On the first question, you're right. As I mentioned, J.D. Irving and other companies, the folks I represent, own about three million hectares, but they also manage an additional 50 million hectares of public land. What they do in all cases is manage all those pieces as a unit, so it's not like they manage the private land one way and then they do something different on the public land. You need to be able to manage that estate as a unit so you can understand where you're going to get volume in which year, where you're going to build roads, where you're going to regenerate, where your habitat is—all those kinds of things.
With respect to your question about if we're not protecting on private land, then we need to protect on public land, our members do a tremendous job protecting habitat on their land, on private land, which is, as I explained in my remarks, a challenge for them because the land is very productive for trees but it's also very productive for fish and wildlife. So if you have a lot of that habitat, you get a lot of attention in order to set that aside because there is pressure on habitat all over the country.
Their issue is that they know tons about their own land. They know all kinds of things about it because, as Mr. Baker talked about, there's a real incentive to understand how this land functions and how it operates as an ecosystem because that's how they make their living. If they start to share that information with fish and wildlife people, it can really be a challenge because people start to realize that there are tremendous areas of habitat. The more you tell them, the more it seems they want to lock up pieces of your property because it's really good habitat, and without real consultation or partnership either. That's the problem. Our members want to save habitat and want to manage their habitat, but they want to do it in a cooperative way so that when they provide information it's not at their own expense in terms of access.