There are several issues with the new stock assessment and the lowering of the LRP that I'm aware of. That may be one, but there are others.
I have had an opportunity now to read the stock status report, which just came out days ago, to see some of the details of how they arrived at these new calculations. I remain, as I say, skeptical about them and about how this was put together.
I think the general statement here that needs to be thought about really clearly is that this new modelling approach and the lowering of the LRP rewrites the scientific history of this stock going back 50 years. It goes back to some of the most well-known Newfoundland fishery scientists, right back to Wilfred Templeman, and their analyses and opinions and data on this stock. It rewrites most of that, as does the current assessment model.
My view of this right now is not to dismiss the new model or say that I know absolutely that it's incorrect, but I'm skeptical about such a rapid rewriting of scientific history on this stock. It seems to be unquestioned that here we are; we have a brand new world, and we're supposed to accept this. Science doesn't work that way. Science remains skeptical until there is convincing evidence that the new—