the closures may be nonsensical but then so might predator culls.
Might?

The pinnepids issue has become highly politicized. Those who have done this have developed an attitude within the sport fishing community that there is an either or choice available - if we can have a cull then we can fish as if nothing is different. This is likely a serious error.
And with that I agree.
Predation is certainly not the sole limiting factor effecting chinook populations.
Were such a program to have the best effect, it would necessarily have to work in conjunction with sweeping habitat mitigation / enhancement projects, as well as other directed programs to give the chinook an immediate "boost" in population numbers.
Even then, I would strongly suggest that we would have to certainly limit our take of the chinook until such time as their populations become more robust.
This approach was what their own biologists suggested, while at the same time advising against area closures (which in their own words "
would have little positive effect").
Closures even the nonsensical ones are the most passive approach most likely to get desired results without unexpected negative paybacks.
That is simply not what DFO Science recommends, and in fact is exactly what they recommended against Ralph.
And btw, while the closures may look "
passive" to those on the outside, for those of us who live, work & play here, they are anything but.
I am strongly opposed to such disruptive mechanisms when their own science team suggests the overall result is unlikely to produce the desired results...
Can you imagine the West Coast of the Island being closed from Long Beach (Tofino) right down & around to the Fraser?
Parks has always wanted this, and with DFO support they can see a distinct possibility of achieving what they have previously not been able to do so (because local and public opinion disagreed with them). Again, this is not a conservation driven issue, it is purely Political.
Comment deadline July 11...Cheers,
Nog