I must agree with Steve Herman's response on this issue. I can see the
timber industry backing it to pass the buck, but that still doesn't mean
that conservationists should oppose just to spite timber. I personally
am going to vote for it (unless I soon see strong arguments otherwise),
and continue to hold our timber practices responsible for other aspects
of salmon decline. The loss of seabirds alone is good enough reason to
support it. And there will be jobs lost, but 20,000 is a gross
exaggeration. (Steve, I liked the iron lung analogy)

-------------
Michael R. Smith
Univ. of Washington, Seattle
whimbrel at u.washington.edu
http://salmo.cqs.washington.edu/~wagap/mike.html