Not very often do I find myself in agreement with "environmentalists." This would have to be an example of one time I do. <a href="http://www.billingsgazette.com//index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/02/22/build/wyoming/35-elkfeedgrounds.inc">Groups call for closing elk feedgrounds</a>. I would even have to agree with the stated reason for this position, health of the herd. Where I would probably part company is that I feel this way since there is the possibility these diseases could also affect cattle herds. In fact <a href="http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2004/02/15/build/wyoming/30-brucellosis.inc">feeding the elk</a> is cited as the reason Wyoming now is not brucellosis free anymore and is going to have to perform extensive testing on any cattle moved out of state.<br />n<!–more–><br />nThe group is even making a lot of sense in saying that 2 or 3 grounds should be closed and the effects studied. Pretty moderate position for an "environmentalist" group. The original environmentalists, farmers and ranchers, should throw there support behind this idea. Even if it is like allying yourself with the devil it is the right thing to do.<br />n<br />n<b>We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us. Francois de La Rochefoucauld </b>