It was within a range that the science provided us, which indicated that if you go here you're going to have a possible risk of a larger decline than if you go at this point. But there was no question that we were in for a decline. There was no question about that whatsoever. It was a matter of looking at the risks and the probabilities of having to take a more difficult decision in 2010.
The decisions were informed by science, but this year the risks were just too high to not take the action needed to keep the stock out of the critical zone.
I think as far as the associations feeling they are not included goes, clearly we go through a long process involving the science and the advice, but I think it's a question of the transparency of the decision-making process. As I said, there's no process under law that defines how these things should take place and how they should be communicated, etc.
We're also dealing with very short timelines, especially this year with no ice in the gulf, which meant the fishery had to proceed early in order to avoid white crab. Had we not done that, it would have been difficult to prosecute the fishery this year, because we were running into the moulting process very early in the year as compared to in past years.
Why it's much warmer this year than in past years I'd have to leave to climatologists and oceanographers. We just have to deal with the reality we're faced with. We were trying to manage a seal hunt with no ice in the gulf. All the herd was way off Labrador and unable to be reached by people, and that's just the reality we're facing.