The Nature Conservancy's "outrageous contradictions and sad lies."

Paragon America News (PAN) ^ | February 12, 2003 | J. Zane Walley

[MEGoody]

"This post was nothing but demagogic propaganda."

Yes, we know your post was demagogic propaganda.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Poohbah]

I don't have a problem with the concept of TNC--I just wish that they would be more honest in their dealings.

[tubebender]

BUMP...

[Carry_Okie]

Everyone from their organization that I have met has been utterly cooperative, friendly, and low-key. Those of you who take it seriously, have just been scammed.

The TNC is the principle player in manipulating the value of the residential real estate market to benefit big developers. They usually get their land from its owners as a last desperate effort to avoid Federal takeover, whether by regulatory means or estate taxes. The price they pay is that of a distressed sale, under the threat of regulatory action, the prospect of which they often foment themselves by colluding with agency personnel. They then turn around and sell the land back to the agency for a profit (or to developers), assuring future revenue for both TNC and agency with your tax dollars! It's basic tax-exempt racketeering.

Further, the land that ends up "preserved" is then taken out of production forever. No taxes are derived by local government, which then becomes dependent upon increasing urban development. As the retirees and bureaucrats move in, the demographics totally change, as do the politics. Land use decisions then more often reflect political values and interests than objective science.

You see, neither the TNC nor the government are very good stewards. I know you may not believe that (and I was once with you in believing that they did good work), but you would hate learn what the rangelands they have taken over look like now (unless you think thousands of acres of saltcedar is a good thing). TNC is continuing to demphasize its operational land management side by policy (and its CEO has put that in writing). Such takeovers may have pleased their financial supporters who are exporting the cattle business to South America, but it wasn't good for the land. Best you learn the facts and (more importantly) what the alternatives might be, before you so vehemently assert their beningn intent, or their innocence.

Is that what you wanted Jeff?

[AnalogReigns]

I see as part of the problem here, that perhaps the TNC opperates differently in the West than in the East. Here in Virginia....where some 90%+ of the land is privately held anyway--I've only seen and heard of TNC operating honorably. In the West, where some states have 95%+ of the land held by government anyway, that may not still hold true.

Problematic in the West though too, is the fact that a) agriculture and the farm industry are by far THE most socialistic part of our economy, and b) much of the water programs (dams et als. )(not much of an issue in the East) were from the very start government/socialistic projects. This makes any changes in the government created benefits of water to farmers...problematic....but at root can't be viewed in any real sense as government interference---since the benefit of water--was originally from government, not by right.

Socialism's ultimate economic flaw is "what the government gives, the government can take away."

In that sense still, TNC has tried (and I'm not saying at all they've suceeded) to operate within the free market. Again, I can't say what's gone on in the West, as I'm not there.

[TonyWojo]

Barf, What kind of drugs do you take. Or do you wear Rose Colored glasses.

[mvpel]

I think you're right. The Democrats would rather see Big Government in control of every scrap of wilderness in the US, rather than a private organization funded by voluntary donations.

[TonyWojo]

If you look at the TNC web site www.nature.org you can find the financial reports for 2000/2001.

In 200 there were Government awards totaling Sixty Million and some change and in 2001 Government awards of Sixty Three Million and some change.

Is this what you refer to as voluntary donations.

Now they also derive income from the sale of land to Government and other Consrvation Agencies. Those figures are Eighty Two Million in 2000 and Eighty Three Million in 2001.

Sales to Government Agencies I guess the Democrats grant the money for TNC to purchase land and then the Government buys it from them.

Sweet deal for the TNC

[blackie]

Protect Private Property Rights!

Stop the attacks on our Freedoms by the wacko, extreme left-wing, lunatic fringe, dirt worshipping Green Jihadist, enviro-nazis terrorist's and their toadies in the media!

Protect The Forest...Eradicate The Greenies!

Fighting Irresponsible Radical Environmentalism!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For!

Be Ever Vigilant!

Be Well - Be Armed - Be Safe - Molon Labe!

Let's Roll!

[Carry_Okie]

I think you're right. The Democrats would rather see Big Government in control of every scrap of wilderness in the US, rather than a private organization funded by voluntary donations.

That's not how it works, and that's not what it's for. The Slave Party doesn't give a hang who hands out the favors as long as they control how it's done.

[Cuttnhorse]

TNC has worked hard to promote this warm, "we're here to help you" appearance, but the fact is they are far from this. In the west they work hand in hand with the USFS and BLM in a conspiracy to find "willing sellers."

