Okay. So here's my problem with the so-called precautionary approach. When I hear that word, it means we're concerned about a particular stock, 3M cod, for example. We want to make sure that whatever we do, we take the strongest of efforts to protect the integrity of the biomass--so I assume--and you offer a sort of quota from, say, 3 million to 12 million. In my view, the precautionary approach would be that you take the minimum, the bare minimum.
We had DFO here the other time say no, it went up to 5 million, or whatever it was, because of the economics of it. Obviously, it may not be economically viable to go out and catch 3 million, but 5 million might be. It's not exactly what they said, but I think they looked at the economics of catching it as well.
I assume a scientist--and we're going to have Boris Worm on Thursday. I assume your number one concern is the biomass of the fish stocks. When governments or NAFO say they'll take the higher amount, even though it's on the low side, wouldn't you have concerns about that?
Also, while you're thinking of that, do you ever offer advice on the catch methods of various fish stocks, not just seiners or gillnetters, but draggers, trawlers, etc.?
Also, do you ever see these international observer reports unedited when they go back because of the bycatch and concerns of that nature?
My last one for you is--and I say this because many environmental groups say this--that dragging is the worst method of fishing you can have on any fish stock. As a scientist, would you agree with that statement?
That should do it. Thank you.
Take your time.