We had a history of doing it annually. We've also had some bad experiences from doing it annually, in that there's noise built into science, and people have had a tendency in the past to want us to manage to the noise. So when you get a spike in an index of abundance, they say there's more fish there and they want to fish there. What we really need to do is to dampen that out and take a more cautious approach and look at and respond to the trends over time.
We saw what happened with the cod on the south coast of Newfoundland, where it went up and down, up and down, and the TAC went up and down, up and down, and we took too much risk because we responded to a high index reading and then cropped it down and then had to reduce the TAC.
So with long-lived species this allows us to have a more multi-year approach and to monitor indices, but not do a full evaluation of these species that are not going to change in one year in any dramatic way. So we will keep a tab on what's going on in that stock, but we aren't going to do a full evaluation and spend lots of money and come up with a number and then have to respond to it, when what we really need to do is to take a longer term outlook.