The reason I ask that question is that we had witnesses from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association here about a week ago, and they talked about one thing that they found very important and that should be considered. I'd like to get your input on this.
They said that if a species at risk is found on a property, it should be assumed that the landowner is doing something right. They're looking at it on an evidence-based science front. They're obviously thinking that the evidence is there that this species is surviving in that particular habitat and under those particular circumstances, so there must be a suggestion through it that there is something proper and right happening on that habitat.
In conjunction with what you said—that habitat we preserve may not be enough to preserve a species—can you see how that would be something that should be looked at in a positive vein? Should we be looking at that particular habitat and asking why the species is surviving there, rather than removing the cattlemen from that area and saying they're not allowed to do any work there? Should we be looking at more of a co-joined effort there?