Jon:
>I don't know how many people remember Malheur from 20 years ago, =
>or can compare the area with today's habitat, but I remember NO riparian =
>cover along the river in 1974. By 1983, when I summered over there, =
>most of the waterbird census transects were darned-near impossible to =
>run accurately because the vegetation had obscured the view following =
>the reduction of AUMs in the Mazzoni years. To the point that this area =
>was one of the few in the region where the Breeding Bird Census route =
>had willow flycatcher and yellow warbler numbers stable or increasing!

Yes, but that corresponds with the improved management scheme to deny
cattle access to these riparian areas. This simply underscores the
importance of protecting riparian areas from cows when grazing
is allowed, does it not?

And the locals are still fighting to get cows unrestricted access
to the water. Two (? I think) springs ago, a set fire got lose
and nearly torched long barn, and the locals argued that this
was undeniable evidence that the changes in grazing practice
over the previous years should be reversed - we should get rid
of those damned riparian areas where, as you point out, willow
flycatchers breed.

And, there's a long, long story about sandhill crane and cattle
that I won't get into unless asked...

>I guess my main point - and it's often hard for me to find one - is that =
>we, as conservationists, ought to be able to look at an issue (any =
>issue) from all sides, and work with all interests for that "win-win" =
>solution. Work for resolution on the common concerns we have.

OK - I wear a political hat, I admit it. Just what common concerns
have been displayed by the timber and grazing interests in the past
18 months?

This is the problem - those of us who are willing to work coopertively
find ourselves Chamberlained by the extractive Hitlerites. That
sounds extreme, I know - but it's God's own truth and if you don't
believe me, take a look at the legislation proposed and theorized
after the last election. It wasn't written by Republicans, it was
written by the various industries. For example, the Timber
Salvage Bill was written by Mark Reyes (largely), ex-czar of
the Oregon Timber Coalition, the chief timber lobbying organization
until they split up into various "grassroots" organizations to
hide their connection. He's also hired to be part of the
team to rewrite the ESA.

I know that many small players in the extractive industries are
sympathetic to conservation. But the big players are only sympathetic
to the stock market. The company I work for recently laid off
folks to improve our image to Wall Street, despite making money
hand-over-fist. Extractive industries do the same, but often
their resources are non-renewable (or not likely to be renewed,
which technically describes old-growth).

Propogate your views here, and we debate politely. Propogate
those views in eastern Oregon in the wrong bar, and you'll find
your mustache trimmed to your boots...

That's the problem with being reasonable...

>My impression is that the responsible cowboys want =
>healthy rangeland as much as the rest of us.

Sure, I spoke to one:

"I've tried talking to the manager of the ranch (Roaring Spring), he
doesn't give a shit. We've got five cowboys for 3,000 head of cow.
I know we could do better. But, I've got a 5-yr/old girl and get
paid $30/day for chasing cows on a horse, and can't risk losing my
job".

This same dude quit Battle Mountain (a big mine in NW Nevada) because
he couldn't stand what was being done.

Point being, he's a grunt - and it ain't the grunts that rule the
scene. Much of the power out there lies in corporate interests.
True, many of the rednecks hate "enviros", but the real power lies
in vast corporations who only care for the bottom line. They don't
like us, they don't like cowboys, they don't even really like cows.

They just like the bottom line.

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