This is the kind of story that really makes me frustrated.  Basically they are planning to decommission a dam that supports a coho run that has been built up by the sooke salmon enhancement society. Why?

Reasons: Suspected Liability forcing a decision is a exceedingly frustrating reason for a decision.

Really bad communication between the parties regarding the removed valve is frustrating (since when is a repaired valve considered vandalism?!? Since when is it hard to guess who may have repaired the valve you removed on a dam with the purpose of salmon enhancement?!?) Communication has never been easier then it is now, and still we can't keep people in the loop, or reach out when it would be helpful... Sigh...

Finally, if the allegation, that it is being decommissioned simply because it is a dam and DFO doesn't do dams anymore, then it would be worthwhile to recognize that those kind of one size fits all decisions are almost always a bad idea. I don't know any engineers that speak about an engineering related topic without weighing their words, and if he reckons that even a catastrophic dam break is unlikely to affect the nearest house (8 km away) then I'm inclined to bet that he has a pretty reasonable sense for it. I'm tempted to sharpen my pencil, but I think the DFO ought to have a few guys who can do an in house estimate to see if the risk is significant and get that estimate out to the press.

I may not have all the facts, heck this is the only article I've read about the issue, but even if it is half as bad as this, its still worth trying to point out that we need to at minimum communicate better and at most swallow a big enough dose of common sense to realize that blanket decisions are a bad idea for this situation.

--end rant.

Disclosure: As the son of a fisherman I've never had any real love for the DFO.