A list of all MLA and MP's emails regarding salmon closures and a sample letter

[smokedvw]

Send in your email regarding salmon closures.

Here is the list you can use for all the emails and I have included a sample email as well below.

Put DFO.ORR-ONS.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca and joanne.thompson@parl.gc.ca in the TO field

BCC

DFO.ORR-ONS.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, joanne.thompson@parl.gc.ca, elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca, will.greaves@parl.gc.ca, stephanie.mclean@parl.gc.ca, jeff.kibble@parl.gc.ca, tamara.kronis@parl.gc.ca, gord.johns@parl.gc.ca, aaron.gunn@parl.gc.ca, patrick.weiler@parl.gc.ca, jonathan.wilkinson@parl.gc.ca, terry.beech@parl.gc.ca, wade.chang@parl.gc.ca, wade.grant@parl.gc.ca, hedy.fry@parl.gc.ca, don.davies@parl.gc.ca, gregor.robertson@parl.gc.ca, parm.bains@parl.gc.ca, sukh.dhaliwal@parl.gc.ca, Rob.Botterell.MLA@leg.bc.ca, L.Popham@leg.bc.ca, grace.lore.MLA@leg.bc.ca, N.Krieger@leg.bc.ca, Jeremy.Valeriote.MLA@leg.bc.ca, D.Rotchford@leg.bc.ca, D.Lajeunesse@leg.bc.ca, Ravi.Parmar.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Debra.Toporowski.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Stephanie.Higginson.MLA@leg.bc.ca, josie.osborne.MLA@leg.bc.ca, sheila.malcolmson.MLA@leg.bc.ca, G.Anderson@leg.bc.ca, B.Day@leg.bc.ca, A.Kindy@leg.bc.ca, Randene.Neill.MLA@leg.bc.ca, bowinn.ma.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Susie.Chant.MLA@leg.bc.ca, s.chandraherbert.MLA@leg.bc.ca, brenda.bailey.MLA@leg.bc.ca, george.chow.MLA@leg.bc.ca, mable.elmore.MLA@leg.bc.ca, kelly.greene.MLA@leg.bc.ca, ravi.kahlon.MLA@leg.bc.ca, Ian.Paton.MLA@leg.bc.ca, raj.chouhan.MLA@leg.bc.ca, rick.glumac.MLA@leg.bc.ca, mike.farnworth.MLA@leg.bc.ca, garry.begg.MLA@leg.bc.ca


RE: Proposed Amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations – Southern Resident Killer Whale Approach Distance (Canada Gazette, Part 1, Vol. 160, No. 10)



I am a BC resident and recreational salmon angler submitting formal comments in opposition to the proposed 1,000-metre SRKW approach distance as it applies to recreational fishing vessels.



I have fished these waters my entire life. I grew up on the Gulf Islands and around the ocean alongside family and friends for whom salmon fishing has always been a way of life — not a luxury, but a tradition, a connection to place, and a way of putting food on the table. Today I fish with my own children, passing down the same values and the same love of the coast that shaped me. This is not something I am willing to have regulated out of existence by a proposal that singles out recreational anglers while failing to address the primary drivers of SRKW decline.



I support Southern Resident Killer Whale conservation. I do not support regulations that disproportionately burden recreational fishers while ignoring the real threats.



KEY CONCERNS:



Disproportionate burden on a low-impact sector. BC's recreational fishery accounts for a small fraction of total Chinook salmon harvest. Commercial fisheries — including significant bycatch by Alaskan trawl fleets — account for the overwhelming majority of Chinook removals affecting SRKW prey availability. Any science-based approach must distribute regulatory burden accordingly.



The proposal would functionally close key fishing areas. A 1,000-metre moving exclusion zone in areas like the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Gulf Islands, or Swiftsure Bank would render recreational salmon fishing impossible during periods of SRKW presence — including the exact waters where families like mine have fished for generations.



Recreational fishers already carry significant restrictions. Rolling seasonal closures at Swiftsure Bank, Juan de Fuca Strait, Gulf Islands, and the Fraser River mouth are already in place. Vessel Restricted Zones add further limits. This proposal piles further burden onto a sector that has already absorbed major cuts.



Recreational vessels have minimal acoustic impact. Modern recreational fishing boats produce significantly less underwater noise than commercial shipping. The justification for extending a 1,000m distance restriction to small family fishing boats is not supported by a proportional threat analysis.



The economic, cultural, and community impact is severe. BC's recreational fishery is valued at over $1.3 billion annually and supports more than 9,100 jobs. For families like mine — and for the many friends I grew up with on the Gulf Islands and coast — recreational salmon fishing is also how we feed our families and maintain a way of life rooted in the ocean. These are not interchangeable losses.



RECOMMENDATIONS:

— Retain the 400-metre approach distance for recreational fishing vessels

— Apply the 1,000-metre standard only to commercial whale-watching and high-impact commercial vessel categories

— Direct conservation investment toward contaminant reduction, habitat restoration, and commercial harvest accountability

— Establish a transparent, multi-stakeholder SRKW Recovery Roundtable before imposing further restrictions



I urge DFO and all elected representatives to issue a revised proposal that is proportionate, evidence-based, and fair to the recreational fishing families and communities who have lived alongside these waters — and these whales — their entire lives.



[Your Name]

[City, BC]

[Date]

 

[Derby]

SFAB recommended a 1000m in there consultation on the SRKW to DFO in the fall. I encourage those feels strong about this to send in your thoughts to DFO in the 30day window. I also suggest that anything sent in should be in your own words only as DFO does not count cut and paste letters,

 

[Squire]

It is my understanding that the 1,000 m avoidance zone was recommended as an alternative to complete spatial fishing closures. It would be extremely heavy-handed, unnecessary, and as far as their objective goes, ineffective for the DFO to implement both.

