Salmon First… Even When It Gets Uncomfortable

Salmon First… Even When It Gets Uncomfortable

By Jocelyn LeBlanc

Let’s speak frankly. It’s easy to stand up for salmon when it costs nothing, changes no habits and disrupts no bookings. The real test begins when protecting salmon means giving something up. That’s when we find out where our priorities actually lie.

In its November 2, 2026 letter, Fisheries and Oceans Canada announced a consultation on listing Atlantic salmon populations under the Species at Risk Act. On Quebec’s North Shore and in the Saguenay, salmon from rivers such as Aux Rochers, Pentecôte, Trinité, Moisie and Sainte-Marguerite belong to populations assessed as threatened by COSEWIC. That scientific assessment must be distinguished from a legal listing. The letter does not order any closures, but it puts an unavoidable question before us: how much protection are we actually prepared to give these fish?

In its December 2025 assessment summaries, COSEWIC reports estimated or inferred declines in mature individuals of 36% for Quebec’s Western North Shore population and 43% for the Inner St. Lawrence population, over three generations. The latter unit includes the Saguenay rivers, but the 43% figure does not describe the Saguenay alone or each individual river.

That distinction matters. When we demand accuracy, we have to apply the same standard to our own arguments.

An improvement is not a recovery.

An impressive percentage can make people forget a very poor starting point. When returns improve after a disastrous year, that improvement deserves recognition. But calling it a recovery requires more: sustained results, meaningful historical comparisons and indicators showing that reproduction and population renewal are sufficient.

Reporting an annual increase without showing the starting point or the long-term trend can create a misleading impression. Even when the calculation is correct. And when a river’s future is at stake, we owe the public more than an encouraging percentage.

Caution is warranted in the Gaspé Peninsula as well. Its salmon population is assessed as being of special concern. The assessment summary does not identify a significant decline across the entire unit over three generations, but it does report declines since 2013. Both findings need to be presented together.

That same scrutiny must extend to our own fishing habits.

I am an angler, and I own a business selling fly-tying materials. I understand the economic interests involved. That is precisely why I refuse to let them become an excuse for avoiding difficult questions. Our love of fishing does not excuse us from examining what it demands of the fish.

Releasing a salmon means it is not retained, but it does not eliminate all risk of mortality. DFO notes that a fish can die several hours after being caught and that mortality risks increase significantly when water temperatures exceed 20°C. That does not mean every capture below that temperature is risk-free. Watching a salmon swim away is not enough to establish its subsequent survival.

When conditions become unfavourable, we need to be willing to put down the rod. To accept a restriction. To give up a photograph. I support keeping fish in the water, shortening fights and minimizing handling. If our commitment to conservation ends the moment it interferes with our day, we need to ask what that commitment is worth.

A potential listing as threatened could also affect catch-and-release fishing. Section 32 of the Species at Risk Act prohibits, among other things, capturing, harming and harassing individuals of listed species in the categories it covers. Authorizations and exemptions exist, but their applicability must be established. Catch and release, on its own, is therefore no legal guarantee that fishing can continue.

That standard must reach well beyond anglers.

I want the same scrutiny applied to habitats, cold-water refuges, migration barriers, river flows and projects that could affect our rivers. I want pressures in freshwater and at sea examined, along with their cumulative effects. Identifying one pressure does not excuse us from examining the others. And problems elsewhere do not justify neglecting those we can address.

From governments, I want commitments we can verify. What funding? Which actions? Who is responsible? What results are expected? A consultation must lead to explained decisions and the resources to implement them. It cannot become an exercise measured mainly by the number of meetings held.

From organizations and river managers, I want complete information, even when it is less reassuring. A justified closure can be a responsible decision. An open river does not, by itself, demonstrate that its salmon population has recovered.

Local teams also need support. If restrictions reduce their revenues, counting, monitoring, enforcement and restoration work must be able to continue. We cannot seriously protect salmon while leaving the people working on the ground without the resources to do it.

I want our rivers to remain alive and fishing to have a future. That means accepting measures proportionate to the risk, checking their results and adjusting them when the evidence warrants it.

Putting salmon first comes with obligations.

If we are willing to protect salmon only on the condition that nothing changes, what we are protecting first is our own habits.

Sources

The links below lead to the French-language documents used to verify the original editorial.

1. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Consultation letter dated November 2, 2026. Potential listing of Atlantic salmon populations under the Species at Risk Act; appendices 1 and 3 identify assessment statuses and rivers.

2. COSEWIC. Assessment and Status Report on Multiple Atlantic Salmon Populations, 2025. Assessment summaries for designatable units 08, 10 and 12. Documentary clarification: the 36% figure comes from the DU 08 assessment summary; the “Applicability of Criteria” section gives 38%. That internal discrepancy is not resolved here.

3. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Gulf Region. How to Practise Catch and Release Safely for Salmon. Delayed mortality, water temperature and handling practices.

4. Justice Canada. Species at Risk Act, section 32. General prohibitions applying to individuals of listed species in the specified categories.

5. Justice Canada. Species at Risk Act, section 73 and section 83. Requirements for agreements and permits, exceptions and exemptions.