I will definitely continue to contribute to this discussion, but right now I'm getting ready for a meeting in about two minutes, and then I'm going camping. Let me say really quickly that while Grandpa does make some legitimate points, he's a little off on the 9th Circuit decision. The Appeals Court did not actually "uphold" the original Hogan Ruling. As with most legal stuff it's more complicated than that. Basically they declined to hear the appeal, which has the immediate effect of "upholdng" the original ruling, but not as a matter of law (the 9th circuit never officially endorsed the "fish is a fish" doctrine of the Hogan decision). What the court said was that the appellants had to wait until the bad thing they fear actually happens before they can come back and make their arguments. so isn't this the bad thing? Sort of, but for the 9th circuit's purposes, not until everything is finalized which won't be for several months. I would imagine that if it goes that far, resubmitting the appeal may be part of the fight against this policy change.

But regardless, there is no doubt that science does not support this new policy. And the implications are so complicated and far reaching that it will take a lot more time than I have right this minute to go into, but Aunty sure has a point when she says watch how the commercials react.

I'll be back on Monday, if by some chance interest in this issue remains high.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout