Newfoundland
and Labrador Wildlife Federation
Privatizing
the Rock
*Not
for
quotation without the permission
of the author.
On
June 14,
1997
a
two paragraph
story appeared in the Corner Brook
daily newspaper The
Western Star, entitled "separate licence for Gander River." It
was reported that anglers wishing to fish on the
Gander
River (in
central Newfoundland)
would have to purchase a
special
licence (cost $20.00) from the Gander River Management Association, which would then use the
money to
further develop community-based
watershed management. The establishment of community-based watershed management
represents a major shift in how river systems are managed in
Newfoundland and
Labrador, and it has
generated much
controversy, including many claims that it is the beginning of watershed
privatization.
This
paper
assesses the impacts of the concept of community watershed
management and it suggests that this system stands to have
major negative impacts on residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The paper begins with a brief sketch of some of the resident
opposition to watershed management, then I discuss how natural
resources like ponds, rivers, salmonids and big game are related
to Newfoundlander's way of life, historically and at present. This information is important
to
understand the full implications
of
watershed management for residents of this province. After this, I briefly
discuss the history of outdoor tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This
material helps place contemporary
claims about the economic benefits of community <><>watershed
management
and tourism based on angling in their proper context. Next, I examine
some of
the social scientific literature on
conflicts over
natural resources from around the world. This material
can
help us understand the conflict, controversy and tension
that surround community-watershed management. Following this
literature review, some of the major problems associated with community
watershed management are discussed.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife
Federation, which represents
all Rod and
Gun Clubs on the island, has slammed the concept of community-watershed
management as privatization (News Release from Gordon Wight, Western
Vice-President, NLWF; Gordon Cooper, NLWF President, article in
Newfoundland
Sportsman, Nov.Dec. 1997). Similarly, Owen Myers, a
well-known St.
John's lawyer and member of the Board of Directors of the Salmon Association of Eastern Newfoundland,
made the
front page of the Evening
Telegram with his
statement that
the watershed management implemented on the Gander River could
lead to
privatization (Evening
Telegram June 16,
1997).
Also,
residents from one end of the province to the other have resisted
the
move to control watersheds. For example, a large majority of residents on the Northern
Peninsula voted against the
establishment of community-watershed management in the Main Brook area (Northern Pen, April 22,1997). Similarly, the Treasurer of the Corner
Brook-based Salmon
Preservation Association of Western
Newfoundland (SPAWN),
Douglas Randell resigned in May, after calling
for SPAWN
to disassociate itself from the Salmonid Council, which
supports the implementation of community-watershed management rWestern
Star.
May 2,1997).
More
resistance to watershed management occurred in late 1996,
when
almost 1,000 people from the
Clarenville area signed a petition
against watershed
management/river privatization in Newfoundland.
This petition was presented in the House of Assembly by
the local MHA (Clarenville Packet. Dec.16, 1996). Also, people from the Gander River area have
complained about the effects of watershed management on local people,
such as
outfitters seeking land-ownership
rights along the Gander River (see letter to the editor of the Evening Telegram
July 5, 1997 by Donald J.
Blackmore) or special
early big
game hunting seasons for non-residents along the Gander River (letter to editor of
Evening Telearam May 3, 1997 from
Bruce Matthews).
Similarly,
the privatization of 21 provincial parks by the Government
in February, 1997 was
also highly unpopular with residents
of the province as seen in letters to the editor, rallys, petitions, advertisements against
privatization,
etc. Significantly, 9 of
the 21
parks privatized contained sections of or
bordered on salmon rivers, including Grand Codroy, River of Ponds, Fitzgerald's Pond, Sops Arm
(located at
the mouth of the Main
River
designated a heritage river) and Indian River. I will now examine the
link
between the environment and Newfoundlander's way of life.
Philosopher F.L. Jackson, in a book called Surviving Confederationf says that Newfoundland culture has been largely influenced by the natural environment of bogs, barrens, woods and rocky sea-coasts. Newfoundlander's lifestyles, values and choices, have been and continue to be shaped by the natural environment. Jackson states "Newfoundlanders are nature people in a way perhaps no other Canadians are" (1986:).
1The
European settlement of Newfoundland grew/developed around the
harvesting
of natural resources - cod fish primarily, but salmon, caribou, fur bearers (and of
course moose and rabbits after their
introduction) all played an important part in the diet and commerce of Newfoundland's European
settlers.
2
Most settlers were fisher
folk, but
hunting played an important part in their economic activity (see for example Nemec, 1993; Story,
1993). The early settlers' diets in
large part consisted of fish, game
and the natural vegetation of
the land
(Story, 1993).
For
example,
sea-birds and their eggs were a vital part of people's diets. The great
auk was
used for food, bait, feather mattresses,
and
oil (Montevecchi and Tuck, 1987:211).
Similarly, the native caribou,
either fresh
or salted, was the main source of
meat
for many of
the inhabitants of Newfoundland. One writer at the turn
of the
century theorized that "Newfoundland is probably the only country in
the
world where venison, salted or fresh, is a staple
article of diet for the masses" (McGrath, 1902:63). Saunders (1986:237) relates that at the end of the 1800s,
settlers on the northeast
coast of the island took caribou
whenever they needed it. Moose
was introduced to the island in 1878 and 1904 (Pimlott, 1953:563), and subsequently
replaced caribou as the most important big
game species (Peters and King, 1959:3-4).
Horwood (1986) also discusses the importance of moose to
the outport
diet. Similarly, the snowshoe hare or rabbit was introduced in
the mid-1860s
and became an important source
of fresh meat
in winter to those living along
the
coast and on offshore islands (Saunders, 1986:160).
