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]

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 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]

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]

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 (http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=17440).

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!

[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.