Not to be inconsiderate, but what you're telling us is when science gives advice to the minister, then it.... Knowing the cycle the fishery is in, understanding the fishery pretty well--there's lots of information--would you agree she did not make the decision on conservation; rather, she made a political decision in favour of the industry that was a threat to the biomass? Or would you say it was not a threat to the biomass?
On November 25th, 2010. See this statement in context.