Under your recovery strategies, under question 7, you say “The O.F.A.H. recommends the development of appropriate criteria and an effective framework for assessing the socio-economic impact of species listing and recovery planning.” I hope I'm not reading it right, but I want to get clarification.
We heard evidence on Tuesday. There seemed to be a consensus from those witnesses that it should be straight science with no socio-economic benefit analysis on listing and determining what critical habitats are and what position the species are in. Where a socio-economic benefit analysis would come into play would be in the recovery planning stage. In other words, politically you might decide it's not worth the money or not really needed or too expensive--that that could be contentious. But hopefully the science, while imperfect, would not be that contentious.
Could you clarify what you meant here?