Vancouver Courier
for July 19, 1998

A warning is warranted! This column might say something kind about Fisheries Minister David Anderson! Caveat lector!

There are two Canadian players on the Salmon fishery issues - Premier Glen Clark and Mr Anderson.

This must be said - they both want the best possible result for British Columbia. Why then are they constantly at each other's throat? Why can't they bury their differences and work together for the common good?

The answer is simply - politics.

To start with, they have different mandates. Mr Clark's is to represent British Columbia as seen through the eyes of B.C. voters while Mr Anderson's deals with the issues from the Canadian perspective which isn't always the same thing. Ottawa deals with Washington, D.C. and, because of the American love of linking issues, cannot deal with the B.C. salmon fishery in isolation of other matters of mutual concern.

But the specific differences between the men in terms of political constituency matter very much too. Mr Clark must always be very concerned about how British Columbians vote while Mr Anderson has no such concerns. Anderson is, as he admits, at the end of his political career. The Liberals would like to increase support in British Columbia but that support doesn't matter and never has.

In terms of social constituencies there are differences. Mr Clark, though he would deny it emphatically, is after the support of unionized fishermen and doesn't give a damn about conservation matters if they interfere with that loyalty. Mr Anderson is after the conservationists support because it is to that group he has long been identified.

We have, then, two men in powerful positions who not only don't like each other but are differently motivated.

Like all of us, I have to try to make some sense of all this. In doing so, I recognize that lots of mistakes will be made no matter who leads the charge. I also start out with a bias. While I disagree profoundly with his politics and policies, I quite like Glen Clark. I don't, on the other hand, care much for Mr Anderson who I find arrogant and quite insensitive to the feelings of lesser mortals. And he's a Liberal, a sin beyond redemption.

I have just finished reading an interview with David Anderson in the first issue of the International Journal of Salmon Conservation. Now, admittedly, a well briefed politician can make mincemeat out of a slow pitch interview - which this clearly is. But the fact is inescapable that Anderson knows his brief. And his knowledge is clearly much deeper than a recent indoctrination by staff. He is able to touch, with considerable particularity, every branch of the problem and in many places shows that he has a deep commitment to preserving all salmonids including the steelhead and cutthroat trout - strictly sports fish.

Knowledge, of course, is no guarantee of wisdom and in Anderson's case has certainly not dulled his arrogance. Still, it's a very good start.

What Mr Anderson lacks is the political sensitivity it takes to make a solution palatable to those who must make it work. Mr Clark has the distinct edge here.

But, in that tiresome phrase, there's a bottom line here. David Anderson is the boss. The constitutional authority rests with Ottawa and, in law, British Columbia has no right of representation in the matter whatsoever. All the B.C. government can do is put on a good show of outrage from time to time, Ottawa bashing being the #1 sport in these parts and usually for good reasons.

Is there, when all's said and done, any hope anyway? Aren't all our cries d coeur merely a long but certain death rattle?

Probably. We've made and compounded so many mistakes that it's probably too late. We have not only degraded salmon habitat we are continuing to so at an alarming rate. The stakeholders (I'm really into cliches today) can't agree on anything. The Americans will not cooperate. There are environmental changes taking place which further complicate things. Most of all - and Anderson makes this very clear in the interview - we still don't understand the food chain of which the salmon is but one part. To comprehend the salmon problem one must understand all that it depends upon and all that depends upon it.

Still, there must be hope even if we get down to where all salmon species and subspecies are merely rare curiosities mostly inhabiting aquariums. For the salmon is what identifies us. It is to British Columbians as the fleur-de-lis is to many Quebeckers. It's our culture, our history and our signature. Without the salmon we're just Switzerland with an ocean.

I still don't much care for the man but if he can walk the walk as well as talk the talk (one more trite phrase for you - no need to thank me) David Anderson is not just our only hope, he may be a realistic hope as well.