Here's the link to WWI. I only downloaded the article so far and will read it later.

Here is a link that might be useful: ww magazine

I agree with Chapin. I haven't contributed to the Big Three for a long time for the same reasons. In fact, for a while I stopped subscribing to the WWI mag when they went soft on "conservation" and heavy on becoming a mainstream think tank supported by the same monies acquired while breaking down conservation barriers in developing regions and maritime environments.

Makes one wonder who you can trust......to be both effective and reasonable.

I guess I'm just that much of a purist concerning ecology.....nor organics.....

I got a survey yesterday [of course with a coupon to join and support financially] from the National Parks Conservation Assosiation. Most of my answers were environmentally "ok", but not every one would be pleasing as punch to rabid ecos.

I also got a quarterly magazine from The Nature Conservancy. In looking through their agenda I would not know how to "rate" them as to purity in their approach. I feel they are committed to doing many good actions.

Sounds as if the Chapin article offers another validation of the "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" faith. Althea's mention of the WWI-Ford Foundation connection certainly validates how conflicts of interest are virtually unavoidable. Good advice by Carlson, to get both sides' takes. I hate the thought that there may be enough of a "dark side" to the Nature Conservancy to reconsider support for it...

Stitches, last year The Washington Post ran a series of articles about TNC's management practices. The series is worth taking the time to track down if you're interested in their "dark side", which they have been trying to make brighter.

Really, my advice is to save your money for a good cause. Read the WWI article. Here is a clip about their funding. The first two fund raising strategies include the World Bank & USAID.

"A third strategy, which at first seemed fairly innocent, was to reach out more to the corporate sector. TNC and WWF have long been involved with private corporations, but by the mid-1990s the pace began increasing. At present, TNC has some 1,900 corporate sponsors, which in 2002 donated a total of $225 million to the organization.19 CIÂs website lists over 250 corporations, which donated approximately $9 million to its operations in 2003. WWFÂs share is smaller, but it actively courts such support. In WWFÂs scheme, the highest category of corporate sponsor is "conservation partner," which consists of "multinational companies that contribute major funding to WWFÂs global conservation work." "Independent research shows," we are told, "that consumers have a high regard for a company that invests in its social and environmental responsibilities." WWF selects "the very best in corporate social responsibility and environmental best practice," but it also sees the need to "engage with companies that have a poor or mixed record on the environment where there is a real potential for positive change."20 Among the corporations channeling money to the three conservation NGOs are Chevron Texaco, ExxonMobil, Shell International, Weyerhauser, Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy."

I thought they were buying up land in different parts of the world to protect it from development.Does this mean they're not doing that? Sarah

That is the International Nature Conservancy, assuming the organization is still operating under that name. International groups either purchase territory or assist local governments to set aside natural areas. The problem is two-fold: subsequent management funding and staffing of the resource and protecting the site from local populations and boot-legging lumbering, mining and other extractive efforts.

I couldn't agree more. Save your money and do your own thing locally to protect the environment instead. Dollar for dollar I believe you will get more bang for your buck and it will have a more immediate effect for the individual making the donation. Additionally, do things within your job and other areas to make changes in your local area. Rather than throwing money to the wind and letting some bureaucrat within the large environmental groups go on vacation on your money, you will spend less and get more. If enugh people do the same, results will be quick. As a consumer, boycot those products you can that are made by companies that perform in ways you dislike. That is the supply and demand, free enterprise way that has made this country great.

I mostly agree with you, Monte; however, there are some natural areas that transcend local interest, areas of international value so to speak. But then, you are surely tired by now of my arguments in favor of wilderness and other kinds of designations assigned to special areas.

Have a good Thanksgiving with family and friends. Say hi to J for me.

I mostly agree with Monte as well. I don't know if the big three are typical or only aberrations. Competing against each other for funding & turf in developing countries, their positions reflect those of their corporate or gvmt. supporters rather than citizens who believe what they are doing is beneficial to the environment. The human inhabitants of the more or less parks that they propose are given no voice in any part of the process and it sounds like they think most places would be better off native people. Appeasing special interests in order ot continue to receive funding seems to have become their primary goal.

A blanket condemnation of all national & international groups probably isn't warrented. Best to read their propoganda & do some research before making a committment.

Hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving. I am a member of Natural Lands Trust a local group.I am not 100 percent thrilled with their practices, (planting alien invasives in native plant habitats not voting to preserve an island in the middle of the Delaware where bald eagles nest instead voting to sell to developers in North Carolina). Yesterday I spoke with a relative who is a wildlife biologist who works for the state of Pennsylvania. He said the Nature Conservancy had done alot of good in the past buying up land around the world to preserve.But hasn't been doing that in recent years. They've been focusing more on land management and that's where some of the problems are. But that he still thinks they are doing some good things from what I gathered there was alot of disagreement on the best way to manage the land. if that makes Sense. Sarah

Here is a link that might be useful: Natural lands trust

In my neighboring city newspaper this morning I see my old work buddy pictured. He has quietly been involved locally in the White River cleanups. He and his wife bought land ajoining the river and they have become involved. He has about 1,000 tires on his property that have been fished out of the river being cut in two halves.
I don't quite understand the mentallity of tire dumpers!!! One morning on the way to work I saw where someone had dumped about a dozen tires in a sideditch. I called the county highway and they were picked up that very day.

My friend remarked [concerning dumping], "No need to get mad." I thought that was appropriate as the image sometimes projected by environmentalists is stidency, shrillness, and uncivilty

FYI -- the January/February issue of WW Magazine has been published and the follow-up rebuttal is available online.

Here is a link that might be useful: wwmagazine