So just generally, you know, we all know about the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADF and G. It's the agency that enforces Fish and Wildlife regulations that are promulgated by the boards. It's created by legislature, and it has five divisions commercial fisheries, sport fish, subsistence hunting and fishing and habitat and wildlife conservation. The commissioner of ADFG currently, Doug Vincent Lang oversees the whole department. And really even though the oversee the whole department, the Commissioner himself has pretty limited authority over Fish and Wildlife Resources, at least as written in regulation or statute. And, you know, this is the Commissioner can't order the board of fish or game to take a specific action and the the commissioner themselves sua sponte, you know, have their own authority can't change management action that was taken by the board, unless there was, you know, some new information that was provided that wasn't considered by the board related to conservation. This is a really, really unique circumstance. It very rarely happens. And when it's happened before, when a commissioner has stepped in and said, Well, I don't like that regulation. I'm just going to, you know, avoid it. The courts have not responded kindly to that action, and we've reversed the commissioners determination. It's want to touch briefly on the Alaska's subsistence division within ADF and G. They advise the commissioner in the board about customary traditional uses of our natural resources, but similar to how the board can treat or has the discretion to not adopt or give deference to AC determinations or recommendations. Neither board is required to incorporate the subsistence Divisions recommendations into its regulations. And that's kind of a problem when you think about you know, all of the competing uses in Alaska where you have commercial and sport and personal use and you know, subsistence is supposed to be a priority use in Alaska. But, you know, it's, it's, I think it's sort of a, in some ways, a devil's bargain, where you have a subsistence division that may make a recommendation that would not be received kindly by any of those other uses. But it's that recommendation is intended to protect and preserve subsistence uses, but the board's don't have to defer to or incorporate that recommendation. Um, so just one point I want to make is that, you know, it's ADFG is long standing policy that they don't make allocation decisions that the determination about, you know, who had a sort of cut up the pie of resources, that's a decision that is, you know, solely within the authority of the boards of the board of fish or the board game. But then, you know, it sort of raises the question, what happens if a regulation that's approved by the board or up by either board requires ADF and G to make an allocate a discrimination between you know, say like a sport entity, a sport use or and subsistence use or commercial use and subsistence use as sort of the situation that occurred and that was sort of identified one of many situations that was identified and the Sitka herring lawsuit that's pending right now. Or the appeal is pending right now, where in that case, the court directed ADF and G to make determinations that effectively allocate harvest opportunity between commercial and subsistence users of Sitka herring roe. So ADF and g is like, Oh God, what do we do with this? Because that decision is really, you know, upended their policy that they don't make the allocation determinations. So it's kind of a you know, if you if there's a lawsuit that you state lawsuits that you want to keep your eye on. For a potential outcome, a positive outcome for subsistence uses, this would be it