[Renfield]

Now wait just a minute here. I have a job that requires me, periodically, to work on various lands owned or controlled by the Nature Conservancy, and I can state that they are not at all the sort of folks they are portrayed as being in this post. Everyone from their organization that I have met has been utterly cooperative, friendly, and low-key. They support hunting, logging (where appropriate...that logging of 1 million acres in Maine, provides desparately needed nesting habitat for woodcock, for example), and other traditional uses of land. This post was nothing but demagogic propaganda. Those of you who take it seriously, have just been scammed.

[nunya bidness]

Tell that to the "willing sellers".

[madfly]

They are very good at deception, as are all good con men.

See Ron Arnold's site, www.undueinfluence.com for more info.

[Jeff Head]

The Nature Conservancy is "utterly cooperative, friendly, and low-key" in carrying out an agenda that happens to be right in line with U.N.'s Agenda 21, Man and the Biosphere, Wildlands and Sustainable Development initiaitves ... all of which are abjectly anti-American, anti-soveriegnty, anti-individual liberty and a basic threat to our way of life.

They were in the thick of the efforts to drive 1500 families off of their land in the Klamath Basin Crisis of 2001 which was averted only at great risk and much travail and hardship ... and still is far from a sure thing.

Many people are being scammed, including many within the ranks of the Conservancy itself, who are being taken advantage of as classical "useful idiots" by the Conservancy's store front face.

Look beyond that face to the agenda and what it lines up with. That will reveal the true nature.

[MEGoody]

"This post was nothing but demagogic propaganda."

Yes, we know your post was demagogic propaganda.

[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?

[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.

[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.