Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looks good - only recommendation would be to remove the underlining from words that aren't links, as online, anything underlined invariably indicates a url. To emphasize you could bold, change font or italicise.
Looks good - only recommendation would be to remove the underlining from words that aren't links, as online, anything underlined invariably indicates a url. To emphasize you could bold, change font or italicise.
Thank you. I will put that right, if I can remember how to!
@Belcazone, the page looks good. On the About Us section, stabilization is misspelled twice.
Are you guys a 501(c)3 or working to become a non-profit?
I'd like to see more information on the people involved, and what you want from those who consider getting involved.
Actually Eco . . . in the UK (and Canada, Oz, NZ, etc) we use "s" instead of "z' in words like realise, moisturise, analyse and yes, stabilse
We can use the z if we like of course, but it's more American (and the site Beclazone created is not).
The mission statement suggests "preservation" as close to the "natural state" as physically possible but then the suggestions of what will be done regarding goals seems to be quite far "using native plants when possible" or "seeding" eroding cliffs. It seems to me to be either contradictory or confusing.
Perhaps you meant to suggest "conservation" rather than "preservation"?
@Belcazone, the page looks good. On the About Us section, stabilization is misspelled twice.
Are you guys a 501(c)3 or working to become a non-profit?
I'd like to see more information on the people involved, and what you want from those who consider getting involved.
It is intended to be totally non-profit.
I had the idea of starting a charity a while ago, not being totally impressed by the direction many charities end up going in. I would love to be able to support some of them, but if I don’t agree with what they are doing, (especially in the wastage of funds), I can’t.
In all honesty, there aren’t any others involved at the moment, I did have a few people interested, but they were a bit daunted by how big it could become. So I made the website hoping to see how things developed. The website is supposed to be public on the web, but from what I understand, it doesn’t get any visitors, (I have had no feedback whatsoever).
I found myself in a sort of catch 22 situation, to be a registered charity, you need to have above a certain income already, to get that income, it would seem, especially to me, that you need to be a registered charity. So for a while I have just left it, unable to decide how to move forward.
Actually, you are getting involved, right now, I’m grateful for any input.
The mission statement suggests "preservation" as close to the "natural state" as physically possible but then the suggestions of what will be done regarding goals seems to be quite far "using native plants when possible" or "seeding" eroding cliffs. It seems to me to be either contradictory or confusing.
Perhaps you meant to suggest "conservation" rather than "preservation"?
To clarify that, I suppose I should explain what I was thinking at the time. To get the desired results, it is sometimes not possible to get native plants to do the job, (they could already be extinct, or almost), I would then consider non-native species. Also, what should be there, probably won’t survive due to the environment being too messed up already. An example of this would be the use of silver birch trees to establish woodland, they may not be native to the area, but they do a good job of preparing the land for other trees, and they don’t live very long.
I was in the belief that conservation and preservation were interchangeable.
Last edited by BECLAZONE; 03-17-2011 at 04:42 PM..
To clarify that, I suppose I should explain what I was thinking at the time. To get the desired results, it is sometimes not possible to get native plants to do the job, (they could already be extinct, or almost), I would then consider non-native species. Also, what should be there, probably won’t survive due to the environment being too messed up already. An example of this would be the use of silver birch trees to establish woodland, they may not be native to the area, but they do a good job of preparing the land for other trees, and they don’t live very long.
I was in the belief that conservation and preservation were interchangeable.
My understanding is that the two terms are not interchangable.
Strict "preservationists" do not believe in management of timberlands, meadows, etc... . They believe everything should be left "au natural" and allow whatever nature deems should happen to happen. Thus, in some of our National Forests they have prevented the management of fallen or dead brush, which in turn leads to more intense and avoidable forest fires, etc... .
That same timberland under "conservation" would allow for selective cutting and management of said timberland to prevent forest fires and maximize lighting and growth of a diversity of species though selective cutting and managed burns.
Preservationists tend to take the position of imagining nature as if man did not exist. Conservationists on the other hand understand that man has already had an impact on the land that is largely irreversable and not only can we minimize that impact but we can improve areas through careful management for the benefit of plants and animal species alike rather than just allowing nature to reclaim those areas in her own way as a preservationist might.
At least, that is my understanding of the important differences in outlook between the two philosophies. YMMV.
The link below gives another illustration of the differences between Preservation and Conservation in regard to our Prarieland and a University experiment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
