We found the stern extension, and we've got several examples where the fishermen modified their vessels to operate within DFO management measures. In the Five Star accident, the TSB investigation found that the vessel's original construction met licence length restrictions. However, the stern extension is not required to be included.
The Pacific Siren investigation revealed that the length of vessel's bow and hull met licence length restrictions; however, a stern extension was not necessarily to accommodate the 300 prawn traps allocated to the licence. Yet, DFO does not require an assessment of a vessel for its intended purpose for its prior designated licence, as we've mentioned.
We have a third one. These are only the recent ones that we've investigated. In the case of the Jesse G, the TSB investigation revealed that the length of the vessel's bow and hull, which did not include the stern extension, met licence length restrictions. Again, however, DFO did not require an assessment of the vessel's adequacy for prawn fishing prior to granting a stacked licence in this case. There are two licences.