Reply to Weiland et al.: The point is to bring data to inform policy, not to rely solely on anecdotes

We appreciate the response to our paper (1) from Weiland et al. (2). Rather than a point-by-point rebuttal, we focus our reply on three fundamental issues in their response. First, the response overinterprets our study. We claimed that data rebut common perceptions of section 7 consultations, imposing a heavy regulatory burden nationwide. That claim need not rest on an “economic” analysis because it is reasonably inferable from our key findings: only one jeopardy opinion out of 88,290 consultations and a median consultation duration well below the 135-d deadline. An economic analysis would help quantify the monetary costs and benefits of consultations, but our study never intended …