I think it's important that we put into the process room for re-evaluation to reflect realities. I'll just use our current transition as an example. Right now we are in an environment where water salinity and temperatures are changing. That's bringing its own challenges. We went through the same things 25 years ago, when saw the collapse of the groundfish and the northern cod but we saw opportunities with shellfish. Obviously measures were put in place at those times to protect certain species.
As the environment changes, we have to go back to re-evaluate whether those areas are actually achieving what we want them to achieve. Species move. It's just the nature of fish. They're not going to be sedentary.
As we're now going back and looking at traditional areas where, say, northern cod, for instance, aggregated in pre-spawning aggregations, there's an opportunity there. Down the road 25 years, are those areas still going to be the ones where protection is needed? Has the aggregation moved? There needs to be some flexibility to go back and re-evaluate that and to take into account the scientific evidence and the experience and knowledge of fish harvesters. They're seeing it on the water.
Sometimes we find ourselves in situations where we're still having a lot of the same arguments and frustrations we had 25 years ago, when harvesters were telling us what was happening and what they were seeing, and they were just not being heard.
I think we really need to make room, and make sure we have an adaptive process so that we can go back and re-evaluate those decisions, and see if there are better ways that we can, say, adjust boundaries or look at the areas themselves to see if there's a better way we can do things.