Canada has the policy tools to protect Pacific salmon. Why aren’t they working?

Wild Pacific salmon are among Canada’s most iconic species. They nourish forests, sustain countless wildlife species, support Indigenous cultures and livelihoods, and have long been central to coastal communities and economies.

Yet, despite decades of conservation commitments, many salmon populations continue to decline with two thirds of populations below their long term average. A new perspective published in Conservation Letters asks a difficult question: if Canada has strong conservation policies on paper, why are so many salmon populations still at risk?

Drawing on population data, policy analysis, and documented examples of governance failures, the authors (led by Dr. Michael Price at SkeenaWild Conservation Trust) argue that the problem is not a lack of adequate policy, but a failure to consistently implement it.

The paper identifies three interconnected challenges that have weakened salmon conservation over the past two decades:

Declining monitoring of salmon populations.
Erosion of scientific integrity within government decision-making.
Repeated delays or failures to act on scientific evidence using existing legal protections such as the Species At Risk Act.

Together, these gaps have undermined Canada’s ability to detect population declines early, make evidence-based management decisions, and protect salmon before declines become more difficult to reverse.

One of the clearest examples is the steady loss of long-term monitoring, a problem that Raincoast has been working on for more than 20 years. Since Canada’s Wild Salmon Policy was introduced in 2005, the number of annual salmon population surveys has declined substantially, leaving half of Pacific salmon populations without enough information to reliably assess their biological status. Without robust monitoring, salmon managers cannot accurately evaluate population health, measure conservation success, or determine when fisheries can safely open. The authors also highlight cases where scientific advice was weakened by political or industry pressures and where governments declined or delayed legal protections for salmon populations that independent scientists had identified as being at risk of extinction.

For Raincoast, this research reinforces an important conservation principle: good science alone cannot protect biodiversity. Conservation depends on strong institutions that collect reliable data, safeguard scientific integrity, and ensure that decisions are guided by evidence rather than short-term political considerations.

While wild Pacific salmon face growing pressures from climate change, habitat degradation, and other cumulative impacts, effective governance remains one of the few factors we can directly improve. Strengthening monitoring, protecting independent science, and acting decisively when populations are at risk will be essential if Canada is to meet its commitments to conserve salmon populations for future generations.

Citation

Price MHH, Dennert AM, Mordecai GJ, Cleveland M, Hill A, Vincent S, Knox G, Reynolds JD. 2026. The managed erosion of conservation priorities for Pacific salmon. Conservation Letters. 19:e70068. https://doi.org/10.1111/con4.70068

Abstract

Conservation policies worldwide promise to halt biodiversity loss, yet implementation frequently lags intent. We examine this disconnect through wild Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Canada, where sustained declines have occurred despite the federalWild Salmon Policy and legal protections available under the Species at Risk Act. Drawing on population data, policy analyses, and documented governance failures, we show that conservation outcomes have been compromised by declining monitoring capacity,weakened scientific integrity and independence, and limited political willingness to act on evidence. Long-term monitoring has declined substantially, leaving many populations data-deficient and delaying detection of risk. Scientific advice has at times been compromised by political and sectoral pressures that weaken evidence-based decision-making. Governments have repeatedly failed to implement timely protections for at-risk populations despite clear scientific warnings. Together, these failures illustrate how discretionary governance and weak institutional safeguards can undermine conservation commitments. Canada’s experience illustrates a broader global challenge: conservation policies lacking accountability mechanisms, enforceable obligations, and safeguards for scientific integrity are unlikely to deliver intended biodiversity outcomes. Preventing further loss will require sustained investment in monitoring and assessment, timely conservation action, and governance systems capable of translating scientific evidence into effective protection.