including the complex nature of the working landscape (Bissix and Rees 2001) across multiple government levels, with many different actors involved. Knowledge production, both at the time of the Pearse Report and in the present day, can mean different things to different people and organizations, ultimately leading to discrepancies during policy making and implementation of management decisions (Sullivan et al. 2006).

Pearse’s scientific-support recommendations still stand, and we emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary research contributing to the growing body of literature that examines knowledge co-production (Djenontin and Meadow 2018). Effective knowledge co-production (research that is conducted in a collaborative, respectful, and engaged manner to create actionable science) could contribute to Pearse’s scientific-support recommendations. Further, knowledge co-production could also facilitate implementation of recommendations from other sections as well, by collaboratively producing research to bridge the science-action gap (Cooke et al. 2020). Next, we recommend that the government and other research actors (such as funding agencies, academia, or NGOs) focus on issues and topics that have emerged (or are being acknowledged) since the Pearse Report publication, such as threats associated with aquatic invasive species (Mandrak and Cudmore 2010; Drake and Mandrak 2014; Hunt et al. 2020), climate change (Ficke et al. 2007; Poesch et al. 2016), the role of Indigenous governance and management (Popp et al. 2019), socioeconomic values of fisheries, knowledge transfer/co-production, translating science into policy, recreational values (Skubel et al. 2019), and the role of community science/environmental champions (Taylor et al. 2012). Additionally, modernization and paradigm shifts in science and research since the Pearse Report have resulted in new and emerging scientific disciplines with greater appreciation of the role of human dimensions (Bennett et al. 2017). We recommend taking an adaptive and agile approach regarding emerging issues in the future, with the goal of government and other research actors facilitating the frontiers of fisheries research by continuing to fund and facilitate the production of rigorous, scientific fisheries research. To produce agile and adaptive research, there is a need for greater reliance on foresight science, which is a systematic approach that draws upon different analytical and predictive tools to provide insight about escalating and newly emerging trends (Cook et al. 2014). For example, horizon scanning is designed to explore futures by systematically examining information sources to detect early indications of development and change (Hines et al., 2019) to predict and prepare for future challenges (Pérez-Jvostov et al. 2020). Next, the importance of funding stability and production of scientific expertise should be emphasized in efforts to provide continuing support for research despite government turnovers (Death of Evidence 2012). Specifically, the core funding scheme for fisheries science within Canada (i.e., Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council) should have funding safeguarded to ensure foundational research remains supported under all government climates. Finally, we recommend taking a more inclusive approach to science that includes Indigenous and experiential knowledge and engages marginalized fisheries actors including women and racialized communities (Chaudhury and Colla 2021).

Pearse included 10 recommendations regarding public participation, which he organized into the four themes: getting involved; the freshwater fisheries constituency; the participation record; and information, education, and communication. Pearse pressed for increased visibility for freshwater recreational fisheries from all levels of government and outlined how participation programs could be “strengthened, especially through education, and communication”. In contrast to the 1980s, today’s availability of the internet, digital communication, and learning has fundamentally transformed the public participation framework. Overall, these recommendations require some updating and modification to be relevant in today’s world.

To modernize Pearse’s recommendations, we suggest additional recommendations regarding public participation. First, we propose continued efforts to find new ways (e.g., educational programs/technology) to get the public interested and involved in freshwater issues to make fishes more “visible” to Canadians to promote actions leading to the conservation of freshwater fishes (see Cooke et al. 2013b). Second, we propose using technologies (e.g., phone apps; Venturelli et al. 2016) and the internet to foster communication and promote involvement among groups that could otherwise not collaborate in person due to travel costs and impracticalities. Third, we suggest that governments continue to leverage technological advancements to make regulations more accessible, attractive, and concise for anglers. For example, governments could use QR codes at access sites to share only relevant regulations to anglers, simplifying the process of finding information. We also recommend the continued study and use of media platforms consumed by anglers to share fishing best practices and regulations given the growing recognition of the importance of using informal channels to enable responsible and sustainable fisheries (Cooke et al. 2019). It would also be useful to establish a culture where anglers are also advocates and stewards for freshwater biodiversity more broadly given that exploitable species depend on healthy and productive aquatic ecosystems (Cowx et al. 2010). A recent analysis of the state of freshwater biodiversity in Canada (i.e., Desforges et al. 2021) revealed that freshwater biodiversity is in remarkably poor condition in Canada, emphasizing the need for engaging inland fisheries actors in the protection and restoration of inland ecosystems.

