I think it's hard to answer because it depends on what's being considered. As I acknowledged in my testimony, there are certain requirements around meeting conservation objectives that may always trump certain other societal benefits or considerations when considering future impacts and generations.
In the kinds of examples that I've been studying and looking at, it's the absence, really. Those societal objectives then need to take enough weight that we're not producing policies and regulations that unnecessarily create a disadvantage for our own communities, our own harvesters and our own intentions around community well-being, which I think are very well described from the engagement processes on these strategies.