Identify Your Enemies - How are Enviro/Eco Groups Funded?

[I Leak Oil]

I'd be more interested in seeing what organizations donate these funds to the various political campaigns, or the road maps that link high to mid level members of these organizations and their personal donations to the political process.

In the end, the Sierra Club or the BRC do not make laws or policies. They do seem to have more influence than the precious vote of the people.

 

[kmacafee]

The problem is trying to have a conversation with most of them is impossible unless you agree with them. Its just like a cult.

Not unlike this forum on certain topics. ;-)

 

[MagicMtnDan]

Great thread.

Have you seen/read an email from the Sierra Klub lately? I'm on their mailing list because my non-profit is environmental related (local issues only - nothing to do with the wilderness, deserts, etc.) and I get sick everytime I read their latest attack email.

Like many in our society they think their ******** don't stink (i.e., THEIR way of environmentalism is the ONLY way) and they want to dictate for the country how things should be done.

And the politicians are the worst: Feinstein and Boxer have protected the deserts from humans for decades. As they worked to keep humans out (especially those in vehicles), they worked to make sure the federal government bought more and more of OUR land. So we have pristeen lands that we can't use that the government leases out to mining, oil, etc. (so I guess they're not so "pristeen" are they). And now the latest fiasco: SOLAR/RENEWABLE ENERGY.

Solar power belongs on roof tops. But no, the feds know best and they're intent on allowing huge Wall Street investment companies scrape 6" of the top of the earth away from many, many square miles of virgin desert (that they worked so hard to protect from US) so these companies can install square miles of arrays of mirrors and panels. Desert tortoises are being killed by the government (they pay millions to move them and their nests and eggs but most of them die), the vegetation and native habitats are destroyed, the weather is being changed, the water runoff from those areas is changing adjacent areas and...(there's more)...reports say that about 65% of the power is lost in transmission from the desert to the grid miles and miles away.

But the politicians are all slapping themselves on the back because "they support renewable energy" while they spend our tax dollars faster than they can print it.

<Rant over (sorry if I veered off topic)>

 

[rayra]

Thanks for the response, Del. I'm sure the BRC gets plenty of individual donations, just as do the Sierra Club, Audubon, Wilderness Society, etc. However, according to my information the funding sources below have been listed in the BRC's own magazine:

At least 18 timber companies, including Boise Cascade and the Pacific Corp., the world's leading waferboard manufacturer.

At least 15 mining companies and associations, including Battle Mountain Gold Co., Echo Bay Minerals Co.; and Crown Butte Mines Inc. (now part of Canada's Noranda Inc.).

At least eight oil or gas companies and four oil and gas trade associations, among them ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and the American Petroleum Institute.


Lest you think Im getting propaganda from some 'whacko environmentalist' source, I'm on the mailing list of Republicans for Environmental Responsibility, which has taken the BRC to task more than once. If their information is wrong I'm sure they'd appreciate knowing it, and I certainly would too. As I said, I just think it's important to look at both sides before one throws stones.

Not gonna get anywhere with that anti-corporatist / anti-capitalism crap either, Jonathan. It's little different from what the Eco-Marxists promulgate. Find a different paradigm or more specific criticisms than 'ohmahgerdcorporations'

 

[rayra]

There's a middle road somewhere, for human stewardship and USE of the land. That's the course to set and the cause to support. When an organization like Sierra, PETA et al stuffed with anti-human / humans-last rhetoric seeking to deny access and use or our lands to the general public lobbies / sues, they should be fought tooth and nail.
And corporate involvement is NOT defacto impeachment of an organization. The goals of the org and sponsors are what matters when it comes to judging their efforts.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Not gonna get anywhere with that anti-corporatist / anti-capitalism crap either, Jonathan. It's little different from what the Eco-Marxists promulgate. Find a different paradigm or more specific criticisms than 'ohmahgerdcorporations'

The OP referred to people such as me (past Audubon board member, founding member of Backcountry Hunter and Anglers, etc. etc.) as the 'enemy,' then claimed that large donors to environmental organizations have nefarious hidden agendas. I listed large donors to what is purportedly an organization devoted to maintaining motorized access to public land, and suggested that they might have their own agendas. Now you've referred to my post as 'crap.' What, exactly, is wrong with me pointing out the other side of the coin? Are you naive enough to believe timber and mining companies care about your access to public land? C'mon. If you're willing to accept their money for your own ends, fine, but don't criticize environmentalists for doing the same.

