Conservation Funding Under the Microscope

[Mr VJP]

True.  Ever since special interests were able to get enough elected hacks to vote that into the rules, they can.  That wasn't part of the original law.

 

Politicians will always look to commandeer public monies to buy votes.  That's what happened to PR funds and that is what the anti's are trying to do with this propaganda paper.

 

BTW, even if money is used for thrush research, the anti's didn't put any money into it, so I still say they have no say in it's use.

 

Edited January 21, 2015 by Mr VJP

[Doc]

Some in the hunting community enjoy fighting with the antis and some pro hunting organizations make a good buck from these battles. I for one,who does not profit from it,  am tired of fixing what others break. One suggestion I will make, is be prudent about which hunting organizations you support. Some are over the top and instigate this sort of thing. 

Do not confuse "enjoying fighting" with standing up for your own interests. I will tell you that if we all cower into a corner and allow issues involving hunter concerns to only be presented and lobbied for only by non-hunters, we will get exactly what we deserve. There is no one that will stand up for hunting use of public lands other than hunters themselves and their advocacy organizations. We have to recognize our minority status and understand what some of the last bastions of hunting access could turn into if we do not use the principles of lobbying using whatever means we have at our disposal.

[Jennifer]

Weird... I had posted a video here earlier and now it's gone. If that was against the rules somehow, please accept my apologies.

[Mr VJP]

Jennifer, you mean the one you posted in the "perception" thread?  It's a couple of threads down in this forum.

 

[Jennifer]

Jennifer, you mean the one you posted in the "perception" thread?  It's a couple of threads down in this forum.

 

Thank you-- I'm having a really goofy night it seems.

[mike rossi]

 

 

BTW, even if money is used for thrush research, the anti's didn't put any money into it, 

 

Correct, but often non-hunting conservation organizations and their members do. There is other federal matching grant programs like the Pitman Robertson that these organizations leverage. As a matter of fact, many joint ventures or partnerships comprising of non hunting organizations  help wildlife agencies leverage PR funds by putting up all or part of the matching dollar, plus volunteer services.

 

 I will just make something up for an example: Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, and the DEC form the Northeast Cougar Joint Venture...The  partnership develops a recovery plan for the NY Striped Cougar. The Venture applies for a Pitman Robertson Grant in the amount of $400,000. To obtain this grant the partnership must put up 25% or $100,000... The Dec contributes $50,000 taken from the traditional account of the conservation fund. Audubon and NC each chip in $25,000. Additionally, by the time the project is complete, nine  unpaid volunteers from Audubon and NC have logged in 4,500 hours...At a rate of $20 per hour, 4,500 hours is worth $90,000...  Not sure if i applied the formula correctly or if my arithmetic is precise, but you get the idea.... 

[mike rossi]

Expanding on Post #31:

 

The HSUS is indeed an animal rights and anti hunting organization. Even they have created a land trust and are buying land. With their enormous wealth that is no surprise it was only a matter of time. 

 

However, we assume conservation the strategy the HSUS is trying to impose on the world is the same they use on their own lands. Although that strategy would indeed conserve late succesion species and old growth habitat, it would not maximize biodiversity. Even failure to control deer populations lowers biodiversity... By stating that, I am not advocating against conserving old growth habitat, I am merely pointing out the deficiency with their ideology and their strategy.

 

Contrast that strategy with Ducks Unlimited and the USFWS who acquire and preserve critical habitat in key areas, Land is not land... DU will also work with private landowners and take marginal agriculture land out of food production and into wildlife production. As we say "Farm the best and Conserve the rest"... 

 

What if the HSUS bought land in so-called CBAs (critical bird areas) or other critical habitat areas and refused to maintain a strategy that maintained habitat?

 

Would the HSUS be an appropriate fit in the Golden Winged Warbler Joint Venture for example? That partnership includes many "green" groups, such as the ABA (american bird asociation). why not the HSUS? Making the distinction between preservation and conservation is on the right track, but it is an over simplification that doesnt provide enough insight. Gaining that insight and understanding is something to reflect on. Most wont delve into these important details and perhaps should not engage in debating about this. never the less, unless the HSUS wants to be only associated with ONLY Old Growth Conservation they need to accept other strategies. Furthermore, they will never gain acceptance among the conservation community and I mean Audubon types; with their one dimensional approach to conservation. It would also be difficult for them to partner with state or federal government agencies and conservation non profits for same reason. But they try - just this week the USFWS announced that the  HSUS offered a $10,000 reward for information about a shooting of a bald eagle, so that qualifies as partnering with the Fish and Wildlife Service.... A lot to reflect on here, but its worth the time to give this some thought....

Edited January 29, 2015 by mike rossi