TRUCKEE, Calif. - As national environmental groups embrace Al Gore, grassroots conservationists upset with the Clinton administration's forest policies are contemplating a protest vote for Ralph Nader - a move that could help George W. Bush in some key Western states.
Nader, a Green Party candidate, is winning support from the traditional Democratic constituency by offering hardline environmental proposals.
''I don't believe there should be logging in federal forests, period,'' he said during a campaign stop along the Sierra Nevada's eastern front, where he also advocated sweeping mine reform.
The consumer advocate who got his start taking on the auto industry increasingly is taking aim at Gore's environmental record. And the message seems to be resonating with environmental liberals who view Clinton-Gore as dealmakers too quick to compromise.
''Al Gore has broken more of his written promises than any politician in modern history,'' Nader said during a speech at the University of Nevada, Reno. ''He wrote a book in 1992 (Earth in the Balance), that he completely turned his back on.''
The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters haven't decided whether to endorse Gore. But they are leaning that way and doing their best to defend him against detractors.
Among the largest national groups only Friends of the Earth, which endorsed Bill Bradley in the Democratic primary, appears to be realistically weighing a Nader endorsement.
Nevertheless, a national poll by Zogby International last month found Nader drawing 6 percent of the popular vote - slightly more than Pat Buchanan's 4 percent - in a field with George W. Bush, 43 percent, and Al Gore, 39 percent. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.
Nader's support climbs to 9 percent in the Pacific and Mountain time zones, pollster John Zogby said from New York City. He expects Nader will cut into Gore's support base of liberals and environmentalists, especially in California, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico.
''Every three votes Nader gets, two of them he takes from Gore and one is somebody who probably wouldn't vote,'' Zogby said.
''That could be troublesome for Gore in California.''
The Gore campaign and its mainstream environmental allies argue a vote for Nader is ultimately a vote for Bush, whose record as Texas governor does not endear him to conservationists.
In addition to Bush's ties to the oil industry, critics point to Texas' bad air quality, and particularly Houston's crown as the nation's smog capital of 1999. The League of Conservation Voters says he opposed the Kyoto treaty on global warming, worked to make some Texas air pollution regulations voluntary and generally advocates a reduced role in environmental enforcement and regulation.
''I'm not sure Ralph Nader has been paying too much attention,'' said Doug Hattaway, Gore's chief campaign spokesman.
''Time Magazine noted that because of Al Gore's efforts, this administration is the most pro-environment in a generation,'' he said from Nashville, Tenn.
''If you look at the bottom line in this election, we've got a choice between Bush and Gore, realistically. The most productive thing for an environmentalist to do is to support Al Gore.''
But some activists say they've been taken for granted by a Clinton-Gore administration too ready to compromise away old-growth forests and other habitat for endangered wildlife.
''Most of my folks are going to vote for Nader. They will never vote for Al Gore again,'' said Tim Hermach, executive director of the Native Forest Council in Eugene, Ore.
''How often can we be betrayed, lied to, cheated and stolen from and still have us go back to that trough?''
Sixteen percent of the old-growth forest that existed when Clinton imposed his Northwest forest plan has now been logged ''on the way to clearcutting 55 percent of the old-growth we had when he started,'' Hermach said.
''Yet some of us will still vote for Gore because we are so afraid of Republicans and believe they are worse,'' he said.
''I think the worst, dumbest Republican is better for us because we don't perceive him to be our friend.
''When a Republican is president, conservationists act like savage Rottweilers. Put a Democrat in the White House and they become obsequious lap dogs, groveling over a few meager crumbs.''
A coalition of environmentalists in the Sierra Nevada organized under the national group American Lands doesn't endorse candidates. But leaders say many of them will vote for Nader.
''I would say on a number of issues we are deeply disappointed with the Clinton administration,'' said Brian Vincent, California organizer for American Lands in Nevada City, Calif.
Vincent was among those who had trumpeted Clinton's proposal to protect roadless areas in national forests, calling it a ''giant step toward cementing a conservation legacy on par with that of Teddy Roosevelt.''
But he's changed his tune.
''We think the administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth,'' Vincent said.
Clinton first unveiled the roadless initiative in October in the weeks after Friends of the Earth endorsed Bradley.
''I think it is pretty obvious it is an election-year ploy to get environmental endorsements,'' said Fraser Shilling, a Sierra Club member who coordinates a research program on land use at the University of California-Davis.
''It is not based on conservation biology. If you really wanted to protect biodiversity, you would start down in the lower elevations. That is where all the good stuff is. And that's not where the roadless areas are. They are primarily higher up.''
The Sierra Club's national board has identified Bush as the enemy but hasn't decided whether to endorse Gore over Nader.
''If they both take us in the right direction, the question becomes who can excite people and compel people to vote?'' Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope said from San Francisco.
In other words, electability.
''There are people who believe it is actually desirable to support a candidate who cannot win because it shifts the political spectrum in your direction,'' Pope said.
''Those standing outside the winner's circle may line up with Nader. They believe a third-party candidacy is good intrinsically. Others say they want to be with somebody who has a shot at winning.''
Deb Callahan, executive director of the League of Conservation Voters, said she expects most of her board members who backed Bradley will vote for Gore.
''Sure, some people will support Nader because he is articulating a very strong position,'' Callahan said.
''On the other hand, the vast majority of others are concerned about seeing Bush in the White House or are strong Gore supporters to begin with,'' she said.
Gore might have been the victim of inflated expectations because of his book on the environment, Callahan said.
''Sometimes, advocates who don't really understand the stakes in some of these policy fights don't acknowledge the role a politician has to play in forging something that can be passed by Congress.
''Clinton and Gore have been working with a Congress that is the most anti-environmental Congress we have seen in years,'' she said.
Tom Myers, a member of the Sierra Club and director of the Great Basin Mine Watch in Reno, said he intends to vote for Nader with one caveat.
''I like Ralph Nader. He's better on the environment. But frankly, if it is a close election, I'd vote for Gore because I wouldn't want to help Bush.''
