I think, to be fair, after a number of years of closure, there were a lot of reports in different places, notably in Trinity Bay, and the union was bringing these to the fore, to the government's attention, making the point that from its perspective the health of the stock was better than what DFO science was indicating. That pressure, which must have been considerable, I would imagine, was the primary motive for opening the fishery. It wasn't part of a broader management context or science advice, but it was interesting and a bit unfortunate. I can tell you that for those five years the quotas were set somewhere between 4,000 tonnes and 9,000 tonnes. So that's not a lot. That's not a lot of fish compared to the 200,000 tonnes and 300,000 tonnes that were caught in other years. But DFO did some very good tagging studies during the same period of time and, basically, it tagged a lot of cod. Fishermen sent the tags back to DFO from the ones that they caught, and then DFO was able to estimate the percentage of cod that were being removed from these small-scale fisheries, compared to what was there, and it found it was in the order of 30% to 35%, which is a very high rate.
So I would suggest it was that tension between the perception of the health of the stock in some parts of the inshore area and what DFO science was saying.