Not
only
were wildlife resources important food items, but the sale
of rabbits, partridge and caribou was also a source of income for
residents
[see for example: McGrath (1911:195);
Butler (1980:90-101); and Saunders (1986:160-163)]. Newspaper
editor P.T. McGrath left the following description
of the
winter caribou hunt on
the south
coast of the island:
This
south coast deer hunt is a regular
industry, like the catching of
cod or
lobster. The settlers are fitted out for it by their merchants
just as
they are for the other pursuits
named. The
outfits consist of advances of requisites for the hunters
families, the
deer killed being turned over to the merchant on the close of the hunt
to
offset advances received...the product of the hunt is then loaded on
dog teams
and hauled out to the coast,
where the
outfitters ship the meat to St. John's, there to be sold on the
open market
for what it will fetch. In
January, 1900,
the mail steamer...brought 411 and 575 carcasses
in two
shipments.. .choice cuts of venison
can be
bought for five cents a pound (McGrath, 1902:64).
Clearly,
wildlife resources were highly important to residents around the turn of the twentieth
century.
Historically,
wildlife resources
also influenced settlement patterns in Newfoundland. For example, Don
Downer's
recent book about the community
of Sandy
Point in Bay St. George, says that the presence of near-by
salmon rivers
attracted settlers to the area (Downer,
1997). Similarly,
Nemec (1993) says that the presence of large
seal herds
helped draw European settlers to the north-east coast of Newfoundland.
Wildlife
resources are also
symbolically important to Newfoundlanders
(Ashton, 1986; McGrath, 1997).
For example, many geographic
sites
are named after animals (e.g.
Deer
Lake, Black Duck Brook, etc.).
Significantly, caribou heads appeared on the Regimental
Badges of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, and a caribou statue stands at Beaumont Hamel, the
site of the
WWI battle where so many
of the
Regiment or "Blue Puttees" were slaughtered on July 1, 1916.
To commemorate the Regiment's
service in
WWI, Newfoundland issued stamps with caribou on them (see
McGrath, 1997 for a full discussion of the symbolic importance
of wildlife).
Wildlife
resources have been and continue to be an important part
of the male socialization process in Newfoundland. Many young males
grow up
going in the woods hunting and angling with their fathers, uncles, older brothers and
friends. That is, hunting
and angling continue to be an important part of the male role
in contemporary Newfoundland.
Today
in Newfoundland, large numbers of
people still engage in
wildlife-related
activities like hunting,
angling, canoeing, etc. Statistics
Canada surveys have consistently
indicated high participation
rates by Newfoundlanders in
wildlife-related activities
(see for example, Filion et al., 1987). Similarly, the 1994 LGL Report (Strategy
for Development of the Recreational Fisheries in Newfoundland and
Labrador) says that
resident trout and
salmon angling contribute approximately $100
million to the provincial
economy
(Cooper, 1997).
The
importance of wildlife-related activities in contemporary Newfoundland
has been made clear in the 1995 book Living on the Edge;
the Great
Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland by
MUN sociologists Larry Felt and
Peter Sinclair. Felt and Sinclair surveyed
residents of the Northern Peninsula and found that two of the
factors people
liked most about living on the Northern Peninsula
were the close proximity to the outdoors and outdoor-related activities, and the sense of
freedom
associated with this. Clearly,
Newfoundlanders continue to enjoy a close relationship with the outdoors, and resources like
ponds,
rivers, trout, salmon, big
and small
game, still figure prominently in people's lives. I now turn to a brief
examination of the history of outdoor tourism in Newfoundland.
An
Historical Overview of Consumptive
Outdoor Tourism
3 By
the late 1800s Newfoundland's "great outdoors" had become
part of
the tourist industry. For example, Seymour (1980:34)
argues
that since
the
1800s there have been "more-or-less vigorous attempts to promote
tourism in the province... based initially on hunting, fishing
and the climate." To a colony looking to diversify its economy
beyond the fishery, the seemingly inexhaustible supply of game,
fish and wilderness appeared as an attractive development alternative.4
The railroad company played an important part
in transforming
the caribou into a tourist resource, as the
trans-island
line (virtually completed by 1898) had opened up the interior, allowing access to the
migrating
caribou herds.
The
railway company was a big booster of the outdoor tourist industry
and produced some of the first tourist promotional literature,
which described Newfoundland as a "sportsman's
paradise abundant
in caribou and other game"
(Pocius, 1994; Overton, 1996).
For
example, the
Reid Newfoundland Company produced Fishing and Shooting
in Newfoundland and Labrador
(1903), the
main object of which was
"give
the angler and huntsman some idea of the great sporting country of Newfoundland and
Labrador."5
Evidence which
5
Pocius' (1994) essay
provides an excellent account of the promotional work of the railroad
company.
supports
the
argument that the Newfoundland government viewed wildlife
as
economic commodities is found in the Legislative Council
Proceedings on the debate of the 1910 Game Board Bill. The elected
representative who introduced second reading of this Bill stressed
that the colony's wildlife needed protection, since it was a
valuable economic asset that could help increase tourist traffic (Newfoundland,
1910a:
686-687). The famous Judge Prowse also wrote about the potential benefits of
outdoor
tourism in his History
of
Newfoundland:
To
the sportsman,
the tourist, the angler, and the canoeist,
the new
railway will offer unrivalled attractions.
For the hunter of
big game there is the noble
cariboo, a species of reindeer
peculiar to the island;
they range over the woods and
barrens in countless
thousands, the whole interior is
one vast deer park...our
island offers
some of the finest grouse shooting
in America (Prowse, 1895:632-633).
Clearly,
wildlife resources were important
economic commodities to Newfoundland's
government by the early
twentieth century. However, this
conflicted with
resident's interest in wildlife resources. Recall
from the
discussion of Newfoundland culture above, that hunting
wildlife played an important part in Newfoundlander's lives,
as both a food source, and a source of income. However, this is
not to imply wildlife resources were unregulated by government.
Game
laws
were first enacted in Newfoundland on April 23,
1845,
when "An Act for the Protection of the Breeding of Wildfowl in
this Colony" was passed (Peters and Burleigh, 1951:31). On April 20, 1859,
"An Act for the Protection of the Breeding of Wildfowl and Preservation of Game" was passed.
