Is the commercial salmon fishery still viable?

[searun]

Salmon (BC) fishery | Pacific Region | Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Salmon (BC) fishery

www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Doing some research to better understand the economic contributions of the recreational fishery, comparing performance and benefits to the commercial salmon fishery. There are some surprising facts that I'm learning. It is making me wonder more and more if the commercial salmon fishery - especially for key note species such as Chinook and Coho, are viable or a good use of Canada's limited salmon resource.

Some take aways from the above DFO Economics Branch analysis....

DIrect GDP = $12 million
Direct employment = 881
Number of vessels that are active (all types) = 448
Change in vessel participation since 2019 - 2023 = Gillnet -63%; Seine -69%; Troll -43%. Wow, this is a significant and shocking reduction in the fleet and jobs
In 2023 landed salmon - 55% were exported to the US - Not exactly Tariff proof. (wild not farmed salmon btw)
Direct household income = $7.9 million

Interesting, so $7.9 million in direct household income divided by the 881 people employed within the fishery amounts to .....$8,967.08 per person. Hardly any form of living wage. Then I got around to thinking, well they could augment that with EI earnings...so I got an estimate and that is $235/week x 26 weeks, or an additional $6,110 for a grand total of $15,077.08. How on earth can someone live on that?

I guess the fishery has declined now to the point where for many participants this way of life is now not really viable, or they must be subsidizing this very modest income with other forms of employment. I suppose the trollers at least could go out for albacore as a means to increase their earnings and insurable weeks of employment to increase EI benefits.

That leads me to a few obvious questions to ponder:

Is the commercial salmon fishery viable?

Given the current state of the fishery that does not generate a living wage for those participating within it - why is Canada going to such great lengths to subsidize an industry that uses so many salmon, yet produced so few benefits back to Canada? How does this continue to make any sense?

Is there a wiser use for the limited salmon resource that allows Canada to better optimize benefits it could receive from our west coast salmon fisheries?

Thoughts??

 

[Fish Bait]

Salmon (BC) fishery | Pacific Region | Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Salmon (BC) fishery

www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Doing some research to better understand the economic contributions of the recreational fishery, comparing performance and benefits to the commercial salmon fishery. There are some surprising facts that I'm learning. It is making me wonder more and more if the commercial salmon fishery - especially for key note species such as Chinook and Coho, are viable or a good use of Canada's limited salmon resource.

Some take aways from the above DFO Economics Branch analysis....

DIrect GDP = $12 million
Direct employment = 881
Number of vessels that are active (all types) = 448
Change in vessel participation since 2019 - 2023 = Gillnet -63%; Seine -69%; Troll -43%. Wow, this is a significant and shocking reduction in the fleet and jobs
In 2023 landed salmon - 55% were exported to the US - Not exactly Tariff proof. (wild not farmed salmon btw)
Direct household income = $7.9 million

Interesting, so $7.9 million in direct household income divided by the 881 people employed within the fishery amounts to .....$8,967.08 per person. Hardly any form of living wage. Then I got around to thinking, well they could augment that with EI earnings...so I got an estimate and that is $235/week x 26 weeks, or an additional $6,110 for a grand total of $15,077.08. How on earth can someone live on that?

I guess the fishery has declined now to the point where for many participants this way of life is now not really viable, or they must be subsidizing this very modest income with other forms of employment. I suppose the trollers at least could go out for albacore as a means to increase their earnings and insurable weeks of employment to increase EI benefits.

That leads me to a few obvious questions to ponder:

Is the commercial salmon fishery viable?

Given the current state of the fishery that does not generate a living wage for those participating within it - why is Canada going to such great lengths to subsidize an industry that uses so many salmon, yet produced so few benefits back to Canada? How does this continue to make any sense?

Is there a wiser use for the limited salmon resource that allows Canada to better optimize benefits it could receive from our west coast salmon fisheries?

Thoughts??

You have already already answered your first question when citing the fleet reduction.

