It is a great honor to draw the attention of the very literate and
intelligent Michael Price whose communications are clear and very voluminous
and which I cannot match. I usually agree with him but he does misunderstand
one of the things I was trying to say

In a message dated 97-09-11 06:13:20 EDT, Michael writes:

<< Seriously, tarring David Beatty with this broad and inflammatory brush
("Arab terrorists", in*deed*, Bob!) and characterising his remarks as, to
paraphrase slightly, "blindly fighting all proposals and doing an injustice
to their cause" is very unfair. His posts on the subject have been specific
and have been concerned--in both senses of the word--with the issue of
sacrifice of wildlife-sensitive habitats, even refuges, for corporate
profit. Hardly the unthinking, global reflex opposition in which you clearly

imply he's indulging. >>

I did not mean to imply that David"s remarks were broad and inflamatory.
He was asking for advice only. The advice he was getting seemed to run to the
fight the bastards type of advice. I hold that we will do best if we marshal
our facts and with reasoned arguments try to influence the decision so the
least harm is done and the best mitigation is obtained. I certainly am
concerned with preserving habitat and making life easier for our wildlife. It
is really just a case of what approach is going to yield the best results.

<<And what of the birds themselves? What of the ones who can't speak at the
table when the discussions occur? Who will defend their interests? If, as
happens most frequently, the first industrial development--as the thin edge
of the wedge--opens the door to further development, and when most of it's
gone, where do the birds go then? *They* have no alternative, no back-up
position. We've taken away that too. What do they do then, Bob? When, say
fifty years from now, the Basin is developed, and other sites up and down
the coast likewise, where do the birds go? This isn't a rhetorical flourish,
Bob--I really want *you* to answer this: *What do they do? Where do they go?*
>>

Michael, the picture you paint is all too real and bleak and it is a good
rhetorical flourish. Of course this is a concern. However, the steel mill is
going somewhere in WA or OR on the coast (they require a deep water port and
railroad access) and the OR sites are very likly to have just as bad an
effect on our birds and fish as the WA site. Our best opportunity comes with
helping to force them into the least enviromentally damaging site and
monitoring compliance with enviromental guidelines. Some of the best results
have come from consevation groups suing the EPA to force them to enforce
their own regulations.
With the loss of logging jobs which was due to increasing automation as
well as other nonenviromental factors, the timber comapanies won the battle
of public opinion in making it an owl versus jobs choice. You can fool most
of the people most of the time if you have clever people with enough money
behind them.
Bob Norton
Joyce, WA