This
1859 Act recognized the rights
of
"poor settlers" to take wildlife resources whenever
necessary to feed their famalies
(Montevecchi and Tuck, 1987:213).
The
special rights of "poor settlers" continued to be recognized in wildlife
laws, until they were amended in 1899, after which time "poor settlers" were not mentioned
specifically
in wildlife legislation (See: McGrath,
1997; Overton, 1980:44-45). That is, the early
law-makers recognized that wildlife resources were an extremely important part of the
settlers'
lifestyle. However, by the
early
twentieth century, wildlife resources had been transformed from a resource free for the
taking into a
recreational/sporting
resource
governed by laws. The laws in place by the early 1900s specified when
wildlife
could be taken, how much might
be
taken and in what manner.
However,
residents of the island did not discontinue harvesting
wildlife resources after the implementation of the game laws.
In fact, there is much evidence which demonstrates that the game
laws were not closely adhered to. For example, a newspaper item
concerning the "slaughter of caribou" on the south
coast, reported
that a policeman from St. John's
had been sent to the area to investigate reports of poaching (The
Evening
Chronicle. February 18, 1910).
In a like manner, the first Annual
Report of a sportsman's
organization,
the Game Protection Society, states that the Society had played a role in
bringing a man to trial for illegally purchasing caribou. The
accused was
convicted and fined $200.00
or six
weeks in jail (Evening Telegram, August 3, 1891). Similarly,
the Game Board Report for 1914 stated that deer were being killed throughout the year, for
both
consumption and for sale
Thus,
there was social tension and
conflict surrounding the use of wildlife resources in Newfoundland by
the early
twentieth century. Settlers
involved in a
subsistence lifestyle saw wildlife resources as a source of
food and
income, while government and tourism
supporters saw the same resources as important components of the tourist trade.
<>However, despite resident opposition and resistance to the game laws, the interest in tourism based on Newfoundland's outdoors may have intensified in the 1940s. For example, Overton suggests (pers.comm.) that military personnel stationed in Newfoundland during WWII may have done a lot of hunting and fishing, thus contributing to interest in developing that sector. Around this time, the Tourist Development Board of the Department of Natural Resources hired a professional sportsman, Lee Wulff, to promote the country's wildlife resources to the North American market (Overton, 1996). Government interest in consumptive outdoor tourism may have waned a little in the 1950s and '60s, as mega-projects were looked to as economic generators. However, this is not meant to imply that this sector (or tourism in general) was ignored. Overton's (1996) work on tourism and development in Newfoundland suggests that Premier Smallwood's government was interested in developing the tourism sector, but approached it slowly and cautiously. Overton (1996) says that Small wood "had"a 'go-slow' approach to tourism
<>development,
waiting for improvements in
transportation like the Trans-Canada Highway. However, by the late
1970s, this
hesitancy had
been transformed into a more decisive
attitude toward tourism development, which has been maintained into the
1980s
and 1990s.
Having
completed this sketch
of the history of outdoor tourism, I will
now briefly
review some recent social scientific literature on natural
resource development and social conflict.
There
is a large body of literature on the
conflicts surrounding the
management and development of natural
resources (see for example:
Novek and Kampen, 1992;
Novek,
1995; White, 1993; Penning-Rowsell, 1994; Naeser
and Smith, 1995; Akama et al.,
1995; Sinclair and Palmer, 1996; Lach,
1996; Goulay, 1997; Genoval, 1997).
This body of work can help us understand
the conflict and tension surrounding
the establishment of
community-watershed management in Newfoundland.
Sociologist
Denise Lach (1996:211-212) says "environmental conflict
occurs when decisions about the allocation of resources are made." Lach also makes the
excellent
point that social conflicts
over
resources can have positive results. For example, fairer resource allocation may result.
White's
(1993) research
examines how tourism might be used as an
economic development tool for the Native American people living on the Havasupai Reserve, near Grand
Canyon
National park in Arizona.
The study
shows the complexity of tourism as an economic development
strategy, and identifies that
there may be trade-offs associated
with tourism development. For
example, a protected area may draw tourists to an area, but it may also
interfere with local traditional
activities like hunting. Overton (1978), and Olwig and Olwig (1978) make
similar points in their discussion about National Parks in Newfoundland, and the
Caribbean
respectively.
Penning-Rowsell's
(1994) work
examines the management of the River Wye, in the United
Kingdom. The
River Wye is not privately owned,
it is
totally open-access and is unique among UK rivers in this
respect. The
author uses the Wye as a case to test the "tragedy
of the commons" viewpoint. This view, put forth by Garret Hardin in 1968,
theorizes that what is open to
use by all, will
suffer from competitive over-exploitation.
Penning-Rowsell
(1994:635-37) says the River Wye is a popular destination
for both canoeists and anglers, and the main conflict on the
river is
between these two groups. [Both groups also said they had conflicts
with
riparian owners]. For example, anglers complain
that canoeists ruin the fishing by boating through pools. The author used a questionnaire
survey to test
the attitudes of 242 river
users,
mostly canoeists and anglers, concerning the conflict over river usage. Almost all the
canoeists
surveyed (99%) opposed compulsory
restrictions on their activities ((1994:639), while only 10% of the
anglers favoured
any more controls on fishing (1994:641).
Thus, despite the conflict,
resource users
on the River Wye, are against any further restrictions on their
activities (1994:641). Also, the author concludes on note
more optimistic
than
that
implied by
Hardin's theory of a common resource. That is, on the
River Wye, canoeists and anglers have come to grudgingly accept each
other, and realize the need to share the river, so the "tragedy" predicted by Hardin is not
readily apparent.
Another
good
example of social conflicts over natural resources
comes from Akama et al.'s
(1995) research
on Nairobi and Tsavo National Parks in Kenya. The authors
interviewed
157 local people and 44 park
officials and
found that less than 20% of local people
reported a good relationship with park management, while 57% stated the parks should be abolished (1995:139). While the National parks are
vital to Kenya's tourism industry,
there is clearly conflict over them. For example, farmers who live near
park
boundaries suffer crop damage, livestock loss, or even have a friend or family member injured by
wildlife (1995:139).
