I said so because in the reference to Marshall you made the comment that there were no reductions in the spawn-on-kelp fishery. That's not how Marshall is applied; Marshall is applied on the basis that there's no more effort in the fishery, which is similar, but a different thing altogether. In the case of the Marshall decision, specifically in the lobster industry, there was no additional TAC. They did not increase the overall amount to accommodate a new entity in the fishery, but bought existing licences. I think that's been the argument from some of the spawn-on-kelp operators, as I understand it.
On February 8th, 2007. See this statement in context.