 

[Hardy Guy]

You also have to remember that FN commercial fisheries are more about employment and EI than making larger sums of money. They dont have to make what a person that had to buy licenses and a boat and maintain said vessel.

 

[IronNoggin]

Although I loved the life, I am somewhat happy that I no longer am.
I was one of the last to get out.
Those that remain are dying a slow death now...

 

[Whole in the Water]

Growing FN commercial fishing activities may result as a form of reconciliation methinks. Otherwise Searun is right how would one make a living at it as it is now, let alone maintain your fishing boat?

 

[searun]

More interesting comparisons between commercial gear types - pulled this data from DFO Economics Branch report/study regarding the economic viability of commercial (salmon only) gear types. They gathered data from a sample of 379 active vessels - considering there are 448, that is a robust sample size. This doesn't include earnings from Employment Insurance, simply examines the total fishing revenues, expenses and calculates net revenue.

Not much return back to either the folks fishing and for that matter to Canada. Sure makes me ponder if commercial salmon fishing is a wise use of a limited salmon resource.

Revenue/Expense/Earnings (average of all vessels)	Gillnet Fishery	Seine Fishery	Troll Fishery
Total fishing revenues	$12,100	$50,300	$64,500
Total operating expenses	$16,100	$49,600	$47,300
Net Revenue	$(4,100)	$700	$17,200
Earnings (EBITDA*)	$(13,900)	$(25,700)	$1,200
Active Vessels in population	182	33	164
Total Salmon landed	64,295	154,766	240,494

*EBITDA – Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization

 

[Capt_Ed]

Although I loved the life, I am somewhat happy that I no longer am.
I was one of the last to get out.
Those that remain are dying a slow death now...

Like Nog, I miss the life every single day and I have been out for 25 years. The writing was on the wall even back then.

 

[Squire]

The numbers certainly make the question of commercial viability valid. Now as a devil’s advocate I’d point out that profitability isn’t the only metric to consider as ‘operating expenses’ represent money circulated in the local economy. The numbers on that chart total $12,324,200 and assuming the unreported vessels are distributed along the same types, the total expenditures would be $14,567,920 or $26.82 per salmon caught.

My own annual expenditures lead me to believe the economic output per salmon would be significantly higher for the rec sector. Add guides to the equation and the number just increases.

Of course this brings up the big question: If commercial salmon fishing was dramatically reduced or even eliminated, would the rec sector replace the economic output? (In order for this answer to be positive some of the TAC would have to be reallocated to the rec sector)

Is either scenario sustainable? (A much more complicated question but it could be argued that less salmon need to be caught if the sector with the highest economic output per salmon had more opportunity).

And for the social impact: I’ve heard the argument that if there was no commercial salmon fishery, only the folks who could afford to salmon fish could eat salmon. Of course this would be outside of FNs and with the price of salmon in the grocery store it would already appear to be a luxury.

 

[searun]

Great questions. The total wild commercial salmon fishery harvest was a total of 459,555 salmon. Comparatively, the Recreational fishery in 2021 harvested 335,649 salmon (all species), of which Northern BC accounted for 28,856 Chinook and 27,610 coho; Southern BC accounted for 130,002 Chinook and 48,508 coho. Quick summary of value per landed fish in contribution to GDP - comparing commercial to recreational.....

Sector GDP Contribution (2022)	Fish Harvested (2021)	$ GDP Contribution/Fish
Commercial (all species) - $189.8 x 7.9% (salmon only) = $14.99 million	459,555	$32.6/fish
Recreational - $343.7 million (*combined fresh and saltwater)	335,649*	$1,023.98/fish
Recreational - $180 million (saltwater only)	335,649	$536.27/fish

The combined Recreational fishery (fresh + saltwater) accounted for $343.7 million contribution to real GDP (2022), whereas the combined commercial fishery which includes all species of fish accounted for $189.8 million, a difference of +$153.9 million. Closer analysis of total commercial GDP contribution, however, reveals fisheries for crab, prawn, tuna, halibut, geoduck accounts for 66.9% of the total GDP. The once dominant salmon fishery now contributes only 7.9% to the total commercial GDP contribution. Therefore, 7.9% of the total commercial GDP, which is attributed to the commercial salmon fishery equates to $14.99 million in GDP contributions to Canada.

