Interesting link I was sent

[Brownout]

Got this link about the Nature Conservancy through an acquaintance. I briefly skimmed over it, looks intriguing though, maybe some of you guys give them money-don't know.

http://undueinfluence.com/nature_conservancy.htm

 

[pcray1231]

While I know nothing of that particular group, and they may be out of line, that link is highly biased. The only bad thing I take from that is that this particular group might use some unethical tactics to obtain land. But with all the other ridiculous statements in the piece, I'd also want to get the other side of the argument.

But a lot of it is easy to see through B.S.

What a conservancy does is look for large tracts of private land, buy them, and sell them to the government. Typically they sell them at a loss, they use private donations (individuals, corporations, etc.) to break even, they are not-for-profit organizations. But they do sell them, that land gets turned into public land of some sort like parks, state forests, nature preserves, etc. Often there's a pre-agreed buyer, like the fish commission or DCNR, etc. There is also often work to be done first, as you are taking private land and returning it to supposedly pristine conditions. That means removing sewage and water lines, gas lines, tearing down buildings, moving landfills, etc. The eventual buyer (often government) sometimes contracts the conservancy to do that work, who probably contracts it out to businesses with the proper equipment. All this drives down the worth of the land, so the government may pay more than fair value, but its still less than the initial cost of the land + all the work that is done. Plus the conservancy handled all the consulting work and such that comes with such an endeavor (someone has to be on the lookout for land opportunities in a wide range of locations, somebody has to do the engineering work to decide how the contract work will be carried out, etc.)

So, yes, they sell land to the government and recieve money in return. And yes, they get contracts from the government to prepare the property for its intended use. Yes, they're sustained on grant money (private grants, not taxpayer grants), thats how a conservancy stays afloat. Yes, they're going to hire consultants, thats probably the best way to keep an eye out for land, and engineering fees, etc.

I don't know much about the board members' compensation, perhaps they do get too much, although the figures given are still far below what is typical for a business of the same size. It's sad, but in this day and age, for a chief operating officer, $200,000 salary is peanuts.

So they invest in securities, stocks and bonds. I'm sure at any given time an organization of this size has a few million on hand, which may not be used for years. I'd be a little worried if they kept it in cash rather than invested it.

Then they get on them about the land. They currently have over a million acres, and say they've protected over 10.5 million, and consider it a bad thing that the rest was sold to the government? Of course it was, thats their mission! That million they have right now will probably be sold too.

Like I said, the only negative thing here is that perhaps this particular group MAY be overly aggressive about how they get their land, at least it is based on this side of the argument.

 

[Brownout]

Yeah, like I said I gave it a cursory glance, just thought I'd pass it along if anyone had the time to read it all. Generally, anything with the all seeing eye on the dollar bill is suspect.

 

[osprey]

Brownout , i read that whole thing , man this is one group i thought i could trust. Ultimate power corrupts ultimately i guess. This one really gets to me it's personal.

 

[tomgamber]

You might want to look into Arnold before judging the Nature Conservancy. This guy is a bigger wacko than the so-called "eco-whackos" he paints his propaganda against. Some of the best fly fishing in the US exists because of the Nature Conservancy. If you just accept everything you read your nose will get very sore from being lead around by it.

 

[afishinado]

Tom is 100% right!!! When you read something you must consider the source. He is some info about Ron Arnold, the author of the article. A link with the entire article follows:

Some Ron Arnold quotes:
"In an interview for Playboy in 2004 Arnold recounted the key policies it espoused. "Number one was educate the public about the use of natural resources. Immediately develop petroleum resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Cut down remaining old-growth forests on public lands and replace with new trees. Cut down 30,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest each year to promote economic forestry practices. Open all public lands, including national parks, to mining and oil drilling. Construct roads into all wilderness areas for motorized wheel chair use. Stop protecting endangered species, such as the California condor, that were in decline before man arrived. Force anyone who loses litigation against a development to pay for the increase in costs for completing the project, plus damages. But the idea of wise use has become embedded. It's no longer a list like that," he said.[4]

"We want to destroy environmentalists by taking away their money and their members," Arnold told the New York Times reporter Timothy Egan in mid-December 1991. While CDFE IRS returns states Arnold works 20 hours a week without any compensation, Egan reported that in 1991 he charged $3,000 a day as a speaker or organizer of anti-environmental groups.

It was a theme he re-stated within days to Toronto Star reporter Katherine Long."Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement ... We're mad as hell. We're not going to take it anymore. We're dead serious - we're going to destroy them," he said. "We want to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely ... and we want people to understand that is a noble goal," he said.

"We're out to kill the #OOPS#ers. We're simply trying to eliminate them. Our goal is to destroy environmentalism once and for all" Ron Arnold, as quoted in The War Against the Greens”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Arnold


Ron Arnold is an ECO TERRORIST!

I contribute to the Nature conservacy. They are a great conservation organization that buys up or leases land, holds it and opens it to the public or donates it to governmental agencies for Local, State or Federal parks to be put in the public trust, and prevents development or commercial exploitation. I have hunted, fished and hiked on land that was opened by the Nature Conservacy. I have always felt my dollars are well spent. HTH.

 

[bikerfish]

I also agree. the nature conservancy, along with the western pa conservancy have provided many thousands of acres of land for public use. alot of the pa state game lands started as western pa conservancy purchases. ron arnold is an @$$hole. one can be a capitalist and still be a conservationist, not every tree needs to be cut, not every well needs to be drilled. there are sustainable ways to do almost everything, just have to convince the greedy bastards!! kind of like catch and release fishing, put them back and there will still be fish to catch tomorrow! unfornately, common sense seems to be taking a backseat, the left and right seem to both be going to the extreme, never a good thing. just makes each side fight that much harder against each other.

 

[Brownout]

Just to be clear mates, I don't believe what's in the link I posted. Just relayed it to people who had time to read it. Tight lines.

 

[osprey]

My experience with Len Lichvar , now on the PFBC , was a very positive and encouraging one , and those guys really cared , my hats come off to them and thier replacements , but in other parts of the state i don't always see the same thing.