Skip to comments.BIG GREEN : Inside the Nature Conservancy Nonprofit Land Bank Amasses Billions
Posted on 05/05/2003 3:05:11 PM PDT by Ethan_Allen
BIG GREEN : Inside the Nature Conservancy Nonprofit Land Bank Amasses Billions Charity Builds Assets on Corporate Partnerships
___ The Nature Conservancy ___ SPECIAL REPORT
Documents on the organization's transformation from a grassroots group to a corporate juggernaut.
Read Today's Documents:Internal Conservancy ReportConservancy Letter to The PostFocus Group ResearchConservancy Opinion SurveyGraphic: Expanding CompanyGraphic: Corporate Friends
How a Bid to Save a Species Came to Grief (The Washington Post, May 5, 2003) On Eastern Shore, For-Profit 'Flagship' Hits Shoals (The Washington Post, May 5, 2003) The Beef About the Brand (The Washington Post, May 5, 2003) $420,000 a Year and No-Strings Fund (The Washington Post, May 4, 2003) Image Is a Sensitive Issue (The Washington Post, May 4, 2003)
By David B. Ottaway and Joe Stephens Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, May 4, 2003; Page A01
First of three articles
"The Arlington-based Nature Conservancy has blossomed into the world's richest environmental group, amassing $3 billion in assets by pledging to save precious places. Known for its advertisements decorated with forests, streams and the soothing voice of actor Paul Newman, the 52-year-old charity preserves millions of acres across the nation.
Yet the Conservancy has logged forests, engineered a $64 million deal paving the way for opulent houses on fragile grasslands and drilled for natural gas under the last breeding ground of an endangered bird species...." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9888-2003May3.html
Cover page for all articles is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/specials/natureconservancy/
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Read Today's Documents:- Graphic: Texas Preserve- Texas City Preserve Report- Deposition on Texas City- Steven J. McCormick'sStaff Memo on Texas City- Virginia Coast Reserve Audit- Ford Foundation Report onthe Virginia Coast Reserve- Conservancy Assessment ofthe Virginia Coast Reserve
By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, May 5, 2003; Page A01
Second of three articles (Should probably have its own thread?)
I thought some of you might want to save for future reference.
I am happy to say my wife and I are members of the Nature Conservancy, and very happy with the work they are doing.
If you want on or off this list, just let me know.
The real solution, Natural Process.
Bingo...We have a winner.
I saw an article in last Thursday's section of the Metro section of the Wash. Times that remarked that the People's Republic of Maryland is No. 1 in eminent domain takings. Oh joy!
There are several areas in south central Oregon that experienced this - Williamson, Sycan & others. It Is pure BS and this watermelon group can go straight to hades.
Giving the land to the UN won't prevent the US goverment from exercising eminent domain if needed, so long as it's in the territory of the United States, and a private trust cannot remove land under the sovereignty of the United States from its territory without the consent of Congress. Quite frankly, the UN is useful only as a debating forum to keep tyrants busy or when it functions as an arm of our State Department (which it does intermittently). Anyone who worries about the UN (particularly since the US has finally risen to the call of Empire) strikes me as a tin-foil hatted conspiracy theorist. As for "international bankers," diatribes against international bankers always sound to me like old Nazi propaganda with "international" substituted for "Jewish".
I see nothing offensive with private land ownership being exercised to preserve wilderness areas as such (yes, without roads and with no trespassing posted if the private landowner wants). Private land ownership is exercised to make all sorts of use of land, and letting wild plants and animals live undisturbed is a worthy use for land. Nor do I see anything wrong with a group whose objective is the acqusition of large tracts of land amassing large reserves. I trust you would have no objection to a mining company amassing large reserves so it could would be ready to acquire desirable mining properties when the came on the market. I suspect you would have not problem with the mining company selling lands sold as part of a package deal which had no valuable minerals to developers to raise capital. Inasmuch as I approve of both mining and wilderness preservation, I, for the same reason, have no objections to the Nature Conservancy engaging in either practice.
