I was either a bit too quick with the delete key or my good sense has not
deserted me:

The last posting on the "threats to birders" thread suggested that Mr.
Adnerson was simply expressing his opinions and Mr. Baccus responded
abusively. Leaving aside the obvious question of why Mr. Anderson's
expression of his opinions is entitled to greater consideration than is
Mr. Baccus, IMHO the abuse allegation ignores the political situation
that we who seek to protect the environment are currently facing.

Much of the attack against environmental regulation is couched in terms
very similar to those of Mr. Anderson: they are unnecessary meddling by a
bunch of outsiders who do not know as much about the problem as the
locals do. That is clearly the argumentative style of people like my
congressman Helen Chenoweth: the local farmers/ranchers/loggers who work
the land are in a much better position to take care of it and its
resources than are a bunch of scientists and other outsiders. It is also
the position behind much of the junk science that is coming from industry
and other anti-environmental forces.

I think that Mr. BAccus responded to this -- he has, after all, been
involved in conservation efforts for some time and has had the argument
hurled at him often enough to know its implications. Perhaps he was a
bit too intense for some tastes.

But then it seems to me that anyone who is not intense in the face of the
current political situation may not get it.

Please note: I am *not* saying that Mr. Anderson is anti-environment, that
he favors junk science, or donates to Helen Chenoweth. I *am* saying
that his posting shared a common core with many of these forces by
arguing that locals all-but necessarily know more than outsiders. I am
also *not* saying that locals are hicks, know-nothing, etc. or that city
folks are beneficent geniuses, etc.

dale goble
moscow