I think it's a bit of a combination. In terms of the marine protected area design I was talking about, the idea is to protect all examples of both habitat types and species. That would include commercially fished species, as well as those that are not. However, the information we have about distributions of species is often focused on those that are of commercial or cultural importance, because they get studied a lot more. We tend to use habitats, the kinds of ecosystems, and different depths and so on as proxies for different kinds of ecosystems in the marine environment as a whole.
I should add, too, that one of the things we can do in MPA design and in some of the science that's been developing is to ensure that biodiversity is represented while reducing the impact or creating benefits for the fishing industry.
I did one study back in 2009 that was looking at fishing areas. We were trying to see if we kept 95% of the areas that are currently fished commercially, for which we had data.... In keeping that 95% of commercial fisheries catches—catch per unit effort—about 30% of B.C. could be outside of that footprint. That's similar to what the commercial sector has done for closing their groundfish trawl footprint. I have to give them huge kudos for the work that the groundfish industry has done in increasing their sustainability.
In MPA design, a lot can be done to ensure those biodiversity objectives are met, while at the same time reducing the potential impact on sectors such as commercial and recreational fishing.