IF that were true, what would be the necesessity of this:
Committee on Resources
Committee on Resources
Thursday, March 18, 1999
1:30 p.m., 1324 Longworth HOB
H.R. 883 (Young, AK), TO PRESERVE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES OVER PUBLIC LANDS AND ACQUIRED LANDS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES, AND TO PRESERVE STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN NON-FEDERAL LANDS SURROUNDING THOSE PUBLIC LANDS AND ACQUIRED LANDS. "AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT" ...... http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/106cong/fullcomm/99mar18/990318witnesslist.htm
(They've been wrangling over this for years, and as far as I know, they haven't been able to get it passed yet. Why?)
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act ******
Report to the 106th Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, May 1999 http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/law_american_sovereignty_act.html
. ".....PURPOSE OF THE BILL
H.R. 883 will ***RESTORE**** THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF CONGRESS IN MANAGING LANDS BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES, preserve the sovereignty of the United States over these lands, and protect State sovereignty and private property rights in non-federal lands adjacent to federal lands.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (H.R. 883) asserts the Constitutional power of Congress over management and use of lands belonging to the United States. Under Article IV, section 3 of the United States Constitution, the power to make all needful rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is vested in Congress. Yet over the last 25 years, an increasing expanse of our nation's public lands have been included in various international land use programs, most notably United Nations Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, with virtually no Congressional oversight or approval. The international agreement covering World Heritage Sites, for example, largely leaves Congress out of the nomination process.
United Nations World Heritage Sites, Ramsar Sites and Biosphere Reserves are under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). World Heritage Sites and Ramsar Sites are recognized by UNESCO under `The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage' (World Heritage Convention) and `The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat' (Ramsar Convention), respectively. Biosphere Reserves are part of the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program which operates in conjunction with a worldwide program under UNESCO. The U.S. Man and Biosphere Program is not authorized by Congress and has no legislative direction. Over 68 percent of the land in our national parks, preserves and monuments have been designated as United Nations World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves or both. Biosphere Reserves alone cover an area about the size of Colorado, our eighth largest state. There are now 47 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, 20 World Heritage Sites and 16 Ramsar Sites in the United States.
In becoming a party to these international land use agreements through Executive Branch action, the United States may be indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which the United States is not a party or which the United States Senate has refused to ratify. For example, The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves recommends that participating countries `integrate biosphere reserves in strategies for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, in plans for protected areas, and in the national biodiversity strategies and action plans provided for in Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.' Furthermore, the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program published in 1994 by the U.S. State Department states that a goal of the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program is to `create a national network of biosphere reserves that represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.'
Also disturbing is that designation of Biospheres and World Heritage Sites rarely involve consulting the public and local governments. At the five hearings held on the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act since the 104th Congress, state and local elected officials as well as grassroots citizen activists from Alaska, Arkansas, Missouri, Minnesota, New Mexico and New York testified that no one consulted with the public or local governments when international land designations were made in their states. The domestic designation process for World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves is so controversial that the Alaska, Colorado and Montana state legislatures have passed resolutions in support of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. In addition, the Kentucky State Senate recently passed a resolution opposing creation of any biosphere reserves within Kentucky and supporting the concepts embodied in this legislation.
In fact, UNESCO policy apparently discourages an open nomination process for World Heritage Sites. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention state:
In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, State [national] parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated * * * pending the final decision of the Committee of the nomination in question. Participation of the local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State party in the maintenance of not prejudice future decision-making by the committee.
By allowing these international land use designations, the United States promises to protect designated areas and regulate surrounding lands if necessary to protect the designated site. Honoring these international agreements could force the federal government to prohibit or limit some uses of private lands inside or outside the designated reserve unless our country wants to break a pledge to other nations. At a minimum, this puts U.S. land policy-makers in an awkward position.
Federal regulatory actions could cause a significant adverse impact on the value of private property and on the local and regional economy. The involvement of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) in the National Environmental Policy Act review process for the New World Mine Project near Yellowstone National Park, a World Heritage Site, exemplifies this problem. The New World mine project is outside of the boundary of Yellowstone National Park and is not included in the World Heritage Site. In fact, nearly all of the proposed mine site is located on private property, and U.S. law (16 U.S.C. 470a-1(c)) prohibits including any non-federal property within a U.S. World Heritage Site without the consent of the owner.
