Well, unfortunately, what we're talking about here really is a mix of biology, sociology and cultures. This is not a straightforward thing that you should do this, yes or no. You could certainly do elements of this, and I have been promoting the consideration of mass marking, because I think to sustain our coastal communities and to have viable tourism and recreational fishing, we need to provide opportunity.
You can't just have closures, because you're going to lose the resource; you're going to have loss of infrastructure, etc. The decision has to be for the rebuilding of the natural populations that have conservation needs. Is there a sustainable level of harvest or mortality that could be sustained while you do that? You'll have to make a very explicit management decision that you will enable a limited mortality in order to sustain communities while you rebuild the populations.
Rebuilding is not going to be overnight. It could take 10 to 20 years, so you have to have a long-term perspective about our communities as well. It will have to be limited; it is not a panacea. If we think that the allowable harvest is 5% of a return—and it could be that low—then the scale of the fishery you can provide is going to be limited.
We can know these things; we can identify animals to their stream of origin and that, so we can do the assessments. It's a matter of how open we are to looking at a new way of doing these analyses and rebuilding. We need to think long term. We need to think about wild fish, but we have to consider our communities, I think, to make it saleable in the long term.