I just wanted to offer one comment and get your perspective. It's been suggested that it's far more cost-effective--and of course in this day and age, in this major recession, the departments of environment and fisheries will likely be cut back as well in the next budget--to protect the habitat of a threatened or endangered species in the first place than it is to rely on inefficient and costly recovery operations. I'm wondering if you would agree with that.
On June 2nd, 2009. See this statement in context.