The fact that the proposed project was not a part of the Yellowstone World Heritage Site did not prevent the WHC from holding a `hearing' on the project. Creation of a buffer zone, possibly ten times as large as the Park, was suggested by at least one member of the WHC. However, by excluding the federal lands on which a small part of the New World Mine Project lies from an adjoining wilderness area, Congress had already determined not to create such a buffer zone and to make these lands available for multiple uses, including mining.
It is clear from this example, that at best, World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve designations give the international community an open invitation to interfere in U.S. domestic land use decisions. More seriously, these international agreements potentially have several significant adverse effects on the American system of government. Domestic land use policy-making authority is further centralized at the federal/Executive Branch level, and the role that ordinary citizens have in the making of this policy through their elected representatives is diminished. The Executive Branch may also invoke these international agreements in an attempt to administratively achieve an action within the jurisdiction of Congress, but without consulting Congress. The current framework for implementing the World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve programs has eaten away at the power and sovereignty of the Congress to exercise its constitutional power to make the laws that govern U.S.-owned land.
Perhaps the most serious problem with international agreements, such as the World Heritage Convention, is that the international bodies which administer them do not represent the American people and cannot be held accountable by them. In a May 5, 1999, letter to Congressman Bruce Vento, former U.N. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick says it best:
In U.N. organizations, there is no accountability. U.N. bureaucrats are far removed from the American voters. Many of the States Parties in the World Heritage Treaty are not democracies. Some come from countries that do not allow the ownership of private property. The World Heritage and Man and the Biosphere committees make decisions affecting the land and lives of Americans. Some of these decisions are made by representatives chosen by governments not based on democratic representation, certainly not on the representation of Americans. What recourse does an American voter have when U.N. bureaucrats from Cuba or Iraq or Libya (all of which are parties to this Treaty) have made a decision that unjustly damages his or her property rights that lie near a national park?
AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION ACT
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND
With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority to enact H.R. 883. COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XI [this section not reproduced] H.R. 883 would prohibit any federal official from nominating or designating any federal land for a special or restricted use under any international agreement unless specifically authorized by law, with certain exceptions. Moreover, the bill would make ineffective the designation of any area in the United States under such agreements unless the designation is specifically authorized either by written permission from the landowner (for private property), or by state or local law (for property owned by such governments). Designations of federal land would be ineffective as well, unless authorized by federal legislation enacted after enactment of H.R. 883 but before December 31, 2000. These provisions would affect designations of land under programs such as the World Heritage List and the Man and Biosphere Program of the United Nations. H.R. 883 would require the Secretaries of State and the Interior to submit annual reports to the Congress on each site designated under these programs. In addition, before nominating any federal property for the World Heritage List, the Secretary of the Interior would have to report to the Congress on the area's natural resources and the effects that the listing would have on existing or future uses of the site or other lands within a 10-mile range.
CBO estimates that the Department of State and the Department of the Interior (DOI) would incur minor expenses to collect information (such as budget and staffing data by site) and to submit annual reports to the Congress. DOI also might incur some costs (for data gathering and reporting) if it chooses to nominate any sites for the World Heritage List, but we do not expect these to be significant. The bill would have no impact on other federal agencies. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis." http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/law_american_sovereignty_act.html
"Quite frankly, the UN is useful only as a debating forum to keep tyrants busy or when it functions as an arm of our State Department (which it does intermittently). Anyone who worries about the UN (particularly since the US has finally risen to the call of Empire) strikes me as a tin-foil hatted conspiracy theorist."
