I think it's very easy sometimes to get caught up in putting regulations in place that you think may solve a problem, without actually having the hard evidence looking at what will change. Even if I take a look at the work that's been done on our own farm, such as fencing back from those water courses and getting the cattle out of those streams, the bank damage is gone and the water quality is cleaned up. I'm seeing fish in those streams that I haven't seen before. There are geese and beavers. All of this wildlife habitat is coming back, just because of some simple changes that were done on the ground.
However, there might be places where you would end up with a regulation. I put a tile drainage outlet into that area a while ago and it was a difficult case in getting permission for access, even though that's providing more fresh water into that stream. Taking a look at the broad picture of the outcome and if the habitat is being improved in general in the region is more effective than having regulations.
I go back to what I mentioned earlier about taking a look, on a regional basis, especially at man-made drains, and recognizing that some are going to have to be maintained every year. By doing that maintenance, you actually create the situation where you have habitat at different levels of development all the way through that process. You do recognize that, at the end of the day, some of those drains are going to have to be cleaned and there's going to be damage in that local area, but then the overall picture is that fish habitat has been enhanced. That would be a case where, if the regulation says you don't damage the habitat around that drain when you're contacting it, then you can't do anything with it. The drains block up and then, all of a sudden, you don't have any fish habitat at all. You have to really take a look at the broader outcome that you're looking for.