That didn't answer my question, though.
What I understand from the briefing is that there was almost a 50-50 probability, according to the scientists, that there would be a steeper decline than a 25% decline. In fact, the decline was double that.
When you make a decision when given that a 50% probability will steepen this decline, you are knowingly taking that gamble. Is that unusual from your perspective, that a minister will essentially pick the advice of interest groups to benefit over conservation?