Then what's up with this:
Bush Calls for the U.S. to Rejoin UNESCO
By Chuck Morse >BR? Published 09. 12. 02 at 22:05 Sierra Time
"In an otherwise excellent speech at the UN (9/12), President Bush, perhaps as a sop to win UN favor for military action in Iraq, called for the U.S. to rejoin the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Membership had been terminated in 1984 when it was discovered that large portions of the UNESCO budget, mostly extracted from the hides of U.S. taxpayers, was being diverted to Soviet fronts, terrorist organizations, and to support the bizarre and lavish tastes of the UNESCO Director-General, Senegalese leftist Mahtar M'Bow and his entourage. At the time, UNESCO was attempting to implement a "New World Information Order" in which the world's journalists would be required to pass an ideological litmus test in order to practice their craft. Theoretically, if a journalist ran afoul of the UNESCO commissars, his license could be revoked and he could face fines and possible criminal charges. This would have fulfilled a central plank of the Communist Manifesto, which calls for "public ownership of the means of communication." In terminating U.S. membership, President Reagan stated that UNESCO had "extraneously politicized virtually every subject it deals with. It has exhibited a hostility toward the basic institutions of a free society, especially a free market and a free press."
UNESCO is often referred to as a school board for the world and, as such, it reflects the educational philosophy of its founding Director-General, biologist/humanist Julian Huxley. In his book "UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy" (1946), Huxley spills the beans. "The task before UNESCO is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purposes." Huxley stated that the agency would advocate "the ultimate need for world political unity" and would condition "all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to world organization." His stated that UNESCO "can do a great deal to lay the foundations on which world political unity can later be built."
In the early 1950's, former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed the opinion that UNESCO was comparable to a Communist Party agitation and propaganda department. He stated that such a party apparatus "handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old." Huxley would lard the agency with a motley collection of Communists and fellow travelers.
In Hamburg, Germany, 1964, Huxley chaired a UNESCO sponsored conference called the "International Symposium on Health, Education, Sex Education and Education for Home and Family living" in which the agenda was laid out for sex education. In "UNESCO: Its Purpose and Philosophy" (pp 46): Huxley lays out the sex ed agenda when he states "It will be one of the major tasks of the philosophy division of UNESCO to stimulate the quest for a restatement of morality that shall be in harmony with modern knowledge and adapted to the fresh functions imposed by ethics by the world today." The conference concluded, "Sex education should begin at an early age."
Through its "World Heritage" subsidiary, UNESCO has, incredibly, already taken over control of such U.S. landmarks as the Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone National Park, Independence Hall, and other essential parcels of sovereign U.S. property. A portion of the admission to these symbols of American freedom now goes directly to UNESCO. We need to ask our elected members of Congress exactly how this happened. We must let Congress know that we do not want the U.S. To rejoin UNESCO. http://www.sierratimes.com/02/09/13/morse.htm
See also this: WORLD HERITAGE "PROTECTION" - UNESCO's War Against National Sovereignty by Berit Kjos http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/whpwans97.html
"As for "international bankers," diatribes against international bankers always sound to me like old Nazi propaganda with "international" substituted for "Jewish"."
I'll let David Rockefeller (you recall that the Rockefeller family donated the land for the foreign nation sitting in New York known as the United Nations), and some of his NWO friends answer that:
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The SUPRANATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF AN INTELLECTUAL ELITE AND WORLD BANKERS IS SURELY PREFERABLE TO THE NATIONAL AUTO DETERMINATION PRACTICED IN PAST CENTURIES". David Rockefeller, in an address given to Catherine Graham, publisher of The Washington Post and other media luminaries in attendance in Baden Baden, Germany at the June 1991 annual meeting of the world elite Bilderberg Group.
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." John Swinton, former chief of staff, The New York Times, in a 1953 speech before the New York Press Club
"We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with". Richard M. Cohen, former Senior Producer of CBS political news
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." Richard Salant, former President of CBS News
Since YOU brought it up, you might also want to take a look at what these folks think should be done regarding our 'government' lands and the national debt:
"....Upon seizing the reins of government, the new Noachide leaders will move quickly to implement a full agenda of reform............ THE NATIONAL DEBT WILL BE FORECLOSED, PROBABLY BY PAYING OFF CREDITORS WITH GOVERNMENT LAND HOLDINGS, THUS AVERTING ECONOMIC DISASTER......" http://www.noahide.com/finalwar.htm
I assume this must be the policy of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President (pray tell, when is THIS to occur), because they have enshrined the life, laws, educational goals, etc. of this man, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, http://www.utexas.edu/students/cjso/Rebbe.html, in U.S. Law:
To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one
To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.
Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;
Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS; ....." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c102:4:./temp/~c102DXj52i::
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 11, 2003
Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A., 2003
By the President of the United States of America
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030411-2.html (one of three such proclamations of President Bush. I understand these proclamations go back 19 years.)
So, what's up with that? Do they actually read any of this stuff they sign? And you'd think that if people didn't want unfair accusations hurled at them, they wouldn't be making sensational statements like the ones above. Just my opinion. Henry Makow, a Canadian Jew (and a Christian), says 'to oppose the world banker agenda is to be an anti-Semite'. I don't care who they ARE; I just want them to stop.
"I see nothing offensive with private land ownership being exercised to preserve wilderness areas as such (yes, without roads and with no trespassing posted if the private landowner wants). Private land ownership is exercised to make all sorts of use of land, and letting wild plants and animals live undisturbed is a worthy use for land. Nor do I see anything wrong with a group whose objective is the acqusition of large tracts of land amassing large reserves. I trust you would have no objection to a mining company amassing large reserves so it could would be ready to acquire desirable mining properties when the came on the market. I suspect you would have not problem with the mining company selling lands sold as part of a package deal which had no valuable minerals to developers to raise capital. Inasmuch as I approve of both mining and wilderness preservation, I, for the same reason, have no objections to the Nature Conservancy engaging in either practice. "
As I have tried to show you, 'protection' of the land may be the goal of people who entrust their land to the Nature Conservancy and groups like them, but this is often not the only goal of the groups who take over the lands. The land is often flipped to the government for profits on the backs of the tax-payers, which is then used to buy MORE land, to repeat the process. Often, as I was just reading in some papers from a group seeking to get land easements, the owner of the property donating the easement gets federal and state tax credits, which puts a further burden on other tax-payers and other land-owners, which in turn, forces many land-owners into selling their property to keep from going under, often at fire-sale prices. As I said, I did a big project on this last year on this subject regarding a county in Virginia. Since then, there has been more regulation, more easement lands donated, and more Historical designations, etc. being implemented. The old-time landowners have been complaining that they can't afford to live there anymore; it's becoming a haven for the rich. In fact, there was a recent article in the local paper there of a big auction to sell off homes and lands on which the property taxes had not been paid.
The thread I started then, is here: HEADS UP, RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY, VA, YOU MAY BE ABOUT TO BECOME A WILDLANDS PROJECT http:www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/621506/posts In it, you will find many links (some of which may not work anymore) and an attempt to explain how how all these groups and government agencies work together. You can read it or not; your choice.
Finally, a recent thread that touches on a lot of the issues mentioned in this thread:
Eco - Logic
A Country Girl's Musin'...
The WILDLANDS PROJECT Comes to Hidalgo County - (Part 18) By Judy Keeler
"The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance recently presented a 1500 page proposal to New Mexico State's Bureau of Land Management. It would add approximately 4.5 million acres, vastly increasing existing wilderness areas.
The board of directors for the Alliance includes many high-profile individuals; Dave Foreman, Wildlands Project; Todd Schulke, Center for Biological Diversity; Dave Parsons, former head of wolf reintroduction - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Jim Scarantino, Republicans for Environmental Protection; and Jim Baca, former NM State Land Commissioner, Mayor of Albuquerque, and Secretary of the Interior.
For years, many of these individuals have been inventorying our state for additional wilderness, indoctrinating the public on the "benefits of wilderness," establishing working relations with elected officials and litigating endangered species cases that lend support to their efforts.
To assist them in their endeavors, Jessica Pope, former Sierra Club activist who lobbied for additional wilderness in Utah, has recently been named as executive director of the Alliance.
Although the organization claims to be a "citizen's initiative," the group has also hired several other activists that successfully lobbied for additional wilderness in their respective states. Once wilderness bills were legislatively approved, it appears they moved on, to work their "magic" on the unsuspecting citizens of our state.
