That's really a tough question, and I'm not saying that because I don't want to give an answer.
There are pros and cons to different approaches. I'm sure you're going to hear about the last-in, first-out approach with the shrimp fishery in Newfoundland. Brace yourselves; it's going to be interesting.
The pros about that is you can have new players enter the fishery during the highs. Some of those are even based on more than resource, also on resource and price. As I tried to state earlier, the price can have a bigger impact than the resource.
The problem with that is investing. If someone wanted to invest in equipment, in gear, or even in predicting their business enterprise from year to year, it's very difficult if you don't know if you're in or not. I think that was a lot of what was behind the idea of putting everybody in and ending it once and for all. Every year you would have the temporaries saying they're not getting a fair enough shake and you'd have the permanents saying we shouldn't have temporaries in. Sometimes the TAC arguments would be based on it should be high for those who wanted in, and it should be low for those who want to keep people out. It wasn't based on good resource management.
The idea of putting everybody in was to avoid those kinds of issues. Then when you have everybody in--permanent, predictable--you run into trouble during the downtimes in price and resource...or a combination of both is worse.
It's a real difficult one. Somewhere in the middle, where you can have everyone in and have some kind of a combination of enterprises, doesn't work either, but that's something that will help it a little bit.
There is no real easy answer for that one.