Natural Resource Defense Council?

[Wanderlusty]

Anybody know anything about this bunch?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Defense_Council

Forbes ranks it as one of America's 100 best charities.

Most conservatives view it as a 'radical environmental group' of the worst kind.

From what little I have been able to find on them, their message seems good.

Anyone know what kind of group they 'really' are? Who they are usually partnered with? What their stance is on OHV's?

 

[Ursidae69]

They focus a lot on global issues. I see their action alerts often and I don't recall ever seeing them pressing OHV issues specifically. Their website is here: http://www.nrdc.org/

 

[awalter]

Two issues I know they were involved with are 1. stopping the commercial salt operation at San Ignacio Lagoon & 2. trying to limit the US Navy from sonar training.

They are high rollers (big money). I think their main office is NYC also with offices in LA. Most of their work is usually through the courts & legislation. They sponser trips to get their members out & about. They have been going to San Ignacio Lagoon whale watching annually for 4 or 5 years now, bringing about 100 people each year.

 

[Tom_D]

Nrdc

If you search their web site for ORV related topics you quickly find out their stand.

Tom

 

[GaryMc]

If you search their web site for ORV related topics you quickly find out their stand.

Tom

So, fill us in on the results of your extensive research.

 

[tamangel]

Nrdc

NRDC is one of the most politically respected and effective conservation groups with a world and USA focus.. I realize that any conversation like this can get polarized very quickly. This forum is entitled Conservation and Land Use. Do you think that these terms are mutually exclusive for our user group...? If you are conservation minded, NRDC is a fine organization... It can be a personal tough challenge as some closures will affect the hobby directly.. In the long run, what's it all about for you?

Tread lightly

:safari-rig: :camping:

Mike

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Four-wheel-drive enthusiasts need to be honest about one thing: Our struggles to maintain internal-combustion-fueled access to public land are self-centered. No one - no one - argues that four-wheel-drive trails improve habitat or are better for wildlife. The best anyone can hope to argue is that they result in little or no harm - and in many places that is so. In others, it is not. How we are judged by history, I think, will be by how much we are willing to put aside our own convenience to benefit something bigger than we are.

I write as someone who owns four 4wd vehicles and enjoys using them, and who supports wilderness - as much of it as possible.

 

[DesertRose]

NRDC is one of the most politically respected and effective conservation groups with a world and USA focus.. I realize that any conversation like this can get polarized very quickly. This forum is entitled Conservation and Land Use. Do you think that these terms are mutually exclusive for our user group...? If you are conservation minded, NRDC is a fine organization... It can be a personal tough challenge as some closures will affect the hobby directly.. In the long run, what's it all about for you?

Tread lightly

:safari-rig: :camping:

Mike

Great observation and question, Mike.

As the Conservation Editor for Overland Journal - and someone who organizes and leads 4WD safaris in Africa and has worked professionally as a conservationist for 20+ years - I'm pretty confident that the terms Land Use and Conservation are not only not mutually exclusive, they belong together permanently.

Part of the polarization we see today in debates over public land arise from - in my opinion - the mistaken belief that humans=bad=don't belong in the wild. Like we should all stay in cities and only visit wild places and "leave only footprints, take only pictures." I think that if humans end up as a mostly urban species, and only visit nature as a sort of theme park, then I'm afraid humans will lose their love of wild lands and wildlife (except as a concept) and won't care if it disappears. We're already seeing a new generation of kids who don't hunt or fish or hike or backpack . . . who are obese and sit at computers or pilot an OHV for fun.

Humans came from wildness - from Wilderness - and until we developed technologies that outpace our natural impact, we were a working part of the landscape for better and for worse, like all species play a part. There are still cultures today who live with wild animals and in wild places pretty darned much as part of the ecosystem. There's no such thing as "harmony" with nature - that's a myth of Western poets and writers - but they live in nature, in a "working wilderness."

So, gosh, this is a long-winded way of saying Land Use is something we must do - extract resources, grow food, build cities, or to recreate. And it's something we must do with Conservation in mind, or we'll end up with a pretty sterile, abused world that offers little aesthetic - or survival - value for humans.

And to answer the primary question: is NRDC cool? I don't personally know a lot about them except as has been said already, they are a 900-pound gorilla with millions of dollars in infrastructure and staff. Like any organization that big, they probably do both good and not so good. I am glad they're around, though. Sometimes you need a 900 pound gorilla to fight other 900 pound gorillas.

 

[tamangel]

comments..

Hi Jon, I've written a reply several times but it reached a million words or so, so just a few points..first of all, great magazine and good conversations that are necessary....My main comment would be..let us not live beyond our means..The resource is limited, except maybe solar input..