I don’t know if I’m missing something here but the Gazette piece for consultation on the increased avoidance zones that the link was provided for in the 2026 Proposed Management Measures thread by Pearl dog does not include maps of potential closure zones. I believe the maps were part of the proposals in the consultation package for the SRKW prey management measures.

It is difficult between the SAP threat of transferring recreational allocations to commercial, SRKW protection measures, and SRKW prey management measures, to keep track of all the attacks on recreational salmon fishers.

It is also my opinion that not being willing to move off one kilometer from actively foraging whales will only make the recreational sector appear indifferent to the plight of the SRKW and therefore lose our credibility in the process. In light of the pressure exerted from ENGO’s and FNs to respond to SARA guidance regarding protection of the SRKW, DFO will have to appear to be doing something. Again it is just my opinion but I don’t think the rec sector wants to appear to desire the opportunity to compete with whales for salmon. If recreational fishers are unwilling to adjust even if the measures seem superfluous, the alternative is additional spatial closures.

 

[Bill 310]

. I also suggest that anything sent in should be in your own words only as DFO does not count cut and paste letters,

Derby, your post raised some questions.

Is the ignoring and/or not including in any tabulation, letters sent to the DFO by Canadian citizens if they are deemed to contain "cut and paste sections outlining a particular matter or issue," the official written policy of the DFO ? Is a copy of that policy available ?

In other words do 100 people each writing a similar but unique letter to bring forward a common point dear to their hearts hold more sway, and are deemed more valid, than say 2,000 people who still take the time to write and submit a commonly worded letter that expresses an opposing view?

 

[Derby]

Not

Derby, your post raised some questions.

Is the ignoring and/or not including in any tabulation, letters sent to the DFO by Canadian citizens if they are deemed to contain "cut and paste sections outlining a particular matter or issue," the official written policy of the DFO ? Is a copy of that policy available ?

In other words do 100 people each writing a similar but unique letter to bring forward a common point dear to their hearts hold more sway, and are deemed more valid, than say 2,000 people who still take the time to write and submit a commonly worded letter that expresses an opposing view?

I have no idea what the policy is and Im sure its a available and perhaps at some point we can ask to see it or you can ask .

I do know they consider a unique letter deem valid and not sent by a group or form letter that a mass product and sent in. If they allowed the forum letters what is stopping any group sending in 1000s of letters.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Not


I have no idea what the policy is and Im sure its a available and perhaps at some point we can ask to see it or you can ask .

I do know they consider a unique letter deem valid and not sent by a group or form letter that a mass product and sent in. If they allowed the forum letters what is stopping any group sending in 1000s of letters.

Which is odd because in every response to our letters DFO say working with SFAB who provides them feedback.



ITs just more DFO BS double speak

we all send in letters they tell us the SFAB is representing us, Then they tell the SFAB send in their letter only counts as one when it should count as representing hundreds of thousand of anglers.

Just highlights why we are trying to come at them form every angle, Thanks for keeping up the fight guys!

 

[wildmanyeah]

Derby, your post raised some questions.

Is the ignoring and/or not including in any tabulation, letters sent to the DFO by Canadian citizens if they are deemed to contain "cut and paste sections outlining a particular matter or issue," the official written policy of the DFO ? Is a copy of that policy available ?

In other words do 100 people each writing a similar but unique letter to bring forward a common point dear to their hearts hold more sway, and are deemed more valid, than say 2,000 people who still take the time to write and submit a commonly worded letter that expresses an opposing view?

I think AI is probably right with what it says to your question

What the Government of Canada actually does​

Federal departments (including DFO) routinely receive and process both:

• Personalized/unique letters
• Large volumes of form letters or campaign submissions (identical or very similar wording)

In their published “What We Heard” reports, they explicitly:

• Count and report the total number of campaign/form submissions (e.g., “Over 37,500 email campaign submissions from 8 campaigns” in the Pacific aquaculture transition process, or “Over 5,000 form emails” from a specific environmental campaign).
• Summarize the main themes from those campaigns.
• Distinguish them from unique submissions while still including them in the overall record.

This pattern appears consistently across DFO consultations and other federal ones (Health Canada, Environment, etc.). There is no government-wide or departmental rule that discards or ignores submissions just because they share common sections.

Broader government guidance​

• Older Treasury Board and departmental consultation guides (from the 1990s onward) emphasize recording all public input and summarizing themes transparently.
• Modern practice (as seen in recent DFO, CRTC, and other reports) treats high-volume campaigns as valid indicators of public sentiment and organized concern, even if the wording is similar.
• No policy document from the Treasury Board Secretariat, Privy Council Office, or any department states that “cut and paste” content makes a submission invalid.

Back to your original question — 100 unique letters vs. 2,000 similar ones​

Both count, but they influence decision-makers differently:

• Large numbers of similar letters (e.g., 2,000) demonstrate broad public support or opposition. Ministers and senior officials notice volume because it signals potential political or electoral impact. DFO and other departments always log these as campaign totals.
• Unique, personalized letters (especially with local stories, specific impacts on your fishing area, family tradition, economic effects in your community, etc.) are more likely to generate distinct themes that analysts highlight in summaries. They help show why the issue matters on a human level and can introduce arguments not covered in the main campaign.

In practice, the most effective advocacy often combines both:

• A strong organized campaign (thousands of letters using the sample) to show scale.
• Many people adding their own personal paragraphs (e.g., “In my community of ____, this would mean ____”) so their points don’t get lumped entirely into “campaign X.”

Bottom line: There is no secret policy that dismisses templated or partially copied letters. Every submission sent to DFO is received and contributes to the public record. The advice you see on forums like SportFishingBC to “write in your own words” is practical strategy to maximize impact — not a reflection of an official exclusion rule.