The reason I highlighted that the total commercial GDP was $189.8 million is because that includes every species caught in commercial fisheries (prawn, tuna, halibut, crab, and salmon etc). If you look more closely the commercial salmon fishery has been in a state of significant decline for some time now and when we remove all other commercial landings it results in a much lower GDP contribution to Canada.

Any way you cut the numbers, the recreational fishery generates 25 x more GDP and significantly more jobs (+8,119) than does the commercial salmon fishery. There are a number of economic studies that examined which species were driving the benefits to Canada within the recreational fishery and it is clear that over 80% of the benefits are associated to anglers pursuing Chinook and Coho as the primary species driving their fishing activity.

Seems to me that government and the courts are looking to shift access to salmon to FN's as a reconciliation currency.

If that is in fact the agenda, those fish will need to come from somewhere. Seems to me that a fundamental principle in determining where to pull fish that are to be allocated to meet the reconciliation requirements of government would be to use economic and social contributions (Jobs and GDP) guide those decisions.

Should those re-allocations come from the recreational community or the commercial salmon community?

 

[onefish]

The commercial fishery has been actively reallocated to FN for quite some time now, and this continues to this day.
The gulf used to be open on April 15th for commercial trolling, ( now closed with no catch anymore )
The west coast used to be open from April 15th - Oct 1 ( now there is a very limited fishery for the few guys that are left)
The north coast used to be open from April 15th - Oct ( now there is a very limited fishery that opens on Aug 16th when 95% of the chinook have already gone by )
The biggest fishery for BC chinook now happens in SE Alaska and there is zero chance the yanks will shut that down.

So to answer your question, DFO has already choked off the commercial fishery to a dwindling handful, and those that are left are being bought out and the quotas are being given to FN. DFO doesn't have to officially close commercial fishing for salmon, they just have to continue what they have been doing, to bankrupt, or coerce, the last few guys off the water.

The bigger question moving forward is how many salmon do FN catch? Good luck finding accurate data on that front.

From a sportfishing perspective, it appears to me that it has never been easier to go and catch salmon. The problem is DFO made the seasons so short, and closed so many areas, and imposed so many restrictions, that finding somewhere to legally fish has become much more difficult.

 

[SG2.0]

Salmon (BC) fishery | Pacific Region | Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Salmon (BC) fishery

www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Doing some research to better understand the economic contributions of the recreational fishery, comparing performance and benefits to the commercial salmon fishery. There are some surprising facts that I'm learning. It is making me wonder more and more if the commercial salmon fishery - especially for key note species such as Chinook and Coho, are viable or a good use of Canada's limited salmon resource.

Some take aways from the above DFO Economics Branch analysis....

DIrect GDP = $12 million
Direct employment = 881
Number of vessels that are active (all types) = 448
Change in vessel participation since 2019 - 2023 = Gillnet -63%; Seine -69%; Troll -43%. Wow, this is a significant and shocking reduction in the fleet and jobs
In 2023 landed salmon - 55% were exported to the US - Not exactly Tariff proof. (wild not farmed salmon btw)
Direct household income = $7.9 million

Interesting, so $7.9 million in direct household income divided by the 881 people employed within the fishery amounts to .....$8,967.08 per person. Hardly any form of living wage. Then I got around to thinking, well they could augment that with EI earnings...so I got an estimate and that is $235/week x 26 weeks, or an additional $6,110 for a grand total of $15,077.08. How on earth can someone live on that?

I guess the fishery has declined now to the point where for many participants this way of life is now not really viable, or they must be subsidizing this very modest income with other forms of employment. I suppose the trollers at least could go out for albacore as a means to increase their earnings and insurable weeks of employment to increase EI benefits.

