That's my stand. As a representative of my own company, Wedgeport Boats Limited, as president of that, and wearing that hat, I still believe in what I say from that perspective, and representing the interests of the NSBA and the feedback from them, the length for the fishing restrictions should be left to the fishermen within the guidelines of the mandate of DFO. But we've got to use common sense. I have to agree with Gary; I've seen over the years, “You can have this, but you can't have that. Move it this way. Make it stick out that way. Do this. Do that.” Then it opens up so many things to interpretation. We can add tanks afterwards, we can do this afterwards, and we can pop it off. A whole whack of things can be done. We're only causing frustration, aggravation, and really, perhaps, not meeting the spirit of the entire agreement.
Now, from a pot carriage capacity, the five-foot extension they are allowed, when done in the manner in which they are accepting it, it doesn't carry any more pots than the guy who puts his five feet in the water.
It could lead to more structural stresses on the vessel in ways they probably weren't designed for, but going beyond that. So far, we haven't had any large instances of it.
But at CMAC, if you look at B.C., B.C. follows some similar criteria on the five-foot extension. In fact, we had a five-foot extension on the one we sent out to B.C. But some vessels have got to the point where they have become unstable because of the length requirement, and by circumventing it, they have added extensions beyond any criteria that existed at the time to create an unstable boat and a dangerous boat. So they go hand in hand.
Thank you.