Serge:
>I think one might quite legitimately asks himself
>"then, why did they, as another interest group, go one way or the other?
>Why didn't they just say that the question is not really pertaining to
>conservation?"

That's a good question, and indeed - have they been actively opposing
the bill or simply choosing not to support? Just curious. I suppose
the answer varies from group to group. PAS has several times taken
the course of simply not taking a stand on a bill, as we did on
Oregon's anti-bear-baiting and anti-cougar hunting bill (I argued
against PAS supporting it though I voted for it personally on the
grounds that Serge mentions - it was a matter of ethics, with which
I agreed, but not conservation, thus not a matter for PAS to take
a stand on. Proponents of that bill lied, too, which nearly caused me
to vote against it but fortunately opponents lied even more vehemently).

BTW, if I lived in Washington I'm not sure how I'd vote (I'd do
a lot of research, though!). But I can think of many, many reasons
for conservation groups to not support this bill and not simply
because they consist of "birders for dead murres".

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>