I would say so. Also, I would follow up on what my colleague mentioned, in that if you don't have boots on the ground, you don't have the information. Without the information, you can't manage, basically, so you abdicate management if you don't go out and get that information.
We had an example just this week. We know that the Fraser River run is an absolute disaster. The only way we know what's happening on the Fraser River before the fish actually arrive at the river is through the test fisheries. You send out commercial boats, and in a pattern that's evolved over a century, you basically compare catches in certain gauntlet areas to determine whether or not there are more fish coming, and if so, what part of the run you're starting to see. You DNA-sample them and you go to coded wire tag fish.
If you don't have test fisheries, you can't manage a fishery. They shut down the test fishery on Fraser River early this year, where we know that there is a significant problem, and now we have no eyes on the water. Also, the pink fisheries have been abolished in certain areas. We used to send in a small fleet and say that if there were fish, we'd continue to fish; otherwise, you're closed and that's it. Those are abolished.
As for test fishing going out, in our fishery, chinook is a different beast than sockeye is. It's a six-year cycle, so the datasets that we establish within our commercial fleet are very critical. The recreational fleet now harvests more than the first nations and the commercial combined, yet they have a voluntary compliance on letting us know how many fish they caught at the dock or in sampling. Our dataset that we're relying on is coming from a smaller portion of the fishery at any given time, and basically from the commercial fleet and from historical data when we actually had large fisheries.