I would agree that Conservation and Land Use have to be considered as one.
We need to be smarter and use less or what we do use, use/produce more efficiently. Eventually, nothing will be out of bounds for consideration:
We do need to preserve some areas of this biosphere for future generations where you can only enter on foot. World population should be a concern of everyone..Just because you can afford it, does that means you should have 10 kids? Is that religion knocking at my in-basket? Housing: Go west young man is over..Co-housing, more centralized living is more efficient in terms of construction cost, delivery of goods, use of energy, creating more open space, and..gee maybe getting to know your neighbors in the hood..Follow your food: Ever try to eat only foods that are grown w/in a 250 mile radius of your residence? Hard for me when I love pineapple. I know that you might like blueberries that are grown in Maine but taking into account the transportation costs...? Those prices will continue to go even higher.. Energy use: Foreign oil is the current buzz word..Why not raise CAFE standards for every vehicle, not a fleet average. This is where we are affected directly. If I can travel w/ a 4x4 Toyota with a roof tent that gets, say 25 MPG, what justification is a 6x6 UNICAt that gets, say 5-8 MPG. Personal freedom, you say? No, you are impacting on my freedom to enjoy the world because your use of fuel is 300% of mine. Whats the % of resource use of the USA vs the rest of the world as compared to population: 5% pop and 25% of world oil.. When does push come to shove..Go to war over resources maybe? Now politics is flooding my in-basket..Electric use: In California, it was once proposed that if ARNOLD gave every house in the state a couple of CFG bulbs, it would cost about $121 Million dollars..and save the need to construct any new power plants for x number of years. How much does one power plant cost? Alos, if 100 square miles (10 miles x 10 miles) of Nevada desert were used for solar panels, we could power a vast % (if not all) or the electric needs of the whole country.

This can go on and on..Teach your children by the example you lead...The quote, 'we do not inherit the world from our parents, we borrow it from our children' comes to mind..

-How we are judged by history, I think, will be by how much we are willing to put aside our own convenience to benefit something bigger than we are.-
excellent statement to end on...(cheering in my in-basket )

We make decisions every day that make an impact on our world... Take the finite resource into consideration when you make those choices; you do make a difference..! Unless you are one that says: "Hell with you all, I'm going to get mine and thats it..!" And how does the remainder of the population react to that thought pattern..w/o armed conflict, that is!

don't dismiss me as just some radical environmentalist. We all are environmentalists, especially with our connection to the land in this hobby..delve deeper for understanding of your individual concerns and how they affect us all..

sorry for the lecture..Adios,

Mike

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

No apology needed, Mike. Good points all.

 

[stick]

I think the NRDC was heavily involved with bringing the wolf back in Yellowstone as well.

 

[tamangel]

Kill the wolves?

Hey Stick, NRDC was one of the groups that supported that move. Looks like the 'current administration' doesn't get it however..

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/080124a.asp

Mike

 

[007]

If they want the wolf to roam free its pretty simple - pay the ranchers triple for any livestock lost. Don't use taxes, raise the money from pro-wolf people.

Once the ranchers get paid better for feeding wolves than they do people, you may see a drastic change in opinion.

As far as elk and deer go, it won't really matter. Wolves drastically lower the cougar population which also feed on elk and deer. I am an avid hunter that came from a family of ranchers. I've seen wolves and my brother was one of the few people ever attacked by a cougar. He survived, and if you ask him what his favorite animal is, he will say, "Mountain lion". My point is that people don't hate wolves or other predators because we hunt, ranch, or voted republican. We hate the plan because the right people aren't paying for it.

I'm all for the reintroduction of the wolf as long as the consequences are paid for by the people in favor.

NRCD is just a paid lobbyist group. No different than a church that pays its staff. They are very hypocritical.

We need an environmental group that isn't on a salary, isn't political, and has know other motive than to educate the masses as accurately as possible. No more of this deception to push an agenda. Teach both sides of the story, so that it doesn't create a hostile mentality that blocks the learning process. Go door to door with volunteers and give people the knowledge and tools to make choices.

 

[Ursidae69]

Ranchers are already getting fair market value for wolf kills. What should be done about ranchers here in NM that bait wolves into getting 3 strikes? The wolf situation here in the southwest and in MT are very different, with 2 sides to the story for sure.

007, I'm not sure it is possible to have an environmental group that isn't political, all special interst groups are political.

If anyone is interested in the history of th wolf in the southwest, HCN posted a good timeline article here.

My personal opinion is that if a rancher wants to graze on public land, then they should have to deal with endangered spcies that live there, including wolves, and furthermore they should pay real world grazing fees, not the subsidized rate they pay now.

 

[MountainBiker]

My personal opinion is that if a rancher wants to graze on public land, then they should have to deal with endangered spcies that live there, including wolves, and furthermore they should pay real world grazing fees, not the subsidized rate they pay now.

Well said!