I understand completely what you are mentioning there. One of the things that's in there when we look at the decline of a species from threatened to endangered and right down to extirpated is that you're also talking about the extinguishment of a right that's attached to that species. In certain cases, prohibition from an aboriginal perspective would be necessary.
The other part of that is that SARA allows for the development of a recovery plan in those cases, and each stage of that has a requirement for a socio-economic analysis. Again, if SARA were actually implemented in the way it was laid out and intended, those things could be dealt with during the stages of that. For prohibition and those types of things, when you're doing the assessment based upon ATK, and all these other things, there's a socio-economic analysis that should actually identify the impacts that would threaten that species.
I'll give you an example of how having prohibitions without doing the socio-economic analysis was a complete disaster. Again, that was in the south Okanagan. One particular individual wanted to look at putting in a vineyard. They came back and said that a black cottonwood forest in the south Okanagan had been identified by the province and by the federal government as being, I think, threatened or endangered. That placed a prohibition on this person's ability to actually do that without looking at a full plan. This individual turned around and basically he just went in there with a Cat.
When you're looking at some of the things in there, you have to have an understanding that the use of prohibitions, as you said, can be detrimental. The other part of that is that it's a necessity given the importance of the species in relation to rights. Again, at the end of the day, SARA allows a political decision to be made on any given listing.