Threads such as this illustrate perfectly why there is such a pointless divide among those who enjoy different pursuits in the outdoors.

 

[jeepndel]

BRC Funding (from Del)

Jonathan, I've tried to search for the group you listed as your source, Republicans for Environmental Responsibility. I could not find it but I did find, ConservAmerica. Is that the same thing? Honestly, I've never heard of them so I'd like to learn more.
And so the record is clear, I am spending the time to research our 990's and funding sources from way back where they must have found this, because I've been running BRC for a over a year, working full time for them for over 10 years, and I sure don't see those checks coming across my desk. Might be old news, but I'll verify for you.

Oh, anyone that wants to see how little money BRC has to operate with (our annual budget might equal the electrical bill for buildings owned by the Sierra Club and Audubon Society -- just kidding, but not really), here are our 990's and I sure can't find any mention of big donations by anyone: https://www.sharetrails.org/about/990-forms. 990's are our "tax returns" filed with the IRS who also monitors our money like hawks because we are a charity (501.c.3). Since 2009, if it weren't for our BRC Christmas Auction and our individual members, BRC would have been in serious financial hurt. There are NO timber companies, mining companies or any other big business dropping big dimes on BRC right now. I WISH.

I've dropped other tasks I was working on in order to make sure there are no misconceptions about this funding thing. We survive only because of individual dues paying members and clubs who support us with donations from raffles they do. Again, I openly say it, with conviction, I'd LOVE to have big business, big donors, big anything behind BRC or ANY organization fighting for our trails and access. And as Del, I can assure you, no matter how big the donation, no one is going to influence my Board of Directors, and certainly not me, towards any course of action that is not in the best interest of our members. So the real question pops up: SO WHAT? So what who funds who? AS along as the Mission,Vision and Values reamain solid, and the members are being cared for in accordance with bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, and the respect of the Corporation officers, who cares who is doing the funding?

As soon as my Membership Director gets back to me with a listing of the last time a timber or mining company donated to BRC, I'll post up.
Del

 

[jeepndel]

Del Revels BRC Funding and Misconceptions

Jonathan, I appreciate you bringing this funding issue up as it allows me a chance to dig into this myself; and clear up the confusion here on the Portal. I’ve been with BRC as a member for 18 years. I realize you have never been a member of BRC, but we have a lot of truthful and factual information shared on our website: http://www.BlueRibbonCoalition.Org.

The information Jonathan refers to about BRC was taken directly from an article in the Mother Jones Magazine, June 2007. Here is the link to the article online http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2007/06/blue-ribbon-bedfellows which sites donations going back another 7 years to the year 2000. That’s 15 year old information, to begin with. Mother Jones is an investigative news organization reporting on social justice.

It has a grain of truth, albeit a very small, 15 year old, grain. We had some minor support from the timber, mining, and gas and oil industries back then. Mostly it was just $100 memberships and some small donations, but that has long since evaporated. It was just memberships and a few minor donations. I found a $10k donation from Boise Cascade dating back to 1998; then lessor amounts in 1999 and 2000 upon which they fizzled out. Simplot was a member at $100/year for a few years with a couple thousand dollar donations. Nothing, really.

More importantly, we’ve never had in my time a member of the Board of Directors from timber or mining interests – and the Board directs BRC – NOT donations.
BRC still has a few “Mom and Pop” logging companies, and a gas station or two that sound like they would fit that list but not much more. Here is an article where we clarified a lot of this old mis-information:http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article/us-pirg-report-shaky-ground

So no, to answer the basic question, mining and logging have nothing to do with BRC or what BRC is about.
And to answer the other question, YES, BRC (and me as the dude running it) absolutely, positively care about your access to your trails, roads and adventures. In fact, that is about all I care about. Let’s get this forum up to date and remember that I am here, available to anyone, anytime, to answer questions about BRC.

I’ll list below in my signature block some of my qualifications and certifications.