Organized and well-funded, the Alliance is a formidable force. Support comes from various organizations and businesses, including the New Mexico Sportsmen - Albuquerque; American Planning Association, New Mexico Chapter; Animal Protection of New Mexico; Audubon Society of New Mexico; American Lands; Center for Biological Diversity; Defenders of Wildlife; Endangered Species Coalition; 4 Wheelers for Wilderness; Great Old Broads for Wilderness; National BLM Wilderness Campaign; National Environmental Trusts; National Parks and Conservation Association; Sierra Club, Rio Grande Chapter; Sky Island Alliance; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; the Wildlands Project; the Wilderness Society; Trust for Public Land; and the list goes on.
Many of these organizations do not favor the multiple-use concept for federal lands. In fact, many are outspoken opponents of mining, logging, grazing and recreational uses, including hunting.
Politics creates strange bedfellows, and it looks like this is true with the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance. How odd that an organization claiming to represent New Mexico's sportsmen would align itself with Animal Protection of New Mexico, since each organization would appear to be in direct conflict with the other.
Following one of my articles, in which I discussed The NATURE CONSERVANCY's land acquisition program, Michael Robinson, Center for Biological Diversity, recently asked if I was a "CONSPIRACY THINKER."
I explained to Mr. Robinson that I did not believe it was a conspiracy. Instead, I chose to call it a "collaborative effort."
In the Merriam Webster Dictionary, collaborate is defined as; "to work jointly with others (as in writing a book); to cooperate with an enemy force occupying one's country."
Indeed, the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance appears to be just such a collaborative effort. Held together and driven by the radical concept of "deep ecology," it appears these organizations would like to impose a "no use" agenda, as called for in the Wildlands Project, on the unsuspecting majority of New Mexicans.
Let's work together to see it doesn't happen....." posted on 03/15/2003 2:34 PM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865653/posts
I remember that thread and glad to hear they are not getting any more of your money. It's not easy to convince people that this group could be anything less than honorable. Especially members.
My best friend has been a member for about 10 years and has passed along all the Arizona and National quarterly magazines. At first, I was so impressed and grateful to know that these folks were doing so much good. It wasn't until 2 years ago, when I first found FreeRepublic, that I started investigating them. After that, I realized how much crap went into those publications, designed for donors only. I was getting mad and found a link on their website where you could sign up for a free trial issue of their magazine, and I posted it here so others could see what they were dishing out. That free trial offer was removed within a month!
Thanks to Ethan Allen for this thread. I can't believe I missed his ping! :(
By David B. Ottaway and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 6, 2003; Page A09
Landing a Big One: Preservation, Private Development (3rd in Series on The Nature Conservancy)
MARTHA'S VINEYARD, Mass. -- Two years ago, the Nature Conservancy triumphantly announced a complex real estate transaction, a $64 million deal in which it acquired 215 acres of rare open sandplain. Conservancy officials hailed it as "an important victory for conservation on Martha's Vineyard," part of a campaign to save the Earth's "Last Great Places."
The Conservancy, known for buying and holding raw land in perpetuity, did not opt for 100 percent preservation in this case.
Instead, as part of the deal, the Conservancy placed restrictions limiting some development on the newly purchased land and then immediately resold half of it to others, paving the way for Gatsbyesque vacation houses on pristine beach and grasslands. Those buyers included a pair of Oracle software tycoons, a retired Goldman Sachs executive and comedian David Letterman.
Reporting on This Series
The Washington Post began reporting for this series of articles on the Nature Conservancy in 2001. This was interrupted by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and war in Afghanistan, and again by the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Staff writers David B. Ottaway and Joe Stephens visited Conservancy operations and sites in Maine, Virginia, Wyoming, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Texas. They interviewed Conservancy President Steven J. McCormick four times and spoke with scores of staff and senior officials at local, state and national levels.
The reporters also conducted hundreds of interviews with former Conservancy employees, representatives of other environmental groups, federal environmental officials, academic and legal nonprofit specialists and tax experts inside and outside government.
The Post obtained thousands of pages of internal documents and e-mail communications between Conservancy officials. A number of current employees, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs, were interviewed.
The reporters also reviewed thousands of pages of documents obtained elsewhere, including court and property records in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, Texas and Wyoming.