If TNC wants your ranch and you tell them to go pound salt, you can expect a visit from your friendly local Forest Service range conservation officer or biologist or someone from one of the agencies.

You will be told that your allotment is overgrazed and you will have to immediately remove 50% of your cattle, or there is a certain plant on your range or private property and you will have to obtain a permit before you can plant next year's alfalfa crop. The pressure keeps up until you are forced into the "willing seller" catagory.

The Nature Conservancy is the biggest con outfit going and the taxpayers are getting screwed royally.

[FReethesheeples]

Exactly.

We generously & carelkessly fund our leftist enemies, propagandisits agaqinst capitalism, & free markets, and freedom (like NPR, which is campaigning shamelessly full-time against Bush administration -- and war with Saddam),

--- especially the radical-envoiros with tax dollars ---

& heretofore the GOP Senate & House & the administration seem to lack the vigilance an political WILL to END this travesty.

However, that may be CHANGING (slowly) with the Bush administration, (e.g,. Mitch Daniels at OMB), and a few vigilant members of Congress.

[Cuttnhorse]

Also, a big bump and thank you to RANGE Magazine. RANGE and CJ Hadley are making a difference.

[meenie]

The sad truth is that there is no desire to defund this monstrocity. Our ELECTED AND NONELECTED officials support the cause of big government and the socialist ownership of as much land as possible. Independent landowners are opposed to government excesses so it is in the Federal government's interest to get as many off the land as possible.

[Renfield]

The Klamath Basin "reclamation" project was a pipe-dream from the beginning; I believe agriculture to be insupportable there, in the long run. Much of Western agriculture exists only because Eastern taxpayers are fleeced to subsidize the water Western farmers use. If the Klamath Basin were returned to native vegetation, American taxpayers would be better off.

[Victoria Delsoul]

He traces the history of the TNC from its modest origins to its current status as a behemoth with nearly $3 billion (tax-exempt) and worldwide control of some 90 million acres. Twelve million acres in the U.S., an area the size of Switzerland, is controlled by the TNC.

Wow! These people are just thieves committing themselves to the destruction of industries and of people's livelihood.

[Jeff Head]

You do not understand the Klamath reclamation project at all as it was intended. The farmers paid off all of the construction costs ... times over. The Federal government never made good on its end of the bargain to privatise the project as it was intended.

In todays world, it is easy to say that they should have not gotten into bed with the Feds at all ... and in todays world that would be absolutely correct. But a hundred years ago feelings, trust and conditions were different in this regard.

You also do not understand the west and its agriculture. Much of the land is very fetile, supportable and very productive. It just needs water. The water comes in the mountains each year in the winter in the form of snow and can be stored behind dams for summer use fairly easily. This was happening long before the federal government got involved ... the Mormon Pioneers and other western pioneers are good examles of this.

There is definite fleecing going on as respects agriculture in our nation ... and in many other areas as the socialization continues. The way agriculture has been regulated and in some areas subsdidized is not the American way ... and it has to stop.

But irrigation projects, particularly those that were designed from the get go to be paid off and privatized and run privately are not part of the fleecing. Most of the farmers in the Klamath Basin are small, individual farmers who are eaking out a living on the land with the water that they have paid for, and that was originally stored in Klamath Lake for that purpose.

Until you get out here and meet some of these folks and understand their issues ... and what the real bottom line is ... all of the statements about agriculture being unsupportable in such a basin are not much more than a mouthing of the liberal/environmental mantra IMHO.

Thinking that most western agriculture exists only because eastern taxpayers are being fleeced for it is just as unsupportable. As I said, irrigiation was happening out here long before the Federal govenment got involved. Had their involvement remained true to such projects as the Klamath Basin project, where farmers paid for the construction costs and were supposed to have the system privatized, we would not have these types of problems today ... but the eastern and western politicians and their appointed administrators got too power hungry IMHO.

Anyhow, you are feel to free however you wish. I am sorry that your opinion of good, hard working, faithful and loyal Americans and their livelihood is so skewed.

[bybybill]

What about the families that have lived on that land for generations, breaking their butts trying to raise their children? As to Eastern taxpayers being fleeced, how about Amtrack, subsidized heating oil, etc, etc?

[Iconoclast2]

So why is some logging "appropriate", but logging on private land always "inappropriate"? Doesn't logged land always provide more habitat for some creatures and take it away from others? Either you are missing the whole point of this post, or worse. These people are hypocrites, and destroying the foundations of a free society.