Foundation. The conference was dedicatedrnto Gil Murray, the CaliforniarnForestry Association president killedrnApril 24 by a package bomb attributed tornthe Luddite “Unabomber,” and Sunday’srnagenda featured Donn Zea, thernassociation’s vice president for industryrnaffairs, and firebrand Idaho RepresentativernHelen Chenoweth, who sits onrncongressional task forces dealing withrnreform of the Endangered Species Actrnand with property rights and term limitsrnadvocacy.rnOne newcomer to the meeting wasrnSteve Lindsey, a family rancher fromrnSouthern Arizona. The mild-manneredrnrancher turned a bit red while namingrnthe forces bearing down on him: a glut ofrnMexican cattle coming across the borderrnat Douglas (undermining the rock bottomrnprices of 30-35 cents a pound herngets for his cattle), a federal governmentrnthat wants to raise the rent on the land itrnallows him to graze his cattle on, and,rnperhaps worst of all, the United StatesrnFish & Wildlife Service. The agency’srnPhoenix office has told Lindsey that hernwill likely have to fence off pasture landrnon his own private property since a flowerrncovered by the Endangered SpeciesrnAct, the Canelo Hills Lady’s Tresses, isrnfound there.rnArnold, who argued the need to reachrnout to New Conservationists, says the audiencernresponded with “surprise. Shock.rnSome resistance.” Arnold expects asrnmuch from wise users today but says theyrnmust take the New Conservationists seriously,rnbecause, as he sees it, they are thernonly environmentalists who accept peoplernas part of any equation in discussingrnnatural resources, endangered species,rnhabitat, etc. Of the three current typesrnof environmentalists—the foundationcontrolled,rnthe deep ecologists, and therneco-socialists—^Arnold says, “we look forrnthe middle ground, and that’s the ecosocialists,”rnwhom he praises for theirrnkeen sense of economic justice. For example,rnwhile a New Conservationist mayrnadvocate a zero-cut policy in the nationalrnforests, he wouldn’t fool himself intornbelieving that a government programrncould retrain lifelong loggers into softwarernprogrammers. According to St.rnClair, both greens and natural resourcernworkers may realize that “it comes downrnto connecting people to place” and thatrn”you do that in the communities.”rnA New Conservationist may even resentrnthe unemployment resulting fromrnmainstream environmentalists’ activism,rnwhich, as Getting Rich documents, is arnflourishing industry. For instance, thernSurdna Foundation, a member of thernEnvironmental Grantmakers Associationrnand an Andrus family foundationrnbuilt with money from gold, oil, timber,rnand real estate businesses, approved arndonation of $35,000 in April 1992 forrnEnvironment Now, which trains activistsrnin filing appeals to stop federal TimberrnHarvest Plans. The foundation has alsornawarded $90,000 to the Sierra Club (’91-rn’92), $30,000 to the Oregon NaturalrnResources Council (’92-’93), $197,000rnto the Wilderness Society (’90-’93),rn$175,000 to the Western AncientrnForest Campaign (’92-’93), $100,000 tornthe Audubon Society (’92-’93), andrn$357,000 to the Natural Resources DefensernCouncil (’89-’93)—all of whichrnhave also filed appeals for “stopping timberrnharvests and log supplies to mills inrnthe Sierra Nevada market area. Thirtysixrnsawmills in Northern California havernshut down because of log shortages sincern1990, rendering 8,000 unemployed.”rn”As a result,” according to GettingrnRich, “timber prices on Surdna Foundation’srnprivate lands have increased dramatically.rnSome of the Timber HarvestrnPlans that were appealed lie in the samernwatershed as the timbedands owned byrnSurdna Foundation and Andrus timberrnpartners, yet no appeals were filed on thernState Timber Harvest Plans submittedrnby Surdna Foundation under Californiarnlaw.” During 1992-1993, Getting Richrnalso reports, the “Surdna Foundation realizedrn$2.7 million income from itsrnNorthern California timbedands.”rnRural populists have long objected torndistant bureaucrats telling them how tornbe stewards of the land. Locally orientedrngreens alienated by groups trying torndominate all environmental politics—rnand making enemies of neighbors whornmay be ranchers, loggers, and miners inrnthe process—may find many areas ofrncommon interest. Rozek is open to thernnotion. “Early on in the environmentalrnmovement we needed power and size,”rnhe says. “Having accomplished that wernsaw the results of centralization.”rnRozek doesn’t seem to be alone: sincern1990, the Sierra Club, one of the environmentalrnmainstream’s most powerfulrnorganizations, has lost more than 50,000rnmembers.rnA former poUcy analyst with the IndependentrnInstitute, ]im Christie is a Seattlebasedrnwriter.rnBitch, Bitch, Bitchrnby Laurie MorrowrnEarlier this year, when ConniernChung duped Newt Gingrich’srnmother into confiding that Newt consideredrnthe First Lady a “bitch,” victimrnfeminists went into a frenzy. Gingrich’srnmother and father hardly expected thisrntreatment from Chung, as they hadrnspent eight hours treating her like a guestrnin their modest home (Gingrich’s fatherrnhad even baked Chung a cake). HadrnNewt’s mom spat on the cross, therernwould have been fewer cries of outragern(and she might have gotten an NEArngrant for performance art). Shocked—rnshocked!—into an acute case of thernvapors by Newt’s alleged use of an indelicacy,rnWoodstock-era media babes proclaimedrntheir sensibilities offended andrnlamented that even now, men just cannotrnhandle strong women.rnThis frenzied response to “bitch” restsrnon an evasion of the word’s meaning.rnConsider, for example, Margaret Carlson’srncolumn in Time, “Muzzle the BrnWord”: “Why,” she puzzles, “shouldrnwomen be reduced to animals in heat?”rnIn current slang, however, “bitch” hasrnlong been divorced from its literal, “doggy”rnmeaning; a “bitch” is, rather, “a malicious,rnunpleasant, selfish woman, esp.rnone who stops at nothing to reach herrngoal” (The Random House Dictionaryrnof the English Language). Rather thanrnachieve her ends through honest and directrnaction, the bitch employs indirectrntactics, such as whining, griping, or resortingrnto guile, e.g., urging a confidencernshe has no intention of keeping by saying,rn”Just whisper it to me.” The insultrn”bitch” is thus actually worse than Carisonrnsuggests, as it goes beyond mere dehumanizationrnto evoke specific qualitiesrnof character and motive; by focusing onrnthe word’s literal meanmg, victim feministsrnevade the more serious charge atrnthe heart of the insult. To them, wordsrnmatter more than deeds: instead of inquiringrnabout the accuracy of the chargern(is she a bitch?), victim feminists focusrnon the breach of etiquette (how mean hernDECEMBER 1995/49rnrnrn