Natural Resource Defense Council?

[007]

I think ranchers should NOT be able to graze on public land period.

There is no federal program that actually compensates ranchers for wolf kills.

The organization "Defenders of Wildlife" does, but on the basis that the wolf remains on the endangered species list.

The pay out from defenders is very helpfull, but it isn't full compensation. It takes a lot of time to get the investigation sorted out, and it isn't going to compensate you for a stud horse or bull that you spent tens of thousands on. It isn't going to compensate you for the future offspring lost . It doesn't compensate for all the distress factors a herd experiences with a wolf den nearby, such as trampled fences and wounded animals.

A few million spent on compensation (by private funded orgs) will do more for the wolf than a billion will do in a courtroom.

In Montana we have a law that makes people pay for any livestock hit on any non-highway roads. The payment is much steeper than what you find at the auction. I've never heard of any rancher chasing his herd into traffic on the hopes of making bank. They are still trying to grow cattle that pack on lots of tasty meat, not cows that ambush cars.

Like I said, pay ranchers to feed wolves and they will be happy to do it. Put your Money in the hands of the Defenders of wildlife, not the NRDC if you know whats good for the wolf.

 

[Ursidae69]

Great post 007, lots of excellent points to think about. Thanks. I need to educate myself more on the wolf issues up there versus down here.

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

Robert Kennedy is one of NRDC's lawyers, they are probably top spot or at least in the top 5 of national environmental groups... Work heavily with government for example partnered with the EPA on a lot of projects. Definitely heavy hitters. They are wilderness supporters and definitely strong "environmentalists" in the traditional sense, so that is what can be expected of them. I personally think they do a lot of good stuff with agricultural issues, genetically modified and fertilizer/water pollution, super fund sites and large pollution sources. They also sue on behalf of the public in a lot of situations where the local government or EPA has looked away for example radioactive superfund sites. They have also absolutely been on it since day one with global warming issues, were one of the large groups that helped break apart the Global Climate Coalition in '01 which was an industry trade group of former tobacco lobbyists funding global warming misinformation.

 

[007]

Great post 007, lots of excellent points to think about. Thanks. I need to educate myself more on the wolf issues up there versus down here.

I appreciate the compliment and your comments.:beer:

I'm having a hard time figuring out the best method for supporting environmental causes. I would really like to see more hands on teaching of the public vs. suing and propaganda from both sides.

Many organizations support this and that, but how much hands on work is getting done? Apparently not enough! I'm not saying groups such as the NRDC are worthless, I'm saying maybe we should all look at hitting this from a different angle. The head butting between industry and special interest has worked to a degree yet much of the public has never been educated and most of the industry has not been helped financially to do better. People are willing to throw money at this problem, so how do we make the dollar work for everybody?

Industry and special interest have drawn lines in the sand, its like watching democrats and republicans fight to a stand still over the best way to move forward.

Back to the environment:

How about an organization that doesn't fight anything? They see a mess and they fix it. They go door to door teaching people about the issue, no threats, no laws, just facts from both sides. (I know this organization can't be the only approach, laws need to be passed, etc..)

Imagine you knock on someones door that is planning on creating eight little resource sucking angels to pollute this world of ours. You go inside and discuss some facts about the population, resources, pollution etc.. No dooms day speeches or hatred, just some interesting facts from both sides of the argument. There is a good chance that you may learn something yourself. While you're there, give them a few brochures to educate them about issues you didn't have time to discuss. Recycling, power consumption, proper pesticide use, tread lightly, the list goes on and on.

Now imagine you are from the Organization called "sterilize Christian believers" You knock...... and of course nobody answers to hear your case of why they should support bill #666 in the upcoming election.

I'm not on crack, so I don't believe everyone is going to let a non-partisan educator into their house. I do believe that you will get through more doors using this approach. People will be much more supportive and open to knowledge if you give them both sides to look at while supporting or persecuting nothing.

Take pesticides and fertilizer for example, There are pros and cons and a bunch of misconceptions. Ask a stereotypical rancher or exterminator, They'll say, no danger, all good, don't worry about it. Ask a stereotypical environmentalist you'll get certain death, poison everywhere, end of world.

Now the truth lies somewhere in between, I wouldn't associate myself with either side, nor be very interested in the lop sided misleading argument to support it. I would love to hear the straight up facts, tell me more about the herbicides that are safe and break down to molecular form in three days. Tell me about alternative solutions, give me unbiased studies. Tell me what ones to avoid and what hurts the environment. Tell me what companies are the most responsible and safe to use at my house. Tell me how I could help fund a program that educated the pesticide users, and paid for safer product development.

This rant was conjured up because I can't support an organization that may support banning my lifestyle (over landing) even though the organization may do a lot of good in general.

The Defenders of wildlife took a different approach to the wolf problem by compensating ranchers for wolf kills. They said that a couple hundred thousand did more for the wolf than any amount spent on lobbying. This was a more cost effective approach and I'm just looking into similar alternative methods for other issues.

Please give your thoughts.

 

[Ursidae69]

007, I’ve gone through similar angst in recent years. I agree wholeheartedly with you about teaching versus propaganda. Who we support is a personal decision we each face in our own way.

When I was younger I used to support the larger environmental groups because I bought into the propaganda. I still buy into much of it, but now I choose to support smaller organizations that actually do work on the ground. The new direction many groups are taking is “Community Based Conservation” which means you cannot save or conserve anything without having the people local to that resource intimately involved. That is the education component I think you are talking about. When I went to Brazil in 2006, I could have used a dozen different options for a tour company. My group ended up choosing to go with a small company that used their eco-tour monies to support conservation projects they worked on and they only hired local guides. Whenever we ran into other groups on that trip, they had an American or British guide. We had a young guy whose family came from the Pantanal area and he and his family now have a strong desire to protect what’s left of their resources. We consistently saw more cool stuff than any other group too and had a much better experience I think.

Like Roseann mentioned earlier, sometimes large environmental groups are necessary. I have in the past supported the NRDC, specifically when they were fighting for the whale nurseries in Baja, they saw a lot of $$$ from me back then. Nowadays I donate my money to smaller groups that support projects important to me.

I love trucks, I love working on them, modifying them, lifting them, wheeling them, driving hard roads in remote places, whatever, but I will always be an environmentalist first and foremost. So my hobby is secondary to that and I am not ashamed to admit that here. The nice thing about Portal is that I am not flamed out of here for that. One of my many goals in life is to make both coexists a little better. With all land use issues we will have extremes on both sides, I can’t do anything about that, but the majority of folks are in or near the middle and maybe those folks can talk a little more and find some common ground. Maybe this goal of mine is too lofty, time will tell.