Never-ending pilot project: cut-rate protection becomes the norm

We formalize the bare minimum and are content with that. While the rivers are heating up, protection remains limited.

The ministry's announcement regarding the temporary closure of certain rivers when the water temperature exceeds 22°C in the morning is, in my opinion, good news.

For what?

Because it finally officially recognizes a reality that many fishermen, biologists and managers have observed for years: when a river reaches certain temperatures, the salmon enters a zone of significant physiological stress where its recovery capacity decreases considerably.

The ministry itself acknowledges that catch and release can then become problematic and that the survival of salmon can be compromised. This is an important observation, as it confirms what many have been saying for a long time: at certain temperatures, even fishing carried out with the best intentions can have significant consequences for the resource.

I fully agree with this measure.

But this announcement raises several important questions.

Why only four rivers? Why do the Malbaie, the Rivière à Mars, the Petit-Saguenay and the Saint-Jean du Saguenay benefit from a closure protocol when several rivers on the North Shore are experiencing exactly the same realities?

I'm thinking of Saint Marguerite River

I'm thinking of the Godbout.

I'm thinking of Pentecote.

I'm thinking of the Aux Rochers River.

I'm thinking of Les Escoumins.

I'm thinking of Laval.

I'm thinking of the Saint-Jean Côte-Nord.

I'm thinking of Mingan.

I'm thinking of the mighty Moisie.

I am also thinking of the rivers of Anticosti and several rivers in the Gaspé Peninsula which are also experiencing significant heat waves.

But I am thinking above all of the Trinité.

For what?

Because the Trinité River is not like any other. The Trinité is a monitoring river. For decades, the Ministry has been collecting essential data on Atlantic salmon there. Ministry employees are present throughout the season. They count the salmon, track the runs, analyze the returns, measure water temperatures, and likely possess one of the best salmon databases in Quebec. When days reach 25°C, 27°C, or even 29°C and the nights remain abnormally warm, the Ministry knows it. It doesn't learn about it after the fact. It observes it in real time. This is precisely what makes the situation difficult to understand.

If a reference river like the Trinité, where the most complete data is available and where biologists are present in the field throughout the season, does not automatically trigger a reflection on the application of a thermal protocol, then what conditions must be met before taking action?

In my view, the Trinité River should be one of the first rivers used to guide management decisions during extreme heat events, not one of the notable omissions in the current protocol. And if a reference river isn't used to trigger protective measures when conditions become critical, then it's legitimate to question the purpose of all the data collected over decades. The salmon of the North Shore are no different from those of the Saguenay.

At 22°C, a salmon remains a salmon.

Physiology does not change according to administrative boundaries. If the ministry acknowledges that thermal stress justifies a closure on certain rivers, why is this same principle not applied everywhere where the same conditions exist?

The question deserves to be asked.

But in my view, the debate shouldn't stop at sport fishing. If the ministry acknowledges that a salmon is stressed enough that releasing it can be fatal, then it must also recognize that any unnecessary disturbance becomes problematic.

During periods of extreme heat, salmon often congregate in a few thermal refuges where the water remains cooler.

These shelters then become vital zones for survival.

• Each forced displacement.

• Each leak.

• Every inconvenience.

• Every additional expenditure of energy.

All of this increases the stress experienced by the fish.

The problem, therefore, is not solely sport fishing. The problem is the additional stress imposed on an animal already at the limit of its physiological capacity.

At certain critical times, the best salmon to release is probably the one that no one has disturbed.

That is why the discussion should go beyond just sport fishing.

When a river reaches critical temperatures, all activities that could disturb salmon in thermal refuges should be reassessed. If the goal is truly conservation, any disturbance must be minimized when the fish are most vulnerable. And this brings us to another topic that is far too rarely discussed: forest cover.

You can't discuss heat stress without talking about trees. The trees lining rivers play a vital role in the survival of salmon.

• They provide shade.

• They limit the warming of the water.

• They contribute to maintaining thermal shelters.

• They stabilize the riverbanks.

• They contribute to the overall health of the ecosystem.

However, over the years, some interventions have sometimes prioritized access to fishing at the expense of riparian vegetation. I'm not saying that all brush clearing is bad.

Some interventions are necessary. But in a context where climate change is already increasing water temperatures, every mature tree protecting a pool is probably more valuable today than it was thirty years ago. Across North America, specialists are now talking about restoring riparian buffer strips, protecting forest cover, and creating shade corridors as climate change adaptation measures.

For what?

Because a river that stays cold requires fewer closures. A river that maintains its thermal refuges naturally protects its salmon. A river that retains its forest cover is better prepared to face tomorrow's heat waves.

The ministry's announcement is therefore a step in the right direction. However, it seems more like treating the symptoms than a truly comprehensive strategy. Temporarily closing a river when the water reaches a critical level is a good measure.

Protecting the habitats that allow this river to remain cold is just as important.

In my view, three priorities should guide the coming years.

• First, extend thermal protocols to all rivers where conditions warrant it.

• Secondly, aggressively protect thermal refuges and riparian forest cover.

• Third, minimize any disturbance to salmon when they are already experiencing critical heat stress.

The government now recognizes that heat stress can make fishing incompatible with salmon conservation.

He has the data.

It has the regulatory tools.

He has the means to intervene.

So why not apply this logic everywhere salmon live in the same conditions? Because in the end, salmon don't care about administrative borders.

He is not concerned with economic interests.

He does not concern himself with the debates between fishermen, managers or organizations.

He's simply trying to survive.

And if we truly want to listen to the salmon, we must begin by giving it peace when it is most vulnerable.

Because the real victim of this crisis is neither the fisherman, nor the ZEC, nor the management bodies, nor even the FQSA, whose mandate is in particular to make recommendations to the ministry.

The real victim is the salmon itself, the one that continues to pay the price for inaction.

The real victim is the salmon itself. And it is the salmon that we claim to want to save.