Del
Del Albright
Director of Operations, BlueRibbon Coalition www.BlueRibbonCoalition.org
2014 Inductee, Off-Road Motorsports Hall of Fame (www.ormhof.org)
Founding Trail Boss, Friends of the Rubicon www.rubiconfriends.com
Environmental Affairs, CA4WDC (www.cal4wheel.com)
Founding President, Rubicon Trail Foundation (RTF)
Recipient, Rubicon Rock Award from RTF
Author/Photojournalist, Internationally Published; over 600 websites and newsletters
Member, Outdoor Writers Assoc. of Calif.
Masters Degree; Environmental Planning and Studies, CA State Univ. Sacramento
B.S. Forestry, Humboldt State Univeristy

Find Del on Facebook here at http://www.facebook.com/LandUseDel
My Blog at http://delalbright.blogspot.com

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Del, thanks for the clarification on chronology.

So, my points stand:

1. Be careful of throwing stones, as very few non-profit organizations of any type are innocent of any kind of tainted donations.

2. It might be a good thing to drop the bile, and work toward solutions that everyone can accept, instead of classifying people who might be worth working with as 'enemies.'

Agreed?

 

[Todd Ockert]

Jonathan

How do you say the donations to BRC are tainted?
Because we may take a membership of $100 for a business membership as tainting the donation pool?

I don't see it that way?
If you see it differently, please help me understand your reasoning?

Very few of our total membership base even voted the last few years.
If a business was making huge donations to BRC, could they overtake the organization? Possibly, but they would have to try and bring in people every couple of years to take over the BOD, as not the whole board is reelected every year.
Donations don't get them votes.
Membership in the organization does though.

BRC currently gets no large donations to our general fund or legal fund from any large companies that you mention!
As the President, I would sure take a large donation from an oil and gas company, logging company or mining company. But those donations would not influence how or what we do on a daily basis.
As Del mentioned, and provided links to our 990's, where we have to disclose how we get our money and how we spend our money as a 501.c.3

So, to say that we (BRC) gets tainted donations, is a false statement.
There is a big difference between donations and membership dues. There are strict rules as to what we can do with either one.
If we had a fundraiser on staff, they could be paid a bonus from donations that they generated.
They would not be allowed to receive pay based on membership dues generated.

BRC has and will continue to work on many collaborative teams.
One of our board members has been engaged in a collaborative effort in the Sierras for years, and BRC supports this effort.
We support this collaborative effort and work to ensure that the OHV interests are represented in all the decisions in this forest.
At the end of the day though, most decisions are political, and we want to make sure the united voice of our members are represented in these decisions.

Todd

BRC President

 

[2025 deleted member]

Mother Jones was Jonathan's source. Wow.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Mother Jones was Jonathan's source. Wow.

Range magazine was the OP's source. Wow. Have you found information that Mother Jones and RFEP, where I read it (now known as ConservAmerica) was wrong, and are not sharing it with us?

So, to say that we (BRC) gets tainted donations, is a false statement.

But Todd, that's not what I said, is it? I said BRC was not innocent of having received tainted donations. If you don't think donations from mining and lumber companies are tainted, in that those companies might have interests in public land other than ensuring access for ATV riders, well . . . I'm at a loss for words as to how to explain it to you. If BRC now refuses such donations, that's a good move in my opinion.

Todd and Del are keeping their responses civil despite my singling out BRC (I could easily single out other 'wise-use' organizations). Others are continuing the bile, and, to readdress my salient point, that is why we have such a vicious divide among people who could be working together at many times, and compromising in others. Neither side is innocent of it, but if one side doesn't stop it will never stop.

The people who began this forum put in a section that began with the word 'conservation' because we all supported real conservation, including our country's pioneering preservation of healthy swaths of wilderness - areas where our recreational convenience is placed secondary to the preservation of the habitat and wildlife. I think that speaks highly of us as a country. Others seem not to, which I find very sad. If this thread is going to continue in that vein, I'll bow out and let it go.

 

[Christophe Noel]

So, let me pop my head in here and see if I can clarify the crossed messages.

The OP's assertion, by way of his linked article, is that those causes on the side of the "environmentalists" are corrupt, or at least exploited, by big commerce. Jonathan is simply pointing out that the inverse happens on the other extreme with "open access" advocates receiving support (be it big or small) from big commerce as well.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[2025 deleted member]

Your 100% correct, IMO.

So, let me pop my head in here and see if I can clarify the crossed messages.

The OP's assertion, by way of his linked article, is that those causes on the side of the "environmentalists" are corrupt, or at least exploited, by big commerce. Jonathan is simply pointing out that the inverse happens on the other extreme with "open access" advocates receiving support (be it big or small) from big commerce as well.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[mdmead]

How about we put our nickels together and get Jonathon a BRC membership?...