Thank you, Mr. Kowalski and Mr. Giaschi.
On the issue of adventure tourism, we have now had at least two legal perspectives from those who are not members of the committee. Perhaps making some changes to what is already proposed is fair enough. But I'm wondering why you would still resist wording that provides additional coverage by virtue of minimum requirements and significant steps to be taken. Why would that bother you?
I'm at a loss to understand why someone like you, who has already proven to be a diligent operator, wouldn't want the same protection for others who are engaged in a similar business but who also take passive participants on whale-watching or other vessels that are not immediately involved in a risk-taking adventure.