The Amherst Town Board is dominated by Republicans who, for years, have been bending over backwards to satisfy developers. The net effect on Amherst has generally been negative. More blacktop and congestion, less open space and a deteriorating quality of life.

Over-development created the now famous "deer problem," a conflict between about 1,000 deer and 100,000 humans who reside in Amherst. The Town Board's solution to this problem is to continue policies of over-development while conducting a campaign of violence against the deer. A recent vote on the deer issue went 6 to 1 in favor of a resumption of the "bait and shoot" this spring. Only Council-member Peggy Santillo voted to oppose killing the deer.

What goes around, comes around. The henchmen who do the town's killing are also casualties of the bait and shoot. I am referring to the Amherst Police Department, whose reputation is being significantly damaged in the minds of many residents because of its participation in this slaughter. One has to wonder whether the off-duty officers are enjoying the opportunity for target practice on helpless, live creatures.

If the Town Board level of Amherst politics is disappointing from an environmental perspective, consider our representation at other levels of government.

I used to enjoy voting Republican when John Sheffer was on the ballot representing us in the New York State Legislature. But when John left the Senate in order to continue his distinguished career of public service at UB, his environmental conscience left with him.

Amherst residents are now represented in Albany by Assemblyman Rick Anderson and Senator Mary Lou Rath. Prior to Governor Pataki's recent decision to reject logging for Allegany State Park, neither Anderson nor Rath came out publicly against the logging plan. I am tempted to say that opposing logging in a magnificent state park is the environmental equivalent of a "no brainer," yet neither politician took this step.

The Environmental Advocates, a well-respected Albany-based environmental lobby (previously known as the Environmental Planning Lobby), rated Anderson 57 and Rath 25 out of a possible score of 100 on their votes on statewide environmental issues during the 1995 legislative season-indicating some room for improvement.

Against this backdrop, I recently attended a "town meeting" organized by Amherst's Congressman, Rep. Bill Paxon. The March 2 meeting was held in the Harlem Road Community Center in Snyder and was attended by over about 125 people, most of whom belonged to the Bill Paxon fan club.

Bill was his masterful self, taking questions and firing back his responsible-sounding answers, most of which were canned Newt Gingrich.

At times, this "town meeting" came close to degenerating into a Republican pep rally. One woman stood and read a poem describing President Clinton as the cause of all problems. Her remarks produced enthusiastic applause. Another woman, holding an infant, spoke against abortion with similar results. It was unclear whether the baby in her arms was real or just a theatrical prop.

Eventually, one member of the audience did get to ask Paxon about his votes on environmental issues. This speaker noted that a national environmental group (apparently the League of Conservation Voters) had recently rated Paxon's voting record on environmental issues an absolute zero, the worst of any congressman or senator in New York State. This person then described some of Paxon's votes and explained how he thought the Republican war on the environment was adversely affecting the health of children.

Bill Paxon's response was clever and in my opinion completely deceitful. He used the "big lie" approach to dismiss criticism of his appalling environmental voting record.

Without missing a beat, Paxon proclaimed himself to be an ardent environmentalist! He briefly talked about parenthood (Paxon's wife, Republican Congresswoman Molinari, is expecting in May) and how much he wants a clean and healthy environment for his child and all children! Paxon then said he doesn't pay any attention to the voting record analyses conducted by "those groups." According to Paxon, they only look at select votes that suit their political agenda, which he apparently believes is anti-Republican Party.

I begged to differ and was anxious to point out that the only political agenda the League of Conservation Voters has is environmental protection. And Bill, you got a failing grade! You flunked the test! You are the worst of the worst!

But Paxon didn't call on me. Again and again, we made eye contact and he studiously passed over me and selected someone else to speak.

In retrospect, I wish I had just stood up and laid into him and his lies. But I found myself in the uncomfortable position of playing the mild mannered, respectable Amherst resident-instead of the "mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" father-of-two activist that I am.

When the meeting ended, I was frustrated. I specifically came to express the anger and genuine despair I feel over the catastrophe that is occurring in our nation's forests. But I never got a chance to address this issue.

In national forests throughout the country, clear-cutting, road-building into previously roadless wilderness areas and loss of old growth forests are being accelerated by a law dreamed up by the Republican anti-environmental revolutionaries. This law, the Timber Salvage Rider, was passed as a "rider" to an appropriations bill. Senator Alfonse D'Amato and area Congressmen Paxon and Jack Quinn voted for it. The rider was signed into law, somewhat reluctantly, by Bill Clinton last July.

The rider is a give away to the timber industry. It was premised on a "forest health emergency" that doesn't exist. Taking the Republican revolution to its logical conclusion, this rider-known to environmentalists as "logging without laws"-actually suspends all existing environmental laws as they apply to logging. This includes the Endangered Species Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Timber Salvage Rider also cancels the public's right to challenge ill-conceived timber deals in court. What's left to do? Many people, especially in the Pacific Northwest, are putting their bodies on the line committing acts of civil disobedience in attempts to block logging operations. Others, myself included, are lobbying for a complete repeal of this insane, destructive law.

This isn't just an abstract issue I'm somehow concerned about. I've been in the woods enough to take this personally. I believe the senseless destruction of ancient forests and wilderness represents a spiritual crisis for our country, not just an environmental one.

I brought to Paxon's meeting an aerial photo of an area in the Pacific Northwest that shows how the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Forest Service and the timber industry have teamed up to destroy forest resources. The photo depicts in heart-wrenching clarity the ravages of clear-cutting, the timber extraction method of choice. Everything is cut down over huge areas. If any trees are spared, they are the trees at the very edge along roads so tourists driving through won't see the devastation.

I have been to Oregon and have seen what is going on. I went beyond the "beauty strips" and rode the logging roads to see vast areas that were clear-cut. I saw no evidence of replanting any trees, though at best replanting only creates tree plantations. It can never recreate the few remaining ancient forests with thousand-year-old trees.

The cutting I saw was done in terrain so steep that nothing could be replanted anyway. All that was left were denuded slopes and massive erosion. The soil was gone along with the trees. The landscape looked as barren as the surface of the moon.

Bill Paxon and his Congressional co-horts share responsibility for this. Moreover, they claim to care about the federal deficit yet they have approved logging in national forests that is "below cost," meaning the U.S. Forest Service spends more taxpayer money on building roads and preparing for timber sales than is received from the timber companies that cut the trees and destroy the forests and the land. The whole thing is obscene.

I wanted to confront Paxon with this sorry legacy of government working round the clock to serve special interests while destroying the environment. But I never got my chance. Before I knew it Paxon wrapped up and was whisked off by his faithful staff to his next "town meeting" in some other part of his long and winding district, jerry-mandered to Republican perfection in 1991 as a result of a $100,000 contribution he made to the Senate Republican Campaign Commission.

As I was leaving, I got into an argument with one of Paxon's supporters. He tried to give me a lesson in the gospel according to Saint Newt. He said that the Republicans are protecting the environment by getting rid of all those useless regulations and laws. Then he said something that sent me over the edge. He said, "Your environmental passion is misplaced. You are missing the forest for the trees!"

I shoved the aerial photo of what used to be forest and wilderness in Washington State in front of him and demanded that he look at it.

"Can't you see?!" I said. "There is no forest! There are no trees! They're all gone."