The authors conclude by
saying that people living near the two parks have very strong negative views, and that the
Kenya Wildlife
Service faces an uphill
battle for
the support of the people. It is suggested that the government of Kenya
initiate steps to integrate wildlife as a positive factor in the lives of the
people living near parks (Akama et al.,1995:142-144).
While
Akama
et al. (1995) suggest a path for resolving the resource
conflict they studied, research from Thailand, and from Newfoundland, indicates resolving
resource use conflicts may not be easy.
For example, Tungittiplakorn (1995)
focused on conflicts between
high-landers
and low-landers in the Mai Soi River watershed in northern
Thailand. The
author interviewed 150 villagers and
found
that the
low-land rice farmers blamed the people of the highland
for destroying the forest and contaminating the river, while the
high-landers indicated a broader set of socio-political reasons for
the dispute (1995:282-285). For this reason, the author concludes
that resolving the conflict will be difficult because the parties involved have different
perceptions of
it.
Similarly,
Palmer and Sinclair (1995) interviewed 61 dragger skippers on the northwest coast of
Newfoundland
concerning their attitudes
about the
cod moratorium in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the future of the fishery. The
authors say that until the mid-1960s, the
fishery on the northwest coast of Newfoundland was carried out by families in small
boats, using
stationary gear. After 1965, some
modern fishing draggers began to appear along the northwest coast, and tension/conflict
developed
between the modern fishing
fleet
and the traditional fixed-gear fishers (1995:270-271). Like
the research on Thailand discussed above, Palmer and Sinclair found
that there
was a considerable lack of unity among the
61 dragger skippers interviewed concerning the state of the fish stocks, and how to manage the
future
fishery (1995:277).
The authors
say that the disunity is not surprising given the different material
interests
of the skippers. However, the fisher's different perceptions about the causes of the
crisis and the future fishery, suggest it will be difficult to
implement a
sustainable management system
involving resource users.
A
central
theme found in most resource management conflicts has
to do with the issue of how efforts to use resources to create
Essentially,
the argument is that the government must promote economic development
and must
also provide social programs for the benefit
of all, such as environmental
preservation. The latter goal has become particularly important
given
the heightened environmental
consciousness
in the world today, and given the fact that governments must
win
re-election. That is, some
degree of public acceptance of
government policies is
necessary in order for a government to stay in power. Of
course,
environmental preservation is
also
necessary to support economic growth over the long term, and to
win
public acceptance. However, the primary commitment
of government often seems to be economic growth.
The
controversy
surrounding the proposal to burn American waste in Long Harbour,
Placentia Bay
in the early 1990s, exemplifies
how
a plan to create jobs was unpopular with environmentally-conscious
voters. A
similar example is seen in Bailey et al.'s
(1992) research on a
hazardous waste
dump in Alabama, U.S.A. The
authors suggest that local leaders were chiefly concerned with
economic
benefits, while most citizens were concerned
with health hazards and environmental contamination.
The
body of research on natural resource
management issues can
help
us understand the conflicts that have
accompanied the establishment
of community-watershed
management in the late 1990s in
Newfoundland. Newfoundland
and Labrador is the poorest province in Canada and its unemployment
rate is
twice the national average. Obviously,
job creation is an
important issue, but at the same time,
the
government also has a mandate to protect the environment and
manage it for the sustained use of residents. Outdoor tourism has
been identified as a growth sector, and policies have been enacted
to maximize its benefits. However, these policies negatively
affect local hunters/anglers/voters.
For
example, outfitters may want access to rivers controlled so
that they can market quiet, uncrowded angling vacations. Calvin Yates,
Manager of Outdoor Product Development with the Provincial Government,
stated that the quiet, uncrowded wilderness experience is
important to the nonresident sports who visit here (interview, 10
October, 1997). On
the other hand, local anglers/hunters abhor the thought of loss of access to
"their" river. This
contradiction was
highlighted in a 1997 study
of the potential economic benefits of
angling on the Humber River, commissioned by the Salmonid Council.
Sixty-eight
percent of nonresident anglers surveyed favoured controlling access, while
eighty-seven percent of residents
were against controlling access
(Salmonid Council, 1997).
Similarly,
Penning-Rowsell's (1994) work
discussed above, shows
that in the
UK, neither canoeists or anglers favoured any more controls on access as a way to
minimize conflicts between the two groups. In addition, the
previously reviewed
work of Akama et al. (1995), White
(1993), Overton (1978),
and Olwig and Olwig (1978) all
show that local people have experienced some negative side-effects, as protected areas like
parks have
been developed and used
as part of a
region's tourism strategy.
The
issue of how best to use and
protect resources is a complex one. Famous conservationist Aldo Leopold
recognized this fact many years
ago:
Public
policies for outdoor recreation
are controversial. Equally conscientious citizens opposite views on
what it is
and what should be done to conserve its resource base (1966:259).
In
Newfoundland
today, equally conscientious citizens clearly hold different
views on how to manage the province's rivers. Many, many
local people have made it clear they are against privatization and
controlled
access to watersheds. At this point, I will now outline some
of the main problems associated with the establishment of community
watershed management.
The
first
major negative impact of community watershed management
for residents of Newfoundland and Labrador will be user fees.
For example, anyone wishing to fish for salmon on the Gander River
this year, had to pay twenty dollars for the river specific licence.
If some-one wanted to go fishing on other salmon rivers, they
had to purchase the regular salmon licence for twenty dollars. So,
if watershed management is established on six rivers across the province
for example, will it cost one hundred and twenty dollars
As
it now
stands, consultants have estimated that recreational angling
by
residents contributes 101 million to the provincial economy, while
non-resident
angling adds 5 million (LGL Report, 1994;
Cooper, 1997). Why is government
trying to get more money from
resident anglers, who already make a significant contribution to the provincial economy? And, when
we consider
that Newfoundland and Labrador is the poorest province in the
country
(highest unemployment rate and lowest average income based on
Statistics Canada
figures) why is government trying to further tax people's recreation with an extra user fee?