That leads me to a few obvious questions to ponder:

Is the commercial salmon fishery viable?

Given the current state of the fishery that does not generate a living wage for those participating within it - why is Canada going to such great lengths to subsidize an industry that uses so many salmon, yet produced so few benefits back to Canada? How does this continue to make any sense?

Is there a wiser use for the limited salmon resource that allows Canada to better optimize benefits it could receive from our west coast salmon fisheries?

Thoughts??

Will reiterate this to our MP this weekend when I see him

 

[searun]

Doing some more pondering and digging on this. These days with government reconciliation and the many court decisions it is clear to me that the future fishery will be one that is shared between First Nations and the Recreational fishing community. I honestly don't see the commercial fishery as being viable, nor a wise use of the limited salmon resource. The best economic rent Canada can derive (considering the present environment) from the salmon fishery is to optimize those benefits through the FN and Recreational fisheries.

Seems to me that harvest and access to fish decisions must reflect a core principle of evaluating apportionment based on the wisest use of Canada’s limited salmon resource measured by which fishery (and harvest allotment) best contributes to providing Canada with the best social and economic benefits per landed fish.

Looking closely at the 25 year historic salmon catch for each sector it is clear that the commercial fishery has been allocated more salmon, while providing 25x less economic benefit measured in GDP & jobs than the recreational fishery. The data below illustrates the catch apportionment between sectors. 51.2% of Chinook and 57.4% of landed Coho have over past 25 years gone to the Commercial fishery producing considerably less economic benefits than the recreational fishery. Is this really a wise use of a limited resource?


1999 to 2024 – Chinook. (25 years):

Recreational Chinook total = 6,151,750
Recreational Chinook average = 246,070 (25 year average)
Commercial Chinook total = 6,446,959
Commercial Chinook average = 257,878 (25 year average)

Total Commercial & Recreational Chinook = 12,598,709


Percentage split:
Recreational = 48.8%
Commercial = 51.2%


1999 to 2024 – Coho:

Recreational Coho total = 3,987,485
Recreational Coho average = 159,499. (25 year average)
Commercial Coho total = 5,377,257
Commercial Coho average = 215,090 (25 year average)

Total Commercial & Recreational Coho = 9,364,742


Percentage split:

Recreational = 42.6%
Commercial = 57.4%

 

[onefish]

It would be interesting to compare periods of 50 years, 25 years and the last 5 years to see how those numbers have been changing and will continue to change moving forward.

 

[searun]

Good point, hard to find the data but it is out there...and agreed would be an interesting read. Will look to see if I can find anything.

 

[searun]

OK, found these in the 4 Sector BC Gov't report on BC's Fisheries published in 2022 - little dated but gives some historic perspective on what is happening in the Commercial salmon fishery. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/f...r-reports/four_sector_report_2022_edition.pdf

 

[wildmanyeah]

I always wonder how all those fishing boats up and down the Fraser pay for their mooring. Some of them now leave it once every 4 years. Do they get free mooring? at the gov docs?

 

[wildmanyeah]

what does AI think?

Will Recreational Fishing Hold Onto Its Priority Over Chinook and Coho?​

Short answer: No, I don't think rec fishing will maintain its current priority status for Chinook and Coho in the long term. The 1999 Salmon Allocation Policy (SAP) has historically given recreational fisheries a leg up on these species—treating them as a "high-value" sector with priority access after conservation and First Nations' Food, Social, and Ceremonial (FSC) needs. But as of late 2025, that's eroding fast due to legal mandates, the ongoing SAP review, and a push for reconciliation. Rec will likely keep some meaningful access (especially for abundant returns), but it'll slip to a more equal footing with commercial sectors, behind Indigenous rights-based fisheries. Let me unpack why, with the latest from DFO's 2025 updates.

