From my perspective as a biologist, I have been immersed in gravel removal for some time. I actually conducted or managed a couple of hydraulic models on the Fraser River to try to determine the difference between aggradation and channel alignment. River elevations go up and down as a function of all sorts of things, such as the amount of water that's going through, whether aggradation is occurring, and the alignment of the river. It's far more complicated than just a bunch of gravel that might be settling.
From my perspective, the location where the gravel was being taken out, if you're going to use it for flood protection, was a good spot to take out gravel. It wasn't a bad spot. It's how DFO authorized the gravel being taken out and how land and water basically managed the process that really was egregious. If you're going to take out gravel, do it properly and don't do it this way.
The thing that really brought it home was when one of the conservation and protection field officers said that DFO should be charged. They actually brought out the sections of the Criminal Code that DFO should be charged under. To us, it was absolutely stunning that one of the staff from DFO should be articulating that DFO itself should be charged, and not under the Fisheries Act, but under the Criminal Code for failing to meet their statutory responsibilities.