>>Ummm...point of clarification, if you don't mind...

>Thanks, Don for the clarification. It is, however, totally out of character
>for Hatfield and I can't help wondering what he's up to. Brownie points
>with the conservation community doesn't seem likely.

Hmmm...maybe this deeply religious man finally read about Noah, you
know, the bit about preserving God's creation :)

I think it is simply an effort on his part to moderate the legacy
he leaves behind. Remember, he cheaply shot down Kopetski's
bill to do the same when Kopetsky decided to retire from Congress
(after only, what, 3 terms?). He doesn't want to be remembered
as the man who dealt with protecting Opal creek by shooting
down a bill which would've passed if it weren't for his opposition,
something he did for personal reasons as much as anything (he
apparently despises Kopetsky). He thinks, in part, that folks
will remember him for his last act, not the former. My spin only,
not PAS.

He's not seeking brownie points with the conservation community,
believe me. That's hopeless. The conservation community's
guarded optimism towards the bill is really a great example of
self-control in a situation where it is difficult not to
ignore the message due to one's desire to (metaphorically)
shoot the messenger.

He may also feel that this will help Gordon Smith in the
upcoming Senate election that will replace him. Smith
paints himself as being a moderate ala Hatfield, and they
can move to the election crowing that they've saved all the
big sticks worth saving :) (I'm being facetious here, but
not in the first sentence of the paragraph).

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http:://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza