It's my understanding that the decline in the biomass was being observed. It was going to go in a downward cycle. It gets back a bit to the whole idea of industry flexibility. If the industry decides to take them now because they're not going to be there in two years' time and it's really not going to make a difference at a stock level, then it's more of an economic decision of those who benefit or don't from the resource. I think some of the decisions were leaning more towards that principle—and this is my opinion—in 2008–2009; then in 2010 the scientific statements were far stronger and more inflexible, and that led to the decisions.
Going back to the earlier discussion I had with Mr. Byrne, I would have been interested in having that scientific discussion in 2010. Is there a real, scientific, biological reason to say we have to put the screws on it this year or we'll be in big trouble? It's like trying to debate motherhood, but I would have engaged in that debate.