Cooper (1997:43) argues that based on the
experience in other provinces like
Quebec, "the cost to fish on a river could very well be out of the
reach
of the average Newfoundlander." Similarly, Owen Myers suggests that the
cost to fish could place rivers out of reach for many people (Evening Telegram, June
16, 1997).
A
second reason why community-watershed management stands to negatively
impact on local people is because the project is based on the idea of controlling resident
access to watersheds. That is,
residents will lose the free access
they now enjoy to watersheds throughout
their province. A variety of documents about watershed management also discuss controlling
resident
access (O'Brien, 1992; LGL,
1994; Salmonid Council, 1997). The main idea behind controlling access is that more
wealthy,
non-residents can be lured
to
the rivers by marketing "quiet, uncrowded
conditions." Proponents of watershed management also claim that
controlled
access is necessary to
protect/conserve
stocks.
For
example, Dave Vardy and Dave
Tulk in "Community-Based Management in the Gander River Watershed" (p.119)
state that "Angler crowding in key accessible pool clusters is
occurring
in several parts of the river."
Similarly, a 1992 discussion paper by Peter O'Brien, from the now defunct
Economic
Recovery Commission, entitled "A Community Based Salmon Sports
Fishery" discusses how river management should be carried out by
community
groups who would become
responsible for all
activities on the river (O'Brien, 1992:4).
O'Brien goes on to say:
To
ensure that outfitters would have a
marketable opportunity, the management group would have the
responsibility of
designating salmon pools for the exclusive use of outfitters and salmon
pools
for the exclusive use of
non-outfitter rods
(O'Brien, 1992:5).
The
previous year, O'Brien prepared a
report for the Economic Recovery Commission which recommended leasing
salmon
rivers to outfitters (O'Brien, 1991).
Similarly,
in "The Canada-Newfoundland Agreement for Community Watershed
Management" (by Alastair J. Allan) it is stated that the
recreational
fisheries resources of a watershed will be
available to
users on an "equal opportunity-for-access basis."
What does "equal opportunity-for-access" mean? Does it mean free and
open access? No. The 1994 LGL
Report (Buchanan etal.,
1994:186) states that "equal
access does not mean free or uncontrolled access." Does it mean
that everyone's name goes into a lottery for places on
salmon
pools, with
so many places (probably the best angling spots) set aside for
outfitters? If
such a lottery is run like our present big
game lottery,
it may not be fair to the resident (more below on this).
However, Allan is clear that the desires of residents are
not
a concern for him:
This
project is not about increasing the
pleasure of recreational
angling in
Newfoundland nor about increasing the amount of fish on the
Newfoundland
table (Allan, p.115).
Similarly,
the 1994 LGL Report (Strategy
for the
Development of the Recreational Fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador,
principal authors Buchanan
et al.) discusses
crowding by residents (1994:165)
and it states:
Local
anglers will have to compromise in
their use of quality fishing waters if economic benefits are to be
realized
from a nonresident fishery (Buchanan et al.,
1994:170).
This
report goes on to say that one goal
to enhance the 'fishing experience7 is controlling access
(Buchanan
et al.,1994:177). Significantly,
the present government has stated it will follow the policies
outlined
in the LGL Report (Liberal Red Book. 1995;
see also Cooper, 1997).
<>A
1997 report prepared for
the Salmonid Council on the
"Potential Benefits of Recreational Angling on the Humber River" also discusses controlling resident
access as a
way to enhance the nonresident
angling experience. This report interviewed 55 resident anglers
in a
three week period in July, 1997 along the Humber River, and 403 questionnaires were
mailed to nonresidents after the fishing
season had ended. Sixty-eight percent of nonresidents favoured
controlling
access, while eighty-seven percent of residents were against
controlling
access. (The research methods employed
in
this study are suspect, for example, why were so many more nonresidents
surveyed? I critique the study below).
Recall
from the above discussion of Newfoundland culture that in
the past and
in the present, outdoor related activities like angling, hunting, canoeing, etc.,
and the freedom associated with this
occupy a prominent place in people's lives. Therefore, resistance to the imposition of a
watershed management system which
will limit people's outdoor freedom is easily understood. Watershed management is not contributing
to social
harmony, and in fact, has created much social tension. Clearly,
residents of
Newfoundland do not want
access to
waterways controlled or limited in any way. To limit resident access to waterways is
to drastically alter the way Newfoundlanders
interact with the surrounding environment, an important
part of their culture.
Related
to
loss of resident access is the third major negative impact
of community-watershed management, namely the establishment of
special rights for outfitters. Community-watershed management is based
on the notion of expanding nonresident angling (Buchanan et al., 1994:155). As made
clear in the quotes given above from O'Brien
(1992:4-5), and Buchanan et al. (1994:170), local anglers are expected to
surrender
rights of access and freedom so that quiet, uncrowded salmon pools can
be
marketed to nonresident anglers.
I wonder
if local anglers are aware that they are expected to surrender
their
rights of access so that outfitters can sell more trips? I don't think
they
are. I have spoken to many individuals
and
groups who had not even heard of the LGL Report. Similarly,
Owen Myers told me that he spoke to many, many salmon anglers
this summer who had not heard of the LGL report or its recommendations.
Not
surprisingly,
as part of the Gander River Management scheme
established
this year, a special nonresident big game hunting
season
was announced in which nonresidents hunting from an outfitters7
camp along Gander River would be allowed to
hunt almost a
full month before residents. This early
hunt would have provided quiet,
uncrowded hunting conditions for the
outfitters' clients. However,
to the residents of the province,
this is really unfair, since
residents must enter a lottery to
apply for a moose or a caribou
license each year, and may wait two
or three years to obtain
the license and area they prefer to
hunt. Nonresidents on the other hand, can purchase a moose and a
caribou license
every year
from an outfitter.
