I would not use the word "rational" when talking about self-serving spin and without more support that's all it is. If an accounting firm made a statement like that in a footnote to a certified income statement they would be vulnerable to sanction.

If he wanted to tooffer a more convincing explanation, he would supply the figures from the most recent two year period that hadsimilar time discrepencies and show that 40% can equal 5% in the real world.Most people's minds areopen to fully supported argument.

I'll repeat my earlier question: is a 5% loss of hunters (and the resulting multi-million dollar negative enonomic impact) acceptable and if so, why?