Some times the variations between areas occur because DFO accepts different ways to get to the same results in terms of recommendations from the local SFAB and the discussion and vote at those local meetings. For example as I recall with the latest requirements to reach a 25 to 35% reduction in Chinook at our local meeting we came to the conclusion that there was only 2 options. Move to a one Chinook only a day limit or accept even more expanded slot restrictions and be able to keep two. If we failed to make a recommendation then DFO would not have to consider our voted recommendation and decide for us without our input. Keep in mind that while some other areas were about to face major restrictions for the first time, for us these were on top of years of expanding slot restriction which started years back with the very tight early slot to protect the early 4-2 upper Fraser stream type Chinook. To us even more expanded slots seemed like the better option. I assume that other regions meetings and votes came to different decisions or did not make a recommendation and left it to DFO to decide without input. Kind of Sophie's choice really, do you want your left leg or your right leg cut off, do you move to one a day limit or slot limits that may allow you to keep two but likely only small Chinook for the spring and most or even all of the summer. It seems to me that sometimes the variations between regions can be because DFO is actually trying to be flexible and sometimes accepts the local wishes of the anglers and unique local circumstances, while still accomplishing their objectives in the big picture. For the vast majority of anglers who never go to the meetings and then complain about the outcome with new regulation restrictions perhaps it would not be a bad idea to go to them. If you don't go, you have no voice and frankly don't have much of a base to complain if you don't like how it turned out.