I think this is where it's a question of defining what you're protecting. I do know Dr. Ban and I respect her, as a qualified academic, to comment on these kinds of things, but the issue is to define what it is you're protecting.
In the case of glass sponge reefs, you're trying to protect their unique structure and to ensure that future activity around them doesn't detract from that protection. In that case, for example, while I've been espousing the cause of the commercial sector, we were actually saved because it was harmless, in the sense that it was agreed that, given that recreational fishing in that area—there's not a lot, but there's some—never takes place more than 100 feet below the surface, there was no need to ban that fishery from that area.
On the other hand, another kind of curious anomaly, the Bowie Seamount off Haida Gwaii, is already protected. However, in that protection it was agreed that the black cod trap fishery could continue. I assume that the people who made that decision had good reason for it, but fishing for tuna over the Bowie Seamount is banned. Tuna fishing takes place in the top two feet of the water column, so the tuna fishery—and I sat on the tuna advisory board; we can fish tuna out there recreationally—was banned commercially.
Those are the kinds of decisions that would need to be sorted out as you define what protected areas are and what they're intended to do and how they're implemented.