And
it
seems that as resident quotas are reduced, nonresident quotas
are increased. For example, from 1991-96, wildlife division statistics indicate that nonresident
moose allocations increased by 356, while
resident moose quotas were reduced by almost 3,800 licenses! If moose licenses are
reduced by almost 3,800
for
conservation reasons, why
aren't
outfitters quotas reduced, or at the
least, maintained at existing levels? It is not fair that there are fewer available licenses for
residents to
apply for, while there are
more
licenses available for nonresidents to purchase; particularly, when you consider that
residents' tax dollars are
used
to fund the management and protection of our big
game herds.
Even
more
disturbing for residents is the fact that outfitters are
lobbying for other special rights. For example, the Secretary of
the Labrador Outfitters' Association, in an April 28, 1997 letter to then Minister of Forest
Resources,
Beaton Tulk, said that outfitters
should be exempt from the split tag rule for salmon fishing. At present, anglers purchase
a salmon
license and get six plastic
tags to
attach to the fish they kill.
Three of the tags are for the first half of the season, and
three are
for the second half. And
by the
second half of the season, many salmon have already moved up rivers to spawn, so
the angling is not as good. So in effect, the split-salmon tag rule
is a
conservation measure designed
to
ensure that salmon escape upstream to spawn. Thus, outfitters want to be free of the
constraints of
conservation rules.
Another
April 28, 1997
letter from the President of the
Labrador Outfitters7
Association, Len
Rich, to provincial Minister Beaton Tulk, and Federal Fisheries
Minister Fred
Mifflin, demanded that outfitters in the Straits of Belle Isle area be
exempted
from the no-retention of
large salmon
rule, and that the commercial fishery
in that area be closed, and that resident anglers only be allowed to retain small salmon.
Similar to the
issue of moose licenses
discussed
above, we have to wonder if salmon conservation is applied equally to all user groups?
A
fourth reason why we must be critical of community-watershed management
is because three of the main arguments used to support this
project are
seriously flawed. These three arguments are: (a)
watershed
management will have major economic impacts like creating jobs
at the local level; (b) watershed management is the best way to ensure that rivers are not
privatized; (c) watershed
management will provide better protection for salmonid
resources. I will
now critique each of these
points in turn.
A).
The idea that watershed
management will create jobs and have major economic impacts has been
well
criticized by the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife
Federation, Gordon Cooper
(Cooper, 1997). Cooper
says that watershed management is
modelled after the ZEC system in Quebec. A ZEC is a controlled harvesting
zone. Cooper says that most jobs created in ZECs are seasonal (around 12 weeks) with an
average salary of $8,000.
Since
the changes to the El program mean that seasonal workers will be
receiving reduced benefits for a shorter duration, Cooper raises two
excellent
questions when he asks; "Is
this
what rural people are supposed to live on? Is this Life after TAGS?" In
addition, the whole argument about the economic benefits of watershed management rests on vague,
questionable
assumptions about the value of a
salmon caught by an angler.
An
example
of the shoddy research used to bolster the argument about
the
"benefits" of recreational angling is seen in the Salraonid Council's
1997 study on the potential benefits of the recreational fishery on the
Number
River written by Gardener Pinfold
Consulting Economists of Nova Scotia. For example, do the numbers
of
residents (55) and
nonresidents (403)
surveyed
Similarly,
the 1994 LGL Report, which the provincial government
has
given a stated commitment to following, says in its "Recommended
Strategy" that the economic contribution of
angling has
been ignored in the past (Buchanan et al., 1994:165). This is clearly
not an accurate statement as made clear by the above discussion of the history of outdoor
tourism in
Newfoundland. In the
early 1900s, the
Railroad Company (Reid Newfoundland) was involved in promoting Newfoundland as
a "sportsman's
paradise." Similarly,
Lee
Wulff was hired in the 1940s to market angling and hunting opportunities in
Newfoundland. Clearly,
outdoor tourism based on
angling and
hunting has a long history in Newfoundland, and we can learn from that history,
an important point ignored by the authors of the LGL Report.
B).
Another argument used to promote community-watershed management
is that the project will actually prevent
privatization
from
occurring. However, I wonder if
privatization hasn't already begun?
After all,
the provincial government has down-loaded responsibility
for watersheds onto various groups like the Gander River
Management
Association (GRMA), which was responsible for selling
salmon licenses for the Gander River in the summer of 1997. Supposedly,
the money collected from license sales would go to GRMA for use
in river
maintenance, counting fish, etc. If GRMA has control over river
enhancement,
maintenance, licensing, etc., hasn't
privatization already happened? Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife
Federation
President Gordon Cooper also woonders if privatization
hasn't already begun in his recent essay on the topic (Cooper, 1997).
To
play devil's advocate, what if
we accepted the argument that community-watershed management was not
privatization; could privatization
result?
Yes, it could. The Assistant Deputy Minister for Natural
Resources, Dr.
M. Nazir, stated that if all stakeholders
involved in watershed management agreed to give part of a river
to
outfitter(s) then
government would
consider this (interview 10 October 1997).
(Again, I wonder that since the watershed management association has
such
decision-making power, hasn't the river system already been
privatized?) Based
on Dr. Nazir's comments, we see that government could wash its hands of
the highly controversial ssue of
watershed
management in this way; and,
some
people have asked for river privatization. For example, Calvin Yates, Manager of Outdoor
Product
Development reported that a
"couple of development associations" have quietly asked for river
privatization
in the interests of generaing economic returns
(interview 10 October 1997).
Similarly, a man who has been outfitting for thirty years said "there
are
some people within government and some outfitters, who would like to
privatize rivers."
It
is crucial to remember that community-watershed management is
about maximizing the economic returns from recreational angling, even
if this means privatizing. The Economic Recovery Commission of the
previous
provincial government recognized this in its 1991
O'Brien proposal, A Plan to Commercialize the Atlantic
Salmon Fishery
which recommended leasing rivers to outfitters. A year later, the ERG
and Mr.
