You were right - you shouldn't have offered to answer questions...

You were right - you shouldn't have offered to answer questions if in fact you were always going to use "we are in litigation" as an excuse not too

I still draw the following conclusions:

1. The destruction of 50% of the TB populations by human intervention would have been noticed due to the shear size of the area "destroyed"
2. There was rodent scat throughout the damaged area
3. There were no obvious indications of human involvement (tire marks etc)
4. Rodent attacks can devastate growing plants
5. What INR is trying to achieve is good for the planet we live on (& forget the commercial aspects for this argument)
6. If everyone works together rather than take the combative approach CBD are taking, we might actually achieve a win/win result
7. Rather than spending their good supporters money on litigation, CBD should be spending the money of pro-actively working with INR rather than lining some lawyers pockets with the costs of that litigation
8. I know I prefer human longevity to TB longevity - I suspect TB is doomed whatever happens because the rats nearly always win