SSPey
loco alto!
I never said any of that. My point was the data cited was bad and shouldn't be considered gospel in order to set policy. 150% of the run could have been caught for all we know. Or 70% or 40%.
The runs are depressed - if one believes the data. It sounds like you don’t think the data are good enough to drive policy decisions, of which ESA listing is the big one. NOAA seems to think the data are good enough to consider ESA listing.
If not using data - even if imperfect data - then how else should policy be set?
Last edited: