I think we've had a long-time series of data in this fishery that indicate the science is accurate. The predictions, the trends in particular, are generally spot-on with respect to whether we are in the declining part of the cycle or at the bottom of the trough, as we believe we are now, etc. We do have discussions with the stakeholders, and they have views about the accuracy of the science.
The other thing, as noted in the deck, is that we take advantage of the difference in size between males and females and the fact that we can manage the fishery to catch only the mature males and leave the juveniles and females in the population and not have them subject to fishing mortality. As well, we have closures of the spawning areas when spawning happens, so there's more than just one safety net here. It's not just the TAC and quotas that help conserve it.
A clear debate was held over the last two years. The fishermen were saying, “Look, let us take a bit more harvest rate and let's keep the harvest rates fairly high; we know we'll have to adjust later.” They preferred to take the fish over the last two years, knowing that this year there would be an adjustment.
I think it's fair to say that the adjustment turned out to be higher than anybody wanted, but it's necessary to prevent the stock from getting into a situation from which it can't be rebuilt. It wasn't as if people were going blindly into the situation; there was an awareness that the risk of a bigger adjustment was there in the event that we didn't do it as deeply as was possible if we'd taken another course. That was done in conjunction with the stakeholders, provinces, fishermen, etc., knowing that the risk of the larger adjustment that is necessary now was one of the consequences of such an action.