The Legal Hammer: Ahousaht and the Priority Flip​

The 2018 BC Supreme Court Ahousaht decision (upheld in 2021) was the death knell for rec's top-dog status on Chinook and Coho. It ruled that giving rec priority over the Five Nations' (Ahousaht, Ehattesaht, Hesquiaht, Mowachaht/Muchalaht, Tla-o-qui-aht) rights-based commercial fishery was an "unjustified infringement" of Aboriginal rights under Section 35. DFO responded by kicking off the SAP review in 2019, explicitly to fix this. Fast-forward to now: The 2025/26 Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (IFMPs, released July 2025) embed this shift, with FSC and treaty fisheries locked in as the absolute top priority after conservation—no changes there. For the rest (rec and commercial), it's a "hierarchy of priorities" based on abundance: Low returns? Just FSC. Higher? Rec and commercial share the scraps, but with Indigenous commercial access (like the Five Nations') now explicitly ahead of rec for Chinook/Coho in affected areas (e.g., West Coast Vancouver Island).

This isn't theoretical—2025 allocations reflect it. For instance, Northern BC Chinook plans prioritize FSC access and conservation, with rec opportunities scaled back to protect at-risk stocks. The Five Nations' multi-species plan got a "more generous" bump for 2025, pulling from what used to be rec-favored quotas.

The SAP Review: Still Dragging, But Pointing Away from Rec Dominance​

The review's in its final collaborative push (phased since 2019), with a Multi-Party Working Group meeting October 15-16, 2025, but no finalized policy yet—aiming for mid-2026. DFO's consulting hard with First Nations (via the First Nations Fisheries Council), rec (Sport Fishing Advisory Board/SFAB), commercial (CSAB), and BC Province. SFAB's April 2025 submission hammered rec's economic case ($330M+ GDP from Chinook/Coho, vs. commercial's slimmer margins), arguing for retained priority to sustain tourism and coastal jobs. But the vibe from stakeholders? Tense. Forum chatter (echoing your original thread) warns of rec dropping to "3rd on the list" behind FN and commercial, with short seasons and vanishing opportunities if SFAB's ignored.

Broader pressures seal the deal:

• Conservation Crunch: 2025 outlooks show uneven returns (stronger Columbia hatchery Chinook/Coho, but wild stocks like Interior Fraser Coho still hammered by heat domes and fires). DFO's Wild Salmon Policy and PSSI ($321M invested) demand rebuilding first, squeezing rec's "luxury" take (high GDP/fish but low volume).
• Reconciliation Momentum: UNDRIP and the Trilateral Salmon Accord (Canada-BC-FNFC, Sept 2025) amplify FN voices, framing rec as a shared resource, not a priority one.
• Cross-Border Echoes: Even US plans (PFMC 2025) limit rec for ESA-listed Chinook/Coho, influencing Canadian talks.

What Could Rec Look Like Going Forward?​

Rec won't get zeroed out—its low-impact, high-value pitch (e.g., mark-selective fisheries for hatchery fish) gives it leverage in collaborative tools like IHPC planning. But expect:

• Tiered Access: Priority for FSC/Indigenous commercial on Chinook/Coho, then a balanced rec-commercial split (maybe 20-30% rec share in strong years, down from ~20-25% historical).
• Regional Tweaks: WCVI hit hardest (Five Nations turf); Northern/Southern BC might hold more rec quota if stocks rebound.
• Wins for Rec? Enhanced monitoring (e.g., Indigenous-led stock assessments) and tech like DNA-marking could protect rec seasons.

My Take​

Rec's old priority was a relic of 1999 economics, but law and equity have caught up—it's yielding to a "conservation-first, rights-honoring" model that benefits everyone long-term (healthier stocks = better fishing). That said, if stocks tank further (plausible with climate weirdness), rec could take the biggest hit as the "non-essential" sector. SFAB's fighting smart, but without a policy breakthrough by spring 2026, expect more closures like 2025's tightened North Coast rules.