>Option 9 is a prime example of this- remember, that Clinton did not select
>the scientifically generated options 1-8. He wanted more timber cut, so
>sent
>Jack Ward Thomas back for Option 9 that was more politically palatable.

Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that it was wise of Clinton
to do so. It almost hurts me to say that (ouch, ouch). But it did
provide a way to move forward and would've stuck if it weren't for the
November '94 disaster that was in no way caused by his (waffling)
views on conservation and environmentalism (remember Oregon returned
3 Demos and only 2 Repubs during the disaster despite being the state
most heavily affected by NSO issues).

Option 9 wasn't all that bad. Not all that good, but a great step
forward.

Remember, the scientists did sign on to it, though reluctantly and while
pointing out that some of the underlying assumptions were risky.

>5. One letter mentioned cumulative effects. It doesn't matter if you
>clearcut one acre if you leave 40,000 alone. But if you clearcut (or
>selectively cut, for that matter) 39000 acres and leave 1000 alone, then you

>have a problem.

That's me you're mentioning, and yes, that was my point.

> We need to change the debate from this site-specific stuff,
>this idiot clearcut-replant debate, and start talking about landscape level
>effects.

Which, of course, the Clinton Forest Plan would do, albeit not weighted
towards conservation to the degree I'd prefer.

The current movement in Congress is definitely at the landscape level:
"convert it all to rotational monoculture" :)

Oh, sorry, being cynical again...

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