http://steelheadvoices.com/?p=2052&fbclid=IwAR1gLueJbXo8090X4DA1ah3vISTmkXKSnGSoQ48Z5SFUgVsSAX5BSIHB6m4 Point 1, There is a huge imbalance in terms of comments from the individual sectors. The recreational fishing community comments come from one sources, the Sport Fish Advisory Board. The commercial sector speakers number three. The First Nations input lists 22 separate sources, many of which overlap in terms of the territory and fish resources they purport to represent. One of the groups, the Lower Fraser Fisheries Authority (LFFA) states it represents 23 lower Fraser FNs. The single point of contact for the recreational fishery is by design. DFO has purposely forced that sector to speak through its SFAB process. No one else is permitted to engage in any of the processes leading to the draft IFMPs. DFO and its SFAB will argue the process is inclusive of all recreational fisheries interests. That is not the case. If the principles governing representation of the various sectors’ voices are applied equally, why is there such an imbalance in the feedback DFO entertains?