The Pearse Report represents a seminal piece of fisheries management and policy advice, which remains important and topical to this day. There is continued urgency to resolve some of the issues that were outlined in the Pearse Report; however, there have also been many challenges that have emerged since the late 1980s. We have built upon Pearse’s initiative by providing additional recommendations for policy makers’ consideration toward effective fisheries management. Relevant to all sections of the Pearse Report, we recommend that fishes, fisheries, and habitat should be managed holistically, with clearly defined jurisdictions and co-management among provincial/territorial, federal and Indigenous rightsholders and relevant stakeholders. Doing so will require additional funding given the gravity and scope of the task. Efforts to ensure that politicians and diverse publics value inland waters and the fisheries they support are sorely needed (Cooke et al. 2013b). Additionally, we emphasize the importance of transparent and agile research that focuses on disciplines that have emerged since the original publication and onwards into the future. Specific research needs include the human dimension of fisheries (including issues related to shared governance and better understanding the role of human behaviour), developing strategies to mitigate the introduction of aquatic invasive species, and developing management actions that incorporate climate-change adaptation. Further, we suggest that there be increased effort and funding for knowledge co-production, involving interdisciplinary projects with diverse groups of actors including Indigenous Peoples, anglers, policy makers, scientists/researchers, governments, and the public. We recommend using modern technological advances to support freshwater fisheries research (e.g., telemetry, eDNA, angler apps, drones, transcriptomics) and management while enabling greater engagement with stakeholders and rightsholders in ways that are respectful and meaningful.

In addition to these specific recommendations, we also encourage efforts to better align with the UN Ten Steps to Sustainable Inland Fisheries (see fao.org/3/a-i5735e.pdf). The Ten Steps are a template for achieving a world where people can responsibly use freshwater ecosystems and their fishery resources today and in the future (Cooke et al. 2016c). There are opportunities to downscale these Ten Steps and apply them at national and regional scales, but something that has yet to be fully realized (Lynch et al. 2020). When combined with the Ten Steps framework and the Pearse Report, our recommendations represent a starting point; however, we stress the need for more in-depth efforts to review and improve fisheries policy and management in Canada.

Here, we recognized the importance of the Pearse Report and it was our aim to bring it to the attention of a new generation of fisheries professionals. Just as Pearse concluded his first report with a plea to change Canadian freshwater policies to better serve “our children and grandchildren as well as ourselves”, we offer our own plea; the development of a second, modernized volume of the Pearse Report. Further, coordination of updates to both the scientific assessment of the inland fisheries (i.e., the Beamish Report) and examination of management and policies (i.e., the Pearse Report) would support the development of robust, inclusive and sustainable management strategies and policies for Canada’s inland fisheries for the next 30 years. These efforts should be inclusive with significant opportunity for diverse knowledge holders and resource stewards to offer their perspectives. This should also be done at arms-length from government (but with government funding and information sharing) to ensure objectivity. With much work left to be done to preserve Canada’s vast, yet increasingly threatened, freshwater fisheries for our children and grandchildren, it is our hope that the considerations and recommendations presented here will contribute to sustainable and robust management strategies and policies. We recognize this is but a first step and strongly encourage the governments that hold ultimate authority for our inland fisheries resources to respond to our plea. It is time again to rise to the challenge.