>Don may be right, its coming done to which side do you want to be on rather
>than a more rational approach about carrying capacity and timing of grazing.

Actually, that's not quite what I said ... it's always been brutal and
not based on rational processes. They're poised for the kill (or,
thought they were, reality has sunk in and electing Wyden helped).
It's not an attitude change, though. Until two Novembers ago, they
were armed with pistols, now they have machine guns. The election
changed the scene that much. They didn't figure on the ability of
masses of proles to overwhelm their weapons (70% opposition as measured by
pollsters can dampen an elected officials willingness to support you
with ample ammunition). The professionals pols have, and are deserting
the cause.

Ironically, I believe cowboys (more so than ranchers) could be allies,
more so than loggers - simply due to the less-centralized nature of
ranching (though that changes more-and-more every year). Rank and
file loggers really have nothing to say about their future.

If you live long enough to get a word in, that's a basic problem. I
nearly got scalped in Frenchglen this spring, and it wouldn't have been
an anomaly.

On the other hand, I've met more closet conservation-minded c'boys
than loggers. That may just reflect the time I spend in eastern
Oregon, though...but, sometimes, they seek me out, and that makes
me feel better about that part of the state.

Anyway, my statement is nothing new - it is pretty much the
status quo amongst the conservation community and has been
since the 1970s, at least.

Effective conservationism is, I'm afraid, about political power.
That's the bottom line. It's sick. It's also probably better than
the alternatives, at least I can't think of a better one.

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