Nature Conservancy

[reb]

I just received a copy of an e-mail stating the "Nature Conservancy is taking over the Forest Service." Apparently the two organizations are going to work together in the national forests in New Mexico and Arizona. The e-mail makes it sound like the Nature Conservancy is going to set the forest management policies. The implication is that this is the first step toward the takeover of all the national forests.

Apparently the two organizations issued a memorandum of understanding about 5 years ago. The Nature Conservancy was to do some studies and provide some data to the Forest Service for use in setting forest management policies.

I will admit I don't know much about the Nature Conservancy. A brief Google search did not tell me much. What is your opinion of the organization? Does anyone here know anything about the alleged "takeover?"

 

[midlf]

The Nature Conservancy is the only rational nationwide conservation group out there. They are generally not obstructionist but find ways to work it out. Around here they are good at raising funds to buy land for conservation when it is available and then working out with the state/DNR to buy it from NC for the price paid when state funds are available. They also buy land adjacent to other conservancy parcels to expand the area. They do not fit the "tree hugging nuts" stereotype. They try to avoid high profile confrontation. It is one of the few conservation organizations that seems to get a lot of corporate support. They actually get things done unlike other orgs that seem most intent on publicity rather than results. We've been members for many years and my electric utility background does not put me in the "tree hugger" class. I believe Greenpeace is a terrorist organization and the Sierra club has no interest in real results just publicity and obstruction. Some of the developers don't like The Nature Conservancy because they take land off the market thus limiting developers opportunity for profit. In the time we have been members they generally have not strongly advocated for legislation to restrict property rights but prefer to work with donations of $ or land to accomplish their goals. We have learned a lot from them about how to take care of our oak savanna property and wetlands. See WWW.nature.org for more info.

 

[reb]

That has been my general impression from what I have read and heard. Many people in this area have a strong prejudice against the forest service, tree huggers, and any group with "conservation" in it's name. The e-mail I mentioned is circulating among the ranchers in NM and AZ, who have suffered because of changes in Forest Service policies over the years. Maybe the interface between the Nature Conservancy and the Forest Service is a good thing.

 

[midlf]

I would say that if someone has a question about an email referring to the NC and the Forest Service they should forward the email to The Nature Conservancy and ask if it is correct.

 

[reb]

Good idea. What I got was a 12-page printout from my neighbor. I will suggest she forward the email to them.

 

[Slamfire]

Has anyone here ever heard of a bureaucrat ever giving up one little bit of power?
The Nature Conservency has done some dumb things, like forcing the Navy to remove the feral goats from San Clemente Island off the California Coast. It seems the goats weren't original fauna having been placed there in the 1500s by Conquistadors.

 

[California]

Why is that dumb?

 

[dent8]

Here's an article by some people that really really don't like The Nature Conservancy.

http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/spr03_landlord.html

 

[dsgsr]

Why is that dumb?

Why isn't that dumb? Why should we spend tax payers $$ to remove non- threatening animals that were placed there in the 1500's ? Remember this is just a question, I'm not trying too start something.

David

 

[California]

Why should we spend tax payers $$ to remove non- threatening animals that were placed there in the 1500's ? Remember this is just a question, I'm not trying too start something. -David

It's a reasonable question, and I think it should be discussed. Hopefully in a friendly manner.

The Channel Islands (offshore from Los Angeles) contain remnants of many native species that have gone extinct on the mainland, both plant and annimal life.

Meanwhile goats are extremely destructive. This ecosystem preserving the last surviving examples of rare and endangered species is the worst possible place for them. The Navy, custodians of San Clemente, recognised this and had them out of there by 1991.

I searched Google on 'Nature Conservancy' goats San Clemente Island and one of the hits led to a research paper titled '100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species'.

Goats made the Top 100. The goat paragraph links to:

"Goats have been recognised as "the single most destructive herbivore" introduced to the islands of the world."

In combination with other more modern factors, goats were a pressure toward the destruction this rare resource.

I think the Navy did the right thing.