O'Brien released A Community-based Salmon Sports
Fishery which
recommended setting
aside specific pools for outfitters.
Similarly, the 1994
LGL Report (Strategy fr
Developing the
Recreational Fisheries in Newfoundland and
Labrador) recommends limiting
resident access, reducing crowding and expanding nonresident angling trips sold through
outfitters.
C). A main point used to "sell" community watershed management is
that if rivers are left open-access, stocks of salmon and trout will
be
depleted. That is,
proponents claim
that watershed management is all
about
conservation. For example, the LGL Report states in large, bold-faced
print
that unless river management is changed, "BIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL
AND
FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS WILL FORCE CHANGE, MUCH OF WHICH WILL BE
NEGATIVE"
(Buchanan et al. , 1994:170).
This statement is what
sociologist Joel Best (1987;1989)
calls a range claim; it is an
attempt to make everyone in the
audience
feel like
a potential victim and thus get "on-side." The LGL
statement is essentially a threat; a rhetorical claim intended to
persuade people that unless we act now to control access, rivers will
be devastated by the rapacious public.
Similarly,
by claiming to be fighting for the issue of stock conservation,
proponents of watershed management establish themselves
as the "good guys" and any opponents immediately are against
conservation, and thus are the "bad guys." In fact,
this happened
to me while I was making my watershed management
presentation
to the Inland Fish and Wildlife Advisory
Council. The representative
of Partridge Forever, David
Moores, told me I was not a conservationist because I opposed the
watershed
management system.
Conservation is a motherhood issue,
and it's hard to argue against.
The idea that if resources like
salmon rivers are left open
access they will inevitably suffer from
competitive over-exploitation
is called the "tragedy of
the commons." I will now briefly
outline the
theoretical background of the"tragedy of the commons"
viewpoint, after which I will critique the main assumptions
of this model.
The
/Tragedy of the Commons7
According
to
Ophuls (1977:146) since
the distant past people have believed
that common resources tend to be abused. For example, the Greek philosopher Aristotle said
"What is
common to the greatest number
gets
the least amount of care" (quoted in Ophuls, 1977:145). This notion of the commons has played
an important part in debates surrounding a wide variety of
resources. Perhaps
the most significant
theoretical
statement on the commons was put forth by Garrett Hardin in a 1968
essay entitled "The Tragedy of
the Commons" (see: McCay and Acheson, 1987:1-2).
Hardin
based his ideas upon the work of a 19th century writer, W.F. Lloyd, who wondered why the
cows on a common pasture were so "puny" and the pasture itself worn
bare. Lloyd argued that such an outcome
was practically inevitable, since herdsmen seeking economic gains naturally increase the size of
their herds.
However, the common field
is finite
and has a fixed carrying capacity. Once this point is reached, then the addition of
more cattle causes the land to deteriorate, resulting in
destruction of the
farmer's livelihood. Even
though a
terrible outcome results, it makes sense for each individual to keep adding
animals to his herd, because the resulting personal gain outweighs the
share of
damage done to the pasture.
As well,
the damage is done to the entire pasture, and is thus spread
among all users.6
Even if a herdsman thinks
about the
<>6 Lloyd was referring to what are now referred to as EXTERNALITIES. This is the notion that people are unlikely to restrain their behaviour when they immediately benefit from their actions but the costs of their
<>behaviours passed on to society as a whole.
<>
<>Benefits
that might result from the
individual regulating
dire consequences of expanding his herd,
he may be driven by the notion that his neighbours will add to
their
herds, increasing their gains while he suffers the consequences of a
deteriorating pasture. Thus,
Lloyd concluded
that "competitive over-exploitation of the commons is the
inevitable result." This process of "competitive
over-exploitation" was said to apply to any common resource (Ophuls, 1977:146).
Ophuls
(1977:146) uses the oil pool as an
example to make his point clear. If exploitation rights are not
controlled by one individual or company, and if the exploiters can not
agree on
a logical method of resource extraction, then it is in each individual's best interest to get as
much of the
oil as he or she can. Failure to extract the "black gold" as
quickly as possible may result in other users depleting the stock and
leaving
the hesitant person empty-handed. Therefore, Ophuls argues, chaos abounded in the early days of the
American
"oil boom," as drillers competed fiercely with each other to
sink as many wells as possible.
The
confusion was remedied through the establishment of government
control
boards which appraised oil deposits and allocated
quotas to owners. Thus, the "answer" to the "tragedy of the commons" was increased government
management (1977:146).
Therefore,
the "tragedy" is seen as inevitable for many (all?)
common
resources, unless some intervention in
the mechanics of the
their
behaviour
are not clearly seen (McCay and Acheson, 1987:3).
Pollution
is a good example of "externalities." The cost to
control emissions
from a factory is much larger than
the proportionate share
of environmental damage passed on to
a factory owner, i.e. it
pays the owner to pollute
(Ophuls, 1977:147).
common
property
occurs, or unless the commons is transformed into private
property. Thus, this theory has been used to support arguments
that increased government intervention was needed to deal
with the issues of population, society and environment. At the same time,
an apparently contradictory idea was presented; that government
should leave this role to the private sector. Privatization,
it is argued, increases individual responsibility for
both the environment and increases the likelihood of the wise use
of resources.
Critique
of the "Tragedy of the
Commons" Model
Hardin's
"tragedy of the commons," has been heavily criticized (McCay
and Acheson, 1987;
Marchak,
1987;
and
Berkes, 1987;
1989).
McCay
and Acheson (1987:6-10)
state that Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" is a model and is
therefore
simplified and abstract. The
authors
suggest that we cannot generalize to all cases from the model without considering many
questions. For
example, are there rules
governing the
use of the commons? Do alternatives to resource exploitation exist? Are
there
means of observing and regulating the actions
of people in a commons situation? Acheson and McCay assert that ignoring such questions (which
are
assumptions of the model) leads
to
the erroneous conclusion that because people are involved in common property activity, a tragedy
of the
commons will result (1987:7).
McCay and Acheson outline several
false
assumptions made by the
model.
