Don, Research by its very nature tries to tease out facts even when they are counter-intuitive. Those tested research findings should not, however, be confused with or felt that they are equivalent to opinions–they are different beasts all together. In terms of riparian areas, what you say is absolutely true and that is why we work on riparian systems from the source of rivers in the mountains to where they enter the sea and beyond–point, non-point and atmospheric forms of pollution all need to be dealt with including those from dairy and beef cattle. The good news is that nature tends to be resilient when allowed. It is mistake to think about wildlife biologists as aliens entering rural situations not understanding the context. My first jobs as a child was working on a ranch and it–in part–started me on my pathway just as sure as my early passions for hunting and fishing. As I have stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, rural people have a lot to offer in terms of knowledge and familiarity with cycles and landscapes. The tricky part comes when it is time to interpret what has or is being seen, formal study and research makes people more cautious about accepting simple solutions in a complicated world with multiple factors and a variety of asynchronous biological and physical cycles. And I never buy the old they are doing it worse as an excuse not to be responsible for your own actions or the actions of your community.  It is a poor ethic to live by.

Bob Ferris