I'm not familiar with those specific regional fisheries, as I'm sure you can imagine, but we had similar challenges in B.C.
This year, the minister unilaterally declared herring fisheries closed, as Mr. Taylor mentioned, including our nation's spawn on kelp fisheries, which are specifically identified in the integrated fisheries management plan as sustainable. There is no scientific basis for that closure.
Again, I'll emphasize the unilateral nature of that decision. Specifically, some of the nations that we work for have long-standing co-governance agreements for those fisheries, and up until that ministerial decision, they'd had significant discussions with the department around planning and implementing that fishery this year.
I think one thing that speaks to is uncertainty and data gaps, especially in areas that have less western science but have significant local or traditional and indigenous knowledge that can speak to management decisions that actually make sense for the people who are living in that land or seascape.
An earlier question asked how indigenous knowledge can support and marry with western science. It's particularly helpful where there are data gaps or uncertainty and in areas that are less studied or are not at the right scale for the current integrated fishery management regime or DFO's region-based approach.
Salmon is another really good example. In the region where I work, no integrated stock status assessments are done for any of our stocks across five species of Pacific salmon, yet fisheries are enacted annually. The nations therefore carry the burden of evidence to show that a fishery should not proceed versus having the fishery show they should be implemented.
We're operating in a completely data-deficient space.