Thanks for the follow up comments Larry. I don't think 'we' want or even need a 100% proof, it would be a hollow victory. You mentioned a bit ago that in the few years since you wrote the piece, your mind hasn't changed. I can appreciate that.

You also mentioned, that we can't blow things off because the public will look at things in a different way. Something makes the public look at things in an anti hunting way, and it's not facts and figures, let alone 'pro' hunters validating their much less than 100% proof.