Another
faulty assumption made by the tragedy model is that resource
users are selfish, unrestricted by community norms and attempt
to increase short-term gains (McCay and Acheson, 1987:7).
That
is, the ability of people to cooperate in
common
property situations is
underestimated or ignored. This in turn may lead to a tendency to ignore social,
historical and
institutional analysis. For
example,
the work of Berkes (1987;
1989) on the James Bay
Cree,
Similarly,
the authors of the LGL
Report clearly take a dim view of Newfoundlander's conservation ethic.
That is, the LGL report
seems to "tar all
Newfoundlanders with the one brush" and paint them as lacking any kind
of
a conservation ethic. I don't mean
to
romanticize here, obviously, there are some people who will take
as much
of a resource as they can, however, is this a characteristic
of all residents? For example, I know many residents who oppose
catch
and release salmon angling because they fear it kills many fish. Are these people
lacking a conservation ethic, or are
the bureaucrats and politicians who permit catch and release without a conservation ethic?
Yet
another
misleading assumption involved in the "tragedy" model
is the idea that resource use is so intense that the rate of exploitation
exceeds the natural rate of replenishment and that over-exploitation is possible (McCay
and Acheson, 1987:7;
Berkes,
1987:67). Again the work of both Berkes (1987) and
Shiva (1991) demonstrate
that
this assumption is problematic. We need look no farther than Rennie's
River
system in St. John's to see that the "tragedy
of the commons" does not have to occur. Rennie's River has
the
highest densities of brown trout in the
world, runs right through
the University campus and city, and
is totally open-access.
A
final faulty assumption in the "tragedy of the commons" model
is the idea that the solution to the tragedy lies in external intervention
and privatization of property (McCay and Acheson, 1987:9). Implicit here is the notion that
private ownership protects
resources
from abuse and degradation. However, privatization
does not ensure conservation occurs. For example, Palmer and Sinclair's (1997) book
When the Fish are Gone, examines the northwest Newfoundland fishery
and it states that in 1984,
the
DFO implemented the
enterprise
allocation or boat quota system to regulate
the dragger (or trawler) fleet. Palmer and Sinclair
say that theoretically,
this was an attempt to
introduce a degree of private
property ownership in the hopes of avoiding competitive over-exploitation. However, this
technique
failed, providing more evidence
that
privatization does not ensure resource conservation.
Similarly,
Shiva's research on "wasteland development" in Bengal,
India argues that external control of the commons by the government
did not prevent destruction of the common forest, instead
it helped accelerate resource exploitation (1991:173-178).
The
notion that privatization will solve the
tragedy of the commons reduces
causes of environmental problems to
systems of property rights,
and common property status is not a
viable explanation for resource
depletion (McCay and Acheson, 1987:7). For example, Berkes work on the Cree of James Bay, clearly
shows that
neither the "tragedy of
the
commons," or sustainable resource use are
Berkes
(1987:87-88)
writes
that the "tragedy of the
commons" in
not inevitable (see also Berkes, 1989). This not only implies another criticism of Hardin's model,
but also
raises the question as
to why so
much attention has been focused on the model? That is, if
this "tragedy of the commons" model is so badly flawed, why has it occupied such a prominent place in
thinking
about natural resources?
Berkes
suggests two explanations; first, people tend to be fascinated with tragedies and
disasters. Secondly, western culture
tends to overemphasize competition and underemphasize cooperation, and this may be
influencing
scientists' views (1989:72).
Since the "tragedy of the
commons"
model is faulty, then we
cannot
accept the argument that limiting resident access or privatizing rivers is necessary to
conserve
stocks.
I
am not against conservation; nobody wants another cod crisis.
However, resource depletion will not inevitably follow from a
system of open-access. For example, as mentioned above, Rennie's River
in St.
John's
is totally
open-access and, according to now retired
DFO
scientist John Gibson, it has the highest concentrations
of
brown trout in North America. Significantly, Rennie's
River and other rivers in and around St. John's have suffered
degrading abuses. Quite often this abuse has originated from
various levels of government (not the "rapacious"
Newfoundland public)
which have permitted the city's
rivers to be used as open-sewers,
to be ditched, or
buried underground in culverts. For
example,
visit the section of Waterford
River behind the train station
on Water Street West to see samples
of raw sewage flowing down to the harbour, or visit the section of
Kelly's
Brook behind the
outfield of St. Pat's Ball park, which
has been uncovered to allow
the river to clean itself before it
enters Rennie's River.
I
also want
to make clear that this paper is not meant to diminish
the excellent conservation work done by individuals/groups in
the past. For example, as Wildlife Federation President Gordon Cooper
has pointed out (Cooper, 1997), the work done in the Indian Bay eco-system to rebuild trout stocks
has been
great.
However,
watershed management is not only, or even primarily, about
resource conservation. Rather it is about maximizing the economic
returns from recreational angling, in particular nonresident
angling. Thus, we can reasonably expect to see increasing
user fees, and concessions like special seasons or controlled
access made to outfitters so that they can make more money.
This is not only unpopular, but very unfair to the residents of
Canada's poorest province, who have such a tradition of intense interaction
with the countryside and its resources.
Government,
and groups like the Salmonid Council (which has a high
percentage of outfitters among its membership and thus has a vested
interest in rivers) have attempted to sell watershed management
using the promise of jobs, the idea that watershed managemment
will prevent privatization, and that resource conservation
will result. However, this paper has made clear that the
economic benefits of watershed management have been over-
stated,
that resource
depletion will not inevitably result under an open
access
system, and that privatization of rivers has begun under
the euphemism of "community-watershed management."
Darrin
M. McGrath has a Master's degree in
sociology from Memorial University
of Newfoundland. The author's MA
research was supported by
a research grant from the Institute of
Social and Economic Research
at MUN, a Graduate Fellowship from
MUN, and by a scholarship
from the Canadian Wildlife
Federation. The author has published
several peer-reviewed
articles on wildlife management in Newfoundland.