Absolutely. That's something we've advocated for, especially during the ongoing consultation process to reach the current 5% target. We have tried to come up with ways. When we look at low-impact fishing gear such as hook-and-line and hook-and-line trawl-type gear, we think it will all depend on what the goal of that MPA is. When we come to areas where corals and sponges, for example, are the species that are focused on for protection, obviously certain bottom-contact gear is not going to be permitted in those areas. But if you have gear that is mid-water, if you have hook-and-line, there's no risk to those corals and sponges. Fish harvesters also have no interest in destroying gear and running into those issues either.
In the planning process, there is a bit of common sense there so that we can sit down at the table and come to an agreement. In areas like the Hawke Channel, that's a long-standing closure where certain gear types have been restricted. It's been successful. That was a voluntary closure by harvesters, because the protections there and the goals are obvious and they benefit our members and their livelihoods. Fish harvesters have no interest in putting stocks at risk. We want to make sure we protect them and that going forward those stocks are going to be healthy and vibrant, but we do need those flexibilities to say that maybe we don't need to close these areas fully and permanently. We need to sit down and figure out what's going to be the most beneficial for what we're trying to protect.