Anyone can take this.
It seems to me that the reason we require such rigorous science in terms of listing species is precisely because of the economic interests involved, and maybe the jurisdictional interests as well, or the potential for jurisdictional conflict between the federal government and the provinces. In other words, if we're going to bring in a recovery plan for a particular species, we'd better be sure that we have the supporting evidence that will allow us to withstand a barrage of criticism from economic interests that could be affected. It seems to me that when you really get down to it, it's like with accounting rules and big organizations, you really have to protect yourself. That seems to me to be why we rely on the rigorous science.
I'm wondering if there's a way—thinking creatively and not being a scientist, not being a lawyer—that a system can be established whereby if there are no really strong economic interests involved, the science could be made maybe a little less rigorous because there wouldn't be economic interests at stake that could rise up and challenge a recovery plan. I don't know if anyone has a comment to make about that.
Second, if there's time, in the case of the anglers and hunters, I understand your expertise and the fact that you care for the species, but if everything were given over to you to protect a species, because you must have a particular focus on particular species, would you overlook species like the snail, for example? You must have a particular focus.
Those are my two questions for whomever would like to answer them.